Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

    Share
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2647
    Points : 2685
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

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

    Post  Mike E on Sat Sep 20, 2014 5:05 am

    kvs wrote:
    GarryB wrote:

    C) The engine R&D ETA seems highly optimistic.

    They wont reinvent the wheel... they will just change the fuel type and slap some made in USA stickers on it and claim victory as usual...  Rolling Eyes

    Exactly.  Rocket engines are not developed in a couple of years.  If it was so easy, then the RD-180 would never have been imported into the USA.

    At that time, they *wanted* a new engine, now they *need* it.

    They can be developed in that time, but it will turn out to be way over-budget and half-baked etc.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2647
    Points : 2685
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

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

    Post  Mike E on Sat Sep 20, 2014 9:33 pm

    With a almost complete lack of space program news, I'll post some interesting information from "Rocket Propulsion Elements 7th edition"... First, let see some info on SRB's.

    TABLE 11-2. Classification of Solid Rocket Motors:
                        
    Basis of Classification                  Examples of Classification 
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Application                 See Table 11-1. 
    Diameter/Length 
    Propellant                   0.005-6.6 m or 0.2-260 in.; 0.025 to 45 m or 1 to 1800 in. 
                                       Composite: Heterogeneous (physical) mixture of powdered 
                                       metal (fuel), crystalline oxidizer and polymer binder 
                                       Double-base: Homogeneous mixture (colloidal) of two 
                                       explosives (usually nitroglycerin in nitrocellulose) 
                                       Composite-modified double-base: Combines composite and 
                                       double-base ingredients 
                                       Gas generator and others: See Chapter 12 

    Case design 
                                       Steel monolithic: One-piece steel case 
                                       Fiber monolithic: Filament wound (high-strength fibers) with 
                                       a plastic matrix 
                                       Segmented: Case (usually steel) and grain are in segments 
                                       which are transported separately and fastened together at 
                                       launch site 

    Grain configuration 
                                       Cylindrical: Cylindrically shaped, usually hollow 
                                       End-burning: Solid cylinder propellant grain 
                                       Other configurations: See Figs. 11-16 and 11-17 

    Grain installation 
                                       Case-bonded: Adhesion exists between grain and case or 
                                       between grain and insulation and case; propellant is 
                                       usually cast into the case 
                                       Cartridge-loaded: Grain is formed separately from the motor 
                                       case and then assembled into case 

    Explosive hazard 
                                       Class 1.3: Catastrophic failure shows evidence of burning 
                                       and explosion, not detonation 
                                       Class 1.1: Catastrophic failure shows evidence of detonation

    Thrust action 
                                       Neutral grain: Thrust remains essentially constant during the 
                                       burn period 
                                       Progressive grain: Thrust increases with time 
                                       Regressive grain: Thrust decreases with time 
                                       Pulse rocket: Two or more independent thrust pulses or 
                                       burning periods 
                                       Step-thrust rocket: Usually, two distinct levels of thrust

    Toxicity 
                                       Toxic and nontoxic exhaust gases 

     
    - Please tell me if you want to see more of these as there are lots of em'. It takes 15 minutes or more for me to post them here, and if no one wants them it is a waste of my time!
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2647
    Points : 2685
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

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

    Post  Mike E on Sat Sep 20, 2014 9:52 pm

    12.1. CLASSIFICATION 
    Processed modern propellants can be classified in several ways, as described 
    below. This classification is not rigorous or complete. Sometimes the same 
    propellant will fit into two or more of the classifications. 

    1. Propellants are often tailored to and classified by specific applications,
    such as space launch booster propellants or tactical missile propellants;
    each has somewhat specific chemical ingredients, different burning rates,
    different physical properties, and different performance. Table 11-1
    shows four kinds of rocket motor applications (each has somewhat different
    propellants) and several gas generator applications. Propellants for
    rocket motors have hot (over 2400 K) gases and are used to produce
    thrust, but gas generator propellants have lower-temperature combustion
    gases (800 to 1200 K) and they are used to produce power, not thrust.
    Historically, the early rocket motor propellants used to be grouped
    into two classes: double-base (DB*) propellants were used as the first
    production propellants, and then the development of polymers as binders
    made the composite propellants feasible.


    2. Double-base (DB) propellants form a homogeneous propellant grain,
    usually a nitrocellulose (NC*), a solid ingredient which absorbs liquid
    nitroglycerine (NG) plus minor percentages of additives. Both the major
    ingredients are explosives and function as a combined fuel and oxidizer.
    Both extruded double-base (EDB) and cast double-base (CDB) propellant
    have found extensive applications, mostly in small tactical missiles of
    older design. By adding crystalline nitramines (HMX or RDX)* the
    performance and density can be improved; this is sometimes called
    cast-modified double-base propellant. A further improvement is to add
    an elastomeric binder (rubber-like, such as crosslinked polybutadiene),
    which improves the physical properties and allows more nitramine and
    thus improves the performance slightly. The resulting propellant is called
    elastomeric-modified cast double-base (EMCDB). These four classes of
    double base have nearly smokeless exhausts. Adding some solid ammonium
    perchlorate (AP) and aluminum (A1) increases the density and the
    specific impulse slightly, but the exhaust gas is smoky. The propellant is
    called composite-modified double-base propellant or CMDB.


    3. Composite propellants form a heterogeneous propellant grain with the
    oxidizer crystals and a powdered fuel (usually aluminum) held together
    in a matrix of synthetic rubber (or plastic) binder, such as polybutadiene
    (HTPB)*. Composite propellants are cast from a mix of solid (AP crystals,
    A1 powder)* and liquid (HTPB, PPG)* ingredients. The propellant is
    hardened by crosslinking or curing the liquid binder polymer with a small
    amount of curing agent, and curing it in an oven, where it becomes hard
    and solid. In the past three decades the composite propellants have been
    the most commonly used class. They can be further subdivided:

    (1) Conventional composite propellants usually contain between 60 and
    72% ammonium perchlorate (AP) as crystalline oxidizer, up to 22%aluminum powder (A1) as a metal fuel, and 8 to 16% of elastomeric
    binder (organic polymer) including its plasticizer.

    (2) Modified composite propellant where an energetic nitramine (HMX
    or RDX) is added for obtaining a little more performance and also a
    somewhat higher density.

    (3) Modified composite propellant where an energetic plasticizer such as
    nitroglycerine (used in double-base propellant) is added to give a little
    more performance. Sometimes HMX is also added.

    (4) A high-energy composite solid propellant (with some aluminum),
    where the organic elastomeric binder and plasticizer are largely
    replaced by energetic materials (such as certain explosives) and
    where some of the AP is replaced by HMX. Some of these are called
    elastomer-modified cast double-base propellants (EMCDB). Most
    are experimental propellants. The theoretical specific impulse can
    be between 270 and 275 sec at standard conditions.

    (5) A lower-energy composite propellant, where ammonium nitrate (AN) is
    the crystalline oxidizer (no AP). It is used for gas generator propellant.
    If a large amount of HMX is added, it can become a minimum
    smoke propellant with fair performance.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2647
    Points : 2685
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

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

    Post  Mike E on Sat Sep 20, 2014 10:07 pm

    This will finish off the info on solid-fuels...

    12.2. PROPELLANT CHARACTERISTICS

    The propellant selection is critical to rocket motor design. The desirable propellant
    characteristics are listed below and are discussed again in other parts of
    this book. The requirements for any particular motor will influence the priorities
    of these characteristics:

    1. High performance or high specific impulse; really this means high gas
    temperature and/or low molecular mass.

    2. Predictable, reproducible, and initially adjustable burning rate to fit the
    need of the grain design and the thrust-time requirement.

    3. For minimum variation in thrust or chamber pressure, the pressure or
    burning rate exponent and the temperature coefficient should be small.

    4. Adequate physical properties (including bond strength) over the
    intended operating temperature range.

    5. High density (allows a small-volume motor).

    6. Predictable, reproducible ignition qualities (such as reasonable ignition
    overpressure)

    7. Good aging characteristics and long life. Aging and life predictions
    depend on the propellant's chemical and physical properties, the cumulative
    damage criteria with load cycling and thermal cycling (see page
    461), and actual tests on propellant samples and test data from failed
    motors.

    8. Low absorption of moisture, which often causes chemical deterioration.

    9. Simple, reproducible, safe, low-cost, controllable, and low-hazard manufacturing.

    10. Guaranteed availability of all raw materials and purchased components
    over the production and operating life of the propellant, and good
    control over undesirable impurities.

    11. Low technical risk, such as a favorable history of prior applications.

    12. Relative insensitivity to certain energy stimuli described in the next section.

    13. Non-toxic exhaust gases.

    14. Not prone to combustion instability (see next chapter).
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3757
    Points : 3856
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs on Sat Sep 20, 2014 11:09 pm

    The information is interesting but you are probably wasting your time. It would be good to get some sort of specific
    information that is probably not easy to find. For example, Russian solid rocket fuel technology has improved significantly
    compared to the Soviet level of the 1980s. So the current railway mounted ICBMs in development will be much lighter,
    I believe by a factor of two.

    I wonder what chemical constituent improvements were involved. From the above description it seems like there is not
    much room for such increases in performance. So there must be some chemical tricks not covered by the reference
    you quote.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2647
    Points : 2685
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

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

    Post  Mike E on Sat Sep 20, 2014 11:16 pm

    kvs wrote:The information is interesting but you are probably wasting your time.   It would be good to get some sort of specific
    information that is probably not easy to find.  For example, Russian solid rocket fuel technology has improved significantly
    compared to the Soviet level of the 1980s.   So the current railway mounted ICBMs in development will be much lighter,
    I believe by a factor of two.

    I wonder what chemical constituent improvements were involved.   From the above description it seems like there is not
    much room for such increases in performance.   So there must be some chemical tricks not covered by the reference
    you quote.
    Yeah, that is what I figured.... The problem with finding information on older, Soviet space developments, is that there is only one source. - That would be RSW. So while I'd love to cover the topic, it is a pain, would get repetitive, and doesn't align with the purpose of this thread...

    There really isn't when it comes to solid-fuels... It is  a "this is the best you can do" kind of thing. - There are other additives that can be used etc.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2647
    Points : 2685
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

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

    Post  Mike E on Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:05 pm

    New article on Soyuz from RSW!

    How Soyuz rides into orbit

    For almost half a century, manned Soyuz spacecraft rides into orbit on top of its namesake rocket. Over the decades, the spacecraft and its launch vehicle went through several upgrades, however the launch profile had not changed much. Spent stages of the rocket and other components fall into several designated areas in Kazakhstan and in Russia minutes after their separation. The spacecraft reaches orbit less than nine minutes after the liftoff, however in case of emergency, the capsule with the crew could land as far 5,000 kilometers downrange or even splash down into the Pacific Ocean. As a result, an armada of search and rescue aircraft is deployed at airfields along the ascent trajectory all the way to Vladivostok in the Russian Far East and at least one ship is on stand by in the Sea of Japan. A total of nine fixed-wing aircraft, 16 helicopters are supporting the launch.

    Critical milestones in the Soyuz launch (as of 2014):
    Milestone
    Elapsed time
    Liftoff
    0.00
    Emergency escape rocket, SAS, jettison
    114.16 seconds
    Stage I separation
    117.80 seconds
    Payload fairing separation
    157.48 seconds
    Stage II separation
    287.30 seconds
    Separation of Stage III tail section
    297.05 seconds
    Stage III main engine cutoff
    524.96 seconds
    Stage III - spacecraft separation
    528.26 seconds

    Search and rescue bases and their assets during manned Soyuz launches:
    -
    Search and rescue bases
    Military assets on standby
    Civilian assets on standby
    0Baikonur (Krainy airfield)Two Mil-8 helicopters, one Antonov-12, one Antonov-24 aircraft-
    1Dzhezkazgan--
    2Arkalyk--
    3Kustanai--
    4KaragandaTwo Mil-8 helicopters-
    5Semipalatinsk--
    6Gorno-Altaisk2 Mil-8One Antonov-2 aircraft
    7Novosibirsk--
    8KyzylOne Antonov-26 aircraftOne Mil-8 helicopter
    9Kyren--
    10Irkutsk-One Mil-8 helicopter
    11Dzhida--
    12Bada--
    13Chita--
    14Khabarovsk-One Mil-8 helicopter, one Antonov-26 aircraft
    15Sovetskaya Gavan--
    16Kamenny RucheiTwo Tupolev-142 aircraftTwo Tupolev-142 aircraft
    17Chernigovka--
    18Vladivostok-One Mil-8 helicopter
    19Sea of Japan"Antarktida" vessel-
    Like all other rockets in the Soyuz family, launch vehicles carrying manned Soyuz spacecraft blast off with four strop-on boosters of the first stage and a core booster of the second stage igniting simultaneously on the ground. Following a vertical liftoff from Site 1 or Site 31 in Baikonur, the Soyuz rocket heads east to enter an initial orbit with an inclination 51.6 degrees toward the Equator. According to one version of the flight profile, the emergency launch escape system would be jettisoned first (114-115 seconds in flight) to maximize the payload carried during the mission. Alternatively, the escape rocket could be jettisoned after the separation of the first stage. From that point on and practically until the end of the powered flight, the emergency return to Earth can be accomplished with existing propulsion systems.
    The four boosters of the first stage separate slightly less than two minutes in flight (T+118-119 seconds) at an altitude of 42-45 kilometers. They then crash 350 kilometers from the launch site.
    The payload fairing then splits into two halves and separates two minutes, 40 seconds in flight at an altitude of 85 kilometers. Its fragments fall around 500 kilometers downrange, along with the launch escape rocket.
    The second stage separates slightly less than five minutes after the liftoff at an altitude of 168-169 kilometers. Around 10 seconds later, a connecting ring, which serves as an interface between the second and third stages, splits into three sections and separates from the third stage.
    The third stage inserts Soyuz into orbit at an altitude of 205 or 208 kilometers and at a distance of 1,640 kilometers from the launch pad. As soon as Soyuz flies free, a valve onboard the third stage opens venting pressurized gas in the direction of the flight and pushing it away from the spacecraft.
    Upon reaching the orbit, the Soyuz deploys a pair of solar panels, radio-communications and rendezvous antennas as well as sensors. Also, the docking probe in the nose of the spacecraft is extended into the operational position.
    In the meantime, inside the ship, crew members can unbuckle their seatbelts and after leak checks open hatch from the descent module into the habitation module and use the toilet. By all accounts, it happens many hours after the last time cosmonauts had access to such conveniences on the ground. Yet, for many years Russian cosmonauts would not adopt diapers -- an integral part of the US astronaut outfits onboard the Shuttle.

    Tests in orbit
    Normally, during the second orbit around the Earth, the crew and the control center in Korolev, near Moscow, test crucial systems onboard the spacecraft, including, two-way communication links with the ground, the flight control system, the radio-controlled rendezvous system and TV-transmitters.

    Rendezvous profile
    Since the beginning of the 1970s, the primary function of the Soyuz spacecraft has been the delivery of the crews to the orbiting space stations, for which developers adopted a two-day flight profile. The rendezvous maneuvers would be initiated on the first day of the flight and continued on the second day.
    An automated rendezvous system is designed to bring the Soyuz all the way to the station, including physical docking of the vehicles. During every stage of the rendezvous, crew has ability to monitor the progress of the flight and conduct docking under manual control, if necessary.
    At the distance of 150 meters from its destination (plus/minus 50 meters), as the the Soyuz normally orbits within the range of the Russian ground control network, the spacecraft enters station-keeping position. As two spacecraft fly in formation, the mission control monitors telemetry data and TV pictures to give a "go" to final rendezvous and docking.
    (More to come!)


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

    Vann7

    Posts : 3875
    Points : 3979
    Join date : 2012-05-16

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

    Post  Vann7 on Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:19 am



    latest Soyuz with the women cosomonauts.. cool video.

    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2647
    Points : 2685
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

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

    Post  Mike E on Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:59 am

    Thanks for posting the video Vann7, for some reason I couldn't find it...

    On a side note, thank you all for posting on this thread, I appreciate it!
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2647
    Points : 2685
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

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

    Post  Mike E on Fri Sep 26, 2014 9:11 pm

    I've got some GOOD news!!!!!

    Leading designer for Russia's super-heavy booster to be chosen by yearend — official

    A competition for the booster rocket has not been held yet

    BAIKONUR, September 26. /ITAR-TASS/. Russia’s Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos) will decide on a leading designer of a super-heavy booster rocket till the end of the year, Roscosmos head Oleg Ostapenko said on Friday.
    A competition for the booster rocket has not been held yet, he said.
    “We’ll hold a conciliatory meeting shortly to decide what [of the super-heavy booster] should look like, where the work will be done and who is to lead the way,” he said.
    Three leading Russian enterprises - the Progress design bureau, the Energia Rocket and Space Corporation, and the Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Centre - are now designing and developing the super-heavy booster, Ostapenko said.
     
    - Remember that I posted info on all the contenders a page or two ago, or you could look for yourself on RSW. 

    russia russia russia russia
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3757
    Points : 3856
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs on Sat Sep 27, 2014 2:03 am

    This time around they should do a proper job compared to the N1. Good Russian engineering software exists that can evaluate all of the vibrational modes of any design they can propose. I hope they retained some know-how from the Energia project.

    Ultimately, research and development of nuclear propulsion should restarted.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2647
    Points : 2685
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

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

    Post  Mike E on Sat Sep 27, 2014 2:10 am

    kvs wrote:This time around they should do a proper job compared to the N1.   Good Russian engineering software exists that can evaluate all of the vibrational modes of any design they can propose.   I hope they retained some know-how from the Energia project.

    Ultimately, research and development of nuclear propulsion should restarted.  
    They've learned their lessons... The failure of the N1 was a direct result of Energia's reliance on Korolev, and the CCCP's insistence on speeding the project up. As you said, hopefully they can have a "repeat" of the Energia when it comes to success!

    Not only on nuclear propulsion, but on the RD-270 and other high-performance designs.... Methane anyone? (Yes, I know they are working on it...)
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4472
    Points : 4631
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

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

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Sep 27, 2014 3:07 am

    Mike E wrote:
    kvs wrote:This time around they should do a proper job compared to the N1.   Good Russian engineering software exists that can evaluate all of the vibrational modes of any design they can propose.   I hope they retained some know-how from the Energia project.

    Ultimately, research and development of nuclear propulsion should restarted.  
    They've learned their lessons... The failure of the N1 was a direct result of Energia's reliance on Korolev, and the CCCP's insistence on speeding the project up. As you said, hopefully they can have a "repeat" of the Energia when it comes to success!

    Not only on nuclear propulsion, but on the RD-270 and other high-performance designs.... Methane anyone? (Yes, I know they are working on it...)

    If they go the nuclear route, I hope they develop a LFTR for it's one of the safest reactors and no worry of hydrogen explosions, 1/100th to 1/250th the reactive waste of uranium analogues, can be scaled up or down to a high degree, dirt cheap fuel...I know I'm preaching to the choir. Very Happy
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2647
    Points : 2685
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

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

    Post  Mike E on Sat Sep 27, 2014 3:14 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    kvs wrote:This time around they should do a proper job compared to the N1.   Good Russian engineering software exists that can evaluate all of the vibrational modes of any design they can propose.   I hope they retained some know-how from the Energia project.

    Ultimately, research and development of nuclear propulsion should restarted.  
    They've learned their lessons... The failure of the N1 was a direct result of Energia's reliance on Korolev, and the CCCP's insistence on speeding the project up. As you said, hopefully they can have a "repeat" of the Energia when it comes to success!

    Not only on nuclear propulsion, but on the RD-270 and other high-performance designs.... Methane anyone? (Yes, I know they are working on it...)

    If they go the nuclear route, I hope they develop a LFTR for it's one of the safest reactors and no worry of hydrogen explosions, 1/100th to 1/250th the reactive waste of uranium analogues, can be scaled up or down to a high degree, dirt cheap fuel...I know I'm preaching to the choir. Very Happy
    lol1 The problem with that would be that they wouldn't generate much thrust due to lower temperatures - Good on Earth, not in space...
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4472
    Points : 4631
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

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

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Sep 27, 2014 3:30 am

    Mike E wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    kvs wrote:This time around they should do a proper job compared to the N1.   Good Russian engineering software exists that can evaluate all of the vibrational modes of any design they can propose.   I hope they retained some know-how from the Energia project.

    Ultimately, research and development of nuclear propulsion should restarted.  
    They've learned their lessons... The failure of the N1 was a direct result of Energia's reliance on Korolev, and the CCCP's insistence on speeding the project up. As you said, hopefully they can have a "repeat" of the Energia when it comes to success!

    Not only on nuclear propulsion, but on the RD-270 and other high-performance designs.... Methane anyone? (Yes, I know they are working on it...)

    If they go the nuclear route, I hope they develop a LFTR for it's one of the safest reactors and no worry of hydrogen explosions, 1/100th to 1/250th the reactive waste of uranium analogues, can be scaled up or down to a high degree, dirt cheap fuel...I know I'm preaching to the choir. Very Happy
    lol1 The problem with that would be that they wouldn't generate much thrust due to lower temperatures - Good on Earth, not in space...

    Que? Maybe a hybrid design, LFTR could be the main workhorse in the space portion but not the liftoff portion.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2647
    Points : 2685
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

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

    Post  Mike E on Sat Sep 27, 2014 4:01 am

    "Traditional" designs would be better, once again, due to higher temperatures. LFTR's could be used to generate power and not much more... (Higher temperatures are very desirable, more so in vacuum conditions.)

    Vann7

    Posts : 3875
    Points : 3979
    Join date : 2012-05-16

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

    Post  Vann7 on Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:35 am

    Mike E wrote:
     - Lasers have found the reflectors, if that means anything to you...

    I explained you already ,several times but you seem to totally ignore it.. one more time.
    you   dont  need astronauts in the moon to deposit  reflectors there.
    Russia have reflectors in the moon since 1971..they even have 3 land rovers there and other equipment and they never sent humans there. never claimed it.Russia even have soil samples of the moon and NEVER have sent men to the moon. You simply send ROVERS to the moon with reflectors and thats it. No need for humans to do it ,when a rover can do the same...

    Any proof of Apolo missions on the moon can be all unmanned. without humans.. you send reflectors and a rover
    and thats it.. you can claim you were there.. but can you see a human walking in the moon playing golf? no you cant. The only "Evidence" that Amstrong was in the moon was his word and NASA manipulated photos and nothing else. hopefully we can also finally put to end the Lazer-Reflectors argument.   About Russia not saying anything of the fake.. simply they were fooled first and/or they had a monetary agreement so they say nothing.  Is not the first time Russia keep silence of as scandal..  The Kursk disaster for example ,that was torpedo by an american submarine ,that happened unintentionally and that Putin covered it.. because of Many Billions $$ they received in change for the accident. Since Putin is very practical decided that it was better to keep silence since 1) the money 2) americans apologized for the incident. 3)To avoid major rage in Russia asking for a retaliation or declaration of war to US.  So in order to avoid a major war for an unintended accident Putin keep silence.. Same with the 9/11... Putin official version is that it was Alqaeda who did it.. but Russia Today Kremling funded media says the opposite.  I can go on and on.. Russia have also secrets that will not like US to reveal , like that GAGARIN was not who did the first flight..others Russians did it and got wounded and he took credit. etc..  The important thing.. is .. that Russia Did had a real space program..and never faked their achievements ,contrary to American Holywood.. and the way Russia beat americans in the moon ,mars ,venus ,Jupiter being first to visit it with a Probe was of sending waves after waves of space rockets non stop after they get it right.  

    But  you can ignore.. what i told you about the Reflectors  you can ignore the Camera film problems with radiation and extreme cold and heat of space.. you can even ignore how Amstrong nearly DIE while testing the moon lander and that they never got it working.. you can ignore tons of evidence of manipulatled photos.. and believe by faith is you like. but so far evidence says different.

    Vann7

    Posts : 3875
    Points : 3979
    Join date : 2012-05-16

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

    Post  Vann7 on Sun Sep 28, 2014 11:23 am



    No idea why the Proton-M was made with the Angara being so close to release... and already having
    different versions of Soyus.. anyway good video..




    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3757
    Points : 3856
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs on Sun Sep 28, 2014 3:51 pm

    Vann7 wrote:

    No idea why the Proton-M was made with the Angara being so close to release... and already having
    different versions of Soyus..  anyway good video..


    The Proton-M was released in 2001. It is not recent. Angara is only going to have its first full scale launch test in December of this year or
    early next year.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2647
    Points : 2685
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

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

    Post  Mike E on Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:26 am

    No plans for Sea Launch project sale to Israel

    We have received no proposals on the Sea Launch purchase, Sea Launch CEO Sergey Gugkayev says

    MOSCOW, September 29. /ITAR-TASS/. The head of Sea Launch, an international spacecraft launch service, denied reports on Monday of plans to sell the project to an Israeli company.
    “The reports that an Israeli company is planning to buy the Sea Launch project are not true. We have received no proposals on the Sea Launch purchase,” the company’s CEO Sergey Gugkayev told ITAR-TASS.
    Gugkayev confirmed however that Sea Launch, which launches Russian-Ukrainian Zenith-3SL rockets from a mobile platform in the Pacific Ocean, is in talks with an Israeli firm on “cooperation in the sphere of launching spacecraft”. “But this is not the only company manufacturing satellites with which we are holding negotiations on possible joint work,” the Sea Launch consortium CEO said, commenting on the reports.

    A director of information policy department at Russia’s United Rocket and Space Corporation, Igor Burenkov, said “various options for developing the Sea Launch project are being considered, in particular, in the interests of Russia.”
    A source in the Russian Defense Ministry told ITAR-TASS that Sea Launch is currently holding negotiations with Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), a major Israeli aerospace and aviation manufacturer.
    Earlier media reports said, citing unnamed sources, that a leading Israeli company in the space sector is expected to hold talks in the coming days aimed at discussing the possible sale of the Sea Launch consortium.
    The reports said that Russia's space agency, Roscosmos, and the United Rocket and Space Corporation have refused to buy the consortium, and efforts have been made to search for a foreign customer.
    The International Sea Launch consortium headquartered in Nyon, Switzerland, was founded in 1995. It was re-organized in 2010. Its majority shareholder — Energia Overseas Limited (EOL), a lower-tier subsidiary of the Russian Energia Corporation — owns 95% of shares. Three percent of shares belong to American airline Boeing and two percent to Norwegian Aker Solutions.

     - If this had happened, I'm sure more than a couple forum members would have died...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18352
    Points : 18912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Tue Sep 30, 2014 7:20 am

    Never going to happen... what rockets would Israel launch?

    The rig was designed for the Ukrainian-Russian Rocket and i suspect the Russians can build the components the Ukrainians were providing... I doubt Israel could do the same.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2647
    Points : 2685
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

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

    Post  Mike E on Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:28 pm

    Failure investigation ends


    On Sept. 29, 2014, a day after the Proton successfully returned to flight, the International Launch Services, ILS, which markets Proton rockets to customers outside Russia, announced that the Failure Review Oversight Board, FROB, has concluded its work after a detailed review of the findings by the Russian State Inter-agency Commission, IAC, and GKNPTs Khrunichev into the probable cause of the Proton's failure to deliver Ekspress-AM4R. 
     
    The members of the FROB reviewed the initial assessment provided by the IAC along with the additional testing and investigations that the IAC directed to be performed by Khrunichev and their subsidiaries. Based on the data presented, it was agreed by the FROB that the probable cause of the failure was the loss of structural integrity of a bolted interface that attaches the Stage III steering engine turbopump to the main engine structural frame. The loss of integrity led to an excessive steering engine turbo pump vibration environment that damaged a fuel inlet line to the oxidizer gas generator, resulting in a fuel leak. The loss of fuel led to the premature shutdown of the turbopump and loss of stage control authority and ultimately loss of mission approximately 545 seconds into the flight.
    Additionally, the FROB concurs that the identified corrective action plan will adequately address the identified probable cause and contributors to the failure, ILS said.
    According to ILS, all of the required corrective actions were incorporated into the Proton's return-to-flight mission. 
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2647
    Points : 2685
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

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

    Post  Mike E on Sat Oct 04, 2014 3:26 am

    Russian scientists develop unique rover descent system for ExoMars project

    Two access ramps will allow the rover to roll off the landing platform

    MOSCOW, October 3. /TASS/. Russian scientists have created a unique descent system for a Mars rover, Space Research Institute Director Lev Zelyony said on Friday.
    “Our European colleagues want to achieve maximum security for the rover so that it could roll onto Mars’ surface in any direction, if need be,” he said.
    “We have developed such a system. It has been decided to make two access ramps which will allow the rover to roll off the landing platform,” Zelyony said.
    Russian scientists will focus on Moon and Mars exploration and repeat the Phobos-Grunt mission in the next decade, Zelyony said earlier.
    The Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos) in partnership with the European Space Agency will be carrying out two stages of the ExoMars mission in 2016 and 2018.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2647
    Points : 2685
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

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

    Post  Mike E on Sat Oct 04, 2014 9:02 am

    - On the Mars spacecraft topic... - Inflatables are a possibility, with better protection against radiation and space trash 'floatin round'. Read this; http://www.russianspaceweb.com/inflatable.html



    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18352
    Points : 18912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 04, 2014 12:35 pm

    I remember reading a while back about a similar idea where a very light inflatable material was to be used for the shell, with the structure being formed by water ice. the design has a large rear array of solar panels that blocked off the suns light so the space craft was going to be cold anyway... it was intended to be used as a freighter/freezer to be put in orbit around Mars.

    When manned ships arrived they could dock onto the vessel and it would be stocked with food and equipment and of course contain water that can be used for drinking and air and rocket fuel.

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Oct 16, 2018 3:21 pm