Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Share

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2521
    Points : 2654
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Russia to Revive Its Reusable Space Shuttle Program

    Post  kvs on Thu Aug 20, 2015 5:24 am

    Project Canada wrote:Russia plans to create reusable rocket for satellite launches?

    the translator is pretty bad, but that is my impression from what was translated, anyone who speaks Russian can verify?


    Roscosmos plans to establish a repeated the rocket ship to formulate satellites in orbit. A new rocket will include cruise the first stage, which after separation from one-time of the second stage of commits a return to the area of the launch.

    Роскосмос планирует создать многоразовую ракету-носитель для выведения спутников на орбиту. Новая ракета будет включать крылатую первую ступень, которая после отделения от одноразовой второй ступени совершает возврат в район старта.

    http://ria.ru/science/20150820/1195965375.html


    Yes, the plan is to develop a winged first stage that would fly back to base. This would save a lot of money since the first stage
    is the largest and has the most expensive rocket engines. They are planning to spend 12.5 billion rubles on development and
    the design should be ready by 2025.

    The winged first stage concept is an old one and the Angara was supposed to have the Baikal booster variant:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baikal_%28rocket_booster%29

    The article is not clear whether the project is something totally new. But the original article (http://izvestia.ru/news/590165)
    speculates it is a revival of Khrunichev's MRKC project which had a shuttle-like first stage


    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9432
    Points : 9924
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

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

    Post  George1 on Thu Aug 20, 2015 4:38 pm

    Russian Space Agency Mulls New, Reusable Carrier Rocket

    Russia’s space agency Roscosmos is planning to construct a new reusable launch vehicle to carry satellites into orbit at a lower cost, the Russian Izvestia newspaper reports.


    MOSCOW (Sputnik) – The new carrier rocket will have a winged first stage that will be capable of returning back to the launch site after separating from the expendable second stage.

    The project draft has been created as part of Russia’s 2016-2025 space program. According to Izestia, Russia could spend over 12 billion rubles (around $180 million) on the creation of the reusable first stage before 2025.

    The newspaper cites space experts as saying that satellite launches could become much cheaper with the use of renewable launchers as they would allow to save millions of dollars on engines installed on the first stage of the rocket. The cost of the engines used on the current expendable launch vehicles is $10-70 million.

    Carrier rockets of the Russian Soyuz family of expendable launch systems are the most frequently used in the world, according to the European Space Agency (ESA). Soyuz rockets are currently the only launch vehicle transporting people to the International Space Station (ISS).

    The Proton-M is the largest carrier rocket in Russia's fleet of space launch vehicles. The rocket has lifted dozens of Russian-made and foreign satellites since it was first launched in 2001.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150820/1025949973.html#ixzz3jMk6uSNl


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9432
    Points : 9924
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

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

    Post  George1 on Fri Aug 21, 2015 1:11 am

    kvs wrote:
    Project Canada wrote:Russia plans to create reusable rocket for satellite launches?

    the translator is pretty bad, but that is my impression from what was translated, anyone who speaks Russian can verify?


    Roscosmos plans to establish a repeated the rocket ship to formulate satellites in orbit. A new rocket will include cruise the first stage, which after separation from one-time of the second stage of commits a return to the area of the launch.

    Роскосмос планирует создать многоразовую ракету-носитель для выведения спутников на орбиту. Новая ракета будет включать крылатую первую ступень, которая после отделения от одноразовой второй ступени совершает возврат в район старта.

    http://ria.ru/science/20150820/1195965375.html


    Yes, the plan is to develop a winged first stage that would fly back to base.   This would save a lot of money since the first stage
    is the largest and has the most expensive rocket engines.   They are planning to spend 12.5 billion rubles on development and
    the design should be ready by 2025.  

    The winged first stage concept is an old one and the Angara was supposed to have the Baikal booster variant:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baikal_%28rocket_booster%29

    The article is not clear whether the project is something totally new.   But the original article (http://izvestia.ru/news/590165)
    speculates it is a revival of Khrunichev's MRKC project which had a shuttle-like first stage


    and this will be unmanned, right?


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    PapaDragon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3673
    Points : 3785
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

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

    Post  PapaDragon on Fri Aug 21, 2015 1:36 am

    George1 wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    Project Canada wrote:Russia plans to create reusable rocket for satellite launches?

    the translator is pretty bad, but that is my impression from what was translated, anyone who speaks Russian can verify?


    Roscosmos plans to establish a repeated the rocket ship to formulate satellites in orbit. A new rocket will include cruise the first stage, which after separation from one-time of the second stage of commits a return to the area of the launch.

    Роскосмос планирует создать многоразовую ракету-носитель для выведения спутников на орбиту. Новая ракета будет включать крылатую первую ступень, которая после отделения от одноразовой второй ступени совершает возврат в район старта.

    http://ria.ru/science/20150820/1195965375.html


    Yes, the plan is to develop a winged first stage that would fly back to base.   This would save a lot of money since the first stage
    is the largest and has the most expensive rocket engines.   They are planning to spend 12.5 billion rubles on development and
    the design should be ready by 2025.  

    The winged first stage concept is an old one and the Angara was supposed to have the Baikal booster variant:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baikal_%28rocket_booster%29

    The article is not clear whether the project is something totally new.   But the original article (http://izvestia.ru/news/590165)
    speculates it is a revival of Khrunichev's MRKC project which had a shuttle-like first stage


    and this will be unmanned, right?

    Yes it will be unmanned. What you see in that pic is just a first stage, after separating from rest of the rocket it returns and lands automatically.

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2521
    Points : 2654
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs on Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:53 am



    The above is a German concept but you will note the high level of similarity. Looks like Russia will bring the concept to life.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9432
    Points : 9924
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

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

    Post  George1 on Mon Sep 07, 2015 1:24 am

    New Life for Old Buddy: Russia Tests Renewed Soyuz-MS Spacecraft



    A new, modified version of Russia’s workhorse spacecraft, the Soyuz-TMA-MS (or Soyuz-MS), is undergoing tests in the production facilities of Rocket and Space Corporation Energia; before being finally installed in the manned spacecraft, all the modern avionics will be initially tested on Progress cargo spacecraft in October.

    “At this stage, the spacecraft is undergoing all the technical examination before being sent to the launch pad. A little over half a year is left before its first take off,” said Aleksandr Gordyaev, the head of the sector of the Soyuz project department of Energia that oversees the spacecraft.

    The engineers are testing the wielding of approaching and orientation thrusters, pressure leaks and hundreds of butt joints.

    The outward appearance of the Soyuz hasn’t changed much since it was first launched in November 1966. However, the interior has been constantly re-equipped with modernized avionics.

    The Soyuz is not reuseable; a new one is built for each flight and is docked to the ISS. The old one is piloted by the crew returning to Earth; the central crew cabin separates from the other two compartments (these burn up in the atmosphere), and makes a ballistic re-entry, parachutes deploying to slow it down before touchdown on Earth.

    The development of the previous manned version, the Soyuz TMA-M, which is now on a mission to the International Space Station (ISS), was primarily aimed at upgrading its digital computer and telemetry transmission system.

    Earlier Soyuz craft were fitted with an analog telemetry system. The new solution is more compact, and has an advanced TsVM-101-class computer.

    The modernization saw the replacement of the original 36 obsolete instruments with 19 newly designed ones, necessitating corresponding updates to the on-board control system and thermal control system.

    The new craft is easier to manufacture, and its total empty weight is 70 kg less than that of the predecessor.

    The Soyuz TMA-MS will be equipped with more efficient solar panels featuring photovoltaic converters. The docking and attitude control thrusters would be rearranged for reliably linking the ship to the ISS even if one of the thrusters failed, and safely return to Earth if two thrusters failed.

    Unlike previous versions of the craft, the Soyuz-MS will be equipped with a GLONASS/ GPS satellite navigation system, an advanced control radio link with a satellite communication channel, and the Kurs NA automated docking system, which is two times lighter than the previous one and consumes three times less power.

    The old command radio link will be replaced with a unified command/telemetry system which will make it possible to receive telemetry via satellite and control the vehicle when it is not within sight of Russian ground stations.

    It will provide the crew with uninterrupted updates on the trajectory parameters without relying on ground tracking equipment. The communications system will utilize Luch relay satellites for constant direct contact with ground control.

    GLONASS/GPS receivers will be able to send exact coordinates to Mission Control via the Kospas/Sarsat system after parachute deployment and after touchdown, allowing teams on the ground to find the crew much faster.

    The modernization program makes Soyuz, which is currently the main mean of transporting crews to and from the ISS, more reliable and safe to operate, improves structural commonality, and replaces obsolete equipment and components.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/science/20150906/1026652714/russia-modernized-soyuz-spacecraft-test.html#ixzz3l0IG94XW


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3228
    Points : 3352
    Join date : 2012-05-16

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

    Post  Vann7 on Fri Sep 11, 2015 6:41 am

    recent Soyus launch in French guyana.. with galileo sat..
    Must see...

    video start near the speaker icon in youtube player ..



    Russia government could learn something about Europeans , how they
    cover their space program and promote it.. Russia Government really needs hire competent
    people to help them better promote Russia development in space and how this benefit the world.
    Also important to hire people to cover their whole space launches in English.. not Russian.. this is important to promote more business with the west in space ,more space launches. I bet you ask anyone in the west what is Glonnass they will not know what that is.. but you tell them about GPS and they know.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9432
    Points : 9924
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

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

    Post  George1 on Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:28 pm

    Launch of Russia’s new series cargo spaceship Progress-MS postponed till Dec 21

    The postponement was caused by the necessity to complete all the work linked with the Progress cargo spacecraft’s failed launch that took place this April

    MOSCOW, October 27. /TASS/. The launch of Russia’s new series Progress-MS cargo spacecraft that was originally planned for November 21 has been postponed for a month - until December 21, President of the Rocket and Space Corporation Energia (RKK Energia) Vladimir Solntsev told TASS on Tuesday.

    "The launch will be postponed for a month," he said. Asked by TASS if the specific date - December 21 - was meant, Solntsev replied: "Yes."

    The postponement was caused by the necessity to complete all the work linked with the Progress cargo spacecraft’s failed launch that took place this April, as well as to conduct additional checks for avoiding similar incidents in the future.

    The Progress M-27M cargo spacecraft was launched on April 28 from the Baikonur space center Russia leases from Kazakhstan on a Soyuz carrier rocket. The rocket took the spacecraft to a higher orbit than required to dock with the International Space Station (ISS). After a few unsuccessful attempts to get control of the spacecraft, experts gave up the idea. The Progress was taking food, oxygen and other cargos to the ISS crew.

    The Progress M-27M spacecraft lost the near-Earth orbit and burned in dense atmosphere above the Pacific Ocean at 05:04 a.m. Moscow Time [02:04 UTC] on Friday, May 8, Russian Federal Space Agency Roscosmos told TASS. "The spacecraft entered dense atmosphere at the 160th coil above the central part of the Pacific," Roscosmos said then.

    Roscosmos found out that the incident was caused by the "contingency separation" of the third stage of the Soyuz rocket and the Progress spaceship due to depressurisation of the rockets’ fuel tanks that resulted from a specific design linkage of a Soyuz-2.1a carrier rocket and the space freighter.

    "A design peculiarity in the joint use of the spaceship and the rocket related to the frequency-dynamic characteristics of the linkage between the spaceship and the rocket’s third stage is the cause for the damage done to the spaceship as a result of the emergency separation of the carrier rocket’s third stage and the transport spacecraft," Roscosmos said following the investigation of the incident.


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9432
    Points : 9924
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

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

    Post  George1 on Tue Nov 03, 2015 1:00 pm

    Russia to develop new ballistic missile launch system by 2017

    The new system will be used for launching launching intercontinental ballistic missiles withdrawn from service for putting commercial payloads into space

    MOSCOW, November 3. /TASS/. Russia’s United Instrument Manufacturing Corporation (an affiliate of the state-run Rostec corporation) in 2017 will be through with the development of a new system of preparing and launching intercontinental ballistic missiles being withdrawn from service, the corporation has said in a news release.

    "The Unified Instrument Manufacturing Corporation is developing a new system of preparing and launching intercontinental ballistic missiles for putting commercial payloads in space. The new launch pad instruments have already undergone preliminary testing. This work is to be completed in 2017," the statement says.

    The work is being conducted by the research and industrial association Impuls under a contract with the international space company Kosmotras within the framework of the conversion program Dnepr.

    "The program has been effective for many years. The first generation of our system was used to launch heavy rockets RS-20 (Satan under NATO classification), which entered duty back in the 1970s. They have long gone obsolete and now have to be disposed of. We are now working on a next generation system, which is unified and can be used to launch not only RS-20B, but also other missiles being withdrawn from service," the United Instrument Manufacturing Corporation CEO Sergey Skokov said.

    The preparation and launch system has been used on more than 20 occasions to put various payloads in space.


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

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

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Nov 11, 2015 1:31 am

    Carrier rocket "Soyuz" production. Weapons 2015. News


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Thu Nov 12, 2015 1:35 pm

    Khrunichev Center has signed a contract for five Intelsat launches "Proton-M"

    MOSCOW, November 11 - RIA Novosti. Khrunichev Center has signed a contract with a leading global satellite operator Intelsat five rocket launch vehicle (LV) "Proton-M" from Baikonur until 2023.

    "International Launch Services, a subsidiary of the Space Center. MV Khrunichev, and Intelsat, the world's leading satellite communications operator, signed a contract for five launch rocket" Proton-M "from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in the period until 2023" - said in the release of the Center Khrunichev.

    To launch satellites into orbit as part of the target pH will be used booster "Briz-M". The rocket heavy class "Proton-M" and designed and produced by Federal State Unitary Enterprise "State Research and Production Space Center. MV Khrunichev".

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9432
    Points : 9924
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

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

    Post  George1 on Fri Nov 27, 2015 11:59 pm

    Russian space agency names date of launch of last Russian-Ukrainian Zenit rocket


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9432
    Points : 9924
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

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

    Post  George1 on Tue Dec 22, 2015 10:15 am

    Russia to Launch First Modernized Progress-MS Cargo Spacecraft Monday

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/science/20151221/1032066570/russia-progressms-spacecraft-monday.html#ixzz3v2VHvrTq


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

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

    Post  max steel on Tue Dec 22, 2015 12:34 pm

    With Space-X successful rocket launch i guess we can expect US will end its reliance on Russian engines in future.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9432
    Points : 9924
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

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

    Post  George1 on Wed Dec 23, 2015 12:22 pm

    Russian space agency retains plans for creating Fenix rocket — source

    The RD-171 engine from NPO Energomash, already used in the Zenit rocket, is regarded as a potential first stage

    MOSCOW, December 22. /TASS/. The plan of creating the space rocket Fenix remains on the agenda of the Russian space agency Roscosmos plans and has been included in the draft of the federal space program for 2016-2025 despite certain cuts in budget financing, a source in the space rocket industry has said.

    "Research and development under the Fenix project has been preserved in the draft of the federal space program which is undergoing inter-departmental coordination. True, the possibility of removing Fenix from the program was discussed at a certain point, but for now this promising project remains relevant," the source said.

    Fenix is part and parcel of a product research and development portfolio, its eventual aim being creation of a new space rocket for manned programs. The Zenit-size rocket may be built according to a modular principle and consist of several modules. A super-heavy configuration is a possibility.

    The RD-171 engine from NPO Energomash, already used in the Zenit rocket, is regarded as a potential first stage.

    The previous federal space program draft extending till 2025 envisages feasibility studies for developing a medium class space rocket during 2016-2017. Research and development was due to begin as of 2018. Under the project Roscosmos in 2018 through 2025 was to spend more than 30 billion roubles ($430 million) for the purpose.

    According to earlier reports the budget financing of the federal space program would be slashed from 2.004 trillion to 1.4 trillion.


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    Project Canada
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 529
    Points : 538
    Join date : 2015-07-20
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

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

    Post  Project Canada on Wed Dec 23, 2015 9:43 pm

    U.S. space firm’s success may threaten Russian satellites


    The daily newspaper Vzglyad reports that U.S. company SpaceX's success in bringing back to Earth a unit from the Falcon-9 rocket in functioning condition is something really unimaginable. Now the delivery of cargo to near-earth orbit will be at least 10 times cheaper, writes the publication. Does this mean that the Russian Proton and Soyuz satellites will be left without a job?

    Experiments on returning the first unit of the Falcon-9 had been carried out since 2010. Only the eighth attempt, conducted on Dec. 21, 2015, was absolutely successful.

    The cost of the Falcon-9 launch is currently estimated at about $60 million. The unit returned costs $54 million. SpaceX will therefore lose only $6 million on the Falcon-9 if the unit is able to land by itself for further use.

    This could lead to a real revolution in the world space market since the delivery cost of one kilogram of cargo onto the Earth's orbit could fall to $1,100, which on average is 20 times less than on other one-time carriers.

    This would leave the Proton, Soyuz, Arian and Atlas satellites out of work, if it were not for one "but." Despite its variety, the Falcon-9 cannot replace, for example, the Proton, since the load-bearing capacity of the Russian carrier is 10 tons more.

    However, if the matter involved a large space apparatus weighing 20 tons, two Falcon-9s could deliver a 26-ton object into orbit at a cost of $12 million. One Proton can deliver a 23-ton object for $100-120 million. Therefore, using two Falcon-9s is more advantageous than one Proton, writes Vzglyad.

    Big_Gazza
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 508
    Points : 532
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

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

    Post  Big_Gazza on Thu Dec 24, 2015 1:49 am

    Project Canada wrote:U.S. space firm’s success may threaten Russian satellites


    The daily newspaper Vzglyad reports that U.S. company SpaceX's success in bringing back to Earth a unit from the Falcon-9 rocket in functioning condition is something really unimaginable. Now the delivery of cargo to near-earth orbit will be at least 10 times cheaper, writes the publication. Does this mean that the Russian Proton and Soyuz satellites will be left without a job?

    Experiments on returning the first unit of the Falcon-9 had been carried out since 2010. Only the eighth attempt, conducted on Dec. 21, 2015, was absolutely successful.

    The cost of the Falcon-9 launch is currently estimated at about $60 million. The unit returned costs $54 million. SpaceX will therefore lose only $6 million on the Falcon-9 if the unit is able to land by itself for further use.

    This could lead to a real revolution in the world space market since the delivery cost of one kilogram of cargo onto the Earth's orbit could fall to $1,100, which on average is 20 times less than on other one-time carriers.

    This would leave the Proton, Soyuz, Arian and Atlas satellites out of work, if it were not for one "but." Despite its variety, the Falcon-9 cannot replace, for example, the Proton, since the load-bearing capacity of the Russian carrier is 10 tons more.

    However, if the matter involved a large space apparatus weighing 20 tons, two Falcon-9s could deliver a 26-ton object into orbit at a cost of $12 million. One Proton can deliver a 23-ton object for $100-120 million. Therefore, using two Falcon-9s is more advantageous than one Proton, writes Vzglyad.

    Someone is channelling Musks propaganda as this is the usual hyper-optimistic fan-boi garbage.  It remains to be seen if a pre-flown F9 can be reused with anything like the reliability of a brand new unit fresh off the assembly line.  Given the experience with operating "reuseable" shuttles (which in reality were "refurbishable" shuttles requiring huge expenses between launches) I personally doubt that recovery of F9 stage will change the dynamics in a significant way.

    One question that is ignored is this - how many satellite owners will be willing to risk their expensive payloads worth several $100M on a USED launcher?  Isn't it better business sense to go for superior reliability and plug for the new item?  Launcher costs are a small part of a payloads cost in any event.

    Another factor that is regularly ignored is that flying back the booster is only achieved by accepting a huge penalty in weight delivered to orbit.  The core stage needs enough fuel to reverse its course, fly back to its pad, and then control its descent.  This F9 flight delivered a small payload of only 2.2T.  That's a large rocket for such a small payload.  The idea that "two Falcon-9s could deliver a 26-ton object into orbit at a cost of $12 million" is simply absurd.  There is NO WAY that an F9 with a recoverable 1st stage can lift 13T to LEO.

    Reuseability is a good idea, but I think Musk is barking up the wrong tree on this one.  A large fly-back booster is the better idea as it leverages off conventional aircraft technologies and established maintenance knowledge base of commercial and heavy military aircraft.  Design it with modular propulsion plant so that engines can be changed out after each flight and returned to factory for de-coking and cleanup, retest and recertification, while the flyback vehicle is fitted with another propulsion module and reflown.

    In any case, only time will tell.  The idea that Musk and his F9 will threaten Russia's space industry is simply laughable scare-mongering.


    Last edited by Big_Gazza on Thu Dec 24, 2015 2:09 am; edited 1 time in total

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2521
    Points : 2654
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs on Thu Dec 24, 2015 1:57 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Project Canada wrote:U.S. space firm’s success may threaten Russian satellites


    The daily newspaper Vzglyad reports that U.S. company SpaceX's success in bringing back to Earth a unit from the Falcon-9 rocket in functioning condition is something really unimaginable. Now the delivery of cargo to near-earth orbit will be at least 10 times cheaper, writes the publication. Does this mean that the Russian Proton and Soyuz satellites will be left without a job?

    Experiments on returning the first unit of the Falcon-9 had been carried out since 2010. Only the eighth attempt, conducted on Dec. 21, 2015, was absolutely successful.

    The cost of the Falcon-9 launch is currently estimated at about $60 million. The unit returned costs $54 million. SpaceX will therefore lose only $6 million on the Falcon-9 if the unit is able to land by itself for further use.

    This could lead to a real revolution in the world space market since the delivery cost of one kilogram of cargo onto the Earth's orbit could fall to $1,100, which on average is 20 times less than on other one-time carriers.

    This would leave the Proton, Soyuz, Arian and Atlas satellites out of work, if it were not for one "but." Despite its variety, the Falcon-9 cannot replace, for example, the Proton, since the load-bearing capacity of the Russian carrier is 10 tons more.

    However, if the matter involved a large space apparatus weighing 20 tons, two Falcon-9s could deliver a 26-ton object into orbit at a cost of $12 million. One Proton can deliver a 23-ton object for $100-120 million. Therefore, using two Falcon-9s is more advantageous than one Proton, writes Vzglyad.

    Someone is channelling Musks propaganda as this is the usual hyper-optimistic fan-boi garbage.  It remains to be seen if a pre-flown F9 can be reused with anything like the reliability of a brand new unit fresh off the assembly line.  Given the experience with operating "reuseable" shuttles (which in reality were "refurbishable" shuttles requiring huge expenses between launches) I personally doubt that recovery of F9 stage will change the dynamics in a significant way.

    One question that is ignored is this - how many satellite owners will be willing to risk their expensive payloads worth several $100M on a USED launcher?  Isn't it better business sense to go for superior reliability and plug for the new item?  Launcher costs are a small part of a payloads cost in any event.

    Another factor that is regularly ignored is that flying back the booster is only achieved by accepting a huge penalty in weight delivered to orbit.  The core stage needs enough fuel to reverse its course, fly back to its pad, and then control its descent.  This F9 flight delivered a small payload of only 2.2T.  That's a large rocket for such a small payload.  The idea that "two Falcon-9s could deliver a 26-ton object into orbit at a cost of $12 million" is simply absurd.  There is NO WAY that an F9 with a recoverable 1st stage can lift 13T to LEO.

    Reuseability is a good idea, but I think Musk is barking up the wrong tree on this one.  A large fly-back booster is the better idea as it leverages off conventional aircraft technologies and established maintenance knowledge base of commercial aircraft.  Design it with modular propulsion plant so that engines can be changed out after each flight and returned to factory for de-coking and cleanup, retest and recertification, while the flyback vehicle is fitted with another propulsion module and reflown.

    In any case, only time will tell.  The idea that Musk and his F9 will threaten Russia's space industry is simply laughable scare-mongering.

    Excellent analysis. The other detail is that Russia's launch costs are intrinsically lower than those of the US and the EU.
    I applaud the effort to build reusable rockets, but the predictions of Russia's demise are premature and idiotic.

    PapaDragon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3673
    Points : 3785
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

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

    Post  PapaDragon on Thu Dec 24, 2015 2:04 am


    SpaceX landed rocket? OK but why is this such a big whoop? Didn't that other dude (owns Amazon I think) already do this month ago or something?

    I remember Musk being quite butthurt about it...

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2129
    Points : 2244
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

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

    Post  higurashihougi on Thu Dec 24, 2015 2:28 pm

    Threaten or not I don't know, but the U.S. continued to buy Russian RD-180

    https://www.rt.com/usa/326955-us-russian-rocket-engines/

    The US has ordered 20 additional RD-180 rocket engines from Russia, days after US Congress lifted the ban on the use of Russian engines to get American ships into space. However, the move has been lambasted by some politicians in Washington.

    United Launch Alliance announced that it placed an order for more RD-180 rockets to be used by Atlas V launch vehicle, on top of 29 engines that the company has ordered before US sanctions against Russia were introduced over Crimea last year.

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2521
    Points : 2654
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs on Thu Dec 24, 2015 5:36 pm

    higurashihougi wrote:Threaten or not I don't know, but the U.S. continued to buy Russian RD-180

    https://www.rt.com/usa/326955-us-russian-rocket-engines/

    The US has ordered 20 additional RD-180 rocket engines from Russia, days after US Congress lifted the ban on the use of Russian engines to get American ships into space. However, the move has been lambasted by some politicians in Washington.

    United Launch Alliance announced that it placed an order for more RD-180 rockets to be used by Atlas V launch vehicle, on top of 29 engines that the company has ordered before US sanctions against Russia were introduced over Crimea last year.

    I guess all those Congress blowhards had to eat their shit. This is clearly not what we were promised.

    Rmf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 379
    Points : 374
    Join date : 2013-05-30

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

    Post  Rmf on Fri Dec 25, 2015 6:18 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Project Canada wrote:U.S. space firm’s success may threaten Russian satellites


    The daily newspaper Vzglyad reports that U.S. company SpaceX's success in bringing back to Earth a unit from the Falcon-9 rocket in functioning condition is something really unimaginable. Now the delivery of cargo to near-earth orbit will be at least 10 times cheaper, writes the publication. Does this mean that the Russian Proton and Soyuz satellites will be left without a job?

    Experiments on returning the first unit of the Falcon-9 had been carried out since 2010. Only the eighth attempt, conducted on Dec. 21, 2015, was absolutely successful.

    The cost of the Falcon-9 launch is currently estimated at about $60 million. The unit returned costs $54 million. SpaceX will therefore lose only $6 million on the Falcon-9 if the unit is able to land by itself for further use.

    This could lead to a real revolution in the world space market since the delivery cost of one kilogram of cargo onto the Earth's orbit could fall to $1,100, which on average is 20 times less than on other one-time carriers.

    This would leave the Proton, Soyuz, Arian and Atlas satellites out of work, if it were not for one "but." Despite its variety, the Falcon-9 cannot replace, for example, the Proton, since the load-bearing capacity of the Russian carrier is 10 tons more.

    However, if the matter involved a large space apparatus weighing 20 tons, two Falcon-9s could deliver a 26-ton object into orbit at a cost of $12 million. One Proton can deliver a 23-ton object for $100-120 million. Therefore, using two Falcon-9s is more advantageous than one Proton, writes Vzglyad.

    Someone is channelling Musks propaganda as this is the usual hyper-optimistic fan-boi garbage.  It remains to be seen if a pre-flown F9 can be reused with anything like the reliability of a brand new unit fresh off the assembly line.  Given the experience with operating "reuseable" shuttles (which in reality were "refurbishable" shuttles requiring huge expenses between launches) I personally doubt that recovery of F9 stage will change the dynamics in a significant way.

    One question that is ignored is this - how many satellite owners will be willing to risk their expensive payloads worth several $100M on a USED launcher?  Isn't it better business sense to go for superior reliability and plug for the new item?  Launcher costs are a small part of a payloads cost in any event.

    Another factor that is regularly ignored is that flying back the booster is only achieved by accepting a huge penalty in weight delivered to orbit.  The core stage needs enough fuel to reverse its course, fly back to its pad, and then control its descent.  This F9 flight delivered a small payload of only 2.2T.  That's a large rocket for such a small payload.  The idea that "two Falcon-9s could deliver a 26-ton object into orbit at a cost of $12 million" is simply absurd.  There is NO WAY that an F9 with a recoverable 1st stage can lift 13T to LEO.

    Reuseability is a good idea, but I think Musk is barking up the wrong tree on this one.  A large fly-back booster is the better idea as it leverages off conventional aircraft technologies and established maintenance knowledge base of commercial and heavy military aircraft.  Design it with modular propulsion plant so that engines can be changed out after each flight and returned to factory for de-coking and cleanup, retest and recertification, while the flyback vehicle is fitted with another propulsion module and reflown.

    In any case, only time will tell.  The idea that Musk and his F9 will threaten Russia's space industry is simply laughable scare-mongering.

    why? shuttle rs-25 engines were refurbished and reused with 100% reliability (better then soyuz) without major problems ,and they are much bigger and older ! so your story is trash.
    usa private space has got 1 up on russians thats for sure...
    falcon 9 is bit oversized and redundancy is intristic , it uses concept of many engines but with very high thrust to weight ratio (better then famed nk-33), and when launches with 80% full load or lower , it uses spared fuel for landing first stage and its reuse.
    if some engine stops working other compensate with 110% power and you still have successful mission but without reusable stage.
    so your empty jelaous post is jus that . i warned something must change in communist style bueracracies in russian space agency but every rusophyle apologyst was talking how thats not the case.

    Big_Gazza
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 508
    Points : 532
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

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

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sat Dec 26, 2015 4:44 am

    Rmf wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Project Canada wrote:U.S. space firm’s success may threaten Russian satellites


    The daily newspaper Vzglyad reports that U.S. company SpaceX's success in bringing back to Earth a unit from the Falcon-9 rocket in functioning condition is something really unimaginable. Now the delivery of cargo to near-earth orbit will be at least 10 times cheaper, writes the publication. Does this mean that the Russian Proton and Soyuz satellites will be left without a job?

    Experiments on returning the first unit of the Falcon-9 had been carried out since 2010. Only the eighth attempt, conducted on Dec. 21, 2015, was absolutely successful.

    The cost of the Falcon-9 launch is currently estimated at about $60 million. The unit returned costs $54 million. SpaceX will therefore lose only $6 million on the Falcon-9 if the unit is able to land by itself for further use.

    This could lead to a real revolution in the world space market since the delivery cost of one kilogram of cargo onto the Earth's orbit could fall to $1,100, which on average is 20 times less than on other one-time carriers.

    This would leave the Proton, Soyuz, Arian and Atlas satellites out of work, if it were not for one "but." Despite its variety, the Falcon-9 cannot replace, for example, the Proton, since the load-bearing capacity of the Russian carrier is 10 tons more.

    However, if the matter involved a large space apparatus weighing 20 tons, two Falcon-9s could deliver a 26-ton object into orbit at a cost of $12 million. One Proton can deliver a 23-ton object for $100-120 million. Therefore, using two Falcon-9s is more advantageous than one Proton, writes Vzglyad.

    Someone is channelling Musks propaganda as this is the usual hyper-optimistic fan-boi garbage.  It remains to be seen if a pre-flown F9 can be reused with anything like the reliability of a brand new unit fresh off the assembly line.  Given the experience with operating "reuseable" shuttles (which in reality were "refurbishable" shuttles requiring huge expenses between launches) I personally doubt that recovery of F9 stage will change the dynamics in a significant way.

    One question that is ignored is this - how many satellite owners will be willing to risk their expensive payloads worth several $100M on a USED launcher?  Isn't it better business sense to go for superior reliability and plug for the new item?  Launcher costs are a small part of a payloads cost in any event.

    Another factor that is regularly ignored is that flying back the booster is only achieved by accepting a huge penalty in weight delivered to orbit.  The core stage needs enough fuel to reverse its course, fly back to its pad, and then control its descent.  This F9 flight delivered a small payload of only 2.2T.  That's a large rocket for such a small payload.  The idea that "two Falcon-9s could deliver a 26-ton object into orbit at a cost of $12 million" is simply absurd.  There is NO WAY that an F9 with a recoverable 1st stage can lift 13T to LEO.

    Reuseability is a good idea, but I think Musk is barking up the wrong tree on this one.  A large fly-back booster is the better idea as it leverages off conventional aircraft technologies and established maintenance knowledge base of commercial and heavy military aircraft.  Design it with modular propulsion plant so that engines can be changed out after each flight and returned to factory for de-coking and cleanup, retest and recertification, while the flyback vehicle is fitted with another propulsion module and reflown.

    In any case, only time will tell.  The idea that Musk and his F9 will threaten Russia's space industry is simply laughable scare-mongering.

    why? shuttle rs-25 engines were refurbished and reused with 100% reliability (better then soyuz) without major problems ,and they are much bigger and older ! so your story is trash.
    usa private space has got 1 up on russians thats for sure...
    falcon 9 is bit oversized and redundancy is intristic , it uses concept of many engines but with very high thrust to weight ratio (better then famed nk-33), and when launches with 80% full load or lower , it uses spared fuel for landing first stage and its reuse.
    if some engine stops working other compensate with 110% power and you still have successful mission but without reusable stage.
    so your empty jelaous post is jus that . i warned something must change in communist style bueracracies in russian space agency but every rusophyle apologyst was talking how thats not the case.

    Shuttle RS-25s were practically rebuilt after every flight at great expense - that's part of the reason why it cost ~$1B to launch a shuttle. In this instance, reuseability failed comprehensively to deliver on its promise of cheaper access to space.

    You are comparing SpaceX Merlin engine to NK-33s??? Merlin are low-tech gas-generator engines while NK-33 is a closed-cycle master-piece. You are correct that Merlins have a higher power-to-weight ration, but thats because it is simpler and inefficient and dumps energy overboard via its turbine exhaust while the NK-33 wastes nothing. Thats why the NK-33 specific impulse (the TRUE measure of an engines efficiency) is 297 sec at sea level, while the poor little Merlin slouches along at 282... (at vacuum its 331 vs 311).

    I like how you point out that "if some engine stops working".... Tell me the last time a Soyuz or Proton main engine (not vernier) "stopped working"...

    Take a look at the recovered F9 core - its engine bay and lower section is scorched from the heat of its vertical descent (the airflow carries the heat up and around the core rather than down and away as it does during ascent) and if anyone really believes that this recovered stage can simply be wiped down, refuelled and relaunched is quite frankly deluding themselves. At best, the engine bay will need to be dismantled. thermal insulation replaced, and heat-affected metallic components will need to be replaced (consider what an under-strength strut did to the previous F9 flight, now imagine the effect of heat-weakened components in the engine bay which carry the full engine thrust force). They will likely be able to be salvaged and put under heat treatment to return them to the proper temper, but it still adds to the refurb workscope.

    "rusophyle apologyst"???? What the fuck are you smoking? I've said NOTHING that isn't properly considered and defensible. Maybe SpaceX have all the answers and can make a real go out of re-use of returned hardware, but its VERY POSSIBLE that like the shuttle before, the F9 reuseability promises will remain undelivered. Again, only time will tell.

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2521
    Points : 2654
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs on Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:43 am

    Thanks Big_Gazza. The F9 looks like gimmick and not a serious system. Maybe when new materials are discovered/created that
    can be thermally stressed with little effect, then all of these dreams of reusable launchers will come true. Until then, it is all
    theater.

    Rmf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 379
    Points : 374
    Join date : 2013-05-30

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

    Post  Rmf on Sat Dec 26, 2015 9:29 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Rmf wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Project Canada wrote:U.S. space firm’s success may threaten Russian satellites


    The daily newspaper Vzglyad reports that U.S. company SpaceX's success in bringing back to Earth a unit from the Falcon-9 rocket in functioning condition is something really unimaginable. Now the delivery of cargo to near-earth orbit will be at least 10 times cheaper, writes the publication. Does this mean that the Russian Proton and Soyuz satellites will be left without a job?

    Experiments on returning the first unit of the Falcon-9 had been carried out since 2010. Only the eighth attempt, conducted on Dec. 21, 2015, was absolutely successful.

    The cost of the Falcon-9 launch is currently estimated at about $60 million. The unit returned costs $54 million. SpaceX will therefore lose only $6 million on the Falcon-9 if the unit is able to land by itself for further use.

    This could lead to a real revolution in the world space market since the delivery cost of one kilogram of cargo onto the Earth's orbit could fall to $1,100, which on average is 20 times less than on other one-time carriers.

    This would leave the Proton, Soyuz, Arian and Atlas satellites out of work, if it were not for one "but." Despite its variety, the Falcon-9 cannot replace, for example, the Proton, since the load-bearing capacity of the Russian carrier is 10 tons more.

    However, if the matter involved a large space apparatus weighing 20 tons, two Falcon-9s could deliver a 26-ton object into orbit at a cost of $12 million. One Proton can deliver a 23-ton object for $100-120 million. Therefore, using two Falcon-9s is more advantageous than one Proton, writes Vzglyad.

    Someone is channelling Musks propaganda as this is the usual hyper-optimistic fan-boi garbage.  It remains to be seen if a pre-flown F9 can be reused with anything like the reliability of a brand new unit fresh off the assembly line.  Given the experience with operating "reuseable" shuttles (which in reality were "refurbishable" shuttles requiring huge expenses between launches) I personally doubt that recovery of F9 stage will change the dynamics in a significant way.

    One question that is ignored is this - how many satellite owners will be willing to risk their expensive payloads worth several $100M on a USED launcher?  Isn't it better business sense to go for superior reliability and plug for the new item?  Launcher costs are a small part of a payloads cost in any event.

    Another factor that is regularly ignored is that flying back the booster is only achieved by accepting a huge penalty in weight delivered to orbit.  The core stage needs enough fuel to reverse its course, fly back to its pad, and then control its descent.  This F9 flight delivered a small payload of only 2.2T.  That's a large rocket for such a small payload.  The idea that "two Falcon-9s could deliver a 26-ton object into orbit at a cost of $12 million" is simply absurd.  There is NO WAY that an F9 with a recoverable 1st stage can lift 13T to LEO.

    Reuseability is a good idea, but I think Musk is barking up the wrong tree on this one.  A large fly-back booster is the better idea as it leverages off conventional aircraft technologies and established maintenance knowledge base of commercial and heavy military aircraft.  Design it with modular propulsion plant so that engines can be changed out after each flight and returned to factory for de-coking and cleanup, retest and recertification, while the flyback vehicle is fitted with another propulsion module and reflown.

    In any case, only time will tell.  The idea that Musk and his F9 will threaten Russia's space industry is simply laughable scare-mongering.

    why? shuttle rs-25 engines were refurbished and reused with 100% reliability (better then soyuz) without major problems ,and they are much bigger and older ! so your story is trash.
    usa private space has got 1 up on russians thats for sure...
    falcon 9 is bit oversized and redundancy is intristic , it uses concept of many engines but with very high thrust to weight ratio (better then famed nk-33), and when launches with 80% full load or lower , it uses spared fuel for landing first stage and its reuse.
    if some engine stops working other compensate with 110% power and you still have successful mission but without reusable stage.
    so your empty jelaous post is jus that . i warned something must change in communist style bueracracies in russian space agency but every rusophyle apologyst was talking how thats not the case.

    Shuttle RS-25s were practically rebuilt after every flight at great expense - that's part of the reason why it cost ~$1B to launch a shuttle. In this instance, reuseability failed comprehensively to deliver on its promise of cheaper access to space.

    You are comparing SpaceX Merlin engine to NK-33s???  Merlin are low-tech gas-generator engines while NK-33 is a closed-cycle master-piece.  You are correct that Merlins have a higher power-to-weight ration, but thats because it is simpler and inefficient and dumps energy overboard via its turbine exhaust while the NK-33 wastes nothing.  Thats why the NK-33 specific impulse (the TRUE measure of an engines efficiency) is 297 sec at sea level, while the poor little Merlin slouches along at 282... (at vacuum its 331 vs 311).

    I like how you point out that "if some engine stops working"....  Tell me the last time a Soyuz or Proton main engine (not vernier) "stopped working"...

    Take a look at the recovered F9 core - its engine bay and lower section is scorched from the heat of its vertical descent (the airflow carries the heat up and around the core rather than down and away as it does during ascent) and if anyone really believes that this recovered stage can simply be wiped down, refuelled and relaunched is quite frankly deluding themselves. At best, the engine bay will need to be dismantled. thermal insulation replaced, and heat-affected metallic components will need to be replaced (consider what an under-strength strut did to the previous F9 flight, now imagine the effect of heat-weakened components in the engine bay which carry the full engine thrust force).  They will likely be able to be salvaged and put under heat treatment to return them to the proper temper, but it still adds to the refurb workscope.

    "rusophyle apologyst"????  What the fuck are you smoking?  I've said NOTHING that isn't properly considered and defensible.  Maybe SpaceX have all the answers and can make a real go out of re-use of returned hardware, but its VERY POSSIBLE that like the shuttle before, the F9 reuseability promises will remain undelivered.  Again, only time will tell.
    thanks for nothing that is. rs-25 were man-rated and that increased costs much more then usual , also used older technology. this is something new and well thought out.
    wrong , its different concept , merlin d uses- lower chamber pressure and simpler gas generator, safer direct injection instead of showerplate ,and thus lighter ,cheaper ,and safer ,+ reusable engine because its componenets are not stressed mechanicaly as other engines.
     
                                 ....  ISP
    RD-180 26,700 kPa 338
    NK-33 14,500 kPa 331
    Merlin 1D 9,700  kPa 311

    their ""loss"" of only less then 10% ISP for all that gain in other areas is actually  impressive!!
    Wrong again ,its core stage on return is empty of fuel so it uses only 1 of 9 engines to land. ahahahaha...
    and even that 1 is refurbished withour problem you dont need much thrust for empty core stage and youre going down not lifting anyway ,its black from coal dirt deposit and its nothing.
    but continue russophyle apologyst....

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:00 pm


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 06, 2016 5:00 pm