Slashdot Mirror

"Didn't get much from the German effort"?

Have you compared their R-1 to the V-2? Even the Energia calls it (courtesy Google translation) the "first rocket from domestic materials on the basis of German rocket A-4 (V-2)."

Soviet/Russian rockets look so different from the Saturn V because they couldn't overcome combustion instability problems with large thrust chambers, so they settled on using a single turbopump to provide propellants to multiple, smaller thrust chambers. (The Germans didn't run into combustion instability with the V-2 because they used the 18 burner cups, rather than a "shower head" injector. When the American companies started using injectors, they ran into and devised solutions for combustion instability.)

However, I'll launch my cargo to the ISS with A. P. Korolev RSC Energia, more reliable company.

Yours In Akademgorodok,
Kilogre Trout, Scientist

  $1.00 for ALL of the Space Shuttle technology.

I'll have it shipped to the Energia Baikonur Cosmodrome.

Yours In Soyuz,
Kilgore Trout, Cosmonaut

When just few percent of the launchpad mass gets into LEO, such (50+%) waste matters a lot. "The most reliable ... most frequently used launch vehicle in the world" (and among the least expensive ones, also in cost per kg) is a fully expendable rocket, semi-mass produced (on average over 30 per year; though there's a more mass-produced example in the very first widely used, large rocket; and who knows where we would be if OTRAG weren't cancelled for political reasons), and probably comfortably on its way towards a century of service (with how a new launchpad in Guiana is inaugurated right about now). Mass production, simplification, modularisation (of standard units) is what generally seems to do the trick in lowering costs of operations; few large, unique and overcomplicated units generally accomplishes quite the contrary.

Besides, capsules can be largely reusable as well. And don't forget how much they can do, and did, that STS-class vehicle cannot. Plus, why would you want humans to do experiments in a capsule? Space stations are for that ...for quite a bit longer than a puny one week (and if you insist, compare the length of "Soyuz strips" with those of the Shuttle in this timeline ...the first type looking there more like actual spaceships).

And most of the space station modules historically lifted, did so on an expendable launcher. In fact, there is some talk of retrofitting few in-storage "western part style" ISS modules with small orbital tugs, launching them on average medium launchers, and docking them autonomously like all Russian and some Japanese and European modules do - what will most likely end up being less expensive (including the R&D and manufacture of tugs!), less wasteful, than launching such modules on STS was! (which was "required" for many ISS modules only because they were specifically constructed that way, to give the Shuttle some purpose).
Think about it for a second - STS was among the three most powerful, by far, launchers in history (if not the most powerful at take off, too lazy to check). And yet, its payload capability was merely in the range of many medium expendable launchers. Proton, Ariane 5, Delta IV, Atlas V, Falcon, Long March, Angara, Rus. Pick one.

One shot of such launcher already gives comparable amounts of stuff to work with (of course you also need to launch crew on a separate launch or two, but it still ends up more economical and with much greater possibilities, much longer stay). And, if doing one launch of STS-scale rocket but without the waste of a glorified glider, you'd have few times more in just that one launch (Energia was a bit more sensible like that from the start - the Buran was just its payload; another one was an 80 ton space station modules, one being also at the core of their Mars mission spacecraft which Energia was to asemble; SLS will be also capable of such, it will represent this more sensible approach)

And if you want to bring some stuff back... well, capsules also lead in the amounts of recovered, valuable, purpose-specific, actually reused equipment (also scientific missions, including half of NASA experiments of such type, most during the Cold War; another type, and few more variants of just this one capsule here ...though the "Reentry" text of Foton, seemingly pasted over few arts, doesn't really make much sense and needs to be corr

and requires Soyuz launch services.

Go Energia !!!!

Yours in Miami,
K. Trout

Also chess and hockey (here's hoping for crossover). Electronic music, Tetris, RAR, Chatroulette (well, last two not so Soviet)

Though I'm not quite sure how them putting the first satellite and man into space (or first photograph of far side of the Moon, first lunar flyby, first spacecraft reaching the escape velocity of the Earth & on circumsolar orbit; first lunar impact, soft landing + photos from the surface some time later; first flyby of another planet and atmospheric probes; and those are just launched by R-7) leaves much for "We had to beat the commies into space" ;p

(maybe even somewhat more focused; to bad either cash strapped, (also) forced into crazed crash projects, or worse / both ; but BTW, check out Atlas V and Taurus II main engines, and first stage of the latter ;p )

PS. But IMHO you still see the past through rose-coloured glasses, a bit...

In the meantime, Russia works for few decades on a sustainable (vs. crash projects in the style of Apollo) means of deep space travel. BTW, ISS is a part of that work...

Heck, they have few decades of experience operating a manned spacecraft essentially capable of beyond-LEO operation (have $100 million? Get yourself a ride around the Moon - those are people behind almost all "orbital tourists"), a spacecraft which was the first to carry a macroscopic life beyond LEO (...around the Moon) and back, as Zond.

The technology which allowed them early lead in space was probably also largely a consequence of geopolitical reality and established US lead, in other field - huge bomber force. With "bomber gap" being just a myth, jumping on the next step was only reasonable for something perceived very much as a defense - so they had the first operational ICBM, R-7 Semyorka (not like "missile gap" wasn't a myth too - with just few rockets ready for launch a day later, and only if the policy of storing rockets and warheads separately was breached...). Not very good as an ICBM, not very practical. But - partly by chance, partly probably by the genius of Korolev & others involved - it turned out to be a fabulous launcher family; the most reliable ... most frequently used launch vehicle in the world (and one of least expensive ones).

It launched Sputnik ; gave us the first photograph of far side of the Moon, first lunar flyby, first spacecraft reaching the escape velocity of the Earth & on circumsolar orbit; first lunar impact, soft landing + photos from the surface some time later; first flyby of another planet and atmospheric probes (well, and reaching the surface... crushed)

Also Gagarin. In fact, after Yuri, it launched every manned Soviet and Russian spacecraft (plus all "orbital tourists"). A century of service seems within its grasp (with new - yet unused - launchpad in Kourou...)

(BTW, will we ever drop the politically-motivated & quite absurd astronaut?)

And those dreams about expected modes of Mars (space, generally) travel, extrapolating (not understanding, generally) rates of early progress, turned out to be wrong. Kinda similar to dreams about flying horses, chairs, carpets, or those airplanes from "our" times (imagined during rapid advances of marine tech; and we can even build them - take a Harrier, remove wings and canopy... still a horrible idea vs. "boring" reality). It's a sign of limited imagination when people want to hear about the grandiose, fabulous, "awesome" style of exploration typical of scifi (works of fiction); when they expect something palatable, nothing too uncomfortable and alien from Earthly experiences. Bonus: it's much easier to write...

Or consider how the "spaceplanes" came to dominate scifi... around the 40s, during rapid advances of airplane tech (I can see a pattern...); how the designers and decision-makers of the Shuttle were undoubtedly raised on those works of fiction. And how they gave us an analogue of Catalina, at best (Spruce Goose, at worst); something which, again, looked very soothing to public already quite accustomed to airliners / Concorde. And which probably robbed as at least of a decade of progress; was obsolete (with automatic rendezvous & docking done in the 60s) before it seriously got onto drawing boards.

Ultimately, people will continue being upset how the space travel will most likely remain fundamentally different from earthly experiences. Afraid to face the absolutely wild realities of existing universe. In the meantime, how many even realize that we can already send people when they are miniaturized and in deep hibernation and that dozens of thousands people on Earth are past the procedure? Heck, give me one medium launcher + few dozen million bucks, and I can transport at least a thousand viable humans practically to anywhere in our system.

Furthermore, crash projects in the style of Apollo turned out to be unsustainable even for the Moon. But do you realize how much work went and still goes into eventual human deep space missions?

(and fuel efficiency determines cruise speeds, not top speed achievable during design stage / the difference in meaningless with other time sinks and considering how much more people modern airliners are able to transport; airlines often adjust the cruising speeds up or down few km/h for fuel efficiency anyway; also, were you ever close to a landing 707? That was the only aircraft I experienced that managed to be really irritatingly loud... in a center of 700k+ city (one approach to the airport at its periphery takes the planes over center, still few hundred m up))

Energia outbids them.

Yours in Murmansk,
K. Trout, C.

1) from much higher latitudes (seeing the improvement in GTO Soyuz will get in Kourou, from 1.7 to 2.8 tonnes...) 2) plus A7V is a standard Angara, 7 of them; one can also mean the heavy variant of core Angara stages, giving a stack in 100 tonnes range.

^why it was primarily about "Of course ... much more late ... would have to be on time, also with its heavy variant, at the least."; which is unlikely, to say the least (too bad, really, they are constantly cash-strapped... and if only STS & Buran didn't suck their space agencies dry) - but then, when did SpaceX delivered their new projects on PR announcements schedules? (NVM constant mentions of "reusability"; & costs just finally close to other inexpensive vehicles)

Nothing except chemical is needed, in grander picture, for launchers. LEO is already not far from Kessler Syndrome, even with our "puny" launch capabilities. You don't really want to put much more mass in there. Many interesting places have hardly any atmosphere, you really want to tread softly around them...

Outside of launching - where have you been? Many sats have electric propulsion since the 70s (reactors, too...). ISS is getting one soon. Thing is, one big crash project in the style (or grander) of Apollo is not the way for interplanetary. It will be fairly slow and expensive anyway (and we bet since some time on electric propulsion + advanced solar cells or reactor).

Then there's JIMO, something NASA evidently wanted to do... but the people want bread, circuses, and empty promises of manned missions.

An why so in a hurry? Surely you don't think socioeconomic realities from Earth to be of any significance "out there"... Especially once we master space manufacturing sometimes during the next millennium (only then the expansion will start, and it might be solar sails + ITN for all we know; or, further, gradual asteroid and comet hopping over thousands of years into the Oort cloud, and some groups eventually hitching a ride with a cloud of some passing star - that still gives very rapid colonization of the galaxy)

But there's one thing you can bet on. A continuation of what is very much the case on Earth, even with easy travel available. But much stronger. You're very likely to die near the place you were born
And vast majority of initial travel might very well be, say, mostly when you're highly miniaturized and in deep hibernation; awoken at the destination (and again, most likely dying there) - something which we already routinely do to thousands of people every year, and we can already send hundreds if not thousands on one medium chemical launcher to any place in the system (but not many people seem to realize that; their "broad" imagination seems to be ultimately quite shallow; maybe in the style of "a mind open to the point when brain falls out" saying)

(and the Saturn improvement with NERVA stage wasn't anywhere so dramatic, don't make it sound much better than it is)

From what we know about our universe, it's very unlikely any survey ships will be coming back. Also, archetypal "dark ages" are largely a myth, a fabrication of following era - those were also times of immense progress.

Generally, it's possible that such grandiose inspirations do at least quite comparable amounts of harm and good. STS (and how it provoked ignorant Soviet generals into pushing for "strategic counterpart" for nonexistent advantage, when their engineers wanted to do different things, also outside LEO...) can be easily seen as a great contribution to the possibility of near Earth orbit being the final frontier of manned space exploration in our lifetime [1]. Unsustainable crash projects in the style of Apollo (not that STS was very different) also aren't the way (BTW, please remind me - what happened with public attention soon after July 20, 1969?). Overall, be careful for those "boldly going beyond the reaches of our imagination" minds to not fall out of their skulls (as one saying with being "open minded" goes) - for one example at hand: it's quite possible that designers and decisionmakers of the STS were raised by pop scifi from 30s, 40s and 50s - scifi with many dreams (nightmares, it turns out?) of "spaceplanes", no doubt inspired by rapid advances in airplane technology during that time. Kinda like those airplanes from "our times" - no doubt influenced by rapid advances in marine tech (and we can even build them! Take a Harrier, remove wings and canopy) - vs. what reality dictates as a good idea (for airplanes! Not launchers and spacecraft... unless you want something analogous to Catalina at best, Spruce Goose at worst)

(BTW, why is the Enterprise counted as a Space Shuttle, as an orbiter, anyway? Equivalent in Buran program was called "Buran aerodynamic analogue"...)

1. It's not very likely though. Have $100 million? Get yourself a ride (those are the people responsible for almost all orbital "tourists")

ISS is a synergy, not only a continuation of Alpha project (which was indeed planned in a way to give Shuttle a purpose...and it can be argued that the Shuttle stalled some grander things...), also of modules which were for some time in the making / were supposed to form Mir 2. And about those plans and direction... (almost a bit too bad they lost the Moon Race, I can almost see them maintaining small lunar base for some time now)

Thing is, the future probably can't be done via a crazy crash project in the style of Apollo. ISS does help us along the way

Umm.. are you deliberately trying to be ironic?

You *are* aware that the Soyuz is operated by a "private enterprise" right?

They even have a website.

The solution is Energia.

Yours In Orlando,
Kilgore Trout, C.I.O.

N.A.S.A. avoids doing business with the fly-by-night SUB-ORBITAL launch companies ( ie. Scaled Composites. SpaceX et al.) and
decides to lift real industrial payloads with Energia.

Yours In Baikonur,
Kilgore Trout

Cue all the private space launch company fans.

There's only outfit that can do it.

That outfit is Energia

Have fun.

Yours In Baikonur,
Kilgore T.

Energia.

Yours In Cape Canaveral,
Kilgore Trout

is with Energia.

Yours In Baikonur,
Kilgore Trout

  S.P. Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation Energia.

I hope Energia takes over the U.S. Shuttle Program. It's better than letting these so-called U.S. "start-ups" wreck it.

Yours In Akademgorodok,
Kilgore Trout

N.A.S.A. should continue with a professional launch company.

Yours In Minsk,
K. Trout

Energia.

Yours In Baikonur,
Kilgore Trout

is to use Energia, makers of Soyuz.

Yours In Baikonur,
Kilgore Trout

Russian technology

Yours In Baikonur,
Kilgore T.

And the solution is called Energia.

Go Soyuz !

Yours In Akademgorodok,
K. Trout

launch company known as Energia.

Yours In Flight,
Kilgore Trout

contract with Energia for future
space launches so N.A.S.A. can do something RIGHT.

Yours In Baikonur,
Kilgore Trout

It's called Energia

Hopefully, after the Shuttle is retired, N.A.S.A. will
outsource their launches to Energia rather than the U.S.-based fly-by-night private space launch companies.

Yours In Kazakhstan,
Kilgore Trout

and just subcontract the work to theSoyuz engineers.

What's next on the list of delays: slow pizza delivery,
mice, North Korean botnets, or Bruno?

Yours In Socialism,
Kilgore Trout

the engineers who build RELIABLE Soyuz spacecraft.

Yours In Socialism,
Kilgore Trout

The Russians have always done space better than the Americans and probably always will. It's typical American arrogance and stupidity to be wasting money trying to reinvent the wheel when you could just buy the technology from the people who already have it.

http://www.energia.ru/english/

This is a link to an interview with the General Designer of Russia's Korolev Space and Rocket Corporation. Interesting information about the Clipper space transportation system, and also about ion engine spaceships that they plan to send to the Moon and Mars.

Russians make BIG liquid fuel rockets. See http://www.energia.ru/english/energia/launchers/ve hicle_energia.html

US (NASA) are good with solid boosters.

So if Carmack wants advice about liquid fuel boosters he should hire a few of the Russians that designed these engines. Without any help, we'll just repeat all of the mistakes of the past.

Well. That's what russian are doing, using soyuz (heavy lift rocket) and Progress (transport cargo) http://www.energia.ru/english/energia/iss/iss-deve lop.html. And that's lucky for the people onboard ISS !

There are a few things wrong with your statement. First, although generally true that they use the same collar for docking to the ISS, the generic "all manned vehicles" isn't true. NASA has a variety of interfaces, including the Common Berthing Mechanism (CBM) and Manual Berthing Mechanism (MBM) used on the ISS, but these are generally for berthing, not docking. Still, the CBM is an alternate docking mechanism (see for instance Section 5.1.5 of the Alternate Access to Station (AAS) Systems Concept of a Logistics Resupply Service to the ISS). The Russian interface is the Androgynous Peripheral Attachment System (APAS) as part of the Androgynous Peripheral Docking System(APDS). There are two parts to the APDS, passive and active. To convert from the NASA CBM interface to APAS, the ISS has three Pressurized Mating Adaptors (PMA1, 2, and 3). PMA1 has an active APDS because it connects the NASA Node 1 (Unity) to the Russian FGB module, and so isn't used for docking. PMA2 and PMA3 have passive APDS because they are used for docking. (See Section 1.1 of the Procurement Document for the APDS referenced above.)

Since both vehicles dock to the ISS, the shuttle does have an APAS adapter known as the Orbital Docking System (ODS). This is the 'L' shaped connector that attaches to the port at the front of the shuttle bay. It is only attached in missions to the ISS, and the APAS interface is only used for docking to the ISS. It isn't inherently true that all docking operations will be done using an APAS. However, since the only docking currently taking place is with the ISS, this is currently functionally true. It is only an ISS policy, however. The ODS is not installed on Hubble missions.

Furthermore, both the Soyuz and shuttle ODS have the active APDS side (again, see for instance Section 1.1 of the Procurement Document for the APDS above). Neither has the passive side because they are the ones doing the docking. In addition to this, approach and docking to the passive APDS is accomplished using docking cues (targets). (See, for example, Section 5.1.7.3.4.2 of the Interface Definition Document (IDD) for International Space Station (ISS) Visiting Vehicles (VVs). Neither the shuttle ODS nor Soyuz have these docking cues, again because they are the ones doing the docking.

So, I stand by my assertion that it is not as simple as you say. This method needs to be planned ahead with the right adaptors and docking systems developed and carried with them, probably flown on a Detailed Test Objective (DTO) flight, certified and validated. Again, such a system takes years of development.

As far as the orbit, it isn't clear that the Soyuz module or launch rocket are designed to go as far as Hubble. For instance, it appears that the Soyuz used for ISS mission and crew descent is only designed to descend from up to 460 km. The Hubble is at an altutude of about 600 km. So, if you have a reference on your assertion that "The Soyuz can easily reach the Hubble orbit", please forward it. Even better would be one that says it can descend from there. (Reaching it is useless as a rescue vehicle if it can't descend.)

It's not like NASA just missed the idea of using Soyuz, and you amazingly came up with the solution they're looking for. They are very smart you know. You also don't seem to realize that many of us who read Slashdot work for or with NASA (the geek ratio is quite high), so we often have the inside scoop or at least knowledge of what's involved.

Maybe Nasa should use the Energia for that. 100 tons into LEO, and development's already done.

In principle, perhaps. On the other hand, the Shuttles are only supposed to be used for a few more missions and NASA is looking for a stopgap backup system now. Designing and testing a new escape capsule system would take years and cost billions of dollars, and probably not be ready until after the current generation of Shuttles are retired.

Escape capsules might make sense for the next generation of craft.

Hmmm...for a quick and dirty solution, you could put two Soyuz capsules in the cargo bay. From here, the dimensions suggest that you could still have some space left over in the cargo bay. (Soyuz diameter 2.7 m, length 7 m. Shuttle cargo bay is 18.3 m length and 4.6 m width.) The Soyuz capsules could be stripped down a bit, too.

Heck, it can put up 32t to Lunar orbit!

The Russian shuttles are called "shuttles" just like the American ones, and they each have an individual name or designation. "Buran" or "Ptichka" for example.

Here is the English part of the Energia website upon which you will find surprisingly, that the company is called "S.P.Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation Energia".

http://www.energia.ru/english/

Moral of the story don't trust companies to give accurate information about their competitors. :) would you trust Microsoft to truthfully pronounce on GNU/Linux?

There was a mini Russian shuttle as well, but I'm affraid if I ever did know it's name I have now forgoton. I'm pretty sure it wasn't Energia however, what with that being the company's name. :)

And perhaps a good ground for the interview would be Energia Corps' own Martian Mission web

How about outsourcing to the S.P.Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation? The Russians would surely jump at the chance.

See also Sea Launch Project, a joint venture by American, Russian, Ukrainian, Norvegian, British companies.

The Energia company website says:

Mass of payloads delivered to:

* low orbits of artificial Earth satellite - up to 100 t
* the geostationary orbit - up to 20 t
* the lunar mission trajectory - up to 32 t.

A nuke powered launch vehicle could lift a 1000 ton payload to orbit or a 300 ton Mars mission that could get there faster and not have to rely on producing fuel for the return trip.

Saturn V: 118,000 kg
Energia: 100,000 kg

Being a Russian design, it's likely that the Energia is far cheaper per launch (and per kg) than the Saturn V, so the former is probably the best choice.

Technically you're right, it wasn't dumb. Energia had a very nice throttleable engine, but Energia was not quite reusable. The strapons it used were pretty much exactly the same as Zenit stage 1, and the core engine was basically a 10 use SSME that no one trusted to actually be reusable. Tests since then have shown it could probably be reused at least once, but there were no known plans to at the time of Buran's launch. In fact, while the strapons were planned to be eventually reusable (parachute return) during the lifetime of the base Energia configuration, the only one actually tested, a reusable core was only planned for implementation if a design variant (Energia-2) was picked up for use.

Lot of reliable info on Energia at astronautix. Also, Energia (the design bureau) retains some pages on Energia (the rocket) at their Energia page.

So, while you are correct that it was throttleable, it was not reusable. It was designed to be possible, but it was not used in that fashion at the time of its only launch.

MIR operated for three times as long as intended. How is this not impressive?

The Saturn V was arguably the most powerful machine built in all of recorded human history (that was not a bomb) and to this day, no launch vehicle has ever matched it's sheer lifting capaibility.

Ever heard of Energia rocket?

Personally I would want to be on the rocket that had a lower percentage of failure and thus would want the American space suit, but perhaps I'm biased. ;)

are you aware that Energia, the rocket which evolved after all this "try to get failure" type of development has very low rate of failures? Oh well - it's around 99% of succesfull launches.

I can't google it right now. But if you want to check - start here and there.

This is a newsworthy story as the this guy is going to be one of the first to use ISS to test crystal growth . . .

Okay, I'll be nice since you said "one of the first". I just want to point out that ESA has already flown a crystal growth experiment to ISS three times. The experiment is called PromISS from the Universite Libre de Bruxelles. The PromISS experiment box and samples were sent to ISS via Russian Progress and Soyuz modules. PromISS operates inside the ESA built Microgravity Science Glovebox within NASA's Destiny Laboratory.

PromISS first flew on the Odissea Mission, also known as the Belgian Taxi Flight, in 2002. PromISS-2 flew again in 2003 on the Cervantes Mission (Spanish Soyuz Mission) and the third set of experiments is currently being performed on ISS as part of the Delta Mission (Dutch Soyuz Mission).

- charboy

This is a newsworthy story as the this guy is going to be one of the first to use ISS to test crystal growth . . .

Okay, I'll be nice since you said "one of the first". I just want to point out that ESA has already flown a crystal growth experiment to ISS three times. The experiment is called PromISS from the Universite Libre de Bruxelles. The PromISS experiment box and samples were sent to ISS via Russian Progress and Soyuz modules. PromISS operates inside the ESA built Microgravity Science Glovebox within NASA's Destiny Laboratory.

PromISS first flew on the Odissea Mission, also known as the Belgian Taxi Flight, in 2002. PromISS-2 flew again in 2003 on the Cervantes Mission (Spanish Soyuz Mission) and the third set of experiments is currently being performed on ISS as part of the Delta Mission (Dutch Soyuz Mission).

- charboy