anik - 2/12/2005 2:42 PM
P.S.: But, publiusr, if you say about the using of the Angara rocket on the Baikonur within the framework of Russian-Kazakhstan "Bayterek" program, then the right launch pad on the area 200 will be reconstructed for its launch...
That's what I was thinking of.
I figured that Proton might be phased out. I still hate to see Chelomei's child die.
If an oil rich Muslim nation wanted a rocket fleet, then Europe could sell them plans for the all-hypergolic Ariane 4 (capsule launcher) with Proton as the station launcher. Then they would have an all-hypergolic fleet the way Glushko wanted at first.
I always thought China's next Long March should resemble the R-56 Monoblock Yangel wanted, with those big RD-270 engines--a giant Proton almost. Not as absurdly large as UR-700/900, but big enough for their needs.
Is anyone supporting the Energiya-class Angara-100? I might put some oil money into that if possible.
Here is a thought. Since you still have to 'rent' Baikonur from the Kazakhs, how about changing to all ocean launch for the biggest payloads?
The vehicle I propose is Sea Dragon, as advocated by Navy man Robert Truax, whose writings can be found in Aerospace America (The Future of Earth To Orbit Propulsion, Jan. 1999, p.34):
http://www.rocketryonline.com/Search/db_search.cgi?setup_file=Opinion&submit_search=yes&db_id=36He is a great advocate of very large--but extremely simple--launch vehicles that use pressure-fed designs as advocated by a contact of mine whose name is John London, author of LEO ON THE CHEAP:
http://www.dunnspace.com/leo_on_the_cheap.htm Sea Dragon would be a perfect fit in such a shipyard--being far more easily assembled, than any submarine. This way, each ruble spent on space also goes to Russian shipyard workers and not Kazakhs!
The following links explain exactly what the Sea Dragon concept is:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/searagon.htmhttp://www.up-ship.com/apr/extras/seadragon/seadragon.htm http://pub97.ezboard.com/fnuclearspacefrm13.showMessage?topicID=67.topichttp://www.spacedaily.com/news/lunar-04j.htmlBig pressure-feds described.
http://www.optipoint.com/far/far8.htm http://groups.yahoo.com/group/inside_ksc/message/12250Please do not recoil at the size--for such a project is simple, and is actually quite small compared to Petronas, Kansei, the Troll platform Three Gorges Dam and other megastructures that are far more difficult to build. Indeed, large, simple structures can generate electricity:
http://www.oceanpd.com/The Sea Dragon concept perfectly fits Sea-Launch, in that the launch vehicle actually needs no platform--being towed out to sea to burn hydrogen and oxygen electrolysized from sea water. Truax suggested the use of an Aircraft carrier--but your large nuclear icebreakers would be a perfect fit--and could also be used for towing:
http://arcdev.neste.com/Vessels/IBN-Arctica.htmlAnd this would be perfect to separate hydrogen from oxygen from Sea Water:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/nuclear-civil-05zzzb.htmlThe Command and Control ship you already use in SEA LAUNCH would be the only other asset required--seeing as no launch platform is needed. The former Soviet shipyards are hurting. There is talk of new submarine construction, as well as carrier replacements--but these craft are quite complicated with decks, pressure hulls, etc. and are not needed in this post-Cold War era. The same infrastructure needed for Sea Dragon would also be used for the construction of a Bering Strait Bridge. Sea Dragon is more easily built than any ship.
Sea Dragon is but a simple tube.
I wonder if many Russian shipworkers remember their space program with the pride that accompanied Sputnik. Baikonur must be rented at great cost. But a Sea Dragon program would have two patrons, for each dollar spent on space is a dollar that goes to keep Soviet shipworkers employed. With Sea-Launch, you have shown that you are not afraid of large scale construction. With the Sea Dragon Super Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle, you would be continuing a tradition--with the vehicle far simpler than the Zenit launch platform itself.
I read a nice article in Discover magazine about the new steels and must say that I am very excited about this prospect, and how amorphus steels may play a role.
Bob Truax (Sea Dragon's father--and a leader in Minuteman nozzle design) is in ill-health, and Bill Sprague is about all that is left outside of Interorbital:
http://www.spragueastronautics.com/http://www.interorbital.comThat having been said--Todd Sedler at Northrup-Grumman/Newport-News seemed interested. NASA Chief Administrator Mike Griffin is looking for HLLV concepts, and Sea Dragon could perhaps be funded by those who would give us the Burj Dubai skyscraper and the developers of THE WORLD project.
If spaceflight is to really progress--we have to get outside of the comsat box. Heavy Lift is the future:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/08/cev_launcher_tr.htmlP.S.
It is possible to move very large objects over the water. Jack Shick, a member of the American Polar Society has a patent on Iceberg Utilization, as described on page17 of the Spring-Summer 2004 issue of The Polar Times (Vol. 3, No 5). He can be contacted at
[email protected] His patent may be found at
www.uspto.gov --enter patent number 6688105, or try the link below:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6688105.WKU.&OS=PN/6688105&RS=PN/6688105
Two Glonass-M and one Glonass!...
Two Glonass-M and one Glonass!...