You are not logged in.
Energia requires rebuilding the roof of the high bays of building #112 at Baikonur, cleaning the launch pad/gantry, and restoring manufacturing capability for the core module tanks. Problem: the Russian government does not want to invest money in Baikonur since it isn't in Russia.
Shuttle-C does not require any new or changed vehicle assembly or launch facilities, or manufacturing facilities for the external tank, main engines, or boosters. It does require development of a new fairing and engine pod. Problem: the US government does not want to invest in development of a truly heavy lift launch vehicle since it can't be used for any commercial application.
Ariane 5 ESC B will be completed soon; it will have lift capability of 12 tonnes directly to GTO. I estimate 56 tonnes to LEO. Problem: that is roughly half the lift capacity of Energia or Shuttle-C. A representative from Ariane Space was at the 2002 Mars Society conference to promote their company. They are interested in building a larger version of the Ariane, but haven't done any work beyond the broad-strokes that we do here. Ariane Space will develop it if someone is willing to pay for it, the problem is getting someone to pay for it.
Offline
Shuttle-C does not require any new or changed vehicle assembly or launch facilities, or manufacturing facilities for the external tank, main engines, or boosters. It does require development of a new fairing and engine pod. Problem: the US government does not want to invest in development of a truly heavy lift launch vehicle since it can't be used for any commercial application.
Don't worry Robert, want it or not, the future US government will be faced soon with the task to rebuild the US confidence in its own force, a pacific force I mean. Yes, I think there is a crisis of confidence in the US, in the industry, in the jobs market even in science, education and healthcare there are problems. This, plus rebuild the US international prestige. So what to do ? NASA is the tool of choice for that, since the moon is "done", what's left is Mars.
Zubrin and other space activists have lobbyed enough now, even the most down to earth congressman knows that if would be a good idea if NASA would decide to go to Mars.
Who knows actually if without the 87 billions already spent, if Dubya would not have announced that himself. So I don't worry, if there is no next war soon (Syria etc), then there is no choice: it's gonna be Mars.
But with Dubya, you never know, it could be that one day on Fox TV, on a solennel announcement: "The Great People of America needs a new frontier, etc etc, ... and that by the end of the next century, a mission will be set up to land an american on the Moon "
That wouldn't work, people would go back to watch the bachelorette so there is really no choice but Mars.
Offline
dickbill, both Shuttle C and Super Vulkan are designs that are based largely on existing hardware that is already in production, or has already been built and fown, but NASA does not already have Shuttle C any more than the world already has Super Vulkan. For the last several years NASA's own choice for a home grown HLLV to support Humans to Mars is not Shuttle C, but Magnum. Of the U.S. only designs, both Magnum and Ares are superior to Shuttle C.
In answer to your question about Vulkain 2; yes, I am speaking of the motor built by SEP of France for the current versions of Arianne 5. An ideal engine configuration for Super Vulkan would mount two Vulkain 2s and two Rocketdyne RS-68s on the core stage. The EADS/Aerospatiale plant at Mureaux outside Paris is the best candidate to produce the Vulkan core tanks themselves. In addition to the two U.S. built engines on the core, RD-0120 or surplus SSMEs could be used interchangeably on the Energia-M core derived upper stage. Pratt and Whitney already do final assembly and QC on the Energomash(Russian) built RD-180s for Atlas. They could do the same on RD-170 derived motors for Super Vulkan.
The actual spacecraft will cost far more to develop and produce than the launch vehicles. Both Boeing and Lock Mart are clearly the lead contenders. NASA Houston is best suited for Mars Mission Control. Leading aerospace corporations from all over the world stand to gain a great deal from Super Vulkan. Why did you assume that my proposals do not fully recognize and embrace a leading role for the United States?
Offline
dickbill, both Shuttle C and Super Vulkan are designs that are based largely on existing hardware that is already in production, or has already been built and fown, but NASA does not already have Shuttle C
yes, NASA doesn't have shuttle C, but people said that it would take so little development that it is as if. That's what I understood: almost no work needed. OK, maybe a test flight would be required. Do not do what the guys at arianespace did: Ariane5 ECA was so "sure" that no test flight was planned, you know what happened.
For the last several years NASA's own choice for a home grown HLLV to support Humans to Mars is not Shuttle C, but Magnum. Of the U.S. only designs, both Magnum and Ares are superior to Shuttle C.
I remember a picture of ARES, but that's it. Magnum, I never heard about it. How superior exactly ? I think 100 tons in LEO is plenty enough for MArs but maybe not after all.
An ideal engine configuration for Super Vulkan would mount two Vulkain 2s and two Rocketdyne RS-68s on the core stage. The EADS/Aerospatiale plant at Mureaux outside Paris is the best candidate to produce the Vulkan core tanks themselves
It would be great if a full Ariane5 was used for a Mars mission, I mean, not as a third or fourth passanger, when there is 500kg of weight available. Probably a big rover could be placed there as a single passanger.
The actual spacecraft will cost far more to develop and produce than the launch vehicles. Both Boeing and Lock Mart are clearly the lead contenders. NASA Houston is best suited for Mars Mission Control. Leading aerospace corporations from all over the world stand to gain a great deal from Super Vulkan
You don't go to Mars for free obviously. I hope this spacecraft will be produced in several, that might reduce the cost. A single mission to Mars wouldn't make sense.
Why did you assume that my proposals do not fully recognize and embrace a leading role for the United States?
Here it what I think: the very first mission to Mars, will be announced by the US president, whoever he is. It will be the traditional way with NASA, JPl and american aerospace companies playing the major role. It will be funded mostly like Apollo: with the US taxes so the heavy launcher will be US. If there is some international cooperation, that will be minor and the US lead the project. IMO.
Maybe there will be a couple of missions like that, but after a time, I think more internationalisation will occur, then, you might have composite spacecraft, like Energia/Vulkan.
Maybe, I hope very soon after that, private investments will take over and Mars will becomes a business for the people and not just NASA and the government. I hope big societies, like the Mars society allied with Microsoft for example, will lead the pack for a semipermanent settlement in common with scientists. You might find the first volunteer settlers at that moment.
After...I will probably be dead anyway.
Offline
I remember a picture of ARES, but that's it. Magnum, I never heard about it. How superior exactly ? I think 100 tons in LEO is plenty enough for MArs but maybe not after all.
Magnum is a Shuttle Derived Vehicle. It was proposed to use a modified ET with flat top (cylindrical oxygen tank), and the payload mounted on top. Engines would be mounted directly under the tank. There were a few different configurations proposed, one was 4 SSMEs. Boosters also had a few configurations proposed, one was a pair of SRBs. Magnum would be an expendable launch vehicle, and the changed engine locations would require a new Mobile Launch Platform. Lift capacity would be 80 tonnes to LEO. Magnum is a proposed SDV, it would require development.
A specification chart for Ares is available from the Mars Society home page here.
Offline
From time to time, various Russian officials have made threats about "abandoning" Baikonur. They do this in order to try and scare Kazakhstan into keeping the rent low. There is no evidence to suggest that these threats are serious. Although the Russian military continue to launch polar orbital missions from Plesetsk, albeit at an extremely low rate, all RKA flights continue to launch from Baikonur. Any attempt to launch Soyuz, Progress, or any ISS support missions from Plesetsk would be absurd.
Perhaps more important than any supposed hesitance on the part of the Russian government to invest in Baikonur, are the very substantial investments that have been made, and continue to be made by ILS and Starsem to maintain their Baikonur complexes as state of the art, world class facilities. These are booked solid for Proton and Soyuz R7 commercial launches for years to come. Zenit, Dnepr, Tsyklon and others continue to operate from Baikonur.
Plesetsk has never been awarded a single commercial launch contract. No such contracts are forthcoming. One Zenit pad at Plesetsk has apparently been converted, but is not capable of launching any Angara variant larger than Angara 3. No version of Angara has ever flown.
Although Angara 1 and 3 are very promising launchers within their lifting class, the future of Angara 5 remains doubtful. Proton is a toxic dinosaur that will have difficulty competing with the new Arianne 5s. A new version of Energia M, fitted with two Angara CRMs in place of the original two Zenits, would be cheaper than, and superior to both Proton and Angara 5.
The original version of Energia M was rejected by the Russian government in favor of Angara for two key reasons:
1: At the time of the decision, relations between Russia and Ukraine, where the Zenits are manufactured, were at an all time low. Russia did not want it's new booster to be dependant on hostile Ukrainian suppliers. Relations between the two countries have since improved greatly, and have remained stable and positive for the last few years, but the Angara decision had already been made.
2. The payload capacity of the original Energia M was beyond any commercial requirements.
The repair of MIK 112 would not be very expensive, but is not actually needed for Energia M final assembly. Baikonur already has other suitable facilities, particularly if Proton is discontinued. No Russian government investment of any kind would be required to create Super Vulkan core manufacturing and launch capacity if EADS builds the new cores, and the completed vehicles launched at Kourou.
Offline
You keep saying things like that, but there is no indication that Russia has any intention of launching Angara from Baikonur. Khrunichev is in partnership with Lockheed-Martin for commercial launches of Angara from Plesetsk. Lockheed-Martin's division called International Launch Services (ILS) has the contract for commercial Proton launches, and will provide Angara 5 launches after Proton is retired. Although an announcement from Lockheed-Martin stated Angara 5 could be launched from Baikonur, all announcements from Russia state that Angara will be launched from Plesetsk. A news announcement from President Putin emphasized "launch of Russian military or other satellites in the interests of the federal space program will have priority over commercial missions." Due to that, I doubt Lockheed-Martin will have much influence changing Russia's decision to base Angara 5 from Plesetsk. One announcement from NTV.ru stated that Lockheed-Martin will pay for construction of the first Angara 5 launch pad at Plesetsk. I'm sure Lockheed-Martin would like to get out from paying that, but when politics are involved good luck! The response I got from RSC Energia in February 2001 did not indicate any hope of reviving Energia M; they lost to Khrunichev's Angara 5.
Getting EADS to launch from Baikonur is an interesting idea. RSC Energia would like to sell more launches. Lockheed-Martin also has a contract with Energia, so getting EADS to partner with Energia for Energia M in competition with Khrunichev's Angara 5 could have some contractual problems. However, Khrunichev is selling Zenit rockets to Boeing for Sea Launch. In fact, one announcement states that Lockheed-Martin makes $2 billion per year for commercial launches while Boeing makes $3 billion, and Lockheed-Martin feels pressured to beat Boeing.
Ah, corporate partnerships between multinational mega-corps; they are fickle and disloyal. I believe the ILS launch schedule is filled a couple years in advance so an opportunity to increase sales may permit Energia to partner with EADS. I don't know of any commercial payloads that could use Vulkan or even the full-size Energia, but Energia M could compete with Angara 5, Atlas 5, Delta IV, and Ariane 5. Would EADS be interested in competing with its own Ariane 5 launch vehicle? Would you care to contact EADS to propose it?
Don't worry about Proton; announcements state it will definitely be retired once Angara 5 starts launching.
Offline
Magnum is a Shuttle Derived Vehicle. It was proposed to use a modified ET with flat top (cylindrical oxygen tank), and the payload mounted on top. Engines would be mounted directly under the tank. There were a few different configurations proposed, one was 4 SSMEs. Boosters also had a few configurations proposed, one was a pair of SRBs. Magnum would be an expendable launch vehicle, and the changed engine locations would require a new Mobile Launch Platform. Lift capacity would be 80 tonnes to LEO. Magnum is a proposed SDV, it would require development.
A specification chart for Ares is available from the Mars Society home page here.
80 tons for Magnum versus 100 tons for shuttle C ?
Why is Magnum superior then ?
Another remark about Ares, why the engines are on the side of the main tank, why not straight below ?
Offline
80 tons for Magnum versus 100 tons for shuttle C ?
Why is Magnum superior then ?
I don't know; it doesn't make sense. The Shuttle orbiter is 104.3 metric tonnes plus 28.8 tonnes cargo. That gives Shuttle-C a mass budget of 133.1 tonnes for engine pod, fairing and cargo. Why would Magnum lift less mass than the orbiter alone? Magnum would have the added mass of main engines and a fairing, but it doesn't have OMS or RCS thrusters. Furthermore, Magnum has 4 main engines, not just 3. It doesn't make sense.
Another remark about Ares, why the engines are on the side of the main tank, why not straight below ?
Ares placed the engines at the same location as Shuttle so it can use the existing MLP without modification. Shuttle-C has the same advantage, while Magnum would require a new MLP. The Mobile Launch Platform is big, and anything that big is expensive.
By the way, I never said Magnum is superior; that was robcwillis.
Offline
Shuttle-C has the same advantage, while Magnum would require a new MLP. The Mobile Launch Platform is big, and anything that big is expensive.
Expensive if you only need to build one or two models, but, what if the shuttle C becomes the standard version for the shuttle launch (a modified shuttle without the main engines ), that would make the building less expensive. Sorry if you guys already talked about that before, sometimes you need to repeat.
Offline
I said Magnum was superior to Shuttle C in the Humans to Mars role because NASAs own studies state that this is the case. Looking at the vehicle stats, Magnum's payload capacity should actually be slightly greater than Shuttle C. The discrepency may be related to orbital inclination, altitude, and circularization. Regardless, NASA's conclusion is based on cost effectiveness studies, not just total payload per individual launch. Although they conclude Shuttle C development costs would be less than Magnum development/infrastructure adjustment costs, Magnum itself is aparently much cheaper than Shuttle C. They conclude is is superior in respect to programmatical/operational costs it is superior. That is to say, more cost effective in the long term. Large diameter, symetrically (nose) mounted payloads are also inherantly preferable/more flexible for non-winged payloads.
Robert, Angara 3 will be launched from Plesetsk for polar orbital missions. These launches will be carried out by the Russian military itself, with no ILS involvement, using LV's purchased directly from Krunichev. ILS are in business to make money. Nothing else. NTV.ru got it wrong. Nothing unusual when the mainstream media comment on aerospace related issues. Lock Mart, who have control of ILS, have no intention of paying for anything at Plesetsks, or any other Russian military base. In this instance, Russia's political position is irrelevant.
More soon.
Offline
I said Magnum was superior to Shuttle C in the Humans to Mars role because NASAs own studies state that this is the case. Looking at the vehicle stats, Magnum's payload capacity should actually be slightly greater than Shuttle C. The discrepency may be related to orbital inclination, altitude, and circularization. Regardless, NASA's conclusion is based on cost effectiveness studies, not just total payload per individual launch. Although they conclude Shuttle C development costs would be less than Magnum development/infrastructure adjustment costs, Magnum itself is aparently much cheaper than Shuttle C. They conclude is is superior in respect to programmatical/operational costs it is superior. That is to say, more cost effective in the long term. Large diameter, symetrically (nose) mounted payloads are also inherantly preferable/more flexible for non-winged payloads.
Just because someone said it is so, doesn't mean it is so. Many aerospace engineers like the axial mount configuration to eliminate lateral stress. Are you sure someone at NASA isn't just changing the design to something they like? What is the cost of developing such a new vehicle, including a new tank with new stresses, and new MLP? For a small number of launches, this sounds more expensive. The reduced cost can only be gained with a large number of launches, but how many launches would you get for a truly heavy lift launch vehicle? To convince congress to go for a manned mission to Mars we will have to keep cost down.
Another advantage for Shuttle-C over Magnum is that Magnum is entirely expendable. Shuttle-C can be built with a recoverable engine pod and still have 100 tonne lift to LEO.
Robert, Angara 3 will be launched from Plesetsk for polar orbital missions. These launches will be carried out by the Russian military itself, with no ILS involvement, using LV's purchased directly from Krunichev. ILS are in business to make money. Nothing else. NTV.ru got it wrong. Nothing unusual when the mainstream media comment on aerospace related issues. Lock Mart, who have control of ILS, have no intention of paying for anything at Plesetsks, or any other Russian military base. In this instance, Russia's political position is irrelevant.
That is said with great confidence. Do you have any references to verify this?
Offline
Hello again RobertD. If Congress wants a Mars HLLV that will cost American taxpayers little or nothing, they will not choose Magnum, Ares, Shuttle C, nor any other U.S. only rocket. They will advocate an internationally produced Energia derived system like Super Vulkan.
I do have confidence in my remarks about Plesetsk and Baikonur. Much of what I say is nothing more than a statement of the situations that have developed or been in place at these sites since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Physically, Plesetsk is where it has always been. It can't be moved south. Baikonur was built in Kazakhstan out of geographical necessity. I personally can't calculate trajectories worth crap, but what little I know of orbital mechanics says that Plesetsk is unsuitable for anything other than launches to polar orbits. Such orbits have very few commercial applications. Am I wrong? You yourself mentioned that neither Soyuz nor Progress could possibly reach the ISS from there. Do you have any concrete references that ILS/Lock Mart is actually paying for anything at Plesetsk? Why would they make such a bad investment? Just as in the United States, it is against Russian laws for their government to hire/rely on any foreign-based company to launch military payloads. ILS is controlled by Lock Mart. Why would Russia change the law? I don't doubt that President Putin's remarks that you mentioned earlier are correct. Are you saying that Putin's comments have something to do with the RKA abandoning Baikonur and/or ILS/Lock Mart paying for Plesetsk? If so, I don't see the connection.
ILS has made statements that they intend to offer Angara launches from Baikonur, presumably utilizing existing Proton assembly facilities. I have seen nothing from ILS that even mentions Plesetsk. At least one Baikonur Zenit pad could be converted for Angara 3 launch without to great expense. Angara 3 launched from Baikonur makes commercial sense. Angara 5 is a different story. A completely new pad and service tower would have to be built. Again, A better, cheaper option than Angara 5 would utilize existing Baikonur Proton and Energia facilities to assemble and launch an Energia M derived vehicle. This "new" LV would logically normally be fitted with a pair of Angara CRBs for most commercial launches, but more could be added if required without any modification to the existing Energia pads.
To clarify some of my earlier remarks on this "evolved" Energia-M proposal, I am not suggesting that EADS would have any reason to play a role in it. The most likely and practical manufacturer of the new Energia-M cores would be Energia RSC/Samara Space Centre (TsSKB Progress), with Angara CRBs from Krunichev, and launch services marketed by ILS exclusively from Baikonur, not Plesetsk. RSC Energia already builds the Proton Block D and Angara upper stage. The new "Ms" could mount either of these. In other words, my commercial Proton replacement proposal (Evolved Energia-M) is a smooth transition carried out by exactly the same companies that are launching Proton right now, while utilizing many of the same facilities already in use for Proton operations. Voila: No contractual problems.
I did not suggest EADS should, or would have any reason to start building the 20m Energia-M cores. EADS is, however, the ideal candidate to build the huge 57m Energia derived core stages for the Mars Super Vulkan proposal. The Russian built Energia-M core would serve as the ideal upper stage for Super Vulkan.
Finally I must correct your earlier remarks on Boeing Sea Launch. Yuzhnoye of Ukraine builds the Zenit main stages. Energia RSC builds the Block D upper stage. Krunichev has nothing to do with this venture.
May I please go to sleep now? :;):
Offline
Question: Back in 1993, when a one-module "Option C" space station was on the table and Russia was being wooed into the space station project, why didn't anyone propose using an Energia to launch the "Option C" ISS?
I can't begin to say how stupid it was to pass this opportunity up. It would have been far easier to restart Energia production in 1993 (vs. doing it in 2003,) and cheaper than doing the development on the SDV from the original Option C plan. It would also be an easy way of combining American and Russian abilities, by launching a mostly American-built station on a Russian rocket. Not to mention the cost and schedule benefits of putting the entire thing up at once.
Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin? Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.
Offline
A Super Skylab style space station launched on a Energia-M or Voolkain mega-booster or two would have been ideal for quickly building building a robust, inexepnsive, and highly useful space station.
Which is exactly why the idea was scrapped.
I believe that the whole point of the ISS was not science, but rather to maintain a human presence in space at the highest possible cost and duration in order to keep LM/Boeing/STS in business while also getting other nations to help out all planetary-group-hug diplomacy style. Government agencies are like zombies, they will do really dumb stuff to continue justifying their scope/exsistance.
One issue with launching Super Skylab with an Energia booster, is how would you get the thing into an equitorial orbit without a severe payload penalty?
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
I would certainly love if the full-size Energia launch vehicle was restored to operation at Baikonur. That would give us a launch vehicle capable of sending a manned mission to Mars. The sad question is just how realistic this is, and what the politicians in all countries are doing to destroy Space infrastructure.
The quote from Putin was from an article from Space.com here.
Plesetsk is now launching commercial payloads; it is no longer strictly military. Its high latitude makes it ideal for orbits with a high inclination. Any location can launch into an orbit with an inclination equal to or greater than its latitude, but the closer to the equator the more angular momentum you must get rid of. For an equatorial orbit that angular momentum can be used to achieve orbit, so that means less rocket fuel. For a polar orbit you must get rid of the angular momentum so more rocket fuel. There is very little angular momentum at 62?54' latitude. You cannot launch directly into an orbit with inclination below the launch latitude; but you could make an on-orbit change of inclination. That would take a lot of fuel, making such a manoeuvre expensive.
The report from Ntv.com stated that not only will Plesetsk launch commercial satellites; it will launch communication satellites into geosynchronous orbit. That has an inclination of 0?. To avoid the extreme fuel penalty of doing this, they intend to loop the satellites around the Moon. That would permit change to any orbital inclination with only the cost to leave Earth orbit, then capture back into Earth orbit. Since GEO is so close to escape velocity this manoeuvre is more fuel efficient than a direct inclination change. I think it's stupid because a lower latitude launch site doesn't require such a Rube Goldberg approach.
A few more references:
Plesetsk and other Russian launch sites at KBTM.ru
Angara models including Angara 6 and 7 from University of Stuttgart Germany. They list lift capabilities from Baikonur with a note to reduce it by 10% if launched from Plesetsk.
Pravda article from December, 2001 states that military payloads will launch on Angara from Plesetsk while commercial launches will be via Proton from Baikonur.
"Plesetsk May Become Russia's Main Spaceport" from Space.com, February 2000
Angara Launch System Mission Planner's Guide, December 2002 from ILS. This describes the Plesetsk cosmodrome, complete with maps.
I can't find the Ntv.ru article, but I think ILS is a reliable source.
Offline
What's the status on the flyback core for Angara? A flyback booster would be a major technology coup for Russia. It would also make space launch more routine. I personally like their scissor-wing solution to flying the booster back.
Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin? Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.
Offline
Five-segment SRB ready for test firing
Apparently the development has been going on for some time. Perhaps NASA is finally serious about shuttle upgrades. Having a tested 5-segment SRB means that the SDV, if built, will be a more capable rocket. NASA should commit itself to a new round of SDV studies to see how the 5-segment SRB and lighter payload shrouds will increase the payload.
Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin? Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.
Offline
More progress on the STS stack puts us that much closer to an effective launcher powerful enough to expose the true heresy of calling the tripple-barrel Delta-IV or quad-SRB Atlas-V a "heavy lifter" (*spits*).
With the lighter Li/Al main tank, and these new super-SRBs, any idea how much additional payload could be lofted in an entirely expendable Shuttle-C style SDV powerd by a trio of SSMEs or a pair of RS-68s (which would produce comperable thrust for much less cost)?
If you add a few more tons of LH2 to orbit for a Mars ship NTR, or a larger reactor for a VASIMR engine, then we can scrap any additional "long term human study" stuff since it wouldn't take that long to get there. More mass for a payload "buffer" too.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Perhaps somebody here could help me look at the 2003 budget request to congress from NASA. The portion specifically allocated to the Shuttle is described here. When I look at it, I see a lot of money that appears to go to Shuttle upgrades. Furthermore, the portion allocated to Headquarters has increased from $3.9 million for 2001 to $324.1 million for 2003. Why?
I understand that NASA must maintain a core of engineers capable of designing new vehicles, and are so familiar with the Shuttle that they can redesign it. Without that skill set NASA would not be able to maintain the Shuttle. As long as the Shuttle continues to fly it must be maintained, we don't want another Challenger or Columbia. But if the goal is simply to give engineers practice to keep their skills up, then give them a truly new vehicle to work on. Shifting make-work away from the Shuttle could reduce the cost of operating the Shuttle without increasing or decreasing the total NASA budget. Those engineers (and entire space centers) could develop a truly heavy lift launch vehicle instead of constantly tinkering with Shuttle. Making that a Shuttle Derived Vehicle would keep up their skills with the Shuttle itself.
So my questions to the members of this board are:
1) How much Shuttle money goes to actual vehicle operations
2) How much goes to mission control, astronaut training and mission practice with simulators on the ground
3) How much goes to Shuttle upgrades
4) How much goes to administrative overhead
Offline
Alas, I am not even sure NASA knows the answer to these questions! Seriously, they apparently have been playing accounting shell games and every time O'Keefe is asked these dorts of questions by Congress, he can't answer.
-- RobS
Offline
NASA officials said that the 5-segment SRB will add 23,000 lbs to the shuttle's payload capacity. Although shuttle payload is limited by the weight of the orbiter on re-entry, it would increase payload to ISS. More importantly, it makes the shuttle-derived cargo rocket more capable by a similar amount of payload.
Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin? Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.
Offline
Those reading this thread may have noticed the debate between myself and robcwillis regarding retained infrastructure in Russia for the Energia launch vehicle and its RD-0120 engines. Rather than debating over something we really don't know, I suggested he contact the manufacturer of the RD-0120 engines. He suggested I contact them, so I did. Today I received the response, here it is.
Dear Mr. Dyck
Please, see below the data you are requested in your letter of 15.10.03 in regard of the engines RD0120.
Concerning the current status, to the 1st of November?03, nine engines RD0120 with various residual life-time are available at KBKhA, and we may prepare them for hot-fire tests on our?s own. These engines are at different degree of readiness for hot-fire tests and slightly vary in design. Due to this, certain co-ordination of potential testing program for each of these engines is required in order to make possible their use in the programs you?ve conceived.
Moreover, KBKhA has a few more incomplete engines (some components are lacking) but they may be fully assembled by involving the manufacture (our old subcontractor), Voronezh Mechanical Plant. The tooling required for RD0120 engine manufacturing is principally retained, but to resume the production of these engines, it will be necessary to acquire modern equipment and to make certain refurbishment of our production facilities along with the due refurbishment of our suppliers? production.
We wish you every success
Best regards
N.T. Antokhina
Chief of International Business Relationship Dept.
Offline
That's some good sleuthing. Do you know if the Energia tooling was retained? My feeling is that the answer is probably similar to that for the RD-0120: the tools exist, but facilities will need to be fixed and new equipment purchased. It's also possible that custom tooling was never developed for Energia, because prototype vehicles are generally built one at a time rather than on an assembly line.
If Energia could be put into production in its current form, and if the facilities could be cheaply repaired, it would be a perfect solution for any possible "Bush Moon Initiative / SEI 2." That's not to say an SDV shouldn't be built. It would be wise to have two different HLLV's of similar capacity so you could preserve competition and continue the program if one booster is grounded.
Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin? Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.
Offline
I contacted RSC Energia on December 2, 2000, to ask them that question. I received an answer on February 1, 2001, from the Director of the International Division of RSC Energia. He confirmed that Energia is available for anyone willing to pay for restoration of "certain elements of infrastructure", but didn't confirm the price. I got his name from another employee at Energia who didn't want to be quoted who said that NASA had contacted them a few years prior to ask about using the Energia launch vehicle for a manned mission to the Moon. They spent thousands of dollars on the study but didn't get any contract. At that time restoration of all infrastructure to return Energia to production would have been between $60 million and $100 million US dollars. I also found a NASA web site that lists international launch vehicles. That web page lists the Energia launch vehicle with the EUS Energia Upper Stage as $120 million per launch in 1997. Ok, that tells us when "a few years ago" was. The RSC Energia web site states that the manufacturing facility which built the tanks for the core module was converted to consumer products; they now make prostheses: artificial legs, arms, etc. I mentioned this to one launch vehicle structural engineer who works for Lockheed-Martin at the Michoud Assembly Facility where the external tanks for Shuttle are built; he suggested making tanks for Energia there. I think that would be ironic: a manufacturing facility for Shuttle, the one that used to build the first stage of Saturn V, now building core modules for Energia. The upper LOX tank and lower LH2 tank were transported separately to Baikonur on the back of an M4 aircraft, the same aircraft could carry it from Lousiana or a sea port near Russia. Michoud has a barge port. The big set-back was the May 12, 2002, collapse of the roof of the high bays of building #112. That was the vehicle assembly building for Energia. It used to be the vehicle assembly building for N1, the Russian Moon rocket. If you want to see pictures you can go to Encylopedia Astronautica or the Winnipeg Chapter web site.
Offline
