3 ms·

China launched more rockets to orbit than any other country last year. They make not take short cuts. But they do catch up quickly in terms of development.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago
Rockets are pretty simple compared to jet turbines, rocket production doesn't have as thick of a moat as jet turbine production. > Developing jet engine is not an easy game unlike rocket engines as it's comparatively very compact in size & it requires advance engineering to develop it's crystal blades technology & maintain it's thrust to weight ratio & that's what make jet engine technology one of the most complicated technology. From https://defenceview.in/how-difficult-is-it-to-build-an-jet-engine-ask-india-and-china/ https://defenceview.in/how-difficult-is-it-to-build-an-jet-e...
- jhgb 5y ago
  Rocket engines are to jet engines basically what paper utensils are to porcelain. But with transition to reusable rocket stages, chances are that the "disposable" designs will get more complex if that extra complexity gets justified by not throwing away the whole unit after several minutes of operation. > Developing jet engine is not an easy game unlike rocket engines as it's comparatively very compact in size & it requires advance engineering to develop it's crystal blades technology & maintain it's thrust to weight ratio & that's what make jet engine technology one of the most complicated technology. That's a terribly worded and nonsensical claim (and almost reads like it was written by a ten year old). How could someone claim that rocket engines are "not very compact in size"? The RD-180 turbopump for example generates 170 MW of mechanical power, much more than any jet engine in operation, and in a smaller package to boot. Likewise, the HPFTP on the RS-25 generates around 50 MW of mechanical power, and does so in a package sized 0.55m by 1.1m or something like that.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago

Rockets are pretty simple compared to jet turbines, rocket production doesn't have as thick of a moat as jet turbine production. > Developing jet engine is not an easy game unlike rocket engines as it's comparatively very compact in size & it requires advance engineering to develop it's crystal blades technology & maintain it's thrust to weight ratio & that's what make jet engine technology one of the most complicated technology. From https://defenceview.in/how-difficult-is-it-to-build-an-jet-engine-ask-india-and-china/ https://defenceview.in/how-difficult-is-it-to-build-an-jet-e...

jhgb 5y ago
Rocket engines are to jet engines basically what paper utensils are to porcelain. But with transition to reusable rocket stages, chances are that the "disposable" designs will get more complex if that extra complexity gets justified by not throwing away the whole unit after several minutes of operation. > Developing jet engine is not an easy game unlike rocket engines as it's comparatively very compact in size & it requires advance engineering to develop it's crystal blades technology & maintain it's thrust to weight ratio & that's what make jet engine technology one of the most complicated technology. That's a terribly worded and nonsensical claim (and almost reads like it was written by a ten year old). How could someone claim that rocket engines are "not very compact in size"? The RD-180 turbopump for example generates 170 MW of mechanical power, much more than any jet engine in operation, and in a smaller package to boot. Likewise, the HPFTP on the RS-25 generates around 50 MW of mechanical power, and does so in a package sized 0.55m by 1.1m or something like that.