Rise of the N-2

[Guest]

Well, maybe we'll see Energia being brought up again. The Zenit's manufacturer is in Dnipropetrovsk, which is in Western Ukraine. Given the recent events in the region, it might stop being Ukrainian very soon...

Seriously though, if it wasn't for politics, Energia would've been a very good superheavy for Russian space program. Flight-proven, capable, efficient. I think they should really reconsider it, especially if Putin actually wrestles Dnipropetrovsk from Ukraine (he's going to try, by the look of it).

[Shuttle]

Russia can announce anything. We've already seen a lot of projects cancelled so I no longer trust these announcements. I also googled a little trying to find something new about this Russian heavy rocket OP mentioned and found out that, luckily, Russian news websites have an official English translation! Take a look: http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140128/186987052/Russian-Space-Agency-Plans-Worlds-Biggest-Rocket.html

Ostapenko, who was appointed head of the agency in October, said the planned launcher would be able to lift 80 metric tons into low Earth orbit. It could also be upgraded to launch as much as 160 tons, which would be the heaviest payload every lifted by a single rocket into space.

Roscosmos formed a working group last year to evaluate proposals for a heavy-lift rocket, including the revival of the Energia launcher, the highest payload rocket ever built in the country.

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140424/189348744/Russia-Gives-Green-Light-to-Super-Heavy-Rocket-Project.html

“A [super] heavy carrier rocket was included into the new FSP (Federal Space Program). Work is still under way, with the first stage envisaging the construction of a rocket capable of lifting from 70 to 80 metric tons,†Ostapenko said, adding that such rockets would be enough for projects scheduled for the next 20 or 30 years.

The second stage of the project is to build a carrier rocket capable of lifting from 100 to 120 metric tons of payload into the low-earth orbit. A year ago, Russia said that it will develop new technology including huge new rockets for manned flights to the moon and Mars, by the same year that the Americans are aiming for Mars – 2030.

About Zenit: http://en.ria.ru/world/20140424/189349191/No-Plans-to-Produce-Zenit-Rocket-in-Russia--Roscosmos.html

The Russian space agency believes it would be illogical to start the production of Ukrainian-made Zenit space launch rockets in Russia, the agency’s head said Thursday. “In regard to the Zenit, I can say that making the same carrier rocket here makes no sense. The situation in Ukraine isn’t fully stabilized so far, but there is no reason to make a stake on the Zenit carrier rocket, but time will tell depending on the development of events,†Oleg Ostapenko said. “Today we are oriented around our national Russian carrier rockets,†he said.

[astropapi1]

international **** waving contest?

If by **** you are talking about ... ..... male genitalia, then it's pretty much what the cold war was.

The next "space race" might turn into either a poo flinging contest, or more of an international effort to push humanity's boundaries.

[Kryten]

Seriously though, if it wasn't for politics, Energia would've been a very good superheavy for Russian space program.

All the tooling is gone. It'd be no easier than producing a completely new rocket, and the basic design is very inefficient due to the side-carried cargo location carried over from Buran.

[Jouni]

All the tooling is gone. It'd be no easier than producing a completely new rocket, and the basic design is very inefficient due to the side-carried cargo location carried over from Buran.

What do you mean by inefficient? The boosters are cheap and proven Zenit first stages, the core stage is comparable to the SLS first stage, and the payload fraction is similar to the Saturn V.

[Nibb31]

The Saturn V wasn't very efficient either. The F-1 engines had an Isp that would be laughable by today's standards. But it was enough to get the Apollo stack into orbit, which is all it was designed for.

Energia was designed for side-mounted payloads, which is also inefficient in terms of structural weight, drag and thrust vectoring (you lose considerable amounts of energy counterbalancing your payload instead of thrusting forward). An inline design would be more efficient, which would mean redesigning the entire core stage.

The RD-0120 was also discontinued decades ago, so you'd have to pretty much design a whole new rocket.

[Kryten]

What do you mean by inefficient? The boosters are cheap and proven Zenit first stages, the core stage is comparable to the SLS first stage, and the payload fraction is similar to the Saturn V.

Khrunichev have been waving around a design for a resurrected Energiya for a while, 'Yenisei-5', with a top-mounted cargo bay; it uses only three RD-120s and gets the same to LEO.

[vger]

If by **** you are talking about ... ..... male genitalia, then it's pretty much what the cold war was.

The next "space race" might turn into either a poo flinging contest, or more of an international effort to push humanity's boundaries.

The Space Race was rather convenient for both parties too though. Both nations knew they'd both get incinerated beyond recognition if they actually got into a fight. The Space Race almost turned it into a sport. A way to get some angst out without blowing everything up, and actually do something productive in the process.

I think it's quite funny how posters here label any political opposition to manned space travel as populism by idiotic politicians, but applaud blatant nationalist propaganda paper projects if it seems to further their prefered pork subject, even there's no money put behind it. But hey, it's not my tax money going towards any of those projects, so feel free to show off, I will just sit by the sidelines, enjoy the show and laugh. The best space race is one where you just stand by the sidelines and enjoy the fireworks. I'd rather have the grand powers pour their money into those "crown juwels" than into tanks and fighter jets.

(and on a note to any mods or anyone who responds to this. This isn't about politics. It's just basic psychology. So nobody dare turn it into politics )

It's not as paradoxical as it sounds. What we have is two problems.

#1. Nearsightedness. Most humans can only think short term. We don't need space NOW! But we also don't consider how quickly we might. And by the time it becomes a necessity, if we haven't already learned what we need to, there won't be any time. There's also the risk that we'll run out of resources on Earth that are necessary for Space Travel, effectively trapping us here forever. We are largely a reactive species. We don't seem to care much about preventative measures, and we don't look much further than "What am I going to have for lunch today?" The public's reaction to global warming is a perfect example. Not only do many not believe it, they don't want to, because it means they will have to spend money on something that will never provide a return on investment. (keep in mind, ensured survival of the human race doesn't count as an ROI, it has to be MONEHHHH!!!)

#2. The competitive nature of humans. Yes, we could do far more if we just blew up our boundaries, sang Kumbaya, and decided to work together instead of against each other. But the greed-based system is deep-rooted, and even if the majority agreed to dismantle it, those who worked to gain power in that system would fight, possibly to the death, in order to defend it. To get rid of competition, is to suppress millions of years of evolution, the very instincts that got us this far in the first place.

Sadly, the irony of this is, the easiest way for the minority of space enthusiasts to keep research going, is by catering to the very thing in humans that is preventing more space work from being done. When you weigh the odds, it's much easier to get Americans jealous of China's sparkly new moon shot, than it is to convince them to say "to hell with capitalism, let's build a utopia in the stars."

Edited May 5, 2014 by vger

[Jouni]

The Saturn V wasn't very efficient either. The F-1 engines had an Isp that would be laughable by today's standards. But it was enough to get the Apollo stack into orbit, which is all it was designed for.

The first stage wasn't very efficient by today's standards, but the upper stages were quite efficient. Because of them, the Saturn V had a higher payload fraction to LEO than almost any rocket currently in use.

[Jouni]

Khrunichev have been waving around a design for a resurrected Energiya for a while, 'Yenisei-5', with a top-mounted cargo bay; it uses only three RD-120s and gets the same to LEO.

Based on the slides I could find, Yenisei-5 would have the same launch mass as the Energia, but it would lift 125 tonnes instead of 100 tonnes to LEO.

[rtxoff]

Right now i think the entire future of human space flight and manned exploration/colonization of other planets lies on private companies like SpaceX.

The goverments of this world just don't have the money or they don't want to spend it on such things right now.

Some very rich individuals will have to pull this off. Maybe in the future things like capitalism will be replaced by more modern economic systems and the goverments if there will be any left will do it.

But until then i see only a chance for private companies.The problem right now is companies also only work for profit and there is no profit in manned space flight right now.

If we get lucky one of this rich individuals will not care about loosing money and do it for fame or other motives ;-)

[Kryten]

Based on the slides I could find, Yenisei-5 would have the same launch mass as the Energia, but it would lift 125 tonnes instead of 100 tonnes to LEO.

I think there's a few slightly different designs knocking around. But more efficient, certainly.

[Lexif]

#1. Nearsightedness. Most humans can only think short term. We don't need space NOW! But we also don't consider how quickly we might. And by the time it becomes a necessity, if we haven't already learned what we need to, there won't be any time. There's also the risk that we'll run out of resources on Earth that are necessary for Space Travel, effectively trapping us here forever. We are largely a reactive species. We don't seem to care much about preventative measures, and we don't look much further than "What am I going to have for lunch today?" The public's reaction to global warming is a perfect example. Not only do many not believe it, they don't want to, because it means they will have to spend money on something that will never provide a return on investment. (keep in mind, ensured survival of the human race doesn't count as an ROI, it has to be MONEHHHH!!!)

I kind of regret writing that post as it just leads to off-topic-debate. So I will reply in a short fashion and not adress all your arguments, please dont be offended.

My fundamental disagreement is with the theory that we will at one point in the near future run out of resources on this planet. After all, what we use will be left on the very same sphere and can be recycled. (Except for the stuff we shoot into space. ;->) What we really use up is easily accesible (cheap) fossil energy, and that is what's needed to cheaply get to the remaining resources, or to recycle what we used. So there will be no resource crisis, only an energy crisis, and that can be solved by technology and will scale the prices for off-world-mining just like it will scale resource costs on this planet. I think at the moment, we are just behind on investments in exploration and extraction as the developing economies overheat, that's no systematic problem, but it might cause political conflicts and even wars in the short-medium term.

If you take that viewpoint, a space race looks very unreasonable. And anyway, is there really any commitment to do anything new? We are posting in a thread about the russians saying they might want to build a new SLS-class launcher, but that's it. We (humanity) know how to do this already.

For the record, I am very much in favour of developing the key technologies needed to go interplanetary, like radiation research and life support. I would be very much in favour of a project for a base or station out of the earth's magnetic field that would go for a year without resupply. That would give us most of the tech needed, not planting another flag on the moon. (But as I said, I will still enjoy the footage of that...)