Chinese Space Program (CNSA) & Ch. commercial launch and discussion

[Beccab]

Not exactly CNSA, but quite close

[DDE]

14 hours ago, Beccab said:

Not exactly CNSA, but quite close

Frankly, this sounds like a crock of excrements, "anonymous sauces" likely mixing hydrosonics and FOBS for scaremongering galore. Some sort of a skipping arrangement is possible, but calling is hypersonic is... hype.

Are we sure it's not a misinterpreted unammmed shuttle crash?

 

A fair question: where's the entire US early warning network at? I know SSAS needs a full orbit to come up with TLIs, but you'd think the entire flight track would be visible on IR.

Anyway,

 

Edited October 17, 2021 by DDE

[Codraroll]

A missile that orbits the earth in space, then re-enters the atmosphere and lands in a specified location? Sure they don't mean a Shenzhou? Sure, you could probably put a nuke in its trunk somewhere. You could do that with Vostok as well, though. I think it was a bit of a big deal in the 1950s.

[Minmus Taster]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_Express

Forgive me for the massive image

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Looked around and most of the original sources for the 'American Analysts stunned' part seem to be non credible. 

When you watch a country land something on Mars, you should probably have a pretty high expectation of their capabilities.  Especially when you know that they have acquired tech from the US, EU and Russia... There is little reason to be surprised by them testing something that the US. EU and Russia are working on. 

This whole thing reads more like a self congratulatory puff piece than real news 

[SunlitZelkova]

5 hours ago, DDE said:

Are we sure it's not a misinterpreted unammmed shuttle crash?

It is very possible but this having occurred at all sounds iffy. We will have to wait to see if this comes up in any of the threat briefings for Congress in the future.

5 hours ago, DDE said:

A fair question: where's the entire US early warning network at? I know SSAS needs a full orbit to come up with TLIs, but you'd think the entire flight track would be visible on IR.

Anyway,

It would be. There are GEO components to it.

To continue on that note and in reply to that final tweet, the thing about this is that it is no longer about destroying the early warning network or making a stealth strike anymore. It is instead for evading the ABM interceptors, regardless of whether they see you coming or not. And while GBI is stuck in Alaska, the SM-3 has been successfully tested against ICBM targets, which is probably especially spooky considering China’s small nuclear arsenal. FOBS + HGV thus kind of makes sense, as an alternative to simply expanding to a Soviet level ICBM force.

That said, there is still no evidence it is actually underway. But there is potential logic to these claims.

[kerbiloid]

7 hours ago, DDE said:

Frankly, this sounds like a crock of excrements, "anonymous sauces" likely mixing hydrosonics and FOBS for scaremongering galore.

Right.

Spoiler

It was ion cannon

 

Quote

An intercontinental glider is designed to travel through the atmosphere, “underflying” exoatmospheric intercept systems like the USA’s GMD. There seems like no good reason to put one into space.

At least two of them.

1. Crosswind distance from LEO platform.

2. Chasing a mobile target.
 

Quote

#nuclear capable

Why such coclusion? A Vault-Boy painted on top?

[DDE]

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

It is very possible but this having occurred at all sounds iffy. We will have to wait to see if this comes up in any of the threat briefings for Congress in the future.

More importantly, it's unusual to test a deterrent capability in a way that goes (at least initially) unnoticed by the people you're trying to deter. Let's keep an eye out for the official Chinese reaction.

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

 

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/25/927268317/to-hold-up-the-sky-asks-a-simple-question-what-if

[SunlitZelkova]

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20211018_30/
 

The Chinese Foreign Ministry has denied it has tested a weapon. A test of a reusable space vehicle did occur in July however.

I am inclined to believe the spokesperson. Even if such a system can be logical, blatantly violating the OSW Treaty seems uncharacteristic of the image China is *trying* (or at least professes to want to) to produce for itself. Maritime laws in relation to historical territorial claims are one thing but strategic arms treaties?

[kerbiloid]

It's a long march from glider to warhead.

[DDE]

25 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20211018_30/
 

The Chinese Foreign Ministry has denied it has tested a weapon. A test of a reusable space vehicle did occur in July however.

I am inclined to believe the spokesperson. Even if such a system can be logical, blatantly violating the OSW Treaty seems uncharacteristic of the image China is *trying* (or at least professes to want to) to produce for itself. Maritime laws in relation to historical territorial claims are one thing but strategic arms treaties?

To be fair, way back when the US decided internally that FOBS isn't treaty-violating.

Also, dibs.

19 hours ago, DDE said:

Are we sure it's not a misinterpreted unammmed shuttle crash?

 

[kerbiloid]

8 minutes ago, DDE said:

way back when the US decided internally that FOBS isn't treaty-violating.

FOBS doesn't make at least one orbital turn, so it's not a placement.

It's just a temporary circularization.

Edited October 18, 2021 by kerbiloid

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

57 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

 

  

16 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

 

Sociological question: how skeptical are mainstream Chinese audiences about the media? (and reports like that, above)

Analogous to Russian audiences or something else entirely? 

[SunlitZelkova]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

To be fair, way back when the US decided internally that FOBS isn't treaty-violating.

I forgot about that. But due to widespread belief in the West that it is treaty violating, it could be used as justification by future US officials for treaty smashing, something that I would think the PRC would take care to not let happen, but it is an easy thing to miss, so maybe they don't care.

34 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

  

Sociological question: how skeptical are mainstream Chinese audiences about the media? (and reports like that, above)

Analogous to Russian audiences or something else entirely? 

By mainstream do you mean Chinese people in China? And which media?

For domestic Chinese viewer's skepticism or belief in the media, I don't think anyone can say for sure. Western statistics gathers and political commentators are likely just going to find the data they want to see, and of course Chinese state sources will tell you trust in the media is high. Taking a look at how much people trusted the media in the USSR during the 60s and 70s might give you some idea though.

I'm not sure what Russian viewer's skepticism/belief in the media is so I can't comment.

[DDE]

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

For domestic Chinese viewer's skepticism or belief in the media, I don't think anyone can say for sure. Western statistics gathers and political commentators are likely just going to find the data they want to see, and of course Chinese state sources will tell you trust in the media is high. Taking a look at how much people trusted the media in the USSR during the 60s and 70s might give you some idea though.

Well, considering how many Saudis self-reported as atheists, a capital crime, in a mere 'cold call' survey, you may encounter surprising consequences.

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I'm not sure what Russian viewer's skepticism/belief in the media is so I can't comment.

Behold! A foreign agent.

https://www.levada.ru/2020/02/27/istochniki-novostej-i-doverie-smi/

"Merely" 52% trust the TV, which is particularly state-dominated.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

12 minutes ago, DDE said:

Saudis self-reported as atheists,

Ouch

13 minutes ago, DDE said:

52% trust the TV

Similar mistrust of the media in general here, too

Americans Remain Distrustful of Mass Media (gallup.com)

 

[kerbiloid]

trust != consider

P.S.
Thanks to KSP, automatically typing "thrust" instead of "trust"

Edited October 18, 2021 by kerbiloid

[Codraroll]

4 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Sociological question: how skeptical are mainstream Chinese audiences about the media? (and reports like that, above)

I would assume it would be very illegal to try to find out.

[SOXBLOX]

Even if this thing is a nuclear delivery system, I can't really see it working well. Even spacecraft like the X-37 (which, coincidentally, Russia says is a nuclear weapon system ) have a limited time on orbit. So what do the Chinese do when they want to service or examine the warheads? Bring them back? Or how about when they need to service the electronics, or refill the fuel tanks? Surely it'll be using thrusters for orientation, etc.?

I don't get it...

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:

Even spacecraft like the X-37 (which, coincidentally, Russia says is a nuclear weapon system ) have a limited time on orbit.

At least two years already proven. Of a decade required for an ICBM, the ability to return everything back for utilization, and the ability of a crosswind maneuver (probably ~2k km, as usually; now take a ruler and have a look at the US map).
So, it's obviously a prototype of a real carrier. Not limited with, but including,

3 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:

So what do the Chinese do when they want to service or examine the warheads? Bring them back?

The ones which shouldn't be brought back they were testing in 1970s.

3 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:

Or how about when they need to service the electronics, or refill the fuel tanks?

How about the spysats working for 15 years? And why refill the fuel tanks if they shouldn't actively maneuver?

[DDE]

4 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:

Even if this thing is a nuclear delivery system, I can't really see it working well. Even spacecraft like the X-37 (which, coincidentally, Russia says is a nuclear weapon system ) have a limited time on orbit. So what do the Chinese do when they want to service or examine the warheads? Bring them back? Or how about when they need to service the electronics, or refill the fuel tanks? Surely it'll be using thrusters for orientation, etc.?

I don't get it...

You're not entirely wrong. Similar questions were raised when assessing orbital placement for M-X Peacekeeper.

However, you are wrong because you start with a false premise: FOBS isn't about staying in orbit, it's about using an orbital trajectory to achieve range beyond that of a ballistic missile, and thus approach the target from an unexpected angle not covered by extant missile defences.

 

[kerbiloid]

Also FOBS was to raise the accuracy by the post-flight deorbit maneuver.

It performed an altitude measurement before the deorbit, too.

[SOXBLOX]

7 hours ago, DDE said:

However, you are wrong because you start with a false premise: FOBS isn't about staying in orbit, it's about using an orbital trajectory to achieve range beyond that of a ballistic missile, and thus approach the target from an unexpected angle not covered by extant missile defences.

Oh! I see! It's just a regular missile that inserts itself into orbit and then drops out again. It's not based in space permanently, then. That makes more sense.

I know putting a hypersonic glide vehicle on GBSD was considered. Maybe the upper stage could be extended and the trajectory altered so that it takes an orbital path...

[DDE]

40 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

I know putting a hypersonic glide vehicle on GBSD was considered. Maybe the upper stage could be extended and the trajectory altered so that it takes an orbital path...

It's a gratuitous combination. FOBS was considered because the US had a geographically constrained early warning (and hence antimissile) network. Russia has a more comprehensive, denser network, and China AFAIK is only making baby steps towards one.

https://russianforces.org/blog/2018/09/evolution_of_the_russian_early.shtml

FOBS is designed to exploit such weaknesses, whereas HGVs, frankly, are best used in a head-on breach of such a missile shield. Combining the two has limited utility.

Similarly, it seems HGVs cost payload mass that could go into more nukes. I guess it's the major rationale for the GBSD, which doesn't really have to deal with missile defense; depressed trajectories enabled by HGVs can be emulated by forward-deployed SSBNs with nu-Tridents.