Chinese Long March 5 Rocket
Discussion
The Chinese will be launching their new and most powerful rocket for the first time today. Called the Long March 5 it will have 2.4 million pounds of thrust at lift off - which puts in roughly in the same class as the American Delta IV Heavy - America's current most powerful rocket.
Just shows how serious the Chinese are with their space plans.
The launch is scheduled for 10.00 am GMT but the Chinese have not stated if they are planning to show the launch live.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/11/02/long-march-5...
Just shows how serious the Chinese are with their space plans.
The launch is scheduled for 10.00 am GMT but the Chinese have not stated if they are planning to show the launch live.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/11/02/long-march-5...
The way they measure all thrust measurements for jet and rocket engines.
Since the end of the Shuttle programme, we have no systems that develop more than 2.5 million pounds of thrust at launch. The most powerful US rocket at the moment is the Delta IV Heavy. The most powerful European rocket is the Ariane V and the most powerful Russian rocket is the Proton.
The Saturn V developed 7.5 million pounds of thrust at launch.
The Space Shuttle developed around 7 million (usually a bit less)
The Soviet N1 moon rocket (which failed on every attempt to launch it) was more powerful than the Saturn V but was less efficient throughout the full ascent profile could not lift the same weight as the Saturn V.
The Energia rocket (only launched twice) would have been a decent modern replacement for the Saturn V but was cancelled due to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
We won't see Saturn V capability again until the arrival of the SLS , if it happens.
Since the end of the Shuttle programme, we have no systems that develop more than 2.5 million pounds of thrust at launch. The most powerful US rocket at the moment is the Delta IV Heavy. The most powerful European rocket is the Ariane V and the most powerful Russian rocket is the Proton.
The Saturn V developed 7.5 million pounds of thrust at launch.
The Space Shuttle developed around 7 million (usually a bit less)
The Soviet N1 moon rocket (which failed on every attempt to launch it) was more powerful than the Saturn V but was less efficient throughout the full ascent profile could not lift the same weight as the Saturn V.
The Energia rocket (only launched twice) would have been a decent modern replacement for the Saturn V but was cancelled due to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
We won't see Saturn V capability again until the arrival of the SLS , if it happens.
As has been said, it's not quite in the Saturn V category. That will mean it's not going to be putting people anywhere like the moon or Mars. However, it does greatly improve their ability to place larger and heavier items into low earth orbit and into geostationary orbits. Its main use will probably be in launching bigger segments of space stations and possibly larger manned craft to send to these new space stations.
It could also launch some hefty military satellites into low earth orbit.
It could also be used to place larger rovers on the moon - or send a lunar sample-return mission. The Chinese have already stated that would like to do this.
Unlike the previous Long March rockets, this one uses liquid oxygen and kerosene rather than hypergolic liquid fuels.
It could also launch some hefty military satellites into low earth orbit.
It could also be used to place larger rovers on the moon - or send a lunar sample-return mission. The Chinese have already stated that would like to do this.
Unlike the previous Long March rockets, this one uses liquid oxygen and kerosene rather than hypergolic liquid fuels.
I was about to say they could stick three together - then realised it was already several rockets stuck together!
I find it amazing that with todays' awesome tech we cannot make another F-1 engine.
Oh hang on: http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-br...
'Why was NASA working with ancient engines instead of building a new F-1 or a full Saturn V? One urban legend holds that key "plans" or "blueprints" were disposed of long ago through carelessness or bureaucratic oversight. Nothing could be further from the truth; every scrap of documentation produced during Project Apollo, including the design documents for the Saturn V and the F-1 engines, remains on file. If re-creating the F-1 engine were simply a matter of cribbing from some 1960s blueprints, NASA would have already done so.
A typical design document for something like the F-1, though, was produced under intense deadline pressure and lacked even the barest forms of computerized design aids. Such a document simply cannot tell the entire story of the hardware. Each F-1 engine was uniquely built by hand, and each has its own undocumented quirks. In addition, the design process used in the 1960s was necessarily iterative: engineers would design a component, fabricate it, test it, and see how it performed. Then they would modify the design, build the new version, and test it again. This would continue until the design was "good enough."
I find it amazing that with todays' awesome tech we cannot make another F-1 engine.
Oh hang on: http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-br...
'Why was NASA working with ancient engines instead of building a new F-1 or a full Saturn V? One urban legend holds that key "plans" or "blueprints" were disposed of long ago through carelessness or bureaucratic oversight. Nothing could be further from the truth; every scrap of documentation produced during Project Apollo, including the design documents for the Saturn V and the F-1 engines, remains on file. If re-creating the F-1 engine were simply a matter of cribbing from some 1960s blueprints, NASA would have already done so.
A typical design document for something like the F-1, though, was produced under intense deadline pressure and lacked even the barest forms of computerized design aids. Such a document simply cannot tell the entire story of the hardware. Each F-1 engine was uniquely built by hand, and each has its own undocumented quirks. In addition, the design process used in the 1960s was necessarily iterative: engineers would design a component, fabricate it, test it, and see how it performed. Then they would modify the design, build the new version, and test it again. This would continue until the design was "good enough."
And it was also designed in an atmosphere where, if you needed additional funding to do this or test that, you got it without too much argument.
When NASA was looking at original concepts for the SLS programme, they did look very carefully at modern versions of the F1 and other Apollo era engines such as the J2, but they decided that Shuttle technology was a better basis to proceed. I am sure a large part of that thinking was down to the fact that there are still people around who know and understand the rocket engines used in the Shuttle - whereas Apollo era people are either getting on a bit or are not with us anymore.
When NASA was looking at original concepts for the SLS programme, they did look very carefully at modern versions of the F1 and other Apollo era engines such as the J2, but they decided that Shuttle technology was a better basis to proceed. I am sure a large part of that thinking was down to the fact that there are still people around who know and understand the rocket engines used in the Shuttle - whereas Apollo era people are either getting on a bit or are not with us anymore.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff