• buckykat [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    25 days ago

    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.

    • someone [comrade/them, they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      25 days ago

      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.

      • buckykat [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        25 days ago

        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.