What's interesting is that this rocket came VERY close to launching the first manned mission to travel to the Moon. The unmanned Zond spacecraft launched by this rocket flew several circumlunar missions and had the reliability been better, the Russians would have gotten a cosmonaut on a circumlunar flight at least two months before the Apollo 8 mission.
It isn't more powerful; its less powerful than some other mixtures like LOX/Hydrogen and LOX/Kerosene. The advantage of these fuels (called Hypergolic btw) is that they can be stored as liquids at ambient pressure and temperature, and they ignite on contact with each other simplifying engine design.
The design on the Proton is quite interesting. It's central core has no engines on it, the 6 first stage engines are mounted on the pods seen around the base. The fuel system is self starting although the fuels can only be kept in the tanks for a limited time before damage begins to occur. There is less overall thrust produced although the vehicle scores on weight savings due to the simplified systems and lack of insulation. It has never carried a crew although Zond moon flights were planned.
The most outstanding in the Proton is that it is a military conversion project. You may notice that it has very low exhaust signature -- engines and fuel being used in intercontinental nuclear missiles. The drawback: that fuel (NDMG) is 7000 times more toxic than any of cyanides... inhalation of its vapor either kills you or makes a disabled person for life.
Holy hazardous material, Batman! Since the fuel is that toxic, why bother putting a nuke aboard? They could simply let the rocket fall on an enemy, and the unused fuel could do equal damage.
Wrong, my naive little friend. You live with nuclear radiation every day from the presence of natural radioactivity in the environment that Mother Nature puts there. Plus you've had a medical x-ray or two so far in you life, yes? So according to your authoritative-sounding 100 gazillion times more toxic claim for 'nuke radiation', how come you're still alive? Or that any living thing survives on this radiation-bathd Earth? Your risk figure sounds generated by hysterical envirowackos.
First, the name of the fuel is UDMH(Unsymmetrical DiMethylHydrazine).
Second, it is poisonous of course. But it's not so poisonous as 7000 times of the cyanides. It just needs proper protection gear for the workers. UDMH is a quite famous propellant for space rockets, even western ones.
Sorry, NDMG is russian transcription. And its poisonous equivalent was pronounced during my military training cources in The Moscow Aviation Institute some 23 years ago.
Accidents I may recall:
1. Splatter on top of a service hat, immediate neutralization -- nevertheless, full hair loss for life.
2. Negligent vapor inhalation for 1 minute -- full paralysis for life half a year later.
3. Fuel tank fracture at the facility of NPO "Energia" (Scientific-Production Unification "Energy") -- 63 dead, more than 200 sick or disabled for life. When many years later a liquid nitrogen tank valve failed (no danger at all, just a cloud of vapor), 5 persons died because of heart attack -- they just recalled the previous accident with UDMH.
Ah, Nesimmetričnyj DiMetilGidrazin. I didn't noticed. Sorry for that :(
I once read that the hydrogen cyanide(Median lethal dose = 0.5mg/kg)is far more harmful than the UDMH(Median lethal dose = 125mg/kg). I'm not as specialized in that kind of chemistry for knowing accuracy of those data, but if some material is 7000 times more poisonous than the cyanides it would be the most poisonous material in the world(like the botulinum toxin, which has median lethal dose of 0.000001mg/kg).
The Russian Space shuttle isn't closed, the Russian gov't will not close the Buran project. They built 13 shuttles and their is possible talks for the 2015 Russia's Mar's mission will need a heavy payload rocket system, which Buran Energia is the most advanced powerful rocket system in the world. So there is a 10 year hold to reuse the shuttles again. Only one was destroyed but 3 are able to fly orbit if the time comes.
Russia has regained it's Superpower status so the money is there to build.
Ridiculous. The Buran was an abject failure, both launchworthiness-wise and in financial terms. There is no proof that it ever made it all the way up into orbit, let alone returned safely from orbit. All we have are highly-edited videoclips of its 'launch' and the 'landing' from Soviet film archives, and they censored EVERYTHING. Remember, it was 'launched' in secrecy. Finally, no Western company has stepped forth to buy the Buran and its $500 million-a-launch Energia teechnology. It's a dud.
Could they make the Proton Rocket into a reusable rocket cargo plane? They could add another equal set of engines on the front of the rocket to slow it down when it lands, as well as some wings. It could also possibly hover and land vertically like the lunar lander or land / glide horizontally like the space shuttle.
This would make cross country flights faster and be a way to reuse the rocket and its engines more times.
hermoso
davidlucasfer 1 year ago
What's interesting is that this rocket came VERY close to launching the first manned mission to travel to the Moon. The unmanned Zond spacecraft launched by this rocket flew several circumlunar missions and had the reliability been better, the Russians would have gotten a cosmonaut on a circumlunar flight at least two months before the Apollo 8 mission.
Sacto1654 1 year ago
I believe this fuel produces more power, but the downside is, it's more toxic ......dangerous!
sevic333 2 years ago
It isn't more powerful; its less powerful than some other mixtures like LOX/Hydrogen and LOX/Kerosene. The advantage of these fuels (called Hypergolic btw) is that they can be stored as liquids at ambient pressure and temperature, and they ignite on contact with each other simplifying engine design.
lettucemonster 2 years ago
The design on the Proton is quite interesting. It's central core has no engines on it, the 6 first stage engines are mounted on the pods seen around the base. The fuel system is self starting although the fuels can only be kept in the tanks for a limited time before damage begins to occur. There is less overall thrust produced although the vehicle scores on weight savings due to the simplified systems and lack of insulation. It has never carried a crew although Zond moon flights were planned.
Alembic25 2 years ago
Why Proton produce very little smoke compare to Ariane 5?
merakhagen 2 years ago
Ariane has solid fuel boosters. Solid fuel rockets produce much more smoke than liquid fuel
kosiak10851 2 years ago 4
@merakhagen
Proton uses hypergolic fuel and has no solid booster rockets.
juggis 2 years ago
Impressive.
Abanamat85 2 years ago
this is beatiful
Bigaboff 2 years ago 2
The most outstanding in the Proton is that it is a military conversion project. You may notice that it has very low exhaust signature -- engines and fuel being used in intercontinental nuclear missiles. The drawback: that fuel (NDMG) is 7000 times more toxic than any of cyanides... inhalation of its vapor either kills you or makes a disabled person for life.
LP006688 3 years ago
Holy hazardous material, Batman! Since the fuel is that toxic, why bother putting a nuke aboard? They could simply let the rocket fall on an enemy, and the unused fuel could do equal damage.
Plutoplatter 3 years ago
nuke radiation is 100billion times more toxic than UDMH
mayavania 3 years ago
Wrong, my naive little friend. You live with nuclear radiation every day from the presence of natural radioactivity in the environment that Mother Nature puts there. Plus you've had a medical x-ray or two so far in you life, yes? So according to your authoritative-sounding 100 gazillion times more toxic claim for 'nuke radiation', how come you're still alive? Or that any living thing survives on this radiation-bathd Earth? Your risk figure sounds generated by hysterical envirowackos.
Plutoplatter 3 years ago
First, the name of the fuel is UDMH(Unsymmetrical DiMethylHydrazine).
Second, it is poisonous of course. But it's not so poisonous as 7000 times of the cyanides. It just needs proper protection gear for the workers. UDMH is a quite famous propellant for space rockets, even western ones.
LowestSummit 3 years ago
Sorry, NDMG is russian transcription. And its poisonous equivalent was pronounced during my military training cources in The Moscow Aviation Institute some 23 years ago.
Accidents I may recall:
1. Splatter on top of a service hat, immediate neutralization -- nevertheless, full hair loss for life.
2. Negligent vapor inhalation for 1 minute -- full paralysis for life half a year later.
LP006688 3 years ago
3. Fuel tank fracture at the facility of NPO "Energia" (Scientific-Production Unification "Energy") -- 63 dead, more than 200 sick or disabled for life. When many years later a liquid nitrogen tank valve failed (no danger at all, just a cloud of vapor), 5 persons died because of heart attack -- they just recalled the previous accident with UDMH.
LP006688 3 years ago
Ah, Nesimmetričnyj DiMetilGidrazin. I didn't noticed. Sorry for that :(
I once read that the hydrogen cyanide(Median lethal dose = 0.5mg/kg)is far more harmful than the UDMH(Median lethal dose = 125mg/kg). I'm not as specialized in that kind of chemistry for knowing accuracy of those data, but if some material is 7000 times more poisonous than the cyanides it would be the most poisonous material in the world(like the botulinum toxin, which has median lethal dose of 0.000001mg/kg).
LowestSummit 3 years ago
did you know that LIVING will result in death!
that's a fact!
scary isn't it???
bullcurr 3 years ago
The Russian Space shuttle isn't closed, the Russian gov't will not close the Buran project. They built 13 shuttles and their is possible talks for the 2015 Russia's Mar's mission will need a heavy payload rocket system, which Buran Energia is the most advanced powerful rocket system in the world. So there is a 10 year hold to reuse the shuttles again. Only one was destroyed but 3 are able to fly orbit if the time comes.
Russia has regained it's Superpower status so the money is there to build.
oxforduniversity 3 years ago
Ridiculous. The Buran was an abject failure, both launchworthiness-wise and in financial terms. There is no proof that it ever made it all the way up into orbit, let alone returned safely from orbit. All we have are highly-edited videoclips of its 'launch' and the 'landing' from Soviet film archives, and they censored EVERYTHING. Remember, it was 'launched' in secrecy. Finally, no Western company has stepped forth to buy the Buran and its $500 million-a-launch Energia teechnology. It's a dud.
Plutoplatter 3 years ago
Could they make the Proton Rocket into a reusable rocket cargo plane? They could add another equal set of engines on the front of the rocket to slow it down when it lands, as well as some wings. It could also possibly hover and land vertically like the lunar lander or land / glide horizontally like the space shuttle.
This would make cross country flights faster and be a way to reuse the rocket and its engines more times.
ec100 4 years ago
If they do decide to make a rocket cargo plane, can they name it after me?
ec100 4 years ago
Some sense of humor you have.
I don't understand in humor.
Abanamat85 2 years ago
why spoken in english?
watarukawashima 4 years ago
100.000.000$
Bombarash 4 years ago 2
Does anyone know the cost of the Proton rocket launch?
mikesomov 4 years ago 2
Proton rocket is a USA rocket or Russian rocket?
pencilman12 4 years ago
it´s a russian rocket
Kvartet 4 years ago 2
ha-ha, certainly Russian rocket :)
flimpop 4 years ago 2
it can transport 20 tones on orbit
hallomigsu 4 years ago 9