Russian Space Program: News & Discussion #2

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Why can't Russia design a reusable rocket like spaceX? I thought they were all about affordability and efficiency. That said chemical energy rockets are in the past not the future. There should be more research in creating space elevators. Or if not, just extremely cheap rockets that can be launched by the dozens everyday so that large interplanetary spacecraft can be assembled entirely in orbit.

You make the unjustified assumption that these SaceX rocets are actually reusable in any commercially viable sense. As if
Russia can't design a lander! What a joke, it sent landers to Earth-sized Venus and not low gravity Moon and Mars. I'd
like to see SpaceX refurbish its gimmicks for "only" a few million dollars after each launch and use them 10 times or more.
The bottom line is when SpaceX can launch for less money than Roscosmos. So far it can't.

PapaDragon wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Why can't Russia design a reusable rocket like spaceX? I thought they were all about affordability and efficiency. That said chemical energy rockets are in the past not the future. There should be more research in creating space elevators. Or if not, just extremely cheap rockets that can be launched by the dozens everyday so that large interplanetary spacecraft can be assembled entirely in orbit.

1) There are simpler ways to reuse a rocket. SpaceX is doing flashiest and most complicated one (and one that has most room for error). We don't know what they do exactly but priority is Angara and Federation.

2) Production of engines and rockets on assembly line (Angara) is efficient.

3) Space elevator is still just science fiction. No materials and no delivery technology exists.

The material for space elevators already exists: carbon nanotubes. The issue is producing mass producing them and I confidently believe they will be mature technology before 2040. Considering that they will completely make CE rockets obsolete when they're built, Russia should do more research on them in order to become a pioneer in the field and and make fortune in elevator tarrifs

This video beautifully debunks myths about space elevators being unfeasible or more dangerous than rockets.

kvs wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Why can't Russia design a reusable rocket like spaceX? I thought they were all about affordability and efficiency. That said chemical energy rockets are in the past not the future. There should be more research in creating space elevators. Or if not, just extremely cheap rockets that can be launched by the dozens everyday so that large interplanetary spacecraft can be assembled entirely in orbit.

You make the unjustified assumption that these SaceX rocets are actually reusable in any commercially viable sense.   As if
Russia can't design a lander!  What a joke, it sent landers to Earth-sized Venus and not low gravity Moon and Mars.   I'd
like to see SpaceX refurbish its gimmicks for "only" a few million dollars after each launch and use them 10 times or more.
The bottom line is when SpaceX can launch for less money than Roscosmos.   So far it can't.

The problem is that SpaceX has secure funding while Roscosmos is constantly subject to budget cuts and corruption. The falcon rockets have already been launched while the angara is constantly postponed. That means that SpaceX has a head start in maturing and perfecting reusable rocket technology.

SpaceX is only "secured" due to constant tax excemptions from the government, borrowing of technology from others (so little funds went to it) and the fact that most of Elon Musk's company is barely functioning on budget (actually, more like deficits). And in the end, SpaceX rocket really isn't all that cheap. A lot of claims, but they can "make it cheap" due to what I mentioned above. A really good story of success when there really wasn't a whole lot. Remove all of that, and force SpaceX to actually do all the R&D themselves, and they would have problems.

Roscosmos faces issues of course. But believe it or not, it is now listed as a state run company. So guess what? It is now operating no different than the other companies like Virgin and SpaceX (besides it being still owned by the government). But the whole business practice behind it is now the same. Thing is, they still have to actually design stuff and not borrow it.

miketheterrible wrote:SpaceX is only "secured" due to constant tax excemptions from the government, borrowing of technology from others (so little funds went to it) and the fact that most of Elon Musk's company is barely functioning on budget (actually, more like deficits).  And in the end, SpaceX rocket really isn't all that cheap.  A lot of claims, but they can "make it cheap" due to what I mentioned above.  A really good story of success when there really wasn't a whole lot.  Remove all of that, and force SpaceX to actually do all the R&D themselves, and they would have problems.

Roscosmos faces issues of course.  But believe it or not, it is now listed as a state run company.  So guess what? It is now operating no different than the other companies like Virgin and SpaceX (besides it being still owned by the government).  But the whole business practice behind it is now the same.  Thing is, they still have to actually design stuff and not borrow it.

Wow so much for private companies being innovative due to not being pampered by the state. Thanks for clearing that up. But from where does spaceX borrow the technology from? NASA? ESA? Or all of them? Do they license produce the nonSpaceX technology?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:SpaceX is only "secured" due to constant tax excemptions from the government, borrowing of technology from others (so little funds went to it) and the fact that most of Elon Musk's company is barely functioning on budget (actually, more like deficits).  And in the end, SpaceX rocket really isn't all that cheap.  A lot of claims, but they can "make it cheap" due to what I mentioned above.  A really good story of success when there really wasn't a whole lot.  Remove all of that, and force SpaceX to actually do all the R&D themselves, and they would have problems.

Roscosmos faces issues of course.  But believe it or not, it is now listed as a state run company.  So guess what? It is now operating no different than the other companies like Virgin and SpaceX (besides it being still owned by the government).  But the whole business practice behind it is now the same.  Thing is, they still have to actually design stuff and not borrow it.

Wow so much for private companies being innovative due to not being pampered by the state. Thanks for clearing that up. But from where does spaceX borrow the technology from? NASA? ESA? Or all of them? Do they license produce the nonSpaceX technology?

Only one I know of that was once mentioned (year or two ago by Zerohedge) was NASA.  It was through some kind of leaks from the company itself.

What I learned from having close contact with people working in private companies (family) was that majority of tech came from the MiC or other state enterprises.  Handed to them (almost, certain costs applied) so that it will "take the military technology to civilian levels".  Various companies where I am from were part of that (Tech developed for navy equipment.  Sold also to private sector).

Nothing new.

Here is the one on subsidies:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html

Let me give you a hint as to why this is done.  It is an old method but one used successfully.  It isn't that private companies may not be able to do this or not, it is that the success rate may not be as high.  Virgin is testimony of being a more successful entity than SpaceX is due to the fact it is more "private" than spaceX.  Simply put, SpaceX needs the help in order to create a "superstar" be successful.  In this case, Elon Musk.  Like Zuckerburg, Elon Musk is paraded around as a genius whom only was able to make his dream come true (and a billionaire on top of that) by living in America!  What they don't like to talk about, regardless how one or the there points it out, they are frauds.  But it isn't the fact they are frauds, it is that they are an image - a portrait for others, to give this impression that the American dream is alive and well, and to create this kind of cult around the idea that if it isn't America, it is nothing.  The American dream is dead, and has been since Reagan's Voodoo economics.  So in order to keep this charade going, they create visionaries and illusions, with massive financial and technological help from the state, to give this impression on the rest of the world.  Doesn't matter if it is successful in the book keepings.  What matters is if it will keep the masses in awe and wonder, thinking that everything is grand and they must buy the new iPhone 12GS/FLQ/LGBT model.  Reality is very different, at least in what we know of.  In the background, US lives off of borrowed technology, people, money and time.  Reality is, it is bread and circus.  Funny enough, nation like Russia that invented a lot of technologies used now, and even made discoveries, believes they are "backwards" in technology, without even knowing that their tech is used in our Radar.  Or at least have been since 1990's from Czechoslovakia.  Little do they know that it was MCST that designed the multicore processors, little do they know of laser technology they invented is used in most disk reading tech, etc etc etc.  But this illusions is what helped eventually bring the downfall of the Soviet Union.  This illusion of Hollywood, Superstar geniuses, "Artists", grandeur is what keeps people thinking everything they do is the end all be all.  Even a huge part of the forums community, whom likes to think they are most knowledgeable in knowing the "truth" of how evil the US is, still fall victim to these same fake grandeur.  KVS has a lot of knowledge on the tech side of things because of his background.  I have a lot of knowledge in it not because of my background in what I do as a job, but because of the people I know and the various situations my family has had to endure over the years.  It is all experience.  I myself as an example trust Militarov on various technology knowledge because of his job and experience, and when it comes to air defense systems because of his experience from the Serbian military.  I was just lucky enough to have politicians and people working for the MiC in the right era, to be able to provide me knowledge.

We "Had" companies where I am from that built mostly for the navy.  Then contracted out the military technology to private sector to make additional funds since at one time, the MiC was limited on their profit margin so they needed to increase their profits some other way.

There are couple of more things to consider here:

1) Russia is soon to start mass production of RD-191 rocket engines and Angara rockets on assembly line in Omsk. Also they announced that they might start exporting RD-180 engines to customers other than USA. Combination of these two things might result in basically flooding the market with cheap product. This would also eat into Musk's price calculation.

2) I am pised off to no end at how everyone keeps saying that Musk and SpaceX are first to do this or that. First company to land a rocket and reuse is it not SpaceX, it's Blue Origin owned by Jeff Bezos. They also had other firsts before SpaceX.

And while I absolutely despise that scumbag Bezos, I still think it is unfair for people to attribute his achievements to Elon Musk.

PapaDragon wrote:
There are couple of more things to consider here:

1) Russia is soon to start mass production of RD-191 rocket engines and Angara rockets on assembly line in Omsk. Also they announced that they might start exporting RD-180 engines to customers other than USA. Combination of these two things might result in basically flooding the market with cheap product. This would also eat into Musk's price calculation.

2) I am pised off to no end at how everyone keeps saying that Musk and SpaceX are first to do this or that. First company to land a rocket and reuse is it not SpaceX, it's Blue Origin owned by Jeff Bezos. They also had other firsts before SpaceX.

And while I absolutely despise that scumbag Bezos, I still think it is unfair for people to attribute his achievements to Elon Musk.

To hell with Musk, there are still people who are hyperventilating over his "manned mission to Mars" crap, call me when Russia's pulse detonation rockets are ready.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:
The material for space elevators already exists: carbon nanotubes. The issue is producing mass producing them and I confidently believe they will be mature technology before 2040. Considering that they will completely make CE rockets obsolete when they're built, Russia should do more research on them in order to become a pioneer in the field and and make fortune in elevator tarrifs

Sou can build space elevator from space, not from earth.

Means to build it you need fully developed space industry.

That has a pre-requisite of nuclear rockets.

And if you have nuc rockets then why you consider the usage of space elevator?

And one overlooked part of the sorty is if a realy heavy weight , big space elevator collapse then it can make a hole on the earth crust.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

The problem is that SpaceX has secure funding while Roscosmos is constantly subject to budget cuts and corruption. The falcon rockets have already been launched while the angara is constantly postponed. That means that SpaceX has a head start in maturing and perfecting reusable rocket technology.

The US has maturred resuable rocket technology.

The Shuttle is the most advanced reusable platform, best part of its second stage was reusable, the second stage of the falcons not reusable at all.

Wait, the shuttle failed exactly because if you burn 600 tonns of fuel in five minutes then the engine needs more just a simple check.

For an aircraft it takes days to burn that much fuel.

so russia HAS fallen to 3rd place in space launches , wow happened sooner then i thought , commercial competitors are getting ahead with lower costs , and as americans replace rd-180 they will be finished, just as i predicted.
but some are still blind and continue with toxic hate to their detriment.

Rmf wrote:so russia HAS fallen to 3rd place in space launches , wow happened sooner then i thought , commercial competitors are getting ahead with lower costs , and as americans replace rd-180 they will be finished, just as i predicted.
but some are still blind and continue with toxic hate to their detriment.

So let me see if I get this straight: current market situation that is is result of over reliance on obsolete legacy Soviet systems, chiefly among them the disaster known as Proton, is being criticized by biggest fanboy of those same systems and infrastructure?

I guess Toyota should close shop now when they are no longer biggest game in town?

Also keep in mind that reason they are losing market share is because the amazing and totally not obsolete Proton rocket has no option for payload scaling... in addition to having tendency to go up in flames at most inauspicious moments.

Market situation will be corrected with introduction of new systems and infrastructure. And getting rid of Soviet junk.

In the meantime have some black tea and do some yoga or something. Helps with stress.

Rmf wrote:so russia HAS fallen to 3rd place in space launches , wow happened sooner then i thought , commercial competitors are getting ahead with lower costs , and as americans replace rd-180 they will be finished, just as i predicted.
but some are still blind and continue with toxic hate to their detriment.

I don't understand your retardation.  I know you may have been used as a basketball as a child, but doesn't mean you should spew your uneducated opinion here thinking we actually don't know what we are talking about.

First off - India was way behind and yet built their own space industry.  So because they had no launches to a few launches, that means they should have given up and their industry was dead?  That makes absolutely 0 fucking sense and makes the rest of us more dumb.  You should be shot for such stupidity.  Would save us from the thought of you having a child and bringing more stupidity into this world.

Second, RD-190 replaces RD-180 and the purpose of Russia's space industry was for Russia's use.  The rest is icing on the cake.  Once America gives up RD-180 in 2022, then so be it.  If it doesn't sell on other markets, then Roscosmos will scrap it and continue to work on what they have to still launch what they want and what they need.

Seriously, if you think it is justifiable to scrap a space industry simply because something that only has been selling for a while will no longer be sold and that they reduced space launches, then you seriously need a good beating.

Want to do us a favor and just simply ban yourself from this site? So the rest of us don't have to read your stupidity?

seriously, everytime I open up this thread and seeing your stupid inane posts, it really just drives down the quality of this site.  You are along the same lines as Vann and other conspiracy nuts.

I seriously hope you have the ability to read, if so, here you go: http://tass.com/science/941458

Tass.com wrote:As Head of Russia’s State Space Corporation Roscosmos Igor Komarov said, the US decision to give up Russian rocket engines "will hardly critically affect the development of the engine-making industry in Russia."
The agreement between Moscow and Washington stipulating the delivery of 101 RD-180 rocket engines to the United States and estimated at about $1 billion was signed in 1997. The US Congress earlier imposed a ban on the use of these engines after 2019 amid deteriorating relations with Russia but later lifted it when it became clear that the United States would be unable to develop engines of its own in the coming years.
Immediately after that, the ULA consortium ordered an additional 20 RD-180 engines from Russia’s Energomash until 2020.

Russian Corp. Works on State-of-the-Art New Super Heavy Class Carrier Rocket
https://sputniknews.com/russia/201704141052644591-russia-energia-carrier-rocket/

Singular_Transform wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

The problem is that SpaceX has secure funding while Roscosmos is constantly subject to budget cuts and corruption. The falcon rockets have already been launched while the angara is constantly postponed. That means that SpaceX has a head start in maturing and perfecting reusable rocket technology.

The US has maturred resuable rocket technology.

The Shuttle is the most advanced reusable platform, best part of its second stage was reusable, the second stage of the falcons not reusable at all.

Wait, the shuttle failed exactly because if you burn 600 tonns of fuel in five minutes then the engine needs more just a simple check.

For an aircraft it takes days to burn that much fuel.

What second stage? If you mean the engines on the shuttle, big f*cking whoop. The fuel tank was disposable. The SRBs were
reusable but are nothing more than a collection pipe sections. So big f*cking whoop again. For all of these "savings" each
launch of the Shuttle cost $1.45 billion dollars since the whole program cost $196 billion for 135 launches (including the 2 failures).
Discounting R&D costs is not legitimate since they are supposed to be recouped by the operation of the platform. Hence the
total cost divided by the number of launches is the real cost.

kvs wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

The problem is that SpaceX has secure funding while Roscosmos is constantly subject to budget cuts and corruption. The falcon rockets have already been launched while the angara is constantly postponed. That means that SpaceX has a head start in maturing and perfecting reusable rocket technology.

The US has maturred resuable rocket technology.

The Shuttle is the most advanced reusable platform, best part of its second stage was reusable, the second stage of the falcons not reusable at all.

Wait, the shuttle failed exactly because if you burn 600 tonns of fuel in five minutes then the engine needs more just a simple check.

For an aircraft it takes days to burn that much fuel.

What second stage? If you mean the engines on the shuttle, big f*cking whoop. The fuel tank was disposable. The SRBs were
reusable but are nothing more than a collection pipe sections. So big f*cking whoop again. For all of these "savings" each
launch of the Shuttle cost $1.45 billion dollars since the whole program cost $196 billion for 135 launches (including the 2 failures).
Discounting R&D costs is not legitimate since they are supposed to be recouped by the operation of the platform. Hence the
total cost divided by the number of launches is the real cost.

Actualy ,the shuttle was the third stage as well, it was capable to fine tune the orbit of the launched satelite.


And yes, it was a huge flopp, so the reusability doesn't mean low operation cost.

GarryB wrote:The plan was to reduce costs by making major parts reusable.

The problem was that in reality the cost of actually locating the reusable parts and refurbishing them to allow reuse made them more expensive... not less expensive.

The Space Shuttle was the epitome of gold plating if you take its name at face value... billions of dollars to take three people up to the Space Station and return three people from same said station.

A Soyuz could do that for less than 60 million.

Using the Space shuttle for taking up crews or cargo to the ISS was a tremendous waste of money.

For capturing satellites and repairing them and then releasing them back into orbit was about the only thing the shuttle was any use for... and still very expensive.

And the satellite fixing operations were almost non-existent. The Hubble telescope was the only big thing I can recall being fixed in orbit.
When people wank off about Space-X having commercialized reusable orbiting platforms they should consider the experience with the shuttle.
It is likely that the refurbishment of Space-X hardware will be very expensive.

Reusable orbital capability is not ready yet. When pulse detonation engines are perfected there will be a way to design "HOTOL" type
rocket-planes that take off from runways, use air lift to gain altitude while gaining high speed and then rocket their way to LEO using the same engines.
The Shuttle was a glorified conventional rocket system.

kvs wrote:

GarryB wrote:The plan was to reduce costs by making major parts reusable.

The problem was that in reality the cost of actually locating the reusable parts and refurbishing them to allow reuse made them more expensive... not less expensive.

The Space Shuttle was the epitome of gold plating if you take its name at face value... billions of dollars to take three people up to the Space Station and return three people from same said station.

A Soyuz could do that for less than 60 million.

Using the Space shuttle for taking up crews or cargo to the ISS was a tremendous waste of money.

For capturing satellites and repairing them and then releasing them back into orbit was about the only thing the shuttle was any use for... and still very expensive.

And the satellite fixing operations were almost non-existent.  The Hubble telescope was the only big thing I can recall being fixed in orbit.
When people wank off about Space-X having commercialized reusable orbiting platforms they should consider the experience with the shuttle.
It is likely that the refurbishment of Space-X hardware will be very expensive.

Reusable orbital capability is not ready yet.   When pulse detonation engines are perfected there will be a way to design "HOTOL" type
rocket-planes that take off from runways, use air lift to gain altitude while gaining high speed and then rocket their way to LEO using the same engines.  
The Shuttle was a glorified conventional rocket system.

Agree 100%, and I have nothing but disdain for these clowns who think that "humanity" stands "on the cusp" of a "grand expansion into space". Its all hogwash. Space activities are driven by a real need for orbital assets that deliver real benefits (and are economically justifiable), and the costs of the booster is a small part of the equation. Rockets are cheap compared to the expensive payloads such as commsats and science payloads, and any (alleged) Muskian cost reductions will only led to a slighty enhance profit margin for the owners. It won't lead to any appreciable increase in launch rates unless the demand exists for more payloads.

Big_Gazza wrote:

kvs wrote:

GarryB wrote:The plan was to reduce costs by making major parts reusable.

The problem was that in reality the cost of actually locating the reusable parts and refurbishing them to allow reuse made them more expensive... not less expensive.

The Space Shuttle was the epitome of gold plating if you take its name at face value... billions of dollars to take three people up to the Space Station and return three people from same said station.

A Soyuz could do that for less than 60 million.

Using the Space shuttle for taking up crews or cargo to the ISS was a tremendous waste of money.

For capturing satellites and repairing them and then releasing them back into orbit was about the only thing the shuttle was any use for... and still very expensive.

And the satellite fixing operations were almost non-existent.  The Hubble telescope was the only big thing I can recall being fixed in orbit.
When people wank off about Space-X having commercialized reusable orbiting platforms they should consider the experience with the shuttle.
It is likely that the refurbishment of Space-X hardware will be very expensive.

Reusable orbital capability is not ready yet.   When pulse detonation engines are perfected there will be a way to design "HOTOL" type
rocket-planes that take off from runways, use air lift to gain altitude while gaining high speed and then rocket their way to LEO using the same engines.  
The Shuttle was a glorified conventional rocket system.

Agree 100%, and I have nothing but disdain for these clowns who think that "humanity" stands "on the cusp" of a "grand expansion into space". Its all hogwash. Space activities are driven by a real need for orbital assets that deliver real benefits (and are economically justifiable), and the costs of the booster is a small part of the equation. Rockets are cheap compared to the expensive payloads such as commsats and science payloads, and any (alleged) Muskian cost reductions will only led to a slighty enhance profit margin for the owners. It won't lead to any appreciable increase in launch rates unless the demand exists for more payloads.

There is no real cost reduction.

Anz cost benefit compensated by the increase of insurance.

Let's just take a moment to list the stuff that Russian space programme currently has in the pipeline:

1) Vostochni Spaceport (one Soyuz pad done and one Angara pad to start construction in Autumn)

2) Angara rocket production facility in Omsk

3) Federation manned spacecraft

4) Angara 1 and Angara 5 rockets (undergoing trials, soon to enter service)  

5) Sunkar heavy rocket that will also be basis for core stage of Fenix super-heavy rocket (with 4 Angara cores as strap on boosters in first stage)

Sunkar is co-financed with Kazakhstan.

My guess is that Kazakhs are shelling out cash for this one in order to motivate Russia not to completely abandon Baikonur after Angara and Federation enter service and Proton and legacy Soyuz are finally retired.

Plan looks solid. Actually this is first time in a long time that Russia even has a plan in this particular area.

[quote="Big_Gazza"]

Singular_Transform wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:
Nuclear engine needed to launch mass from the surface of earth, that is 9-10 km/sec delta V ,every other manoeuvre needs less dV than that, and can be done with low force/high efficiency  thrusters.

But I don't think that anyone would be happy to see orion/nerva taking off from the earth, unless to avoid asteroid impact : )

Nuclear thermal engines don't use controlled fission bombs - you're thinking of muclear pulse engines. Thermal engines work by using nuclear reactors to heat the working fluid (eg LH2, but they could pratically use almost anything volatile, eg water) to extreme temperatures and venting it to produce thrust. They are potentially very efficient (with ISP >900), but are difficult to build as the reactor core needs to run at incandescent temperatures, and any interruption to the flow of the working fluid (which also acts as a coolant) can result in catastrophic burn-thru or fuel element meltdown. Both the US and Soviets performed ground tests on nuclear engines in the 60s & 70s, but no-one has ever flown one.

If we are ever going to see practical interplanetary flight, the development of reliable and SAFE nuclear thermal engines is an absolute must.

Only the project orion engine has feasibility, all realistic thermal nuclear engine has usable ISP only with hydrogen .

Ion thruster is nice and good, but only for station keeping ( the CCCP used a lot of them) , it can't do hohmann ,and that increase the required deltaV for the same manoeuvre threefold.

How Gorbachev Destroyed the USSR's Military Space Program, & What It Cost Russia



https://sputniknews.com/military/201705141053608174-gorbachev-soviet-military-space-program/

PapaDragon wrote:

How Gorbachev Destroyed the USSR's Military Space Program, & What It Cost Russia



https://sputniknews.com/military/201705141053608174-gorbachev-soviet-military-space-program/

I'm sad about the cancellation of the CCCP space program, but otherwise that was a huge financial burden to the SU.

Example the GLONASS satellites in the 80s had magnitude shorter life than the US ones, means the whole space program had one magnitude higher running cost than the US one.


But of course there is no excuse for the devastation that the whole gorbacsov management did.