China Lands Rocket During an Orbital Launch For First Time (space.com) 35
China successfully recovered an orbital rocket booster for the first time, landing the Long March 10B's first stage into a net-equipped sea platform after its maiden launch. "This mission marks my country's first successful controlled recovery of a launch vehicle and the world's first network-based recovery of a launch vehicle," the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC) announced via social media shortly after the launch. (Translation by Google.) "It signifies a historic breakthrough for my country in the field of reusable rocket technology and will lay a solid foundation for accelerating the improvement of my country's space access capabilities." Space.com reports: The Long March 10B is a two-stage rocket that stands about 207 feet (63 meters) tall, according to the state-owned CASC, the main contractor for China's space program. The vehicle's first stage burns kerosene and liquid oxygen (LOX) propellants, whereas the second stage uses LOX and liquid methane. In reusable mode, the Long March 10B can loft about 16 tons of payload to low Earth orbit.
And the rocket flew with a payload on its debut liftoff -- a satellite that successfully reached "its predetermined orbit," according to the CASC update. That post did not provide any details about the spacecraft or its orbit. It did give a brief rundown of the first-stage recovery, however. "Approximately 6 minutes after the first and second stages separated, the first stage returned vertically and was successfully recovered at a sea-based recovery platform using a net system," CASC officials wrote, noting that launch occurred from the Hainan Commercial Space Launch Site on Friday at 12:15 a.m. EDT (0415 GMT; 12:15 p.m. Beijing time.) "The launch and first-stage recovery missions were a complete success."
And the rocket flew with a payload on its debut liftoff -- a satellite that successfully reached "its predetermined orbit," according to the CASC update. That post did not provide any details about the spacecraft or its orbit. It did give a brief rundown of the first-stage recovery, however. "Approximately 6 minutes after the first and second stages separated, the first stage returned vertically and was successfully recovered at a sea-based recovery platform using a net system," CASC officials wrote, noting that launch occurred from the Hainan Commercial Space Launch Site on Friday at 12:15 a.m. EDT (0415 GMT; 12:15 p.m. Beijing time.) "The launch and first-stage recovery missions were a complete success."
Cool (Score:3, Insightful)
A reusable rocket without an asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but actually, no. (Score:5, Insightful)
A reusable rocket without an asshole.
It's a state-owned company. Have you forgotten what's still going on in China? In the Xinjiang region, over a million Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities have been in "vocational education and training centers" since 2017. If you think that carrying out a genocide doesn't make you an asshole then you are an asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
One difference is the reason for the incarceration.
Re: (Score:1)
First of all Uyghurs are not a minourity.
Secondly you should grasp what a "vocational education and training centers" actually is.
Thirdly you should graps why they are there, which you obviously don't.
Hint: Germany reintroduced mandatory military service at the beginning of this year. Where is your outcry about that? If we have not enough volunteers, people are randomly picked by lottery. And then spend 2 years "somewhere else in an education center" - aka they are only rarely at home. Stupid idiot.
If you t
Re:phrasing, subby. (Score:5, Interesting)
Is that better or worse? I was under the impression that most people find the catching of a rocket booster like SpaceX does with those little arms to be more awesome than just landing the booster.
I also thought that outside of having to land on Mars it is the preferred approach because it is more efficient.
Finally: Caught it in a net conjures up the wrong image. If you look at the video the 'net' is much more like the mechazilla arms and not some fishing net they plop the booster into: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nobody likes a smartass. You just qualified for that role. Terrestrially, the thing that matters is that they get it back, intact and with reasonable effort. Everything else is immaterial. And you are insisting on the immaterial part.
Re:phrasing, subby. (Score:5, Informative)
It's mostly better. While the barge has to be a bit more complex because it has to have the lattice of ropes (it's not a net), it means that the booster doesn't have to have landing struts. That's a significant weight saving, which means less propellant needed too.
It likely also means that the system is less dependent on good weather, and better able to recover from small issues that would tip self supporting boosters over. IIRC the Blue Origin system actually welds itself to the deck when it lands to help with that, which obviously makes the legs disposable.
The only real downside is that it does require that barge to land, so to land on the moon you would need to first land a landing station. That won't be an issue for the first manned trips, and longer term it may have advantages because the vehicle's engine can be shut off at higher altitude and kick up less regolith.
Exciting times and another technique added to the list of options. We will see which becomes the preferred one, but competition in this area is going to be good for getting costs down.
Re: (Score:2)
The booster doesn't go to the moon anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but thinking further ahead, e.g. the plan for Starship is to land vertically on the moon and then lift off again. The renders they have produced show landing struts, presumably derived from the booster ones.
The Chinese lander shown off a few years ago looks to be more like the Apollo LM and planned Soviet LK, so they don't need that capability to hit their "before 2030" goal.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no need to use the same recovery system for every stage either. That includes the space-based ones. SpaceX's plans for Starship are really based on their goal of going to Mars the first time, and that might work with some tweaks for a few trips to the moon too. The design of the super heavy booster is dictated by the need to refuel Starship in orbit.
The net is more efficient for the first stage and probably a second stage as well. Landing on the moon is best done with a lander designed for that, and
Re: (Score:2)
Landing on the Moon is far easier than landing on Earth. You don't have the ocean rolling your landing platform, no wind to blow your booster over, and the gravity is 1/6th as strong.
Re: (Score:1)
Other responses to my post have merit. You're just being an asshole.
Re: (Score:3)
And in actual reality, all that matters is "they got it back, basically intact". Accuracy without effect and meaning is not useful. In fact, it is of negative use as it obscures important aspects.
Incidentally, the Japanese just concluded a successful test flight just now (not a full mission). Seems this tech is now within reach for anybody with advanced engineering capabilities.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Cool! (Score:1)
I wonder where they got the idea/tech to do it that way?
Re:Cool! (Score:4, Interesting)
The idea is probably from 1950's comic books but the tech seems brand new since they don't need any landing legs and use a net-on-frame architecture.
People should pay attention because they didn't have orbital technology thirty years ago and now they have a space station, reusable rockets, and are about to have a Moon base.
And possibly ultra-long flighttime 'drones' that can fly over Picatinny Arsenal unimpeded; that much is uncertain. We have no explanation for their energy budget (at least white-world).
Having a country run by engineers rather than professional thieves who hire engineers to justify pillage has certain advantages (and disadvantages).
Let's not get too overconfident.
Re:Cool! (Score:5, Informative)
they didn't have orbital technology thirty years ago
According to wiki they launched their first orbital satellite in 1970, more than 30 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Rocket-catching above ground became a necessity when it was discovered that a huge amount of dust obscures the ground as the rocket nears the surface. The first company to patent catching a landing rocket from the top was Blue Origin, back in 2017: https://patents.google.com/pat... [google.com]
The idea looks identical to what the Chinese are doing.
Re: (Score:1)
Boeing invented and tested the concept in the 90's.
Re: (Score:2)
They watched Young Sheldon
Congrats (Score:3)
This is a big deal. SpaceX makes it seem routine these days... but it is actually hard to do.
When will Europe do it? (Score:3)
I've only seen vague plans for the EU to start thinking about maybe starting the paperwork for a prototype ... in the mid 2030's
Using renewable-sourced fuel of course.
Poor form for the continent that produced the first liquid-fuelled rockets.