Roskosmos does not exclude the possibility of restarting....

anoobis · May 13, 2005

...'Energia-Buran' program. Original article in Russian here: http://www.prime-tass.ru/news/show.asp?id=503245&ct=news Here's a quick babelfish translation: "MOSCOW, 13 May /pra1m- TASS/. rocket-space system "Energy- snow-storm", capable of launching into space payload weighing 100 t, if necessary it can be resuscitated. On this reported today to journalists the deputy chief federal'ny of space agency Aleksandr Medvedchikov. "this unique system was created prematurely. There is no need for launching payload weighing 100 t today. If the need appears, this system can be resuscitated ", it said A.Medvedchikov. It noted that the possible use of a reusable system is economically inexpedient. " today it's cheaper and more simple to use single-time carrier rockets", it noted, transfers BY ITAR- TASS. In the opinion Of a.Medvedchikov, rocket-space system "Energy- snow-storm" "is substantially better than shuttle", since "energy" could launch into space not only the "snow-storms", but also other useful loads. It reminded one that in all were produced two successful launchings of "energy". One time with the "snow-storm", the second - "with another payload"." I wonder if it's still possible and economically viable to resurrect the system... Any opinions?

giofx · May 13, 2005

I don't know... but its a great news! Let's roll buran again! if the STS program is ended with the shuttle retirement before the ISS completition, what do you think about the possible use of a renewed Energia-Buran?

najab · May 13, 2005

>if the STS program is ended with the shuttle retirement before the ISS completition, what do you think about the possible use of a renewed Energia-Buran?Considering that it would take an absolute minimum of 5-10 years to rebuild a Buran orbiter, that idea is a non-starter.

nacnud · May 13, 2005

But who needs a Buran? Its the Energa part of the duo that’s interesting. The Zenith boosters have survived (sort of) in the form of Sea Launch, its the core booster over which the questions lie. However the real question is why revive Engeria, its a cool system and all but beyond discovering that phobos is made of room temperature superconductor where is the current need for Russia spend a lot of money on this system. Still it would be cool if they did.

giofx · May 13, 2005

your probably right naja, but we don't really know what actually is the state of the energia-buran flight hardware... i mean, we don't even know if the second buran in the Baikonur's hangar is destroyed or not, don't we? I think the major issues are first money and then the energia and its not-so-feaseble liquid propellant system, i my memory serves me right.

SpaceKiwi · May 13, 2005

I obviously didn't get the memo about May being the 'resuscitate an old space vehicle' month. I'll be expecting an announcement on Mercury any day now ... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

drwayne · May 13, 2005

I don't know the state of the hardware, and just as importantly, the state of the people, but I have to agree, they did some *fine* work. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

najab · May 13, 2005

My understanding is that it is as dead as the Saturn-V (no tooling) BUT that they have a significant advantage in that the boosters are still in production (Zenit rocket), the main engines are almost in production (the Zenit engine is a 2 chamber version of the 4 chamber main) and the pad infrastructure is still in place (though what condition it is in I have no idea).

nacnud · May 13, 2005

I've just been reading the astronautix Energia page and its eye opening stuff. S_G is right when he says that Energia fits perfectly into the current US exploration policy. Energia actualy could have been developed into many different flavours. Energia - M with only 2 zenith strap on boosters and a smaller core stage - 35 tonnes to LEO Energia - Without Buran - 4 strap on zeniths - 85 tonnes to LEO Energia - Vulcan 8 strap on zeniths, payload inline, Energia - M core as an upper stage - 175 tonnes to LEO

nacnud · May 13, 2005

What happened to the LOX/LH RD-120 that powered the Energia core stage, is a varient used on the Delta 4? In which case the engines survive and thats a good start.

najab · May 13, 2005

>...and main documents of this wonderful project are lost...They say that about the Saturn V and it's not true, I'd be very suprised if it's true about Energia. Engineers, generally speaking, are very careful about where they put their notes.

najab · May 13, 2005

The Energia core used the RD-0120 (not the RD-120), I made the same mistake above. The RD-0120 is out of production, though the development work on the engine continued, and there were plans for the (new and improved) Block 2 SSME to 'borrow' a lot from the RD-0120.

giofx · May 13, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> What do you mean by "not-sofeaseble liquid propellant system"? <hr /></blockquote> Sorry sg, isn't a liquid oxygen/hydrogen system more expensive then the solid counterpart? I tought thats one of the reason NASA choosed the current SRB configuration with the solid propellant solution at the time... i could be totally wrong... <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />

najab · May 13, 2005

> i could be totally wrong..Yes, unfortunately, you are. The Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME) use LH2/LOX.

nacnud · May 13, 2005

I saw the RD-0120 referred to in the astronautix pages - I didn't realise there was a difference, I though it was a typo <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

giofx · May 13, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> Yes, unfortunately, you are. The Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME) use LH2/LOX. <hr /></blockquote> I was referring to the SRBs najab... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> PS: congrats for your mod role, your a deep of science mate! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

giofx · May 13, 2005

"NASA was forced to SRBs because congress would not support the program with enough money" Damn politic affairs!

CalliArcale · May 13, 2005

Well said. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> I suspect somebody from Morton Thiokol knew the right people to get the booster contract, frankly. The SRBs are essentially scaled up versions of the segmented solids used on Titan III and IV, modified for safe recovery and refurbishment. Having an existing sample of really big strap-on boosters probably gave them a couple of edges in the bidding -- they had a proven record, and they had an established relationship with the people who write these contracts. Shuttle SRBs are the biggest solid rockets in the world. Titan IVb's boosters are the second biggest. The technology between the two is so similar that after the Challenger accident, the Titan IV boosters received equivalent modifications to those made to the Shuttle SRBs. (That's what makes Titan IVb different from Titan IV, actually. The upgraded boosters, with heaters in the field joints.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

drwayne · May 13, 2005

I love that kind of trivia Calli, thanks! I wonder what the coldest Titan launch was/is. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

SpaceKiwi · May 14, 2005

I dunno, I 'feel a little sorry' for the SRB's at times like this. I accept everything that is said about solids vs liquid prop boosters, but they really have given stirling service over the years all things considered. The one tragic exception was Challenger of course, but that came down to human error in design. They've never failed to turn up on game day really, and the hard-working and conscientious folks who build and service those beauties have justifiable reason to be proud I think. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

krrr · May 14, 2005

I think medium- to heavy-lift designs with Zenit strap-ons, but without a LOX/LH2 core, make a lot of sense. For instance an Atlas V core with two Zenit strap-ons (40 tons to LEO). Or the Angara-100 which uses 4 strap-ons, an RD-180 core and an RD-0120 based (?!) upper stage for 110 tons to LEO.

nacnud · May 14, 2005

yup good site that one

CalliArcale · May 16, 2005

Holy cow, I knew something about heavy lift boosters that you didn't? I'd better go make sure I'm actually right about it, then. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> *seeks a reference* Okay, there's a bit more to the story. An upgraded SRM was already being planned to boost Titan IV performance. Then Challenger happened, and some additional mods were introduced for the SRMU. Challenger may actually have hastened the upgrade. One page I found at Patrick AFB says that an unrelated improvement to the USRM was a change in thrust vectoring. Titan-IV SRMs used nitrogen tetroxide, sprayed into the plume from two dozen valves around each SRM's nozzle. Titan IV-B SRMUs, however, replaced it with hydraulics to physically gimbal the nozzle (same as Shuttle SRBs). The biggest change was to reduce the number of field joints from seven to three. This was obviously something inspired by Challenger -- with fewer joints, you automatically reduce the opportunities for failed joints. Other changes included switching the steel casings for graphite epoxy. (Titan IVB also has guidance improvements in its core stage.) ATK's website claims a 25% improvement in performance for the SRMU. There were also upgrades to the O-rings -- one website says that "redundant seals" were added, but no details are given. The first SRMU flew in 1997; it obviously took rather a long time for the upgrades to make it through the process. Since Titan flies unmanned, I suspect they wanted to use up all the equipment they'd already built. There also appear to have been considerable delays and contract disputes throughout the process. But I cannot for the life of me find the graphic I remember seeing showing upgrades to the actual SRM field joints. BTW, I should've realized this earlier as I work with ATK people, but the SRMs are actually made by Alliant Techsystems. So are the SRBs. ATK = Thiokol. (Oddly, I just checked ATK's website, and <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

drwayne · May 16, 2005

What sometimes fouls me up is the term GEMS. In some situations, that refers to an energy managment technique, in others, to a Graphite Epoxy Motor. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

CalliArcale · May 16, 2005

Ah, the proliferation of TLAs (Three Letter Acronyms)..... One of my programs at work uses GEM to refer to "Golden Engineering Model"; it's an expensive piece of hardware kept in the best condition possible for use in testing out software fixes prior to putting them onto flight hardware. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Roskosmos does not exclude the possibility of restarting....

anoobis

Guest

giofx

Guest

najab

Guest

nacnud

Guest

giofx

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

drwayne

Guest

najab

Guest

nacnud

Guest

nacnud

Guest

najab

Guest

najab

Guest

giofx

Guest

najab

Guest

nacnud

Guest

giofx

Guest

giofx

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

drwayne

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

krrr

Guest

nacnud

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

drwayne

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page