Russia to approve new Moon rocket

Yousuf Khan wrote in :

Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
BradGuth wrote in
news:db77563a-c9e0-42bc-a098-9c6d4d2aba06
@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
Why reinvent the wheel?

To save both time and money. IIRC, the Ares I is just a shuttle SRM
stacked on top of an Atlas, both of which are off the shelf
components. To reconstruct the Saturn V would actually require
effort, but they had the Ares I designed about two months after Bush
announced the new plan.

So it looks like solid rockets are now fully trusted at NASA. During
the Moon missions, NASA management (i.e. Wernher von Braun) distrusted
solid rockets for good reason, and so solid rockets were off-limits.
That's why Saturn V was so big, it was liquid rocket that needed to
leave Earth orbit. You need a lot of liquid to do that.

As it turned out solid rockets were the reason for the first of the
two Space Shuttle disasters, Challenger. So NASA's initial objections
to solid rockets was verified. I suppose those redesigned O-rings have
now made these solid rockets "rock solid" for NASA.

AFAIK, this is the first time NASA has ever used an SRM for an upper
stage booster.

On Mar 22, 2:44*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
BradGuth wrote in
:
Why reinvent the wheel?

To save both time and money. *IIRC, the Ares I is just a shuttle SRM
stacked on top of an Atlas, both of which are off the shelf components. *
To reconstruct the Saturn V would actually require effort, but they had
the Ares I designed about two months after Bush announced the new plan.

So it looks like solid rockets are now fully trusted at NASA. During the
Moon missions, NASA management (i.e. Wernher von Braun) distrusted solid
rockets for good reason, and so solid rockets were off-limits. That's
why Saturn V was so big, it was liquid rocket that needed to leave Earth
orbit. You need a lot of liquid to do that.

As it turned out solid rockets were the reason for the first of the two
Space Shuttle disasters, Challenger. So NASA's initial objections to
solid rockets was verified. I suppose those redesigned O-rings have now
made these solid rockets "rock solid" for NASA.

* *Yousuf Khan

Redesign wasn't much. Some of the rocket engineers thought it was
still an accident waiting to happen, but the contractor made a ton of
bucks, everybody got promoted and people were happy. Oh yeah, the
whistleblower got fired.
Biggest solution was changing launch parameters and not letting it
launch in freezing weather. There was O ring charring on earlier
flights, we'd see reports, but not being rocket types, figured that's
what happens in solids. Got something burning in a tube, stuff chars.
Of course if you get burnthrough, nasty things happen.

Big reason for liquid fuel, you can throttle it up and down. Can't do
that on solids. They tried that on SRAM II, motor blew up. Cheney
eventually canned it. There were tons of other issues. I had the
feeling Boeing wasn't really thrilled about testing it, had a bitch of
a time getting parameters for it. Instrumentation guys were
reassigned, stuff I got was almost a year out of date. And remember,
engineers tinker with parameters almost up to time of flight. Don't
have a up to date list of what is where and how its to be changed to
digital from analog, you've pretty much got crap for data.

frank wrote in news:2bedc834-82a4-4f60-b0a5-
:

Big reason for liquid fuel, you can throttle it up and down. Can't do
that on solids. They tried that on SRAM II, motor blew up.

How do you "try" to throttle an SRM, with no pipes to put valves on? Giant
throttle plate above the nozzle, inside the burn? That *does* sound like
an certain explosion.

BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 16, 4:19 pm, Bluuuue Rajah Bluuuuue@Rajah. wrote:
Russia to approve new Moon rocket
By Anatoly Zak
Science reporter

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7946689.stm

Russia is developing a new generation of space vehicles

Russian space officials are to select the winning proposal for a new
rocket intended to carry cosmonauts on missions to the Moon.

This will mark the first time since 1964 that the Russian space
programme has made the Moon its main objective.

It will be only the second time since the collapse of the Soviet Union
that Moscow has endorsed the development of a new space vehicle.

The rocket is expected to fly its first test mission in about 2015.

According to the objectives given by the Russian space agency
(Roscosmos) to industry, a future rocket should be able to hoist a
payload three times heavier than Russia's veteran Soyuz spacecraft,
including twice the number of crew, and use environmentally friendly
propellants.

The development of the new rocket should be accompanied by work on
Russia's next-generation manned spacecraft, which will use it to get
into orbit.

Russian space officials say the yet-to-be-named rocket should carry its
first manned spacecraft in 2018. The project was timed to roughly
coincide with the US space agency's (Nasa) plans to return astronauts to
the Moon by 2020 under its Constellation programme.

Late start

However, in what seems like a case of history repeating itself, Russia
is starting late in its bid to beat the US - and potentially China - to
the Moon.

In 1961, President John F Kennedy met the Soviet challenge in space by
launching the original US lunar effort.

Yet the Soviet government waited until 1964 before committing itself to
the costly expenditure of a manned landing.

The Kremlin ultimately aborted the monumental effort after the Apollo 11
lunar module touched down on the Moon first.

In a 21st Century version of this Moon race, the US, Europe, China,
India and Japan had all declared their intention to explore Earth's
natural satellite, while Russia struggled to emerge from its post-Soviet
economic crisis.

As Nasa starts unveiling the first prototypes of US rockets and
spacecraft for lunar expeditions, Roscosmos is only starting its lunar
programme.

To make matters worse, along with the new fleet of rockets and
spacecraft which need to be built, the Russian government committed in
2007 to moving its main space launch site from the Baikonur Cosmodrome
in Kazakhstan to Vostochny in Russia's Far East.

The new rocket is intended to carry a manned capsule to the Moon

In 2008, Roscosmos finally started quietly soliciting proposals from the
industry to develop a brand-new rocket which could support lunar
expeditions. All major Russian space firms reportedly vied for the
government contract to build the vehicle.

While Roscosmos had never publicised details of the bidding process, a
number of Russian space officials hinted that they were close to
choosing a winner at the beginning of 2009.

On 14 March, Alexander Chulkov, head of the rocket and launch facilities
directorate at Roscosmos, told BBC News that the agency would pick a
winner by March 25.

"We have a bidding procedure, under which we made a request for
proposals and now will be reviewing those proposals to determine a prime
developer, based on the most interesting project from the cost-
effectiveness point of view," Mr Chulkov said.

He explained that the agency's main requirement for the future manned
rocket was to be able to carry no less than 20 tonnes to low-Earth
orbit, with the maximum capacity of about 23 tonnes.

For comparison, the Soyuz capsule, which Soviet and Russian cosmonauts
have been riding to orbit since 1967, weighs around seven tonnes. Nasa's
Ares-I rocket for the next-generation Orion spacecraft will be able to
lift a total of 25 tonnes.

Everybody wins?

Contenders must also employ non-toxic propellants such as kerosene or
liquid hydrogen on all stages of the vehicle.

According to Mr Chulkov, industry will generally be free to design the
general architecture of the future rocket.

"Roscosmos has its own opinion about the configuration (of the rocket),
which we would like to see, however, we understand there is some
distance between what we want and what might be available," Chulkov
said.
The new Russian rocket could take one of several configurations

The decision on the prime developer would clear the way to the
preliminary design phase of the rocket, which was expected to last for
about one year.

"Thus, in 2009 we will start the development of this rocket," Mr Chulkov
said.

Although the Russian space agency is expected to name a single prime
developer, it has been rumoured in unofficial fora that the contract
would distribute various responsibilities for the project among several
major rocket firms.

These include TsSKB Progress in Samara, the developer of the Soyuz
rocket, and KB Mashinostroenia in Miass, a chief developer of submarine-
launched ballistic missiles.

Thus, a bulk of the workforce building Russian rockets today will remain
employed.

How heavy is heavy?

A new rocket for the manned spacecraft is only one component in the
array of hardware which will be required to land humans on the Moon in
the 21st century.

With the multi-launch scenario for a lunar expedition adopted by both
Nasa and Roscosmos, a separate heavy lifting vehicle would be needed to
carry the lunar landing module and the rocket stage to propel it from
the Earth orbit toward the Moon.

However, it seems that Nasa and Russia have drastically different
understanding of what "heavy-lift" means.

While the US space agency embarked on the development of its titanic
Ares-V rocket with a payload capacity target of 145 tonnes, Russian
space officials have indicated a much lower appetite for payload
tonnage.

"In the field of heavy-lifting rockets we have… the yet-to-be-flown
Angara (rocket), while the requirements for the next-generation rocket
are within the same category," Mr Chulkov said.

The Angara rocket, which has been under development since the mid-1990s,
is expected to make its maiden flight in 2011.

It would be capable of carrying as many as 35 tonnes into low-Earth
orbit. But some of its derivatives could lift between 40 and 50 tonnes.

According to documents from the Khrunichev enterprise, developer of the
Angara rocket, up to four launches of the Angara-7 vehicle would be
required to accomplish a single lunar expedition. By comparison, Nasa
can rely on one Ares-I rocket and one Ares-V for each Moon landing.

Why not use the 100% reliable and 30% inert massive Saturn 5
configuration?

Why reinvent the wheel?

~ BG

You mean the same Saturn V that no one has plans for?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

BradGuth wrote:
Why not use the 100% reliable and 30% inert massive Saturn 5
configuration?

Why reinvent the wheel?


Also it seems like they are doing partly as you are asking them to do.
The rocket engine in the upper stage is a the J2-X which is a derivative
of the J2 engine that was in Saturn.

Yousuf Khan