China wants its new rocket for astronaut launches to be reusable

[Huxter]

China is planning for its next-generation crew launch vehicle for missions to its space station and the moon to have a reusable first stage.


The new rocket would allow a reusable launch option for sending astronauts or cargo to China's new Tiangong space station, while a larger version would allow China to send crew on lunar and deep space missions.

It will also be capable of carrying a new, larger spacecraft than the Shenzhou currently used by the China National Space Administration for crewed missions, according to the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC), the country's main space contractor.

Notice the tight-wire landing:

 

[Huxter]

forgot the link:
https://www.space.com/china-reusable-rockets-for-astronaut-launches

 

[Funkworks]

I think any mission from one planet (or moon) to another should be done in 3 totally different vehicles:

1. planet A to orbit A (reusable Falcon 9 or something like it)
2. orbit A to orbit B (a bigger transport that never lands, like the ISS, and is therefore reusable)
3. orbit B to planet B (like the Eagle lunar lander or bigger)

My point is that the main planet-to-planet transport should never land. That makes it reusable.

 

[MClark]

So they are going to land it on a trampoline?
This will be fun to watch.

 

[Huxter]

The Lunar Gateway has those components. I really hope it comes to fruition.

 

[Bravo52]

I think any mission from one planet (or moon) to another should be done in 3 totally different vehicles:

1. planet A to orbit A (reusable Falcon 9 or something like it)
2. orbit A to orbit B (a bigger transport that never lands, like the ISS, and is therefore reusable)
3. orbit B to planet B (like the Eagle lunar lander or bigger)

My point is that the main planet-to-planet transport should never land. That makes it reusable.

Given the absolute incredible amount of energy needed to escape our atmosphere, at least with today's technology, I think you are spot on. The Saturn V was big for a reason. The SpaceX Starship is better, but still not enough.

 

[georgegassaway]

I think any mission from one planet (or moon) to another should be done in 3 totally different vehicles:

1. planet A to orbit A (reusable Falcon 9 or something like it)
2. orbit A to orbit B (a bigger transport that never lands, like the ISS, and is therefore reusable)
3. orbit B to planet B (like the Eagle lunar lander or bigger)

My point is that the main planet-to-planet transport should never land. That makes it reusable.

The article is about their first stage booster.

The massive problem with Artemis, is that three totally separate launch vehicles have to be used.

One, to launch the Lunar Gateway. Which at first seems required for any landing misison, but now is for "later". I'd take a guess at later becoming never.

Two, to launch the Lander. Which is supposed to be Starship, which "Elon" said in June 2021 was going to launch in July 2021. It ain't nowhere near to doing its orbital launch attempt yet. It will require about 8 to 10 Starship launches in VERY rapid succession, with Earth orbital refueling (which has been done zero times in orbit, by nobody), to fill up with enough fuel to get to the moon, land, and get back into lunar orbit to transfer the crew. 8 to 10 launches that have to happen pretty quickly in order not to lose too much fuel due to heating and venting. One "bad landing" by the booster using the unproven landing chopsticks, and that ruins it all (note how well the Trapeze Net method for ships catching the fairings dry worked out. So rarely, they gave up). Start over, but not till after pad rebuild delays.

Three, Artemis launch onboard SLS, flying itself to the moon, and docking with the Lander (Starship), or in theory a later one docking with the Lunar Gateway. Without Starship, it's worthless. And with Starship waiting in lunar orbit, then if Artemis launch was delayed for a month (mission windows are likely only 1-3 days per lunar cycle as per Apollo), probably too much standby fuel loss in Starship to land and take off safely, so scratch the whole mission and start over with a new StartShip launch and all the refueling flights, all over again.

It was SO simple, in relative terms, for the Saturn-V to do it. One launch of everything needed. TLI burn toward the moon, only about 90 minutes after the mission started, not weeks. People blame SLS for the delay. Boy, wait till Starship ends up being the massive holdup of everything. I was shocked when NASA chose that to begin with, as the only game in town, no plan B like there was supposed to be.

 

[Funkworks]

... The Saturn V was big for a reason. The SpaceX Starship is better, but still not enough.

Yes well I guess everything so far has been a prototype so IMO it's all good as long as there's progress.

 

[Peartree]

I was shocked when NASA chose that to begin with, as the only game in town, no plan B like there was supposed to be.

Blame congress for the budget. As they say, " No bucks, no Buck Rogers."