Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

GarryB wrote:There is this, but it was not the article I read:

http://www.neofuel.com/iceships/

Note some of his conclusions are flawed because ice on the outside of a spaceship this far in close to the sun would create a comet tail and bleed off into space.

the article I saw seemed to be using the ice as an internal structure material that could reduce radiation and also allow food storage and cheap simple building material for a large internal structure.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

GarryB wrote:There is this, but it was not the article I read:

http://www.neofuel.com/iceships/

Note some of his conclusions are flawed because ice on the outside of a spaceship this far in close to the sun would create a comet tail and bleed off into space.

the article I saw seemed to be using the ice as an internal structure material that could reduce radiation and also allow food storage and cheap simple building material for a large internal structure.

From my limited understanding, water is an excellent insulator/shield against gamma radiation and astrophysicists are exploring the benefits of water-shielding.

• The orbital error resulted from an error in the thrust orientation of the main engine on the Fregat stage during its second powered phase;
  
  
  
• This orientation error was the result of the loss of inertial reference for the stage;
  
  
  
• This loss occurred when the stage's inertial system operated outside its authorized operating envelope, an excursion that was caused by the failure of two of Fregat's attitude control thrusters during the preceding ballistic phase;
  
  
  
• This failure was due to a temporary interruption of the joint hydrazine propellant supply to these thrusters;
  
  
  
• The interruption in the flow was caused by freezing of the hydrazine;
  
  
  
• The freezing resulted from the proximity of hydrazine and cold helium feed lines, these lines being connected by the same support structure, which acted as a thermal bridge;
  
  
  
• Ambiguities in the design documents allowed the installation of this type of thermal "bridge" between the two lines. In fact, such bridges have also been seen on other Fregat stages now under production at NPO Lavochkin;
  
  
  
• The design ambiguity is the result of not taking into account the relevant thermal transfers during the thermal analyses of the stage system design.
  
  
  

• Revamp of the system thermal analysis;
  
  
  
• Associated corrections in the design documents;
  
  
  
• Modification of the documents for the manufacture, assembly, integration and inspection procedures of the supply lines.
  
  
  

Rmf wrote:usually cold helium lines for pressurisation of fuel tanks are isolated as is , and so are hydrazine lines in orbital stages because freezing in high altituide/space conditions. this looks like begginers mistake.

GarryB wrote:

It is, but the idea of "icing" it for protection is somewhat nutty. Hydrogen would do a much better job, and is more crucial for a deep space expedition than water.

You would have to get hydrogen much colder to get it to solidify... otherwise it would take up a lot of space unless it was kept under pressure.

Water to drink, water can be split into hydrogen and oxygen, which are both useful components for rocket fuel and for breathing, and as ice it can be used to create structure and of course to keep supplies  cold and at an even temperature.

AFAIK the best gas for protecting the crew would be O3... Ozone. Obviously it would be deadly for the crew to breath, and offer a highly explosive threat, but an insulated sealed area containing O3 could be used to reduce radiation along with a few areas with water ice. A valve could be used to recover the O3 later on where it could be reprocessed into breathable stable oxygen (O2)... burn it with hydrogen and you have water again...

Of course burning the O3 with hydrogen would leave extra oxygen, so you could use less O3 to burn a larger amount of H than you would need with O2.

magnumcromagnon wrote:Water seems to be the most practical (multi-purpose substance) for shielding against gamma rays and likely already be in abundance on inter-planetary spacecraft, by far the least hazardous, and most likely the simplest and cheapest to keep in storage. My vote goes to water, there's already too many things in space that can kill astronauts/cosmonauts!

GarryB wrote: Agreed.

GarryB wrote: Only if they tried breathing it...

GarryB wrote:

It is a non-issue for the hundredth time, and using radiation-absorbing material is much more efficient, never mind more reliable...

On a long range manned mission they will need to take an enormous amount of water with them anyway... if they have to take it anyway, why not take it in a way that is more useful for other purposes, like reducing radiation, improving food storage, etc etc.

Taking hydrogen on its own is tricky because hydrogen atoms are small and will leak through most container types over time... binding the hydrogen with oxygen makes it rather easier to handle and control, yet both components are still readily accessible if needed for what ever purpose.

"in space, one must always assume the worst will occur".

Which would lead to robotic missions only and no one will ever leave Earth...

If  micro meteoroid (A meteoroid is a rocky material big or small in space, a Meteor is rocky material in the earths atmosphere, a Meteorite is rocky material from space on the ground)... hits the chamber with the O3 then that shower of sparks will cause a flash fire that burns out the O3 chamber so the crew should be fine... in fact the space in the chamber and the effect of the super heating O3 should act like ERA and effectively stop the meteoroid and protect the crew... but then there will be oxidiser tanks and fuel tanks that could also easily be hit and destroy the entire space craft...

Rmf wrote:
Russia is blowing too much money on some vapourware. you want to use electricity not chemical reactions for propulsion as much as you can. everything that can reduce lifting mass is good.
They should stick just to angara now with its versions and thats it.
The best way to get to planets and around solar system would be with electromagnetic propulsion from the moon. For that moon base is needed which can be done with several angara launches.
Launches from the moon using electricity from nuclear fission or future fusion reactor or solar panels from places on the moon with constant sunshine.
That way 3rd orbital velocity can be reached and trips to mars in few months. So no need for much fuel or stores. Also experiment with prolong sleeping or even induced coma, where astronauts are awaken every 5-30 days without consequences ,reducing WOF food/oxygen/water supplies ,energy supplies ,show potential.
With ships so light it wouldnt need too long track or energy to get them anywhere in solar system. Ion propulsion would be for course corrections.
And since mars atmosphere is also thin 1% of earth this system could work for return trips.
Russia should focus on moon ,not much reaserch can be done on mars anymore, most was covered by Americans.
Sample returning would be cool but instead of phobos grunt- you could do 2 moon missions.

kvs wrote:
Russia is working on a nuclear ion propulsion rocket engine:

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2012/Fall-Winter_2012/Interview_Koroteyev.pdf

kvs wrote:By strategic I meant military.   There is nothing commercial about heavy launchers since there is no market for super heavy
satellites.   But Russia needs the ability to be able to launch heavy loads into LEO on short notice.   Right now it has a clear
capability gap.

GarryB wrote:Will be cool in 20-30 years time when we can start planning to send a nuclear propelled rocket literally to the stars.

A nuclear powered rocket that can operate for years mounted on a large space ship with some sort of magnetic scoop on the front several kms long that drags in loose hydrogen atoms in free space and of course any dust particles and suck them in the front of the ship to be heated and accelerated out the back like a big scramjet.

Huge potential.

Of course the problem is that 20 years after you launch it you develop a new propulsion technology that is ten times faster so you launch that and it beats the first spaceship you sent....  

Mike E wrote:Defense Ministry denies damage to Fregat booster at Plesetsk space site

MOSCOW, October 15. /TASS/. The Fregat booster received no damage as a result of an incident during its transportation at the Plesetsk space site, Air And Space Force spokesman, Colonel Aleksey Zolotukhin, said on Wednesday, adding that the booster was in order and preparations for the launch of the Soyuz-2.1b rocket were proceeding on time.
“The reports of an alleged fall of the container with the Fregat booster from a railway carriage at the Plesetsk space site have nothing to do with the reality,” Zolotukhin said.
Specialists have already checked Fregat for its integrity and the existence of latent defects.
“The Fregat booster is in full working order,” he said, adding that the booster was ready for fuelling and assembly with other parts of the Soyuz rocket.