China’s state rocket company unveils rendering of a [SpaceX] Starship look-alike

[Hamartia Antidote]

When did they CNSA say they dump the 2011 version of LM9?

CNSA wouldn't abandon the 2011 version since the YF-130 engine has already successfully tested and ready for mass production. The 2021 version will need the new YF-135 engine. They are going for 2 version of LM9

While Chinese didn't waste time like US space shuttle which is a total failure concept.

Being expensive doesn't equate to failure. It launched over 500 people into space and flew for 30 years. Just because a 747 is more expensive than a Cesnna doesn't make it a failure.

Your Shenzhou has flown only 7 manned missions with only 17 people in 18 years. Now THAT is a complete failure. That is a pathetic capability. Even SpaceX will surpass that and they just started last year.

 

[Beast]

Being expensive doesn't equate to failure. It launched over 500 people into space and flew for 30 years. Just because a 747 is more expensive than a Cesnna doesn't make it a failure.

Your Shenzhou has flown only 7 manned missions with only 17 people in 18 years. Now THAT is a complete failure. That is a pathetic capability. Even SpaceX will surpass that and they just started last year.

Lol.. you logic failed. Sourgraped loser of cos makes that comment. Why didn't NASA continue with such concept?

Shenzhou spacecraft until now is still using unlike white elephant US space shuttle. China space journey start much later than US. Of cos our manned mission number are much lower than US. What makes that difficult to absorb? Purely looking at number of mission without consideration of cost is a big flaw. Shenzhou mission cost is definitely peanuts compare to useless white elephant over expensive US space shuttle.

747 is not really that expensive during it's time as there are always full capacity and the record passenger number are able to cover the cost.

While this can't say for manned mission becos it's not a profitable business with money solely depend on government funding.

There is absolutely no doubt US space shuttle is a failure. Unless NASA restart this program to prove my words wrong.

There are much cheaper and better way to accomplish those previous space mission. The supposed reusability of US space shuttle claimed to be much cheaper than disposable one time used spacecraft, is nothing but BS.

 

[Whizzack]

View attachment 757900
LOL! Yes they have switched to a 16 engine design! That's not what it originally looked like when your engineers proudly announced it years ago

So the original supa-dupa strap on boosters "bigger than the Space Shuttle's" envisioned/researched by your best rocket engineering minds has been ditched.

You can thank SpaceX for that.

Even with the removal of the 4 strap-on boosters, the new LM-9 will still be a very different beast compared to Super Heavy / Starship... this latest version is now actually more similar to the old Saturn V rocket..

Similarities to Saturn V :
- Stages : both are 3-Stage single stick heavy-lift rockets (no strap-on boosters)
- Propellant : both use dissimilar propellant between stages; 1st stage-Kerolox; 2nd & 3rd stage-Hydrolox.
- Appearance : both has dissimilar diameter between stages; 1st & 2nd stage same size; 3rd stage smaller.
- Reusability : Not reusable (but might change for LM-9 1st stage in the future)
- Flight profile : 1st & 2nd stage to get to LEO; 3rd stage for Trans-lunar injection

Differences to Saturn V :
- Engine : Number of engines clustering in 1st stage (5 vs 16) and 2nd stage (5 vs 4); for 3rd stage, both use only single engine.
- Payload to LEO : LM-9 is slightly more powerful (150T vs 140T)
- Saturn V is man-rated, while LM-9 is likely for cargo only

Otoh, between Starship and LM-9, the only thing even remotely similar is probably the large amount of engine clustering in the 1st stage... but even then, the number of engines is very different (30+ vs 16)... Other than that, everything else (number of stages, propellant, flight profile, etc) is totally different...

So I think it's totally wrong to claim the Chinese is copying Starship simply because they are now increasing the number of engines clustered in the core stage... even in its original form, LM-9 is already a rocket with clustered engines... 8 engines clustered in the core stage + 16 more engines distributed between the 4 boosters, for a total of 24 engines for the 1st stage... Right now they are just simplifying the design by removing the strap-on boosters and moving the booster engines to the core stage, while at the same time changing the engines with more powerful engines to reduce the number of engines that needs to be clustered in the 1st stage (24 vs 16).

LM-9 original design

Also need to remember that the concept of clustering a large amount of small engines was actually first implemented by the USSR in their N-1 Rocket... 30 engines in the 1st stage... so no, it's not a monopoly of SpaceX nor is it a SpaceX original concept...

N-1 Rocket

Also, it's actually good that Chinese engineers are willing to review their designs and change it accordingly when something better comes along... rather than just forcing themselves to continue working on a dead-end design like NASA with SLS simply because they want to continue using legacy systems,..

 

[j20blackdragon]

For those that still don't understand the significance of the CZ-9 redesign. Allow me to direct your attention to the 16 YF135 engines that now power the first stage. The original strap-on boosters have been completely eliminated. Does this new engine cluster arrangement remind you of anything?

"It’s better to use a large number of small engines," Musk said.

Back in 2019, Super Heavy was meant to have 35 engines.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1152853620682924032

That number has now dropped to 29-32 engines. I assume that's a good thing. I'm assuming SpaceX isn't going backwards in technology.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1398761944606285828

China's CZ-9 can deliver 150t to LEO with 16 engines, and no strap-on boosters at all. Think about it.

 

[j20blackdragon]

Let me add this tweet as well.

At one point (2020), engine count was reduced to 28 "to simplify the configuration."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1300538031175159809

 

[dbc]

continue working on a dead-end design like NASA with SLS simply because they want to continue using legacy systems,..

dead end? on the contrary, NASA does not want to lose competency in developing HYDRLOX engines and rockets. Sure HYDROLOX is a tricky fuel, requiring complex engineering as opposed to Kerosene or Methane but the RS-25 has the one of the highest trust to weight ratio and out performs even the RD-180 in safety and reliability. it's important for NASA to have a diverse stable of engines and so we have the Hydrolox, Kerolox and Methane Oxygen options available to us.

The complexity in Kerolox closed stage engines involve creating exotic materials that can withstand the heat of oxygen rich combustion while the complexity in hydrolox engines involves handling hot hydrogen. The US solved both challenges the Russians did not while the Chinese have a HydroLox engine but it is a simple less efficient open stage design.

Saturn V payload is 154 tons not 140 tons.
and yes SLS has both Saturn V and the LM9 beat in pure payload not 'injected mass' to LEO.

 

[lonelyman]

Being expensive doesn't equate to failure. It launched over 500 people into space and flew for 30 years. Just because a 747 is more expensive than a Cesnna doesn't make it a failure.

Your Shenzhou has flown only 7 manned missions with only 17 people in 18 years. Now THAT is a complete failure. That is a pathetic capability. Even SpaceX will surpass that and they just started last year.

LOL, space shuttle is the wrong approach, if so successful, why did you guys abandon it? but go for dragon crew space ship

 

[dbc]

space shuttle is the wrong approach

no the space shuttle undertook missions that was impossible for any other platform. Retrieving, repairing and upgrading satellites in space, repairing the Hubble telescope . We may have even grabbed a few enemy satellites and given them ...er...new capability..

You just can't do that stuff in this...sardine can.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

no the space shuttle undertook missions that was impossible for any other platform. Retrieving, repairing and upgrading satellites in space, repairing the Hubble telescope . We may have even grabbed a few enemy satellites and given them ...er...new capability..

You just can't do that stuff in this...sardine can.

look who is stuck using Soyuz button sticks a week or so ago in their "indigenous" spacecraft design

 

[j20blackdragon]

SpaceX itself is going for larger, more powerful engines.

 

[Beast]

no the space shuttle undertook missions that was impossible for any other platform. Retrieving, repairing and upgrading satellites in space, repairing the Hubble telescope . We may have even grabbed a few enemy satellites and given them ...er...new capability..

You just can't do that stuff in this...sardine can.

A simple question of why space shuttle is abandon by NASA that cannot be answered despite many inquiry.. seems like some want to avoid the embarrassment..

If it's really so critical. I can bet cost will not be a problem, right? The only answer I can get, it's over engineer, over complex answer trying to solve a solution. A big white elephant.

 

[lonelyman]

no the space shuttle undertook missions that was impossible for any other platform. Retrieving, repairing and upgrading satellites in space, repairing the Hubble telescope . We may have even grabbed a few enemy satellites and given them ...er...new capability..

You just can't do that stuff in this...sardine can.

lol, then why don't you do shuttle now? instead ride Russian sardine can

we can do whatever you said from our space station or use an un-manned vehicle

look who is stuck using Soyuz button sticks a week or so ago in their "indigenous" spacecraft design

View attachment 758224

who is riding Soyuz and pay 10 million for each ride till now? obviously not us

we can give you guys a discount

 

[dbc]

A simple question of why space shuttle is abandon by NASA

dear beastie the space shuttle was in operation for four decades it flew hundreds of missions.

If you use something for forty years is it appropriate to say you abandoned it?
Please use your god given brain. THANK YOU

 

[Han Patriot]

Being expensive doesn't equate to failure. It launched over 500 people into space and flew for 30 years. Just because a 747 is more expensive than a Cesnna doesn't make it a failure.

Your Shenzhou has flown only 7 manned missions with only 17 people in 18 years. Now THAT is a complete failure. That is a pathetic capability. Even SpaceX will surpass that and they just started last year.

Says the one who have been using soyuz for the past 10 years. Yes that's spelled TEN. LOL

Please don't ask the chinese to use their brain because that's Ableism.

Yup we should learn from the yindoos and use it to make kebabs instead? Lol

 

[lonelyman]

dear beastie the space shuttle was in operation for four decades it flew hundreds of missions.

If you use something for forty years is it appropriate to say you abandoned it?
Please use your god given brain. THANK YOU

are you stupid or what? Old one can retire, why don’t you develop and build new space shuttles if it’s so so good
instead go space ship approach

Please don't ask the chinese to use their brain because that's Ableism.

Chinese obviously have more able brains than Indians from what we achieved

Lol.. you logic failed. Sourgraped loser of cos makes that comment. Why didn't NASA continue with such concept?

Shenzhou spacecraft until now is still using unlike white elephant US space shuttle. China space journey start much later than US. Of cos our manned mission number are much lower than US. What makes that difficult to absorb? Purely looking at number of mission without consideration of cost is a big flaw. Shenzhou mission cost is definitely peanuts compare to useless white elephant over expensive US space shuttle.

747 is not really that expensive during it's time as there are always full capacity and the record passenger number are able to cover the cost.

While this can't say for manned mission becos it's not a profitable business with money solely depend on government funding.

There is absolutely no doubt US space shuttle is a failure. Unless NASA restart this program to prove my words wrong.

There are much cheaper and better way to accomplish those previous space mission. The supposed reusability of US space shuttle claimed to be much cheaper than disposable one time used spacecraft, is nothing but BS.

blew up twice does not help either