You are not logged in.
I've seen artwork of the proposed Ares booster.
And an article in Spaceflight showed artwork for the Saturn V derived "Comet" booster that NASA once proposed building in the 1980s.
Anyone know of any other good artwork for future proposed HLLVs of the 100 metric tons and up size?
Offline
I found a site promoting Energia, they have art work of http://k26.com/buran/Info/Hercules/vulkan.html]Vulkan. The letter I got from Energia in 2001 said Vulkan could lift 170 tonnes to LEO, this web site says 175 but they also have pictures with differing size upper stage.
The same web site has pictures of the Buran configuration of Energia http://k26.com/buran/Info/energia_-_buran.html]here, and with Polyus http://k26.com/buran/Info/Polyus/polyus … .html]here. According to Energias]http://www.energia.ru/english/energia/launchers/vehicle_energia.html]Energia's web site, LV Energia can lift 100 tonnes to LEO.
An artists's impression of Energia lifting cargo with a US flag and Russian Space Agency (RSA) logo. http://www.marssociety.org/images/full/mars-b2.jpg]here The fairing is painted partially see-through so you can see cargo inside.
There's a good description of Magnum variants http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep602/FALL97 … 0.pdf]here. It's a pdf file with a lot of text, the chart with graphics is the last page.
China's biggest proposed vehicle will only lift 40 tonnes. The Long March 5, or Long March CZ-5, or ChangZheng-5 has several configurations. The largest is with 5 metre core stage, 5 metre upper stage, and 8 strap-on boosters each 3.35 metres. http://www.sinodefence.com/space/launch … 5.asp]here
Of course there's the http://www.marssociety.org/images/full/lv.jpg]Ares.
A representative from Ariane Space came to the 2002 Mars Society conference to talk about a bulked-up Ariane launch vehicle. I haven't seen any graphics, though. They don't even have any art work.
Another pdf file is an assesment of various launch vehicles, but the first page has a picture of Delta IV Heavy (3 CCBs) as well as art work with 5 CCBs and a standard upper stage, and 7 CCBs (6 around 1) with an extra large upper stage. Page 11 has a few "clean sheet" designs; the art work draws very slowly but it's pretty simple basic rockets. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=U&start=2&q … e=747]here
Offline
Go to http://www.starshipmodeler.net]www.starshipmodeler.net and look under Real Space Modeling.
Click on the Buran vs. Dyna-Soar thread.
Here is the new Russian Entry:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara10 … ra100.html
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/]http:// … ceweb.com/
I have many links to HLLV artwork here.
Offline
One or two tiny little differences between Bruan and DynaSoar...
-If Bruan had a problem during launch, the crew would all die. If there were a problem for DynaSoar during launch, there is a high probability of survival.
-DynaSoar doesn't launch 80 tonnes of airplane to put a crew on orbit when 10-20 will do, or if you only need 5-10MT of payload rather then 40MT.
[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
Unless the pitch loads tear off Dyna-Soar before it can abort.
Offline
The Russians, whom you seem to worship like a mindless lemming, didn't think it would be a problem for the BOR mini spaceplane nor the new Klipper, both of which would ride on top of Zenit-II.
[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
Bor rode in a shroud equipped Kosmos--and Kliper may not have true wings--if any.
On more artwork, play around at http://www.russianspaceweb.com]www.russianspaceweb.com
A site I often like to visit http://www.starshipmodeler.net]www.starshipmodeler.net is down
I wonder if my critics had anything do do with that hack-job.
Offline
Here is some nice artwork:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/searagon … aragon.htm
scroll down.
Offline
Unless the pitch loads tear off Dyna-Soar before it can abort.
The arguments against top-mounting a small spaceplane like the X-20 are pretty weak. Yes, these craft would create significant bending moments and stability issues. But all of these can be overcome through smart design.
The Titan III would have been perfectly capable of launching the X-20, and the Titan IV or either heavy EELV could have launched the HL-20. The large strap-on boosters would move the center of pressure aft, compensating for the forward CP shift created by the spacecraft. The manned vehicle's weight would also move the center of gravity forward to the desired position. The pitch moments should not be a problem for a properly-designed rocket's stucture.
The Dyna-Soar / Titan III combo may not look like our preconceived notion of a rocket, but it presents no show-stoppers. It could and should have worked, and it would have given the engineers of the late 60's a realistic idea of how difficult it would be to build, fly, and refurbish a manned spaceplane. Because we skipped over this evolutionary step, we ended up with today's shuttle monstrosity.
Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin? Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.
Offline
You can thank McNamara for that. OSP was to cost 13 billion by some estimates, which means you have Buran costs for less utility. There was a reason Hermes wasn't pursued.
Capsules are best suited to coming in from the moon--so wings look to be out, unless we see some flybacks.
Midsized orbiters without SSMEs and large fly-backs without the heatshield can be done. STS had both and this combo hurt.
A simpler Buran style orbiter is less vulnerable to weight creep than very small mini-spaceplanes. Even David Leestma was quoted in Av Week about how ELVs don't take non-axial pitch loads very well. There is nothing weak about that arguement.
For now it seems to be capsules and EELVs--with the 39 series pad to go extinct unless the new NASA chief sticks to his guns.
Offline
The $13Bn figure for the OSP was patently absurd, NASA never would have paid that sum for it. And WHY are you comparing the dollar figure for the Russian Bruan and the American OSP?
The reason that Hermes was never finished is simple: the ESA kept increasing the requirements mid-project, not because it wouldn't have worked. When you change the rules while your are playing, the price increases radically. Duh.
"Midsize orbiters" are all the wrong size, not big enough for heavy payloads, but too big for crews, and unable to fly often enough to take advantage of reuseability. Flyback boosters powerful enough will be very expensive, also requiring new engine development.
And again, the whole idea of a side-mounted space vehicle is a bad one, because there are no viable escape options. If something went wrong on a side-mounted orbiter, the crew would all die, and there would be nothing you could do about it. The biggest lesson of Shuttle, which you seem to want to ignore very badly, is to not trust the survival of the crew to the reliability of the system.
"Capsules are best suited to coming in from the moon--so wings look to be out, unless we see some flybacks."
So? We're talking about the viability of a winged crew vehicle, not its application for VSE.
"There is nothing weak about that arguement."
Sure there is, if only one guy who works for a magazine that gets money from controversy. It is a surmountable problem, the DynaSoar, Hermes, and HL-20 development teams simply could not be all wrong.
Edit: There wasn't that much of a reason to build Hermes in the first place either.
[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
A side-mounted vehicle only makes sense if the vehicle can be made so safe that crew escape need not be considered. This is a legitimate design philosophy (after all, airliners are so safe that they have no means of passenger emergency egress during flight emergencies,) but for space vehicles we lack the technological maturity to implement it.
It would be foolish to come up with a direct repalcement for Shuttle/Buran. I have no problem with an RLV for hauling heavy cargoes as long as you don't expect to put people in it. I have no problem with a manned spaceplane as long as it's optimized to carry people.
Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin? Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.
Offline
If we had flown Energiya Buran--and the Russians had flown Columbia--we would be much farther along.
To start with--we would have the Zenits as EELVs back in the 80's and retired the older designs. We could have launched space station modules in place of orbiters that would be sent to dock with them. The side mount would allow for orbiter sized X-43 tests at speed--and I think the hypersonics people would have been better off.
I would have been happy if the X-33 had been the Rockwell design. That was conservative.
DC-X fits into VSE as a good lander--what the NOVA lander could have been.
The suppository/cough-drop aeroballistic rocket that was to become the VentureStar prototype was a joke. Anything but that.
Offline
If we had flown Energiya Buran--and the Russians had flown Columbia--we would be much farther along.
and I think the hypersonics people would have been better off.
DC-X fits into VSE as a good lander--what the NOVA lander could have been.
Now that is a stupid, callous, anti-NASA statement if I've heard one.
And these "hypersonics people" are just not that important
The DC-X as a lander?, WTH are you talking about?
[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
Pay attention. The tech in DC-X could very well be useful as a moon lander. NOVA was a direct ascent model--with a lander/mainship a lot like DC-X...remember? Lunar Orbit was better for the time--but DC-X tech would make for a good lander--at least in part. NOVA and single dock HLLV payloads can put a craft near the lunar poles. EELV would be stuck at the equator.
The hypersonics people are part of NASA and I don't want to see them die.
That is not an Anti-NASA statement. In my alternate universe scenario all 14 of the shuttle astronauts would have lived. Buran flew heads up -out of the foam-which would fall down--and Zenits were the strap-ons. If an orbiter had been downed--we'd still have an HLLV in Energiya and EELV's in the Zenits.
This STS would have replaced all the Titans, Atlas rockets, with a single Zenit being better than most/all single core EELVs now flying. The Energiya cores would have been good wet-stage station materials like ET's...so you have a truly modular system.
That is why I loved Ener-Buran--and wish we had built it and Columbia was in Gorki park. Faded--but intact.
And before you get started on the Energiya bankrupted the USSR myth--remember this. N-1 cost as much--and that did not bankrupt the USSR. Instead, the Soviets grew in power--beyond parity in fact.
What bankrupted the Soviets was getting bogged down fighting muslims in parts of the world where they had no business.
Sound familiar?
Offline
The DC-X "technology" is nothing at all like you need for a Lunar lander, and not much like you need for a Martian lander either, its a completly different animal and was really big, almost as big as Shuttle. The DC-X had a pretty tiny little cargo bay, huge composit fuel tanks, and powerful engines for Earth launch... basing a Lunar or Mars lander off it would be stupid. Just since it looks similar doesn't mean a thing.
"If we had flown Energiya Buran--and the Russians had flown Columbia--we would be much farther along."
Sounds pretty anti-NASA to me, trying to deny it after the fact.
[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
Today, even Boeing buys Zenit in preference to Delta.
They merely sell Delta to NASA. :;):
Edited By BWhite on 1113606156
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
No, right now Boeing only sells Delta to the USAF. Not even NASA buys it, instead favoring Atlas.
Atlas, however, doesn't have the growth options that Delta has.
[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
Buran flew heads up -out of the foam-which would fall down--
And before you get started on the Energiya bankrupted the USSR myth--remember this. N-1 cost as much--and that did not bankrupt the USSR. Instead, the Soviets grew in power--beyond parity in fact.
Please explain your "heads up" assertion. You've said it many times but it makes less and less sense each time you say it. Buran flies in the same position the US orbiter does--on the back of its launch stack, nose pointed in the direction of flight.
And the logical assumption "N-1 didn't bankrupt the USSR, so Energia couldn't have" is quite flawed. You have to consider the strength of the Soviet system at the time of each rocket's development. Many factors unrelated to Energia led to the USSR's decline since the end of N-1. Had Energia been developed in the mid 60's like N-1, it wouldn't have had the same impact that it did in the 80's.
At risk of straying off-topic, I have to say that the fall of the USSR was an accumulation of many factors over the years, not the least of which was the inherently flawed nature of Russian Communism. To say that Afghanistan or Energia or Ronald Reagan (or any other singular explanation) primarily defeated the USSR is a fallacy, but the convergence of these events during the same decade was too much for the USSR to handle.
Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin? Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.
Offline
Our orbiter is underslung beneath the stack on ascent. Buran wasn't IIRC. There was some talk about having our orbiter fly heads up--from an old copy of Journal Of Spacecraft & Rockets.
http://www.rus]www.rus-sell has some nice models of Buran, Proton and the like that I have links to over at the REAL SPACE section of:
http://www.starshipmodeler.net]http://www.starshipmodeler.net
Artwork and models of HLLV's
http://www.starshipmodeler.net/cgi-bin/ … hp?t=25310
The Model kits:
Offline
Regardless of whether the orbiter's belly is facing the earth or facing the sky, it is still vulnerable to debris impacts. Buran is no exception. The relative proximity between the orbiter and the falling foam is the important factor to consider.
Columbia was flying so fast that it ran into the foam--in other words, the foam's velocity relative to the orbiter is what's important. A piece of foam falling off during a rocket's ascent will decelerate so quickly relative to the rocket that an impact becomes probable. Also worth considering is the airflow around the vehicle, and whether the pressure gradient will set the foam on a collision course with the orbiter.
Physics can be dangerous to those who fail to understand it.
Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin? Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.
Offline
I am calling you out Publiusr, you are a deceptive biased idiot:
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/b/b … ranlvd.gif
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/s/s … uttle2.gif
It doesn't matter one bit that the Buran orbiter sits up a few more feet on its external tank, there is still plenty of external tank above it!. An equal amount even just by glancing at it since Energia's core is longer then STS-ET. If any of the insulation anywhere from the nose down to the delta leading angle change in the wings came off, you would still get the same damage. You have no basis for asserting that Buran would be less likly to experience such damage.
End of story
[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 am calling you out Publiusr, you are a deceptive biased idiot:
Which means I'm only half the retard you are.
"It doesn't matter one bit that the Buran orbiter sits up a few more feet on its external tank, there is still plenty of external tank above it!. "
I never said that mattered. If you are underslung heads down--you are at more risk from foam than if you are riding heads up with debris falling away from you. Besides, any In line SDV HLLV won't have to worry about that anyway.
So if somethin came loose--it would rise up against the slipstream and against gravity to strike Buran. More likely it would hit the ET under it.
You just like to argue to be difficult.
Offline
"I never said that mattered. If you are underslung heads down--you are at more risk from foam than if you are riding heads up with debris falling away from you."
AGAIN, you keep saying that but you don't explain why. Come on, explain why. I don't think you can, because its bulls**t. You had better keep your mouth shut unless you can back up what you say.
You just made up that lie to try and glorify the allmighty Bruan.
[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'm not the Bulls**t expert here, you are. Heads up means gravity pulls foam down away from a heads up orbiter. And I don't know that Buran had any problems with fam. Any spaceplane that rides piggyback in the future will avoid insulation problems--and don't tell me heads up flight cannot work.
And your Delta IV taking 40 tons to LEO lie will have to wait until you can prove to me it can take 20 tons up there.
There are papers on heads-up flight profiles--but I doubt you would understand them
This was a thread on artwork. I'll thank you to keep it on topic.
Offline
![http://www.marssociety.org/images/full/mars-b2.jpg]here](http://www.marssociety.org/images/full/mars-b2.jpg]here){kind=link}
![http://www.marssociety.org/images/full/lv.jpg]Ares](http://www.marssociety.org/images/full/lv.jpg]Ares){kind=link}
