Chinese villagers capture video of falling Long March rocket booster [video]
Video of a Chinese Long March rocket booster falling and exploding near a village has triggered concern over the country’s practice of launching from inland sites where spent stages and toxic hypergolic propellants can land close to civilians. Commenters contrast this with coastal launch practices and stricter range-safety norms elsewhere, debate the extent of underreported casualties and environmental contamination, and argue over whether the incident reflects a broader “succeed at any cost” attitude within China’s space and technology programs.
Safety and responsibility of the launch
- Many commenters call the event “highly irresponsible,” stressing that the trajectory was planned so a booster would fall near inhabited areas, not as an accident.
- Others argue the risk “paid off” this time (no known injuries and ability to inspect the booster), but this is strongly challenged as still reckless.
- Several note that toxic fallout itself (hypergolic residues, carcinogens) should count as “injury,” even if no one is visibly hurt.
- Some point out that casualty numbers in similar past incidents in China are likely underreported, citing prior Long March accidents and media control.
China vs other launch practices
- Multiple comments contrast Chinese inland launch sites with coastal launch practices used by the US, Europe, Japan, India.
- Explanation that China has four major launch sites; the problematic ones are inland (Taiyuan, Xichang), though a coastal one (Wenchang) exists and is used mainly for human spaceflight.
- Comparisons to Russia: stages are dropped over sparsely populated Siberia, whereas Sichuan is heavily populated where this rocket was launched.
- Debate over whether China “doesn’t care about lives” vs is trying but failing to land boosters far from people; critics respond that dropping stages on mapped zones is a design decision, not an accident.
Toxic hypergolic propellants
- The red/orange smoke is identified as nitrogen dioxide from nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer; fuel is likely UDMH (a hydrazine derivative).
- These compounds are described as acutely poisonous and strongly carcinogenic; even small residuals are dangerous.
- Concerns raised about contamination of fields and water (e.g., rice paddies), with references to very persistent nitrosamine byproducts.
Why a “spent” booster explodes
- Multiple explanations: tanks can’t be pumped completely dry; there is always margin plus residual fuel/oxidizer in plumbing.
- Typical residuals around a few percent; for a large stage that can mean hundreds of kg to a few tonnes.
- Trying to burn tanks completely dry risks engines ingesting gas, leading to failure or explosion; leaving margin is standard practice.
Video realism and appearance
- Some question whether the video is real because the booster appears to fall slowly and “disappear” before impact.
- Others explain this as a size/distance illusion: large objects at a distance appear slow; terminal velocity for a mostly-empty, side-on booster may be ~100 km/h or less.
- Additional footage linked in the thread supports that the impact and explosion timing are plausible.