IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Launch vehicle, Atlas V
ugordan
post Jun 4 2006, 09:15 PM
Post #16


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3581
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



QUOTE (RNeuhaus @ Jun 4 2006, 09:48 PM) *
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???


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_DonPMitchell_*
post Jun 4 2006, 11:46 PM
Post #17





Guests






QUOTE (ugordan @ Jun 4 2006, 02:15 PM) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jim from NSF.com
post Jun 5 2006, 07:20 AM
Post #18


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 321
Joined: 6-April 06
From: Cape Canaveral
Member No.: 734



QUOTE (Bob Shaw @ Jun 4 2006, 03:12 PM) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Jun 5 2006, 07:41 AM
Post #19


Administrator
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 13852
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



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

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

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Jun 5 2006, 08:28 AM
Post #20


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3581
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



QUOTE (djellison @ Jun 5 2006, 08:41 AM) *
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).


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_DonPMitchell_*
post Jun 5 2006, 08:48 AM
Post #21





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 #22


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3581
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 #23





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 #24


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3581
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
Toma B
post Jun 5 2006, 11:03 AM
Post #25


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 620
Joined: 9-May 05
From: Subotica
Member No.: 384



QUOTE (DonPMitchell @ Jun 5 2006, 12:27 PM) *
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... sad.gif sad.gif sad.gif


--------------------
The scientist does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful.
Jules H. Poincare

My "Astrophotos" gallery on flickr...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_DonPMitchell_*
post Jun 5 2006, 11:36 AM
Post #26





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 #27


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 #28


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3581
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
Guest_PhilCo126_*
post Jun 5 2006, 04:08 PM
Post #29





Guests






Don was right on the unit ( 10 & 9.8 kilogram-force )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram-force
ohmy.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bob Shaw
post Jun 5 2006, 08:45 PM
Post #30


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

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th November 2014 - 06:46 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 a project of the Planetary Society and is funded by donations from visitors and members. Help keep this forum up and running by contributing here.