FGB to the Moon?

FGB to the Moon? by Iren on 20 Apr, 2008 15:44
How hard would be to send a FGB to lunar orbit? Lets say, launching a pretty empty FGB to LEO, attaching a Progress-tanker or booster and fire it to the moon?

If its possible, then Russia could stablish a lunar orbital post with a reusable lander and start sending regular missions to the moon using Soyuz+boosters for crew transfer (lets say a crew of 2) and Progress+boosters for cargo transfers.

Yes, it will be surely expensive. But I'm asking if it is technically possible.
#1 by Jim on 20 Apr, 2008 17:02
Anything is technically possible with enough money.

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.
#2 by Iren on 20 Apr, 2008 17:17
Quote
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.

That kinda buries my proposal hehe, reburbishing the FGB to be lunar-orbit capable may be too hard or will make necessary to think about a totally different spacecraft.

Quote
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.

Thats why I proposed using a booster to do TLI and lunar orbit braking.

Quote
FGB doesn't have an air revitalization system

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.
#3 by pm1823 on 20 Apr, 2008 17:27
and protection from interplanetary radiation. Lunar module will have a totally different structure, maybe with 2 walls and water layer between.
#4 by Iren on 20 Apr, 2008 17:57
Just found out something simillar to what I thought of... with the difference that this concept is using a Mir-like SM instead of a FGB! It just needs a heavy launcher (100 ton launcher class)

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/los.html
#5 by Jim on 20 Apr, 2008 18:03
Quote
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.

Need CO2 removal and humidity control too. And now better solar arrays for the increased loads
#6 by Iren on 20 Apr, 2008 18:43
Quote
Jim - 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...
#7 by on 20 Apr, 2008 19:25
Quote
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 .
#8 by on 20 Apr, 2008 19:26
One thing you don't need is the reboost capability - no atmospheric drag.
#9 by pm1823 on 20 Apr, 2008 19:59
But station-keeping is still needed.
#10 by Jim on 20 Apr, 2008 21:08
Quote
Iren - 20/4/2008 2:43 PM

Quote
Jim - 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.
#11 by Jim on 20 Apr, 2008 21:08
still a non viable vehicle for lunar use
#12 by Jorge on 20 Apr, 2008 22:54
Quote
Jim - 20/4/2008 4:08 PM

Quote
Iren - 20/4/2008 2:43 PM

Quote
Jim - 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.

I believe it also has at least two MDMs (N1-1 and N1-2). Still nothing compared to what a lunar lander would need, so your point is still valid.
#13 by DMeader on 20 Apr, 2008 23:10
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 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.
#14 by Iren on 20 Apr, 2008 23:16
Well for what I've seen on the website I posted above, the concept of sending a Salyut family space station to lunar orbit is being considered for some time in the future by Khrunichev.

Cons: They will have to wait for the heavy Angara rockets, and no one knows when are those going to fly (or built)

I'm still trying to figure out whats the module at the side of the station, and if the crew carrier pictured there has something with ATV...
#15 by nacnud on 21 Apr, 2008 00:00
The module on the left looks like the ascent stage of a Luna lander. Another lander can be seen in the foreground .
#16 by DMeader on 21 Apr, 2008 00:06
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?
#17 by Iren on 21 Apr, 2008 00:09
Quote
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'd actually start thinking its possible when I see an Angara flying, if you get what i mean

Quote
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?

Europe? :bleh:
#18 by hop on 21 Apr, 2008 00:48
Quote
Iren - 20/4/2008 5:09 PM
I'd actually start thinking its possible when I see an Angara flying, if you get what i mean
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.

However, that doesn't say much about manned moon missions. In terms of lift capacity, the heaviest version is roughly comparable to Proton.
#19 by Iren on 21 Apr, 2008 00:53
Quote
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.

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...

Oh well, this is part of a totally different topic
#20 by on 21 Apr, 2008 01:08
Quote
DMeader - 20/4/2008 6:10 PM
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 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.
Huh? Elementary perturbation theory tells you that any alteration will eventual reverse itself and we'll be back to the same orbit eventually.
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.
#21 by Bill White on 21 Apr, 2008 01:12
Quote
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 .

The text at the website states there is a previously used lunar ascent stage docked at the mid-point of the FGB-2.
#22 by hop on 21 Apr, 2008 01:14
Quote
Iren - 20/4/2008 5:53 PM
Hehe that was my fault, I meant the Angara-100 heavy lift rocket.
That seems to be pure powerpoint, and seems to share little with the actual Angara rocket beyond the name and RD-170 family engines.
Quote
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.
#23 by Jim on 21 Apr, 2008 01:47
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 20/4/2008 9:08 PM

Quote
DMeader - 20/4/2008 6:10 PM
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 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.
Huh? Elementary perturbation theory tells you that any alteration will eventual reverse itself and we'll be back to the same orbit eventually.
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
#24 by Jorge on 21 Apr, 2008 02:50
Quote
Jim - 20/4/2008 8:47 PM

Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 20/4/2008 9:08 PM

Quote
DMeader - 20/4/2008 6:10 PM
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 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.
Huh? Elementary perturbation theory tells you that any alteration will eventual reverse itself and we'll be back to the same orbit eventually.
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

Right. 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.
#25 by Iren on 21 Apr, 2008 06:55
I'd like to know if some moderator can split this thread since my main question has been finely answered, leaving open a discussion about sending a space station to moon orbit, but also an interesting discussion about Ares V & Angara-100 developing has just started.

Quote
hop - 20/4/2008 10:14 PM

Quote
Iren - 20/4/2008 5:53 PM
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.

Well I dont really know how far are Ares V and Angara-100 to become real, but for what I've seen on threads here, 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. I mean that RKA already developed the engines needed for Angara-100 and is undergoing test phase, while NASA still faces many technologic challenges regarding J2-X (including performance). If Russia can get the funding (wich I think its not impossible), they can have Angara-100 way before Ares V.
#26 by hop on 21 Apr, 2008 08:18
Quote
Iren - 20/4/2008 11:55 PM
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.
Your mistake is assuming that the Angara that is being developed has anything to do with "Angara 100".

Angara (the real one that's undergoing development right now) uses CCBs with a single RD-190. The 5 core heavy is roughly equivalent to Proton. Development to date has been slow, presumably to keep costs down, but it is clearly happening.

Angara 100 is not under development, does not exist outside of powerpoint, and isn't closely related to Angara above.
Going by http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara100.html
The engines for the first two stages (RD 170 and RD-180) both exist, but the stages themselves would presumably be all new. They certainly couldn't share much the the vanilla Angara. The third stage uses the RD-0122. This is supposed to be a modified version of the RD-0120 (Energia equivalent of the SSME), but it again is pure powerpoint. Just restarting RD-0120 production would be costly, since it hasn't been produced since the collapse of the USSR. Even if the plans and tooling have been carefully preserved, knowhow and suppliers will inevitably have been lost.

I don't doubt that they could build it given enough money (possibly before Ares V, assuming for the moment that Ares V actually gets built) but zero development has been done, and no plausible source of funding is apparent.
#27 by Iren on 21 Apr, 2008 08:33
There is where we both agree, on the fact that with current funding Angara-100 wont exist outside the papers. But I think that technically speaking, Angara-100 is much closer than Ares V because:

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.
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.

Still, I have to agree that Ares V has something that Angara-100 doesnt: money.
#28 by William Barton on 21 Apr, 2008 11:00
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.
#29 by Jim on 21 Apr, 2008 11:05
Quote
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..

The RS-68 for the Ares-V exists

#3 is just marketing spin and not a valid point
#30 by neviden on 21 Apr, 2008 12:45
Quote
William Barton - 21/4/2008 1:00 PM
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 made in Ukraine (not Russia).
#31 by hop on 21 Apr, 2008 21:43
Quote
Iren - 21/4/2008 1:33 AM
1) First and second stage engines wich could be used for Angara-100 are on test phase right now.
Nitpick: 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.

Angara 100 uses the RD-170, which is out of production, but so similar to the RD-171 in current production for Zenit that it probably isn't a big deal.
#32 by infocat13 on 22 Apr, 2008 02:55
well any human effert to the moon will need cargoe I remember Zond when I was a kid what was it? willl it beat us to the moon?
but anyways was the idea the behind this thread that FGB would be unmanned to the moon?
and this thread leds me to wonder about some of Jims Answers, what would be the design issues in geting ATV and other ISS components to luner orbit or LI and there is off course the commercial proposel for sending tourists around the moon in a soyuz.........................................many of jims comments in this thread apply to soyuz as well?
#33 by on 22 Apr, 2008 03:50
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/los.html
#34 by on 22 Apr, 2008 03:51
The only possibility for launch FGB to the Moon is using the development Angara Heavy rocket
#35 by pm1823 on 22 Apr, 2008 04:26
Nobody will launch FGB to the Moon. It's a complete nonsense. Lunar Orbital Station will be a much different craft, not "Almaz" style at all.
#36 by on 22 Apr, 2008 04:50
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/iss_fgb2.html

Current FGB-2
#37 by Lampyridae on 22 Apr, 2008 07:08
Quote
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.

A heavy-lift version of the Zenit was proposed, with 3 first stage boosters. I think that would probably be able to put 25-30 tonnes into orbit. With 5 first stage boosters, maybe 40-45mT. Getting the most out of it would depend on a cryogenic US.

I would think that the LH/LOX engine from the Angara-V would be the basis for the US of the Angara-100, which stems from Energia development. The core would probably be LOX/kero as well. It might make use of the Energia pads at Baikonur. The Zenit strapons could also possibly be recovered as with Energiya and the Baikal flyback booster for Angara. >EDIT< However, that all depends on development rubles which ain't anywhere to be seen.

Up until 2002 there was an Energia/Buran stack sitting in a hangar in Baikonur, with elements for another Energia stack. Some people were hoping it could be purchased for a private Mars expedition, when their ideas were crushed, literally, by the roof falling in.

Unfortunately, only a few RD-0120 engines still exist (equivalent to cheap SSME's) and the factory has long been converted to other uses (bang goes the idea of resurrecting Energia). There's conflicting info on those engines, though. I'm not even sure of their name.

P.S. There is still one other flight Buran (FWIW) stored at Baikonour (apparently).
#38 by Spacenick on 22 Apr, 2008 11:05
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
#39 by William Barton on 22 Apr, 2008 12:12
Quote
neviden - 21/4/2008 8:45 AM

Quote
William Barton - 21/4/2008 1:00 PM
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 made in Ukraine (not Russia).

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.
#40 by William Barton on 22 Apr, 2008 12:16
Quote
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

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.
#41 by hop on 22 Apr, 2008 22:30
Quote
William Barton - 22/4/2008 5:12 AM
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.
Regardless 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.

Keep in mind that Ukraine (or at least one powerful political faction) wants to join NATO, which many in Russia see as a direct confrontation. There are also the gas disputes. Russia wouldn't want to be in position where Ukraine could say "If you turn off the gas, we hold all LV related components up in customs"
#42 by Jorge on 22 Apr, 2008 22:50
Quote
William Barton - 22/4/2008 7:16 AM

Quote
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

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.
#43 by on 23 Apr, 2008 02:57
Quote
Jorge - 20/4/2008 9:50 PM
Quote
Jim - 20/4/2008 8:47 PM
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 20/4/2008 9:08 PM
Quote
DMeader - 20/4/2008 6:10 PM
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 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.
Huh? Elementary perturbation theory tells you that any alteration will eventual reverse itself and we'll be back to the same orbit eventually.
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
Right. 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.
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.
#44 by Sid454 on 23 Apr, 2008 03:28
Call me crazy but wouldn't the Mir/Salyut core be a better choice since it's a more fully self contained station?
As for TLI you just attach an upper stage to it or a solar ion tug.

As for compensating the any perturbations caused by mass concentrations ie uneven non spherical gravity why not use ion thrusters.

BTW on either craft I don't think the thermo controls would need very substantial upgrades to operate in the lunar environment.

As for the ECLSS the Russian hardware is more up to the task then anything western that has flown yet.

Until ISS all western space craft life support systems were strait open loop nothing was recycled.

Though the L1 point might be a better home for your station then low lunar orbit from a logistics stand point.

But the LLO station does have it's own merits such as one could visit the lunar surface from it in a very simple open lander then return to the station.

Include a small fuel depot that is restocked by robotic NEP or solar tugs one could easily explore many wide ranging locations on the lunar surface this way.

Also a more detailed mascon map that would inevitably result from such a station could be useful in finding minerals such as nickel and iron.
#45 by Sid454 on 23 Apr, 2008 03:30
Quote
Jorge - 22/4/2008 5:50 PM

Quote
William Barton - 22/4/2008 7:16 AM

Quote
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

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.

Loosing the Energia was a huge loose to space exploration maybe even bigger then then Sat V since it was a more flexible and affordable vehicle.
#46 by hop on 23 Apr, 2008 03:34
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 22/4/2008 7:57 PM
It's cheap - few hundred K to a JHU professor for a few years and a couple of papers.
Not without an accurate model, which we are lacking especially for the far side. Kaguya and it's sub satellites should improve this situation significantly.
#47 by Sid454 on 23 Apr, 2008 03:59
Quote
Jim - 21/4/2008 6:05 AM

Quote
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..

The RS-68 for the Ares-V exists

#3 is just marketing spin and not a valid point

The J2X doesn't exist yet also why are you so hard on the Russians anyway?

In many of your posts I seen you discount all things Russian often on questionable grounds.

I don't see the Russians pursuing a horrible design like Ares or being so bad at mass management they delete their landing system and redundant systems.

As for funding for Ares V that might be more fanciful then Angara-100 getting funding.

The US economy is a mess so congress will be looking at how to do things cheaper.

The Russian economy on the other hand is booming and at a historic high.

I doubt Ares will survive the next president let alone till 2015 when Ares V development begins in earnest.

If the US does ever return to the moon I doubt it will be with Ares or Orion but likely via some descendant of a private vehicle and the EELVs/Falcon .

The only way I see Orion and shuttle derived hardware having a chance is if they make some rapid changes to something along the lines of direct and show some real tests .
#48 by Iren on 23 Apr, 2008 08:13
Quote
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?

That's been proposed, check on http://www.russianspaceweb.com/los.html, its far better than sending a FGB
#49 by Jim on 23 Apr, 2008 11:52
Quote
Sid454 - 22/4/2008 11:59 PM

In many of your posts I seen you discount all things Russian often on questionable grounds.

Because you keep bringing up Russia projects that don't exist beyond power point and are not being actively worked.

Bad or good, Ares and J-2 is being actively developed as we speak.
#50 by Bill White on 23 Apr, 2008 15:32
Quote
Iren - 23/4/2008 3:13 AM

Quote
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?

That's been proposed, check on http://www.russianspaceweb.com/los.html, its far better than sending a FGB

News item:

Quote
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.

Whether the FGB-2 could be a useful addition to a joint station (other units provide habitation and additional capabilities) would seem to be a question of doing trade studies.

Use FGB-2 off the shelf or build a new module?

LLO would not be a stable place, leaving EML-1 and/or EML-2 as the most logical destination.
#51 by Iren on 24 Apr, 2008 00:17
How often would be needed to correct a LLO spacecraft orbit? as in LEO, more or less often?
#52 by nacnud on 24 Apr, 2008 00:57
Quote
How often would be needed to correct a LLO spacecraft orbit?

Alot more than in LEO, LLO is unstable due to mass concentrations (mascons) in the moon that chaotically affect space craft in LLO.
#53 by on 24 Apr, 2008 06:41
Not strictly chaos - for that you'd need a randomized element. Its just a single lumpy rock - not one thats changing (e.g. fluid core with thermal processes). In this case it's time reversible/invariant. Assuming you know the gradients, it may be that you can move the apsides occasionally to reverse the effects. Or something simpler. Depends.

Unlike LEO, where energy is dissipated. And the ionospheric drag is chaotic.