Eyes Turned Skywards

Reader mode

Xavier

Bahamut-255 said:
It's possible. But don't forget that the RLA had a serious problem. It needed a 1,200,000Kgf Lox/Kerosene Staged-Combustion Cycle engine for its Core Stage. Even with extra funding, the chances of it being ready - in OTL design form - by the mid-1980s is, at the absolute best, extremely slim. 8 modified NK-33 engines would mitigate the issue somewhat, but leave a whole new problem in it's wake, massive engine clusters in its more powerful forms. 56 engines in the core stages in 250,000Kg payload RLA-165 form! Of which 48 must work together for the first 180-210 seconds!:eek::eek::eek:
Click to expand...
Hmm, good point, OTOH, scaling back to "just" 2000kN/chamber creates the Zenit, still delivering a very respectable payload. (and allowing an Angara 1.1 & 1.2 equivalent to replace lighter launchers)
Actually, Energia without Buran wouldn't do bad either, and be quite flexible with Energia M & Vulkan as other options.

Zenit might actually be the best option if the true heavy lifting isn't needed right away, if it is they can either go for *Energia, or get the **RLA-1200 engine running.

*Probably less likely without the SSME as inspiration for the RD-0120.
**just checked on astronautix and got a surprise: the RD-170 was the pacing item for Energia and the RD-0120 went smoothly.
So the RLA-1200 indeed runs a high risk of a hideously expensive and lenghty development process.
 

Bahamut-255

Xavier said:
**just checked on astronautix and got a surprise: the RD-170 was the pacing item for Energia and the RD-0120 went smoothly.
So the RLA-1200 indeed runs a high risk of a hideously expensive and lenghty development process.
Click to expand...

It is a surprise, considering the limited experience they had with LOX/LH2 technology prior to development of Energia/Buran OTL. One of the primary reasons they had for designing the Energia LV the way that they did.

That's why I suspect that the LV they have here will resemble a modular design like the RLA and Angara. With no STS, there's no need to mimic it. So no large LOX/LH2 engine is needed - the small (7,900Kgf) RD-56 is still very much an option though.
 

grdja83

How did I miss this gem?

Nice TL, most expecting the update.

Even though ATL 2000's USA will likely have its own designs and have no need for RD-180; denying the world the RD-170 family would be a tragedy. It took ages to develop; but its The Kerlox Engine.

Whatever Soviet update brings I really hope it has some of the words: "Glushko, NPO Energia, RD-120 and RD-170" in it. Vulkan quickly became their HLLV choice after N1 program died; only becoming Energia when politicians decided that USSR needs a shuttle of its own, because Americans had one. Looking up on RLA, its a bit extreme and it makes going for (maybe a pure kerlox) Energia easy choice. You still get 20-200t potential from same family.

Question now is, will the Soviet big card be the Moon base that NPO Energia kept dreaming about... or maybe just maybe... Aelita. :)
 

e of pi

grdja83 said:
How did I miss this gem?

Nice TL, most expecting the update.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I don't want to say too much in regards to all the speculation to avoid completely spoiling things...let's just say that the RD-170 itself will unfortunately not happen at this point, but that the RD-170 family will exist though with a few butterflies.

As for American kerolox...they have the F-1A, and there's probably some more potential to be had there if they focus on the Isp instead of just upping the thrust.
Question now is, will the Soviet big card be the Moon base that NPO Energia kept dreaming about... or maybe just maybe... Aelita. :)
Click to expand...
We'll see, won't we?
 

Xavier

grdja83 said:
... Looking up on RLA, its a bit extreme and it makes going for (maybe a pure kerlox) Energia easy choice. You still get 20-200t potential from same family...
Click to expand...
I just realised that the Energia core is just about the right size to fit 4 RD-170s with adequate fuel... The engines will stick out some like on a Saturn 5, but there should still be room for 2-4 zenit-sized boosters. The result: a rocket with up to 8 RD-170s and almost 64000kN of thrust.

e of pi said:
...let's just say that the RD-170 itself will unfortunately not happen at this point, but that the RD-170 family will exist though with a few butterflies...
Click to expand...
Just what does that mean? Angara in the eighties, Atlas Vski, RLA with a 6-chambered monster engine??

I'm getting reaaally curious as to just what the Rodina will come up with!
 

Bahamut-255

Xavier said:
Just what does that mean? Angara in the eighties, Atlas Vski, RLA with a 6-chambered monster engine??
Click to expand...

It means exactly what it says. (1)A family of modular LOX/Kerosene rocket engines. Single-engine single-chamber. Single-engine dual-chamber. And Single-engine quad-chamber. All to meet a variety of Launch Vehicle and Payload requirements.


I'm getting reaaally curious as to just what the Rodina will come up with!
Click to expand...
And this coming Wednesday, we should all get the answer.


(1) Based on earlier posts, the odds are good - well, better at the very least - that the NK-33, NK-43, and NK-39 have survived in some form. There is a chance that they form the basis of the new rocket engines that will be used in the new LVs.

All of which depends on one thing. Valentin Petrovich Glushko. A man with a major ego, an early love of hypergolically propelled rockets, and Soviet Chief Designer from 04/1976-01/1989 OTL. IIRC, the only reason he made LOX/Kerosene rocket engines at all in the early 1960s was because the Politburo didn't give him any choice in the matter. And the only reason the NK Series of Rocket Engines can survive is if the same happens here.
 

grdja83

And I forgot some obvious questions notes.

Are tug and OTV programs alive/hibernating/dead? If you are going to Mars or even just back to Moon you will need fuel depots and tugs also start looking nice in this case. It would be mostly going back to scaled down Shuttle-less STG plan. Any non HLLV exploration architecture eventually ends with OTVs, tugs, LEO, L-point and LLO way-stations and fuel depots.

Then you get Phobos sample return mission and you can start thinking about ISRU. (Phobos fuel production makes things much easier than Mars surface fuel production. You can fuel your Earth return vehicle with Phobos made fuel; while Mars surface fuel is only usable for crew ascent vehicle).

Even without "big surprise", if Soviets just tried to parry current (TTL current that is) USA architecture both sides would be well equipped for starting to think about series affordable and sustainable beyond LEO manned exploration.

If USA gets 50 metric ton HLV Spacelab replacement would still have to be fully LEGO space station; but with much larger chunks than ISS; allowing full assembly with maybe a dozen launches.

USA considering long LEO assembly mission (EOR Apollo) risky was ok with what experience was in the '60es. Griffin's Constellation in 2003. going for pure HLLVs and ignoring 40 years or orbital activity experience was criminal.

In ATL NASA is just learning to think of multiple duckings and EVAs as routine; but hopefully survival of Apollo can-do spirit can allow them to see that they don't need vehicles with more than 50-60 metric ton to LEO capability for Mars. (with fuel dumps you can go to Moon with much smaller pieces; anything above 20t will do; Mars needs bigger pieces due to the whole "capture entry landing" problems; but you still have no need to launch 150t payloads as you always have at least 2/3 of any such payload being fuel).

Edit 2. I keep forgetting about Glushko's love for hypergolics. Mostly of course because under his supervision some of best (if we exclude F-1 from comparison) kerlox engines in the world ever were developed. While you can say that NK series made it despite Glushko (it will be a happy day when first Taurus II/Antares flies); RD-170 family can't be denied to him. I think old man smiles in communist non heaven whenever a top secret USA NRO payload flies up to the skies on his engines.

Third. RD-120 is very unlikely. If emulating shuttle didn't force need of big hydrolox engine on them they wouldn't have bothered with it for anything in the world.


Finally; if we can make wishes; can we please get a better/safer upper stage than Fregat and its family? Its one more relic of the '60es that refuses to die.
 
Last edited:

Bahamut-255

I just this minute had a realisation - and given how obvious it is, it's no surprise I kept overlooking it. It's about this.


Tetris


TTL is going to have an effect on it. With no Energia/Buran, it's going to change it. Since if you completed it OTL, an animation of Energia/Buran would be shown lifting off the pad, which won't be happening TTL.

Will the game be made at all? And what will be used as the final animation for completing it?
 

Polish Eagle

I was just wondering, after re-reading the Lunar Exploration Scrapbook and finding a page on a 1967 study by NAA, whether the USAF might try an X-plane approach to the Shuttle by way of a winged CSM. It's an off-the-shelf (until modification), (relatively) cheap design at this point, so perhaps the USAF might experiment with getting their cross-range by welding deployable titanium wings and an X-15-derived TPS to the Service Module?

Or would any X-plane approach to the STS rely on an entirely new design?
 

e of pi

grdja83 said:
Are tug and OTV programs alive/hibernating/dead? If you are going to Mars or even just back to Moon you will need fuel depots and tugs also start looking nice in this case. It would be mostly going back to scaled down Shuttle-less STG plan. Any non HLLV exploration architecture eventually ends with OTVs, tugs, LEO, L-point and LLO way-stations and fuel depots.
Click to expand...
Well, depends what you mean by "tugs." Aardvark-derived tugs exist for LEO operations roles--they were used to deliver the Airlock Module and ERM for Spacelab. However, as of the present in the TL (~1981/82), nothing like the OTV concept is really on the drawing boards. Hibernation is probably the best word--the same as it was OTL from the 70s to the mid-80s.

Then you get Phobos sample return mission and you can start thinking about ISRU. (Phobos fuel production makes things much easier than Mars surface fuel production. You can fuel your Earth return vehicle with Phobos made fuel; while Mars surface fuel is only usable for crew ascent vehicle).
Click to expand...
I'm well aware of the potential for Phobos ISRU, particularly water--it'd enable an entire architecture of depots fed via ISRU--L1/L2 with lunar feed, Mar orbit with Phobos, and on the Martian surface with atmospheric processing for CH4/LOX using seed hydrogen you can bring down from Phobos. Of course, this depends on proving that Phobos has water ice or some other volatiles readily available. We'll have to see how Mars plays out.

If USA gets 50 metric ton HLV Spacelab replacement would still have to be fully LEGO space station; but with much larger chunks than ISS; allowing full assembly with maybe a dozen launches.
Click to expand...
Not 50 metric tons. The H03 makes 64.8 tons to Spacelab's orbit (430x30 at 51.6 degrees, roughly Skylab and OTL ISS), 67.5 tons to a similar 430 km orbit at a more Kennedy-friendly 28.5 degrees

USA considering long LEO assembly mission (EOR Apollo) risky was ok with what experience was in the '60es. Griffin's Constellation in 2003. going for pure HLLVs and ignoring 40 years or orbital activity experience was criminal.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I'd call it criminal--more misguided and mistaken. However, it's not a mistake I'm planning to see NASA make here--indeed one reason for having the DoD be lead on ELVRP II was to force NASA to take what they could get out of it with the result that they have a 70-ish ton lift capacity when they need it, but they couldn't just sit down and try and recreate the Saturn V or Nova.

Finally; if we can make wishes; can we please get a better/safer upper stage than Fregat and its family? Its one more relic of the '60es that refuses to die.
Click to expand...
Man, let me get done killing Soyuz and Proton first, will you? Talk to me about other stuff after this next update.
 

e of pi

Bahamut-255 said:
I just this minute had a realisation - and given how obvious it is, it's no surprise I kept overlooking it. It's about this: Tetris
Click to expand...
I wouldn't necessarily call that obvious, so I won't criticize you not thinking of it too much. I didn't, for one.


TTL is going to have an effect on it. With no Energia/Buran, it's going to change it. Since if you completed it OTL, an animation of Energia/Buran would be shown lifting off the pad, which won't be happening TTL.
Click to expand...
Having played Tetris only in clones and knock-offs, I never knew that. Maybe it'll be....well, something else instead? I don't know that the butterflies from the changes to the space program are enough to butterfly more than the ending of the game--certainly it's hard to imagine a world without it.
 

e of pi

Polish Eagle said:
I was just wondering, after re-reading the Lunar Exploration Scrapbook and finding a page on a 1967 study by NAA, whether the USAF might try an X-plane approach to the Shuttle by way of a winged CSM. It's an off-the-shelf (until modification), (relatively) cheap design at this point, so perhaps the USAF might experiment with getting their cross-range by welding deployable titanium wings and an X-15-derived TPS to the Service Module?
Or would any X-plane approach to the STS rely on an entirely new design?
Click to expand...
That'd basically involve changing...everything about it that made it an Apollo, down to the basic frame. You might be able to do something cheap by leveraging some of the avionics and systems, but the structure is completely ill-suited. And the X-15 TPS wouldn't be sufficient, it'd have to be something more like tiles.

The question about a spaceplane X-vehicle is what they want out of it--experience with reuse? A lands-like-an-airplane-in-defiance-of-the-fact-that-it's-a-rocket payload lifter? A small and compact crew taxi? A reusable SSTO or TSTO launcher? Shuttle was most of those (if not well due to trying to be all of them), but just because of that doesn't mean that if they set out with only one or two of those goals they'll necessarily re-design the OTL Shuttle. The question is which they'd value most highly.
 

The Historian

e of pi said:
That'd basically involve changing...everything about it that made it an Apollo, down to the basic frame. You might be able to do something cheap by leveraging some of the avionics and systems, but the structure is completely ill-suited. And the X-15 TPS wouldn't be sufficient, it'd have to be something more like tiles.

The question about a spaceplane X-vehicle is what they want out of it--experience with reuse? A lands-like-an-airplane-in-defiance-of-the-fact-that-it's-a-rocket payload lifter? A small and compact crew taxi? A reusable SSTO or TSTO launcher? Shuttle was most of those (if not well due to trying to be all of them), but just because of that doesn't mean that if they set out with only one or two of those goals they'll necessarily re-design the OTL Shuttle. The question is which they'd value most highly.
Click to expand...

CSMShuttle-Page2.png


There's the proposal. NASSP for Orbiter has a wiki page dedicated to whacked out AAP ideas.
 

e of pi

The Historian said:
CSMShuttle-Page2.png


There's the proposal. NASSP for Orbiter has a wiki page dedicated to whacked out AAP ideas.
Click to expand...

Hmm! Well that's interesting. I stand by the fact that every single structural element in the service module differs from the standard one, so it's essentially a completely new SM with a more normal CM on the front, but...I may have to give that more thought. I thought he was speaking of the Winged Gemini proposal based on ASSET. Which reminds me I need to get out to the Museum again--they've gotten Hexagon since I was there last, and I want a close-up look at that.
 

e of pi

grdja83 said:
Well since you have Saturn engines in production you can think about dropping the useless wings and having a rocketship "like God and Robert Heinlein wanted it to be".

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/sassto.htm
Click to expand...
Heh. Maybe I've been talking to Winchell Chung too much, but there's something delightfully appealing about that. Pity the payload's only a few tons, but I suppose you get what you get. Anyway, it's a cool vehicle to look at--interesting to look at the tank layout--note, for instance, the small tanks specifically for orbital maneuvering and retrofire. I may try making a model of that, it'd be a nice accompaniment for the 1/100 Gemini I plan to print someday (defined here as "once I finish the model of it").
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top