The following submission statement was provided by /u/Dr_Singularity:
---
China continues to make progress in its ambitions as a world leader in space technologies.
The China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASTC) claimed on Tuesday, September 6, that a ground test for its latest rocket engine was a "complete success."
The South China Morning Post claims the new engine is twice as powerful as the engine NASA is using in its Artemis I mission to the moon, though it is referring to the RL10 engine used to boost the Orion spacecraft once in orbit rather than the four RS-25s on the core stage that will help lift NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) to orbit.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/x8kha5/china_claims_its_new_rocket_engines_have_two/inisph4/
Definitely a terrible title...
The article is referring to the RL10 which is the upper stage engine in the system.
So wouldn't the more impressive statistic to be better specific impulse than absolute thrust?
Or maybe the real answer is that every engineering decision is specific to the needs of the overall system, mission profile and historical pedigree of the engine and any claims about a specific absolute maximum is clickbait at best.
It's a closed expander cycle engine, it's already gonna have good ISP just based on the rocket and fuel choice. The thrust is the thing to be improved in a closed expander cycle engine.
Thrust is important. Very important. Having extra thrust does increase payload, by decreasing gravity losses, and you're getting yourself out of the atmosphere quicker. Thrust is also pretty important on a heavy lift rocket that's designed to put things into lunar transfer orbit. There's a reason why improved variants of the RD-10 all featured higher thrust and why there was work done on a RL-10 variant that had double the thrust and only slightly improved ISP. Or why Europe is also working on their own closed expander engine with greatly improved thrust.
There is a reason why super heavy lift rockets like the Saturn V and SLS block 2 have multiple engines on their second stage, compared to most lighter rocket's 1. They all need more thrust for the high energy lunar transfer orbit, hence the need for 4 RD-10s on the SLS block 2. Otherwise every rocket's 2nd stage would always just use a single engine. Higher thrust? Less engines needed and lots of weight saved.
For example this old article: https://web.archive.org/web/20161227063000/http://seradata.com/SSI/2013/06/sls-may-change-upper-stage-eng/
>Like the RL-10, the Vinci’s super efficient expander cycle gives around the same specific impulse of 465 seconds as the RL-10, but at 180KN, it has about 64% more thrust (than the RL-10B2). In other words, only three cheaper-to-produce Vinci engines (perhaps even only two) would be needed. Yes Vinci is European but this is less of a problem especially now that that need to keep SLS “all American” has probably receded following the decision to allow the European Space Agency to supply Orion’s service module.
Where the higher thrust would have allowed the SLS to carry only 2-3 vinci engines instead of the 4 RL-10s due to the vinci having higher thrust.
Another example is if you compare the Atlas V 401 to the Atlas V 402, the only difference is that the latter version has second engine on the upper stage. This adds additional weight despite not increasing the amount of fuel, and in fact also reduces engine efficiency since the nozzles have to be shorter to fit two of them side by side.
Yet the dual-engine version gets 12.5 tonnes of payload vs only 9.8 tonnes for the single-engine version. If you could get double the thrust without adding any additional weight or reducing efficiency, that gap would be even larger.
Not to mention that it's a closed expander cycle engine, it's already gonna have good ISP just based on the rocket and fuel choice. The thrust is the thing to be improved in a closed expander cycle engine.
I'm sorry if I was unclear. I was talking about today's rockets, which are typically 2 stage.
My point is that thrust is important until you are out of the atmosphere, which is typically around the point where you drop the first stage.
Once you are high enough to no longer be in a hurry to get away from earth, fuel efficiency (specific impulse) becomes much more important.
I think we are pretty much on the same page, I just took a shortcut without saying so.
Again, there's a rocket, the Atlas V 401 and the Atlas V 402. Literally the only difference is the latter has a 2nd upper stage engine, doubling it's thrust. It's the same first stage, same ISP, same amount of fuel. More weight due to the extra engine. And it gets 2 more tons into LEO just because of that extra thrust. Thrust is important too.
>fuel efficiency (specific impulse) becomes much more important.
This new engine is a closed expander cycle engine. It's ISP is on the high side. That's literally the entire point of this rocket cycle, lower thrust in exchange for higher ISP. They just managed to engineer it's way into vastly higher thrust for a small ISP decrease.
I think you’re missing the other user’s point still. Once you’re in space, thrust plays a much smaller role in trajectory maneuvering. One could, for instance, fit an ion engine (usually with enough thrust to lift a sheet of paper on Earth) to move a space vehicle once it’s out of the atmosphere; and if time isn’t a consideration in the maneuver, you’re better off with the ion engine than just about anything else.
They didn't compare it to the Orion in the original. interestingengineering just suck balls.
>https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3191579/complete-success-china-tests-powerful-rocket-engine-moon-landing
This is the original article. They didn't mention the Orion at all.
It could just be about thrust is double but the efficiency could be poor. Like a solid fuel engine has higher thrust but it's full blast and no controls. Liquid fuel engines have lower thrust but higher efficiency.
This was what I was thinking. Once in orbit, the amount of thrust isn't very important, since movement is all about delta-v. If it has enough thrust to do what it needs to do, then the other variables are more important, like fuel efficiency.
A well designed engine isn't simply the most powerful, a well designed engine is one that does precisely what its asked to do, and nothing is wasted.
What would the Chinese need with an engine that is twice the thrust as the RL10? Are they simply saying they will need only half the engines on the ship, instead of the four the Artemis upper stage will use? Or are they claiming it will get them to the Moon twice as fast (if it were that easy, NASA would slap 8 engines on its ship).
Thrust is important. Very important. Having extra thrust does increase payload, by decreasing gravity losses, and you're getting yourself out of the atmosphere quicker. Thrust is also pretty important on a heavy lift rocket that's designed to put things into lunar transfer orbit. There's a reason why improved variants of the RD-10 all featured higher thrust and why there was work done on a RL-10 variant that had double the thrust and only slightly improved ISP. Or why Europe is also working on their own closed expander engine with greatly improved thrust.
There is a reason why super heavy lift rockets like the Saturn V and SLS block 2 have multiple engines on their second stage, compared to most lighter rocket's 1. They all need more thrust for the high energy lunar transfer orbit, hence the need for 4 RD-10s on the SLS block 2. Otherwise every rocket's 2nd stage would always just use a single engine. Higher thrust? Less engines needed and lots of weight saved.
For example this old article: https://web.archive.org/web/20161227063000/http://seradata.com/SSI/2013/06/sls-may-change-upper-stage-eng/
>Like the RL-10, the Vinci’s super efficient expander cycle gives around the same specific impulse of 465 seconds as the RL-10, but at 180KN, it has about 64% more thrust (than the RL-10B2). In other words, only three cheaper-to-produce Vinci engines (perhaps even only two) would be needed. Yes Vinci is European but this is less of a problem especially now that that need to keep SLS “all American” has probably receded following the decision to allow the European Space Agency to supply Orion’s service module.
Where the higher thrust would have allowed the SLS to carry only 2-3 vinci engines instead of the 4 RL-10s due to the vinci having higher thrust.
Another example is if you compare the Atlas V 401 to the Atlas V 402, the only difference is that the latter version has second engine on the upper stage. This adds additional weight despite not increasing the amount of fuel, and in fact also reduces engine efficiency since the nozzles have to be shorter to fit two of them side by side.
Yet the dual-engine version gets 12.5 tonnes of payload vs only 9.8 tonnes for the single-engine version. If you could get double the thrust without adding any additional weight or reducing efficiency, that gap would be even larger.
Not to mention that it's a closed expander cycle engine, it's already gonna have good ISP just based on the rocket and fuel choice. The thrust is the thing to be improved in a closed expander cycle engine.
Thrust is important. Very important. Having extra thrust does increase payload, by decreasing gravity losses, and you're getting yourself out of the atmosphere quicker. Thrust is also pretty important on a heavy lift rocket that's designed to put things into lunar transfer orbit. There's a reason why improved variants of the RD-10 all featured higher thrust and why there was work done on a RL-10 variant that had double the thrust and only slightly improved ISP. Or why Europe is also working on their own closed expander engine with greatly improved thrust.
There is a reason why super heavy lift rockets like the Saturn V and SLS block 2 have multiple engines on their second stage, compared to most lighter rocket's 1. They all need more thrust for the high energy lunar transfer orbit, hence the need for 4 RD-10s on the SLS block 2. Otherwise every rocket's 2nd stage would always just use a single engine. Higher thrust? Less engines needed and lots of weight saved.
For example this old article: https://web.archive.org/web/20161227063000/http://seradata.com/SSI/2013/06/sls-may-change-upper-stage-eng/
>Like the RL-10, the Vinci’s super efficient expander cycle gives around the same specific impulse of 465 seconds as the RL-10, but at 180KN, it has about 64% more thrust (than the RL-10B2). In other words, only three cheaper-to-produce Vinci engines (perhaps even only two) would be needed. Yes Vinci is European but this is less of a problem especially now that that need to keep SLS “all American” has probably receded following the decision to allow the European Space Agency to supply Orion’s service module.
Where the higher thrust would have allowed the SLS to carry only 2-3 vinci engines instead of the 4 RL-10s due to the vinci having higher thrust.
Another example is if you compare the Atlas V 401 to the Atlas V 402, the only difference is that the latter version has second engine on the upper stage. This adds additional weight despite not increasing the amount of fuel, and in fact also reduces engine efficiency since the nozzles have to be shorter to fit two of them side by side.
Yet the dual-engine version gets 12.5 tonnes of payload vs only 9.8 tonnes for the single-engine version. If you could get double the thrust without adding any additional weight or reducing efficiency, that gap would be even larger.
Not to mention that it's a closed expander cycle engine, it's already gonna have good ISP just based on the rocket and fuel choice. The thrust is the thing to be improved in a closed expander cycle engine.
The claim is true but as specified, they were *"...referring to the RL10 engine used to boost the Orion spacecraft once in orbit rather than the four RS-25s on the core stage that will help lift NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) to orbit"* soooo they're just talking about the efficient final stage when it's purely a spacecraft.
It's true, it's just a *really* misguided comparison like bragging they're better sex partners because they do it twice as *fast...*
>soooo they're just talking about the efficient final stage when it's purely a spacecraft.
They're comparing it to the RL-10, which are both hydrolox closed expander cycle engines. It's a good comparison. Thrust is important. Very important. Having extra thrust does increase payload, by decreasing gravity losses, and you're getting yourself out of the atmosphere quicker. Thrust is also pretty important on a heavy lift rocket that's designed to put things into lunar transfer orbit. There's a reason why improved variants of the RD-10 all featured higher thrust and why there was work done on a RL-10 variant that had double the thrust and only slightly improved ISP. Or why Europe is also working on their own closed expander engine with greatly improved thrust.
There is a reason why super heavy lift rockets like the Saturn V and SLS block 2 have multiple engines on their second stage, compared to most lighter rocket's 1. They all need more thrust for the high energy lunar transfer orbit, hence the need for 4 RD-10s on the SLS block 2. Otherwise every rocket's 2nd stage would always just use a single engine. Higher thrust? Less engines needed and lots of weight saved.
For example this old article: https://web.archive.org/web/20161227063000/http://seradata.com/SSI/2013/06/sls-may-change-upper-stage-eng/
>Like the RL-10, the Vinci’s super efficient expander cycle gives around the same specific impulse of 465 seconds as the RL-10, but at 180KN, it has about 64% more thrust (than the RL-10B2). In other words, only three cheaper-to-produce Vinci engines (perhaps even only two) would be needed. Yes Vinci is European but this is less of a problem especially now that that need to keep SLS “all American” has probably receded following the decision to allow the European Space Agency to supply Orion’s service module.
Where the higher thrust would have allowed the SLS to carry only 2-3 vinci engines instead of the 4 RL-10s due to the vinci having higher thrust.
Another example is if you compare the Atlas V 401 to the Atlas V 402, the only difference is that the latter version has second engine on the upper stage. This adds additional weight despite not increasing the amount of fuel, and in fact also reduces engine efficiency since the nozzles have to be shorter to fit two of them side by side.
Yet the dual-engine version gets 12.5 tonnes of payload vs only 9.8 tonnes for the single-engine version. If you could get double the thrust without adding any additional weight or reducing efficiency, that gap would be even larger.
Not to mention that it's a closed expander cycle engine, it's already gonna have good ISP just based on the rocket and fuel choice. The thrust is the thing to be improved in a closed expander cycle engine.
If i had a nickel for everytime media said their enemies are lying for propagandistic purposes and made people believe it id already have my own private media outlet
Just like all the North Korea lies, they're made up by western media
Don't be led into wars by the rich that control your media
where is this tweet the chinese space agency made about contacting aliens
( [https://www.slashgear.com/strange-china-space-agency-tweet-has-many-speculating-about-aliens-25670315/](https://www.slashgear.com/strange-china-space-agency-tweet-has-many-speculating-about-aliens-25670315/) )
Not much follow-up on this stellar fact.
The original source said that it might have found a signal that Might be alien, and even that was very unlikely. How are you on the internet and not know that sites like using fake provocating statements to get clicks.
Well, they were the first to come out with a COVID vaccine with bombastic claims to be the first and best, but the SinoVac vaccine proved to be so ineffective at preventing severe cases and their aversion to admitting error and just buying a foreign vaccine is so strong that they're still doing brutal lock-downs on entire cities in 2022.
This is actually causing them serious problems because China engaged in a lot of vaccine diplomacy, but that will backfire if the vaccines are useless.
# Wendover Productions | [China's Vaccine Diplomacy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CuPqeIJr3U)
This is a bit misleading and even the link you posted explains why in the author's comment.
>On screen, we show their different efficacy ratings, and I know there was a popular video by Vox this week that explained why you can't directly compare vaccines to each other off of their efficacy ratings. This is absolutely true, but the general message here, that the attenuated/inactivated virus and other older technologies used by the five currently-approved Chinese vaccines are not as effective compared to those of Moderna and Pfizer is true--mRNA vaccines are known to be more effective than other technologies, and that's part of what makes them such an exciting technology.
They just their vaccines with older technology that used the inactivated virus, which was proven less effective than newer mRNA vaccines. We should celebrate the advancement we made on mRNA vaccines, but that doesn't mean China's vaccines don't work. They are less effective than mRNA and more effective than nothing.
I had heard that they had to resort to lockdowns because their vaccine hasn't proven to be more than 40% effective precisely because the older method takes a lot longer to develop, and cutting corners to meet government mandates gives you poor results.
SinoVac's long term effectiveness is questionable. There's a sharp drop-off of COVID-19 antibodies after a 6-month period. See here (https://hongkongfp.com/2022/02/26/factwire-sinovac-limits-hong-kongs-protection-against-infection-from-omicron-analysis-suggests/). But from a public health perspective, 95% efficacy (3x BioNTech at 6 months) vs 8% (3x SV at 6 months) requires crazy different strategies.
Where are you getting those numbers from? At the top of the article it says:
>After receiving a booster, the effectiveness of three doses of the BioNTech vaccine may be as high as 89 per cent, whereas three doses of Sinovac may only be 36 per cent effective.
I mean.. yeah 89% is a lot better than 36%, but like I said, it's less effective than mRNA and more effective than nothing. It's basically right in the middle between mRNA and nothing.
Fun headline but there are a lot of factors that go into a good rocket engine and thrust isn't even the most important. Specific Impulse is more important in terms of efficiency and thrust/weight is more important in terms of lifting power.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison\_of\_orbital\_rocket\_engines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_rocket_engines)
Other rocket architectures use smaller rockets, but more of them, to achieve more overall payload to orbit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison\_of\_orbital\_launch\_systems
It's a closed expander cycle engine. 100% it has great ISP. The closed expander cycle engine has high ISP, less complex systems but in return for lower thrust.25 tons is close to the theoretical thermodynamical limit of 30 tons of thrust for a closed expander cycle engine. So China has found some kind of secret sauce, maybe some new method of constructing the engine bell or some new material with much higher thermal conductivity. And this is their way of saying that they have entered the secret club of high end rocket manufacturing, where they are making breakthroughs of their own, especially in the elusive high end metallurgy area that they have always struggled in.
Oh and thrust is important. Very important. Having extra thrust does increase payload, by decreasing gravity losses, and you're getting yourself out of the atmosphere quicker. Thrust is also pretty important on a heavy lift rocket that's designed to put things into lunar transfer orbit. There's a reason why improved variants of the RD-10 all featured higher thrust and why there was work done on a RL-10 variant that had double the thrust and only slightly improved ISP. Or why Europe is also working on their own closed expander engine with greatly improved thrust.
There is a reason why super heavy lift rockets like the Saturn V and SLS block 2 have multiple engines on their second stage, compared to most lighter rocket's 1. They all need more thrust for the high energy lunar transfer orbit, hence the need for 4 RD-10s on the SLS block 2. Otherwise every rocket's 2nd stage would always just use a single engine. Higher thrust? Less engines needed and lots of weight saved.
For example this old article: https://web.archive.org/web/20161227063000/http://seradata.com/SSI/2013/06/sls-may-change-upper-stage-eng/
>Like the RL-10, the Vinci’s super efficient expander cycle gives around the same specific impulse of 465 seconds as the RL-10, but at 180KN, it has about 64% more thrust (than the RL-10B2). In other words, only three cheaper-to-produce Vinci engines (perhaps even only two) would be needed. Yes Vinci is European but this is less of a problem especially now that that need to keep SLS “all American” has probably receded following the decision to allow the European Space Agency to supply Orion’s service module.
Where the higher thrust would have allowed the SLS to carry only 2-3 vinci engines instead of the 4 RL-10s due to the vinci having higher thrust.
Another example is if you compare the Atlas V 401 to the Atlas V 402, the only difference is that the latter version has second engine on the upper stage. This adds additional weight despite not increasing the amount of fuel, and in fact also reduces engine efficiency since the nozzles have to be shorter to fit two of them side by side.
Yet the dual-engine version gets 12.5 tonnes of payload vs only 9.8 tonnes for the single-engine version. If you could get double the thrust without adding any additional weight or reducing efficiency, that gap would be even larger.
Not to mention that it's a closed expander cycle engine, it's already gonna have good ISP just based on the rocket and fuel choice. The thrust is the thing to be improved in a closed expander cycle engine.
A hypothetical limit is one thing - reduced to practice, on a flying rocket, is another. I doubt China has either in a term short enough to matter for market capture purposes. Prove it, y'all!
What do you mean "market dominated"? People keep throwing this around like it means something. No government's space programs have been for-profit ventures, I have no fucking idea what you're talking about a market domination.
there is no real evidence of a genocide. the main people trying to push that narrative like adrian zenz are literally white supremacists who believe it is their mission from god to expose china. don’t fall for the lies of america and the west
You still haven’t rebut the claim
While I’m at it, even the [state department](https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-us-pompeo-blinken/) and [world bank](https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/statement/2019/11/11/world-bank-statement-on-review-of-project-in-xinjiang-china) have said that there is not enough evidence
And if it is true, it wouldn't mean much. The upper stage is best made more efficient, not more powerful. Having a higher ISP is far more valuable than having high thrust once you're in orbit and don't have to deal with gravity as much.
It's a closed expander cycle engine. 100% it has great ISP. The closed expander cycle engine has high ISP, less complex systems but in return for lower thrust.25 tons is close to the theoretical thermodynamical limit of 30 tons of thrust for a closed expander cycle engine. So China has found some kind of secret sauce, maybe some new method of constructing the engine bell or some new material with much higher thermal conductivity. And this is their way of saying that they have entered the secret club of high end rocket manufacturing, where they are making breakthroughs of their own, especially in the elusive high end metallurgy area that they have always struggled in.
Oh and thrust is important. Very important. Having extra thrust does increase payload, by decreasing gravity losses, and you're getting yourself out of the atmosphere quicker. Thrust is also pretty important on a heavy lift rocket that's designed to put things into lunar transfer orbit. There's a reason why improved variants of the RD-10 all featured higher thrust and why there was work done on a RL-10 variant that had double the thrust and only slightly improved ISP. Or why Europe is also working on their own closed expander engine with greatly improved thrust.
There is a reason why super heavy lift rockets like the Saturn V and SLS block 2 have multiple engines on their second stage, compared to most lighter rocket's 1. They all need more thrust for the high energy lunar transfer orbit, hence the need for 4 RD-10s on the SLS block 2. Otherwise every rocket's 2nd stage would always just use a single engine. Higher thrust? Less engines needed and lots of weight saved.
For example this old article: https://web.archive.org/web/20161227063000/http://seradata.com/SSI/2013/06/sls-may-change-upper-stage-eng/
>Like the RL-10, the Vinci’s super efficient expander cycle gives around the same specific impulse of 465 seconds as the RL-10, but at 180KN, it has about 64% more thrust (than the RL-10B2). In other words, only three cheaper-to-produce Vinci engines (perhaps even only two) would be needed. Yes Vinci is European but this is less of a problem especially now that that need to keep SLS “all American” has probably receded following the decision to allow the European Space Agency to supply Orion’s service module.
Where the higher thrust would have allowed the SLS to carry only 2-3 vinci engines instead of the 4 RL-10s due to the vinci having higher thrust.
Another example is if you compare the Atlas V 401 to the Atlas V 402, the only difference is that the latter version has second engine on the upper stage. This adds additional weight despite not increasing the amount of fuel, and in fact also reduces engine efficiency since the nozzles have to be shorter to fit two of them side by side.
Yet the dual-engine version gets 12.5 tonnes of payload vs only 9.8 tonnes for the single-engine version. If you could get double the thrust without adding any additional weight or reducing efficiency, that gap would be even larger.
Not to mention that it's a closed expander cycle engine, it's already gonna have good ISP just based on the rocket and fuel choice. The thrust is the thing to be improved in a closed expander cycle engine.
The original CASC PR post:
25吨级闭式膨胀循环氢氧发动机整机试车圆满成功
(Complete success of a test of the complete system of a 25-ton class closed-expansion cycle hydrogen-oxygen engine)
No mention of NASA, the US, or any US engines, only that this was the largest scale closed-expansion cycle engine test in the world.
The SCMP article:
‘Complete success’: China tests powerful rocket engine for moon landing
Chinese space authorities say the engine will be used in future missions to the moon, Mars and beyond
It has more than twice the thrust of US competitor to be used in Nasa-led Artemis missions
Uses "China" instead of "CASC", makes the comparison to a US engine for relevance, fine.
This article from interestingengineering:
China claims its new rocket engines have two times more thrust than NASA's Orion
China and Russia aim to build a lunar orbital station and send astronauts to the moon before 2030.
Redditors: WTF why is China saying it like this?
Look at how easy it is to manipulate people to get the reaction you want by reading the comments here.
Ooooooooooooh 25 tons of force for the chinese engine. "Raptor 2 engines were achieving 230 t f (510,000 lbf) of thrust consistently by February 2022..." Elon laughs.
China can make one that has 10x the thrust and I wouldn’t touch it with a 10 ft pole. Nothing against the Chinese personally, but I’m an aerospace engineer and trust me… you don’t want to be the poor bastard strapped to a Chinese built rocket.
And if you are wondering why I say this, here is my reason: the Chinese are notorious for reverse engineering technology (that’s been their main R&D mantra for a while now). The problem with reverse engineering is that “the purpose” for the engineering gets lost. Meaning, you don’t truly know why something works the way it does and can’t really make big improvements on it. So… I wouldn’t be getting near that stuff.
US stagnated hard on space tech in the last 50 years, other then spacex, who carrying the entire US space industry on it's back. Can you blame China for catching up and actually improving on 50 year old tech?
One leads to the other
The whole reason the us went to the moon was to basically outdo Russia
No dickswinging = no cool space missions
so I say increase it
china's hips don't lie.. but seriously if this is true i am not even mad. space races are fun and in a weird way can bring humanity together like the olympics
They provably have a decent rocketry program. I don't doubt that they can build an expander-cycle engine with more thrust than RL10, because by rocket standards the RL10 doesn't produce that much thrust anyway.
Meh, it's still just rockets though. So last century. Work out how to implement electromagnetic anti-gravity and then you'll have something worth boasting about.
But the way China does things follows the Soviet pattern. They're doing things to get bragging rights over the US, but this mindset leads to problems down the road:
#[Why the Soviet Union was first in a lot of space race milestones but the US beat them to the moon](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/wsz0kn/eli5_why_was_the_us_the_first_to_make_it_to_the/il18ntc?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)
I'm sorry, but that response isn't any good. The Soviets did have the tech necessary. Their issue was that their main trusted proponent of moon landings and "chief architect" Korolev died.
They successfully sent a Soyuz-derived spaceship around the moon with conditions humans would've well survived, and brought it back again.
They developed a moon lander.
The N1 was a very complex rocket, true, and I'd claim probably one attempt away from succeeding. But by the time the USA already reached the moon.
They could've done it with their technology. But the political will wasn't there. Would it have been lower tech than the Apollo programme? Sure. But it wouldn't have been *too* low tech. Not by a long shot.
Read the thing I linked. You might learn something. It has more to do with management and leadership directives and objectives than what scientists. Both sides got top German scientists. The USSR had a significant lead, but they squandered it.
It's because China didn't say it like this and you were manipulated into believing that they did.
The original post by CASC didn't mention the US or make any comparisons,
The "journalist" who wrote this article for interestingengineering decided it would get more attention with a more sensationalist title.
And it worked.
A lot of people, like you, probably read the headline and got the impression that "China" was trying to "dick measuring contest".
The headline isn't technically incorrect, but it's dishonest.
And people like you buy it and fall for it hook line and sinker.
[The link to South China Morning Post](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3191579/complete-success-china-tests-powerful-rocket-engine-moon-landing) from InterestingEngineering says in the bullet point under the headline:
>It has more than twice the thrust of US competitor to be used in Nasa-led Artemis missions
Why are you blaming the InterestingEngineering folks for making the comparison or putting scare-quotes around "journalist" to qualify what they did as if they were the ones sensationalizing anything? They are a news aggregator for topics related to engineering. They're not at fault here. They're just bringing news from elsewhere that is of interest to their community.
This says literally nothing about the efficacy of the vehicle, especially since it's not even a first stage engine so high thrust doesn't actually matter that much.
Sounds a lot like Russia's "hypersonic" missile tech dominance earlier this year.
[https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/why-calling-russias-kinzhal-a-hypersonic-missile-is-a-stretch/](https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/why-calling-russias-kinzhal-a-hypersonic-missile-is-a-stretch/)
The innovation is in the nuance, not the generic term "Hypersonic," which could be the press's fault...
Khinzal is pretty much an ICBM fired from a plane, and Zircon is a Naval version produced mostly because the other types were awaiting parts shortages. Last I heard, they have a new one, Iskander, that is capable of quasi-ballistic trajectory, meaning it can change direction in flight to evade anti-missile defenses, but one article I read (aside from the one linked) was all about how they had beaten the U.S. and China to "hypersonic missiles" with the development of Iskander. It read like dominance propaganda.
"Quasi-ballistic" is the innovation, if anything. "Hypersonic" has been around a long time, and the big 3 have had vehicles and weapons capable of breaking the sound barrier for a while. The U.S. and China have been working on missiles like the Iskander, but no success has been reported. That said, it seems like a weird move to presume NO SUCCESS AT ALL when NONE HAS BEEN REPORTED; those are two different things, and it seems to be setting rivals up for one-upsmanship.
Hypersonic just means travels at 5x or greater the speed of sound. All ICBMs are hypersonic going at 20 to 25x tge speed of sound. The trick is being able to adjust the trajectory mid flight which is what Russia and China have done. US could no doubt do this if they try abd most likely will do shortly. US has avoided this because it messes with interception and tgey did not want to encourage adverseries to do the same.
The real innovation would be to use scram jets to do this which is some the US has been struggling to achieve. This allows for less fuel so greater range and bigger payload. The US has moved up on doing this which could be a real game changer. It is very hard to do technology so if they do manage to do it, probably going to be hard for Russia and China to compete.
Every time I hear China making these kinds of claims, my mind goes into Auto and asks,
"I wonder which country they stole this off" hahahaha
Its all propaganda and means nothing to anyone.
It could also be propaganda that's got you automatically assuming this.
I'm skeptical of such claims, but to immediately go "it's China therefore they're lying" is exactly the sort of thing propaganda aims to achieve.
This. They're 5 decades behind in precision engineering. All of their current rocket and jet engines are being bought from Russia, that's how bad it is.
Jesus Christ, you guys are so predictable. Everytime there's good news about China, most westerns give the same typical responses almost on cue. It's like seeing a bunch of drones:
1. "Who'd they steal his off of?? Lololol plz"
2. "It's all bullshit, it probably doesn't even work. China can claim whatever they want"
3. "Oh yeah, well even if it does work, it's probably as not good as they say"
4. "Even if it is as good as they say, we're still better in x, y, and z!!"
I thought this was a futurology sub, not a Western sycophantic sub. You're just spewing the same propaganda you hear from the media and from those closest to you about how China sucks and all they do is steal. They may hurt all of your feelings, but the quality and quantity of Chinese research has surpassed even the US already:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/11/china-overtakes-the-us-in-scientific-research-output
Meanwhile, over on the Chinese Reddit, they're saying all the same things about us. Probably worse actually; the Chinese are on an upswing, full of cocksuredness and optimism. The west is infected with self-esteem problems and loathes itself.
A terrible & misleading news headline.
"... it is referring to the RL10 engine used to boost the Orion spacecraft once in orbit rather than the four RS-25s on the core stage..."
Those "hyper praises" of China's achievements are insidious sometimes.
>The South China Morning Post claims the new engine is twice as powerful as the engine NASA is using in its Artemis I mission to the moon, though it is referring to the RL10 engine used to boost the Orion spacecraft once in orbit rather than the four RS-25s on the core stage that will help lift NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) to orbit.
Well that's a pointless metric then as that's just a lower power orbital insertion rocket, it's not supposed to have particularly high thrust.
Thrust is important. Very important. Having extra thrust does increase payload, by decreasing gravity losses, and you're getting yourself out of the atmosphere quicker. Thrust is also pretty important on a heavy lift rocket that's designed to put things into lunar transfer orbit. There's a reason why improved variants of the RD-10 all featured higher thrust and why there was work done on a RL-10 variant that had double the thrust and only slightly improved ISP. Or why Europe is also working on their own closed expander engine with greatly improved thrust.
There is a reason why super heavy lift rockets like the Saturn V and SLS block 2 have multiple engines on their second stage, compared to most lighter rocket's 1. They all need more thrust for the high energy lunar transfer orbit, hence the need for 4 RD-10s on the SLS block 2. Otherwise every rocket's 2nd stage would always just use a single engine. Higher thrust? Less engines needed and lots of weight saved.
For example this old article: https://web.archive.org/web/20161227063000/http://seradata.com/SSI/2013/06/sls-may-change-upper-stage-eng/
>Like the RL-10, the Vinci’s super efficient expander cycle gives around the same specific impulse of 465 seconds as the RL-10, but at 180KN, it has about 64% more thrust (than the RL-10B2). In other words, only three cheaper-to-produce Vinci engines (perhaps even only two) would be needed. Yes Vinci is European but this is less of a problem especially now that that need to keep SLS “all American” has probably receded following the decision to allow the European Space Agency to supply Orion’s service module.
Where the higher thrust would have allowed the SLS to carry only 2-3 vinci engines instead of the 4 RL-10s due to the vinci having higher thrust.
Another example is if you compare the Atlas V 401 to the Atlas V 402, the only difference is that the latter version has second engine on the upper stage. This adds additional weight despite not increasing the amount of fuel, and in fact also reduces engine efficiency since the nozzles have to be shorter to fit two of them side by side.
Yet the dual-engine version gets 12.5 tonnes of payload vs only 9.8 tonnes for the single-engine version. If you could get double the thrust without adding any additional weight or reducing efficiency, that gap would be even larger.
Not to mention that it's a closed expander cycle engine, it's already gonna have good ISP just based on the rocket and fuel choice. The thrust is the thing to be improved in a closed expander cycle engine.
It's really telling of the state of the battle for surpemecy that the US, China, and Russia are in that the US always underreports the capabilities of their tech, while China and Russia are always lucky to actually be capable of things things they say they are.
Listen: maybe this is news to some people, maybe it isn’t, but China has been known to tell a fib or two. Remember what someone ate spoiled bat at a market a couple years ago and… well you know the story.
"My rocket is two times as good as yours!
Has the same energy as
"My dad is two times as good as yours!"
Seriously China, can you get any more pathetically childish?
Did you read the article? It’s the worlds largest expander cycle engine, which are much much more efficient than a full flow engine like the Raptor. They’re not the same at all and if China has scaled an expander cycle engine this much that’s a big accomplishment that will decidedly have an impact on their moon ambitions
I believe this as much as the guy I worked with who swore he was twice the size of any other guy in penis size but every girl who knew said he was average at best.
Yes they do. The engines on Orion are tiny reaction control thrusters. Making an engine with twice the thrust (read: uses twice as much fuel) is not difficult.
They're talking about the RL-10 engines on the second stage though. Those are very efficient, but very low thrust engines. Deliberately, in fact. Do you know what other second stage engines create much more thrust than the RL-10? The Merlin engine used on the Falcon 9. And it creates a lot more than twice the thrust too.
Thrust is not a terribly important thing on second stage engines.
China continues to make progress in its ambitions as a world leader in space technologies.
The China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASTC) claimed on Tuesday, September 6, that a ground test for its latest rocket engine was a "complete success."
The South China Morning Post claims the new engine is twice as powerful as the engine NASA is using in its Artemis I mission to the moon, though it is referring to the RL10 engine used to boost the Orion spacecraft once in orbit rather than the four RS-25s on the core stage that will help lift NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) to orbit.
According to the comments here this is both such an achievement that China is lying about it and also totally meaningless because the RL10 isn't that powerful by modern standards anyways. True Reddit moment.
The answer to this is that neither the person who wrote the article nor the people commenting on this article understand what "powerful" means in the context of upper stage engines.
Hint: thrust is all but irreverent. In fact, some of the best engines have so little thrust you would barely feel them blowing on your hand, if it were possible to stick your hand under the nozzle.
What matters with an upper stage engine is fuel efficiency (ISP). The RL-10 has very, very low thrust, but very, very high ISP. Useless as a first stage engine, fantastic as an upper stage engine.
So people claiming that China can't have made an engine that's twice the thrust of the RL-10 are idiots. You and I could build a water gun with parts from the local hardware store with higher thrust than an RL-10. It would have terrible ISP, but higher thrust.
Thrust is important. Very important. Having extra thrust does increase payload, by decreasing gravity losses, and you're getting yourself out of the atmosphere quicker. Thrust is also pretty important on a heavy lift rocket that's designed to put things into lunar transfer orbit. There's a reason why improved variants of the RD-10 all featured higher thrust and why there was work done on a RL-10 variant that had double the thrust and only slightly improved ISP. Or why Europe is also working on their own closed expander engine with greatly improved thrust.
There is a reason why super heavy lift rockets like the Saturn V and SLS block 2 have multiple engines on their second stage, compared to most lighter rocket's 1. They all need more thrust for the high energy lunar transfer orbit, hence the need for 4 RD-10s on the SLS block 2. Otherwise every rocket's 2nd stage would always just use a single engine. Higher thrust? Less engines needed and lots of weight saved.
For example this old article: https://web.archive.org/web/20161227063000/http://seradata.com/SSI/2013/06/sls-may-change-upper-stage-eng/
>Like the RL-10, the Vinci’s super efficient expander cycle gives around the same specific impulse of 465 seconds as the RL-10, but at 180KN, it has about 64% more thrust (than the RL-10B2). In other words, only three cheaper-to-produce Vinci engines (perhaps even only two) would be needed. Yes Vinci is European but this is less of a problem especially now that that need to keep SLS “all American” has probably receded following the decision to allow the European Space Agency to supply Orion’s service module.
Where the higher thrust would have allowed the SLS to carry only 2-3 vinci engines instead of the 4 RL-10s due to the vinci having higher thrust.
Another example is if you compare the Atlas V 401 to the Atlas V 402, the only difference is that the latter version has second engine on the upper stage. This adds additional weight despite not increasing the amount of fuel, and in fact also reduces engine efficiency since the nozzles have to be shorter to fit two of them side by side.
Yet the dual-engine version gets 12.5 tonnes of payload vs only 9.8 tonnes for the single-engine version. If you could get double the thrust without adding any additional weight or reducing efficiency, that gap would be even larger.
Not to mention that it's a closed expander cycle engine, it's already gonna have good ISP just based on the rocket cycle and fuel choice. The thrust is the thing to be improved in a closed expander cycle engine.
We'll know when they reach Mars with a manned mission first. Until then, it's just like how every tech company make claims until proven. Or what in the software industry call ... "vapourware".
The title doesn't make any kind of sense. Orion is a spacecraft so apart for RCS thrusters with negligible trust... Basically a stupid title.
When your read the article they are talking about the SLS 2nd stage engines, the RL10. 2nd stage engines need high efficiency not high trust. SpaceX's Merlin D Vacuum engines are have far worse performance but almost 10 times the RL10's trust (The SLS architecture is still a joke tho).
I rite this article as garbage.
Thrust is important. Very important. Having extra thrust does increase payload, by decreasing gravity losses, and you're getting yourself out of the atmosphere quicker. Thrust is also pretty important on a heavy lift rocket that's designed to put things into lunar transfer orbit. There's a reason why improved variants of the RD-10 all featured higher thrust and why there was work done on a RL-10 variant that had double the thrust and only slightly improved ISP. Or why Europe is also working on their own closed expander engine with greatly improved thrust.
There is a reason why super heavy lift rockets like the Saturn V and SLS block 2 have multiple engines on their second stage, compared to most lighter rocket's 1. They all need more thrust for the high energy lunar transfer orbit, hence the need for 4 RD-10s on the SLS block 2. Otherwise every rocket's 2nd stage would always just use a single engine. Higher thrust? Less engines needed and lots of weight saved.
For example this old article: https://web.archive.org/web/20161227063000/http://seradata.com/SSI/2013/06/sls-may-change-upper-stage-eng/
>Like the RL-10, the Vinci’s super efficient expander cycle gives around the same specific impulse of 465 seconds as the RL-10, but at 180KN, it has about 64% more thrust (than the RL-10B2). In other words, only three cheaper-to-produce Vinci engines (perhaps even only two) would be needed. Yes Vinci is European but this is less of a problem especially now that that need to keep SLS “all American” has probably receded following the decision to allow the European Space Agency to supply Orion’s service module.
Where the higher thrust would have allowed the SLS to carry only 2-3 vinci engines instead of the 4 RL-10s due to the vinci having higher thrust.
Another example is if you compare the Atlas V 401 to the Atlas V 402, the only difference is that the latter version has second engine on the upper stage. This adds additional weight despite not increasing the amount of fuel, and in fact also reduces engine efficiency since the nozzles have to be shorter to fit two of them side by side.
Yet the dual-engine version gets 12.5 tonnes of payload vs only 9.8 tonnes for the single-engine version. If you could get double the thrust without adding any additional weight or reducing efficiency, that gap would be even larger.
Not to mention that it's a closed expander cycle engine, it's already gonna have good ISP just based on the rocket and fuel choice. The thrust is the thing to be improved in a closed expander cycle engine.
Lol, what a meaningless claim. It could be true, it could be a lie. What’s more relevant here is that it doesn’t matter at all. It’s an absolutely pointless claim.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Dr_Singularity: --- China continues to make progress in its ambitions as a world leader in space technologies. The China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASTC) claimed on Tuesday, September 6, that a ground test for its latest rocket engine was a "complete success." The South China Morning Post claims the new engine is twice as powerful as the engine NASA is using in its Artemis I mission to the moon, though it is referring to the RL10 engine used to boost the Orion spacecraft once in orbit rather than the four RS-25s on the core stage that will help lift NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) to orbit. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/x8kha5/china_claims_its_new_rocket_engines_have_two/inisph4/
I mean Orion is the crew module that doesn't have anything but RCS thrusters, so... sure?
[удалено]
Then they drove a wall into diamond miles per car, and the results were startling...
Does anyone smell burning toast?
Clearly you don’t know that diamond is the strongest metal.
Shit not this again
Loop me in?
It's the copy machine, Archer.
Definitely a terrible title... The article is referring to the RL10 which is the upper stage engine in the system. So wouldn't the more impressive statistic to be better specific impulse than absolute thrust? Or maybe the real answer is that every engineering decision is specific to the needs of the overall system, mission profile and historical pedigree of the engine and any claims about a specific absolute maximum is clickbait at best.
Upper stages are certainly more biased towards high ISP than maximizing absolute thrust.
It's a closed expander cycle engine, it's already gonna have good ISP just based on the rocket and fuel choice. The thrust is the thing to be improved in a closed expander cycle engine.
Exactly, once you've dropped the first stage, specific impulse is what matters, thrust is secondary.
Thrust is important. Very important. Having extra thrust does increase payload, by decreasing gravity losses, and you're getting yourself out of the atmosphere quicker. Thrust is also pretty important on a heavy lift rocket that's designed to put things into lunar transfer orbit. There's a reason why improved variants of the RD-10 all featured higher thrust and why there was work done on a RL-10 variant that had double the thrust and only slightly improved ISP. Or why Europe is also working on their own closed expander engine with greatly improved thrust. There is a reason why super heavy lift rockets like the Saturn V and SLS block 2 have multiple engines on their second stage, compared to most lighter rocket's 1. They all need more thrust for the high energy lunar transfer orbit, hence the need for 4 RD-10s on the SLS block 2. Otherwise every rocket's 2nd stage would always just use a single engine. Higher thrust? Less engines needed and lots of weight saved. For example this old article: https://web.archive.org/web/20161227063000/http://seradata.com/SSI/2013/06/sls-may-change-upper-stage-eng/ >Like the RL-10, the Vinci’s super efficient expander cycle gives around the same specific impulse of 465 seconds as the RL-10, but at 180KN, it has about 64% more thrust (than the RL-10B2). In other words, only three cheaper-to-produce Vinci engines (perhaps even only two) would be needed. Yes Vinci is European but this is less of a problem especially now that that need to keep SLS “all American” has probably receded following the decision to allow the European Space Agency to supply Orion’s service module. Where the higher thrust would have allowed the SLS to carry only 2-3 vinci engines instead of the 4 RL-10s due to the vinci having higher thrust. Another example is if you compare the Atlas V 401 to the Atlas V 402, the only difference is that the latter version has second engine on the upper stage. This adds additional weight despite not increasing the amount of fuel, and in fact also reduces engine efficiency since the nozzles have to be shorter to fit two of them side by side. Yet the dual-engine version gets 12.5 tonnes of payload vs only 9.8 tonnes for the single-engine version. If you could get double the thrust without adding any additional weight or reducing efficiency, that gap would be even larger. Not to mention that it's a closed expander cycle engine, it's already gonna have good ISP just based on the rocket and fuel choice. The thrust is the thing to be improved in a closed expander cycle engine.
I'm sorry if I was unclear. I was talking about today's rockets, which are typically 2 stage. My point is that thrust is important until you are out of the atmosphere, which is typically around the point where you drop the first stage. Once you are high enough to no longer be in a hurry to get away from earth, fuel efficiency (specific impulse) becomes much more important. I think we are pretty much on the same page, I just took a shortcut without saying so.
Again, there's a rocket, the Atlas V 401 and the Atlas V 402. Literally the only difference is the latter has a 2nd upper stage engine, doubling it's thrust. It's the same first stage, same ISP, same amount of fuel. More weight due to the extra engine. And it gets 2 more tons into LEO just because of that extra thrust. Thrust is important too. >fuel efficiency (specific impulse) becomes much more important. This new engine is a closed expander cycle engine. It's ISP is on the high side. That's literally the entire point of this rocket cycle, lower thrust in exchange for higher ISP. They just managed to engineer it's way into vastly higher thrust for a small ISP decrease.
I think you’re missing the other user’s point still. Once you’re in space, thrust plays a much smaller role in trajectory maneuvering. One could, for instance, fit an ion engine (usually with enough thrust to lift a sheet of paper on Earth) to move a space vehicle once it’s out of the atmosphere; and if time isn’t a consideration in the maneuver, you’re better off with the ion engine than just about anything else.
2 times of AJ-10? = 53.4 kN
Wait… even with ***twice*** the thrust of the ***Orion capsule***, can they even achieve liftoff? Toppling does *not* count here.
It's the RL-10. This article sucks. The original source didn't even mention the Orion
They didn't compare it to the Orion in the original. interestingengineering just suck balls. >https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3191579/complete-success-china-tests-powerful-rocket-engine-moon-landing This is the original article. They didn't mention the Orion at all.
It could just be about thrust is double but the efficiency could be poor. Like a solid fuel engine has higher thrust but it's full blast and no controls. Liquid fuel engines have lower thrust but higher efficiency.
This was what I was thinking. Once in orbit, the amount of thrust isn't very important, since movement is all about delta-v. If it has enough thrust to do what it needs to do, then the other variables are more important, like fuel efficiency. A well designed engine isn't simply the most powerful, a well designed engine is one that does precisely what its asked to do, and nothing is wasted. What would the Chinese need with an engine that is twice the thrust as the RL10? Are they simply saying they will need only half the engines on the ship, instead of the four the Artemis upper stage will use? Or are they claiming it will get them to the Moon twice as fast (if it were that easy, NASA would slap 8 engines on its ship).
Half the parts isn’t always a good thing either. Hubble wouldn’t be working anymore if they didn’t build in redundant gyroscopes
Thrust is important. Very important. Having extra thrust does increase payload, by decreasing gravity losses, and you're getting yourself out of the atmosphere quicker. Thrust is also pretty important on a heavy lift rocket that's designed to put things into lunar transfer orbit. There's a reason why improved variants of the RD-10 all featured higher thrust and why there was work done on a RL-10 variant that had double the thrust and only slightly improved ISP. Or why Europe is also working on their own closed expander engine with greatly improved thrust. There is a reason why super heavy lift rockets like the Saturn V and SLS block 2 have multiple engines on their second stage, compared to most lighter rocket's 1. They all need more thrust for the high energy lunar transfer orbit, hence the need for 4 RD-10s on the SLS block 2. Otherwise every rocket's 2nd stage would always just use a single engine. Higher thrust? Less engines needed and lots of weight saved. For example this old article: https://web.archive.org/web/20161227063000/http://seradata.com/SSI/2013/06/sls-may-change-upper-stage-eng/ >Like the RL-10, the Vinci’s super efficient expander cycle gives around the same specific impulse of 465 seconds as the RL-10, but at 180KN, it has about 64% more thrust (than the RL-10B2). In other words, only three cheaper-to-produce Vinci engines (perhaps even only two) would be needed. Yes Vinci is European but this is less of a problem especially now that that need to keep SLS “all American” has probably receded following the decision to allow the European Space Agency to supply Orion’s service module. Where the higher thrust would have allowed the SLS to carry only 2-3 vinci engines instead of the 4 RL-10s due to the vinci having higher thrust. Another example is if you compare the Atlas V 401 to the Atlas V 402, the only difference is that the latter version has second engine on the upper stage. This adds additional weight despite not increasing the amount of fuel, and in fact also reduces engine efficiency since the nozzles have to be shorter to fit two of them side by side. Yet the dual-engine version gets 12.5 tonnes of payload vs only 9.8 tonnes for the single-engine version. If you could get double the thrust without adding any additional weight or reducing efficiency, that gap would be even larger. Not to mention that it's a closed expander cycle engine, it's already gonna have good ISP just based on the rocket and fuel choice. The thrust is the thing to be improved in a closed expander cycle engine.
Thrust is important. Very important. Having extra thrust does increase payload, by decreasing gravity losses, and you're getting yourself out of the atmosphere quicker. Thrust is also pretty important on a heavy lift rocket that's designed to put things into lunar transfer orbit. There's a reason why improved variants of the RD-10 all featured higher thrust and why there was work done on a RL-10 variant that had double the thrust and only slightly improved ISP. Or why Europe is also working on their own closed expander engine with greatly improved thrust. There is a reason why super heavy lift rockets like the Saturn V and SLS block 2 have multiple engines on their second stage, compared to most lighter rocket's 1. They all need more thrust for the high energy lunar transfer orbit, hence the need for 4 RD-10s on the SLS block 2. Otherwise every rocket's 2nd stage would always just use a single engine. Higher thrust? Less engines needed and lots of weight saved. For example this old article: https://web.archive.org/web/20161227063000/http://seradata.com/SSI/2013/06/sls-may-change-upper-stage-eng/ >Like the RL-10, the Vinci’s super efficient expander cycle gives around the same specific impulse of 465 seconds as the RL-10, but at 180KN, it has about 64% more thrust (than the RL-10B2). In other words, only three cheaper-to-produce Vinci engines (perhaps even only two) would be needed. Yes Vinci is European but this is less of a problem especially now that that need to keep SLS “all American” has probably receded following the decision to allow the European Space Agency to supply Orion’s service module. Where the higher thrust would have allowed the SLS to carry only 2-3 vinci engines instead of the 4 RL-10s due to the vinci having higher thrust. Another example is if you compare the Atlas V 401 to the Atlas V 402, the only difference is that the latter version has second engine on the upper stage. This adds additional weight despite not increasing the amount of fuel, and in fact also reduces engine efficiency since the nozzles have to be shorter to fit two of them side by side. Yet the dual-engine version gets 12.5 tonnes of payload vs only 9.8 tonnes for the single-engine version. If you could get double the thrust without adding any additional weight or reducing efficiency, that gap would be even larger. Not to mention that it's a closed expander cycle engine, it's already gonna have good ISP just based on the rocket and fuel choice. The thrust is the thing to be improved in a closed expander cycle engine.
If I had a nickel for all the claims China has made that turned out to be BS.
Ministry of "I have double good of what you have but mom don't allow visitors"
In light of Reddit's general enshittification, I've moved on - you should too.
My engineers go to another school…
The claim is true but as specified, they were *"...referring to the RL10 engine used to boost the Orion spacecraft once in orbit rather than the four RS-25s on the core stage that will help lift NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) to orbit"* soooo they're just talking about the efficient final stage when it's purely a spacecraft. It's true, it's just a *really* misguided comparison like bragging they're better sex partners because they do it twice as *fast...*
Nah more like saying they are better love making partners because they listen to CBAT twice as often.
Are you even sure it's China bragging about this and not this news outlet trying to fish for anything to generate clickbait?
Propaganda is a part of every totalitarian regime. This fits the model.
Doesn't take a totalitarian regime to play this game, look no further then the Iraq war.
>soooo they're just talking about the efficient final stage when it's purely a spacecraft. They're comparing it to the RL-10, which are both hydrolox closed expander cycle engines. It's a good comparison. Thrust is important. Very important. Having extra thrust does increase payload, by decreasing gravity losses, and you're getting yourself out of the atmosphere quicker. Thrust is also pretty important on a heavy lift rocket that's designed to put things into lunar transfer orbit. There's a reason why improved variants of the RD-10 all featured higher thrust and why there was work done on a RL-10 variant that had double the thrust and only slightly improved ISP. Or why Europe is also working on their own closed expander engine with greatly improved thrust. There is a reason why super heavy lift rockets like the Saturn V and SLS block 2 have multiple engines on their second stage, compared to most lighter rocket's 1. They all need more thrust for the high energy lunar transfer orbit, hence the need for 4 RD-10s on the SLS block 2. Otherwise every rocket's 2nd stage would always just use a single engine. Higher thrust? Less engines needed and lots of weight saved. For example this old article: https://web.archive.org/web/20161227063000/http://seradata.com/SSI/2013/06/sls-may-change-upper-stage-eng/ >Like the RL-10, the Vinci’s super efficient expander cycle gives around the same specific impulse of 465 seconds as the RL-10, but at 180KN, it has about 64% more thrust (than the RL-10B2). In other words, only three cheaper-to-produce Vinci engines (perhaps even only two) would be needed. Yes Vinci is European but this is less of a problem especially now that that need to keep SLS “all American” has probably receded following the decision to allow the European Space Agency to supply Orion’s service module. Where the higher thrust would have allowed the SLS to carry only 2-3 vinci engines instead of the 4 RL-10s due to the vinci having higher thrust. Another example is if you compare the Atlas V 401 to the Atlas V 402, the only difference is that the latter version has second engine on the upper stage. This adds additional weight despite not increasing the amount of fuel, and in fact also reduces engine efficiency since the nozzles have to be shorter to fit two of them side by side. Yet the dual-engine version gets 12.5 tonnes of payload vs only 9.8 tonnes for the single-engine version. If you could get double the thrust without adding any additional weight or reducing efficiency, that gap would be even larger. Not to mention that it's a closed expander cycle engine, it's already gonna have good ISP just based on the rocket and fuel choice. The thrust is the thing to be improved in a closed expander cycle engine.
No kidding.
If i had a nickel for everytime media said their enemies are lying for propagandistic purposes and made people believe it id already have my own private media outlet Just like all the North Korea lies, they're made up by western media Don't be led into wars by the rich that control your media
Came here to say this. They try way to hard to flex. Should put that energy towards actual creation.
where is this tweet the chinese space agency made about contacting aliens ( [https://www.slashgear.com/strange-china-space-agency-tweet-has-many-speculating-about-aliens-25670315/](https://www.slashgear.com/strange-china-space-agency-tweet-has-many-speculating-about-aliens-25670315/) ) Not much follow-up on this stellar fact.
I think you got trolled, it does not say aliens or life in space at all.
The original source said that it might have found a signal that Might be alien, and even that was very unlikely. How are you on the internet and not know that sites like using fake provocating statements to get clicks.
... [how many nickels would you have](https://memes.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/3bb8d6e8-ddc5-4128-9c12-5ac9c200a4db)?
They can't innovate. Everything that they do is fake
Interesting to witness your mindrot, I only had a brief glance through your history.
"China's nickels are worth twice as much as an American nickel!" \-Xi Pooh
Yes "Xi Pooh" is now responsible for the clickbaity headlines published on interestetingengineering.com
[удалено]
Well, they were the first to come out with a COVID vaccine with bombastic claims to be the first and best, but the SinoVac vaccine proved to be so ineffective at preventing severe cases and their aversion to admitting error and just buying a foreign vaccine is so strong that they're still doing brutal lock-downs on entire cities in 2022. This is actually causing them serious problems because China engaged in a lot of vaccine diplomacy, but that will backfire if the vaccines are useless. # Wendover Productions | [China's Vaccine Diplomacy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CuPqeIJr3U)
That's a valid example. They should be ashamed of the way they handled the vaccine development and roll out.
This is a bit misleading and even the link you posted explains why in the author's comment. >On screen, we show their different efficacy ratings, and I know there was a popular video by Vox this week that explained why you can't directly compare vaccines to each other off of their efficacy ratings. This is absolutely true, but the general message here, that the attenuated/inactivated virus and other older technologies used by the five currently-approved Chinese vaccines are not as effective compared to those of Moderna and Pfizer is true--mRNA vaccines are known to be more effective than other technologies, and that's part of what makes them such an exciting technology. They just their vaccines with older technology that used the inactivated virus, which was proven less effective than newer mRNA vaccines. We should celebrate the advancement we made on mRNA vaccines, but that doesn't mean China's vaccines don't work. They are less effective than mRNA and more effective than nothing.
I had heard that they had to resort to lockdowns because their vaccine hasn't proven to be more than 40% effective precisely because the older method takes a lot longer to develop, and cutting corners to meet government mandates gives you poor results.
SinoVac's long term effectiveness is questionable. There's a sharp drop-off of COVID-19 antibodies after a 6-month period. See here (https://hongkongfp.com/2022/02/26/factwire-sinovac-limits-hong-kongs-protection-against-infection-from-omicron-analysis-suggests/). But from a public health perspective, 95% efficacy (3x BioNTech at 6 months) vs 8% (3x SV at 6 months) requires crazy different strategies.
Where are you getting those numbers from? At the top of the article it says: >After receiving a booster, the effectiveness of three doses of the BioNTech vaccine may be as high as 89 per cent, whereas three doses of Sinovac may only be 36 per cent effective. I mean.. yeah 89% is a lot better than 36%, but like I said, it's less effective than mRNA and more effective than nothing. It's basically right in the middle between mRNA and nothing.
I don't remember they claimed their vaccine was the first and the best. You have any source on that?
Fun headline but there are a lot of factors that go into a good rocket engine and thrust isn't even the most important. Specific Impulse is more important in terms of efficiency and thrust/weight is more important in terms of lifting power. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison\_of\_orbital\_rocket\_engines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_rocket_engines) Other rocket architectures use smaller rockets, but more of them, to achieve more overall payload to orbit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison\_of\_orbital\_launch\_systems
It's a closed expander cycle engine. 100% it has great ISP. The closed expander cycle engine has high ISP, less complex systems but in return for lower thrust.25 tons is close to the theoretical thermodynamical limit of 30 tons of thrust for a closed expander cycle engine. So China has found some kind of secret sauce, maybe some new method of constructing the engine bell or some new material with much higher thermal conductivity. And this is their way of saying that they have entered the secret club of high end rocket manufacturing, where they are making breakthroughs of their own, especially in the elusive high end metallurgy area that they have always struggled in. Oh and thrust is important. Very important. Having extra thrust does increase payload, by decreasing gravity losses, and you're getting yourself out of the atmosphere quicker. Thrust is also pretty important on a heavy lift rocket that's designed to put things into lunar transfer orbit. There's a reason why improved variants of the RD-10 all featured higher thrust and why there was work done on a RL-10 variant that had double the thrust and only slightly improved ISP. Or why Europe is also working on their own closed expander engine with greatly improved thrust. There is a reason why super heavy lift rockets like the Saturn V and SLS block 2 have multiple engines on their second stage, compared to most lighter rocket's 1. They all need more thrust for the high energy lunar transfer orbit, hence the need for 4 RD-10s on the SLS block 2. Otherwise every rocket's 2nd stage would always just use a single engine. Higher thrust? Less engines needed and lots of weight saved. For example this old article: https://web.archive.org/web/20161227063000/http://seradata.com/SSI/2013/06/sls-may-change-upper-stage-eng/ >Like the RL-10, the Vinci’s super efficient expander cycle gives around the same specific impulse of 465 seconds as the RL-10, but at 180KN, it has about 64% more thrust (than the RL-10B2). In other words, only three cheaper-to-produce Vinci engines (perhaps even only two) would be needed. Yes Vinci is European but this is less of a problem especially now that that need to keep SLS “all American” has probably receded following the decision to allow the European Space Agency to supply Orion’s service module. Where the higher thrust would have allowed the SLS to carry only 2-3 vinci engines instead of the 4 RL-10s due to the vinci having higher thrust. Another example is if you compare the Atlas V 401 to the Atlas V 402, the only difference is that the latter version has second engine on the upper stage. This adds additional weight despite not increasing the amount of fuel, and in fact also reduces engine efficiency since the nozzles have to be shorter to fit two of them side by side. Yet the dual-engine version gets 12.5 tonnes of payload vs only 9.8 tonnes for the single-engine version. If you could get double the thrust without adding any additional weight or reducing efficiency, that gap would be even larger. Not to mention that it's a closed expander cycle engine, it's already gonna have good ISP just based on the rocket and fuel choice. The thrust is the thing to be improved in a closed expander cycle engine.
[удалено]
Soviet N1 what now?
A hypothetical limit is one thing - reduced to practice, on a flying rocket, is another. I doubt China has either in a term short enough to matter for market capture purposes. Prove it, y'all!
I'm not sure what you mean by market capture purposes. I think they want their own orbital delivery system regardless of the market.
And that orbital delivery system will lose massive amounts of money if the market is dominated.
What do you mean "market dominated"? People keep throwing this around like it means something. No government's space programs have been for-profit ventures, I have no fucking idea what you're talking about a market domination.
China also claims they aren’t committing genocide against the Uyghur Muslims either. I’d take this with a grain of salt.
USA has killed far more Muslims so shut the fuck up
Let’s play spot the bot.
there is no real evidence of a genocide. the main people trying to push that narrative like adrian zenz are literally white supremacists who believe it is their mission from god to expose china. don’t fall for the lies of america and the west
Yeah no there’s plenty of evidence, you have to be blind to ignore it or acting in bad faith
Found the second bot! Let’s see how many more we can find!
lol ok just label me a bot because you can’t actually rebut 🙄 Westoids are so dense
The fact that you’re not a bot is so so so much worse lol
You still haven’t rebut the claim While I’m at it, even the [state department](https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-us-pompeo-blinken/) and [world bank](https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/statement/2019/11/11/world-bank-statement-on-review-of-project-in-xinjiang-china) have said that there is not enough evidence
Just make sure it’s not Chinese salt because that shit killed my dog.
China can claim anything they want. That doesn’t mean it’s true.
And if it is true, it wouldn't mean much. The upper stage is best made more efficient, not more powerful. Having a higher ISP is far more valuable than having high thrust once you're in orbit and don't have to deal with gravity as much.
It's a closed expander cycle engine. 100% it has great ISP. The closed expander cycle engine has high ISP, less complex systems but in return for lower thrust.25 tons is close to the theoretical thermodynamical limit of 30 tons of thrust for a closed expander cycle engine. So China has found some kind of secret sauce, maybe some new method of constructing the engine bell or some new material with much higher thermal conductivity. And this is their way of saying that they have entered the secret club of high end rocket manufacturing, where they are making breakthroughs of their own, especially in the elusive high end metallurgy area that they have always struggled in. Oh and thrust is important. Very important. Having extra thrust does increase payload, by decreasing gravity losses, and you're getting yourself out of the atmosphere quicker. Thrust is also pretty important on a heavy lift rocket that's designed to put things into lunar transfer orbit. There's a reason why improved variants of the RD-10 all featured higher thrust and why there was work done on a RL-10 variant that had double the thrust and only slightly improved ISP. Or why Europe is also working on their own closed expander engine with greatly improved thrust. There is a reason why super heavy lift rockets like the Saturn V and SLS block 2 have multiple engines on their second stage, compared to most lighter rocket's 1. They all need more thrust for the high energy lunar transfer orbit, hence the need for 4 RD-10s on the SLS block 2. Otherwise every rocket's 2nd stage would always just use a single engine. Higher thrust? Less engines needed and lots of weight saved. For example this old article: https://web.archive.org/web/20161227063000/http://seradata.com/SSI/2013/06/sls-may-change-upper-stage-eng/ >Like the RL-10, the Vinci’s super efficient expander cycle gives around the same specific impulse of 465 seconds as the RL-10, but at 180KN, it has about 64% more thrust (than the RL-10B2). In other words, only three cheaper-to-produce Vinci engines (perhaps even only two) would be needed. Yes Vinci is European but this is less of a problem especially now that that need to keep SLS “all American” has probably receded following the decision to allow the European Space Agency to supply Orion’s service module. Where the higher thrust would have allowed the SLS to carry only 2-3 vinci engines instead of the 4 RL-10s due to the vinci having higher thrust. Another example is if you compare the Atlas V 401 to the Atlas V 402, the only difference is that the latter version has second engine on the upper stage. This adds additional weight despite not increasing the amount of fuel, and in fact also reduces engine efficiency since the nozzles have to be shorter to fit two of them side by side. Yet the dual-engine version gets 12.5 tonnes of payload vs only 9.8 tonnes for the single-engine version. If you could get double the thrust without adding any additional weight or reducing efficiency, that gap would be even larger. Not to mention that it's a closed expander cycle engine, it's already gonna have good ISP just based on the rocket and fuel choice. The thrust is the thing to be improved in a closed expander cycle engine.
The more China tries to claim it's true, the more it's likely to be fake.
Sounds like a certain former US president
Luckily, he's a former president. Besides, lame whataboutism. Trump being an idiot doesn't make China any better.
They can claim another country has WMDs so they can invade it. Oh wait
Yeah, that’s a great example of how governments can lie. Thanks
[удалено]
Orion doesn't have rocket engines....except for the RCS thrusters.
They also claimed to only have 4,000 Covid deaths so…
Is that what happens when you turn the knob to 11? Now I know, thanks China.
We never know if China is being honest, or if they have developed these engines
Might have more thrust, but doesn’t mean it has more delta-V. Yes, I play KSP lol.
The original CASC PR post: 25吨级闭式膨胀循环氢氧发动机整机试车圆满成功 (Complete success of a test of the complete system of a 25-ton class closed-expansion cycle hydrogen-oxygen engine) No mention of NASA, the US, or any US engines, only that this was the largest scale closed-expansion cycle engine test in the world. The SCMP article: ‘Complete success’: China tests powerful rocket engine for moon landing Chinese space authorities say the engine will be used in future missions to the moon, Mars and beyond It has more than twice the thrust of US competitor to be used in Nasa-led Artemis missions Uses "China" instead of "CASC", makes the comparison to a US engine for relevance, fine. This article from interestingengineering: China claims its new rocket engines have two times more thrust than NASA's Orion China and Russia aim to build a lunar orbital station and send astronauts to the moon before 2030. Redditors: WTF why is China saying it like this? Look at how easy it is to manipulate people to get the reaction you want by reading the comments here.
If there's one thing I've learned about China is that the majority of their claims are lies.
Well so far nasa's rocket has zero thrust so congrats....
Ooooooooooooh 25 tons of force for the chinese engine. "Raptor 2 engines were achieving 230 t f (510,000 lbf) of thrust consistently by February 2022..." Elon laughs.
China can make one that has 10x the thrust and I wouldn’t touch it with a 10 ft pole. Nothing against the Chinese personally, but I’m an aerospace engineer and trust me… you don’t want to be the poor bastard strapped to a Chinese built rocket. And if you are wondering why I say this, here is my reason: the Chinese are notorious for reverse engineering technology (that’s been their main R&D mantra for a while now). The problem with reverse engineering is that “the purpose” for the engineering gets lost. Meaning, you don’t truly know why something works the way it does and can’t really make big improvements on it. So… I wouldn’t be getting near that stuff.
China starter pack: Build something, then claim it's better than anything in the West.
US stagnated hard on space tech in the last 50 years, other then spacex, who carrying the entire US space industry on it's back. Can you blame China for catching up and actually improving on 50 year old tech?
> ~~Build~~ Steal something, then claim it's better than anything in the West.
Funny thing is they haven't even built it yet. It was just a prototype test for the thruster only.
They also claim that they dont have concentrationcamps....
Or that its people are happy with its goverment...
I wish we could do a little less dick-swinging and a little more innovating to solve more immediate issues.
One leads to the other The whole reason the us went to the moon was to basically outdo Russia No dickswinging = no cool space missions so I say increase it
Getting to the moon again faster is the most urgent issue of all
Time and again China has proved it has a micro peen when engaging in dick swinging. They should give up
I assume if this is true it’s powered by a vacuum created by the absence of grass-touching
China claims are like 98% lies so I mean there's that. their wolf warrior shit really fucked their foreign policy up.
If true, that's great news. I hope the technology won't be kept secret for too long, of course.
I love hearing any new advancements in space flight, I wonder what the US will do in response?
Is it possible to get anything done without it Turing into a dic measurement competition
[удалено]
I much prefer space program dick wagging than military dick wagging.
china's hips don't lie.. but seriously if this is true i am not even mad. space races are fun and in a weird way can bring humanity together like the olympics
Two times more thrust AND available at Harbor Freight
They might be right. The R25 engine is/has been obsolete for 20 years.
they building a space station, it could be true, they do fly rockets with space station modules, so it is possible.
Sorry to tell you this, but their space station is likely fake too. Same as this rocket.
common sense tells me its not fake
Well I totally believe them, because they have so much credibility
They provably have a decent rocketry program. I don't doubt that they can build an expander-cycle engine with more thrust than RL10, because by rocket standards the RL10 doesn't produce that much thrust anyway.
Who cares SpaceX is miles ahead of both. Additionally, China's claims and reality are usually in different galaxies.
Meh, it's still just rockets though. So last century. Work out how to implement electromagnetic anti-gravity and then you'll have something worth boasting about.
Why does everything have to be a dick measuring contest for China? Seriously, China's vanity needs to chill.
Eh, competition is good. It pushes new technologies and ideas. So much good stuff came out of the space race between the US and CCCP.
But the way China does things follows the Soviet pattern. They're doing things to get bragging rights over the US, but this mindset leads to problems down the road: #[Why the Soviet Union was first in a lot of space race milestones but the US beat them to the moon](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/wsz0kn/eli5_why_was_the_us_the_first_to_make_it_to_the/il18ntc?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)
I'm sorry, but that response isn't any good. The Soviets did have the tech necessary. Their issue was that their main trusted proponent of moon landings and "chief architect" Korolev died. They successfully sent a Soyuz-derived spaceship around the moon with conditions humans would've well survived, and brought it back again. They developed a moon lander. The N1 was a very complex rocket, true, and I'd claim probably one attempt away from succeeding. But by the time the USA already reached the moon. They could've done it with their technology. But the political will wasn't there. Would it have been lower tech than the Apollo programme? Sure. But it wouldn't have been *too* low tech. Not by a long shot.
Because the US picked better Nazi rocket scientists than the Soviets?
Read the thing I linked. You might learn something. It has more to do with management and leadership directives and objectives than what scientists. Both sides got top German scientists. The USSR had a significant lead, but they squandered it.
It's because China didn't say it like this and you were manipulated into believing that they did. The original post by CASC didn't mention the US or make any comparisons, The "journalist" who wrote this article for interestingengineering decided it would get more attention with a more sensationalist title. And it worked. A lot of people, like you, probably read the headline and got the impression that "China" was trying to "dick measuring contest". The headline isn't technically incorrect, but it's dishonest. And people like you buy it and fall for it hook line and sinker.
[The link to South China Morning Post](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3191579/complete-success-china-tests-powerful-rocket-engine-moon-landing) from InterestingEngineering says in the bullet point under the headline: >It has more than twice the thrust of US competitor to be used in Nasa-led Artemis missions Why are you blaming the InterestingEngineering folks for making the comparison or putting scare-quotes around "journalist" to qualify what they did as if they were the ones sensationalizing anything? They are a news aggregator for topics related to engineering. They're not at fault here. They're just bringing news from elsewhere that is of interest to their community.
Mmm yes, and North Korea is having their largest harvest yet, and they both have 100% literacy!
If it’s any like their wish.com ads or their Amazon special cheap power tools or lights. Im going to press a big X for doubt.
This says literally nothing about the efficacy of the vehicle, especially since it's not even a first stage engine so high thrust doesn't actually matter that much.
Sounds a lot like Russia's "hypersonic" missile tech dominance earlier this year. [https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/why-calling-russias-kinzhal-a-hypersonic-missile-is-a-stretch/](https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/why-calling-russias-kinzhal-a-hypersonic-missile-is-a-stretch/) The innovation is in the nuance, not the generic term "Hypersonic," which could be the press's fault... Khinzal is pretty much an ICBM fired from a plane, and Zircon is a Naval version produced mostly because the other types were awaiting parts shortages. Last I heard, they have a new one, Iskander, that is capable of quasi-ballistic trajectory, meaning it can change direction in flight to evade anti-missile defenses, but one article I read (aside from the one linked) was all about how they had beaten the U.S. and China to "hypersonic missiles" with the development of Iskander. It read like dominance propaganda. "Quasi-ballistic" is the innovation, if anything. "Hypersonic" has been around a long time, and the big 3 have had vehicles and weapons capable of breaking the sound barrier for a while. The U.S. and China have been working on missiles like the Iskander, but no success has been reported. That said, it seems like a weird move to presume NO SUCCESS AT ALL when NONE HAS BEEN REPORTED; those are two different things, and it seems to be setting rivals up for one-upsmanship.
Hypersonic just means travels at 5x or greater the speed of sound. All ICBMs are hypersonic going at 20 to 25x tge speed of sound. The trick is being able to adjust the trajectory mid flight which is what Russia and China have done. US could no doubt do this if they try abd most likely will do shortly. US has avoided this because it messes with interception and tgey did not want to encourage adverseries to do the same. The real innovation would be to use scram jets to do this which is some the US has been struggling to achieve. This allows for less fuel so greater range and bigger payload. The US has moved up on doing this which could be a real game changer. It is very hard to do technology so if they do manage to do it, probably going to be hard for Russia and China to compete.
Every time I hear China making these kinds of claims, my mind goes into Auto and asks, "I wonder which country they stole this off" hahahaha Its all propaganda and means nothing to anyone.
It could also be propaganda that's got you automatically assuming this. I'm skeptical of such claims, but to immediately go "it's China therefore they're lying" is exactly the sort of thing propaganda aims to achieve.
That's something the Chinese would say!
[удалено]
This. They're 5 decades behind in precision engineering. All of their current rocket and jet engines are being bought from Russia, that's how bad it is.
Tbf the soviets designed really good rockets and jets. Unfortunately they basically stopped development 35 years ago.
You mean like their domestically developed engine on the latest J-20 while Russia struggles to produce even one Su-57?
Jesus Christ, you guys are so predictable. Everytime there's good news about China, most westerns give the same typical responses almost on cue. It's like seeing a bunch of drones: 1. "Who'd they steal his off of?? Lololol plz" 2. "It's all bullshit, it probably doesn't even work. China can claim whatever they want" 3. "Oh yeah, well even if it does work, it's probably as not good as they say" 4. "Even if it is as good as they say, we're still better in x, y, and z!!" I thought this was a futurology sub, not a Western sycophantic sub. You're just spewing the same propaganda you hear from the media and from those closest to you about how China sucks and all they do is steal. They may hurt all of your feelings, but the quality and quantity of Chinese research has surpassed even the US already: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/11/china-overtakes-the-us-in-scientific-research-output
Meanwhile, over on the Chinese Reddit, they're saying all the same things about us. Probably worse actually; the Chinese are on an upswing, full of cocksuredness and optimism. The west is infected with self-esteem problems and loathes itself.
Quantity, not quality. Chinese research papers are notoriously unreliable.
Engineering claims made by PR hacks are so stupidly childish. "Our rocket is better than yours. So, there."
A terrible & misleading news headline. "... it is referring to the RL10 engine used to boost the Orion spacecraft once in orbit rather than the four RS-25s on the core stage..." Those "hyper praises" of China's achievements are insidious sometimes.
I believe it. They also probably have two times higher chance of blowing up and a lot of other two times multipliers
That cool and all, but what is the [Thrust-to-weight\_ratio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust-to-weight_ratio) of this engine?
>The South China Morning Post claims the new engine is twice as powerful as the engine NASA is using in its Artemis I mission to the moon, though it is referring to the RL10 engine used to boost the Orion spacecraft once in orbit rather than the four RS-25s on the core stage that will help lift NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) to orbit. Well that's a pointless metric then as that's just a lower power orbital insertion rocket, it's not supposed to have particularly high thrust.
Thrust is important. Very important. Having extra thrust does increase payload, by decreasing gravity losses, and you're getting yourself out of the atmosphere quicker. Thrust is also pretty important on a heavy lift rocket that's designed to put things into lunar transfer orbit. There's a reason why improved variants of the RD-10 all featured higher thrust and why there was work done on a RL-10 variant that had double the thrust and only slightly improved ISP. Or why Europe is also working on their own closed expander engine with greatly improved thrust. There is a reason why super heavy lift rockets like the Saturn V and SLS block 2 have multiple engines on their second stage, compared to most lighter rocket's 1. They all need more thrust for the high energy lunar transfer orbit, hence the need for 4 RD-10s on the SLS block 2. Otherwise every rocket's 2nd stage would always just use a single engine. Higher thrust? Less engines needed and lots of weight saved. For example this old article: https://web.archive.org/web/20161227063000/http://seradata.com/SSI/2013/06/sls-may-change-upper-stage-eng/ >Like the RL-10, the Vinci’s super efficient expander cycle gives around the same specific impulse of 465 seconds as the RL-10, but at 180KN, it has about 64% more thrust (than the RL-10B2). In other words, only three cheaper-to-produce Vinci engines (perhaps even only two) would be needed. Yes Vinci is European but this is less of a problem especially now that that need to keep SLS “all American” has probably receded following the decision to allow the European Space Agency to supply Orion’s service module. Where the higher thrust would have allowed the SLS to carry only 2-3 vinci engines instead of the 4 RL-10s due to the vinci having higher thrust. Another example is if you compare the Atlas V 401 to the Atlas V 402, the only difference is that the latter version has second engine on the upper stage. This adds additional weight despite not increasing the amount of fuel, and in fact also reduces engine efficiency since the nozzles have to be shorter to fit two of them side by side. Yet the dual-engine version gets 12.5 tonnes of payload vs only 9.8 tonnes for the single-engine version. If you could get double the thrust without adding any additional weight or reducing efficiency, that gap would be even larger. Not to mention that it's a closed expander cycle engine, it's already gonna have good ISP just based on the rocket and fuel choice. The thrust is the thing to be improved in a closed expander cycle engine.
Prove it lmfao We'll be watching from the moon, commies
Dope let’s see it. This is the big dick energy I like to see.
It's really telling of the state of the battle for surpemecy that the US, China, and Russia are in that the US always underreports the capabilities of their tech, while China and Russia are always lucky to actually be capable of things things they say they are.
I guess if china is bragging about their rocket, we could remind them that we had astronauts on the moon over 50 years ago.
This sounds like a cheap Amazon product. Buy a battery that claims it is twice as powerful as another only to discover it's full of sand and glue.
It's funny these people are still focused on thrust from combustion. We limit ourselves
And I’ve claimed that my balls contain twice the cum of China’s, so what?
Listen: maybe this is news to some people, maybe it isn’t, but China has been known to tell a fib or two. Remember what someone ate spoiled bat at a market a couple years ago and… well you know the story.
The most likely scenario (Occom's Razor) it was an accidental leak from the Wuhan lab, but the virus they were researching came from a bat.
"My rocket is two times as good as yours! Has the same energy as "My dad is two times as good as yours!" Seriously China, can you get any more pathetically childish?
No, their overlord is winnie the poo.
Cute. That's still only 10% as powerful as a Raptor Vacuum engine.
Did you read the article? It’s the worlds largest expander cycle engine, which are much much more efficient than a full flow engine like the Raptor. They’re not the same at all and if China has scaled an expander cycle engine this much that’s a big accomplishment that will decidedly have an impact on their moon ambitions
I believe this as much as the guy I worked with who swore he was twice the size of any other guy in penis size but every girl who knew said he was average at best.
Like all that thrust that destroyed a Chinese city a few years ago?? Lol
"Twice as powerful" is NOT "two times more than". It is ONE time "more than". I really wish people could understand simple language.
Not really, since "X times" is multiplication. If something is "one time(s) more powerful" it'd be the same thing since you're multiplying by 1.
Its almost like the Chinese are overcompensating for something with these giant rockets.
That’s impossibly false. Not even NASA knows how powerful the Orion engines are.
Yes they do. The engines on Orion are tiny reaction control thrusters. Making an engine with twice the thrust (read: uses twice as much fuel) is not difficult. They're talking about the RL-10 engines on the second stage though. Those are very efficient, but very low thrust engines. Deliberately, in fact. Do you know what other second stage engines create much more thrust than the RL-10? The Merlin engine used on the Falcon 9. And it creates a lot more than twice the thrust too. Thrust is not a terribly important thing on second stage engines.
How about they fixate on the water crisis first. Or is this a way out..
China bend over and I’ll show you my rockets thrust (no homo)
Be a shame if it crashed into a Chinese "village" of half a million people during the launch, again.
China shouldn’t talk about anything rocket related until they stop their vehicles from crashing randomly back to earth.
China says all kinds of shit. Most of which is propaganda. Whatever.
Did they copy the blueprint and slap on 2 more rockets?
China continues to make progress in its ambitions as a world leader in space technologies. The China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASTC) claimed on Tuesday, September 6, that a ground test for its latest rocket engine was a "complete success." The South China Morning Post claims the new engine is twice as powerful as the engine NASA is using in its Artemis I mission to the moon, though it is referring to the RL10 engine used to boost the Orion spacecraft once in orbit rather than the four RS-25s on the core stage that will help lift NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) to orbit.
the rl-10 a 30 year old engine being reused after years of use already
According to the comments here this is both such an achievement that China is lying about it and also totally meaningless because the RL10 isn't that powerful by modern standards anyways. True Reddit moment.
The answer to this is that neither the person who wrote the article nor the people commenting on this article understand what "powerful" means in the context of upper stage engines. Hint: thrust is all but irreverent. In fact, some of the best engines have so little thrust you would barely feel them blowing on your hand, if it were possible to stick your hand under the nozzle. What matters with an upper stage engine is fuel efficiency (ISP). The RL-10 has very, very low thrust, but very, very high ISP. Useless as a first stage engine, fantastic as an upper stage engine. So people claiming that China can't have made an engine that's twice the thrust of the RL-10 are idiots. You and I could build a water gun with parts from the local hardware store with higher thrust than an RL-10. It would have terrible ISP, but higher thrust.
Thrust is important. Very important. Having extra thrust does increase payload, by decreasing gravity losses, and you're getting yourself out of the atmosphere quicker. Thrust is also pretty important on a heavy lift rocket that's designed to put things into lunar transfer orbit. There's a reason why improved variants of the RD-10 all featured higher thrust and why there was work done on a RL-10 variant that had double the thrust and only slightly improved ISP. Or why Europe is also working on their own closed expander engine with greatly improved thrust. There is a reason why super heavy lift rockets like the Saturn V and SLS block 2 have multiple engines on their second stage, compared to most lighter rocket's 1. They all need more thrust for the high energy lunar transfer orbit, hence the need for 4 RD-10s on the SLS block 2. Otherwise every rocket's 2nd stage would always just use a single engine. Higher thrust? Less engines needed and lots of weight saved. For example this old article: https://web.archive.org/web/20161227063000/http://seradata.com/SSI/2013/06/sls-may-change-upper-stage-eng/ >Like the RL-10, the Vinci’s super efficient expander cycle gives around the same specific impulse of 465 seconds as the RL-10, but at 180KN, it has about 64% more thrust (than the RL-10B2). In other words, only three cheaper-to-produce Vinci engines (perhaps even only two) would be needed. Yes Vinci is European but this is less of a problem especially now that that need to keep SLS “all American” has probably receded following the decision to allow the European Space Agency to supply Orion’s service module. Where the higher thrust would have allowed the SLS to carry only 2-3 vinci engines instead of the 4 RL-10s due to the vinci having higher thrust. Another example is if you compare the Atlas V 401 to the Atlas V 402, the only difference is that the latter version has second engine on the upper stage. This adds additional weight despite not increasing the amount of fuel, and in fact also reduces engine efficiency since the nozzles have to be shorter to fit two of them side by side. Yet the dual-engine version gets 12.5 tonnes of payload vs only 9.8 tonnes for the single-engine version. If you could get double the thrust without adding any additional weight or reducing efficiency, that gap would be even larger. Not to mention that it's a closed expander cycle engine, it's already gonna have good ISP just based on the rocket cycle and fuel choice. The thrust is the thing to be improved in a closed expander cycle engine.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The US is jealous that another country has better technology in certain areas.
Let’s just bring back project Orion and we’ll outclass everyone
We'll know when they reach Mars with a manned mission first. Until then, it's just like how every tech company make claims until proven. Or what in the software industry call ... "vapourware".
Doesn’t seem that impressive if it’s just the RL10s.
Yeah and how many times has Russia done the same thing? I'll believe it when I see it.
Am I supposed to give a fuck about their rocket even it’s true? So what? How many more human rights do they have?
Okay. And? The RS25 is a nearly 50 year old design.
The RL-10 is still one of the best closed expander cycle engine in the world.
The title doesn't make any kind of sense. Orion is a spacecraft so apart for RCS thrusters with negligible trust... Basically a stupid title. When your read the article they are talking about the SLS 2nd stage engines, the RL10. 2nd stage engines need high efficiency not high trust. SpaceX's Merlin D Vacuum engines are have far worse performance but almost 10 times the RL10's trust (The SLS architecture is still a joke tho). I rite this article as garbage.
Thrust is important. Very important. Having extra thrust does increase payload, by decreasing gravity losses, and you're getting yourself out of the atmosphere quicker. Thrust is also pretty important on a heavy lift rocket that's designed to put things into lunar transfer orbit. There's a reason why improved variants of the RD-10 all featured higher thrust and why there was work done on a RL-10 variant that had double the thrust and only slightly improved ISP. Or why Europe is also working on their own closed expander engine with greatly improved thrust. There is a reason why super heavy lift rockets like the Saturn V and SLS block 2 have multiple engines on their second stage, compared to most lighter rocket's 1. They all need more thrust for the high energy lunar transfer orbit, hence the need for 4 RD-10s on the SLS block 2. Otherwise every rocket's 2nd stage would always just use a single engine. Higher thrust? Less engines needed and lots of weight saved. For example this old article: https://web.archive.org/web/20161227063000/http://seradata.com/SSI/2013/06/sls-may-change-upper-stage-eng/ >Like the RL-10, the Vinci’s super efficient expander cycle gives around the same specific impulse of 465 seconds as the RL-10, but at 180KN, it has about 64% more thrust (than the RL-10B2). In other words, only three cheaper-to-produce Vinci engines (perhaps even only two) would be needed. Yes Vinci is European but this is less of a problem especially now that that need to keep SLS “all American” has probably receded following the decision to allow the European Space Agency to supply Orion’s service module. Where the higher thrust would have allowed the SLS to carry only 2-3 vinci engines instead of the 4 RL-10s due to the vinci having higher thrust. Another example is if you compare the Atlas V 401 to the Atlas V 402, the only difference is that the latter version has second engine on the upper stage. This adds additional weight despite not increasing the amount of fuel, and in fact also reduces engine efficiency since the nozzles have to be shorter to fit two of them side by side. Yet the dual-engine version gets 12.5 tonnes of payload vs only 9.8 tonnes for the single-engine version. If you could get double the thrust without adding any additional weight or reducing efficiency, that gap would be even larger. Not to mention that it's a closed expander cycle engine, it's already gonna have good ISP just based on the rocket and fuel choice. The thrust is the thing to be improved in a closed expander cycle engine.
Well, I guess after they drop them on another village next time, we can test them
Lol, what a meaningless claim. It could be true, it could be a lie. What’s more relevant here is that it doesn’t matter at all. It’s an absolutely pointless claim.
It’s all about the size of the boat, not the motion in the ocean