LOST... Old concepts to project never going off paper

[kerbiloid]

Energy was a partially reusable version of a super-heavy rocket for interplanetary flights.

But as they failed the reusability (parachutes + landing legs in the bulbs on top and bottom end of the lateral boosters), the whole system became overexpensive and useless.

Edited September 12, 2020 by kerbiloid

[DDE]

2 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

I remember reading somewhere that they actually had several partially assembled Energias laying around, 10 or so, at some point, made in anticipation of future Buran launchers. Boosters might have been cannibalized for Zenits in the meantime, but I wonder what happened to the core stages.

The boosters are unusable for Zenits. Their upper structure ended up rather different, with some communications missing and some bulkheads thickened, and they used RD-170s and not RD-171s. AFAIK this even caused an attempt to set up a new production line in Omsk just for the Block As... It's the one that Roscosmos is trying (and failing) to revive for Angara.

Instead, there was a bid to use Block As for Ariane 5.

Edited September 12, 2020 by DDE

[Guest]

5 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

But as they failed the reusability (parachutes + landing legs in the bulbs on top and bottom end of the lateral boosters), the whole system became overexpensive and useless.

They didn't "fail" the reusability. They just never got to try it. The compartments carried measuring equipment, I think they wanted to test the legs on 3rd or 4th launch. Energia failed because Buran was too expensive, it had nothing else to launch.

In fact, if they did try it, it probably would have worked better than reusing the boosters from the Space Shuttle.

5 hours ago, DDE said:

Instead, there was a bid to use Block As for Ariane 5.

I wonder what happened to those, then. I never heard about that idea, and I think that's the last anyone heard of those Block As. There should be a whole bunch of RD-0120s lying around somewhere, too.

[tater]

12 hours ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

September 2020: RIP to OmegA

I heard you liked solids, so I strapped some solids to some solids...

Lousy rocket was literally like a KSP level dumb contract where you have to do a thing with just solids. Might make sense if solids were super cheap (as one would expect them to be).

Meanwhile, in the real world, why make a solid that competes with commercial launch well under 100M (half that often) a flight, when you can sell a single SRM way less complicated than OmegA to the SLS program for $471,000,000?

[kerbiloid]

15 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

They didn't "fail" the reusability. They just never got to try it. The compartments carried measuring equipment

because they failed the reusability and replaced the parachutes with the measuring equipment.

They would never success with horizontal landing of the long, thin, rotating in several planes object by parachute, like they have the Soyuz capsule overturned every second time it lands.

They had considered the parachute relocation system too complex and heavy, that's why they removed the landing system at all.
The booster should release the chute from the top, then relocate it along the hull, rotating from vertical to horizontal position, then crash land on two ends of the long booster hull, while any booster would unlikely survive this without cracking in halves without strengthening.

There was no successful practice of a large booster landing by chutes or by a parawing, while there were a lot of experiments.

15 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

In fact, if they did try it, it probably would have worked better than reusing the boosters from the Space Shuttle.

The shuttle boosters are made of steel and splash vertically instead of crashing horizontally between two chairs.

And even then they were not actually refurbished, but fully reassembled, using intact steel plates from the splashed ones. For a liquid booster it would be nonsense.

Edited September 12, 2020 by kerbiloid

[Guest]

Well, nobody thought a liquid booster could land at all, before Space X did it. Since the Energia's system was never tested at full scale, we don't know if it would have worked. Parachutes that shift position are nothing new, Soyuz uses them, too. Remember that the whole system was developed in a rush, Buran was also missing several components on its first launch, notably the jet engines. 

Even if the boosters were made reusable on the 2nd flight, Energia still wouldn't have survived. There is no market for a rocket that size even today, SLS notwithstanding.

[kerbiloid]

10 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

Well, nobody thought a liquid booster could land at all, before Space X did it.

Falcon lands vertically, by rockets. Not falls horizontally, between two chairs, not simultaneously hitting the land, being dragged by chute, rotating in three planes, like the Energy booster should.

If they did a rocket landing maybe they would have succeeded, but unlikely they had enough electronics in 1980s. DC-X flied later.

10 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

Parachutes that shift position are nothing new, Soyuz uses them, too.

And rolls after landing. That's what would happen with any chuted device.

10 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

Remember that the whole system was developed in a rush

The rush was continuing since late 1960s when the RLA family had been conceived.

Edited September 12, 2020 by kerbiloid

[Guest]

9 hours ago, DDE said:

Nah. The Energiya-M seen there is a mere handling mock-up. The actual Energiya was taken out by the same hangar roof collapse as the flown Buran. Both were sold as scrap metal... to China 

Yeah I know... sad that the other Energia was sold for scrap.

48 minutes ago, tater said:

I heard you liked solids, so I strapped some solids to some solids...

Lousy rocket was literally like a KSP level dumb contract where you have to do a thing with just solids. Might make sense if solids were super cheap (as one would expect them to be).

Meanwhile, in the real world, why make a solid that competes with commercial launch well under 100M (half that often) a flight, when you can sell a single SRM way less complicated than OmegA to the SLS program for $471,000,000?

Solids are inexpensive, and have high thrust. It's really the only option to other than re-usability. 

Y'all Energia haters

 

[tater]

4 minutes ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

Solids are inexpensive, and have high thrust. It's really the only option to other than re-usability. 

Except when they aren't.

I screwed up in my post. SLS a single SRB is 485.5 MILLION (it's 971M$ for a pair).

In what world is a single stage solid at almost half a billion dollars "inexpensive?"

[kerbiloid]

~700 USD/kg

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, tater said:

In what world is a single stage solid at almost half a billion dollars "inexpensive?"

You also got to remember the SRBs on the SLS are huge!

I think at a certain point, kinda where SLS is, you start to really not get the effects of SRBs that you want. SRBs are good on a smaller scale.

[kerbiloid]

10 minutes ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

You also got to remember the SRBs on the SLS are huge!

Just 20% moar huger than Shuttle ones. (~750 t vs ~650 t))

Edited September 12, 2020 by kerbiloid

[tater]

12 minutes ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

You also got to remember the SRBs on the SLS are huge!

They're about the size of a typical orbital rocket first stage. They are about the same size as the F9 booster, in fact. The F9 booster is much, much more complicated, fully reusable, and costs what, 10-20% of the price? COurse we don't know what the SRB actually costs—I bet it costs much LESS than a F9 booster costs in fact. It would not surprise me if the SLS booster actually costs a few 10s of millions, and they mark it up 50X.

[DDE]

38 minutes ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

I think at a certain point, kinda where SLS is, you start to really not get the effects of SRBs that you want. SRBs are good on a smaller scale.

Yo...

Aerojet AJ-260. Number of segments: 1. Designed as an in-line first stage for advanced Saturns. Thiokol also tried running, but couldn't build a serviceable steel casing that big.

It actually still sits abandoned in its firing stand in Florida.

[DDE]

Actually, considering how this thread is getting rather broad... @kerbiloid, your favorite.

Chelomei 11F82 TKS, a combination crewed and cargo ship for the Almaz battlestations. Unique because of its stern docking port, the ability of its fully pressurized "service module" (Functional Cargo Block, FGB) to operate as a space station module or a separate spacecraft, and the fact that its return module has a second SM mounted in its nose, complete with retrothrusters.

It is also the only crewed spacecraft to fly multiple operational missions without major failures, yet never actually flown crewed because of the strong aversion to the Proton rocket. Instead, FGB has served as the core of numerous space station modules and the Polyus battlestation; in fact, Kosmos 1686 became a permanent addition to Salyut-7, thus making it the first module ever.

 

And, once we're on the topic of tunnels through the back of the ship, a third proposal.

Martin Marietta's winning bid for (then-Direct Ascent) Apollo, which failed only because Maxime Faget lobbied hard against it.

Not only is the presence of a TKS-style pressurized trunk amusing, but it also has the "skewed donut" fuel tank found on the Soviet Block D lunar orbit injection stage.

Spoiler

 

Edited September 12, 2020 by DDE

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

11F82 TKS

11F72, lol

(Adopted the free number when the original 11F72 (by Korolyov's bureau) was failed.
So, like "All, make for us some 11F72 to supply the station, whatever it was.")

***

And as I have mentioned before the magazine year (1984) is especially nice. In 1984 it was secret. So instead of getting gray-haired in one night, they just printed it because had no idea that it's real.

***

Upd.

The Energy's booster after supposed landing. (from buran.ru)

Spoiler

Dry mass 65 t, including 15 t of legs and chutes.
 

Edited September 12, 2020 by kerbiloid

[DDE]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

11F72, lol

That's what I get for using my brain and not the Clipboard.

[DerekL1963]

4 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

Well, nobody thought a liquid booster could land at all, before Space X did it.

A popular misconception, but completely and utterly untrue.  Not only did people think it could be done - but DC-X actually did it... in 1993.  (And the planned but never built DC-Y would have done so from a suborbital trajectory)   I think Armadillo Aerospace was also playing around with the concept at a smaller scale in the late 90's.  Found my old blog entry...  Also, Armadillo was hovering a small scale rocket powered test vehicle in the early/mid 00's.  (IIRC, they intended to scale it up into a full-scale X-prize competitor.)  I don't think off the top of my head that they were the first...  ISTR to recall a Japanese company tossing around the same general idea around the same time.

Despite the nonsense tossed around by Space-X fanbois and ill educated space advocates (sets between which there is considerable overlap), Space-X didn't invent the concept and weren't even the first to try it.  Nobody intelligent (or at least not having a dog in the race) thought it was impossible.  More difficult than it turned out to be, but nowhere near impossible.

[Guest]

A liquid booster. DC-X was only 12 meters tall, about 1/6th the size (with the same diameter) as Falcon 9 1st stage. The problem with landing boosters is that they're big. One big problem with Apollo Direct Ascent, for example, was that they didn't like the prospect of trying to land a rocket the size of an Atlas on the Moon. Vertical landing of a full-sized booster was a highly risky move for Space-X, even if Grasshopper validated the concept. In fact, scaling up to a full-sized SSTO was a major unknown even during the DC-X project. Vertical landing a rocket is nothing new, but vertical landing a very thin and tall one very much was. 

Notice that most pre-Space X efforts focused on winged vehicles and stages. We know a big metal cylinder can land horizontally, airplanes do that every day, and they're comparable in size to an LRB. In fact, if I were to bet on an Energia-style booster versus Falcon 9-style one landing contest, I'd go for Energia one, because vertical one would likely tip. In fact, the first few Falcon stages to return did just that. Landing a full-sized booster in a way it doesn't fall over was a significant technical problem, and the prevalent thinking pre-Falcon 9 was that horizontal landing was a better idea. So yes, nobody thought a liquid booster could land (vertically) at all.

Edited September 12, 2020 by Guest

[tater]

42 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

A popular misconception, but completely and utterly untrue.  Not only did people think it could be done - but DC-X actually did it... in 1993.  (And the planned but never built DC-Y would have done so from a suborbital trajectory)   I think Armadillo Aerospace was also playing around with the concept at a smaller scale in the late 90's.  Found my old blog entry...  Also, Armadillo was hovering a small scale rocket powered test vehicle in the early/mid 00's.  (IIRC, they intended to scale it up into a full-scale X-prize competitor.)  I don't think off the top of my head that they were the first...  ISTR to recall a Japanese company tossing around the same general idea around the same time.

Despite the nonsense tossed around by Space-X fanbois and ill educated space advocates (sets between which there is considerable overlap), Space-X didn't invent the concept and weren't even the first to try it.  Nobody intelligent (or at least not having a dog in the race) thought it was impossible.  More difficult than it turned out to be, but nowhere near impossible.

 

Delta Clipper was I guess similar to a booster in that it was never to be orbital. They talked about SSTO, but minus drop tanks I'm not sure if it could possibly get a meaningful payload to LEO (seems like added TPS mass would kill it, any good links on DC-X ultimate goals?). I seem to recall that the nose cone could in effect be a stage 2, then it's basically like F9, reuse the expensive bit, chuck the rest.

Regarding "trying it," if by trying it you mean flying mini-hopper vehicles, then yes, you are right. If by "trying it" you mean flying a suborbital payload to space, then returning, then the first ones to succeed were BO (though SpaceX was already trying at that point), and if "trying" means sending a payload to orbit then recovering the stage, then the first people to even try it was SpaceX unless I am mistaken.

<shrug>

Doesn't really matter.

Edited September 12, 2020 by tater

[Guest]

Too many submissions, you can submit 5 projects per month!

[DerekL1963]

1 hour ago, Dragon01 said:

So yes, nobody thought a liquid booster could land (vertically) at all.

0.o  The DC-X/DC-Y/Delta Clipper series of experimental vehicles were designed to prove exactly that - that a booster could be landed vertically.
 

1 hour ago, tater said:

Delta Clipper was I guess similar to a booster in that it was never to be orbital. They talked about SSTO, but minus drop tanks I'm not sure if it could possibly get a meaningful payload to LEO 

Yeah, the Delta Clipper was supposed to eventually grow into an SSTO somewhat akin to Roton.  It's not impossible that it could have done so, but most folks who worked the numbers thought it unlikely.  But the real point is that people were talking and thinking about landing large spacecraft vertically while Elon Musk was still in college.  Yeah, there were other folks chasing other means, but that doesn't invalidate the existence of the people thinking and talking about vertical landings.

There's a lot of people, people who know what they're talking about, that look at the F9 and look at the Delta Clipper series and regard the latter as a huge missed opportunity.  I've tuned out on that discussion because it's a waste of electrons, what's past is past.
 

1 hour ago, tater said:

Doesn't really matter.

Ultimately, no.  As with so much else, SpaceX stood on the shoulders of giants and got across the finish line first.  Musk's magic isn't in the concepts.  Nothing SpaceX has done, is doing, or is planning on doing is really new...  Musk's magic is in having the money, and talking other people into committing the money, to actually try those things at scale.

[tater]

19 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

There's a lot of people, people who know what they're talking about, that look at the F9 and look at the Delta Clipper series and regard the latter as a huge missed opportunity.  I've tuned out on that discussion because it's a waste of electrons, what's past is past.

Well, given the way things were funded then, it didn't occur to anyone to just do it on their own dime without Uncle Sam writing them checks.

They had their RUD, and that was it (NASA had funded Venture Star). If it had been a small startup, sure, another 50 million might be a bridge too far—this was McDonnell Douglas, though! They were obviously in trouble since a few years later Boeing bought them for some billions, but 50M is chump change, they could have just ponied up and continued—but not without the government paying for it... That's why DC-X failed, a huge defense contractor was unwilling to speculate at all with their own money.

 

20 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

Ultimately, no.  As with so much else, SpaceX stood on the shoulders of giants and got across the finish line first.  Musk's magic isn't in the concepts.  Nothing SpaceX has done, is doing, or is planning on doing is really new...  Musk's magic is in having the money, and talking other people into committing the money, to actually try those things at scale.

I don't think anyone is arguing this. I mean maybe a few people who don't know any better, but I've never heard anyone serious make this claim. Nothing is new in rockets, period, it's just doing it. Look at the Bono stuff, plug engines haven't worked out, but no one has really tried.

Musk's "magic" is in just doing it, and creating a culture of people willing to do it. That NASA engineer interview about his time working with SpaceX is fascinating. The try it, doesn't work, move on, mentality. Have a meeting, the majority think something else would work better, OK, do it.

Blue is new space combined with more old space. They have all the money in the world, but they do things the old way. Totally different culture. Both can clearly work, and we're all better for it. Many of the ideas from the 1960s and 70s would bear some serious looking at going forward, frankly, the guys that built Apollo, etc were not slouches—imagine what could happen with some of those old designs and the ability to model them virtually (then they HAD to just build it to try). You need a Musk or Bezos to spend the money, not selling it to the government as a white paper, though, else you get a failure, look to government to throw more money, and if they don't, good idea wasted.

 

[DerekL1963]

3 hours ago, tater said:

You need a Musk or Bezos to spend the money, not selling it to the government as a white paper, though, else you get a failure, look to government to throw more money, and if they don't, good idea wasted.

Quoted for truth.
 

3 hours ago, tater said:

imagine what could happen with some of those old designs and the ability to model them virtually (then they HAD to just build it to try).

We'd finally be able to sort out the ones that just might work with some development from the batstuff insane ones for starters...  Some of the stuff they were suggesting in the 60's, well they didn't have the information.

[Dirkidirk]

The UR - 900, Russain moon and Mars rocket, upwards of 200 tons of payload.

---

Edited September 13, 2020 by Dirkidirk