Discussion about Proton from Thor 5 thread

• Discussion about Proton from Thor 5 thread by @RD170@ on 12 Jan, 2008 14:42
• We must remember that Soviets make all LV suitable to transport by train. Most of designs where suitable for War times.  Its funny that all things made with bad intentions are being used nowadays to improve comunications, remote sensing ...
  
  anik note: all messages of this thread are moved from Thor 5 thread
• #1 by pm1823 on 12 Jan, 2008 21:58
• "Proton" intended for war?! Get away with it!
  It's pure space transport LV, not an ICBM in any kind. And the Railroad was, and still is, main limiting factor for a stage length and diameter(4100mm) in Russian' rocket industry. To fit in the transport limit is not a wartime condition. Limits on transportation is not only military problem, any civil engineering project has one.
  
  
• #2 by Danderman on 17 Jan, 2008 03:29

• Quote

  pm1823 - 12/1/2008  2:58 PM  "Proton" intended for war?! Get away with it!  It's pure space transport LV, not an ICBM in any kind. And the Railroad was, and still is, main limiting factor for a stage length and diameter(4100mm) in Russian' rocket industry. To fit in the transport limit is not a wartime condition. Limits on transportation is not only military problem, any civil engineering project has one.  

  You would be surprised to learn that the initial authorization for development of Proton was as an ICBM, designed to carry the largest Soviet nukes. The 2 stage Proton was to be deployed underground, in an enormous silo, in which 6 Protons at a time would stand by on a carousel. If need be, a single Proton would be launched from the single silo, and the next Proton would then be rotated on the carousel into the silo. This would have been the ultimate "six shooter".

  This is the reason why the first three launches of Proton had an undersized second stage and no third stage, as the ICBM variant did not require orbital velocity.

   

   

• #3 by Nicolas PILLET on 17 Jan, 2008 07:59
• 8K82 is NOT  an ICBM which has been turned into a launch vehicle.
  
  Since the very beginning, this project did have TWO versions : ICBM and launcher.
• #4 by pm1823 on 17 Jan, 2008 19:17
• You mix in the one meal a very early conception of using Universal Rocket (UR)-500 as ICBM and reality. In such case, we can say that Space Shuttle or any new SSTO concept designed as orbital nuclear bomber, because there’s such a possible using for USAF.
  
  1960 - UR-500  appearing as concept for heavy 2-stage orbital rocket-carrier, 2-stage carrier for heavy ICBM 2F17 and various future war rocket-planes, and other also unrealistic "paper-dreams" on ~500tons booster weight scheme, like "six shooter" silo, in your mention.
  Spring 1961 – early design begins in OKB-52
  1962 – real financing begins.
  1963-64 – critics in AN USSR(NII-4) writes report that as ICBM it will be useless, comparing to much cheaper and effective UR-100 concept, and recommended to make 3 stage space rocket on basis of UR-500, but works on 2-stage “military” version also ongoing.
  1965-66 - Testing of UR-500 in 2-stage and 12 tons “Protons”-1,2,3,4 shows limiting performance as space carrier and a bad readiness time as for new ICBM, 22 days from permanent storage facility to real launch in wartime is too much. Enormous huge infrastructure needed for silo bases kills this rocket on the root, as result, “military” refusing to take it in armament.
  Jule 1965 – government stops design works on UR-500 as 2 stage-rocket (which also was the end for plans of ICBM using), and make focus on the 3-stage-rocket UR-500K, and 4th stage on the basis of 5th stage, from also canceled, N-1.
  Such, Proton never was on duty as ICBM, and even in concept such idea was cuted by AN USSR. Other is BS, just western “cold war” propaganda, based on some inspired by vodka Khruchev's speach, about “if we want, we can put 100-150mt H-bombs on Earth orbit”. Too much credit for lousy statement.
  
• #5 by edkyle99 on 17 Jan, 2008 20:22
• Quote

  pm1823 - 17/1/2008  2:17 PM
  
  You mix in the one meal a very early conception of using Universal Rocket (UR)-500 as ICBM and reality. In such case, we can say that Space Shuttle or any new SSTO concept designed as orbital nuclear bomber, because there’s such a possible using for USAF.
  
  

  
  One important difference.  The early UR-500 (eventual Proton base) design was shaped by the ICBM requirements, however impractical they might have been.  Space Shuttle was not designed with any offensive military use in mind.
  
   - Ed Kyle
• #6 by @RD170@ on 19 Jan, 2008 14:33
• Russians adapt anything for War times, they can kill you with a spoon. If they want.
  They have Hyper Match 25 designs in missiles to pass any present and future defense.
  And all Russians rockets designs are suitable for War times, they use horizontal tecnology to make LV like Zenith and Proton to transport military payloads and maybe nukes. But all this tecnology can´t be used nowadays, only one launch because it´s launch pad is vulnerable to a strike.
  
  We must rember that space is a friend but not in war times.
• #7 by Danderman on 22 Jan, 2008 14:54

• Quote

  edkyle99 - 17/1/2008  1:22 PM   One important difference.  The early UR-500 (eventual Proton base) design was shaped by the ICBM requirements, however impractical they might have been.  Space Shuttle was not designed with any offensive military use in mind.   - Ed Kyle

  More to the point is that the Proton ICBM variant was actually flown. Many proposals have come and gone, and rarely do they reach the point of cutting metal. In this case, the thing successfully flew, leaving little doubt that the origin of Proton was as an ICBM.

  Obviously, at some point, the ICBM plan was dropped, but far enough along that flight hardware produced.

   

   

• #8 by publiusr on 07 Mar, 2008 18:17
• Not so different from the R-7. Korolov could have waited until smaller warheads came along, and built a smaller ICBM (as was the case with Atlas) but Korolov exploited the military's desire for an 'instant' ICBM, built a space booster, and sold it as an ICBM. It sounds like Chelomei did the same thing. Outfit a big ICBM, while sitting on plans for space use later.
• #9 by Jim on 07 Mar, 2008 18:28
• Quote

  publiusr - 7/3/2008  2:17 PM
  
  Not so different from the R-7. Korolov could have waited until smaller warheads came along, and built a smaller ICBM (as was the case with Atlas) but Korolov exploited the military's desire for an 'instant' ICBM, built a space booster, and sold it as an ICBM. It sounds like Chelomei did the same thing. Outfit a big ICBM, while sitting on plans for space use later.

  
  Incorrect,
  1.  the R-7 was designed as an ICBM first, not a space booster.  
  2.  The US did not wait for a smaller warhead
  3.  Chelomei built a booster for a city buster warhead, he scrambled for another use
• #10 by publiusr on 07 Mar, 2008 22:14
• Scrambled? He seems to have been quite the space advocate. He wanted UR-700, much bigger than anybody in the military wanted. Yangel was the dedicated missile man who--at best--advocated a medium heavy R-56, but really had no interest in HLLVs. I'm sure you would have liked him.
• #11 by Capt. David on 14 Mar, 2008 19:06
• While Chelomei is no longer here to defend his position, those that worked with him describe a different man than seems to be presented here. The UR-100 was not built for this, the UR-200 for that, and the UR-500 for the other. The key is the UR for Universal Rocket. Each was designed to be multifunctional, and so that components of one design could be developed for another design. Granted Chelomei was a brilliant military designer, but according to those that worked directly with him, he never intended any of his UR designs to be used exclusively for military purposes, or to be ends in themselves.