Slashdot Mirror

I don't think they will. The J-2 hasn't been built in years and while the J-2S (the more modern version) could have production restarted Thiokol believes it would take more than 4 years to restart production.

I suspect that development and certification of the SSME for orbital restarts would take significantly less time and money than the restarting of the entire J-2S program.

I would tend to agree. If you estimate a small nuclear reactor at 8 tons, and even if the reactor weight only made up 1/4 of the weight of the plant/ship, and even if the entire reactors and the entire ship were fashioned from just plain old steel, you still have 64 tons (2 reactors * 8 tons * 4) of steel worth $500 a ton at the going price which is $32,000 just for the raw materials. Not to mention all of the work you'd have to do to turn that steel into working nuclear reactors and a floating power plant.

Although you are right that there are such people I doubt it is the case here; some simply get modded down because they're stupid.

A woman being stupid is no different from a man being stupid, it's still stupid, and thinking it is not sexist. And just how are we meant to be sure the poster was a woman? Trust the posters name? Who cares? It might just as well be a pimply teenage loser getting his kicks out of trolling people.

Yes I think the grandparent was stupid to the point of being a troll, there are female astronauts and unless one lives in a cave one should know that. Guess who was Commander for the last shuttle flight? STS-114 Commander Eileen Collins http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/multimedia/elli ngton_field_gallery.html and she didn't get the job because she was a woman, she got it because she's the best - and that's an example not an exception (read the page and you'll see another female crew member on the same STS-114 flight: Mission Specialist Wendy Lawrence).

Oh that's right maybe she doesn't count as she publicly states that she thinks the sex issue (the fact that she is a woman) is totally irrelevant! How that must hurt for those who love to play the subject to their own ends and like to pretend that women like these don't exist: http://www.astronautix.com/articles/womspace.htm

(start sarcasm) Oh my god! They're not even all white! How is that even possible? (end sarcasm)

1 mission, 2 women one of which is the Commander + grandparents trollish whine = a fair mod down.

One version I've read...
After the rocket failed to fire, Nedelin ordered technicians to go service the rocket and try again. As he stood by the pad watching, someone re-cycled the launch sequence. The launch clock had meanwhile counted from T-Minus to T-Plus, so the rocket's (perfectly functioning) second stage ignited, ending Marshal Nedelin and many others.

So that's makes it 1 in 60 for Russian flights, and 1 in 55? for US flights? Doesn't that make the US system more dangerous?

The failure in 1971 was the result of faulty valves/system -and- the decision to not require spacesuits. I think they all have spacesuits on reentry now (see http://www.astronautix.com/details/soy51200.htm).

You can certainly say that since the space shuttle has been used, no Russian spacecraft has resulted in deaths (as far as I can tell), which is perhaps the more interesting statistic.

I can't believe you had a post complimenting you. Your post was one distortion or outright misinformation after another.

Not exactly. It just wasn't what the US military wanted.

The military wasn't the only group who saw hopping around on moon dust as pointless. The American public stopped paying attention to moon missions, and hence their price tag could no longer be justified.

The current shuttle design suffers a lot from this, since early NASA tried playing politics

NASA "played politics" so that they could get anything, as their budget was slashed in half during the design phase without their requirements being lightened.

Unfortunately, the shuttle is a far less capable launch vehicle.

It depends on what you're talking about. Payload? Certainly. Orbital maneuverability (which allows it to drop off more LEO satellites per launch)? Definitely not. Payload return? Saturn-V didn't have any, although we had some craft (like Apollo) that were launched by it that returned with small payloads.

And the shuttle can't put any significant cargo into GEO at all; the additional booster ring they have to use to launch from the cargo bay is too bulky, heavy, and risky to make it worthwhile much.

The "additional booster ring" that you refer to is called PAM, and it's the same series of stages that we use on Delta and Atlas. It's not risky, and we've used it all the time - the shuttle leaves the area before the GTO injection begins. The shuttle's GEO capability is greater than Ariane and Proton's.

It wouldn't be that big a deal to recreate the Saturn Vs

Not at all. The Saturn V was created on the availability of all kinds of 1960s hardware. The Federal Archives in East Point, GA has 2900 *cubic feet* of Saturn V documents describing all of the parts. It would actually take far less effort to design a new system than to try and basically recreate the 1960s rocket-base in modern times. I've only ran into *one* study that suggested that it would be cheaper to recreate the Saturn-V ("Launch Vehicles for the Space Exploration Intiative", AAIA), and even then, not by much.

these Saturn VIs would outstrip anything else around right now. And still be cheaper than Shuttle launches...

Um, no. Cheaper per kg, yes (although not by that much), but a Saturn V launch in modern dollars, by this inflation calculator, is 2.5B$ dollars - 5-6 times as much.

What makes it an insane contraption is the fact that we've never bothered/managed to address most of those problems.

Bothered? Heck yes. Managed? Most. The SRB problem is fixed. The foam problem is not. Hundreds of problems during the development and initial testing phase were fixed, and I'm surprised that you're not aware of this. The shuttle used to have big problems with tiles falling off - during an early test flight, one shuttle lost a third of its tiles! After extensive reengineering work, they developed a system of epoxies to attach the tiles to a felt stress isolation pad, which in turn attached to the skin, and essentially eliminated the (very difficult) problem.

Even worse, there were a number of problems with the design we knew about in advance, but we went with it anyway because (wait for it) it was the low bid. What am I talking about? Segmented SRBs for a starter.

Wrong. Because it was the *only in-budget bid*. The initial designs called for either LOX/LH or LOX/Kerosene boosters. Then their budget got cut - almost cut in half. The SRBs already existed and were almost completed, so they had either to use them, or essentially scrap reusability of the orbiter if they wanted to stay in budget (essentially defeating the purpose of the project). Even still, NASA continued working trying to improve safety - not just with the numerous improvements after Challenger, but with the development

It'll re-enter like a lifting body or a glider (like the Space Shuttle). Capsules drop.

Russia had several plans for lifting body or glider manned orbital space craft, such as the Spiral.

So did NASA, which recently had Scaled Composites (of SpaceShipOne fame) develop the X-38 (notice the similarity to the Russian Bor), only to see it cancelled because of the cost. That cost, incidentally, was slightly higher than the projected cost for the Kliper, and still half that of a successful Space Shuttle flight.

That is the one thing of the US space program I still don't get. Why have a hugely expensive and dangerous shuttle program, then claim at the same time that astronauts' lives and money are so important, when you have a half-developed, modern, cheap and presumably safe system sitting on the shelves?

Actually, I seem to recall reading in Av Week that some of the EU folks were rather miffed because it looked like Russia was just recycling an earlier French design from the 80s (i.e., Hermes). In a previous life, I talked to folks from Aerospatiale about 15-20 years ago regarding materials for their Hermes project, which looks remarkably similar to Kliper (or vice-versa). See http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hermes.htm

Eugen Sänger's Junkers RT8 Study from 1961 and based on that the Sänger II. Why use a huge rocket in the atmosphere?

Not really. The Mars Direct plan calls for a maximum of 130 contiguous days in space (on the return trip) with three other people, using chemical rockets, in a relatively large habitation module which (if I recall) is not much smaller than my apartment. If I reorganized my apartment specifically for the purpose, I'm sure four of us could spend 5 months in there without going batty.

Me thinks this ricer satellite will be like the USSR's Polyus "autonomous scientific space station" which was supposed to "grow precious crystals in space" - using an onboard recoil-less autocannon and two dozen nuclear mine launchers... Thanks heaven it crashed on launch back in 1987.

http://astronautix.com/craft/polyus.htm

The japanese 16ft dish is probably an overhead death ray emitter. They will fry 'Harbour with it and annex the entire Pacific.

Teiko heikka banzai!

Soyuz missions are launched by a derivative of the R-7 ICBM that is usually just also called "Soyuz". NASA spacecraft use Atlas or Delta IV rockets. This one is using an Atlas V.

Soyuz missions are launched by a derivative of the R-7 ICBM that is usually just also called "Soyuz". NASA spacecraft use Atlas or Delta IV rockets. This one is using an Atlas V.

Soyuz missions are launched by a derivative of the R-7 ICBM that is usually just also called "Soyuz". NASA spacecraft use Atlas or Delta IV rockets. This one is using an Atlas V.

The Air Force got their hands into the mess right at the beginning. The Shuttle together with what later became the ISS was supposed to replace the Air Force Manned Observation Laboratory.

The U.S. Air Force, back in the late 1960's, had this ambitious militarization of space program where they would have a permanent manned space station with Air Force officers manning weapons that could be launched or "observed" from space. A total of about eight astronauts were actually selected and went through quite a bit of training and design work. This was seperate and distinct from the NASA astronaut selection program (more civilian in nature...but did allow selection of military personnel). These astronauts reported directly the the Secretary of the Air Force, not the NASA heirarchy.

Later these astronauts were moved over to NASA without having to go through a normal selection process, but many of the Air Force mandates were also "rolled" into NASA projects. This was done at the end of the Johnson administration.

One of the things that the Air Force did was to build a complete second launch facility at Santa Barbars, California at the Vandenburg Air Force Base. The intention here was to be able to launch the Space Shuttle into polar orbit. While the launch facilities were built, the Shuttle has never been launched from this facility. The runway strip at this base was also design to handle an emergency landing of a shuttle, although Edwards AFB is comparatively nearby and would be considered a prime recovery area for a polar orbit as well.

There were other screwy things the Air Force did to mess with the design parameters of the Shuttle, and there were several classified missions the Air Force flew using the Space Shuttle that for some reason had to have the current characteristics that are in the Shuttle program. While some details of those mission have been declassified (including what astronauts flew on them), there are some missions that are still very black in terms of what really happened.

In short, yes, the Air Force had a big hand in what happened with the Space Shuttle, and the design would have been quite a bit different had NASA alone been involved with the design process.

The debris problem is a materials and design problem, not a flight profile problem. SSTO doesn't necessarily solve it. DC-X and Roton happened to not have stupid design flaws, thus no debris problem.

As noted by others SSTO isn't feasible.

If anying deserves revisiting, it's the simple, big muscle designs NASA has traditionally neglected, such as Sea Dragon http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/searagon.htm

In case you never have heard about this program, this is the Big Gemini or Gemini II Project that was proposed to NASA right at the end of the original Gemini missions. You can also see the "real thing" that was built as part of a full-scale mock-up.

There was another "failed" hold over from the pre-Shuttle days called Apollo II as well, that was essentially a beefed up Apollo capsule that could hold up to seven passengers and crew. Basically the current crew load of the Shuttle. Trying to build on the Apollo technology, it would also incorporate some of the ideas that also developed from Gemini. Keep in mind that despite the fact that the Apollo capsules went to the moon later, the Gemini program was in some ways a more advanced program than the Apollo system... in part because it was built with newer technologies.

One of the reasons why Gemini is getting another look today is because the standard two-person version can fit on top of the Falcon V, and make a base design for an orbital vehicle. The Falcon V is going to be man-rated, and a bit cheaper than the Russians are able to put somebody up into orbit. Plus (for those that care), SpaceX is an American company, avoiding the political issues of going to Russia for at least American companies or tourists.

A beefed up Falcon V (Falcon X?) could in theory be able to launch seven astronauts at once. Certainly at a substantial fraction of the price for a single shuttle launch, and to the same orbit.

Soyuz can't push enough weight into orbit, or at least that's my understanding of it. According to Astronautix, the Soyuz FG (what they're using for the Progress supply craft) has a payload of 7420kg, which comes out to about 8 tons (and change). The Shuttle, on the other hand, has a maximum launch payload of 28800kg, which is roughly 32 tons (a little less than that, actually) (citation).

According to this new plan, the new "shuttle" design should allow them to put up over 100 tons into orbit.

Now, I don't know how useful this is, exactly. With smaller design constraints, most new things we have to put up (like telescopes and the like) will just end up having to be smaller, or sent up in smaller, modularized pieces. The problem would be with ISS - it was designed with the premise that the Shuttle, complete with it's relatively large weight and size constraints, would be able to add/replace components as needed. It's probable that things could be reverse engineered - come up with a new gyroscope system so these "washing machine" sized ones, when they fail, won't need to be replaced, but can be complimented and later phased out by the new system. But for right now, those who have designed the ISS and its current needs dictate that they must have a vessel of large size to resupply them, for maintenance and other reasons. Or at least that's my understanding :]

That's funny. Douglas Aircraft Co thought it was feasible in the 60's. Gary Hudson has been working on SSTO since the 70's, and cites several efforts by other companies. Even NASA bought off on the idea when it started the X-33 program. They just botched it by picking a vaporware design that involved all sorts of innovations above and beyond SSTO. So why exactly are you claiming that SSTO "isn't feasible (yet)"?

Single stage to orbit has extremely tight margins on mass fraction, that part of the launcher that isn't propellants. Most SSTO designs seem to require MFs below 2% - 3%, which is really difficult, even with modern composites. They also require high specific impulse propellants, which almost always means cryogenics, like the LH2 and LO2 that the Shuttle's main engines burn. It's proven very hard to design a composite LH2 tank that doesn't leak. The sad irony is that we had a reliable booster in the mid-1960s that was capable of putting about 130 tons of payload into low earth orbit. It was the Saturn - LO2/kerosene first stage, LO2/LH2 upper stages. We scrapped it, including the manufacturing drawings and procedures, so we could build the Shuttle. Some info on the Saturn booster family is at http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnv.htm

All about me.

Buran - In Depth History

The US shuttle could in theory be modified to support unmanned flight, but can't lower its landing gear automatically -- the astronauts wanted there to always be a function that would require a human to be physically there. So the only switch that can lower the gear is the one on the pilot's side of the main control panel, right near the rotational hand controller.

I would actually like to see thought given toward modifying the shuttles for unmanned flight, although it appears that there may be a version of the CEV built that is basically the CEV placed on top of a shuttle-style payload canister. Sort of like a CEV/Shuttle-C hybrid.

See SafeSimpleSoon.Com for more on some current proposals.

Ah, no.

It's a S-1C, which was the first stage of the Saturn V rocket.

And once you start to consider the Stage-and-a-half S-1D and the Flyback F-1 designs, you start to realize just how much sense it made.

Ah, no.

It's a S-1C, which was the first stage of the Saturn V rocket.

And once you start to consider the Stage-and-a-half S-1D and the Flyback F-1 designs, you start to realize just how much sense it made.

Ah, no.

It's a S-1C, which was the first stage of the Saturn V rocket.

And once you start to consider the Stage-and-a-half S-1D and the Flyback F-1 designs, you start to realize just how much sense it made.

Close, but not quite.

The shuttle-as-the-second-stage-of-a-Apollo V was an alternative to the SRBs later in the design.

I liked that idea signifigantly better, because the Saturn V stage would have been useful for other things...

The shuttle was initially supposed to be all-reusable. Two shuttle-vehicles would launch together and one would go all the way to orbit and the other would go back to the ground. They could do it, but not in the budget given with the performance required. They could have made it smaller but fully reusable and in budget, or use a drop tank and make it bigger and stay in budget.

Progress is Soyuz. Period. If someone said "Progress-M1 is Soyuz-TM", that would be false, but "Soyuz" is a family. In fact, the launch vehicles of Progress-M are called "Soyuz 11A511U" and "Soyuz FG". Even the orbiter is structured similarly.

Progress began as 11F615 Soyuz, but had its habitation module (bitovoy ostek, BO) replaced with a cargo module (gruzovy ostek, GO) and the descent module (spuskaemiy apparat) replaced with an extra fuel module (ostek komlonyemntov dozravki, OKD). Progress M upgraded Progress to merge it with the Soyuz-T orbiter design so that it could serve the same roles (Mir et al).

I disagree. Shenzhou is arguably more evolved than a latest model Soyuz. The USA are also going back to capsules as on the Gemini and Apollo days according to Project Constellation. The major technological gap the Chinese have is in the area of propulsion. So far they have based their rockets on dual-use technology originally meant for ICBMs much like the USA used Titans for Gemini.

However, the Chinese have already managed to make a cryogenic upper stage and are designing a new launch vehicle family.

Their program moves at a snails pace, but they expect to orbit a space station next decade.

I disagree. Shenzhou is arguably more evolved than a latest model Soyuz. The USA are also going back to capsules as on the Gemini and Apollo days according to Project Constellation. The major technological gap the Chinese have is in the area of propulsion. So far they have based their rockets on dual-use technology originally meant for ICBMs much like the USA used Titans for Gemini.

However, the Chinese have already managed to make a cryogenic upper stage and are designing a new launch vehicle family.

Their program moves at a snails pace, but they expect to orbit a space station next decade.

I disagree. Shenzhou is arguably more evolved than a latest model Soyuz. The USA are also going back to capsules as on the Gemini and Apollo days according to Project Constellation. The major technological gap the Chinese have is in the area of propulsion. So far they have based their rockets on dual-use technology originally meant for ICBMs much like the USA used Titans for Gemini.

However, the Chinese have already managed to make a cryogenic upper stage and are designing a new launch vehicle family.

Their program moves at a snails pace, but they expect to orbit a space station next decade.

I disagree. Shenzhou is arguably more evolved than a latest model Soyuz. The USA are also going back to capsules as on the Gemini and Apollo days according to Project Constellation. The major technological gap the Chinese have is in the area of propulsion. So far they have based their rockets on dual-use technology originally meant for ICBMs much like the USA used Titans for Gemini.

However, the Chinese have already managed to make a cryogenic upper stage and are designing a new launch vehicle family.

Their program moves at a snails pace, but they expect to orbit a space station next decade.

When the they designed the lunar lander, they had to have something that would work 100% to get off the moon, and they used... a solid fuel rocket.

Look here for a cutaway diagram where you can see both the fuel and oxidizer tanks on the LEM.

More about both fuel and oxidizer here

Nitrogen tetroxide became the storable liquid propellant of choice from the late 1950's. Nitrogen tetroxide consists principally of the tetroxide in equilibrium with a small amount of nitrogen dioxide (NO2).
....
Unsymmetrical Dimethylhydrazine ((CH3)2NNH2) became the storable liquid fuel of choice by the mid-1950's. Development of UDMH in the Soviet Union began in 1949. It is used in virtually all storable liquid rocket engines except for some orbital manoeuvring engines in the United States, where MMH has been preferred due to a slightly higher density and performance.

When the they designed the lunar lander, they had to have something that would work 100% to get off the moon, and they used... a solid fuel rocket.

No, the lunar lander used liquid-fueled engines, powered by nitrogen tetroxide and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine, for both the ascent and descent stages.

More information on the lunar module and the fuels it used is widely available, as is information on thier development.

Let me clarify, then. NASA management and contractor management are so incestuous that together they create the "NASA cultural problem" you mention and run the whole show by its self-serving principles.

NASA management is to the space industry what the FDA is to the pharmaceutical industry, a merry-go-round of managers making sure the companies they come from and return to continue to get the contracts written the way that serves them best.

I completely agree that NASA's technical disasters are due to "professional managers". When engineers were in charge we got "Failure is not an option," and by god it wasn't. When the adminimonsters were in charge we got "My God, Thiokol, what do you want to me to do, wait until April to launch?"

But that's entirely different from corporate controls over NASA. When NASA says "Jump!", BoLockMart says "Show us the contract" and NASA says "How high?" and then BoLockMart demands and gets cost over-runs written in and NEVER fail to make complete use of them.

Just a quick case in point: How much money was wasted on the Shuttle C project (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttlec.htm) before it was found to be more expensive than Titans per pound-to-orbit, and cancelled? And having been cancelled, why does it appear as under serious consideration again (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8473961/) (the left of the 3 pictured)? Yet to be determined: how much money will get thrown at something already discarded, who will get that, how much of the intervening study will be replication of work done 15+ years ago, and which would be worse: throwing all that money away on something already proven as uneconimical, or actually building it this time?

Hey now, "The Stick" looks like an awesome ride. A 4 seat Apollo CSM on top an SRB. Now if only Thiokol would go into business for themselves and build a launch center and this beast, they could beat Rutan's Tier Two plans. Face it, Rutan sets the goal posts these days.

I think it was the Soviets who followed the shuttle with their lasers in their version of star wars. This rendered circuitry inoperable for few seconds & crew were blinded momentarily. US lodged complaint with USSR about the incident. Soviets did this to warn US.

http://www.astronautix.com/articles/thistems.htm

This memo could be a photocopy of something circulating thirty years ago. Sounds like they're finally going to take advantage of the modular parts of the shuttle the way they talked about when the shuttle stack design was being originally being funded twenty-five to thirty years ago. One nice change is that the rumor mill believes the heavy lift stack bears a striking resemblance to Robert Zubrin's Ares stack (a.k.a. Shuttle-Z).

The "Shuttle-C" cargo stack (and variations) were originally publically discussed in the early '80s as reasons why the shuttle was worth all we were spending (you don't just get the shuttle, you also get a "normal" heavy-lift launcher). Those variants, however, have had problems that could only be resolved by massive cultural change at the NASA level. One of the biggest issues was payload capacity of the side-slung configuration. Since then variations including the Ares stack and the more recent Shuttle-B have appeared and pretty much gone nowhere.

I suspect that the United Space Alliance's (USA's) "risk averse" culture will actively hinder and ultimately frustrate all of these plans. If you've ever worked for a government contractor, you'll understand the culture I'm talking about. They (Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, the companies in the USA partnership) don't have to compete in markets, and are positively allergic to any hint that they may have to compete with other companies for revenue. If NASA's hoping for bargains, they won't find them when dealing with USA.

Regards,
Ross

Do you have any references for this? The space shuttle has been a vertical take of vehicle since 1970: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttle.htm
I guess that you talk about the early configuration shown in the first picture on
http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld029 .htm
But that configuration was also meant for a vertical takeoff, as can be seen in the third picture. The wings on the booster part is only for the return flight.

Seems the Volna is a liquid-fueled rocket (I didn't know but wanted to find out).

More detailed information on it from http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/r29.htm

"Model: R-29K. IOC: 1978. Country: Russia. Other Designations: RSM-50. Department of Defence Designation [my edit: and NATO designation]: SS-N-18 Mod 2. ASCC Reporting Name: Stingray. Article Number: 4K75K. Manufacturer's Designation: R-29K. Popular Name: Volna. Launch System: D-9. Complex: 4K75K.

First flight 1977.

Manufacturer: Makayev. Total Mass: 34,388 kg. Core Diameter: 1.80 m. Total Length: 14.40 m. Span: 1.80 m. Standard warhead mass: 820 kg. Maximum range: 7,980 km. Number Standard Warheads: 1. Standard warhead yield: 450 KT. Standard warhead CEP: 1 km. Boost Propulsion: Storable liquid rocket. Cruise Propulsion: Storable liquid rocket. Guidance: Inertial."

According to this, all of the rocket's stages were powered by storable liquid fuel engines. So it should be immune to the inherent risks of a solid fuel kick motor. An engineer once told me that a certain percentage of kick motors just blow up, despite x-ray inspections and other tests.

Comparing that to Japan's main delivery system over the past few years, the ill fated H-2 and current H-2A design's combined 77% success rate with only 13 launches compared to the hundreds of US launches, and it's clear that most of the world has a huge leg up on Japan (including China) when it comes to space delivery.

I'm just concerned that Japan seems to want to leapfrog the manned space flight process altogether in favor of this whole automated robots with rocket delivery idea. There's a big technological gap between extended manned space flight (not to mention construction of space stations) and such and just firing rockets out into space.

Okay, this is going to sound a little odd, but just roll along with me on this for a second. So the shuttle can only complete 15-23 ISS construction misssions by the 2010 end-of-flight deadline. Fine. Finish those 15 or 23 or however many missions that the STS can actually get under its belt with the existing manned shuttle system. Then finish the ISS using unmanned shuttles, a la the Soviet Buran http://www.astronautix.com/craft/buran.htm/.

Buran launched, orbited, and landed on its single completed mission without a crew onboard. The Space Shuttle was built with such a capacity in mind, and the components of this system have been tested on several occassions, but it has never undergone an all-up test: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10518 . Maybe I'm naieve, but perhaps we should refurbish and fully test this capability on the existing STS system before we rush into building a Shuttle-C or drop mucho $$$ on launching ISS components with Delta/Atlas EELV's or a foriegn booster. Once auto-shuttle components were in orbit near the ISS they could be retrieved and attached to the station by the station crew or cosmo/astronauts sent up in a Russin Soyuz.

> The only real bonus is that H2O2 is not cryogenic.

That's quite a big bonus. Cryogenic oxidizers are not terribly cheap to handle.

It's quite interesting that this fuel+oxidizer combination has been used successfully before. The British Black Arrow rocket which did a good launch in 1971 used it. [It was then cancelled by a short-sighted government]

There was a successful launch from SLC6. The second Ikonos satellite was launched from there. The first one was also, but it never made it into orbit. http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/athena2.htm

That would probably be part of a Mars Direct style program.

Part of the objectives were propaganda, but there was much militarisation as well. In fact, the military and intelligence community combined spent more on space in either the USA or the USSR than the pseudo-civilian propaganda programs. Compare the budget of the DoD+NRO for space vs NASA's budget. In the USSR, Korolev had to keep convincing the upper echelons that his programs had military use to get funding. Remember, R-7 Soyuz, the rocket which put Gagarin in orbit and from where the current rockets used by the Russians to service ISS come, was sold and used as an ICBM.

The initial military vision involved manned orbital space stations doing Earth reconaissance, supression of enemy use of space or even orbital bombing runs (more problematic because launching mass to orbit is expensive).

Improved computers, and the fact that computers do not need ressuply (computers feed off the fat of the space land via their solar panels, while humans do not), or sleep killed manned military space for Earth observation duties.

IMO if we get into space combat per se, the human element will eventually need to be as close to the action as possible to ensure a rapid response time (communications are only as fast as the speed of light). Space-space or land-space anti-satellite weapons, and space bombers will be with us in the future. Space bombers will likely round up mass from asteroids, etc and launch them at Earth. Cheaper than nuclear weapons and no fallout.

For now, the military only seems to be working on how to supress enemy satellites and launch more of their own. Their own satellites being for space observation via Optical, RADAR and LIDAR or positioning systems ala GPS.

Part of the objectives were propaganda, but there was much militarisation as well. In fact, the military and intelligence community combined spent more on space in either the USA or the USSR than the pseudo-civilian propaganda programs. Compare the budget of the DoD+NRO for space vs NASA's budget. In the USSR, Korolev had to keep convincing the upper echelons that his programs had military use to get funding. Remember, R-7 Soyuz, the rocket which put Gagarin in orbit and from where the current rockets used by the Russians to service ISS come, was sold and used as an ICBM.

The initial military vision involved manned orbital space stations doing Earth reconaissance, supression of enemy use of space or even orbital bombing runs (more problematic because launching mass to orbit is expensive).

Improved computers, and the fact that computers do not need ressuply (computers feed off the fat of the space land via their solar panels, while humans do not), or sleep killed manned military space for Earth observation duties.

IMO if we get into space combat per se, the human element will eventually need to be as close to the action as possible to ensure a rapid response time (communications are only as fast as the speed of light). Space-space or land-space anti-satellite weapons, and space bombers will be with us in the future. Space bombers will likely round up mass from asteroids, etc and launch them at Earth. Cheaper than nuclear weapons and no fallout.

For now, the military only seems to be working on how to supress enemy satellites and launch more of their own. Their own satellites being for space observation via Optical, RADAR and LIDAR or positioning systems ala GPS.

Part of the objectives were propaganda, but there was much militarisation as well. In fact, the military and intelligence community combined spent more on space in either the USA or the USSR than the pseudo-civilian propaganda programs. Compare the budget of the DoD+NRO for space vs NASA's budget. In the USSR, Korolev had to keep convincing the upper echelons that his programs had military use to get funding. Remember, R-7 Soyuz, the rocket which put Gagarin in orbit and from where the current rockets used by the Russians to service ISS come, was sold and used as an ICBM.

The initial military vision involved manned orbital space stations doing Earth reconaissance, supression of enemy use of space or even orbital bombing runs (more problematic because launching mass to orbit is expensive).

Improved computers, and the fact that computers do not need ressuply (computers feed off the fat of the space land via their solar panels, while humans do not), or sleep killed manned military space for Earth observation duties.

IMO if we get into space combat per se, the human element will eventually need to be as close to the action as possible to ensure a rapid response time (communications are only as fast as the speed of light). Space-space or land-space anti-satellite weapons, and space bombers will be with us in the future. Space bombers will likely round up mass from asteroids, etc and launch them at Earth. Cheaper than nuclear weapons and no fallout.

For now, the military only seems to be working on how to supress enemy satellites and launch more of their own. Their own satellites being for space observation via Optical, RADAR and LIDAR or positioning systems ala GPS.

Part of the objectives were propaganda, but there was much militarisation as well. In fact, the military and intelligence community combined spent more on space in either the USA or the USSR than the pseudo-civilian propaganda programs. Compare the budget of the DoD+NRO for space vs NASA's budget. In the USSR, Korolev had to keep convincing the upper echelons that his programs had military use to get funding. Remember, R-7 Soyuz, the rocket which put Gagarin in orbit and from where the current rockets used by the Russians to service ISS come, was sold and used as an ICBM.

The initial military vision involved manned orbital space stations doing Earth reconaissance, supression of enemy use of space or even orbital bombing runs (more problematic because launching mass to orbit is expensive).

Improved computers, and the fact that computers do not need ressuply (computers feed off the fat of the space land via their solar panels, while humans do not), or sleep killed manned military space for Earth observation duties.

IMO if we get into space combat per se, the human element will eventually need to be as close to the action as possible to ensure a rapid response time (communications are only as fast as the speed of light). Space-space or land-space anti-satellite weapons, and space bombers will be with us in the future. Space bombers will likely round up mass from asteroids, etc and launch them at Earth. Cheaper than nuclear weapons and no fallout.

For now, the military only seems to be working on how to supress enemy satellites and launch more of their own. Their own satellites being for space observation via Optical, RADAR and LIDAR or positioning systems ala GPS.

Vladimir Chelomei's Almaz OPS was the only manned military space station ever actually flown. The stations were equipped with an unprecedented array of sensors for 'man-in-the-loop' observation and targeting of mobile ground targets. One was equipped with a space-to-space gun. In the end the station officially proved that manned systems were not a cost-effective method for space reconnaissance and targeting. But the Almaz station provided the basis for the Russian Salyut, Mir, and the International Space Station space station modules.

Incidentally, NASA has lost a total of 18 people in spacecraft accidents, 14 while in flight. The Soviets (officially) lost 4, but supposedly there were at least 12-15 more deaths that haven't been declassified yet.

***********

Bullshit, urban legends and lies, invented by two right-wing italian brothers with CIA backing. Read about all these junk here:

http://www.lostcosmonauts.com/

Total rebuttal is here:

http://www.astronautix.com/astrogrp/phaonaut.htm

... they could have a new type of spacecraft much earlier. Russian engineers are pretty advanced in their plannings for a soyuz replacement: Kliper

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper.html
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/kliper.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliper

the maiden flight was originally planned for 2007-2008 if I remember that correctly (read it in a German aviation magazine (Fliegerrevue) some time ago), but as usual with such projects and russia: sadly they have no more money to complete it. Relatively little american money could have a huge effect here. But I guess national pride on both sides will prevent this from coming true.

regards, sqar