Russian Space Program: News & Discussion #2

Of course, the major difference between the US Shuttle and Buran has nothing to do with the vehicles themselves. It is the fact that the Soviets intended to maintain separate ferries to LEO for transferring personnel and regular supplies (and only use the Buran when the payload required it), while the US committed to the shuttle for ALL manned and resupply flights. The Soviet thinking was light years ahead....

The big difference is the Ami Shuttle is the carrier, the Buran is a payload in itself. Russia could use the Energia rocket apart from the Buran.

kvs wrote:

Hole wrote:The big difference is the Ami Shuttle is the carrier, the Buran is a payload in itself. Russia could use the Energia rocket apart from the Buran.

Yes, the Americans were proud that the shuttle allowed the main engines to be reused.   The Energiya made them one-time use only.   But
in my view this is all BS posturing since a typical US shuttle launch cost $300 million.   The engine costs were a small fraction of this.

That´s my point. The Ami Shuttle could only be used with people and payloads. The Russians were able to adapt there system, use only the Rocket with a payload (satellite, parts of a space Station) and/or with people.

GarryB wrote:And that is very important... it is very difficult and slow to build stuff in orbit... much easier to build much bigger sections on earth and launch them in one piece into space...

Then we have to agree to disagree...
Space shuttles is the way for the future of Russia ,space domination ,either for civilian purposes and or for Military ones.
You crate first the technology ,and later the market and business will show up.. Russia can make a lot of money riding
billionaires around the moon orbit back and forth. in space shuttles. And as i said they could allow more major Space Bases sections to be lifted at once.. This is reason why NASA space station modules is much more bigger and have way more space than the Russian modules in the ISS. Because NASA lifted their space modules in the space shuttle ,which have larger capacity of cargo than Soyuz.

And a space shuttle can be a multi purpose machine for Military and civilian uses.. A modernized Space shuttle ,lets call it Buran 2.0 ,could be used as a NATO aircraft carrier battle group hunter.. using stealth plasma shield to become stealth ,and can be armed with hundreds of Kinzhal missiles and either wipe out in minutes an entire battle group of aircraft carriers and warships in case of war ,attacking right above NATO battle groups and with those missiles crossing the distance in just 30 seconds. making it totally useless all those aircraft carriers battle groups.. allowing Russia to be always in strike position and distance of NATO battle groups. Something like this will be the Ultimate deterrence
and will force NATO to go to the negotiating table with Russia. and remove all their forces from Europe and keep their aircraft carriers near their coast... in change for Russia not flying their space shuttle bombers above their naval fleet.  This military space shuttle could also allow Russia to fly above "international waters" near US eastern Coast ,armed with hundred of nuclear armed Kinzhal missiles.. that could reach  Washinton DC..in 20 to 30 seconds and scare the hell of US military and gov. Is all about positioning. and allow this space military shuttle to be for years.. and Americans will not have a way to know ,if the space shuttle have bomb insides or not.
so it will not break any treaty.    it also can be armed with very powerful Lasers ,capable of wiping hundreds
of ICBM launches in space very quickly. also the space shuttle could become a mobile space station at the same time too.. and land in the moon.. So significantly boosting Russia colonization of Moon and Mars.. and so for mining too.

A full scale space shuttle program ,of Buran 2.0 with multi purpose use ,civilian and military ,with fully reusable space shuttle ,will significantly speed Russia Space Domination and it will have a significant more influence than Russia Energy Business ,and help Russia significantly promote and alternative system than the American one . And to defeat NATO ,to dismember it through Influence and leadership in space, is worthy of every ruble ,even cost of Russia invest on this space program.

and you are wrong Garry.. Americans cancelled their space shuttle only because it failed the entire project..
for security reasons.. it was too difficult to keep it working.. But so much they believed in re-usable space shuttles
that they made not one ,not two ,but tree.. but where NASA failed ,Russia can succeed .and They now have a mini space shuttle ,that surprise surprise its use is for military purposes.. They are testing their mini space shuttle for sabotage of Russian satellites.. and leave it flying for years in space orbit.. So if they do it ,why Russia don't do it too ? but take it to a whole new level.. for military and real deep space explorations and for anti ICBM laser defense in space.

Never forget this.. the NATION that Dominate Space ,will dominate anything below it.
and Russia dominating space will force Americans to negotiate a new security treaty acceptable for Russia.
with NATO being either disbanded or all military bases near Russia removed and missiles in Europe removed too.

To dominate space with reusable space shuttles ,will allow Russia to strike any part of the world ,they perceive
could be problematic withing seconds with a nuclear strike of a hypersonic missile by positioning in the correct
place in space ,close or near their intended targets.  And if Plasma stealth is as good as Russia made it look to be
with their Hypersonic missiles ,then it could allow Russia to take Americans SR-71 capabilities to a whole new level ,
. and fly deep inside any nation territory and very high altitudes away of air defenses,without being detected. armed with precision hypersonic missiles. It will the holy grail in deterrence.. Military space shuttles flying near your coast ,
is comparable to having someone aiming a gun at your face from close distance and you with your gun still in your pockets. This is the kind of deterrence that will guarantee a 100% cooperation and respect to Russia interest. turn any Hostile government to Russia into a very peaceful and very respectful one. And even allowing Russia to be safe again ,by disbanding NATO. A space shuttle military program is worth of every money Russia spend , what Russia can win ,surpass in many levels ,the cost of it. Russian enemies will understand that they have no chance to even survive an attack of Russia. Will not have time even to run to their bunkers if Russia attack,and that to annoy Russia is a mistake and so they will negotiate for peace.

just today  ,saw a video that claims the Hubble Space Telescope ,is in reality a secret military weapon..
covered by NASA as a "space telescope".. but no idea if it is true or not.. The argument is that the Hubble
had to be maintained in Orbit by the space shuttle ,same way like the ISS have to be maintained in orbit constanly
by the Soyus , but long time ago the space shuttle program ended.. and that by 2013 the Hubble was supposed to fall on earth.. just like the chinesse space station.. but that mysterious ways the hubble have been able to keep its orbit
without the need of any external help. So hubble original design don't have a propulsion system. and even satellites
don't last much time in space ,they all fall on earth.. so many videos claim the hubble space telescope have been modified in secret as a military space weapon to target Russia.. and that when they "fixed" the hubble lens that they
made a lot of propaganda world wide ,with a space shuttle ,in reality they were modifying the hubble as a space gun and that have defy all laws of science by having a permanent orbit without help anymore of the space shuttle  ,contrary to the ISS that needs external help of Soyuz to lift its orbit.

Module "Science" is completed, it will be sent to Baikonur before the end of the year

Multifunctional laboratory module (MLM) "Science" for the ISS is completed, before the end of the year it will be sent to the Baikonur cosmodrome, the head of the Khrunichev Center Aleksey Varochko told reporters.

"Our task is to deliver it to the launch site by the end of the year, the final operations have been completed," RSC Energia "module has not yet accepted, its specialists are working with us, the documentation is being processed," Varochko said.
The construction of the Multifunctional Laboratory Module (MLM) "Science" began in 1995 at the Khrunichev Center. The equipment of the product and the project itself were repeatedly reviewed, and the module itself was located at the manufacturer. The launch timetable with the Proton rocket launcher has also shifted: the launch was originally planned for the first half of 2014, and then for 2015. However, during the retrofitting work in the RSC Energia, foreign particles were found in the propulsion system, and the module was sent back to the Khrunichev Center for further revision by the decision of the then head of the enterprise Vitaly Lopota.

МLM is intended for high-grade scientific work, and also storage of cargoes, granting of a port for docking of transport vehicles and research modules, and provision of fuel transfer from Progress trucks to the Zvezda service module. According to the technical assignment of Roskosmos, the European ERA manipulator must also be placed on the module.

source

As much as I defend the Russian space program from its legions of fuktard detractors, it is true that the MLM has become synonymous with everything that is ailing the program.  Lack of funds, shit management, 90s & 00s brain drain, worker incompetence, outdated/non-existent supply chain for legacy items... you name it, MLM has it all, in spades...  Khrunichev should (indeed are) hanging their heads in shame, but it unfair to blame them solely as the fault lies in many places.

Anyhow, that said, lets hope that Khrunichev and Energomash has sorted out the Protons issues once and for all and put this bitch into orbit where she belongs...  and safely get her docked.  The Soviets/Russians have never failed AFAIK to successfully launch space station permanent modules (not including very early Almaz/Salyuts), so that gives some confidence.  

MLM image from A.Zaks site:

GLAVKOSMOS: A JOINT PROJECT ON SMALL SPACE VEHICLES

04/16/2018
April 10, 2018 at the Moscow Aviation Institute (National Research University) held a tripartite meeting with the participation of JSC "Glavkosmos", MAI and representatives of the Liege Space Center (Center Spatial de Liege).

The meeting was held within the framework of the actively developing initiative of JSC Glavkosmos on cooperation with the leading profile universities of the country in the field of creating promising space technologies. In particular, the subject of the meeting was a project on the joint development, production and launch of small space vehicles in the CubeSat format.

It is planned that in the framework of joint work the specialists from Belgium will develop an optical payload operating in the infrared range. The task of the MAI will be the design, fabrication and ground handling of the ICA platform.

Glavkosmos will ensure overall coordination of the project and the launch of the MCA on the Soyuz-2 launch vehicle.

Also during the meeting, the parties discussed possible cooperation options, developed further steps within the framework of the ICA project, and also visited the experimental base of the Aerospace Institute and the Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of the PME MAI.

http://glavkosmos.com/ru/news/%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81-%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82-%D0%BF%D0%BE-%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8B/

Only a total moron would want to station nukes in space.  What happens when the orbital assets inevitable fail (as all satellites must eventually do)?  Soviet orbital assets were not exactly know for their mult-decadal reliability(!), and current Russian system are not an order of magnitude better if we are honest.  It's bad enough if a satellite fails prematurely (or even before its IOC... Angosat-1 anyone?), imagine loosing control of a thermonuclear warhead and having it re-enter over some random patch of the 3rd rock?

Cheaper. Easier to mass-produce. In the 70´s and 80´s they got large stocks of recon satellites.

Can you guys take this orbital nuke discussion where it belongs:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t1247p275-strategic-missile-troops-icbms-discussion-news

This one is for space program

I'll leave this reply here as it is relevant to Russian spacecraft:

kvs wrote:To give the required context:

Soviet satellites were pressurized with air.    Western (NATO) satellites were not sealed and designed for vacuum.   So Soviet and later
Russian satellites failed earlier just because of this design difference.    I am not sure why the USSR went down this path.   They could
have built vacuum chambers and tested the electronics and other components in these chambers.

BTW, we are not dealing with a token life difference.   More like 2-3x shorter lifespan because of the failure of the seals.  

Yes, that's entirely correct. Many Soviet-era failures were due to spacecraft losing pressurization of the electronics compartments leading to inevitable heat-death of components.   IIRC the Soviets persisted with using air-cooled electronics as the investment to create vacuum-rated and rad-hardened replacements was deemed prohibitive.  They were in a race to compete and simply didn't have the resources or time available to develop the tech, so made do with what they have.

PapaDragon wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

if Russia did have a 100T class launcher currently available, what would they use it for?

Launching 5 Glonass satellites at once plus launching bundles of legendas.

Launching 5 standard size satellites still doesn't justify price-tag of superheavy rocket. Cheaper to just use couple of medium rockets.

Only way for superheavy to make sense is launching massive payloads and those are still not not around.

Checking 5 space faring rockets for defects is more expensive than checking just one.

biguzza wrote: BTW Vann, if Russia did have a 100T class launcher currently available, what would they use it for?

Forget about the soyuz 5 Russia needs the energiya ASAP to replace the proton M. Its fucking ridiculous how an already built and tested design isnt flying again.

kvs wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

biguzza wrote: BTW Vann, if Russia did have a 100T class launcher currently available, what would they use it for?

Forget about the soyuz 5 Russia needs the energiya ASAP to replace the proton M. Its fucking ridiculous how an already built and tested design isnt flying again.

It's ridiculous how the USSR fell apart and left the worst depression in history in its wake.    Russia lost the manufacturing ability to
build the Energiya.   All the original specialists are retired or passed on and the manufacturing facilities have basically disappeared.
It would have to start from scratch and I quite sure that not all of the necessary documents and show-stopping details are available.

Thanks kvs, you took the words right out of my mouth... Fed up of these people who think its a easy task to attempt to build a 120T class launch system (or space shuttle) that requires sub-assemblies from several hundred military-industrial enterprises that no longer exist, using basic components that are no longer manufactured, and without a set of consolidated and up-to-date manufacturing documentation. Clearly non of these people have never been involved in manufacturing or engineering.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Checking 5 space faring rockets for defects is more expensive than checking just one.

The advantage of modular builds is that the manufacturing workforce can gear up for a larger throughput of a common design so that personnel competency can be developed to a high degree (in short, the workers get good at turning out the cores). The more experienced the workforce, and the more the manufacturing procedures are exercised/improved, the less defects are encountered.

Monolithic SHLVs will be built with a MUCH lower cadence, making their build process more expensive.