Can the Soyuz Still go to the moon ?

[DDE]

On ‎08‎.‎03‎.‎2017 at 5:15 AM, _Augustus_ said:

A Proton-M could do it. 

Yeah, I suspect the incremental improvements should allow it to carry an orbital module... or it could be a one-man affair.

However, there is an old problem: thanks to Korolev himself, hypergol-based launchers are considered non-man-rated by default.

[DBowman]

9 hours ago, DDE said:

hypergol-based launchers are considered non-man-rated by default

Launch the Proton carrying a boost stage like Briz-M, lauch a regular Soyuz on a Soyuz (maybe choosing different names for launchers and space craft would be less confusing), dock Soyuz to Briz and boost to Luna. It could sure do a flyby with the OM, it probably couldn't capture.

Something higher thrust than Briz might be needed to avoid Pe kick time in the van allen belts (depends trajectory details etc).

Another Briz could launch into rendezvous with the free return trajectory Soyuz (three days to fiddle with the rendezvous), Soyuz swaps Briz (with fail safe free return) and now has deltaV to capture into lunar orbit and (probably) get an Earth return. Thats like 300M USD of launchers - excludes vehicle mods (luna return reentry, navigation, etc) etc.

A similar scheme could get a lander there.

[Gaarst]

11 hours ago, DDE said:

However, there is an old problem: thanks to Korolev himself, hypergol-based launchers are considered non-man-rated by default.

China's CZ-2F, India's GSLV MkIII and US' Titan II disagree. I'd rather launch on a hypergolic powered rocket than on the Space Shuttle, in terms of risks.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Gaarst

[DDE]

8 hours ago, Gaarst said:

China's CZ-2F, India's GSLV MkIII and US' Titan II disagree. I'd rather launch on a hypergolic powered rocket than on the Space Shuttle, in terms of risks.

It's largely an irrational hang-up. There was a nasty, multidimensional conflict between Korolev and the kerolox people, and Glushko and his chillingly rational view on propellant toxicity. The R-16 explosion, caused by premature second stage firing and killing the head of the Missile Troops, didn't help.

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, DDE said:

The R-16 explosion, caused by premature second stage firing and killing the head of the Missile Troops, didn't help.

If engage the upper stage engine inside the fuel tank of the lower one, kerolox would burst even "better".

Also don;t forget about kerolox rocket explosions which also caused casualties.

[DDE]

6 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

If engage the upper stage engine inside the fuel tank of the lower one, kerolox would burst even "better".

Also don;t forget about kerolox rocket explosions which also caused casualties.

As I said, it's kind of irrational, to the point Baikonur no longer shoots on Wednesdays, and all R-7 launch orders had to be written on cheap yellowish paper because those written on high-quality paper resulted in crashes... for some reason.

Apparently R-16 got a particularly bad reputation because the Soviets hadn't quite figured the Inhibited in Inhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid (pattern АК-27И) and had to scrap one fully fuelled missile after its tanks became full of Green Goo (and acid).

[kerbiloid]

43 minutes ago, DDE said:

As I said, it's kind of irrational, to the point Baikonur no longer shoots on Wednesdays, and all R-7 launch orders had to be written on cheap yellowish paper because those written on high-quality paper resulted in crashes... for some reason.

While the hypergolic rockets fly without these rituals from any launchpad on ground or underwater.

[DDE]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

While the hypergolic rockets fly without these rituals from any launchpad on ground or underwater.

Meh, I still remember Roscosmos movies where the R-36 ICBM pops out of the silo... then falls right back into the silo, with Jeb-compliant results.

[kerbiloid]

6 hours ago, DDE said:

Meh, I still remember Roscosmos movies where the R-36 ICBM pops out of the silo... then falls right back into the silo, with Jeb-compliant results.

That's because they forgot to pee on a bus wheel and watch a movie before the launch.

Meanwhile, per ~900 launches of R-7 family (6 t) and 80 Zenit _R.I.P. (14 t) there were: 400+ Proton (20 t), 400+ Kosmos (light class), 200+ Cyclone (3 t) and others, almost all of them - hypergolic.

I.e. 3/4 of total payload, including all the most expensive and valuable jumbos, have been orbited by hypergolic rockets.

The most numerous ICBM in history is hypergolic UR-100 family (1000+ at once), while the greatest total yield was placed on hypergolic R-36 family (300+ at once). The most numerous and long-range SLBM is hypergolic R-29 family. All of them were also used as space vehicles while getting retired.

(Not to forget about Sotuz and Apollo spaceships, of course, full of hypergolics).

So, while the cryogenics are great, the hypegolics just work,
Poor, poor humble and hard-working Cinderelllas, doing all job and getting nothing but  blames.

Edited March 11, 2017 by kerbiloid

[magnemoe]

9 hours ago, DDE said:

Meh, I still remember Roscosmos movies where the R-36 ICBM pops out of the silo... then falls right back into the silo, with Jeb-compliant results.

Russia cold launches icbm so if the rocket don't fire after popped it will fall down 

[DDE]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

That's because they forgot to pee on a bus wheel and watch a movie before the launch.

Now I have the mental image of nuclear warhead simulators in a movie theater.

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Zenit _R.I.P.

There appears to be a very slow-moving nativization program, and S7 intends to buy them from Ukraine for Sea Launch and Land Launch. It ain't gone yet.

[wumpus]

20 hours ago, DDE said:

As I said, it's kind of irrational, to the point Baikonur no longer shoots on Wednesdays, and all R-7 launch orders had to be written on cheap yellowish paper because those written on high-quality paper resulted in crashes... for some reason.

Apparently R-16 got a particularly bad reputation because the Soviets hadn't quite figured the Inhibited in Inhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid (pattern АК-27И) and had to scrap one fully fuelled missile after its tanks became full of Green Goo (and acid).

NASA formally renounced using the number "13" in critical areas (after Challenger, not Apollo 13).  There is an older, and certainly less formal ritual of eating peanuts during a launch.

[kerbiloid]

On 11.03.2017 at 5:56 PM, wumpus said:

NASA formally renounced using the number "13" in critical areas (after Challenger, not Apollo 13).  There is an older, and certainly less formal ritual of eating peanuts during a launch.

The more I'm reading about nowadays spaconautics, the more I like Herbert Wells and Jules Verne.