Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Neural Foundry's avatar

Brilliant reporting on the landing failure analysis approach. Labeling this as a basic success despite the 2-out-of-3 engine failure shows how China's basically treating reusability as an interated learning proccess rather than pass/fail milestones. Watched a ton of early SpaceX attempts back in the day and the pattern's similar, though dunno if the Shanghai Academy will adopt the same rapid iteration philosophy.

Edison's avatar

No problem , even if it gets failed in 5 more attempts , still CALT should continue testing it because reusable boosters are the key and China direly needs them . Reusable booster technology is hard to master at first but after having mastered this technology, the cost of launching payloads to LEO would be more cheaper and China's dream of constructing megaconstellation in LEO would come true.

As a technical note , I noticed that both Zhuque -3 and Long March 12A booster speed were too fast to control during landing , so it means that thrusters on the boosters were not being fired at the right altitude and booster were not able to maintain their speed . If the speed of the booster during landing will be too fast then the very material or structure that holds the booster would definitely get disintegrated during the reentry and that was what we noticed in both the flights. Therefore , Chinese engineers and scientists should diligently work on how to keep thrusters firing during the landing , to make the booster steady and controlled during landing. It is also recommended to closely watch the landing of the SpaceX boosters and there are hundreds of video available for Falcon 9 booster landing which could give Chinese scientists and engineers a lot of intuition and valuable insights on the booster landing dynamics.

So , fact of the matter is , NEVER STOP TRYING and learn from SpaceX which failed so many times before mastering this reusable booster technology.

No posts

Ready for more?