Very cope heavy article. Keeps calling reusability "copying SpaceX" when one vertical launch vertical landing rocket is going to resemble another just because of physics.
I just stopped giving a fuck about who is copying whom in general. Everything is derivative, and everybody builds on prior advancements. What matters is actually making cool stuff and advancing humanity.
LM-12 is an interesting design. On paper it's pretty boring, just another disposable medium-lift kerolox rocket. But it looks pretty well-suited to economical mass production. I'm wondering if LM-12 is quietly planned to replace LM-7. It looks much simpler to assemble for launch and has almost the same capabilities.
Cheap mass produced medium lift kerolox is the way to go for most payloads until you nail down reusability. A four engine design seems like it would be hard to modify for reusability though, it'd be tough to throttle it deep enough to land empty.
I was thinking the same thing about engine count/placement and throttling. If wikipedia can be believed, the YF-100 engine family can only throttle down to about 65% compared to a Merlin 1D's 40%, and they have about 35% more thrust than a Merlin to start with. Great for launch performance, bad for vertical landings. I think it's a safe bet they'll be sticking to the plan of using LM-10A as their reusability testbed. Same engines but a much bigger rocket with a geometry that has a central engine, like a Falcon 9.
LM-12 does look like a Soyuz-2 killer though, depending on pricing and production rates. It can lift heavier payloads, it launches from a site much closer to the equator, and the biggest Soyuz fairing is smaller than the smallest LM-12 fairing.
Yeah, 4 engines suggests a 2x2 layout meaning no center engine so off axis thrust unless you're running at least two of 'em, making that minimum thrust even higher.
Hainan makes a pretty ideal launch site, and I do hope China launches more stuff there.
Very cope heavy article. Keeps calling reusability "copying SpaceX" when one vertical launch vertical landing rocket is going to resemble another just because of physics.
I just stopped giving a fuck about who is copying whom in general. Everything is derivative, and everybody builds on prior advancements. What matters is actually making cool stuff and advancing humanity.
LM-12 is an interesting design. On paper it's pretty boring, just another disposable medium-lift kerolox rocket. But it looks pretty well-suited to economical mass production. I'm wondering if LM-12 is quietly planned to replace LM-7. It looks much simpler to assemble for launch and has almost the same capabilities.
Cheap mass produced medium lift kerolox is the way to go for most payloads until you nail down reusability. A four engine design seems like it would be hard to modify for reusability though, it'd be tough to throttle it deep enough to land empty.
I was thinking the same thing about engine count/placement and throttling. If wikipedia can be believed, the YF-100 engine family can only throttle down to about 65% compared to a Merlin 1D's 40%, and they have about 35% more thrust than a Merlin to start with. Great for launch performance, bad for vertical landings. I think it's a safe bet they'll be sticking to the plan of using LM-10A as their reusability testbed. Same engines but a much bigger rocket with a geometry that has a central engine, like a Falcon 9.
LM-12 does look like a Soyuz-2 killer though, depending on pricing and production rates. It can lift heavier payloads, it launches from a site much closer to the equator, and the biggest Soyuz fairing is smaller than the smallest LM-12 fairing.
Yeah, 4 engines suggests a 2x2 layout meaning no center engine so off axis thrust unless you're running at least two of 'em, making that minimum thrust even higher.
Hainan makes a pretty ideal launch site, and I do hope China launches more stuff there.