Russia to revive MAKS! - NASA, look out!

nirgal · 2003-03-26 11:12:48

Great news! The Duma Committe on Defence has urged President Putin to push for the development of a 'new' RLV: "...a system consisting of an orbital plane, which in Soviet times was under development at the Molniya research-and-production association under the direction of Academician Gleb Lozino-Lozinsky, and a carrier-aircraft. The An-124 and An-225 planes can serve as such carrier-aircraft. The system is capable of deploying a payload weighing up to 11 tonnes into orbit."

If Russia really can find the money to build this system then the US will lose its leading role in space for the foreseeable future. It is becoming increasingly clear that even the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia was not enough to shake up congress and NASA management to make the right decisions (such as phasing out the Shuttles as soon as possible, before 2010, and building either a fully fledged Shuttle replacement or the OSP on an accelerated schedule). Instead, NASA apparently has not the slightest idea where they are going: Enhancing and Replacing NASA's Space Shuttle: Ideas? Yes. Funds? No.

If the so called experts have their way NASA will spend hundreds of millions of dollars on developing a Shuttle escape system (which will further decrease the Shuttle's payload capacity) and, to justify the expense, keep the Shuttles flying until 2022 (!). With luck we'll get the OSP by 2010 but the program is already widely criticized and I think there is a very real possibility that it will be cancelled when they have done half of the work (remember Shuttle II, NASP, X-33, SLI).
Russia on the other hand will have a modern innovative launch system which will be an order of magitude cheaper to operate than the Shuttle/OSP.

Go Russia!

Shaun Barrett · 2003-03-26 18:30:12

Sounds good to me, Nirgal!
I'm getting to the stage of backing almost any new space initiative!!

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-03-26 23:03:13

Even with my puny grasp of politics I doubt Russia will leapfrog the United States. The US is the leader in space and every other country has always followed and...sadly will follow for some time to come. Just my opinoin. Hope I'm wrong.

The way things are right now George dubya might just label them a 'rogue country', invade, and take over their oil fields. Just a thought. ???

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-27 00:53:23

Perhaps Russia on her own couldn't compete with the US (by very long shot!), but with China's assistance (or rather, the other way around! China with Russia's assistance!), something like this could get off the ground.

In any case, news like this is good.

I wonder if we'll hear anything from China regarding this particular development.

RobertDyck · 2003-03-27 00:55:58

The US is the leader in space and every other country has always followed

Russia launched Sputnik before the U.S. launched any satellite. Yuri Gagarin orbited the earth before Allen Sheppard did his sub-orbital hop in a Mercury capsule launched on a Redstone. Russia made the first space walk, had the first woman in space, and built the first space station. The Salyut 1 space station flew before Skylab. Russia flew an unmanned fly-by of the Moon before Apollo 8. That is why Apollo 8 was manned; it was originally supposed to be unmanned. In fact, Apollo 8 was the first achievement the U.S. made before the Russians. After Apollo 11 the Russians concentrated on Space Stations. After Salyut 1 was the military station Salyut 2 (which failed), the military station Salyut 3, then the civilian station Salyut 4, then the second successful military station Salyut 5, then the civilian stations Salyut 6 and Salyut 7. The Mir core module was an upgrade to the Salyut 7 design. Today all life support for the International Space Station is supplied by the Russian Service Module, which is an exact copy of the Mir core module. It may be true that the Buran space shuttle is a copy of the American shuttle, but the Russians have not "always followed". In fact, they are leading the way in space station design. One engineer who designed the Mir core module refers to the ISS as Mir2.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-27 02:00:58

Well said, Robert.

And all the things you noted don't even require a vested knowledge of space history (I've always disliked history), except the bit, perhaps, of several military space stations (I knew of the Salyut's though).

I wonder where Russia's space program would be if they had the same kind of funding NASA gets. I was always under the impression that Russia has always done as much as they could get away with. Heh, I read something which said some of the earliest cosmonauts weren't even wearing high altitude / space suits.

soph · 2003-03-27 05:27:56

They also didn't have the problem of displaying every failure to the public, and much more lax scrutiny and regulation. Their practices would not have been allowed here.

Palomar · 2003-03-27 07:57:52

The US is the leader in space and every other country has always followed
Russia launched Sputnik before the U.S. launched any satellite. Yuri Gagarin orbited the earth before Allen Sheppard did his sub-orbital hop in a Mercury capsule launched on a Redstone. Russia made the first space walk, had the first woman in space, and built the first space station. The Salyut 1 space station flew before Skylab. Russia flew an unmanned fly-by of the Moon before Apollo 8. That is why Apollo 8 was manned; it was originally supposed to be unmanned. In fact, Apollo 8 was the first achievement the U.S. made before the Russians...

*Indeed, Robert. Carl Sagan lists the space program accomplishments of the U.S.S.R./Russia and those of the U.S.A. side by side in the preface to _Pale Blue Dot_. I was amazed -- and yes, was confronted with my ignorance upon reading that list years ago. It's funny, but *prior* to that I'd read the 2001 trilogy of Arthur C. Clarke's -- and I'd wondered, with a mix of resentment and curiosity, why he gave the Russian space program such precedence and attention in the story line, thereby inadvertently throwing us Yankees into the shade. I thought perhaps this preference stemmed from Mr. Clarke's socialist sentiments. Then I read Sagan's "laundry list." Wow.

It should also be mentioned that the U.S.S.R. sent a woman into space 20 years before the U.S. did. When Sally Ride was the first woman to go up in one of the shuttles, there was a thrill of excitement -- a woman in space (early 1980s)! Ah, and then I read, a few years ago, that the first woman in space was actually a Russian...and her adventure occurred in 1963. Carl Sagan documents this in his comparison list -- it was the first time I recalled knowing of it. My jaw literally dropped when I read it, and I pulled the book closer and focused harder on that date: 1963?! My god. Of course, I know this particular bit of information isn't important to everyone; but it has been to me.

Yeah, the Russians have really kicked ass in more ways than one. I understand why Clarke has rightfully honored them in his books. Of course, I'm proud of the accomplishments of the U.S.A.! But it's only fair to give credit where it is due.

--Cindy

tim_perdue · 2003-03-27 08:07:21

Russia launched Sputnik before the U.S. launched any satellite.

Yes, Russia was ahead of the US for a time, but I doubt anyone will say that is the case anymore. To the best of my knownledge, Russia has not had even a fraction of NASA's "unmanned" successes, including orbiting and surveying almost every planet, the hubble, chandra, voyager, etc etc

NASA has a huge list of such accomplishments. Russia also has a small list of venus orbiters, mars orbiters, etc, but nothing in comparison to NASA.

dicktice · 2003-03-27 08:53:49

Russia, to NASA's shame, is ahead right now...since they are able to transport people up to LEO and "we" can't. Their Soyuz system is still viable, and until a proper "spaceplane" is developed, capable without further development of doing its job--which is to reliably service LEO operations. Funding is needed, and with NASA's shuttle system on the skids, funding will be forthcoming...you can bet on it. Now--about getting them involved in the launching of Mars Direct...?

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-03-27 09:43:46

I agree that Nasa had to play catch up to the USSR for quite a while. But remember, it was the USSR not Russia. Russia today just doesn't have the funding to pass up the US. I wish somebody would though.

RobertDyck · 2003-03-27 10:24:06

Let's encourage Russia to complete the MAKS. I beleive many people read this message board, including NASA and people in Russia. Let us compliment Russia and encourge them to take-on and complete the MAKS.

Let us also encourage NASA to complete a 4-crew OSP based on the X-38. I am worried they will grant the contract to the HL-20 but with only 4 crew. Requiring a Delta IV Large would increase launch cost to an unmaintainable level, while an OSP that can be launched with an Atlas V 401 would make Soyuz obsolete.

Palomar · 2003-03-27 10:31:07

Let's encourage Russia to complete the MAKS. I beleive many people read this message board, including NASA...

*Robert, I'd be curious and appreciative to know what leads you to believe NASA may be reading posts here?

--Cindy

RobertDyck · 2003-03-27 11:32:01

*Robert, I'd be curious and appreciative to know what leads you to believe NASA may be reading posts here?

On January 6 I mentioned the Mars Balloon project and that we might be able to get funding from NASA as a University Class Explorer under the Small Explorers program. On January 8 I received notification from NASA through the contractors email list that the Announcement of Opportunity (AO) for the next missions in the Small Explorer (SMEX) program had been postponed. Depending on the availability of appropriated funds, the SMEX AO would be released shortly after NASA's FY03 budget is signed. I then posted an announcement on this board asking everyone to write their congressmen to support NASA's budget. I then received notification the same day on the contractors list that SMEX had been reinstated. This sounds like NASA gave me a kick in the but to get you guys to write congress to support their budget, then rewarded us by reinstating the program that could fund our project. Of course, after Columbia they put a constraint that SMEX missions could not be launched on the Shuttle, but this still sounds like a conversation.

dicktice · 2003-03-27 16:53:47

I agree that Nasa had to play catch up to the USSR for quite a while. But remember, it was the USSR not Russia. Russia today just doesn't have the funding to pass up the US. I wish somebody would though.

It's Russia (not the USSR) that operates Soyuz as a private enterprise so, unless USA/NASA are willing to let the ISS fail, war-or-no-war, funding will happen. It's only a political, treaty question, as I understand it.

Ad Astra · 2003-03-27 23:14:03

Russia has long talked about air-launched vehicles using their monstrous AN-124/225 transports as a first stage, and MAKS is only one of many concepts. BURLAK was another air-launch concept that used a TU-160 as a mothership. So the system demanded by the Duma may not be MAKS after all. The problem I see with Russian industry is that their funding is nowhere close to a level that can support designers' creativity. I feel that only the Chinese defense buildup can save Russia's aerospace industry from ruin (and even so, the Chinese have indicated a preference to develop their own aircraft, spacecraft, and weapons systems in the future.) I'm very skeptical that the Russians can build an air-launch vehicle without outside money, and I think that we'll eventually see Russia partner with the ESA or become an ESA member to keep its industry alive (and give ESA the manned launch capability it lacks.)

Ad Astra · 2003-03-28 17:25:17

Another interesting "engineering editorial" about the shuttle with some applications to MAKS. I'd wonder, though, how MAKS would behave if you moved the engines onto its ET. It's important to note which engineering assumptions the author makes. He thinks that bending loads are fatal to the booster, but he agrees with the author to the original "Is the Shuttle Critically Flawed?" article that engines put too much stress on the orbiter. I see two fallacies in the article. First, the author dismisses the idea of flyback boosters, even though NASA has rejected the idea of liquid boosters that recover in the water. His other belief is that F-111 ejection capsules will work to save the crew, when the F-111 was one of the worst planes to eject from (and a similar system was tested and rejected for the B-1.) My only question is how the Buran protected its belly from ice damage when there was no foam on the Energia core. But I do agree with the basic premise of the article--Energia was a more versatile design. However, I think that the Buran orbiter was a mistake for similar reasons the shuttle was--too large a payload, too large a cross range.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-03-26 11:12:48

Re: Russia to revive MAKS! - NASA, look out!

#2 2003-03-26 18:30:12

Re: Russia to revive MAKS! - NASA, look out!

#3 2003-03-26 23:03:13

Re: Russia to revive MAKS! - NASA, look out!

#4 2003-03-27 00:53:23

Re: Russia to revive MAKS! - NASA, look out!

#5 2003-03-27 00:55:58

Re: Russia to revive MAKS! - NASA, look out!

#6 2003-03-27 02:00:58

Re: Russia to revive MAKS! - NASA, look out!

#7 2003-03-27 05:27:56

Re: Russia to revive MAKS! - NASA, look out!

#8 2003-03-27 07:57:52

Re: Russia to revive MAKS! - NASA, look out!

#9 2003-03-27 08:07:21

Re: Russia to revive MAKS! - NASA, look out!

#10 2003-03-27 08:53:49

Re: Russia to revive MAKS! - NASA, look out!

#11 2003-03-27 09:43:46

Re: Russia to revive MAKS! - NASA, look out!

#12 2003-03-27 10:24:06

Re: Russia to revive MAKS! - NASA, look out!

#13 2003-03-27 10:31:07

Re: Russia to revive MAKS! - NASA, look out!

#14 2003-03-27 11:32:01

Re: Russia to revive MAKS! - NASA, look out!

#15 2003-03-27 16:53:47

Re: Russia to revive MAKS! - NASA, look out!

#16 2003-03-27 23:14:03

Re: Russia to revive MAKS! - NASA, look out!

#17 2003-03-28 17:25:17

Re: Russia to revive MAKS! - NASA, look out!

Board footer