IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Launch vehicle, Atlas V
Redstone
post Jun 3 2006, 01:19 PM
Post #1


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 134
Joined: 13-March 05
Member No.: 191



NASA has decided to use the Atlas V, with 4 strap-on solid rocket boosters to launch MSL. This is the same rocket that launched MRO (no solids) and New Horizons (5 solids).

Cost: $194.7 million, less than half the price of the Titan IV which would have been needed a few years ago.

Rocky Mountain News article

NASA press release
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
Guest_DonPMitchell_*
post Jun 5 2006, 08:48 AM
Post #2





Guests






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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Jun 5 2006, 09:00 AM
Post #3


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3648
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



QUOTE (DonPMitchell @ Jun 5 2006, 09:48 AM) *
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.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_DonPMitchell_*
post Jun 5 2006, 10:27 AM
Post #4





Guests






QUOTE (ugordan @ Jun 5 2006, 02:00 AM) *
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]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Jun 5 2006, 10:47 AM
Post #5


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3648
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



QUOTE (DonPMitchell @ Jun 5 2006, 11:27 AM) *
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.

QUOTE (DonPMitchell @ Jun 5 2006, 11:27 AM) *
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 cool.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_DonPMitchell_*
post Jun 5 2006, 11:36 AM
Post #6





Guests






QUOTE (ugordan @ Jun 5 2006, 03:47 AM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bob Shaw
post Jun 5 2006, 01:03 PM
Post #7


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2488
Joined: 17-April 05
From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK
Member No.: 239



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


--------------------
Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Jun 5 2006, 01:32 PM
Post #8


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3648
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



QUOTE (Bob Shaw @ Jun 5 2006, 02:03 PM) *
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.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bob Shaw
post Jun 5 2006, 08:45 PM
Post #9


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2488
Joined: 17-April 05
From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK
Member No.: 239



QUOTE (ugordan @ Jun 5 2006, 02:32 PM) *
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


--------------------
Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Jun 5 2006, 08:53 PM
Post #10


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3648
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



QUOTE (Bob Shaw @ Jun 5 2006, 09:45 PM) *
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?


From http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd170.htm:

QUOTE
The first stage strap-ons were recovered under parachutes and returned to Baikonur for study. The engine was designed for 10 reuses but tests showed they could stand up to 20 burns.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bob Shaw
post Jun 5 2006, 09:07 PM
Post #11


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2488
Joined: 17-April 05
From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK
Member No.: 239



Gordan:

Yup, I see what you mean - I still thought that was just the plan, but never actually happened! The landing sequence never looked to clever to me - the booster always seemed likely to snap at touchdown!

Anyone - Don, maybe? - got any other sources?

Bob Shaw


--------------------
Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Jun 5 2006, 09:19 PM
Post #12


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3648
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



QUOTE (Bob Shaw @ Jun 5 2006, 10:07 PM) *
the booster always seemed likely to snap at touchdown!

Why snap? What landing sequence? The casing was probably lighter than shuttle's SRB casing which should be just fine under a parachute. The Russians tend to make their stuff robust, you know! If it handled dragging the Energia stack with 800 tons of force, surely it could stand a soft ground impact.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bob Shaw
post Jun 5 2006, 09:34 PM
Post #13


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2488
Joined: 17-April 05
From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK
Member No.: 239



QUOTE (ugordan @ Jun 5 2006, 10:19 PM) *
Why snap? What landing sequence? The casing was probably lighter than shuttle's SRB casing which should be just fine under a parachute. The Russians tend to make their stuff robust, you know! If it handled dragging the Energia stack with 800 tons of force, surely it could stand a soft ground impact.



Gordan:

The boosters were to land on two sets of parachutes, one set at the front of the structure and one at the rear - they landed horizontally, on the hard Kazakhstan soil. I think the instantaneous stresses on landing would have been enormous, and expressed through the structure in quite a different way to the SRBs used on the Shuttle, ie at right angles to the way that the forces would have acted during launch.

Somewhere, I have diagrams...

Bob Shaw


--------------------
Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bob Shaw
post Jun 5 2006, 10:16 PM
Post #14


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2488
Joined: 17-April 05
From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK
Member No.: 239



Looks like I disremembered the landing sequence to some extent - it was a big set of parachutes with the booster dangling horizontally beneath it, not two sets - but the thing would still have landed horizontally, on Gemini-style skids!

Here's also a Polyus diagram, and a bigger launchpad image.

Bob Shaw
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image

 


--------------------
Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- Redstone   Launch vehicle   Jun 3 2006, 01:19 PM
- - dvandorn   This just points out another truth behind the fund...   Jun 3 2006, 03:44 PM
- - Jim from NSF.com   QUOTE (Redstone @ Jun 3 2006, 09:19 AM) N...   Jun 3 2006, 06:23 PM
- - BruceMoomaw   The Discovery missions are all supposed to use Del...   Jun 4 2006, 01:42 AM
- - RNeuhaus   I would like to learn about the what are limit of ...   Jun 4 2006, 02:13 AM
- - Jim from NSF.com   The "other items" of the launch service ...   Jun 4 2006, 02:55 AM
- - PhilCo126   A reminder to point out that the Atlas V is not th...   Jun 4 2006, 09:34 AM
|- - Bob Shaw   QUOTE (PhilCo126 @ Jun 4 2006, 10:34 AM) ...   Jun 4 2006, 11:28 AM
|- - ugordan   QUOTE (PhilCo126 @ Jun 4 2006, 10:34 AM) ...   Jun 4 2006, 05:37 PM
|- - RNeuhaus   QUOTE (PhilCo126 @ Jun 4 2006, 04:34 AM) ...   Jun 4 2006, 08:48 PM
|- - ugordan   QUOTE (RNeuhaus @ Jun 4 2006, 09:48 PM) p...   Jun 4 2006, 09:15 PM
|- - DonPMitchell   QUOTE (ugordan @ Jun 4 2006, 02:15 PM) Th...   Jun 4 2006, 11:46 PM
- - DonPMitchell   Let's look at some numbers. Here are some fig...   Jun 4 2006, 06:20 PM
|- - ugordan   You're forgetting the engine RD-180 was derive...   Jun 4 2006, 06:46 PM
|- - DonPMitchell   QUOTE (ugordan @ Jun 4 2006, 11:46 AM) Yo...   Jun 4 2006, 07:04 PM
|- - Bob Shaw   QUOTE (DonPMitchell @ Jun 4 2006, 08:04 P...   Jun 4 2006, 07:12 PM
|- - DonPMitchell   QUOTE (Bob Shaw @ Jun 4 2006, 12:12 PM) D...   Jun 4 2006, 07:23 PM
|- - Jim from NSF.com   QUOTE (Bob Shaw @ Jun 4 2006, 03:12 PM) D...   Jun 5 2006, 07:20 AM
- - djellison   In a brief 'still on holiday' pop-head-aro...   Jun 5 2006, 07:41 AM
|- - ugordan   QUOTE (djellison @ Jun 5 2006, 08:41 AM) ...   Jun 5 2006, 08:28 AM
- - DonPMitchell   Thrusts I gave are vacuum thrusts, just for compar...   Jun 5 2006, 08:48 AM
|- - ugordan   QUOTE (DonPMitchell @ Jun 5 2006, 09:48 A...   Jun 5 2006, 09:00 AM
|- - DonPMitchell   QUOTE (ugordan @ Jun 5 2006, 02:00 AM) A ...   Jun 5 2006, 10:27 AM
|- - ugordan   QUOTE (DonPMitchell @ Jun 5 2006, 11:27 A...   Jun 5 2006, 10:47 AM
||- - DonPMitchell   QUOTE (ugordan @ Jun 5 2006, 03:47 AM) Th...   Jun 5 2006, 11:36 AM
||- - Bob Shaw   Don: I think Mark Wade is normally excellent, but...   Jun 5 2006, 01:03 PM
||- - ugordan   QUOTE (Bob Shaw @ Jun 5 2006, 02:03 PM) I...   Jun 5 2006, 01:32 PM
||- - Bob Shaw   QUOTE (ugordan @ Jun 5 2006, 02:32 PM) Th...   Jun 5 2006, 08:45 PM
||- - ugordan   QUOTE (Bob Shaw @ Jun 5 2006, 09:45 PM) S...   Jun 5 2006, 08:53 PM
|||- - Bob Shaw   Gordan: Yup, I see what you mean - I still though...   Jun 5 2006, 09:07 PM
|||- - ugordan   QUOTE (Bob Shaw @ Jun 5 2006, 10:07 PM) t...   Jun 5 2006, 09:19 PM
|||- - Bob Shaw   QUOTE (ugordan @ Jun 5 2006, 10:19 PM) Wh...   Jun 5 2006, 09:34 PM
|||- - Bob Shaw   Looks like I disremembered the landing sequence to...   Jun 5 2006, 10:16 PM
|||- - ugordan   Bob: In the leftmost image you sent, the drawing ...   Jun 6 2006, 01:28 PM
|||- - Bob Shaw   QUOTE (ugordan @ Jun 6 2006, 02:28 PM) Bo...   Jun 6 2006, 02:37 PM
|||- - ugordan   Yep, look at the other cartoon you sent showing th...   Jun 6 2006, 02:44 PM
|||- - Bob Shaw   Gordan: So, the question remains: did it actually...   Jun 6 2006, 02:53 PM
||- - DonPMitchell   QUOTE (Bob Shaw @ Jun 5 2006, 01:45 PM) G...   Jun 5 2006, 10:57 PM
|- - Toma B   QUOTE (DonPMitchell @ Jun 5 2006, 12:27 P...   Jun 5 2006, 11:03 AM
- - PhilCo126   Don was right on the unit ( 10 & 9.8 kilogram-...   Jun 5 2006, 04:08 PM
- - Spirit   Hi everybody, I am new to the forum. Here is my f...   Jun 6 2006, 06:15 PM
|- - Jim from NSF.com   QUOTE (Spirit @ Jun 6 2006, 02:15 PM) Hi ...   Jun 6 2006, 06:31 PM
- - DonPMitchell   Here is a rather fanciful site dedicated to the En...   Jun 6 2006, 07:24 PM


Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 07:03 AM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and copyright.

OPINIONS AND MODERATION
Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators.
SUPPORT THE FORUM
Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member.