Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Share

    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 Sat Dec 26, 2015 10:38 pm

    Rmf wrote:............................................
    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....


    1) Method for engine retrieval used by SpaceX is most complicated and inefficient there is.

    2) Airbag/parachute combo is far cheaper and superior.

    3) Airbag/parachute combo is also what will most likely be used for Angara engine retrieval as announced already by Roskosmos.


    This may be hard to swallow for SpaceX fanboy like yourself but by all criteria SpaceX is at most 2nd best launch company in USA.

    We know you want some of that Elon's musk but he is simply No.2

    http://comedycentral.mtvnimages.com/images/shows/south-park/clip-thumbnails/season-11/1109/south-park-s11e09c14-bono-is-crap-16x9.jpg?


    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 Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:27 am

    Rmf wrote:
    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....

    There you go with your stupid "russophyle apologyst" crap.  I don't even mention Russia, you sign off with a Russian flag, yet I'M the "russophyle apologyst"?

    ISP is king, regardless of your assertions, and for a given set of propellants, ISP is proportional to chamber pressure.  Reducing chamber pressure to increase reliability to achieve man-rating is perfectly fine, but it sacrifices performance, and the alternative technique is to build heavier but more robust engines to not only handle the high pressures, but can also withstand multiple full-duration firings.  SpaceX adopts the former, while Energomash adopts the later.  Which is the better path is open for debate, but I prefer the Energomash approach, especially as their products are staged combustion, and RD-series engines, once lit, go like blazes and don't quit.

    Ask yourself - if Musk/SpaceX concept of using a large number of smaller simpler engines is such a winner, why does ULA and the US Military still insist in using RD-180s (despite the political issues), and why do so many in the US want to exercise their negotiated rights to start manufacture in US under license? Why does the Atlas use a single large chamber engine per core? Why do Ariane 5 core use a single engine?

    Musk & Space X also claim their engine config has been developed for using a single unit as a return engine, but this isn't overly convincing.  Design specification for a low thrust return engine burning for extended periods are very different from a main ascent engine, and trying to do the same job with a single design places too many design constraints on the engines main job of getting to altitude.  The Merlin cannot be throttled to very low thrust levels and this mandates a landing trajectory at a high decent rate and a sudden deceleration just prior to touchdown.  Its a finicky maneuver and difficult in practice.   A much better config would be use of 3-4 RD-180 class engines with a dedicated centreline descent engine optimized for low thrust and capable of wide throttle operation.  Bring the stage down at a more leisurely and controlled pace, and have the ability to hover precisely and stabilize prior to committing to the touchdown. SpaceX didn't do this, because they were ideologically wedded to the idea of 100% in-house hardware and lacked the tech for world-class high performance engines, so they had to cobble together a reuseable scheme based on what they could build and then make it work however well they can.

    Face facts - the Merlin is a poor-mans engine, and Musk has chosen this approach simply because he lacks the IP for better technology (and doesn't want to pay to buy them).  SpaceX hypes their "cheaper & simpler" engine design but  the rationale for clustering large numbers of combustion chambers is the same today as when Korolev was forced to cluster 30x NK15s on the N1 1st stage due to lack of availability of a suitable large chamber engine. Musk might emphasis the advantages of an "engine out" capability, but simply using a large number of engines increases the chance of a single unit failure, so I don't see any real advantage, especially when RD-series engine reliability is taken into account.

    Edit: I should add however that I do like the Merlin engine for using high-pressure fuel from the turbopump to supply hydraulic power to engine gimbal mechanism. The advantages are that a heavy HPU and fluid reservoir is not required, and it eliminates any risk of losing hydraulic pressure due to a shortage of fluid.

    Rmf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 380
    Points : 375
    Join date : 2013-05-30

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

    Post  Rmf on Mon Dec 28, 2015 8:44 pm

    there is some thrust augmentation due to engine spacing and incoming air heating and expanding underneath it. even n-1 was using that effect.
    like i said less then 10% loss of isp is impressive for simplicity ,less parts, and low pressure chamber which other cheaper and easily produced materials can be used and still be reusable. tolerances are amazing. you can put small steel bearing and pump would still works thats advantage of gas generator compared to closed cycle , and closed cycle engines are heavier ,and because combustion pressure is low you dont waste much fuel for gas generator anyways ,lol. there is usually always some fuel left in primary stages i am surprised you didnt know ,because you never cutoff at 0 fuel but at 2-5% fuel because you can have instability... so 5% -7%even that is enough to land.
    and youre wrong -combustion pressure doesnt increase isp proportionatly, but very slightly the higher you go ,less and less gain you have.
    merlin still cant replace rd-180 its stupid they are diferent categories -i cant belive you pull this off only to discredit yourself.

    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 Dec 31, 2015 9:12 am

    Russia developing super-heavy rocket — deputy PM

    http://tass.ru/en/science/847810

    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 31, 2015 3:24 pm

    Austin wrote:Russia developing super-heavy rocket — deputy PM

    http://tass.ru/en/science/847810

    So Russia has not dropped the plans for a heavy rocket. I guess we can put all that liberast fantasy to rest.
    But we lack details about this project.

    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 Sat Jan 09, 2016 2:53 pm

    Proton to lift key space mission of 2016

    For the first time since the ill-fated launch of the Mars-96 spacecraft almost two decades ago, Russia's flagship Proton rocket is tasked to send another scientific probe beyond the Earth's orbit. The launch of the ExoMars-2016 spacecraft will also mark the first European mission heading to the Red Planet since 2003.

    The ExoMars 2016 spacecraft - the Trace Gas Orbiter (in the background) and the Schiaparelli lander (in the center) - in a clean room inside Facility 92A-50 in Baikonur Cosmodrome on Dec. 25, 2015.

    The Proton's launch campaign in 2016 will open with a liftoff on January 28. Along with the delivery of the Eutelsat-9B communications satellite, the flight will be the final qualification for the Proton-M rocket and its Briz-M upper stage, before a similar vehicle lifts the historic ExoMars-2016 mission on its journey to Mars. Several Proton launches at the end of 2015, showed increasingly accurate performance of the Briz-M in delivery of its payloads to orbit -- a welcome news for the ExoMars team.

    Limited by the relative positions of the Earth and Mars, the launch window for the ExoMars-2016 extends from March 14 to March 25 only. The window will not re-open until around two years later.

    Depending on the launch of the Mars mission, another team preparing the launch of the Intelsat-31 (a.k.a DLA-2) communications satellite is eyeing April 23 for the third Proton mission of the year. However, the actual launch could take place a few days earlier, sources familiar with the situation say.

    Planners are also considering whether it would be possible to advance the launch of the EchoStar-21 communications satellite to a late May or early June from the current window around June 25. However, the exact launch date for this mission depends on the status of three Russian federal payloads preliminary targeted for launch during a period from May to September. They include launching a trio of satellites to replenish Russia's GLONASS navigation constellation, the first classified Blagovest communications satellite for the Russian Ministry of Defense and another secret military payload.

    The GLONASS mission was scheduled provisionally, because the constellation had had enough in-orbit capacity during 2015 and might not need replacements in 2016. Moreover, the replacement of a single satellite could be accomplished using a Soyuz-2 rocket based in Plesetsk. As of 2015, ISS Reshetnev, the prime developer of GLONASS satellites, had nine such spacecraft in storage.

    Another commercial Proton mission to deliver the AsiaSat-9 satellite is currently scheduled for November. In addition, the US-based International Launch Services, ILS, the marketing arm for the Proton manufacturer, is currently looking at the possibility of arranging another commercial payload to fly in December, industry sources said.

    http://www.russianspaceweb.com/proton_2016.html


    _________________
    "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 Jan 15, 2016 3:06 pm

    Russian Space Agency to Equip Zenit Rocket With Methane Engine

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160114/1033148717/rocket-engine-report-methane.html#ixzz3xKGIREu5


    _________________
    "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 Jan 15, 2016 9:08 pm

    George1 wrote:Russian Space Agency to Equip Zenit Rocket With Methane Engine

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160114/1033148717/rocket-engine-report-methane.html#ixzz3xKGIREu5

    So, Fenix is modification of Zenit now, or are those two completely separate projects?

    Rmf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 380
    Points : 375
    Join date : 2013-05-30

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

    Post  Rmf on Sat Jan 16, 2016 9:58 pm

    well i was advocate for zenit , it is compact and self diagnostic rocket ,as a booster it can carry 100 tonns to orbit , methane could be usefull for mars missions because you could synthesize fuel with nuclear power ,nice video -
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1MIAdBpZFA
    so phoenix could be energia with methane engines

    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 Sat Jan 16, 2016 10:35 pm

    Rmf wrote:well i was advocate for zenit , it is compact and self diagnostic rocket ,as a booster it can carry 100 tonns to orbit , methane could be usefull for mars missions because you could synthesize fuel with nuclear power ,nice video -
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1MIAdBpZFA
    so phoenix could be energia with methane engines

    If Fenix is properly upgraded Zenit then it is fine in my book. Angara has excellent self diagnostic system (proven in practice) and they can use it as basis for one on Fenix.

    If they can save time and money with getting desired results then go for it.

    But for Mars trip chemical rockets are dead-end in my book. Those distances require ion engine/nuclear reactor combo. We are talking about difference between 6 months (ion engine) and at least 3,5 years (rocket) trip under ideal circumstances, maybe even longer.

    Rmf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 380
    Points : 375
    Join date : 2013-05-30

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

    Post  Rmf on Sat Jan 16, 2016 11:37 pm

    liftoff from mars or earth will always require chemical rocket propulsion, but for a cruiser ship/orbital station between earth-mars you can use plasma or ion engines agreed.

    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 Sun Jan 17, 2016 1:32 am

    Rmf wrote:liftoff from mars or earth will always require chemical rocket propulsion, but for a cruiser ship/orbital station between earth-mars you can use plasma or ion engines agreed.

    Goes without saying.

    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 Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:39 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Rmf wrote:............................................
    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....


    1) Method for engine retrieval used by SpaceX is most complicated and inefficient there is.

    2) Airbag/parachute combo is far cheaper and superior.

    3) Airbag/parachute combo is also what will most likely be used for Angara engine retrieval as announced already by Roskosmos.


    This may be hard to swallow for SpaceX fanboy like yourself but by all criteria SpaceX is at most 2nd best launch company in USA.

    We know you want some of that Elon's musk but he is simply No.2

    http://comedycentral.mtvnimages.com/images/shows/south-park/clip-thumbnails/season-11/1109/south-park-s11e09c14-bono-is-crap-16x9.jpg?


    Your observations are supported by todays failed attempt at a F9 landing on sea barge.  Vehicle apparently tipped over due to a failure of a landing strut to open and lock in place.  My personal preference is to leverage existing technology of UAV flight controls and flyback the core on a glide profile using a pivioted deployable wing and small air-breathing engine to increase cross range capability or to provide an emergency go-around capability, similar to the Baikal concept.  Mass penalty would be higher with the wing and engine (and landing gear/skids) as opposed to carrying the fuel margin for a controlled descent, but I'd suggest that the technique is more reliable and much less thermally stressful on the engine bay. One disadvantage is the need for a landing strip, but this is not too significant for State-owned enterprises operating from established Cosmodromes (whereas private operators like SpaceX would balk at the cost of establishing and maintaining such facilities).

    More info on todays F9 launch follows (which is still a full success BTW as the payload is up safe and sound).

    http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/01/17/falcon-9-jason-3-mission-status-center/


    Last edited by Big_Gazza on Mon Jan 18, 2016 3:06 am; edited 1 time in total

    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 Mon Jan 18, 2016 1:10 am

    Soyuz successor named!

    http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ptk-2015.html#name

    "On August 26, Roskosmos announced a contest for a new name for the spacecraft, which included a public poll coducted from December 4 to December 23. The results approved by a jury chaired by the head of Roskosmos Igor Komarov were announced only on January 15, 2016. The new ship would be named Federatsiya, a Russian word for "federation." Referring to the political structure of the Russian state, the name continued a tradition of the Soyuz spacecraft, whose name meant "union," reflecting the official name of the Soviet state -- the Soviet Union. Runner-up names in the contest, such as Gagarin and Vektor, were reserved for future space projects, the agency's announcement said.

    The public reaction on social media was very mixed: critics noted that the name is long, phonetically unpleasant and has a good chance of being abbreviated to something unceremonious like "Fed." In addition, the name could present a potential minefield of various negative political connotations coming from the technical context, such as separation, delays and other problems."

    How typical of 5th-columnist Zak to throw this little bitchy smear into the mix. "Federatsiya" was chosen by a public contest, yet we are supposed to believe that a majority decision isn't well received on social media? This guy seems to be incapable of reporting on the Russian space program without injecting his personal bias.

    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 Mon Jan 18, 2016 1:25 am


    Federation would not be my choice and was not most popular option but was pretty high up nonetheless. I assume they are keeping Gagarin for something really big down the road and want to keep Soyuz ''tradition'' in some form. Only thing that would make sense because Gagarin was winner by wide margin.

    As for Anatoly Zak, that clown is Julian Roepke of space journalism. (If what they both do can even be called journalism)

    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 Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:42 am

    Rmf wrote:well i was advocate for zenit , it is compact and self diagnostic rocket ,as a booster it can carry 100 tonns to orbit , methane could be usefull for mars missions because you could synthesize fuel with nuclear power ,nice video -
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1MIAdBpZFA
    so phoenix could be energia with methane engines

    Agree 100%. Zenit is an excellent vehicle, its just a huge pity that is was manufactured in Ukraine.... If Russia was to modernise the design and manufacture, fit it with Methalox engines, and develop the long-planned re-usability provisions then it would be a great basis for a future (heavy) Soyuz replacement, Angara competitor (*) and as a strap-on for a future SHLV as it was with the hydrolox Energia core. I have to say I REALLY like Methane as a fuel, mainly because it doesn't cause coking like kerosene does, and therefore make reuseability much easier, but also it is cheap and very plentiful, especially for Russia with its VAST reserves of natural gas.

    (*) when I say "competitor" I mean in terms of an alternative capability to guarantee Russian access to space in the event of some future issues with the Khunichev product. I consider it important to have two independent launcher manufacturers, each with a current in-service product that duplicates the capabilities of the other. The US doesn't look to be abandoning either the Delta or Titan EELVs, probably because the USAF insists on a duplication of launch providers. A wise decision on their part, and one that Russia should adopt also.

    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 Mon Jan 18, 2016 1:19 pm


    thumbsup russia

    Rocket Science: Russia Builds Atomic Engine for Exploring Distant Space

    The Russian Federal Space Agency has presented its ten-year development plan, which includes the construction of a prototype engine powered by atomic energy, able to power a spacecraft on expeditions into the far reaches of the galaxy.


    http://sputniknews.com/science/20160118/1033313127/russia-spacecraft-nuclear-power.html

    The Russian Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos) has presented its ten-year development plan to the Russian government, which includes the construction of a prototype engine that uses a nuclear reactor to propel it on expeditions into distant space.

    "All the work on the construction of the atomic engine is ongoing, in accordance with planned timescales. We can say with a large amount of certainty that the work will be completed within the provided timescale," Andrey Ivanov, a spokesman for Rosatom, Russia's State Atomic Energy Corporation, told Izvestiya.

    The project is part of the 2016-2025 Federal Space Program, which Roscosmos has recently presented to the Russian government for approval.

    Andrey Ionin of Russia's Tsiolkovskiy Cosmonautical Academy told Izvestiya that the program envisions a wider plan for space exploration, which will guide the direction of the engine's construction.

    "It is clear that an atomic engine is necessary only for exploration of distant space," said Ionin.

    "Projects like the creation of an atomic engine have to take place in the context of a larger project, in order to precisely understand what exactly we are making such a powerful energy source for."

    On Monday, Rosatom revealed that some aspects of the engine's construction are already underway.

    "Two important stages of the project have recently been carried out," said Ivanov.

    "Testing of the reactor's casing has been successfully completed. This testing subjected the casing to excessive pressure and took 3D measurements of the metal, welding and conical intersection."

    In addition, "A unique fuel element has been constructed which allows the engine to work in high temperatures, in large temperature gradients, and high doses of radiation," said Ivanov.

    Currently, space probes such as NASA's Voyager and Pioneer spacecraft use Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTG) to convert heat from radioactive plutonium-238 into useful electricity.

    These atomic batteries have been used since the 1960s to power long-term, unmanned, space missions to the dark, distant reaches of the solar system, or to the night side of planets where solar cells are not practical. When it was launched in 1977 Voyager 1's three RTG's produced about 470 watts of electric power, with the power output degrading over time.



    Rmf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 380
    Points : 375
    Join date : 2013-05-30

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

    Post  Rmf on Tue Jan 19, 2016 10:45 am

    actually Yuri is more apealing name to me then Gagarin , but i guess they could some deep space human vehicle not ptk capsule

    Rmf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 380
    Points : 375
    Join date : 2013-05-30

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

    Post  Rmf on Tue Jan 19, 2016 10:51 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Rmf wrote:well i was advocate for zenit , it is compact and self diagnostic rocket ,as a booster it can carry 100 tonns to orbit , methane could be usefull for mars missions because you could synthesize fuel with nuclear power ,nice video -
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1MIAdBpZFA
    so phoenix could be energia with methane engines

    Agree 100%.  Zenit is an excellent vehicle, its just a huge pity that is was manufactured in Ukraine....  If Russia was to modernise the design and manufacture, fit it with Methalox engines, and develop the long-planned re-usability provisions then it would be a great basis for a future (heavy) Soyuz replacement, Angara competitor (*) and as a strap-on for a future SHLV as it was with the hydrolox Energia core.  I have to say I REALLY like Methane as a fuel, mainly because it doesn't cause coking like kerosene does, and therefore make reuseability much easier, but also it is cheap and very plentiful, especially for Russia with its VAST reserves of natural gas.

    (*) when I say "competitor" I mean in terms of an alternative capability to guarantee Russian access to space in the event of some future issues with the Khunichev product.  I consider it important to have two independent launcher manufacturers, each with a current in-service product that duplicates the capabilities of the other.  The US doesn't look to be abandoning either the Delta or Titan EELVs, probably because the USAF insists on a duplication of launch providers.  A wise decision on their part, and one that Russia should adopt also.

    space x is still work in progress it will get better im sure. methane is interesting since there is allot in universe of it it seems and its stable, or can be synthesised with CO2 and H20.
    its simplest organic molecule CH4. so lost of hydrogen and high isp. its isp is lower then expected because it takes energy to break carbon -hydrogen bonds.

    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 Jan 22, 2016 4:32 pm


    Russia to spend over $300 million on developing super heavy rocket

    The prototypes and technology for the creation of the key elements of the super heavy class launch vehicle is expected to be developed by 2025

    http://tass.ru/en/science/850822

    Rmf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 380
    Points : 375
    Join date : 2013-05-30

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

    Post  Rmf on Sat Jan 23, 2016 1:51 pm

    some proposals in comparison , total mass/ payload to leo


    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 Sat Jan 23, 2016 3:51 pm

    Rmf wrote:some proposals in comparison , total mass/ payload to leo


    Is that official? Also, would Lena use Angara engine? If yes than that would be most economic approach by far. RD-191 will be built on assembly line in Omsk, one engine to rule them all. Cool

    Rmf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 380
    Points : 375
    Join date : 2013-05-30

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

    Post  Rmf on Sat Jan 23, 2016 6:23 pm

    Russia's Angara5v may not have enough launch capacity for robust lunar missions.
    If Russia really wants a more capable rocket for lunar missions, it needs a Zenit Heavy.
    Admittedly the RD-171 engine isn't the most reliable or highest build quality, but if you were to substitute in four higher-quality rd-191 engines per core, you could get engine-out reliability.  It'd also let NPO Energomash max out RD-191 production numbers.  A Zenit Heavy (kerosine or methane version) ought to lift more to TLI than an Angara 5v even before adding in a LH2 upper stage.  This would be a much easier option than building an all-new mega rocket.
    that energia -5kv with 105,3t to leo is interesting with 5 zenit in booster core ,and hydrogen 2nd stage.

    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 Sat Jan 23, 2016 10:47 pm

    Rmf wrote:Russia's Angara5v may not have enough launch capacity for robust lunar missions.
    If Russia really wants a more capable rocket for lunar missions, it needs a Zenit Heavy.
    Admittedly the RD-171 engine isn't the most reliable or highest build quality, but if you were to substitute in four higher-quality rd-191 engines per core, you could get engine-out reliability.  It'd also let NPO Energomash max out RD-191 production numbers.  A Zenit Heavy (kerosine or methane version) ought to lift more to TLI than an Angara 5v even before adding in a LH2 upper stage.  This would be a much easier option than building an all-new mega rocket.
    that energia -5kv with 105,3t to leo is interesting with 5 zenit in booster core ,and hydrogen 2nd stage.

    LH2 Angara upper stage is on ice for now, probably permanently. Makes sense because that version was supposed to act as replacement for super-heavy rocket when it was suspended but with Fenix project now in development there is no pressing need for it anymore.

    Angara5 & Federation capsule (PTK/NP, might as well start using official new name from now on) will service LEO.

    Federation capsule & Fenix super heavy (whichever option they go with) will be used for flights beyond Earth's orbit. And heavy cargo of course.

    Book.
    Senior Lieutenant
    Senior Lieutenant

    Posts : 667
    Points : 730
    Join date : 2015-05-08
    Location : Oregon, USA

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

    Post  Book. on Sun Jan 24, 2016 6:29 pm

    Russia’s new manned spacecraft to be 3.5 times cheaper than US Dragon
    Russian Aviaton » Sunday January 24, 2016 13:18 MSK

    http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2016/1/24/4767/


    Russia’s State Corporation Roscosmos intends to spend over 58 billion rubles ($734 million) on a new manned spacecraft or 3.5 times less than NASA has allocated to SpaceX on the Dragon space vehicle, according to a document published on Friday.

    The funds for the project to develop the new manned spacecraft called Federation are stipulated in a draft federal space program for 2016-2025 prepared for submission to the Russian government.

    Under the document, 58 billion rubles will be spent on R&D work to develop the ‘promising manned transport system’ through 2025, or 8 billion rubles ($101 million) less than was planned last year.

    As was reported earlier, SpaceX will receive $2.6 billion from NASA to develop the Dragon 2 manned spaceship. Meanwhile, the development of the new Russian space vehicle will cost just $734 million.

    Russia plans to launch the Federation space vehicle in 2021. Subsequent launches to the International Space Station in the manned and unmanned modes are scheduled for 2023.

    A space vehicle to fly around the Moon will be created in 2024-2025 and the flight is planned after 2025. The previous draft federal space program stipulated financing in the amount of 66.689 billion rubles ($844 million) before budget cuts.

    The manned flight to the International Space Station was planned in 2024 and the spacecraft was expected to fly around the Moon in 2025. The promising new-generation transport spaceship developed by Energiya Rocket and Space Corporation is designed to deliver humans and cargoes to the Moon and near-Earth orbital stations The spacecraft will have a crew of up to four persons.

    The new space vehicle will be able to operate autonomously for up to 30 days and its flight as part of an orbital station can last up to one year. The Angara-A5V heavy-class rocket is expected for use to deliver the new spacecraft into orbit.

    Low the cost russia

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 7:50 pm


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:50 pm