Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Share
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6955
    Points : 7053
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

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

    Post  PapaDragon on Thu Oct 05, 2017 12:00 am


    Project of new cargo vessel:


    Text in Russian, if someone would be kind enough to give us a rundown, machine translation kills the details:

    Spoiler:
    "Роскосмос" принял проект нового космического грузовика

    Эскизный проект нового российского грузового космического корабля повышенной грузоподъемности прошел все экспертизы и принят госкорпорацией "Роскосмос", сообщил РИА Новости глава ракетно-космической корпорации (РКК) "Энергия" Владимир Солнцев.

    "Эскизный проект нами выполнен. В установленном порядке он прошел все экспертизы с положительными заключениями и принят государственным заказчиком — ГК "Роскосмос". Решение о дальнейшем проведении работ по завершению разработки и изготовлению корабля также принимает госкорпорация", — отметил он.

    Вопрос о создании нового грузового корабля стал актуальным после появления на рынке ракеты-носителя "Союз-2.1б" с повышенной грузоподъемностью и головным обтекателем увеличенной размерности.

    РКК "Энергия" является разработчиком и производителем всех российских космических кораблей. Новый грузовик потребуется запускать до трех раз в год, в то время как обычные грузовики "Прогресс" требуют до четырех запусков. Корабль сможет доставлять на орбиту больше грузов, чем эксплуатируемые сегодня корабли "Прогресс МС", которые способны взять на борт не более 2,6 тысячи килограммов. Также использование нового корабля позволит снизить стоимость доставки грузов на МКС.
    https://ria.ru/science/20171003/1506076675.html
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3766
    Points : 3869
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs on Thu Oct 05, 2017 12:22 am

    A rather empty article. It says that the new cargo craft would require 3 annual launches to deliver the same cargo as
    the 4 annual launches of the current Progress MS. So that would imply 1/3 more capacity or 2.6 x 1.3333 = 3.5 tons.
    The new cargo craft was enabled by the Soyuz 2.16 launcher which has a bigger payload and a bigger fairing than the
    previous Soyuz rockets.

    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2693
    Points : 2733
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

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

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:36 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:Came across some interesting info regarding the planned recovery methods for the Energia SHLV strap-ons.  It was always obvious that the Zenit-based strap-ons were designed for reuse, but AFAIK it was not clear exactly how Soviet engineers planned to recover them.

    []
    The soviets don't seem to have made any recovery attempts on the Polyus or Buran flight.  I assume the recovery system wasn't ready at the time, and unfortunately, now we'll never know for sure.  Its frustrating to think that the Soviets were within a whisker of reusable rocketry back in 1987-88.....


    Talking about Energia and heavy rockets...

    The super-heavy carrier cheaper by 700 billion
    In the rocket and space industry have found a way to create a super-heavy carrier for less money



    Roskosmos head scientific organization - TsNIIMash - and the main economic institute of the rocket and space industry - Agat - have developed a new project for a superheavy class carrier. The creation of the "Energia-5.1" missile will cost two times cheaper than the previous version - 700 billion rubles instead of 1.5 trillion.

    Specialists of the TsNIIMash institutes subordinated to Roskosmos and Agat analyzed options for developing super-heavy-duty rockets intended for manned long-range space missions and putting large structures into orbit. Specialists presented to Roskosmos a proposal to increase the carrying capacity of the superheavy missile at the first stage of its creation. Information on the sending of such a document to "Izvestia" was confirmed in TsNIIMash and "Agate".



    In 2015, the Scientific and Technical Council of Roskosmos approved the project of the Energia-3 rocket - with the delivery of 70 tons of cargo to a low near-earth orbit with a height of about 200 km. In the next modification - "Energia-6" - the carrying capacity of the carrier was planned to be increased to 170 tons.

    Now the specialists of the institutes proposed a new project: "Energy-5.1" with a carrying capacity of 100 tons. Later on, 130-140-ton "Energy-5.2" and 170-180-ton "Energy-7" can be created on its basis. The head of the working group that presented the project was the general designer of the withdrawal systems Alexander Medvedev.

    "To create the version of the booster rocket - Energia-5.1" - will require about half the financing, "the document says on the new proposal.

    The development of Energia-3 was estimated at about 1.4 trillion rubles - an amount commensurate with the amount of financing by the entire Federal Space Program for 2016-2025. The new project assumes a significantly smaller estimate - 700 billion rubles for the development and creation of a flying model.

    For the construction of a new missile it is not planned to open new production facilities, it is a question of using existing capacities of enterprises of the rocket and space industry. It is proposed to abandon the construction of new test benches and use the existing infrastructure of the Research and Test Center of the rocket and space industry.

    The first and second stages are proposed to be created on the basis of the Soyuz-5 rocket, and the third stage is to use the stage from the future hydrogen rocket "Angara-A5B". The costs for these projects will not be taken into account in the overall estimate of the creation of a superheavy missile. In this way, it is possible to reduce the total cost of tens of billions of rubles.

    The current Federal Space Program for 2016-2025 for work on R & D "Phoenix" (Soyuz-5 missile) provides for the allocation of 29.296 billion rubles, for the creation of a complex of the oxygen-hydrogen upper stage - 12.354 billion rubles, for the development of key elements and technologies of the missile complex of a superheavy class - 24.319 billion rubles.

    "If the levels of internal and external unification are correctly determined, in particular when developing a launch vehicle, it is possible to achieve a total reduction in the unit cost of deducing the payload by 50%. As a consequence, the cost of the entire program is significantly reduced, "the document says.

    In addition, to save money, it is proposed to abandon the creation of expensive large-size structures at the Vostochny cosmodrome. Minimizing the use of liquid hydrogen in a superheavy missile will reduce the cost of building an expensive infrastructure.

    The diameter of the rocket blocks is proposed to be reduced to 4.1 m. This will allow them to be delivered to the launch site by rail or inside cargo planes, without the development of new air delivery systems.

    In the Agat organization, Izvestiya was informed that the final look of the super-heavy-class launch vehicle would be selected based on the results of the preliminary design, which should be completed in 2018-2019.

    - The creation of the Russian space rocket complex of the superheavy class is a very serious responsibility. It will take a lot of money - financial, human, technological, scientific and technical, etc. When developing a preliminary design, it is planned to consider several alternative options that maximize the available reserve, "Izvestia" was told in the press service of the organization.

    According to the scientific director of the Institute of Space Policy Ivan Moiseev, before making a decision to create a superheavy missile and determining its appearance, it makes no sense to talk about the price of the project. In addition, the expert considers the creation of such a media as a waste of funds that could go to more useful projects.

    - This is the iron law: when the contractor offers a new project, the price is always understated several times, the terms are reduced, and the advantages are shown in colors and colors. While it is not even a sketchy project, but the game with prices has already begun. Specialists TsNIImash and Agata understand that this rocket is hypothetical in nature and can be played with prices. In general, the work on the superheavy carrier needs to start with the question: "Why is it needed?" There are no useful loads and tasks for it, but we have a huge experience in creating super-heavy carrier rockets - N1 and Energia. And all this experience is negative. The missile needs to be designed for existing tasks. It is not an end in itself, but a means of putting the load into space. In this case, we went along the old road, assuming that the goals will appear later. But by that time the rocket will eat all free financial resources, and our possibilities in this sphere are limited. Throwing money for one giant project, we automatically defeat many others, - said Ivan Moiseyev.


    The first launch of a new Russian superheavy rocket from the Vostochny cosmodrome is tentatively scheduled for 2028.

    https://iz.ru/652218/dmitrii-strugovetc/roskosmos-sekonomit-na-rakete
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6955
    Points : 7053
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

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

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:07 am

    '
    I don't get what are they trying to say here:

    ...to save money, it is proposed to abandon the creation of expensive large-size structures at the Vostochny cosmodrome. Minimizing the use of liquid hydrogen in a superheavy missile will reduce the cost of building an expensive infrastructure...

    So are they canceling another launchpad on Vostochniy? Back to Baikonur? WTF???  No

    ..."Why is it needed?" There are no useful loads and tasks for it, but we have a huge experience in creating super-heavy carrier rockets - N1 and Energia. And all this experience is negative. ...

    Why is it needed? Is this guy fucking serious? Is he actually asking this? Suspect

    Who the fuck is hiring these fucktards?

    Do they even plan on building this rocket at all? This sounds like they are dropping whole project altogether.

    Project Canada

    Posts : 664
    Points : 667
    Join date : 2015-07-20
    Location : Canada

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

    Post  Project Canada on Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:15 am

    PapaDragon wrote:'
    I don't get what are they trying to say here:

    ...to save money, it is proposed to abandon the creation of expensive large-size structures at the Vostochny cosmodrome. Minimizing the use of liquid hydrogen in a superheavy missile will reduce the cost of building an expensive infrastructure...

    So are they canceling another launchpad on Vostochniy? Back to Baikonur? WTF???  No

    ..."Why is it needed?" There are no useful loads and tasks for it, but we have a huge experience in creating super-heavy carrier rockets - N1 and Energia. And all this experience is negative. ...

    Why is it needed? Is this guy fucking serious? Is he actually asking this? Suspect

    Who the fuck is hiring these fucktards?

    Do they even plan on building this rocket at all? This sounds like they are dropping whole project altogether.

    Very disturbing indeed if true.. those clowns need to set their priorities straight Rolling Eyes or maybe they are under CIA payroll to deliberately sabotage Russian space program, this is not a distant possibility, Russia as of this moment is compromised in many areas, these sh*ters needs to be flushed out and quick.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 2430
    Points : 2414
    Join date : 2016-11-07

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

    Post  miketheterrible on Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:01 am

    I think they are talking about to reduce use of liquid fuel, which will save money in not having to build the necessary infrastructure. So they are saying to launch the rockets from vostochney with the new heavy rockets, but using alternative to the liquid fuel.

    The other commenta comes from an institution.

    Its best to properly read through.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1275
    Points : 1279
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

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

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:09 am

    ...to save money, it is proposed to abandon the creation of expensive large-size structures at the Vostochny cosmodrome. Minimizing the use of liquid hydrogen in a superheavy missile will reduce the cost of building an expensive infrastructure...

    This looks to a proposal to abandon the use of high energy LH2/LOX propellents in the upper stage so that LH2 storage and handling facilities do not need to be built, and the launch gantry won't need cryogenic fuel handling and connections. Minimise cost and simplify the design by using kerolox propulsion throughout. Makes sense from an economy point of view, but will mean a reduction in payload capacity.

    On the other hand, they could build an initial kerolox-only capability, but with pad and facility design allowing for retrofit of LH2 at a later date. Allow space on the gantry for extra piping and connections to the stack, allow real estate for LH2 storage, transfer pumps, railway tanker discharge etc.

    If money is an issue (and when is it not?), a phased approach makes sense.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1275
    Points : 1279
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

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

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:16 am

    Who or what is this "Institute of Space Policy"?  Is it a government advisory body or just an industry group funded by manufacturers with competing proposals?  Do its reports have any credibility or carry weight in decision-making circles?

    Lets face it - it wouldn't be the first time a Russian (Soviet) SHLV was royally fucked up because of bitter infighting between rival design houses / aerospace companies....  lets hope there is no repeat of the Lunar programs Glushko/Chelomei/Korolev mutual project sabotage.
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2558
    Points : 2564
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

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

    Post  KiloGolf on Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:24 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    ..."Why is it needed?" There are no useful loads and tasks for it, but we have a huge experience in creating super-heavy carrier rockets - N1 and Energia. And all this experience is negative. ...

    Why is it needed? Is this guy fucking serious? Is he actually asking this? Suspect

    Who the fuck is hiring these fucktards?

    Do they even plan on building this rocket at all? This sounds like they are dropping whole project altogether.

    Nicely done Russia, soon China, Space X and other private companies in the US will be able to lift more payload to space than Russia lol1

    Q. First man in space?
    A. "why is it needed" lol1

    russia
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1275
    Points : 1279
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

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

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:58 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    Nicely done Russia, soon China, Space X and other private companies in the US will be able to lift more payload to space than Russia lol1

    You seem to want to take over rmf's mantle now that he's been relegated to the great virtual compost heap of dead trolls? Mindless ridicule was his trademark, now its seems to be yours...

    Russian launch capabilities are for ensuring Russian access to space, independent of foreign fuktards and their sanctions.  Western payload owners will generally use western rockets, and Russia cannot combat that bias. If they compete too strongly and manage to take business from US launch providers, the US will retaliate and throw obstacles in the way.  "Unfair trading practises" will be invoked, or "security concerns" or as a "response" to "election hacking" or just plain for no good fucking reason at all...  US satellites or any birds with US components (ie nearly all) will be banned from Russian launch services.

    Russian launch rates will be generally dependent upon the number of Russian payloads.  Nothing else. If tehy can pick up some commercial launches, far enough, but its not a priority at the moment.

    Payloads are expensive, far more so than the launcher, so even if Musk can deliver significantly lower launch costs (he hasn't done it yet) it won't lead to any great increase in launch rates.  SpaceX may take business from ULA and Arianespace, but it doesn't affect Russia, or China, or India.  Its basically a turf war between Murican corporations.

    So yeah, take your stupid snarky small-minded BS and shove it were the sun does not shine.
    avatar
    gaurav

    Posts : 377
    Points : 371
    Join date : 2013-02-19
    Age : 38
    Location : Blr

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

    Post  gaurav on Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:11 pm

    Papadragon wrote:Why is it needed? Is this guy fucking serious? Is he actually asking this?

    Russia space program was directd by these "specialists" for 3 decades .. now we see the result of this ..
    Killing rd-170 program has become their past time.. They even killed the Angara A5V ..
    These specialist would think that moon exploration program  would be built on Angara A5 .. Cant help them

    These days sputnik is very quiet on Angara hype ..
    they know that Angara was somewhat a compromise between the  Russian space program and defence industry , import substitution etc.


    But lets hope that things will change for the better with increased funding of soyuz-5  ..See we have all the signals that thigns will change for the better ..
    I think they will go ahead with heavy lift plan once the funding becomes available..

    But on the other hand ..
    Russian satellite development industry is wokring at full capacity ..
    Russia is focusing on satellite development , weather ,communication , remote sensing , optical ,  radar .. They need huge amoutn of electronic components which are imported from U.S etc etc. When Russia completes teh technological backlog it can re start its heavy launch rocket development ..
    I would say rocket development was in "suspended"  state due to heavy workload on Russian industry and of course "western sanctions " he he he Razz
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2558
    Points : 2564
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

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

    Post  KiloGolf on Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:34 pm

    gaurav wrote:They need huge amoutn of electronic components which are imported from U.S etc etc. When Russia completes teh technological backlog it can re start its heavy launch rocket development ..

    I doubt they originate from USA. Most likely they work with Russian-designs and the stuff gets built in China, possibly Korea and Taiwan too.
    avatar
    gaurav

    Posts : 377
    Points : 371
    Join date : 2013-02-19
    Age : 38
    Location : Blr

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

    Post  gaurav on Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:34 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:I doubt they originate from USA. Most likely they work with Russian-designs and the stuff gets built in China, possibly Korea and Taiwan too.

    Yaah but the U.S holds the edge in radiation resistant electronic component..

    U.S keeps the niche in electronic development for itself doe snot give it to China, Taiwan

    I think Russia is building huge persona series sateliites and
    other series with radiation resistant electronics ..
    Radiation resistant electronics is specific for orbital technology only ..
    For space grade electronic Russia has to procure the hardware from U.S.


    So for ground forces , aviation ..
    the electronics will be procured from Taiwan , Korea with
    Russia designs and supporting Russian institutes like Angstrom , Micron  and super computer,
    companies like Elbrus  ..

    To build this industry is time consuming job , Russia has to do it that why it is Russia


    But Russia immediately needs to get going with heavy lift rocckets ..

    I am frankly not sure whether teh Russia has the "space" and reserve industrial capacity to launch
    projects of Energia and soyuz capacity  and ofcourse the payloads (moon exploration and landing)
    I mean see the history of projects
    Anagara 100 , Angara A7  , Rus-m , "Majistral" , Soyuz-6 , Energia-K series etc.
    Evry project was sutdown during last 15 years for the sake of Industry development
    (micorelectronics/domestic sat  development) , saving the finances.
    Russi simply did not have the capacity to deliver really heavy lift rockets so it opted
    for a compromise solution of Anagar A5 which will satisfy (weight requirements )of domestic satellites
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 11748
    Points : 12223
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

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

    Post  George1 on Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:43 pm

    Russia to start testing engines for new Soyuz-5 medium-class carrier rocket

    More:
    http://tass.com/science/983358
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1275
    Points : 1279
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

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

    Post  Big_Gazza on Thu Dec 28, 2017 4:15 am

    gaurav wrote:Russi simply did not have the capacity to deliver really heavy lift rockets so it opted
    for a compromise solution of Anagar A5 which will satisfy (weight requirements )of domestic satellites

    Angara was begun in 1992 as a military rocket to allow heavy national security payloads to be launched from Plesetsk. Relations with Kazakhstan was wobbly back then, and the military wasn't confident they could retain access to space from Baikonour.   Due to the catastrophic economic situation in the 90s, Angara development stalled due to lack of funds, and the design changed to become a modular launcher maxing to a 25T class vehicle.  The design made a lot of sense back then (and still does) but saying Angara was a "compromise" because of some alleged inability to build a SHLV is just plain wrong.

    Angara is the future heavy lift workhorse, but its still a work in progress and is being completed on a budget.  Proton will continue to fly until Omsk is up and running and producing flight-certifiable launchers, and the pad at Vostochny is built, and then the transition away from hypergolics in Baikonour can begin

    Finally, Russia will build a SHLV mainly because the US and China are building one as well, and in a multi-polar world inhabited by remorseless adversaries like Mordor on the Potomac, Russia can't afford to abandon the quest for (near) equivalent capabilities, but that doesn't mean it needs to be a money pit.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3766
    Points : 3869
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs on Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:09 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    gaurav wrote:Russi simply did not have the capacity to deliver really heavy lift rockets so it opted
    for a compromise solution of Anagar A5 which will satisfy (weight requirements )of domestic satellites

    Angara was begun in 1992 as a military rocket to allow heavy national security payloads to be launched from Plesetsk. Relations with Kazakhstan was wobbly back then, and the military wasn't confident they could retain access to space from Baikonour.   Due to the catastrophic economic situation in the 90s, Angara development stalled due to lack of funds, and the design changed to become a modular launcher maxing to a 25T class vehicle.  The design made a lot of sense back then (and still does) but saying Angara was a "compromise" because of some alleged inability to build a SHLV is just plain wrong.

    Angara is the future heavy lift workhorse, but its still a work in progress and is being completed on a budget.  Proton will continue to fly until Omsk is up and running and producing flight-certifiable launchers, and the pad at Vostochny is built, and then the transition away from hypergolics in Baikonour can begin

    Finally, Russia will build a SHLV mainly because the US and China are building one as well, and in a multi-polar world inhabited by remorseless adversaries like Mordor on the Potomac, Russia can't afford to abandon the quest for (near) equivalent capabilities, but that doesn't mean it needs to be a money pit.

    US SHLV designs in the last 10 years have been some sort of joke. Basically recycled components from the Shuttle consisting of the engine cluster mated to the former
    external fuel tank and using the same two SRBs. Yeah, there is a second stage (I don't count the SRBs as a stage) but really. People can talk about the
    Saturn V all they want. The current design is not a Saturn V successor.

    Russia appears to be leading in SHLV design at present. America seems to be bogged down in corporate pork welfare.
    avatar
    BlackArrow

    Posts : 137
    Points : 115
    Join date : 2013-05-17

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

    Post  BlackArrow on Sun Dec 31, 2017 3:02 pm

    kvs wrote:
    US SHLV designs in the last 10 years have been some sort of joke.   Basically recycled components from the Shuttle consisting of the engine cluster mated to the former
    external fuel tank and using the same two SRBs.    Yeah, there is a second stage (I don't count the SRBs as a stage) but really.   People can talk about the
    Saturn V all they want.   The current design is not a Saturn V successor.  

    Russia appears to be leading in SHLV design at present.   America seems to be bogged down in corporate pork welfare.    

    Recycling shuttle components sounds like a good idea. If the rocket works and lifts the required payloads who care anyway?

    Which SHLV launch vehicle are the Russians working on now that's leading the Americans?
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6955
    Points : 7053
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

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

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Dec 31, 2017 3:42 pm

    BlackArrow wrote:
    kvs wrote:........

    Recycling shuttle components sounds like a good idea. If the rocket works and lifts the required payloads who care anyway?

    Which SHLV launch vehicle are the Russians working on now that's leading the Americans?

    Reusing shuttle components is a good idea and Russia is doing same for Soyuz-5/Fenix project by reusing Energia components. Nothing wrong with that. Shuttle had good parts, problem was that they were arranged in inefficient manner.

    These are two vehicles with different philosophies behind them.

    NASA SLS will have larger payload (130 tons to LEO) but will be more expensive and will be launched less often (once per year tops). But USA has cash so it's their party.

    Soyuz-5​ super-heavy will have smaller payload (~100 tons to LEO) but will be cheaper and will be launched more frequently.

    One way or the other, when you clear 80 ton capacity you are set so both systems work.

    Problem with SLS would be solid fuel boosters in my opinion. Once you start them they are out of your hands. And they were reason behind Challenger disaster. They should have gone with something safer.

    Also, saying that Saturn V was superior to anything is a joke. It was a deathtrap just like anything Von Braun ever designed. Only reason it's considered success is because it was discontinued before it would inevitably and disastrously​ fail.

    SLS is way superior to Saturn V.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3766
    Points : 3869
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs on Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:48 pm

    Recycling shuttle components to the 100% level shows zero design effort. It is not a good idea and indicates technological bankruptcy. The SRBs
    are a good indication of where such "design" leads.

    Saturn V was vastly better than the N1 crap, a design resulting from a personality conflict between red directors. At least now Russia
    is finally following the proper path: modular SHLV. The USSR would have developed a modular system instead of the N1 joke if Korolev hadn't
    died.
    avatar
    BlackArrow

    Posts : 137
    Points : 115
    Join date : 2013-05-17

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

    Post  BlackArrow on Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:53 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    NASA SLS will have larger payload (130 tons to LEO) but will be more expensive and will be launched less often (once per year tops). But USA has cash so it's their party.

    Soyuz-5​ super-heavy will have smaller payload (~100 tons to LEO) but will be cheaper and will be launched more frequently.

    Well if it's smaller it would be cheaper, wouldn't it. And why will Soyuz 5 be launched more often?

    Problem with SLS would be solid fuel boosters in my opinion. Once you start them they are out of your hands. And they were reason behind Challenger disaster. They should have gone with something safer.


    Solid-fuel boosters more reliable than liquid fuel motors - there was only one failure of the SRB on the shuttle in 135 launches.

    Also, saying that Saturn V was superior to anything is a joke. It was a deathtrap just like anything Von Braun ever designed.


    launch record of Saturn V would suggest otherwise.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1275
    Points : 1279
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

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

    Post  Big_Gazza on Mon Jan 01, 2018 6:45 am

    The primary advantage of the Soyuz-5 based SHLV is that its modular, and the basic building blocks are launchers in their own right. Soyuz-5 single-core launch rates will achieve a cadence that no SHLV will ever match, so the manufacturing sector gets longer and more frequent production runs of engines & cores, which improves the performance of QA/QC regimes (its harder to build and maintain manufacturing enterprise & personnel experience base on a vehicle that is only built once a year as compared to a basic core that is serially manufactured as several dozen per year).

    Another consideration is that single pad capable of launching both single cores and SHLV stacks is efficient and economical, and easier to maintain and operate. Instead of maintaining 2x sets of facilities (eg for Zenit & Energia-class launchers), only a single pad and related services infrastructure are required. I'd build a 2nd pad later for redundancy in event of accident, but that doesn't detract from the argument.

    I'd also say that the above also applies to Angara. A-1.2 replaces light class vehicles like Kosmos-3M, Rokot, Strela, Tsyklon, Dnepr, and A-5 replaces Proton. Again, a single pad serves all.

    A further advantage of a modular concept is it provides a path for introduction of reuseable technologies. eg replace pairs of URM-1 with Baikal-type winged recoverable stages or similar. Reuseable tech can be trialed, tested and progressively introduced into the launcher fleet.

    Yet another advantage is the possibility of cross-pollination, eg a Soyuz-5 core with URM-1 strap-ons to launch extra-heavy manned spacecraft, or to turn the Soyuz-5 into an alternative 25T(+) class launcher to complement A-5.

    Finally, a modular system makes sense for Russia where cores needs to be transported by rail from point of manufacture to remote launch sites (and where tunnels impose core width limitations).

    (*) Soyuz-2 doesn't really fit into this discussion. While an Angara variant could conceivably fill the 7-8T to LEO payload class, given that Soyuz-2 is an established vehicle with extensive existing manufacturing and launch infrastructure, there is nothing to be gained by any Angara replacement. No point in throwing away what you have simply to rebuild the same...
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1275
    Points : 1279
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

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

    Post  Big_Gazza on Mon Jan 01, 2018 6:58 am

    kvs wrote:Saturn V was vastly better than the N1 crap, a design resulting from a personality conflict between red directors.    At least now Russia
    is finally following the proper path: modular SHLV.     The USSR would have developed a modular system instead of the N1 joke if Korolev hadn't
    died.  

    Actually, if Korolev had lived, the N-1 would probably have successfully flown (as his management skill and ability to tap-in to the Soviet political system was not shared by his deputy Mishin).  As it was, the N-1 was always a compromise design driven by the refusal of Glushko to build large Kerolox engines that Korolev wanted (in essence Glushko took his bat and ball and went home when Korolev refused to use toxic hypergolics for his manned lunar rocket).  Korolev was forced to subcontract engines to Kuznetsov who lacked engine experience, and while the NK series were brilliant engine designs, there was insufficient time to develop large units to met lunar program schedule.  The N1 design had to incorporate large numbers of small engines in the design, resulting in complex (and fragile) plumbing arrangement and an overly complex (and error-prone) engine management system (KORD).  Combine engine/plumbing/KORD failures with unexpected dynamic issues encountered in test flights, and the N1 was always going to be in trouble. Korolevs untimely death likely sealed its fate.

    N1 failure was a textbook example of poor design choices forced by political infighting.  Contrast the ignominious failure of N1 with the stunning success of Vulkan/Energia just over a decade later.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6955
    Points : 7053
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

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

    Post  PapaDragon on Mon Jan 01, 2018 4:12 pm

    Big_Gazza explained everything already in detail, I'll just add this:

    BlackArrow wrote:...
    Also, saying that Saturn V was superior to anything is a joke. It was a deathtrap just like anything Von Braun ever designed.

    launch record of Saturn V would suggest otherwise.

    Saturn V was used only during 5 years for total of 13 launches (of which Apollo 6 was partial failure)

    And while it got the job done it was nowhere near used long or often enough to establish proper sample size. Cancellation was it's saving grace because margins of error on those missions were insanely tight just like with anything Von Braun was ever involved in.

    Fun fact: Saturn V cost 1.16 billion dollars per launch in todays money. SLS will cost 2 billion per launch but I still believe it is much better platform overall on safety alone to say nothing of other advantages.

    It's like comparing Ford Pinto with Suzuki Vitara.



    kvs wrote:Recycling shuttle components to the 100% level shows zero design effort. It is not a good idea and indicates technological bankruptcy. The SRBs
    are a good indication of where such "design" leads. ...

    So does recycling Energia components to make Soyuz-5 superheavy. Does that indicates technological bankruptcy too?

    Launching payload to orbit using chemical rockets has reached it's logical conclusion with SLS, Soyuz-5 superheavy and some others to come.

    Once you clear 80-100 ton payload you are golden. After that it's all about in-orbit modular assembly.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3766
    Points : 3869
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs on Mon Jan 01, 2018 6:40 pm

    There is nothing modular about the SLS. Nothing whatsoever. It is literally the Shuttle system rearranged into a regular rocket form
    and a reversion to more primitive times compared to the "avant guard" Shuttle.

    That you would equate the Souyz-5 to the SLS just confirms your anti-Russian bias.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6955
    Points : 7053
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

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

    Post  PapaDragon on Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:58 pm

    kvs wrote:There is nothing modular about the SLS. Nothing whatsoever. It is literally the Shuttle system rearranged into a regular rocket form
    and a reversion to more primitive times compared to the "avant guard" Shuttle.

    Of course there is nothing modular about SLS and of course it's just Shuttle system arranged into regular rocket form.

    Congratulations on observing absolutely obvious facts.

    And how the fuck does modularity affect payload capacity?


    kvs wrote:....That you would equate the Souyz-5 to the SLS just confirms your anti-Russian bias.


    Please take my supposed "anti-Russian bias" and shove it up your fanboy ass. Have the fluffer help you out with it.

    When I see morons fucking up I will call them out on being morons who fuck up regardless of nationality.

    Once USA, China, Europe, India or Japan start fucking up this hard I will gladly call them out on it as well. But those vile anti-Russian bastards simply refuse to fuck up this hard for some unexplained reason, damn them all to hell!!! Mad

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:50 pm