Talk:Energia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Talk[edit]

The Web (per Google search) seems to prefer the spelling "Energia". Can anybody give a definitive answer on this?

The definitive answer to this is - leave it as it is cause it all depends on pronunciation and transcription rules you use.

In russian g is pronounced as g in game in english. The last vowel is like in yup.

The rest is by default.

There are a lot of ways to transliterate Russian. Energiya or Engergiia are more common than just "Energia". DonPMitchell 09:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Speculations[edit]

The comment that the Energiia project contributed to the USSR's economic collapse is pretty random. Like many articles about Soviet technology, there tend to be a lot of random disparaging comments, which are not good objective reporting. DonPMitchell 09:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I removed it since there was nothing to support the statement, so why was it put back?

Grounded US Shuttles[edit]

The part where it says thaf there has been speculation, should this be remnoved since the shuttles are no longer grounded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smith230 (talkcontribs) .

I don't think it should be removed, but it definitely needs to be reworked, which I did. What do you think? SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

More speculation[edit]

I have removed the following interesting but totally speculative text:

It is assumable that if the eight Zenit heavy lift booster Energia had flown, it would have worked perfectly. When considering “what ifs” of that nature, it would have also been interesting to see how good the Saturn V would have become over time with additions such as uprated F1A and J2S engines. Indeed, the Energia perhaps never would have happened at all had not the USA abandoned the Saturn to pursue the STS system, given the reactionary behavior of the Soviet regime in response which led to the Energia/Buran in the first place.
One thing is quite beyond speculation however; the Energia and Saturn V vehicles…

We can't include such material unless we have a reliable source from an outside author for it. We Wikipedians can't include original research, no matter how well-thought-out. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, Buran was actual "responce" for US Space Shuttle program, while launcher(s) were under development a bit before that. --jno 13:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

correct, the Buran is a response to STS. however the extracted text contains far too much unneccessary assumation, like the 8 zenit configuration which imo could just be a study similiar to the Saturn V+SRB configuration as alternative design. the workability of such configurations are largely unconclusive. Akinkhoo (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

ELV?[edit]

Are you sure that Energia was expendable? I believe that it was re-usable. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail 20:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Energia is a russian aerospace company that only produces ELV's. Energia should not be in the ELV category but the launch vehicles they manufacture should be listed. This page talks about energia and a semi-summary of their products.--aceslead 22:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the article for the Energia rocket, the company is at S.P. Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation Energia. - CHAIRBOY () 22:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

the part of energia that DID work with the Suttle Buran was partially reusable. Only the orbiter was reused.--aceslead 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I read that the boosters and main stage were recovered for re-use (but the program was cancelled before they were reused). --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail 22:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a project for Energia II which would be reusable with any booster and the core stage able to land on an airdrome like a plane.--Nixer 20:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
some of the booster parts are reusable, but there is not effective means to recover them. unlike KSC, the soviet site has no access to large bodies of water. the 'plane' version of energia could over come it but it was never developed. Akinkhoo (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I know I'm late to this discussion, but the boosters were designed for reusability. It had two pods (one right before the forward cone and the other right above the engine section) where it stored dual parachute and crash dampers. The stage was supposed to fall on parachute and use the dampers to hit the ground without breaking. This was possible because they launched over the flat steppes of Kazakhstan. In the first development flights, to save cost and reduce mission complexity, they filled the pods with instrumentation and telemetry. So the only disposable part was the core. But since it was never recovered, it is an academic discussion. Baldusi (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Energia performed successfully two times[edit]

I'm trying to straighten a myth that Energia launcher malfunctioned on the first flight. In fact, Energia is a two-stage launcher, and in both flights after second stage completed its work the payload was successfully released on a suborbital trajectory - or, as it's formally said in Russian space industry, on an orbit with low perigee, below atmosphere or even below Earth surface. In case of Energia it's the job of payload to add necessary delta-V to raise perigee and to get to a stable orbit.

In both flights Energia did what it was constructed to do, so it would be wrong to say about first flight as unsuccessful for launcher.Avmich (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed in great detail above. In the space business, a flight which results in a payload which does not reach orbit and burns up in the atmosphere is a failure. Although the suborbital segment of the Energia launch did work, the payload failed to reach orbit: this is a launch failure.
There have been many launches of vehicles other than Energia in which a payload failed to reach orbit due to failure of a component other than the main boost stage; but regardless of which component failed, it is still categorized as a failure when the payload does not get into orbit. We do not make a special rule just for Energia.Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
It is still violates the Wikipedia approach to information.
Besides, I'm not discussing other articles - may be the have errors, I haven't checked. The fact which I'm trying to present is that Energia performed flawlessly, which is, as designers planned, in both flights. This should not be reflected in the record for launcher as 1/2. To require from a rocket, which was intended to leave payload on a suborbital trajectory, to be responsible for payload making a full orbit seems wrong to me.95.25.48.217 (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the number is two successes. The payload failed on its own terms and the Energia succeeded on its own. We don't count the suborbital Mercury flights as failures for Redstone. Firehat87 (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Polyus vs Energia as components[edit]

What's the controversy about being specific that the Polyus orbital insertion stage failing? If there is a reason to hide this and state that the Energia failed, please explain it here. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Without payload propulsion, Energia would have been unable to reach orbit, and hence Polyus needs to be considered part of the launch system, in much the same way that when the US launched Agena-based payloads on Thor and Atlas rockets, the payload was considered part of the launch system since it performed insertion. --GW 12:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
You are quite wrong in this regard. The Bart Hendrickx book states in quite clear terms that Energia could have very well orbited Polyus. It is just that it would leave that huge stage on orbit. It was easier for stage disposal to use a suborbital profile and let the payload circularize. This is a normal procedure for any launcher. For example, on GTO missions, Proton-M uses a suborbital trajectory and Briz-M does the first circularization burn. And SLS will use the same strategy with the ICPS.Baldusi (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • In a similar manner, most modern GSO satellites should be considered a part of the launch system, since they routinely make the final push, from GTO to GSO, themselves. They are not, however, so we see arbitrary decisions here.Avmich (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • However in all of those cases, the capacity of the rocket is given in terms of payload to GTO not GSO. --GW 13:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
So? The rocket is still considered to be launching a geostationary satellite.Avmich (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Payload capacities are in error[edit]

Third paragraph: "The rocket had the capacity to place about 100 metric tons in Low Earth orbit, up to 20 t to the geostationary orbit and up to 32 t to the lunar mission trajectory.[1]"

This rocket could send more mass to the moon than it could put into GEO? I do not think so. See chart on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_launchers_families — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.43.44.229 (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Those numbers are indeed what Energia (the Russian design bureau) claimed the rocket would do. When you spot a claim in Wikipedia that you doubt, please check _external_ references in preference to other Wikipedia references, and then fix the one which is in error. As for the non-intuitive masses in question, it's not uncommon. The specific masses cited are for trans-lunar injection vs geostationary orbit (not GTO - geostationary transfer orbit). That means more acceleration required for GEO as not only does the payload have to reach the altitude in question, but also circularize its orbit at that altitude. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
It is, indeed, correct. You might be confusing GTO, which is a transfer orbit, with GEO. And lunar mission trajectory means Trans-lunar injection, which is usually C3 = -1.8km2/s2 and usually requires less than GEO. This is specially true for high inclination launch sites, like Energia's. going to GEO meant doing a plane change of 51.6deg, while TLI is basically an escape trajectory where the only loss of performance of high inclination sites is the added speed of the Earth rotation near the equator. So, a LV from Baikonour might TLI>GEO, while the same launched from the Equator might have GEO>TLI. Baldusi (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit about Vulcan/Hercules[edit]

To our esteemed editor from Croatia with three different IP addresses.

I'm adding the comment here, since your IP address changing on a daily basis suggests comments placed on the IP's talk page will never reach you. Certainly other comments on that talk page seem to have had little impact. Please use this talk page to describe what you want to accomplish before making another edit to the article.

I'm not sure why it's so important for you to modify that paragraph. You've made six different modifications, reverted by three different editors, none of them a significant improvement. It's redundant to add that it was never built - saying a configuration never flew carries the implicit comment that it was never built. Large rockets are expensive, you don't build a configuration if you don't intend to fly it. Your most recent change seems to have been change for the sake of change. I reverted it because the grammar is awkward, and it doesn't improve the article.

A wikipedia article should be modified if you can fix an error, or provide a reference, or add useful information. In general, if information you are adding or modifying doesn't carry a new reference, it's probably not worth making the change (not always, but usually). I've reached WP:3RR here, so I won't revert changes any more - I'll have to leave it to other editors. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

status retired[edit]

imo it should say canceled or closed - it would represent what happened better. Gendalv (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

It's standard terminology for a launch system that reached operational status. No need to change it. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Energia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)