You are not logged in.
We have to ask ourselves why we abandoned the moon, and how we will avoid repeating these mistakes when we go to Mars. I see at least three reasons for the failure of Apollo to establish a lunar colony:
1. Excessive cost. Any lunar base would beed a transportation architecture that is much cheaper than launching a Saturn-V class rocket for every excursion.
2. Propaganda ahead of science. If Apollo had science and not Cold War rivalries at its heart, it would be easier to justify its expenses. However, it was quite valuable in that beating the Soviets to the moon was a major cause for the collapse of the Soviets (If you believe Tom Wolfe, Mercury ended the Cold War.)
3. Changing national priorities. In the United States, social programs, war in Vietnam, and the environmental movement sapped the funding and support from Apollo in the early 1970's. Any government-backed space exploration effort will suffer from the same problems. Perhaps that is why Zubrin backs private enterprise. An interesting alternative would be the formation of a "Mars Corporation" that will settle and explore the red planet.
"I'm not much of a 'hands-on' evil scientist."--Dr. Evil, "Goldmember"
Offline
I saw the following blurb at space.com
<< Gregory Orders JSC To Submit X-38 Shutdown Plan By May 6
WASHINGTON ? NASA headquarters has directed Johnson Space Center to submit a detailed plan by May 6 for shutting down the X-38 crew lifeboat project as quickly as possible. >>
The retreat from putting humans in space appears to be continuing.
What is the offiical rationale for killing the X-38? Step 1 in de-funding the entire ISS?
Should we be fearing a "Rumsfeld-ization" of space?
Offline
I attended a talk by NASA astronaut Dr. Bonnie Dunbar here at Cambridge University this evening. I didn't learn anything new, which was hardly surprising since the talk was aimed at the general public. However, I did gain an insight into how NASA handles its PR. The picture NASA presents to the US and international public is that the ISS is still on track, it will be fully completed and the X-38 will be the Crew Rescue Vehicle with seven seats.
Of course, we know that this isn't the case. Right now, NASA only has plans to get to the core-complete stage of the ISS, which will only allow three astronauts to stay there at one time. Furthermore, the X-38 is almost certain cancelled and in fact has been practically dead for perhaps the best part of a year if not more.
Exactly what does NASA intend to do about the ISS? I personally never felt that there was much point spending so much money on a space station when the gains from even remote probes could be much higher. Despite this, I'd either rather they cancel the #### thing now, or commit to completing it.
Editor of [url=http://www.newmars.com]New Mars[/url]
Offline
The ISS just might be completed after all, and the X-38 might be made redundant.
The X-38 was intended to act as an ISS crew return vehicle. But a similar "crew taxi" is being developed for the Space Launch Initiative. It is a strong possibility that the SLI crew taxi will serve double duty as a rescue vehicle for the ISS. It has also been suggested that Italy could adapt its pressurized logistics module to act as accomodations for an additional three or four astronauts.
There is hope yet for the ISS.
"I'm not much of a 'hands-on' evil scientist."--Dr. Evil, "Goldmember"
Offline
The SLI launch vehicle is intended to be a replacement for the space shuttle. It will not however lift as much as the space shuttle. (supposedly) I think it unlikely that nasa would leave a fully reusable vehicle supposed to launch frequently attached to the ISS for six months or more. Anyway the vehicle is scheduled for complesion in 2012, if we got money now we could be headed for mars by 2012. I will be quite depressed if in 2012 the most important space project in the world is still the ISS
Offline
Ok, since this topic is launch vehicles I would like to add my opinion, and perhaps get it back to launch vehicles.
I am in favour of the Russian Energia for the simple reason that it is the only heavy lift launch vehicle on the shelf. It would cost over $100 million to restore infrastructure, but that is a lot cheaper than developing any new launch vehicle. According to www.astronautix.com the development cost of the Shuttle was $10.1 billion in 1977. Total economic effect of developing Energia was 6 billion roubles. Ariane 5 can only lift 16 metric tonnes to 407km orbit, but its development cost $8 billion.
Today, the US congress has no intention of paying for development of any expendable heavy lift launch vehicle. Argue all you want over the usefulness of such a thing or the economic benefits of a big dumb booster vs a reusable launch vehicle, the bottom line is the US congress still won't pay for it. That leaves only Energia or assembly in Earth orbit using medium lift launch vehicles.
The Vulkan was an alternate configuration of Energia that would use 8 strap-on boosters instead of 4, a cylindrical oxygen tank, and an upper stage expanded to the same diameter as the core stage and mounted on top instead of on the side. This provides a symetrical co-axial configuration with increased lift. It could lift 170 metric tonnes to 200km altitude instead of 88 tonnes that Energia could lift. Some have said that the maximum lift of Energia is 100 tonnes to LEO, but that is very low orbit. To that low orbit Vulkan could lift 200 tonnes. But Vulkan was never developed and the launch facilities (that are left) are configured for Energia.
Another arguement about cost of a manned mission is development cost of the TMI stage. If the Energia Upper Stage were used as the TMI stage, that would use a stage that is already developed. Energia with EUS can only throw 29.3 metric tonnes into trans-Mars trajectory, but it is available now.
Offline
I agree with you; any effort to get to Mars has to be as inexpensive as possible. The Energia is the only vehicle remotely able to lift the weight we are talking about. In-orbit assembly is still an underdeveloped idea with major technological problems (cryogenic fuel storage, possible transfer of fuel, docking everything together soundly, etc.). And all plans to do in-orbit assembly presupposes construction of a facility for such assembly, which is as expensive as the ISS.
As I said previously, it may be possible to go to the moon 20 tonnes at a time (in other words, with the Space Shuttle's launch capacity, or the capacity of the bigger unmanned commercial boosters) but this is not practical for Mars.
I suppose, Robert, the big questionmark about Energia is its reliability. How reliable is it? Have we any way of knowing?
--RobS
Offline
The best information I have about energia is from http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/energia.htm
That document describes the most extensive test program of any Russian launch vehicle. The Russians credit the intensive test program to success of the two launches that were flown. You could argue that the 3 Energia core modules that were in storage were 15 years old, I would argue that with proper care they would be just as good as new. The arguement is moot since they were crushed when the roof fell on them. I just hope the remaining RD-120 engines were not damaged. That leaves manufacture of the core module using existing engines.
Additional informations is available on the Russian page of the Winnipeg chapter web site. This includes pictures from a tour group that went through Baikonur in April 1997, and pictures from on-line news articles about the accident on May 12, 2002. There are also links to the Russian Aviation-Space Agency, RSC Energia, and Molniya (manufacturer of the Buran orbiter). It also has copies of my correspondence with RSC energia including the articles they attached about the Russian mission plan.
Rob C Willis reported earlier in this discussion (message 3) that Energia launch pads and associated facilities are in poor condition. All I know about their condition is what I see in the web sites quoted in this message, but the price quoted to NASA in 1995 to restore infrastructure was $60 to $100 million US. It is 7 years later so that would be higher now, and repairing the vehicle assembly building would add to that. RSC Energia was upset that they spent thousands of dollars on a study to determine the cost to restore LV Energia to production, but didn't get any contract from that. If we asked them to do a study today they would want someone to pay for it.
Based on Energia's 2-for-2 success record, the extensive testing, and the fact it uses liquid strap-on boosters rather than segmented solid rockets, I would argue it is more reliable than the US Shuttle.
Offline
Nota: i am a newbie and my english is not good...
I'd like to tell you that the price of the launcher is not in the parts but in the design (so it's not a problems if they were crunshed). It is cheaper to buy or use the design of energia (i.e. buy parts built by Energia sub contracters, buy Energia engineers...) and do the launch from equator (Kourou (France), Brasil...) where the capacity will be 30% or more bigger.
The 'easy' way to do it is two launches, one with the rocket and propergols used to go to Mars, the other one with the Mars Lander / or Mars station (but no people) and the propergols needed to land on and then land off. Do a 'rendez-vous' on Earth orbit(Don't forget that Russians are specialists of space rendez-vous (look about Mir and the automatic vehicles used to refuel), so they can connect the two big parts of 100 Metric tons or more together on orbit.), separate on Mars orbit (and drop empty tanks to Mars for reuse ?), land on, work..., land off, rendez vous on Mars orbit (with the lighter rocket used to come), stop on earth orbit. Use US shuttle to 'lift' people to the Mars assembly and use one or several cheap return vehicle(s) to take people back.
This 'easy' way will have a low cost if you do this 10 time as in the Zubrin planning (5 launches for Mars stations, 5 launches with crews).
I think that:
- set up a launch pad in Kourou: 500 M$
- have a contract for 5 rockets/year with energia 1 b$/year for 10 years.
- each launch (50) have an (say 20M$ ) extra-cost in Kourou
so 11,5 b$ for 20 Mars travels (+ 10 for failures,tests, extra launches... )
- It gives you 10,5 b$ to design the Mars station (build 10), the 'transfer rocket' (build 20) and the 'transfer shuttle' (build 10 or reuse?). And build them.
And i think there are ways to save lot of money in this...
Total 22 b$, 3b$ per year for 5 years, then 1.5 for 5 years .
Less than 1/5 of ISS
3b$ is 100$ / month for 2.5 million people... Is it possible to find 2.5 million people able to pay 100$ per month for this project?
This is not a problem of money, it's a problem of politics. They spend the money to do 2 or 3 times the same thing. They don't want this to be done on public funds... The only way is to do it on private...
Ok, I hope this has been a good reading... and i wait for your replies.
Offline
Hi again,
Information for those how wanted to buy parts from the energia rocket, it's garanty time is passed by 5 years.
(My mother in law was safety engineer at Energia for 20 years and worked on this rocket, i just ask her about this and she gave me this information).
So they have to rebuild it. But be happy, they kept the drawings...
CC
Offline
Ok, I hope this has been a good reading... and i wait for your replies.
All the way with the ESA!
Is that the idea?
European Union money and Russian rockets. Who needs NASA?
Offline
No!!!
Mars is not for ESA or NASA or Russians !!!
It's for every one!
If we were really clever, we'd take best thing from every where to do the best.
No one has the monopole of good ideas, good stuff and staff...
For example, Russian have the best rockets and good experience for long duration in space, ESA have the good place and experience in design, USA have good experience in labs, high tech, organisation...
If people make a cooperative (a kind of company where every one put money, and in which each one will win if one day there's something to win) to send missions to Mars ? This would be very clever.
No ?
CC
Offline
What propulsion method is proposed for the Earth to Mars portion of the mission? From what I've been reading on solar electric propulsion, it would save a lot of weight for the launch, and might even get there faster.
Offline
At the beginning of the Shuttle C topic posted in the Human Missions stream , Mark S claims: "On this forum we have established that resurrecting the Saturn V or Energia is possible but not practical due to the presence of shuttle technologies that will help us build something bigger." Nothing could be further from the truth. Although the resurrection of Saturn V is both impractical and undesirable, it's payload capacity was markedly superior to Shuttle C. To lump Energia in with Saturn is classic "Big Lie" propaganda. Repeat it often enough, mix the lie with half true but misleading and totally irrelevant statements like "The Russians can't afford it" and "We won't buy Russian rockets", and most people who don't know any better will believe. Mark also says "If only NASA had the guts to commit to a manned Mars mission". Everyone should realize that any NASA administrator attempting to divert large sums of money to such a mission without explicit instructions from the Oval Office would be dismissed. Clearly, the only real coward in this case is George W. Bush.
Shuttle C is among the worst possible launch vehicle options yet proposed. Payload capacity is totally inadequate, even lower than Magnum. While Magnum is projected to be more cost effective than Shuttle C, Magnum's payload limit means that any reasonable manned Mars mission architecture using it would be forced to resort to Earth orbit assembly. The only practical way around this would be the use of nuclear-electric propulsion for TMI and possibly TEI. I support the eventual use of nuclear-thermal and nuclear-electric propulsion, but political resistance and development cost makes utilization of surplus SSMEs or RD-0120s the best near term solution.
Also, the Shuttle C payload fairing diameter is much too small. For the purpose of sending humans to Mars, Ares is the best of the STS derived proposals. Ares itself remains a markedly inferior option when compared to proposed Energia derived HLLV systems.
Some folks still don't seem to realize that there is a world outside the U.S. and the countries it likes to bomb. There is no chance that Congress will ever be willing to provide 100% of the total funds required to start sending people to Mars. The ESA, RKA, JSA, CSA etc., will never be willing to pour money into any exclusively American designed, built and launched programme. Dropping a giant subsidy in the laps of the U.S. aerospace industry is not something the rest of the world will be willing to do. NASA possibly allowing a few token "international" astronauts to tag along will not change this.
Boeing and Lock-Mart are best qualified to take on the most complex and expensive aspects of the project; serving as prime contractors for development and production of the actual spacecraft. The European Union could easily fund the development and production of an Energia derived main core stage and the construction of new final assembly and launch facilities at Kourou. EADS is well positioned to serve as prime contractor for construction of this core stage. If Russia is unable to supply adequate numbers of RD-0120s, SNECMA could begin European based RD-0120 production, or the original set of four RD-0120s per core stage could be replaced by a cluster of six Vulcain 2s. European production of an STS derived core makes little sense. The Energia main core has greater propellant capacity than the Shuttle ET. Horizontal processing and assembly makes far more sense than vertical assembly. Existing Energia stage handling equipment could be used. The current STS tank is not compatible with Zenit, and Zenit is vastly superior to the never tested ASRB. The proposed Ares upper stage would also have to be developed from scratch, and it's propellant capacity is less than two thirds that of the Energia M core. Energia was designed as a modular system from the outset. Ares and Shuttle C are all-up, fixed capacity all or nothing systems, whose stages cannot be individually flight tested.
The ISS will soon been completed. The European ATV is scheduled to enter service this year. Once a serious decision is taken by the U.S., European Union, and Japan in favour of a real international Humans to Mars programme, The RKA could then cease Progress re-supply missions to the ISS. This large portion of the meager Russian space budget could then be used to provide two or three major components to the Mars HLLV. These components would consist of the RD-170, refurbished surplus RD-0120s, and an Energia M core derived upper stage. Energia RSC and Krunichev could cancel the planned Angara 5 Proton replacement in favour of restarting Energia M production. This new commercial launch vehicle could be fitted with four Angara CCBs in place of the original pair of Zenits. Regardless of wether this happens, the Kosberg factory and it's tooling for RD-0120 production remains intact. I have no idea how many of the original Soviet built RD-0120s were destroyed in the collapse of MIK 112, or how many are stored elsewhere. This is not a serious problem. Surplus SSMEs could easily be fitted to the Energia M core. This could be done by Boeing at Kourou to avoid any State Department B.S. about "sensitive technology exports". Transport of all stages and spacecraft to Kourou for final vehicle assembly can be accomplished by ship or An-225.
Over the past year, my thinking as to the ideal configuration for such an Energia derived HLLV has changed. I now realize that I had been underestimating payload capacity; i.e. the throw-weight performance to TMI of the "Vulkan ILV". This performance turning out to be better than I had originally thought also applies to versions with a smaller number of Zenit boosters. In a latter post, I shall attempt to provide a brief synopsis of the mission architecture I have in mind. It is basically a scaled down NASA DRM version 3, but utilizing a single four Zenit Energia derived HLLV in place of each pair of Magnums. Propulsion is all off the shelf chemical combustion technology. No on orbit assembly required. Payload delivery to TMI from launch at Kourou approx. 50 to 55 metric tonnes. Crew of four or five.
I shall also attempt to provide greater detail behind the political and economic realities that make this the safest and most practical near term low cost plan, and describe which agencies and corporations are best positioned to carry it out.
Offline
Pardon me if I get out right paranoid about the Energia launch vehicle. I tried to advocate the Energia. I contacted the director of the international division of RSC Energia to ask if it is available. He said it is. At that time the only thing necessary was rebuilding a manufacturing facility for the core module, but using existing RD-0120 engines. I even got a NASA employee at Michoud excited, and he said he would see if he could leverage the fact that he works where the external tank for the American space shuttle is built to get the Energia equivalent restored. However, one month after I mentioned to an employee of Orbital Sciences just how easy it would be to restore Energia, the roof of MIK 112 collapsed.
We do, in fact, have to realize there is a world outside the US. The Russian government is not at all impressed that Baikonur is now outside their country. RSC Energia would very much like to get the Russian government contract to build Energia-M, but they lost to a competing Russian company that produces Angara. One reason is that Angara has launch facilities at Plesetsk, inside Russia. The cost to upgrade Plesetsk to accommodate Soyuz and Angara launches is less than 2 years rent to Kazakhstan for Baikonur. Economics and Russian politics dictate abandoning Baikonur, and that means Energia-M will never be. Energia LV with the EUS (Energia Upper Stage) can lift 88 tonnes to 200km circular orbit, but can throw roughly 29.38t directly to TMI (Trans-Mars Insertion) with C3=15 km/s^2 which is an 8 month trip to Mars, or 25.97t to C3=25 which is a 6 month trip to Mars. Vulkan LV with 8 Zenit strap-on boosters could lift 170t to 200km circularized orbit, so it should be able to throw roughly 56.75t to C3=15, or 50t to C3=25. That would be a massive rocket, even greater lift than Saturn V. Since the upper stage of Vulkan would have a single RD-0120 engine and diameter the same as the core stage, that would give it a 7.8 metre fairing. The habitat for Mars Direct was originally designed for 8 metre diameter, and a single floor plus storage for pressurized rover and surface science equipment; it was calculated to mass 28.42 tonnes including artificial gravity tether and the astronauts. The Vulkan would be much larger than necessary. Again, RSC Energia would love to build it, but I think it falls into the category of "would be nice if".
Shuttle-C with only 2 SSMEs and configured to be disposable would lift only 77t to 400km circularized orbit at 28?. The configuration I described with 3 SSMEs and a recoverable engine pod could lift 91.9t to 407km orbit at 51.6? (ISS). Magnum with 2 SRBs, 4 SSMEs and a kick stage for circularization would lift 79.8t to 407km orbit at 28?, and fairing with 7.62 metre interior diameter, 8.4 metre exterior. True, the Shuttle has 4.5 metre interior diameter cargo bay, but the exterior is 5.2 metres. If you use a 4 Zenit Energia with the side-mount EUS, it has a 5.7 metre exterior. The hull of a solid habitat can withstand the hypersonic air flow during launch, so no fairing is required. That means the exterior diameter counts. I don't see a big difference between Shuttle-C and Energia. The primary concern is who we can convince to build it.
I am very pleased to hear the Kosberg factory remains intact. Restoration of manufacture of new RD-0120 engines provides a lot of options.
Offline
Rob C Willis, I can feel the love...
Shuttle C will never be the greatest heavy-lifter, but it wasn't designed to be. And I don't intend to degrade Energia or adopt a "Not Invented Here" policy of rejecting non-American rockets (rather, I have looked at using the French Vulcain 2 engine and the Ukranian Zenit booster as part of an HLLV.) Instead, Shuttle C serves a different purpose: putting a lot of payload in orbit with a minimal amount of development time. It would probably be faster to re-open Energia production, but I think that the obstacles to doing so are greater than the challenge presented by Shuttle C. The state of Energia launch facilities is an unknown. I am also uncertain as to whether the Energia tooling was destroyed (I've heard conflicting statements about this.)
The Energia company has made claims aboutthe amount of time it would take and the money required to build more Energias, but I treat them with more than a grain of salt. The Russian aerospace industry has a reputation for making bold claims but not backing them up. Case in point: Mikoyan's claim that their MiG 1.44 was cheaper and stealthier than the F-22. Testing showed that the 1.44 needed a bit of redesigning, and its shape is certainly not optimized for stealth. These problems might have been rectified if more money was available to Mikoyan. This brings up another point: Can we rely on Russia to mass-produce these impressive rockets? If they are having trouble meeting their ISS commitments, they cannot support Energia production, or a Mars program for that matter. If there is no money to re-constitute the production lines, there will be no more Energias. Furthermore, the rocket will be impossible to justify if there aren't any large payloads for it to launch.
I can forsee a day when Energias are launching payloads to space again. But it will have to wait until Russia's aerospace industry returns to its former glory, their economy turns around, and the launch market demands an HLLV. Under today's bleak market forecasts, the best choice for a viable HLLV is one that shares common components and facilities with existing rockets in production.
"I'm not much of a 'hands-on' evil scientist."--Dr. Evil, "Goldmember"
Offline
Robert D.,
Your past support of Energia was well founded, and your current "paranoia" is misplaced. The collapse of MIK 112, while tragic, has no real bearing on the ease with which an Energia derived ultra HLLV can be brought into production. Such an HLLV is still by far the best, cheapest, and most practical near term solution to the Earth to the TMI transport requirement.
Primarily for political reasons, I favor expanding ESA vehicle assembly and launch facilities at Kourou for the International Humans to Mars Programme. The Energia derived HLLVs would operate from this base. Much of the Ariane V infrastructure, such as cryogenic propellant plants, can also be used to support Energia operations. NASA Houston should be responsible for post launch mission control. The condition of the remaining Energia-Buran facilities at Baikonur ranges from excellent to repairable, but there is clearly no need for any new "Energias" built for our proposed Mars Programme to rely on in any way Baikonur.
The original Energia M was shelved primarily because the Zenit boosters were built in Ukraine. At the time, relations between Russia and Ukraine were at an all time low. Ukrainian firms were charging outrageous prices for components upon which the Russian space programme was totally Dependant. In order to avoid the risk of being blackmailed into paying astronomical sums, and desperate to support the struggling domestic Russian aerospace industry, the RKA was forced to choose Angara. Relations between Russia and Kazakstan at this time were also extremely strained, and at one point the RKA did seriously consider abandoning Baikonur. Subsequently, the Kazak government has realized that the closure of the base would destroy the local economy. Kazakstan is now doing whatever it can to help the Cosmodrome remain operational, and have drastically decreased the "rent" from what it was eight years ago.
Plesetsk is adequate for launching small military payloads to polar orbits, but it's northerly latitude makes it completely unsuitable for sending commercial payloads to geo-synch. Neither Soyuz nor Progress can reach the ISS from Plesetsk. ILS, otherwise known as International Launch Services, is the partnership formed between Lockheed, Krunichev, and Energia RSC that markets commercial launches on Proton. ILS and the RKA currently plan to convert existing Proton processing and launch facilities at Baikonur to support Angara 5 and Angara 5 UOHB, assuming these vehicles ever actually come into existence. There are no facilities at Plesetsk capable of supporting anything larger than Zenit. Even once converted, the former Zenit pads will be incapable of launching Angara 5 and Angara 5 UOHB. No serious proposal has ever been made to expand Plesetsk to give it this capability. Nobody has any intention of funding such an expansion. Year after year, ILS and Starsem continue to be booked solid with orders to launch commercial payloads from Baikonur. There is no commercial launch company with any interest whatsoever in Plesetsk. For many years now, it has been clear that neither the RKA, Starsem, nor ILS have the slightest intention of ever abandoning Baikonur. The claim that "Economics and Russian politics dictate abandoning Baikonur, and that means Energia-M will never be" is now way out of date and totally false. Also the statement that RSC Energia "lost" to a "competing Russian company that produces Angara" is misleading. Although Krunichev is prime contractor for the Angara CCB, Energia produces all the various upper stages for all Angara variants.
Another reason the original Energia M was shelved was that it was simply too big, with much higher payload delivery performance than Proton. No adequate commercial demand for such a heavy payload capacity existed. My proposed new version of Energia M would be fitted with anywhere between two and four Angara CCBs in place of the two Zenits originally planned. The Angara CCB is smaller and cheaper than Zenit. This "Evolved Energia M" family would take less time and money to develop, and would be cheaper to produce and operate than Angara 5 and Angara 5UOHB. MIK 112 is not needed to support Energia M operations from Baikonur, as much newer facilities built to support Energia-Buran are available. Refurbishing UKSS and perhaps one or two of the other Energia pads for Energia M will also be quicker and cheaper than converting Proton facilities to support the heavy Angaras. It clearly makes more sense for ILS and the RKA to invest in Energia M, rather than Angara 5 and 5UOHB to replace Proton. If Lock-Mart ever partners with Starcraft Boosters (and possibly Krunichev?) to produce the StarBooster 200, this near term flyback booster could also be fitted to the Energia M core.
Robert, there may be some confusion surrounding the performance stats you quote for the "Energia LV with the EUS". I think I know exactly where you got these figures, but they only make sense for the original side mounted payload version if fitted with two as opposed to four Zenits. The "Vulkan LV" stats you quote are accurate for the original Soviet Vulkan design. My proposed evolution of this design, which I have referred to in previous posts as "Vulkan ILV" would actually be larger than the original Vulkan. Vulkan ILV would use a core tank with capacity identical to Energia as actually flown, this capacity is larger than the original Vulkan core. Lighter, stronger alloy would be used. Much more importantly, Vulkan ILV would use an Energia-M core based upper stage fitted with a surplus RD-0120 or SSME instead of a Vulkan Block V fitted with an RD-57M. The original Vulkan design was capable of generating far more power than it needed on launch. For smoother stageing and a more efficient flight profile, four of the eight Zenits on Vulkan ILV would be fitted with RD-180 in place of RD-170. RD-180 is also lighter and cheaper than RD-170. Vulkan ILV launched from Kourou should be able to deliver almost 190 metric tonnes to a the 200km circularized orbit you quote for Vulkan. Of course this is far more than required to support Zubrin's Mars Direct. That's because Vulkan ILV has nothing to do with the Zubrin plan. The purpose of the ultra heavy ILV was to accomplish the NASA DRM version 3 (baseline), while eliminating the need for nuclear thermal propulsion and on orbit assembly. In short, three Vulkan ILVs could replace the six Magnums per DRM cycle. Wether or not Energia RSC "wants" to build the entire Vulkan ILV is totally irrelevant. I have only suggested that they are best suited to build the upper stage, which the RKA can easily pay for, especially as the engine comes free!
Personally, I favor a cheaper, scaled down version of the DRM, with crew size and payload requirements reduced by almost one third. This would enable an Energia derived HLLV similar to Vulkan ILV, but fitted with only four Zenits(RD-170) to be used, while still eliminating orbital assembly and nuclear thermal propulsion requirements. The three launches per mission cycle would be maintained.
The 5.2 meter diameter exterior of Shuttle C is totally inadequate for any reasonably proportioned aeroshell type transhab with adequate mass to carry more than two people at a time to Mars and support them for the surface stay. Just how you propose to fit Zubrin's 10m "tuna can" on Shuttle C is beyond me. Nothing smaller than Ares can support Zubrin's Mars Direct. Shuttle C's payload capacity is grossly inferior to Ares. While Shuttle C's performance comes close to the Energia core with two Zenits plus EUS, It is inferior to the four Zenit plus EUS configuration. Ares itself has markedly less capacity than the four Zenit Energia plus Energia M derived ILV proposal I have outlined.
Who can be convinced to pay for the ILV is what is relevant. No corporation needs to be "convinced" to build it. I shall repeat myself. EADS should build the main core stage. If adequate supplies of surplus Russian RD-0120 are not available, each core could be fitted with a cluster of six Vulkain 2s, or SNECMA could begin European based production of RD-0120. This would be paid for by the European Union via the ESA.
Energia RSC should produce the Energia M derived upper stage. Russia, via the RKA can easily afford to pay for these, as they don't have to buy new engines for them. The greatest monetary contribution required of Russia would be for the purchase RD-170s from Energomash to power the Zenits. Each RD-170 can be safely used at least 10 times. They have been proven to withstand 20 full duration burns. The strap-on boosters are recoverable for reuse via a parachute/airbag system. Zenit is currently in commercial production by Yuzhnoye. As Ukraine will probably be unable to pay for these by itself, the more wealthy international Mars programme partners should be willing to make some contribution, unless they enjoy seeing the economies of small countries being ground into the dust. Remember that because of the Sea Launch partnership, anything that benefits Yuzhnoye will benefit Boeing. Incidentally, anything that benefits Energomash and Energia RSC also benefits Lock-Mart, at least indirectly.
The European, Russian, and American commercial launch industries all stand to gain from the production of this International HLLV.
Quick References:
www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/elvs/angara_sum.shtml
Offline
Mark S.,
Please see both of my postings above for the destruction of your arguments. It's all well and good to have "looked at" Vulcain and Zenit, but Shuttle C does not use them. It remains a 100% U.S. built design. I have never suggested production of complete Energia launch vehicles duplicating those flown with Buran/Polyus be restarted. I have never argued that the same former Soviet firms and subcontractors be 100%, or even 50% responsible for the overall Mars HLLV programme, or that the RKA provide most of the funding for this launch vehicle.
Mark, please clarify just exactly what "obstacles" you are talking about? Nothing you have said bears any relevance whatsoever to the plan I am promoting. It is indeed possible that the original tooling for the core tank production has been destroyed. How is this supposed to effect EADS? You and I may not have details as to the exact condition of all the Energia-Buran support facilities at Baikonur. So what? How does this effect Kourou?
The European ATV will be in service within another two or three years at the most. This will allow the RKA to cease Progress re-supply missions to the ISS, which have been maintained at the rate of at least two or three flights per year over the past five years. A Progress spacecraft costs more than an RD-170. The complete Soyuz launch vehicle needed to carry it to the ISS certainly costs more than an Energia M core derived upper stage, even if the engine wasn't free!
Let's be optimistic, and assume that an International Humans to Mars Programme is started upon completion of the ISS around 2005, with the first launch to take place by 2015. My proposed mission architecture calls for three Energia derived HLLVs to be launched every two years, each with four Zenits which can be reused 10 times, and one Energia M derived upper stage. A total of five complete mission cycles would be performed over a ten year period (five sets of four astronauts would be landed and returned). Assume the RKA were to purchase just two RD-170s per year starting in 2008, and two Energia M core stages per year starting 2010, and continue to do so through to the end of the first Programme in 2025. Even at such a slow rate, far more hardware could be delivered by the Russians than actually required.
The European Union has more than enough money to start production of the main core stage, as well launch the HLLVs from Kourou. It makes sense for the wealthy countries involved in the programme to help Ukaraine pay for a few Zenits.
Mark, why continue to repeat your incredibly misleading propaganda? Although I hope that the Russian economy may continue to improve, my proposal is not in the least dependant upon any such growth. The level of Russian participation in the International programme I propose is limited almost exclusively to contributions to the HLLV. These contributions would require about 20% of the existing RKA budget. As I have demonstrated, such funds will be readily available once the Progress ISS re-supply programme is wound down.
Zenit, RD-170, and Vulcain 2 are all currently in production for commercial purposes. An evolved Energia M is commercially viable. Surplus stocks of SSME and RD-0120 do exist. While most of the components of both my proposed International HLLV and Shuttle C are currently available, no Shuttle C components have any commercial application. Shuttle C is a non-modular, all or nothing system with no commercial market for it's payload capacity. The Energia derived LV is a modular system. The suggestion that the launch vehicle system I propose will never be viable until there is a commercial launch requirement for it's heavy versions is absurd.
Offline
Rob C Willis,
I don't think you understand why I am paranoid about further advocating Energia. One month after I told a sales person at a major American aerospace company just how easily Energia could be reactivated, the roof collapsed. I am saying this is not an accident. Although the Russian investigation ruled out terrorism, I do not rule out industrial sabotage. I fear that further advocating Energia may simply result in more sabotage.
As for retiring Baikonur, two news articles from the Russian news service newsru.com state that Baikonur will be abandoned. The article from March 3, 2002 states "the Government of Russia has planned to allocate about 5 billion roubles (167 million dollars). So much Russia pays to Kazakhstan for one and a half year of rent of Baikonur." The article on January 18, 2002 states "to say goodbye to Baikonur, in Plesetsk it is necessary to finish construction of a so-called launcher number 1." That article also states the Russian Ministry of Defense didn't have enough money to complete the facilities at Plesetsk, so Lockheed Martin is paying for it in exchange for profits from Angara. The article says Angara is capable to win half the world market of space services. It also states that the opinion of Lockheed experts was Plesetsk was 70-80% ready for heavy Angara. If there is something inaccurate in these articles, please tell me; especially considering these articles are from a Russian news service, in the Russian language.
Yes, my figures for Energia LV with EUS do come from www.astronautix.com, and it states the Energia with 4 Zenits could lift 88 tonnes to 200km altitude without circularization, or the same mass to the same orbit with circularization if you add the EUS upper stage. The Polyus was supposed to use onboard thrusters to circularize. The Groza was the variation with only 2 Zenits and no EUS, it was supposed to lift 50 tonnes to 200km orbit circularized. However, my figures for Vulkan (170t to 200km circularized orbit, 8 Zenits) come from direct correspondence with Aleksandr Derechin, Head of International Division, RSC Energia. The last link is to my translation of his letter, it was in Russian. For more details see my Russian rockets page.
I don't mean to squash your work, Rob. New launch vehicle designs and new mission architectures are always a good idea. Together we will develop something that can be done; safely, effectively, and at a price that can be paid. If my comments appear to be criticism, realize the test of any serious proposal is its ability to survive critique. Your messages have already brought to light information I didn't know. Keep up the good work.
Offline
This will allow the RKA to cease Progress re-supply missions to the ISS, which have been maintained at the rate of at least two or three flights per year over the past five years. A Progress spacecraft costs more than an RD-170.
Do you really believe that RKA wants to cease operations? Re-supply is a very crucial part of ISS operations, it helps justify the existence of the Russian space agency. I suspect that RKA would not want to cease Soyuz/Progress operations any more than NASA would want to cease Shuttle operations. Those operations are quite spectacular.
Do you have cost figures for Progress and Soyuz spacecraft? The only cost figures I have are for launch vehicles. I would appreciate those numbers.
Offline
MIK 112 is not needed to support Energia M operations from Baikonur, as much newer facilities built to support Energia-Buran are available.
Which building are you referring to? Several of the buildings at Baikonur are called "Building of Assembly and Test", in Russian "MIK". The Energia-Buran launch stack was assembled in MIK-RN, also known as building #112. That was the old vehicle assembly building for the N1 rocket. The new building for Buran was MIK-OK, building #256, but it is just the orbiter processing building. MZK, building #113, was a new building for loading propellants into the orbiter and payload, and for vertical static tests of the entire stack. The 2 high bays of building #112 had the roof collapse. The 3 low bays are still 52 metres high, and were repaired after the collapse to support ISS module staging. Are you suggesting the low bays, or building #256?
Offline
Hello Robert D.,
I think I now understand the paranoia thing. If your suspicions are correct, you and I, and several folks at the Caltech chapter should be looking over our collective shoulders. Certainly, we should keep an open mind about the possibility of industrial sabotage/terrorism, but I doubt that even Lock-Mart would do such a thing, and be willing to kill several people in the process. More importantly, I do not see why they, or anyone else would want to. The International Humans To Mars Programme I advocate would greatly benefit the aerospace industries of all the ISS partners, as well as several new potential partners. Boeing, Lock-Mart, EADS, SNECMA, RSC Energia, Krunichev and many others all stand to gain from the Programme. NASA, the ESA, RKA, JSA, CSA etc. and the countries they represent would have a spectacular example of peaceful, cost-effective international co-operation. Sending humans to Mars would be the greatest scientific-technical achievement in the history of space exploration. As no one government is willing to pay the cost of going it alone, the Programme must be truly international.
Perhaps there was an opportunity for sabotage, but I think the more mundane explanation is far more likely. MIK-RN was a gigantic old building with an enormous flat roof. Practically no maintenance had been done on the section that collapsed since the cancellation of the Buran programme. Back around 1995, when conditions at Baikonur were at their worst, bands of locals, mostly soldiers who had not been paid in months, would roam the base at night, stealing everything that they considered of value that could be loaded into a pickup truck. In order to prevent such theft, several tonnes of building supplies were moved onto the roof of MIK-RN! Worse yet, when the base was finally brought under control, these materials were never removed. Many more tonnes of water accumulated as the centre of the roof sagged, which caused more water to accumulate. When a repair crew was finally sent up, they obviously botched the job and ended up getting themselves killed. At least this tragic accident has served as a deafening wake up call to the RKA and all Baikonur personnel, to make sure nothing like this ever happens again.
My Russian language reading skills have gone all to hell, but the newsru.com article, like many mainstream press releases, is misleading. Although the 167 million dollar figure is technically correct, almost the entire amount is covered by subtracting it from the interest on the almost one billion dollars Kazakstan still owes to Russia. In short, "renting" Baikonur costs the the Russian taxpayer practically nothing.
As far as I know, Lockheed has never put any money into Plesetsk. Plesetsk is still a military base. The State Department is not in the habit of allowing Lockheed, or any other American corporation to subsidize Russian military bases. It appears I must repeat myself. Angara 1.1, 1.2, and possibly Angara 3 are planned to launch from Plesetsk for polar orbital missions. These will be carried out mostly by the military. The RKA may also continue with science missions out of Plesetsk. A few military and RKA launches on Soyuz rockets out of Plesetsk have continued for years, just as in Soviet times. However, the northerly latitude is totally unsuitable for launching any commercial payloads into anything remotely resembling an equatorial orbit, let alone geo-synch. There is one hare-brained Plesetsk launch scenario that proposes to loop payloads round the moon in order to partially redress this problem. While possible on paper, nothing like this has ever been done. More importantly, no comsat insurer would ever risk sending a multi million dollar payload on such a difficult trajectory. I suspect rumors circulated about the abandonment of Baikonur have more to do with scaring the locals into keeping the rent low. The ILS and Starsem sites feature high praise for their Baikonur facilities, and their investments in keeping them state of the art. Neither company has anything at Plesetsk. Although Starsem makes mention of successful Soyuz launches from Plesetsk because they sell launches on the same type of rocket, neither has stated any intention of ever doing any commercial launch business there. The current ILS plan is to replace Proton with Angara 5 and 5UOHB, should these vehicles ever come into existence, but they make no mention of abandoning Baikonur. It's simply much cheaper to convert the Proton assembly, payload processing, and launch support infrastructure at Baikonur to support commercial Angara 5 and Angara 5UOHB operations.
http://www.ilslaunch.com/
http://www.starsem.com/index.html
Clearly, there is no reason to believe that Baikonur will ever be abandoned at any time in the forseeable future. Far more important is the fact that even if the Cosmodrome were to suddenly cease to exist, this would have little effect on my International Mars HLLV proposal!
And now, the tricky part. Please have a closer look at the relevant Energia stats:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/energia.htm
I thik astronautix.com is the best website on the planet, but Mr. Wade appears to have screwed this one up a little. At first glance, it does not appear that the performance stats clearly refer to an Energia configuration made up of a two Zenit Strapon plus Energia Core plus Energia EUS. Nor do the stats seem to refer in any clear manner to an Energia configuration made up of four Zenit Strapon plus Energia Core plus Energia EUS. In fact, what is listed is 2 x Strapons plus 4 x Strapons plus 1 x Energia Core plus 1 x Energia RCS plus 1 x Energia EUS! This list could easily be misinterpreted as referring to one vehicle comprised of all these sets of stages. Every other launch vehicle entry on the site is arranged in just such a manner, always referring to a particular configuration comprised of all the stages listed. In this case, our host has failed to make clear that this is just a list of various stage combinations associated with the side mounted payload versions of the Energia HLLV modular system as opposed to an actual configuration, proposed or otherwise. For example, the Energias that were built could only mount two or four Zenits, not six. If the payload was to be a Buran, then no upper stage was used. Polyus used the Energia RCS. Other cylindrical payloads could be fitted with the EUS, but RCS and EUS would never be fitted at the same time on the same vehicle.
A fully loaded Buran weighed 105 tonnes. Buran's "main engines" were primarily for circularization, on orbit manouvres, and de-orbit burn. The Energia booster did almost all the work involved in pushing the Buran into orbit. Robert, I may be missing something here, but could you explain to me how an Energia with four Zenits and an EUS stage can place only 88 tonnes into a 200km orbit, while an Energia with four Zenits and no upper stage could place a 105 tonne space shuttle into the same orbit? Plese see the Buran entry:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/buran.htm
Please bear with me. I'm no rocket scientist. and my calculations are rather crude, but lets compare an Energia with four Zenits plus EUS to Zubrin's Ares:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ares.htm
The combined propellant mass of four Zenits is greater than that of two ASRBs, while having lower a combined dry mass. The Zenits generate more thrust, and their vastly superior Isp allows for a much longer burn time than the ASRBs. Although Ares Stage 2 has a greater propellant capacity than Energia EUS, the combined propellant load of an Energia Main Core plus EUS is actually slightly greater than the combined propellant load of Ares Stages 1 and 2. The total launch vehicle dry mass of the Energia configuration is slightly less than Ares. Taking all these factors into consideration, the payload performance of the original Energia Core fitted wtih four Zenits and an Energia EUS should actually be GREATER than Ares!
As we know, Ares can carry one hell of a lot more than 88 tonnes to a 200km orbit. I realize that the latitude of the launch site vs. the orbital inclination can make a major difference, but not this big a difference. Again, I propose to launch the Mars HLLVs from Kourou as opposed to Baikonur.
Your figures for Vulkan refer to the original Soviet design, and as such are absolutely correct:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/vulkan.htm
My Vulkan ILV proposal is an evolution of this design. Core capacity would be increased to match Energia, and be built of lighter alloy. A much larger upper stage based on the Energia M core, and fitted with an SSME or RD-0120 would replace the Vulkan Block V and it's RD-57M. Four of the eight Zenits would mount RD-180 in place of RD-170. This new ultra heavy configuration should be able to deliver about 190 tonnes to LEO. A single such "Vulkan ILV" could be used to replace each pair of Magnums in the NASA DRM version 3 (baseline). Personally, I favour a scaled down version of the DRM that would utilize an identical HLLV system, but with four Zenits(RD-170) instead of eight.
Thanks for your words of support. I will try to address the other issues you have brought up later on today.
Offline
You do make a very good point regarding Energia performance. The Buran with maximum payload (30t) would have a total mass of 105t. The engine section included the RCS, but that functions as the equivalent of the American shuttle's OMS. This does raise the question of how the Buran would get into a 200km circularized orbit. It is interesting that the thrusters onboard Polyus were the RCS; I didn't know that.
There is a NASA web page I am referencing that lists Family Energia, Model EUS, as capable of lifting 88,000kg to LEO. It doesn't specify what altitude they mean by LEO. That page is where I get my figures for directly throw to escape velocity; it includes C3=0, 10, 50, and 100. I interpolated for C3=15 and 25. The page also includes a row in the table for Family Energia, Model EUS/RCS, with the only column filled in for C3=100. I interpret that as a combination of EUS and RCS is possible, but it is only useful for outer solar system trajectories. I would post the URL, but I don't want NASA to take that web page down; it's too valuable to me. After I did post the URL for the X-38 reference page, NASA did remove that page.
The newsru.com articles I referenced are where I got the story of Baikonur being decommissioned. It does state so quite plainly in those two articles. I use www.translate.ru and www.altavista.com to translate from Russian into English. It's useful to use two different translation engines, and I believe that one from America and one from Russia should give a good, net translation. If this was just a story to scare the locals into reducing their "rent", then I am relieved. However, the articles did claim that reporters will be allowed on Plesetsk, and Lock-Mart is paying for the Angara launch site in return for profits from Angara launches. That would seem a rather bold claim if it is just bull shit.
Notice the throw mass for Energia I calculated in a previous message is just a hair under the capacity of Ares. I suspect it is 4 Zenit strap-ons plus EUS. This is one reason I suggested a TransHAB based inflatable Hab. Launch it deflated so it can fit within the fairing of EUS, then inflate once on your way to Mars. If you can reduce the mass just a bit, you can send the Hab with 4 astronauts with a direct throw from just one Energia launch. That is, if someone would repair the high bays of building #112.
Offline
Re. Soyuz and Progress,
Once the European ATV is in service, Progress re-supply flights to the ISS will no longer be critical. The RKA could wind down the programme. Doing so would put an end to it's financial woes, allowing it to consolidate it's position, and enabling it to make a major contribution to the International Humans to Mars Programme in the manner that I have proposed in my previous posts. There is certainly no question of the RKA scrapping the Soyuz TMA crew ferry/lifeboat programme at any time in the forseeable future. This is a critical contribution to the ISS. Delivering people to and from the Space Station is certainly more spectacular than sending an unmanned machine like Progress to deliver supplies and pick up garbage.
Maintaining the Soyuz TMA programme while participating in the International Humans to Mars programme would certainly more than justify the continued existence of the Russian Space Agency(RKA). Better yet, it could save money in the process.
I do not have exact figures, but at a very rough, semi-educated guess, the "on the pad" (ready to fly) cost of a Progress M-1 is probably around 70 million U.S. dollars. The launch price of the Soyuz FG rocket used to carry it is just over 50 million.
Also a very rough guess; the Soyuz TMA spacecraft probably costs the RKA anywhere between 80 and 85 million dollars "on the pad". It uses the same model Soyuz FG rocked to carry it to the ISS.
Does anyone else have more accurate figures?
Offline