Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space China

China Beats Rivals To Successfully Launch First Methane-Liquid Rocket (reuters.com) 102

Posted by BeauHD from the environmentally-friendlier dept.
A private Chinese company launched into orbit on Wednesday the world's first methane-liquid oxygen rocket, beating U.S. rivals in sending what could become the next generation of launch vehicles into space. Reuters reports: The Zhuque-2 carrier rocket blasted off at 9 a.m. (0100 GMT) from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in northwest China and completed its flight according to plan, state media reported. It was the second attempt by Beijing-based LandSpace, one of the earliest firms in China's commercial launch sector, to launch the Zhuque-2. A first attempt in December failed.

Wednesday's launch put China ahead of U.S. rivals, including Elon Musk's SpaceX and Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin, in the race to launch carrier vehicles fueled by methane, which is deemed less polluting, safer, cheaper and a suitable propellant in a reusable rocket. LandSpace also became the second private Chinese company to launch a liquid-propellent rocket. In April, Beijing Tianbing Technology successfully launched a kerosene-oxygen rocket, taking another step towards developing rockets that can be re-fueled and reused.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China Beats Rivals To Successfully Launch First Methane-Liquid Rocket More

China Beats Rivals To Successfully Launch First Methane-Liquid Rocket

Comments Filter:

  • Congratulations! (Score:3)

    by LostMyBeaver ( 1226054 ) on Thursday July 13, 2023 @02:19AM (#63681937)
    Keep up the great work! There are never enough countries or companies involved in great science endeavors.

    Just wish the journalists could write a better headline. This kind of achievement is a win for everyone.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by quenda ( 644621 )

      This kind of achievement is a win for everyone.

      Yeah, but competition drives progress. We'd never have had the moon landings without the Cold War.
      And good to see China making progress. They are far behind Russia, US, Europe, but that can change quickly.

      • Re:Congratulations! (Score:4, Informative)

        by spaceman375 ( 780812 ) on Thursday July 13, 2023 @02:56AM (#63681975)
        You have an odd defenition of "far behind". China is the only country that has it's own manned satellite. Their space industry is far more vibrant than Russia's decades old tech. They are also actively sending landers to the moon. Russia tried to "rekindle" their lunar program, scheduling a Luna-25 mission launch in mid-2022. It's still on the ground over a year later.

        It looks to me like China is in second place behind the US, with the EU alliances in third. Russia is still ahead of India, but that could change.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          China is working steadily towards all the technology needed to land humans on the Moon. They have demonstrated soft landing capability, in-orbit rendezvous, inter-planetary communications, EVAs.

          What they lack if a super heavy lift vehicle. Long March 9 is scheduled for first flight in 2033, although there is some speculation that it might be moved up. It probably depends how the US Moon missions go, and how quickly that progresses towards Mars.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by quenda ( 644621 )

          I celebrate and welcome China's success in space. But they are still the newcomers, and until 2016 were reliant on Russian designs with hypergolic propellant, weren't they?

          You have an odd defenition of "far behind". China is the only country that has it's own manned satellite.

          Like the US and Soviet Union did 50 years ago?

          • I'm not really sure what a "manned satellite" is that the ISS is not.

            • the ISS is an international manned satellite. China is indeed the only nation with its own manned satellite.

              • I see. I don't think it's fair to say China is far behind Russia, since that implies a greater technology gap than probably exists. At the same time, they China launch their first space station forty years after Russia.

                To put that in perspective, the commander of Shenzhou 9, the first crewed flight to visit Tiangong-1, was about five years old when Salyut 1 was launched.

        • China is the only country that has it's own manned satellite.

          The USA is responsible for about 3/4 of the ISS.

          Further, China has to have its own because they don't play well with others.

      • They are far behind Russia, US, Europe, but that can change quickly.

        Umm... world's FIRST methane-liquid oxygen rocket..

        • While thatâ(TM)s true, the engines are not at all advanced. The reason theyâ(TM)re first is because the engines are relatively simple gas generator cycle engines. They are in fact still well behind the west on this, but through the power of buying two of them (or rather, copying the west) they are rapidly gaining.

          • Pretty strange that a copy can do what the original hasn't...

            • Itâ(TM)s more a factor of what the companies are doing with their rockets than the capabilities of the engines. SpaceX is working on developing Starship, which due to its crazy scale has its own issues that make development not fast. And Blue Origin seems incapable of going to orbit regardless of their engine technology. If SpaceX wanted to be first to orbit with a methalox engine, they could have retrofitted the Raptor to the Falcon 9. But F9 is working just fine as it is, and that just wasnâ(TM)

              • Sure.

                But the fact that their "copy" does something that the ones they bought/copied off does not implies that it wasn't just a copy. They made it work. And if it was a trivial exercise to make it work, then people they bought/copied it off of would have already done it.

            • Technology wise, itâ(TM)s like a Falcon 9 engine, but with methanol as the fuel. Itâ(TM)s the most basic design of liquid rocket in use.

              Starship uses a full-flow staged combustion engine, and despite earlier attempts by the US and USSR to design them, SpaceX is the first to ever get one off the ground. They just havenâ(TM)t sent it to space yet.

              • and despite earlier attempts by the US and USSR to design them

                Slightly misleading.
                The US didn't attempt to design one, they did design one. Funding was not renewed to build a completed engine, though front end tests were successful.

                And while not technically a "full-flow" staged combustion, the RS-25 has dual preburners, just both fuel-rich instead of one oxygen-rich and one fuel-rich, so it's basically identical complexity.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Hodr ( 219920 )

          Quick, summarize the benefits of this over the current mixture used and why other countries or companies would want to focus on it over other things they are currently focused on.

          Also, tell me whats more impressive a self-driving car or one that instead of Gas drives on ethanol?

          • summarize the benefits of this over the current mixture used

            Others have already explained this in their comments.

            Also, tell me whats more impressive a self-driving car or one that instead of Gas drives on ethanol?

            What the fuck are you on about? They are orthogonal issues.

  • What are the engineering benefits and challenges of CH4 as rocket fuel? Failing that, fart jokes anyone?

    • Re:what's the deal? (Score:5, Informative)

      by vik ( 17857 ) on Thursday July 13, 2023 @03:06AM (#63681989) Homepage Journal

      Methane is relatively easy, for a cryogenic, to keep cold and dense. Because it contains more energy per unit volume than, say, hydrogen, you don't have to pump it so fast into the combustion chamber. Your fuel tanks, pumps etc. are smaller and therefore lighter.

      Because it contains much less carbon than kerosene, it does not decompose into a black mess inside the engine.

      But it is cryogenic, and suffers density changes during pumping, compressing, etc. If this gets out of hand it behaves much like trapped air in a garden hose. This is hard on the engine innards...

      Vik :v)

      • Re:what's the deal? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Thursday July 13, 2023 @03:57AM (#63682045) Homepage Journal

        Methane powered rockets are seen as a key technology for reaching Mars. Not only can methane be produced on Mars, but it makes re-using engines easier because as you point out it leaves less residue behind. If the plan is to send a return rocket ahead of humans, and have it refuel from resources available on Mars, methane engines are very attractive.

        Starship uses methane fuelled engines. Blue Origin and the ESA are also testing engines using it, but neither of them are near getting to orbit with methane.

      • Re:what's the deal? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Tx ( 96709 ) on Thursday July 13, 2023 @04:08AM (#63682055) Journal

        Because it contains much less carbon than kerosene, it does not decompose into a black mess inside the engine.

        This is a huge benefit in a closed-cycle engine, such as SpaceX's Raptor engine. However, the ZQ-12 engine used in the Zhuque-2 is open-cycle, and as far as I know, the rocket is not re-usable, so that really negates any benefits from the absence of coking. It's really not clear what benefit Landspace get from using methane over RP1, but perhaps they plan a re-usable closed-cycle engine in the future, and want to gain experience with methane in a simple open-cycle engine first.

        • Also, keep in mind that some of China launchpads do launch rockets over populated areas.
          Rockets that undergo a "rapid unscheduled disassembly" are less likely to release giant orange toxic clouds if they run on methane, and thus attract less international criticism.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          They say that the plan is for re-usability in space. As in the engine can be refuelled in orbit, or even on another planetary body.

          Say you want to return a sample from Mars. If you could land and refuel there using natural resources, it would mean you don't need to send a second rocket motor and tank full of fuel. Less mass to launch, less mass to soft land.

        • This is more of a rhetorical question, but: Do the limited number of rocket launches per year actually contribute THAT much pollution? I'd think power generation, cars, trucks, etc. would do much worse damage to the environment.

    • Re:what's the deal? (Score:4, Informative)

      by necro81 ( 917438 ) on Thursday July 13, 2023 @07:11AM (#63682255) Journal
      Have a look at this video from Everyday Astronaut [youtu.be]. It's mostly about the Raptor engine, but has a section (starting around 20:40 [youtu.be]) that compares the relative merits of RP-1 (kerosene), Methane, and Hydrogen. There are tradeoffs in terms of energy density (gravimetric and volumetric), efficiency (specific impulse), ease of handling, etc.

      Methane has advantages over RP-1, but avoids some of the difficulties of hydrogen without sacrificing much performance. Plus: you can manufacture it on Mars or elsewhere in the Solar System.

  • SpaceX's "Starship" uses methane (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cjonslashdot ( 904508 ) on Thursday July 13, 2023 @06:19AM (#63682193)
    SpaceX's "Starship" uses methane. It has not yet attained orbit, but it will likely do so this year. Also, using methane is not some great achievement - it's a very ordinary chemical. But any private rocket company deserves an applause, because designing and building an orbital-capable rocket is very difficult - no matter the fuel.
    • While getting to orbit on LNG is a big achievement.. if the rocket isn't reusable then I think the author is being extremely biased by declaring a "winner" on that one point. I'd say at most this is a solid step on the way to reusable LNG rockets.

      SpaceX, ULA, and Blue-Origin are all testing big reusable LNG rockets. The LNG-fueled Vulkan is supposed to liftoff later this year with 5x the capacity and a reusable design. If that actually makes it to orbit it will be something to crow about. https://en.wiki [wikipedia.org]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by BigFire ( 13822 )

      They were using open cycle gas generator rocket engine, somewhat akin to SpaceX's Merlin. It's relative cheap and inexpensive to make compared to stage combustion that RD-180 (Atlas V) and Blue Origin's BE-4 (both are Oxygen rich stage combustion). SpaceX is going for a much harder full flow stage combustion where the gas generators (2 instead of just one) are used and the residual oxygen or methane are piped back into combustion chamber.

      • Yes. I think they had to develop a new alloy to handle the oxygen rich high temp/pressure env in the oxygen-rich side.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by BigFire ( 13822 )

          Gas Generator/Open Cycle pre-burner didn't have that issue. Prior to the downfall of Soviet Union, they claimed to have figure out how to do oxygen rich pre-burner stage combustion and western rocket scientist always thought they're lying because at the time, we couldn't figure how to do oxygen rich staging without melting the engine. Most of our pre-1991 stage combustion are fuel rich pre-burner like RS-25 for Space Shuttle and SLS using liquid hydrogen as propellant. We use liquid hydrogen despite it's

  • Every “private” Chinese company is under the thumb of the CCP. They act only as allowed, and often to further the goals of the Party.

  • Are we celebrating REMOVAL of "carbon" from everything? Or are we celebrating adding some back into rockets? Which is it?

    The "green hydrogen economy" feels like "losing the baby with the bathwater". "I know this stuff makes it hold more energy, but we can't figure out how to plug the legos together safely and reliably...so we'll just carry 2-3x as much."

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close