

TsAGI gave recommendations to improve the layout of reusable launch vehicles
True, other countries and SpaceX themselves are looking at methane/natural gas as an kerosene alternative. It is being looked into because of its performance, low price, "cleanliness", and abundance. Kerosene is actually superior when it comes to performance, but loses out on the other mentioned factors. As for "returnable" boosters, that technology is still in its infancy. SpaceX is the closest to actually applying it, but the Baikal booster looks promising as well. That is one advantage of SRBs, they can easily be reused (as demonstrated by the Space Shuttle).mutantsushi wrote:I believe they're looking strongly at natural gas as fuel, not quite as powerful as hydrogen, but much cheaper.
That also lines up with a move to re-usable stages that would return to Earth somehow (glide back ala UAV etc).
Sea Launch is apparently being turned upside down, UKR coooperation is off the table, so Russia (being ~95% owner)
would be inclined to make it oriented to serve their own purposes better... Not sure if they would remodel existing barges
to handle Russian rockets, and/or build new ones...
While SpaceX is not untroubled, their cost model seems to be taken seriously by Russia as the future standard to match/beat.
Big_Gazza wrote:Mike E, great posts mateKeep them up!!
One question I have is that Angara 7 design is often disparaged as being incompatible with the Angara 1-5 pad design on account of its use of 6x URM-1 strap-ons as opposed to 4x on Angara-5. The assumption most make is that A-7 could never fly from Plesetsk or the planned Vostochny Angara pads.
The Angara pad modules however appear to be constructed of modular sections, so I wonder if the supporting structure is designed (or can be modified) to allow removal and reconfiguration of the modules to facilitate flame paths for 6x boosters around an expanded central core? Do the pad modules need to support actuated elements like lock-down clamps that require electric or hydraulic release systems, or is it solely a passive support structure?
Can we foresee a pad design where the usual A-5 config is occasionally reworked (with interchangeable modules) to facilitate infrequent A-7 launches? Its probably not possible with Plesetsk Pad #1, but a little innovative engineering on the Vostochny pads (or Plesetsk #2) could provide Russia with an intermediate heavy-lift capability in the 45-50 tonne class with minimal additional investment.
I'm thinking of heavy lift for manned space station modules and national-security payloads, ie high value and infrequent launch rate. An enlarged A-7 style core is probably not able to be rail-transported from Khrunichev factory but given the infrequent launch rates, air transport by An-225 Mriya would be an option (not sure if An-124 is up to the job).
My thought is that such a path offers a cost effective way of developing an intermediate heavy-lift capability by leveraging upon the Angara infrastructure. Am I dreaming, or this a plausible concept?
Good point, I should've mentioned that earlier...GarryB wrote:A significant factor in choosing Hydrogen is the fact that it is non toxic.
The Russians get a lot of stick with every launch from baikanor... especially the exmilitary ICBMs because of their toxic fuel.
Having rockets that use cheap easily available hydrogen is a good thing...
|
|