Revival of Energia

Patrick Underwood wrote:
Energia-derived hardware is in use today by Lockheed, in the form of
the RD-180 Atlas engine, and by Boeing, as the Zenit Sea Launch
booster. The lox/kerosene engines are robust, efficient and familiar
to American engineers. The RD-0120 cryogenic engine is comparable in
performance to the SSME, but simpler and more rubust.

Agreed. The Energia has been launched only twice, however, which
is a quite low number to have confidenxe in it.

It is clear that the Moon/Mars program is going to be international,
with Russia playing a role.

A space intiative by Dubya is *not* repeat *not* going to be an
international effort. It would be unversally seen as US-prestige-project
(at least outside the US), and noone who could add something
substantially helpful is going to do so. Maybe some countries
like Botswana might add their full space expertise...

Assigning the heavy lifting job to the
Russians would provide a major boost for their economy and national
prestige (important not directly to the program but to Russia's
position in the world w.r.t. the US), and give us the payload
capability we need at almost certainly a lower cost than developing
new hardware in the US. I can't prove that last, but it makes sense,
looking at program costs and engineering salaries in the US versus
those in Russia. We might save billions of dollars by reviving the
Energia.

Russia does not have the money to start a Energia production line, and
it seems to be the consenus around here in ssp that the US are not
going to spend taxpayer money abroad. And heavy-lift capacity has both
a public-reltions angle (my launcher is bigger than yours) and a
military one as well, so it seems unlikely that this part of the
mission is going to be contracted outside the US.

The Energia is modular and adaptable to both side-mounted and inline
stack configurations, making it a very flexible launch system.

Both Boeing and Lockheed have worked with Russian engineers and
hardware to develop new profitable launch systems. So it is possible
they would not oppose such an arrangement with respect to Energia and
might even propose it as an option.

So go ahead, what's wrong with this picture? (I know you started
thinking up obvious counter-arguments at the first sentence.)

Well, You concentrated a bit too much on technology and economy. Both
do not seem to be relevant to those in Washington DC.

Regards

Robert Kitzmueller

Patrick Underwood wrote:

Robert Kitzmüller wrote in message ...
Patrick Underwood wrote:
Energia-derived hardware is in use today by Lockheed, in the form of
the RD-180 Atlas engine, and by Boeing, as the Zenit Sea Launch
booster. The lox/kerosene engines are robust, efficient and familiar
to American engineers. The RD-0120 cryogenic engine is comparable in
performance to the SSME, but simpler and more rubust.

[deleted]

A Saturn V-class launcher really may not be necessary. It may prove
much more cost-effective to use heavy EELVs and on-orbit assembly, I
don't know.

A Shuttle-class 2-stage VTOL RLV can do the job, with the addition of an
LEO refuelling capability. Just refuel the Orbiter stage in LEO and it
can do the TMI/TLI burn.

Regards

Robert Kitzmueller

Patrick

"Patrick Underwood" wrote in message
om...
Given that we are returning to the Moon and hopefully going on to
Mars, we may eventually need a Saturn V-class booster. If so, it
might make sense to revive the Russian Energia.

Energia-derived hardware is in use today by Lockheed, in the form of
the RD-180 Atlas engine, and by Boeing, as the Zenit Sea Launch
booster. The lox/kerosene engines are robust, efficient and familiar
to American engineers. The RD-0120 cryogenic engine is comparable in
performance to the SSME, but simpler and more rubust.

As far as I know, the Energia launch pad and processing buildings
still exist, as well as some mothballed Energia stack elements. (I
have seen an estimate of $100M for refurbishing the Energia launch
pad.) The documentation and tooling necessary to revive the program
still exist, as they do not for the Saturn V. Many of the engineers
who worked on the program must still be in business.

I wonder who made that estimate. :-)

In terms of the Saturn V, the documentation DOES exist. The tooling does
not. However, much of it would be replaced anyway. I think the biggest
problem would be finding a place to store/build the S-ICs.

Of course if you shut down the Shuttle, then you have the VAB. And can just
back modify LC-39. Everything old is new again.

Of course, I'm not sure HL is the way to go. Especially with NASA wanting
to do it.

Patrick

(Patrick Underwood) wrote in
om:

So go ahead, what's wrong with this picture? (I know you started
thinking up obvious counter-arguments at the first sentence.)

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...1-094749-7399r

quote
Though it might be possible to ease some of the Russian space program's
problems by providing financial aid, the U.S. government is prohibited from
doing so. Russia is technically in violation of the Iran Non-Proliferation
Act of 2000. The U.S. government cannot purchase Russian goods or services
until Russia changes its policy toward Iran to comply with nuclear non-
proliferation requirements.
/quote

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Stephen Souter wrote in
:

In article ,
(Patrick Underwood) wrote:

As far as I know, the Energia launch pad and processing buildings
still exist, as well as some mothballed Energia stack elements. (I
have seen an estimate of $100M for refurbishing the Energia launch
pad.) The documentation and tooling necessary to revive the program
still exist, as they do not for the Saturn V.

I thought the documentation did still exist? It was the tooling which
had been discarded over the years.

You're correct; the Saturn V documentation is on microfilm at MSFC, and the
tooling is gone.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

In article ,
(Patrick Underwood) wrote:

As far as I know, the Energia launch pad and processing buildings
still exist, as well as some mothballed Energia stack elements. (I
have seen an estimate of $100M for refurbishing the Energia launch
pad.) The documentation and tooling necessary to revive the program
still exist, as they do not for the Saturn V.

I thought the documentation did still exist? It was the tooling which
had been discarded over the years.

And if Energia's launch pad and processing buildings still existing are
assets...well, at some of the Saturn V infrastructure still exists at
Cape Canaveral, albeit in a modified state. The VAB, for example, was
originally built to assemble Saturns, not Shuttles.

Many of the engineers
who worked on the program must still be in business.

It is clear that the Moon/Mars program is going to be international,
with Russia playing a role.

I don't remember seeing that in the rumours & leaks we'd had thus far.
Maybe they will, but given the hard time the Russians gave the Americans
with the ISS I wouldn't be counting on it.

(I can just see it now! NASA is all set to announce the crew of the
first mission to Mars and Russia gets in first with a press release
announcing it's just sold it's spot on the mission to a South African
multi-millionaire for $100 million. :-)

--
Stephen Souter

http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/

"Patrick Underwood" wrote in message
om...
Given that we are returning to the Moon and hopefully going on to
Mars, we may eventually need a Saturn V-class booster. If so, it
might make sense to revive the Russian Energia.

Energia-derived hardware is in use today by Lockheed, in the form of
the RD-180 Atlas engine, and by Boeing, as the Zenit Sea Launch
booster. The lox/kerosene engines are robust, efficient and familiar
to American engineers. The RD-0120 cryogenic engine is comparable in
performance to the SSME, but simpler and more rubust.

The U.S. has already purchased the designs of the Russian engines and is
busily trying to copy them, so there's no real need to purchase Russian
hardware.

Patrick Underwood wrote:

Robert Kitzm=FCller wrote in message
...
True. I do see your point. It is worth noting two things,
though--the launcher performed perfectly on the first launch, even
though the payload did not, and also performed perfectly on the secon=
d
launch; and the Saturn V had only two launches behind it (IIRC) when
it was used to send the Apollo 8 crew to the moon.
=20
An Energia revival would of course include extensive testing.

Well I agree to what You write above. I also think that Energia would
be the best choice made on purely technical terms, even if not without
issues.

It is clear that the Moon/Mars program is going to be internationa=
l,
with Russia playing a role.
=20
Patrick Underwood wrote:
A space intiative by Dubya is *not* repeat *not* going to be an
international effort. It would be unversally seen as
US-prestige-project (at least outside the US), and noone who could a=
dd
something substantially helpful is going to do so. Maybe some
countries like Botswana might add their full space expertise...
=20
Are you saying that Bush will try to keep the whole program "made in
the USA" because of his famous "unilateral" bent, or that other
countries will decline to participate in a US-led Moon/Mars effort
because of Bush-hatred? I think both versions are incorrect. If you=

are saying something else, please re-phrase.

A bit of both, I think. Bush will invite other countries, but only on=20=

his own terms, which might not look too pleasing to others. I rather
suspect they are going to be either calculated to be not too inviting
or unwittingly treading on the sensibilties of prospective partners.
(With Bush, you can never be too sure...).
And a lot of countries which did in the past collaborate with the US
on spaceflight will not be too eager anyway, for a lot of different
reasons. Lets look at the main contributors to ISS, who are/we=20
USA, Russia, Japan, Germany, France, Italy.

So the US take the initiative. Who will follow?
(Taking into account it is likely to hurt ISS: maybe no more
shuttle flights to launche Kibo and Columbus, as well as solar cells=20=

etc... maybe just reduced shuttle flight rate and cutting US build=20
modules if there are still any left to be cut - anyway the money has=20=

to be taken from somewhere)
Russia? Maybe, but they do not have that much money to spend by
themself, at least not enough for reviving a production line of
launchers bigger than anything needed on the commercial market.
Germany and France? After being insulted repeatetly? When their
ISS module is still on the ground, while the US and russia have all
the modules they are willing to fund in orbit?
Japan? Which also would suffer from any cut on ISS, and which has
economic problems enough to bow out without offending anyone?
Italy? Maybe, but I do not see them paying for Energia anyway.
Their space budget (and GNP) is a lot less then that of others.

Again: Those countries which would come into my mind collaborating
with the US have a lot to lose if ISS suffers for it, which seems
inevitable to me, and some may remember some insults, Bush related
ones as well as space related ones (look at the stories of ISS and
Spacelab for starters).

The UPI story mentioned Ariane and Soyuz. I doubt Keith Cowing made
that part up, and I doubt his sources said it just for fun.

I have yet to see something firm on the whole issue...

Russia does not have the money to start a Energia production line, a=
nd
it seems to be the consenus around here in ssp that the US are not
going to spend taxpayer money abroad.
=20
This consensus may only be apparent, or it may be real and incorrect.=

The US spends billions of taxpayer dollars abroad every year--more so=

last year than usual.

Not on big ticket items with high visibility.

I would be fine with a stictly US program, anyway, and I bet a
majority of Americans would be fine with one too. But I think it's
unlikely. We have a hard time holding a grudge.

If You say so...

And heavy-lift capacity has both
a public-reltions angle (my launcher is bigger than yours) and a
military one as well, so it seems unlikely that this part of the
mission is going to be contracted outside the US.
=20
If Congress is presented with alternate plans to a) buy Russian
rockets and save billions, or b) use rockets built by American worker=
s
and pay accordingly, it will be interesting to watch how they vote.
Districts with heavy aerospace presence will tend to vote differently=

than those without.

The issue would be muddled very soon, assuming anyone would present
Plan A at all to the congress.

Of course the Russians might present us with a breathtaking markup (a=
s
they have before) and I hope we would balk in that case.

The russians are going to charge as much as they can, as proper
capitalists should...

Well, You concentrated a bit too much on technology and economy.
=20
True; politics could make the whole thing academic anyway.

Politics *is* going to make the whole thing academic anyway.

A Saturn V-class launcher really may not be necessary. It may prove
much more cost-effective to use heavy EELVs and on-orbit assembly, I
don't know.

So You say the discussion is moot anyway?

Regards

Robert Kitzmueller

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
(Patrick Underwood) wrote in
om:

So go ahead, what's wrong with this picture? (I know you started
thinking up obvious counter-arguments at the first sentence.)

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...1-094749-7399r

quote
Though it might be possible to ease some of the Russian space program's
problems by providing financial aid, the U.S. government is prohibited from
doing so. Russia is technically in violation of the Iran Non-Proliferation
Act of 2000. The U.S. government cannot purchase Russian goods or services
until Russia changes its policy toward Iran to comply with nuclear non-
proliferation requirements.
/quote


Which of course utterly means nothing, as demonstrated by how long Israel's
NPT violation has been overlooked.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

On 12 Jan 2004 10:16:41 -0800, (Patrick Underwood)
wrote, in part:

It is clear that the Moon/Mars program is going to be international,
with Russia playing a role. Assigning the heavy lifting job to the
Russians would provide a major boost for their economy and national
prestige

Trouble is, if the American taxpayers are paying for the program, they
will expect the jobs to stay at home. And since every penny spent on
imports has to be earned by the sale of exports, and we can't
(although I admit the U.S. has tried) force people to buy our
products, the response to an increase in imports is to throw people
out of work until they can't afford imported products, when tariffs
are not permitted by treaties such as the WTO.

If Russia could get rid of organized crime - instead, there are
suspicions it has friends in high places in government - or at least
reduce it to the dull roar it is in the U.S., one can't ask more of
Russia than we do - making it stronger might be less of a dangerous
thing.

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html