Going for an all-cryogenic design (LNG/LOX) will actually simplify the structural build as it eliminates thermal expansion between fuel/oxider tankage as a failure mode. LNG is plentiful and cheap in Russia, and has higher specific energy than kerosene (53 vs 43 MJ/kg) though it does have a lower density and therefore requires slightly larger tankage (though not absurdly so like LH2). Plus the obvious, that any recovered engines will be easier to refurbish back to flight condition.
Plenty of reasons why Methane/LNG is a good choice, and I think Roscosmos has plugged for future-proofing and lowering the lifetime cost of operation of what will always be a VERY expensive vehicle, no matter how it is built.
Big_Gazza wrote:Going for an all-cryogenic design (LNG/LOX) will actually simplify the structural build as it eliminates thermal expansion between fuel/oxider tankage as a failure mode. LNG is plentiful and cheap in Russia, and has higher specific energy than kerosene (53 vs 43 MJ/kg) though it does have a lower density and therefore requires slightly larger tankage (though not absurdly so like LH2). Plus the obvious, that any recovered engines will be easier to refurbish back to flight condition.
Plenty of reasons why Methane/LNG is a good choice, and I think Roscosmos has plugged for future-proofing and lowering the lifetime cost of operation of what will always be a VERY expensive vehicle, no matter how it is built.
Then why didn't the Russians build a methane rocket engine 10 years ago despite these advantages, and only started considering the idea seriously after spacex designed several? Is it possible to catch up despite lagging so far behind in methane engines? How complex is liquid rocket engine testing anyway? Do they require the same amount of vigorous tests as the izd.30 jet engine or PD-35, for example?
kvs wrote:That means that there will be a substantial delay for the Yanisei. Seems that the reusability disease has afflicted the minds of the management. Bad news. ....
I told you that Rogozin's Musk-boner will cost them dearly
Well at least they still have Angara (until he fucks that up as well)
Keep in mind that Angara was made before Trampoline Man took over so his track record remains a solid zero
In January 2021, the Space Council of the Russian Academy of Sciences recommended postponing the creation of a super-heavy rocket, since it is necessary to use breakthrough, promising and economically viable technologies.
In reality, its just Rogozin signing off on the recommendations of others, but you can't resist the urge to puke yer hatred of the Great Trampoliner.
When Trampoline man shows some results I'll be the first to sing his praises. Through grated teeth, but I'll give credit where it's due
Up until now though I've noticed somewhat of an improvement in reliability of launches, but basically nothing else for this whole tenure. He seems to be great at talking and posting BS on twitter more than anything else.
The new Amur-SPG rocket will have a first stage that could be reused up to ten times. In the reusable mode, the rocket will be able to launch 9.5 tonnes (metric tons) of cargo into low-Earth orbit from Russia's Vostochny spaceport. In the regular mode, the rocket will be able to carry 12 metric tons of cargo.
OK, looks like it has nothing to do with Sunkar and Yanisei. The Zenit replacement modules will be able to lift 17 tons.
limb wrote:Then why didn't the Russians build a methane rocket engine 10 years ago despite these advantages, and only started considering the idea seriously after spacex designed several? Is it possible to catch up despite lagging so far behind in methane engines? How complex is liquid rocket engine testing anyway? Do they require the same amount of vigorous tests as the izd.30 jet engine or PD-35, for example?
Russian space program has been starved of funds since 1991 and you want them to pioneer new rockets with new propellent combos while in a 20-25 year crisis?
Russia knows a lot about methane engines as they have been doing basic research for decades. Methane is not fundamentally different than their existing technology, mostly differing viscosities, volume flowrates, heat loads and pressures. While any new engine involves a balancing act to get the parameters right, its all much of a muchness. A nation that mastered closed-cycle oxidiser-rich staged-combustion in the 70s is well and truly capable of buiding methalox engines today
Rocket engines need extensive testing to make them reliable, especially if reuse is a design requirement. The mechanical, thermal and vibrational stresses on rocket engines is orders of magnitude higher than an air-breathing turbine. The energies involved are simply HUGE. Failure is usually catastrophic and involves a fucking big bang and plenty of fire/blast....
I just realized there is another interesting illustration in the same document!
Drawing of a mobile launch platform for Russia's new heavy lift launch vehicle at Vostochnyy. This is a radical departure from the horizontal transportation method used by the Russians so far, even for their earlier heavy lift launch vehicles (N-1 and Energiya). Would require the construction of a VAB type assembly building.
flamming_python wrote:When Trampoline man shows some results I'll be the first to sing his praises. Through grated teeth, but I'll give credit where it's due
Up until now though I've noticed somewhat of an improvement in reliability of launches, but basically nothing else for this whole tenure. He seems to be great at talking and posting BS on twitter more than anything else.
2 years without a failed launch, when Western "experts" were all confidently predicitng that Russias space industry was facing certain death due to "brain drain" and a "collapsing economy". Trampoline Man was at the wheel so he gets to claim credit. If the failure rate had skyrocketed (no pun) he certainly would have gotten the blame...
He's restored the build of the Vostochny 1st phase (not yet fully but he's bashed heads together, held dodgy contractors responsible, moved to recover money, and are progressing teh rest of the unfinished works). He's also overseen the Angara pad build.
I could go on but whats the point when haters are gonna hate? Russia has been working solidly to rebuild its space industry from the ground up and overcome the erosion of national capabilities over 2 decades of inadequate funding, lack of projects and an aging/retiring expert work force. That takes time and its not glamorous, but the job is getting done, and whatever his faults may be, Trampoline Man seems to be determined and motivated. He may not be a rocket scientist but he seems to be able to listen to those who are. He certainly ain't no "Red Director" like a Chelomei or Glushko, arrogant opinionated men whom for little except their own programs and influence.
As for his use of Twitter, one criticism of Russia has always been their amateurish outreach efforts as compared to NASA. Well, now that Roskosmos uses social media their director is accused of being a show pony (while Musk is worshipped as some kind of Great Communicaator for all things modern and innovative). pfftt... I guess he just can't win no matter what he chooses to fucking do....
GarryB, magnumcromagnon, kvs, Hole, lyle6, Scorpius and nemerson like this post
owais.usmani wrote:Drawing of a mobile launch platform for Russia's new heavy lift launch vehicle at Vostochnyy. This is a radical departure from the horizontal transportation method used by the Russians so far, even for their earlier heavy lift launch vehicles (N-1 and Energiya). Would require the construction of a VAB type assembly building.
Its clearly designed for a SHLV significantly taller than the initial "Yenisei".
flamming_python wrote:When Trampoline man shows some results I'll be the first to sing his praises. ..... He seems to be great at talking and posting BS on twitter more than anything else.
2 years without a failed launch...
He has been running that clownshow for more than two years
Remember Angosat? Or Soyuz crash?
All on his watch and all caused by sheer blinding stupidity
flamming_python wrote:When Trampoline man shows some results I'll be the first to sing his praises. ..... He seems to be great at talking and posting BS on twitter more than anything else.
2 years without a failed launch...
He has been running that clownshow for more than two years
Remember Angosat? Or Soyuz crash?
All on his watch and all caused by sheer blinding stupidity
I don't recall any such criticism leveled at western space agency management during any of their rocket launch failures. The whole idea that there must be zero incidents is total nonsense and the global statistics bear that out. It's not some spin up phase, there is a minimum risk due to the complexity of the process and the lack of God-like control over exogenous factors.
Now that the whole LNG rocket BS is clarified, I think Rogozin has yet to show evidence of terminal incompetence. If this BS was actually true, then it would be clear evidence of such incompetence.
owais.usmani wrote:Drawing of a mobile launch platform for Russia's new heavy lift launch vehicle at Vostochnyy. This is a radical departure from the horizontal transportation method used by the Russians so far, even for their earlier heavy lift launch vehicles (N-1 and Energiya). Would require the construction of a VAB type assembly building.
Its clearly designed for a SHLV significantly taller than the initial "Yenisei".
How do you infer that? The Yanisei has different heights based on the choice of upper stages. The first stage cluster in the graphic is basically that of the Yanisei.
PapaDragon wrote:He has been running that clownshow for more than two years
Remember Angosat? Or Soyuz crash?
All on his watch and all caused by sheer blinding stupidity
Angosat failure was due to a power system hardware failure, so either the fault of RKK Energia or their sub-supplier. Does Rogozin design/manufacture space-certifiied power hardware? Does he manage Energia satellite build projects? Does he personally supervise satellite testing programs?
Soyuz was due to a blatant disregard for assembly procedures by site personnel. Maybe Rogozin should have been there to personally witness the mating of the strap-on booster to the central core, and to make sure the interface was buttoned up as per documentation?
Maybe Musk should be held personally responsible for 3x serial explosions of his flying silos, cuz he didn't prevent his engineers from fucking up?...
Big_Gazza wrote:Its clearly designed for a SHLV significantly taller than the initial "Yenisei".
How do you infer that? The Yanisei has different heights based on the choice of upper stages. The first stage cluster in the graphic is basically that of the Yanisei.
My wording was less than precise. What I meant was that the model shows a modular rocket (essentially the Yenisei configuration) which only reaches the first gantry level. The upper gantry is clearly intended for a taller stack, eg the projected "Don" heavy variant.
As for his use of Twitter, one criticism of Russia has always been their amateurish outreach efforts as compared to NASA. Well, now that Roskosmos uses social media their director is accused of being a show pony (while Musk is worshipped as some kind of Great Communicaator for all things modern and innovative). pfftt... I guess he just can't win no matter what he chooses to fucking do...
And that is the point... look at what Putin has done for Russia yet still he is the arch bond villain... master in thief who steals from his people and murders people overseas in the west with military nerve agents that threaten everyone in the west... that stuff makes anthrax look weak... novachok should be a real killer and everyone exposed to it should be dead... within minutes.
Or we can accept that the people in Russia who do them most to move things forward and improve things will always be the most hated in the west...
Fully funded and supported NASA lost 14 people and two space shuttles... ironically statistically they should have lost rather more shuttles... one Russian mission was aborted with the crew escape system working as designed... Russia sold rides to the ISS while the fully funded NASA had no man rated rockets to do that, but it is the Russian programme that is in a shambles?
I think it is pretty clear that in terms of the flashy bullshit like landing on Mars NASA is doing very well, but the basics like getting people to the space station and back and not killing their astronauts is important too... I would say more important to be honest.
dino00, Big_Gazza, miketheterrible, Hole, Scorpius and nemerson like this post
Roskosmos has changed the design of the Soyuz-2 launch vehicle, removing the gray-orange color combination and replacing it with a white and blue color scheme. This is stated on the website of the state corporation.
George1 wrote:Roskosmos has changed the design of the Soyuz-2 launch vehicle, removing the gray-orange color combination and replacing it with a white and blue color scheme.... ...
Blue is my favorite color so I'm all for it (in fact they could add even more blue)
George1 wrote:Roskosmos has changed the design of the Soyuz-2 launch vehicle, removing the gray-orange color combination and replacing it with a white and blue color scheme.... ...
Blue is my favorite color so I'm all for it (in fact they could add even more blue)
dark blue is the color of serbia and light blue the color of greece!
BTW this change is only for Glavkosmos Launch Services (the operator of Roscosmos State Corporation for commercial launch programs). Don't expect any changes to the rockets of Soyuz, Progress and military payloads.
Russia & PRC still don't have heavy rockets to reach the Moon: Battle for the Moon. How superpowers want to colonize Earth's satellite and why they need it
GarryB wrote:An article from a Ukrainian website... not clicking on that...
I consider TL's post to be a pure troll and worthy of a temporary ban. The USA does not have a Moon rocket either. And if we are going to raise the SHLV canard, then even the Angara can be used to assemble a spacecraft in LEO that can reach the Moon. Instead of one shot, you have several smaller ones.
dino00, Big_Gazza, The-thing-next-door, LMFS and lancelot like this post
The first launch of the Russian Rokot-M missile without Ukrainian systems was announced
MOSCOW, March 16 - RIA Novosti. The first launch of the Rokot light-class conversion launch vehicle, created without Ukrainian components, will take place in the second half of 2022, it will be a commercial launch, according to the website of the launch services operator, Eurockot Launch Services GmbH.
Eurockot carries out commercial launches. It is a joint venture between the Ariane Group and the Khrunichev Center (rocket manufacturer) based in Bremen, Germany.
Earlier, the general director of the Khrunichev Center (a Roscosmos enterprise), Alexei Varochko, announced that the launches would resume in 2022.
The revival of the Rokot-M conversion rocket project became known several years ago. It is about converting the RS-18B "Stilet" (UR-100N UTTH) ballistic missiles being removed from combat duty into space carriers. The Rokot-M project will be a continuation of the previously closed Rokot project, but with the transition to a domestic control system. Earlier it was made by the Kharkiv enterprise "Khartron". After 2014 Ukrainestopped deliveries of this equipment to Russia, which made it difficult to carry out launches of carriers, and they decided to abandon the project. The Rokot program was completed on December 27, 2019. Then this rocket put the Gonets-M communication satellites into orbit. However, even before that it became known that the Khrunichev Center was developing the Rokot-2 rocket (later called Rokot-M) with the Russian control system instead of the Ukrainian one.
source
Excellent news!
Anything which adds to Russian capabilities and at the same time denies revenue to those murderous Banderite bastards is a good deal!!
GarryB, magnumcromagnon, kvs, LMFS, Hole and lyle6 like this post
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
owais.usmani
