China’s first attempt to put a methane-fueled rocket into orbit has failed.
11 thoughts on “Try, Try Again”
Oh, BAD LUCK!
I guess they go the OLD plans from Space-X
This was very close to a “missed it by that much” failure, and none of the technology was copied from SpaceX. The TQ-12 engine (gas generator) is significantly different from both Raptor (FFSC) and BE-4 (ORSC). The failure itself was in the TQ-11 “vernier” engines on the upper stage. Zhuque-2 Block 2 will be using TQ-15 engines and the TQ-11 will be retired. If I had to guess, TQ-12 is not relightable, so the TQ-11 were tasked with making the perigee raise burn as well as making up a thrust shortfall on TQ-12 vac. And the TQ-11s failed to relight.
Anybody can know this stuff. All it takes is wanting to know it more than wanting to post snark.
Let’s remember Starship was originally supposed to be 12 meters in diameter, and was shrunk down for “buildability.” Musk has even said 7 meters (like New Glenn) might have been a better choice (and much better than New Glenn since Raptor is a more compct, more efficient engine design than BE-4). I think Starship may be the end of the line for rocket ships, or maybe with slightly bigger successors. To efficiently do Mars at this scale you’d really need a fully reusable 3 stage rocket around 10x the size of Starship (so around 30 meters in diameter). That would put the fully fueled 1500 ton first stage in LEO, which could then make a landing on Mars (and still require ISRO refuelling to get home). It would solve the supertanker-sized LEO depot problem, at least. I really think the 22nd century will feature huge nuclear interplanetary liners using Starship-size landing craft that they will carry with them.
The problem is getting off Earth. A problem with Mars is 2.1 year launch window. Mars should use Venus to reduce it to 1 year.
Nuclear make more sense if using Venus, and could use nuclear to get to Venus sky. Nuclear in Earth LEO is not good. Nuclear rocket outside Earth’s atmosphere [LEO is in it] would be ok.
It seems if we are space faring, we will use Earth’s ocean to launch into space. This also applies to Earth having any significant amount of suborbital travel.
And it seems Equatorial LEO would be where Earthlings would live in Earth’s low Earth orbit.
Al Globus and Joe Strout would agree with that last point.
To be honest, I don’t think any of those things are true. Some may be tried short range (in this century), but none will last. To whit:
No nuclear in LEO will last only so long as some non-Western government doesn’t decide on it. But I don’t LEO is a good staging are for anything. I think nuclear interplanetary liners will initial stage from either GEO or EML1 (2 is too useful for other things), both of which can be reached from Earth without refueling.
I do not think LEO will be used for depots long range either, because you eitherhave to have thousands of small depots there, or dozens the size of supertankers, and that would be as bad as nuclear in LEO. I also think LEO constellations will fade away, even if nothing bad happens, and be replaced by ground infrastructure. Maybe day traders will have secure quantum entangled devices or something. Maybe they can call them ansibles!
I predict no one will be “living” in LEO, ever, other than a few small LEO stations, and probably those won’t outlast this century. For that reason, I predict ELEO will be short lived, if at all.
I think very long range, non-perishable resources, including water and “fuel” of various sorts will be sourced off Earth, parimarily in the Saturn system in the 22nd century (but also places like Callisto and the Jovian Trojans), mainly in the form of water, Titanian organics, and carbon compounds (CHONish stuff), and shipped via solar sail. It doesn’t matter how long it takes for product to transit a pipeline, so long as “stuff” keeps coming out the spigot.
If we never get hyperdrive, that’s the shape of human civilization for a long time to come. If we’re lucky.
“No nuclear in LEO will last only so long as some non-Western government doesn’t decide on it. But I don’t LEO is a good staging are for anything. I think nuclear interplanetary liners will initial stage from either GEO or EML1 (2 is too useful for other things), both of which can be reached from Earth without refueling. ”
Well I sort of agree that Nuclear is not great in LEO nor great in Low Venus orbit. So that alone should prevent people using nuclear in LEO, but entering and leaving Venus atmosphere [floating sky cities] is pretty hard and doubt using Nuclear Orion at 50 km elevation is much of a problem politically or has any practical issues.
“I do not think LEO will be used for depots long range either, because you either have to have thousands of small depots there, or dozens the size of supertankers, and that would be as bad as nuclear in LEO.”
I tend to think people will live in LEO [at zero inclination]. And I tend think rocket from Earth surface will get assisted boost from things like mass drivers, but it will still require a fair amount rocket power to get to space, so re-fuel in LEO. Stay in LEO, or go higher and refuel again.
And with mass driver and high gees, one can send rocket fuel to LEO.
Nothing bigger than ISS is likely to exist in LEO long term. No giant rotating space stations, no million-ton depots. So no one is ever going to “live” in LEO, E- or otherwise. What would it be like if a LEO depot with 1,500,000 tons (1000 starships worth) ruptured? I don’t believe Kessler was right, but having tens of trillions of snowflakes of CH4 and LOX hailstones in orbit. That’d make “Barney Rubble” look like a sneeze.
My general principle when judging ideas is, nothing will ever come of exotic proposals based on known physics. Not floating cities on Venus, not space elevators, not momentum transfer tethers. Pretty much the 21st century is going to be spent evolving the the technology Arthur C. Clarke descibes in “The Sands of Mars.” Multistage reusable rocket ships and nuclear powered interplanetary liners. I could see a magnetic induction catapult on the Moon, but on Earth? Not without a magic underwater or underground vacuum cannon, with its muzzle somehow above the tropopause. Anyway, it’s completely unnecessary. Off-earth resources will soon provide the fuel, or, if not, we won’t build a spacegoing civilization, and might as well stay home where we can jack off and murder one another until Kingdom Come.
By LEO at zero inclination I would include orbits higher than 500 km.
So could have satellites and depots lower than 500 km, living is +500 km.
So, satellites less than 500 and satellite higher then say 2000 km. And living in LEO is 500 to 2000 km at zero inclination orbit.
You could have living spaces as small as ISS under 600 km and much bigger one at +1000 km.
I was thinking one could reflect sunlight to Solar farms on Earth to extend the 6 hour peak solar hours the get so they get 10 or 12 hours of peak solar power. The reflectors could at 10,000 km. These being higher could reflect sunlight to people living in LEO during some of there time in night, if at say 1000 km elevation.
ISS gets about 60% of 90 min orbit in sunlight, at 1000 km, one would get higher percent but longer duration or orbit. And at 10,000 km the orbital period is about 6 hours- and also gets a higher percentage of daylight.
Or at 1000 km you going to have more night, and if reduced it reflecting sunlight from above, less battery power is needed.
Oh, BAD LUCK!
I guess they go the OLD plans from Space-X
This was very close to a “missed it by that much” failure, and none of the technology was copied from SpaceX. The TQ-12 engine (gas generator) is significantly different from both Raptor (FFSC) and BE-4 (ORSC). The failure itself was in the TQ-11 “vernier” engines on the upper stage. Zhuque-2 Block 2 will be using TQ-15 engines and the TQ-11 will be retired. If I had to guess, TQ-12 is not relightable, so the TQ-11 were tasked with making the perigee raise burn as well as making up a thrust shortfall on TQ-12 vac. And the TQ-11s failed to relight.
Anybody can know this stuff. All it takes is wanting to know it more than wanting to post snark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEDo6ZY1u5Q
SpaceX’s INSANE New Starship LEAKED by Elon Musk!
18 meter diameter and 100 engines and taller.
Obviously, not coming soon.
Let’s remember Starship was originally supposed to be 12 meters in diameter, and was shrunk down for “buildability.” Musk has even said 7 meters (like New Glenn) might have been a better choice (and much better than New Glenn since Raptor is a more compct, more efficient engine design than BE-4). I think Starship may be the end of the line for rocket ships, or maybe with slightly bigger successors. To efficiently do Mars at this scale you’d really need a fully reusable 3 stage rocket around 10x the size of Starship (so around 30 meters in diameter). That would put the fully fueled 1500 ton first stage in LEO, which could then make a landing on Mars (and still require ISRO refuelling to get home). It would solve the supertanker-sized LEO depot problem, at least. I really think the 22nd century will feature huge nuclear interplanetary liners using Starship-size landing craft that they will carry with them.
The problem is getting off Earth. A problem with Mars is 2.1 year launch window. Mars should use Venus to reduce it to 1 year.
Nuclear make more sense if using Venus, and could use nuclear to get to Venus sky. Nuclear in Earth LEO is not good. Nuclear rocket outside Earth’s atmosphere [LEO is in it] would be ok.
It seems if we are space faring, we will use Earth’s ocean to launch into space. This also applies to Earth having any significant amount of suborbital travel.
And it seems Equatorial LEO would be where Earthlings would live in Earth’s low Earth orbit.
Al Globus and Joe Strout would agree with that last point.
To be honest, I don’t think any of those things are true. Some may be tried short range (in this century), but none will last. To whit:
No nuclear in LEO will last only so long as some non-Western government doesn’t decide on it. But I don’t LEO is a good staging are for anything. I think nuclear interplanetary liners will initial stage from either GEO or EML1 (2 is too useful for other things), both of which can be reached from Earth without refueling.
I do not think LEO will be used for depots long range either, because you eitherhave to have thousands of small depots there, or dozens the size of supertankers, and that would be as bad as nuclear in LEO. I also think LEO constellations will fade away, even if nothing bad happens, and be replaced by ground infrastructure. Maybe day traders will have secure quantum entangled devices or something. Maybe they can call them ansibles!
I predict no one will be “living” in LEO, ever, other than a few small LEO stations, and probably those won’t outlast this century. For that reason, I predict ELEO will be short lived, if at all.
I think very long range, non-perishable resources, including water and “fuel” of various sorts will be sourced off Earth, parimarily in the Saturn system in the 22nd century (but also places like Callisto and the Jovian Trojans), mainly in the form of water, Titanian organics, and carbon compounds (CHONish stuff), and shipped via solar sail. It doesn’t matter how long it takes for product to transit a pipeline, so long as “stuff” keeps coming out the spigot.
If we never get hyperdrive, that’s the shape of human civilization for a long time to come. If we’re lucky.
“No nuclear in LEO will last only so long as some non-Western government doesn’t decide on it. But I don’t LEO is a good staging are for anything. I think nuclear interplanetary liners will initial stage from either GEO or EML1 (2 is too useful for other things), both of which can be reached from Earth without refueling. ”
Well I sort of agree that Nuclear is not great in LEO nor great in Low Venus orbit. So that alone should prevent people using nuclear in LEO, but entering and leaving Venus atmosphere [floating sky cities] is pretty hard and doubt using Nuclear Orion at 50 km elevation is much of a problem politically or has any practical issues.
“I do not think LEO will be used for depots long range either, because you either have to have thousands of small depots there, or dozens the size of supertankers, and that would be as bad as nuclear in LEO.”
I tend to think people will live in LEO [at zero inclination]. And I tend think rocket from Earth surface will get assisted boost from things like mass drivers, but it will still require a fair amount rocket power to get to space, so re-fuel in LEO. Stay in LEO, or go higher and refuel again.
And with mass driver and high gees, one can send rocket fuel to LEO.
Nothing bigger than ISS is likely to exist in LEO long term. No giant rotating space stations, no million-ton depots. So no one is ever going to “live” in LEO, E- or otherwise. What would it be like if a LEO depot with 1,500,000 tons (1000 starships worth) ruptured? I don’t believe Kessler was right, but having tens of trillions of snowflakes of CH4 and LOX hailstones in orbit. That’d make “Barney Rubble” look like a sneeze.
My general principle when judging ideas is, nothing will ever come of exotic proposals based on known physics. Not floating cities on Venus, not space elevators, not momentum transfer tethers. Pretty much the 21st century is going to be spent evolving the the technology Arthur C. Clarke descibes in “The Sands of Mars.” Multistage reusable rocket ships and nuclear powered interplanetary liners. I could see a magnetic induction catapult on the Moon, but on Earth? Not without a magic underwater or underground vacuum cannon, with its muzzle somehow above the tropopause. Anyway, it’s completely unnecessary. Off-earth resources will soon provide the fuel, or, if not, we won’t build a spacegoing civilization, and might as well stay home where we can jack off and murder one another until Kingdom Come.
By LEO at zero inclination I would include orbits higher than 500 km.
So could have satellites and depots lower than 500 km, living is +500 km.
So, satellites less than 500 and satellite higher then say 2000 km. And living in LEO is 500 to 2000 km at zero inclination orbit.
You could have living spaces as small as ISS under 600 km and much bigger one at +1000 km.
I was thinking one could reflect sunlight to Solar farms on Earth to extend the 6 hour peak solar hours the get so they get 10 or 12 hours of peak solar power. The reflectors could at 10,000 km. These being higher could reflect sunlight to people living in LEO during some of there time in night, if at say 1000 km elevation.
ISS gets about 60% of 90 min orbit in sunlight, at 1000 km, one would get higher percent but longer duration or orbit. And at 10,000 km the orbital period is about 6 hours- and also gets a higher percentage of daylight.
Or at 1000 km you going to have more night, and if reduced it reflecting sunlight from above, less battery power is needed.