The new dawn of the giants

We live in an interesting time when the number of active projects of superheavy launch vehicles has already exceeded the number of fingers on one hand. State space agencies and private companies are announcing their plans for the creation of superheavy rockets, and although most will have to fly in the 2020s, we have a chance to see the first launch of it next year. But in the history of astronautics, superheavy rockets repeatedly lost, and these projects were closed. What awaits them now?

Formal definition

Now considered to be superheavy rocket, which can bring into low Earth orbit more than 50 tons.

Everything for the moon

The first superheavy rockets had one goal - the moon, and were developed for the American and Soviet lunar programs. The use of similar technical solutions with a separate lunar module and docking in the lunar orbit led to the fact that the rockets turned out to be quite similar.


“Saturn V” and “N-1”

With a diameter of more than 10 m (“Saturn V” 10.1 “N-1” - a cone with a base of 16.9 m) and a launch weight of three thousand tons (“Saturn V” 2970 t, "N-1" 2735 t) these missiles were so huge that now there are even people who doubt their real existence.



In the United States, they managed to develop oxygen-hydrogen engines and put them in the second and third stages, therefore, the carrying capacity of the Saturn V turned out to be about one and a half times greater than that of the N-1 (~ 140 tons versus ~ 90). Saturn V was so specialized in lunar missions that it’s even hard to say how many tons it would bring to low Earth orbit - the third stage was turned on twice, first putting itself and the payload into low orbit, and then turned on for the second time and accelerated Apollo to the moon. Without the third stage, the carrying capacity of the Saturn V turned out to be more modest - the mass of the SkyLab station launched into low Earth orbit is about 77 tons.



"N-1" in the lunar version was already a five-stage rocket. Three stages brought about 90 tons into low Earth orbit. The fourth stage was spent on acceleration of about 40 tons to the moon, and the fifth slowed down ~ 15 tons of the orbital and landing ships in the orbit of the moon.

Nothing for the earth?

The N-1 super-heavy missile program was closed in 1974 after four unsuccessful launches. In addition to technical problems, the rocket was also killed by a politician who became V.P. Glushko could not relate well to a rocket, for which he refused to make engines ten years earlier. S.P. Korolev was forced to turn to Nikolai Kuznetsov, and relations with Glushko deteriorated forever. When asked if it was possible to successfully use the N-1 missile, if there was political will, it is now impossible to give an answer. On the one hand, the NK-33 engines were finalized and tested according to the documents quite successfully, on the other hand, the 2014 Antares accident, on which the NK-33 from the "lunar" reserves were located, went according to the N-1 accident scenario, and now You can’t say that the engine’s design is unsuccessful, or they cannot be stored for a long time. But if the engines are not to blame,



“Saturn V” politics killed on top of success. The idea to launch an orbital station closed Apollo-20, and by 71, the same fate befell -19 and -18. The budget cut was so sharp, the rockets and ships already built had nothing to launch, and instead of space, they went to museums. Against the backdrop of the idea of ​​a reusable shuttle that looked so good on paper, Saturn V probably had no real chance to survive. "Saturn V" made 13 flights - two test, ten with people to the moon and one with an orbital station in low Earth orbit.

Oh again, again

The conventional second generation of superheavy missiles revolves around the idea of ​​reusability. And if the Space Shuttle can put into orbit only 27 tons of payload, then the orbiter itself with wings, heat protection and seven astronauts with food, water and oxygen weighs under a hundred tons - the maximum mass of the shuttle and payload was 122.5 tons. It would be logical to create a one-time cargo module for extra heavy loads, and the Shuttle-C project was born. Instead of a large and heavy shuttle, a smaller and much lighter unmanned module, which, however, would allow to launch hundreds of tons in the region, would be launched.



The project was going well, even managed to make a full-size layout, but then in 1986 the Challenger disaster struck. After it, the ambitions of the shuttle program drastically withered down - the shuttle launch program was closed from the Vanderberg cosmodrome to polar orbit, and some technical improvements were canceled. The Shuttle-C project managed to survive this, and in the 90s, NASA planned to launch 80-ton modules of the Martian ship on it. But then the Columbia disaster happened, and the Space Shuttle program lost any future. The fact that the planned flights were carried out for another eight years no longer mattered. In principle, Shuttle-C had a non-zero chance of becoming a replacement for manned ships - an unmanned version could have been produced at the same plants and did not bear the risk of crew loss, but it seems that politicians did not want to mess with anything,

In the USSR, they again made a more universal option - the Energia launch vehicle, normally, without any modifications, could carry a one-time payload or a reusable Buran ship.





But here it will not work to find chances for an alternative development of events. Energy and many other complex technical systems were covered by the wreckage of the Soviet Union, and two successful flights (one with the Polyus platform, the other with the unmanned Buran) could not be continued, and the hardware created for the program didn’t even go to museums - two assembled rockets in Baikonur suddenly turned out to be the property of Kazakhstan, stood for nine years in a hangar and ingloriously died under a collapsed roof.

Zombies will not be

Is it possible to revive Saturn V or Energy? If you think a little, the answer becomes clear. The people who designed and made these rockets knew some technical features, retired or in a grave. The documentation is mostly lost. The equipment of the factories in which hundreds of thousands of various components were made was broken or hopelessly outdated and discarded. And the factories themselves are no longer those that were in the 60s or 80s. We, as humanity, on both sides of the ocean, have not forgotten how to make rockets, but if we want to build a superheavy launch vehicle, even using the experience of old projects, we will still get something new. We learned how to make other materials, even more advanced electronics, and blindly repeating old decisions is stupid, much can be improved.

The curve will take out

When, after the Columbia disaster, it became clear that the Space Shuttle project would be closed, the question arose of what to do with the factories, companies and workers who were involved in the project. Plus, the idea arose of returning to the moon with the ultimate goal - an expedition to Mars. And for all this, an extra-heavy rocket is desirable so as not to launch parts of the ship many times and not dock them in the Earth’s orbit. So the Constellation project ("Constellation") was born with an 188-ton Ares V super-heavy rocket into low orbit.



In the layout of the rocket, you can easily recognize the legacy of the Space Shuttle - side solid fuel boosters and a characteristic heat-resistant coating of the tank of the first stage in orange. RS-25 engines from the shuttle were to be on the first stage, and on the second stage - an updated version of the J-2 lunar program engines - J-2X.

The program was moving quite well, but after the next Republican election, Bush was replaced by Democrat Obama. And the Constellation program was closed in 2009. But the problem of closing factories and losses of companies did not go away, so the project was actually opened back in 2010, but under a different name. Now it has become known as the Space Launch System, SLS. In the pictures for conspiracy, they even repainted the first-stage tank in white.



But time passed, the program developed, and it became possible not to observe the conspiracy - the tank in the pictures was repainted.



In general, SLS is very similar to Ares V - the same solid fuel boosters on the sides, the same RS-25 engines from the shuttle in the first stage. However, on the upper steps, the J-2X engine was replaced with an RL-10 from the Centaur booster unit.

On the one hand, SLS is in one of the most prepared states of all projects. Work is underway, money is being allocated, the next launch is scheduled for November 2018, and even if he, as is usually the case with technology, moves forward a year or two, he can still be the first among competitors. On the other hand, in the USA new elections are on the verge, and it is completely unknown how the new president will develop the space program. Moreover, SLS can be negatively affected solely by the political motivation of the project - this rocket cannot be reduced and used for commercial launches, it is suitable only for large and expensive missions to an asteroid or moon. And the second launch is expected only in 2022, and the greater the distance between launches, the more additional problems and risks that the next news will negatively affect the program.

Two write, three in mind

The private company SpaceX already has two projects for superheavy rockets, and, based on obvious engineering considerations, there may be three at all. The Falcon Heavy project is in the highest degree of readiness. The launch vehicle assembled from the first three stages of the Falcon 9 should be able to launch, according to SpaceX estimates, 54 tons into low orbit.



The huge advantage of the Falcon Heavy is that it contains a minimum of new parts - the first steps of the Falcon 9, even with modifications, will not differ much from the regular ones that are already flying. The second advantage is that Falcon Heavy launches have already announced commercial orders. However, there is a very interesting situation here - an extra-heavy launch vehicle, which, as SpaceX writes, will be able to launch as many as 22 tons into a geo-transition orbit, contracted for quite ordinary satellites, judging by open information, it will start at 6 tons, that is, it will launch from large underload. The economic benefit of such a launch is a question that only SpaceX can answer, but they have not yet wanted to do it.

The main problem of the Falcon Heavy can be called constant postponements, initially its first launch was planned already in 2013. There was some hope for a first launch in 2016, but the recent Falcon 9 crash put an end to these plans. One can only hope that the launch will not move on to 2018.

But Musk did not stop at one project of a fully realizable superheavy rocket. At the recent International Congress of Astronautics, he announced a completely monstrous project of the Martian launch vehicle for 550 tons of payload in a one-time version and 300 tons in a reusable one.



The feasibility of such a project is beyond the scope of today's capabilities of the Mask - it is too expensive for it and does not have real scenarios for commercial use (delivery of goods by rockets is the dream of pioneers of rocket science that do not combine with the economics of logistics). But at the same time, SpaceX has recently successfully tested the new Raptor methane engine with three hundred tons of thrust. Although you can’t just put it on the Falcon 9 instead of the oxygen-kerosene Merlin - other components dictate different tank sizes, and on a rocket with a diameter of 3.7 meters the engine with a diameter of 2 meters does not stand up. And here for Musk a very rational option is being bogged down - with four engines in the first stage and a diameter of, say, 4.5 meters, we get an excellent launch vehicle with a launch mass in the region of 1000 tons and a payload of about 30-40 tons in a low orbit. A missile of three such blocks will withdraw 70-100 tons, and of five - in the region of 150-200 tons. All figures are given very approximately, because there are a lot of unknowns, but the resulting parameters are impressive. On a monoblock, it will be possible to earn excellent money by launching any satellites into geostationary orbit, and heavier options are suitable for Mask's ambitions or contracts with NASA. But for some reason, Musk chose to announce instead of a realistic rocket.impressive, but unrealistic .

A dark horse

Another private company, Blue Origin, which is successfully developing a rocket and a ship for suborbital tourism, was also surprised by the announcement of the development of an ultra-heavy New Glenn launch vehicle. Its official carrying capacity has not yet been announced, so I have to guess. With a diameter of 7 meters and a thrust of first-stage engines of 1,700 tons, such a launch vehicle can put into a low orbit in the region of 100 tons of cargo. The main question is why and why Bezos chose such a large rocket, because it is not clear how he will make money on it.

Ale is east

Another dark horse is China. It is known that work is being carried out there on a manned lunar program, and, accordingly, they will need a superheavy rocket. It is known that its working name is “Great March 9”, the first flight is expected in the 2020s, and the carrying capacity should be approximately 130 tons. To make such a launch vehicle for China, which is probably the first economy in the world, is fundamentally possible, the question is in political desire.

Native Penates

Work on the creation of an extra-heavy launch vehicle is underway with us. From the "Angara" superheavy rocket will not work in any way - the size of the modules is small. Therefore, a possible lunar program would require at least 4 launches. This is not very effective, therefore the project of the launch vehicle on heavier universal modules has been hanging in the air for a long time. Moreover, the technologies of the most powerful liquid-propellant rocket engine RD-170 are quite alive in the RD-171 for the Zenit rocket. For the last twenty-five years, the life of Zenit has been poisoned by political problems, and it is most likely over. But rockets of a similar dimension, now called Phoenix and Sunkar, look very interesting. One ton block at 17,

What for?

Are super-heavy missiles needed at all? They have one unique advantage - the lack of the need to assemble the ship to the Moon or Mars with a large number of launches. But historically, all superheavy launch vehicles lost, and their projects were shut down. Why - it’s easy to understand. If you have a mining truck, then of course you can transport hundreds of tons of land in one trip, but it will not be convenient for you to drive it to work every day. It will not work to make money on a superheavy rocket - satellites in a geostationary orbit, although they are growing, do not do so quickly.



Yes, you say, if an extra-heavy rocket appears, then we can launch huge satellites at tens of tons at the GSO. But superheavy rockets flew before, and during their, quite often long life, for some reason none of them survived the contract for such a satellite. It seems to me that there will be a slow rather than spasmodic development. And this means that the superheavy rocket must be universal and be able to earn money in a lighter version.