Russian Space Program: News & Discussion #2

kvs wrote:Looks like a primary objective is to recycle Zenit infrastructure.    The Sunkar is basically a Russian made Zenit with Banderastan left
to dick stroke itself senseless in its nazionalist hate for Russia.   Big_Gazza raises important questions about the specifications of the
Sunkar, but the answer seems to be save money by making a Zenit variant.    I also do not think that manned modules are limited by
the specs of the Sunkar since it is going to be a modular, Angara type, system.   If they want some crew module and lunar lander then
they can launch the heavy variant or assemble the system in LEO.  

The choice of the name Sunkar is pandering to Kazakhstan already.   As for whether the nepotistic regime in charge actually shells out
some serious coin, I am not so sure.   I get the feeling that Kazakhstan is Banderastan light and its rotten leaders want to receive money
and not give it away.   I really don't see how Russia can ensure reasonable behaviour on the part of these clowns.   Since Russia wants to save money
by using the Baikanur Zenit infrastructure, these f*ckers have leverage.    Russia needs a real vision and not penny pinching idiocy even if
that means taking two years to build a "Zenit" launch pad at Vostochny.   They will need one anyway.

Regarding Zenit infrastructure, there isn't much to recycle. One pad available for modification, one utterly ruined, though I suppose the fuelling and service facilities have a significant value as long as they are maintained. When was
the last Zenit launch from Baikonour? Zenit was a great rocket, but post-USSR split, it was always fucked up by Ukropi corruption, incompetance and lack of cash, so an all-Russian modernised equivalent would be an excellent asset.

Regarding the lift spec, they could strap a few Angara URM-1 to the first stage if they need to boost lift capacity. It would prudent to base the Sunkar pad gantry on the Angara design and allow for a slightly wider core (4.1 instead of 2.9m) and up to 4x URMs. I wonder if, given the relatively small increase in core size, its conceivable that the Vostochny pad could be redesigned to accomodate a slightly larger core and therefore be compatible with a Sunkar cluster?

you were banned because of your imbecile insults. ....
on contrary, changing plans ,diverting resources , and new programs popping up, shows total lack of strategic planing- logic is not your strong side.
if your plan is to build modular rocket to replace all others you stick with it all the way.
alternative history !
it there was good planning they would make angara modules smaller- rail transportable ,and with smaller much cheaper modified nk-33 engines in early 2000s.
easy transport+ cheap engine = profitable rocket.
omsk plant would be running and in the east krasnoyarsk who makes 3rd stage block-d (kerosine+ oxygen) would be in charge making urm-2 too.
with greater oversight and proper use of resources there wouldnt be corruption and they would have 2 angara launch pads in vostochny right now. for angara a5+a3 and angara a1 .
angara -a3 would be already replacing soyuz -so no soyuz pad there at all.

zenit was great in construction but has oversized engine it burns fuel too fast -logical as it was a booster for energia. thrust to weight ratio at take off is /1,25 , while /1,1-1,15 is optimum.
and now they want to use same engines from zenit on sunkar-another mistake.
they want to blow money on kazahstan.
they will have many different rockets in service (new, modified old,old).-complication ,harder control , harder to train new staff, more workers , no mass production- expencive.

Big_Gazza wrote:

kvs wrote:Looks like a primary objective is to recycle Zenit infrastructure.    The Sunkar is basically a Russian made Zenit with Banderastan left
to dick stroke itself senseless in its nazionalist hate for Russia.   Big_Gazza raises important questions about the specifications of the
Sunkar, but the answer seems to be save money by making a Zenit variant.    I also do not think that manned modules are limited by
the specs of the Sunkar since it is going to be a modular, Angara type, system.   If they want some crew module and lunar lander then
they can launch the heavy variant or assemble the system in LEO.  

The choice of the name Sunkar is pandering to Kazakhstan already.   As for whether the nepotistic regime in charge actually shells out
some serious coin, I am not so sure.   I get the feeling that Kazakhstan is Banderastan light and its rotten leaders want to receive money
and not give it away.   I really don't see how Russia can ensure reasonable behaviour on the part of these clowns.   Since Russia wants to save money
by using the Baikanur Zenit infrastructure, these f*ckers have leverage.    Russia needs a real vision and not penny pinching idiocy even if
that means taking two years to build a "Zenit" launch pad at Vostochny.   They will need one anyway.

Regarding Zenit infrastructure, there isn't much to recycle.  One pad available for modification, one utterly ruined, though I suppose the fuelling and service facilities have a significant value as long as they are maintained.  When was
the last Zenit launch from Baikonour?  Zenit was a great rocket, but post-USSR split, it was always fucked up by Ukropi corruption, incompetance and lack of cash, so an all-Russian modernised equivalent would be an excellent asset.

You are right, the assets at Baikanur are not all that great. So this engagement of Kazakhstan is likely pure politics. But Russia already failed
massively with this policy in the case of Banderastan so they should have no illusions about two bit, resentment driven nationalist politics from these
ex-USSR republics. Even Belorus is acting like a little bitch.

Regarding the lift spec, they could strap a few Angara URM-1 to the first stage if they need to boost lift capacity.  It would prudent to base the Sunkar pad gantry on the Angara design and allow for a slightly wider core (4.1 instead of 2.9m) and up to 4x URMs. I wonder if, given the relatively small increase in core size, its conceivable that the Vostochny pad could be redesigned to accomodate a slightly larger core and therefore be compatible with a Sunkar cluster?

I think that there is no real challenge to having a wide core as long as the "flame basin" is big enough which I think it is since the pad can support
and Angara 5 launch. The height will be about the same. Having Angara and new Zenit modules be interchangeable would be brilliant. They could
have a wider spectrum of lifting support allowing for less waste.

Big_Gazza wrote:......
If Kazahstan can now be considered reliable, this calculation can change. Vostochny is still a useful launch center, and can specialise in civilian launches, its Angara pad gives a backup to Plesetsk for national-security payloads, but manned launches (which are NOT national security) can still be primarily based in Baikonour where the energy-to-orbit is lower and the vast steppes offer more options for launcher & recovery operations.....

Manned launches from Vostochniy are still very much on the table and are definitely priority but they will wait with construction of new super heavy infrastructure until Fenix rocket is developed.

My take is that Baikonur gets Low Earth Orbit (ISS crews and resupply missions) while Vostochniy gets deep space missions (basically next step forward and whole point of this whole thing)

Like I said, I can live with this. In the long run deep space is priority and that is what will be done in Russia.

Kazakhstan can do Low Earth Orbit, it doesn't matter since pretty soon even New Zealand will be doing that one (no insult meant for New Zealand, I wish Serbia could be in that space club)

And there will always be option to do Low Earth Orbit from Vostochniy once Fenix pad is complete anyway.

PapaDragon wrote:
Manned launches from Vostochniy are still very much on the table and are definitely priority but they will wait with construction of new super heavy infrastructure until Fenix rocket is developed.

My take is that Baikonur gets Low Earth Orbit (ISS crews and resupply missions) while Vostochniy gets deep space missions (basically next step forward and whole point of this whole thing)

Like I said, I can live with this. In the long run deep space is priority and that is what will be done in Russia.

Kazakhstan can do Low Earth Orbit, it doesn't matter since pretty soon even New Zealand will be doing that one (no insult meant for New Zealand, I wish Serbia could be in that space club)

And there will always be option to do Low Earth Orbit from Vostochniy once Fenix pad is complete anyway.

We are pretty much in agreement, though I'd like to see the eventual Vostochny manned capabilities also include Federation & cargo to LEO, not just deep space. LEO from Baikonur is OK, but a fall-back position as an "insurance policy" would be wise.

If the initial design was to have X or Y, then that means it is being built for it. It is just that it won't have X or Y unless the need arises. Sometimes it is better to save money now and then have a plan in the long run. Which this sounds like. They are taking advantage of the situation they have at the given moment in order to save some money.

Big_Gazza wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:.............

We are pretty much in agreement, though I'd like to see the eventual Vostochny manned capabilities also include Federation & cargo to LEO, not just deep space.  LEO from Baikonur is OK, but a fall-back position as an "insurance policy" would be wise.

Fall back option is already there from the get go. If they can launch super heavy Fenix that is based on Sunkar then they can launch standard Sunkar to LEO no problem.

PapaDragon wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:.............

We are pretty much in agreement, though I'd like to see the eventual Vostochny manned capabilities also include Federation & cargo to LEO, not just deep space.  LEO from Baikonur is OK, but a fall-back position as an "insurance policy" would be wise.

Fall back option is already there from the get go. If they can launch super heavy Fenix that is based on Sunkar then they can launch standard Sunkar to LEO no problem.

Pad for SHLV based on Sunkar will not be developed until ~2025, while the Angara pad will start in 2018 (or so). Revising the Anagara pad to be compatible with a Sunkar core & URM-1 strap-ons would be ideal.

PapaDragon wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:.............

We are pretty much in agreement, though I'd like to see the eventual Vostochny manned capabilities also include Federation & cargo to LEO, not just deep space.  LEO from Baikonur is OK, but a fall-back position as an "insurance policy" would be wise.

Fall back option is already there from the get go. If they can launch super heavy Fenix that is based on Sunkar then they can launch standard Sunkar to LEO no problem.

sunkar from get go , is inferior to musk phalcon-9 , and you wont have engine commonality with angara . usefull payload percentage 4,15 vs 3,27

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/sunkar.html

sunkar will have 8 engines in second stage -high construction weight!




meanwhile russian launch numbers are plummeting.....

https://hsto.org/web/3a9/e45/0d9/3a9e450d96ff4e16b13086b7c0a172ca.png

Rmf wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:.............

We are pretty much in agreement, though I'd like to see the eventual Vostochny manned capabilities also include Federation & cargo to LEO, not just deep space.  LEO from Baikonur is OK, but a fall-back position as an "insurance policy" would be wise.

Fall back option is already there from the get go. If they can launch super heavy Fenix that is based on Sunkar then they can launch standard Sunkar to LEO no problem.

sunkar from get go , is inferior to musk phalcon-9 , and you wont have engine commonality with angara . usefull payload percentage 4,15 vs 3,27

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/sunkar.html

sunkar will have 8 engines in second stage -high construction weight!

and........

Rmf wrote:............
sunkar from get go , is inferior to musk phalcon-9 ,
..........

So you already have official data? Excellent, nice to see that someone here has clearance to see classified data for yet to be built stuff.  

Also, inferior by what criteria? I had no Idea that job of SpaceX is to enable and facilitate space launches from Russian territory and to service needs of Russian military and civilian space program along with manned exploration of space trough use of Russian made Federation spacecraft.

Musk might want to to clear this with US congress first, cant wait to watch that congressional hearing.  

Rmf wrote:............
and you wont have engine commonality with angara
..........

Well, DUHHHH!!!!  

Why the hell do you think Fenix will need separate pad anyway? Pay attention.

Rmf wrote:............
meanwhile russian launch numbers are plummeting.....

https://hsto.org/web/3a9/e45/0d9/3a9e450d96ff4e16b13086b7c0a172ca.png

Hell yeah. Proton's track record will finally do what fucking lobbyists and politicians should have done long ago



Nobody here cares about percentage of commercial launches or crap like that. That attitude is leftover from Yeltsin era.

If Russia wants to have private launch sector then some private company can just buy RD-180, rent a launch site and go to town. Zero crap is given for something like that by me personally and, I assume, most other members here.

Purpose of space program is scientific exploration. It is not for-profit endeavor and never will be.

Launching commercial satellites is not science. Financial bottom line is not success criteria here.

How much money USSR made from Vostok-1? How much money USA made from Apollo-11?

Science cost money and space exploration, especially manned one will alway require loads of money and bring very little financial gain in return (unless we are talking about indirect profit centuries later)

Big_Gazza wrote:..............

Pad for SHLV based on Sunkar will not be developed until ~2025, while the Angara pad will start in 2018 (or so). Revising the Anagara pad to be compatible with a Sunkar core & URM-1 strap-ons would be ideal.

No need to modify launchpad nor is it practical. Federation (point of the whole thing) will not be in use for that exact amount of time.

Sunkar/Fenix should have separate launch facilities. Deep space missions are reason behind the existence of the whole thing.

Rmf wrote:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/sunkar.html

sunkar will have 8 engines in second stage -high construction weight!

This graphic is rubbish. Note the mass range (23-26 tons) for the first stage unfueled mass of the Falcon. Yet this 3 ton variance does
not show up in any other figure including the total mass. The difference in payload is solely due to the fact that the
Falcon has a larger second stage (over 50% more fuel). The exact unfueled second stage mass of the Falcon is not credible. Space-X
is not sharing these details.

The Sunkar has a first stage thrust (RD-171M) of 7,257 kN. The Flacon 9FT has a first stage thrust of 7,607 kN. The
Sunkar second stage thrust is 294 kN but the Falcon 9FT has a thrust of 934 kN. I don't see why the Sunkar could not be
modified to have the same payload as the Falcon 9FT. So Rmf is trolling as usual.

As a note, Proton being nearly pulled is a huge hit at total space launches by Russia for commercial purposes. But they are having no problem at all with its Soyuz launches. Eventually proton gets replaced. I think some panic without actually thinking.

miketheterrible wrote:As a note, Proton being nearly pulled is a huge hit at total space launches by Russia for commercial purposes. But they are having no problem at all with its Soyuz launches. Eventually proton gets replaced. I think some panic without actually thinking.

The Proton is being victimized by the Kazakhs supposedly since it is polluting their precious land with toxins.   So are their livestock
that deposit NH3.

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/hydrazine#section=Auto-Ignition

N2H4 decomposes under UV light.  So its lifetime in the open Kazakh steppe is very short.   This applies to the complex of N2H4 used
by the Proton as fuel.    And NH3 is a very similar toxin as well.

kvs wrote:
This graphic is rubbish.   Note the mass range (23-26 tons) for the first stage unfueled mass of the Falcon.   Yet this 3 ton variance does
not show up in any other figure including the total mass.   The difference in payload is solely due to the fact that the
Falcon has a larger second stage (over 50% more fuel).   The exact unfueled second stage mass of the Falcon is not credible.  Space-X
is not sharing these details.  

The Sunkar has a first stage thrust (RD-171M) of 7,257 kN.   The Flacon 9FT has a first stage thrust of 7,607 kN.   The
Sunkar second stage thrust is 294 kN but the Falcon 9FT has a thrust of 934 kN.   I don't see why the Sunkar could not be
modified to have the same payload as the Falcon 9FT.    So Rmf is trolling as usual.

instead of providing data you are screaming like spoiled child.... mass of first stage depends on reusebility option. lol .smaller payload fraction, expencive engine, means sunkar will be unprofitable - period.
so old soyuz is ok , but old proton is bad

PapaDragon wrote:



Nobody here cares about percentage of commercial launches or crap like that. That attitude is leftover from Yeltsin era.

If Russia wants to have private launch sector then some private company can just buy RD-180, rent a launch site and go to town. Zero crap is given for something like that by me personally and, I assume, most other members here.

Purpose of space program is scientific exploration. It is not for-profit endeavor and never will be.

Launching commercial satellites is not science. Financial bottom line is not success criteria here.

How much money USSR made from Vostok-1? How much money USA made from Apollo-11?

Science cost money and space exploration, especially manned one will alway require loads of money and bring very little financial gain in return (unless we are talking about indirect profit centuries later)

this is pure gold idiocy right here , that makes russian companies who use satelites unprofitable , glonass lose profit, world market money lost which,with tighter budgets ,means more brain drain, lower salaries.
yeah like they did exploration and science in 90s and 2000s ,   or commercial sector and proton workhorse saved them from anihilation.
not using same engine as angara means- 2 diffenrent types of engines , 2 times more workers ,larger production facilities but less productive, no mass production ,harder control       . i give up its useless .....
you would twist anything into russia strong ,propaganda ministry wants you.

Rmf wrote:

kvs wrote:
This graphic is rubbish.   Note the mass range (23-26 tons) for the first stage unfueled mass of the Falcon.   Yet this 3 ton variance does
not show up in any other figure including the total mass.   The difference in payload is solely due to the fact that the
Falcon has a larger second stage (over 50% more fuel).   The exact unfueled second stage mass of the Falcon is not credible.  Space-X
is not sharing these details.  

The Sunkar has a first stage thrust (RD-171M) of 7,257 kN.   The Flacon 9FT has a first stage thrust of 7,607 kN.   The
Sunkar second stage thrust is 294 kN but the Falcon 9FT has a thrust of 934 kN.   I don't see why the Sunkar could not be
modified to have the same payload as the Falcon 9FT.    So Rmf is trolling as usual.

instead of providing data you are screaming like spoiled child.... mass of first stage depends on reusebility option. lol .smaller payload fraction, expencive engine, means sunkar will be unprofitable - period.
so old soyuz is ok , but old proton is bad

you have reading comprehension issues. He states that the information you provided is nonsense because we do not have any details of Sunkar yet. They are probably relying on 1-1 with Zenit. So try not to be an idiot, as hard as it is for you.

And Soyuz is working great because of lack of issues compared to Proton. Please, try to keep up

Rmf wrote:..........
]
this is pure gold idiocy right here , that makes russian companies who use satelites unprofitable , glonass lose profit, world market money lost which,with tighter budgets ,means more brain drain, lower salaries.
yeah like they did exploration and science in 90s and 2000s ,   or commercial sector and proton workhorse saved them from anihilation.
not using same engine as angara means- 2 diffenrent types of engines , 2 times more workers ,larger production facilities but less productive, no mass production ,harder control       . i give up its useless .....
you would twist anything into russia strong ,propaganda ministry wants you.

OK lemme see if I can put this in a form you can understand:

Russian companies that use satellites and glonass will keep using them and will remain profitable because they service Russia primarily.

Commercial sector did not save anything back in the 90's. Space program received money from USA out of fear that Russian firms and personnel will work on developing missile and space technology for third parties. So instead of actually making money by doing​ exactly that and thus developing their private segment they allowed themselves to be suckered into ISS project that is devouring over half of their operating budget and to get hooked on bribe money (although this is 11th commandment there it seems)

You pretend that money made from commercial sector goes back to space program. It does not and that assumption is idiotically naive. That money goes to federal budget. Form there money get redistributed everywhere but space program in most cases. Space program can make 10 billion per month but they will still be last in the breadline as all space programs are.

And speaking of money that is the core of this whole thing. When someone in department of finance sneezes space budgets get cut and Russia is just starting to weather the biggest economic storm in decades. As for brain drain (is that still a talking point?) if you still have brains left after 90's then you will not be running out of them any time soon.

Keep in mind that makers of your beloved Proton are to blame for this mess. Instead of aggressively pushing for introduction of Angara from the second they got the project they kept dragging their feet and lobbying for that old Proton junk. They wasted more then a decade and now Energia saw the opening and they took it.

And please drop the "Russia strong" accusations bullshit when talking to me. You sound like that moron from Syria tread with his Jew fetish. If I wanted to go somewhere to fluff Russia narrative this is almost last place I would go.

Here is an example of "Russia strong" thinking here: back in 99 when were were being bombed by everyone and their grandma, barely had electricity for more than 6 hours a day and didn't knew if we were still be alive in an hour we would often cheer ourselves up by saying: "It could be worse, at least we are not living in Russia"

Space program gets budget overhaul and life goes on. Because good shit costs money. Got problem, complain to Yeltsin.

And if you have issues with commercial launches you can start separate tread on that topic and make everyone's life (and yours) a little more enjoyable. You would actually have sort of valid reasons to complain over there.

Also, let us be real here. What is the point of making money from the company when companies like Elon Musk rely on over $6B in subsidies just to be able to do his work. In other words, it will be a major loss, not gain unlike what RMF claims.

The fact Russia still launches shit into space and does what it needs, is fine by me. Commercial market is getting over inflated anyway thanks to China, India and others joining in. Oh well.

Rmf wrote:sunkar from get go , is inferior to musk phalcon-9 , and you wont have engine commonality with angara . usefull payload percentage 4,15 vs 3,27

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/sunkar.html

sunkar will have 8 engines in second stage -high construction weight!



meanwhile russian launch numbers are plummeting.....

https://hsto.org/web/3a9/e45/0d9/3a9e450d96ff4e16b13086b7c0a172ca.png

More Rmf hysteria...  OK, here we go again...

"engine commonality"....  WTF is this important?  What is the issue with having different spec engines on the 1st and 2nd stage?  I suppose it makes sense for SpaceX to use their small crappy gas-generator cycle inefficient lower-thrust engines on both stages, but Russia has access to real engines like RD-170 family so why compromise?

"sunkar will have 8 engines in second stage" - No, 2 x R0124A with each having a single turbopump set and 4x combustion nozzles, ie a classic Russian solution to avoid combustion instability.  Its mature tech and its rock-solid reliable. Each is 570kg, so 1140kgs total.  Falcon 9 FT has 1x Merlin 1C of 630kgs, but it has a much lower ISP (304 vs 359sec) and total thrust (480 vs 600kN) due to the significantly higher chamber pressure of the RD (which requires greater engine mass).

Available Sunkar stats call up 17,000 kgs to 200km LEO @ 51.6 degrees.  The F9 FT has a stated payload capability of 22,800 kgs, but it doesn't specify orbital height or inclination, so this is probably based on 185km circular and 28 degrees which will tend to overstate its performance relative to the Sunkar stat. In the true Muskian self-promotional manner, the F9 value is likely to be a theoretical maximum, and I'll believe the FT can orbit 22-23T when they orbit something other than a commsat or Dragon cargo ship. The Sunkar 17T is realistic given the Zenit can do 13.8T and the Sunkar has a increased core size, more powerful engines, and more up-to-date fabrication ie weight savings.

Finally, Russian launch numbers are "plummeting" because of a confluence of short-term factors such as temporarily reduced budgets and the Proton engine QA/QC fiasco.  its just a temporary bump in the road, yet Rmf predictably has his old fella out and is busy stroking himself into an ecstatic state...  Yeah, its predictable, and a little disturbing, but stupid is as stupid does.

miketheterrible wrote:Also, let us be real here.  What is the point of making money from the company when companies like Elon Musk rely on over $6B in subsidies just to be able to do his work.  In other words, it will be a major loss, not gain unlike what RMF claims.

The fact Russia still launches shit into space and does what it needs, is fine by me.  Commercial market is getting over inflated anyway thanks to China, India and others joining in.  Oh well.

Russia builds rockets to launch payloads.  Commercial space is nice, but its not core.  Its essential to be able to produce domestic launch services to orbit Russian gov, military and industry payloads, to do so at an efficient price and in reliable fashion, and to ensure that the industry generates local jobs and supports domestic high-tech engineering and manufacturing capability (and supports local tax base).  Its not just about dollars per kilo to orbit, nor manufacturer "profit" or stock value inflation....

Admittedly Russia has issues with reliablity (mainly Proton & Briz-M), but these are mostly to do with the impact of the catastrophic 90s and the failure to maintain recruitment and training of a new generation of specialists.  The Old Guard designers and engineers retired (or died off) and the lost talent was not replaced.  Proton was reliable in the 80s, 90s and early 00s, but afterwards suffered losses due to non-design issues, either human errors, QA/QC failures, or build-problems with the then-new Briz-M upper stage, which is consistent with "brain-drain" of experienced personnel.  Interestingly, Soyuz hasn't been similarly impacted, so it seems to be mostly a Khrunichev issue.  Angara should be free of these issues as its an all-new project with much younger key personnel, new serial manufacturing lines and newly trained/qualifed manufacturing workforce. Despite the 5th columnist BS, Angara costs will be on a par with Proton and will become cheaper as the serial manufacture of common modules becomes established and more streamlined.

In any case, SpaceX have yet to show that they are particulary low cost, or that his recovery technique will substantially reduce launch costs.  A F9 costs ~60M, which is the same as a Proton to commercial customers.  Russian gov federal launches cost significantly less.  Musk talks big, but he hasn't delivered on low costs to orbit, and only has ULA and ArianeSpace to compete against, who are clearly not setup to be low cost operators (as their focus is maximum reliability and it has a premium price).

SpaceX is producing some good tech, but expectations on their impact on the industry is way overblown.  Musk will take launch service contracts from ULA, but he won't deliver on huge cost reductions, and there will be no huge surge in commercial space activities as other than the current established activities like commsats and remote sensing, there is simply no way to generate a profit from space.  Space activities are driven by earthly demand for services, and launch costs are not a significant driver. Does anyone really believe that halving the cost to orbit will double the launch rate when the cost of the commsat bird is up to 10x the cost of the launch vehicle?  Likewise Musk isn't going to colonise Mars, thats just an absurd pipedream.  If he gets F9 heavy working, he won't have any customers so he won't launch many.  Commercial operators are not going to engage in planetary exploration as there are no profits to be made, and the USG is going to be financially constrained and won't fund missions either.  What payloads are there in the 50-60T range eagerly awaiting the F9H?

Made some predictions the other day about Vostochniy being geared for deep space missions while Baikonur gets LEO:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t6368p125-russian-space-program-news-discussion-2#195236

And it looks like I got it right.

Also some new naming conventions: Fenix is name of rocket family, Sunkar is cargo version for Baikonur and manned version that will carry Federation will be called Soyuz-5.

http://tass.ru/kosmos/4290076  



Russian space budget may grow this year

http://tass.com/science/947956


--------------


Now before we talk further on this we need to rewind back to 2014. Before oil price crash plan for space program was to have Soyuz-2, Angara cargo rockets and all new super heavy rocket for Federation designed by Energia corporation. Finances caused alterations in that plan and super heavy rocket was cancelled in favor of Angara-A5P.

Fast forward to now and (in part thanks to Krunichev dicking around) we again have Soyuz-2, Angara cargo rockets and all new super heavy rocket for Federation. And miraculously that new rocket (Soyuz-5) will be again designed by Energia. I think that they even kept the originally planned name.

Krunichev slept on their laurels and god kicked to the curb. They lost manned Angara project and failed to stop their favorite spawn Proton from getting the axe. Energia saw the opening and took it.

What I find interesting is Zak's behaviour. Back in 2014 (being pro Ukrainian liberal that he is) he was positively ecstatic that new super heavy rocket got cancelled in favor of Angara-A5P (while simultaneously shitting on Angara of course) But now we have all these fresh news and he has been quiet as a grave.

So I will assume that he is not too happy with these new developments and if he is not happy then I think that things are generally on right track (if not greatest timeframe).

Big_Gazza wrote:.....
In any case, SpaceX have yet to show that they are particulary low cost, or that his recovery technique will substantially reduce launch costs.  A F9 costs ~60M, which is the same as a Proton to commercial customers.  Russian gov federal launches cost significantly less.  Musk talks big, but he hasn't delivered on low costs to orbit, and only has ULA and ArianeSpace to compete against, who are clearly not setup to be low cost operators (as their focus is maximum reliability and it has a premium price).
......

 

Only one factor keeps SpaceX in business: John McCain.

Had that old psycho not pulled strings to eliminate ULA from government contracts SpaceX would barely even matter because even with imported single-use RD-180 engines ULA is still more profitable option for commercial and military launches.

And that is even if you take budget subsidies that SpaceX is getting out of the equation.

Zbignev Unpronounceable is now worm food and soon old senile ghoul McCain will kick the bucket too. Once that happens Musk will quickly find his gravy train crashing to a halt. To say nothing of the fact that Orange Orangutan in not a big fan of subsidizing private sector.  

As for ArianeSpace, they are also scientific institution due to close ties to ESA not just commercial so comparisons are not fair, regardless of what I think about Euros.

miketheterrible wrote:

Rmf wrote:

kvs wrote:
This graphic is rubbish.   Note the mass range (23-26 tons) for the first stage unfueled mass of the Falcon.   Yet this 3 ton variance does
not show up in any other figure including the total mass.   The difference in payload is solely due to the fact that the
Falcon has a larger second stage (over 50% more fuel).   The exact unfueled second stage mass of the Falcon is not credible.  Space-X
is not sharing these details.  

The Sunkar has a first stage thrust (RD-171M) of 7,257 kN.   The Flacon 9FT has a first stage thrust of 7,607 kN.   The
Sunkar second stage thrust is 294 kN but the Falcon 9FT has a thrust of 934 kN.   I don't see why the Sunkar could not be
modified to have the same payload as the Falcon 9FT.    So Rmf is trolling as usual.

instead of providing data you are screaming like spoiled child.... mass of first stage depends on reusebility option. lol .smaller payload fraction, expencive engine, means sunkar will be unprofitable - period.
so old soyuz is ok , but old proton is bad

you have reading comprehension issues. He states that the information you provided is nonsense because we do not have any details of Sunkar yet. They are probably relying on 1-1 with Zenit.  So try not to be an idiot, as hard as it is for you.

And Soyuz is working great because of lack of issues compared to Proton. Please, try to keep up

its hard against soo many uneducated biased trolls.
anyway we do know some basic information on sunkar,from the manufacturer , and its inferior. increasing second stage , payload, what not, doesnt increase usefull efficiency of the rocket. probably NOT. sunkar is heavier then zenit.
soyuz has its problems too, so youre saying youre against angara , angara was to replace soyuz too.
i dont know why you try to troll me as proton defender when i never defended it , i am for angara if it is cheaper - but its not , even its engines are more expensive per tonn of thrust.