Lu Yu, head of the science and technology committee at the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology, said designers at the largest developer of launch vehicles, have begun making tests with some of China’s in-service rockets to see whether they can be modified to be reusable, and whether their stages can be safely retrieved.
China’s next generation of launch vehicles will also adopt reusable technologies, and the Long March 8 will be the first to use such technologies among new rockets.
They are planning for the Long March 8 to have its first test flight around 2021.
The Long March-8 rocket will have two stages and two boosters: the first stage and boosters are expected to be retrieved through vertical landing.
The new rockets will provide commercial launch services to customers around the globe.
China’s space transportation system roadmap is:
* Around 2025, reusable suborbital carriers will be successfully developed and suborbital space travel will be realized.
* Around 2030, rockets with two reusable stages will be developed.
* Around 2035, carrier rockets will be completely reusable which could realize the dream of space travel for ordinary people.
* around 2040 and hybrid-power reusable carriers will be developed. Space vehicles will be more diverse, intelligent, reliable, low-cost, efficient and convenient.
Li Tongyu, head of carrier rocket development at the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology, said the Long March 8 will be capable of sending 4.5-metric-ton payloads to a sun-synchronous orbit, or 2.5 tons to a geosynchronous transfer orbit.
ChinaRocket Co Ltd, a subsidiary of the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology, announced on Tuesday that it is designing a small, solid-fuel rocket to provide commercial launches for clients. The LD 1 will be able to place a 150-kilogram satellite, or multiple minisatellites, into a sun-synchronous orbit 700 kilometers above Earth.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
The timetable for the Chinese doesn’t look good. I can’t imagine where SpaceX
will be in 2035 when China has a reusable rocket.
Certainly they aren’t going to dominate LEO satellite industry for Internet as
SpaceX and other companies will have the whole thing sewn up by then.
And without govt. backing China will not have a dynamic industry like America
does.
I wish China well. I believe they already launch the most satellites. But I doubt
they will maintain this record for long.
The Soyuz rocket has the design because they did not want to fire upper stage in flight.
Yes lots of later rockets used solid fuel boosters to increase trust at launch while having an efficient core as SRB are cheap.
This don’t work well for reuse, here you want an single large first stage who take you to 2-3 km/s then land.
Upper stage reuse is harder as you need an heavier upper stage who eats directly into you payload capacity while increasing the weight of the first stage by an ton only reduces it with 200 kg.
In short none of the Chinese designed above will work well. Yes you can land boosters as seen with falcon heavy. However falcon heavy with reuse of all cores is not so impressive, no figures given but I guess 50% better than an falcon 9. Having 4 smaller boosters would be worse as you would need landing gears on all.
Other has answered the other questions.
Space planes would be far more expensive to build, rockets are simpler.
Nuclear is for deep space.
Nuclear rockets will come to exist again and be used. As fast interplanetary thrusters.
But that will require a lot of preparation and growth riding on the back of plain old boring chemical rockets.
” Where are our space planes? ” <-- Uneconomic, so not to be built. " Or space elevators? " <-- Impossible with today's materials and they have failure modes equivalent to nuking whatever country they fall on. " Or ... nuclear rockets? " <-- The same with respect to failure modes. Space travel should be boring, that's when it's cheap and reliable.
For me at least, it’s very exciting that space is becoming unexciting and based on well tested shapes and ways of function. That means they have stopped fiddling around with weird concepts and getting back to what works best.
And I beg to differ: it’s not true that there isn’t innovation in that technological space. Returning, landing rockets are a ‘effin major development.
That returning rockets start to seem normal and routine is the most exciting development in space for decades. One that could only be toppled by multiple launches and returns/landings rockets.
Make sense. What I am not clear about is why every company and space agency around the globe does not adopt a similar roadmap.
Isn’t it an interesting thing?
You know, “rocket designs”. It is enticing to suggest that they come in all sizes and shapes. However, that’s not really true, is it? The most radial thing that e’er took to the skies was … Space Shuttle. A winged plane, with a humungous lashed on cryogenic tank, and for best pyrotechnics, a pair of thunderous Roman Candles strapped to the sides for takeoff.
Nothing like it since.
The Russians (my the Czars bless them) figured out a long time ago one main principle that then lead the design of their rocket “shapes”. Namely, that it takes a LOT more thrust at takeoff, to get up to speed, but especially, to quickly counteract the force-of-gravity dragging the bird back to Mother Urth, than it takes once she’s a hundred kilometers up.
So, Russia’s first stage almost always has a dozen or more motors, all burning furiously away at the same time. Overcoming gravity. Having dozens of torches instead of just a few also allows their chronically underfunded space-rocket research-and-development arm to make a rather fewer different type of motor. Lashing more, simpler, smaller motors together is a fine way to solve the first-thrust problem.
Except when it isn’t. Lash 20 motors to a frame, and unless the thing has extraordinarily quick metrology and telemetry, there’s 20 chances for motor-failure when they’re all burning at the same time. Extraordinarily nimble telemetry and metrology — like the SpaceX, STS or European space efforts — should allow a motor “going on the blink” to be shut down quickly and safely. One hopes so.
But the game remains mostly the same: more sticks burning at the same time. To take off. Jettison the side sticks after their fuel is exhausted (“mostly” in SpaceX’s case, with the remaining fuel to perform controlled descent-with-recoverable landing-on-earth). The central core continues on, 100 km up. Eventually even its fuel is all-but-gone. Do the reorbital trickery if that’s in the cards, otherwise, just burn up spectacularly. An “upper stage” or two then lofts the payload to ever higher, ever faster orbits.
So, why the excitement? Its almost boring.
… JUST like the space program itself became for the millions of Americans and Europeans that once got their juices flowing enough to make treks to launch pads, and watch launches. But then who stopped doing so for the most part, as launches became as mundane as jet-airplane flights. (I’m old enough to remember Father taking us Kids to the local airport to watch planes take off and land. Standing on the tarmac. There was NO security to worry about, just an occasional guard telling us to go back inside.)
Just saying.
Where are our space planes?
Or space elevators?
Or … nuclear rockets?
GoatGuy