Next Generation Rocket Angara: News

If they can bring down the costs enough, they could launch two A5's for the price of one.

the reason for angara a-5 is the geosyncronus orbit . you should check the payload capacity to gso not leo. heaviest commercial satelite was about 6+ tonns. and first angara a-5 flight was with dummy 2 tonns. with briz-m upper stage it would be 3 tonns and with still hypothetical kvtk 4,5 tonns.... even a5v modification which is long way off into 2020s would be 7,5t.
For example energya in 1990 ,had 20tonns capability.
try that perspective.

so whole year without angara a5 launch? where is that mass production? not in your lifetime ...

how much cheaper 10 ,100x cheaper ,where you pull this numbers of? your ass?? noo way, it will be more expencive then proton for many years or decades due to retooling...

and there are very efficient launchers there too ,zenit ,soyuz -2 , zenith sealaunch is more efficient by default and always will be- it launches from equator.

you and many people make same mistakes , this are not cars mass production and modular do not make it cheap !

PapaDragon wrote: 4) Very poor on-board electronics. No way of knowing that something is wrong until whole thing goes up in flame. Angara on the other hand practically tests and launches itself thus greatly reducing risk of man made errors.  

5) Overall a very obsolete system that, unlike Soyuz, has no significant or, at all, any real upsides to it. Exactly the opposite in fact...

PapaDragon wrote:

Rmf wrote:No rage, it is- if you are 2-3 times more expencive then proton with angara, and proton is very reliable - fact,
.................................

Factually incorrect. Fact.

Spoiler:

Werewolf wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Rmf wrote:No rage, it is- if you are 2-3 times more expencive then proton with angara, and proton is very reliable - fact,
.................................

Factually incorrect. Fact.

Spoiler:

All the numbers at the last spot are failures that are listed to what reason all rest are succesful.

It is high failure rate among class space rockets but it is still a succesful system. The Soyuz 2 is still top.

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/proton.html

angara is just not that great leap as people think. indenpendence from baikonur is biggest reason.

trying to look smart and yet disrespect others ... i wont answer to your provocations .

No rage, it is- if you are 2-3 times more expencive then proton with angara, and proton is very reliable - fact,

then how you expect people who want to orbit satelites to go for angara - ooops there goes mass production and "cheaper factor" , you arent going to make 50 angara-a5 anyaway per year so its useless to talk that way. they will go for european or usa launchers.

and angara need more payload capacity , you are thinking limited you want to launch to langrangian points or deep space probes for example -not only gso, so it lacks on every front.

Amateurish people just dont look objectively , they dont think reason and start posturing and circular arguments...

btw look at ownership structure on sealaunch now

No rage, it is- if you are 2-3 times more expencive then proton with angara, and proton is very reliable - fact,

GarryB wrote:

angara is just not that great leap as people think. indenpendence from baikonur is biggest reason.

And even on its own would be reason enough...

GarryB wrote:

Of course mr expert.... they are making angara because it makes no economic sense to do so... let me guess it is a plot by Putin... his brother invented angara and that is the only reason for its use...  

GarryB wrote:

angara is just not that great leap as people think. indenpendence from baikonur is biggest reason.

And even on its own would be reason enough...


Who cares about ownership of a turd? It is a US based system that would be politically crippled if Russia completely owned it so it has zero future as far as I am concerned.
Even if they had 100 contracts to launch satellites US sanctions would likely prevent the vessels and Boeing from cooperating with Russian companies... they are looking to sell the ship and launch platform... it is pretty much dead.

No rage, it is- if you are 2-3 times more expencive then proton with angara, and proton is very reliable - fact,

A T-55 is more reliable and much cheaper than a T-90AM... lots of reasons to buy T90AM instead of T-55 today though...

PapaDragon wrote:

Rmf wrote:No rage, it is- if you are 2-3 times more expencive then proton with angara, and proton is very reliable - fact,
.................................

The FTO category is rather useless since it includes all the failures of the Briz-M POS module to do its job.
After 1990 the Briz-M has been the primary point of failure, so the Proton cannot get the blame.  

I'd like to see all the studies of hydrazine contamination at Baikanur.   It's mostly political BS.

Rmf wrote:they are totaly delusional ,they will never get payload that high. they are trying to make angara what it was not ment to be. this thing will never fly but putin and his cronies wont be alive by 2030 so who cares, i can bet anyone in the universe!

let me elaborate in this edit: usefull payload to LEO is usually around 3%  of rockets start weight ,bit smaller on smaller rockets larger on very large rockets, 4% is considered very very good.
for example- energia had 100t payload and about 2.500t start weight with large hydrogen/oxygen core.
this angara will weight at about 820tonns...
that means payload cant be larger then 33t even if they use hydrogen in their rocket. 25t payload for nominal angara a5 is 3,1% which fits perfectly with other kerosine fuel rockets.
Also modular rockets suffer from nonoptimal stage-weight distribution then linear dedicated rockets -thats their biggest problem ,and in case of angara -upper stages will be too heavy .... so they plan to use inlarged 10% forced booster engines rd-191 already streched to limits -meaning more complication risk and money thrown.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Totally delusional?  Show me your credentials as a qualified aerospace engineer and I may accept your opinion as valid...

I personally doubt that an Angara 5V with liftoff mass of 821T will deliver 40T to LEO, but it should be able to meet mid-to-high 30s without issue.  I should add that I think the often-quoted 821T mass is insufficient.  A mass increase of only 62T for a greatly enlarger hydrolox 2nd stage?  I'll believe that when I see it...

Similarly an enlarged RD-191 variant will not be an engineering issue, and only requires cost/time resource to be made a reality.

My take is that Angara 5V upgrade is very plausible, though I think the performance boost is likely to be over-stated.  It does however remain a good way to leverage the existing development potential of the existing 25T class launcher to support heavier manned spacecraft for lunar activities.

Rmf wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

Totally delusional?  Show me your credentials as a qualified aerospace engineer and I may accept your opinion as valid...

I personally doubt that an Angara 5V with liftoff mass of 821T will deliver 40T to LEO, but it should be able to meet mid-to-high 30s without issue.  I should add that I think the often-quoted 821T mass is insufficient.  A mass increase of only 62T for a greatly enlarger hydrolox 2nd stage?  I'll believe that when I see it...

Similarly an enlarged RD-191 variant will not be an engineering issue, and only requires cost/time resource to be made a reality.

My take is that Angara 5V upgrade is very plausible, though I think the performance boost is likely to be over-stated.  It does however remain a good way to leverage the existing development potential of the existing 25T class launcher to support heavier manned spacecraft for lunar activities.

sure no problem only couple hundred millions and 10 years...
you guys are hillarious and that pr picture posting papa idiot top is totaly wasted
bythe way what are your credentials? why should i tell you my profession anyway? why you think only aerospace can say that? and if he said 100tonns to LEO then you would belive him?
do you know why they put hydrogen stage weight so low?? make it any heavier and rocket will lose speed.
because core stage with single rd-191 engine is pushing it after 4 boosters separation ,and it cant, it has thrust to weight ratio lower then 1... its called nonoptimal stage weight distribution angara is wayyy to top heavy...