Fantastic content as always, concise and clear. Both you, Marcus House and Scott Manley help us keep up with the rapid pace of rocket development. It's pretty incredible to see just how crowded the field is getting as this new space race heats up. Thank you for your hard work!
Eine interessante Entwicklung die Du hier aufzeigst. Leider werden die Aktivitäten Chinas in Europa nicht oder nur sehr unauffällig gezeigt. Es ist gut das es Dich gibt!
Thanks Ronolein 😊 There’s also Jacqueline Myrrhe (German speaker!) who is based in Europe and has been covering Chinese activities through the website GoTaikonauts
China needs to push hard to develop reusable strap-on boosters. In terms of difficulty and benefit, It’s a good stepping stone towards first stage reusability plus would ramp up payload capacity for many of the rockets. A strap-on booster does not need the complexity of a high efficiency pump&engine. It returns from a lower speed and altitude and down range distance than a first stage. It’s smaller than a first stage making landing easier and stress loads smaller. One strap-on booster design can be used with minor mods on many different rockets plus multiple strap-on boosters allows for a scalable difference. And with a widely used strap-on booster, economies of scale are achieved plus learning curve is completed faster and more complete. A shortage of launch pads can be mitigated by strap-on boosters to double payload sizes
Thanks Doug, that’s a really interesting perspective. Do you know if there are any launch companies elsewhere going for a “strap-on booster first” strategy for reusable rockets?
@@DongfangHour … I don’t know of any companies pursuing this path forward … but it does make a lot of sense. It could even allow a rocket design that uses strap-on boosters to lift it above the atmosphere with a few thousand Km/hr initial velocity before the first stage is ignited. This allows the rocket design to bypass the atmospheric trade offs including vacuum optimized engine nozzles, inefficiencies of throttling back due to air pressure, plus accelerating in the wrong direction just to get above the atmosphere. Another way to roughly underestimate the value is consider the amount of propellent required to accelerate the rocket that last few thousand Km/hr and replace it with that much extra payload in orbit. It comes down to cost. If reliable reusable strap-on boosters are quickly turned around with reasonable maintenance cost, then the added cost per launch versus added payload per launch would be much improved compared to cost per Kg of payload to orbit without it. An interesting cost perspective is to equate it to $1000/Kg payload for the rocket and $200/Kg payload for the extra payload due to boosters. This is just the beginning of possibilities for low cost reusable strap-on boosters.
End of the day the long march rockets are largely derivations/variants of a set of core technologies, YF-100 and YF-20 for the core stages with the low volume more specialised YF-77 for heavy work. The Chinese seem to shy away (for now) from large SRBs so the 'old/low tech' YF-20 powered LM2/3/4 provides a lower cost means of getting the day to day work done and as proven technology the failure rates are low. After all its about getting a payload successfully into orbit without breaking the bank not whether its the latest shiniest re-usable gizmo. As China's satellite bus technology gets bigger, heavier and more feature rich or there's a need to build out massive constellations and the LM6/7/8s get more mature then there will be a shift and move to migrate away from the old work horses till then everything has it's place! It's easy to paint space as a race but satellites are put into orbit for a reason not brownie points. As for launch pad capacity don't think that's really an issue for a country that throws of infrastructure like kids play with LEGO!
Great insight! Besides technical explanation you mentioned in the video, perhaps there is a more tangible reason from politics perspective. Given there is a R&D team behind each rocket type, ranging from PM, chief designer from the top down to front line engineers, their career is tightly tied the rocket they are working on, more missions for a rocket means a lot for those peoples. It's always been much harder to decommission a rocket than asking for more money to develop a brand new rocket, so the curve in the video might have very long flat tail .... 😄
In China, a man named Ma Chao said that China has too many medium-sized rocket models, far exceeding the sum of the United States and Russia. We should concentrate on developing a rocket similar to Falcon 9, which will completely replace the complicated models.
Sir ISRO🇮🇳 have 2 more rockets in addition to the rockets you have shown 0:12 namely SSLV & NSLV, moreover ISRO is currently developing Heavy & Super Heavy Lift Launch-Vehicle, I know that China will still have more number of rockets even after adding two more rockets & I appreciate that, but I wrote this so that every space enthusiast know of right info & full info. Extra info: If you are thinking that whether ISRO is also working on reusable rockets or not, than yes it is working but at a slow pace and I think Indian private space companies will develope reusable rockets before ISRO. Love watching your videos Sir! You are the only hope to get detailed info about Chinese Space Program. Thanks for posting 💕
SSLV didn't make into orbit yet so it not yet an Active launcher. I didn't find any info about NSLV so I assume it haven't launched yet. If we consider all testing phase rockets. China currently has state funded design of CZ10 Family (NGCLV/CZ5DY) CZ9 Family, 3 more varient of CZ6A family, CZ6X, CZ8R, CZ7AE Rockets in testing phase or design phase from commercial sector will probably another 30+ models
It should also be noted that these state owned enterprises want employment, so discontinuing the use of a rocket means the loss of many stable, high paying jobs. It's the same reason behind why SLS is a job creator first, efficient space project second. Like you formally mentioned in your podcasts, its hard for these kinds of things to close for good.
You must be American, always thinking of war and killing others. 90 wars in 40 years is not enough for you. Killing more than 19 million people in that time has not satisfied your bloodlust?
@@theone8189 More importantly, Japan surrendered Taiwan to the KMT not the PRC which didn't exist at the time. And to this day, the KMT still holds Formosa for its own, as well as other islands. There for, Taiwan is an independent country still.
@@phatrick8848 China was KMT. KMT was China. Everyone everywhere thought that KMT was China, and vice versa. Why did KMT still claim China until recently?....
I am a Chinese and I think you may have made some mistakes. First of all, we are conservative in everything we do. The first task is to complete the task, not to adopt any new technology. It is not that we do not have new technology. If some country comes up with a better technology, we won't mind using it, the road that others have already taken and proven will be a shortcut, which will save a lot of work. Everyone else is collaborative and we are basically doing it alone because of all kinds of prejudices and hegemonism. This makes our research and development very difficult. The advantage is that we don't have to look at anyone, and we can get everything done within our territory. We're still a little bit behind the world's top industries, and that's not scary because we're trying to catch up. Basically, we're one country competing against every industry category in the world. Because if we can't do one thing, those who are biased will think that we are not skilled, it is ridiculous to think. But it doesn't matter, now it is our country except the US. The US is hegemonic by guns and guns, but we always think about how to cooperate with each other to win. This is a fundamental difference in thought. We're thinking about the long term.
Regarding the "there isn't enough room for 15 different commercial launch startups to coexist" issue, I'm going to disagree with you. When the Chinese government demands competition in a specific market, it will make sure that it happens. This is why Alibaba and Ant and so on were deliberately broken up: because the Chinese government felt that these companies had grown too big for the public good and had to be knocked down a peg or two.
Hmm, I understand the idea of breaking up tech giants, but I'm not sure this is what is at stake here. The 15+ companies are the result of policies relaxing control, inducing a sharp increase in the number of companies (supported by VC money), followed by a consolidation. If we are going for a parallel with the Chinese tech sector, I think a better example is ride-hailing in China in the early 2010s, when there was lots of players like Kuaidi, Didi, Uber, ... In the end, they ended up merging into one massive player, Didi Chuxing.
![FendiDa Rappa - Clock Dat ft. Shamar Marco [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3NBU8KHdxYY/mqdefault.jpg)
Keep exploring at brilliant.org/DongfangHour/. Get started for free, and hurry-the first 200 people get 20% off an annual premium subscription!
China's space development is amazingly impressive. More interesting stories from 2023. Keep up the excellent work.
Thanks Sarah!
I can't wait to see the reusable rockets.
space x is already way ahead of everyone
Fantastic content as always, concise and clear. Both you, Marcus House and Scott Manley help us keep up with the rapid pace of rocket development. It's pretty incredible to see just how crowded the field is getting as this new space race heats up. Thank you for your hard work!
Thanks John, what a compliment to be compared to Marcus House and Scott Manley!
another succinct and beautifully explained video. happy new year.
Eine interessante Entwicklung die Du hier aufzeigst. Leider werden die Aktivitäten Chinas in Europa nicht oder nur sehr unauffällig gezeigt. Es ist gut das es Dich gibt!
Thanks Ronolein 😊 There’s also Jacqueline Myrrhe (German speaker!) who is based in Europe and has been covering Chinese activities through the website GoTaikonauts
Well explained
🎉🎉🎉good perspective!
China needs to push hard to develop reusable strap-on boosters. In terms of difficulty and benefit, It’s a good stepping stone towards first stage reusability plus would ramp up payload capacity for many of the rockets. A strap-on booster does not need the complexity of a high efficiency pump&engine. It returns from a lower speed and altitude and down range distance than a first stage. It’s smaller than a first stage making landing easier and stress loads smaller. One strap-on booster design can be used with minor mods on many different rockets plus multiple strap-on boosters allows for a scalable difference. And with a widely used strap-on booster, economies of scale are achieved plus learning curve is completed faster and more complete. A shortage of launch pads can be mitigated by strap-on boosters to double payload sizes
Thanks Doug, that’s a really interesting perspective. Do you know if there are any launch companies elsewhere going for a “strap-on booster first” strategy for reusable rockets?
@@DongfangHour … I don’t know of any companies pursuing this path forward … but it does make a lot of sense. It could even allow a rocket design that uses strap-on boosters to lift it above the atmosphere with a few thousand Km/hr initial velocity before the first stage is ignited. This allows the rocket design to bypass the atmospheric trade offs including vacuum optimized engine nozzles, inefficiencies of throttling back due to air pressure, plus accelerating in the wrong direction just to get above the atmosphere. Another way to roughly underestimate the value is consider the amount of propellent required to accelerate the rocket that last few thousand Km/hr and replace it with that much extra payload in orbit.
It comes down to cost. If reliable reusable strap-on boosters are quickly turned around with reasonable maintenance cost, then the added cost per launch versus added payload per launch would be much improved compared to cost per Kg of payload to orbit without it. An interesting cost perspective is to equate it to $1000/Kg payload for the rocket and $200/Kg payload for the extra payload due to boosters.
This is just the beginning of possibilities for low cost reusable strap-on boosters.
End of the day the long march rockets are largely derivations/variants of a set of core technologies, YF-100 and YF-20 for the core stages with the low volume more specialised YF-77 for heavy work. The Chinese seem to shy away (for now) from large SRBs so the 'old/low tech' YF-20 powered LM2/3/4 provides a lower cost means of getting the day to day work done and as proven technology the failure rates are low. After all its about getting a payload successfully into orbit without breaking the bank not whether its the latest shiniest re-usable gizmo. As China's satellite bus technology gets bigger, heavier and more feature rich or there's a need to build out massive constellations and the LM6/7/8s get more mature then there will be a shift and move to migrate away from the old work horses till then everything has it's place! It's easy to paint space as a race but satellites are put into orbit for a reason not brownie points. As for launch pad capacity don't think that's really an issue for a country that throws of infrastructure like kids play with LEGO!
Glad to see the video👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Keep up the content! Really great videos from your channel, the only thing is that this deserves more likes and views!
Man I was waiting for your new upload,... Your videos are always good
Thanks Edie!
Another great video, really interesting
Thank you for the informative video🙏👍🙂
notice that the US also includes commercial rockets.
Another terrific video as always!
Great insight! Besides technical explanation you mentioned in the video, perhaps there is a more tangible reason from politics perspective. Given there is a R&D team behind each rocket type, ranging from PM, chief designer from the top down to front line engineers, their career is tightly tied the rocket they are working on, more missions for a rocket means a lot for those peoples. It's always been much harder to decommission a rocket than asking for more money to develop a brand new rocket, so the curve in the video might have very long flat tail .... 😄
That’s a good point!
@@DongfangHour Not true... That's not how it works in China. I have first hand knowledge
I like Chinese rockets! More! Preferably with modular strap-on boosters; can't get anywhere without those..
Love the China focus of this channel!! Really makes it stand out
Great video !
In China, a man named Ma Chao said that China has too many medium-sized rocket models, far exceeding the sum of the United States and Russia. We should concentrate on developing a rocket similar to Falcon 9, which will completely replace the complicated models.
Great content, thanks Jean
Thanks Guillaume!
Very simple, each type is assigned to a specific function, more economical
More info about space launch site please and their expansion!
China is working toward keeping the world in peace in many difference areas.
Please provide point to point sub orbital space craft which will change the whole aero space competition.
*First country to land a man on Mars wins the Modern Space Race*
and makes the 1969 Moon landing look like a hop over a puddle in the road.
Sir ISRO🇮🇳 have 2 more rockets in addition to the rockets you have shown 0:12 namely SSLV & NSLV, moreover ISRO is currently developing Heavy & Super Heavy Lift Launch-Vehicle, I know that China will still have more number of rockets even after adding two more rockets & I appreciate that, but I wrote this so that every space enthusiast know of right info & full info.
Extra info: If you are thinking that whether ISRO is also working on reusable rockets or not, than yes it is working but at a slow pace and I think Indian private space companies will develope reusable rockets before ISRO.
Love watching your videos Sir! You are the only hope to get detailed info about Chinese Space Program. Thanks for posting 💕
SSLV didn't make into orbit yet so it not yet an Active launcher. I didn't find any info about NSLV so I assume it haven't launched yet.
If we consider all testing phase rockets. China currently has state funded design of CZ10 Family (NGCLV/CZ5DY) CZ9 Family, 3 more varient of CZ6A family, CZ6X, CZ8R, CZ7AE
Rockets in testing phase or design phase from commercial sector will probably another 30+ models
👍👍👍👍
I can't wait for China Atlantis ✌️✌️✌️
Taiwan is a country
在中国，有一个叫马超的人，说中国的中型火箭型号太多了，远远超过美俄两国之和。应该集中精力，开发一款类似猎鹰9号的火箭，全部替代掉繁杂的型号。
More to come I suppose.
❤️🙏🏻
hi folks, Free Documentary "Exploring the Final Frontier, The Journey of the Long March into Space." Free Documentary is the channel name.
Taiwan is a country
How come not in UN.@@phatrick8848
Fantastic video, and very informative. Keep up the good work
I thought Japan don't have their own rocket
It should also be noted that these state owned enterprises want employment, so discontinuing the use of a rocket means the loss of many stable, high paying jobs. It's the same reason behind why SLS is a job creator first, efficient space project second. Like you formally mentioned in your podcasts, its hard for these kinds of things to close for good.
Good to have different ones to carry different warheads.
You must be American, always thinking of war and killing others. 90 wars in 40 years is not enough for you. Killing more than 19 million people in that time has not satisfied your bloodlust?
Persimon 🤭👈💯💓🇨🇳💪
Чжунго.🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳💪💪💪💪💪👍👍👍👍👍
Taiwan is a country
Cuz they have PTSDs of being bullied by other countries so they became a bunch of try-hards (on everything)😂😂😂
Great China rocket is for self defence.
Taiwan is a country
Because too many rocket scientists in China.😆😅🤣😂
Taiwan is a country
@@phatrick8848 Japan returned Taiwan to China after WWII, not KMT.
@@theone8189 More importantly, Japan surrendered Taiwan to the KMT not the PRC which didn't exist at the time. And to this day, the KMT still holds Formosa for its own, as well as other islands. There for, Taiwan is an independent country still.
@@phatrick8848 China was KMT. KMT was China. Everyone everywhere thought that KMT was China, and vice versa. Why did KMT still claim China until recently?....
Why are you people so much against China?
Taiwan is a country
The reason is simple. China spends the money for making missile to make rickets 🚀
promo sm
Taiwan is a country
I am a Chinese and I think you may have made some mistakes. First of all, we are conservative in everything we do. The first task is to complete the task, not to adopt any new technology. It is not that we do not have new technology. If some country comes up with a better technology, we won't mind using it, the road that others have already taken and proven will be a shortcut, which will save a lot of work. Everyone else is collaborative and we are basically doing it alone because of all kinds of prejudices and hegemonism. This makes our research and development very difficult. The advantage is that we don't have to look at anyone, and we can get everything done within our territory. We're still a little bit behind the world's top industries, and that's not scary because we're trying to catch up. Basically, we're one country competing against every industry category in the world. Because if we can't do one thing, those who are biased will think that we are not skilled, it is ridiculous to think. But it doesn't matter, now it is our country except the US. The US is hegemonic by guns and guns, but we always think about how to cooperate with each other to win. This is a fundamental difference in thought. We're thinking about the long term.
不要吓跑人！🤭🙏🇨🇳💪👈
❤❤Very enlightening.. thanks Jean🙏😘㊗️🧧❗️
Taiwan is a country
Regarding the "there isn't enough room for 15 different commercial launch startups to coexist" issue, I'm going to disagree with you. When the Chinese government demands competition in a specific market, it will make sure that it happens. This is why Alibaba and Ant and so on were deliberately broken up: because the Chinese government felt that these companies had grown too big for the public good and had to be knocked down a peg or two.
Hmm, I understand the idea of breaking up tech giants, but I'm not sure this is what is at stake here. The 15+ companies are the result of policies relaxing control, inducing a sharp increase in the number of companies (supported by VC money), followed by a consolidation.
If we are going for a parallel with the Chinese tech sector, I think a better example is ride-hailing in China in the early 2010s, when there was lots of players like Kuaidi, Didi, Uber, ... In the end, they ended up merging into one massive player, Didi Chuxing.