Next Generation Rocket Angara: News

Being able to launch from earth orbit would dramatically reduce the amount of weight needed to be taken to the moon.

Propulsion options increase as well... ion propulsion is possible in orbit but not from the ground as an example.

The huge advantage is that using modular rockets is much cheaper than using specialised rockets.

Making 1,000 Angara rockets and using 5-7 for each launch for leaving earth orbit is rather more efficient than making a dozen super rockets.

GarryB wrote:Being able to launch from earth orbit would dramatically reduce the amount of weight needed to be taken to the moon.

Propulsion options increase as well... ion propulsion is possible in orbit but not from the ground as an example.

The huge advantage is that using modular rockets is much cheaper than using specialised rockets.

Making 1,000 Angara rockets and using 5-7 for each launch for leaving earth orbit is rather more efficient than making a dozen super rockets.

1000 angara? you are deluded. humans need supplies for living during space travel so ion engine is not option because of slow acceleration, except for robots for now.

Rmf wrote:

GarryB wrote:Being able to launch from earth orbit would dramatically reduce the amount of weight needed to be taken to the moon.

Propulsion options increase as well... ion propulsion is possible in orbit but not from the ground as an example.

The huge advantage is that using modular rockets is much cheaper than using specialised rockets.

Making 1,000 Angara rockets and using 5-7 for each launch for leaving earth orbit is rather more efficient than making a dozen super rockets.

1000 angara? you are deluded. humans need supplies for living during space travel so ion engine is not option because of slow acceleration, except for robots for now.

He is talking about total production numbers.

Ion engine has low thrust but is capable of running for years. Chemical rockets can run for just several minutes. There is no gravity or air friction in space to slow it down. Newton's law.

Do you even know first thing about space propulsion or are you just trolling because this is basic stuff here...

At least read up on topic before you comment.

well soyuz broke 1000 units in 2000-2 i think, but thats 35 years production run.
angara is bigger , more expencive and complex ,i dont think theyll make it in 1000s by 2050 but much latter.
chemical rockets are still best option for moon shot , i was talking about moon manned mission.

Rmf wrote:well soyuz broke 1000 units in 2000-2 i think, but thats 35 years production run.
angara is bigger ,  more expencive and complex ,i dont think theyll make it in 1000s by 2050 but much latter.

Correct, although Soyuz had ''competition" over it's lifetime from significant number of various rocket models. Angara's only competitor will be Soyuz 2 for light payloads in first couple of decades, after that it might even be only rocket for a while.

chemical rockets are still best option for moon shot , i was talking about moon manned mission.

No argument here, it would take ion engine several weeks to build up speed that chemical rocket gets in one full burn. Ion engines are strictly for long term missions.

1000 angara? you are deluded.

Are you paying attention?

The Angara family is a family of modular rocket setups.

Instead of one type of rocket for small payloads, a different type of rocket for medium payloads and a further different type of rocket for heavy payloads you have one type of rocket for all payload weights.

The difference is one rocket for light loads three rockets for medium and 5-7 rockets for heavy payloads.

humans need supplies for living during space travel so ion engine is not option because of slow acceleration, except for robots for now.

Even for short range missions the steady acceleration of an ion engine makes things much more comfortable and reduces flight times.

With pure rocket power you endure high g for a few minutes and then coast all the way to the destination in zero g. that means fans on all the time to circulate the air... without those fans you would rapidly use up all the oxygen around you and suffocate in your own CO2. Equally things float and don't stay where you put them and your bones and muscles atrophy because you are not using them.

For a long range mission an ion engine would be vastly more effective... not just the advantages of even just a microgravity, but the enormous reduction in flight time with the constant acceleration and then deceleration.

well soyuz broke 1000 units in 2000-2 i think, but thats 35 years production run.
angara is bigger , more expencive and complex ,i dont think theyll make it in 1000s by 2050 but much latter.

Like I said above Angara will be the standard rocket system so previously when using a rocket you might use one Soyuz or you might use a Proton.

If you had 1,000 launches you might find 400 of those can be done with Soyuz... so you use 400 Soyuz rockets, but the remaining launches require more lifting power so they use Proton or something else.

With Angara if you have the same situation the 400 light launches you use 400 Angara rockets. For the 600 heavier launches however you might use the medium and heavy configuration Angara launchers... lets simplify and split them 50 50... 300 with 3 Angara rockets and 300 with 7.

That means for 1000 launches you use 400 Soyuz rockets or you use 400 + (300 x 3) + (300 x 7) Angara rockets. 400 Soyuz vs 3400 Angara rockets.

The Angara family might look like this:



A1, A3, A5, A7... the names of each rocket are a hint...

No argument here, it would take ion engine several weeks to build up speed that chemical rocket gets in one full burn. Ion engines are strictly for long term missions.

If they can be developed to the point where they can offer a decent sized space craft a third to a half g acceleration then almost any mission would benefit from their use.

They would also be very useful for any space station orbiter around earth or the moon to adjust height and speed.

But their greatest advantage at the moment is in long duration flights.

Rmf wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
''NPO "Energomash": started the development of the engine for the Russian moon rocket''

http://www.sdelanounas.ru/blogs/66746/

kinda weak engine for moon shot. apolo module had 150t. this angara version can lift up to 40 tonns.

Yes the Saturn Hollywood version had 150tons and could travel in time too. You will also
mention how NASA could play golf in the moon.. and Russia not.. Please
no comparisons between a fake rocket and russian ones.

If SAturn rocket used by Apolo was a real moon rocket.. NASA will NOT be depending in
Russia to their space program. Is hard to believe for anyone that NASA could easily travel
to the moon and now forgot how to do it. and depends on Russia.  when all NASA needs to
do is restart the saturn project ,improve it..and use it to send astronauts to space.

Naturally they will not do that if they understand it was all fake landing and the rocket never had capabilities to lift 150tons as claimed and could only land in the moon using hollywood..and that in reality it was an earth orbit rocket.

But if that was true ,that american never landed in the moon with humans ,then why never
they complained about fraud  

Perhaps for money they didn't.. but now the Russian government is proposing an
investigation for NASA fraud about the moon landing..in retaliation for US trying to
ban Russia from the 2018 olympics.  

In even more curious and interesting facts.. NASA confirmed "lost" the original tapes
filming of the moon landing. perhaps a dog eat them..  And the official photos
that NASA use as "proof" they landed in the moon are heavily edited manipulated photos .

By the way Russia did landed in the moon and did it first.. than NASA.. using Probes and
rover . so is a myth you need so much tons to travel to the moon. NASA have no problem
traveling to Mars with lots of equipment and rovers ,using Russian engines.

To be honest i have my own reasons to believe NASA faked the landing on the moon BUT... we do have the technology to go to the moon. However if the Roscosmos plans to send people to moon and beyond like MARS 500 project have indicated having a rocket being able to carry > 150t is a must. It might not be used that much but i think we are not that far away from times when we might start assembling space ships on the orbit... But all that infrastructure has to be placed in the heavens above first. If these rockets would be made reusable like SpaceX is developing navigation technology with regulators being able to touch down a rocket under her own propulsion that would made all the flights significantly cheaper. I think this is the way... we have to throw away the idea of single use rockets...

Don't think of this as a flight to the moon.... think of it as an expedition to the top of mount everest.

No human could carry everything needed to get up there and back. Even an enormous group of men could do it if you expect them all to get to the top and back.

In the end only two men made it to the top of everest in the first successful climb but they had a party of a dozen plus hundreds and hundreds of sherpas to carry all the food and equipment and they broke the mission down into various camps in different stages up the mountain.

It was the same for the expedition to the south pole lots of prepositioned supplies allowed the group that was going all the way to the pole to make it.

You could build one enormous very heavy very powerful rocket to fly to the moon with everything... but guess what... no matter how big you make it it is only good enough for the moon.

For a much longer mission like to mars you will need an even bigger more powerful rocket with an order of magnitude more fuel and water and food etc etc.

With the stages modular approach you don't need bigger rockets... just more of them.

For the moon you might need two or three launches to get enough rocket power into earth orbit... once there you connect them together and then go to the moon.

For a mission to mars or even further... to leave the solar system even... you just have 5 or 10 launches to get enough fuel up there... for unmanned missions you need no food or "air", but even for manned missions most food and water will be recycled so longer missions wont need that much more food or water though a little more will make things easier.... food and water could be launched ahead of the mission and be waiting in orbit around mars in case it is needed to head home immediately.

With a nuclear power plant that might work for decades and a few tons of Xenon you could operate an ion engine for decades... very lo acceleration but the potential to accelerate over many years to enormous speeds... the pioneer spacecraft had to perform all sorts of strange manouvers to get to the speed they got it to to leave the solar system... a couple of extra launches adding fuel in orbit they could have done the same without the gravity jumps they had to perform.

Mars is kind of boring.. its only value is for public relations reasons... i will find way more
interesting a man landing in the moon with a space station there.

Space tourism... that Russia will manage to make the travels much cheaper ,
by adding more seats.. (this is the way planes managed to be cheap for traveling by making planes that could carry many passengers).

So for example a travel to the moon ,orbit it one time and return to earth , could be more
possible for tourism if you have a big powerful rocket that add capacity for like 30
passengers for example..

and the use of Space shuttles that can travel to beyond earth orbit ,to the moon and return ,and everything is re-used and land like a plane could significantly reduce cost.

GarryB wrote:

1000 angara? you are deluded.

Are you paying attention?

The Angara family is a family of modular rocket setups.

Instead of one type of rocket for small payloads, a different type of rocket for medium payloads and a further different type of rocket for heavy payloads you have one type of rocket for all payload weights.


Even for short range missions the steady acceleration of an ion engine makes things much more comfortable and reduces flight times.

With pure rocket power you endure high g for a few minutes and then coast all the way to the destination in zero g. that means fans on all the time to circulate the air... without those fans you would rapidly use up all the oxygen around you and suffocate in your own CO2. Equally things float and don't stay where you put them and your bones and muscles atrophy because you are not using them.

so now youre counting urm- individual modules as launchers? should we count 4 strap on boosters of soyuz and add them too? angaras launch dates are slipping , i had hopes for a-7 and baikal reusable modification but nothing., even that kvtk is not even developed yet.
you need air circulation anyway in cosmos. gravity or not.

so now youre counting urm- individual modules as launchers?

Look at the image in my last post.

Angara one is a single rocket used for light payloads. Angara 3 consists of three Angara rockets linked together to carry heavier payloads and Angara 5 is not a different version of Angara... it is 5 Angara rockets combined to carry even heavier payloads.

Angara 7 is made of 7 Angara rocket modules... because each one can be used separately as Angara 1 rockets or in threes as Angara 3 rockets...

should we count 4 strap on boosters of soyuz and add them too?

Hmmm shall we call strap on boosters Soyuz rockets?

Let me think about that... can they each be separately used as a Soyuz rocket?

No.

So perhaps the answer therefore is no.

Can the strap on modules of an Angara 7 be used as a separate launcher?

Yes it can.

In fact you can take a fully assembled Angara 7 and with a few extra parts make 7 Angara 1 rockets, or one Angara 1 and two Angara 3 rockets.

That is the whole point of the design... you don't have to know if you need an Angara 7 or an Angara 1 you just make Angara rockets and put them together as you need them...

You have 50 launches planned for next year... 3 will need Angara 7, 30 will need Angara 3 and 17 will use Angara 1 rockets... now if you can make 300 rockets a year you just keep producing them because even if you don't use them all this year or next year you can use them the year after.

Three Angara 7s, 30 Angara 3s and 17 Angara 1s means you will use 128 rockets, but half way through the year if there are changes you have other rockets ready if needs be or cancelled rockets can be used for other purposes.

you need air circulation anyway in cosmos. gravity or not.

It is easier to manage when there is an up and a down.

With no gravity if you have a corner of the spacecraft with no airflow then CO2 wont be removed and cosmonauts will not be able to operate there for any length of time before running out of air... or more importantly before building up a lethal dose of CO2.

angara 7 is not being built, kvtk not built , whole program is late, and counting.... soyuz is still workhorse.
you counting all launchers and angara -a1 ,which is dubious... you can make many small launchers but you cant say we have 1 angara a5 launch -thats like 5 launches , its not the same payload , how to count delta or other launchers?
i think we should count launchers by total weight delivered to LEO that would be fair.
air circulation and split systems with many openings are well known in housing and loong time in space labs.

Rmf wrote:angara 7 is not being built,  kvtk not built , whole program is late, and counting.... soyuz is still workhorse.
you counting all launchers and angara -a1 ,which is dubious... you can make many small launchers but you cant say we have 1 angara a5 launch -thats like 5 launches , its not the same payload , how to count delta or other launchers?
i think we should count launchers by total weight delivered to LEO that would be fair.
air circulation and split systems with many openings are well known in housing and loong time in space labs.

Angara 7 was never supposed to be built, it was just a concept.

it was special launcher to be used as moon shot launcher with 2-3 launches ,instead of abysmal 6 with angara a-5, but postponed indefenitely.

There seems to be some confusion here.

The A7 was a concept, and was never approved for development.  It consisted of six (6) URM-1 standard modules clustered around an enlarged core stage (4.1m diameter like the Proton).  It would have required development of this new core, and would have been incompatible with the current design Angara launch pad being built at Plesetsk.  Its LEO payload was around 40.5 tons with a KVRB cryogenic stage.  

The planned SHLV with a 100T LEO capability was not A7, but a completely different project, and AFAIK, at the time of its cancellation, the design had not been finalised.

The A7 as originally proposed is essentially obsolete now that the A5V concept has been adopted as its LEO payload is 35-40T dependent upon upper stage configuration, and is a more sensible development path considering current economic stresses resulting from US/EU financial and geo-political aggression.  While it is true that a base A7 config would have a greater development potential than the A5, I think the cost is prohibitive for the gains available, and that the A5 range will suffice with its 25-40T capacity depending on config.

As much as it pains me, I agree with the decision not to proceed with the SHLV for the time being as such a mega-project will demand inordinate resources which can only damage Russias other space program priorities. Eventually a SHLV of 100-200T capability will be necessary IF long term & sustainable space plans require very large orbital complexes or long term stays on the lunar surface, but i don't see the need for these in the short to medium term. Lunar manned exploration can be performed with A5V and orbital rendevous techniques, and the vehicles & technologies developed will be useful for applications such as heavy robotic missions and manned BEO scouting missions.

In short, get A5 and lunar capabilites up and running, and then develop a SHLV if its actually needed.

Edit - another option is for Russia to co-operate with China in the development of its SHLV, the LM9 with >130T to LEO (ie supply Russian technology & components like engines), and obtain the rights to launch payloads from Chinese launch infrastructure.  In future, obtain rights for serial manufacture in Russia.

you counting all launchers and angara -a1 ,which is dubious... you can make many small launchers but you cant say we have 1 angara a5 launch -thats like 5 launches , its not the same payload , how to count delta or other launchers?

I am not trying to inflate the number of launchers...

I and trying to point out that they have the benefit of large production numbers to reduce production costs while producing them in numbers does not restrict their launch capacity of flexibility.

They can just make lots of Angara modules without caring about payload weights.

they can assemble as many modules as they need for each payload as it comes up they don't need to plan in advance how many light, medium, or heavy rockets they need.

Ten years ago the whole Angara concept was a concept only.

Having the system means they have a basis to do the job now and to expand in the future what they will be able to to do based on what they need to get done.

Modular is the way of the future and more launches assembled in orbit makes rather more sense from Earth... from the Moon... and beyond.

GarryB wrote:

you counting all launchers and angara -a1 ,which is dubious... you can make many small launchers but you cant say we have 1 angara a5 launch -thats like 5 launches , its not the same payload , how to count delta or other launchers?

I am not trying to inflate the number of launchers...

I and trying to point out that they have the benefit of large production numbers to reduce production costs while producing them in numbers does not restrict their launch capacity of flexibility.

They can just make lots of Angara modules without caring about payload weights.

they can assemble as many modules as they need for each payload as it comes up they don't need to plan in advance how many light, medium, or heavy rockets they need.

Ten years ago the whole Angara concept was a concept only.

Having the system means they have a basis to do the job now and to expand in the future what they will be able to to do based on what they need to get done.

Modular is the way of the future and more launches assembled in orbit makes rather more sense from Earth... from the Moon... and beyond.

Agreed.

Also remember that Angara engines are to be serially produced in new factory in Omsk.

This will be the first time a rocket engine will be produced this way and it is possible precisely because modular concept allows them to ignore type of payload that will be launched.

If they can bring down the costs enough, they could launch two A5's for the price of one. Then the de facto launch capacity
is almost 80 tons. Of course they cannot launch 80 ton pieces in one go. But why would you want to launch such heavy parts
in the first place? There are no plans to launch nuclear reactor boilers into space.

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.

GarryB wrote:

you counting all launchers and angara -a1 ,which is dubious... you can make many small launchers but you cant say we have 1 angara a5 launch -thats like 5 launches , its not the same payload , how to count delta or other launchers?

I am not trying to inflate the number of launchers...

I and trying to point out that they have the benefit of large production numbers to reduce production costs while producing them in numbers does not restrict their launch capacity of flexibility.

They can just make lots of Angara modules without caring about payload weights.

they can assemble as many modules as they need for each payload as it comes up they don't need to plan in advance how many light, medium, or heavy rockets they need.

Ten years ago the whole Angara concept was a concept only.

Having the system means they have a basis to do the job now and to expand in the future what they will be able to to do based on what they need to get done.

Modular is the way of the future and more launches assembled in orbit makes rather more sense from Earth... from the Moon... and beyond.

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 !

Rmf wrote:..............................................
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 !

Dude, you literally do not have a clue about this topic do you?

Zenit, Proton... WTF?!!??

Why not use V2 while we're at it?

v2? - i think you are deluded....you didnt counter any of arguments.
where is mentioned proton? as cheaper launcher per tonn ? yes it is! seems you have no clue...
i look forward to links of angaras cheap costs per tonn in orbit.

Rmf wrote:v2? - i think you are deluded....you didnt counter any of arguments.
where is mentioned proton? as cheaper launcher per tonn ? yes it is! seems you have no clue...
i look forward to links of angaras cheap costs per tonn in orbit.

Please explain how you plan to launch manned vessel using ''reliable'' tower of toxic death known as Proton?

soyuz will carrry and will continue to carry anyway...llol
angara is just not that great leap as people think. indenpendence from baikonur is biggest reason.