Projected growth variants of Energia, including in-line variant referred to in some sources as "Vulkain" or "Heracles." From an older edition of "International Reference Guide to Space Launch Systems," Steven Isakowitz.
Model of Energiya Herkules from the USSR-Russian Aviation and Space Collectibles web site.
NOTE: Although seller claims that model is authentic and accurate, the reader should be aware that the authenticity and accuracy of this model is in question. It may have been manufactured by another party without license.
21.5 ` height metal custom made exclusive of Energia Corporation project rocket Herkules, designed on base of Energia booster and intended for flights to Mars.Contact for details.
Item 70/117
Model of Energiya-M from the USSR-Russian Space Collectibles web site.
NOTE: Although seller claims that model is authentic and accurate, the reader should be aware that the authenticity and accuracy of this model is in question. It may have been manufactured by another party without license.
15 Inches tall made from metal Energia Coirporation model of Energia-M launch rocket on wooden stand. Only one model available. *Availability and price check by e-mail or call.* + shipping.Details on this rocket carrier are below. Energia-M was competitor in a new Russian Heavy Launch Vehicle competion in 1993. The aim was to replace the Proton rocket. Energia-M lost the competion and as a result the Angara Launch System was choosen for development by the Russian Space Agency. Energia-M development has been abandonned. Perhaps in the future it could be revived. Energia-M was derived from the Energia Launch System used by the Buran. In comparison to Energia, Energia-M utilized 2 strap-ons instead of 4 and the core booster used 1 RD-0120 instead of Energia`s 4 engines.
Model of Energiya launch vehicle with in-line cargo from the USSR-Russian Space Collectibles web site.
NOTE: Although seller claims that model is authentic and accurate, the reader should be aware that the authenticity and accuracy of this model is in question. It may have been manufactured by another party without license.
Energia rocket with Mock-up of Spaceship
Same as listed above Energia corporation presentation model on wooden base with attached metal Soviet Crest emblem.About 11 inches tall. Entire model is made from metal. Heavy. Available only one.
..."Gherkules" was one of those "code names" for the N-1 that popped up in the early to mid-80's. IIRC, this was one that Art Bozlee was pushing around with his Soviet space secrets talks, and I *think* it got totally debunked by Jim Oberg right around the time George Herbert was splitting sci.space.* into several decent specialized groups while leaving .policy to fester and hopefully die on its own.
..."Vulkan", on the other hand, was another Energia variant:
Does anyone else have more information on the late 1977-early 1978 " 4 tanks Core/ Upper Drop Tanks" Energia configuration. It's a really interesting (unique? I don't ever remember seeing any "upper drop tanks w/ crossfeed" anywhere else) concept and have been trying to find more information about it to no avail.
The main references are B. Hendrickx's Energia Buran book and The Origin and Evolution of Energiya rocket familly.
Gubanov's memoirs also add: ". The central unit was supposed to be transported by ZM-T aircraft in special containers in two half-blocks, of course, separately."
As you can see the core was split in two sections, the lower one simultaneously feeding the RD-0120 while being refilled with the upper one, the later which is then jettisoned once empty
This 2-parts core version also had derivatives. Some versions had the payload in-line (presumably, the lower part already had the structural strength to carry an upper stage without modifications, making a conversion to an In-line launcher easier than both Energia->Vulkan and STS->Direct/SLS), prefiguring in some way Energia-M; while others had a side payload like later cargo Energias.
Buganov's memoirs add that RLA-133 have "50% lengthened Zenits/Block A"
This part does say that the lower part of the core was supposed to have 460 tons of propellant, with the whole carrying 700 tons like the final Energia.
There's also this other unsourced image showing a 1977 version that actually fits the description , since it surprisingly has 2 intertanks sections. The position of the intertanks roughly fits with a 460 tons split-tanks lower section and a 240 tons common bulkhead upper section.
Common bulkhead on such a scale may seem hard but it's not like Buran's origins lacked ambitious proposals.
I cannot discern if this 1977 version is taller than the later proposals but it should be because (by a few m) of the additional intertank, since the propellant mass is the same (700 tons); it's clear that the upper section is a common bulkhead, since a third intertanks would lengthen the core even more.
I tentatively quickly extrapolated the arrangement of the tanks. I imagine LOX crossfeed was internal while LH2 crossfeed was through an external pipe since it's what fits the drawing.
Three RD-0120 configuration appears in both the drawing and the description of lighter version of this Energia. Note that RD-170 and RD-0120 thrust was not yet fixed at the time, with the later initially being set for 250 (vacuum) tons-force in a 3 engines configuration
As for why the Zenits have fins, from Buganov again "Unit A, after the introduction of parachute landing aids into the design, acquired small aerodynamic planes in the nose and tail for stabilization of the unit in flight in the upper atmosphere."
I tried to draw what this 1977 Energia would look like after booster and core jetisson (which should happen around ~185 seconds in flight if the 3 RD-0120 aren't throttled down), It's definitely a weird sight.
Thank you for any additional informations
Here are the relevant sources from B. Hendrickx's works, I did not find additional informations in either original sources.
In terms of moving things around---what about an automated all-oxidizer orbiter?
Imagine a Columbia-type orbiter with a nitrogen tetroxide tank attached to an all hydrogen External Tank.
The payload and/or crew would be safely stop that...maybe an aft cargo carrier....but the unmanned orbiter flies back returning it's compact oxidizer tank and engines as part of the compact aircraft.
This the simple all-hydrogen tank remains in space as an even more easily converted wet workshop.
Or flip the script and have it all LOX and the orbiter a big winged kerosene tank instead?
In terms of moving things around---what about an automated all-oxidizer orbiter?
Imagine a Columbia-type orbiter with a nitrogen tetroxide tank attached to an all hydrogen External Tank.
The payload and/or crew would be safely stop that...maybe an aft cargo carrier....but the unmanned orbiter flies back returning it's compact oxidizer tank and engines as part of the compact aircraft.
This the simple all-hydrogen tank remains in space as an even more easily converted wet workshop.
Or flip the script and have it all LOX and the orbiter a big winged kerosene tank instead?
a. SLS is not going to make it to the 2030's. Much less evolve.
b. There is no reason for the US (or anybody) to have a large orbiter for cargo.
c. There will be no large use of N2O4 for launch vehicles in the US
d. A massive amount of N2O4 in a crew vehicle makes no sense
e. N2O4 and LH2 are the worse of both propellant worlds. Plus nobody has used that combination.
f. It would not be "compact", still would require a large amount of propellant
g. No need for wet workshops, just build stations outfitted and reuse all the launch vehicle
h. Solid boosters would still be needed and they would be wasted
i have to confirm Byeman
SLS is dead end, do political origin of program.
Energia was better, it use unique Modular system
were get launch rocket out booster (zenit) or upper stage with Booster (Energia M) up to superheavy (Energia Vulcan).
Sadly Energia died do Political meddling what let to downfall of USSR.
a Artemis 5 has a significant chance of flying in 2030, and that's locked in , so SLS will likely make it to 2030, won't survive the next decade however.
b SpaceX doesn't see it that way!
i have to confirm Byeman
SLS is dead end, do political origin of program.
Energia was better, it use unique Modular system
were get launch rocket out booster (zenit) or upper stage with Booster (Energia M) up to superheavy (Energia Vulcan).
Sadly Energia died do Political meddling what let to downfall of USSR.
Buran program, as a job program made SLS looks cheap! It was an Apollo-program scale mobilisation for the USSR, in relative terms, all for arguably more dubious prospects than SLS has now.
Frankly the USSR didn't need much more launch capabilities, they already had the best, most experienced, more reliable, more frequent launcher industry in the world from the mid 70s to their fall, maybe some restartable cryogenic upperstage would have been a plus, but not much more.
They did need better electronics, and then satellites however.
a Artemis 5 has a significant chance of flying in 2030, and that's locked in , so SLS will likely make it to 2030, won't survive the next decade however.
b SpaceX doesn't see it that way!
a Artemis 5 has a significant chance of flying in 2030, and that's locked in , so SLS will likely make it to 2030, won't survive the next decade however.
b SpaceX doesn't see it that way!
It's an 'orbiter', not a winged one but an orbiter nevertheless.
"Orbiter" (large "O") was the designation of the Shuttle orbital element but it's actually a general nomenclature. "Spaceplane" is more descriptive just as "ballistic body" would be one for Starship.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
