中国刚刚推出两艘新型商业航天器
正文翻译
"Tianzhou" is a cargo spacecraft that China has been using since 2017, launched every 9 months with the Long March 7 rocket to deliver supplies, propellant, and scientific experiments to astronauts aboard the Chinese space station in orbit. Its payload capacity is 7.5 tons. Compared to similar spacecraft around the world, this is a considerably large payload capacity, but it reduces flexibility because a larger payload means fewer launch times. Therefore, China needs a smaller spacecraft.
“天舟”是中国自2017年以来一直在使用的货运飞船，每9个月用长征七号发射一次，为在轨的中国空间站上的宇航员运送补给、推进剂和科学实验，它的载荷能力是7.5吨。与全球同类飞船相比，这是一个相当大的载荷能力，但这减少了灵活性，因为更大的载荷意味着发射次数更少。所以中国需要一艘更小的飞船。
"Tianzhou" is a cargo spacecraft that China has been using since 2017, launched every 9 months with the Long March 7 rocket to deliver supplies, propellant, and scientific experiments to astronauts aboard the Chinese space station in orbit. Its payload capacity is 7.5 tons. Compared to similar spacecraft around the world, this is a considerably large payload capacity, but it reduces flexibility because a larger payload means fewer launch times. Therefore, China needs a smaller spacecraft.
“天舟”是中国自2017年以来一直在使用的货运飞船，每9个月用长征七号发射一次，为在轨的中国空间站上的宇航员运送补给、推进剂和科学实验，它的载荷能力是7.5吨。与全球同类飞船相比，这是一个相当大的载荷能力，但这减少了灵活性，因为更大的载荷意味着发射次数更少。所以中国需要一艘更小的飞船。
On May 16, 2023, the China Manned Space Agency (CMSA) issued a request for proposals for a "low-cost cargo transportation system" to the Chinese space station. This solicitation was open to all companies, including commercial ones. In 2024, two suppliers were sexted: "Haolong One" from the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) and "Qingzhou" from the Shanghai Microsystem and Information Technology Institute. The introduction of these two new commercial spacecraft marks a new era in the material supply services for the Chinese space station.
2023年5月16日，中国载人航天局（CMSA）发布了一个征求建议书，寻求到中国空间站的“低成本货运运输系统”，这次征集对所有公司开放，包括商业公司。2024年，两家供应商被选中，分别是来自中国航空工业集团公司的“昊龙一号”和来自上海微系统所的“轻舟”。这两艘新型商业航天器的推出标志着中国空间站物资补给服务的新纪元。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
2023年5月16日，中国载人航天局（CMSA）发布了一个征求建议书，寻求到中国空间站的“低成本货运运输系统”，这次征集对所有公司开放，包括商业公司。2024年，两家供应商被选中，分别是来自中国航空工业集团公司的“昊龙一号”和来自上海微系统所的“轻舟”。这两艘新型商业航天器的推出标志着中国空间站物资补给服务的新纪元。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
"Haolong One," designed by the aviation industry giant AVIC, stands out for its unique space shuttle design and swept-back delta wings, capable of horizontal landing. The spacecraft is 10 meters long and 8 meters wide, with a payload capacity of 1.8 tons, compatible with the standard docking mechanism of the Chinese space station. The wings of "Haolong One" are foldable to accommodate different launch mission requirements. Additionally, its return capability will greatly enhance China's ability to bring payloads back from the space station.
“昊龙一号”由航空工业巨头中国航空工业集团公司（AVIC）设计，以其独特的航天飞机设计和后掠三角翼而引人注目，能够实现水平着陆。该飞船总长10米，宽8米，载荷能力达到1.8吨，与中国空间站的标准对接机制兼容。“昊龙一号”的翅膀可折叠，以适应不同的发射任务需求。此外，其返回能力将极大增强中国从空间站带回有效载荷的能力。
“昊龙一号”由航空工业巨头中国航空工业集团公司（AVIC）设计，以其独特的航天飞机设计和后掠三角翼而引人注目，能够实现水平着陆。该飞船总长10米，宽8米，载荷能力达到1.8吨，与中国空间站的标准对接机制兼容。“昊龙一号”的翅膀可折叠，以适应不同的发射任务需求。此外，其返回能力将极大增强中国从空间站带回有效载荷的能力。
Competing with "Haolong One" is the "Qingzhou" spacecraft designed by the Shanghai Microsystem and Information Technology Institute, which is set to have its first launch in September 2025. "Qingzhou" features a single integrated module design, providing 27 square meters of payload space, capable not only of transporting supplies to the space station but also carrying spacecraft systems, such as propulsion and optional refrigeration units. "Qingzhou's" payload capacity ranges from 1.8 to 2 tons. Although not reusable, it will serve as a means of unloading waste, capable of carrying up to 2.9 tons of waste to burn upon departure. Reports indicate that its cost is about 100 million RMB per ton, below the government-set limit of 120 million RMB per ton.
与“昊龙一号”竞争的是上海微系统所设计的“轻舟”飞船，它将在2025年9月首次发射，“轻舟”采用单一体化模块设计，提供27平方米的载荷空间，不仅能够为空间站运送物资，还能搭载飞船系统，如推进和可选的冷藏单元。“轻舟”的有效载荷能力在1.8吨到2吨之间，虽然不可重复使用，但将作为卸载废物的手段，最多可携带2.9吨废物在撤离时燃烧。据报道，其成本约为每吨1亿人民币，低于政府设定的1.2亿人民币的上限。
与“昊龙一号”竞争的是上海微系统所设计的“轻舟”飞船，它将在2025年9月首次发射，“轻舟”采用单一体化模块设计，提供27平方米的载荷空间，不仅能够为空间站运送物资，还能搭载飞船系统，如推进和可选的冷藏单元。“轻舟”的有效载荷能力在1.8吨到2吨之间，虽然不可重复使用，但将作为卸载废物的手段，最多可携带2.9吨废物在撤离时燃烧。据报道，其成本约为每吨1亿人民币，低于政府设定的1.2亿人民币的上限。
The introduction of these two spacecraft is the first step in the commercialization of China's space program, with the first public bidding open to all companies, including commercial ones. This strategy is similar to NASA's Commercial Resupply and Commercial Crew programs in the late 2000s, aimed at promoting the development of space technology through competition and cooperation. It is expected that these new commercial spacecraft will be put into use in the coming years, further enhancing the operational capabilities and efficiency of the Chinese space station.
这两艘飞船的推出是中国空间计划商业化的第一步，首次公开招标对所有公司开放，包括商业公司，这一策略与NASA在2000年代末的商业补给和商业乘员计划相似，旨在通过竞争和合作推动航天技术的发展。预计这些新型商业航天器将在未来几年内投入使用，进一步提升中国空间站的运营能力和效率。
这两艘飞船的推出是中国空间计划商业化的第一步，首次公开招标对所有公司开放，包括商业公司，这一策略与NASA在2000年代末的商业补给和商业乘员计划相似，旨在通过竞争和合作推动航天技术的发展。预计这些新型商业航天器将在未来几年内投入使用，进一步提升中国空间站的运营能力和效率。
评论翻译
@sarahkhan2310
China's space development is incredibly impressive and progressing very fast.
中国的太空发展令人难以置信地印象深刻，并且进展迅速。
China's space development is incredibly impressive and progressing very fast.
中国的太空发展令人难以置信地印象深刻，并且进展迅速。
@aaaaa5272
Yea, but unfortunately, many of them are just at the Power Point level. E.g. the Haolong, which has not yet entered the engineering design phase, i.e. long way to go.
是的，但不幸的是，它们中的许多还只是停留在PPT阶段。例如，昊龙，尚未进入工程设计阶段，也就是说，还有很长的路要走。
Yea, but unfortunately, many of them are just at the Power Point level. E.g. the Haolong, which has not yet entered the engineering design phase, i.e. long way to go.
是的，但不幸的是，它们中的许多还只是停留在PPT阶段。例如，昊龙，尚未进入工程设计阶段，也就是说，还有很长的路要走。
@JoseSilveira-newhandleforYT
Some exciting news for the short term evolution of Chinese space developments. Comercial competitors face a steep incline, versus state owned companies - both the know-how and state backed financial robustness, make them better positioned for these demanding ventures but, like with NASA, opportunities for comercial suppliers, will surely pop up in the future. Baby steps
中国航天发展的近期进展真是激动人心。商业竞争者面临的挑战很大，尤其是与那些拥有技术和国家财政支持的国有企业相比，后者在这些高要求的项目中显然更有优势。不过，就像NASA的情况一样，未来商业供应商的机会肯定会出现。这是向前迈出的小步，但非常重要。
Some exciting news for the short term evolution of Chinese space developments. Comercial competitors face a steep incline, versus state owned companies - both the know-how and state backed financial robustness, make them better positioned for these demanding ventures but, like with NASA, opportunities for comercial suppliers, will surely pop up in the future. Baby steps
中国航天发展的近期进展真是激动人心。商业竞争者面临的挑战很大，尤其是与那些拥有技术和国家财政支持的国有企业相比，后者在这些高要求的项目中显然更有优势。不过，就像NASA的情况一样，未来商业供应商的机会肯定会出现。这是向前迈出的小步，但非常重要。
@ARWest-bp4yb
China is smart to embrace the commercial sector, especially if their established aerospace industry is anything like ours here the US. Not mentioning any names. (Boeing!) But on the other hand a vast majority of space start ups don't ultimately succeed.
中国很聪明地选择了与商业领域合作，尤其是他们的成熟航天工业和美国的情况类似。我就不具体说哪家公司了（比如波音）。但同时，大多数太空创业公司最终都难以成功。
China is smart to embrace the commercial sector, especially if their established aerospace industry is anything like ours here the US. Not mentioning any names. (Boeing!) But on the other hand a vast majority of space start ups don't ultimately succeed.
中国很聪明地选择了与商业领域合作，尤其是他们的成熟航天工业和美国的情况类似。我就不具体说哪家公司了（比如波音）。但同时，大多数太空创业公司最终都难以成功。
@hclau218
A majority of startup fast-food chains don't succeed either. This statement can be made of any industry, not just space.
大多数快餐连锁店的初创企业也没有成功。这种说法可以适用于任何行业，不仅仅是太空。
A majority of startup fast-food chains don't succeed either. This statement can be made of any industry, not just space.
大多数快餐连锁店的初创企业也没有成功。这种说法可以适用于任何行业，不仅仅是太空。
@L98fiero
China's established aerospace industry is different than anything in the US, it is state owned and does not need to make a profit so everything is automatically 30% cheaper and their focus then becomes making the best product. That also restricts their thinking a bit and that's where commercial interests help.
中国成熟的航天工业与美国完全不同，它是国有的，不需要盈利，所以一切都自动便宜了30%，他们的重点随后变成了制造最好的产品。这种模式也在一定程度上限制了他们的思维方式，而商业利益在这里可以起到帮助作用。
China's established aerospace industry is different than anything in the US, it is state owned and does not need to make a profit so everything is automatically 30% cheaper and their focus then becomes making the best product. That also restricts their thinking a bit and that's where commercial interests help.
中国成熟的航天工业与美国完全不同，它是国有的，不需要盈利，所以一切都自动便宜了30%，他们的重点随后变成了制造最好的产品。这种模式也在一定程度上限制了他们的思维方式，而商业利益在这里可以起到帮助作用。
@hclau218
@L98fiero OH, really? I didn't know NASA was started by private commercial interest! Pardon my ignorance...
哦，是吗？我还真不知道NASA最初是由私人商业利益推动成立的！请原谅我的无知...
@L98fiero OH, really? I didn't know NASA was started by private commercial interest! Pardon my ignorance...
哦，是吗？我还真不知道NASA最初是由私人商业利益推动成立的！请原谅我的无知...
@kinwai27271
China is leading in tech field.
中国在科技领域领先。
China is leading in tech field.
中国在科技领域领先。
@dphuntsman
Good report. China seems to be the only country learning from the (good parts) of the NASA/US commercial space development process (don’t get me started on the things we’re still doing wrong….).
Your focus on explaining the importance of the commercial RFP process is right-on as well. As you showed the contractor down-sext I caught immediately that it was the state-owned companies that made the initial cut, so I’m glad you addressed that head-on at the end.
In the US case in 2005 the big US primes opposed the commercial cargo program (COTS) but of course applied for it anyway, in spite of what they considered an unrealistically low contract value.
What is not commonly known is that they were told unofficially to not protest the awards given to the two unknown, untested, never-done-anything-yet small fry - Kistler, and SpaceX- who got less than $500m, total, split between them, over 5 years. The primes didn’t, because of the small amount of money (for them), and nothing would come of it, right? Kistler and SpaceX were each just an office, had never built anything, and would both disappear.
Well, Kistler did; SpaceX didn’t- and changed Earth history.
Best decision NASA ever made in its 66 years history.
很棒的报告。中国似乎是唯一一个从美国航天局/美国商业航天发展中吸取经验的国家（好的方面），别提我们还在犯的错误了……。
你强调商业招标流程的重要性非常到位。当你展示承包商筛选过程时，我立刻注意到入选的都是国有企业，很高兴你在视频最后直接谈到了这一点。
2005年在美国，大型主要承包商反对商业货运计划（COTS），但他们还是申请了，尽管他们认为合同价值太低，不现实。
不为人知的是，他们被非正式告知不要去抗议给两个不知名、没经验、从未做过任何事的小公司——Kistler和SpaceX——的奖项，这两家公司在5年内总共获得不到5亿美元的资金。大公司没有抗议，因为对于他们来说，这点钱微不足道，而且认为不会有什么结果，对吧？Kistler和SpaceX当时都只是一个办公室，什么都没造过，而且都会消失。
结果Kistler确实消失了，SpaceX没有——它改变了地球的历史。
这是NASA在其66年历史中做出的最好的决定。
Good report. China seems to be the only country learning from the (good parts) of the NASA/US commercial space development process (don’t get me started on the things we’re still doing wrong….).
Your focus on explaining the importance of the commercial RFP process is right-on as well. As you showed the contractor down-sext I caught immediately that it was the state-owned companies that made the initial cut, so I’m glad you addressed that head-on at the end.
In the US case in 2005 the big US primes opposed the commercial cargo program (COTS) but of course applied for it anyway, in spite of what they considered an unrealistically low contract value.
What is not commonly known is that they were told unofficially to not protest the awards given to the two unknown, untested, never-done-anything-yet small fry - Kistler, and SpaceX- who got less than $500m, total, split between them, over 5 years. The primes didn’t, because of the small amount of money (for them), and nothing would come of it, right? Kistler and SpaceX were each just an office, had never built anything, and would both disappear.
Well, Kistler did; SpaceX didn’t- and changed Earth history.
Best decision NASA ever made in its 66 years history.
很棒的报告。中国似乎是唯一一个从美国航天局/美国商业航天发展中吸取经验的国家（好的方面），别提我们还在犯的错误了……。
你强调商业招标流程的重要性非常到位。当你展示承包商筛选过程时，我立刻注意到入选的都是国有企业，很高兴你在视频最后直接谈到了这一点。
2005年在美国，大型主要承包商反对商业货运计划（COTS），但他们还是申请了，尽管他们认为合同价值太低，不现实。
不为人知的是，他们被非正式告知不要去抗议给两个不知名、没经验、从未做过任何事的小公司——Kistler和SpaceX——的奖项，这两家公司在5年内总共获得不到5亿美元的资金。大公司没有抗议，因为对于他们来说，这点钱微不足道，而且认为不会有什么结果，对吧？Kistler和SpaceX当时都只是一个办公室，什么都没造过，而且都会消失。
结果Kistler确实消失了，SpaceX没有——它改变了地球的历史。
这是NASA在其66年历史中做出的最好的决定。
@adamiskandar5107
Don't you think that SpaceX is a bit hyped up? They seemed to have done well so far but as in any private enterprise whose existence is to maximise profits, being so hyped up may result in a shocking downfall, especially when the competition from China is fierce. Look at Tesla EVs dominance until China's EVs broke through.
你不认为SpaceX有点被过度炒作了吗？到目前为止他们表现得确实不错，但就跟任何以追求利润为目的的私企一样，被捧得太高可能会突然摔得很惨，尤其是面对中国这么激烈的竞争。你看特斯拉电动车之前多么风光，直到中国的电动车开始崛起。
Don't you think that SpaceX is a bit hyped up? They seemed to have done well so far but as in any private enterprise whose existence is to maximise profits, being so hyped up may result in a shocking downfall, especially when the competition from China is fierce. Look at Tesla EVs dominance until China's EVs broke through.
你不认为SpaceX有点被过度炒作了吗？到目前为止他们表现得确实不错，但就跟任何以追求利润为目的的私企一样，被捧得太高可能会突然摔得很惨，尤其是面对中国这么激烈的竞争。你看特斯拉电动车之前多么风光，直到中国的电动车开始崛起。
@kumbackquatsta
i'm curious to see how they engineered folding wings/hinge that can survive reentry/reuse
我很好奇他们是怎么解决折叠翼/铰链在再入大气层和重复使用时的耐受性问题的。
i'm curious to see how they engineered folding wings/hinge that can survive reentry/reuse
我很好奇他们是怎么解决折叠翼/铰链在再入大气层和重复使用时的耐受性问题的。
@jonseilim4321
Haolong? Pretty darn long
昊龙？还真是挺长的名字。
Haolong? Pretty darn long
昊龙？还真是挺长的名字。
@ARWest-bp4yb
About 10 meters!
大约10米！
About 10 meters!
大约10米！
@freezonechannel8639
Good dragon?
好龙？
Good dragon?
好龙？
@JJr-ce3vv
Haolong 昊龙，sky dragon. 寓意龙腾东方，驰骋九天，行者无疆，福泽四海。
昊龙，天空之龙。寓意着龙腾东方，驰骋九天，行者无疆，福泽四海。
Haolong 昊龙，sky dragon. 寓意龙腾东方，驰骋九天，行者无疆，福泽四海。
昊龙，天空之龙。寓意着龙腾东方，驰骋九天，行者无疆，福泽四海。
@HAWAII358
@JJr-ce3vv "Sky Loong" might be better
"天空之龙"可能更好
@JJr-ce3vv "Sky Loong" might be better
"天空之龙"可能更好
@johnsmith100
There is a “How Long”blues song by Eric Clapton
有一首Eric Clapton唱的“How Long”蓝调歌曲。
There is a “How Long”blues song by Eric Clapton
有一首Eric Clapton唱的“How Long”蓝调歌曲。
@rickace132
2025 is the year we will finally see a Chinese reusable rocket. Very excited!!!
2025年我们将终于看到中国可重复使用的火箭。非常兴奋！
2025 is the year we will finally see a Chinese reusable rocket. Very excited!!!
2025年我们将终于看到中国可重复使用的火箭。非常兴奋！
@waloysius8054
If we got lucky, we will see the 75km flight test of a reuseable rocket by the end of December.
如果我们幸运的话，我们将在12月底前看到可重复使用火箭的75公里飞行测试。
If we got lucky, we will see the 75km flight test of a reuseable rocket by the end of December.
如果我们幸运的话，我们将在12月底前看到可重复使用火箭的75公里飞行测试。
@JJr-ce3vv
昊龙航天飞机。
中国航空工业集团以“龙”为系列飞行器的命名，如“威龙”、“猛龙”、“枭龙”、“翼龙”等。该型航天飞机被命名为昊龙，寓意龙腾东方，驰骋九天，行者无疆，福泽四海。
昊龙航天飞机。中国航空工业集团以“龙”为系列飞行器的命名，如“威龙”、“猛龙”、“枭龙”、“翼龙”等。这款航天飞机被命名为昊龙，寓意着龙腾东方，驰骋九天，行者无疆，福泽四海。
昊龙航天飞机。
中国航空工业集团以“龙”为系列飞行器的命名，如“威龙”、“猛龙”、“枭龙”、“翼龙”等。该型航天飞机被命名为昊龙，寓意龙腾东方，驰骋九天，行者无疆，福泽四海。
昊龙航天飞机。中国航空工业集团以“龙”为系列飞行器的命名，如“威龙”、“猛龙”、“枭龙”、“翼龙”等。这款航天飞机被命名为昊龙，寓意着龙腾东方，驰骋九天，行者无疆，福泽四海。
@JourneyCamera
please make video on MD-19 OR MD-22 SPACE PLANE TOO
请制作关于MD-19或MD-22太空飞机的视频。
please make video on MD-19 OR MD-22 SPACE PLANE TOO
请制作关于MD-19或MD-22太空飞机的视频。
@duy9428
Those tests doesn't even included powered working conditions, a bit sus for a project as least has been testing stage for 4 years if you ask me.
这些测试甚至没有包括动力工作条件，对于一个至少已经测试了4年的项目来说，有点可疑。
Those tests doesn't even included powered working conditions, a bit sus for a project as least has been testing stage for 4 years if you ask me.
这些测试甚至没有包括动力工作条件，对于一个至少已经测试了4年的项目来说，有点可疑。
@erich623
Competition is doing great things do the launcher and satellite space in China, can't wait until these cargo systems can start doing missions.
竞争正在为中国的发射器和卫星空间领域带来巨大的进步，我非常期待这些货运系统能够早日执行任务。
Competition is doing great things do the launcher and satellite space in China, can't wait until these cargo systems can start doing missions.
竞争正在为中国的发射器和卫星空间领域带来巨大的进步，我非常期待这些货运系统能够早日执行任务。
@GGLEDOU
The folding wings of the Chinese space cargo will be a game changer, if this kind of spaceship is produced.
如果这种飞船被生产出来，中国太空货物的折叠翼将会是游戏规则的改变者。
The folding wings of the Chinese space cargo will be a game changer, if this kind of spaceship is produced.
如果这种飞船被生产出来，中国太空货物的折叠翼将会是游戏规则的改变者。
@shuaige3360
Thank you for the videos.
And great there is your YouTube channel because Chinese space program is not know enough…. Other channels start to speak more about, but still less deeply.
感谢你的视频。
很高兴有你的YouTube频道，因为中国的太空计划还不够为人所知……其他频道开始更多地谈论它，但仍然不够深入。
Thank you for the videos.
And great there is your YouTube channel because Chinese space program is not know enough…. Other channels start to speak more about, but still less deeply.
感谢你的视频。
很高兴有你的YouTube频道，因为中国的太空计划还不够为人所知……其他频道开始更多地谈论它，但仍然不够深入。
@paultsjan6047
China space program is progressing ahead in a steady and continuous manner.
China unveils design of Haolong space shuttle for low-cost transport missions.
The Haolong space cargo shuttle can be launched by a carrier rocket and dock with the space station.
After separating from the space station, it can perform deorbit braking, reentry flight, before landing horizontally on an airport runway.
It has large capacities for cargo transport both to and from the space station, excellent flight environment and efficient support for operations.
It can further reduce space station cargo transport cost by repeated use.
With the existing cargo transportation systems, it aims to establish a safe, reliable, diverse, and efficient cargo transportation system between the space station and Earth.
The Haolong cargo spacecraft will lead and promote further breakthroughs and developments in China’s reusable space-Earth transportation technologies.
中国太空计划正在稳步且持续地向前推进。
中国展示了用于低成本运输任务的“昊龙”太空穿梭机的设计。
“昊龙”太空货运穿梭机可以通过运载火箭发射并与空间站对接。
与空间站分离后，它可以执行离轨制动、再入飞行，然后水平降落在机场跑道上。
它具有大容量的货物运输能力，无论是向空间站运输还是从空间站返回，都能提供出色的飞行环境和高效的操作支持。
通过重复使用，它可以进一步降低空间站货物运输成本。
借助现有的货物运输系统，它旨在建立一个安全、可靠、多样化和高效的空间站与地球之间的货物运输系统。
“昊龙”货运飞船将引领并推动中国可重复使用的太空-地球运输技术的进一步突破和发展。
China space program is progressing ahead in a steady and continuous manner.
China unveils design of Haolong space shuttle for low-cost transport missions.
The Haolong space cargo shuttle can be launched by a carrier rocket and dock with the space station.
After separating from the space station, it can perform deorbit braking, reentry flight, before landing horizontally on an airport runway.
It has large capacities for cargo transport both to and from the space station, excellent flight environment and efficient support for operations.
It can further reduce space station cargo transport cost by repeated use.
With the existing cargo transportation systems, it aims to establish a safe, reliable, diverse, and efficient cargo transportation system between the space station and Earth.
The Haolong cargo spacecraft will lead and promote further breakthroughs and developments in China’s reusable space-Earth transportation technologies.
中国太空计划正在稳步且持续地向前推进。
中国展示了用于低成本运输任务的“昊龙”太空穿梭机的设计。
“昊龙”太空货运穿梭机可以通过运载火箭发射并与空间站对接。
与空间站分离后，它可以执行离轨制动、再入飞行，然后水平降落在机场跑道上。
它具有大容量的货物运输能力，无论是向空间站运输还是从空间站返回，都能提供出色的飞行环境和高效的操作支持。
通过重复使用，它可以进一步降低空间站货物运输成本。
借助现有的货物运输系统，它旨在建立一个安全、可靠、多样化和高效的空间站与地球之间的货物运输系统。
“昊龙”货运飞船将引领并推动中国可重复使用的太空-地球运输技术的进一步突破和发展。
@wangruochuan
If its unmanned then ofc it will bring more stuff back since you dont need to put life support. Hope we can see it soon.
如果它是无人驾驶的，那么它当然会带回更多的东西，因为你不需要放置生命支持系统。希望我们能尽快看到它。
@佯谬
很久之前中国被排挤在太空技术圈之外，中国人只能一点点积累经验才有今天的成就，我觉得这没什么值得骄傲的，让我感到惊讶的是西方这几十年几乎原地踏步走，问题的关键是中国人努力追上了还是西方的技术发展停滞了？
If its unmanned then ofc it will bring more stuff back since you dont need to put life support. Hope we can see it soon.
如果它是无人驾驶的，那么它当然会带回更多的东西，因为你不需要放置生命支持系统。希望我们能尽快看到它。
@佯谬
很久之前中国被排挤在太空技术圈之外，中国人只能一点点积累经验才有今天的成就，我觉得这没什么值得骄傲的，让我感到惊讶的是西方这几十年几乎原地踏步走，问题的关键是中国人努力追上了还是西方的技术发展停滞了？
@wong2230
@佯谬 可回收火箭是一个不小的进步，不能说原地踏步啊。
@佯谬 可回收火箭是一个不小的进步，不能说原地踏步啊。
@lokesh303101
Yes!
Haolong is Success.
是的！
昊龙成功了。
Yes!
Haolong is Success.
是的！
昊龙成功了。
@BatbleSeed
With many problems with space shuttle until final retired. China usually will built if not mature technology, we will see long term usages.
考虑到太空穿梭机在退役前遇到了许多问题，中国通常会在技术成熟之后才进行建造，因此我们可以预见其将有长期的使用价值。
With many problems with space shuttle until final retired. China usually will built if not mature technology, we will see long term usages.
考虑到太空穿梭机在退役前遇到了许多问题，中国通常会在技术成熟之后才进行建造，因此我们可以预见其将有长期的使用价值。
@aungaisum8654
Chinese is very intelligent. They will succeed
中国人非常聪明。他们会成功的。
Chinese is very intelligent. They will succeed
中国人非常聪明。他们会成功的。
@rubadub79
I'm a dumbass: Why does the waste have to be transported of the station? Can't you just chuck it out, and let it burn up in the atmosphere?
我问个愚蠢的问题：为什么必须把空间站的垃圾运走？不能直接扔出去，让它在大气层中烧掉吗？
I'm a dumbass: Why does the waste have to be transported of the station? Can't you just chuck it out, and let it burn up in the atmosphere?
我问个愚蠢的问题：为什么必须把空间站的垃圾运走？不能直接扔出去，让它在大气层中烧掉吗？
@comediangj4955
If you just chuck it out, there's a not small chance it will do a full orbit around the earth with you and hit you in the face. You have to spend fuel to deorbit it for it to touch the atmosphere.
如果你直接扔出去，它很有可能会绕地球一圈然后砸到你脸上。你必须消耗燃料来让它脱离轨道，以便它能够进入大气层。
If you just chuck it out, there's a not small chance it will do a full orbit around the earth with you and hit you in the face. You have to spend fuel to deorbit it for it to touch the atmosphere.
如果你直接扔出去，它很有可能会绕地球一圈然后砸到你脸上。你必须消耗燃料来让它脱离轨道，以便它能够进入大气层。
@donaldli1864
That will become space junk.
那会成为太空垃圾。
That will become space junk.
那会成为太空垃圾。
@mr.spockito
It isn't a dumbass question at all : the junk would simply pollute the orbit you're moving on and potentially be hazardous. The way to get rid of it is as they do on the ISS, pack it all up in a Progress cargo that will burn up thereafter in the atmosphere.
这绝对不是一个愚蠢的问题：这些垃圾如果随意丢弃，会污染你们正在使用的轨道，并且可能构成危险。处理这些垃圾的方法就像国际空间站（ISS）上的做法一样，将它们全部打包进“进步号”货运飞船中，之后这些飞船会在大气层中燃烧殆尽。
It isn't a dumbass question at all : the junk would simply pollute the orbit you're moving on and potentially be hazardous. The way to get rid of it is as they do on the ISS, pack it all up in a Progress cargo that will burn up thereafter in the atmosphere.
这绝对不是一个愚蠢的问题：这些垃圾如果随意丢弃，会污染你们正在使用的轨道，并且可能构成危险。处理这些垃圾的方法就像国际空间站（ISS）上的做法一样，将它们全部打包进“进步号”货运飞船中，之后这些飞船会在大气层中燃烧殆尽。
@ubermenschen3636
Commercialization of building and launching spacecraft in China is different from USA’s. USA’s commercialization is afflicted by politic and corruption— less than one handful of companies participate: SpaceX, Boeing, Blue Origin. To date only Space X has been successful.
中国建造和发射航天器的商业化与美国不同。美国的商业化受到政治和腐败的困扰——只有少数几家公司参与：SpaceX、波音、蓝色起源。到目前为止，只有SpaceX成功了。
Commercialization of building and launching spacecraft in China is different from USA’s. USA’s commercialization is afflicted by politic and corruption— less than one handful of companies participate: SpaceX, Boeing, Blue Origin. To date only Space X has been successful.
中国建造和发射航天器的商业化与美国不同。美国的商业化受到政治和腐败的困扰——只有少数几家公司参与：SpaceX、波音、蓝色起源。到目前为止，只有SpaceX成功了。
@kngharv
This video bring out a silly question:
What is wrong with simply let the trash from space station being burn up in the atmosphere (instead of spend all the money to bring it back to Earth and THEN toss it into a trash can)?
这个视频引发了一个看似愚蠢的问题：
为什么不让空间站的垃圾在大气层中烧掉（而不是花费所有钱将其带回地球，然后再扔进垃圾桶）？
This video bring out a silly question:
What is wrong with simply let the trash from space station being burn up in the atmosphere (instead of spend all the money to bring it back to Earth and THEN toss it into a trash can)?
这个视频引发了一个看似愚蠢的问题：
为什么不让空间站的垃圾在大气层中烧掉（而不是花费所有钱将其带回地球，然后再扔进垃圾桶）？
@williamwilliam
China will continue to do what's best for their nation & people and there really is nothing to stop their technological and science advances which will only accelerate to beyond our solar system. As former ASML Chief Executive Officer Peter Wennink said, "The laws of physics in China are the same as here (Netherlands). The more you put them (China) under pressure, the more likely it is that they will double up their efforts."
中国将继续做对他们的国家和人民最有利的事情，实际上没有什么能够阻止他们的技术和科学进步，这些进步只会加速，甚至超越我们的太阳系。正如前ASML首席执行官彼得·温尼克所说：“中国的物理定律和这里（荷兰）是一样的。你越是给他们（中国）施压，他们加倍努力的可能性就越大。”
China will continue to do what's best for their nation & people and there really is nothing to stop their technological and science advances which will only accelerate to beyond our solar system. As former ASML Chief Executive Officer Peter Wennink said, "The laws of physics in China are the same as here (Netherlands). The more you put them (China) under pressure, the more likely it is that they will double up their efforts."
中国将继续做对他们的国家和人民最有利的事情，实际上没有什么能够阻止他们的技术和科学进步，这些进步只会加速，甚至超越我们的太阳系。正如前ASML首席执行官彼得·温尼克所说：“中国的物理定律和这里（荷兰）是一样的。你越是给他们（中国）施压，他们加倍努力的可能性就越大。”
China invests in infrastructures, technologies and the future, while the USA is busy spending/investing humongous amount of money instigating, provoking, and sponsoring conflicts, wars, and regime change all around the world and neglecting what's best for their nation & people and racking in over and ever bludgeoning US$34.3 trillion debts.
中国投资于基础设施、技术和未来，而美国正忙于花费/投资巨额资金在世界各地煽动、挑衅和资助冲突、战争和政权更迭，忽视了对其国家和人民最有利的事情，并积累了超过34.3万亿美元的债务。
中国投资于基础设施、技术和未来，而美国正忙于花费/投资巨额资金在世界各地煽动、挑衅和资助冲突、战争和政权更迭，忽视了对其国家和人民最有利的事情，并积累了超过34.3万亿美元的债务。
@saberserker410
H O W L O N G ?
多久？
H O W L O N G ?
多久？
@yukonzhang3034
昊龙 to be exactly. One of the Chinese loong species from ancient fairy tales.
昊龙，确切地说。是中国古老神话传说中的龙的种类之一。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
昊龙 to be exactly. One of the Chinese loong species from ancient fairy tales.
昊龙，确切地说。是中国古老神话传说中的龙的种类之一。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@nangongyiyun
Are capitalist countries mistaken? China is a socialist country. Isn't it the advantage of socialist countries that state-owned enterprises enjoy national advantages? Or is it that capitalist countries cannot compete with socialist countries?
资本主义国家错了吗？中国是社会主义国家。社会主义国家国有企业享有国家优势，这不是社会主义国家的优势吗？还是说资本主义国家无法与社会主义国家竞争？
Are capitalist countries mistaken? China is a socialist country. Isn't it the advantage of socialist countries that state-owned enterprises enjoy national advantages? Or is it that capitalist countries cannot compete with socialist countries?
资本主义国家错了吗？中国是社会主义国家。社会主义国家国有企业享有国家优势，这不是社会主义国家的优势吗？还是说资本主义国家无法与社会主义国家竞争？
@saynotowars
Good report.. please expand your research for Chinese military and others Techs
报告很好。。。请扩展对中国军事和其他技术的研究。
Good report.. please expand your research for Chinese military and others Techs
报告很好。。。请扩展对中国军事和其他技术的研究。
@othmanhassanmajid8192
Do your own research, dude
你自己做研究吧，伙计
Do your own research, dude
你自己做研究吧，伙计
@wotireckon
It seems that the state owned companies are dealing with the tried and trusted technology while the private sector work out the finer details of reusable rocketry. When it comes to soft landing of spacecraft, obviously the shuttle glides to a runway in China, but where can the Chinese perform a splashdown?
看来国有企业正在处理那些经过考验且值得信赖的技术，而私营部门则在研究可重复使用火箭技术的更精细细节。谈到航天器的软着陆，显然中国的航天飞机可以滑翔到跑道上，但中国人可以在哪些地方进行海上溅落呢？
It seems that the state owned companies are dealing with the tried and trusted technology while the private sector work out the finer details of reusable rocketry. When it comes to soft landing of spacecraft, obviously the shuttle glides to a runway in China, but where can the Chinese perform a splashdown?
看来国有企业正在处理那些经过考验且值得信赖的技术，而私营部门则在研究可重复使用火箭技术的更精细细节。谈到航天器的软着陆，显然中国的航天飞机可以滑翔到跑道上，但中国人可以在哪些地方进行海上溅落呢？
@Stephen-wc8fn
I wonder what the economics are between: combined parachutes and some guidance rocketry to splashdown within a large lake target vs glide in horizontally to an airport vs vertical landing at a spaceport.
我想知道以下三种着陆方式之间的经济性比较：
-使用组合降落伞和一些引导火箭技术在大型湖泊目标区内进行海上溅落；
-水平滑翔到机场；
-在航天港进行垂直着陆。
I wonder what the economics are between: combined parachutes and some guidance rocketry to splashdown within a large lake target vs glide in horizontally to an airport vs vertical landing at a spaceport.
我想知道以下三种着陆方式之间的经济性比较：
-使用组合降落伞和一些引导火箭技术在大型湖泊目标区内进行海上溅落；
-水平滑翔到机场；
-在航天港进行垂直着陆。
@hclau218
You seem to be stuck in a US restricted sphere of thought. Neither Russia nor China do "splAsh Downs"
你似乎陷入了美国思维的限制。俄罗斯和中国都不进行“海上溅落”。
You seem to be stuck in a US restricted sphere of thought. Neither Russia nor China do "splAsh Downs"
你似乎陷入了美国思维的限制。俄罗斯和中国都不进行“海上溅落”。
@juliap.5375
@Stephen-wc8fn There are too many factors.
As example exist several Russian estimations from different decades: splash is over expensive, VTL — just expensive, glide to airport — pretty cheap, but still more expensive than once used rocket.
Why? Because geography and economical system (Soviet/Russian industry in state property, used only local made resources and parts).
This question arrived:
— back in 1970s when USSR launched by ~100 rockets per year. Estimations not available in public, exist only references from memories.
— back in 1990s, when came capitalism (e.g. resources, like metals, from free got price — before it had no cost). Anyway still was more expensive (existed two projects: of vertical landing and jet-like landing). Interesting fact, Russia tried to sell own projects to 3rd countries, but nobody bought, instead everyone bought classical approach (e.g. South Korea ordered development of classical rocket).
— back in 2010s when space became pretty expensive, as result arrived estimations that horizontal landing can be more cheap in situation of at least ~180 launches per year (but there are no such goals).
Last two reports from 1990s and 2010 are semipublic.
存在太多因素需要考虑。
以俄罗斯为例，不同年代有几个估算：海上溅落非常昂贵，垂直着陆（VTL）只是昂贵，滑翔到机场相对便宜，但仍然比一次性使用的火箭更贵。
为什么呢？因为地理和经济体系（苏联/俄罗斯工业是国家所有，只使用本地制造的资源和零件）。
这个问题在以下时期被提出：
— 1970年代，当时苏联每年发射约100枚火箭。公众无法获得估算数据，只有记忆中的参考。
— 1990年代，资本主义到来（例如，像金属这样的资源，免费获得的价格——之前没有成本）。不管怎样，仍然更昂贵（存在两个项目：垂直着陆和喷气式着陆）。有趣的事实是，俄罗斯试图向第三国出售自己的项目，但没有人购买，反而大家都购买了传统方法（例如，韩国订购了传统火箭的开发）。
— 2010年代，太空变得相当昂贵，因此出现了估算，如果每年至少发射180次，水平着陆可能更便宜（但没有这样的目标）。
最后两份来自1990年代和2010年代的报告是半公开的。
@Stephen-wc8fn There are too many factors.
As example exist several Russian estimations from different decades: splash is over expensive, VTL — just expensive, glide to airport — pretty cheap, but still more expensive than once used rocket.
Why? Because geography and economical system (Soviet/Russian industry in state property, used only local made resources and parts).
This question arrived:
— back in 1970s when USSR launched by ~100 rockets per year. Estimations not available in public, exist only references from memories.
— back in 1990s, when came capitalism (e.g. resources, like metals, from free got price — before it had no cost). Anyway still was more expensive (existed two projects: of vertical landing and jet-like landing). Interesting fact, Russia tried to sell own projects to 3rd countries, but nobody bought, instead everyone bought classical approach (e.g. South Korea ordered development of classical rocket).
— back in 2010s when space became pretty expensive, as result arrived estimations that horizontal landing can be more cheap in situation of at least ~180 launches per year (but there are no such goals).
Last two reports from 1990s and 2010 are semipublic.
存在太多因素需要考虑。
以俄罗斯为例，不同年代有几个估算：海上溅落非常昂贵，垂直着陆（VTL）只是昂贵，滑翔到机场相对便宜，但仍然比一次性使用的火箭更贵。
为什么呢？因为地理和经济体系（苏联/俄罗斯工业是国家所有，只使用本地制造的资源和零件）。
这个问题在以下时期被提出：
— 1970年代，当时苏联每年发射约100枚火箭。公众无法获得估算数据，只有记忆中的参考。
— 1990年代，资本主义到来（例如，像金属这样的资源，免费获得的价格——之前没有成本）。不管怎样，仍然更昂贵（存在两个项目：垂直着陆和喷气式着陆）。有趣的事实是，俄罗斯试图向第三国出售自己的项目，但没有人购买，反而大家都购买了传统方法（例如，韩国订购了传统火箭的开发）。
— 2010年代，太空变得相当昂贵，因此出现了估算，如果每年至少发射180次，水平着陆可能更便宜（但没有这样的目标）。
最后两份来自1990年代和2010年代的报告是半公开的。
@Stephen-wc8fn
I know that. I’m merely wondering if we could use modern guidance to do a targeted splashdown, and whether that offers advantages.
我知道。我只是想知道我们是否可以利用现代导航技术进行目标溅落，以及这是否提供了优势。
I know that. I’m merely wondering if we could use modern guidance to do a targeted splashdown, and whether that offers advantages.
我知道。我只是想知道我们是否可以利用现代导航技术进行目标溅落，以及这是否提供了优势。
@hclau218
@Stephen-wc8fn US using "splAsh Down" is really a legacy technology issue. US started big time space efforts early and the easiest and safest way to land is to splAsh Down. As usual, the USA seems to be unable to shake of the past. This is the same reason US big car companies are unable to compete in EVs. Same reason for the absence of High Speed Rail. The arguments you hear from USA are really just excuses and a desperate need to hang onto the glorious old days.
美国使用“海上溅落”确实是一个遗留技术问题。美国很早就开始了大规模的太空探索，而最容易和最安全的方式就是海上溅落。像往常一样，美国似乎无法摆脱过去。这也是美国大型汽车公司在电动车（EVs）领域无法竞争的原因。同样的原因也解释了高速铁路的缺失。你从美国听到的论点实际上只是借口，以及对辉煌旧日的绝望依恋。
@Stephen-wc8fn US using "splAsh Down" is really a legacy technology issue. US started big time space efforts early and the easiest and safest way to land is to splAsh Down. As usual, the USA seems to be unable to shake of the past. This is the same reason US big car companies are unable to compete in EVs. Same reason for the absence of High Speed Rail. The arguments you hear from USA are really just excuses and a desperate need to hang onto the glorious old days.
美国使用“海上溅落”确实是一个遗留技术问题。美国很早就开始了大规模的太空探索，而最容易和最安全的方式就是海上溅落。像往常一样，美国似乎无法摆脱过去。这也是美国大型汽车公司在电动车（EVs）领域无法竞争的原因。同样的原因也解释了高速铁路的缺失。你从美国听到的论点实际上只是借口，以及对辉煌旧日的绝望依恋。
@Hystericall
China needs to use this as the 2nd stage for their starship. Much better design than Elon's death trap.
中国应该将这个作为他们星舰的第二级。这个设计比埃隆的“死亡陷阱”好多了。
China needs to use this as the 2nd stage for their starship. Much better design than Elon's death trap.
中国应该将这个作为他们星舰的第二级。这个设计比埃隆的“死亡陷阱”好多了。
@tdn4773
Looks like a copy of the Dream Chaser spaceplane. Did China steal the specs?
看起来像是“追梦者”太空飞机的复制品。中国窃取了规格吗？
Looks like a copy of the Dream Chaser spaceplane. Did China steal the specs?
看起来像是“追梦者”太空飞机的复制品。中国窃取了规格吗？
@stevennotthe2997
the shape of it is far from that of dreamchaser if you actually pay attention and not be delusional. It's like calling the dreamchaser itself a copy of the x-37b just because they are spaceplanes.
如果你真的注意而不是妄想，它的形状与“追梦者”相去甚远。就像因为“追梦者”本身是太空飞机就称其为X-37B的复制品一样。
the shape of it is far from that of dreamchaser if you actually pay attention and not be delusional. It's like calling the dreamchaser itself a copy of the x-37b just because they are spaceplanes.
如果你真的注意而不是妄想，它的形状与“追梦者”相去甚远。就像因为“追梦者”本身是太空飞机就称其为X-37B的复制品一样。
@Calmnen
@stevennotthe2997 Dreamchaser’s wing is different from X37B, but you can notice similarities maybe 90% that haolong is looks like dreamchaser.
“追梦者”的翅膀与X37B不同，但你可以看到相似之处，可能90%的昊龙看起来像“追梦者”。
@stevennotthe2997 Dreamchaser’s wing is different from X37B, but you can notice similarities maybe 90% that haolong is looks like dreamchaser.
“追梦者”的翅膀与X37B不同，但你可以看到相似之处，可能90%的昊龙看起来像“追梦者”。
@CandyCane-m8c
There isn't much design options when it comes to spacecraft. Just like airplanes, subs, boats, cars, bikes have the same frx. The law of physics when it comes to efficiency is the same everywhere. Planets are round shape for a reason. The race is NOT to build something different because of national pride. Space should be the united frontier for humanity. Take the ISS for example. The US docking system is different from the Russian so because of that we have to build spacial devices to make them compatible. This is NOT a good thing, especially in space. Just imagine having different life support systems when it comes to spacesuits if one needs help. Oh I can't help you because our stuff aren't compatible with yours. If you actually follow the space race in China, it's not actually about copying. It's going with the most effective design. So if SpaceX comes up with something that's good and it works, the Chinese having the same is basically acknowledging you won this part of the race and we'll adopt your standard. So that is the race. It's racing to have the most STANDARDS.
说到设计宇宙飞船，其实选择并不多。就像飞机、潜水艇、船、汽车和自行车，它们都有差不多的基本形状。这是因为物理定律在世界各地都是一样的，效率最高的设计往往看起来也差不多。比如，行星都是圆的，这不是巧合。太空竞赛不是为了显示哪个国家更厉害，而是为了人类共同探索太空。就像国际空间站，美国的对接系统和俄罗斯的不一样，所以我们得造一些特别的设备让它们能连在一起。这其实不太好，特别是在太空里。想象一下，如果宇航服的生命维持系统不匹配，当有人需要帮助时，另一个人说：“对不起，我们的设备和你们的不兼容，帮不了你。”如果你关注中国的太空项目，你会发现他们并不是在抄袭，而是在选最有效的设计。如果SpaceX做出了好的东西，而且有效，中国人也用同样的，那其实就像是说：“你们这部分做得好，我们也跟着用。”所以，太空竞赛实际上是在比谁能定下更多的标准。
There isn't much design options when it comes to spacecraft. Just like airplanes, subs, boats, cars, bikes have the same frx. The law of physics when it comes to efficiency is the same everywhere. Planets are round shape for a reason. The race is NOT to build something different because of national pride. Space should be the united frontier for humanity. Take the ISS for example. The US docking system is different from the Russian so because of that we have to build spacial devices to make them compatible. This is NOT a good thing, especially in space. Just imagine having different life support systems when it comes to spacesuits if one needs help. Oh I can't help you because our stuff aren't compatible with yours. If you actually follow the space race in China, it's not actually about copying. It's going with the most effective design. So if SpaceX comes up with something that's good and it works, the Chinese having the same is basically acknowledging you won this part of the race and we'll adopt your standard. So that is the race. It's racing to have the most STANDARDS.
说到设计宇宙飞船，其实选择并不多。就像飞机、潜水艇、船、汽车和自行车，它们都有差不多的基本形状。这是因为物理定律在世界各地都是一样的，效率最高的设计往往看起来也差不多。比如，行星都是圆的，这不是巧合。太空竞赛不是为了显示哪个国家更厉害，而是为了人类共同探索太空。就像国际空间站，美国的对接系统和俄罗斯的不一样，所以我们得造一些特别的设备让它们能连在一起。这其实不太好，特别是在太空里。想象一下，如果宇航服的生命维持系统不匹配，当有人需要帮助时，另一个人说：“对不起，我们的设备和你们的不兼容，帮不了你。”如果你关注中国的太空项目，你会发现他们并不是在抄袭，而是在选最有效的设计。如果SpaceX做出了好的东西，而且有效，中国人也用同样的，那其实就像是说：“你们这部分做得好，我们也跟着用。”所以，太空竞赛实际上是在比谁能定下更多的标准。
@kinwai27271
When you can't compete but full of anger and jealousy, just simply say, "It's copy."
当你无法竞争但充满愤怒和嫉妒时，简单地说，“它是复制品。”
When you can't compete but full of anger and jealousy, just simply say, "It's copy."
当你无法竞争但充满愤怒和嫉妒时，简单地说，“它是复制品。”
@aungaisum8654
Do you think it's easy to copy high tech stuffs? Even you got the whole blue print you still cannot copy it. You need a deep knowledge of space science technologies. Besides the use of composite materials is already a headache. China done a lot of research on composite materials technologies. It's not that easy to copy. You may ask why only China can do it?
你认为复制高科技产品容易吗？即使你得到了整个蓝图，你仍然无法复制它。你需要对空间科学技术有深刻的了解。此外，复合材料的使用已经是一个难题。中国对复合材料技术进行了很多研究。复制并不那么容易。你可能会问为什么只有中国能做到？
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Do you think it's easy to copy high tech stuffs? Even you got the whole blue print you still cannot copy it. You need a deep knowledge of space science technologies. Besides the use of composite materials is already a headache. China done a lot of research on composite materials technologies. It's not that easy to copy. You may ask why only China can do it?
你认为复制高科技产品容易吗？即使你得到了整个蓝图，你仍然无法复制它。你需要对空间科学技术有深刻的了解。此外，复合材料的使用已经是一个难题。中国对复合材料技术进行了很多研究。复制并不那么容易。你可能会问为什么只有中国能做到？
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@user-dave56
I have been following the astonishing pace of CNSA certainly in comparison to the inertia... of NASA!
我一直关注着CNSA令人惊叹的发展速度，与NASA的惰性相比，CNSA的表现确实非常出色！
I have been following the astonishing pace of CNSA certainly in comparison to the inertia... of NASA!
我一直关注着CNSA令人惊叹的发展速度，与NASA的惰性相比，CNSA的表现确实非常出色！
很赞 12
收藏