-
#80
by
tnphysics
on 04 Sep, 2007 22:57
-
What about operational costs?
-
#81
by
Jim
on 04 Sep, 2007 23:48
-
tnphysics - 4/9/2007 6:57 PM
What about operational costs?
no difference between staged and gas generator
-
#82
by
tnphysics
on 07 Sep, 2007 02:02
-
Then why would an expendable SSME be more expensive than the RS-68?
It should then only be two-thirds as expensive (lower thrust).
-
#83
by
Jim
on 07 Sep, 2007 02:15
-
tnphysics - 6/9/2007 10:02 PM
Then why would an expendable SSME be more expensive than the RS-68?
It should then only be two-thirds as expensive (lower thrust).
thrust doesn't not equate to cost
The development costs of the expendable SSME prevent it from reducing the total costs
-
#84
by
tnphysics
on 07 Sep, 2007 02:17
-
Why did Proton go with hypergolic propellants?
I would have used peroxide/methylacetylene, if storability was a requirement, or else an LOX/methylacetylene first stage and LOX/LH2 upper stages.
-
#85
by
Jim
on 07 Sep, 2007 02:22
-
tnphysics - 6/9/2007 10:17 PM
Why did Proton go with hypergolic propellants?
I would have used peroxide/methylacetylene, if storability was a requirement, or else an LOX/methylacetylene first stage and LOX/LH2 upper stages.
Not all decisions are based on performance.
Because hypergols were a favorite of Glusho, the engine designer and the soviets had the infrastructure for hypergols. .
Peroxide has storage issues
so does methylacetylene
-
#86
by
Jim
on 07 Sep, 2007 02:25
-
tnphysics - 6/9/2007 10:17 PM
an LOX/methylacetylene first stage and LOX/LH2 upper stages.
RP-1 would be better than methylacetylene
-
#87
by
tnphysics
on 07 Sep, 2007 02:30
-
Jim - 6/9/2007 10:22 PM
tnphysics - 6/9/2007 10:17 PM
Why did Proton go with hypergolic propellants?
I would have used peroxide/methylacetylene, if storability was a requirement, or else an LOX/methylacetylene first stage and LOX/LH2 upper stages.
Peroxide has storage issues
so does methylacetylene
What are they?
I know that you would need to dilute the peroxide, but why would that be an issue?
-
#88
by
tnphysics
on 09 Sep, 2007 18:24
-
Jim - 6/9/2007 10:25 PMtnphysics - 6/9/2007 10:17 PM an LOX/methylacetylene first stage and LOX/LH2 upper stages.
RP-1 would be better than methylacetylene
Methylacetylene has higher Isp.
-
#89
by
Jim
on 09 Sep, 2007 20:35
-
tnphysics - 9/9/2007 2:24 PM
Jim - 6/9/2007 10:25 PMtnphysics - 6/9/2007 10:17 PM an LOX/methylacetylene first stage and LOX/LH2 upper stages.
RP-1 would be better than methylacetylene
Methylacetylene has higher Isp.
That is not the only parameter than matters
-
#90
by
Satori
on 12 Sep, 2007 18:25
-
The 11A511U Soyuz-U launcher for the Foton-3 will be transported to the pad PU-5 September 13th. Imagine that we have a major accident with this launch resulting on pad damaged. Was pad PU-6 ready to support manned launches?
-
#91
by
tnphysics
on 04 Oct, 2007 00:19
-
Could a LH2/LOX upper stage be added to Proton?
Could 3 Proton first stages be clustered a la Delta IVH?
Together those upgrades give 150 metric tons to LEO.
-
#92
by
Jim
on 04 Oct, 2007 00:25
-
tnphysics - 3/10/2007 8:19 PM
Could 3 Proton first stages be clustered a la Delta IVH?
How would you attach them
-
#93
by
tnphysics
on 04 Oct, 2007 00:34
-
Could Zenit be stretched to increase the payload?
What about the Energia core? (If it was rebuilt)
What about combining 3 Energia cores?
Stretched Energia core with stretched strap-on boosters could put 160 metric tons in LEO (if there was enough thrust in the core after staging)
-
#94
by
Jim
on 04 Oct, 2007 00:41
-
what if, what if, what it. All it take is money
-
#95
by
tnphysics
on 04 Oct, 2007 00:46
-
My question is: If there was a market, would they be cost-effective?
Are these good ideas?
Probable market would be Soviet manned Moon mission (if done).
-
#96
by
Jim
on 04 Oct, 2007 00:49
-
tnphysics - 3/10/2007 8:46 PM
My question is: If there was a market, would they be cost-effective?
Are these good ideas?
nobody on here could answer those questions
-
#97
by
Danderman
on 13 Oct, 2007 14:00
-
tnphysics - 3/10/2007 5:19 PM Could a LH2/LOX upper stage be added to Proton?
This is a long term plan for Khrunichev, so the answer is yes.
-
#98
by
William Graham
on 13 Oct, 2007 16:37
-
Danderman - 13/10/2007 3:00 PM
tnphysics - 3/10/2007 5:19 PM Could a LH2/LOX upper stage be added to Proton?
This is a long term plan for Khrunichev, so the answer is yes.
"Long term"? I thought Proton was up for retirement by 2010 or whenever.
-
#99
by
edkyle99
on 13 Oct, 2007 17:04
-
GW_Simulations - 13/10/2007 11:37 AM
Danderman - 13/10/2007 3:00 PM
tnphysics - 3/10/2007 5:19 PM Could a LH2/LOX upper stage be added to Proton?
This is a long term plan for Khrunichev, so the answer is yes.
"Long term"? I thought Proton was up for retirement by 2010 or whenever.
The plan is to start test flights with Angara (which will be built by the merged Krunichev/PO Polyot company) in 2011, according to recent news reports. Angara will eventually replace Proton. It will use the Briz M upper stage initially, but long term plans call for a liquid hydrogen upper stage. This stage is for Angara, however, and not for Proton to the best of my knowledge.
My guess is that there will be some overlap, with both vehicles flying during a several-year transition period. (Russia, for example, it still flying both Proton K and Proton M vehicles, seven years after the first Proton M launch.) Proposed plans to build a Baikonur complex for Angara might play a role in the transition timing.
- Ed Kyle