| Article: 1640
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech
Subject: Proton talk at Space Access 94
Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 03:35:46 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Continuing my off-and-on attempts at notes on Space Access 94... Usual
disclaimer that these are what I thought interesting, not a complete
summary of the talks... Things in [] are my own comments.
Eric Laursen, chief engineer of LKE International -- that's Lockheed,
Khrunichev, Energia -- talked about Proton and their attempts to sell
it in the West.
LKE is a US company with majority US ownership. People have trouble
understanding this. They've sometimes had trouble getting into meetings
because they're seen as a "foreign" company... only to discover, when
they *do* get in, that Arianespace is already there.
1993 ended profitably for them. Loral bought some launches, and they've
got a firm second customer as well -- a European company, identity not
yet revealed. [I think I've seen it named lately, but I forget.]
The current four-stage Proton has flown 143 times since 1976, with a
very high success rate (better than most Western launchers). Payload
is 20.9t into a 200km 51.6deg orbit, 6.0t into a 27deg GTO, 4.8t into
a 7deg GTO, 2.6t into GEO. The Russians think, actually, that they
could get 4t+ into GEO using a lunar flyby: "I don't think any of
our customers will buy this".
The first three stages put you into that 200km circular orbit. The
trajectory is entirely standardized up to that point. The only choice
you get is to pick one of three standard inclinations (51.6, 64.8, 72.7),
dictated by impact zones for the lower stages. The fourth stage is
a LOX/kerosene system capable of up to 7 relights over at least 24hr;
all the flexibility is in it. It can even be reprogrammed in flight.
All Proton's engines use staged-combustion cycles, as do all Russian
rocket engines designed since 1945.
The current production setup is capable of 18 launches a year. It
builds a Proton in 11mo, starting with raw plate: 4mo machining,
3mo subassemblies, 4mo assemble/integrate/test. That's running one
shift, five days a week. "They think we're crazy" to run multiple
shifts and work through weekends. From rollout to launch is six days.
"This thing is built like a bridge." Structural margins are typically
a factor of 2.0, well beyond Western practice. The transporter/erector
rig does not support the fourth stage at all... and they erect with
the fourth stage's kerosene tank already filled. Erection is entirely
automated, as are plug-in and checkout: there is nobody on the pad at
the time. There is no umbilical tower, it's all done through the base
of the vehicle -- there is plumbing up the side of the lower stages for
filling the upper stages.
They also do not make any particular fetish out of cleanliness. When he
visited the Khrunichev plant, he saw a *cat* walking along the top of a
partially-assembled Proton. His hosts commented: "Oh yeah, they keep the
mice down."
The temperature range for launch operations is -50C through +50C. They
can and do launch in 50mph winds.
Proton avionics are triple-redundant and fully closed-loop, which is
better than a lot of Western launchers (Titan's first stage, for example,
is still open-loop, and a lot of Western launchers are double-redundant
or non-redundant). The accuracy numbers the Russians used to quote
looked poor, but that was because they were quoting three-sigma worst
cases rather than typical values; the typical numbers are better than
any Western launcher except possibly Delta. There is no uplink to the
first three stages, not even for range safety: the destruct system is
self-contained and autonomous. They don't even track it on the way up.
Contrary to frequent rumors, neither the acceleration environment nor
the acoustic environment for payloads is particularly severe compared
to Western launchers. The accelerations are within the outer envelope
of Western launchers except for a couple of little corners. The acoustic
envelope is better than Ariane's except at the very low end.
Baikonur's decline is greatly exaggerated, as confirmed by independent
reports. He says the living conditions are awful but the launch facilities
*are* being maintained properly.
One of the things they eventually convinced the Russians to do was to
write a user's manual for Proton (in English). A second edition is being
worked on, to fix some minor glitches in the first.
Marketing has been an interesting experience. He obviously came prepared
to counter all the standard objections. "We are *the* most commercial of
the commercial launch operators." "It's hard to make the US launch
industry more competitive when it doesn't *want* to be more competitive."
"It's hard to damage an industry that's already given away 70% of its
business." The US spacecraft industry is ten times the size of the US
launch industry.
They aren't currently looking for two-customer launches. Their experience
echoes that of Commercial Titan: it's hard to arrange the pairing. They
think a lot of the Ariane double launches are cases where non-commercial
or quasi-commercial users are quietly talked into launching at the
convenience of a commercial customer. They don't have the political
connections to do that.
The Russians are big on flying hardware rather than pushing paper. While
the US dithers over space-station plans, Khrunichev is already modifying
the Mir 2 core for its role as part of Fredovitch.
--
"...the Russians are coming, and the | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
launch cartel is worried." - P.Fuhrman | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
Article: 1643
From: MLINDROOS@FINABO.ABO.FI (Marcus Lindroos INF)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech
Subject: Re: Proton talk at Space Access 94
Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 12:16:23 GMT
Organization: ABO AKADEMI UNIVERSITY, FINLAND
In <Cp5onn.M84@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu writes:
> The current four-stage Proton has flown 143 times since 1976, with a
> very high success rate (better than most Western launchers). Payload
> is 20.9t into a 200km 51.6deg orbit, 6.0t into a 27deg GTO, 4.8t into
> a 7deg GTO, 2.6t into GEO. The Russians think, actually, that they
> could get 4t+ into GEO using a lunar flyby: "I don't think any of
> our customers will buy this".
>
> The first three stages put you into that 200km circular orbit. The
I always thought the 20.9t figure only applied to the 3-stage version! If you
have four stages, isn't the payload limited to only <7t or so?
> trajectory is entirely standardized up to that point. The only choice
> you get is to pick one of three standard inclinations (51.6, 64.8, 72.7),
> dictated by impact zones for the lower stages. The fourth stage is
> a LOX/kerosene system capable of up to 7 relights over at least 24hr;
> all the flexibility is in it. It can even be reprogrammed in flight.
As everyone probably knows by now, the Block-D was originally built for the
manned L3 Moon program!! It would have acted as a descent stage for the lunar
lander but ended up as a powerful 4th stage for comsats/planetary probes
instead. And it has been around for 20 years...is it any wonder the Russians
seem to offer better value for the money?
> The Russians are big on flying hardware rather than pushing paper. While
> the US dithers over space-station plans, Khrunichev is already modifying
> the Mir 2 core for its role as part of Fredovitch.
Another question...what is the maximum weight you could put on top of the
Proton 2nd stage...? There have been some plans for a new fourth stage, but a
new LOX/LH2 3rd stage would boost its capability a great deal as well. In
theory, of course. Cryo propellants would require larger fuel tanks -> a
taller, heavier vehicle -> problems?
---
A new LOX/LH2 3rd stage with the same mass ratio (5.6t/55.6t) as the old one
could lift 33t into LEO. Or 12t to the Moon if a Centaur G' is part of the
33t payload...or 9t to Mars. Hmmmm...
> --
> "...the Russians are coming, and the | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
> launch cartel is worried." - P.Fuhrman | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
Makes you wonder where we would be if the Russians and Chinese had
unrestricted access to the Western launch market! I think the US and
Europe should subsidize PAYLOADS - _not_ the local launch cartel
except for "strategic" purposes such as military launches. Perhaps the
future doesn't look so bad after all?
MARCU$
|