Conference 7.286::space

    the ENERGIA worked find, the upper stage not part of the new
    design is what failed, so the booster get a A+ but there 
    upperstages get another F-.  Seem that the CCCP have been
    having trouble with the upper stages lately.  But this puts
    the Russian with the largest  operational booster and according
    to TASS will be used to lauch both reusble orbital spaceships and
    large size space vehicles.
    

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!ucbvax!LL-VLSI.ARPA!glenn
Subject: Soviets launch new large booster
Posted: 18 May 87 04:12:15 GMT
Organization: The ARPA Internet
  
    The USSR launched today (May 16/15) the first prototype of their
new very large booster from their Baikonur launch complex in
Kazakhstan.  Called ENERGY, this massive 2000 Tonne booster is said to
put 100 Tonne payloads into low Earth orbit and is the largest current
launcher in the world.  The stated future purpose is to launch very
large scientific and space station modules plus being part of their
space shuttle system.   The Russian reports say that the vehicle
launched consisted of two stages, both of which worked perfectly, but
that the dummy payload, which contained its own orbital motor suffered
from "insufficent response" on some of its systems.  Thus it did not
enter orbit and was fell in the Pacific Ocean. 

    There were many amazing things about this launch.  To begin with,
on May 13, Gorbachev was at the Baikonur Cosmodrome, where he gave a
speech calling on the Soviet scientists and engineers to end their
inferiority complex about the country's scientific prowness.  Then
came the annoucement that the launch was going to take place was made
on May 14.  The Soviets have never stated in advance that they were
flying a new system before.  From this I bet a friend that the launch
would be shown on TV, and it was!  The booster appears to have 4
strap-on motors (the first stage) around the central core.  This two
stage version reminds me of the first PROTON launch (the largest
booster to date), which was also two stages with a large satellite
which contained its own rocket (that only stayed in orbit for 3
months).  Finally there is the fact that they described in reasonable
detail the failure of the satellite, yet seemed to be positively
estatic about the launch itself. 

    Of course this vehicle brings a new age to the Soviet space
program.  Gorbachev himself said that it would be used to launch the
large sections of space cities, though it will take a few years for it
to reach full operational status.  They have also started talking
recently about lunar bases and Mars missions (though not for some
time). 

    More than that though, this really shows that Gorbachev has put
himself behind the their program (that was uncertain up to now).  It
cost him political capital and risk to order the prelaunch
announcement, personally watch the launch, and order the release of
the TV films even though it was not a perfect success.  Consider
before his Glasnost campaign it took 20 years between the time the
PROTON first flew and days when the first pictures of that vehicle
were given to the West.  With that speech I think he is saying the
Soviet Union is going for an even more agressive space program to show
to the world their technological prowness, and Gorbachev personally is
behind it. 

    OK people, Space Race Part 2 is on.  Just like the first one our
lauchers are blowing up while theirs are flying.  Are we going to
stand still, or are we going to get moving again? 
 
                                        Glenn Chapman
                                        MIT Lincoln Lab

    This week's AW&ST (June 8) has some interesting photos of Energia.
    Some of them appear to be from the television coverage. Did it get
    any coverage on US television? It actually made its way onto Australian
    TV news - no small achievement in itself (they incorrectly reported
    it as a failed attempt at a shuttle launch, but at least they showed
    the film).
    
    The core generates 6.6 million lb-weight burning LH2/LOX. There
    are four strapons (thrust not stated) burning kerosene/LOX. All
    engines are running at liftoff, with the strapons being jettisoned
    as the vehicle reachs about mach 4-6. The strapons are also used
    as the first stage of the SL-X-16 medium launcher.
    
    gary

    Does anyone else find this new booster as interesting as I do? (Closet
    rocket fans, now is the time to come out...)
    
    A couple of things didn't make a lot of sense to me about this,
    so I put on my Junior Soviet Space Program Analyst decoder ring
    and reexamined the material that I have seen (mostly AW&ST).
    
    I still see no good reason for building it the way they did...
    parallel staged and side mounted payload. Even when the payload
    is a reusable orbiter, it makes more sense to sit the payload
    on top and have a symmetric weight distribution. The photos make
    me think that the strapons are not distributed symmetrically, but
    they aren't the best photos.
    
    Parallel staging may be explained if the Soviets had spent most
    of their engine developement effort on the large LOX/LH2 engines
    used in the core. It certainly must have been a major undertaking
    for them. I don't think they regularly use LOX/LH2 in any other launch
    vehicle (maybe the recent Proton upper stage failures point to a
    possible high energy upper stage for that launcher, along the lines
    of Centaur).
    
    If so, then they may not have had a large LOX/Kerosene or LOX/UDMH
    engine available to them. To have built a serial first stage with
    sufficient thrust then would have mant using lots of medium sized
    engines. This approach was a major reason for the failure of the G
    series booster 15 years ago, in my opinion, so the parrallel staging
    approach begins to make sense. The Soviets do not seem to have the
    solid propellant technology that is available in the US; probably their
    largest solid motor is the first stage of the SS-13 ICBM which was
    never deployed in large numbers. There are other possible reasons for
    using liquids vs. solids for the strapons, including system
    reliability.
    
    I do not think the first flight was as big a success as claimed.
    Certainly, the basic Energia appears to have performed as planned
    but I think the payload failure was dismissed too glibly. Consider
    that this is the first flight test of a complex vehicle. Would you
    have it carry a new, also untested, payload on a side mount (also
    a new technique for the Soviets) and then have core perform a complex
    series of manouvers to release the payload and move away from it
    before it attempted to fire its engines. The Soviets are usually
    fairly conservative in their test programs, so there would have
    to be a good reason for this on a first flight. They could have
    thrown something lighter into LEO if that were the only intention.
    
    I think the launch was meant to test the entire propulsion system for
    their shuttle. This would mean that the payload was carrying their
    equivalent of the STS OMS and it did not work. I would expect this to
    set back their shuttle schedule somewhat. Has RM said anything about
    reuseable spaceships lately? 
    
    I also think this indicates that getting the shuttle working is a
    higher priority than other applications of Energia (otherwise why
    complicate a first flight). That would mean that we won't see it
    lifting heavy payloads (e.g. large space station components) alone for
    a while. By way of precedent, after the first test flights, most (all?)
    the early Proton flights were dedicated to the Soviet lunar effort
    until they abandoned it. 
    
    It will be interesting to see what happens on the next flight.
    
    gary

I'm curious too!  I'm wondering what could be in those "large grey boxes"
mounted on the top and bottom of the strapons.  AW&ST suggested that they
could contain avionics or pressurization bottles or even parachutes for
recovery of the strapons.  Any other ideas?

    the "grey boxes" are strange, they don't even look aerodynamic
    but I do think the launch was a very big success.  It was the
    first launch and the booster was the main new design - an it worked!
    The payload most likly was a dummy load and it failed to work, 
    makes me wonder if it is the same problem they are having with
    the upperstages of the Photon GEO launch.  I think a good reason
    for side cargo would be the total height of the unit and for easy
    man accessability to the unit.  Don't forget the Russian seem to
    assembly the unit and then bring it to the launch pad and very
    little assembly is done at the pad as compaired to the huge
    service unit that goes around the US Space Shuttle.  So there
    could be restriction to the total height.  They also have built
    two launching pads.  I can think of two reason for this 
    one) just as a spare as this is an experimental rocket and if
         it exploded your pad could be damaged
    two) more likly a large commitment to the new booster and
         the need for fast turn around.  The question remains open
         as to what this commitment is, space station, military, other?
    
    The MLV with the smaller shuttle , however, is mountd on the top.
    
    another strange thing why was the payload color very dark
    can't tell colour as all the picutre I have seen are BW.
    This is not there normal color set up.  This week AW does have
    a super high resolution picture of the booster, I nice outcome
    of the new 'openness pollicy' .  One last comment , AW estimates
    it can lauch 3x to 5x that of what the suttle can with two pads
    and at a launch rate of one per month soon Earth will be 
    a place in the History books.
    jb
    
    
    

    re .5
    
    My guess for the large grey boxes is extra flight instrumentation
    for measuring vehicle performance in a lot more detail than you
    would for an operational vehicle. NASA did not do this on the shuttle
    until they refitted one of the orbiters and discovered a few unexpected
    things about shuttle performance.
    
    I have photos of Atlas launches with equally strange boxes attached
    at various points on the side for that reason.
    
    re .6
    
    Clearly it was a success for the booster. But the payload is a new
    design and is not a dummy - they admitted that it contained a
    propulsion system. The thrust requirements would be quite different
    than that required to change from parking orbit to GTO as is the
    function of the upper stage in the recent Proton launch failures. They
    claimed they were testing 'high energy' upper stages on the Proton
    which I take to imply LOX/LH2. If I am correct about the Energia
    payload being a testbed for their shuttle OMS then it is probably
    UDMH/N2O4 or similar. 
    
    From my reading they have one complex of two pads complete and another
    close to complete. They are clearly committed to this large booster
    and are probably a little nervous having lost a large complex when
    one of the G series exploded on the pad. What will they use it for?
    I still think that we will see them getting their shuttle systems
    working before we see it in production use for payload only.
    
    And remember, their space station IS military (and so, it seems,
    is the US station).
    
    I have not seen any mention of the spaceplane/SL-X-16 recently.
    Has anyone else? If it is a real project leading to manned flights,
    as distinct from a technology program like the US Assett and Prime
    programs, I would see it as the logical successor to Soyuz.
    
    gary
                          

    also re .6
    
    The photos of the servicing structures appear to be able to cope
    with a much taller vehicle. The Proton is also taller.
    
    What would be interesting to know is whether they integrate the
    vehicle vertically or horizontally. Previously, all Soviet launch
    vehicles including Proton have been integrated and transported in a
    horizontal position and elevated to vertical at the pad. Energia
    is probably too massive for this - maybe they integrate it vertically.
    
    Regardless, the side mounting may make ground handling a lot easier.
    
    gary

    Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that side-mounting
    the payload could result in less mass required for the supporting
    structure.  With the p/l on the side, they put in some sort of thrust
    distribution widget amidships which distributes the thrust from
    the main engines at the bottom and the strappons to the payload,
    which is also amidship.  If it were at the top, they would still
    need the widget to distribute the strappon thrust, but in addition,
    they would need to have structure members going up to hold the p/l.
    As is, they only need to support the tank up there.
    
    Burns
    

    re .9
    
    That had crossed my mind and it does sound reasonable but its not an
    area that I know much about. The only point (in my mind) against
    that was why had it not been done before the US shuttle, but that
    could have engineering inertia. I could imagine someone like Von
    Braun saying "we don't do parallel stages".
    
    gary

    re .10:  If you have parallel stages, that is less dead weight that
    you can drop at staging time.  Must be interesting tradeoffs here.
    
    Burns
    

    re .11
    
    Do you mean that since the boosters do not have to support the entire
    vehicle, their structural components could weigh less?
    
    Another way of putting that is that the mass ratio would be higher,
    i.e. the ratio of the fully fuelled booster mass to the empty booster
    mass. For a given propellant, the higher the mass ratio, the higher
    the performance.
    
    For serially staged vehicles, you multiply the mass ratios for each
    stage (including the 'inert' mass of the stages above) together
    to get the overall value. By careful design you can decrease the
    overall mass ratio hence the attraction in staging. I don't know
    how you would calculate it for parallel staging - maybe consider
    booster plus core firing as one stage using the empty boosters and
    core with n% propellant remaining for burnout mass and the core alone
    starting from n% to empty as the next.
    
    gary
                                            

    Guri Marchuk, the president of the USSR Academy of Sciences, described
    the Energiy test as a new stage in the development of Soviet space
    technology . He said in a Radio Moscow report 
    "the new task of industrializing terrestrail space notable increased
    requirements to transport space systems, and the amount of cargo
    transport is to increase  Spending on transportation should be reduced;
    reliability and safety, enhanced; the landing of heavy cargoes from
    orbit, as well as comfortable conditions for the cosmonauts' return
    to Earth, guaranteed..."
    
   " The Carrier rocket Energiya is the core of the reusable transport
    space system built in the Soviet Union," Marchuk said.  "We view
    such systems as a promising means of transportation and study question
    of its efficient use for large-scale studies and planned utilization
    of space.  The operation of the multi-purpose carrier rocket will
    allow to considerably expand the peaceful exploration of space,
    launch heavy communications satellites to stationary orbit, and
    unmanned interplanetary probes to remote space and the Sun, assemble
    multi-purpose orbital complexes and sizable unites and structures,
    and station in orbit experimental power units with big solar batteries
    for the need of space production.  Thus, prospects of industrializing
    terrestrial space open up."
    ....
    "The future trends of the Soviet space program would largely depend
    on the actions of the American side." (he did not elaborate)
    
    
    Also Boris Rauschenbach a member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences
    was quoted by Radio Moscow as saying Energiya will "make it possible
    to make great strides toward the cration of human colonies in space"
    
    I found this infomation interesting in what the USSR Scientiest
    are thinking as the use of Energiya
    
    john
    

    Fairly content free... I'm sure NASA released similar statements
    after the first shuttle launch. The Soviets are good at this kind
    of statement... sounds good but very difficult to draw any conclusions
    other than 'we will use Energia for our shuttle and big payloads'.
    
    Still, its a step up from 'is glorious success meeting all test
    objectives'
    
    gary

    Heres one thing Energia could do, 
    
    The Soviets are saying at the air show that the huge mirrors that they want 
to build are to provide artificial lighting (at night) to remote parts of 
the CCCP -- they want to be able to do crop harvisting at night and to 
increase the amount of light that the crops get. The other plan is to use the 
mirrors to focus sunlight INTO clouds to break themup into smaller ones. 
Some how the breaking apart will cause rain to fall. The Soviets claim that 
with more rain fall they can become food independint of the west. Of corse 
the VOA said last night that the Soviet mirrors could be used
as their ownd SDI __ instead of clouds aim it at ICBMs. Sighhhhh.
                                      
    
    

    	There was a rumor during World War II that the Nazis were
    developing an Earth-orbiting space station to use as a very
    high-altitude battleground, using such weapons has highly-polished
    mirrors to aim concentrated sunlight at Earth-based targets (My
    information is from a 1950's book on rocketry by Willy Ley - the
    title escaped me at the moment).
    
    	While I think it would have been very doubtful that the Nazis
    could have gotten that far technologically back then, the concept
    is still a very possible and frightening reality!  (My God, can
    you imagine a *Nazi Space Station*?!!)
                                          
    	Larry
    

    Larry,
    
    I beleive you are refering to Willy Ley's "Rockets, Missiles, and
    Space Travel".  (Good book too!)
    
    jim
    

    re .17
    
    That is the most common of his books, but he wrote a LOT of material
    in the 50's and 60's on various space related stuff.
    
    gary

    re: .17, .18--I haven't read that book since it was new, but I don't
    remember anything in it about orbiting weapons platforms.  I suspect
    it was another of his books.
    
    I doubt that the mirrors could be slewed fast enough to hit a ballistic
    missle.  Hitting a city, though, would be easy.  Even if you could
    only raise the temperature of the city area by 20 degrees C, you
    could make the place very hard to live in during the summer.  If
    you could raise the temperature by 40 degrees C, you could make
    it uninhabitable.
        John Sauter

    	No, it WAS the book mentioned in 291.17, and there WAS an article
    on the space platforms.
    
    	Larry
    

    re: 19
    yes I dont think it can be slewed fast enought to hit a ICBM
    but does it have to
    
    1) it can be focus, they plan to focus it on clouds, so that 
       means it is not a simple flat mirror  there is some means of
       focusing the beam
   
    2) what kind of orbit would it be in, 
       if GEO: sure don't need extra light etc on the equator
       maybe it can still be usefull at lat's of say 60 or 70 deg
       if MOLYNIA: Northern lat. would benifit but suborbital path
       would go over other nations.
    
    3) Would it be possilbe to protect a  place with a very
       hot beam that would be like a wall, maybe not , but if
       so one would not have to slew the beam, just wait for
       someone to try and pass threw. You could aim it an the
       Navy and get them Hot
    
    4) an then again, we could be purely paranoid and it is truely
       for the stated purpose, other then a Space to Space weapon
       it would be somewhat dependent on earth weather and could be
       an easy target for a yet to be develope weapon
    
    I think a very important question has to be ans, what will it to
    to the Earth, its trade winds, etc. Nice to be able to control
    you own enviroment but what are the side affects.
    
    john
    
    
    
    
    if it was in a GEO orbit, it could not be use against mainland US
    but it could be use against other satellites, blind them, heat them
    pass their design points etc

    re .21
    
    You last point about weather systems highlights the real danger
    in these schemes. Dumping a lot of concentrated solar radiation into
    the atmosphere at night could really screw up norther hemisphere
    weather patterns, particularly if it was near the arctic circle.
    
    The Soviets have a lot of experience with climate modification (esp
    cloud seeding) and its drawbacks. I really doubt that they are
    considering this.
    
    As a weapon it would have all the problems that space based lasers
    face plus a lot more from the non-coherent light that would be
    involved.
    
    The orbit would probably have to be geosynchronous but not
    geostationary. Maybe a polar orbit would be possible although I
    haven't been able to figure one that would be useful.
    
    This idea has been around for a long time as previous replies have
    observed. Personally, I think it is one of the more stupid suggestions
    and ranks with exploding A bombs in the ionosphere and dumping tiny
    metal needles in orbit (Project Argus and Project West Ford).
    
    Disinformation, perhaps?
    
    gary

    Re.22
    
    You no doubt think that building dams, canals, etc... were very
    stupid things to do too. Look at all the nasty changes they brough
    to the natural enviroment.
    
    NOHHH, the way ahead its through man's incrasingly bigger control
    of his enviroment. I agree that as of now, massive things like an
    orbital weather mirror would be too costly to build. But who knows,
    30-50 years from now it would propally be the thing to do.
    
    And yes the final goal should be the modification of the weather
    patterns. FOR THE BETTER. Even if they screw up the controls, every
    once in a while. The end result still would be much better then
    what we have now.
    
    (Its like a man that eats meat every day complaning because there
     is a few days a year that he cannot have it. WHAT ABOUT THOSE POOR
     SUCKERS OUT THERE THAT CAN ONLY HAVE MEAT ONCE IN A BLUE MOON.)
    
     Gil
    

    re 22 & 23
    changing the natural enviroment for the good of who?
    If I make a better enviroment at the expense of others
    is it ok? NO!  The idea could be a good one if you were
    able to understand and control the enviroment of the
    whole Earth not just one section of it.  I am assuming
    you can determine what is good weather for a section
    and I can not even think of how to do that!
    
    Thing like dams, canals, etc have both good and bad 
    eviroment expense , dams have incressed earthquakes and
    reduce water supplies to other countries  and displace
    land owners. This would be a very small problem compared
    with the Solar Mirrors, if I incress my corn coprs I may cause
    the fishing industry to have a bad year or it may not
    rain in Africa this year,  Could any one nation take
    this responsibility!  By the time one could prove it
    was related to the Solar Mirror project the damage
    would have allready have been done.  
    
    One final idea, this in itself is a weapon, if I could
    incress my farm production at an the same time have neg.
    enviroment effects on my others I will be #1.  One other
    use would be to modify the Ionisphere, radio propagation
    depends on these layers being where they are expected to
    be and this could change that.
                                                       
    anyhow the new launch pads, and booster gives the Russians
    the capability to be able to do this and other large scale
    projects.
    

    re .24
    
    A boat, a plane, a rocket all can and are used as weapons delivery
    systems. Should we outlaw their more peacefull use because of that.
    
    Any orbital weather mirror put in orbit rigth now, without bankrupting
    the country putting it there would be to small to be able to affect
    the weather in any major way. (Like warming up the hole northen
    hemisphere during the winter.) The most anybody could hope for,
    would be the dissipation of a storm here and there, turning a snow
    fall to rain fall etc... Lighting up a city for a football game,
    or in the Russians case for a military night parade.
    
    All very small and specific applications on the overall scheme of
    things. Hell we got nuclear missiles ready to rain down on our heads
    at a moments notice, and here you are worring about a little light
    bulb in the sky. I wish all technological applications, were as
    easy to nullify and sidestep when turned to violent uses. 
    

    re .23, .25
    
    You seem to think I'm some sort of neo-luddite.
    
    Just because something is doable doesn't mean its a good idea. The
    orbital mirror for climate control idea has been extensively studied
    in the 50's and 60's and discarded and not because of the relatively
    simple problem of getting the thing into orbit.
    
    We now know a lot more about global climate systems than we did
    then (even more than we did in the mid 70's when I wrote a thesis
    on climate control) and the major thing that has been learned is
    that we do not yet know enough to risk that kind of experiment.
    The various components of the ocean/atmosphere system are coupled
    together far more tightly than was thought a couple of decades ago.
    
    Even relatively 'local' experiements with cloud seeding have been
    found to have unexpected impact hundreds of miles away. Man has
    already changed the global climate system, albeit unwittingly.
    
    To screw up circulation in one hemisphere really only needs the
    energy equivalent of a few tens of megatons if applied maliciously
    or maybe just injudiciously.
    
    The weapon/non-weapon argument is, in my view, largely irrelevant.
    Most any technology can be applied equally well to military and
    non-military uses.
    
    Assuming that the Soviets would want to play with major climate
    control for economic reasons, the single most important thing they
    could do would be to control or prevent hailstorms. They lose a    
    lot of crops to hailstorms and have spent a lot of time and effort
    on that area alone.
    
    I referred to Argus and West Ford as projects that collective
    scientific opinion thought were a bad idea but went ahead anyway.
    
    gary

    re .26
    
    Sorry if I gave you a bad impression Gary. The thing is you have
    hit a sensitive spot.
    
    OK, so you're saing that putting up however many tons the mirror
    masses and assembling it etc... isn't the problem. Its knowing what
    to do and when to do it. Right ?
    
    Well, I get the impression that you think that the atomesphere is
    a supper fragille thing. And/or the mirror supper powerfull (i.e.
    it takes a lot of mirror to continually pour a few megattons worth
    of energy down to earth).
    
    Well I think you wrong in both counts, first while its true that
    the atmosphere is very sensative its not that fragille, and believe
    me it can recover petty darn quick from introduced inbalances.
    
    On the second count, while you dismiss the cost of putting the thing
    in orbit. I bet no governament could, ours or the Russians. And
    as a result any mirror going up there is going to be just as small
    as it can be, and still achive positive results against storms etc...
    at least to start with. 
    
    And that will give us a wonderfull opurtinity to study our weather
    by introducing a controlled variable into the process. Starting
    as small as possible of course.

    Actually, I've heard it said many times that the very climatic changes
    required to make the Soviet Union the center of bumper crops of
    wheat are the same changes that would almost destroy the American
    farmland.
    
    In general, there's enough controversy going on right now as to whether
    or not we're heating up the climate (and therefore un-disolving
    CO2 in our oceans, causing nasty greenhouse effects), that I'd think
    it a poor idea to start dumping more energy into the earth's weather
    system without first being real careful about what you're doing.
    
    Rather than heating up the earth's surface even more (and the debate
    as well), the money would be much better spent on investigating
    albedo neutral (if I'm wording this correctly) energy sources. 
    At least these wouldn't be directed at putting still more of the
    sun's energy into our atmosphere.

    >    Well, I get the impression that you think that the atomesphere is
    >a supper fragille thing.
    
    Well, we will probably never agree on this, but my major was
    meteorology and I beleive the atmosphere is a very fragile thing and
    for the time being its the only one we have. We do not fully understand
    the mechanisms of changes that we have already caused by altering
    vegetation patterns thus altering the albedo of regions of the earth.
    We do not fully understand the effects we see after a volcanic
    eruption, a fairly 'local' event, as a result of the change in
    particulate matter in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is changing now,
    in a fashion that we cannot accurately predict. Adding another variable
    in the form of a mirror concentrating solar radiation onto one spot
    (and the various layers of atmosphere above it) and expecting to be
    able to control the effects is foolhardy. 
    
    >    the atmosphere is very sensative its not that fragille, and believe
    >me it can recover petty darn quick from introduced inbalances.
    
    I have not seen any evidence that the atmosphere can recover 'pretty
    darn quick' from an introduced energy imbalance. Remember Sagan et al's
    'nuclear winter' theories? They are based upon telling a global
    circulation model (GCM) that you have suddenly decreased the amount of
    incoming energy at the lower levels of the atmosphere. GCM experiments
    suggest that relatively small changes in incoming energy and its
    absorption can start long term climate changes.
    
    I do not dismiss the problems of launching such a thing but maintain
    the even if it were easily doable it has a number of other serious
    drawbacks.
    
    I think there is a meteorology file somewhere (maybe this node?)
    Maybe this should continue there?
    
    gary 

    	Check out the PYRITE::METEOROLOGY Conference.  There is a Topic
    called "CONTROLLING the Weather?"
    
    	Press KP7 or SELECT to add it to your Notebook.
    
    	Larry
    

Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Energiya, from the rocket's nozzle
Posted: 28 Oct 88 19:20:37 GMT
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Corp., Seattle WA
 
    Article by G. Gubanov, chief designer of the "Energiya" rocket
system: "Energiya Airborne".  Source:  Moscow, Pravda (in Russian) 30
July 1988, second edition, page 4. 
 
    As reported by BBC, London, UK via JR Thomson, Director NASA
Marshall Space Flight Center (7 Sep 88) via Boeing Advanced Launch
System program (early Oct 88):
 
    The launch of the new "Energiya" Soviet heavylift launcher has
aroused enormous interest among specialists and the general public. 
This is understandable -- with the creation of such a rocket we are
opening up unique opportunities for expanding space research. 
 
    I should probably start by explaining that we are talking about a
new general-purpose [universalnyy] rocket system.  It will make it
possible to place in low-Earth orbit a payload of more than 100
tonnes, both in the form of a shuttle -- which is currently being
actively prepared for its first launch -- and in the shape of large
autonomous spacecraft. 
 
    For the third stage special rocket boosters with their own control
system can be used to carry the payload.  On this basis tasks can be
resolved linked with placing spacecraft in geostationary orbit [GEO]
or on trajectories to the Moon and the planets.  Spacecraft weighing
around 18 tonnes can be placed in GEO, while craft of around 32 tonnes
can be placed on lunar trajectories, and up to 28 tonne payloads can
be placed on Martian and Venusian trajectories. 
 
    This flexibility is an important feature of "Energiya," since is a
launcher rather than a booster-equipped orbiter. 
 
    The "Energiya" launcher comprises a two-stage "package" of four
longitudinal first-stage boosters around a central second-stage core
and an asymmetrical payload position.  Launcher lift-off weight can be
up to 2,400 tonnes.  Each first-stage booster is fitted with a
four-chamber liquid-propellant rocket motor burning liquid oxygen and
hydrocarbon fuel.  First-stage motor thrust is 740 tonnes at the
Earth's surface and 806 tonnes in a vacuum.  The second-stage burns
oxygen/hydrogen fuels and has four single-chamber liquid propellant
rocket motors each with a thrust of 148 tonnes at the Earth's surface
and 200 tonnes in a vacuum. 
 
    First- and second-stage motors are fired almost simultaneously
just before lift-off.  The total lift-off thrust is around 3,600
tonnes. The method adopted makes it possible to avoid the problem of
firing motors in weightlessness, and additionally enhances reliability. 
 
    Upon fuel depletion the first-stage boosters separate in pairs
from the rocket, then split up and land in the designated area.  They
can be fitted with reentry and landing equipment housed in special
compartments.  They can be reused following diagnostic, preventive-
maintenance, repair, and restoration work. 
 
    The central core -- the second stage -- separates after suborbital
velocity is reached and lands in a designated area of the Pacific.
This procedure was selected in order to prevent near-Earth space
becoming littered with large discarded launcher fragments.  The boost
to orbital velocity is supplied by motors on the payload, the orbiter,
or the booster unit.  In other words, they act as a third stage. 
 
    The modular assembly of the rocket, its transportation on a
special transporter from the vehicle-assembly and test building to the
launchpad, and the provision of power, pneumatic, hydraulic, and
electrical connections with the launcher are conducted using a mobile
launcher-mating unit [startovo-stykovochnyy blok], which remains at
the launch complex after launch and is reusable. 
 
    Another fundamental feature of the "Energiya" launcher is its
construction on the basis of the second-stage unit and standardized
first-stage modules.  This makes the system flexible and allows for
the subsequent development of a number of promising heavylift and
medium-lift boosters with varying payload capacities depending on
their number of modules. 
 
    The road to flight testing of the new launcher was paved with many
complex scientific, engineering, and organizational problems.  The
efforts of hundreds of design bureaus, plants, research centers, and
construction, installation, and operations enterprises were pooled in
the development of the "Energiya".  Dozens of ministries and
departments, the USSR Academy of Sciences, and union republic
Academies made their contribution to this work. 
 
    The powerful rocket required the use of high-energy fuels,
including liquid oxygen cooled to minus 186 degrees Celsius as the
oxidizer and liquid hydrogen cooled to minus 255 degrees as the fuel
for the second stage.  Special structural materials with considerable
strength were developed and used in the manufacture of the tanks,
supply lines, and some of the hydraulics [gidroavtomatika].  A number
of new types of high-strength steel and aluminum and titanium alloys
were introduced. New thermal-protection and thermal-insulation
coatings were developed. In all, new materials make up more than 70
percent of the "Energiya" launcher's unfueled weight. 
 
    The technology has been assimilated for the manufacture of large
"wafer" structures for the tank shells and for the assembly of large
diameter units using electron-beam and pulse welding on an industrial
scale. Wafer-type shells are currently used quite extensively in
rocket equipment. 
 
    The problem of transporting tanks and central core components 8
meters in diameter and weighing more than 40 tonnes from the
manufacturer to the point of assembly [tekhnicheskaya pozitsiya] has
been solved.  A specially modified heavy aircraft is used, which has
made possible the world's first-ever regular operations in
transporting structures of enormous dimensions -- the diameter of the
cargo is almost 2 and 1/2 times greater than the aircraft cross section. 
 
    One of the most complex and fundamental problems was the
development of reliable and powerful sustainer motors for both the
first and second stages.  A great deal of attention is traditionally
devoted in the Soviet Union to the development and improvement of
liquid- propellant rocket motors.  The RD-170 motors, which are
standard for new-generation launcher first stages, including
"Energiya", were built in the most economical and compact [zamknutyy]
layout -- in which the gas used in the turbine is ignited in the main
combustion chamber -- and have produced a record performance in their
class in terms of thrust and specific pulse.  They are equipped with
high power turbopump units (more than 250,000 horsepower). 
 
    The development of reusable [mnogoresursnyy] high-thrust sustainer
motors using high-energy fuel components for the "Energiya" booster's
second stage was a considerable achievment for Soviet rocket
construction. The designers managed to ensure high performance
characteristics with minimal gas-dynamic losses, regenerative cooling,
and durability of materials used in a liquid hydrogen environment. 
 
    For directional control in the boost phase the sustainer motors
are equipped with a precision electrohydraulic steering system (with
an accuracy of up to 1 percent of the range of movement).  They
develop a force of up to 50 tonnes in each rolling plane [ploskost
kachaniya] of the first-stage sustainer motors, and more than 30
tonnes in the rocket's second stage. 
 
    Wide-ranging and multifaceted problems were solved by setting up
an autonomous on-board rocket control system based on a multi-unit
computer complex.  Pride of place was given to the development
software and control programs both for standard flight conditions and
for cases of individual systems failures.  More than 500 emergency
situations were analyzed and algorithms found to compensate for them.
These questions were researched on experimental installations, and
also during testbed firings. 
 
    In general the closest attention was paid to ensuring "Energiya's"
reliability and survivability.  The provision of backup systems was
stipulated for the main vitally important systems and units, including
the sustainer motors, steering instruments, turbogenerator power
sources, and pyrotechnics.  The autonomous guidance complex also has
inbuilt component and circuit redundancy.  The special emergency
protection devices which diagnose the condition of both stages'
sustainer motors and trigger an immediate cutout when a failed unit
starts malfunctioning are a new feature of the rocket.  In addition,
the rocket is fitted with efficient fire or explosion warning systems.
 
    The measures that have been taken minimize the likelihood of a
dangerous breakdown during launch.  So if an abnormal situation arises
the rocket can continue controlled flight even with a first- or
second- stage sustainer motor shutdown -- which, incidentally, is
impossible using solid-fuel boosters such as on the "Space Shuttle"
system. In abnormal situations during launch of a manned orbiter the
construct- ive measures built into the rocket make it possible either
to place the craft on a low "single-orbit" flight path following the
orbit of satellites and subsequently landing at an airfield, or to
carry out a maneuver to return to the boost phase, landing the craft
on a strip located near the launch complex. 
 
    It is well known that it is impossible to create a complex
technical system that will work absolutely perfectly.  That is why, if
the launcher fails during the launch of an unmanned payload and it
proves impossible to place the spacecraft in orbit, the rocket guided
into special zones along the flight path where the possible damage
will be minimal -- but the likelihood of such situations is fairly low. 
 
    Thus, by the time of the first launch of the "Energiya" a large
program of research, development, and experimental work had been
completed. In all, more than 200 experimental installations, 34 large
structural assemblies, and 5 full-size items were created for this
purpose, and the total number of tests carried out exceeded 6,500. 
Moreover, the modular part of the first-stage unit was successfully
flight-tested in the launch of a new medium-lift launcher.  The main
aim designated before its first test flight was to obtain experimental
data on the servicability of the design of the rocket itself, its
propulsion systems, other on-board systems, and full-scale launch
conditions -- that is, data which could not be obtained during static
tests were received in full.  The correctness of the plan and design
solutions and the strategy  and scale of ground development was
confirmed. The operation of all on-board systems was shown to be
highly accurate. 
  
    The final phase of the launcher's work, in which it was necessary
to ensure the conditions for separation of the payload -- in this
instance a dummy spacecraft -- also went smoothly.  Unfortunately, a
faulty circuit in one of the on-board instruments in the dummy
spacecraft prevented it from reaching the planned velocity and
entering orbit after separation. 
 
    Positive results from the first test of this class of system -- a
test which was the result of a range of purposeful scientific
research, planning, and engineering work -- could not be mere chance,
only a malfunction could be chance.  The specialists are well aware of
that. On the contrary, failures at the start of flight testing would
not have made it possible to claim that the system was viable -- there
would still have been room for doubts about whether there were any
fundamental shortcomings. 
 
    Random breakdowns in such complex technical systems may occur
mainly because of unexpected and undetected defects during assembly
and operation.  In this connection all further development currently
boils down to stabilizing manufacturing techniques and improving
quality- control methods and their completeness. 
 
    The "Energiya" launcher is a component of a rocket system which
includes -- apart from the rocket itself and the payload -- a ground
complex unique in its scale, capabilities, and level of technical
equipment, which provides training and carries out the launches.  Its
distinguishing feature -- also inherent in the rocket itself -- is its
high level of automation.  The launch center computer complex, which
controls many units and mechanisms taking part in launch preparations,
cooperates with the on-board part of the guidance system, which in
turn controls the state of all launcher systems. 
 
    A multipurpose launcher testbed was designed and commissioned as
part of the ground complex in order to test [otrabotka] under ground
conditions the first- and second-stage units and the `package' as a
whole, firing each stage's sustainer motors for virtually their full
burn time.  This large-scale installation (the plume deflector shield,
for instance, is located more than 40 meters below ground level, and
the lightning conductors standing alongside the launchpad rise 225
meters) equipped with a large amount of necessary technical and
technological systems can also be used as a launch complex.  It was
from here that the first "Energiya" launch took place. 
 
    The specially developed cryogenic systems for refueling the
launcher with cooled hydrogen and oxygen employ new engineering
principles. All fueling processes are automated and based on modern
computer equipment. 
 
    We are the start of the flight-test stage of a complex rocket
system. What problems will still have to be solved?  The most
immediate problems are linked with making the design reuseable.  The
desire to reuse such a unique rocket is quite natural and
understandable.  At the present stage the system is undoubtedly
expensive.  The main stimulus for further improving and developing new
launchers is the need to reduce the cost of placing a unit mass in
orbit (the so-called unit launch cost).  This value characterizes the
sophistication of the launcher. 
 
    Analysis shows that in the future expendable space transportation
systems will lack the prerequisites for markedly reducing unit launch
cost.  A radical solution to the problem of reuseable launch vehicles
lies with the appearance of a new class of transportation system --
spaceplane systems.  But here a great deal depends on materials
technology -- new superlight and durable structural materials are needed. 
 
    The main task of the day is to land an orbiter -- and in the
future, individual units and stages -- automatically without using
pilots. Currently automated flight from takeoff to landing is possible
in aircraft systems, such as the TU-204 medium-haul airliner, for
instance.  The problem is an urgent one. 
 
    The role of manned missions on launchers of this class is not yet
fully clear -- that is the opinion of many specialists.  It would be
inappropriate to blindly copy avaition in this area -- space
technology has developed in its own way.  Initially automatic craft
were launched into space, and it was only later that man followed
them.  In the future space will mainly be a field for automatic
spacecraft and transportation systems.  Clearly, man's role will be
linked with research and specific work on servicing and repairing systems. 
 
    Diagnosis of the condition of structures is a fundamental problem
linked with reuseability.  The current standard of dignostic methods
does not yet make it possible to forewarn of a possible accident
caused by hidden defects that arise in the process of operation.  A
reliable and accurate assessment of service life on the basis of
controls using objective and nondestructive methods is a task which we
will have to learn to resolve. 
 
    There are longer-term problems involved with working out avenues
for creating standardized modules and units for future superheavylift
launchers based on "Energiya" in order to use near-Earth space in the
interests of the national economy, to organize industrial production
in space, to research the Moon, Mars, and other planets, and to
eventually organize an international expedition to Mars.  There are
many problems, but it can already be claimed today that the Soviet
Union has laid the foundations for their resolution. 
 
    [I have left grammar and spelling as I found them, and resisted
the strong temptation to make editorial comments -- Dani] 
 
Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder
(205)464-4150(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, 
AL 35824  34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +100m altitude, Earth

    In my opinion, based partly on note 291.31, the United States is from 5
    to 10 years behind the Soviet Union in Space Technology and Project
    activity.

    That estimate is only based on our immediate response by recreating our
    space program.  Actually, I think that we may be much farther behind.

    Sigh...  Looks like we're going to be eating dust for the next decade...