[deleted] t1_iy5oao9 wrote
[removed]
generallyanoaf t1_iy6m29p wrote
In case you're serious it's only the CZ-5B that has uncontrolled booster reentry. Next launch is planned for December 2023.
hurffurf t1_iy6pp8n wrote
Also last launch, CZ-5B was only for space station modules and the telescope is the last one.
toodroot t1_iy7b6uz wrote
CZ-5B was also previously used for China's next generation capsule.
KiwieeiwiK t1_iybze5g wrote
Last planned launch, but if they add more modules they will probably fly another CZ-5B. Unless they have designed something else in the mean time
toodroot t1_iybzt4v wrote
Who knows, maybe they'll add a bit more propulsion to the payload so that the booster doesn't quite enter orbit and comes down in a controlled fashion?
That's the standard Russian and US solution to "big stage coming down uncontrolled". Which you just saw being used with SLS, and was used by Energia and Shuttle.
KiwieeiwiK t1_iyc0k52 wrote
The issue isn't in thrust or fuel tolerances, the rockets used on the core stage are only able to be fired once since they use pyrotechnic charges to get the turbines to start spinning on the pad. Replacing them would mean completely redesigning the entire rocket, you can't just take off one rocket engine and add a different one like in Kerbal Space Program, it takes years of rigorous testing and certifying. And it would require many more launches of core stages we have no guarantee would come down from orbit anyway.
toodroot t1_iyc0wim wrote
This is false, as I've pointed out repeatedly in the past.
Look at how SLS does it.
Look at how Energia did it.
Look at how Shuttle did it.
The core stage does not relight for any of these.
All of them did it on the first try, too.
KiwieeiwiK t1_iyc2jky wrote
Fucking hell it's you again, back with this Energia shit.
I really want to know which youtuber you watched that talked about the Energia! It's very clear you haven't got any new information since you last posted. They haven't uploaded anything recently?
toodroot t1_iyc2vcs wrote
I think the main point was that I was right last time. BTW, I don't watch any youtube, I stopped watching TV when I was 19.
[deleted] t1_iy8oii8 wrote
[deleted]
toodroot t1_iyb4egy wrote
This particular CZ-2F rocket drops its boosters in an area that has some villages. Toxic fuel, too.
Edit: Speaking of toxic, I wonder why there's so much toxic downvoting in these discussions?
KiwieeiwiK t1_iybzfrm wrote
For the record the villages are evacuated before the launch by the government for this reason.
The reason they built their launch site inland and with villages downrange was to protect it from either Soviet invasion from the West or US naval attack from the sea. In the 1960s/70s that was a very real threat.
toodroot t1_iybzpcu wrote
For the record, there are plenty of photos that say that evacuations aren't always successful.
I'm fully aware of why these launch sites were built inland, and that new Chinese rockets use a coastal launch site. And that Russia never built a launch site on their east coast for the same reason.
Its_Just_A_Typo t1_iy74p3n wrote
That was just a dumb joke, but this is but good to know. ;)
[deleted] t1_iy7gluf wrote
[removed]
jimmydevice t1_iy60ul1 wrote
If you want Chinese junk, wallyworld!
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments