Author Topic: How would Russia go to the moon?  (Read 143348 times)

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2715
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
« Reply #40 on: 12/12/2012 01:13 PM »
To the OP.  On a rocket.  Couldn't resist.

Buy a ticket with Golden Spike?


But seriously, Russia wouldn't need to build a mega launcher, or develop a hydrolox EDS.

They could just use muliple storable propulsion stages. Launched on current LV's to LEO, each one an autonomous space tug. They would rendezvous and wait for the lander and crew capsule. Assemble, then do TLI, dropping off stages. The final stage does LOI and TEI.



"Buy a ticket with Golden Spike?" Close, but no cigar.

"Russia wouldn't need to build a mega launcher, or develop a hydrolox EDS"
if they built their PPTS/PTK-NP capsule, Europe built an ATV derived Service Module for the PPTS/PTK-NP, China built the 11 million lb. thrust Long March 9 heavy lift launcher, and they all kicked in some money to buy a Lunar Lander from Golden Spike.

Perhaps by working together Russia, Europe, China, and Golden Spike could do some very affordable international missions to the Moon.   
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline Hyperion5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1615
  • Liked: 1136
  • Likes Given: 229
Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
« Reply #41 on: 12/13/2012 07:39 PM »
To the OP.  On a rocket.  Couldn't resist.

Buy a ticket with Golden Spike?


But seriously, Russia wouldn't need to build a mega launcher, or develop a hydrolox EDS.

They could just use muliple storable propulsion stages. Launched on current LV's to LEO, each one an autonomous space tug. They would rendezvous and wait for the lander and crew capsule. Assemble, then do TLI, dropping off stages. The final stage does LOI and TEI.



"Buy a ticket with Golden Spike?" Close, but no cigar.

"Russia wouldn't need to build a mega launcher, or develop a hydrolox EDS"
if they built their PPTS/PTK-NP capsule, Europe built an ATV derived Service Module for the PPTS/PTK-NP, China built the 11 million lb. thrust Long March 9 heavy lift launcher, and they all kicked in some money to buy a Lunar Lander from Golden Spike.

Perhaps by working together Russia, Europe, China, and Golden Spike could do some very affordable international missions to the Moon.   

Golden Spike's already ruled out selling tickets to the Chinese, though I'm not sure if they'd be unwilling to sell tickets to the Russians.  It'd be the ultimate irony if Russia went to the moon with the help of a private American firm after all these years.  I'm not sure national pride would stand for it.  The Russians inevitably would want to stop "paying Americans" to send cosmonauts to lunar orbit/lunar surface.  You see the very same politics at work in the US due to NASA's reliance on Soyuz. 

Offline fregate

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 885
  • Space Association of Australia
  • Melbourne Australia
  • Liked: 113
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
« Reply #42 on: 12/14/2012 02:55 AM »
...
So basically that eliminates a non-hydrolox method for sending the NPT-PK/PPTS to the moon via earth-orbit rendezvous.  Thanks for pointing that out.
...
No it does not!
Mission could be performed by 2xLV SODRUZHESTVO 
- Cargo LV launches EDS stage (LOX/naftil propulsion) to LEO ;
- Manned LV launches stack PTK-L + Block_DM (scaled up 1.5 modification of standard version) to  LEO;
- EDS and stack are docking on LEO (EOR);
- EDS performs TLI (Delta  V 3150 m/sec);
- EDS disposed;
- Oversized Block DM performs MCC+LOI (Delta V 1300  m/sec);
- PTK-L performs docking on LLO (to lander or LOS)
- PTK-L return to Earth by performing TEI maneuver 

Major reason why it possible - lunar lender travels to LLO separately (4 LV required for a landing mission)
"Selene, the Moon. Selenginsk, an old town in Siberia: moon-rocket  town" Vladimir Nabokov

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2715
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
« Reply #43 on: 12/14/2012 03:02 PM »
.....

Golden Spike's already ruled out selling tickets to the Chinese, though I'm not sure if they'd be unwilling to sell tickets to the Russians.  It'd be the ultimate irony if Russia went to the moon with the help of a private American firm after all these years.  I'm not sure national pride would stand for it.  The Russians inevitably would want to stop "paying Americans" to send cosmonauts to lunar orbit/lunar surface.  You see the very same politics at work in the US due to NASA's reliance on Soyuz. 



Getting to LEO is much easier than getting to the Lunar surface.

A large country, such as Russia, can afford to produce large jetliners and other impressive examples of high technology. And a large country, such as Russia, can benefit from and afford to produce the launchers, spacecraft, and space stations needed to do LEO missions. Even though this is true for Russian LEO missions, Russia has instead chosen the greater benefits of being involved with the International Partners at the ISS for its LEO space missions.   

If we consider an affordable and thus sustainable human Lunar ISRU base, Russia would gain substantial benefits and national pride from having partners. And partners that have some special skill sets to contribute can be a good thing for many reasons.

If Golden Spike doesn't sell Landers to certain countries, and doesn't sell Landers to partnerships that contain certain countries, perhaps the company is following a highly restrictive business plan that will need to be changed in order to be successful and promote the rapid growth of commercial activities in cislunar space.

Spaceships need to become much more common and widely used in order to help reduce their costs.

Note that Boeing routinely makes lots of money by selling its high tech large airliners around the world, and those jets probably contain technological systems equal to or possibly even much more sophisticated than those that will be used in the Golden Spike Lander. Business is about making money.

Russia and its Lunar partners, whoever they may turn out to be, will each contribute some useful element, or elements, needed to establish, maintain, and grow the Lunar polar ISRU base.

Payments to Golden Spike from Russia and its partners could be in the form of money, launch services, Lunar accommodations, ISRU propellant, and other goods, services, and real property that could cover the costs of the Landers. Golden Spike and its many customers would greatly benefit from having an ISRU base as a destination on the Lunar surface.

A Golden Spike Lander or perhaps a Lander from Japan, South Korea, India, Brazil, or some other country would help Russia and its partners defray some of the cost of a Lunar ISRU base.


Edited.
« Last Edit: 12/14/2012 03:07 PM by HappyMartian »
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline asmi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 659
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
« Reply #44 on: 12/14/2012 05:07 PM »
Well, Golden Spike's lander is just as non-existent than any other one out there, so there is no particular benefit in buying that vs building themselves (by that I mean not neccessarily by Russia itself, but maybe by some other IP). Right now no one in the world (except for NASA of course) seems to be interesting for asteroid mission NASA seems to be occupied with, but there is significant interest in Lunar missions. So I think if NASA will keep insisting on asteroid mission, Russia will partner with ESA and possibly some other countries (which do not have such strong prejudice towards certain countries) and they will go ahead. I'm fairly certain human-rated Angara-A5P will fly long before any Lunar assets can be realistically expected to be built even if work on them will start today. Having even more heavier-class LV would be beneficial, allthough it would NOT be an absolute requirement. And the option to leverage some other LV (like ESA's Ariane-5) to carry unmanned parts to LEO is there as well. So they can, for example, launch service module + EDS stage atop Ariane-5, then launch crew capsule atop Angara-A5P and dock them together in LEO. Russians have huge experience in rendezvous ops (I'd say much more than any other country or agency in the world), and, more importantly, their rendezvous/docking equipment is "off-the-shelf" thing that can be installed to almost any spacecraft (look at ESA's ATV as example).
They can even throw in MLM-sized LLO space station unmanned first (using pretty much any unmanned LV) to provide for "abort to station" capability so cosmonauts/astronauts will be able to survive aboard this station long enough for help to arrive, should they for some reason become stranded in LLO. Again, they've built and operated more space stations than all others combined, so I'm sure they will figure out how to add additional radiational protection to the module. And having a space station in LLO can provide for a lot of science as well as it will be ideal platform for surface surveying to look for best place to set up ISRU/lunar surface station.
So there are no major technical or engineering issues with such a mission - it's mainly a problem of having enough political will (and money) to execute all of that.

Offline Hyperion5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1615
  • Liked: 1136
  • Likes Given: 229
Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
« Reply #45 on: 12/19/2012 06:10 AM »
Well, Golden Spike's lander is just as non-existent than any other one out there, so there is no particular benefit in buying that vs building themselves (by that I mean not neccessarily by Russia itself, but maybe by some other IP). Right now no one in the world (except for NASA of course) seems to be interesting for asteroid mission NASA seems to be occupied with, but there is significant interest in Lunar missions. So I think if NASA will keep insisting on asteroid mission, Russia will partner with ESA and possibly some other countries (which do not have such strong prejudice towards certain countries) and they will go ahead. I'm fairly certain human-rated Angara-A5P will fly long before any Lunar assets can be realistically expected to be built even if work on them will start today. Having even more heavier-class LV would be beneficial, allthough it would NOT be an absolute requirement. And the option to leverage some other LV (like ESA's Ariane-5) to carry unmanned parts to LEO is there as well. So they can, for example, launch service module + EDS stage atop Ariane-5, then launch crew capsule atop Angara-A5P and dock them together in LEO. Russians have huge experience in rendezvous ops (I'd say much more than any other country or agency in the world), and, more importantly, their rendezvous/docking equipment is "off-the-shelf" thing that can be installed to almost any spacecraft (look at ESA's ATV as example).
They can even throw in MLM-sized LLO space station unmanned first (using pretty much any unmanned LV) to provide for "abort to station" capability so cosmonauts/astronauts will be able to survive aboard this station long enough for help to arrive, should they for some reason become stranded in LLO. Again, they've built and operated more space stations than all others combined, so I'm sure they will figure out how to add additional radiational protection to the module. And having a space station in LLO can provide for a lot of science as well as it will be ideal platform for surface surveying to look for best place to set up ISRU/lunar surface station.
So there are no major technical or engineering issues with such a mission - it's mainly a problem of having enough political will (and money) to execute all of that.

I'll have to agree with you on the Angara A5P being a decent help on these sorts of things.  It can lift several more tonnes to LEO and beyond than a Proton M and the Angara A5/KVRB (LH2 upper stage version) would just add to that.  Still, if I were head of Roscosmos, an Angara A7V would be really nice to have, and the Sodruzhestvo would be even better. 

Still it's nice to know Russia could at least get a decent start creating a LLO space station with the launchers it has or will soon.   

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2715
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
« Reply #46 on: 12/19/2012 02:21 PM »
....

Still it's nice to know Russia could at least get a decent start creating a LLO space station with the launchers it has or will soon.   



Yep. And if Russia and its partners build their station in a 'frozen LLO orbit' inclined at 86º, every two hours they could have access to a large and inviting polar ice deposit where they could build a hydrolox ISRU propellant facility. That ISRU facility would be very useful for them and everyone in cislunar space.

Who knows, the Golden Spike folks and NASA might even want to sometimes park their spacecraft at the LLO station owned by Russia and its partners, right?

Hyperion5, how much do you think Russia and its partners would charge per day for parking a spacecraft at the LLO depot station?

How much would Russia and its partners charge for the Lunar ISRU hydrolox propellant that they could sell at their LLO depot station?

Golden Spike Landers might eventually use hydrolox, right?

NASA would need quite a bit of hydrolox for its many asteroid and Mars missions, right?

Other customers could also eventually show up at the '86º frozen LLO' depot station and they might need lots of hydrolox, some supplies, and a little maintenance work on their spacecraft, right?

Do you think such a LLO propellant depot could someday be profitable for Russia and its partners?

Well at least Russia and its partners would be always willing to sell us their Lunar derived propellant, right Hyperion5?



"'There are actually a number of 'frozen orbits' where a spacecraft can stay in a low lunar orbit indefinitely. They occur at four inclinations: 27º, 50º, 76º, and 86º'—the last one being nearly over the lunar poles."

From: Bizarre Lunar Orbits
At: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/06nov_loworbit/ 
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline asmi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 659
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
« Reply #47 on: 12/19/2012 04:33 PM »
Still, if I were head of Roscosmos, an Angara A7V would be really nice to have, and the Sodruzhestvo would be even better.
If I understand the situation correctly, the problem of A7 is the lack of payload. Ironically that very problem prevents Atlas V Heavy from coming into existence. Technically A7 is nothing more than A5 with two more URMs, so I think once they will really want it - it will come online pretty soon.

Offline Hyperion5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1615
  • Liked: 1136
  • Likes Given: 229
Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
« Reply #48 on: 12/19/2012 06:59 PM »
....

Still it's nice to know Russia could at least get a decent start creating a LLO space station with the launchers it has or will soon.   



Yep. And if Russia and its partners build their station in a 'frozen LLO orbit' inclined at 86º, every two hours they could have access to a large and inviting polar ice deposit where they could build a hydrolox ISRU propellant facility. That ISRU facility would be very useful for them and everyone in cislunar space.

Who knows, the Golden Spike folks and NASA might even want to sometimes park their spacecraft at the LLO station owned by Russia and its partners, right?

Hyperion5, how much do you think Russia and its partners would charge per day for parking a spacecraft at the LLO depot station?

Well let's see, they're charging us 60 million dollars for a seat on the Soyuz, right?  If Russia were feeling generous they'd charge us a million a day for manned vehicles at such a station.  I'm not optimistic on them being that generous.  You have to consider it's not exactly normal to have a space station in LLO.  In fact, it's never been done before.  I imagine Russia might charge ten million or more just for the right to dock with the thing, and then perhaps a million or two per day if our astronauts stayed awhile.  Unmanned ships would obviously be there longer, so I think the charge per day would be considerably lower. 

How much would Russia and its partners charge for the Lunar ISRU hydrolox propellant that they could sell at their LLO depot station?

Golden Spike Landers might eventually use hydrolox, right?

NASA would need quite a bit of hydrolox for its many asteroid and Mars missions, right?

Golden Spike does not yet have any lander design even finalized.  They could just as easily decide they're building a metholox engined lander.  They could use ISRU for that as well, it's not a deep cryogen, so it has the major advantage of less need to worry about boil-off.  I might also add methane is a less problematic propellant than hydrogen. 

NASA would definitely need quite a bit of hydrolox supplies for deep space and asteroid missions, although an astronaut recently proposed bringing an asteroid into lunar orbit to make things easy.  Planetary Resources, as you might imagine, was all for it.  I still think an easier place to put a space station for deep space missions would be the EML-2 point, so they'd need a tug to transport Russian ISRU-produced hydrolox/metholox supplies there. 

I have to point out that if the Russians want to sell ISRU hydrolox/metholox supplies, they're going to need to land on the lunar surface and stay for extended periods to set up permanent infrastructure.  My top bet on who would help the Russians on that would be the Chinese and Europeans.  That's hoping for an awful lot, but it's nice to see that the workhorse rockets of many countries are getting steadily bigger and more capable. 

The Chinese will soon have the highly capable Long March 5 family flying, Russia will be upgrading to the much more capable Angara family, the US will have the Falcon Heavy flying soon, the Ariane 5 ME is now on its way, and the Indians are pushing hard towards a manned flight by 2020 on a bigger launcher.  Just look at how the Delta & Atlas families have grown over time.  They're enormous now compared to the originals.  All of this suggests that unlike in the Apollo era, the workhorse launchers are big enough to enable lunar capabilities. 

Other customers could also eventually show up at the '86º frozen LLO' depot station and they might need lots of hydrolox, some supplies, and a little maintenance work on their spacecraft, right?

Do you think such a LLO propellant depot could someday be profitable for Russia and its partners?

Well at least Russia and its partners would be always willing to sell us their Lunar derived propellant, right Hyperion5?

It'll be profitable if people see the moon as the next natural point in space exploration.  What you need is for the CSA, JAXA, ESA, NASA, and CNSA all to look to the moon as the next logical step in space exploration.  We're getting close to accomplishing all we could want in low-earth orbit with ISS.  The Chinese already have the beginnings of their first space station and will soon accomplish much of what we have with ISS by 2020.  These organizations need to convince their compatriots that they exist for good reasons.  They're going to need something more than yet another LEO space station.  A lunar space station would have a lot more sex appeal to Russian taxpayers than yet another modular space station in LEO. 


"'There are actually a number of 'frozen orbits' where a spacecraft can stay in a low lunar orbit indefinitely. They occur at four inclinations: 27º, 50º, 76º, and 86º'—the last one being nearly over the lunar poles."

From: Bizarre Lunar Orbits
At: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/06nov_loworbit/ 

86 degree orbit sounds best for ISRU and would make for some spectacular earthrises.  Btw, what would have happened if Apollo 8 had been unmanned and suffered a short circuit after inserting itself into LLO? 

Still, if I were head of Roscosmos, an Angara A7V would be really nice to have, and the Sodruzhestvo would be even better.
If I understand the situation correctly, the problem of A7 is the lack of payload. Ironically that very problem prevents Atlas V Heavy from coming into existence. Technically A7 is nothing more than A5 with two more URMs, so I think once they will really want it - it will come online pretty soon.

Anyone read Russian?  Apparently this says they can launch every Angara off a single pad except for the big Angara A7: http://www.khrunichev.ru/main.php?id=44

The biggest thing holding back the Angara A7 is not the design but the lack of a proper launchpad.  I've read the Russians didn't think things through entirely and built the Angara launchpad only big enough to handle up to the Angara A5 & its derivatives.  Why?  I have no idea.  My quick solution to this would be to re-purpose the Energia launchpad for the A7. 

To be honest, there's one other reason why you don't see an Atlas V Heavy.  If it didn't exist an upgraded Atlas V Heavy would be very possible.  It's attached below.  Also attached below are evolutions of workhorse launchers showing how they've grown massively more capable over time. 


Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2715
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
« Reply #49 on: 12/24/2012 12:18 PM »
See:

Thanks Anik for posting this slide on NK forum:
Truly a Christmas present. Mission profile based on
Khrunichev Angara 7 space tug.
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline Hyperion5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1615
  • Liked: 1136
  • Likes Given: 229
Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
« Reply #50 on: 12/25/2012 12:26 AM »
See:

Thanks Anik for posting this slide on NK forum:
Truly a Christmas present. Mission profile based on
Khrunichev Angara 7 space tug.

http://www.khrunichev.ru/main.php?id=44&lang=en

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara7.html

Thanks for the link, Happy Martian.  That's encouraging news, though I've got one major question.  Since when could the Angara A7V (AKA Angara A7B) launch 53 mt+ into LEO?  Every source I can find says the biggest Angara will only be launching up to 41 mt from Russian cosmodromes.  I can understand if they've upgraded one of the upper stages to enable this, but I was just kind of surprised seeing an Angara A7V shown launching a payload a Falcon Heavy barely cannot.  Can I ask where Fregate is finding his sources on that payload number?  Even Khrunichev isn't showing it on their Angara page. 

Offline DougSpace

  • Member
  • Posts: 32
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
« Reply #51 on: 12/25/2012 06:30 PM »
Yep. And if Russia and its partners build their station in a 'frozen LLO orbit' inclined at 86º, every two hours they could have access to a large and inviting polar ice deposit where they could build a hydrolox ISRU propellant facility. That ISRU facility would be very useful for them and everyone in cislunar space.

If the Russians had lunar ice ISRU, is there a way that they could deliver ice-derived propellant to any LEO orbital inclination in a just-in-time manner thereby eliminating the need for LEO depots?

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2715
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
« Reply #52 on: 12/26/2012 02:09 PM »
Yep. And if Russia and its partners build their station in a 'frozen LLO orbit' inclined at 86º, every two hours they could have access to a large and inviting polar ice deposit where they could build a hydrolox ISRU propellant facility. That ISRU facility would be very useful for them and everyone in cislunar space.

If the Russians had lunar ice ISRU, is there a way that they could deliver ice-derived propellant to any LEO orbital inclination in a just-in-time manner thereby eliminating the need for LEO depots?



That is an interesting question.

Two thoughts:

1. The Lunar gravitational field isn't uniform. By making careful and proper use of the significant Mascon distortions in the Moon's gravitational field it should be possible to 'slide', 'skate', or 'surf' the distorted Lunar gravitational field and change the orbital inclination with minimal use of rocket propellant for delta-v burns.


"In orbital mechanics, a frozen orbit is an orbit for an artificial satellite in which the natural drifts due to the earth's shape have been minimized by carefully choosing the orbital parameters. Typically this is an orbit where over a long time, the altitude is always the same at the same point in each orbit[1] -- changes in the inclination, position of the lowest point of the orbit, and eccentricity have been minimized by choosing initial values so that their perturbations cancel out.[2] This results in a long-term stable orbit that minimizes station keeping propellant usage.

And, "But the perturbing force caused by the oblateness of the Earth will in general perturb not only the orbital plane but also the eccentricity vector of the orbit."

From: Frozen orbit  By Wikipedia
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frozen_orbit
 


"Gravitational anomalies slightly distorting the orbits of some Lunar Orbiters led to the discovery of mass concentrations (dubbed mascons), beneath the lunar surface caused by large impacting bodies at some remote time in the past.[1] These anomalies are significant enough to cause a lunar orbit to change significantly over the course of several days.[citation needed] 'Lunar mascons make most low lunar orbits unstable' but there exist four 'frozen orbits' 'where a spacecraft can stay in a low lunar orbit indefinitely.' The frozen orbits occur at four inclinations, 27º, 50º, 76º, and 86º.'[1]"

And, "The Apollo 11 first manned landing mission employed the first attempt to correct for this effect. The parking orbit was "circularized" at 66 nautical miles (122 km; 76 mi) by 54 nautical miles (100 km; 62 mi), which was expected to become the nominal circular 60 nautical miles (110 km; 69 mi) when the LM made its return rendezvous with the CSM. But the effect was overestimated by a factor of two; at rendezvous the orbit was calculated to be 63.2 nautical miles (117.0 km; 72.7 mi) by 56.8 nautical miles (105.2 km; 65.4 mi). [6]"

And, "The Apollo 15 subsatellite PFS-1 and the Apollo 16 subsatellite PFS-2, both small satellites released into lunar orbit from the Apollo Service Module near the end of their respective missions, provided later scientists data on Lunar gravitational perturbation effects. PFS-1 ended up in a long-lasting orbit, at 28 degrees inclination, and successfully completed its mission after one and a half years. PFS-2, was placed in a particularly unstable orbital inclination of 11 degrees, lasted only 35 days in orbit before crashing into the Lunar surface.[1]"

From: Lunar orbit  By Wikipedia
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_orbit



2.  For Russian spacecraft, and the spacecraft of other nations, to 'surf' the Moon's gravitational field, reach high Lunar orbit, or achieve various Earth orbits while minimizing propellant usage, a solar powered Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR) propulsion system for the hydrolox tanker or mobile hydrolox depot could be used.

Or Masers or lasers could be used to create power beams on the Moon, or at a large solar power station in a stable high Lunar orbit. The Masers or lasers could beam power that would be converted into electricity for the VASIMR propulsion system of the orbiting hydrolox tanker or mobile hydrolox depot.


Note also:

"The Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR) is an electro-magnetic thruster for spacecraft propulsion. It uses radio waves to ionize and heat a propellant, and magnetic fields to accelerate the resulting plasma to generate thrust. It is one of several types of spacecraft electric propulsion systems."

And, "The method of heating plasma used in VASIMR was originally developed as a result of research into nuclear fusion. VASIMR is intended to bridge the gap between high-thrust, low-specific impulse propulsion systems and low-thrust, high-specific impulse systems. VASIMR is capable of functioning in either mode. Costa Rican scientist and former astronaut Franklin Chang-Diaz created the VASIMR concept and has been working on its development since 1977."

From: Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket  By Wikipedia
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Specific_Impulse_Magnetoplasma_Rocket



Facts About the VASIMR® Engine and its Development  By Ad Astra Rocket Company
At: http://www.adastrarocket.com/VASIMR_development_AdAstra_15July2011.pdf



For Russia, and other nations, the 'frozen LLO orbit' inclined at 86º could be a staging orbit for VASIMR powered hydrolox tankers/mobile hydrolox depots that would eventually head off to many other orbits around the Moon and Earth.

"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline asmi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 659
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
« Reply #53 on: 12/26/2012 11:47 PM »
It doesn't have to be that complicated (or I should probably say, futuristic). They can use up some of the fuel they're transporting for the actual transportation. Remember RSA prefer "take-it-easy" approach, meaning less risky new tech on a particular mission (as opposed to NASA's "big bang" approach, where a lot of new unproven stuff get's put into a single S/C). Take a look at the "Soyuz" spacecraft improvements - they could've just put all new stuff on a first vehicle, but instead they gradually introduce changes one a time. And you know what - looking at Soyuz flying for decades I'd say their approach works best.

Offline major_tom

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • far above the Moon
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
« Reply #54 on: 12/28/2012 05:05 PM »
See:

Thanks Anik for posting this slide on NK forum:
Truly a Christmas present. Mission profile based on
Khrunichev Angara 7 space tug.

http://www.khrunichev.ru/main.php?id=44&lang=en

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara7.html

Thanks for the link, Happy Martian.  That's encouraging news, though I've got one major question.  Since when could the Angara A7V (AKA Angara A7B) launch 53 mt+ into LEO?  Every source I can find says the biggest Angara will only be launching up to 41 mt from Russian cosmodromes.  I can understand if they've upgraded one of the upper stages to enable this, but I was just kind of surprised seeing an Angara A7V shown launching a payload a Falcon Heavy barely cannot.  Can I ask where Fregate is finding his sources on that payload number?  Even Khrunichev isn't showing it on their Angara page. 

It's a recent development. They now call it Angara A7.2 and Angara A7.2V.

The A7.2 is pretty much the same as A7, with a 4.1m diameter keroLOX
1st stage core, using an RD-191 engine.
OTOH the A7.2V has, in place of the A7.2 core stage, a 5.7m diameter
LH2/LOX core, using an RD-120 engine.

See following NK forum posts:

http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/messages/forum13/topic244/message1018841/#message1018841

http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/messages/forum13/topic244/message1019221/#message1019221

Hope at least those 2 can use the same launch pad   ::)
Planet Earth is blue, and there's nothing I can do

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14188
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 3561
  • Likes Given: 533
Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
« Reply #55 on: 12/31/2012 06:28 AM »
Thanks Major Tom. Looks like there are four different size hydrolox upper stages! MOB2 is used for Lunar missions.
« Last Edit: 12/31/2012 06:29 AM by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Hyperion5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1615
  • Liked: 1136
  • Likes Given: 229
Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
« Reply #56 on: 12/31/2012 06:51 AM »
Thanks Major Tom. Looks like there are four different size hydrolox upper stages! MOB2 is used for Lunar missions.

Thanks for posting the attachments of the new versions, Steven.  Those would really change the scope of what Russia could do in lunar orbit.  It certainly would make things easier given an extra 10-20 mt of LEO lift capability.  I'd been wondering how Khrunichev could claim the Angara A7 design could be capable of lifting up to 75 mt to LEO.  Turns out they "cheated" by producing a huge core with an RD-0120 engine.  :) 

Those are some seriously impressive Angaras, although by using an RD-0120 from the Energia the design is almost more Energia than it is Angara.  So what do we have for upper stages here?  Am I correct in spotting a 1, 2 and 4 RD-0146 engine upper stages?  I can only hope Russia figures a way out of launching all of the Angara A7 variants from the same launchpad, because for whatever reason they can only launch the Angara 1.2-Angara 5/KVRB off the same pads right now.  Does anyone know whether there are any plans to add cross-feeding of propellants for the smaller Angara versions?  That certainly wouldn't hurt Russia's lunar plans. 

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2163
  • Liked: 217
  • Likes Given: 99
Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
« Reply #57 on: 12/31/2012 02:31 PM »
...I can only hope Russia figures a way out of launching all of the Angara A7 variants from the same launchpad, because for whatever reason they can only launch the Angara 1.2-Angara 5/KVRB off the same pads right now. 

The Angara pad at Plesetsk:

http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/foto/279/707/#

If you look at the 4th image you'll see that the cut outs on the work platforms are shaped for a maximum of 4 strap on cores. The launch mount has a similar restriction, I believe. That's one reason why the current pad is restricted to A5 or smaller variants.

If they build an Angara pad at Vostochniy (a given, if they want to do a manned Lunar mission, I think) then they may be able to redesign it to take 7 cores.
« Last Edit: 12/31/2012 03:10 PM by douglas100 »
Douglas Clark

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14188
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 3561
  • Likes Given: 533
Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
« Reply #58 on: 01/01/2013 04:09 AM »
I'd been wondering how Khrunichev could claim the Angara A7 design could be capable of lifting up to 75 mt to LEO.  Turns out they "cheated" by producing a huge core with an RD-0120 engine.  :) 

Actually, its only 53.4 t payload with A7.2V/MOB2, including the dry mass of MOB2.

Quote
Those are some seriously impressive Angaras, although by using an RD-0120 from the Energia the design is almost more Energia than it is Angara.  So what do we have for upper stages here?  Am I correct in spotting a 1, 2 and 4 RD-0146 engine upper stages?

I think there are either one or two engines, not four. The largest stage is about double the mass of smallest stage. We also see one LOX pipe on the larger stages going to one engine, with presumably the other LOX pipe being on the other side going to the other engine.

Quote
I can only hope Russia figures a way out of launching all of the Angara A7 variants from the same launchpad, because for whatever reason they can only launch the Angara 1.2-Angara 5/KVRB off the same pads right now.

With different diameter central cores, I think a different pad would have to be used.
« Last Edit: 01/01/2013 04:19 AM by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Hyperion5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1615
  • Liked: 1136
  • Likes Given: 229
Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
« Reply #59 on: 01/01/2013 06:21 AM »
I'd been wondering how Khrunichev could claim the Angara A7 design could be capable of lifting up to 75 mt to LEO.  Turns out they "cheated" by producing a huge core with an RD-0120 engine.  :) 

Actually, its only 53.4 t payload with A7.2V/MOB2, including the dry mass of MOB2.

Well I've seen some claims about Khrunichev considering an HLV version capable of flinging up to 75 mt to LEO.  Obviously these versions would not be a fulfillment of that claim.  However, given the small size of the RD-0146, I think it shouldn't be too hard to stuff 4 of them into the interior of the largest Angara 7.  With a much bigger hydrolox second stage than the A7.2V/MOB2, I would think 60 mt to LEO should be possible.  Beyond 65 mt is where I'm struggling to understand how you keep the design in the "Angara family" and still hit those payload targets.  I'm doubtful Russia would really need anything much bigger than the Angara A7.2V for lunar missions, so thankfully it's not something that should worry anybody. 


Those are some seriously impressive Angaras, although by using an RD-0120 from the Energia the design is almost more Energia than it is Angara.  So what do we have for upper stages here?  Am I correct in spotting a 1, 2 and 4 RD-0146 engine upper stages?

I think there are either one or two engines, not four. The largest stage is about double the mass of smallest stage. We also see one LOX pipe on the larger stages going to one engine, with presumably the other LOX pipe being on the other side going to the other engine.

Well given there are proposed Soyuz rockets with four RD-0146 engines in a smaller core, I'd say at least we know the Angara series has a lot of upgrade potential.  Personally I'd recommend they ditch the Briz-M and stick with only the RD-0146 in varying numbers for the smaller versions' 3rd stages & the bigger versions' 2nd stages.  It's a great engine and I'd guess will probably not have nearly the same reliability issues as the Briz-M stage. 


I can only hope Russia figures a way out of launching all of the Angara A7 variants from the same launchpad, because for whatever reason they can only launch the Angara 1.2-Angara 5/KVRB off the same pads right now.

With different diameter central cores, I think a different pad would have to be used.

Well that's going to defeat some of the purpose of building the Angara series if they need 3 pads to launch all the versions.  If I had my way, I'd just up the RD-0146 engine count and hydrolox quantity to up the capacity of the Angara 7 with the 4.1 m kerolox core.  That'd let you get away with only 2 pads.  With only 2 pads, you'd have an easier time getting lunar missions funded and a higher flight rate per pad. 
« Last Edit: 01/01/2013 06:23 AM by Hyperion5 »

Tags: