insert_name Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 The Chinese have dropped a hypergolic booster on someone's house as part of their latest bediou launch. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/263732-china-keeps-dropping-expended-rocket-boosters-near-villages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 They're just people. They have plenty of those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 They would make their own hypergolic Falcon. Unlike the SpaceX garbage collection this one would be really useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 (edited) 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 ? I hope those spent stages goes into protecting themself from further spent stages. Or back into another stage to be spent... Edited February 13, 2018 by YNM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p1t1o Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSEP Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 Its time to go cryogenic, China... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 (edited) 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 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 February 13, 2018 by sh1pman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Baron Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 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 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSEP Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 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 Cryogenic rockets usually drop their tanks at higher altitudes and speeds. So they wont land anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 (edited) 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 February 13, 2018 by kerbiloid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxwellsDemon Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 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.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 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 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 (edited) 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 February 13, 2018 by kerbiloid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxwellsDemon Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 (edited) 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 February 13, 2018 by YNM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 Wait... don't they have thousands of miles of Eastern shoreline? Some at lower latitude than Florida? Why wouldn't they launch from there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harrisjosh2711 Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts