Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

US & Russia Show Off New Rocket Designs 121

Posted by michael from the fourth-of-july dept.
jonerik writes "Following up on today's story on the Soviet Union's massive N1 rocket are these two articles on the latest US and Russian rocket designs. Space.com covers the American side of things, with a story on Lockheed Martin's Atlas 5 and Boeing's Delta 4 boosters. The Associated Press has this article on the Russians' Rokot booster, originally built in the '70s as the SS-19 ICBM and converted to civilian use in the mid-'90s. The Rokot was in the news this past weekend when it successfully launched a pair of US-German satellites - dubbed Tom and Jerry - into orbit to map the Earth's gravitational field and 'chart large-scale movements of water around Earth.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US & Russia Show Off New Rocket Designs More

US & Russia Show Off New Rocket Designs

Comments Filter:

  • The US REALLY needs some competition (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dolphin558 ( 533226 ) on Thursday March 21, 2002 @01:24AM (#3198778)
    Our private sector isn't taking off as many expected and NASA is...well NASA(this is coming from a former employee). We should covertly help China and Russia with their space and rocketry programs in order to kickstart congressional butts(read $$moolah) into action. Mars is a waste of time(radiation, gullies caused by CO2 not water, etc etc) The Space Station needs fiscal help Europa and Pluto missions are up in the air. something really needs to be done.
    • I agree, competition will be very good for the US. For quite a long time, we've been able to tout many space acheivements, namely going to the moon, while at the same time completly ignoring the fact that the rest of the world has space travel as well. I just talked to some friends, most of them didn't even know anyone BESIDES russia and the us had space programs. And most of them thought russias space prog was non existent. Congress still at least slightly follows the will of the people, and until people get more knowledgeable and vocal about space travel, nothing will happen. And more to the topic, the us is now gonna have to fight a little bit more to be #1, as we all know we can't rest until we are.
    • Mars is a waste of time(radiation, gullies caused by CO2 not water, etc etc) The Space Station needs fiscal help Europa and Pluto missions are up in the air.

      Well, other scientists claim that the IIS is the waste of time and that Mars is the shining jewel. Why should anyone believe one or the other, especially with billions of dollars on the line? Most people would be inclined to say "oh, fuck them both".

      • Most people would be inclined to say "oh, fuck them both".

        Raises hand. Well, I'm a cosmologist, so obviously, the solar system is a bit too down-to-earth from my perspective.

        There is so much research we can do without putting people up there. The costs of having people in orbit is just enormous. OK, there are some things that it is convenient to have people for, and obviously, when you are researching the effects of e.g. microgravity on people, you need people up there.

        But, I feel, that most of the manned spaceflight stuff is more for prestige than for science, and while it would be cool to do a few orbits, the last thing we need up there is more junk.

        So, I think one should think hard and well before making a lot of manned flights.

        That being said, if humanity could gather around the common goal of going to Mars rather than running around killing each other, then, go for it!

      • IIS [iisfaq.com] really IS a waste of time! Oh, you meant the ISS? My bad.
  • The Atlas IV is conspicuously absent from Lockheed's website. It was definitely more cool looking than the II or III, but it's success rate hovered pretty close to 0%.
    • It was pretty, though. Doesn't that count for anything? Prettiest crushing failure since 1986. MS should put wallpaper on their BSODs.
    • The reason why the success rate for the Atlas IV is close to zero is that there never was an Atlas IV. Perhaps you are thinking of the Titan IV? The Titan IV has been very successful, with an over 95% success rate, with 33 launches.

      The Atlas III was originally called the IIAR, but with the NPO Energomash RD-180 engine, they decided to give it a new name entirely.

  • Will space improve Russia's economy? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bonker ( 243350 ) on Thursday March 21, 2002 @01:28AM (#3198791)
    Our good friends in the Eastern hemisphere have had a hell of a century from which they're still recovering. Lately, however, I'm hearing quite a bit of good things about Russia's space program. While it may have started out rocky and dangerous due to the influence of the communist party, this is the same space program that gave humanity both the longest-working manned space station in the form of MIR and the Progress supply frieghter rocket, which supplies the ISS right now. Say what you will about these two, but in terms of space programs, the Americans have always striven to become 'doers of deeds' while the Russians have been 'completers of tasks'. Think about which one of those pays off in the long run.

    Recently, more and more of Russia's space program seems geared to provide access to space for both commercial and scientific work. Space Tourism in ISS, anyone? I would be willing to bet that if they become even a little more efficient at this, their costs will quickly drop because they will be the less expensive option when compared to the U.S. space program. Perhaps space could be a growth industry for Russia, the same way information technology has been for the United States.

    Anyone agree, disagree with me?
    • "started out rocky and dangerous due to the influence of the communist party". Yeah. That must have been a real set back. Could be why they didn't put up the first satelite into orbit or put the first man into space or have the longest continually manned space station.
      • Could be why they didn't put up the first satelite into orbit or put the first man into space or have the longest continually manned space station.

        When the USSR's manned spaceflight program began, several people died because the rockets they were on were too shakey, pulled too many G's, or some other factors [space.edu].

        If that's not 'rockey and dangerous', then I don't know what is.

    • Re:Will space improve Russia's economy? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by torpor ( 458 ) <ibisumNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday March 21, 2002 @02:58AM (#3198937) Homepage Journal
      I agree with you. Space *is* a growth industry for Russia, and they are very good at it, if not the best - depending on the criteria by which you judge success.

      I have so much faith in Russia's space program, and European efforts in general, that I'm abandoning all hope of going to space by way of the USofA, (Inc.) - a nation crippled by its own nationalism - and moving to Europe to pursue, rather aggressively, my own attempts to do a few orbits by way of Star City.

      This may sound strange, but really - a private citizen such as myself has a better chance in Europe, than in the US, for getting into orbit in their lifetime ... thanks to Russia.
      • If you think any of these agencies is going to put a private citizen into orbit for less than $5 million in the next ten years, you are deluding yourself. Recreational space travel has absolutely nothing to do with people who aren't extremely wealthy, at least for the next ten years.
        • I'm willing to bet that within 5 years, the costs for, say, a seat in Progress and a few days in orbit will come down to the 6-figure mark - making it affordable to me and a couple others, anyway.

          And that's a start. I'm willing to put my money where my ass wants to sit, and fund as many hungry Russian space scientists as my hard-earned moolah can support.

          There's no other way to do it. Space is hard, especially if you're an average citizen, so everything I do will be to get me there - even if it means making sacrifices and spending hard-earned cash to get there ...

          I'm not alone. There are a lot of people in similar financial positions who would spend the money were it feasible - and the point is, its rapidly becoming feasible.
    • if they become even a little more efficient at this, their costs will quickly drop because they will be the less expensive option

      So basically what you're saying is that if they can find some way to decrease their costs, their costs will drop quickly because they will cost less? Okay...

  • Russian v. US (Score:5, Interesting)

    by guamman ( 527778 ) on Thursday March 21, 2002 @01:28AM (#3198794)
    In this instance, the russians have the right idea, their Rokot booster follows the market to a tea. As a general rule, private companies have used for smaller and therefore cheaper rockets with up to a 20 ton cargo capacity. It is this private investment that will make space travle feasible. The governemnts of the world cannot simply fund a continuing space progam to the fullest extent and other sources must be sought. Big rockets may be better for space travel to Mars and the like, but the demand now is for smaller ones and that may be how Russia gets its feet off the ground (literally).
    • When the price of getting up there gets to $2,000(due to some new form of propulsion likely) then we'll see great strides such as Space Station wheels(2001, movie) and spacecraft to Venus, Moon, etc.
      • When the price of getting up there gets to $2,000(due to some new form of propulsion likely) then we'll see great strides such as Space Station wheels...

        Yes, it will be a great advance when we can get wheels on the Space Station. Those oxen dragging it along on skids just isn't very efficient.

      • Impulse drive. Impulse drive will send us to the moon, mars, and as far as we can get till we have working warp drive.
    • The governemnts of the world cannot simply fund a continuing space progam to the fullest extent

      Bullshit. They will not, but there is absolutely no reason why the United States cannot fund a space program far more ambitious than the one we used to. Give me fifteen minutes of dictatorship, and I can cut the U.S. Federal Budget 5% without touching anything important. That'll free up enough money to increase the NASA budget fifty times.

      The same goes for the ESA member states, and Japan. Between tham I could at least match the U.S. expenditures. There could be a massive expansion of the International Space Station, simultaneous manned programs to both Mars and the Moon, plus a whole set of new unmanned probes to each and every planet and larger-than-Pluto object in the Solar System.

      It isn't going to happen, but it's a lack of will, not a lack of means.

      • Everyone says they can cut the budget 5%, but when it comes down to it, there are always enough people who want any particular (wasteful) program that no politition is willing to cut it. And when you cut that 5% you will suddenly become unpopular with those who benifit from that program. And just because it cost 5% doesn't mean that 5% of the people are affected.

        • Well, sure, no politician is willing to cut. But the point is that it's the will to spend the money, not a lack of money, that's keeping us out of space.
      • I can cut the U.S. Federal Budget 5% without touching anything important.

        Well, you'd probably give a few newly-unemployed government workers a heart attack - the shock of having to join a productive workfoce, doing actual work, is more stress than they can handle. :)

        As long as you're dictator for 15 minutes, can you order NASA to stop throwing away perfectly good space station components [spaceislandgroup.com]?

        --

      • Yep (Score:2)

        by Goonie ( 8651 )
        The US economy's annual GDP is round about 10 trillion dollars, according to the CIA World Factbook. Government spending is about 1.7 trillion per year. Let's say we spend 200 billion over 10 years to do a Mars mission (NASA did a design reference mission that claims about 50 billion for a Mars program, but we'll be safe and quadruple it). That's 20 billion a year. Sounds a lot, doesn't it? It's about 1.2% of the annual budget.

        The US could afford to start a Mars program (or go to the Moon, or land a whole bunch of probes on Europa) any time it wanted and wouldn't notice the cost. It's just that priorities lie elsewhere right now.

      • political will that is...

        If the citizens of the US or of the member states of the ESA stood up and demanded, right now, that we get a man to mars, it'd be done within 10 years. Just like the moon race, With everyone being fat, happy, clueless, consumers however things will just muddle along. Witness the mustering of political willpower in the wake of 09.11.01, just by way of recent example.

        The Feds did a study once... it actually cost less money to fund the Apollo program than it would have to have had all the folks who worked on the project collect welfare (a.k.a. be on the dole for you brits out there).

        Conclusions: It's not really (for once) about the money because if the Poly-trick-sters thought they'd get votes for funding the Mars shot, by God they would find the money. It's about balls or in this case the lack thereof.
        Thus the West turns it's back on the outside world and proceeds down the path that all other cultures have trod before it...

        Assignment: Consider the effect of political willpower on the historical impetus and the lifecycle of host culture...

        There will be an essay test on this topic in the morning, bring a blue book and a #2 pencil...

        class dismissed

  • NASROCKET (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by Baldrson ( 78598 )
    Until people stop thinking about rockets as though they were religious icons and start thinking about them like dragsters [geocities.com], we will get nowhere fast in space.
    • Dude, your link has been slashdotted.

    • Re:NASROCKET (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Burgundy Advocate ( 313960 )
      Did somebody say "fault tolerant"?

      Remember, when a car engine blows up, you have a good chance of stopping and getting out.

      When a rocket engine blows up people die.

      Though I'd have to agree with you that we need to change our design philosophy. We could learn a lot from the russians in that respect -- build them big, dumb, and solid :)

  • Orbiting Hotels (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Alien54 ( 180860 )
    Slightly off topic, but I saw this item [radiofreenation.net] on RFN [radiofreenation.net] a few weeks back:

    Former Astronaut Buzz Aldrin is planning a chain of "orbiting hotels" cruising perpetually between the Earth and Mars. [...] The main trick to the operation is to have the main ships in a constant regular solar orbit so that no fuel is ever needed to keep going, just enough for boosters, manuvering, etc. The estimated trip time between the Earth and Mars is 8 Months.

    (more links in the original story)

    Maybe he might want to pick up some of the surplus items?

    [smile]

    There has to be a use for a lot of this surplus stuff for business.

  • Atlas V is russian powered.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21, 2002 @02:01AM (#3198871)
    Note that the Atlas V is not powered by an American engine, it's powered by a closed-cycle Russian engine - the type Americans could never manage to work out how to build..

    It's interesting to see 1960s Russian tech comfortably beating American tech, despite the sizable difference in available resources.
    • I am not sure which way that difference in resources goes (or went), note that Russia's dirt poor now (and for some time) because so many resources have been diverted to things like rockets, in the 60s and on.
    • So when the Russians are thrifty and practical there's no end to the praise they get, but if an American company chooses to be thrifty and practical (by using a pre-existing engine, why re-invent the wheel?) then suddenly the whole U.S. is forty years behind Russia when it comes to rocketry? Sure.
    • I'm picturing a lowered Atlas V with tinted windows, a giant spoiler on the back, and a huge POWERED BY RUSSIA sticker across the windshield.
    • It's interesting to see 1960s Russian tech comfortably beating American tech, despite the sizable difference in available resources.

      According to Encyclopedia Astronautica [astronautix.com], RD-170 and RD-171, the original designs that led to Atlas III and Atlas V RD-180, were developed 1973-1985.

      12 years - that's quite a bit of work.

  • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • The book "Firestar" by Michael Flynn had, among other things, a single stage to orbit (SSTO) machine. I'm not well versed in rocketry and orbital mechanics, but the book seemed plausible. The only problem was that it took several major companies in several different industries, all run by a parent company, to pull together the resources to build the thing; and it only had a 3-5% payload capability, which according to the book was right on the line for profitable flying. It was a pretty good read, but it also several other subplots totally unrelated to space travel (just so you know).

  • US v. Russia (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rackrent ( 160690 ) on Thursday March 21, 2002 @02:13AM (#3198893)
    The ISS is a good example of how each country has screwed up. First, most of the cost of the ISS was underestimated (intentionally) by the US just so they could get something into orbit. Then, the bankrupt Russian Space program couldn't get their modules into orbit quickly enough, thus increasing the burden on the US to use their (very expensive) mechanism of delivery, the Space Shuttle.

    The Russians have the right idea with using expendable rockets & modules like the progress to deliver supplies; let's hope the US is trying to do that as well.
  • The new Delta uses a novel technique called friction stir welding. They weld the tanks and fuselage using this method, and also weld the tanks TO the fuselage this way.

    Friction stir welding uses a spinning mandrel's friction to heat the materials to be welded, and can make lighter-weight products because no extra thickness in the weld area is required.

    More information on the technique is here [frictionstirwelding.com].
  • Anyone know what's happened to the Rotary Rocket Company? The website [rotaryrocket.com] is unavailable. Have they folded? I hope not, as it was one of the coolest SSTO vehicles I've seen.
    • They're basically dead. They got the scale model of the Roton off the ground a few times then ran out of money.

      Basically, the implosion of services like Iridium killed the market for small, low earth orbit satellites, the only things that a Roton could carry.

  • Good Change (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Chayce ( 199487 )
    It's nice to see old I.C.B.M. designs used as satelite launch vehicles and not the other way around. I say this because a lot of ICBM testing was done with the cover story of being failed sattelite launches. If a craft is launched and falls apart in suborbit, and the people who launched it say it was a failed satelite shot, it's easy to miss when the mock warhead comes down in the middle of the pacific to be picked up by a ship for telemetry download. So perhaps times are really changing now. Or maybe the lies have changed.
  • I am surpised in this politically correct day and age that a German satelliete would be called "Jerry" :) Of course I don't even want to go into what Tom implies.
  • Before we all ooh and ahh about how impressive this is, check out the performance stats of the most notable piece of 1960's American technology. [friends-partners.ru]

    Especially interesting tidbit from that page: Payload: 118,000 kg. to: 185 km Orbit. at: 28.0 degrees. Payload: 47,000 kg. to a: Translunar trajectory

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close