Jim - 20/4/2008 2:02 PM
The FGB is a LEO vehicle, its avionics is only designed for LEO, it's thermal systems (passive and active) are for LEO.
The thrusters on the FGB are too weak for a TLI and it doesn't have the propellant capacity for it neither. FGB doesn't have an air revitalization system.
FGB doesn't have an air revitalization system
Iren - 20/4/2008 1:17 PM
Well I though of FGB acting as a place where Soyuz could dock and let the crew transfer to a reusable, refuelable lander (also as the refueling post for the lander and Soyuz). Probably an Elektron would be enough to help on crew transfer periods.
Jim - 20/4/2008 3:03 PM
And now better solar arrays for the increased loads
pm1823 - 20/4/2008 12:27 PM and protection from interplanetary radiation. Lunar module will have a totally different structure, maybe with 2 walls and water layer between.
Works better with non-metallic "walls" - radiation byproducts of metal scattering can get through the water .
Iren - 20/4/2008 2:43 PMQuoteJim - 20/4/2008 3:03 PM
And now better solar arrays for the increased loads
We are talking about structural stress loads or power loads? If its about power, Zarya made a good job keeping Unity's systems, probably would need minimal changes to keep the lunar lander systems alive... Lunar lander could have Soyuz-like retractable solar arrays to generate power...
Jim - 20/4/2008 4:08 PMQuoteIren - 20/4/2008 2:43 PMQuoteJim - 20/4/2008 3:03 PM
And now better solar arrays for the increased loads
We are talking about structural stress loads or power loads? If its about power, Zarya made a good job keeping Unity's systems, probably would need minimal changes to keep the lunar lander systems alive... Lunar lander could have Soyuz-like retractable solar arrays to generate power...
Power loads for all the life support systems you keep adding.
Unity didn't have any systems except for lights and some heaters.
nobodyofconsequence - 20/4/2008 3:26 PM
One thing you don't need is the reboost capability - no atmospheric drag.
DMeader - 20/4/2008 9:06 PM
Yes, nice illustrations, but I'd be willing to bet that's all that there is to it, and probably all there will ever be to it. Don't ever get excited about any of the "plans" that you hear about until hardware actually leaves the ground.
I mean, they lack the money to finish the ISS modules they want to launch. Where will the funding for the FGB to the moon come from?
Iren - 20/4/2008 5:09 PMAngara is well on it's way. The Russians have good reason to complete it, and they are making real progress. Metal has been bent, pads modified, test firings are planned to start this year (http://www.khrunichev.ru/khrunichev_eng/live/full_rel.asp?id=14847).
I'd actually start thinking its possible when I see an Angara flying, if you get what i mean ;)
hop - 20/4/2008 9:48 PM
Angara is well on it's way. The Russians have good reason to complete it, and they are making real progress. Metal has been bent, pads modified, test firings are planned to start this year (http://www.khrunichev.ru/khrunichev_eng/live/full_rel.asp?id=14847).
DMeader - 20/4/2008 6:10 PMHuh? Elementary perturbation theory tells you that any alteration will eventual reverse itself and we'll be back to the same orbit eventually.Quotenobodyofconsequence - 20/4/2008 3:26 PM One thing you don't need is the reboost capability - no atmospheric drag.Lunar orbits are perturbed by the masscons and you'd need maneuver/reboost capability even without atmospheric drag.
So what if you slightly change orbit for a while. Its predictable, so you work it in to the mission plan.
The cost of lunar supplies is 8x-10x LEO. Do you really need this?
In short, LEO and Lunar orbit are different animals - design from the bottom up different.
Makes no sense to use FGB - no advantage. Unless, of course, you need to fake up a lunar program out of thin air to bully with. Then a FGB in lunar orbit is potentially more than the group your bullying has to promote.
nacnud - 20/4/2008 7:00 PM
The module on the left looks like the ascent stage of a Luna lander. Another lander can be seen in the foreground .
Iren - 20/4/2008 5:53 PMThat seems to be pure powerpoint, and seems to share little with the actual Angara rocket beyond the name and RD-170 family engines.
Hehe that was my fault, I meant the Angara-100 heavy lift rocket.
But youre right, in terms of developement, Angara-100 is far closer than Ares V or other proposed heavy lift rockets...I didn't say that, and I certainly don't agree with it. Ares V has a mission that is (for the moment anyway) approved by the people who hold the purse strings.
nobodyofconsequence - 20/4/2008 9:08 PMQuoteDMeader - 20/4/2008 6:10 PMHuh? Elementary perturbation theory tells you that any alteration will eventual reverse itself and we'll be back to the same orbit eventually.Quotenobodyofconsequence - 20/4/2008 3:26 PM One thing you don't need is the reboost capability - no atmospheric drag.Lunar orbits are perturbed by the masscons and you'd need maneuver/reboost capability even without atmospheric drag.So what if you slightly change orbit for a while. Its predictable, so you work it in to the mission plan.
Jim - 20/4/2008 8:47 PMQuotenobodyofconsequence - 20/4/2008 9:08 PMQuoteDMeader - 20/4/2008 6:10 PMHuh? Elementary perturbation theory tells you that any alteration will eventual reverse itself and we'll be back to the same orbit eventually.Quotenobodyofconsequence - 20/4/2008 3:26 PM One thing you don't need is the reboost capability - no atmospheric drag.Lunar orbits are perturbed by the masscons and you'd need maneuver/reboost capability even without atmospheric drag.So what if you slightly change orbit for a while. Its predictable, so you work it in to the mission plan.
Not exactly, lunar orbits are unstable. The subsatellites released on Apollo 15 &16 eventually crashed into the moon
hop - 20/4/2008 10:14 PMQuoteIren - 20/4/2008 5:53 PMI didn't say that, and I certainly don't agree with it. Ares V has a mission that is (for the moment anyway) approved by the people who hold the purse strings.
But youre right, in terms of developement, Angara-100 is far closer than Ares V or other proposed heavy lift rockets...
Iren - 20/4/2008 11:55 PMYour mistake is assuming that the Angara that is being developed has anything to do with "Angara 100".
Angara (light configuration) is going to have a test flight in 2 years, around the same time J2-X will have its first test firings.
Iren - 21/4/2008 4:33 AM
1) First and second stage engines wich could be used for Angara-100 are on test phase right now. First and second stage engines for Ares V... not. We dont even know if they will ever work.
) First and second stage engines wich could be used for Angara-100 are on test phase right now. First and second stage engines for Ares V... not. We dont even know if they will ever work.
2) If Khrunichev decides to start real developing Angara-100, they already achieved several milestones. Thats not the same with Ares V.
3) Khrunichev announced some days ago that they are on shape to develope the Angara-100 spacecraft if necessary. I translate this as "we can do it, we got the knowhow and the necessary hardware, but we need the money". Give them some budget to develope that spacecraft and they will fly it before Ares V, I'm sure of that..
William Barton - 21/4/2008 1:00 PMIt's made in Ukraine (not Russia).
It always seemed to me that the path of least resistance for a Russian super-heavy launcher would be to attach four Zenit-1 strap-ons to a Zenit-2/3 first stage, resulting in something equivalent to an SIC, and proceed from there. Is there something radically wrong with that idea, that it isn't being pursued?
Iren - 21/4/2008 1:33 AMNitpick: The RD-191 engines that are in testing for Angara (1-5) would not be used on Angara 100, as they are far too small.
1) First and second stage engines wich could be used for Angara-100 are on test phase right now.
William Barton - 21/4/2008 9:00 PM
I have a question-from-ignorance tangentially related to the Angara-100 subthread:
It always seemed to me that the path of least resistance for a Russian super-heavy launcher would be to attach four Zenit-1 strap-ons to a Zenit-2/3 first stage, resulting in something equivalent to an SIC, and proceed from there. Is there something radically wrong with that idea, that it isn't being pursued? It's as if the US still had the F1 engine in production and flying, but was unable to decide what tank configuration to use to get the Saturn V back. The 5-Zenit LV, requiring only small modifications from existing components, wouldn't necessarily even need an engine for the "second stage," just just more tankage that drained into the sustainer core. The result would look a lot like an enormous R-7. It seems as though something like that would be the cheapest path to a super-heavy, and since they are going to build all-new ground infrastructure in the far east in the coming decade, they have a golden opportunity to proceed. Of course, I'm also mystified by the Ares architecture, when something that uses existing STS components is only rejected as either "too big," or "too little," but this seems equally strange. And the Angara-100 looks like four Zenits lifting an Atlas V aloft, which seems like a lot more redesign, including an air-startable RD-180.
neviden - 21/4/2008 8:45 AMQuoteWilliam Barton - 21/4/2008 1:00 PMIt's made in Ukraine (not Russia).
It always seemed to me that the path of least resistance for a Russian super-heavy launcher would be to attach four Zenit-1 strap-ons to a Zenit-2/3 first stage, resulting in something equivalent to an SIC, and proceed from there. Is there something radically wrong with that idea, that it isn't being pursued?
Spacenick - 22/4/2008 7:05 AM
Shouldn't most of the Energia developsers still be working at RKK? I mean it's not nearly as long ago as the Saturn-V
William Barton - 22/4/2008 5:12 AMRegardless whether it is reasonable or not, Russia has spent a lot of time and money getting away from depending on Ukraine. There's no reason to expect that to suddenly reverse.
I understand the line of reasoning there. It does seem a lot less reasonable than US concerns with using the RD-180. Then again, I'm not a government.
William Barton - 22/4/2008 7:16 AMQuoteSpacenick - 22/4/2008 7:05 AM
Shouldn't most of the Energia developsers still be working at RKK? I mean it's not nearly as long ago as the Saturn-V
Twenty years is a long time. Even with the same workers still available (assuming they're not busy doing something else), I bet it would be hard to put an LV back in production.
Jorge - 20/4/2008 9:50 PMQuoteJim - 20/4/2008 8:47 PMRight. The perturbations caused by the mascons do not increase or decrease the total energy of the orbit, but they can increase eccentricity to the point that perilune intersects the lunar surface if not corrected. Being able to predict it is not enough. Reboost capability is mandatory for long-term presence in low lunar orbit.Quotenobodyofconsequence - 20/4/2008 9:08 PMNot exactly, lunar orbits are unstable. The subsatellites released on Apollo 15 &16 eventually crashed into the moonQuoteDMeader - 20/4/2008 6:10 PMHuh? Elementary perturbation theory tells you that any alteration will eventual reverse itself and we'll be back to the same orbit eventually.Quotenobodyofconsequence - 20/4/2008 3:26 PM One thing you don't need is the reboost capability - no atmospheric drag.Lunar orbits are perturbed by the masscons and you'd need maneuver/reboost capability even without atmospheric drag.So what if you slightly change orbit for a while. Its predictable, so you work it in to the mission plan.
Knew about the mascons and the sub satellites. Know that if you have a process that increases eccentricity, you can use the same process with different timing to decrease it. Meant by predictable that you actively adapt a orbit to maintain use of the asset.
You mean no one in 30 years commissioned a study to examine using the mascons themselves to stabilize orbits with minimum/no fuel? The state of the art in orbital dynamics is 1000x what it was in Apollo days, and the computers are a billion times better. It's cheap - few hundred K to a JHU professor for a few years and a couple of papers. Much better than thousands of kilo's of storable props to LLO. Thought that issue had been solved by now.
Jorge - 22/4/2008 5:50 PMQuoteWilliam Barton - 22/4/2008 7:16 AMQuoteSpacenick - 22/4/2008 7:05 AM
Shouldn't most of the Energia developsers still be working at RKK? I mean it's not nearly as long ago as the Saturn-V
Twenty years is a long time. Even with the same workers still available (assuming they're not busy doing something else), I bet it would be hard to put an LV back in production.
More to the point, early on in those twenty years the USSR collapsed and the Energia program was cancelled. A lot of Russian space workers left the industry during those times.
nobodyofconsequence - 22/4/2008 7:57 PMNot without an accurate model, which we are lacking especially for the far side. Kaguya and it's sub satellites should improve this situation significantly.
It's cheap - few hundred K to a JHU professor for a few years and a couple of papers.
Jim - 21/4/2008 6:05 AMQuoteIren - 21/4/2008 4:33 AM
1) First and second stage engines wich could be used for Angara-100 are on test phase right now. First and second stage engines for Ares V... not. We dont even know if they will ever work.
) First and second stage engines wich could be used for Angara-100 are on test phase right now. First and second stage engines for Ares V... not. We dont even know if they will ever work.
2) If Khrunichev decides to start real developing Angara-100, they already achieved several milestones. Thats not the same with Ares V.
3) Khrunichev announced some days ago that they are on shape to develope the Angara-100 spacecraft if necessary. I translate this as "we can do it, we got the knowhow and the necessary hardware, but we need the money". Give them some budget to develope that spacecraft and they will fly it before Ares V, I'm sure of that..
The RS-68 for the Ares-V exists
#3 is just marketing spin and not a valid point
Sid454 - 23/4/2008 12:28 AM
Call me crazy but wouldn't the Mir/Salyut core be a better choice since it's a more fully self contained station?
Sid454 - 22/4/2008 11:59 PM
In many of your posts I seen you discount all things Russian often on questionable grounds.
Iren - 23/4/2008 3:13 AMQuoteSid454 - 23/4/2008 12:28 AM
Call me crazy but wouldn't the Mir/Salyut core be a better choice since it's a more fully self contained station?
That's been proposed, check on http://www.russianspaceweb.com/los.html, its far better than sending a FGB
ESA considers cislunar space station for lunar exploration
By Rob Coppinger
The European Space Agency, Russia and Japan are all considering a cislunar orbital complex that could consist of a habitation section and a resource module that would provide power and fuel and possibly be a safe haven for Orion crew exploration vehicle crews.
How often would be needed to correct a LLO spacecraft orbit?