I think that many astronautics enthusiasts who are actively interested in the history and current state of affairs in the field of space exploration and exploration have already recognized the rocket captured in the title photo.
This rocket, or rather the Rocket Booster, is the largest solid-propellant rocket ever created by mankind.
Well, now it has become even more.
This is the side booster of the Space Shuttle system, which has now become even larger, having received, in addition to the standard four sections with which it launched along with the space shuttle, an additional fifth section, which will allow it to become a rocket booster of the new super-heavy space launch system of NASA, called SLS (Space Launch System).
It is this system, according to NASA's idea, should return the United States of America the palm in all aspects of space exploration, at the same time giving all mankind the opportunity to return to the space frontier, finally breaking the vicious circle of low Earth orbit and putting the question of lunar exploration back on the agenda. and … even Mars.
How real and how feasible is this ambitious program? Let's try to figure it out.
Comparative Sizes of Historical, Contemporary, and Developed American Launch Systems.
Backfill question: why is Delta IV larger than Falcon 9?
The current state of American cosmonautics after leaving the arena of the Space Shuttle system is rather deplorable: the heaviest launch vehicle at the disposal of the United States in terms of its current status is Delta IV Heavy, which can put a load of 28 into low Earth orbit (LEO), 4 tons.
The Delta IV family, despite the mass of Boeing's design, engineering and commercial efforts to create and promote its offspring on the market, turned out to be “in the wrong time and in the wrong place”: against the background of the low cost of launches of the Russian Proton rocket and For the Ukrainian Zenit-3SL, the cost of launching a payload using the Delta IV turned out to be quite unaffordable.
A single launch of "Delta IV" cost $ 140-170 million, while the cost of a similar payload Proton was about $ 100 million, and the cost of launching a smaller, but competitive with "Delta IV" Ukrainian "Zenith-3SL" was even lower - only 60 million dollars.
Such a high cost of launching Delta IV forced Boeing to seek exclusively government orders for it, and, as a result, all Delta launches, except one, were paid by the US State Department's budget.
Launch of the Delta IV launch vehicle in the Heavy version. The launch weight is about 733 tons.
In the end, in the mid-2000s, Delta IV finally dropped out of the commercial segment of space launches - and it was never able to return there until the present time, when the guys from the private shop SpaceX, whose Falcon rocket, began to step on its heels. 9 also got close to the market niche of "Delta IV", and the modification of the same rocket, called Falcon 9 Heavy, planned for launch in 2015, even surpassed it.
At the start of the Falcon 9 Heavy, 27 Merlin engines with a thrust of 66 tons each, fueled by kerosene and oxygen, will be switched on at once.
This brainchild of Elon Musk should bring the "private" space program of SpaceX to a previously unattainable height: for a one-time version of the launch vehicle, the mass of the carried cargo to LEO will be up to 53 tons, on GPO - 21, 2 tons and on a trajectory to Mars - 13, 2 tons. With the return of the side boosters and the central unit, the carrying capacity will not exceed 32 tons per LEO - you have to pay for the reusability of the launch vehicle with additional fuel consumption and, as a result, a decrease in the payload.
Among the technical innovations in the development of the Falcon 9 Heavy, the developer declared the unique possibility of overflowing fuel and oxidizer during flight from the side boosters to the first stage of the launch vehicle, which will allow to have full fuel tanks in the central section at the time of separation of the side boosters and improve the performance of the payload placed into orbit. …
Assembly of the hulls of the first stages of Falcon 9 rockets. Now 8 engines are already being installed in a circle, with one central one. In crowded but not mad.
The "trajectory to Mars" mentioned in the last paragraph is not an abstraction. With a launch mass of 1,462 tons, twice as much as the mass of the currently record-breaking Delta IV, the heavy Falcon is already that necessary step that allows you to seriously think about flights to the Moon and Mars. Albeit in a configuration more similar to Soviet experiments with the Probe series apparatus than to the colossal American Saturn-Apollo program.
However, in the future, the way up the concept of "Delta IV" and Falcon 9 with side boosters, which are "clones" of their first stages, begin to slip as expected.
The thing is that it is impossible to multiply the starting "sidewalls" that allow you to increase the mass of the load output to the LEO to infinity - two or four side blocks can still be somehow attached to the central one, but then the complexity of assembly and control of such a multicomponent structure just growing exponentially.
It was on this, in general, that the Korolev lunar rocket N-1 "fell asleep", which had 30 NK-33 rocket engines at the first stage, which, in conjunction with the five-stage scheme of the rocket itself, did not allow to fully work out all questions of its trouble-free launch.
The current configuration of Falcon 9, starting immediately with 27 engines, is already close to the limit of complexity and further, most likely, Elon Musk's company will already need to increase the mass and size of a single rocket unit, which immediately increases the requirements along the entire chain of production, transportation and rocket launch.
The Russian promising missile family "Angara" is likely to face similar problems. The small relative size of a unit block already leads to the fact that the Angara-A5 rocket with a starting mass of 733 tons immediately has to put four booster "sides" (with a carrying capacity of 24.5 tons per LEO).
Angara-A5 before launch on December 23, 2014. At the start, five RD-191 engines are in operation, each with a thrust of 196 tons.
A further increase in the Angara's carrying capacity rests on the fact that not four, but six rocket boosters need to be attached to the base section of the second stage, which, perhaps, is already a kind of structural and engineering limit for scaling packet systems, as the limit for the Falcon 9 concept is 27 Merlin-1D engines on three starting blocks.
The resulting Angara-A7 project will be able, according to calculations, with its own launch weight of 1370 tons, to bring a payload of 50 tons to LEO (in the case of using hydrogen fuel for the second stage), which will most likely be the maximum scaling of the rocket concept. of the Angara family.
Comparison of "Angara A5" and the concepts of "Angara A7" - with kerosene and hydrogen fuel. At the same time, there is the answer - why is the "Delta IV" large, and the Falcon 9 - small.
In general, whatever one may say, concepts based on a rocket block of 200 or even 400 tons class - it still turns out that the structural and engineering karachun limit for such "packet" missiles comes at a launch weight in the region of 1300-1500 tons, which corresponds to the withdrawn mass 45-55 tons per LEO.
But then it is already necessary to increase both the thrust of a single engine and the size of the rocket stage or accelerator.
And this is precisely the path that the SLS project is taking today.
First, taking into account the negative experience of "Delta IV", the SLS developers tried to make the most of past developments. Everything and everyone was used: the Space Shuttle rocket boosters, which were reinforced for the purpose of creating a heavy rocket, and the old RS-25 hydrogen-oxygen engines of the shuttle itself, which were installed in the second stage, and …. (supporters of the theory of the "lunar conspiracy" - get ready!) long forgotten hydrogen-oxygen engines J-2X, which originate from the engines of the second and third stages of the lunar rocket "Saturn V" and which are proposed to be used in the projected upper stages SLS!
Moreover, the long-term plans for the improvement of the SLS accelerators imply two competing projects using liquid-propellant rocket engines instead of solid propellants: the project of the company "Aerojet", which presented its developed kerosene-oxygen engine of a closed cycle AJ1E6 for the future "heavy" carrier, which originates from the NK- engines. 33 Royal H-1 missiles - and a project by Pratt & Whitney Rocketdine, which propose … (and again, surprise, lunosceptics!) To restore the production of F-1 engines in the United States, which once lifted the famous Saturn V rocket from Earth.
Perhaps life will return to these test benches. Testing of the first stage of the "Saturn V" - "Saturn 1C" LV in August 1968 at the Cyclopean test bench V-2. Note that the step is being transported on a barge.
Participates in the development of a future promising launching accelerator and the current manufacturer of solid-propellant boosters, which are at the initial assembly of the SLS launch vehicle, Block I - ATK (Alliant Techsystems), which proposed to further enlarge the existing Space Shuttle accelerator by increasing its length and diameter … The project of a promising accelerator from ATK is called the "Dark knight".
Well, as the cherry on the cake - one of the future configurations of the SLS system, Block Ib, involves the use of a hydrogen-oxygen unit as the third stage, borrowed from … the Delta IV rocket!
This is, you know, "hellish LEGO", in which NASA tried to evaluate, combine and use all the existing developments in the field of heavy rockets.
What is the SLS family of media? After all, as we already remember from the example of "Delta IV", "Hangars" and Falcon 9 - the overall dimensions can be deceiving.
So, here is a simple diagram to understand what is intended:
On the left side of the diagram are the heavy launch vehicles that the United States still had. The lunar Saturn V, which could bring a payload of 118 tons to LEO, and the Space Shuttle, which seemed to have put the reusable shuttle itself into orbit weighing from 120 to 130 tons, but at the same time could deliver with it only a very modest payload - only 24 tons of payload.
The SLS concept will be implemented in two principal versions: manned (crew) and unmanned (cargo).
In addition, the unavailability of three promising rocket booster projects from Aerojet, Rocketdine and ATK forces NASA to use those "LEGO rocket parts" that are available - namely, those very five-section improved Space Shuttle boosters.
A transitional "ersatz-carrier" built in this way (officially called SLS Block I), nevertheless, according to all calculations, will already have a much more serious carrying capacity than the operating "Delta IV" or the Falcon 9 Heavy, which is ready to launch. The SLS Block I launch vehicle will be able to lift a payload of 70 tons to LEO.
In comparison with the SLS concept, NASA's stopped developments under the Constellation program are shown - the Ares (Mars) launch vehicle, which has not yet been created until the end, which made only one test flight in 2009, in the Ares 1X design, which consisted of the same modified four-section Space Shuttle accelerator, to which a test loading fifth segment and a prototype load of the second stage were connected. The purpose of that test flight was to check the operation of the solid-propellant first stage in the "single stick" ("log") arrangement, however, something must have happened during the tests, when the 1st and 2nd stages were separated, an unauthorized leap forward of the 1st stage occurred, caused by, most likely, by the afterburning of fuel fragments torn off by the jolt in it. The solid-propellant booster eventually caught up with the layout of the 2nd stage and rammed it.
After that, a rather unsuccessful attempt to assemble a "new LEGO" from old parts was canceled at NASA, the Ares project and the Constellation itself were shoved away on the shelf of unsuccessful concepts, and from the developed groundwork within the framework of the Constellation, only a fairly successful orbital manned spacecraft was left. " Orion ", which was built according to the scheme of the return capsule usual for disposable ships, which finally put an end to the Space Shuttle's reusable glider.
The Orion spacecraft before its first launch on the Delta IV rocket. December 2014.
The diameter of the Orion spacecraft is 5.3 meters, the weight of the spacecraft is about 25 tons. The internal volume of Orion will be 2.5 times larger than the internal volume of the Apollo spacecraft. The volume of the ship's cabin is about 9 m³. Due to such an impressive mass for an orbital vehicle and free internal volume, Orion during near-earth missions in low orbits (for example, on an expedition to the ISS) can support 6 cosmonauts.
However, as already mentioned at the beginning, the main task for Orion and should put it into orbits beyond the low reference launch system SLS is the return of the United States to the tasks of mastering the distant near-Earth space and, first of all, the Moon and Mars.
It is for the flight to the Moon and, possibly, to Mars that the main efforts of the United States and Russia are designed to improve their spaceships and launch vehicles.
Here, in principle, in a convenient tabular form, the difference between the American "Orion" and the Russian PPTS system is analyzed.
For the name PPKS PPTS, of course, you need to beat someone right away, but oh well. And in general, unfortunately, everything is very difficult with the PPTS project so far.
Therefore, regarding the PPTS, we have only funny pictures from the exhibition so far. But in reality, so far it has been done to insulting little …
There is only a model - between the past and the future. There is only a model - and hold on to it …
In addition to funding problems, misunderstanding of the concept and a host of design and engineering issues, the future of the PTS is uncertain and due to the lack of an adequate launch vehicle for some of its planned tasks. As I said, so far Russia has only "Angara-A5" in the metal, which can bring no more than 24.5 tons to LEO, which is quite enough for near-earth missions, but absolutely not enough for a further assault on the Moon or Mars.
In addition, the PPTS concept was based on the creation of an alternative to the "Angara" missile of the "Rus-M" family, work on which has also been stopped so far.
Projects of missiles of the "Rus" family in comparison with the "Soyuz" and "Angara" families only.
The main purpose of the Rus family of missiles was to provide manned flights, due to which the rocket, other things being equal, has a lower payload on the LEO than the Angara missiles. This is due to the fact that during manned flights, one of the requirements is the ability of the launch vehicle to leave the launch even if one of the engines fails and the requirement to ensure the continuation of the flight in the event of a subsequent failure of one of the engines - with the continuation of the launch of the spacecraft into a lowered orbit or providing rescue and a safe landing.
These requirements, including a special launch trajectory, which should provide an overload on the crew of no more than 12 g for any emergencies and the presence of an emergency rescue system (SAS), lead to a significant reduction in the carrying capacity of the "Rus" in the manned version.
In addition, the design diameter of the base block "Rus" of 3, 8 meters was chosen based on the traditional for the USSR and Russia transportation of parts of launch vehicles by rail.
In the United States, deliberately, starting with the Saturn-Apollo program, the first stages of launch vehicles were made based on the appropriate size, taking into account the possibility of transporting them by water (coastal-sea and river) transport, which greatly simplified the requirements for the dimensions of a separate rocket unit …
Transportation of the first stage of the Saturn V LV on the Pearl river barge.
Today, work on SLS and Orion, even after the collapse of Constellation, is in full swing.
With the completion of SLS Block I, which will be based almost entirely on the existing Space Shuttle backlog, NASA plans to move on to the next, much more ambitious phase - SLS Block II, with intermediate stops in the form of SLS Block Ia and SLS Block Ib.
LEGO build option if rocket boosters are ready sooner. Block I, Block Ia, and then Block II.
LEGO build option, if the modified third stage is ready earlier. Block I, Block Ib and then Block II.
The SLS Block Ia launch vehicle should already receive some of the promising rocket launch boosters: either from Aerojet on a kerosene-oxygen AJ1E6 closed cycle, or from Rocketdyne on a modified F-1 open cycle from Saturn V, or the same on the new solid fuel "Black Knight" from ATK.
Any of these options will be able to provide the Block Ia structure with a carrying capacity in the LEO region of 105 tons, which is already comparable to the carrying capacity of the Saturn V and Space Shuttle (if we count it together with the shuttle).
The same tasks will be solved by the creation of a large-scale and adapted to the size of the entire launch system of the third cryogenic stage, which will be able to complement the two-stage Block I system (launch boosters and the central stage on the Space Shuttle engines) with a third stage, which for the Block Ia variant will be like me already mentioned, borrowed from the Delta IV rocket and will also provide SLS with the output of up to 105 tons of payload to LEO.
Finally, the final Block II system should already have a full-size, mass-engineered SLS third stage that will use, like the Saturn V second stage, 5 advanced J-2X engines and deliver 130 tonnes of payload to LEO.
But even in spite of all these tricks, such a "space LEGO" will cost about $ 500 million per launch, which, of course, is less than the cost of launching the Space Shuttle ($ 1.3 billion), but still - sensitive enough for NASA's budget.
What tasks should SLS solve, and why is NASA not taking into account the Falcon 9 Heavy option, which is supposed to provide a cost of $ 135 million for a disposable fuel transfer system and for 53 tons of payload for LEO?
The thing is that NASA did target the Moon, Mars, and even asteroids and Jupiter's moons! And the Falcon 9 Heavy turns out to be too small a rocket for such tasks …
Nuclear rocket to Mars!
But this is, of course, a topic for a good separate article….
PS. After rereading my article again, I report.
If I criticize modern Russian approaches to space exploration and praise the Americans, then there are good reasons for that.
Back in 2010, the state of the American space exploration program was deplorable: the Space Shuttle program had already been scheduled to close, the Ares launches showed the complete inconsistency of the Constellation ideas, all American newspapers and magazines wrote about the “Russian space slavery” for the United States.
But, over the past 5 years, the US space industry has regrouped, received the necessary funding - and learned to live in new, more harsh conditions.
Will the Russian cosmonautics be able to boast of this in 5 years - especially against the background of the fact that this year brings us unhappy news about the closure of the Rus-M and PPTS LV programs, the postponement of the launch of the Vostochny cosmodrome and the total reduction of Roscosmos funding?
Wait and see. I hold our fingers with a cross.
