publiusr - 15/3/2006 1:42 PMHow does Tsyklon compare with Dnepr? Both are R-36 based craft--with Dnepr being newer (SS-18 R-36M Voevoda) with Tsyclon being SS-9 (R-36) class.
The main difference is that R-36M/Dnepr was a reengined version of R-36/Tsyklon. Tsyklon's first stage was powered by three sets of dual-chamber RD251 engines producing a total of 270 tonnes of thrust in vacuum. Dnepr has a single four-chamber RD264 that produces 461 tonnes of vacuum thrust. Dnepr doesn't weigh much more than Tsyklon 3 (211 tonnes versus 190 tonnes), so the newer rocket accelerates faster during initial ascent by comparison.
Finally, Dnepr is "mortar launched" from an underground silo while Tsyklon flies from an above ground pad. The Dnepr launch sequence involves use of a kind of "plug" that pushes the rocket out of the silo. After it pops above ground, the "plug" (I'm sure the Russians have a better name for it) is pushed aside by a thruster firing just before the main engines ignite on the Dnepr that is, at that point, hovoring above everything in midair! The launches are a bit "exciting", to say the least.
lmike - 13/3/2006 3:50 PMNot definitive information, but all open Russian and Ukrainian sources I've read on this talk about the 7 Tsyklon-2 remaining in Russia planned to be converted to Tsyklon-2k at Roscosmos expense. And a possibility of manufacturing of up to (!) 3 (!) Tsyklon-3 at Yuzhnoe, Ukraine. (Re-)opening the production lines is not planned, AFAIK. I never got an impression it's a long-haul program (and frankly, the point of this whole thing escapes me).
Danderman - 9/10/2006 10:05 PMQuotelmike - 13/3/2006 3:50 PMNot definitive information, but all open Russian and Ukrainian sources I've read on this talk about the 7 Tsyklon-2 remaining in Russia planned to be converted to Tsyklon-2k at Roscosmos expense. And a possibility of manufacturing of up to (!) 3 (!) Tsyklon-3 at Yuzhnoe, Ukraine. (Re-)opening the production lines is not planned, AFAIK. I never got an impression it's a long-haul program (and frankly, the point of this whole thing escapes me).I have seen new Tsiklon rockets being assembled, so there is some production capability available. Why would new ones be built (there still are a handful of the old ICBMs in hand, as well), well, the Cyclone-4 program is one reason, another is that the Ukraine may have a requirement to launch spacecraft that are too small for Zenit. As far as I know, all Dneprs are in the hands of the Russians, so that leaves Tsiklon.
sammie - 10/10/2006 5:52 AM I don't think the internal Ukrainian market is that large, considering that very few satellites have been launched for local needs recently. The prime reason for restarting the Tsyklon production would be the commercial deal with Brazil for the modernised Tsyklon 4. However the Tsyklon is a bit more powerfull (and reliable) then most proposed and currently operating small launchers.
Once again, there is no data to indicate that the Tsiklon assembly line was ever shut down, I think this is just an assumption going around (the Dnepr assembly line IS shut down, however). I have seen as many as 3 Tsiklon boosters in construction at one time.
It is important to realize that in many ways, the Tsiklon assembly line and the Zenit assembly line are the same thing.
The Tsyklon production line at Dnepropetrovsk has been practically dismantled and only seven LV Tsyklon-2 are now available for launch services. Tsyklon is marketed by the United Start Corporation and no commercial launches have been performed as yet.
sammie - 25/3/2007 7:19 PM From link QuoteThe Tsyklon production line at Dnepropetrovsk has been practically dismantled and only seven LV Tsyklon-2 are now available for launch services. Tsyklon is marketed by the United Start Corporation and no commercial launches have been performed as yet. Astronautix also claims its out of production. I really don't think that Tsiklon and Zenit share the same production line, same assembly building, of course, but not line. It would defeat the whole purpose of a production line to build two completly different vehicles on the same line. There is a backlog of completed but stored boosters.
About the time that article was written, I was at the factory watching Tsyklons being assembled. I would be surprised if the Tskylon 4 is being built now at the factory, at least a single prototype (the lower stages for this model are different than from the earlier Tsyklon 2 and 3 stages). As for the question of two differenet assembly lines, it might be a semantic difference, since "lines" as commonly defined aren't really in evidence at Yuzhmash. But, Zenits and Tsyklons were being constructed next to each other, and from time to time it was confusing which was which.
Yodha - 5/4/2007 10:25 AM I read in the January 29, 2007 issue of Space News that General Popovkin said the Cyclone is being phased out. Lot of wiggle room in that statement though. Exactly how long is the phase out period? COuld be a couple of months or it could be a few years given the limited missions going to the Cyclone. Article also said that Russia would lean on the Rockot for military launches. Sorry no link, I get it in hard-copy
No question that Russia would replace a Ukrainian vehicle with a Russian vehicle for military missions. On the other hand, the Ukrainians claim that they are developing Cyclone-4 for commercial purposes.
Danderman - 5/4/2007 1:58 PM No question that Russia would replace a Ukrainian vehicle with a Russian vehicle for military missions. On the other hand, the Ukrainians claim that they are developing Cyclone-4 for commercial purposes.
