Chinese Reusable Booster Explodes During First Orbital Test (cnn.com) 68
schwit1 shares a report from CNN: A private Chinese space firm successfully sent its Zhuque-3 rocket to orbit but failed in its historic attempt to re-land the rocket booster Wednesday -- the first such trial by a Chinese firm as the country's growing commercial space sector races to catch up with American rivals like SpaceX. The rocket entered orbit as planned, but its first stage did not successfully return to a landing site, instead crashing down, the company said in a statement.
"An anomaly occurred after the first-stage engine ignited during the landing phase, preventing a soft landing on the designated recovery pad," the statement said. "The debris landed at the edge of the recovery area, resulting in a failed recovery test." The team would "conduct a comprehensive review" and continue to "advance the verification and application of reusable rocket technology in future missions," the statement added. You can watch a video of the launch and subsequent crash here.
"An anomaly occurred after the first-stage engine ignited during the landing phase, preventing a soft landing on the designated recovery pad," the statement said. "The debris landed at the edge of the recovery area, resulting in a failed recovery test." The team would "conduct a comprehensive review" and continue to "advance the verification and application of reusable rocket technology in future missions," the statement added. You can watch a video of the launch and subsequent crash here.
Move fast, break (crash) things (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"It's not like SpaceX did not have any missteps on their path to creating reusable boosters."
They weren't really missteps. It was part of their design philosophy. Build it enough to get past a "goal" (say, get past the launch tower) and test. If it doesn't meet the goal, ID the failure, redesign and test again. Once it reaches that "goal", create a new "goal" (sat, reach 20,000 ft). Repeat until it's reliable.
While this involves a lot of explosions, the actual time it takes to get a workable and reliab
Re: Move fast, break (crash) things (Score:2)
i mean the rocket literally copies most of spacex's haha.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't doubt it at all.
Re: (Score:2)
We got a real-life Nazi to build Nazi rockets for us.
Re: (Score:2)
To think that because the rockets are the same general shape that they are "copied" is just about as stupid as saying that because today's laptops are the same form factor as the original PowerBook 100 from the early 90s, they are a "copy".
You have a severe lack of nuance, and I would submit that other than the general shape and function, today's rockets are NOTHING like what you claim.
Re:Move fast, break (crash) things (Score:4, Interesting)
You say "China" but this is a private Chinese company. "China", as in the Chinese government, does have its own space programme that, like NASA, works with commercial partners. They are looking to put people on the moon around 2030, and on track to do it, but this company is working on low cost to Earth orbit payloads.
Re: (Score:2)
The US pinched actual German scientists. Thought there was already JPL at the time . . . not enough credit is given to them.
Re: Move fast, break (crash) things (Score:2)
They in turn learned from Richard Goddard. Though GP is probably a Putlerite who still denies that Russia had even more of them working for its own space program, then gave all of the credit to any Russian that was at least only half-drunk right at that particular moment. This was all disclosed in perestroika.
But even then, all technologies are going to develop from prior discoveries. I doubt you're going to find any operational rockets today that didn't somehow learn from the V-2 rocket. Especially given D
Re: Move fast, break (crash) things (Score:2)
*Robert
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, the stupid is strong in this one.
Anomalies are a learning experience (Score:3)
The Chinese learn fast and iterate frequently. Likely their future launches will be more robust.
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese learn fast and iterate frequently. Likely their future launches will be more robust.
Yeah, Landing rockets is old hat by now - Indeed, while Spacex is the ones we always think of, New Glenn is a lot better. Hovering, fixing itself to the deck. I have no doubt that the Chinese will succeed in landing their rockets.
New Glenn has one other very important advantage while we are at it. It's ability to hover, and fixing itself to the deck allows for a much expanded launch envelope. Easier to put that barge where you need it. Spacex doesn't seem to care for doing this all that often any more. S
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure it must have happened sometime this year, but I don't remember the last time a Falcon 9 booster returned to the launch site. Everything I've seen recently landed on the barge.
New Glenn does have a better launch envelope by being able to hover to land in bad sea conditions, but the extra fuel cuts into the payload more. So there are benefits and costs.
Re: (Score:2)
New Glenn booster can also glide a bit during descent, not unlike the Starship. The strakes on the rocket create a tiny bit of lift, so it has a more flexible landing envelope than the mostly ballistic descent of the Falcon 9. I was very impressed by what New Glenn did on its first successful landing.
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX Falcon 9 boosters have been landing on land for many years. Does it matter if it's not the launch site?
Re: (Score:2)
It's ability to hover, and fixing itself to the deck allows for a much expanded launch envelope.
How so? I don't see how hovering makes any difference at all... it's just a waste of fuel, increasing gravity loss. It's nicer from a controllability standpoint, but SpaceX has clearly perfected the hoverslam maneuver and once you have that down it makes more sense than to waste fuel hovering and translating. Bolting itself into the deck helps with rough seas, I suppose, but it seems unlikely you'd want to try landing in very rough conditions anyway.
Spacex doesn't seem to care for doing this all that often any more.
Nah. They do it when it makes sense. They don't do it
Re:Anomalies are a learning experience (Score:4, Interesting)
While the Chinese have been able to reverse engineer and play catch up much faster than Western nations on many technologies (partially because they are less hamstrung by regulation and generally get more support from their governments), there are certain areas where the Chinese have not been able to play catch up. A big one is materials science; it's really hard to go faster on something particularly when a given alloy's specialness comes from fabrication techniques and recipes than reverse engineering a specific system.
The most obvious example of this is aircraft engines. The Chinese power their fighters mainly with the WS-10, a domestically produced engine that has real problems with heat management, thermal expansion, and fuel consumption. Most of these problems came from the metallurgy that goes into the turbine blades. The WS-15 is supposed to fix that, but it's years behind their initial stated goal of deployment and is now starting to be installed, but it's not clear if they solved the issues yet.
I think the same goes with reusable rockets; metallurgy is going to play a huge role in managing heat, friction, and vibration to ensure that the booster can land safely and be certified for reuse, and in this area they are not doing so well.
They will get to the moon, and they will have a reusable rocket, and all that good stuff, but their aerospace industry is still leagues behind Western equivalents.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Do you just get on the internet and lie all day?
Even the CATO INSTITUTE of all places recognizes China as a functionally capitalist economy.
Farming--an intense focus area for collectivization under Mao--reverted to private operation within a few years of Mao's death. The idea that China is functionally communist is actually hilarious.
Sure, yeah, it's a totalitarian single-party state, which is not great. But it's not a communist state. It hasn't been one for DECADES.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing he said was wrong. 40% state ownership and a member on the board is commonplace in China. If the CCP wants it, they'll get it. China allows capitalism and free markets but only in a sandbox.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing he said was wrong.
To the illiterate, that's probably the case.
40% state ownership and a member on the board is commonplace in China.
SOEs are common- you are correct about that. But they're not even the majority.
There's quite a gulf between uncommon and.. let me look at what parent said... ah, yes: fucking all of them.
If the CCP wants it, they'll get it.
I mean, that applies to every Government on this Earth.
China allows capitalism and free markets but only in a sandbox.
Also applies to every Government on this Earth. Some sandboxes are more restrictive than others, I'll grant you that, and China- definitely near the top.
None of that justifies parent's absurd hyperbole, and your dumbshit dou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At the end of the day, they are all owened by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Is this some kind of attempt at being clever? It's an outright falsehood.
Is it, "China has laws that can get a corporation in trouble if they don't do what the Government says", ergo private ownership doesn't exist?
If that's the case, I've got some really bad news for you about Western companies.
Wassa matter China? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Havent stolen enough tech to play with the big kids yet?
Do you think they's stolen Starship technology?
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese motorcycles you can buy on Amazon are 70 year old Honda technology.
Re: (Score:2)
A Chinese company, Great Wall Motors, recently showed off the first motorcycle ever designed with a straight eight engine. It also has a touchscreen UI and a retractable windshield. They're years ahead of the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:3)
Further, it's making 154hp out of 2 liters of displacement, which is about 77% of the power Japan gets out of a 1 liter I4, for an overall volumetric efficiency of 38.5% of the current Japanese SOTA.
Years ahead of the world, indeed.
The good news, for them, is they don't ever need to overtake the world as long as they can continue to get dumbshits like you to shill for them.
Re: (Score:3)
What value does 8 cylinders versus 6 in such an application bring? Are motorcycles lacking the torque that is available from having less rotational arc of the output shaft per cylinder that you get by adding more cylinders?
And why the fuck would I want a touchscreen on a motorcycle, when all the critical controls are out at the hand grips where your hands should be? Like the brakes, turn signals, lights, horn, etc.
None of that sounds "ahead" to me. It sounds like answers to questions nobody asked.
Re: (Score:2)
4 cylinders producing 10N per power stroke are not going to generate more "torque" than 2 cylinders producing 20N per power stroke, except insomuch as we're talking about vibrational losses, since there is an advantage to smoother power delivery with less energy being expended throwing the crank around.
In practice, however, a 2L V8 is not going to "make more torque" than a 2L I4 or 2L V6.
e.g., my car's 5.0L makes 80 ft*lbs/L at peak, while a 2.4
Re: Wassa matter China? (Score:2)
Ask Sandy Burger when he stuffed all those missile secrets down his shorts!
Re: Wassa matter China? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's hope so, but probably not since they actually made it to orbit.
Re: Wassa matter China? (Score:2)
Re: Wassa matter China? (Score:2)
bad headline (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:bad headline (Score:5, Informative)
According to what I read yesterday, it looks like one engine restarted then something went badly wrong. It would likely have landed or at least hit the landing pad otherwise since it hit the ground not far from the pad.
So they've done the first 80% of the job and now it's a question of how long the remaining 20% takes.
But as you say it did deliver the payload to orbit so the actual launch was a success.
Re: (Score:3)
Reusable as what? (Score:2)
Is supposed to be reusable AS a booster?
it's how aerospace engineering works (Score:5, Insightful)
Lose a rocket, gain a mountain of data. Work on the next rocket. Repeat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: it's how aerospace engineering works (Score:2)
Musk's own bombastic promises have evrything to do with how he is treatedin the media.
Awww (Score:2)
Just go buy some new vaporware feature from him, or maybe he's selling in-car robot porn or something.
I'm sure it will make you feel better.
Re: (Score:2)
but when Musk does the exact same thing - he's an idiot and has no idea, according the lying legacy media......
Errr no. Musk hasn't done the same thing. The only thing he's been called out an idiot for are precisely the things he was doing that were idiotic. Many of those ideas have been reverted or in other ways found to be completely impractical by his own engineering teams.
No one called him an idiot because this first rockets failed, they called him an idiot for specific reasons, and the specific things he says (which largely have proven false especially in his timelines). Please don't show your overt fanboism li
Re: (Score:2)
Lose a rocket, gain a mountain of data. Work on the next rocket. Repeat
but when Musk does the exact same thing - he's an idiot and has no idea, according the lying legacy media......
Not sure who you're listening to, but I don't hear a lot of people saying that. The technique of trying something, discovering what goes wrong, fixing it, and trying again seems to be working as a development strategy for SpaceX.
People do, however, make a lot of fun of Elon's wildly optimistic predictions of how soon products will reach market (and how soon he will be flying people to Mars. I think we can safely say that he will not launch people to Mars by 2024 [nbcnews.com].)
They got the hard part done, reentry (Score:2)
I'm betting it was a design misunderstanding (Score:2)
Instead of "reusable", the engineers thought they meant "self-recycling".
Yes, but ... (Score:2)
It succeeded in, conveniently, disassembling itself *and* landing at multiple places at the same time. :-)
It is reusable, after all.... (Score:2)