Does anyone know when the Soviets could have had a real working version of that carbon-dioxide laser loaded into a production model Polyus weapons platform? I always got the impression the Soviets were not that far away from sending up the real deal had the US gone ahead with SDI.
The Energia M may be a clumsy solution, but I really doubt the US could've created a down-sized version of the STS stack like the Soviets could with the Energia stack. More design flexibility certainly would be a point in the Energia's favor over STS. Obviously we never created a full-on LV from the shuttle's SRBs like the Soviets did with the Energia's boosters, though we did get close before spiraling costs and delays axed the project. Though the Zenit is not exactly a world-beater in reliability, it still bests a non-existent LV for derived utility. Just curious, but if the Energia M is a clumsy solution, what would a better solution be for using Energia-derived parts on smaller rockets? A Zenit Heavy? Trimming back the Energia to 2 boosters and launching that?
There is one Energia-inspired solution I think might work well. Let's say the Soviets are looking to either upgrade the Proton or replace it in the late 1980s. They make the decision to upgrade it to what we know today as the Proton M (more thrust, less dry mass, more payload, etc). I'd have the first stage upgraded in both thrust and propellant load, its dry mass % trimmed, and then scrap the 2nd and 3rd stages. I'd replace them both with a single hydrolox stage powered by an RD-0120. That should up both payload and reliability considerably and get better economies of scale. If need be you'd add on a 4th stage for deep space missions or GEO comsats. That should be a better solution than the Energia M, no?
Quote from: Hyperion5 on 03/30/2013 08:37 pmThe Energia M may be a clumsy solution, but I really doubt the US could've created a down-sized version of the STS stack like the Soviets could with the Energia stack. More design flexibility certainly would be a point in the Energia's favor over STS. Obviously we never created a full-on LV from the shuttle's SRBs like the Soviets did with the Energia's boosters, though we did get close before spiraling costs and delays axed the project. Though the Zenit is not exactly a world-beater in reliability, it still bests a non-existent LV for derived utility. Just curious, but if the Energia M is a clumsy solution, what would a better solution be for using Energia-derived parts on smaller rockets? A Zenit Heavy? Trimming back the Energia to 2 boosters and launching that? Not sure, but Jim might mean that Energia M would still be a pretty big and expensive LV, but fairly under performing with just two two Zenits. Sort of like how ESAS looked at some 8.4m hydrolox cores with just a pair of Atlas V boosters. They were pretty under performing. They evaluated them with RS-68's and J2S powered hydrolox upper stages and they were still not very impressorve.The Soviets didn't have hydrolox powered upper stages then either apparently.Or, maybe Jim didn't mean that, and he can explain what he meant. ;-)Anyway, a 3 core Zenit would do the same thing or better, and probably be a good deal cheaper. A two core variant (with just one outboard booster. I think they looked at that to uprate Sealaunch.) could go inbetween the 1 core and 3 core.
Speaking about the Zenit, here is a proposal in the 1980s for a tri-core heavy Zenit, the 11K37 (performance is reportingly to be about 40 tonnes LEO): http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/forum9/topic10895/There is also an article about it in the November 2010 issue of Novosti Kosmonavtiki - any Russian members here can check out what it is about?
Quote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 03/30/2013 06:50 amSpeaking about the Zenit, here is a proposal in the 1980s for a tri-core heavy Zenit, the 11K37 (performance is reportingly to be about 40 tonnes LEO): http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/forum9/topic10895/There is also an article about it in the November 2010 issue of Novosti Kosmonavtiki - any Russian members here can check out what it is about? http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27034.0
Dmitry, you might know, but what was the plan for the Soviets if there was a problem with the Energia while the Buran was on it? Would they abort the boosters first and then shut down the central core, then eject the Buran? Would the pilots simply eject via ejection seats? Or would the Buran use its remaining thrusters to fly itself away from the Energia and then to re-orient itself for an emergency landing at Baikonur? Was there ever any talk of doing an abort-to-orbit should the central core have an engine shutdown later in the flight?
Quote from: Hyperion5 on 04/01/2013 05:09 pmDmitry, you might know, but what was the plan for the Soviets if there was a problem with the Energia while the Buran was on it? Would they abort the boosters first and then shut down the central core, then eject the Buran? Would the pilots simply eject via ejection seats? Or would the Buran use its remaining thrusters to fly itself away from the Energia and then to re-orient itself for an emergency landing at Baikonur? Was there ever any talk of doing an abort-to-orbit should the central core have an engine shutdown later in the flight? Unfortunately, my English is too bad for detailed explanations. I will tell only that at failure of engines at the initial stage of flight the rocket had to bring Buran into such kinematic conditions that it could return on airfield. It is possible to look here in more detail: http://www.buran.ru/htm/rocket.htm
Quote from: Lobo on 03/30/2013 04:26 am This is Wikipedia, so for whatever it's worth, it said the Titan 401A that exploded in [1998] cost $1.4 billion. I'm sure the flights after that must have cost similar. That's right in the range of STS launches, if not more expensive.That included the payload
This is Wikipedia, so for whatever it's worth, it said the Titan 401A that exploded in [1998] cost $1.4 billion. I'm sure the flights after that must have cost similar. That's right in the range of STS launches, if not more expensive.
.... You're a cosmonaut offered a choice of riding in either. Which would you have felt safer going up in, the Buran or the Shuttle?
Quote from: Hyperion5 on 04/01/2013 09:58 pm.... You're a cosmonaut offered a choice of riding in either. Which would you have felt safer going up in, the Buran or the Shuttle? Soyuz
No big surprise there though.
Sounds like the price was spendy for it though, hence why it was replaced with the EELV program?I would guess the fact that the Titan core was no longer being produce for the DoD and so here was no cost sharing any more had a part to pay in that?
Quote from: Lobo on 04/02/2013 02:23 amSounds like the price was spendy for it though, hence why it was replaced with the EELV program?I would guess the fact that the Titan core was no longer being produce for the DoD and so here was no cost sharing any more had a part to pay in that?Titan II cores (as in ICBM's) production was concluded in the mid 60's. All subsequent production was for launch vehicles.
Quote from: Jim on 04/04/2013 01:36 pmQuote from: Lobo on 04/02/2013 02:23 amSounds like the price was spendy for it though, hence why it was replaced with the EELV program?I would guess the fact that the Titan core was no longer being produce for the DoD and so here was no cost sharing any more had a part to pay in that?Titan II cores (as in ICBM's) production was concluded in the mid 60's. All subsequent production was for launch vehicles.Good point. Titan III was initially relatively cost effective because the core was in production for DoD. Otherwise, why use a core with toxic hypergolic propellants???Why? Because it existed and was available then.Was Titan IV only incrementally more expensive than Titan III? Or was ita big jump in price? I believe I remember price as being a reason it was finally cancelled and replaced with the EELV program. But if Titan cores weren't being made for ICBM's after the mid 60's, why even develop a Titan IV? Why not have the EELV program to replace Titan III? I think I remember that the Titan III program used a lot of retired Titan cores. (Martin Mariette refurbished 14 of them in the late 80's for government launch requirements I think) So I got the impression new cores weren't actually being built for it. They were just using old ICBM's. The SRB's were the production element.Titan IV was a stretched core (so I'm assuming a newly build core) with non-optional boosters. So a new developemnt, and new cores. So why develop it?But perhaps I don't understand the history correctly.