The proposed UR-700M launch vehic750 tons to orbit - Most powerful chemical rocket designed?

Phobos · 2002-07-09 17:14:54

The Soviets seriously contemplated building a rocket designed for manned Mars missions that could lift 750 tons into orbit. The rocket was called the ur700. I wonder if it might be the most powerful chemical rocket ever designed. Here's the url with an excerpt pasted below. This site talks about the ur700 but later in the article it gives details on the 900 version.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ur700m.htm

"The proposed UR-700M launch vehicle had a gross lift-off mass of 16,000 tonnes and could deliver 750 tonnes to a 250 km, 51.6 degree orbit. It consisted of three stages: Stage 1 and 2 used Lox/Kerosene propellants, and stage 3 Lox/LH2. As in the UR-700, all the engines of Stage 1 and Stage 2 operated at lift-off, but the engines of the second stage were fed from propellant tanks in the first stage. The vehicle consisted of five 9 m diameter first stage blocks with a dry mass of 750 tonnes, three second stage blocks (two of 9 m diameter flanking a 12.5 m diameter core block) with a dry mass of 500 tonnes, and a 12.5 m diameter, 200 tonne empty mass third stage. Each of the outer blocks had 4 x 600 tf engines by KBEM (two 300 tf chambers per engine), while the 12.5 m diameter core block had a total of 6 x 600 tf engines. The third stage had 6 x NK-35 engines of 200 tf each. "

Mark S · 2002-07-10 09:27:24

That's even bigger than Sea Dragon, which was the largest serious rocket proposal that NASA received. The problem with really big boosters, which Zubrin cites in Case For Mars, is that a launch failure on th pad could wipe out all of central Florida (including me.)

Canth · 2002-07-10 13:56:15

I remember reading that if a saturn V had blown up on the launch pad that it could have caused devestation on the level of a small nuclear weapon.

Gibbon · 2002-07-20 07:08:40

well, the advantage of using somewhere like Christmas Island (Australia) or French Guinea is that the launch sites are in very unpopulated ares (well, Christmas Island isn't unpopulated but if the rocket stuffs up it will hit the Indian Ocean). I believe StarChaser industries are using Christmas Island, or maybe some other company. Australia also has Woomera, a place where the British conducted their nuclear tests. It is used these days for SCRAMJET tests, you may have heard about the Japanese one that blew up upon launch.

Anyway, Australia would be a great place to launch this super rocket.

John_Frazer · 2002-09-11 17:04:18

I doubt the claim that a rocket accident would be anywhere like a nuke. Sure, it would ruin the pad, but nothing like a nuke. Remember that the Challenger 7 (some of them, anyway) survived the failure & breakup of their booster. Rocket fuels are prone to violently releasing energy, but not quite like an explosive.

(Sure, Zubrin never uses hyperbole, sarcasm, and off-bit humor...)
Actually, a bigger concern is environmental impact of a booster malfunction. That's several thousand tons of kerosene sitting there!

Better yet, buy/lease a disused oil rig, and build your launch facilities on it. Supply it via tanker ships.
Extra benefit of not being on any nation's sovereign territory...

Mark S · 2002-09-11 19:36:34

I agree that sea launch is the best option for launching a large ELV. In the near term, this can be accomplished with a converted oil rig or barge, as Boeing has done with Sea Launch. In the future, the rocket can be towed to sea by a nuclear powered ship and launched from a water-filled pad (like Sea Dragon.) Sea launch allows the rocket to move directly from the factory (or payload integration facility) to a point near the equator. The result: a larger initial velocity and a safe distance from population centers in the event of a catastrophe.

turbo · 2002-09-12 10:07:41

Why a nuclear-powered ship? Only one was ever built for merchant service, and NS Savannah has been rusting away for years now. Glomar Explorer maybe?... large deck mounted derrick, opening doors in the bottom of the hull, been for lease for years.

How about a modified barge?

forgive anxious turbo, graduation is tomorrow night

Mark S · 2002-09-12 12:35:47

First, Turbo, I must send my congratulations upon your graduation.

Why a nuclear-powered ship? In the Sea Dragon proposal, the ship's reactor would operate an electrolysis plant. Sea water would be turned into hydrogen and oxygen propellants for the rocket.

The most likely means of obtaining the ship is trough the U.S. Navy. A recently-retired submarine would do the job for a smaller rocket. Larger rockets will need the U.S.S. Enterprise, which is scheduled for decommissioning in about a decade.

turbo · 2002-09-13 09:54:34

Sounds good to me Mark! If the idea is to go with surplus Navy ships, would a Virgina-class CGN have a capable enough reactor? The class is currently out of service as USN decided the refueling expense would not fit the budget at the time.

NS Savannah was stuck where she is because qualified operators were not available to run her plant. After years of neglect, I imagine the cost of overhaul would be more than a brand-new Energia.

Would it be cheaper to place solar panels on a disused oil rig and use it for launches? I'm thinking Gulf of Mexico area, where getting materials and labor via Mexico would be easier due to the exchange rate. Perhaps a rig off of the Brazilian coast?

Maybe the Germans will show us all we need are zeppelins and JATO bottles!

t

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-07-09 17:14:54

Re: The proposed UR-700M launch vehic750 tons to orbit - Most powerful chemical rocket designed?

#2 2002-07-10 09:27:24

Re: The proposed UR-700M launch vehic750 tons to orbit - Most powerful chemical rocket designed?

#3 2002-07-10 13:56:15

Re: The proposed UR-700M launch vehic750 tons to orbit - Most powerful chemical rocket designed?

#4 2002-07-20 07:08:40

Re: The proposed UR-700M launch vehic750 tons to orbit - Most powerful chemical rocket designed?

#5 2002-09-11 17:04:18

Re: The proposed UR-700M launch vehic750 tons to orbit - Most powerful chemical rocket designed?

#6 2002-09-11 19:36:34

Re: The proposed UR-700M launch vehic750 tons to orbit - Most powerful chemical rocket designed?

#7 2002-09-12 10:07:41

Re: The proposed UR-700M launch vehic750 tons to orbit - Most powerful chemical rocket designed?

#8 2002-09-12 12:35:47

Re: The proposed UR-700M launch vehic750 tons to orbit - Most powerful chemical rocket designed?

#9 2002-09-13 09:54:34

Re: The proposed UR-700M launch vehic750 tons to orbit - Most powerful chemical rocket designed?

Board footer