Search Results
6/26/2025, 6:18:36 PM
>Staged combustion engine
>5 meter diameter core
>gets rid of the landing legs in favor of a tethered catch system
>3 stages, with the 3rd stage being hydrolox
>Still worse performance than the F9 and only slightly better than the FH
Looking deeper at the performance of the CZ-10, it's actually really really bad. The single stick LM-10A variant has substantially less payload than a F9, at 14 tons when reused and 18 tons expandable, with the triple core variant only carrying slightly more payload than the FH, 70 tons vs 63 tons, with the increase in payload almost certainly due to the LM-10's hydrolox 3rd stage.
CALT is utter dogshit, no wonder why China stagnated so hard in rocket technology for the last 20 years. For comparison, a whole bunch of the private chinese rocket company's F9 and FH clones have better performance, despite not having as large a diameter, not having staged combustion engines and still having landing legs. For example, Deep Blue aerospace's 5 meter diameter Nebula-2 is supposed to have a 25 ton payload to LEO, which fits into what I would expect of a 5 meter diameter rocket. I really have no idea how the LM-10's performance is so bad for a 5 meter diameter rocket. Are they using lead for the hull or something?
Kinda insane that CALT is doing worse than most of the private launch startups, despite having alot more experience, a lot more funding and a lot more time. I see now why China was stuck for so long on their old outdated hypergolic rocket fleet if their main rocket manufacturer is so incompetent. Oldspace is oldspace, despite the country I guess. With it's dogshit performance, I don't see the LM-10 or the single stick variant to be used for anything else other then it's human spaceflight missions, not unless CALT can upgrade the performance substantially.
>5 meter diameter core
>gets rid of the landing legs in favor of a tethered catch system
>3 stages, with the 3rd stage being hydrolox
>Still worse performance than the F9 and only slightly better than the FH
Looking deeper at the performance of the CZ-10, it's actually really really bad. The single stick LM-10A variant has substantially less payload than a F9, at 14 tons when reused and 18 tons expandable, with the triple core variant only carrying slightly more payload than the FH, 70 tons vs 63 tons, with the increase in payload almost certainly due to the LM-10's hydrolox 3rd stage.
CALT is utter dogshit, no wonder why China stagnated so hard in rocket technology for the last 20 years. For comparison, a whole bunch of the private chinese rocket company's F9 and FH clones have better performance, despite not having as large a diameter, not having staged combustion engines and still having landing legs. For example, Deep Blue aerospace's 5 meter diameter Nebula-2 is supposed to have a 25 ton payload to LEO, which fits into what I would expect of a 5 meter diameter rocket. I really have no idea how the LM-10's performance is so bad for a 5 meter diameter rocket. Are they using lead for the hull or something?
Kinda insane that CALT is doing worse than most of the private launch startups, despite having alot more experience, a lot more funding and a lot more time. I see now why China was stuck for so long on their old outdated hypergolic rocket fleet if their main rocket manufacturer is so incompetent. Oldspace is oldspace, despite the country I guess. With it's dogshit performance, I don't see the LM-10 or the single stick variant to be used for anything else other then it's human spaceflight missions, not unless CALT can upgrade the performance substantially.
Page 1