Chelomey OKB-52 UR-700 rockets family

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,248
Reaction score
1,672
1). UR-700K
2). UR-700 with RO-31 nuclear rocket engine (250 t to LEO)

all images (c) NPOMash
please don't repost anywhere

3). UR-700 compared to N1 and Saturn V
 

Attachments

  • UR-700.jpg
    UR-700.jpg
    23.3 KB · Views: 311
  • UR-700-RD-31.jpg
    UR-700-RD-31.jpg
    37.9 KB · Views: 323
  • 03.jpg
    03.jpg
    104 KB · Views: 330

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,213
Reaction score
89
Here's another image, from Ahead of His Time, a book by Ivan Yevteyev about the accomplishments of Vladimir Chelomei and his organization.
 

Attachments

  • ur700.JPG
    ur700.JPG
    77.1 KB · Views: 329

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,248
Reaction score
1,672
...
 

Attachments

  • 12666_1234964675_full.jpg
    12666_1234964675_full.jpg
    16.4 KB · Views: 330

Grif

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jan 19, 2008
Messages
52
Reaction score
2
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the resemblance to the Revell XSL-01 Moon Rocket kit? Which is eerie, because that model was used in the TV series "Men Into Space" as a Russian spaceship...
Grif
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
971
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Grif said:
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the resemblance to the Revell XSL-01 Moon Rocket kit? Which is eerie, because that model was used in the TV series "Men Into Space" as a Russian spaceship...
Grif

Completed model of Revell XSL-01 Moon Rocket at Fantastic Plastic:
http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/XSL-01%20MOON%20SHIP%20PAGE.htm
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,470
Reaction score
3,342
Check out the stats on the UR-700M. Easily in the category of the largest of the Novas.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ur700m.htm
 

OM

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
752
Reaction score
28
Website
www.io.com
Grif said:
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the resemblance to the Revell XSL-01 Moon Rocket kit? Which is eerie, because that model was used in the TV series "Men Into Space" as a Russian spaceship...
Grif

XSL-01Main.jpg
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,633
Reaction score
2,854
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Grif said:
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the resemblance to the Revell XSL-01 Moon Rocket kit? Which is eerie, because that model was used in the TV series "Men Into Space" as a Russian spaceship...
Grif

Two 1960 Boeing ideas for lunar landers based vaguely on the Dyna Soar...
 

Attachments

  • dynalander2.jpg
    dynalander2.jpg
    162.8 KB · Views: 77
  • dynalander1.jpg
    dynalander1.jpg
    166.6 KB · Views: 64

Michel Van

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,309
Reaction score
2,308
Orionblamblam said:
Two 1960 Boeing ideas for lunar landers based vaguely on the Dyna Soar...

from Phillip Bono ?
he work at time at Boeing
his 1960 Mars Mission

Back to UR-700
build from parts of Proton rockets (UR-500)
was there plans to use 4xRD-253 in Module, in case there were Problems with the RD-270 engine ?
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd270.htm
 

Attachments

  • bonomars2 (1).gif
    bonomars2 (1).gif
    279.6 KB · Views: 57

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
971
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
I often wonder how history might have been different on November 16, 1966, when Mstislav Keldysh headed the expert commission considering the state of the N1 program. Both Valentin Glushko and Vladmir Chelomei lobbied for the cancellation of the N1 and the construction of the RD-270 powered UR-700 while Mikhail Yangel lobbied for the construction of the RD-270 powered R-56.

I wonder if Chelomei's ties to Nikita Khrushchev and the fact that he employed his son , Dr. Sergei Khrushchev, may have influenced their decision to reject the UR-700 and continue with the N1? It is also odd that it was decided to continue development of the UR-700 for a Mars manned flyby mission, Aelita, renamed the UR-700M and then the later derived UR-900 when the N1 was originally developed for a Mars manned flyby mission.

Does anyone have higher resolution images of the UR-700 models and the RD-270 rocket engine shown on Anatoly Zak's Russian Space Web?
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ur700.html
 

OM

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
752
Reaction score
28
Website
www.io.com
Orionblamblam said:
Two 1960 Boeing ideas for lunar landers based vaguely on the Dyna Soar...

...Scott, buddy, what's the story behind the 2nd image concept? Just when I think I've seen all of the X-20 concepts, along comes a monstrosity like this!
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,633
Reaction score
2,854
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
OM said:
...Scott, buddy, what's the story behind the 2nd image concept? Just when I think I've seen all of the X-20 concepts, along comes a monstrosity like this!

Take a look here:
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=604

It is, I *think*, a response to SR-183, which called for lunar basing and logistics options. Boeing liked Dyna Soar aerodynamics and considered using Dyna Soar-like lunar return vehicles. Since this was well before LOR came along, that meant the Dyna Soar had to actually land on the moon.

No, you haven't seen all the Dyna Soar concpets. Some of them were... pretty wacky.
 

OM

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
752
Reaction score
28
Website
www.io.com
Orionblamblam said:
Take a look here:
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=604

It is, I *think*, a response to SR-183, which called for lunar basing and logistics options. Boeing liked Dyna Soar aerodynamics and considered using Dyna Soar-like lunar return vehicles. Since this was well before LOR came along, that meant the Dyna Soar had to actually land on the moon.

No, you haven't seen all the Dyna Soar concpets. Some of them were... pretty wacky.

...In order:

1) Done.

2) You may be on to something here. It would explain the honker tanks quite easily.

3) And then there's the one BoMi concept that from the front view looks WAAAAAY too much like the ID4 Invader ships.
 

Just John

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I am familiar with the UR-700 and even the UR-700M and UR-900. But Anatoly Zak lists a UR-1000 on his Website.

Does anyone have any information on what the configuration of this launcher might have been?
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,309
Reaction score
2,308
so far i know
ist the UR-1000 a UR-900 with Lox-Lh2 or Nuclear Upperstages

very good information on rocketversion here
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ur700.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ur700m.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ur900.htm
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
6,641
Reaction score
5,395
I wonder if Chelomei's ties to Nikita Khrushchev and the fact that he employed his son , Dr. Sergei Khrushchev, may have influenced their decision to reject the UR-700 and continue with the N1? It is also odd that it was decided to continue development of the UR-700 for a Mars manned flyby mission, Aelita, renamed the UR-700M and then the later derived UR-900 when the N1 was originally developed for a Mars manned flyby mission.

Yes, Chelomei links with Krutchev were the key. In fact Glushko and Ustinov made Chelomei "pay" for these links until the end of its life, in 1984, twenty year after Krutchev ousting !

UR-700, Almaz, TKS were all cancelled in turn. Racketoplan fate was no better.

Another problem to consider with the UR-700 were its storable propellants -highly toxic ! In April 1969, a UR-500 exploded on a pad at Baikonur and the crash resulted in a very polluted area that only heavy rains cleaned later (I'm writing this from memory, I have to check the source again)

It is also odd that it was decided to continue development of the UR-700 for a Mars manned flyby mission, Aelita, renamed the UR-700M and then the later derived UR-900 when the N1 was originally developed for a Mars manned flyby mission.

Well, Chelomei did not lost all its backing with Krutchev ousting. Marshall Andrei Greshko, for example, was a high-ranking supporter. Chelomei still massed enough power to continue the UR-700 and others programs, alas only at low-level. The effort died in the early 70's...
 

Capt. David

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Just John said:
I am familiar with the UR-700 and even the UR-700M and UR-900. But Anatoly Zak lists a UR-1000 on his Website.

I can't find your reference to a UR-1000 on Anatoly Zak's site.

I don't believe there ever really were plans for a UR-900. The only reference to a UR-900 I've ever found is from Chertoks "Lunnaya Gonka", and there I believe Chertok was mistaken. If anybody can prove me wrong on that ... "bring it!" ;)
 

Capt. David

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Michel Van said:
Back to UR-700
build from parts of Proton rockets (UR-500)
was there plans to use 4xRD-253 in Module, in case there were Problems with the RD-270 engine ?

There was an early model of the UR-700 which did have 4 RD-253's, but later models and illustrations called for the RD-270. When asked about the toxicity problem with the fuel, Chelomei boldly stated that there would be no problems because Glushko was building the RD-270 and Glushko would not make a bad engine.

As for the fuel toxicity... it is the same fuel used on Chelomei's Proton for over 40 years (and will continue to be used for at least another decade) with only one major mishap. However, the UR-270M would have used "pentaborane 'zip' propellants" which would have created new and greater toxicity hazards.
 

OM

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
752
Reaction score
28
Website
www.io.com
Capt. David said:
I don't believe there ever really were plans for a UR-900. The only reference to a UR-900 I've ever found is from Chertoks "Lunnaya Gonka", and there I believe Chertok was mistaken. If anybody can prove me wrong on that ... "bring it!" ;)

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ur900.htm

...Reading all of Wade's site is required *before* making any such claims, natch. :-*
 

Capt. David

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
OM said:
Capt. David said:
I don't believe there ever really were plans for a UR-900. The only reference to a UR-900 I've ever found is from Chertoks "Lunnaya Gonka", and there I believe Chertok was mistaken. If anybody can prove me wrong on that ... "bring it!" ;)

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ur900.htm

...Reading all of Wade's site is required *before* making any such claims, natch. :-*

Mark Wade list his references for the UR-900 as Chertok's "Raketi i lyudi", and Yeteyev's, "Operezhaya vremya". In "Raketi i lyudi" Volume 4: "Lunnaya Gonka" Chertok gives (as Wade states) "A garbled description of this launch vehicle (UR-900)...". In "Operezhaya vremya" Yeteyev (or more correctly 'Evteev') gives specific information about the UR-700M which is basically the same as what Chertok calls the UR-900*.

Beyond that, Evteev worked with Chelomei in OKB-52. Whereas Chertok did NOT work for, with, or was even associated with Chelomei's OKB-52. While Chertok was present at meetings in which Chelomei made presentations, he seems to be the ONLY source that ever mentions a UR-900.

All things considered, I believe that Chertok screwed up and mislabelled the UR-700M as the never conceived UR-900.

But again: "If anyone can prove me wrong..." ;)

I say "basically" because the specifications are the same, but Chertok physical description is not only way off, but also would require a completely new launch infrastructure - which goes completely against Chelomei's vision.
 

OM

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
752
Reaction score
28
Website
www.io.com
All things considered, I believe that Chertok screwed up and mislabelled the UR-700M as the never conceived UR-900.

...It's possible, but one thing I and quite a few others have learned in the past decade-plus of using Mark Wade as a resource, is that he's far more right about things like this than he is wrong.

(Hell, I've only personally caught him wrong on one thing, and five years after he corrected it we both remembered *something* was fixed, but we couldn't remember what it was.)
 

Capt. David

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
OM said:
All things considered, I believe that Chertok screwed up and mislabelled the UR-700M as the never conceived UR-900.

...It's possible, but one thing I and quite a few others have learned in the past decade-plus of using Mark Wade as a resource, is that he's far more right about things like this than he is wrong.

(Hell, I've only personally caught him wrong on one thing, and five years after he corrected it we both remembered *something* was fixed, but we couldn't remember what it was.)

It's not Mark who is in error here. He is basing this on Chertok memoirs. I believe in this case it is Chertok who erred in both the description and designation of this rocket.
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,248
Reaction score
1,672
Archibald said:
Marshall Andrei Greshko,

Grechko

Archibald said:
Another problem to consider with the UR-700 were its storable propellants -highly toxic !

I remember reading talk of Korolyov and Glushko (not exact ciatation)

- I will never put cosmonauts atop of this toxic crap [using Glushko's engines]! What would happen with them in case of launch failure!
- In the case of launch failure of this monster, Sergey Pavlovich, it will be all the same for them what fuel components did we choose.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
971
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
flateric said:
I remember reading talk of Korolyov and Glushko (not exact ciatation)

- I will never put cosmonauts atop of this toxic crap [using Glushko's engines]! What would happen with them in case of launch failure!
- In the case of launch failure of this monster, Sergey Pavlovich, it will be all the same for them what fuel components did we choose.

From what I have read, Korolyov and Glushko clashed over cryogenic and hypergolic fuels during their entire careers. Glushko believed that the operational advantages of hypergolic fuels, especially in missiles, outweighed the safety concerns, since they did not need to be refueled or topped off. I also understand that the use of cryogenic fuels results in rocket engines with more complex technical challenges. Korolyov insisted that hybergolic fuels were just too dangerous to use even in missiles. It seems that personal animosities between Korolyov and Glushko colored their technical disputes. We have already discussed that the Purge of 1938 resulted in a life-long hatred between Korolyov and Glushko.

What isn't it clear to me, was Glushko's insistence on using the RD-270, or other hypergolic solution, in the N-1 also based on his inability to create a large rocket engine with a stable combustion chamber using cryogenic fuels (Lox/kerosene or Lox/hydrogen)? Did he believe that it was a technical challenge he could not solve along with the pressure for the Soviet Union to beat the United States to the moon?

I also think that it is important to remember that combustion chamber stability problems plagued the development of the Lox/kerosene (RP-1)-fueled Rocketdyne F-1 rocket engine for several years. During testing, engineers were testing and refining the design of fuel-injectors using small explosive charges.

What is the real safety record for hypergolic fuels? I understand that the Titan II, Titan III, and Titan IV rockets use hypergolic fuel. Between the 1965 first flight and 1970, the UR-500/Proton experienced dozens of failures. However, once perfected it has become one of the most reliable heavy launch vehicles. With a total of about 300 launches, it has a 96% success rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_(rocket)

Although the safety concerns of hypergolic fuels are not unfounded, because it was derived from the UR-500/Proton, what was the likelihood that the UR-700 would have experienced a catastrophic failure on the launch pad at Baikonur?

Alas, the chief designers were more concerned with building empires and settling old scores than dedication to placing a Soviet citizen on the moon.
 

Capt. David

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Triton said:
Although the safety concerns of hypergolic fuels are not unfounded, because it was derived from the UR-500/Proton, what was the likelihood that the UR-700 would have experienced a catastrophic failure on the launch pad at Baikonur?

Out of the "dozen" failures of the Proton only one was near the launch pad. Also consider that it was the RD-253 engine that was used on the Proton, while the RD-270 was a whole different animal. The bottom line is this; If Chelomei thought that there was a danger to the cosmonauts, he would not have approved the flight. Chelomei was very big on safety issues.

What amazes me is the misinformation on the RD-270. I found one source that claims it blew up every time it was tested, and yet another claims that one engine was fired three different times without incident.

But yes, the animosity between the different designers, politics, and one Fat Pig Bastard (named Ustinov) all played a role in the inability of the Soviet Union to put men on the moon.

And just to throw this in the mix ... I interviewed Dr. Sergey Khrushchev a few years ago (I still have the recording) and he believes the KGB (not a blood clot) killed Chelomei. These were serious times.

David
 

OM

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
752
Reaction score
28
Website
www.io.com
Triton said:
Alas, the chief designers were more concerned with building empires and settling old scores than dedication to placing a Soviet citizen on the moon.

...Which sums up exactly *why* the Soviets didn't beat us to the Moon, at the very least with a manned circumlunar flight. By most estimates, had Glushko been totally in charge with no obstructions, a circumlunar flight before 1969 would have been highly probable. With Korolev in the same absolute power position, a lunar landing by 1969 would have been as likely. When you take into account that the Soviets used booster and spacecraft technology that had a shorter R&D time and worked on a lower level of complexity than the American counterpart versions, the reason the Soviets failed to send a cosmonaut to the Moon first wasn't due to the late start time, but due in no minor part to the lack of one controlling force keeping all the design bureaus in lock step with one another. The power struggle between Glushko and Korolev was what kept the Soviet Lunar Program(s) essentially grounded.

What's interesting is that I've seen the struggle compared to that of Lenin trying to keep Trotsky and Stalin from killing each other while using both their strengths, with the same allegorical results....
 

Justo Miranda

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
5,077
Reaction score
4,194
Website
www.amazon.com
XSL-01 "project"
from
-Revell
-The Boxart Den Galleries
 

Attachments

  • Revell_XSL_01_Space_Ship_Booklet.jpg
    Revell_XSL_01_Space_Ship_Booklet.jpg
    103.2 KB · Views: 167
  • Revell_XSL_01_Space_Ship_Booklet_copy2.jpg
    Revell_XSL_01_Space_Ship_Booklet_copy2.jpg
    95.7 KB · Views: 158
  • Revell_XSL_01_Space_Ship_Booklet_copy_23.jpg
    Revell_XSL_01_Space_Ship_Booklet_copy_23.jpg
    136.6 KB · Views: 113
  • Revell_XSL_01_Space_Ship_Booklet_copy_31.jpg
    Revell_XSL_01_Space_Ship_Booklet_copy_31.jpg
    103.5 KB · Views: 101

Byeman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
874
Reaction score
71
Capt. David said:
The bottom line is this; If Chelomei thought that there was a danger to the cosmonauts, he would not have approved the flight. Chelomei was very big on safety issues.

You have no proof of this assertion.
 

Byeman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
874
Reaction score
71
OM said:
...It's possible, but one thing I and quite a few others have learned in the past decade-plus of using Mark Wade as a resource, is that he's far more right about things like this than he is wrong.

He is wrong enough that it requires a second source to valid any item. Much like Wikipedia.
 

Byeman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
874
Reaction score
71
OM said:
. When you take into account that the Soviets used booster and spacecraft technology that had a shorter R&D time and worked on a lower level of complexity than the American counterpart versions, the reason the Soviets failed to send a cosmonaut to the Moon first wasn't due to the late start time,

It was due to lack of system testing and hence the shorter R&D time.
 

Byeman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
874
Reaction score
71
OM said:
worked on a lower level of complexity than the American counterpart versions,

Not applicable to Soviet lunar hardware. N-1 first stage and RD-253 were both complex systems.
 

OM

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
752
Reaction score
28
Website
www.io.com
Byeman said:
OM said:
...It's possible, but one thing I and quite a few others have learned in the past decade-plus of using Mark Wade as a resource, is that he's far more right about things like this than he is wrong.

He is wrong enough that it requires a second source to valid any item. Much like Wikipedia.

...Care to cite?

...Also, "complexity" does not mean "technical superiority".
 

Byeman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
874
Reaction score
71
OM said:
...Care to cite?

...Also, "complexity" does not mean "technical superiority".

As for Astronautix, too many to bother with.

First of all, your point had nothing to with "technical superiority". It was an incorrect assertion of low level of complexity, which the two examples discredit.

As for "technical superiority", high pressure staged combustion qualifies.
 

Byeman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
874
Reaction score
71
Byeman said:
OM said:
...Care to cite?

...Also, "complexity" does not mean "technical superiority".

As for Astronautix, too many to bother with. Pointed out some of them to Wade and he didn't correct them when shown proof just further reinforced that it is should be relied on as a single source. Plus some entries are not free of his opinion.

First of all, your point had nothing to with "technical superiority". It was an incorrect assertion of low level of complexity, which the two examples discredit.

As for "technical superiority", high pressure staged combustion qualifies.
 

OM

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
752
Reaction score
28
Website
www.io.com
Byeman said:
OM said:
...Care to cite?

...Also, "complexity" does not mean "technical superiority".

As for Astronautix, too many to bother with.

First of all, your point had nothing to with "technical superiority". It was an incorrect assertion of low level of complexity, which the two examples discredit.

As for "technical superiority", high pressure staged combustion qualifies.

<yawn>

...In order:

1) If you're not willing to cite source, then your argument in this case is pretty much shot. Mark's site is accepted as a reliable source, and he's been *very* receptive to corrections over the past decade-plus the site's been up and running.

2) Then you misread my point, then. Again, "complexity" .NE. "technical superiority".

3) I don't see a Soviet flag on the Moon surrounded by footprints, so your point is pretty much moot.
 

Capt. David

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Byeman said:
Capt. David said:
The bottom line is this; If Chelomei thought that there was a danger to the cosmonauts, he would not have approved the flight. Chelomei was very big on safety issues.

You have no proof of this assertion.

My statement was not an assertion. I have many documents (including testimonies from Chelomei's own cosmonauts) to back it up.

But since you didn't know what information I have your statement was at best insulting, and at the very least ... ignorant.

Please don't waste my time again.

David L. Rickman
 

Capt. David

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Capt. David said:
Just John said:
I am familiar with the UR-700 and even the UR-700M and UR-900. But Anatoly Zak lists a UR-1000 on his Website.

I can't find your reference to a UR-1000 on Anatoly Zak's site.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

It would appear that the UR-1000 was a provisional name given to what would eventually become the UR-700.

This reference can be found in volume 1 of “Избранные работы академика В.П. Глушко”, Archive № 1727 (239-240) June 15, 1964. I need a little more time to properly translate this document, but the description is that of a Proton based rocket with a 6.5 meter core. The first stage would have eight lateral 1.65 meter wide fuel tanks, each with an 8D420 engine, while the second stage could have either four 11D44 engines, or a single high altitude 8D420 engine. The third stage would (or could) be a second stage from a UR-500. It also appears (at this time) that the provisional title of UR-1000 was given by Glushko, and not Chelomei. More as I get it refined.

David L. Rickman
 

OM

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
752
Reaction score
28
Website
www.io.com
Capt. David said:
My statement was not an assertion. I have many documents (including testimonies from Chelomei's own cosmonauts) to back it up.

But since you didn't know what information I have your statement was at best insulting, and at the very least ... ignorant.

Please don't waste my time again.

...In order:

1) Any of these sources you have happen to be online? Out of interest in reading them, not questioning them. Out of the main project heads in the Evil Soviet Empire, Chelomei is the one I've sadly read the least about.

2) Considering the replies this particular person has given me as well, I agree on both counts of your assessment.

3) Mine either.
 

Capt. David

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
OM said:
Capt. David said:
My statement was not an assertion. I have many documents (including testimonies from Chelomei's own cosmonauts) to back it up.


Any of these sources you have happen to be online? Out of interest in reading them, not questioning them. Out of the main project heads in the Evil Soviet Empire, Chelomei is the one I've sadly read the least about.

I am still unpacking from a recent move and need to track down all my source material (including notes), but off hand I don't know if there is anything yet online. I will follow-up on this and will post references supporting my statement from Evteev, Polychenko, and of course, from the Chelomei cosmonauts themselves onto this forum as soon as I can locate them.

While Chelomei is responsible for designing the basis of all flown Soviet/Russian manned stations and station modules, (Mir was more Almaz than it was Salyut) he is (IMHO) the least known of all spacecraft designers. The title of Evteev's second Chelomei book says it best: Chelomei was a designer "Ahead of his Time".

Best Regards,

David L. Rickman
 

Simon666

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
105
Reaction score
0
OM said:
1) If you're not willing to cite source, then your argument in this case is pretty much shot. Mark's site is accepted as a reliable source, and he's been *very* receptive to corrections over the past decade-plus the site's been up and running.
My personal experience is different. I tried to get him to correct the L1 Linear Aerospike Booster page with propellants listed as lox/kerosene and impossible "sea level" isp, but no reply or anything. That site is not the gospel truth.

http://www.astronautix.com/engines/l1loster.htm
 

Similar threads

Top