insert_name

Guessing who just dumped another hypergolic booster on their own people

Recommended Posts

They're just people. They have plenty of those.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They would make their own hypergolic Falcon.
Unlike the SpaceX garbage collection this one would be really useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tater said:

They're just people. They have plenty of those.

^ This.

After all, when and where again you see such an easy interactive launch experience so far removed from the launch site ? :P:wink:

 

I hope those spent stages goes into protecting themself from further spent stages. Or back into another stage to be spent...

Edited by YNM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, YNM said:

^ This.

I hope those spent stages goes into protecting themself from further spent stages. Or back into another stage to be spent...

But its not like they would be launching over the S.Indian ocean or some other remote body of water. If you launch over the South China Sea, you also have to clear sea traffic out of the way some of which lacks radio communication. I saw a statistic on this once. Something like a more than a billion people live within 200 miles of the east coast of Asia.

Of course there is barge launching, I don't think they would go for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, YNM said:

Or back into another stage to be spent...

Like hell Im giving it back if it falls on my house!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

Like hell Im giving it back if it falls on my house!

"Give it back and get a free speech in the yearly Comittee meeting !" or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its time to go cryogenic, China...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NSEP said:

Its time to go cryogenic, China...

Because it’s better to have a larger tank crush your kids as long as it contains eco-friendly propellant :wink: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, tater said:

Because it’s better to have a larger tank crush your kids as long as it contains eco-friendly propellant :wink: 

If I had no choice but to be bombed from space by a spent rocket stage, I'd prefer if it didn't release a cloud of toxic, corrosive and carcinogenic gases on impact :)

Edited by sh1pman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, tater said:

Because it’s better to have a larger tank crush your kids as long as it contains eco-friendly propellant :wink: 

Well, with a morbid logic, then only the kids are flattened without any further collateral damage ... *cough*, that is of course not my opinion.

 

Chinese attitude towards their people or the environment they live in is shockingly careless, it seems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

They would make their own hypergolic Falcon.
Unlike the SpaceX garbage collection this one would be really useful.

Why should they want to use hypergolic fuel rater than lox and RP1? 
They only use hypergolic as the rocket started as an icbm and they need an new rocket design anyway for reuse.
hypergolic would also make reuse harder because of the poision fuel, I assume you get some spill during shutdown for one and you might need to replace parts with fuel rests in them. 

On the other hand an inland launch site has benefits with reuse as you can land downrange on land. Its also far safer as rocket will not crash unless rocket fail during first stage burn. Even if first stage don't manage to land it will crash close to landing spot 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tater said:

Because it’s better to have a larger tank crush your kids as long as it contains eco-friendly propellant :wink: 

Cryogenic rockets usually drop their tanks at higher altitudes and speeds. So they wont land anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Why should they want to use hypergolic fuel rater than lox and RP1? 

Hm? They are doing this (this one is hypergolic). I just suggest to land them safely on a junkyard.

14 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

they need an new rocket design anyway for reuse.

I didn't mean reuse, I meant to not drop on heads, but to land them safely on a junkyard in an intelligent way.
(Or at least to drop them safely on a junkyard in an intelligent way.)

Edited by kerbiloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This reminds me of the argument in the Soviet program in the early 60s between Korolev and Glushko...  To simplify, Glushko wanted to go for different propellants than the standard kerosene and LOX-- some because they were storable at ordinary temperatures, others because they were more dense energy-wise; Korolev wanted to stick with kerosene/LOX both for the fact they were proven technologies and for safety's sake.  It wasn't the only cause of the rift that developed between them, but it definitely aggravated it.    (Eventually Glushko returned to cryogenic propellants, notably with liquid hydrogen/LOX in the Energia booster, though almost certainly because of the energy potential than any other factor.)

(Not that I'd be too happy to be doused with kerosene either.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, NSEP said:

Cryogenic rockets usually drop their tanks at higher altitudes and speeds. So they wont land anywhere.

They gotta land somewhere :wink:

I was joking before, hence the smiley. Still, as others have said, this is why an inland spaceport is a bad idea. Or a reason to start landing boosters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PB666 said:

But its not like they would be launching over the S.Indian ocean or some other remote body of water.

This has been discussed before. Open a map, and see where China and "their seas" are : China on it's entirety doesn't have a "clear" ocean at disposal, there are always neighboring nations. So yeah, the rocket dropping on a house will continue to foreseeable future I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MaxwellsDemon said:

Eventually Glushko returned to cryogenic propellants, notably with liquid hydrogen/LOX in the Energia booster, though almost certainly because of the energy potential than any other factor.)

Though 3/4 of the Soviet space cargo has been put into orbit by hypergolic Proton, and all Korolev's cryogenic ICBM/SLBM projects including R-7 (as ICBM) were a failure. As well as N-1.
Also Glushko didn't reject cryoengines at all, but he rejected the N-1/NK-15 way: make a poor engine right now and compensate the quality with quantity (If 1-2 of 30  N-1 engines fails, KORD will save. KORD didn't.)
Btw, Glushko made a 3-component engine RD-701/704: kerohydrolox on start switching to hydrolox in vacuum.

Edited by kerbiloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KORD was a bad idea, given.

The problem was not really the N1's engines as I understand it (engines always have teething troubles during development), but rather that the design was rushed and there was no test rig built for the first stage, so that the very first time they fired live all together was at launch... full-up testing to an extreme extent.   A number of engineers were unhappy about the lack of testing at the time, but they were overruled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YNM said:

This has been discussed before. Open a map, and see where China and "their seas" are : China on it's entirety doesn't have a "clear" ocean at disposal, there are always neighboring nations. So yeah, the rocket dropping on a house will continue to foreseeable future I guess.

Well China has an launch side by the see far to the south. Yes it looks like it will overfly Philippines however this will be 1000 km downrange and well into second stage burn might probably above 100 km to. 
Now they might also done an deal with Philippines.
The old launch side was selected as it was harder to attack. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Well China has an launch side by the see far to the south.

... Which only works for polar launches, nothing for low-inclination lauches. Even then it's not very efficient.

Not to mention the "hive" in South China Sea...

Edited by YNM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait... don't they have thousands of miles of Eastern shoreline?  Some at lower latitude than Florida?  Why wouldn't they launch from there?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

Wait... don't they have thousands of miles of Eastern shoreline?  Some at lower latitude than Florida?  Why wouldn't they launch from there?  

Because it causes fewer diplomatic incidents to drop rockets onto your own territory than it does to drop them onto Japan or Korea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, YNM said:

... Which only works for polar launches, nothing for low-inclination lauches. Even then it's not very efficient.

Not to mention the "hive" in South China Sea...

its 1000 km to the Philippines, if above 100 km at that point its legal, if not strike an deal, its not like an second stage burn failure has an realistic chance of hitting them, pretty sure Philippine has its price. 
Pull the launch site up and you could launch through the sea between Philippines and Taiwan for equatorial launches. 

However in 2030 it will be 3 sort of orbital rockets, (partial?) reusable (price matter), rockets needed for national security Brasil or Israel launchers, bonus for prestige. Special cases as in very heavy lift or rapid response launches (price is secondary)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MaxwellsDemon said:

This reminds me of the argument in the Soviet program in the early 60s between Korolev and Glushko...  To simplify, Glushko wanted to go for different propellants than the standard kerosene and LOX-- some because they were storable at ordinary temperatures, others because they were more dense energy-wise; Korolev wanted to stick with kerosene/LOX both for the fact they were proven technologies and for safety's sake.  It wasn't the only cause of the rift that developed between them, but it definitely aggravated it.    (Eventually Glushko returned to cryogenic propellants, notably with liquid hydrogen/LOX in the Energia booster, though almost certainly because of the energy potential than any other factor.)

(Not that I'd be too happy to be doused with kerosene either.)

Didn't his rocket then blow up on the launch pad killing almost everyone involved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.