May 11, 2023 Quick space links
Courtesy of BtB’s stringer Jay.
- Vulcan rocket prepped for wet dress countdown and static fire test
In truth the Vulcan is only the first stage of ULA’s rocket, as the upper stage is the Centaur, which is not stacked for this test, probably because of the static fire test failure last month. Note too that ULA’s CEO, Tory Bruno says the Vulcan’s BE-4 engines have now passed qualification firing.
- ISRO begins testing new engines for future rockets
The test also initiated operations on a new engine test stand
- Tianzhou cargo freighter docks with China’s Tiangong-3 space station
The docking took place eight hours after launch.
- Roscosmos and Russian Academy of Sciences propose Venus sample return concept
The release claims this will launch sometime after 2030. My guess is it will be closer to 2040, if at all.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
Courtesy of BtB’s stringer Jay.
- Vulcan rocket prepped for wet dress countdown and static fire test
In truth the Vulcan is only the first stage of ULA’s rocket, as the upper stage is the Centaur, which is not stacked for this test, probably because of the static fire test failure last month. Note too that ULA’s CEO, Tory Bruno says the Vulcan’s BE-4 engines have now passed qualification firing.
- ISRO begins testing new engines for future rockets
The test also initiated operations on a new engine test stand
- Tianzhou cargo freighter docks with China’s Tiangong-3 space station
The docking took place eight hours after launch.
- Roscosmos and Russian Academy of Sciences propose Venus sample return concept
The release claims this will launch sometime after 2030. My guess is it will be closer to 2040, if at all.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
The BE4 has passed qualification in the Vulcan configuration which doesn’t require the restarts and long burn time that New Glenn will need. Blue Origin has apparently gone back to the drawing board for a complete redesign of the engine turbomachinery to deal with problems in those areas.
David Eastman: Can you cite a source for this info?
Unfortunately, this being Blue Origin that never says anything in public, no. The turbopump heat problems have been publicly known and discussed for over a year now, and we know it was a big focus of the testing and certification for Vulcan. Beyond that, it’s informed speculation and watching job postings and seeing people linkedIn profiles change as they move from one department or project to another. It’s known that many people told BO that they weren’t going to get it fixed by tweaking the current design, and the tea leaves indicate that they accepted that conclusion a while back, but only recently seem to have dedicated real resources to it.
David Eastman: Thank you for the informed explanation. It is of great value, as it provide excellent context.
Venus should be even more difficult to launch from surface to orbit from than the Earth. How would we do it? I suppose we could send and land a complete, modified Falcon Heavy to and on Venus, then launch (only) its fully fueled central core, to boost the return package back into Venusian orbit and thence back to Earth…. Max-Q in the Venusian atmosphere should be interesting!
It’s amazing how difficult it would be to launch from Venus. It’s not even clear that most existing rocket engines would develop significant thrust at ground level on Venus, and the delta-V requirements for a surface launch back to orbit are just insane. A Falcon 9 core would not do it, even ignoring all the difficulties in performing landing and re-launch activities of a rocket not designed for that, on the surface of a planet months of travel away.
The mission proposal/fantasy scenario above fortunately proposes nothing of the kind, they plan to float their return vehicle back up to 51km by balloon. Which is also something nobody has ever done and would have a long list of technical difficulties, but is still a lot more reasonable than rocket from the surface.
David Eastman: The balloon idea might have engineering merit, but we all have to step back to understand that this proposal has nothing to do with actually flying the mission. Roscosmos has engineers put forth what looks like a reasonable idea that will garner funding support, in order that it can establish a project that will take decades to accomplish, at best. At worst the goal is simply to have funding for decades, whether or not anything is ever accomplished.
That at least has been the track record for Roscosmos now for nigh on thirty years.
Zoom into the photo of Delta Heavy on the transporter.. The transporter has a sign mounted on the front saying, “Over Size Load”. [deleted]
Gary H: I have deleted your clear reference to an obscenity in your comment. You are warned. I don’t allow such language. Read the rules. And just because you left out some letters makes no difference, if the actual word is patently obvious.
You are welcome to comment here, but please act like a civilized adult when you do.
Robert: On the purely military side, Russia has for some time now done design studies, and even gotten as far as prototype deliveries or very limited rollout of their advanced stuff, eg jets, tanks, missiles., etc. I’ve long wondered whether they are just failing to get into series production because they can’t technically do it, or don’t have the funds, or if they know full well it’s not going to happen all along, and are just making sure their research, design, and prototyping people all stay employed and current so that if funding does appear they actually still have some ability. That would actually be somewhat intelligent if so.
David Eastman: Russia, which consolidated its entire aerospace industry into a government-run corporation, Roscosmos, back in the 2000s, is simply using the Soviet top-down centralized government model to try to do these things. In the long run (and often much sooner) this always results in little accomplishment. Witness NASA’s effort in the past half century.
Without competition and independent ownership by many companies trying to sell their products to independent customers (including the government), innovation will die. There is no incentive to achieve anything, because the income doesn’t come from customers who freely choose to buy good products. Instead the income comes from coerced tax dollars, handed out not because the product is good but because the managers lobbied the government successfully for cash.
”…as the upper stage is the Centaur, which is not stacked for this test…”
This is incorrect. The Centaur is stacked for this test and was fueled during the wet dress rehearsal.
David Eastman wrote: “It’s amazing how difficult it would be to launch from Venus. It’s not even clear that most existing rocket engines would develop significant thrust at ground level on Venus, and the delta-V requirements for a surface launch back to orbit are just insane.”
This link shows a delta-V for getting around the solar system (with creativity, these could possibly be reduced somewhat, as they are based upon Hohmann Transfer orbits). Comparing getting off Earth (9.4-ish km/sec) to getting off Venus (27-ish km/sec) we can see that the Venusian atmosphere causes much more limitation than the Earth’s. Quite a bit of creativity will be needed (e.g. balloon or other aircraft) if anyone wants to leave Venus’ surface for low Venusian orbit (LVO).
The problem with developing thrust at ground level is overcoming the atmospheric pressure.* The chamber pressure may be high, but the exit pressure (often just higher than ambient pressure) at the end of the engine bell has to be much, much lower than the chamber pressure in order for the propellants to accelerate enough to give high thrust. The Venusian surface pressure is around 90 Earth atmospheres, and the chamber pressure of a Raptor engine is around 300, which is high for an engine. However, the high atmospheric pressure means that the exhaust velocity will be relatively low, so the specific impulse (fuel efficiency) of any rocket engine would be low. The rocket would have to carry so much fuel that it would be too heavy to get off Venus’ surface, much less to LVO.
__________
* Even when launching from Earth, a sea level rocket engine gets slightly improved performance (higher specific impulse) as it reaches higher altitudes and lower ambient pressures.
An outfit wants Star Raker 2
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kvVEM5NKF9g&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.secretprojects.co.uk%2F&source_ve_path=Mjg2NjY&feature=emb_logo
MSFC wanted a single engine worth a whole SuperHeavy stack
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22068.msg1471218#msg1471218
Sigh…
I failed to include the link in my comment above:
http://i.imgur.com/SqdzxzF.png