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 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.
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 PMQuotenobodyofconsequence - 20/4/2008 9:08 PMQuoteDMeader - 20/4/2008 6:10 PMQuotenobodyofconsequence - 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 moonRight. 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.
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 PM
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?