You are not logged in.
RobertDyck expressed some interest in the Buran/Energia shuttles, in another thread, and at the time it seemed there was no information available in English.
However, I came across this article about some exciting news for the future, including quite a long blurb about Buran/Energia and thought I'd share.
Russia starts ambitious super-heavy space rocket project
Russia will begin Moon colonization in 2030 - draft space program
Roscosmos space agency has formed a working group to prepare “within weeks” a roadmap for the revival of the Energia super-heavy booster rocket.
The new carrier rocket Angara is set to become the base for the ambitious project that could bring Russia back to its heyday of space exploration. It could be launched from the Vostochny Cosmodrome which is now being constructed in Russia’s Far East, and will replace Kazakhstan’s Baikonur as Russia’s main launchpad.
In his speech, ex-minister Baklanov claimed that “nothing new has been designed” in the 25 years which have passed since the creation of the Energia-Buran system. He warned that “a point of no return is very close,” and said there are only years left to recuperate the space industry to the previous level and keep the groundwork.
Buran could stay in orbit for 30 days, while the American shuttle had a 15-day time limit. It could deliver into orbit 30 tonnes of cargo, compared to the US shuttle’s 24 tonnes of cargo. It could carry a crew of 10 cosmonauts, while the American shuttle could carry seven astronauts. Preparation for the Energia/Buran launch at Baikonur Cosmodrome only took 15 days. However, it took one month of preparations before the US shuttle was launched from Cape Canaveral.
The Energia rocket booster could be used to launch various payloads into orbit, whereas the American shuttle’s booster was one-task. (...)
But the most important difference from the American model was that the Soviet spaceship could perform the flight and landing in totally automatic mode, which it brilliantly demonstrated on November 15, 1988.
Yes, awesome..... but that was 25 years and a fallen empire ago. What a huge waste of resources to develop all that and let it fall inte disrepair. Would have been better to just give it to the US or China. What about the timeline for this replacement model....? I'll dig around a bit later to see what I can find on the Runet. Perhaps somebody else has more info?
Traditionally, the endeavours they announce on 9 May (big national holiday) are dead serious, so I think Russia really does plan to go to the Moon, as things stand. Don't quite see what the objective of being on the Moon permanently would be, and how (if) it ties up with our dream of Mars colonization.
in XXI century there might be a geopolitical competition for lunar natural resources.
I hate this, as an objective for space travel. The motives of the USSR were better. Wouldn't surprise me if Gazprom / Rozneft immediately lays claim to whatever worthwhile they find. Don't like that...
Personally I hope Russia does this alone, or with partners in the Eurasian Union or maybe ESA or China. I think the USA has displayed recently what it really feels about Russia and is not a trustworthy partner for Russia. Let them find somebody else to go to space with, perhaps their beloved Saudi Arabia. See thread on Ukraine in "Not So Free Chat"
“We are going to the Moon forever,” the Russian Deputy PM said.
Definitely a step in the right direction though, isn't it.
The new shuttle seems to be fit with what RobertDyck was hoping for though, so worth reading.
.
Last edited by martienne (2014-05-09 06:53:20)
Offline
Russia's annual vaporware announcement is right on schedule.
If they can revive Energia, it might provide some good international competition for the Mars Colonial Transport, but Russia has even less money for payload than we do, and are going to have even less the more they try to reconquer the Warsaw Pact.
The Former Commodore
Offline
My typical interpretation of announcements coming out of the Russian space program (As well as most other space programs) is that I'll believe them when I see the hardware on the launch pad, and not before then. Russia seems to announce this kind of plan nearly every year.
-Josh
Offline
RobertDyck expressed some interest in the Buran/Energia shuttles, in another thread, and at the time it seemed there was no information available in English.
However, I came across this article about some exciting news for the future, including quite a long blurb about Buran/Energia and thought I'd share.
Russia starts ambitious super-heavy space rocket project
Russia will begin Moon colonization in 2030 - draft space program
Roscosmos space agency has formed a working group to prepare “within weeks” a roadmap for the revival of the Energia super-heavy booster rocket.
The new carrier rocket Angara is set to become the base for the ambitious project that could bring Russia back to its heyday of space exploration. It could be launched from the Vostochny Cosmodrome which is now being constructed in Russia’s Far East, and will replace Kazakhstan’s Baikonur as Russia’s main launchpad.
In his speech, ex-minister Baklanov claimed that “nothing new has been designed” in the 25 years which have passed since the creation of the Energia-Buran system. He warned that “a point of no return is very close,” and said there are only years left to recuperate the space industry to the previous level and keep the groundwork.
Buran could stay in orbit for 30 days, while the American shuttle had a 15-day time limit. It could deliver into orbit 30 tonnes of cargo, compared to the US shuttle’s 24 tonnes of cargo. It could carry a crew of 10 cosmonauts, while the American shuttle could carry seven astronauts. Preparation for the Energia/Buran launch at Baikonur Cosmodrome only took 15 days. However, it took one month of preparations before the US shuttle was launched from Cape Canaveral.
The Energia rocket booster could be used to launch various payloads into orbit, whereas the American shuttle’s booster was one-task. (...)
But the most important difference from the American model was that the Soviet spaceship could perform the flight and landing in totally automatic mode, which it brilliantly demonstrated on November 15, 1988.
Yes, awesome..... but that was 25 years and a fallen empire ago. What a huge waste of resources to develop all that and let it fall inte disrepair. Would have been better to just give it to the US or China. What about the timeline for this replacement model....? I'll dig around a bit later to see what I can find on the Runet. Perhaps somebody else has more info?
Traditionally, the endeavours they announce on 9 May (big national holiday) are dead serious, so I think Russia really does plan to go to the Moon, as things stand. Don't quite see what the objective of being on the Moon permanently would be, and how (if) it ties up with our dream of Mars colonization.
in XXI century there might be a geopolitical competition for lunar natural resources.
I hate this, as an objective for space travel. The motives of the USSR were better. Wouldn't surprise me if Gazprom / Rozneft immediately lays claim to whatever worthwhile they find. Don't like that...
Personally I hope Russia does this alone, or with partners in the Eurasian Union or maybe ESA or China. I think the USA has displayed recently what it really feels about Russia and is not a trustworthy partner for Russia. Let them find somebody else to go to space with, perhaps their beloved Saudi Arabia. See thread on Ukraine in "Not So Free Chat"
“We are going to the Moon forever,” the Russian Deputy PM said.
Definitely a step in the right direction though, isn't it.
The new shuttle seems to be fit with what RobertDyck was hoping for though, so worth reading..
Who the heck are you quoting or replying too? This is the first post on the first page. I don't know who Italics is, you don't attribute. So are you talking to yourself? I don't know what you think the US did that makes it untrustworthy, maybe its President is untrustworthy, but that can change in two years. Nothing a new President couldn't fix.
Offline
Russia's annual vaporware announcement is right on schedule.
If they can revive Energia, it might provide some good international competition for the Mars Colonial Transport, but Russia has even less money for payload than we do, and are going to have even less the more they try to reconquer the Warsaw Pact.
As all the former Warsaw pact countries are members of NATO, would think not!
As they say talk is cheap. But if Russia spends a trillion dollars to establish a Mars colony, that would he half its GDP and it would have less money for military adventures. So I hope Russia does make the attempt, that would be a better expenditure that trying to conquer Europe.
Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-05-09 19:08:56)
Offline
Please be careful that this thread does not devolve into discussion of Earthly Geopolitics. If it is to be discussed in Human missions, it should be focused on the mission. Chances are if you are discussing something in Russia other than the Russian Federal Space Agency you are in violation of on-topic rules.
-Josh
Offline
Nice! And since my name is mentioned, I should contribute.
I would like to start by linking my web page. It includes correspondence I had with Russia in 2000 through 2003. Haven't talked to them since. I noticed some clicks on my telephone after that, and considering everything that's going on now, I really don't want to directly contact them again. But old correspondence can be found here:
http://chapters.marssociety.org/winnipeg/russian.html
In 1995, Russia began working on the Angara rocket.
http://www.astronautix.com/fam/angara.htm
It was supposed to replace Zenit, which was manufactured in Ukraine. Specifically, the Yuzhmash factory in the city of Dnipropetrovsk, in the oblast by the same name. Yes, Dnipropetrovsk is eastern Ukraine. That factory had manufactured the first Soviet ICBM, and continued to manufacture missiles for the Soviet Union until it collapsed. Since, Zenit has been used by SeaLaunch, owned by Boeing, to launch American satellites. Strap-on boosters for Energia are the first stage of Zenit; the only change was the gimbal. For Zenit, the engine had to steer in two dimensions: left/right and forward/back. But for Energia, the gimbal only moved in one dimension, effectively it was a hinge. Since 4 strap-on boosters were used, one pair was oriented in one direction; the other pair was oriented 90 degrees. The computer coordinated them. By the way, the Yuzhmash factory also manufactured the first stage for Antares rockets, used by Orbital Sciences to launch the Cygnus cargo spacecraft.
So what is it? There were announcements last year of something that looked like Vulkan. That was a design proposed in the 1970s. Energia was developed out of that. Basically, Energia is Vulkan with 4 boosters instead of 8, no upper stage, and the core module pointed. Converting Energia back into Vulkan would be easy. The problem from Russia's perspective is strap-on boosters were still the first stage of Zenit.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/vulkan.htm
So what are they working on now? Here is a road map proposed April, 2013, but this web page was updated May 6, 2014. That was Tuesday.
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/rockets_ … 2010s.html
Last edited by RobertDyck (2014-05-11 09:53:39)
Offline
Very interesting and well informed post, Robert! Thanks for sharing.
At the time of the Soviet space program they were very pleased to be able to spread everything across the union so that many different republics had a part in the super popular space program.
Of course, they could not predict what would happen to the USSR so obviously from today's perspective it would have made more sense to have kept everything space related in Russia. But the strategy was to spread things across the country. I think Canada is doing the same thing, right. Let's hope nothing happens to the factory you mentioned in Eastern Ukraine.
Last edited by martienne (2014-05-10 18:44:14)
Offline
I would still prefer Russia just "get along" with Ukraine. Use Energia. If the goal is international cooperation, then they should work together. My plan for an international mission included Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Canada, Italy, Japan, Australia, and the European Space Agency.
Offline
Very interesting and well informed post, Robert! Thanks for sharing.
At the time of the Soviet space program they were very pleased to be able to spread everything across the union so that many different republics had a part in the super popular space program.
Of course, they could not predict what would happen to the USSR so obviously from today's perspective it would have made more sense to have kept everything space related in Russia. But the strategy was to spread things across the country. I think Canada is doing the same thing, right. Let's hope nothing happens to the factory you mentioned in Eastern Ukraine.
Why should it? If all the citizens of Canada get a fair deal and aren't discriminated against, there should be no problems with secession.
Offline
I would still prefer Russia just "get along" with Ukraine. Use Energia. If the goal is international cooperation, then they should work together. My plan for an international mission included Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Canada, Italy, Japan, Australia, and the European Space Agency.
I'm responding to this in the Ukraine thread, but I personallhy no longer think that the USA is suitable or trustworthy partner for Russia. By the time this kicks off the USAs debts will have caught up with it. The US probably won't even be able to pay for participation. China might be an option to cooperate with if a partner is needed, or possibly ESA although everything surrounding European co-operation is a bit shaky, particularly at the moment.
Nothing against Canada but its so much smaller in population that it couldn't be an equal partner. Likewise the Eurasian Union countries who'd be overshadowed - although I very much support the whole Eurasian union project and if space cooperation helps it, so much the better.
Offline
I kind of doubt that anything will happen with a Russian (or an American) large rocket until the Ukraine mess is resolved. That's where the big rocket stuff was in the old Soviet Union, and until it's secured within Russia, they won't attempt big rockets again.
Because of the hostility between Russia and US/"the west", we are returning to conditions similar to those of the cold war. That included science/technology stunts to "prove" that one side or the other was "better". That was the genesis of the space race to the moon, and why the moon landings were more about flag-and-footprints than anything substantive.
Look for a new space race in the big rocket arena. It's not like all this blindsided everyone. There is now a geopolitical reason to continue the SLS, even though it makes little sense otherwise. The same would be true of any new large Russian rocket.
Just don't look for wide commercial use of whatever giant rockets do fly. They will not be cheap, not by a long shot, not being developed for commercial launch.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
I'm not sure what to say. SLS is much bigger, block 2 able to lift 130 metric tonnes to LEO, while Falcon 9 Heavy can only lift 53t. To put it bluntly, we need something in the range of SLS to go to Mars. But SLS has already had much more than enough money to fly, and more than enough time. It still hasn't. Not sure if the problem is bureaucracy or corporate greed, or both.
Offline
The problem with government-designed rockets is that governments (of ANY kind) know nothing about how to do anything in a cost-effective manner. They don't know that much technically, either, or they wouldn't have to hire contractors to develop and build things for them.
So, why in hell do they ALWAYS micromanage their contractors, showing bureaucratic arrogance in inverse proportion (or worse) to demonstrated competence? That makes NO SENSE AT ALL. But that is the way most governments do business.
That being said, when there is a commercial need for 100+ ton LEO capability, there will soon be available a 100+ ton rocket at about $500/pound if flown fully loaded. "Cassandra says so".
The only reason for a 100+ton rocket to go to Mars is if you stuck with one launch/one mission-type thinking, and/or direct-to-Mars-without-stopping-in-LEO thinking. Had that one-launch/one mission thinking held sway, ISS would never have been built. Had the direct flight / no LEO thinking held sway, we would not have reached the moon with men as soon as we did.
We can assemble in LEO vehicles of ANY desired size, from components launchable with the rockets we have. Once you realize the value of that capability from a technological standpoint, you also realize the unit price is already good enough to do just about anything we might want to attempt.
I'm showing unit costs near $2500/pound (fully loaded) to LEO in the 15-25 ton range, and Spacex projects $1000/pound at 53 tons. Project the slightly nonlinear trend: 100 ton should be near $500/pound. SLS is projected at $2000/pound for 100 tons +/- by the same NASA that is infamous for overrunning every big project since the 1970's.
If you look at commercial, not government programs, you find that in well-run projects, direct launch costs are running about 20% of overall program cost. That means a $1 billion launch bill should correspond to a $5 billion project. Unless a government lab runs the project.
The way for a government mission to Mars to get done affordably is to write a one-page RFP that says "Land 6 men on Mars, establish a base that can be left running on automatic, and then bring them home safely. For a bonus payment, make every piece of vehicle hardware recoverable and reusable." Then hire a prime contractor based on a proposal with a page limit of 50 pages. Then get the hell out of the way and let them get the job done.
That would be the very same way they bought their first airplane from the Wright brothers. 1 page RFP, 1 page proposal. Look where that eventually led.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
I'm not sure what to say. SLS is much bigger, block 2 able to lift 130 metric tonnes to LEO, while Falcon 9 Heavy can only lift 53t. To put it bluntly, we need something in the range of SLS to go to Mars. But SLS has already had much more than enough money to fly, and more than enough time. It still hasn't. Not sure if the problem is bureaucracy or corporate greed, or both.
I'm not so sure. I think the real limiting factor is the volume, as determined by the 5.2m faring. Depending on what the biggest inflatable Bigelow could fit on there, we may be able to get away with the Falcon Heavy, even too Mars. Anything in the 1000-1200m^3 range would probably be enough for any single application, and most any mission would likely use more than one inflatable, of varying sizes. Then the challenge is getting enough propellant up there, and of course it would be far better at that point to spend the billions on a nuclear drive launched and fueled buy existing launchers, instead of a bigger launcher just to burn more propellant. With the reduced fuel requirements of a nuclear drive, the volume limit is far more manageable, and with a reusable 1st stage, the price is as well.
And even that is all moot, as Elon has made it clear that he has no intention of stopping at the Falcon Heavy, and what little we know about the Mars Colonial Transport indicates it will be more than sufficient.
The key is the political will to use what is most economical economically, instead of what buys the most votes. We are a year or two from regaining manned access to LEO, and if we where smart, we'd establish our own independent orbital outpost, post haste. We can do that with just the Falcon. With the Heavy, we can have a very robust lunar program, landing before the 50th anniversary, and attaining self-sufficiency within a couple of decades. Impressive unmanned missions and short trips to interplanetary space are also quite doable. The Inspiration Mars "Plan B" mission, for example, should be doable on the Falcon Heavy with a BA 1000+ class primary hab. And if done right (not necessarily as currently envisioned), that is a perfectly capable transit craft for a real Mars mission, and we just have to prepare surface elements. In fact, an Inspiration Mars architecture, spiraled up slightly in complexity at every launch window, would gain us access to Martian orbit and moons in short order, fulfilling the asteroid mission mandate far sooner than our current timetable is likely to, along with laying the ground work for manned surface missions by the end of the next decade, again, a far better timetable than NASA's current rate. And its not untill we are ready so loft those surface elements that the MCT would be really useful, which fits neatly into the projected timeline for it anyway.
Concentrate on LEO, and the Moon, let SpaceX earn the revenue they need to do what they want to do, and the bigger rockets to go elsewhere in an affordable manner will come in do time. Keeping in mind that if our objective is to open up deep space for the masses, our objective must be building and launching at least the bulky elements of our architecture from the Moon within a few decades, which will render even the MCT obsolete no more than a quarter century after it first flies.
The Former Commodore
Offline
if we where smart, we'd establish our own independent orbital outpost, post haste.
I diagree most strenuously. Short term, we need to end dependence on Russia for access to space. But long term, we need to re-establish cooperation. After all, we don't want a return to the cold war. US federal debt is now $17.5 trillion. Trillion! It's just a matter of time before another financial melt-down as bad as 2008. And this time no one will bail the US out. Politicians keep talking about a "fragile recovery". As long as the debt is growing this fast, it isn't a recovery at all. Military over spending, just a nudge, will push the US over the brink. After all, who do you expect to sell bonds to? After the last melt down, Congress talked about simply no repaying China. As a result of that, China has been dumping US treasury bonds. Slowly, so they don't drive the price down. They certainly won't buy more. Europe is a basket case. Canada's economy is way too small. So who? I'm sure it's part of Putin's plan to trick the US into doing that. The solution is to "make nice". To reconcile with Russia. Let's face it, America can't afford another protracted cold war. Russia can't either. It will have to be resolved quickly.
From a more practical point of view, we certainly don't want to waste yet more money on yet another space station. We have one, so use it! Keep it, and use it. Just a few small tweaks to the life support system would make it suitable for Mars. Do that, so simple operation of the station means long term testing in space. And send a centrifuge module to test effects of 38% gravity. Everything on ISS, not some other station. Remember, we don't have a big Shuttle any more.
Most importantly, any major construction effort in space should be on the surface of Mars. Mars. Not LEO, not L2, not L1, not the surface of the Moon. I said Mars.
Offline
I'm not sure what to say. SLS is much bigger, block 2 able to lift 130 metric tonnes to LEO, while Falcon 9 Heavy can only lift 53t. To put it bluntly, we need something in the range of SLS to go to Mars. But SLS has already had much more than enough money to fly, and more than enough time. It still hasn't. Not sure if the problem is bureaucracy or corporate greed, or both.
We don't need 130 tonne launchers to go to Mars. They're useful, sure. But not necessary. Let's say it's 2015, and the Falcon Heavy already has a few demonstrated launches, while the SLS is still little more than some computer generated imagery. Upon which rocket does it make more sense to mount a mission? Even if the 53 tonne limit results in a need for some orbital assembly (2 SLS launches is 5 Falcon Heavy launches) I think it's really hard from a programmatic standpoint to argue that we need the bigger launcher.
-Josh
Offline
RobertDyck wrote:I'm not sure what to say. SLS is much bigger, block 2 able to lift 130 metric tonnes to LEO, while Falcon 9 Heavy can only lift 53t. To put it bluntly, we need something in the range of SLS to go to Mars. But SLS has already had much more than enough money to fly, and more than enough time. It still hasn't. Not sure if the problem is bureaucracy or corporate greed, or both.
We don't need 130 tonne launchers to go to Mars. They're useful, sure. But not necessary. Let's say it's 2015, and the Falcon Heavy already has a few demonstrated launches, while the SLS is still little more than some computer generated imagery. Upon which rocket does it make more sense to mount a mission? Even if the 53 tonne limit results in a need for some orbital assembly (2 SLS launches is 5 Falcon Heavy launches) I think it's really hard from a programmatic standpoint to argue that we need the bigger launcher.
With a 160 ton to orbit launcher, we could put together a 320 ton Mars mission, with maybe a 12 person crew.
Offline
Offline
With on orbit refueling and modular hardware, you could send a dozen people to Mars with Falcon Heavy.
Once we have Lunar fuel available, we'll be able to go even further for cheaper...
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
Seen this article?
Offline
The Russian RD-180-on-Atlas-5 debacle isn't over yet. First, there was the "does-sanctions-mean-we-can't-buy-them?" and Musk's lawsuit. Then there was the court injunction. Then big money talked loudly and the injunction got lifted (based on the lie that "buying them from a sanctioned outfit does not violate the sanctions", but since when do big money and government agencies not lie?). Now the sanctioned outfit does not want to sell.
It's really stupid to have military space held hostage by a hostile foreign power, ain't it? Hindsight is always 20-20, and foresight is always forgotten or ignored. Or worse. Being an oracle is a bad job. Ask Cassandra. But at great risk, I predict this will drag on-and-on on a Byzantine fashion.
It would be both cheaper and faster to cut the Gordian knot, and just open up the military launch business to the likes of Spacex and Orbital. In other words, break the ULA monopoly. That doesn't mean try to kill ULA, but it does mean they will have to compete, and in an environment where Russian products might not be available. But I have little hopes this sensible, logical path will be the one followed. Money talks way too loudly in the halls of governments.
I haven't seen much about Spacex's post-Falcon-Heavy plans. The last thing I ran across said they were wanting to power a giant rocket with LOX-LCH4 in engines roughly comparable to the old F1's on the Saturn 5. I rather doubt anything is set in stone yet. They have enough to worry about getting manned Dragon and Falcon-Heavy flying.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
There are rumors of a Falcon Superheavy, the so-called Falcon XX. As you said, nothing is official and if a rocket on that scale does ever show up it will certainly be much different from what the rumors describe.
I think the fuel choice of Methane over Kerosene is interesting. The Merlin 1D gets 282 s at sea level, and 311 s vacuum. The Raptor engine, currently under development, is 321 s at sea level, and 363 s vacuum. The density of Kerolox and a stoichiometric burn ratio (O/F=3.3) is 1,040 kg/m^3, while Methane at its stoichiometric burn ratio (O/F=4.0) is somewhat lower at 850 kg/m^3.
However, even with the lower density the methane will probably outperform the kerosene on a volumetric basis. So, go Methane!
By the way, GW, do you know Joseph Katz? He was the professor for my aerospace class this semester, and it seems like he's done some work on ramjets as well.
-Josh
Offline
I don't like bureaucracy, but to be fair they weren't completely without foresight. They did ensure Russia provided plans for RD-180. And Titan IV does not use any foreign hardware. And there's SpaceX and Orbital.
The problem is ULA has a monopoly. That has to be cut. Let SpaceX and Orbital compete.
Also remember, at the time EELV was developed, ESA got most of the launch business. They saw Ariane 4 and 5 as competition, and a little from Proton. Better to buy the competition's key advantage, and take control yourself.
Also, we want Russia to be friends. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. For decades people wanted an end to the Cold War. With Boris Yeltsin, we got it. Better to encourage that, to promote free enterprise in Russia. I still think American access to space should be expedited: launch the first unmanned test of DragonRider and Orion this year. But at the same time, we should try to resolve this conflict with Russia. Turn them back into friends.
Offline