You are not logged in.
I assume nothing head shaker. CADB Kosberg has already offered to license production of RD-0120 Aerojet or any other interested American firm, and have always had a green light from the Russian government to do so. These are the current facts, past and present tense, not some prediction or assumption on my part. It is the US State Department that actively prohibits CADB and other Russian firms from selling to, for example; China, while the political machinations of people like you make it almost impossible for their products to compete for NASA contracts. This is not a level playing field. You do not want them to be allowed to play at all.
Aerojet already has much of the technical documentation required to start pre-production of an RD-0120 copy. The only thing preventing them from doing so is a lack of any orders, and the little matter of it being against the law to undertake unlicensed production. Once such a license is purchased, which is, as I said before, already available, there is nothing the Russian government could do to stop it even if they wanted to. Any US based RD-0120 production line would, by definition, be up and running well before the first CaLV launch, making your whole “political weapon to hold against us” argument a steaming pile of crap.
All but a tiny fraction of the cost would be “money spent here”.
Russia is not an Ally of Iran. Russian foreign policy towards Iran is primarily geared towards maintaining stability in the region, partly in the hope of discouraging Iranian support for certain terrorist groups in Chechnya and other Russian provinces with Shia populations. Also, Russia would prefer that the US not attack and/or invade Iran. Although US/multinational corporations actually do more business with Iran (albeit partly through 3rd parties) than do Russian firms, Russian economic interests are likely to suffer somewhat if the US invades. Although Halliburton, for example, does fairly well in Iran, their business is likely to explode (excuse the pun) just as it did in Iraq if Iran is occupied by U.S. forces. In contrast, you can bet that not many Russian companies would be getting any fat “reconstruction” contracts.
Russia would also prefer that Iran not be made into an Al-Qaeda mass recruiting machine like Iraq has become since Bush invaded. Russia actually shares a very large border with Iran, and would have a lot to worry about if this occurred, although I suppose the Russians could take comfort in being completely surrounded by yet more US military bases.
I have no pro-Russian/anti American bias. Chelomei, for example, is widely considered one of the greatest personalities of the Soviet space programme. I consider him nothing but a vindictive political hack who contributed nothing useful to the field of spaceflight. Proton was a total disaster for the 1st five or ten years, and it is unfortunate that this ultra-toxic monstrosity remains in production. It is you, GCN, not me, who have spewed vitriolic and largely unfounded criticism on SSME, STS etc. These are American systems. I think RS-68 is a fine engine. RD-0120 is even better. You seem to loathe Bob Zubrin, whom I admire as perhaps the greatest single contributor to increasing public support for humans to Mars. He happens to be an American. I also consider the NASA DRM version 3 (addendum) to be markedly superior to any past or current Russian manned Mars mission design study. Is this “Russia worship”?
No, I have not insulted 300 million people. I have insulted the small minority on the extreme right who want the United States to pursue certain ultra-nationalist, xenophobic policies similar in some respects to those of the 3rd Reich. It is typical for someone like you to accuse anyone who disagrees with your politics of being anti-American. The majority of Germans living under the 3rd Reich were not Nazis, just as the majority of Americans, thank God, are not like you. Suck on that, you worthless piece of ----.
Aside from your personal attacks on me, you have made a number of stupid factual errors. The baseline CLV booster is 4 segment, not five:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/clv.htm
Based on your line of reasoning, the new 5 segment boosters should not be produced in order maintain standardization!
I never said RD-0120 was “10 times simpler” than SSME. Stop putting words in my mouth.
RD-0120 is NOT a copy of SSME. The team who developed it was ordered to duplicate its capabilities, and they utilized some of SSMEs better features. That is where the design similarity ends. NASAs own trade studies for Magnum eventually concluded that a set of 3 RD-0120s was a lower cost, higher performance, and better reliability option than 2 RS-68s. You also claim that SSME and RD-0120 are not “readily interchangeable”. Why not? I’m curious as to what story you will make up to answer that one.
What is this crap about “Russia would not give us the blueprints”? You would have us believe that P&W don’t have the “blueprints” for RD-180! CADB (Kosberg), like all other Russian manufactures are actively encouraged by the Russian government (who would take a cut through taxation) to sell anything they possibly can for hard US currency, even if what little revenues earned from such licensing pail before what it really cost to develop the technology in the first place. Aerojet already holds the license to build NK-33 and NK-43. You say you find it “hard to believe” that Aerojet has performed extensive tests on RD-0120. If so, you are an idiot or a liar:
http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309054370/html/55.html
http://www.fas.org/spp/guide/russia/launch/other.htm
http://www.aiaa.org/TC/ST/yearinreview_97.html
http://www.seds.org/spaceviews/9604.html#deepthrottle
I could go on, and on, and on...
So GCN, why don’t you shut up or stop telling lies?
While RS-68 is certainly not as bad a choice as producing new SSMEs to power the CaLV main stage, increasing core diameter to 10m to fit 5 RS-68s and the extra propellant they would need is a very bad idea. Production tooling and logistics equipment that could otherwise be taken over directly from STS will have to be replaced, and pad infrastructure extensively modified. This means increased programme costs and delays.
Four RS-68s per booster should be more than adequate to maintain a reasonable thrust to mass ratio and burn time. If RS-68 is so much less efficient than SSME, the propellant needed to make up for this could be accommodated by stretching the core or the EDS. Alternately, the the number of SRBs could be increased, which would allow for the use of current stocks of four segment SRBs.
Much better than all of the above would be to maintain the “original” CaLV design proposal, but replace the 5 SSMEs with 5 RD-0120s. This configuration offers almost identical performance and better reliability at lower cost. At this point, some of the more hysterically rabid far-right ultra nationalists on this board may start screaming that western civilization in general, and the U.S. space programme in particular, will be destroyed if the American Reich allows itself to be held hostage by the evil Slavic hordes. Such an extreme “not invented here” attitude is as irrelevant as it is silly. Aerojet has performed extensive testing on RD-0120. CADB (Kosberg) is desperate to offer them, or any other competent manufacturer a production license for a pittance. The counter argument, that RD-0120 is likely to cost as much as SSME if built by an American company, is absurd. SSME and RS-68 are both Rocketdyne products. RS-68 costs much less than SSME because it is much less complex. RD-0120 is in most respects slightly better than SSME while being slightly simpler than RS-68! It achieves this through an elegance of design that reflects a generally superior liquid-fuel engine technology base. For all these reasons, RD-0120 is also the best choice to power the CLV upper stage as well as the CaLV core, which would also allow surplus stocks of SSME to be used interchangeably with RD-0120 on the core.
GCN, you quote me one moment, then attack what you want the reader to think I meant as opposed to what I actually said. For example:
Quote:
“This is nonsensical, a surplus of spacecraft? Just which spacecraft are you talking about? "Spacecraft" are expensive vehicles (particularly manned ones) that aren't to be expended lightly”
I’m using the generic term “spacecraft” to refer to all the spacecraft/LVs associated with the programme. Why is this nonsensical? All I meant by “surplus” was having at least a small reserve of vehicles at any time. I believe Russia has several Soyuz in stock at any given time. NASA has (or had?) quite a surplus of ETs and SRBs. Several CSMs, LMs and Saturn Vs had been completed before the first Apollo mission. So let’s say we build and launch four SD-HLLV/LSAM combos etc. a year, but have at least three or four in stock before the first flight. We use the oldest first but maintain a reserve or “surplus” of at least three or four vehicles in stock at any given time. What is “nonsensical”? This is so simple that I feel sick having to explain it. You use the term “expended”, but the term “surplus” should not be equated with “thrown away”. Everything would be used.
Quote:
“Mars missions will have to mate in orbit and depart before their fuel boils off or the biannual window closes.”
Thus far I was only discussing lunar missions, not Mars. But since you mention it, your paranoia about our hypothetical partners suddenly taking a political hissy fit and stopping a launch at the last second could be partially addressed by insisting that they always launch their half of any given pair first.
Quote:
“could NASA jerk the parts of a 40 story tall HLLV together, rip the payload off the ESA/RSA rocket in French Guiana and sail it back to Florida, slap the stack together and roll out to the pad, and skip detailed pre-departure on orbit checkout in the month or so it would take for a Mars TMI stage to suffer terminal fuel loss? I don't think so.”
Who suggested they could? Not me.
Quote:
“Average Americans are going to wonder why we are putting expensive American payloads on top of foreign rockets when we have perfectly good rockets ourselves.”
No. Fortunately, most Americans are not like you. They would be proud to see Americans and their partners going to the Moon on perfectly good American and Euro-Russian Rockets.
Quote:
“the deal is so asymmetric, that Russia/Europe don't have anything to lose by going back on their word.”
A multi billion Euro programme down the drain? No Europeans or Russians on the Moon after having invested these billions? You must be right GCN, they obviously would have nothing to lose.
No spring break for me. Looks like I will have to sacrifice eating, sleeping or personal hygiene….. too bad for my co-workers. Anyhow, back to it:
Quote:
“You said previously that Klipper and Progress would be scrapped, since Klipper is going to replace Soyuz, and because building & flying this Frankenstein of a rocket will be fairly expensive, it seemed logical that you were calling for all R-7 derived vehicles would be scrapped too.”
And
“I didn't twist your words, you just didn't state them explicitly enough.”
I would have thought that within the context of this discussion, Kliper cancellation would logically suggest that Soyuz should continue. For future reference, if I do not say that Soyuz or any other major programme should be cancelled, then I do not mean that it should be cancelled. I cannot be held responsible for your misinterpretations of what you think I might mean as opposed to reading what I actually say. I hope that is explicit enough.
You are quite right about economies of scale. I am very much aware of the fixed costs vs. marginal costs issue. Ideally, at least four SD-HLLVs could be produced and launched from Kennedy each year in order to utilize NASA infrastructure at an minimum efficient level. This could be done regardless of Energia-Ariane availability, and instead of buying half as many SD-HLLVs, a surplus of spacecraft could be maintained to support an average of two flights a year out of Kourou. The programme could be configured such that a mission critical capability would be maintained by NASA at all times, independent of international participation.
Also, detailed contractual obligations could be worked out well ahead of time, with severe penalty clauses enforced should any partner refuse to (as opposed to being unable to) live up to the conditions of the agreed programme over the agreed timeframe. Such agreements should have some degree of flexibility, but no politically motivated launch veto should be granted to anyone.
Such measures should effectively eliminate your nightmare scenario bogeyman.
Quote:
“the physical factory building may remain, but the tooling and hence the guts of the factory is gone, changed to build household items”.
Where do you get this stuff? The factory in question is operating at a low level, but builds aircraft parts; mostly for Antonov. Since when are wings and tail surfaces “household items”?
Cheers.
Wow GCN! That was fast. Sometimes I wonder if you have a day job. I’m jealous of the time you are able to devote to posting on this site.
Anyhow, when I predict you will respond to the idea of international co-operation with paranoid xenophobia, you call me ignorant, then explain how the Ruskis are out to get U.S. You are not an “ignorant fool”. You are an intelligent and sophisticated master of disinformation techniques.
Even assuming that the Ruskis are the monters you make them out to be, constantly conspiring against America the Pure, how exactly would the availability of a Euro-Russian HLLV “make the VSE plan fail”? How would it prevent VSE launching more SD-HLLVs should this alternative become unavailable?
You give the impression that HLLVs are built one day, then flown the next. If this were the case, a partner pulling out without warning would be a big problem. The individual mission may have to be cancelled or postponed. In the real world, the boosters would be in the pipeline perhaps years before launch, with a reserve of at least two or three flight articles at any given time. At any rate, Russia would never be in a position to “pull the plug on spaceflight cooperation” because the individual boosters, or at least their components, would be under ESA control for a year or more before any given launch.
The Russian government has never used co-operation as a weapon against NASA in the way you describe. The Russians were very much opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but never stopped flying NASA astronauts to and from the ISS, and keeping them supplied while there.
Quote:
“I'm also very, very sure that Russia will be happy to rush to scrap their only means of launching people into space and send their Cosmonauts to fly on CEV out of Florida. I'm sure they'd just be breathless and unable to catch a wink of sleep on the plane heading to Washington or Houston to sign the paperwork.”
What the hell are you talking about? I clearly stated that the Progress re-supply programme should be replaced by the European and Japanese ATVs. You want people to think that I’m suggesting that Russia cancel Soyuz.
Quote:
“So Russia can economically run a much, much larger operation (Energia production), which won't have a commercial use (Soyuz for satelites), with only one or two flights a year? Right...”
In the long term, two core tanks and eight RD-0120s per year, (sent to Kourou for final assembly) should not cost very much more than two complete Progress re-supply missions (including vehicles, spacecraft, facilities and management etc). Why would R-7 production stop, commercial or otherwise? I never suggested this. Stop twisting my words.
I suggested a flight rate of at least four per year would be reasonable. In the unlikely scenario that international partners should pull out without warning, if at all, drawing on reserve vehicles while U.S. production is ramped up would not be anywhere near the impossible task you make out to be.
Quote:
“corner of nowhere known as Kourou”
I think that attitude speaks for itself.
Quote:
“The Energia-M lost to the Angara because Energia's core isn't built in Russia, its Ukranian. Russia will have much the same problem depending on them as we would on Russia.”
You are not ignorant, but you are full of crap. The truth is that Energia-M lost to Angare because the Zenit boosters were built in Ukraine. Energia’s core was built at Samara in Russia, and the Energia-M core prototype was also built at this location. Production would have continued there.
Quote:
“Energia's "flat top" version was never built, and redesigning the core stage to accept the different attach points and loads for Ariane SRBs doesn't make any sense, the original Zenit rocket booster is still in limited production.”
SD-HLLV flat top version was never built either. So what? Redesigning the core shell to accept the different attach points and loads for the Ariane SRBs makes perfect sense in the context of this discussion because this “Frankenstein” is an option the ESA/RKA should consider funding as a superior alternative to the hypothetical Ariane 5-M or Angara 100.
Quote:
“RD-0120 production lines no longer exsist”
Same distortions over and over. The factory still exists. All technical production data and most tooling is still available. Many key personell are still in place and Russia is full of qualified personell looking for work.
The following outlines a highly possible and affordable joint Euro-Russian heavy lift programme that could easily be the decisive factor that puts Europeans, Russians and others on the Moon by 2015 and on Mars by 2025. How could this be? Simple: Go with the Americans!
Now that NASA has decided on a more or less definitive manned lunar architecture, the ESA/RKA should propose to cover a large portion of the launch costs by providing an alternative/supplementary HLLV at their own expense, with capabilities identical or superior to SD-HLLV. At this point, GCN will normally start spewing the old paranoid/xenophobic diatribe about how angelic America should never allow itself to become dependant on the evil Ruskis. His arguments are misleading and irrelevant.
Unless grossly mismanaged, NASA should be able to fly at least three or four lunar missions a year within the present budget. To justify development costs, such a programme should be maintained for at least 10 years or more, which would require around 40 HLLVs. A follow on Mars programme would require many more. By all means NASA should go ahead with the SD-HLLVs, but may only need to buy half as many if an agreement could be reached with international partners to share the launch load. The U.S. aerospace industry should not object to this idea as the money saved could be used to build more U.S. spacecraft and fly more missions, and/or help ensure the programme is actually started and maintained as a result of the reduced costs.
Neither Ariane-M nor Angara 100 represent rational concepts. neither come close to matching/being interchangeable with SD-HLLV. Ariane-M requires entirely new tank structures. The development and production costs of this "Europe Only" option would have to be covered exclusively by the ESA, together with the much greater costs of the associated "home grown" manned spacecraft. Angara 100 is an even more absurd proposal as the RKA has nowhere near enough funding to develop it by themselves, and nobody else is interested in helping them do so.
If ESA/RKA can reach an agreement with NASA, by far the best option for all concerned would go something like this:
-RKA halts funding for Kliper and the Progress re-supply programme.
-European and Japanese ATVs replace Progress.
-EADS and RSC Energia develop jointly an HLLV utilizing a core of identical diameter and propellant capacity of original Energia core, to be built initially at Samara Space Centre, with option for production at EADS.
-Four RD-0120s identical to original producion models, initially Russian built with option for production at SEP.
-LH tank identical to original.
-Original ogival oxygen tank replaced by flatop tank, overall stage length reduced.
-New aluminum-lithium shell stressed for top mounted rather than side mounted payload. No new composites required.
-Initial model to be fitted with six Ariane 5 derived SRBs.
-New pad and VAB built at Kourou
The vehicle could be fitted with either the proposed U.S. built translunar injection stage or a similar Energia-M derived upper stage; either one to be fitted with the proposed U.S. lunar lander. GCN will claim that Russia cannot afford to build as few as one or two such core stages each year. Cancellation of Kliper and the Progress re-supply programme should more than cover the cost.
References:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/arie5ecb.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/stages/eneacore.htm
GCN,
Re. your remarks:
" The actual machines used to make the RD-0120 have been converted to make other things, the production line no longer physically exsists."
and
"I find it reprihensable that you "lemming" yourself to whatever the Russians say."
1. Where do you get this stuff?
2. Do you judge the reliability of your source based on the national origin of the author, or is it just the representatives of Kosberg, Energomash, Molniya, and RKK Energia as opposed to all Russians who are liars?
You appear to imply that by definition, the more reliable source would be whomever is furthest removed from the the actual production line, so long as they are not of Russin ethnicity.
My dear Mr. Revenger,
You disappoint me. I count you among those whom I rely on to challenge some of the more silly remarks sometimes posted on this site. Your technical knowledge is obviously impeccable, but you continue from time to time to make some extremely misleading statements. For example, your recent comment:
“The Energia rocket is also quite dead and buried. The main engines are no longer in production, the factory roof has collapsed, the launch pad abandoned to decay... Energia's day is over without a very large infusion of cash, which the US will not spend on a Russian rocket.”
As touched on earlier, and as you well know, the Energia HLLV strap-on boosters remain in commercial production in Ukraine in the form of Zenit and Boeing Sea Launch. The RD-170/180 family of rocket motors remains in commercial production not only for these launchers, but also for Atlas 3 and 5. Energomash produces the latter jointly with United Technologies (Pratt & Whitney).
As for RD-0120, Kosberg states that in addition to the several motors already in stock, they are willing and able to deliver new units whenever solid orders are placed. Even if this never happens, some combination of RS-68 and/or Vulkain 2 could be substituted.
The factory roof has not collapsed. Energia core tanks were produced at the same Samara Space Centre factory, which continues to build the Soyuz/R7. At least two of the high bays of the gigantic MIK 112 did indeed collapse, either as a result of fatal errors on the part of the “repair crew” on the roof at the time, or industrial sabotage. The low bays continue in commercial operation. Even if MIK 112 is never fully repaired, there are other facilities available at Baikonur that could perform a similar function.
Your claim that “the launch pad is abandoned to decay” is questionable. There are no less than three Energia pads at Baikonur, including the unique UKSS full duration burn test/launch stand. I have spoken to a few people who have visited Baikonur , and they claim that the pads were in no worse shape than the Vandenburg Shuttle facilities.
That said, your arguments are based on the absurd premise that an Energia derived HLLV could never fly because it would have to be built exclusively in Russia, by Russians, could only ever be launched from Baikonur, and that of the all the countries on Earth, the US is the only possible source of funding the development of any Mars launch.
If the Energia system could speak, I’m sure it would say something like “Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated”. It aint quite dead yet, and the best, most powerful HLLV ever built should not be buried alive.
Energia aside, why the tirade against Bob? I thought you favoured heavy lift?
If for some reason a private group were to spend potentially very high sums of money to develop Sea Dragon, all power to them. What they come up with may indeed (excluding development costs) bring down the cost per kilo of thowing stuff into space . If several launches were to be carried out each year, with large numbers of Sea Dragons being produced over a long period of time, great savings through economies of scale might be achieved. Or perhaps not. I don't really know.
Does it make any sense for NASA, ESA, RSA, JSA etc. to fund the development of a Sea Dragon type rocket for a near term humans to Mars exploration programme? HELL NO!!!
This is a Mars Society message board. Keeping potential development costs to the minimum greatly improves the possibility of sending people to Mars by 2020. Even the most puffed up, luxury version of the Mars Direct mission architecture would have no requirement for a Sea Dragon class launcher. As mentioned many times in previous posts, there is no commercial application for such a monster rocket. More importantly, Sea Dragon is a non-modular system. There is no commercial market for any of it's individual engines or stages, nor do any such components have any use other than as part of a Sea Dragon.
None of these flaws would apply to an Energia derived HLLV. The largest proposed variant (Vulkan-B), could place ~200 tonnes into LEO, or throw a 60 tonne payload on a six month opposition class trajectory to Mars. The "Vulkan-B" configuration would mount eight reusable Zenit strap-on boosters identical to those flown on the original Energia. The main core is derived from the original Energia core, using identical liquid hydrogen and oxygen tanks, but modified to symetrically top mount the payload-upper stage combination. This modification eliminates the massive assymetrical lateral loads to which the original core was subjected when hauling Buran or other payloads. The upper stage, which would perform trans-mars injection during the latter part of it's burn, is derived from the Energia-M core:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/energiam … ergiam.htm
The following link provides well documented performance estimates for a proposed Energia derived launch system known as "Janus":
http://www.mars.caltech.edu/chris_its/m … msm2r.html
Please note that "Janus-A" stage utilizes STS derived core tanks rather than an Energia derived core. The STS ET is of slightly greater diameter than the Energia, but 10m shorter and thus substantially lower propellant capacity:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttle. … huttle.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/stages/eneac … eacore.htm
The size of the "Janus-B" upper stage was limited by the capacity of the "Janus-2" configuration (two Zenits). To efficiently carry the much larger Energia-M derived upper stage + payload, a minimum of four Zenit boosters would be required. Thus the RKK Energia proposal "Uran", comprised of an Energia derived core, four Zenits, and Energia-M upper stage should deliver ~150 tonnes to LEO. This compares very favourably to the 120 tonne capacity of "Janus-4". Either an RD-0120 or SSME could be used on the upper stage of either vehicle.
The Zenit strap-on booster is both much cheaper and more reliable than some earlier posts suggest. It is misleading to suggest that the single stage strapon would cost as much as a complete Zenit-2 launch stack, let alone the full Zenit-3SL (Boeing Sea Lanch):
http://www.futron.com/pdf/FutronLaunchC … CostWP.pdf
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/zenit2.h … zenit2.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/zenit3sl … nit3sl.htm
The Zenit strap-on booster flew eight times with 100% success. Zenit-2 has launched thirty-seven times with six failures, however only two of these failures were related to the first stage, and both of these occured early in the programme. Zenit-3SL was launched fourteen times with two failures. Neither failure was related in any way to the first stage.
GCN Revernger is dead wrong re. RD-0120.
Robert Dyck is being quite mild when he describes Mr. Revengers remarks on the subject as "political spin". I think rabid xenophobic nationalism is more to the point. Revenger makes excellent use of Big Lie technique by constanly promoting the false assumption that utilization of any technology not developed or currently produced in the U.S. automatically means extra cost to the American taxpayer.
The opposite is true. The ESA, RKA, JSA, CSA etc. all have budgets. The full utiliztion of as many funding sources as possible is the best way to spread the burden. The RKA, along with these other agencies, has repeatedly stated it is open to possible participation in an International Mars Progamme. Paticipation means contributing resources to a partnership, not selling stuff to a dictator.
Cheers.
Taylor Dinerman appears commited to exploiting every lie and distortion imagineable to promote his own political ends. I invite all Mars advocates to start sending him the hate mail he so richly deserves.
The difference is that presumably, Proton Mars launches would be made in addition to commercial Proton launches rather than in place of them. Proton is very reliable, but every launch is still a potential environmental mess. Also, commercial payloads are normally stand-alone and not dependant on very limited trajectectory launch windows as are interplanetary payloads. The failure of any one of the nine launches to LEO(8 Proton, 1 Soyuz R-7) could result in having to abort the entire mission.
Again, thanks for the links.
Wow. Thanks for the link David. That pretty well blows one of my criticisms out of the water. I stand corrected.
As for my other concerns, a single launch failure could severely contaminate the surrounding area. I read that one such previous failure promted Khazakstan to order Proton ops shut down for almost a full year. And again, Proton will probably have been replaced by Angara long before "Proton Mars" could be initiated.
Did your proposal include new additional insulation for the Centaurs to reduce boiloff ? How much would this cost to develop, and how much would it add to the unit cost? Centaur currently has no capacity to dock with anything. It might not be extremely difficult to attach a Soyuz/Progress type docking collar to the nose of a Centaur, but your plan calls for multiple nose to tail/nose to tail docking? Do you envision some sort of external framework over/around the rocket nozzles to mount the aft docking collar? What are the development cost and added mass estimates? Do you propose fitting each Centaur with Progress type guidance and manouvering systems to facilitate orbital rendevous and docking? The end product would look something like European ATV, which was very expensive to develop and produce.
The thrust to mass ratio of the completed "Proton Mars" stack is extremely poor. This means severe gravity losses. Compare the thrust of a single RD-0120 or SSME to a pair of RL-10s, and we have another "no contest" issue.
Perhaps even more important than the previous two points, Krunichev has no plans to increase Proton production. The opposite is true. Krunichev and the RKA, both for their own reasons and at the urging of the Khazakh government, have been commited for some time to eliminating Proton production in favour of Angara. They should succeed in this aim within the next two or three years.
Furthermore, a greatly accelerated launch rate will put a great strain on even a greatly expanded safety/QC personell team. This increases the chance of launch failure. Launch failure at low altitude would be deadly because of the ultra toxic nature of Proton.
As far as I know, the greatest number of Proton launches at the height of Soviet power never exceeded a maximum of four or five in a single year. I believe the launch rate has averaged about three per year over the last five years. The collapse of the Soviet Union devestated the Russian aerospace industry, which is still now a shadow of it's former self. I'm not sure where the "15 per year" figure comes from. Krunichev and it's subcontractors would have to hire huge numbers of new skilled personell, perhaps quadrupleing the current workforce, while expanding and upgrading infrastructure. Again, this would require a huge investment which has not been taken into account by the "Proton Mars" cost estimates.
More to come.
"Proton Mars" is perhaps the worst, least practical, and totally unrealistic Mars mission proposal I have ever read. Practically everything is flawed, so I hardly know where to begin. The worst flaws are related to the multi Centaur TMI stage, so I'll start there:
Let's assume that ILS can more than quadruple the current Proton launch rate (this would involve a massive expenditure that Ellard has not taken into account) and deliver all six Centaurs to LEO within a six month timeframe. Unless I'm really missing something here, after spending months in orbit, hydrogen boiloff would be massive. Game over.
Further to the above, a stop on The Moon as part of a Mars mission makes no sense. From Earth, roughly the same (slightly less?) delta V is required to reach TMI as TLI. Vastly greater propulsive delta V is required to capture lunar orbit and soft land on The Moon than to aerocapture to Mars orbit, then parachute/soft land on Mars.
Even if the moon was made of free rocket fuel, it would make about as much sense to refuel there on the way to Mars as it would to stop in Moscow on an airline flight from Toronto to Calgary.
SRB exhaust is slightly polluting; aluminum oxide and CFC's I think? The liquid fuel used for Titan and Proton is ultra toxic. The sooner Proton is gone, the better.
I don't object to SRB's for environmental reasons, but the STS SRBs cost almost twice what Yhuznoyhe charges for Zenit main stage. Also, Zenit has vastly superior ISP and a much better dry mass ratio. RD-170 can be throttled, gimbaled, has multiple stop-restart capacity, etc. SRB vs. Zenit? No contest.
The last few posts seem to have strayed a little off the "Need for a new Booster" topic. We don't need GCNRs to get to Mars within ten to fifteen years. So long as we have a powerful enough booster (Energia derived Vulkan), it can easily be done with off-the-shelf rocket engines. New propulsion system development cost: zero. Environmental problems: none.
Once manned flights to Mars become reality, it will be easier to introduce low risk, environmentally sound technologies like simple solid core NTRs and/or nuclear electric ion drives. These will require only moderate development funding, but in order to get the programme "off the ground", development costs at the front end must be kept to a minimum, and any possible environmental objections avoided. Any near term funding for GCNR research or similarly problematic technologies will reduce funding available to build Mars ships now. We should focus on the near term if we actually want to see Humans on Mars in the near future, or at all.
Hello RobertDyck,
Kudos on getting in touch with KBKhA Kosberg. I almost hate to ask, but do you think you could ask them about the total number of RD-0120s produced as opposed to those remaining at KBKhA, and if they have any information on the status of any of the engines not in their posession?
Assuming Humans to Mars is carried out as an international programme, which seems far more likely and achievable from a funding perspective, I don't see much point in producing Energia cores at Michoud. Lock Mart is in an excellent position to win major prime contracts for Transhab and/or ERV development and production. Such contracts will involve considerably greater expenditures that HLLV production. As NASA is likely to be the major funding source for the actual spacecraft, it makes more sense for the ESA to contract EADS to produce Energia HLLV cores at Les Mureaux.
I share the concerns expressed about Zubrin's Mars Direct mass margins, particularly with regard to the ERV. The easy way to make Mars Direct work (only two launchers per mission, no earth orbit assembly) without any new technology or cost increase is to replace Ares with a much more powerful Energia derived booster : Super Vulkan.
Hello again RobertD. If Congress wants a Mars HLLV that will cost American taxpayers little or nothing, they will not choose Magnum, Ares, Shuttle C, nor any other U.S. only rocket. They will advocate an internationally produced Energia derived system like Super Vulkan.
I do have confidence in my remarks about Plesetsk and Baikonur. Much of what I say is nothing more than a statement of the situations that have developed or been in place at these sites since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Physically, Plesetsk is where it has always been. It can't be moved south. Baikonur was built in Kazakhstan out of geographical necessity. I personally can't calculate trajectories worth crap, but what little I know of orbital mechanics says that Plesetsk is unsuitable for anything other than launches to polar orbits. Such orbits have very few commercial applications. Am I wrong? You yourself mentioned that neither Soyuz nor Progress could possibly reach the ISS from there. Do you have any concrete references that ILS/Lock Mart is actually paying for anything at Plesetsk? Why would they make such a bad investment? Just as in the United States, it is against Russian laws for their government to hire/rely on any foreign-based company to launch military payloads. ILS is controlled by Lock Mart. Why would Russia change the law? I don't doubt that President Putin's remarks that you mentioned earlier are correct. Are you saying that Putin's comments have something to do with the RKA abandoning Baikonur and/or ILS/Lock Mart paying for Plesetsk? If so, I don't see the connection.
ILS has made statements that they intend to offer Angara launches from Baikonur, presumably utilizing existing Proton assembly facilities. I have seen nothing from ILS that even mentions Plesetsk. At least one Baikonur Zenit pad could be converted for Angara 3 launch without to great expense. Angara 3 launched from Baikonur makes commercial sense. Angara 5 is a different story. A completely new pad and service tower would have to be built. Again, A better, cheaper option than Angara 5 would utilize existing Baikonur Proton and Energia facilities to assemble and launch an Energia M derived vehicle. This "new" LV would logically normally be fitted with a pair of Angara CRBs for most commercial launches, but more could be added if required without any modification to the existing Energia pads.
To clarify some of my earlier remarks on this "evolved" Energia-M proposal, I am not suggesting that EADS would have any reason to play a role in it. The most likely and practical manufacturer of the new Energia-M cores would be Energia RSC/Samara Space Centre (TsSKB Progress), with Angara CRBs from Krunichev, and launch services marketed by ILS exclusively from Baikonur, not Plesetsk. RSC Energia already builds the Proton Block D and Angara upper stage. The new "Ms" could mount either of these. In other words, my commercial Proton replacement proposal (Evolved Energia-M) is a smooth transition carried out by exactly the same companies that are launching Proton right now, while utilizing many of the same facilities already in use for Proton operations. Voila: No contractual problems.
I did not suggest EADS should, or would have any reason to start building the 20m Energia-M cores. EADS is, however, the ideal candidate to build the huge 57m Energia derived core stages for the Mars Super Vulkan proposal. The Russian built Energia-M core would serve as the ideal upper stage for Super Vulkan.
Finally I must correct your earlier remarks on Boeing Sea Launch. Yuzhnoye of Ukraine builds the Zenit main stages. Energia RSC builds the Block D upper stage. Krunichev has nothing to do with this venture.
May I please go to sleep now? :;):
I said Magnum was superior to Shuttle C in the Humans to Mars role because NASAs own studies state that this is the case. Looking at the vehicle stats, Magnum's payload capacity should actually be slightly greater than Shuttle C. The discrepency may be related to orbital inclination, altitude, and circularization. Regardless, NASA's conclusion is based on cost effectiveness studies, not just total payload per individual launch. Although they conclude Shuttle C development costs would be less than Magnum development/infrastructure adjustment costs, Magnum itself is aparently much cheaper than Shuttle C. They conclude is is superior in respect to programmatical/operational costs it is superior. That is to say, more cost effective in the long term. Large diameter, symetrically (nose) mounted payloads are also inherantly preferable/more flexible for non-winged payloads.
Robert, Angara 3 will be launched from Plesetsk for polar orbital missions. These launches will be carried out by the Russian military itself, with no ILS involvement, using LV's purchased directly from Krunichev. ILS are in business to make money. Nothing else. NTV.ru got it wrong. Nothing unusual when the mainstream media comment on aerospace related issues. Lock Mart, who have control of ILS, have no intention of paying for anything at Plesetsks, or any other Russian military base. In this instance, Russia's political position is irrelevant.
More soon.
From time to time, various Russian officials have made threats about "abandoning" Baikonur. They do this in order to try and scare Kazakhstan into keeping the rent low. There is no evidence to suggest that these threats are serious. Although the Russian military continue to launch polar orbital missions from Plesetsk, albeit at an extremely low rate, all RKA flights continue to launch from Baikonur. Any attempt to launch Soyuz, Progress, or any ISS support missions from Plesetsk would be absurd.
Perhaps more important than any supposed hesitance on the part of the Russian government to invest in Baikonur, are the very substantial investments that have been made, and continue to be made by ILS and Starsem to maintain their Baikonur complexes as state of the art, world class facilities. These are booked solid for Proton and Soyuz R7 commercial launches for years to come. Zenit, Dnepr, Tsyklon and others continue to operate from Baikonur.
Plesetsk has never been awarded a single commercial launch contract. No such contracts are forthcoming. One Zenit pad at Plesetsk has apparently been converted, but is not capable of launching any Angara variant larger than Angara 3. No version of Angara has ever flown.
Although Angara 1 and 3 are very promising launchers within their lifting class, the future of Angara 5 remains doubtful. Proton is a toxic dinosaur that will have difficulty competing with the new Arianne 5s. A new version of Energia M, fitted with two Angara CRMs in place of the original two Zenits, would be cheaper than, and superior to both Proton and Angara 5.
The original version of Energia M was rejected by the Russian government in favor of Angara for two key reasons:
1: At the time of the decision, relations between Russia and Ukraine, where the Zenits are manufactured, were at an all time low. Russia did not want it's new booster to be dependant on hostile Ukrainian suppliers. Relations between the two countries have since improved greatly, and have remained stable and positive for the last few years, but the Angara decision had already been made.
2. The payload capacity of the original Energia M was beyond any commercial requirements.
The repair of MIK 112 would not be very expensive, but is not actually needed for Energia M final assembly. Baikonur already has other suitable facilities, particularly if Proton is discontinued. No Russian government investment of any kind would be required to create Super Vulkan core manufacturing and launch capacity if EADS builds the new cores, and the completed vehicles launched at Kourou.