Rmf wrote:Ofcourse no point in talking without some graphycs so people know what is about and have a perspective.
in the picture is angara-a5 with kvtk hydrogen upper stage ,stacked large sunkar launcher proposal and single sunkar rocket .... see how kvtk fits sunkar launcher much better.
now some rough calculations....
sunkar using only oxygen+kerosine in all stages -80+ tons to LEO.
sunkar launcher but with `10% increase in engine power to rd-171 and larger kerosine third stage - 105tonns .
sunkar using hydrogen 3rd stage (3rd stage would be larger then in picture , larger then angaras)--110t.
sunkar with 10% increase in engine power of rd-171 , and even larger hydrogen 3rd stage - 150t.
so very good flexibility,.... this thing sets you to moon in 1 shot.... angara can never match this.
i think building a sunkar launch pad in kazahstan although its using their money for launch pad is bad idea... it should be built in russia - vostochny.
zenith was built in mind to replace soyuz by the end of 90s if ussr still existed , they still fly it and blow money on that pit in vostochny with no real reason, nore mission.
thats got to stop. if presidential decree is needed to brake lobbies and send soyuz and proton to history finally and focus on these 2 launchers and single engine type- exclusively. (and hydrogen for smaller third stages) so be it , putin has to be decicive and firm.
Some good points here, and I think this architecture is looking like an optimum development path for a flexible and sustainable launch capability. Modular Angara for light-to-heavy payloads up to 25T (with Soyuz derivatives used for medium mass ~8T to LEO) and Sunkar/Feniks stacks used between 17T and 80-100T or more. Modularity is the key, especially if modules can be recovered in such a way as to promote effective re-use (even if it is only intended to allow stripdown of recovered blocks rather than wholesale re-use).
Again, I don't agree with scrapping Soyuz. Throwing away a perfectly good light-medium launcher is lunacy, especially as many military payloads fit its lift capacity and Plesetsk has an abundance of pads and ground infrastructure. In fact, I'd keep the Soyuz manned ferry in production well beyond any introduction of PPTS/Federation as its cheap & reliable, the manufacturing infrastructure is paid for and the workforce is trained. I'd keep it going as a backup delivery system for passengers and cargo, and also offer it for sale (c/w tech transfer) to developing nations who want their own national manned space capabilities but don't want to spend a fortune to re-invent the wheel.
Agree 100% on Kazakhstan. If the Kazakh goverment wants to help fund development that is fine, but they can pay for the mods to the exisitng pad(s). Russia needs infrastructure in Russia, and this is not negotiable.