Actually that might(?) not be true

Space/Science » in reply to The Zenit wasn't an ICBM derivative

Actually that might(?) not be true

Gary — 6/23/2005 4:14:03 AM (archived)

Larry J said:

>Sea Launch uses Zenit 2 boosters. These vehicles were not
>derived from ICBMs, unlike most other boosters.

Refer to:

http://www.sea-launch.com/sllaunch_vehicle.htm

Sea Launch uses a Zenit-3SL ELV.

Now refer to:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/1282541.html

>Two former members of the Soviet Union built the Sea Launch
>Rocket. Its first two stages are the Zenit 3SL rocket, a civilian
>version of the nuke-hurling SS-18 ICBM built for the former
> Soviet Union by Yuzhnoye of the Ukraine.

It's possible that Popular Mechanics got their facts wrong.

The following provides a better techical description of the Zenit 3SL:

http://www.orbireport.com/Launchers/Zenit_3SL/Architecture.html

Gary

The whole thread (28 posts)

Cosmos 1 - Raoul - 6/21/2005 6:21:47 PM
- re: C'est parti! - Raoul - 6/21/2005 8:50:53 PM
  - Likethose 12 minutes whne we didn't know if Spirit had made it... - ljk - 6/21/2005 9:26:41 PM
    - LOS during rocket burn -- ba-a-a-a-a-ad feelings about this - JimO - 6/21/2005 10:10:37 PM
      - Latest website update... - Adam - 6/21/2005 11:43:01 PM
        
        From the weblog - LJK - 6/22/2005 2:14:30 AM
      - I think they had trouble with separation on the test flight - alcaray - 6/21/2005 10:43:35 PM
        
        re: I think they had trouble with separation on the test flight - LJK - 6/22/2005 1:22:27 AM
        
        Russia is claiming a booster failure at 83 seconds - LJK - 6/22/2005 2:20:07 AM
        
        Does not bode well for Russian SLBM’s (n/t) - Peter Bruener - 6/22/2005 8:39:20 AM
        
        Bummer delux --- Expired ex-Soviet ICBMs can be false economy - Gary - 6/22/2005 4:23:44 AM
        
        Expensive Probe? - Mark Eby - 6/22/2005 11:17:22 PM
        
        Cheap ride - Gary - 6/23/2005 4:57:58 AM
        
        The Zenit wasn't an ICBM derivative - Larry J - 6/22/2005 1:28:30 PM
        
        Actually that might(?) not be true - Gary - 6/23/2005 4:14:03 AM
        
        I don't think so - Larry J - 6/23/2005 1:38:22 PM
        
        depends on payload cost and time constraints - E.P. Grondine - 6/22/2005 1:14:05 PM
        
        I agree completely, these should be insured so you know the real cost (n/t) - Sawyer - 6/22/2005 7:21:29 AM
        
        Maybe Cosmos II will ride atop a Falcon. - Lee - 6/22/2005 5:44:18 AM
        
        Hope you're right... - Adam - 6/22/2005 8:42:50 AM
        
        I'd like to see TPS fund a M2P2 probe. - Lee - 6/22/2005 7:13:30 PM
        
        I'm not quite dead...maybe - LJK - 6/22/2005 11:52:25 AM
        
        Morning weblog update - June 22, 2005 - ljk - 6/22/2005 3:08:46 PM
        
        Time to send a couple more bucks to the Planetary Society - phil - 6/22/2005 3:50:16 PM
        
        Weblog Update - June 22, 2005 11:45 PDT - ljk - 6/22/2005 7:24:35 PM
        
        Weblog Update - June 23, 2005 19:12 PDT - ljk - 6/23/2005 1:44:31 PM
        
        Trying counts - p - 6/23/2005 10:56:30 PM
        
        The Russians say the stages never separated, but those signals... - ljk - 6/24/2005 2:56:08 PM

Recent posts

On this day in Space/Science

The whole thread (28 posts)