Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
China Space

Chinese Reusable Booster Explodes During First Orbital Test (cnn.com) 91

Posted by BeauHD from the practice-makes-perfect dept.
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.

Chinese Reusable Booster Explodes During First Orbital Test More | Reply

Chinese Reusable Booster Explodes During First Orbital Test

Comments Filter:

  • Move fast, break (crash) things (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It's not like SpaceX did not have any missteps on their path to creating reusable boosters. Not everyone operates like NASA. (Thankfully.)

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Jhon ( 241832 )

      "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

      • i mean the rocket literally copies most of spacex's haha.

      • Re:Move fast, break (crash) things (Score:5, Informative)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2025 @03:13PM (#65833365) Homepage Journal

        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.

        • Most(if not all) large / successful / high profile chinese companies seem to be linked in one way or another to the Chinese government.

          Even if you started as a tiny startup and grow organically, by the time you get to a decent size, someone from the CCP will be there.

          I mean, look at Alibaba. Started totally private (as I understand) and now has a party committee, etc there. Jack may be a CCP member, but that does not mean the company itself was initially funded / started by the CCP.

          I think you can probably

  • Anomalies are a learning experience (Score:3)

    by yog ( 19073 ) * on Wednesday December 03, 2025 @10:45AM (#65832555) Homepage Journal

    The Chinese learn fast and iterate frequently. Likely their future launches will be more robust.

    • 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)

        by 0123456 ( 636235 )

        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)

          by caseih ( 160668 )

          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)

            by Megane ( 129182 )
            The real difference is that F9's Merlin engines can't throttle down enough to hover. All it can do is the hoverslam, where it shuts them down at the exact moment of landing. NG was able to hover for a moment before landing.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by kriston ( 7886 )

          SpaceX Falcon 9 boosters have been landing on land for many years. Does it matter if it's not the launch site?

          • SpaceX Falcon 9 boosters have been landing on land for many years. Does it matter if it's not the launch site?

            It's the wrong question. Obviously you can set a barge out on the ocean and land a rocket on that. But the idea that you cn launch and land anywhere is a non-starter.

            The landing spot must be related to the launch location, and where in orbit you are sending the payload. Sometimes the first stage has to be discarded. In principle, you could guide the first stage back to anywhere if you had enough fuel and ability to maneuver. Of course, that would make the booster much heavier and complex. In reality, not

      • 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)

      by Whateverthisis ( 7004192 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2025 @03:44PM (#65833443)
      I don't know, I question this.

      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.

  • Havent stolen enough tech to play with the big kids yet?

    • Havent stolen enough tech to play with the big kids yet?

      Do you think they's stolen Starship technology?

      • The Chinese motorcycles you can buy on Amazon are 70 year old Honda technology.

        • 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.

          • Flat 8. Straight 8 would be fucking absurd, lol.
            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.

          • 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.

            • A cylinder produces some amount of force per power stroke.
              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

              • More cylinders does make for a smoother engine without complex harmonic dampening, which the Japanese have decades of experience in doing exceptional at.

                There was a big scandal about smooth submarine motion [wikipedia.org] during the cold war. Toshiba makes the quietest refrigerator I've ever heard (42 db iirc). Can't hear it in the next room.

                • You and I aren't particularly vibing lately, but I appreciate that link- that was cool as shit, and educational.
                  • Yeah, it's not personal, I just feel like you've been caught up too much in the AI hype and that clouded your vision. You are definitely a net positive in the conversation: with interesting ideas and a (unfortunately not more common) ability to actually look things up and learn.

                    The AI problem will resolve itself automatically in the next few years (either the AI hype will die out or strong AI will be invented; one way or another.)

          • 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.

            That is just bizarre. But before we go further - it's a flat-8, not a straight 8. https://www.cycleworld.com/mot... [cycleworld.com]

            This "years ahead" motorcycle is just a Honda Goldwing type motorcycle with a couple extra cylinders. Meh. No thanks. I'll settle for my big-twin Honda Shadow Spirit 1100 cc. It looks like a classic Fatboy Motorcycle. Stump pulling torque, gets 50 mpg, and comfortable enough I can ride 150 miles at a stretch, which is handy since it has a 3 gallon tank and is ready for fuel at that poin

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cusco ( 717999 )

          Really? I was unaware that Honda had 50 mph electric motorcycles 70 years ago. The things you learn on SlashDot...

        • The Chinese motorcycles you can buy on Amazon are 70 year old Honda technology.

          Which is, good technology, by the way. Even Honda uses some of that olde stuff. My first motorcycle, a 60's era Honda trail 90, is remarkably similar to the Trail 125 they sell today.

          In many countries, the paradigm is different.

      • Ask Sandy Burger when he stuffed all those missile secrets down his shorts!

      • Let's hope so, but probably not since they actually made it to orbit.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cusco ( 717999 )

      So you think that 1/5 of the world's population, with one of the best education systems on the planet, with 6 of the top 10 research institutes anywhere, can only copy other people's work? Wow, that's remarkably stupid, even for you.

      • Nothing like being verbally attacked by some rando jackass who thinks they know me and has a good bead on thangs. Its almost like you have absolutely no clue what China has been up to in the US for the past 40+ years, the number of spies caught, or the number of firms that have tried doing business there only to realize billions in losses when tech cloning was realized. But no, no go on and tell me how magnificent those people are.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cusco ( 717999 )

          OF COURSE the Chinese have been copying work from other countries, do you think they should have to go back and reinvent the airfoil if they want to build airplanes? Know who else does it? England. France. Myanmar. Mexico. Israel, Kenya, and every other frelling country on the planet. Industrial spying has been a thing every since industry was invented in the Stone Age, potters from India copied the recipe for improved pottery from kilns in Iraq and flint knappers from France copied flaking techniques

          • You just dont know where to put the goalposts do you? First you deny that chinese would have to steal, then you admit that they do but its ok because everyone else does it. Then you go on to sat western civ owes china and now im accused of being racist because of calling out CCCP govt policy? Get your proverbial shit straight.
  • the chinese rocket did not explode until it hit the ground
    • The booster failed while approaching the landing zone, apparently during its final burn, exploding on impact. The orbiter performed well, reaching its planned orbit successfully.

      • Re:bad headline (Score:5, Informative)

        by 0123456 ( 636235 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2025 @11:50AM (#65832741)

        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)

      by BigFire ( 13822 )
      It actually has a cascade failure during the landing burn. It's something that I have every confidence they'll work through.

  • Is supposed to be reusable AS a booster?

  • it's how aerospace engineering works (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2025 @11:48AM (#65832733) Homepage Journal

    Lose a rocket, gain a mountain of data. Work on the next rocket. Repeat

  • It's only a matter of time before they can nail the landing. One of the engine failed to reignite for the landing burn and it took out the rest of the engines.

  • Instead of "reusable", the engineers thought they meant "self-recycling".

  • It succeeded in, conveniently, disassembling itself *and* landing at multiple places at the same time. :-)

  • ...rare metal scraps are in high demand!

Slashdot Top Deals

"Regardless of the legal speed limit, your Buick must be operated at speeds faster than 85 MPH (140kph)." -- 1987 Buick Grand National owners manual.

Close