Next Generation Rocket Angara: News

mutantsushi wrote:I've seen criticism that Angara is not cost-effective enough, that it doesn't take into account more aggressive cost/launch metrics ala SpaceX.
Therefore, another platform would be needed to really go in that direction, probably methane fuel, reusable boosters, etc.
Not really sure of the basis of that completely myself, but that's something I had read.
It does seem like Angara was chosen simply as a Plan B when Rus-M wasn't making the cut, and they needed/wanted to start a modern rocket "now".
Will be interesting to see if they do integrate Angara with SeaLaunch, in terms of commercial launches.
(one might expect US/EU commercial launch business to dry up, but the rest of world is quickly growing their launch needs  anyways)

Big_Gazza wrote:

mutantsushi wrote:I've seen criticism that Angara is not cost-effective enough, that it doesn't take into account more aggressive cost/launch metrics ala SpaceX.

Meh.  There is much hoopla about SpaceX pricing, but Musk isn't opening his books and there is no way to know if he is actually making any money. I rather suspect that he is running a loss and using profits from his other enterprises to sustain SpaceX activities.  His aggressive ploys to undermine ULA and Arianspace suggest that his plan is to grab market share and then jack up prices.

Angaras' principal value is as a domestic-built launcher for national security payloads using non-toxic fuels that can be launched from Russian territory.  Optimal cost-effectiveness is not such a priority, as while it may be desirable to minimise costs, where the rocket builder is a 100% state owned enterprise servicing state payloads, some inefficiencies can be tolerated as operating margins are ultimately recycled back to the state authorities rather than pocketed by private interests (and much of the money flows to the pockets of local workers and thereby ploughed back into the local economy).  I have no doubt that Angara can compete with Musks rocket, particularly if the reuseable Baikal strap-ons are developed (fly-back boosters functioning as a UAV and landing on an airstrip would be a more reliable system than SpaceXs rocket powered descent and landing legs).

kvs wrote:The videos of the Angara hanger where it is being assembled are a good indication that the project is not some maximal taxpayer waste.   The designers are not BSing when they highlight its modularity.   I really do not see where the cost savings can be obtained by Mr. Musk.   Mr. Musk's product makes sense in the USA where a single launch of an atmospheric sounding satellite costs over 320 million dollars (the overhead taken by NASA to run the mission is much higher than the actual launch cost) but not in Russia.  

A lot of the hyping of Space-X looks to be ideologically driven and not based on actual cost figures.

Mike E wrote:http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/750028

kvs wrote:

Mike E wrote:http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/750028

Journalists can never get the facts straight or a case of really bad editing.   The launcher with 80 ton capacity expanding to 160 later is not in the Angara family.   It is a new launcher design.  

But it is good to hear that things are on schedule.      

Vann7 wrote:
So what Russia will build after Angara for heavy cargo?
Is there anything official of of next generation super heavy rocket ? or it will be a re-use modernization of the Energia launcher?

Big_Gazza wrote:

George1 wrote:First launch of Russia's new Angara rocket due December 25

Fingers crossed for an excellent addition to ones Christmas stocking...  Go Angara!!  

Big_Gazza wrote:

Mike E wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

George1 wrote:First launch of Russia's new Angara rocket due December 25

Fingers crossed for an excellent addition to ones Christmas stocking...  Go Angara!!  

Yep, it will be our present! - As long as it is a success... I have to admit that I'm a little worried because of the higher chance of failure (5 boosters instead of one, all working on a different detachment unit....) and recent problems with propulsion units (briz-m).

I'm not worried about the URM-1 or URM-2 performance, as the URM-1 has been tested 4 times successfully (3x by KSLV, where the SK components failed on the first 2 flights) and the URM-2 once by 1.2PP.  Given that the inaugural flight is a dummy payload to low orbit, I don't consider the Briz-M represents much of a mission risk.  Even if the worst came to pass, the flight would still be considered a success in the way that Energia-Polyot was a sucess, even though the prototype laser platform tech demonstrator was lost (as the cause was payload related - a fault attitude sensor - not the Energia vehicle).  Confidence was sufficiently high after that flight to risk Buran on its inaugural unmanned flight, so that proves my point.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Mike E wrote:
You just said it yourself... It has only been tested four times, and now they are strapping five of them together. I think it is a good thing they are launching the A5 so soon, but the URM-1 should've been tested at least a couple times more. The big thing IMO, is the detaching unit. The Soyuz (as we all know) used the most reliable system to date, while the Angara will be using an unproven model. Not to say it won't succed, but it does not give me much confidence and to be realistic, it shouldn't, after all it is a whole new rocket... I don't worry about the URM-2 as much, it is an upper-stage that can and will afford to be de-throttled. The Briz-M has proven to be shaky, as shown by the recent (and older) Proton launches. The one that launched just the other day dropped it in an unwanted orbit... That being said, it will be just a dummy payload launch sooooo...

I take your point, but I think that Russia has enough experience in launching multi-stage rockets with strap-ons that such can be considered a mature and well-understood technique and represents a very low mission risk.  Same goes for kerolox powerplants and flight controls, and launch pad ops.  For me, the biggest area of concern is two-fold.  Firstly there is vehicle dynamics and aerodynamics, though computational simulations are now light years ahead of what was available in Soviet times, and a repeat of unexpected vibrational modes in test flights (like those that bedevilled the N-1) are extremely unlikely.  Secondly, there is the issue of manufacturing quality assurance which has lately afflicted both civilian and military launchers/rockets, so hopefully Krunichev has its A-team in the saddle and their best inspectors involved in manufacture and acceptance testing of all components/systems from external suppliers.

I'm an optimistic sort of guy (I even gave Phobos-Grunt a 70% chance of success...) so I have fingers crossed and will hope for the best.  I'd like nothing more than to see a series of flawless A5 launches to really piss of the US right wing and Russia's detractors in general

zg18 wrote:First Angara-5 heavy rocket assembled in Plesetsk , launch expected in December