-
China's SLS competitor
by
antiquark
on 29 Sep, 2013 17:25
-
-
#1
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 29 Sep, 2013 17:45
-
Personally, I don't for two reasons:
1) There is no more money to give to the SLS effort;
2) The Chinese vehicle is so far off as to not be considered a threat to any American interest even if competing with China in space were a priority, which it isn't.
-
#2
by
darkbluenine
on 29 Sep, 2013 19:58
-
-
#3
by
93143
on 29 Sep, 2013 21:10
-
There is no more money to give to the SLS effort
What's this supposed to mean?
There's plenty of money available. The government could easily double or triple NASA's budget if it wanted to, and it would still look like a rounding error in the deficit, never mind the whole federal budget.
Right now the politics do not favour such a move. This is not the same thing as there not being any money to give.
-
#4
by
darkbluenine
on 30 Sep, 2013 04:10
-
There's plenty of money available.
This is a strange statement. US federal debt as a percentage of GDP is at it second highest in the nation's history, and due to baby-boomer retirements, it is projected to exceed the highest point as a percentage of GDP in the nation's history (WWII) by the 2030s. While technically any government can print money, it's hyperbole to claim that "there's plenty of money available" to the US federal government when its debt stands at historic levels and when unavoidable demographic changes will drive that debt beyond historic levels within a decade or two.
The government could easily double or triple NASA's budget if it wanted to, and it would still look like a rounding error in the deficit, never mind the whole federal budget. Right now the politics do not favour such a move.
This is an oft-repeated jeremiad within our space community, but it doesn't reflect the reality of how decisions about NASA's budget are made.
At the OMB and White House, NASA competes within the nondefense R&D budget for funding, including against DOE, NIH, NSF, and other agencies. The nondefense R&D budget is only about $60B per year, and it has been going down for several years now. NASA's $16-17B annual budget already represents a large chunk of the nondefense R&D budget. Doubling or tripling NASA from that level within that pot will never be in the cards, regardless of politics.
In Congress, NASA competes against the Departments of Commerce and Justice and the National Science Foundation (and many smaller agencies) for funding within the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees for Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies. The allocations to those subcommittees from the appropriations committees are also in the neighborhood of $60B per year. Again, NASA's $16-17B annual budget already represents a large chunk of those pots, and doubling or tripling NASA from that level within those pots will never be in the cards, regardless of politics.
-
#5
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 30 Sep, 2013 07:19
-
That AW&ST article is based on a paper from two years ago! That paper was available on NSF back then, so this is old news. AW&ST seems only now to be catching up.
The current status of the Chinese Lunar program is that they are only studying it for now. They have said they will make a decision in 2015 on whether to proceed. That means China won't be on the Moon until at least 2025.
-
#6
by
Robotbeat
on 30 Sep, 2013 17:43
-
People are studying how to send people to Alpha Centauri.
I would be ECSTATIC if China actually started building an SLS-sized launch vehicle. It probably would convince Congress to give NASA a boost, and is probably one of the only things that could get Congress to do so.
But alas, it's a just a study.
-
#7
by
newpylong
on 30 Sep, 2013 18:26
-
I'm not holding my breath. LM 5 is still 3 years away and it's only 25 tons to LEO.
-
#8
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 01 Oct, 2013 06:46
-
That AW&ST article is based on a paper from two years ago!
No it's not. It's based upon presentations made at the IAF last week.
You're correct. However, it appears that IAF paper is just an English translation of the original Chinese paper from 2010. Attached is the 2010 Chinese paper. I downloaded the paper from NSF in July 2011, which is why this information is more than two years old for myself.
You will notice that the thrusts and masses of Scheme A and B are the same. The drawings for the vehicle are also the same (which you posted in the other thread). For us following the Chinese space program, this is old news, which is why I responded like that. I didn't realise though that an English translation has been presented at the IAF and I apologise for that confusion.
-
#9
by
darkbluenine
on 01 Oct, 2013 18:14
-
This section is about China. If you want to argue SLS, can you pick one of SEVERAL HUNDRED other threads to discuss it?
I've made no reference to SLS in this thread. The poster I was replying to made no reference to SLS in their post.
Please point the unwarranted, all-caps anger about imaginary SLS references in a different direction.
-
#10
by
Blackstar
on 01 Oct, 2013 20:49
-
That AW&ST article is based on a paper from two years ago!
No it's not. It's based upon presentations made at the IAF last week.
You're correct. However, it appears that IAF paper is just an English translation of the original Chinese paper from 2010. Attached is the 2010 Chinese paper. I downloaded the paper from NSF in July 2011, which is why this information is more than two years old for myself.
We can go round and round on this, but I think you're dismissing stuff without looking at it. From what I can tell, the Aviation Week article is not simply based upon a single paper presented at IAF. It appears to be based upon
several presentations presented at IAF last week. I posted some of those papers on the other thread (see, for instance, the one on hydrogen engine development in China). Note also that the Aviation Week article makes the following statement "A drawing of Long March 9 Scheme A has subtly changed since 2012 to show the extra nozzles of two-chamber engines." So they are aware of differences between 2012 and today.
Also, if you look at the other thread, you'll also see a cellphone camera photo of a presentation slide from IAF (from user LSquirrel). That slide apparently shows a three-stage HLV, which appears to be a
new iteration of the Chinese heavy lift study. (I cannot find this presentation or paper on the IAF DVD, so it might have been presented in addition to the other ones at IAF.) It looks as if the Chinese have been refining their study and may have gone up from a two-stage vehicle to a three-stage one.
The Aviation Week article thus does appear to contain new information, not the same stuff from 2010.
-
#11
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Oct, 2013 08:16
-
Thanks Blackstar. Yes, there are changes between the 2010 paper and the picture shown by AW&ST. For Scheme A the booster and core engines have changed from the single nozzle YF-650 to the dual nozzle YF-660, although they both have the same thrust of 6370 kN (650 tonnes force). The second stage also looks shorter, even though they have the same propellant mass of 500 t.
For Scheme B, the core engines have reduced in size and the incorrect propellant volumes in the second stage seem to have been corrected.
So it seems the IAC presentation is a refinement of their 2010 paper, but still using the same thrusts and propellant masses.
The phone photo looks to be reduced size version of Scheme A, with a lift-off mass of 3000 t, 100 t LEO and 35 t LTO (Lunar transfer orbit). Scheme A has a lift-off mass of 4100 t and 130 t to LEO. A new dual chamber staged combustion engine possibly called the YF-500 with 4900 kN thrust (compared to the YF-660 with 6370 kN sea level thrust) could be used. Eight of those would give 39,200 kN of thrust and a lift off acceleration of 1.33g.
The second stage seems to use two new open cycle hydrolox engine, possibly the YF-220 (1960 kN thrust each) used in Scheme A and B. The third stages looks like it is using two YF-77 engines (1320 kN vacuum thrust), used on the core of the CZ-5. Developing the YF-220 seems a bit wasteful, as four YF-77's could do the same job as two YF-220's. Also, the third stage needs only one YF-77, like in the Saturn V which has a similar thrust J-2 engine.
-
#12
by
Blackstar
on 02 Oct, 2013 13:06
-
To me the phone photo (attached here) looks like a three-stage rocket (note the arrows showing engines at three locations, first, second, third). The two rockets displayed in the Aviation Week article look like they are both two-stage rockets. The Aviation Week article did not mention a three-stage rocket, although I need to look at it again to be sure.
I have the IAF disk. If somebody can give me a number for the presentation that features the image displayed in the phone photo, I can look for it on the disk. I did not find it earlier. Maybe I missed it.
-
#13
by
Phillip Clark
on 02 Oct, 2013 15:25
-
A possible interpretation of the "phone photo" is that the middle rocket engine arrow is pointing at the core first stage and that the top arrow is pointing towards a small second stage. This would make this a two-and-a-half stage launcher, with the strap-ons supplementing the first stage core at launch.
-
#14
by
Phillip Clark
on 02 Oct, 2013 16:31
-
A possible interpretation of the "phone photo" is that the middle rocket engine arrow is pointing at the core first stage and that the top arrow is pointing towards a small second stage. This would make this a two-and-a-half stage launcher, with the strap-ons supplementing the first stage core at launch.
And looking more carefully, there does appear to be a green engine assembly partially-hidden by the tops of the strap-ons: so a three and a half-stage launcher. (Damn my eyesight!) Maybe the third stage is for TLI only.
-
#15
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 04 Oct, 2013 07:37
-
I made a mistake in analysing the phone photo image. I misunderstood the thrust from the
Space Launch Report on CZ-5 to be from one YF-77 engine, when it is in fact two engines. According to the paper Blackstar posted, the YF-77 has a vacuum thrust of 700 kN . I presume that is why two YF-77's are shown for the third stage and two new engines for the second stage, otherwise six or seven YF-77's would be needed for the second stage. As the payload is only 100 t compared to Saturn-V's 118 t (15% less), they might be able to get away with one YF-77 on the upper stage and perhaps five YF-77's on the second stage.
-
#16
by
Lsquirrel
on 06 Oct, 2013 03:38
-
To me the phone photo (attached here) looks like a three-stage rocket (note the arrows showing engines at three locations, first, second, third). The two rockets displayed in the Aviation Week article look like they are both two-stage rockets. The Aviation Week article did not mention a three-stage rocket, although I need to look at it again to be sure.
I have the IAF disk. If somebody can give me a number for the presentation that features the image displayed in the phone photo, I can look for it on the disk. I did not find it earlier. Maybe I missed it.
I took this photo on Septermber 23, "The Development and Prospects of China's Space Activities" in L4,Plenary Room A，so you can't findit on IAF disk.
I found a paper in IAF disk call it "LM-Heavy", The LM-Heavy will be a three stage rocket, YF-500(?) LOX/Kero engine for the booster&core stage,YF-220 LOX/LH2 engine for the second stage, YF-77 engine for the third stage
-
#17
by
Lars_J
on 25 Oct, 2013 15:49
-
A new(?) article on a Chinese heavy lifter:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=%2Farticle-xml%2FAW_09_30_2013_p22-620995.xml... Preliminary work is underway for the intended engines. At the Xian Space Propulsion Institute, engineers are certainly planning and probably doing risk-reduction work for a kerosene-fueled engine, apparently called YF-660, that would be comparable to the 690 tons thrust of the Saturn V's F-1. The Beijing Aerospace Propulsion Institute, meanwhile, is working on critical technologies for a 200-ton-thrust liquid-hydrogen engine that would be used for the first stage of one launcher design and for the second stage of both. That engine is apparently called the YF-220. ...
The two engines mentioned: YF-660 (KeroLox) and YF-220 (HydroLox), their numbers apparently based on the metric tons of thrust they are planned for.
There is also a picture of the YF-77 engine:
