Author Topic: Energia/Orion  (Read 13668 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31294
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9578
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Energia/Orion
« Reply #20 on: 05/06/2007 07:10 PM »
Quote
SteveNovak - 6/5/2007  2:18 PM

This "rocket scientist" (as he calls himself) represents what is wrong with many of those involved (if he really is) is this Country's manned space program. They tend to be closed minded and cannot see the big picture or even think out of the box. I ignore him because he lacks vision and likes to hear himself "talk" .. LOL

Quite the opposite.  I know reality and what can be accomplished.

I have vision and am working on some future project and have bucked the status quo.  Many of the people on this forum know that I have worked for a Newspace company.  

I am just not a Scifi geek that doesn't know that RLV's are not worth pursuing at this time.  I see the big peicture from my vantage point at my job.

As for "rocket scientist", how many missions/launches have you worked on?  None I suppose.  I have worked on more than 50 launches and not all shuttle

What can you claim to have a achieved?

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2789
  • Liked: 445
  • Likes Given: 375
Re: Energia/Orion
« Reply #21 on: 05/06/2007 08:06 PM »
Quote
Gary - 6/5/2007  9:03 PM

Quote
privateer - 16/4/2007  8:57 PM

Quote
sandrot - 13/4/2007  4:36 PM

I can't even think to Energia LOC and LOM numbers with the 4 liquid strap on...

Why? Soyuz has four liquid strapons since forever, and what? Perfect 0% historical launcher-related LOC! LOM is around 1%, I believe? Compare that with Shuttle's numbers.

What about Soyuz-1 - Vladimir Komarov was killed when the parachutes tangled and Soyuz-11 when three crew were asphixiated due to a cabin vent opening?

None are down to the strap ons but you can't claim Soyuz has 0% LOC.


Erm, the clue is in the term 'launcher related'. Soyuz is the name of both the booster and the manned capsule.
Energia enthusiasts are probably still reeling from the recent SeaLaunch incident, hence the worry over liquid strap-on boosters.
Waiting for joy and raptor

Offline Gary

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Energia/Orion
« Reply #22 on: 05/06/2007 08:42 PM »
Quote
Kaputnik - 6/5/2007  9:06 PM
Erm, the clue is in the term 'launcher related'. Soyuz is the name of both the booster and the manned capsule.
Energia enthusiasts are probably still reeling from the recent SeaLaunch incident, hence the worry over liquid strap-on boosters.

Yes I know that but I did miss the 'launcher related' bit and if you are going to worry about a launch failure you might as well not launch - Things happen and risk is a part of it.

Offline sandrot

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 748
  • Motown
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Energia/Orion
« Reply #23 on: 05/07/2007 01:11 AM »
Quote
Gary - 6/5/2007  4:42 PM

Yes I know that but I did miss the 'launcher related' bit and if you are going to worry about a launch failure you might as well not launch - Things happen and risk is a part of it.

Flight risk has to be accepted. That has to be why SeaLaunch contracts got canceled. :o
"Paper planes do fly much better than paper spacecrafts."

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Energia/Orion
« Reply #24 on: 05/21/2007 10:45 PM »
I'd like to see some artwork of Energiya Orion myself.

I was thinking of a concept for Sea Dragon and wondered if it might be useful for other smaller HLLVs.

Let's say I want to launch a nuclear engine-equipped upper stage. If I launch it 'upside down' I would have a cone with the NERVA or whatever under an escape tower pointing up. In case of trouble I get the engine back, and just tankage is lost.

The wide base underneath docks to the wide base of an Ares V payload, whose cone is the biconic space craft itself. The result is a base to base docking of wide modules.

You would have a long cyllinder with a strong cone and an engine at one end, and a cone/capsule at the other. A space alk would be necessary to make the final link in space at the engine end...


Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22325
  • Liked: 603
  • Likes Given: 244
Re: Energia/Orion
« Reply #25 on: 03/19/2008 03:18 AM »
Speculation is pointless.  Energia is gone, and to bring it back would cost as much to develop a new rocket.  Also it is not US made, so it is a non-starter for the US VSE.  Finally the side-mounted cargo severely reduces safety.  Pretty much kills any serious consideration, the Ares I/V are much more realistic in comparison.
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4230
  • Liked: 122
  • Likes Given: 218
Re: Energia/Orion
« Reply #26 on: 03/31/2008 10:02 PM »
Quote
privateer - 16/4/2007  2:57 PM

Quote
sandrot - 13/4/2007  4:36 PM

I can't even think to Energia LOC and LOM numbers with the 4 liquid strap on...

Why? Soyuz has four liquid strapons since forever, and what? Perfect 0% historical launcher-related LOC! LOM is around 1%, I believe? Compare that with Shuttle's numbers.

Soyuz had two LOC events and two LOM events one was nearly LOC but nothing bad has happened on the crewed version of the soyuz since 1986.

The Soyuz spacecraft are actually a family of vehicles vs just a single vehicle .

The 7k-OK had a bad reputation while the 7k-T was much more reliable and the TM,TMA have  nearly flawless service records.

Also Progress,Kliper and maybe ACTS and Parom also belong in the soyuz family since they are evolutions of the Soyuz.

Though ACTS could be conidered more related the the ATV in it's present form.

As for energia the two times it flew there were no failures of the launch vehicle it's self .

The polyus station failed to reach orbit because the tug/upperstage used to circularize it's orbit performed a 360 degree flip vs a 180 and ended up performing a retro grade burn instead.

BTW the version of Energia you would want to use to launch a payload like the Orion with would be the Energia-M which only has two liquid strap ons vs four and a payload of 34tons.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/energiam.htm


Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4230
  • Liked: 122
  • Likes Given: 218
Re: Energia/Orion
« Reply #27 on: 03/31/2008 10:31 PM »
Even if you count them all as one which would be wrong since Soyuz is a family not a single spacecraft it's still more reliable then anything the West has flown.

The only thing with a comparable record in the US would be the shuttle and the X-15.

Gemini didn't fly many times though they do have a fair service record .
Gemini 8 almost suffered a Soyuz 1 like LOC event but quick action from the crew saved the spacecraft.

Apollo too didn't fly many times but had two very close calls with Apollo 13 and the ASTP.

Apollo 1 was the block I vehicle which is different from the block II but was an LOC event even though it happened on the pad.

The Soyuz safety record will likely stand until some commercial spacecraft can rank up a lot of flights or Kliper ends up flying often.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4230
  • Liked: 122
  • Likes Given: 218
Re: Energia/Orion
« Reply #28 on: 03/31/2008 10:40 PM »
The wings are not entirely dead weight they have worked as a very reliable recovery system.

Over all it's safety record is much better then what the US space program used before splash downs though not as good as the Soyuz recovery system.

The Columbia accident has more to do with side mounting on a large cryo tank and use of fragile TPS then the wings themselves.

Though on splash downs one LOC event can be greatly reduced if the ascent/descent suits also can act as self righting immersion suits much like what is used by offshore oil platform workers.

Such suits can even save someone from drowning even if they are unconscious .

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31294
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9578
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Energia/Orion
« Reply #29 on: 04/01/2008 12:01 AM »
Quote
Patchouli - 31/3/2008  6:31 PM

Apollo too didn't fly many times but had two very close calls with Apollo 13 and the ASTP.

ASTP was not an  failure or "close call"

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31294
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9578
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Energia/Orion
« Reply #30 on: 04/01/2008 12:05 AM »
Quote
Patchouli - 31/3/2008  6:40 PM

1. The wings are not entirely dead weight they have worked as a very reliable recovery system.

Over all it's safety record is much better then what the US space program used before splash downs though not as good as the Soyuz recovery system.


2.  Though on splash downs one LOC event can be greatly reduced if the ascent/descent suits also can act as self righting immersion suits much like what is used by offshore oil platform workers.

Such suits can even save someone from drowning even if they are unconscious .

1.  Huh?    The soyuz system has one recovery system failure.  the US systems are perfect record

2.  Again Huh?   That already exists for shuttle

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Energia/Orion
« Reply #31 on: 04/01/2008 02:55 AM »
Quote
Christine - 17/4/2007  1:09 AM

I don't really understand why it was overlooked in the shuttle. They added 50 tonnes of useless winglets, a large middeck that on most flights seemingly only serves as ballast, and several kitchen sinks. Why didn't they think that with all this other crap, having a few extra kilowatts of solar panels wouldn't be important?

A modified Spacelab would have been better, but it would need really long booms to reach past the cargo bay door shadows. Besides, orbiters require turnaround, and there were other payloads waiting to fly. Rather just modify a Spacelab for independent operation, which is a fair wad of money in itself.

Anyway, those 50 tonnes of useless winglets are not useless. They make the orbiter look very cool.  :cool:
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Energia/Orion
« Reply #32 on: 04/01/2008 03:01 AM »
Quote
Ronsmytheiii - 19/3/2008  2:18 PM

Speculation is pointless.  Energia is gone, and to bring it back would cost as much to develop a new rocket.  Also it is not US made, so it is a non-starter for the US VSE.  Finally the side-mounted cargo severely reduces safety.  Pretty much kills any serious consideration, the Ares I/V are much more realistic in comparison.

Agreed, it is pointless. Anyway, many cargo Energia versions were in-line; the developers came to the same conclusion about Shuttle-C. In fact, in-lining the cargo for Energia would have been really easy, even compared to DIRECT / NLS.

Anyway, to date I have heard absolutely zilch on development of new heavy-lift boosters over in Russia, besides the usual bombastic Energiya presentations which result in somebody getting fired. There ain't the money.
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Energia/Orion
« Reply #33 on: 04/01/2008 07:48 AM »
Quote
Jim - 31/3/2008  2:01 PM

Quote
Patchouli - 31/3/2008  6:31 PM

Apollo too didn't fly many times but had two very close calls with Apollo 13 and the ASTP.

ASTP was not an  failure or "close call"

The ASTP crewmembers were VERY close to dying, although for some reason it is not very well known. Even the crewmembers thought they were alright after landing until they mentioned it during the press conference (which was stopped as a result) and 45 minutes later they were struggling to breathe.

From http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4209/ch11-9.htm the crew ended up inhaling nitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine fumes from thrusters during parachute descent (this source says N2O4, but then confusingly says both fuel and oxidiser, whereas Slayton's bio doesn't even specify except that it was yellow), one of the crewmembers (Brand) was rendered unconcious by the fumes and Slayton felt nauseous. Stafford was forced to put an oxygen mask on the unconcious Brand while the capsule was upside down in the water. They ended up with a two week hospital stay (pulmonary edema??).

According to Slayton's biography (of whatever precise gas mixture it was), 400ppm is a fatal dose and it was estimated that they received 300ppm. So that's 75% of a fatal dose.
John

Tags: