I'd always seen the Proton rocket as one of the big mastodooons of the
rocket world. Needed to lift things like Zvezda etc.
Today, I learned its capacity to LEO is just 23,000kg to LEO while the
small Fakcon9's is 22,800. (some variants of Protol apparently to 23,700).
And even more surprised to find that Proton is hypergolic from sea
level. Would have expected it to be just a big Soyuz with Kerosene
engines.
Tried to read up on its history as an ICBM launcher. Have other
countries ever used hypergolics from sea level?
Was selection of hypergolics just to get something flying faster/cheaper/simpler (and it turns out it took over a decade to get approved) ?
I know that ignition is simpler, but do hypergolics that are more then
mere thursters still need fancy turbo pumps and gasification prior to reaching combustion chamber?
or is it really a question of low pressure spraying both liquids into combustion chamber and let the 2 mix and do their thing?
Would the Protol that launched Nauka today have been built at same time
as Nauka and just waited all these years, or would it be a recent build
once they were reasonably sure Nauka was ready?
And is this officially the last Proton to launch and no more to bve
built, replaced by Abgara, or is Angara still too immature to rule out further Protol launches?
US. The Titan II missile, Titan II launch vehicle, Titan III launch
vehicle, and Titan IV launch vehicle all used hypergolic propellants in
their liquid fueled stages. But the US doesn't use them anymore.
Hypergolic propellants are super reliable to start.
Proton is sure to keep flying. Russia won't retire Proton until it
isn't "needed" anymore. And only Russia knows what that means.
On 2021-07-21 17:29, Jeff Findley wrote:
US. The Titan II missile, Titan II launch vehicle, Titan III launch vehicle, and Titan IV launch vehicle all used hypergolic propellants in their liquid fueled stages. But the US doesn't use them anymore.
Looking at how Soyuz had been certified for max 6 months, do the
hypergolics have a "best before" sticker on the gallons that you buy at
tye local hardware store? If you're using them for missile that remain
idle all their life, just curiious how they handle this. De-fuel
missile and put in new hypergolics every 6 months?
Hypergolic propellants are super reliable to start.
I get the advantage once you've launched, especially for little
thrusters. But have ignitions failed often at the pad? Just curious if ignition for Stage 1 have ever been an issue where hypergolics have an advantage.
Proton is sure to keep flying. Russia won't retire Proton until it
isn't "needed" anymore. And only Russia knows what that means.
What I read in Wikipedia is that it is being replaced by Angara, and not quirte sure on status of Angara (I think they've had a test flight or
two, not sure if operational).
I Russia still tring to avoid depending on Baikonour because it is a
Russian island in Kazakhstan, or have they become mroe comfortable with it?
With Putin working to rebuild the USSR, I have to wonder if he no longer
puts strategic importance on moving stuff to Russian territory if he
expects those counries to either return to USSR or remain loyal to
Russia or face what happend to Ukraine.
In article <hS1KI.26023$ilwe.15710@fx35.iad>,
jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca says...
On 2021-07-21 17:29, Jeff Findley wrote:
US. The Titan II missile, Titan II launch vehicle, Titan III launch vehicle, and Titan IV launch vehicle all used hypergolic propellants in their liquid fueled stages. But the US doesn't use them anymore.
Looking at how Soyuz had been certified for max 6 months, do the hypergolics have a "best before" sticker on the gallons that you buy at
tye local hardware store? If you're using them for missile that remain idle all their life, just curiious how they handle this. De-fuel
missile and put in new hypergolics every 6 months?
Soyuz doesn't use hypergolic propellants. It uses nearly pure hydrogen peroxide mono-propellant. Nearly pure hydrogen peroxide will decompose
over time, which is why Soyuz is limited to about six months in space.
On 2021-07-21 17:29, Jeff Findley wrote:
Proton is sure to keep flying. Russia won't retire Proton until it
isn't "needed" anymore. And only Russia knows what that means.
What I read in Wikipedia is that it is being replaced by Angara, and not >quirte sure on status of Angara (I think they've had a test flight or
two, not sure if operational).
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 296 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 31:46:04 |
Calls: | 6,648 |
Calls today: | 3 |
Files: | 12,193 |
Messages: | 5,328,503 |