A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

China wants to catch up to US rockets in 2020 and then get nuclearspaceships in 2045



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 18th 17, 08:02 AM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 614
Default China wants to catch up to US rockets in 2020 and then get nuclearspaceships in 2045

"China plans a fleet of nuclear carrier rockets and reusable hybrid-power carriers by the
mid-2040s. They will be ready for regular, large scale interplanetary flights, and carrying
out commercial exploration and exploitation of natural resources by the mid-2040s.

China plans to catch up with the United States on conventional rocket technology by
2020.

If Spacex and Elon Musk achieve fully reusable rockets with the Falcon 9 or the BFR in
the 2020-2022 timeframe then China would be 13-15 years behind if they hit their
target for reusable rockets in 2035.

By 2030, China will put astronauts on the moon and bring samples back from Mars."

See:

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/1...s-in-2045.html

Ads
  #2  
Old November 18th 17, 10:51 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,664
Default China wants to catch up to US rockets in 2020 and then get nuclear spaceships in 2045

wrote:

"China plans a fleet of nuclear carrier rockets and reusable hybrid-power carriers by the
mid-2040s. They will be ready for regular, large scale interplanetary flights, and carrying
out commercial exploration and exploitation of natural resources by the mid-2040s.

China plans to catch up with the United States on conventional rocket technology by
2020.

If Spacex and Elon Musk achieve fully reusable rockets with the Falcon 9 or the BFR in
the 2020-2022 timeframe then China would be 13-15 years behind if they hit their
target for reusable rockets in 2035.

By 2030, China will put astronauts on the moon and bring samples back from Mars."

See:

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/1...s-in-2045.html


China frequently 'plans' things that it just can't execute. They
'planned' to build 20 aircraft carriers in 20 years, too. They built
one.

I don't understand why nuclear thermal rockets are 'necessary'. NASA
says it's to get trip times to Mars down to 3 months or so. SpaceX
plans to do that with conventional rockets, where BFR Spacecraft will
have Mars transit times of around 3 months (because they depart fully
fueled from Earth orbit). Yes, nuclear thermal rockets get you a
higher Isp, but why wait for that? As for nuclear electric, you get a
really high Isp with a really low acceleration. Again, I don't see
the point.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #3  
Old November 18th 17, 12:59 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Alain Fournier[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 317
Default China wants to catch up to US rockets in 2020 and then getnuclear spaceships in 2045

On Nov/18/2017 at 5:51 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
wrote:

"China plans a fleet of nuclear carrier rockets and reusable hybrid-power carriers by the
mid-2040s. They will be ready for regular, large scale interplanetary flights, and carrying
out commercial exploration and exploitation of natural resources by the mid-2040s.

China plans to catch up with the United States on conventional rocket technology by
2020.

If Spacex and Elon Musk achieve fully reusable rockets with the Falcon 9 or the BFR in
the 2020-2022 timeframe then China would be 13-15 years behind if they hit their
target for reusable rockets in 2035.

By 2030, China will put astronauts on the moon and bring samples back from Mars."

See:

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/1...s-in-2045.html


China frequently 'plans' things that it just can't execute. They
'planned' to build 20 aircraft carriers in 20 years, too. They built
one.

I don't understand why nuclear thermal rockets are 'necessary'.


They are not necessary. Neither are fly-back reusable first stages.
But in the long run, once development costs are paid for, they can
make things cheaper. Once in orbit, high ISP is very useful.


Alain Fournier
  #4  
Old November 18th 17, 10:31 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,664
Default China wants to catch up to US rockets in 2020 and then get nuclear spaceships in 2045

Alain Fournier wrote:

On Nov/18/2017 at 5:51 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
wrote:

"China plans a fleet of nuclear carrier rockets and reusable hybrid-power carriers by the
mid-2040s. They will be ready for regular, large scale interplanetary flights, and carrying
out commercial exploration and exploitation of natural resources by the mid-2040s.

China plans to catch up with the United States on conventional rocket technology by
2020.

If Spacex and Elon Musk achieve fully reusable rockets with the Falcon 9 or the BFR in
the 2020-2022 timeframe then China would be 13-15 years behind if they hit their
target for reusable rockets in 2035.

By 2030, China will put astronauts on the moon and bring samples back from Mars."

See:

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/1...s-in-2045.html


China frequently 'plans' things that it just can't execute. They
'planned' to build 20 aircraft carriers in 20 years, too. They built
one.

I don't understand why nuclear thermal rockets are 'necessary'.


They are not necessary. Neither are fly-back reusable first stages.
But in the long run, once development costs are paid for, they can
make things cheaper. Once in orbit, high ISP is very useful.


You misunderstand me. NASA has claimed that they are NECESSARY to get
fast trip times and that's how they're justifying funding. It's a
lie.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #5  
Old November 19th 17, 11:56 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,664
Default China wants to catch up to US rockets in 2020 and then get nuclear spaceships in 2045

William Mook wrote:

There are two reasons China signals and then disappears from the radar screen;

(1) economic caution,
(2) geopolitical caution,


In other words, as I said, they talk big plans and then don't deliver
on them.


This does not mean they do not make progress. On the contrary, their progress is steady and inexorable thus far and they have outclassed the USA in many respects in ways that do not threaten the USA.


So they 'outclass' us in things we can't be bothered to shine at?


The quality of Chinese graduate students is legendary in the USA. Nearly 20% of all graduate positions, and the top 20% of the graduate population, are uniformly Chinese. Many of these return to China bearing great knowledge, often after working in US industry, US Space and US military programmes.


Absolutely wrong. There are around 150,000 Chinese graduate students
enrolled at various schools in the US. The graduate school population
is around 1.75 million. Pretty sure 150,000 isn't 20% of 1.75
million. Are you getting confused and switching back and forth
between counting 'ethnic Chinese' and 'Chinese by nationality'?

snip meaningless trade numbers


Yet, if you want to know where the Chinese are in their nuclear programmes, just look at the aircraft carrier programme and their nuclear submarine programme and their nuclear power programme.


They have no nuclear aircraft carriers and no plans for any that I'm
aware of. Their next carrier will apparently be something the size of
the UK's QUEEN ELISABETH. Regardless, marine propulsion reactors and
power reactors have NOTHING to do with nuclear rocket engines.


China outclasses the USA in computing, while US investors own designs and hardware, virtually all the wafer fab capacity America owns resides in Asia.


But not in Mainland China. I think a number of companies will be
surprised to find that their major fabs are in Asia, whether you're
talking Mainland China or all of Asia.

snip usual self-congratulatory MookSpew


On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 11:51:27 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

"China plans a fleet of nuclear carrier rockets and reusable hybrid-power carriers by the
mid-2040s. They will be ready for regular, large scale interplanetary flights, and carrying
out commercial exploration and exploitation of natural resources by the mid-2040s.

China plans to catch up with the United States on conventional rocket technology by
2020.

If Spacex and Elon Musk achieve fully reusable rockets with the Falcon 9 or the BFR in
the 2020-2022 timeframe then China would be 13-15 years behind if they hit their
target for reusable rockets in 2035.

By 2030, China will put astronauts on the moon and bring samples back from Mars."

See:

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/1...s-in-2045.html


China frequently 'plans' things that it just can't execute. They
'planned' to build 20 aircraft carriers in 20 years, too. They built
one.

I don't understand why nuclear thermal rockets are 'necessary'. NASA
says it's to get trip times to Mars down to 3 months or so. SpaceX
plans to do that with conventional rockets, where BFR Spacecraft will
have Mars transit times of around 3 months (because they depart fully
fueled from Earth orbit). Yes, nuclear thermal rockets get you a
higher Isp, but why wait for that? As for nuclear electric, you get a
really high Isp with a really low acceleration. Again, I don't see
the point.




--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #6  
Old November 19th 17, 02:37 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,601
Default China wants to catch up to US rockets in 2020 and then get nuclear spaceships in 2045

In article ,
says...
See:

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/1...s-in-2045.html


China frequently 'plans' things that it just can't execute. They
'planned' to build 20 aircraft carriers in 20 years, too. They built
one.

I don't understand why nuclear thermal rockets are 'necessary'.


They are not necessary. Neither are fly-back reusable first stages.
But in the long run, once development costs are paid for, they can
make things cheaper. Once in orbit, high ISP is very useful.


You misunderstand me. NASA has claimed that they are NECESSARY to get
fast trip times and that's how they're justifying funding. It's a
lie.


Agreed. All you really need is "cheap access to space", then you can
launch as much LOX/methane and/or LOX/hydrogen propellant to achieve the
delta-V necessary to make the mission "fast" (whatever that means).

Rather than throwing multi-billions of dollars down the rat-hole of SLS
funding, it would be more efficient to fund "commercial HLV" with down-
selects to three and eventually two providers. With the current trends
in the industry, no doubt at least one of those providers would
incorporate reuse of at least the first stage.

Instead, SLS will reuse absolutely nothing. With likely more than $1
billion dollars of hardware wasted on each and every flight, the program
is a complete economic disaster. It's from this (dismal) point of view
that some people at NASA reason that nuclear propulsion is "necessary"
for a trip to Mars. But, when you start with the wrong assumptions, you
arrive at the wrong conclusions.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #7  
Old November 19th 17, 07:50 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 593
Default China wants to catch up to US rockets in 2020 and then get nuclear spaceships in 2045

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...
See:

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/1...s-in-2045.html


China frequently 'plans' things that it just can't execute. They
'planned' to build 20 aircraft carriers in 20 years, too. They built
one.

I don't understand why nuclear thermal rockets are 'necessary'.


They are not necessary. Neither are fly-back reusable first stages.
But in the long run, once development costs are paid for, they can
make things cheaper. Once in orbit, high ISP is very useful.


You misunderstand me. NASA has claimed that they are NECESSARY to get
fast trip times and that's how they're justifying funding. It's a
lie.


Agreed. All you really need is "cheap access to space", then you can
launch as much LOX/methane and/or LOX/hydrogen propellant to achieve the
delta-V necessary to make the mission "fast" (whatever that means).


Yeah, all this "we have to study more and more" etc is really BS.

Getting to Mars ultimately comes down to mass. The more mass you can throw
at the problem, the easier it becomes.

And SpaceX is certainly making it a lot easier to throw mass at the problem.

Even w/o BFR, Falcon Heavy is promising to throw a lot more mass to orbit at
a lower cost than SLS ever will.

I'm betting on the Heavy or BFR long before SLS.

Rather than throwing multi-billions of dollars down the rat-hole of SLS
funding, it would be more efficient to fund "commercial HLV" with down-
selects to three and eventually two providers. With the current trends
in the industry, no doubt at least one of those providers would
incorporate reuse of at least the first stage.

Instead, SLS will reuse absolutely nothing. With likely more than $1
billion dollars of hardware wasted on each and every flight, the program
is a complete economic disaster. It's from this (dismal) point of view
that some people at NASA reason that nuclear propulsion is "necessary"
for a trip to Mars. But, when you start with the wrong assumptions, you
arrive at the wrong conclusions.

Jeff


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

  #8  
Old November 20th 17, 12:11 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default China wants to catch up to US rockets in 2020 and then getnuclear spaceships in 2045

On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 12:56:06 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

There are two reasons China signals and then disappears from the radar screen;

(1) economic caution,
(2) geopolitical caution,


In other words, as I said, they talk big plans and then don't deliver
on them.


They tell the world they will build 40 aircraft carriers and build one - when they plan to build one - so the world does not fear them.



This does not mean they do not make progress. On the contrary, their progress is steady and inexorable thus far and they have outclassed the USA in many respects in ways that do not threaten the USA.


So they 'outclass' us in things we can't be bothered to shine at?


They outclass the United States in nearly every essential measure that they have identified as being important to them. The USA hasn't bothered to even think about what is important to its survival. This means China is well ahead in technical as well as non-technical factors. Beyond technology where China surpasses the USA in terms of trained people and quality of capital equipment.

We are in debt, they have a surplus, they have all the tools in their physical control, we do not, they have their population behind them, we do not, we have over-reached our military abilities, they have not.


The quality of Chinese graduate students is legendary in the USA. Nearly 20% of all graduate positions, and the top 20% of the graduate population, are uniformly Chinese. Many of these return to China bearing great knowledge, often after working in US industry, US Space and US military programmes.


Absolutely wrong.


Obviously you have never looked at the names of those top 20% of all graduate classes in engineering and science.

There are around 150,000 Chinese graduate students
enrolled at various schools in the US. The graduate school population
is around 1.75 million. Pretty sure 150,000 isn't 20% of 1.75
million.


http://www.nber.org/digest/jan05/w10554.html

In 1966 US born white males received 71% of science and engineering Phds. By the year 2000 it was just 35%.

By the year 2000 US born white males received just 35% of science and engineering PhDs, while 25% of those doctorates were awarded to females, 39% to foreign-born students.

Are you getting confused and switching back and forth
between counting 'ethnic Chinese' and 'Chinese by nationality'?

snip meaningless trade numbers


Funny that somone is so confused about the numbers he quotes projects that confusion on to others.



Yet, if you want to know where the Chinese are in their nuclear programmes, just look at the aircraft carrier programme and their nuclear submarine programme and their nuclear power programme.


They have no nuclear aircraft carriers and no plans for any that I'm
aware of.


They plan 6 and 2 of these will be nuclear.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/asiat..._11164324.html


Their next carrier will apparently be something the size of
the UK's QUEEN ELISABETH. Regardless, marine propulsion reactors and
power reactors have NOTHING to do with nuclear rocket engines.


Dead wrong. The skill sets required to compound engineer and handle weapons grade fissile materials to form nuclear rockets and nuclear navy reactors have much in common. That's why AEC and Los Alamos Labs took the lead in NERVA development in 1957. It is the road map China will follow for a successful programme in their country.

http://www.astronautix.com/n/nerva.html


China outclasses the USA in computing, while US investors own designs and hardware, virtually all the wafer fab capacity America owns resides in Asia.


But not in Mainland China. I think a number of companies will be
surprised to find that their major fabs are in Asia, whether you're
talking Mainland China or all of Asia.

snip usual self-congratulatory MookSpew


On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 11:51:27 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

"China plans a fleet of nuclear carrier rockets and reusable hybrid-power carriers by the
mid-2040s. They will be ready for regular, large scale interplanetary flights, and carrying
out commercial exploration and exploitation of natural resources by the mid-2040s.

China plans to catch up with the United States on conventional rocket technology by
2020.

If Spacex and Elon Musk achieve fully reusable rockets with the Falcon 9 or the BFR in
the 2020-2022 timeframe then China would be 13-15 years behind if they hit their
target for reusable rockets in 2035.

By 2030, China will put astronauts on the moon and bring samples back from Mars."

See:

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/1...s-in-2045.html


China frequently 'plans' things that it just can't execute. They
'planned' to build 20 aircraft carriers in 20 years, too. They built
one.

I don't understand why nuclear thermal rockets are 'necessary'.


Then read the analysis I provided which was elided here.

An all chemical Long March 9 rocket will put 130 tonnes into LEO.

Replace the chemical second stage with a Nerva style second stage, and that rises to over 300 tonnes on orbit, and over 100 tonnes on the moon and back.

* * *

Cheng Zheng 9 Estimated Performance

4 SRB - 1,200t thrust each, 590t TOW, 86t LDT, 2.4 km/sec Ve. 4,800 t total thrust

Replacing the segmented Solid Rockets with Liquid Rocket Boosters, and equipping all stages for downrange recovery similar to SpaceX, we have a very interesting low cost access to space.

First stage - 2,500 t thrust (5x 500 t engine) throttable to 1,000 t thrust.. 3 km/sec SL, 3.6 km/sec Vac.
2,171.8t weight, 1,436.4t propellant, 72.4t structure

Second stage - 500 t thrust 3.6 km/sec Vac.
662.5t weight, 438.3t propellant, 55.2t structure

Orbiter - 169.0t weight, 24.9t propellant, 14.1t structure

Payload - 130.0t weight

NERVA STYLE SECOND STAGE PUTS UP ~500 metric tons

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs3zNwXhzSA

Replacing the second stage with a 500t thrust NERVA style engine, with 9.5 km/sec exhaust speed, that heats up 343.6t of liquid hydrogen, places 497.8t payload + structure into LEO!!

NUCLEAR PULSE ORION STYLE SECOND STAGE PUTS UP 580 metric tons!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njM7xlQIjnQ

Replacing the second stage with a 500t thrust Nuclear Pulse Orion style engine, with 20.0 km/sec exhaust speed, that detonates 182.1t of pulse units, places 581.1t of payload+structure into LEO!

CAPABILITIES ON ORBIT:

NERVA ENGINE: 120.2t structure -377.6t remainder - 500t thrust
ORION ENGINE: 192.3t structure -388.8t remainder -500t thrust

These systems can land and take off from the Moon and from Mars directly.

The Delta Vee required to get to the moon and back once on LEO, is 7.6 km/sec.

NERVA ENGINE: 120.2t structure - 274.1t propellant - 103.4t payload on moon
ORION ENGINE: 192.3t structure -183.7t propellant - 205.1t payload on moon

That is, by adding a nuclear upper stage, to the first stage and zeroth stage booster, more payload can be taken to the moon and back to Earth than can be put into orbit using the all chemical stage.

The delta Vee for Mars is comparable and so are the weights.

NASA
says it's to get trip times to Mars down to 3 months or so. SpaceX
plans to do that with conventional rockets, where BFR Spacecraft will
have Mars transit times of around 3 months (because they depart fully
fueled from Earth orbit). Yes, nuclear thermal rockets get you a
higher Isp, but why wait for that? As for nuclear electric, you get a
really high Isp with a really low acceleration. Again, I don't see
the point.





--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw


  #9  
Old November 20th 17, 05:30 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,664
Default China wants to catch up to US rockets in 2020 and then get nuclear spaceships in 2045

William Mook wrote:

On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 12:56:06 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

There are two reasons China signals and then disappears from the radar screen;

(1) economic caution,
(2) geopolitical caution,


In other words, as I said, they talk big plans and then don't deliver
on them.


They tell the world they will build 40 aircraft carriers and build one - when they plan to build one - so the world does not fear them.


In other words, as I said, they talk big plans and then don't deliver
on them.




This does not mean they do not make progress. On the contrary, their progress is steady and inexorable thus far and they have outclassed the USA in many respects in ways that do not threaten the USA.


So they 'outclass' us in things we can't be bothered to shine at?


They outclass the United States in nearly every essential measure that they have identified as being important to them. The USA hasn't bothered to even think about what is important to its survival. This means China is well ahead in technical as well as non-technical factors. Beyond technology where China surpasses the USA in terms of trained people and quality of capital equipment.


What utter poppycock!


We are in debt, they have a surplus, they have all the tools in their physical control, we do not, they have their population behind them, we do not, we have over-reached our military abilities, they have not.


They're a local power. We are not.


The quality of Chinese graduate students is legendary in the USA. Nearly 20% of all graduate positions, and the top 20% of the graduate population, are uniformly Chinese. Many of these return to China bearing great knowledge, often after working in US industry, US Space and US military programmes.


Absolutely wrong.


Obviously you have never looked at the names of those top 20% of all graduate classes in engineering and science.


Obviously neither have you. You have also never looked at the
difference between having an Asian sounding name and being Chinese.
Again, there are around 150,000 graduate students from China at
various US schools. There are 1.75 million graduate students in total
at various US schools. Take your shoes off and calculate what 20% of
1.75 million is.



There are around 150,000 Chinese graduate students
enrolled at various schools in the US. The graduate school population
is around 1.75 million. Pretty sure 150,000 isn't 20% of 1.75
million.


http://www.nber.org/digest/jan05/w10554.html

In 1966 US born white males received 71% of science and engineering Phds. By the year 2000 it was just 35%.

By the year 2000 US born white males received just 35% of science and engineering PhDs, while 25% of those doctorates were awarded to females, 39% to foreign-born students.


And a small number awarded to Chinese.

Are you getting confused and switching back and forth
between counting 'ethnic Chinese' and 'Chinese by nationality'?

snip meaningless trade numbers


Funny that somone is so confused about the numbers he quotes projects that confusion on to others.


You want to try that again in comprehensible English?




Yet, if you want to know where the Chinese are in their nuclear programmes, just look at the aircraft carrier programme and their nuclear submarine programme and their nuclear power programme.


They have no nuclear aircraft carriers and no plans for any that I'm
aware of.


They plan 6 and 2 of these will be nuclear.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/asiat..._11164324.html


The article is on its ass. It says 4 conventional and 2 nuclear
carriers by 2025. It currently has ONE conventional carrier (Type
001) and a second (Type 001A) working toward being commissioned in
around 2020. The first of the larger Type 002 carriers is currently
under construction and will enter service around 2023. Their first
nuclear carrier is just a gleam in some folks' eyes at the current
time and it's unlikely to commission before 2030 even on a
preposterously aggressive schedule. The Type 001A looks to take about
18 months to build from start of construction. The larger and more
complex Type 002 looks like it's going to take around 3 years. The
Type 003 certainly won't be any faster than that. It looks like it
takes China around 3 years once a carrier is launched to finish
fitting it and work it up to put it in commission.

What these numbers mean is that in 2025 China will have PERHAPS 4
conventional carriers in commission (more likely 3) and no nuclear
carriers at all. It takes 6-7 years from the start of bending metal
to getting a carrier in commission, so if it's not under construction
today it probably won't be in the Chinese fleet by 2025.


Their next carrier will apparently be something the size of
the UK's QUEEN ELISABETH. Regardless, marine propulsion reactors and
power reactors have NOTHING to do with nuclear rocket engines.


Dead wrong. The skill sets required to compound engineer and handle weapons grade fissile materials to form nuclear rockets and nuclear navy reactors have much in common. That's why AEC and Los Alamos Labs took the lead in NERVA development in 1957. It is the road map China will follow for a successful programme in their country.

http://www.astronautix.com/n/nerva.html


Bull****. The physics may be the same but the engineering is
radically different.


China outclasses the USA in computing, while US investors own designs and hardware, virtually all the wafer fab capacity America owns resides in Asia.


But not in Mainland China. I think a number of companies will be
surprised to find that their major fabs are in Asia, whether you're
talking Mainland China or all of Asia.

snip usual self-congratulatory MookSpew


On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 11:51:27 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

"China plans a fleet of nuclear carrier rockets and reusable hybrid-power carriers by the
mid-2040s. They will be ready for regular, large scale interplanetary flights, and carrying
out commercial exploration and exploitation of natural resources by the mid-2040s.

China plans to catch up with the United States on conventional rocket technology by
2020.

If Spacex and Elon Musk achieve fully reusable rockets with the Falcon 9 or the BFR in
the 2020-2022 timeframe then China would be 13-15 years behind if they hit their
target for reusable rockets in 2035.

By 2030, China will put astronauts on the moon and bring samples back from Mars."

See:

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/1...s-in-2045.html


China frequently 'plans' things that it just can't execute. They
'planned' to build 20 aircraft carriers in 20 years, too. They built
one.

I don't understand why nuclear thermal rockets are 'necessary'.


Then read the analysis I provided which was elided here.


You don't do 'analysis'. You don't know the meaning of the word.


An all chemical Long March 9 rocket will put 130 tonnes into LEO.


An all chemical Long March 9 rocket doesn't exist and so will put 0
tonnes into LEO. Studies don't boost payload. Rockets do.


Replace the chemical second stage with a Nerva style second stage, and that rises to over 300 tonnes on orbit, and over 100 tonnes on the moon and back.


Nobody said they weren't USEFUL. I said they weren't NECESSARY for
fast trips to Mars and they are not.

snip Mookie's Chinese Love Affair


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #10  
Old November 26th 17, 01:11 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default China wants to catch up to US rockets in 2020 and then getnuclear spaceships in 2045

Responses in line.

On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 6:30:45 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 12:56:06 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

There are two reasons China signals and then disappears from the radar screen;

(1) economic caution,
(2) geopolitical caution,


In other words, as I said, they talk big plans and then don't deliver
on them.


They tell the world they will build 40 aircraft carriers and build one - when they plan to build one - so the world does not fear them.


In other words, as I said, they talk big plans and then don't deliver
on them.


Yet they make steady progress and will likely be the last man standing if the USA should fail through over-reach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5SoE9vBc6I






This does not mean they do not make progress. On the contrary, their progress is steady and inexorable thus far and they have outclassed the USA in many respects in ways that do not threaten the USA.


So they 'outclass' us in things we can't be bothered to shine at?


They outclass the United States in nearly every essential measure that they have identified as being important to them. The USA hasn't bothered to even think about what is important to its survival. This means China is well ahead in technical as well as non-technical factors. Beyond technology where China surpasses the USA in terms of trained people and quality of capital equipment.


What utter poppycock!


That's a cogent reasoned reply! NOT! lol.



We are in debt, they have a surplus, they have all the tools in their physical control, we do not, they have their population behind them, we do not, we have over-reached our military abilities, they have not.


They're a local power. We are not.


Knowledgeable people know this is not true.

The USA has over reached its abilities. China has not.

The USA is at present, best described, as a failed global power on the same path as the former Soviet Union. By ignoring this reality, you accelerate its coming about. By addressing this reality, we have a choice to do something about it.

China in contrast is a growing global power, poised to fill the vacuum left by the USSR and USA. China faces many problems going forward, not the least of which is energy and water, however, they are at present more stable than the USA.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...hina-and-world



The quality of Chinese graduate students is legendary in the USA. Nearly 20% of all graduate positions, and the top 20% of the graduate population, are uniformly Chinese. Many of these return to China bearing great knowledge, often after working in US industry, US Space and US military programmes.


Absolutely wrong.


Obviously you have never looked at the names of those top 20% of all graduate classes in engineering and science.


Obviously neither have you. You have also never looked at the
difference between having an Asian sounding name and being Chinese.


https://www.migrationpolicy.org/arti...ration-reality

Obviously you are unaware of China's policies regarding those of chinese ancestry, no matter where they live or were born.

Again, there are around 150,000 graduate students from China at
various US schools. There are 1.75 million graduate students in total
at various US schools. Take your shoes off and calculate what 20% of
1.75 million is.


You have ignored the fact that the Bureau of Census has actual numbers which indicate that 39% of all PhD graduates in the USA are foreign born. You also ignore the fact that the figures you quote are not current. Today's Chinese graduate students number in excess of 300,000 - not 150,000. Nearly all Chinese students graduate. Not so for others.

39% of all PhD graduates in 2000 were foreign born. The top 20% were largely Chinese.




There are around 150,000 Chinese graduate students
enrolled at various schools in the US. The graduate school population
is around 1.75 million. Pretty sure 150,000 isn't 20% of 1.75
million.


http://www.nber.org/digest/jan05/w10554.html

In 1966 US born white males received 71% of science and engineering Phds.. By the year 2000 it was just 35%.

By the year 2000 US born white males received just 35% of science and engineering PhDs, while 25% of those doctorates were awarded to females, 39% to foreign-born students.


And a small number awarded to Chinese.


No, most of the foreign born receiving PhD were Chinese.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/16/...ts-university/


Are you getting confused and switching back and forth
between counting 'ethnic Chinese' and 'Chinese by nationality'?

snip meaningless trade numbers


Funny that somone is so confused about the numbers he quotes projects that confusion on to others.


You want to try that again in comprehensible English?


Sure, you find real numbers from reliable sources meaningless and so ignore them rather than deal with them intelligently.





Yet, if you want to know where the Chinese are in their nuclear programmes, just look at the aircraft carrier programme and their nuclear submarine programme and their nuclear power programme.


They have no nuclear aircraft carriers and no plans for any that I'm
aware of.


They plan 6 and 2 of these will be nuclear.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/asiat..._11164324.html


The article is on its ass.


See, a reliable source gives information you don't like, and you attack the article rather than accept the fact you don't know what you're talking about.

It says 4 conventional and 2 nuclear
carriers by 2025. It currently has ONE conventional carrier (Type
001) and a second (Type 001A) working toward being commissioned in
around 2020. The first of the larger Type 002 carriers is currently
under construction and will enter service around 2023. Their first
nuclear carrier is just a gleam in some folks' eyes at the current
time and it's unlikely to commission before 2030 even on a
preposterously aggressive schedule.


They plan to have 10 nuclear powered aircraft carriers by the 100th anniversary of their founding, the same time period they plan to have a nuclear powered space shuttle - 2040 AD.

https://www.popsci.com/china-aircraf...ier-technology

https://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...ina/cv-003.htm

https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/16/...-roadmap-2040/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/spac...e-space-plans/


The Type 001A looks to take about
18 months to build from start of construction. The larger and more
complex Type 002 looks like it's going to take around 3 years.


Cite?

The
Type 003 certainly won't be any faster than that.


Cite?

It looks like it
takes China around 3 years once a carrier is launched to finish
fitting it and work it up to put it in commission.


Cite?

The Dalian Shipbuilding Company builds large 200,000+ metric ton ships in 9 months to 15 months time period. Dalian is the primary contractor for the Type 003 aircraft carrier. The type 003 is in the 100,000 ton range. Smaller than most Dalian built ships. So, Dalian is quite capable in getting this done in 15 months or less, once the decision is made to build it. It will take an additional 3 months to 5 months to outfit and staff it.

The Chinese have already spent five years planning and designing their aircraft carrier. So, 18 months from decision to build until the aircraft carrier is operational is something any analyst would say is possible.


What these numbers mean is that in 2025 China will have PERHAPS 4
conventional carriers in commission (more likely 3) and no nuclear
carriers at all.


http://fissilematerials.org/blog/201..._reactors.html

This article states, among other things,

The Changzheng-1, China's first nuclear powered submarine - the Type 091 Han-class nuclear powered attack submarine entered service in 1974 and was decommissioned in 2013.

Both the Type 091 and the Type 092 vessels used LEU enriched uranium-235. The first generation naval reactors were mainly in use from the early 1970s to mid-2000s.

Zhang Jinlin, the chief designer of China's second generation nuclear-powered submarines, has said that the second generation nuclear-powered attack submarines, the Type 093 Shang-class, was delivered in 2006, and the second generation ballistic missile submarines, the Type 094 Jin-class, was delivered in 2014.

China currently possesses five nuclear powered attack submarines and four nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines. These are all believed to use LEU fuel.

China has adapted its second generation naval reactor for use as a small commercial power reactor. The China National Nuclear Corporation's ACP100 reactor is derived from naval reactor technology.

http://en.cnnc.com.cn/2016-04/28/c_51725.htm

The ACP100 reactor is a 310 MWt (100 MWe) small modular PWR, using enriched LEU fuel, with the core and cooling system integrated inside the pressure vessel and a passive safety system.

This is easily adapted to a space nuclear electric power system. It can also be used to heat hydrogen to make a nuclear thermal rocket.

China has developed a compact integrated naval reactor, similar to ones previously developed by the USA, France and Russia.

These reactors may further be developed into nuclear thermal rocket cores as was done in USA and Russia.

It takes 6-7 years from the start of bending metal
to getting a carrier in commission,


Cite?

Dalian takes between 9 months and 15 months from the start of bending metal to get 200,000+ ton ships in commission. Carriers are small by comparison at 100,000 tons. Other Chinese carriers have been brought into commission in less than 18 months.

There is no compelling reason to believe that when using off-the-shelf navy nuclear power reactors China couldn't have a nuclear reactor powered aircraft carrier within 18 months of the decision to build one.

so if it's not under construction
today it probably won't be in the Chinese fleet by 2025.


If you actually read the technical literature about the Type 001 and Type 002 power plant, you will see that its size and fixturing is such that it could easily be replaced by a pair of 100 MW electrical type nuclear power modules in less than 3 months.


Their next carrier will apparently be something the size of
the UK's QUEEN ELISABETH. Regardless, marine propulsion reactors and
power reactors have NOTHING to do with nuclear rocket engines.


Dead wrong. The skill sets required to compound engineer and handle weapons grade fissile materials to form nuclear rockets and nuclear navy reactors have much in common. That's why AEC and Los Alamos Labs took the lead in NERVA development in 1957. It is the road map China will follow for a successful programme in their country.

http://www.astronautix.com/n/nerva.html


Bull****.


Another cogent thoughtful reply! lol. NOT!

The physics may be the same but the engineering is
radically different.


Funny that you think engineering does not involve a deep understanding of physics. Fact is, engineering is the practical application of physics to solve problems. China has decades of experience with highly enriched compact nuclear cores that are adaptable for a number of missions.

Los Alamos and NACA Lewis cooperated with nuclear contractors like Brookhaven and Westinghouse, to produce Kiwi and Phoebus in the 1950s, derived from the experience with compact nuclear naval reactors. Russia did likewise, and so will China, if they wish to do so.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...9910017902.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b18HtG0DOCM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R86mkvU4qHw




China outclasses the USA in computing, while US investors own designs and hardware, virtually all the wafer fab capacity America owns resides in Asia.


But not in Mainland China. I think a number of companies will be
surprised to find that their major fabs are in Asia, whether you're
talking Mainland China or all of Asia.

snip usual self-congratulatory MookSpew


On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 11:51:27 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

"China plans a fleet of nuclear carrier rockets and reusable hybrid-power carriers by the
mid-2040s. They will be ready for regular, large scale interplanetary flights, and carrying
out commercial exploration and exploitation of natural resources by the mid-2040s.

China plans to catch up with the United States on conventional rocket technology by
2020.

If Spacex and Elon Musk achieve fully reusable rockets with the Falcon 9 or the BFR in
the 2020-2022 timeframe then China would be 13-15 years behind if they hit their
target for reusable rockets in 2035.

By 2030, China will put astronauts on the moon and bring samples back from Mars."

See:

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/1...s-in-2045.html


China frequently 'plans' things that it just can't execute. They
'planned' to build 20 aircraft carriers in 20 years, too. They built
one.

I don't understand why nuclear thermal rockets are 'necessary'.


Then read the analysis I provided which was elided here.


You don't do 'analysis'.


Yes I do, with references as well. You ignore them, erase them, and say they don't exist. That's because you have no problem in being highly dishonest.

You don't know the meaning of the word.


Yes I do. You prefer to erase or ignore such references and spew bile. lol. Those are your problems, not mine.



An all chemical Long March 9 rocket will put 130 tonnes into LEO.


An all chemical Long March 9 rocket doesn't exist and so will put 0
tonnes into LEO. Studies don't boost payload. Rockets do.


Replace the chemical second stage with a Nerva style second stage, and that rises to over 300 tonnes on orbit, and over 100 tonnes on the moon and back.


Nobody said they weren't USEFUL.


That's wise.

I said they weren't NECESSARY for
fast trips to Mars and they are not.


If you want boots and flags and go home, you don't need nuclear reactors in space. If you want to build bases and develop off world resources, for a growing world population, as Kraft Ehricke said in his video above, then nuclear reactors, particularly bimodal type, are useful for multiplying the interplanetary payloads of existing launchers most efficiently.

The proposed large long-march rocket that puts 130 metric tons into LEO, as a purely chemical booster, can put a person on the Moon and return them to Earth.

Replacing that booster's chemical second stage with a nuclear second stage, increases payloads to orbit to 500 metric tons, and puts 200 metric tons on the moon, with its own compact power plant. A ready made lunar base.

I presented a commercial application of NEBA-III reactor at the White House during the Clinton Administration in 1995-96 with some DOE personnell. So, I know what I'm talking about.

You not so much.




snip Mookie's Chinese Love Affair


You confuse accurate reporting of the relative abilities of Chinese society with 'love' - this in addition to your other confusions.

Fact remains, if you want to lift significant payloads into deep space, and provide them with adequate power, a compact nuclear power plant is of interest.

Ernst Stulhinger's ion rocket used 23 MW electrical power and 114 MW thermal power. The power plant, including radiator, was 189 MT out of a total weight of 730 MT.

Payload: 136,000 kg (299,000 lb). Thrust: 490 N (110 lbf). Gross mass: 660,000 kg (1,450,000 lb). Unfuelled mass: 328,000 kg (723,000 lb). Specific impulse: 8,200 s. Height: 46.00 m (150.00 ft).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vblN33OJCg

The ACP100 derived space nuclear plant, produces 100 MW electrical and 310 MW thermal power and masses 120 MT, with cooling umbrella.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/m..._002_BNTR.html

Its possible that a nuclear core designed as a bimodal nuclear thermal rocket that also works as a nuclear electric source, is capable of propelling a second stage booster at low specific impulse (relative to the ion engine) operating on China's large Long March, puts up a 500 MT payload in orbit. This increases payloads for the launcher from 130 MT - into LEO.

The nuclear thermal rocket, that operated as the second stage is then converted to a power plant for an ion engine, by using hydrogen gas in a Brayton cycle engine with heat exchanger,

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SP...es/node27.html

and now we have the means to launch an interplanetary cruiser capable of taking significant payloads of 100 tons or more, to the Moon, Mars, Mercury or the asteroids - converting back to a nuclear thermal rocket for take off and landing on these bodies.

A more limited approach would be to use nuclear thermal all the way - as in vonBraun's last design suggestion for the Saturn V-NT with four LRBs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOgFIq03Nm4

Here we add four LRB strap-on rockets each sporting an F1 engine, giving the Saturn V nine F1 engines at lift off. The Hydrogen/Oxygen second stage is replaced with a Nuclear thermal rocket.

http://www.astronautix.com/v/vonbrau...tion-1969.html

This would have cost less than the Shuttle programme and gotten us to Mars before the Shuttle flew. This is what Spiro Agnew proposed during the Apollo 11 lunar landing, and resulted in his resignation, and the appointment of Gerald Ford.

This is inferior to Stuhlinger's plan, because the hardware is thrown away after each flight. A reusable launcher, propelled by liquid hydrogen, along with a reusable interplanetary cruiser, with an ability to land and take off from Mars or Ceres or the Moon, or Mercury, all of which have been shown to have abundant water ice on them, would make quite a campaign of exploration and development possible for any nation that had such a fleet of vehicles.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
China 'could reach Moon by 2020' G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] Misc 20 July 31st 08 03:34 PM
China 'could reach Moon by 2020' Agent Smith Policy 29 July 22nd 08 07:23 PM
China 'could reach Moon by 2020' Agent Smith Astronomy Misc 34 July 22nd 08 07:23 PM
China to Moon by 2020 Steve Dufour Policy 6 December 5th 03 09:33 AM
China to Moon by 2020 Steve Dufour Misc 2 December 3rd 03 01:32 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.