Reply With QuoteDuh, I'm new here, not used to handles, shoulda been more careful. I mean, I want to hear what ABBYY has to say.
Energia reactivation?
Raistlin, I would be very interested to hear what you and your father think of the possibility of refurbishing/reactiving the Energia booster and its launch facility to participate in launches to the Moon or Mars.
Here in the US there is a some controversy about whether NASA should use part of its meager "Vision for Space Exploration" budget to develop a new heavy-lift launcher, or whether to size payloads for existing medium-lift launchers like Atlas V/Delta IV or (hopefully) SpaceX Falcon V.
But with a Saturn-class launcher having been developed by your father's company not long ago, it seems like it could be useful to reactivate it, perhaps with funds provided by international partners.
Guys, I'm sure you want to jump on me and explain to me why this is a bad idea--but I'd like to hear what Raistlin has to say.
Patrick
I meant Abbyy
Duh, I'm new here, not used to handles, shoulda been more careful. I mean, I want to hear what ABBYY has to say.
On the subject of the Polyus station depicted in those great photos, this was supposedly an experimental unmanned space station equipped with lasers and missile interceptors. It was launched into orbit but failed to orbit properly and reentered.
It would have fired the lasers in space at ICBMs. It was probably intended to fire at the ICBMs while they were still in boost phase (i.e. rocket firing) and therefore the laser would have to fire through the atmosphere.
It is highly doubtful the Russians could have made this thing work. Even if they did, the orbit was so low that they would have had to launch a lot of them to keep some within range at all times. Very expensive to do.
However, Polyus remains an enigma. Much about it is secret, so we do not know any details.
The rocket that launched it was the Energia which also launched the Buran. The Energia is long gone. That capability no longer exists. At least one of the shots shows the vehicle during assembly inside a large building. This was known as Site 110 at the Tyura-Tam launch facility (this was the same building where they assembled their N-1 moon rocket during the 1960s). A couple of years ago the roof of that building collapsed, destroying the Buran that flew once in space along with another Energia rocket. So that facility is destroyed, although the building next to it is still in use.
punder wrote:
The Energia was launched twice, in October and November 1988. That's 16 years ago, making this an old vehicle. People have retired and tooling has been destroyed. So that's one reason.But with a Saturn-class launcher having been developed by your father's company not long ago, it seems like it could be useful to reactivate it, perhaps with funds provided by international partners.
A second reason is that the building where the Energia was assembled collapsed a few years ago, destroying an extra vehicle and a lot of spare equipment, along with much of the construction equipment. The capability to build the Energia no longer exists. It would have to be recreated.
Kind of wonder how many space fans are visiting Military photos site
Yes it is great challenge for modern Russia to restart production of many things made in Soviet Union.
Abbyy - Energia's Mars Mission
Abbyy,
You say that Energia corporation is making hardware for a Mars trip and that financing is difficult.
Anyway that Energia can cut a deal with the Chinese? A JV (joint venture) deal where the Chinese put up some of the money and get to send some of their astronauts on the mission might work.
Has anyone discussed this?
Kurt
Re: Abbyy - Energia's Mars Mission
I don't know. I'm not a boss.Originally Posted by Kurt9
Actually i suppose this is more political question rather then economical.
I see news of this thread and the Polyus photos got posted to sci.space.history overnight (my time)...alot of the 'grey beard' space experts will be visiting I think
[quote="DDAY
The Energia was launched twice, in October and November 1988. That's 16 years ago, making this an old vehicle. People have retired and tooling has been destroyed. So that's one reason.
A second reason is that the building where the Energia was assembled collapsed a few years ago, destroying an extra vehicle and a lot of spare equipment, along with much of the construction equipment. The capability to build the Energia no longer exists. It would have to be recreated.[/quote]
Actually much of the Energia still most certainly exists--the strap-on boosters are still in production as the Zenit first stage. The RD-170 is in production as the RD-180, which is all RD-170 parts except for the turbopump.
There are other mitigating factors that go beyond a simple yes/no. A collapsed roof, for example, does not equal complete destruction of the building. We build bigger roofs for football stadiums. Building and repairing large buildings is not that hard, especially in the context of an international effort to explore the Moon and Mars. Much of the building is still in use for ongoing Progress and Starsem launches. Much of the rest of the infrastructure still exists, rusty perhaps... And even if tooling is all gone (is it really? I wonder), blueprints certainly exist.
Looking around a little, I found a statement from Aleksandr Derechin, Head of International Division, RSC Energia, indicating that while cost of restarting production would be considerable, it would probably be cheaper than creating a whole new vehicle. I found that at
http://chapters.marssociety.org/winnipeg/russian.html
As for the Energia being "old" technology: Lockheed certainly wouldn't say that, using as they are the RD-180. Engines developed for Energia are still among the best in the business. NASA studied the RD-0120 for improvements to the SSME.
You may be right, it would cost too much. I just think that if we DO go with a heavy-lift, we should examine this option closely and not dismiss it out of hand.
Patrick
Such a shame that they dont just start working together.
Excellent post Abbyy, thankyou for sharing these pictures.
punder wrote:
The core vehicle has been out of production for over 15 years. That qualifies as "old."Actually much of the Energia still most certainly exists--the strap-on boosters are still in production as the Zenit first stage. The RD-170 is in production as the RD-180, which is all RD-170 parts except for the turbopump.
I used to have a picture of the building. It is destroyed. I know someone who was there in the mid-1990s and said that it was clearly structurally unsound at that time--cracks in the walls, water inside, etc. It would essentially have to be torn down and rebuilt.There are other mitigating factors that go beyond a simple yes/no. A collapsed roof, for example, does not equal complete destruction of the building. We build bigger roofs for football stadiums. Building and repairing large buildings is not that hard
There is no international effort to explore the Moon and Mars. There is an American effort to explore the Moon with robots and eventually humans, and Mars with robots. No other countries have signed on to this plan or even been formally asked to participate. The Russians are short on money and would want to be paid to build their contribution to any exploration plan.especially in the context of an international effort to explore the Moon and Mars.
The point is not that it is impossible but that it would be expensive. It is not simply a case of restarting a dormant production line.And even if tooling is all gone (is it really? I wonder), blueprints certainly exist.
Suppose the Russians estimate that it will cost $6 billion. Do you think it is realistic to convince the US Congress to spend $6 billion in Russia as opposed to the United States?I just think that if we DO go with a heavy-lift, we should examine this option closely and not dismiss it out of hand.
DDAY
kurt9 wrote:
You say that Energia corporation is making hardware for a Mars trip and that financing is difficult.
Anyway that Energia can cut a deal with the Chinese? A JV (joint venture) deal where the Chinese put up some of the money and get to send some of their astronauts on the mission might work.
Has anyone discussed this?
Actually, he never said that it was a human Mars mission. I think he is referring to the Phobos-Soil robotic mission.
As for cutting a deal with the Chinese, it is not likely. China has a very slow and deliberate human spaceflight program, averaging only one launch about every 12-18 months. They do not want to spend the money on a fast-paced exploration program. And they are only spending the money so that they can create the spaceflight capability for themselves. They do not want to pay others to do it for them.
The Energia is a historical vehicle. It has not flown for 16 years.
I just re-read my post and noticed that I may have come across sarcastic, which wasen't my intention. Which is maybe why there has been no replies to my question.. .?
Anyway, I'm really curious about this "Laser space battle station". To my knowledge, even to this day humans have been unable to build a laserbeam powerful enough to be used as somesort of weapon ?? yes? no? And this space station was being developed in the 80's.. .
What was it's purpose cause it obviously couldn't have taken out cities like I speculated
joka wrote:
Reread the other posts on this. I already noted that it was intended to shoot down missiles, probably in boost phase. In other words, most of the firing would have been through space and thin atmosphere. It also carried missiles.Anyway, I'm really curious about this "Laser space battle station". To my knowledge, even to this day humans have been unable to build a laserbeam powerful enough to be used as somesort of weapon ?? yes? no? And this space station was being developed in the 80's.. .
What was it's purpose cause it obviously couldn't have taken out cities like I speculated
You are right to be skeptical. I doubt that this would have worked. And keep in mind that it was only a test vehicle, not an operational one.
that would depend on the technology transfers going into US companies. A good argument can be made that while the up front cost of $6 billion might seem high the backend profits would be considerably more.Suppose the Russians estimate that it will cost $6 billion. Do you think it is realistic to convince the US Congress to spend $6 billion in Russia as opposed to the United States?
Posting Permissions
