# China to develop version of  Antonov An-225 to launch satellites



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 10, 2017)

The Airspace Industry Corporation of China (AICC) signed an agreement with the plane's creator, which, if approved, will allow the organization to design its own fleet that would launch commercial satellites into orbit.

However, the aerospace and defense firm would 'modernize' the craft in a fashion that would provide it with heavy lifting capabilities that could be 'greater than that of the US military'.














'The initial idea and early stage research of the An-225 started in 2009,' the president of AICC, Zhang Yousheng told Christian Borys with BBC Future.

'The official contact with Antonov began in 2011, and then from 2013 to 2016 was the acceleration phase of this project.'

Yousheng continued to explain to BBC that the program is working on a strategy that places a satellite on the back of an An-225 and launches it from no more than seven miles (12,000m) in the air.


The An-225 was originally developed to transport the Soviet Buran space shuttle.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 10, 2017)

Man I'm sure it will be as successful as their "bullet train".


----------



## Ferrum Master (May 10, 2017)

Using what engines? They lack metallurgy skills to craft some proper blades.


----------



## Kanan (May 11, 2017)

I think this will be a big fail. Antonov on its own already was more or less. Only a few were built, and only one is still in service afaik.


----------



## droopyRO (May 11, 2017)

That feat of engineering is a not a failure in any way.


----------



## Kanan (May 12, 2017)

droopyRO said:


> That feat of engineering is a not a failure in any way.


In my books engineering is very well a fail if it's only produced a few times because it's simply too complicated to produce. The aeronautics industry is famous for things like that.


----------



## droopyRO (May 12, 2017)

Have you forgotten the '90s, in what part of Europe do you live ? because here in the Eastern part money didn't fall from the sky in that period(not that it dose today) those were pretty rough times for most of us. Plus there was not a need to mass produce the An-225.


----------



## Kanan (May 12, 2017)

It's a russian military flight, oversized or extremely big and complicated to produce - it was only produced a few times due to those problems (today, as far as I know, only 1 is left flying). And yeah I know not everyone is rich - I'm not talking about that, I'm strictly into engineering problems right now.


----------



## droopyRO (May 12, 2017)

Engineering = money.


----------



## Kanan (May 12, 2017)

droopyRO said:


> Engineering = money.


Too much engineering (also called overengineering) = too much money = no more planes produced. 

Why do you think do the americans not have a plane that big? Because it's not practical to produce.

Another fail was and still is the Airbus A380 - too big, never paid off and never will. Try to counter this with your strange "money" argument, not possible this time.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 12, 2017)

Kanan said:


> It's a russian military flight, oversized or extremely big and complicated to produce - it was only produced a few times due to those problems (today, as far as I know, only 1 is left flying). And yeah I know not everyone is rich - I'm not talking about that, I'm strictly into engineering problems right now.




Wiki reckons one was built entirely and a 2nd was mothballed when 70 per cent complete


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 12, 2017)

droopyRO said:


> Have you forgotten the '90s, in what part of Europe do you live ? because here in the Eastern part money didn't fall from the sky in that period(not that it dose today) those were pretty rough times for most of us. Plus there was not a need to mass produce the An-225.


I dunno Russia builds and maintains some of the best fighter jets in the world. Are you talking ex-soviet blocks? If so then I fully agree.

My point was China pretty much makes everything......really badly. Now if you want something nice from that part of the world you gotta hit up Japan. Those guys take pride in their work and even when they have junk to work with they do a damn decent job.



Kanan said:


> Too much engineering (also called overengineering) = too much money = no more planes produced.


 Everything German. I mean EVERYTHING is over engineered.


----------



## Kanan (May 12, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Wiki reckons one was built entirely and a 2nd was mothballed when 70 per cent complete


That's even worse, I was pretty sure it was more than 1 finished. I thought they are retired, but it seems only 1 was ever finished and is still in service.


----------



## droopyRO (May 12, 2017)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I dunno Russia builds and maintains some of the best fighter jets in the world. Are you talking ex-soviet blocks? If so then I fully agree.


They do/did but this was the situation back then in the Eastern Block little to no money.
From 40:00 onwards


----------



## Kanan (May 12, 2017)

If you don't have much money, and you're still engineering the biggest plane in the world (even way bigger than planes of countries that have multiple times that money like US), you're basically a engineer who failed his job. Not only that, everyone involved made a bad decision. As a engineer, I would want to do things that are remarkably useful, and no one time "wonders".


----------



## droopyRO (May 12, 2017)

It was made to carry Buran, not shuttle sheep from one place to another like Air America.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 12, 2017)

droopyRO said:


> They do/did but this was the situation back then in the Eastern Block little to no money.


Oh I know things were rough man. My point is what you guys did with limited resources is WAY more than I expect from China with limitless resources. I respect Russian engineering.


----------



## Kanan (May 12, 2017)

droopyRO said:


> It was made to carry Buran, not shuttle sheep from one place to another like Air America.


Ridicilous statement, but be happy with your strange east european pride if it makes you happy. I'm out.


----------



## infrared (May 12, 2017)

They're obviously fairly certain the cost of building/modifying and maintainging one of those colossal beasts will save them a lot in rocket fuel.. Mind you, ~36,000ft isn't much considering the ISS is 1.3M ft up there... I don't think this is a very good idea, still interesting though


----------



## r9 (May 12, 2017)

I think Engineering is doing more with less.
Russians are the real example for that.
Chinese are doing even more with less by copying others technology. Not the same !  
And its totally ignorant to believe that there is something that they can't make with time.
Can they make it the same quality as being made in Europe or US definitely not.
Can they make it half the quality four times cheaper, you bet!


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 12, 2017)

The China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology was planning on using a  Y -20. Perhaps the Antonov is a cheaper, bigger and altogether better alternative.


----------



## infrared (May 12, 2017)

r9 said:


> I think Engineering is doing more with less.
> Russians are the real example for that.
> Chinese are doing even more with less by copying others technology. Not the same !
> And its totally ignorant to believe that there is something that they can't make with time.
> ...



It'll be a similar thing to when we sold the Russians some Rolls Royce Nene Turbojet engines during the cold war, with the cocky assumption that they wouldn't be able to replicate it. Then suddenly all their Mig 15s were made with that engine! So yeah, china could definitely pull this off I think, provided they don't cheap out on critical parts.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 12, 2017)

infrared said:


> It'll be a similar thing to when we sold the Russians some Rolls Royce Nene Turbojet engines during the cold war, with the cocky assumption that they wouldn't be able to replicate it. Then suddenly all their Mig 15s were made with that engine! So yeah, china could definitely pull this off I think, provided they don't cheap out on critical parts.


Dude they make junk. They haven't built anything on their own since the Ming Dynasty. Slave labor makes things cheap. Not good.


----------



## r9 (May 12, 2017)

infrared said:


> It'll be a similar thing to when we sold the Russians some Rolls Royce Nene Turbojet engines during the cold war, with the cocky assumption that they wouldn't be able to replicate it. Then suddenly all their Mig 15s were made with that engine! So yeah, china could definitely pull this off I think, provided they don't cheap out on critical parts.


That the point I wanted to make.
We keep underestimating China and they don't mind playing dumb to get what they want.


----------



## Kanan (May 12, 2017)

Reverse engineering is absolutely possible, and never underestimate ingenuity of other people, especially those you don't know well.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 12, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Reverse engineering is absolutely possible, and never underestimate ingenuity of other people, especially those you don't know well.


That's about all they do. Ever seen Chinas Aircraft carrier? Yeah. Exactly.


----------



## Kanan (May 12, 2017)

TheMailMan78 said:


> That's about all they do. Ever seen Chinas Aircraft carrier? Yeah. Exactly.


Pile of garbage. Afaik it was a old russian one, sold to them. Now pretty old. Aren't they building one on their own now?


----------



## 64K (May 12, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Pile of garbage. Afaik it was a old russian one, sold to them. Now pretty old. Aren't they building one on their own now?



A new one is built but it won't go into service until 2020








http://www.pravdareport.com/news/world/asia/12-05-2017/137715-chinese_aircraft_carrier-0/


----------



## Kanan (May 12, 2017)

64K said:


> They already have one and another one is built but it won't go into service until 2020
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And the main question: is it any good?


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 12, 2017)

Kanan said:


> And the main question: is it any good?



apparently they named it after a penis so its probably a lot smaller than what they claim it is.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 12, 2017)

64K said:


> A new one is built but it won't go into service until 2020
> 
> 
> 
> ...


From intelligence reports that have been made public its still based off Russian design. Only difference is it will use a catapult system for larger planes instead of the sky slope design. I would not want to be shot off a Chinese aircraft carrier using a Chinese Catapult. Time will tell. No matter what they will be behind the curve.


----------



## Kanan (May 12, 2017)

this turned out funnier than I thought it would be.


----------



## xkm1948 (May 12, 2017)

Gotta love the go ol backward ignorant TPU. Yeah let's bash anything made in China, they are stupid and can only copy the Superior Western countries' technology.

Do you people only get news feeds on China from Clinton News Network or what? It is such ignorance and shitty attitude that really blocks the progress of science. Never underestimate your opponent.


----------



## cornemuse (May 12, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> apparently they named it after a penis so its probably a lot smaller than what they claim it is.



Well, _chinese_ penii, , , ,


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 12, 2017)

You would have to have a set to fly that ,both the size ,technology and one off ness of it makes it an odd day at work for someone.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 12, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> Gotta love the go ol backward ignorant TPU. Yeah let's bash anything made in China, they are stupid and can only copy the Superior Western countries' technology.
> 
> Do you people only get news feeds on China from Clinton News Network or what? It is such ignorance and shitty attitude that really blocks the progress of science. Never underestimate your opponent.




i post loads of great stuff about China in the Science forum. 

Incidentally, mine was a penis joke not a chance to laugh at China.


----------



## xkm1948 (May 12, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> i post loads of great stuff about China in the Science forum.
> 
> Incidentally, mine was a penis joke not a chance to laugh at China.



Not you man, I meant for some of the people that replies. I just cannot tolerate ignorant f*uck heads in a science related thread. I work in science, I have met and worked with a lot of very talented Chinese students and scholars. Such ignorance should not be tolerated in science.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 12, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> Not you man, I meant for some of the people that replies. I just cannot tolerate ignorant f*uck heads in a science related thread. I work in science, I have met and worked with a lot of very talented Chinese students and scholars. Such ignorance should not be tolerated in science.



Agreed

i try and  post the good stuff,  regardless who did it.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 12, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> Not you man, I meant for some of the people that replies. I just cannot tolerate ignorant f*uck heads in a science related thread. I work in science, I have met and worked with a lot of very talented Chinese students and scholars. Such ignorance should not be tolerated in science.


Have you been to China? I have. I have worked with the Chinese for YEARS. They are not stupid people in any sense of the word. I never would suggest that. But, lets be honest. When it comes to engineering, they haven't been ahead of the curve in some time. With a communist government and a HUGE population issue I don't suspect they will for a while either. Like I said slave labor isn't an incentive to innovate. Again I have see that crap with my own eyes.

Also I praised Russia in this same thread. Not a western nation technically. I just call em how I PERSONALLY have seen it. It may not be PC but guess what. The world isn't.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 12, 2017)

Speaking of China... CNN: China's New World Order


----------



## Kanan (May 13, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> Not you man, I meant for some of the people that replies. I just cannot tolerate ignorant f*uck heads in a science related thread. I work in science, I have met and worked with a lot of very talented Chinese students and scholars. Such ignorance should not be tolerated in science.


Speaking about science complaining about peoples behaviour in a science thread or board and then being that ignorant and full of yourself is the kind of attitude you self pretty much fail at. You easily overestimate Chinese people. I don't think you have a fucking clue what Chinese people are, in their minds, their character and motivations. No need to discuss it further too it would be a waste of time debating this with you anyway. Just wanted to give you some of your blatant arrogance back.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (May 13, 2017)

Chinese people all know kung fu and throw kamehameha's so id better watch what ya'll say about'em


----------



## agent_x007 (May 13, 2017)

Plane was made to test USSR's "shuttle", so they build only one (+few spare parts).
There was never a need to make more of them because there was never a need to test two shuttles at the same time.
After the fall of USSR, plane was scraped for parts for most of the '90s by company that made it (since it didn't have the $$ to retrofit it to international law standards).
Few years went by, and Antonov company (now, growing fast in air-transport market), needed something bigger than AN-124 and since they already have one 225 sitting in scrapyard, they decided to rebuild it to modern standards (since originally it was made for military use), instead of designing/building a new plane.
Here's a good documentary about AN-225 :









PS. Sadly both "Buran" shuttle and "Energia" rocket were destroyed in hangar collapse in 2002 (cause... was poor maintenance)


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 13, 2017)

agent_x007 said:


> Plane was made to test USSR's "shuttle", so they only ever build one (+ few spare parts).
> There was never a need to make more of them because only one Buran "shuttle" ever existed.
> After the fall of USSR, plane was scraped for parts for most of the '90s by company that made it (since it didn't have the $$ to retro fit it to international law standards).
> Few years went by, and Antonov company (now, growing fast in air-transport market), needed something bigger than AN-124 and since they already have one 225 sitting in scrapyard, they decided to rebuild it to modern standards (since originally it was made for military use), instead of designing/building a new plane.
> ...









https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/the-space-race.209757/page-19#post-3650841


----------



## 64K (May 13, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> Gotta love the go ol backward ignorant TPU. Yeah let's bash anything made in China, they are stupid and can only copy the Superior Western countries' technology.
> 
> Do you people only get news feeds on China from Clinton News Network or what? It is such ignorance and shitty attitude that really blocks the progress of science. Never underestimate your opponent.



We're improving here on understanding science. Just be patient. Only two months ago we were at











and now look at us.


----------



## Vya Domus (May 13, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> Not you man, I meant for some of the people that replies. I just cannot tolerate ignorant f*uck heads in a science related thread. I work in science, I have met and worked with a lot of very talented Chinese students and scholars. Such ignorance should not be tolerated in science.



I don't think that's what they meant , everyone knows there are brilliant people everywhere around the world.  However , engineering at this sort of scale has to be done in circumstances where it can produce impressive results , and in that regard China dose not impress very often. The reason for that has less to do with their scientific expertise and more to do with their political-economical mindset over there.

This is exactly the case , they could very well build their own aircraft , but they don't. Because they much rather value stuff getting done faster and cheaper , that is unfortunately a fact for China.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 13, 2017)

Last month i was impressed by the Chinese


China's Cargo Craft Docks with Space Lab

http://www.space.com/36591-china-cargo-spacecraft-docks-space-lab.html


----------



## AsRock (May 13, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> Gotta love the go ol backward ignorant TPU. Yeah let's bash anything made in China, they are stupid and can only copy the Superior Western countries' technology.
> 
> Do you people only get news feeds on China from Clinton News Network or what? It is such ignorance and shitty attitude that really blocks the progress of science. Never underestimate your opponent.



Even more so when we so so many buy their crap of them and they just copy shit which has to be making them a fortune and saving a hell load too.


----------

