Russian Space Program: News & Discussion #1

kvs wrote:Did some 5th column maggot deliberately loosen a fuel line bolt on this particular Briz-M?   If not, they need to scrap this POS, ASAP.

Like I said, they are working on its replacement. Once the KVTK is in service, and the Proton out of service, the Briz-M should go along with it. It might stay as a simpler/cheaper option, but that hasn't been confirmed.

Mike E wrote:

TR1 wrote:Another glorious success for Briz-M.

This isn't a big problem... Yes, it wasn't a perfect performance, but it worked and the reason will be found and fixed. Chances are it was just another small software glitch or something like that. 

Events like this are common in the world of rockets.

Agreed. Orbital correction will not necessarily reduce the effective lifetime of the satellite, as it depends on how much extra xenon will be consumed. Express-6 was always going to need a few months to achieve its final slot due to Kazak government restrictions on proton flight paths, and judging by Anatoly Zaks info, it sounds like the xenon inventory is going to be sufficient.

Given that this mini-mishap sounds like a premature end to an engine burn, is this a problem with flight control software or instrumentation? Engine burns can be ended early in the case of out-of-range engine performance parameters like over-temperature, excessive vibration, turbine overspeed etc so the cause still needs to be determined. Does anyone know if Briz flight control system uses redundant sensors or simplex?

Big_Gazza wrote:

Mike E wrote:

TR1 wrote:Another glorious success for Briz-M.

This isn't a big problem... Yes, it wasn't a perfect performance, but it worked and the reason will be found and fixed. Chances are it was just another small software glitch or something like that. 

Events like this are common in the world of rockets.

Agreed.  Orbital correction will not necessarily reduce the effective lifetime of the satellite, as it depends on how much extra xenon will be consumed.  Express-6 was always going to need a few months to achieve its final slot due to Kazak government restrictions on proton flight paths, and judging by Anatoly Zaks info, it sounds like the xenon inventory is going to be sufficient.

Given that this mini-mishap sounds like a premature end to an engine burn, is this a problem with flight control software or instrumentation? Engine burns can be ended early in the case of out-of-range engine performance parameters like over-temperature, excessive vibration, turbine overspeed etc so the cause still needs to be determined.  Does anyone know if Briz flight control system uses redundant sensors or simplex?

+1 Like you said, corrections are no big deal and typically satellites will carry a little extra fuel for them and going to the grave yard etc... 

I'd bet it was a software problem, most upper-stage/space-tug faults are... Look at the recent ESA Soyuz launch, the payload was placed in an unusual orbit thanks to a single small software gremlin. Hopefully the cause will be found sooner than later, I don't want to see any more Proton-falters, I'm tired of them already! - Can't say (about the simplex), you might have to spend some time researching the Briz-M.

From 2016 to 2025, the budget will be around $50B equivalent. That is quite a bit! Now with private companies getting involved with Roscosmos like satellite maker Sputnik, I imagine this can become quite impressive.

An article on Russia's upcoming launch (Kondor-E) for South Africa... From you favorite source, RSW! 



http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kondor-e.html

Progress M-25M to fly on a modified Soyuz rocket

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx1CeHFeea0

The first stage uses RP-1 (kerosene) and liquid oxygen (LOX) as propellants, powering two Aerojet AJ-26 engines, which are modified Soviet-built NK-33 engines. Together they produce 3,265 kilonewtons (734,000 lbf) of thrust at sea level and 3,630 kN (816,100 lbf) in vacuum.[6] As Orbital has little experience with large liquid stages and LOX propellant, some of the Antares first stage work was contracted to the Ukrainian Yuzhnoye SDO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuzhnoye_Design_Bureau , designers of the Zenit series.[10] The core provided by Yuzhnoye includes propellant tanks, pressurization tanks, valves, sensors, feed lines, tubing, wiring and other associated hardware.

arpakola wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx1CeHFeea0

The first stage uses RP-1 (kerosene) and liquid oxygen (LOX) as propellants, powering two Aerojet AJ-26 engines, which are modified Soviet-built NK-33 engines. Together they produce 3,265 kilonewtons (734,000 lbf) of thrust at sea level and 3,630 kN (816,100 lbf) in vacuum.[6] As Orbital has little experience with large liquid stages and LOX propellant, some of the Antares first stage work was contracted to the Ukrainian Yuzhnoye SDO  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuzhnoye_Design_Bureau , designers of the Zenit series.[10] The core provided by Yuzhnoye includes propellant tanks, pressurization tanks, valves, sensors, feed lines, tubing, wiring and other associated hardware.

Just to let you know, anything space-related outside of Russia can go in the international space thread in the general section....

That being said, I'm sure NASA is sweating bullets right not... The Antares is one of their best ways to send crap into space, or *was*. 

Just saw on the news that it was a 1960s Russian rocket engine that caused the explosion....

I am sure by tomorrow it will be Putins fault...

GarryB wrote:Just saw on the news that it was a 1960s Russian rocket engine that caused the explosion....

I am sure by tomorrow it will be Putins fault...

Yep, this is some cringe-worthy crap... The worst part is, the AJ-26 is refurbished in the United States and tested there as well. Blaming this incident on the "Russian engines" is nothing more than a motivator to get off of them. 

We all know that Putin had the KGB (cause MURICAN's still think it exists) plant explosives on the rocket, I mean, it is common-sense!  

A red-white-and-blue private-enterprise rocket blows itself to bits, while the "commie Ruskies" launch a new generation military comsat and a Progress tanker to the ISS...

I'd never want to gloat over the Yanks having egg in their faces... umm..   oh #@$% it, I admit it, I'm loving it

There are just too many reasons to be angry with the Orcs from Mordor on the Potomac to not wear a sh!t-eating grin...

Big_Gazza wrote:A red-white-and-blue private-enterprise rocket blows itself to bits, while the "commie Ruskies" launch a new generation military comsat and a Progress tanker to the ISS...

I'd never want to gloat over the Yanks having egg in their faces... umm..   oh #@$% it, I admit it, I'm loving it

There are just too many reasons to be angry with the Orcs from Mordor on the Potomac to not wear a sh!t-eating grin...

Yep, and to think that many Western media sites were making fun of the fact that the first Angara launch was delayed... 

Wish they'd say where it will burn up... All I see is the "Pacific" (which borders me).

Mike E wrote:

Viktor wrote:

Vann7 wrote:
Major problem with the China way of intercepting satellites is that US have Thousands of them in Orbit.. So China will go bankrupt after the 20-30 rocket launched to intercept one satellite each. The real practical way to shut down enemy satellites in case of a major war.. is militarization of space.. to have battle stations in space with satellites armed with hundreds of mini missiles each that can intercept satellites.. the advantage in space for such system is the no gravity ,significantly help the design of any interceptor ,because they dont require powerful boosters to defeat stationary targets in orbit..Any cheap rocket grenade with fragmentation explosives will be enough to neutralize any satellite .

US has about 250 satellites and thats it and there is no need to shoot down all of them to criple US abilities to wage war.

Yep, plus only a select few of those satellites are military, and even less are reconnaissance... 

China would go bankrupt? They probably already have hundreds of these missiles, and I wouldn't be surprised if they (or Russia for that matter) could destroy them via technology. 

Battle is space would be a complete disaster, ever heard of the Kessler effect? The ship that would fire the missile would be completely destroyed within hours unless it de-orbits.

What is up with your recent posts?

It should be noted however that the US is critically reliant upon its space assets for it global power projection and C3 capabilities, and in the event of a military confrontation, I could see the CCP leadership choosing to strike at US satellites with missiles and to hell with the consequences. If you cannot control space, then deny your enemy the ability to use it (or at least severely degrade his capability). China can function without satellites if need be, but the US is singularly vulnerable, and if China would adopt the public policy of taking down US space assets on day one of a shooting match, it adds another big negative in the risk column of US war-fighting (or war-starting) considerations.

[quote="Mike E"]

Viktor wrote:

Vann7 wrote:
Major problem with the China way of intercepting satellites is that US have Thousands of them in Orbit.. So China will go bankrupt after the 20-30 rocket launched to intercept one satellite each. The real practical way to shut down enemy satellites in case of a major war.. is militarization of space.. to have battle stations in space with satellites armed with hundreds of mini missiles each that can intercept satellites.. the advantage in space for such system is the no gravity ,significantly help the design of any interceptor ,because they dont require powerful boosters to defeat stationary targets in orbit..Any cheap rocket grenade with fragmentation explosives will be enough to neutralize any satellite .

Battle is space would be a complete disaster, ever heard of the Kessler effect?

Not any more than allowing US and NATO to target Russia with missiles in case a war start. Disabling NATO satellites
should be the First Priority of Russia regardless of the risk.. this is if they expect the war to be inevitable . NATO will be unable to effectively strike russia without them ,they could risk their missiles falling in Poland or Turkey instead of Russia.    Or in the worst case they will just land in an empty zone in Russia.. thousands km away of the intended target...  Russia can survive easily All NATO nuclear missiles launched at the same time if they land in the wrong place. In Siberia for example meteors with similar power have crashed and Russia is so big that nothing happened to other populated cities.  That also will affect their armies.. no longer GPS artillery will work.. communications also affected.. it will be a real nightmare for any army..   This is why it will be good for Russia to deploy their own space station with military purposes .. have located all NATO military satellites and neutralize them from space if they believe war cannot be avoided. This could even avoid a war major war (destroying US military satelites) if for example the US navy lose communication with the Pentagon and cannot be ordered to attack. Space militarization is a must for Russia. expensive indeed , but is the best possible defense Russia can do for their country. In my opinion building more nukes is not the solution to increase Russia defense but disabling US comunnications capabilities ,logistics and images of terrain.. NATO will be unable to fight any war with acceptable performance for them without radar images from space and satelite communications.

Vann7 wrote:

Mike E wrote:

Viktor wrote:

Vann7 wrote:
Major problem with the China way of intercepting satellites is that US have Thousands of them in Orbit.. So China will go bankrupt after the 20-30 rocket launched to intercept one satellite each. The real practical way to shut down enemy satellites in case of a major war.. is militarization of space.. to have battle stations in space with satellites armed with hundreds of mini missiles each that can intercept satellites.. the advantage in space for such system is the no gravity ,significantly help the design of any interceptor ,because they dont require powerful boosters to defeat stationary targets in orbit..Any cheap rocket grenade with fragmentation explosives will be enough to neutralize any satellite .

Battle is space would be a complete disaster, ever heard of the Kessler effect?

Not any more than allowing US and NATO to target Russia with missiles in case a war start. Disabling NATO satellites
should be the First Priority of Russia regardless of the risk.. this is if they expect the war to be inevitable . NATO will be unable to effectively strike russia without them ,they could risk their missiles falling in Poland or Turkey instead of Russia.    Or in the worst case they will just land in an empty zone in Russia.. thousands km away of the intended target...  Russia can survive easily All NATO nuclear missiles launched at the same time if they land in the wrong place. In Siberia for example meteors with similar power have crashed and Russia is so big that nothing happened to other populated cities.  That also will affect their armies.. no longer GPS artillery will work.. communications also affected.. it will be a real nightmare for any army..   This is why it will be good for Russia to deploy their own space station with military purposes .. have located all NATO military satellites and neutralize them from space if they believe war cannot be avoided. This could even avoid a war major war (destroying US military satelites) if for example the US navy lose communication with the Pentagon and cannot be ordered to attack. Space militarization is a must for Russia. expensive indeed , but is the best possible defense Russia can do for their country. In my opinion  building more nukes is not the solution to increase Russia defense but disabling US comunnications capabilities ,logistics and images of terrain.. NATO will be unable to fight any war with acceptable performance for them without radar images from space and satelite communications.

We are talking about the end of space exploration and militarization, forever! I'd rather see them disabled electronically.

That or Russia could build a kind of space tug that pushes enemy satellites into the graveyard or re-entry etc.