biathlonmordovia.ru → Electrical wiring

At what altitude do satellites fly, orbit calculation, speed and direction of movement. Soviet orbital trick Putting into orbit

Unfortunately, in lately The topic of various accidents during the launch of spacecraft does not lose relevance, therefore (based on my own experience) I would like to talk about what problems engineers solve when such an emergency situation occurs. The article describes possible scenarios for the development of events in the event of an abnormal launch of a spacecraft, using the example of the completion of the operation of the Express-AM4 telecommunications satellite after the failure of the Briz-M upper stage. I’ll also tell you a little about what is being done in the world to reduce the risk of collisions between spacecraft during abnormal launches.

Introduction

To begin with, it’s worth saying a few words about yourself. My main job is ballistic support for the descent of manned and unmanned spacecraft to Earth. This includes both direct operational work, and the development of software for it.

Now some definitions:
By abnormal launch we mean the launch of a spacecraft into an undesigned orbit in which it can exist for some time. It is pointless to consider the option when “something went wrong” right away, since in this case nothing can be done.

Why do you even need to do anything with the device in the event of a launch accident?

First of all, being in an off-design orbit, a spacecraft may pose a collision threat to other operating vehicles. Well, secondly, in the event of a collision of a spacecraft with space debris (the number of which is increasing every day), there is a high probability of detonation of the fuel remaining on board and the formation of a large number of fragments.

One example of an abnormal launch into orbit was the Express-AM4 satellite. In August 2011, it was supposed to be launched into geostationary orbit (altitude 35,786 km) to provide telecommunications services to the population. However, due to an upper stage failure, it remained in orbit with a minimum altitude of 655 km and a maximum altitude of 20430 km. At this altitude, the satellite posed a threat to a large number of spacecraft, including GPS and GLONASS constellations (their altitude is 19,000 - 20,000 km).

Options for the development of events

Depending on the type of accident during launch, 3 main options for further developments are considered:

Continuation of the mission taking into account the emergency situation that has arisen.
Transfer of the device to a safe orbit (disposal orbit).
Flooding of a vehicle in a given area of the World Ocean.

In the case of Express-AM4, the option of continuing the mission was impossible, since it was impossible to reach geostationary orbit using its own engines. In this regard, the last two options were examined in detail.
Let's start with a safe orbit (literally in a nutshell). The essence of the problem was to use the orbital catalog to determine the parameters of the orbit in which the satellite would pose the least danger to other spacecraft, and then calculate the flight pattern to this orbit with minimal fuel remaining on board. As a result, the burial orbit was selected with the following characteristics: minimum height 12,000 km, maximum altitude 15,500 km. To fly to this orbit, 3 engine burns were needed: 1st to increase the perigee, 2nd to lower the apogee, and 3rd to completely exhaust the fuel and final transition to the given orbit.

In theory, the option with a burial orbit was not bad, but from a practical point of view it was quite difficult to implement (due to the peculiarities of the engine start-up interval, the characteristics of the orientation of the device, etc.), and to guarantee precise entry into a given orbit with full exhaustion no one could have fuel. Therefore, the main option was to sink the satellite in a given area of the World Ocean.

It's worth explaining a little here: Before removing anything from orbit, it is necessary to coordinate the impact area with various organizations; this is necessary, first of all, to ensure the safety of the local population. Russia has an agreement on the use of the area Pacific Ocean in the Southern Hemisphere to flood Progress trucks. Thus, when the Express was sunk, options for targeting this area were first considered. But due to the peculiarities of the orbit (the latitude of perigee was in the Northern Hemisphere), the use of this area was not possible. I had to look for an area in the Northern Hemisphere. Nothing better place there was no ship between the West Coast of the United States and Japan, so it was decided to sink the Express there.

Also, a reserve area was selected for insurance (it is smaller in the picture). To justify the possibility of satellite flooding in these areas, falling trajectories were calculated for different time periods. As can be seen from the figure, they all satisfied the condition of falling into a given area.

Operational work

Next came the most interesting part – direct implementation. I’ll say right away that all control of the satellite was carried out from the control center in Toulouse, and all work was carried out jointly with French colleagues. The approved flooding scheme is shown in the figure.

Let me explain a little: To bring a spacecraft out of a highly elliptical orbit, it is necessary to slow it down at apogee, while the perigee decreases and the craft enters the dense layers of the atmosphere. In this case, the thrust of the satellite’s engines did not allow the braking impulse to be processed quickly enough, so a scheme was chosen in which the satellite reached the apogee of the orbit in the middle of the propulsion system’s operation. This made it possible to work out the braking impulse with maximum efficiency.

To increase reliability, they try to carry out any dynamic operations on spacecraft within the radio visibility zone of ground stations. Since the engine was turned on not over Russian territory, and the domestic orbital constellation of relay satellites is not so well developed, it was necessary to use partner ground stations in Uralla (Australia) and Beijing (China). According to their data, March 25, 2012 At the estimated times, the engine was turned on and off. After this, calculations were carried out that confirmed the flooding of the satellite in a given area.

Conclusion

At this stage of development of space technology, it is not possible to do anything with every device in the event of an emergency situation during launch. This is primarily due to the high cost of each kilogram launched into orbit. For example, in order to increase the operating time of satellites in geostationary orbit, electric rocket propulsion systems, which have very low thrust, are installed on them. In the event of an accident with a satellite with such engines, neither the transition to a safe orbit nor its flooding becomes possible.

At a meeting with French satellite manufacturers, they expressed interest in further research into the possibilities of fending off abnormal situations during launch. Now work is being carried out in the direction of studying the possibility of additional installation of engines, development of the orientation system and many other components of the satellite. Perhaps, in the near future, satellites will be equipped with equipment capable of autonomously making decisions about their further actions in the event of an emergency launch.

Of course, it’s impossible to fit all the features of the return of spacecraft to Earth into one article, but for a start, I think it’s enough.

Let's return for a moment to project No. 7 “Superskyscraper”. Let's imagine that we are in our super skyscraper at a height h> 35.9·10 3 km above the Earth’s surface, that is, we are standing on the ceiling upside down. It is clear that on the same ceiling we can easily place the same massive ball that the baron is talking about. If we now tie this ball to the floor with a light and strong cable, then the cable will be taut(Fig. 8.1). That is, the ball will have a “desire” to fall on the ceiling on which we are standing.

If we now throw the end of the cable out the window so that its lower end reaches the ground and fasten the end of the cable near the ground, then the ball will pull the entire cable (if, of course, the mass of the cable is significantly less than the mass of the ball).

Now we will tie the satellite that we are going to launch into orbit to the lower end of the cable, and carefully move the ceiling on which the ball stands. Then the ball will begin to rise up on its own (!), carrying with it the satellite tied below. And, mind you, we don’t seem to be supplying any energy to our ball from the outside!

Let's wait until our satellite rises to altitude h= 35.9·10 3 km (it is at this height that the bodies are in weightlessness), let’s stop it, disconnect it from the cable and... with a slight push, gently push it out the window. And our satellite will immediately become a real satellite of the Earth, which moves in the so-called geostationary orbit: it rotates around the center of the Earth with a revolution period of 24 hours and at the same time, as it were, “hangs” over the same point on the earth’s surface all the time.

Note that from the point of view of physics, this satellite will be no different from a resident who will hang between the floor and ceiling in his apartment located at a height h= 35.9·10 3 km above the Earth's surface! So theoretically The baron's plan is absolutely correct.

Now let's answer the questions of his opponents.

The engineer is wondering how tall our tower should be. It is clear that it is significantly higher than 35.9·10 3 km. And the higher, the better. After all, the greater the distance from the ball to the center of the Earth, the stronger the centrifugal effect!

The businessman is very optimistic that this tower will save a lot of money on launch space rockets. He is certainly right, but with one small caveat: the savings will begin After that how the tower will be built, and before that - just pure expenses. There is reason to believe that such construction is a rather expensive undertaking.

The most serious objection was expressed by the Professor: he believes that the proposed project is a project for another perpetual motion machine that produces work without consuming any energy. And the very fact of the existence of a perpetual motion machine contradicts the law of conservation of energy!

The professor is right: perpetual motion machine impossible in principle, but the proposed model is Not perpetual motion machine. In fact, the rise of the ball upward due to the centrifugal effect occurs due to the energy of the Earth's rotation. That is, the higher the ball rises on our tower, the slower the Earth will rotate around its axis! Let's prove it.

Ptuf 53 · 10-09-2014

The union is certainly good. but the cost of removing 1 kg of cargo is still prohibitive. Previously, we discussed methods of delivering people into orbit, but I would like to discuss alternative methods of delivering cargo to rockets (agree to throw a person and a piece of iron (satellite) is still a big difference). I think projects that are not real at all (such as a tower or a space elevator) should not be touched. but the EM gun can be discussed. Who has any thoughts? (Maybe someone has read a recent article)

Dilettant 111 · 10-09-2014

I remember about 30 years ago there was a film about a “space” gun, I don’t remember the details, but the height of the shot was very high.
I don’t know for what reasons the Americans abandoned the project, but in my opinion it is a quite suitable method for launching small satellites.
The truth about the cost is that the commercial component is unpredictable, as in the joke about brokers:
Twice two, how much is it?
Are we selling or buying?

An electromagnetic (aka magnetofugal - in a word!) gun is a gadget quite suitable for launching cargo into Earth orbit. The truth is so far exclusively in the form of metal blanks, because no electronic filling can withstand SUCH overloads.
There was a rumor on Internet forums that some guy calculated what the length of the gun should be in order to accelerate the projectile to the first escape velocity with acceptable acceleration. I don’t know the details (and in general, maybe they’re all lying), but it seems like he got a gun with a barrel length of somewhere around 1000 km.

Back in 1935, Max Valier came up with the idea that it would be possible to first accelerate a projectile in a ring tunnel, then “switch the switch” and direct it into the “barrel” tangentially adjacent to the ring accelerator, thus launching it in the desired direction. direction. This kind of nuclear accelerator is overgrown for “collective farm” needs.
For better effect, it was proposed to spin the projectile in a vacuum.
It was absolutely impossible at that time to assemble a “arrow” capable of switching at such a speed (now, however, it is also still impossible).
Plus, the shock during the transition from vacuum to atmosphere during the shot will be enough to turn the satellite into a well-done pancake - what did he want at the first cosmic speed, but not into the thin upper layers, but into the plump lower ones!
After such problems, overcoming the destructive impact centrifugal force in the military accelerator - so, an easy workout for the mind.

Theoretically, the EM device could be used to launch satellites from the Moon: the first spacecraft there is much smaller, and there is no air. But this is, of course, if you first solve the difficulties with compact and powerful source energy, heat removal and how to deliver it all there and install it there. But maybe in the future...

Oh yes. Another problem is the size of the satellite. You can’t fire people from such a gun; you’ll have to overcome too many engineering hemorrhoids. But shooting cubesats into orbit, at least in theory, is quite possible. But even for this, a bunch of related problems will have to be solved, such as the fragility of the electronics, the energy source, changing the direction of the shot, etc.

In short, for all its beauty, the idea of a magnetic fugitive launcher is still unpromising due to the high costs of solving technical problems and the small useful “exhaust”.

In the meantime, only warriors look at “railguns” with cautious optimism - after all, throwing a blank into the side of an enemy ship or tank, or anything at all, at a distance of 200 km at a speed of about 6 km/sec is, let me tell you, always a pleasure.
But even among the “star-driven” there are skeptics. The thing is that EM guns are extremely bulky, so they can only be placed on a large tank or ship, and are wildly vulnerable: any hit by a shrapnel into the power plant (and it is “present” separately from the gun itself and is also never small ) - and the fireworks on May 9 will seem like just a dull sparkler! And the weapon itself is not distinguished by increased survivability.
Well, there is also quite a lot of wear on the rails after each shot (in the case of a railgun), which affects durability and accuracy; plus the problem of heat dissipation, and fast - apply several million amperes to the same rails within a fraction of a second - anything will overheat. And if in the case of launching satellites this does not play a role - you shoot once, then let it cool for a month - then in battle, after several shots, the gun can stupidly melt!

Nope. It turned out a little chaotic. Still, compilation from different sources, which touch on the space sphere only in passing, and even with “sawing up” of the original source (thank you very much to fellow legislators and moderators) does not contribute to improving the quality of the commentary. But what are they rich in...

There is also, proposed by Rogozin, a trampoline and a super slingshot, as in the joke.
The only real thing left is the chemical rocket. And we can talk about a reduction in price only within 10-20%, this is realistic, but it seems that this is the limit, I take into account the total cost of the cycle, and not individual stages.
True, the cost can be reduced within these limits by changing just one condition; it is necessary to exclude the possibility of theft at all stages, starting with design.

Lipa 23 · 12-09-2014

Well done Dim - detailed and clear! EM gun to the dustbin of history! This is an unacceptable option for space (I also read about it), but the warriors really became interested in railstones and learned to shoot hot plasma from them (the charge melts and flies at high speed) well, you need to break through the energy, there is no rate of fire (yet), but if you hit it once there is no need to repeat. The soldiers are happy, but what should we do? So how about flying on kerosene gas? So we’ll be hanging around in orbit like poop in a hole. A rocket is not an option - you need to sculpt something reusable (not like Musk’s grasshopper and rocket “with flippers”), but truly reusable.

DimitriyP 113 · 12-09-2014

Theoretically, there is an option to reduce the cost of launching a rocket (at least in theory) as a result of placing the energy source outside of the rocket and transferring this energy “through the air” directly on board, for example, with a laser beam or something like that (although the laser will not penetrate here, but it will do to illustrate the principle). The idea is not new, but this still does not bring it closer to a solution.
However, a lot will depend on the cost of such “teleportation”, otherwise it may end up being even more expensive.

DimitriyP 113 · 12-09-2014

Wow, while I was writing the above post, lipa had already posted three (at least) and was severely banned! And I didn’t even have time to read... However, it’s sad!

Dilettant 111 · 12-09-2014

“Somehow the evening is no longer languid.”
Moderators ban in a black way, after a day someone has to be saved, and what is especially disgusting is that they leave a red mark, better without a trace or the point of violation for clarity.
Damn, I'm tired of it, I didn't have time to read it and the thread of the discussion is lost.

DimitriyP 113 · 12-09-2014

dilettant. I support!
Comrade moderators, if you would at least write under a ban for what reason, you’ll see that people would stop “sprinkling sedition.” Otherwise, the moral and ethical principles that you follow when moderating your next post are very often not clear.
And so the people see the borders, and you have less work.

Delitant 76 · 13-09-2014

“a gun with a barrel length of somewhere around 1000 km.” It’s easier to put an elevator in the barrel and make cutouts at different heights, and even cheaper - a hanging ladder. But this is provided that the barrel is pointed towards the sky.

Dilettant 111 · 13-09-2014

It was proposed to use the mountain to build an acceleration tunnel, but it would be expensive at the very beginning, and the range of launch into orbits is too small.
You can only compare the costs of the entire launch program, with this approach it will be clearer which method is cheaper, otherwise they stick out the figure of payment for “Russian” delivery, forgetting that Russia contains cosmodromes and rocket production facilities and a network of escort stations. Such clever people come and say that we have a satellite and we need to launch it into orbit, but we want the launch to cost the same as rocket fuel. Would you like some horseradish with butter? Take on some of the complex costs and the launch itself will magically become cheaper. If you order a full range of services from a transport company, you get one price, but if you only deliver cargo from point A to point B, then the price will be much lower.
While earthlings have only flying kerosene stoves, everything else is exotic and fantastic.
Just the other day they showed a story about a 3-D car, the printer takes a week to print the body, the number of parts is orders of magnitude less, the wheels, the engine, and everything else is done in the usual way, the assembly is manual, the body must be processed with a file, the cost of such an electric car is 20-30 thousand. foreign currency, the same serial “regular” one will cost 3-4 thousand at most. There seems to be progress, but the cost is still going through the roof.
You can say that space is a whim, that you can build a wonderful life for yourself without aiming at space exploration, all this is also a point of view that deserves respect, but I will say this, personally, I can be patient a little and do without a consumer society, that is, live sensibly -enough, and the money raised from this should be used for some progressive developments, not necessarily space, but at the same time have control over the expenditure of funds.
For those who will try to use this fund only for the purpose of enriching themselves, one single punishment will be imposed: deportation into airless space with confiscation.

Ptuf 53 · 15-09-2014

I wanted to write on Friday but didn’t have time. In those three posts there were 3 articles, one very detailed one, starting from the dawn of astronautics, substantiating the economic benefits of using Russian system"MAX" buried in the dashing 90s. The article is long and interesting; writing “in your own words” is too lazy and complicated. Therefore, I dumped it as is in the hope that it wouldn’t be deleted quickly and people would have time to read it. The second was from the youth technology magazine for the 11th year about the use of a cable propulsion device. Well, there are also “alternative” ways. The supply of offers on the Internet is through the roof. There are some interesting ones and some crazy ones. but there are a great many of them and to claim that there are alternatives to chemicals. there are no missiles somewhat frivolously. While reading, I realized several things: all projects using guns and their analogues (and there is also a method of launching by accelerating an object in a spiral and others) are not feasible for several reasons
1) Firstly, the drag of the lower layers of the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds will be very high (even compared to a concrete wall). and will destroy almost any object if it is not provided with powerful thermal protection (which complicates the process and makes it significantly heavier)
2) Secondly, any launched body will return after one revolution to the launch point, regardless of the speed. that is, it will be necessary to adjust the orbit, that is, to equip the object with a propulsion system. Which also greatly affects the cost and complexity and, taking into account the first fact, is also technically problematic due to large overloads (the electronics will be messed up, however, and without it the engine will not turn on in time).
3) The initial speed must be significantly higher than the 1st cosmic speed due to braking in dense layers of the atmosphere (quite strong) and this is not all the problems.
From the data studied, it became obvious that the main problem for rockets is precisely overcoming these densest lower layers of the atmosphere (the first 11-12 km of altitude). Acceleration and achievement of launch into orbit are carried out by the 2nd and 3rd stages of the rocket, and the first is precisely used for ascent to these 12 km And eat the lion's share of fuel - according to calculations, the flight of the 1st stage of Proton lasts 65 seconds. and during this time either 250 or 280 tons of fuel burns (the exact figure was in the article, I don’t remember). And air launch saves a lot of money. In the calculations there was a figure for “MAX”: the cost of transporting 1 kg of cargo was supposed to be 1000 and in the future 500 bucks (which, you must agree, is no longer mullions as it is now). This truth has been known for a long time (somewhere since the mid-60s) and many have tried this solve the problem. The path of Musk with his grasshoppers is a dead end in my opinion. but our “Baikal” and “MAX” seem to be promising (but became victims of bureaucracy and the collapse of the USSR). There are others like this. And the problem of solving these first 11 km will significantly reduce the cost of cargo removal. An elevator, a tower and similar megalethic structures are technologically not feasible at the moment, and also politically (it must be built together and on the equator - the Negroes who live there do not need this, and the USA and Russia will not be allowed into Africa. There is a lot more that can be written, but the time is already not enough.

Yeah, here's a thin one for you Earth's atmosphere.... In general, the solution to the “first stage problem” (as well as the very issue of reducing the cost of launch in general) very much depends on what and how much weight is proposed to be launched into space.

I think so, no matter how much we hope, no matter how much we deceive ourselves, in the next 100 years we will be flying on “kerogas”. Maybe later, when they discover some new physical principles and build a “flying saucer on anti-gravity,” this will immediately reduce the cost of delivering cargo a hundred million times, but for now... Yes, here’s the thin Earth’s atmosphere for you.... But in general, a solution " problems of the first stage" (as well as the very issue of reducing the cost of launch in general) very much depends on what and how much weight is proposed to be launched into space.
Thus, it will not be difficult to make it cheaper to launch small and light “cubesats” into orbit. Due to their weight and size, even a relatively small rocket can throw them into space, which can easily be “attached to the back” of a high-altitude aircraft or hooked onto the same stratospheric balloon.
And here Mask and his comrades are surrounded by complete freedom and prosperity. Here you have “grasshoppers” and magnetic fusers and in general a bunch of all sorts of alternatives.

It’s another matter if you need to bring out something really worthwhile: a telescope there, 2-3 cosmonauts (or 6-7 tykunauts:)), or a module of some station. Then you will need a larger and thicker rocket, and it will no longer fit on the plane, and the “grasshoppers” will no longer save it.
And this is where you have to tinker with the rocket itself, the engines and the fuel. What is the main criterion here? Weight! Therefore, by making the rocket lighter, we can make the launch cheaper.
After all, now it’s like - along with the payload, a huge amount of “unnecessary” iron and heavy fuel is flying into space. It is in this direction, it seems to me, that we need to work: to reduce the weight of the rocket and satellite itself through new materials and engineering solutions, plus to develop new energy-efficient types of fuel so that a small amount of it burns “long and brightly.”

I think so, no matter how much we hope, no matter how much we deceive ourselves, in the next 100 years we will be flying on “kerogas”. Maybe later, when some new physical principles are discovered and a “flying saucer on anti-gravity” is built, this will immediately reduce the cost of delivering cargo a hundred million times, but for now...

DimitriyP 113 · 15-09-2014

What a bummer, the text was copied twice! And everything looked decent...

Okay, they say repetition is the mother of learning; I don’t know if there’s a lot of “science” in my post, but those who didn’t understand the first time will have another chance!

DimitriyP 113 · 16-09-2014

ptuf. I foresaw this outcome and copied it to my computer (I hope someone else thought of this before or managed to master it). True, I haven’t had time to read it yet, but as soon as I can, right away.
In any case, thanks for the info.

Ptuf 53 · 17-09-2014

YOV2 38 · 23-09-2014

Well, what can I say to shoot blanks (a set of bolts, rolled sheathing, disassembled frame elements) with a standard gun! and all the thin little things, in the old fashioned way, join them into a train and off to Mars!

YOV2 38 · 23-09-2014

and digging a hole in the ground or in the mountain is not at all necessary
but the mountain will come in handy! There’s a mountain with a suitable slope, well, you can clean it up right away and build that tunnel right along the slope; there are mountains more than a kilometer away, so a tunnel can be built!

Sqwair777 50 · 23-09-2014

YOV2, “Well, what can I say, shoot blanks (a set of bolts, rolled sheathing, disassembled frame elements) with a standard gun! And all the thin little things, the old-fashioned way, join them into a train and to Mars!”
And then how to catch it? At such and such speeds. Then we need to come up with a mechanism for braking and stabilization, in one place. Instead of racing with a net around orbit, God knows at what speeds. And there is also a possibility of shooting into some satellite.

Dimitpij 46 · 24-09-2014

Yakov, should you read what is written above about the use of guns? The details are detailed there:
1) A projectile launched along a ballistic trajectory will plop down at the launch point after one orbit - without any correction.
2) In the lower layers of the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds, the blank will heat up to red hot (it doesn’t matter to the projectile - the load is bad) That is, thermal protection is needed.
3) Due to braking in the lower layers of the atmosphere, the speed should far exceed 1st cosmic speed, and these are prohibitive loads and resistance (at a speed of 10 km / s, the lower layers of the atmosphere = a concrete wall).
The result is that various versions of guns are only suitable for the military (to jam the Paris and knock down satellites). The idea is stillborn!

YOV2 38 · 25-09-2014

Note that the idea is not mine at all (see above)
I just wanted to say that technically such a device is far from being so prohibitively complex.
but with practical application Well, the problems are really more complicated than with construction.

YOV2 38 · 25-09-2014

here is simple garbage with a shot from a cannon, initial speed max. and then falls and air resistance decreases with height, i.e. the decrease in speed due to resistance decreases and here the current in the question of calculations is what will remain from the initial impulse.
but I would like exactly the opposite to smoothly accelerate, which is what rocket systems do.

YOV2 38 · 25-09-2014

it would be easier to exclude air from the equation + some kind of initial speed - which is what they are trying to implement when launching from “flying missile carriers”
Well, there are completely futuristic projects, the implementation of which is possible or not possible, but obviously for now it will be more expensive

And here on the AstroForum the namesake posted news a couple of days ago that scientists seem to have gotten their head around making especially strong threads, like diamond ones. And it seems that if you learn to grow them on an industrial scale, you will have a space elevator. And somewhere else I’ve already heard about developments in this area.
In short, if things continue like this, it may well happen that we will soon be riding an elevator into space!
Hmmm... I wonder if the Space Elevator profession is a heroic profession, or just an ordinary one?

Sqwair777 50 · 25-09-2014

DimitriyP, cosmolift - utopia. No material of this length can even support its own weight. And besides, what will the cable hold? And simply, even if something holds it in a static position, it will simply be wound around the Earth, but as for strength, see above.

DimitriyP 113 · 25-09-2014

Sqwair777. Truly a utopia! In general, all sorts of different “scientists” and “inventors” come up with all sorts of stupid things!

Here, they say, somewhere in the North American States lived two brothers. So they decided to make some kind of miracle with wings and a motor so that they could fly with THIS! Well, isn't it nonsense?
Everyone knows that flying on any heavier-than-air vehicle will be incredibly energy-consuming and therefore ineffective. If with the help of such a device you manage to get into the air (which is unlikely), then it will be enough to hold out there for a long time it certainly won't work!

Or I also remember there was one “eccentric”. So he argued that over time a person will overcome Earth's gravity and will be able to fly into space. On a rocket!
Well, how narrow-minded do you have to be, um... to assume such a thing! Not only will it take so much fuel to overcome Earth’s gravity that the rocket simply won’t be able to take off from the ground, but even if we assume that by some miracle this will happen, not a single material in the world will withstand SUCH pressure and temperature in the combustion chamber. It will just melt and explode!
Supporters of this idea can only be advised to douse themselves with kerosene, set themselves on fire and throw themselves into the abyss - the death will be similar, but how many resources will be saved in the end!

In short, I agree - the space elevator is technological nonsense and a chimera, and man will never build it!

YOV2 38 · 26-09-2014

Well, there's a tricky thing with numbers
It seems that the transfer of the cargo itself will be completely for nothing, but just for the sake of this one cable it will be necessary to create an infrastructure and even an entire branch of production, and putting such cables into production seems to be also pointless and where to put this new industry. and that's the price per circle!?

YOV2 38 · 26-09-2014

and with ideal placement you need to hook it on the equator! and there it’s normal, it’s AFRICA and there everything’s not normal at all, there’s an epidemic of revolution, it’s going to have to raise some kind of CONGO!

Dilettant 111 · 27-09-2014

Diamond nanotubes are beautiful, but actually they are carbon, and the problem is that so far they can only make them three centimeters long, but they need many kilometers, and even weave them into a rope.
But if we take into account the progress in the ability to manufacture nanotubes, cables of the required length should appear just by 2050, purely theoretically.

Flibustier51 58 · 24-03-2015

The topic somehow died out, I’ll add what I found:
An An 225 cargo plane.
“The third purpose of Mriya - to become a flying cosmodrome - remains a dream for now. Although the deputy general designer of the Antonov ASTC, Oleg Bogdanov, assured us: work on the mobile space launch project is underway in Russia, albeit very slowly, because there is no money for it But this idea is not outdated, because it was at least half a century ahead of its time. It is simple and elegant: an external fuel tank is installed on the “back” of the An-225 with an orbital aircraft attached to it in a manned or unmanned version. This is a mini-Buran in size. "smaller than the large Buran - its length is only 19 m versus 26.
At an altitude of 9-10 km, the launch takes place: "Mriya" makes a "slide", at the moment of descent, a "space passenger" is separated from it, the engines are turned on, and the ship goes on the desired course, and "Mriya" returns to the airfield. After completing the task, the "shuttle" also lands on its own, and it does not need a special runway (runway), an ordinary 1st class airfield (with a runway only 5 km long) is sufficient. Such a space plane is designed for 100 launches. A crew of two people can deliver cargo weighing up to 8 tons to the orbital station and launch a satellite into low orbit (up to 400 km).
But the value of the project is not only that putting a kilo of payload into orbit using a mini-Buran costs three times less compared to disposable Soyuz launch vehicles ($12,000-15,000/kg) and reusable launch vehicles for the first generations - "Buran" (USSR) and "Space Shuttle" (USA) - (up to $22,000/kg). The main thing is the ability to launch in any direction, efficiency. This means that such a ship can be a lifeboat for a spaceship in distress, no matter where it is.
Alas, turning all this into metal is not only expensive (about $10 billion), but also difficult due to the fact that after the collapse of the USSR, Mriya began to belong to Ukraine, and all space projects are concentrated in Russia. So far, Russians are not interested in a mobile start. There is no money, and they don’t really need MAX - they use old, time-tested, disposable Soyuz rockets to deliver cargo to the ISS orbital station, regardless of current costs.”
It turns out that everything has already been invented.
The An 225 was built almost 30 years ago, I think that now they can make an even larger aircraft that can lift a larger shuttle with cargo, if necessary. And he has an advantage: he can deliver the shuttle anywhere and launch where necessary.

Flibustier51 58 · 27-03-2015

The next thread addresses the problem with space debris. Every year it becomes more and more.
You can launch somewhere from an equatorial island, having built there only a runway for a cargo plane, an aircraft refueling station and a mini. necessary. The amount of debris from such launches can be minimized by programming the shuttle's upper stage to fall into the ocean (as when launching from Florida, there is water all around). You can also use it again (same as when launching the Shuttle).
And then the shuttle will land at the “home port” of its country, then it will pass there. They are designed for 100 launches.
Pros:
1) launch is 3 times cheaper than the current minimum (from the equator it will be even cheaper), additional costs for a flight to the equator are relatively small, for example, a transatlantic flight of Mriya costs about $100 thousand. The shuttle and jet fuel can be carried on ships, for that matter.
2) The problem with subsequent debris in orbit has been solved, there is less harm to the environment (the launch area is sparsely populated and less rocket fuel is used).
If you seriously develop space and build spacecraft. base or ship in orbit, then this option provides a clear advantage.

Dilettant 111 · 03/27/2015

Yes, you can completely abandon vertical launches with this concept, but the weight of a one-time payload will be significantly less than what the rocket can launch. Mriya, of course, is an aircraft with outstanding payload capacity, but its speed is not enough. The accelerator must gain at least 4-5 Mach speed, Mriya will never accelerate before that. The requirements for the airframe are too different, the super-heavy configurations do not allow the development of the required speeds, and the hypersonic aircraft does not have the required payload capacity. This antagonism must be somehow eliminated for the project to work to its full potential.

Dilettant 111 · 28-03-2015

I don’t want to argue with the ideologists of the project, but my technical experience does not allow me to take on faith everything that is beautifully shown on the internet.
The moment of separation of the load, that same slide, or rather its (slide’s) top point, the carrier aircraft goes to the horizon at the highest point of the parabola (separation of the payload occurs in horizontal flight at the moment when the “womb” goes into a peak, the beginning of a state of weightlessness) the shuttle must begin accelerating from subsonic speed while simultaneously gaining altitude. And you need to accelerate to the first space speed, and this, by the way, is not 1 km/sec, but much more, more than seven times, there will be practically no gain, but, in my humble opinion, there will even be a loss. If you don’t believe me, then watch the video on YouTube of how spacecraft are launched into orbit, where there is telemetry. In order to accelerate the spacecraft to the required orbital speed, the last stage of the rocket works with a decrease in altitude in order to gain a gain in payload weight, this may seem paradoxical, but this is ballistics!

Article from 2013: “The Advanced Research Foundation (APF), established earlier this year under the government, plans to implement the Air Launch project in the 2020s - the launch of an orbital aircraft (spaceplane) from a super-heavy transport aircraft, the report says Public Council at the Military-Industrial Commission under the Government of the Russian Federation, distributed during a council meeting in the State Duma...
“The first step on the path to commercial space exploration could be a multi-purpose aerospace system - a two-stage space complex project, quite developed back in the 80-90s, which consists of a carrier aircraft (An-225 Mriya) and a launch vehicle orbital spaceship- a rocket plane (cosmoplane), called an orbital plane," says one of the paragraphs in the section on priority areas of research and development of the Fund."
In the long term, the authors of the report propose using a “space elevator” to deliver cargo into orbit, which could appear within 60-70 years.
The authors of the report note that space shuttles such as the Soviet Buran and the American Space Shuttle turned out to be excessive in capabilities and too expensive to operate. “Nevertheless, the very idea of a “space plane” - a reusable shuttle capable of performing both military, scientific and commercial tasks, continues to remain relevant. In the future, this technology, if implemented correctly, will dramatically reduce the cost of transporting cargo into orbit and will open the way to further commercial and military use of space," is noted in the priority areas of research and development of the Fund..... ""
Experts say that this method of delivery will “drastically reduce the cost”, so is it still profitable? And the cargo plane is precisely "Mriya", i.e. subsonic speed.
“The first cosmic velocity is the minimum speed at which a body moving horizontally above the surface of the planet will not fall on it, but will move in a circular orbit.” Horizontally, and the shuttle will fly vertically, it does not need to reach the PCS, it is enough to overcome the acceleration of gravity (g). At an altitude of 10 km it is less, and so is the air resistance.

Flibustier51 58 · 29-03-2015

More on this topic: “In the United States, the largest Roc aircraft in the history of world aviation is being built in the Californian Mojave Aerospace Port, which is planned to be used to launch spacecraft from the stratosphere.
The wingspan of this machine is 117 meters, the total maximum weight is 540,000 kg. The Roc's dimensions are larger than all other aircraft, such as the Boeing 747-8, Airbus A-380-800, or Hughes H-4 Hercules.
The project is being developed by billionaire Paul Gardner Allen, co-founder of Microsoft and investor in numerous amazing startups and projects, including the SETI Institute's Allen Telescope Array and SpaceShipOne, the first private suborbital flight.
If everything goes as the developers planned, then the first test flight of the new machine could take place as early as 2015, and the first launch of a rocket from its board - in 2016."

The most main difficulty- catch cargo in orbit. There should be something like a target barge to shoot at. It is the barge that makes the adjustment to the maneuver; it will have about 7 minutes of time while the projectile is flying. The speeds will be approximately the same, so catching the projectile will not be too difficult, provided that all calculations are made correctly.
Transferring energy with a laser is also an interesting option. But it is not entirely clear what principle of movement the rocket itself will use after receiving energy. Reactive turns out not suitable...
Space elevators are too utopian an idea. People will build orbital ports faster than they will produce material for cables.
But in general, the idea with orbital ports is very interesting, but very ambitious in its concept. In this case, you need a specific place for construction as well as material. Arctic or Antarctica. Well, a good half of humanity should participate in construction. This is an ambitious project... Maybe it will stand when resource extraction on asteroids and satellites begins to actively develop.

To launch a spacecraft into orbit, the launch vehicle (LV) must impart to it a very specific speed, both in magnitude and direction at the given coordinates of the launch point. This is ensured by the flight program, the implementation of which occurs when the control elements act on the launch vehicle.

The launch vehicle, starting vertically, then enters a curved section of the flight path, during which the angle of inclination of its axis to the local horizon gradually decreases. In dense layers of the atmosphere, the launch vehicle moves along a trajectory close to the trajectory with zero lift, i.e. the movement occurs with a zero angle of attack.

The speed required to launch a spacecraft into a circular orbit in the central gravitational field of the Earth (first escape velocity) is calculated by the formula

Where g– free fall acceleration for the Earth’s surface, g= 9.80665 m/s 2 ; R– average radius of the Earth equal to 6371 km; H– the height of the spacecraft’s orbit above the Earth’s surface.

For the Earth's surface, as is known, the first escape velocity is 7.9 km/s, for km (LEO - low Earth orbit) km/s, for GEO - 3.076 km/s.

For elliptical orbits, the final velocities are in the range between the first and second cosmic velocities (7.9 ... 11.2 km/s). It should be remembered that by using the rotation of the Earth around its own axis, when launching a launch vehicle with a spacecraft in the easterly direction, you can obtain an additional speed increment equal to 465 m/s for the equator. For the latitude of the Plesetsk cosmodrome (Russia, 63°00′N 41°00′E) – 210 m/s.

In practice they are implemented various methods launching a spacecraft into orbit, differing from each other in the required energy, thrust change program, parameters of the launch vehicle stages, launch duration, etc. However, the main requirement that determines the choice of the launch type is energy minimization. There are three main types of spacecraft launch into orbit:

– fully active output (direct output);

– ballistic output;

– elliptical output (with or without a section of motion along a perigee circular orbit of radius equal to the perigee distance of the transfer orbit).

At direct removal There is only one active section, the motion parameters at the end of which must coincide with the required orbital parameters of the spacecraft. This type of output, compared to the two subsequent types of output, is less economical, since as the duration of the active section increases, the energy consumption to overcome gravitational forces increases. This method is advisable to use for launching spacecraft only into LEO (up to 400 km). Here great value The question arises of choosing a launch vehicle movement program that ensures minimum energy consumption.

At ballistic conclusion trajectories are realized that are arcs of elliptical trajectories in the central gravitational field. In this case, the top of the elliptical trajectory must touch the orbit into which the spacecraft is launched. At the top of the spacecraft trajectory, an additional impulse is imparted to the required orbital speed (second active section). This launch method, compared to others, provides direct visibility during launch and more favorable conditions for saving individual stages of the launch vehicle; less time is spent on launch. The ballistic type of launch involves the least energy consumption at spacecraft orbital altitudes of up to 1000 km.

Elliptical output- the most economical way to transfer a spacecraft from one circular orbit to another (from the point of view of rocket fuel costs). With elliptical launch, the spacecraft is first launched into LEO at an altitude of 180 ... 200 km, where (immediately or after a certain period of time) it is accelerated to the perigee speed of the transition ellipse, at the apogee of which, touching a given orbit, the spacecraft is accelerated to the required orbital speed. Those. the transition occurs along a semi-elliptical path that touches the inner (smaller) circular orbit from the outside, and touches the outer (larger) circular orbit from the inside. Such transitions are called semi-elliptical or Hohmann transitions after the German scientist W. Hohman, who first proposed using them for interplanetary travel.

The geostationary orbit is widely used in astronautics. It is considered the most profitable from an energy point of view to launch a spacecraft into geostationary orbit from launch pads at the equator. Launching a spacecraft to GEO from Russian cosmodromes is more complex, since it requires an additional change in the spacecraft orbital plane. This energy-intensive maneuver is carried out, as a rule, by special repeatedly switched-on stages of the launch vehicle - upper stages. In this case, injection methods are used, including passive sections and reference orbits. Currently, two- and three-pulse launch schemes, as well as the use of the gravitational field of the Moon to rotate the spacecraft orbital plane, have received practical application.

The history of astronautics, like any other industry, contains examples of ingenious solutions when the desired goal was achieved in a beautiful and unexpected way. The USSR/Russia was unlucky with the availability of geostationary orbit. But instead of reaching it with heavier rockets or trying to reduce the mass of the payload, the developers came up with the idea of using a special orbit. Our story today is about this orbit and the satellites that still use it.

Physics

Speaking about geostationary and highly elliptical orbits, it is necessary to remember such a concept as orbital inclination. In this case, the orbital inclination is the angle between the Earth's equatorial plane and the satellite's orbital plane:

If we launch from the cosmodrome and begin to accelerate due east, the resulting orbit will have an inclination equal to the latitude of the cosmodrome. If we begin to accelerate, deviating to the north, then the resulting inclination will be greater. If we, thinking that this should reduce the inclination, begin to accelerate to the southeast, the resulting orbit will also have a greater inclination than our latitude. Why? Look at the picture: when accelerating due east, the northernmost point of the orbit projection (blue line) will be our cosmodrome. And if we accelerate to the southeast, then the northernmost point of the projection of the resulting orbit will be north of our cosmodrome, and the inclination of the orbit will be greater than the latitude of the cosmodrome:

Conclusion: when launching a spacecraft, the initial inclination of its orbit cannot be less than the latitude of the cosmodrome.

In order to enter geostationary orbit (0° inclination), you need to reset the inclination to zero, but this requires additional fuel (the physics of this process - ). The Baikonur Cosmodrome has a latitude of 45°, and, given that spent rocket stages should not fall into China, rockets are launched to the northeast on routes with an inclination of 65° and 51.6°. As a result, the four-stage 8K78 launch vehicle, which launched one and a half tons to the Moon, and almost a ton to Mars, could only launch ~100 kg into geostationary orbit. In the early 60s, no country could fit a full-fledged geostationary communications satellite into such a mass. We had to come up with something else. Orbital mechanics came to the rescue. How more height satellite, the slower it moves relative to the Earth. At an altitude of 36,000 km above the equator, the satellite will constantly hover over one point on the Earth (this is the idea that geostationary orbit works on). And if we put a satellite into an orbit that is an elongated ellipse, then its speed will change greatly. In the periapsis (the point of the orbit closest to the Earth) it will fly very quickly, but in the area of the apoapsis (the point of the orbit farthest from the Earth) it will practically hover in place for several hours. If you mark the satellite’s path with dots at one-hour intervals, you get the following picture:

In addition to being almost motionless, at high altitude the satellite will see a vast area of our planet and will be able to provide communications between distant points. The high inclination of the orbit will mean that even in the Arctic there will be no problems with signal reception. And if you choose an inclination close to 63.4°, then gravitational interference from the Earth will be minimal, and you can be in orbit with virtually no correction. This is how the Molniya orbit was born with the following parameters:

Pericenter: 500 km

Apocentre: 40,000 km

Inclination: 62.8°

Circulation period: 12 hours

If we were on a satellite flying in such an orbit, we would see the Earth like this:

Embodiment in iron

The 8K78 rocket could launch as much as 1,600 kg into a highly elliptical orbit. For the developers, this was happiness - it was possible to make a powerful satellite with great capabilities and at the same time “wipe the nose” of the Americans, whose communications satellites did not exceed 300 kg in mass. The resulting device was impressive with its characteristics:

The satellite equipment included three repeaters with a power of 40 W and two backup ones with a power of 20 W, and electricity was generated for them solar panels with a total power of one and a half kilowatts. Two controlled parabolic antennas with a diameter of 1.4 meters were used to receive and transmit data. The device was controlled by a transistor software-time device, the ancestor modern computers, and the orientation was supported by a unique three-degree power gyro. The control system implemented complex algorithms for flight modes with a three-axis orientation. At the working site, the device maintained a constant orientation with solar panels to the Sun, accompanying the Earth with controlled main antennas. Having completed the working section, the device rotated according to the infrared vertical data until it occupied a position parallel to the orbital velocity vector at the pericenter. In the area of the periapsis, according to commands stored in memory, he could correct the orbit.

Top view, the cone of the propulsion system and the ball-cylinders of compressed nitrogen for the attitude control system are clearly visible

Bottom view, visible solar panels, sensor unit at the end and antennas

It was assumed that the active life of the device would exceed one year, a fantastic figure at that time. The device was named "Molniya", and, looking ahead, let's say that it turned out to be so epoch-making that both the orbit and the 8K78 launch vehicle were named in its honor.

Operation

Launch vehicle "Molniya-M", descendant of the LV "Molniya"

At that time, getting started could not have been easy. On June 4, 1964, the first Molniya did not reach orbit due to a launch vehicle failure. On August 22, 1964, the second vehicle was successfully launched into an orbit close to the design one. But here's the problem - both main antennas, which were supposed to duplicate each other, did not open. The investigation established that during testing, damage to the cable insulation was discovered on one of the antennas, and the antenna rods, according to the designer’s decision, were additionally wrapped with vinyl chloride tape. In space, in the shadow of solar panels, the tape froze, and the springs, which were already difficult to open the antennas, could not overcome the frozen plastic. The second Molniya was lost. For the future, the problem was easy to fix; the springs on the antenna rods were replaced with electric motors, which were guaranteed to fully open the antennas. Finally, on April 23, 1965, the third Molniya was successfully launched and turned out to be fully operational. There was a nervous moment when the main relay did not want to turn on the first time, but after several agonizing minutes of continuous sending commands from Earth to turn on the repeater, it finally turned on. Communication was established between Moscow and Vladivostok through the first Soviet relay satellite:

The first television footage transmitted using Molniya

The high power of the signal meant that large antennas were not needed to receive it; relatively small Orbit pavilions began to be built around the country:

The network of satellite broadcasting stations quickly covered the northern and eastern parts of the USSR:

And satellite television, from a technical miracle, quickly became commonplace; the chairman of the regional committee in the Far East immediately announced that in case of problems with broadcasting programs he would complain personally to Brezhnev. By 1984, the number of Orbita stations exceeded a hundred, making Soviet satellite TV available even in small cities. The stations relayed the Moscow signal to the local television center, which, in turn, served a large area.

The first Molniya satellites failed to exceed the lifespan of one year. Due to the fact that the satellite flew through the radiation belts four times every day, the solar panels began to quickly degrade. The first "Lightning" was able to survive from April to November. Backup solar panels were added to the satellite design, which were deployed if necessary after the degradation of the main ones. Already "Molniya" No. 7 was able to actively exist from October 1966 to January 1968. For Soviet satellites this was a very long time.

"Lightning" was developed at the S.P. Design Bureau. Korolev, and already in 1965, production began to be transferred to Krasnoyarsk “branch No. 2” under the leadership of Mikhail Reshetnev. This began the glorious history of the enterprise, now known as JSC ISS named after. Academician Reshetnev. The Molniya devices were actively developed. The parabolic antenna was replaced with a four-helix one:

Interesting test footage and a story about a four-helix antenna:

Additional solar panels

The devices switched to the centimeter wavelength range, learned to broadcast not to the whole country, but to individual time zones, the number of communication channels and their capacity constantly increased. Over time, Molniyas ceased to be used for civilian television broadcasting and became mainly satellites military communications. The last device of the Molniya family, Molniya-3K, was launched in 2001.

Today and tomorrow

Civilian TV broadcasting in the USSR/Russia eventually moved to geostationary orbit. A more capable Proton launch vehicle appeared, which began launching satellites to the geostationary station in 1975. The Orbit pavilion required a twelve-meter movable antenna and was inferior to satellite “dishes”, which are now found everywhere. The Molniya satellites ended their lives. But the Molniya orbit did not die. It is in demand for our high latitudes, and now the Meridian communication satellites fly on it, and since 2012 the development of the Arctic meteorological system has been underway. Unique properties orbits are also used overseas - the American military satellite NROL-35, presumably related to the satellites of the missile attack warning system and launched in December 2014, was launched into the Molniya orbit. Who knows, maybe the lightning bolt in the girl’s hands on the mission emblem is a hint at the name of the orbit?

A variant of the Molniya orbit, the Tundra orbit with an apocenter of 46-52 thousand kilometers and an orbital period of one day, is used by three Sirius XM radio satellites and the Japanese QZSS navigation system.

In the future, the Molniya orbit will not be forgotten. Geostationary orbit is overloaded; alternatively, satellites may begin to move into highly elliptical orbits. And even beyond the Earth, the invention of Soviet ballistics may find application: in the project of a manned mission to Mars HERRO, it is proposed to use an analogue of the Molniya orbit to control robots on the surface in real time.