Propforce - 3/4/2006 5:05 PMGreat Story and Links. Thanks for posting.Is it true that all propellant used on Zenit are shipped directly from Russia, instead of using the US made RP-1? I understand the Russian kerosene fuel, RG-1, is somewhat different from the US RP-1?Also noted on the "open interstage" design. Very interesting !
DaveS - 5/4/2006 5:30 PMLaunch has been delayed 24 hrs to April 12.
DaveS - 6/4/2006 2:30 AMLaunch has been delayed 24 hrs to April 12
Svetoslav - 12/4/2006 6:23 PMIs Zenit using liquid propellants?
Jamie Young - 12/4/2006 5:02 PMHow do they get enough propellent into such a small upper stage for these long burns?
David BAE - 13/4/2006 5:14 PMDo we have any Sea Launch people here. One of my collegues is looking to join them. Maybe some of the Lockheed Martin people can help?
bobrogg - 13/4/2006 12:40 PMYep, You have one Sea Launch guy here. We are getting ready to head home from this mission and get ready for the next launch (June 5th?). Thanks for the great coverage guys!Bob
bobrogg - 13/4/2006 9:40 PMget ready for the next launch (June 5th?)
anik - 12/4/2006 7:44 PMQuoteDaveS - 6/4/2006 2:30 AMLaunch has been delayed 24 hrs to April 12I am sorry, but I have forgotten to tell about a reason of this delay... Japanese was ill aboard the Sea Launch Commander ship... They were compelled to land him on the nearest island for rendering medical aid, therefore a day was lost...
David BAE - 13/4/2006 12:14 PMDo we have any Sea Launch people here. One of my collegues is looking to join them. Maybe some of the Lockheed Martin people can help?
Jim - 13/4/2006 1:11 PMQuoteDavid BAE - 13/4/2006 12:14 PMDo we have any Sea Launch people here. One of my collegues is looking to join them. Maybe some of the Lockheed Martin people can help?Lockheed Martin? You mean Boeing I hope
Rob in KC - 13/4/2006 2:17 PMQuoteJim - 13/4/2006 1:11 PMQuoteDavid BAE - 13/4/2006 12:14 PMDo we have any Sea Launch people here. One of my collegues is looking to join them. Maybe some of the Lockheed Martin people can help?Lockheed Martin? You mean Boeing I hopeThey are Boeing? Why do they have Lockheed Martin in the bottom left of their webcast?
anik - 13/4/2006 11:09 AMWelcome, Bob! And congratulations with successful launch! Quotebobrogg - 13/4/2006 9:40 PMget ready for the next launch (June 5th?)With Galaxy 16 satellite?... I know that you should begin this launch campaign on April 22...Quoteanik - 12/4/2006 7:44 PMQuoteDaveS - 6/4/2006 2:30 AMLaunch has been delayed 24 hrs to April 12I am sorry, but I have forgotten to tell about a reason of this delay... Japanese was ill aboard the Sea Launch Commander ship... They were compelled to land him on the nearest island for rendering medical aid, therefore a day was lost...Was my source right?... If it is not a secret...
Shuttle Man - 13/4/2006 8:13 PMPlease do. You are a very welcome addition to the forum on this site.
British NASA - 13/4/2006 4:06 AMHow popular could sea launches become? Does it have a significant cost saving? I ask as there's a lot of infrastructure involved with the oil rig type pad and the big mission control ship.
bobrogg - 13/4/2006 11:31 PMQuoteShuttle Man - 13/4/2006 8:13 PMPlease do. You are a very welcome addition to the forum on this site.Thanks for the kind words. I'll try and get more photos posted but we (Sea Launch) are under export restrictions that limit us as to what we can show and not show to the general public. I have some high-speed video I would love to post but cannot due too those rules.Bob
STS Tony - 14/4/2006 9:47 AMUnderstood, but that's very annoying :(Do the cameras filming the launch from the pad get destroyed, like the ones on the Shuttle pads, so you have to take the feed and use that, rather than going to collect some film a day or so later?
STS Tony - 14/4/2006 6:47 AMQuotebobrogg - 13/4/2006 11:31 PMQuoteShuttle Man - 13/4/2006 8:13 PMPlease do. You are a very welcome addition to the forum on this site.Thanks for the kind words. I'll try and get more photos posted but we (Sea Launch) are under export restrictions that limit us as to what we can show and not show to the general public. I have some high-speed video I would love to post but cannot due too those rules.BobUnderstood, but that's very annoying Do the cameras filming the launch from the pad get destroyed, like the ones on the Shuttle pads, so you have to take the feed and use that, rather than going to collect some film a day or so later?
Captain Scarlet - 14/4/2006 11:04 AMSea Launch rule. How does one get into a career like yours? You appear to be pretty different to the Orbiter techs and rocket people we've got on here, as they mainly seem to be with the hardware side of things. Or do you need that background so as to know what you're looking at via the cameras monitoring the vehicle and infrastructure?
Launch Fan - 15/4/2006 11:58 AMAre Sea Launch looking to a range of vehicles? I can't see any reason why they can't increase their range.
Launch Fan - 15/4/2006 10:58 AMAre Sea Launch looking to a range of vehicles? I can't see any reason why they can't increase their range.
edkyle99 - 15/4/2006 5:24 PM Sea-Launch also benefits from the fact that Zenit may be the world's most efficient launcher. It is currently the only launch vehicle in the world able to lift the heaviest 6-tonne comsats into GTO while using just three propulsion stages - and it weighs 30+ tonnes less at liftoff than any competitor in the 6-tonne class. - Ed Kyle
Jim - 15/4/2006 5:50 PMQuoteedkyle99 - 15/4/2006 5:24 PM Sea-Launch also benefits from the fact that Zenit may be the world's most efficient launcher. It is currently the only launch vehicle in the world able to lift the heaviest 6-tonne comsats into GTO while using just three propulsion stages - and it weighs 30+ tonnes less at liftoff than any competitor in the 6-tonne class. - Ed KyleDon't understand the "efficient" title. It take 3 stages to GTO. To me, 3 stages is inefficent, when 2 stages for others can do at least 4.5 tons and with strapon SRM's (less complex than a 3rd stage) over 8 tons. It isn't the Zenit, it is the launch location
edkyle99 - 15/4/2006 11:46 PMQuoteJim - 15/4/2006 5:50 PMQuoteedkyle99 - 15/4/2006 5:24 PM Sea-Launch also benefits from the fact that Zenit may be the world's most efficient launcher. It is currently the only launch vehicle in the world able to lift the heaviest 6-tonne comsats into GTO while using just three propulsion stages - and it weighs 30+ tonnes less at liftoff than any competitor in the 6-tonne class. - Ed KyleDon't understand the "efficient" title. It take 3 stages to GTO. To me, 3 stages is inefficent, when 2 stages for others can do at least 4.5 tons and with strapon SRM's (less complex than a 3rd stage) over 8 tons. It isn't the Zenit, it is the launch locationIt would be better to qualify the "efficient" claim, since every rocket is optimized for some payload/delivery orbit combination. I was thinking about the emerging "sweet spot" of the commercial comsat market, which is 6 tonnes to GTO. By GTO, I mean 1,500 meters per second short of geosynchronous earth orbit, which corresponds roughly to the transfer orbits with near-zero inclination provided by Ariane and Zenit. Today, there are only five launchers capable of doing the 6 tonne haul. They are:Launcher GTO* Mass No. "Stages"Zenit 3SL 6.1 3Atlas 541 6.3 6Ariane 5G 6.6 4Ariane 5ECA 10.0 4Delta 4H 11.0 4* 1,500 m/s short of geosynchronous earth orbit.The Arianes are designed to haul dual payloads, so the situation has to be just right for a 6 tonne haul to pay off. Delta 4 isn't offered commercially. Atlas 541 requires two core stages, using two different fuels, and four strap-on solid motors, which add cost and launch processing complexity. Zenit 3SL, by comparison, uses only three stages, all fueled by noncryogenic kerosene. The simple fuel setup allows the launch to happen from a ship, so yes, it is the Zenit, because the Zenit allows the ship to move to the ideal launch location! :-)I agree that the two-stage Atlas 401 is the most efficient at the 4 tonne to GTO game. Delta 4M is the most efficient at 3 tonnes. - Ed Kyle
Jim - 15/4/2006 11:43 PMQuoteedkyle99 - 15/4/2006 11:46 PMQuoteJim - 15/4/2006 5:50 PMQuoteedkyle99 - 15/4/2006 5:24 PM Sea-Launch also benefits from the fact that Zenit may be the world's most efficient launcher. It is currently the only launch vehicle in the world able to lift the heaviest 6-tonne comsats into GTO while using just three propulsion stages - and it weighs 30+ tonnes less at liftoff than any competitor in the 6-tonne class. - Ed KyleDon't understand the "efficient" title. It take 3 stages to GTO. To me, 3 stages is inefficent, when 2 stages for others can do at least 4.5 tons and with strapon SRM's (less complex than a 3rd stage) over 8 tons. It isn't the Zenit, it is the launch locationIt would be better to qualify the "efficient" claim, since every rocket is optimized for some payload/delivery orbit combination. I was thinking about the emerging "sweet spot" of the commercial comsat market, which is 6 tonnes to GTO. By GTO, I mean 1,500 meters per second short of geosynchronous earth orbit, which corresponds roughly to the transfer orbits with near-zero inclination provided by Ariane and Zenit. Today, there are only five launchers capable of doing the 6 tonne haul. They are:Launcher GTO* Mass No. "Stages"Zenit 3SL 6.1 3Atlas 541 6.3 6Ariane 5G 6.6 4Ariane 5ECA 10.0 4Delta 4H 11.0 4* 1,500 m/s short of geosynchronous earth orbit.The Arianes are designed to haul dual payloads, so the situation has to be just right for a 6 tonne haul to pay off. Delta 4 isn't offered commercially. Atlas 541 requires two core stages, using two different fuels, and four strap-on solid motors, which add cost and launch processing complexity. Zenit 3SL, by comparison, uses only three stages, all fueled by noncryogenic kerosene. The simple fuel setup allows the launch to happen from a ship, so yes, it is the Zenit, because the Zenit allows the ship to move to the ideal launch location! :-)I agree that the two-stage Atlas 401 is the most efficient at the 4 tonne to GTO game. Delta 4M is the most efficient at 3 tonnes. - Ed KyleStrapon SRM's are not "Stages" . The 4 SRM's are a great deal less complex and costly than a Block DM, which is whole upperstage with an engine and guidance system. The Zenit 3SL has 2 guidance systems.The Zenit has 2 "core" stages, which other than fuel are just as different as the Atlas and Centaur.Also the Atlas V 431 should be close to 6T And you forgot the 551
Jim - 16/4/2006 12:04 PMZenit is cheaper because of the artifical currency exchange rateWhat if you have a 4 ton spacecraft? Zenit is a point solution only for 6T. The Atlas method is called "dial a rocket". It can be sized for a specific spacecraft, relatively inexpensively.
