Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Share
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Post  Mike E on Thu Oct 09, 2014 3:43 am

    GarryB wrote:
    It is, but the idea of "icing" it for protection is somewhat nutty. Hydrogen would do a much better job, and is more crucial for a deep space expedition than water.

    You would have to get hydrogen much colder to get it to solidify... otherwise it would take up a lot of space unless it was kept under pressure.

    Water to drink, water can be split into hydrogen and oxygen, which are both useful components for rocket fuel and for breathing, and as ice it can be used to create structure and of course to keep supplies  cold and at an even temperature.

    AFAIK the best gas for protecting the crew would be O3... Ozone. Obviously it would be deadly for the crew to breath, and offer a highly explosive threat, but an insulated sealed area containing O3 could be used to reduce radiation along with a few areas with water ice. A valve could be used to recover the O3 later on where it could be reprocessed into breathable stable oxygen (O2)... burn it with hydrogen and you have water again...

    Of course burning the O3 with hydrogen would leave extra oxygen, so you could use less O3 to burn a larger amount of H than you would need with O2.

    But it would absorb more radiation, or so I've heard... In all honesty, Hydrogen doesn't need to be kept under much pressure, in the shuttle it was held at under 30 psi!

    Like I said, in reality it doesn't matter... The radiation levels are well within safe levels, and the easiest way to reduce radiation is either by thin lead or other solids, or by active-shielding.

    Ozone would subject the crew to more danger than having no protection at all....
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4488
    Points : 4661
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu Oct 09, 2014 4:20 am

    Water seems to be the most practical (multi-purpose substance) for shielding against gamma rays and likely already be in abundance on inter-planetary spacecraft, by far the least hazardous, and most likely the simplest and cheapest to keep in storage. My vote goes to water, there's already too many things in space that can kill astronauts/cosmonauts!
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Oct 09, 2014 5:27 am

    My vote goes to water, there's already too many things in space that can kill astronauts/cosmonauts!

    Agreed.

    Ozone would subject the crew to more danger than having no protection at all....

    Only if they tried breathing it...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Post  Mike E on Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:17 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:Water seems to be the most practical (multi-purpose substance) for shielding against gamma rays and likely already be in abundance on inter-planetary spacecraft, by far the least hazardous, and most likely the simplest and cheapest to keep in storage. My vote goes to water, there's already too many things in space that can kill astronauts/cosmonauts!

    I once again have to disagree... IMHO, water *and* hydrogen could be used together along with what is clearly the best solution (shielding via material as demonstrated by Boeing and many others).

    GarryB wrote: Agreed.

    It is a non-issue for the hundredth time, and using radiation-absorbing material is much more efficient, never mind more reliable...

    GarryB wrote: Only if they tried breathing it...

    If a micrometeorite or anything else damages the *external* tank, Ozone to leak into the craft, you got yourself some dead astronauts... There is one quote that sums in up perfectly, made up by myself now; "in space, one must always assume the worst will occur".
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Oct 09, 2014 9:09 am

    [quote]It is a non-issue for the hundredth time, and using radiation-absorbing material is much more efficient, never mind more reliable... [quote]

    On a long range manned mission they will need to take an enormous amount of water with them anyway... if they have to take it anyway, why not take it in a way that is more useful for other purposes, like reducing radiation, improving food storage, etc etc.

    Taking hydrogen on its own is tricky because hydrogen atoms are small and will leak through most container types over time... binding the hydrogen with oxygen makes it rather easier to handle and control, yet both components are still readily accessible if needed for what ever purpose.

    "in space, one must always assume the worst will occur".

    Which would lead to robotic missions only and no one will ever leave Earth...

    If micro meteoroid (A meteoroid is a rocky material big or small in space, a Meteor is rocky material in the earths atmosphere, a Meteorite is rocky material from space on the ground)... hits the chamber with the O3 then that shower of sparks will cause a flash fire that burns out the O3 chamber so the crew should be fine... in fact the space in the chamber and the effect of the super heating O3 should act like ERA and effectively stop the meteoroid and protect the crew... but then there will be oxidiser tanks and fuel tanks that could also easily be hit and destroy the entire space craft...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Post  Mike E on Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:26 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    It is a non-issue for the hundredth time, and using radiation-absorbing material is much more efficient, never mind more reliable...


    On a long range manned mission they will need to take an enormous amount of water with them anyway... if they have to take it anyway, why not take it in a way that is more useful for other purposes, like reducing radiation, improving food storage, etc etc.

    Taking hydrogen on its own is tricky because hydrogen atoms are small and will leak through most container types over time... binding the hydrogen with oxygen makes it rather easier to handle and control, yet both components are still readily accessible if needed for what ever purpose.

    "in space, one must always assume the worst will occur".

    Which would lead to robotic missions only and no one will ever leave Earth...

    If  micro meteoroid (A meteoroid is a rocky material big or small in space, a Meteor is rocky material in the earths atmosphere, a Meteorite is rocky material from space on the ground)... hits the chamber with the O3 then that shower of sparks will cause a flash fire that burns out the O3 chamber so the crew should be fine... in fact the space in the chamber and the effect of the super heating O3 should act like ERA and effectively stop the meteoroid and protect the crew... but then there will be oxidiser tanks and fuel tanks that could also easily be hit and destroy the entire space craft...
    Oh crap... I had an entire reply ready, and I lost it... So I'll make this one short en' sweet.

    For the last time, it is a *non-issue*. Why bother with water, when there are countless other solutions that are simpler and more feasible? - Material-based, active shielding etc. For crying out load, they astronauts *don't even NEED the protection in the first place*! So why would one complicate an already complicated mission, just to do something that other solutions can do better?
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Post  Mike E on Sat Oct 11, 2014 10:14 pm

    New chapter on RSW about Voskhod! http://www.russianspaceweb.com/voskhod.html
    avatar
    Rmf

    Posts : 506
    Points : 493
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Post  Rmf on Sun Oct 12, 2014 9:24 pm

    Russia is blowing too much money on some vapourware. you want to use electricity not chemical reactions for propulsion as much as you can. everything that can reduce lifting mass is good.
    They should stick just to angara now with its versions and thats it.
    The best way to get to planets and around solar system would be with electromagnetic propulsion from the moon. For that moon base is needed which can be done with several angara launches.
    Launches from the moon using electricity from nuclear fission or future fusion reactor or solar panels from places on the moon with constant sunshine.
    That way 3rd orbital velocity can be reached and trips to mars in few months. So no need for much fuel or stores. Also experiment with prolong sleeping or even induced coma, where astronauts are awaken every 5-30 days without consequences ,reducing WOF food/oxygen/water supplies ,energy supplies ,show potential.
    With ships so light it wouldnt need too long track or energy to get them anywhere in solar system. Ion propulsion would be for course corrections.
    And since mars atmosphere is also thin 1% of earth this system could work for return trips.
    Russia should focus on moon ,not much reaserch can be done on mars anymore, most was covered by Americans.
    Sample returning would be cool but instead of phobos grunt- you could do 2 moon missions.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Post  Mike E on Sun Oct 12, 2014 10:01 pm

    Rmf wrote:
    Russia is blowing too much money on some vapourware. you want to use electricity not chemical reactions for propulsion as much as you can. everything that can reduce lifting mass is good.
    They should stick just to angara now with its versions and thats it.
    The best way to get to planets and around solar system would be with electromagnetic propulsion from the moon. For that moon base is needed which can be done with several angara launches.
    Launches from the moon using electricity from nuclear fission or future fusion reactor or solar panels from places on the moon with constant sunshine.
    That way 3rd orbital velocity can be reached and trips to mars in few months. So no need for much fuel or stores. Also experiment with prolong sleeping or even induced coma, where astronauts are awaken every 5-30 days without consequences ,reducing WOF food/oxygen/water supplies ,energy supplies ,show potential.
    With ships so light it wouldnt need too long track or energy to get them anywhere in solar system. Ion propulsion would be for course corrections.
    And since mars atmosphere is also thin 1% of earth this system could work for return trips.
    Russia should focus on moon ,not much reaserch can be done on mars anymore, most was covered by Americans.
    Sample returning would be cool but instead of phobos grunt- you could do 2 moon missions.
    Blowing money on what? Russia, like all large space programs, is currently developing electric (ion) propulsion systems... 
    Angara is their priority, the super-heavy is now the second priority. 
    Huh? Are you suggesting gravitation shots? Most far-reaching craft already use them.
    They are working on that, but if the trip each way is only a month then it isn't needed.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3148
    Points : 3271
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Post  kvs on Mon Oct 13, 2014 4:47 am

    Russia needs a heavy launcher for strategic reasons.   It is not some useless toy.   As for ion propulsion,
    Russia is working on a nuclear ion propulsion rocket engine:

    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2012/Fall-Winter_2012/Interview_Koroteyev.pdf
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Post  Mike E on Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:05 am

    kvs wrote:
    Russia is working on a nuclear ion propulsion rocket engine:

    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2012/Fall-Winter_2012/Interview_Koroteyev.pdf
    Not exactly... The super-heavy, like the NASA SLS, will most likely stick to planetary missions etc. That doesn't mean they aren't important, but rather aren't economically important like the Angara is... The only way I can see the super-heavy generating revenue, would be mining missions as it will probably only be used domestically.

    They are probably also working on more conventional ion propulsion as well, or so I hope...[/quote]
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3148
    Points : 3271
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Post  kvs on Mon Oct 13, 2014 7:06 am

    By strategic I meant military. There is nothing commercial about heavy launchers since there is no market for super heavy
    satellites. But Russia needs the ability to be able to launch heavy loads into LEO on short notice. Right now it has a clear
    capability gap.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Post  Mike E on Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:08 am

    kvs wrote:By strategic I meant military.   There is nothing commercial about heavy launchers since there is no market for super heavy
    satellites.   But Russia needs the ability to be able to launch heavy loads into LEO on short notice.   Right now it has a clear
    capability gap.
    Good point... However, as said earlier, Angara is and should always be Russia's priority in the lifter market, in the short term at least... Besides, what military payload would have to be launched by the super-heavy? The heaviest military sats are fine using the Proton-M, and should be light enough for the A5 as well... Unless Russia planes to send a tank into space, they should be fine using the smaller and more affordable rockets.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Oct 14, 2014 5:55 am

    Will be cool in 20-30 years time when we can start planning to send a nuclear propelled rocket literally to the stars.

    A nuclear powered rocket that can operate for years mounted on a large space ship with some sort of magnetic scoop on the front several kms long that drags in loose hydrogen atoms in free space and of course any dust particles and suck them in the front of the ship to be heated and accelerated out the back like a big scramjet.

    Huge potential.

    Of course the problem is that 20 years after you launch it you develop a new propulsion technology that is ten times faster so you launch that and it beats the first spaceship you sent.... jocolor


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Post  Mike E on Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:00 am

    GarryB wrote:Will be cool in 20-30 years time when we can start planning to send a nuclear propelled rocket literally to the stars.

    A nuclear powered rocket that can operate for years mounted on a large space ship with some sort of magnetic scoop on the front several kms long that drags in loose hydrogen atoms in free space and of course any dust particles and suck them in the front of the ship to be heated and accelerated out the back like a big scramjet.

    Huge potential.

    Of course the problem is that 20 years after you launch it you develop a new propulsion technology that is ten times faster so you launch that and it beats the first spaceship you sent....  jocolor
    Yeah, it would be awesome if such a craft could pass Voyager 1 within my (our) lifespan. 

    That would weight a ton, and while it would drag in molecules (very few of them), it would add to cosmic drag. In general, there are too few particles in space for that to be feasible... 

    No potential... Though regular nuclear propulsion does have a lot of it...

    Yep! But who said that is a bad thing?
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Post  Mike E on Wed Oct 15, 2014 6:13 pm

    Defense Ministry denies damage to Fregat booster at Plesetsk space site

    MOSCOW, October 15. /TASS/. The Fregat booster received no damage as a result of an incident during its transportation at the Plesetsk space site, Air And Space Force spokesman, Colonel Aleksey Zolotukhin, said on Wednesday, adding that the booster was in order and preparations for the launch of the Soyuz-2.1b rocket were proceeding on time.
    “The reports of an alleged fall of the container with the Fregat booster from a railway carriage at the Plesetsk space site have nothing to do with the reality,” Zolotukhin said.
    Specialists have already checked Fregat for its integrity and the existence of latent defects.
    “The Fregat booster is in full working order,” he said, adding that the booster was ready for fuelling and assembly with other parts of the Soyuz rocket.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3148
    Points : 3271
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Post  kvs on Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:04 pm

    Mike E wrote:Defense Ministry denies damage to Fregat booster at Plesetsk space site

    MOSCOW, October 15. /TASS/. The Fregat booster received no damage as a result of an incident during its transportation at the Plesetsk space site, Air And Space Force spokesman, Colonel Aleksey Zolotukhin, said on Wednesday, adding that the booster was in order and preparations for the launch of the Soyuz-2.1b rocket were proceeding on time.
    “The reports of an alleged fall of the container with the Fregat booster from a railway carriage at the Plesetsk space site have nothing to do with the reality,” Zolotukhin said.
    Specialists have already checked Fregat for its integrity and the existence of latent defects.
    “The Fregat booster is in full working order,” he said, adding that the booster was ready for fuelling and assembly with other parts of the Soyuz rocket.

    Brain dead media hysterics. The rail car that was carrying it did not flip over.

    If you pay attention to coverage of news pertaining to Russia over the years you see the pattern of
    spin and distortion applied to every aspect. The above incident is transformed into some major
    disaster and a government coverup.

    If people are going to wait for news that Russia is a normal country from the media, they will be
    waiting into the infinite future.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Post  Mike E on Fri Oct 17, 2014 12:01 am

    kvs wrote:
    Mike E wrote:Defense Ministry denies damage to Fregat booster at Plesetsk space site

    MOSCOW, October 15. /TASS/. The Fregat booster received no damage as a result of an incident during its transportation at the Plesetsk space site, Air And Space Force spokesman, Colonel Aleksey Zolotukhin, said on Wednesday, adding that the booster was in order and preparations for the launch of the Soyuz-2.1b rocket were proceeding on time.
    “The reports of an alleged fall of the container with the Fregat booster from a railway carriage at the Plesetsk space site have nothing to do with the reality,” Zolotukhin said.
    Specialists have already checked Fregat for its integrity and the existence of latent defects.
    “The Fregat booster is in full working order,” he said, adding that the booster was ready for fuelling and assembly with other parts of the Soyuz rocket.

    Brain dead media hysterics.  The rail car that was carrying it did not flip over.

    If you pay attention to coverage of news pertaining to Russia over the years you see the pattern of
    spin and distortion applied to every aspect.   The above incident is transformed into some major
    disaster and a government coverup.  

    If people are going to wait for news that Russia is a normal country from the media, they will be
    waiting into the infinite future.
    Hmm, if it didn't flip, what happened?
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3148
    Points : 3271
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Post  kvs on Fri Oct 17, 2014 12:34 am

    Mike E wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    Mike E wrote:Defense Ministry denies damage to Fregat booster at Plesetsk space site

    MOSCOW, October 15. /TASS/. The Fregat booster received no damage as a result of an incident during its transportation at the Plesetsk space site, Air And Space Force spokesman, Colonel Aleksey Zolotukhin, said on Wednesday, adding that the booster was in order and preparations for the launch of the Soyuz-2.1b rocket were proceeding on time.
    “The reports of an alleged fall of the container with the Fregat booster from a railway carriage at the Plesetsk space site have nothing to do with the reality,” Zolotukhin said.
    Specialists have already checked Fregat for its integrity and the existence of latent defects.
    “The Fregat booster is in full working order,” he said, adding that the booster was ready for fuelling and assembly with other parts of the Soyuz rocket.

    Brain dead media hysterics.  The rail car that was carrying it did not flip over.

    If you pay attention to coverage of news pertaining to Russia over the years you see the pattern of
    spin and distortion applied to every aspect.   The above incident is transformed into some major
    disaster and a government coverup.  

    If people are going to wait for news that Russia is a normal country from the media, they will be
    waiting into the infinite future.
    Hmm, if it didn't flip, what happened?

    One of the wheels assemblies broke. The speed of these trains is deliberately glacial (in the case of the Angara it is 5 km per hour) so there was
    only a partial derailment.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Post  Mike E on Fri Oct 17, 2014 12:43 am

    That makes sense, thanks for the clear up!
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Post  Mike E on Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:43 pm

    Interesting article on Yelena Sorova.

    http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/missions/iss/first-female-iss-cosmonaut-adjusts-life-space/

    Anyone here hyped for the Proton launch on the 21st? It is coming up soon, and will be crucial to its success in the near future. 

    russia
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Post  Mike E on Mon Oct 20, 2014 8:42 am

    Uncertain future for Dnepr rocket program

    The joint Russian-Ukrainian Dnepr rocket program may be the latest victim of the crisis in Ukraine. The program launches commercial spacecraft into orbit with the help of  converted SS-18 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), but on Oct. 9, a high-ranking source in Russia’s rocket industry said that Russia's economic, political and military interests are incompatible with the continuation of launches within the Dnepr Program. 
    The Dnepr Program began at the end of the 1990s, when the need to dispose of ICBMs converged with a desire to launch commercial satellites into near-earth orbit. Until recently, Ukrainian enterprises carried out technical service of the launching complexes. However, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has ordered the end of all military cooperation between Ukraine and Russia, and it is unclear to what extent the ban will affect the Dnepr program, which is not military, but is based on military technology. Sergei Boita, general director of Ukraine’s Yuzhnoye Design Bureau said that for the moment the project can continue, with modifications, "There is a taboo on servicing military ballistic missiles… We are now working in peaceful space, with difficulty, but working," Boita said, according to Russian media. He estimated the annual losses for Yuzhnoye as a result of the changes at around $200 million. Russia’s space agency is not particularly concerned about the loss of its Ukrainian partners. Russian industry experts say that Russian firms have also been taking part in the routine maintenance of the ICBMs and that the state-owned Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau can create new conversion launchers. "We have already examined the resources needed and the documentation," said Deputy Director of the Russian Federal Space Agency Sergei Ponomarev. "Our enterprise is also a developer and if there is a refusal, we annul the contracts with Ukraine and transfer all the work to the Russian side."
    Commercial launches already planned will go ahead as scheduled. At the end of October 2014, the Dnepr is supposed to launch into orbit five Japanese microsatellites and in June 2015, two American next- generation Iridium NEXT spacecraft. The charge for each launch is around $30-35-million, but the division of the revenue among the various parties is a secret. The political situation may provide a good excuse for Russia to look for more environmentally friendly alternatives to the Dnepr. The Dnepr, along with the Cosmos, Cyclone and Rokot rockets, use toxic fuel components. The Russian Ministry of Defense has made it clear that in the future, it intends to use only ecologically clean rockets to launch light satellites. These new rockets will be built on the basis of the Soyuz-2.1b, developed by the Progress Space-Missile Center in Samarskoye, and the Angara-1.2, developed by the Khrunichev State Research and Production Center. 

    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Post  Mike E on Tue Oct 21, 2014 7:38 am

    Good report on the Ekspress-2000 by RSW!!! http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ekspress-2000.html
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Post  Mike E on Tue Oct 21, 2014 11:22 pm

    Already posted on the other thread, but I'll post it here.

    Russia launches a twin for its largest comsat

    The liftoff of a Proton rocket with a Briz-M upper stage from Site 81 in Baikonur Cosmodrome took place as scheduled on Oct. 21, 2014, at 19:09:32 Moscow Time. The launch vehicle will be carrying the Ekspress-AM6 communications satellite for the Russian Satellite Communications Company, RSCC.
    According to the flight plan, the firstsecond and third stages of the Proton rocket will fire for a total of 580 seconds, sending the payload section, including the Briz-M upper stage and the satellite, into a suborbital ballistic trajectory. Then, the first engine firing of the Briz-M upper stage will insert the stack into an initial parking orbit with an altitude of around 180 kilometers and an inclination 51.5 degrees toward the Equator. The Briz-M then fires its engine again to reach an elliptical (egg-shaped) orbit with an altitude of 272 by 5,007 kilometers.
    The Briz fires for the third time to enter a 398 by 37,795-kilometer orbit then jettisons its external propellant tank. Upon reaching an apogee, it fires for the fourth time to enter the so-called super-synchronous orbit, which is above 36,000-kilometer altitude required for communications satellites in order to synchronize their movement with the rotation of the Earth and thus appear "hanging" at same point in the sky. The separation of the satellite from the upper stage is expected to take place around 9.5 hours after the liftoff.
    The 3,358-kilogram Ekspress-AM6 will need from three to four months to spiral down to its final geostationary orbit using four low-thrust but efficient electric engines powered by xenon gas. The same engines would be used for attitude control of the satellite during its 15-year-long operational lifetime and for eventual maneuvering to a burial orbit.

    Great to see the Proton back in business for good, it is once again ALIVE!
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3148
    Points : 3271
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Post  kvs on Wed Oct 22, 2014 1:23 am

    The Briz-M stage has been the source of most of the Proton failures over the last 15 years as far as I can
    recall. There is always some assembly issue. By now they should have shot every diversant in the production
    facility. The Bulava was also failing because of bizarre assembly problems. Seems to me like Russia needs
    to solve compromised staff problems at its production facilities instead of actual technical faults.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:55 pm