PDA

View Full Version : biggest rocket



Jairo
2006-Sep-13, 01:13 AM
Could anybody tell me what is the rocket with the greatest cargo capacity in use these days? If you have a comparison list, even better.

Thanks.

DaveC426913
2006-Sep-13, 01:31 AM
Saturn V. It can haul 129,300 kg (285,000 lb) in to orbit.

From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V):
"It remains the most powerful launch vehicle ever brought to operational status, from a height, weight and payload standpoint,"

P.S. Wiki is your friend.

Ilya
2006-Sep-13, 01:44 AM
Jairo asked "in use". There are no working Saturn 5's.

Saturn V. It can haul 129,300 kg (285,000 lb) in to orbit.

COULD, past tense.


From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V):
"It remains the most powerful launch vehicle ever brought to operational status, from a height, weight and payload standpoint,"

Key word is "ever brought to operational status". It is most certainly not in the operational status now.

Blob
2006-Sep-13, 01:50 AM
Hum,
i guess the space shuttle is the largest...

http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/newsgraphics/122104rocket.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Lift_Launch_Vehicle

Manchurian Taikonaut
2006-Sep-13, 01:59 AM
STS has been a great launcher but the catch is the majority of its payload is all Shuttle and with new safety concerns it doesn't send payloads beyond LEO no more

Energia (Russia/Soviet) and the Saturn-V for Apollo were great ones but today the rockets are part of histroy

Falcon9 is seems to be a work of science fistion after Musk's tiny Falcon-1 failed

The Ariane 5 ECA (European/French) is currently is the most powerful launcher sending most of the largest payloads to GTO ( Ariane launches from kourou )

The Russian Proton more or less has the same capacity to LEO as Ariane 5 ECA, but can launch only considerably less to GTO ( Proton launches from baikonur )

Delta IV's first and only launch of the heavy launcher was a partial failure although it could become more powerful than Ariane 5 it has yet to prove itself

Titan Centaur would be as powerful as today's big boys but NASA has since retired the rocket.


NASA is seriously lacking in rockets, for many months they needed Russians to launch astronauts to keep US spaceflight alive and it looks like they will need an Ariane launcher (Europe's port in Guiana) to get NASA's JWST flying.

Bob B.
2006-Sep-13, 02:03 AM
My guess is the Space Shuttle. It can put about 110 metric tons into orbit, 25 tons of which is cargo. The next closest that I can think of is the Delta IV-Heavy, which can place about 22 metric tons in orbit.

Ilya
2006-Sep-13, 02:22 AM
My guess is the Space Shuttle. It can put about 110 metric tons into orbit, 25 tons of which is cargo. The next closest that I can think of is the Delta IV-Heavy, which can place about 22 metric tons in orbit.
Except Shuttle never actually carried 25 metric tons into orbit. IIRC, the most was 18.

Manchurian Taikonaut
2006-Sep-13, 02:44 AM
Mass to GTO

Delta IV Heavy claims to have a geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO) of 13,100 kg or 28,900 lb but its December 2004 launch failed

Ariane did double launch in 2006 of Thailand's Shinsat and Satmex 6 = 8,000 Kg plus payload

Atlas V - New Horizons to Pluto in 2006 was an 8,000 kg plus GTO launch

Russia's can launch a 20,000Kg payload to LEO or low Earth Orbit while it can only send 6,000 kg to GTO and also dies 5,000 kg to a transmartian trajectory and 4,000KG to Venus

Nicolas
2006-Sep-13, 08:02 AM
Ariane 5 does feature the most flags on it though, heaviest or not.

http://astro.vision.free.fr/download/fonds/21/ariane5_1b.jpg

Grand_Lunar
2006-Sep-13, 03:02 PM
NASA is seriously lacking in rockets, for many months they needed Russians to launch astronauts to keep US spaceflight alive and it looks like they will need an Ariane launcher (Europe's port in Guiana) to get NASA's JWST flying.

What is the JWST?

I wonder how the Ares 1 will match to the rest?
I know Ares 5 will bring back that loving feelin' (sorry, couldn't help it!) with it's heavy capacity.

Wolf-S
2006-Sep-13, 03:36 PM
James Webb Space Telescope (http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/)

Ares I payload capability is going to be about 25 metric tons, AFAIK.

Manchurian Taikonaut
2006-Sep-13, 03:37 PM
The JWST is the next generation space telescope
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=2152


The CLV or Ares-1 will preform about as good as the Delta-Heavy, Proton, Ariane or Titan-Centaur launching about 20-25 tonne payloads into LEO, however the rocket must be very safe and needs to be man-rated and will therefore be a lot more expensive than a Russian rocket. Costs are likely to be about $110 plus million per launch


The Ares 5 or CaLV will be the big Heavy lift rocket, it will lauch a large lunar lander into earth parking orbit so it can rendezvous with the CEV as they journey toward the moon. This Heavy launcher will be more powerful than the Energia or Saturn-V, the Ares-V will be able to lift an LEO payload of over 110,000 kg

Bob B.
2006-Sep-13, 03:37 PM
What is the JWST?
I assume James Webb Space Telescope, though that not scheduled to launch until 2013.


I wonder how the Ares 1 will match to the rest?
I've heard it is supposed to do something like 25 or 26 metric tons to orbit.

Nicolas
2006-Sep-13, 05:15 PM
What orbit?

Bob B.
2006-Sep-13, 05:39 PM
What orbit?
According to the ESAS report released in 2005,

4-segment SRB with SSME stage 2
Payload to 30 X 160 nm, 28.5-deg orbit: 25 mT
Payload to 30 X 160 nm, 51.6-deg orbit: 23 mT

5-segment SRB with J-2X stage 2
Payload to 30 X 160 nm, 28.5-deg orbit: 26 mT
Payload to 30 X 160 nm, 51.6-deg orbit: 24 mT

Although NASA started out with the 4-segment/SSME version, they are now planning to go with the 5-segment/J-2X version.

Manchurian Taikonaut
2006-Sep-13, 05:39 PM
JWST will be mass of 6200 kg and will need to be put in a place called the Second Lagrange Point or L2

http://jwstsite.stsci.edu/gallery/tele_graphics/lg_orbit.jpg

Nicolas
2006-Sep-13, 08:03 PM
According to the ESAS report released in 2005,

4-segment SRB with SSME stage 2
Payload to 28.5-deg orbit: 25 mT
Payload to 51.6-deg orbit: 23 mT

5-segment SRB with J-2X stage 2
Payload to 28.5-deg orbit: 26 mT
Payload to 51.6-deg orbit: 24 mT

Although NASA started out with the 4-segment/SSME version, they are now planning to go with the 5-segment/J-2X version.

Now if they'd specify LEO/GEO... :)

Bob B.
2006-Sep-13, 08:58 PM
Now if they'd specify LEO/GEO... :)
Those are 30 X 160 nautical mile orbits. A small engine burn is required at apogee to circularize the orbit at 160 nautical miles (296 kilometers). It is my understanding Orion's engine will perform the circularization burn.

Nicolas
2006-Sep-13, 10:28 PM
ok, clear

Grand_Lunar
2006-Sep-14, 01:09 PM
I know LEO is "Low Earth Orbit", but what is GEO? Is the geoscynchronus orbit?

ToSeek
2006-Sep-14, 01:41 PM
I know LEO is "Low Earth Orbit", but what is GEO? Is the geoscynchronus orbit?

Yes.

Bob B.
2006-Sep-14, 02:39 PM
I know LEO is "Low Earth Orbit", but what is GEO? Is the geoscynchronus orbit?
Yes.
You will also often see the abbreviation GTO, which is Geosynchronous (or Geostationary) Transfer Orbit. GTO is an elliptical orbit with the apogee at geosynchronous distance. When the satellite reaches apogee a circularization burn is performed (usually accompanied with a plane change to lower the inclination). The launch vehicle’s upper stage usually provides the propulsion for GTO, but the apogee burn is often performed by the satellite’s propulsion system. The launch vehicle’s performance is frequently given as the mass injected into GTO, which is more than the ultimate GEO payload mass.

Bob B.
2006-Sep-15, 01:34 PM
Except Shuttle never actually carried 25 metric tons into orbit. IIRC, the most was 18.
It is my understanding the largest Space Shuttle payload to date was the Chandra X-Ray Observatory on STS-93. This page (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/background/facts/cxoquick.html) gives the total Chandra/IUS/Support equipment weight at liftoff as being 50,162 pounds, or 22,753 kg, which should have all been delivered to orbit as cargo.

JonClarke
2006-Sep-16, 12:24 PM
The CLV or Ares-1 will preform about as good as the Delta-Heavy, Proton, Ariane or Titan-Centaur launching about 20-25 tonne payloads into LEO, however the rocket must be very safe and needs to be man-rated and will therefore be a lot more expensive than a Russian rocket. Costs are likely to be about $110 plus million per launch

Do you know how much a Proton costs per launch?

Jon

tofu
2006-Sep-16, 06:49 PM
Wouldn't the numbers for the soviet/russian launchers be larger if we calculated what they could do if launched from the equator? To me that seems the only fair way to compare launchers - on a level playing field.

Bob B.
2006-Sep-16, 07:13 PM
Do you know how much a Proton costs per launch?
The following is from Jane's Space Directory, 12th edition, 1996-97. It is old data but at least it's something to start with:

$56 million quoted in 1992 for dedicated launch. About $40 million quoted Oct-1994, with R14-15 billion for internal flights. Quoted 1989: $35 million for dedicated GEO ($28 million GTO), $12 million dual launch, $8 million triple.

Bob B.
2006-Sep-16, 07:23 PM
Wouldn't the numbers for the soviet/russian launchers be larger if we calculated what they could do if launched from the equator? To me that seems the only fair way to compare launchers - on a level playing field.
Yes; the Russians suffer a penalty by launching from far northern sites. However, any performance quoted for ISS missions (51.6-deg inclination) should be comparable to Russian launchers. Performance is more a function of orbit inclination than latitude of the launch site. The Russian problem is they can't launch into low inclination orbits from their northern sites.

JonClarke
2006-Sep-16, 11:34 PM
The following is from Jane's Space Directory, 12th edition, 1996-97. It is old data but at least it's something to start with:

$56 million quoted in 1992 for dedicated launch. About $40 million quoted Oct-1994, with R14-15 billion for internal flights. Quoted 1989: $35 million for dedicated GEO ($28 million GTO), $12 million dual launch, $8 million triple.

Thanks! So allowing for 5% annual inflation $56 million in 1994 becomes $100 million in 2006.

Jon

Cugel
2006-Sep-16, 11:48 PM
According to this website your estimate is pretty correct Jon:

http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/elvs/proton_specs.shtml

prices ranging from $80 to $105 million.

JonClarke
2006-Sep-17, 05:38 AM
dank u zeer! :)

Maksutov
2006-Sep-17, 11:39 AM
Yes; the Russians suffer a penalty by launching from far northern sites. However, any performance quoted for ISS missions (51.6-deg inclination) should be comparable to Russian launchers. Performance is more a function of orbit inclination than latitude of the launch site. The Russian problem is they can't launch into low inclination orbits from their northern sites.Looks like that penalty is about to be waived off. (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kourou.html)

publiusr
2006-Dec-22, 06:38 PM
They are getting closer to being done. Launch pad work itself to begin soon.

Launch window
2006-Dec-24, 07:21 AM
Looks like that penalty is about to be waived off. (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kourou.html)

Soyuz has been a great rocket, Italy is pushing for the lightweight Vega to lift off from Guiana soon
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4919