China successfully tested prototype reusable rocket

Linkspace, a Chinese private rocket company, has successfully tested the RLV-T5 reusable launch vehicle. During the test, the rocket climbed to a height of 300 meters, after which it made a soft landing at the launch site. This was reported by the press service of the company.

Linkspace, a Chinese company, has successfully tested the RLV-T5 reusable rocket technology demonstrator, during which it was able to successfully land a rocket that took off. According to the company, during the tests several key technologies of reusable missiles were tested, including ignition and descent, as well as parallel connection of several engines.

The RLV-T5 rocket 8,1 meters long rose to a predetermined height 300 meters, and then landed with an accuracy of 7 centimeters, the flight lasted 50 seconds. This is a new milestone in Chinese research on reusable rockets

- stated in the company.

It is noted that Linkspace specialists are developing a Newline-1 light-class launch vehicle consisting of two stages. The company chose the same scheme that SpaceX uses in the Falcon 9 - the first stage will be reusable and after separation it will return to a special site. It is planned to use the rocket for launching microsatellites of the CubeSat type into low Earth orbit, which will greatly reduce the cost of launches compared with launching on orbit on medium and heavy class rockets. According to representatives of Linkspace, the first stage of the rocket can be used at least 100 times.

On the prototype demonstrator RLV-T5, the company is developing the technology of reactive landing of the first stage. It is equipped with five liquid propellant rocket engines powered by ethanol and liquid oxygen. The prototype has a height of 8,1 meters and a diameter of 65 centimeters.

Comments

[Valerik1337]

Reusable missiles are not profitable. Our scientists counted everything back in the Soviet Union, it’s a pity our Chinese brothers still haven’t

[Svarog]

Quote: Valerik1337

Reusable missiles are not profitable.

Why is it not profitable? The engine is the most expensive part is used repeatedly, which means significant savings.

[major147]

Quote: Svarog

Quote: Valerik1337

Reusable missiles are not profitable.

Why is it not profitable? The engine is the most expensive part is used repeatedly, which means significant savings.

It reminded me of an old joke.
Petka runs into the hut and shouts to Vasily Ivanovich: "Whites are in the garden !!!!!"
Vasily Ivanovich calmly says to him: "Take a grenade behind the stove and blow them up."
Petka grabs a grenade, runs out into the yard. Explosion!!!!
Petka returns to the hut, shakes off.
-Vasily Ivanovich: "You blew it up ?!"
-Petka: "I blew it up!"
-Vasily Ivanovich: "Put the grenade back!"

[ALEX_SHTURMAN]

Not only the Falcon9 one fairing engine costs 6 million S and the first stage itself is 60% of the cost of the entire rocket. So returning is very profitable, not only by the way from an economic point of view, but also less polluting nature !. But it is useless to explain to those who believe in the holy Inquisition and the wise comrade Rogozin.

[slipped]

Quote: ALEX_SHTURMAN

Not only the Falcon9 one fairing engine costs 6 million S and the first stage itself is 60% of the cost of the entire rocket.

Oh these sectarians The 14S737 head fairing from Soyuz-2 costs ~ $ 1,8 million, the 14S75 Proton-M head fairing costs ~ $ 2,9 million.

Quote: ALEX_SHTURMAN

So returning is very profitable, not only by the way from an economic point of view, but also less polluting nature !. But it is useless to explain to those who believe in the holy Inquisition and the wise comrade Rogozin.

Reusability is beneficial where it is beneficial. If it is NOT profitable, such reusability is not needed.

[ALEX_SHTURMAN]

6 MILLION S stands Falcon fairing rocket9 If you are already criticizing, read carefully. And who said that reusability is needed in everything? Only now we don’t have it anywhere, yet say it from a great mind and everything was calculated by Soviet scientists. It’s not at all clever not to notice that the whole World is on the path of developing reusable missiles. We have been sawing the Angara for 30 years. SpaceX was created in 2001. 20 years have not passed, they have already made the heaviest rocket of our time FalconHeavy and on start-ups they have caught up with the entire Roskosmos. Why reusability is not profitable; see examples? So you wrote that the fairing of the Union 2 million S is that not money? Some engineers have not received so much in their entire lives, why not even bring back at least a fairing? If you can’t plant steps yet.

[slipped]

Quote: ALEX_SHTURMAN

6 MILLION S stands Falcon fairing rocket9 If you are already criticizing, read carefully. And who said that reusability is needed in everything?

You.

Quote: ALEX_SHTURMAN

Only now we don’t have it anywhere, yet say it from a great mind and everything was calculated by Soviet scientists. It’s not at all clever not to notice that the whole World is on the path of developing reusable missiles.

And they have no option. We have options.

Quote: ALEX_SHTURMAN

We have been sawing the Angara for 30 years. SpaceX was created in 2001. 20 years have not passed, they have already made the heaviest rocket of our time FalconHeavy and on start-ups they have caught up with the entire Roskosmos.

They also have no options, I also want to eat.

Quote: ALEX_SHTURMAN

Why reusability is not profitable; see examples?

So you yourself wrote about the cost of GO. Let's say it is certified for three starts. Then it will be equal to ours, one-time, at a cost.

Quote: ALEX_SHTURMAN

So you wrote that the fairing of the Union 2 million S is that not money?

Money, and if reusability only raises its price? After all, it will have to be made from other, more expensive materials, to calculate the logistics of its delivery and restoration. Didn’t you think about it?

Quote: ALEX_SHTURMAN

Some engineers have not received so much in their entire lives, why not even bring back at least a fairing? If you can’t plant steps yet.

We know the technology, we’ll plant it if such a need arises.

[ALEX_SHTURMAN]

Some laughter, nothing concrete. What would it cost to catch a fairing that will descend by parachute and then check it for defects and how much do you think it should cost? If it is Comrade Serdyukov or Rogozin who will refuel it there, of course, it will increase its price once every 20 if not 100. If normal engineers put a parachute there and a sling tension system with servos to control this ashtray, you can catch it with a helicopter, you can land it in the net. Laugh further, and Roskosmos will continue to lose foreign customers, the cost of launching Falcon9 is now 50 million S and will only continue to decline, no one in the world can offer lower prices!

[slipped]

Quote: ALEX_SHTURMAN

Some laughter, nothing concrete.

They brought you specific numbers, starting from your own statement.

Quote: ALEX_SHTURMAN

What would it cost to catch a fairing that will descend by parachute and then check it for defects and how much do you think it should cost?

To make a fairing from an expensive material that allows its repeated use, to install a rescue system on it, thereby making it heavier, to pay for the logistics of delivering it back to the factory for fault detection ... He prays that it does not collapse when reused. And in the end, get the cost as a one-time "Soyuzovsky" .... hmm. Probably there - it is justified.

Quote: ALEX_SHTURMAN

If it is Comrade Serdyukov or Rogozin who will charge it there, of course, it will rise in price once every 20 if not 100.

the question is, why raise the cost?

Quote: ALEX_SHTURMAN

If normal engineers put a parachute there and a sling tension system with servos to control this pepelats, you can catch it with a helicopter, you can land in the net.

A normal engineer? Then tell me, how much does your "parachute system and line tensioning system" weigh and how much you weighed the fairing in the attachment points of this system? And then ask yourself a question - will the current rocket body withstand such a fairing and how much it is necessary to force the engines. The simplest questions for a "normal engineer" aren't they?

Quote: ALEX_SHTURMAN

Laugh further, and Roskosmos will continue to lose foreign customers, the cost of launching Falcon9 is now 50 million S and will only continue to decline, no one in the world can offer lower prices!

"And it will only continue to decline" until it drops to zero, and then turns into a minus ... And so yes, in September we launched commercial vehicles.

[ALEX_SHTURMAN]

Listen, I don’t want to turn this into an endless debate, and I only wish good and new achievements to our Cosmonautics, but they seem to be either completely absent or very few. I am a little familiar with technology the engineer himself, worked for almost 10 years on the same RKK; believe me, with a competent approach, a diffekting system will not take a week, all control methods include various calls, microcrack scanners, etc. Yes, this work can be assigned to students from the same Baumansky or MAI. The entire parachute system with servos will weight the structure by a maximum of 500 kg and let the whole process cost a fairing in two. But it will pay off at the first restart, and then only incrementally. And time in production will be saved. But you know why this will not be done, and not because it cannot be done, but because no one will take responsibility, we don’t have Korolevs there right now. Therefore, the module Science MLM has been lying on the Earth for 20 years and the PTC has been sawing a new one for 20 years. But if this happens further, believe this is a dead end, if you do not pose any challenges, new achievements, you first lose development, and then completely the ability to invent something new. You can’t fly missiles from the mid-21th in the 20st century.

[slipped]

Quote: ALEX_SHTURMAN

Listen, I don’t want to turn this into an endless debate, and I only wish good and new achievements to our Cosmonautics, but they seem to be either completely absent or very few.

For as much as there is money for.

Quote: ALEX_SHTURMAN

I am a little familiar with technology the engineer himself, worked for almost 10 years on the same RKK; believe me, with a competent approach, a diffekting system will not take a week, all control methods include various calls, microcrack scanners, etc. Yes, this work can be assigned to students from the same Baumansky or MAI.

Oh, how .... So it was already: "Turn it, I myself am a Crimean, I have lived here for 50 years. The daughter of an officer. Just turn it around - in our Crimea, not everything is so simple."

Quote: ALEX_SHTURMAN

The entire parachute system with servos will weight the structure by a maximum of 500 kg and let the whole process cost a fairing in two. But it will pay off at the first restart, and then only incrementally. And time in production will be saved.

So let's write, minus a ton of payload into orbit. The cost of a kilogram increases significantly. Horror. This was called wrecking in the early years of the last century.

And now I give you a modern engineering idea - let's say we just start printing a new head fairing on a 3D printer. And the production will be saved and the cost will be even lower.

Quote: ALEX_SHTURMAN

But you know why this will not be done, and not because it cannot be done, but because no one will take responsibility, we don’t have Korolevs there right now.

I wrote why above. Why create any nonsense.

Quote: ALEX_SHTURMAN

Therefore, the module Science MLM has been lying on the Earth for 20 years and the PTC has been sawing a new one for 20 years.

Not for that. Write at least the abbreviation IMHO to your fantasies.

Quote: ALEX_SHTURMAN

But if this happens further, believe this is a dead end, if you do not pose any challenges, new achievements, you first lose development, and then completely the ability to invent something new. You can’t fly missiles from the mid-21th in the 20st century.

You don’t have to fly at all. As the brothers did not make themselves Svidomo bone. They have the only satellite already had a warranty period on Earth. Well, or graze sheep at the place of the cosmodrome.

[ALEX_SHTURMAN]

Sorry, you don’t understand anything at all in rocket technology .. + 500kg in a rocket doesn’t mean -500 in orbit))) Teach physics. This is not considered so. Do you even know what the characteristic velocity of a rocket is, Specific impulse of the engine, orbit parameters. Propaganda is very deeply embedded in your brain, I'm sorry I do not communicate with you.

[slipped]

Quote: ALEX_SHTURMAN

Sorry, you don’t understand anything at all in rocket technology .. + 500kg in a rocket doesn’t mean -500 in orbit))) Teach physics. This is not considered so. Do you even know what the characteristic velocity of a rocket is, Specific impulse of the engine, orbit parameters. Propaganda is very deeply embedded in your brain, I'm sorry I do not communicate with you.

I'm sorry. My message was different. Consist of a sect does not understand.

[Infinity]

Quote: slipped

Oh, these sectarians lol Soyuz-14's 737S2 head fairing costs ~ $ 1,8 million, the 14S75 Proton-M head fairing costs $ 2,9 million.

6 million, as I understand it, in the returned version. Which requires extra. equipment, unlike disposable.

As for the cost of fairings, there is nothing unusual here. There is such an important factor that everyone forgets when comparing the cost of technology. This factor is purely economic. People need a fairing, and they need to pay a salary. In absolute terms, their salary in the United States is quite large by Russian standards. But they are not very wealthy, do not think, - everyday goods, products and services are also more expensive, and also because of this factor. And purely on the Russian salary there can’t live. So, the final cost includes all production costs (including these patches) and the cost of resources, parts, energy and logistics, etc. (and all this is also included in them). And so in the money it turns out much more expensive. That is why goods manufactured in the USA, Canada or Western Europe always will be more expensive than the same Russian, Chinese, etc.! With similar specifications!
By the way, because of this factor, large Western companies often locate production in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc. The lower the amount of costs, the lower the cost of the final product.

[ALEX_SHTURMAN]

In addition to any economic reasons, there is also a time factor. Reusable missiles significantly save time, in the future, after landing, the missile can be used in the same way as an airplane after small pre-flight checks and refueling. There is the possibility of suborbital flights on an intercontinental range, the flight Moscow-Vladivostok will take about 40 minutes. This is a completely new mode of transport! You can’t stand still, you need to move forward. Large projects provide great opportunities and great discoveries, but if we remain in the 20th century, we will unfortunately most likely disappear as a civilization. Why I like Musk, he has a dream Mars! And he brings it closer every day. For the sake of such a dream, I want to live and work, maybe even die! Russia needs big projects, it’s always interesting for Russians to do something big and very important, without it we will wither!

[Katanikotael]

you just hit your head against a wall there, what suborbital transport flights? Firstly, there are terrible overloads, and secondly, ask how much fuel is burned, plus how much fuel you will need to land in a given place, plus how much more fuel you need to burn to compensate for engine power to increased weight.
IMHO the first stage should be in the form of a nuclear fuel glider.
Overloading the first stage will only lead to an additional intermediate stage which eliminates all the utility of the return value of the engine of the first stage.

[ALEX_SHTURMAN]

Before being rude, just watch the first step of Falcon 9 return to Earth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgyYJJr35Yk&t=54s
Overloads there will be minimal, because the stage turns on the engines (slows down) when entering the atmosphere, thereby reducing overloads and thermal heating. Then the air rudders unfold and the atmosphere itself slows down the ship. Fuel is burned to return about 20 tons; only three out of 9 engines are used, which are turned on for a short time. Calculate the cost of 20 tons of Kerasin and the cost of 9 rocket engines + the first stage itself.

[Katanikotael]

Did I write somewhere about the price of fuel? No, I wrote about the excess weight of this fuel, which in turn dictates an increase in engine power and an even greater amount of fuel - 20 tons of kerosene plus three times more liquid oxygen is spent only, as you noticed, on braking in the upper atmosphere, but a rocket still have to land exactly at the indicated location.
The cost of first-stage engines somehow does not bother me, their return worked back in the 80s.

[ALEX_SHTURMAN]

20t is the total cost of kerosene + 2.7x20 oxygen. You can calculate the time to turn on the Falkon9 propulsion system at the stage of returning the video in nete fully. This flow rate is very high, so I roughly took the Merlin engine consumption 4 times less than the Saturn F1 rocket. In fact, it is throttled; the thrust changes; first one engine turns on, then another 2 also turn off. Excess weight Well, it depends on how you look in the one-time version, it is overweight, but in the reusable one it isn’t needed for return. You can argue about the numbers and costs, since no one knows the exact data, but this is definitely not 30-40 flights like gov. one person

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: slipped

Reusability is beneficial where it is beneficial. If it is NOT profitable, such reusability is not needed.

Well, now everything has become disposable, and it started from the "west": disposable (some kind of "cardboard" ...) mobile phones, laptops ... And before that condoms were reusable! Yes, and our president .... isn't he reusable?

[trenkkvaz]

Why did they stick to Rogozin? You might think he is sitting there and deliberately intrigues building the space industry - "he he he he I will not build reusable rockets, because I am evil."
First of all, the development of such missiles is billions, and their allocation is not in Rogozin’s competence.
And secondly, the development of such missiles, it is again to go on the occasion of someone else's idea, which is not a fact that will pay for itself.
There was already an idea with shuttles. When the US began to build them, and we repeat.
So what ? Billions perished on Buran, and then the United States itself abandoned this idea.
Does anyone give a guarantee that reusable missiles are not like a dead end branch?

[NF68]

Quote: Svarog

The engine is the most expensive part is used repeatedly, which means significant savings.

And electronics is also very expensive.

[loki565]

This is a demonstration of opportunities. Our pilots also say that the Su35 can replace the Su 57th, but to demonstrate the capabilities it was necessary to make a plane with low visibility

[Sergey39]

Multistage rockets for launching cargo into space are generally a dead end. But while there are no orbital planes, it is necessary to use multi-gravity.

[Civil]

Now Rogozin, under false names, will begin to tell that the Chinese and Americans with their reusable missiles have lagged behind Roskosmos for centuries.

[Errr]

Quote: Valerik1337

Reusable missiles are not profitable. Our scientists have calculated everything since the USSR ...

Eh, it's a pity that the Russian designers, you see, knew nothing about it! How many years have they been dreaming about "Baikal" ...

[regulus]

It does not dream, but it is necessary to do. At least a trampoline :)

[SERGEY SERGEEVICS]

They have already begun to more deeply build up and apply this potential.

[rotmistr60]

reusable rocket technology demonstrator tests

The Chinese are trying to show that they are at the forefront of space exploration and therefore enthusiastically embark on the development of everything new that appears in the world. Another thing is whether reusable missiles (stages) are needed today? At first glance, it seems like a worthwhile thing, but if you calculate the costs ... But this is already a question for specialists.

[Zeev Zeev]

And the cost comes out almost half the price.

[voyaka uh]

The cost of re-launching the Falcon-9 rocket: $ 20-25 million.
And they take 51 million from the client.

[Zeev Zeev]

And Proton costs 65 million to launch. Before the appearance of "Falcon" was worth 100 million

[MoJloT]

The declared volumes of launching cargo into orbit are growing every year and will only increase, in such a situation everything will go further along the path of cheaper this process.

[Zeev Zeev]

Ethanol and oxygen? It's just some V-2

[SlavaS]

Another 20 years of breakthroughs from jerks, and the great Russian Federation will buy weapons from China in exchange for minerals

[Maxwrx]

All my friends who were at the manufacturing plants of China said in one voice: "We will never catch up with them."

[bars1]

It `s naturally

[RUSS]

Do not believe the Chinese, this is reverse shooting

[donavi49]

If anything, their program. This is a private company Linkspace.

[slipped]

Quote: donavi49

If anything, their program. This is a private company Linkspace.

They want in 2021 to make a full-fledged NewLine 1 rocket.

At the same time, they are already announcing its value of $ 4,5 million. The main thing is that they have something to run on it.

[Zaurbek]

What will Comrade answer Rogozin?

[Civil]

Quote: Zaurbek

What will Comrade answer Rogozin?

Why are you asking provocative questions? Works with papers Rogozin.

[slipped]

Quote: Zaurbek

What will Comrade answer Rogozin?

Reducing the price of the Glavkosmos on launches. Above there was already an answer that was deleted without warning about it. I will repeat it with the proof:

"The cost of launching spacecraft of the 3U cubesat format (with sides 10x10x30 cm) will amount to 170 thousand dollars. As part of the launch of microsatellites on the same missions, the company has already signed contracts with a number of customers at prices ranging from 15 thousand to 17 thousand dollars per kilogram." Link: https://ria.ru/20190806/1557208891.html.

[regulus]

Well done, the Chinese are following in the footsteps of the Mask! But in the Russian Federation it is somehow rotten with reusable missiles. From a word ... Trampoline, probably, of the wrong system.

[jesus045]

It is commendable to the Chinese, but we have a one-time hangar, everything does not fly. Dmitry Olegovich can only compete in words.