Energia to Mars?

exits lurk mode

I've just been looking at this website ...

http://www.k26.com/buran/

.... and not having the engineering background (or the political one), I have
some questions I'd like to toss out to the group ...

Would some form of the Energia platform be viable for a
single-launch-to-orbit solution for a mission to Mars?

What political resistance would be encountered, and what would it take to
overcome it? Would you WANT to?

I did a little googling on this, and (among other things) found this
article:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4008511/

I would be curious to see what discussion this would generate. I'm no judge
of the merits of pulling the Energia concept out of mothballs (as noted
above, either from an engineering standpoint or a political one), but if the
basic research is there, and the design can be updated for a reasonable
cost, isn't it preferable to reinventing the wheel?

I also note that the first-mentioned website above maintains that RSC
Energia (hope I got that right) would be willing to license the plans for
the vehicle to the US so that it could be built here. How likely would that
be, and what aerospace contractors would be willing to "tool up" for it?

dons fireproof clothing in anticipation of firestorm, reenters lurk mode

In article .net,
James G. Joyce wrote:
Would some form of the Energia platform be viable for a
single-launch-to-orbit solution for a mission to Mars?

To Mars? No. To the Moon, quite possibly. There was apparently a
serious concept, early in the history of Energia, for a direct-flight
lunar mission using an Energia variant with 8 boosters and an enlarged
core (aka "Vulkan") plus a LOX/LH2 upper stage. Vulkan had a nominal LEO
payload mass of about 200t, which would be adequate for something like
that -- the total LEO mass of Apollo plus TLI stage was about 150t.

For Mars, you need bigger living quarters and a rather larger and heavier
lander, which takes single-launch missions out of the realm of practicality.

And in fairness, Vulkan was an Energia derivative, not a stock Energia.

What political resistance would be encountered, and what would it take to
overcome it? Would you WANT to?

The big black (or rather, red) bottom line is: who pays for it? Russia
can't afford it, and the US government almost never spends serious money
outside its own borders. (Some of the rare exceptions were made for ISS,
and this misleads many people into thinking such things are routine. They
most emphatically are not. Almost all international space projects are
done on a "no money crosses borders" basis.)

...if the
basic research is there, and the design can be updated for a reasonable
cost, isn't it preferable to reinventing the wheel?

Not if the "reasonable cost" is spent on people who don't vote in US
elections. Yes, in general the US government really does prefer spending
twice as much on a Made In USA project, because that way the money ends up
in the pockets of US voters.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

"James G. Joyce"
cost, isn't it preferable to reinventing the wheel?

FYI by the time it goes through all the steps, the cost in dollars would be
about the same.

If you could get the Russians to build it, there would be some savings, but
when it was all done, with the handling and prep expenses, the cost would be
about the same.

This is a wild assed guess, based on experience with the ISS modules. The
savings achieved by letting the Russians build some of the modules was
mostly non-existant, since the modules had to be qualified and inspected and
that stuff is not free.

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
James G. Joyce wrote:
Would some form of the Energia platform be viable for a
single-launch-to-orbit solution for a mission to Mars?

To Mars? No. To the Moon, quite possibly. There was apparently a
serious concept, early in the history of Energia, for a direct-flight
lunar mission using an Energia variant with 8 boosters and an enlarged
core (aka "Vulkan") plus a LOX/LH2 upper stage. Vulkan had a nominal LEO
payload mass of about 200t, which would be adequate for something like
that -- the total LEO mass of Apollo plus TLI stage was about 150t.

For Mars, you need bigger living quarters and a rather larger and heavier
lander, which takes single-launch missions out of the realm of
practicality.

And in fairness, Vulkan was an Energia derivative, not a stock Energia.

Yes ... I noted that when I looked at http://www.k26.com/buran/ (what one
might call an Energia fan site, like the Buran sites I've heard of). I also
looked at RSC Energia's site and saw a bunch of their proposals for
exploration to Moon and Mars ... which may be no more than pipe dreams,
without the cash necessary to build them.

And I probably should have rethought the first question ... it does make
more sense for a single launch Moon mission ... though it would take fewer
launches to orbit the components of a Mars mission with.

What political resistance would be encountered, and what would it take to
overcome it? Would you WANT to?

The big black (or rather, red) bottom line is: who pays for it? Russia
can't afford it, and the US government almost never spends serious money
outside its own borders. (Some of the rare exceptions were made for ISS,
and this misleads many people into thinking such things are routine. They
most emphatically are not. Almost all international space projects are
done on a "no money crosses borders" basis.)

D'oh! I should have guessed that. Even if RSC Energia would be willing to
license the design and such, it's doubtful that Congress would approve
spending the money. (America to pay Russia for technology? BLASPHEMY! Though
I'm curious ... how does Sea Launch do its thing? Is that a strictly
commercial partnership?)

...if the
basic research is there, and the design can be updated for a reasonable
cost, isn't it preferable to reinventing the wheel?

Not if the "reasonable cost" is spent on people who don't vote in US
elections. Yes, in general the US government really does prefer spending
twice as much on a Made In USA project, because that way the money ends up
in the pockets of US voters.

Given the proper funding, it would likely be (relatively) easy for America's
aerospace industry to come with another "Saturn V" class LV ... but I doubt
that the will to do so is there ... and I'm quite sure the money isn't
there, either. But it's too soon to tell if the initiatives proposed by the
President are any more than pipe dreams, either ... so the need for one
isn't known with any certainty ... and there will be plenty of people that
will argue that the Atlas V and Delta IV Heavy will be good enough.

You're exactly right about spending twice as much on a "Made in USA" project
.... and while I am (justly) proud of what America has been able to
accomplish in space (and other areas), there's time when the
institutionalized pride (read: stubbornness) of certain Americans (like
certain elected officials) is a real PITA.

Thank you for your thoughful response.

I'll just toddle back to my dark corner, now ...

"James G. Joyce" how does Sea Launch do its thing?

A Swedish maritime co has 15% and Boeing and the some Russian co have the
rest. The Swedes handle the towing, the Russian co provides the "raketa",
and Boeing manages the launch, marketing, and operations.

In article k.net,
James G. Joyce wrote:
...Almost all international space projects are
done on a "no money crosses borders" basis.)

...I'm curious ... how does Sea Launch do its thing? Is that a strictly
commercial partnership?)

Correct, that's a pure commercial deal. And the US government considers
Sea Launch a foreign launcher for purposes of its "buy American" rules.

Sea Launch Company, LDC is 40% Boeing (US; marketing, integration, payload
fairing), 25% RSC Energia (Russia; third stage), 15% jointly KB Yuzhnoye
and PO Yuzhmash (Ukraine; lower stages), 20% Kvaerner (Norway; ship and
launch platform). (The Russian participation is more than just the third
stage, because the engines and various subsystems of the lower stages also
come from Russia, but I don't know whether that's via Energia.)
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |