-
#20 by publiusr on 16 Nov, 2007 15:57
-
Would it be possible to use R-7's conical strap-ons around a wider core--with one or two extra strap-ons? More trouble than its worth?
-
#21 by clongton on 16 Nov, 2007 16:09
-
Quote
publiusr - 16/11/2007 11:57 AM
They already have such a vehicle, or at least they did. It launched the Bruan. The Energia launch family is / was everything I think you're looking for.
Would it be possible to use R-7's conical strap-ons around a wider core--with one or two extra strap-ons? More trouble than its worth? -
#22 by Danderman on 16 Nov, 2007 20:31
-
Quote
publiusr - 16/11/2007 8:57 AM Would it be possible to use R-7's conical strap-ons around a wider core--with one or two extra strap-ons? More trouble than its worth?
Something like this is the plan for Soyuz-3, which would be a Zenit class LV. Don't hold your breath, though.
-
#23 by gospacex on 16 Nov, 2007 21:02
-
Quote
clongton - 16/11/2007 11:09 AM
Quotepubliusr - 16/11/2007 11:57 AM
They already have such a vehicle, or at least they did. It launched the Bruan. The Energia launch family is / was everything I think you're looking for.
Would it be possible to use R-7's conical strap-ons around a wider core--with one or two extra strap-ons? More trouble than its worth?
Those strapons were bigger and used different engines - RD-170. They were similar to Zenit 1st stages. -
#24 by Danderman on 16 Nov, 2007 21:17
-
The Soyuz "2-3" concept is shown below:
http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/souz-2-3.jpg
Here is the Russian story about it:
http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/souz-2-3b.jpg
16 to 17 tons in LEO!
-
#25 by William Barton on 16 Nov, 2007 21:28
-
Quote
gospacex - 16/11/2007 5:02 PM
Quoteclongton - 16/11/2007 11:09 AM
Quotepubliusr - 16/11/2007 11:57 AM
They already have such a vehicle, or at least they did. It launched the Bruan. The Energia launch family is / was everything I think you're looking for.
Would it be possible to use R-7's conical strap-ons around a wider core--with one or two extra strap-ons? More trouble than its worth?
Those strapons were bigger and used different engines - RD-170. They were similar to Zenit 1st stages.
I've heard those strap-ons referred to a Zenit-1, and launchers evolved from them as -2 and -3. It always seemed to me if you attached 4 of the strapons to a Zenit 2/3 first stage, you'd have something pretty much equivalent to an S-1C. -
#26 by Damon Hill on 17 Nov, 2007 19:12
-
Quote
Danderman - 16/11/2007 2:17 PM
The Soyuz "2-3" concept is shown below:
http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/souz-2-3.jpg
Look at the image displayed in back of the model; that's apparently the
Soyuz 3. Much larger strapons with single chamber staged combustion
engines throughout, a cylindrical upper core section with larger top stage
to match. This is a completely modernized vehicle with a lot more
propellant and more efficient engines.
Still compatible with existing launch pads (with minor upgrades?), I think.
See also:
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_128/128-4/pages/P1050739.html -
#27 by Danderman on 17 Nov, 2007 20:09
-
You wonder what the big deal is with replacing the central core engine with an NK-33, why didn't this happen years ago?
-
#28 by Damon Hill on 18 Nov, 2007 00:49
-
My guess is money and politics; the N-1 program and its components were quietly dismantled or shuffled into warehouses, including the various engines. Similarly, the Energia/Buran program imploded along with the Soviet Union and the economy; the surviving Russian space program has shuffled along on a shoestring with all the funds first draining into the big Shuttlesky program and then the economy tanked and little money was available beyond keeping things just alive. Existing systems were cheap and reliable, and that counts for a lot in the rocket business. At least the N-1 and Energia/Zenit programs helped drive improved propulsion technology.
Now that the money's flowing again, the various interests either want to upgrade existing systems like the R-7 or replace all the legacy systems with new ones like Angara. In the meantime incremental improvements have crept in as funding was available or old technology was becoming expensive or unavailable.
I wonder if Sintin (cyclopropane?) or similar advanced hydrocarbons and prechilling will also make a comeback? Hypergolics do appear to be on their way out in Russia, but only if politics and inertia don't prevail. (Similarly in China, it appears) -
#29 by Eraser on 18 Nov, 2007 01:44
-
Stocks NK-33 engines are great, but not infinite. The revival of production is a complex decision, no one wants to take responsibility for it. Moreover, SNTK "NK Engines" belongs to the aviation industry and is not subordinate to the Roscosmos.
-
#30 by patchfree on 10 Feb, 2008 18:20
-
It seems that's the time to reactivate this thread or to start a new one about the future new russian spacecraft as Vitali Lopota was giving an interview about it.
My problem is I have no english version of his interview. Who can help me with a translation from the russian version? -
#31 by Jim on 10 Feb, 2008 20:00
-
Quote
patchfree - 10/2/2008 2:20 PM
It seems that's the time to reactivate this thread or to start a new one about the future new russian spacecraft as Vitali Lopota was giving an interview about it.
There would be hundreds of threads if one were made every time somebody said Russia is developing a new spacecraft -
#32 by Danderman on 10 Feb, 2008 22:54
-
How about a link to the Russian interview?
-
#33 by Patchouli on 10 Feb, 2008 23:09
-
I hope they are going to continue development on kliper as it's a very good vehicle and a worthy successor to soyuz even uses a modernized version of soyuz's highly reliable launch vehicle.
-
#34 by Patchouli on 19 Feb, 2008 05:55
-
Kliper does seem to have a far better chance then the TKS craft as kiper has a much easier to develop launch vehicle the soyuz 3 which is just an upgrade of the highly reliable launch vehicle that has served them so well.
Also the kliper system is much more flexible with is multiple reentry vehicle configurations the core vehicle can be either winged or lifting body and the parom tug with it's cargo container then the TKS vehicles I've seen so far .
Though the TKS's modular design could allow for it's own level of flexibility though matching the sheer bulk cargo capacity of parom and it's cargo container will not be easy.
Also we're forgeting the third competitor NPO molniya.
It seems RKK and the RSA have much more sound mars plans the the guys at NASA as they are actually working on the deep space propulsion and human end vs pretending it'll solve it's self before they get to flying a mars mission.
As for ESA involvement they seem to have ADD or something when it comes to manned spaceflight and tend to abandon projects halfway though vs finishing them a real shame too when you think about it as they had some great concepts.
The Russians are likely wisely considering a plan where they might have to do this with out the ESA which may not seriously join in until they see a next gen vehicle already flying.
Russia will develop a new spacecraft with or with out the ESA's involvement. -
#35 by Patchouli on 19 Feb, 2008 06:17
-
Quote
clongton - 16/11/2007 11:09 AM
Quotepubliusr - 16/11/2007 11:57 AM
They already have such a vehicle, or at least they did. It launched the Bruan. The Energia launch family is / was everything I think you're looking for.
Would it be possible to use R-7's conical strap-ons around a wider core--with one or two extra strap-ons? More trouble than its worth?
Buran didn't use the same strap-ons as the R7 the Buran used a LOx lH2 core and four lox kerosene boosters with RD170s these still are in use as the first stage of the Zenit launch vehicle.
As for getting more performance out of the R7 a high energy liquid hydrogen upper stage to replace the third stage might get the needed payload.
Other things they could do replace RD-108 in to core stage with a detuned NK-33 and use a larger third stage to fully utilize the increased second stage performance.
The NK-33 also could be used in the strap-on boosters and they may offer enough extra delta V to allow recovery systems to be carried on the strap-ons so they may be reused.
If you ever seen pics of nearly intact boosters in the rocket grave yard in Kazakhstan it doesn't seem that outrageous a concept. -
#36 by Jim on 19 Feb, 2008 08:43
-
Quote
Patchouli - 19/2/2008 1:55 AM
Russia will develop a new spacecraft with or with out the ESA's involvement.
not near term -
#37 by neviden on 19 Feb, 2008 11:36
-
ESA (and Japanese that will join if ESA joins) and the Russians are already working on CSTS and we will have to see what comes out of that. That, more than anything else, will dictate Kliper’s fate. The first try at cooperation went something like “We Russians, build – you Europeans pay” and of course Europeans said “forget it”.
I like the Parom part way more then I like Kliper part. For one thing, I have yet to see how can Kliper get from HEO or Moon orbit. Apollo shape can. Even Soyuz shape can, but Kliper with a lifting body design?
If that was NASA I wouldn’t be surprised, but Russians have a history of not fixing things that are not broken. Soyuz TMA is a good example of that thinking. I don’t see them abandoning Soyuz for a system that would do less. -
#38 by simonbp on 19 Feb, 2008 15:36
-
Quote
neviden - 19/2/2008 5:36 AM
If that was NASA I wouldn’t be surprised, but Russians have a history of not fixing things that are not broken. Soyuz TMA is a good example of that thinking. I don’t see them abandoning Soyuz for a system that would do less.
Well, that's more a function of them having nearly no funding for 15-odd years. And the Russians did abandon Buran (more capable for what they wanted to do) because it cost so much more than Soyuz...
Simon
-
#39 by neviden on 19 Feb, 2008 16:16
-
I would hardly call Buran more cost effective then the Soyuz/Proton combination..
