Launch vehicle, Atlas V Options

[ugordan]

propulsion force in KiloNewtons- = 1440 kdaN (?)

This can't be right as Titan IVs two SRBs alone produce over 15 Meganewtons of thrust. It doesn't seem to be kiloponds as well, frankly I have no clue as to what unit that is???

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

This can't be right as Titan IVs two SRBs alone produce over 15 Meganewtons of thrust. It doesn't seem to be kiloponds as well, frankly I have no clue as to what unit that is???

I've never seen it used for rockets, but kdaN means kilodecanewton. It gets used because it is approximately the same as a kilogram force. That is, 1 daN is 10 Newtons, as opposed to 9.8 Newtons.

I like to use the word "ton" because it is a concept where both British-system (which is to say, Americans) and Metric users have a common point of intuition: 2000 pounds ~ 1000 kilogram-force ~ 1000 daN

[Jim from NSF.com]

Don:

I'd always thought that one of the particularly Soviet design threads was the way that they saw grouped nozzles as only part of a single engine, particularly when they shared turbopumps and other plumbing. The US designers would see four engines, but the Russian just one. Isn't this descriptive dichotomy what we're seeng with the RD-180 and RD-170?

Bob Shaw

An engine is dtermined by the turbo machinery not the nozzles. The Atlas II MA-5A booster had two nozzles but one turbo pump (1 engine)

It is not a US convention to count nozzles as engines

[djellison]

In a brief 'still on holiday' pop-head-around-door

The RD180 is two exhausts, but one engine I believe.

Doug

[ugordan]

The RD180 is two exhausts, but one engine I believe.

Right, the same goes for the RD-170, four nozzles. You can't really say that's four engines and four times as likely to fail as it only has a single set of turbopumps so for all practical purposes it's the same as having a larger, single-nozzle engine (say F-1). A little heavier than the latter, but easier and cheaper to produce (not to mention fewer combustion stability issues).

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

Thrusts I gave are vacuum thrusts, just for comparison. Look on Mark Ward's page for more details about an engine.

The big picture is that Russia and America still offer launch vehicles that are competative with each other. The Russian and American space industry are also somewhat in bed with each other now -- Lockheed Martin jointly operates the Proton, Pratt & Whitney works with EnergoMash, etc. Energiya is the only super-heavy class rocket, but it hasn't actually flown very many times. Overall, I'd have to say the Americans have the more modern technology, and their space industry is big enough to be developing multiple rockets from multiple companies. But NASA learns from the Russians too, you can see that in the Delta IV's engine, which has a lot of Russian features.

One intersting decision the Russians made was to design their Energiya booster and their shuttle to be independant modules. The Space Shuttle cannot launch without the 99-ton orbiter and its main engines, in addition to its actual payload. If you consider the total mass put into orbit, it is by far the most powerful LV.

I'm adding some info on the largest Chinese rocket to my earlier post with all the data.

[ugordan]

One intersting decision the Russians made was to design their Energiya booster and their shuttle to be independant modules. The Space Shuttle cannot launch without the 99-ton orbiter and its main engines, in addition to its actual payload.

A wise decision in retrospect -- they could use the Energiya stack as an 'ordinary' heavy-lift booster should they ever (heaven forbid!) abandon the shuttle concept. NASA needs to reinvent the wheel with its CaLV launcher because someone once thought putting engines on the shuttle was the best idea.

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

A wise decision in retrospect -- they could use the Energiya stack as an 'ordinary' heavy-lift booster should they ever (heaven forbid!) abandon the shuttle concept. NASA needs to reinvent the wheel with its CaLV launcher because someone once thought putting engines on the shuttle was the best idea.

Yep. And I think the Russians have abandoned their shuttle concept, after one successful unmanned test. Last I heard, the warehouse where the Buran was being stored collapsed and destroyed the craft. Kind of a sad end.

[attachment=6071:attachment] [attachment=6072:attachment]

I think the so-called Energiya-M is what they call the super-heavy LV without the shuttle. They have a standing offer to launch a spacecraft to Mars with it, if anyone pays them enough. They also tried launching a military space station called Polyus, with the Energiya.

[attachment=6073:attachment]

[ugordan]

Last I heard, the warehouse where the Buran was being stored collapsed and destroyed the craft. Kind of a sad end.

They had a number of shuttles built in various states of flight readiness, Buran was not the only one. I do believe it was the one destroyed in roof collapse, though.

I think the so-called Energiya-M is what they call the super-heavy LV without the shuttle.

No, the Energiya-M is the smallest configuration of Energiya, according to Wikipedia. The number of strap-on (Zenit) boosters was reduced to two (from four) and the number of cryogenic RD-0120 engines in the core stage from four to one.
You can see from your picture there are 4 boosters and 4 RD-0120 engines, as with the regular Buran configuration. The Polyus cargo inside the black container (note 'Mir' in cyrillic letters written on it) makes the whole stack look very slick. The Energia configuration is one of the coolest looking launch vehicles to me, much cooler than the shuttle SRB-ET combo. Definitely looks more rugged and robust -- no insulation foam problems here

[Toma B]

I think the so-called Energiya-M is what they call the super-heavy LV without the shuttle.

But that was long time ago...Sadly today there is no way they can launch ANY KIND of Energiya rocket because launch-pads are being demolished or converted to launch other types of existing rocket...
Energiya was absolutely the coolest looking rocket that I ever saw, but it's story ended long time ago...

Such a potential...such a waist...

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

The Polyus cargo inside the black container (note 'Mir' in cyrillic letters written on it) makes the whole stack look very slick.

According to Mark Wade's article, the Polyus was to be the first module of a MIR-2 space station. It even had anti-satellite guns in it!

Even more remarkably, he claims the Polyus was a left-over TMK, the manned Mars/Venus vehicle that was to be launched by the N-1. If so, that's quite a bizarre bit of history on that launchpad.

TMK was originally designed by Gleb Maximov, who was the genius behind a lot of their early probes (Luna-3, Venera-1, Mars-1, Zond-3). He did all the probes at OKB-1 before Lavochkin took over.

[Bob Shaw]

Don:

I think Mark Wade is normally excellent, but that he's a bit off on the Polyus front. At the time, it was described as 'a prototype space factory' and of course that might have meant almost anything. It certainly appears to have been intended as a man-tended platform - it always looked to me like tankage, plus a Mir/Salyut-class core, and a TKS module launched as a single unit. There was one story circulating to the effect that the 'factory' was a laser weapon test bed and that the launch was the last hurrah of the military space stations. Gorbachev didn't like the idea at all (his grasp on the military was shaky at the time) and he was alleged to be not at all unhappy when the orbital insertion burn went wrong.

One aspect of Energia which doesn't get much of a mention was the way that the boosters and some core components were intended to be reused - hence the odd blocky packages on the sides of the boosters.

In principle, the Energia system was a real winner, but the Soviet Union went out of business and that was that!

Bob Shaw

[ugordan]

In principle, the Energia system was a real winner, but the Soviet Union went out of business and that was that!

The reusable liquid boosters had parachutes in those compartments and were even capable (in case of flight abort) to vent remaining LOX to prevent explosions on ground impact. The RD-170 engines were designed to support up to 10 firings AFAIK, and actual recovery and analysis of the flown specimens suggested they would support up to 20. Very robust engine, indeed.

It's a real shame such a fine piece of engineering went down the drain (though some components of Energiya still live on). I wonder if there would be a market for its use today, given a payload capacity greatly exceeding anything that the next best vehicle has to offer. Are there any guesstimates as to how much a launch would cost if Energiya were available today? Hypothetically speaking, of course.

[Guest_PhilCo126_*]

Don was right on the unit ( 10 & 9.8 kilogram-force )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram-force

[Bob Shaw]

The reusable liquid boosters had parachutes in those compartments and were even capable (in case of flight abort) to vent remaining LOX to prevent explosions on ground impact. The RD-170 engines were designed to support up to 10 firings AFAIK, and actual recovery and analysis of the flown specimens suggested they would support up to 20. Very robust engine, indeed.

Gordan:

So far as I know, no parachutes were flown on either Energia launch - was the recovery you speak of simply examination of the broken components after they impacted, or were there indeed recovery devices flown?

Bob Shaw