-
#20
by
on 21 Apr, 2008 01:08
-
DMeader - 20/4/2008 6:10 PM 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
-
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
-
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.
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
-
nobodyofconsequence - 20/4/2008 9:08 PM
DMeader - 20/4/2008 6:10 PM 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
-
Jim - 20/4/2008 8:47 PM
nobodyofconsequence - 20/4/2008 9:08 PM
DMeader - 20/4/2008 6:10 PM 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.
hop - 20/4/2008 10:14 PM
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
-
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.htmlThe 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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
-
#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
-
-
#37
by
Lampyridae
on 22 Apr, 2008 07:08
-
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
-
neviden - 21/4/2008 8:45 AM
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.