Russian Space Program: News & Discussion #1

The US just recently tested their Orion manned spacecraft, is there any new updates about the work on Russia's PPTS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospective_Piloted_Transport_System

AbsoluteZero wrote:The US just recently tested their Orion manned spacecraft, is there any new updates about the work on Russia's PPTS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospective_Piloted_Transport_System

i dont think we will have the first test before the end of this decade. After 2020

The current level of space tech is just sad. We're still in the same format as the 1960s capsules. We don't need bigger capsules
we need nuclear powered spacecraft to go to Mars. Ones with rotating hulls for artificial gravity.

But I don't expect us to get anywhere in terms of tech progress in the next 40 years at this rate. So we'll be stalled for a good
80 years. It seems to me to be an industry culture problem and not the result of physical barriers. I haven't seen any radical
designs proposed by NASA or the RSA.

kvs wrote:The current level of space tech is just sad.  We're still in the same format as the 1960s capsules.  We don't need bigger capsules
we need nuclear powered spacecraft to go to Mars.   Ones with rotating hulls for artificial gravity.  

But I don't expect us to get anywhere in terms of tech progress in the next 40 years at this rate.   So we'll be stalled for a good
80 years.   It seems to me to be an industry culture problem and not the result of physical barriers.   I haven't seen any radical
designs proposed by NASA or the RSA.

The reason for that is quite obvious... The lack of funding and public interest have kept the space industry almost stagnant for those 40 years. I see the current innovation as the privatization of space, demonstrated by SpaceX etc.

AbsoluteZero wrote:The US just recently tested their Orion manned spacecraft, is there any new updates about the work on Russia's PPTS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospective_Piloted_Transport_System

as far i know... Orion is not a space craft.. but a capsule.. The space craft who lifted orion was not new.. but their Delta Rocket. their latest version..

The information ive seen suggest the delta Rocket is not really ideal for human traveling. only for cargo or satellites. The vibration inside apparently is unhealthy for human traveling.. and the last thing i saw about the developers of Orion.. (After their successful launch) with a delta rocket.. is that they were in conversation with Russia.. so that Russia can modify their rockets to be compatible with orion..


That suggest to me.. that NASA is not very optimistic in Delta Rockets to ever become a reliable space launcher for manned missions. the other alternative that NASA scientist told they had if delta problems cannot be fixed ,was to reverse engineers RD-180 engines and or develop a brand new rocket from scratch.

The information ive seen suggest the delta Rocket is not really ideal for human traveling. only for cargo or satellites. The vibration inside apparently is unhealthy for human traveling.. and the last thing i saw about the developers of Orion.. (After their successful launch) with a delta rocket.. is that they were in conversation with Russia.. so that Russia can modify their rockets to be compatible with orion..

This is good news then, at least Russia is ahead in the space rocket segment, it would be nice to see PPTS becoming operational in the near future

could be, even saturn-V used kerosine rp-1 and oxygen in 1st booster stage with 5 engines.

Delta uses hydrogen/oxygen from get go in all its stages ,and has 1 engine per core ,so its very big , hydrogen is less dense compared to kerosine needs larger plummbing and pumps...

Rmf wrote:could be, even saturn-V used kerosine rp-1 and oxygen in 1st booster stage with 5 engines.

Delta uses hydrogen/oxygen from get go in all its stages ,and has 1 engine per core ,so its very big , hydrogen is less dense compared to kerosine needs larger plummbing and pumps...

At Delta's level of material and structural technology an all-hydrogen/oxygen launcher is sub-optimal.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Rmf wrote:could be, even saturn-V used kerosine rp-1 and oxygen in 1st booster stage with 5 engines.

Delta uses hydrogen/oxygen from get go in all its stages ,and has 1 engine per core ,so its very big , hydrogen is less dense compared to kerosine needs larger plummbing and pumps...

At Delta's level of material and structural technology an all-hydrogen/oxygen launcher is sub-optimal.

Very true, and in general, all-hydrogen for any rocket (primarily rocket first stages) is less efficient than using different fuels. Hydrogen should stick to the upper-stages.

Mike E wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Rmf wrote:could be, even saturn-V used kerosine rp-1 and oxygen in 1st booster stage with 5 engines.

Delta uses hydrogen/oxygen from get go in all its stages ,and has 1 engine per core ,so its very big , hydrogen is less dense compared to kerosine needs larger plummbing and pumps...

At Delta's level of material and structural technology an all-hydrogen/oxygen launcher is sub-optimal.

Very true, and in general, all-hydrogen for any rocket (primarily rocket first stages) is less efficient than using different fuels. Hydrogen should stick to the upper-stages.

Even better than LH2/LOX for upper stages are exemplified by the following chemical Russian engines.

RD-301 aka 11D14: liquid ammonia fuel and liquid fluorine oxidizer

RD-305: liquid hydrogen fuel and liquid fluorine oxidizer

There are other Russian engines with these or other exotic propellants.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Mike E wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Rmf wrote:could be, even saturn-V used kerosine rp-1 and oxygen in 1st booster stage with 5 engines.

Delta uses hydrogen/oxygen from get go in all its stages ,and has 1 engine per core ,so its very big , hydrogen is less dense compared to kerosine needs larger plummbing and pumps...

At Delta's level of material and structural technology an all-hydrogen/oxygen launcher is sub-optimal.

Very true, and in general, all-hydrogen for any rocket (primarily rocket first stages) is less efficient than using different fuels. Hydrogen should stick to the upper-stages.

Even better than LH2/LOX for upper stages are exemplified by the following chemical Russian engines.

RD-301 aka 11D14: liquid ammonia fuel and liquid fluorine oxidizer

RD-305: liquid hydrogen fuel and liquid fluorine oxidizer

There are other Russian engines with these or other exotic propellants.

Yeah, "exotic" for a reason.... Very toxic and dangerous, plus expensive.

those single per core ,oversized ,hydrogen fueled engines are from space shuttle ,although are ligher because they are not reusable, so they are using them because of established production and engineering know-how...
angaras engines can be used 10 times so that ads weight and costs.
many experments were done during 60s golden era with different combinations.
clorine Cl and Fluorine F should be avoided as oxydizers on toxicity and reactivity, alsmo materials and engineering is problematic ,nothing beats liquid oxygen O.

on fuels hydrogen is best but it has drawbacks ,then there is methane and propane , they have most hydrogen per molecule ,but it takes lot of energy to break carbon-hydrogen bond C-H , so they have impulses slightly better then kerosine but are also less dense so need larger tanks.
Many metal hydrids ,that contain lot of hydrogen, were tried - lithium hydride LiH ,berilium hydride ,potessium ,magensium and other , but are expencive and beril is neuro toxin.
Lithium can be used in solid fuels ,and in gelled hybrid engines -liquid oxydizer solid propellant.

Speaking about Engines.. here are pictures from Soviet-Russian engines..
through History to present..

http://englishrussia.com/2014/12/09/this-is-where-the-most-demanded-rocket-engines-are-made/

Russian Cargo Spacecraft to Supply ISS With Black Caviar

single turbo-pump -many burning chambers. russian trademark engeneering.

Rmf wrote:single turbo-pump -many burning chambers. russian trademark engeneering.

True... But that is no better nor worse than the other option.

Mike E wrote:But that is no better nor worse than the other option.

The multichamber design, the shared preburner/turbopump, and the swiveling joint between the preburner and the main chamber/chambers are all superior, but more complicated, technologies.

Just on the matter of the multichamber design, roughly speaking, having n chambers scales the thrust of a single chamber engine by n, scaling its mass only by n, and doesn't change its height; however, a single chamber engine with n times the thrust would scale the mass of the single chamber engine by n^(3/2) and its height by n^(1/2) (approximately).

In reality the benefits of multichamber designs are even higher. There is no comparison between the two approaches.

OMG.. Russia government is really full of idiots .. when it comes to selling space technology..
They have signed a contract with US to supply 60 RD-181 engines to NASA for the ridiculous price of just $1 billion
and the price include service and training.. what a load of crap.. want to vomit. they should be asking
no less than $10 billions for such cargo of engines ,combined with training and maintainace . And because of US sanctions they should be asking twice that.. $20 billions. Russia is basically helping NASA to design rockets that never fail for pennies. The price of the engines should include the 40 years+ that Russia have been refining them.

http://itar-tass.com/en/economy/771489

THis is unbelievable $1 billion is a joke. for teaching NASA how to build rockets right.

Vann7 wrote:

OMG.. Russia government is really full of idiots .. when it comes to selling space technology..
They have signed a contract with US to supply 60 RD-181 engines to NASA for the ridiculous price of just $1 billion
and the price include service and training.. what a load of crap.. want to vomit.   they should be asking
no less than $10 billions for such cargo of engines ,combined with training and maintainace .  And because of US sanctions they should be asking twice that.. $20 billions.   Russia is basically helping NASA to design rockets that never fail for pennies.   The price of the engines should include the 40 years+ that Russia have been refining them.

http://itar-tass.com/en/economy/771489

THis is unbelievable $1 billion is a joke. for teaching NASA how to build rockets right.

You know why they accepted this deal do you not? They just f'd the US government right in the *** by basically buying out one of their private rocket businesses. 

My reaction to this news can be summed up by this; hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha right back at you US Govt.!

Well i disagree.. i think the ones fucked real hard is Russia... they are selling 60x State of the art RD-181 engines
but pennies.. with training and hows to ..work with the engines , they basically will be helping USA to build rockets
for a miserable $1 billion dollars..

Russia have spent already like 100 billions countering US sabotage on Russia economy of their attack on oil prices and ruble.. and lost about 120 $ billions in investments from the west.. for American sanctions.. i can imagine the communist party being in dismay at such deal..   I said it one time and will repeat it.. Russia needs a lot more experience in capitalism..
they are not really good doing business.. 1 billion is beyond misery for 40+ years of improved technology for space travel. . it will be OK if it was for 10 engines only and without hows to do it..

And the US government have more control of US business than Russia of russian business . you are underestimating the dictatorship that exist in America. This deal will never happen if it didn't had the green light of the american government.  So this deal is not going to make Rich Russia in any way.. neither will change anything on its economy..it actually do more damage because Russia will be helping the west to become efficient building Space Rockets..for nothing..    

For bragging rights is the only real benefit i see here.. and nothing else.. i will have asked $ 50 billions at least..  , since no only include 60 state of the art engines but also the know hows ,to do it.. so that after 60s are made they no longer need Russia..   In just 6 months Russia could make 1 billion just being a taxi of US astronauts to ISS.  but this sale will significantly benefit NASA for the next 30+ years.. technology that will never become obsolete..imo Worse Business ever.  sad news for me.. this is disastrous Russian incompetence in business.


There is a joke.. that apparently was based on something that really happened in real life.. but regardless of if real or not or how it was the real story.. it illustrate the problem with Russia in not knowing how to make really good business  ..

the jokes goes like this..

Is about a hotel owner in Buffalo, NY whose furnace went out in the middle of the winter. He called the repairman who came over and went down into the basement. He carefully measured a certain distance down the ductwork ,then he opened his toolbox, pulled a huge hammer and smacked the side of the duct.

“Try it now.”


To the hotel owner’s amazement, the furnace came on.

The next day the furnace repairman sent a bill for $10,000. The hotel operator who had watched the entire thing was naturally upset.and told..

“I want an itemized bill!”

The bill came back:

Hitting with the hammer………………………………..$5
KNOWING where to hit with the hammer…..$9,995
———————————————————-
$10,000

The moral here of the story.. is that ... quoting the article that told the joke....

We sometimes tend to discount things that others make easy. The most common example is discussions about professional athletes. The logic goes, why should we pay them millions of dollars to play a game that most grown men would play for free?

It’s because they have a unique set of skills that makes them very, very good at what they do.

So this old joke is really very true.. Russia is very good in building very efficient and safe engines for space but they are not selling their skills and knowledge that they only gained through decades.. but instead selling the material things and labor today. people usually discount the knowledge and experience as part of the price..
Usually a lawyer certified  ..will charge you for his signature in any blueprints of any house about $3,000 dollars.. and all he did from your point of view was just use ink on the paper.. but the knowledge is what you pay.. for analizing the blueprints of a house and certifying it as secure structure.

So Russia is basically selling NASA,.. the cost only of using the hammer.. but not selling their knowledge and experience for knowing where to hit.. Russia is basically selling the cost of materials for building the engines.. and man labor.. but NOT including in the sale , the knowledge they have gained in 40++ years  refining and making perfect their engines.. The cost of trial and error ,the cost of research and the cost of all the man hours invested in 40 years for getting the RD-181 engines in state of the art quality they are today..   So they charge just $1 billion for 60 engines..  but they are not charging how much they spend tweaking the engines in 40 years and their experience neither of how NOT to do it and why..

So it was said that the cost to NASA to do the engines was ? $3 billions.. but thats only the cost of Trying new engines.. do not take into account that they could have failed in building them.. neither the 10 years lost..in trying to build them if they fail.. neither the cost of mastering them..is included .  

So in short , is major idiocy ,complete retardeness ,and should be fired the idiot who did the business and gave for almost nothing 60 russian state of the art engines.  Probably the cost of Russia for mastering their engine had to be in the $200 billions after 1,200 launches.  So thats what really Russia is selling.. is not only the materials or the mans hour building them.. but Russia should have asked a lot more for the knowledge of how to do it right. and perfectioning them. it will have taken NASA no less than 30 years and a thousand of launches  to get engines at the level of efficiency ,simplicity and safetyness that Russia got theirs.. imo.. From $50 to $100 billions they should have negotiated.  if not let NASA do it themselves and have to deal with the failures and cost in human lives..


I also have said.. this before.. and it is Americans are really good in Business. and the have to be laughing real hard at Russia more than Russia at them...because of the ridiculous price.. Americans are very good in influencing /brainwashing others... and Russia.. imo.. they are complete idiots ,total morons ,that never takes advantage of the things they know how to do well.  This also happens in advertising.. they are a complete failure..  To see nations like argentina or brazil that are pro Russia ,preffering Saab planes over an Su-35 or even pak-fa even when Russia offers the complete hows to do it of the plane to them.. .They even lost the sale to India of light combat planes..a $10 billions contract that France got..that could have been won by Russia if they just had properly knew how to
do sale their planes..  Imo Russia is really terrible in business.. and they need more competent people in sales .

I have to second Vann's sentiment. One billion measly bucks for 60 state of the art engines is absurd and yet more Russian appeasement
of its implacable enemies in the west. The price comes to $16.7 million per unit. This is laughably cheap considering that, for example,
an Atlas V launch costs over $300 million.

A more realistic price would be in the range $60-$100 million per unit. The freaking engine is the most important part of the rocket.
The rest is mostly just tanks and plumbing.

well nk-33 were sold for 1.1 million.1,5 meganewtn thrust.
while rd-180 dual-chamber is 3,8 MN thrust its still very profitable 16,7 million.
rd-180 was sold previously in america for 11-15 million and its production costs are about 10 million and going down. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2384/1
also with ruble exchange energomach will earn ton of money.
in contract most of integration of engine with the rocket will be done by russian engineears so they will make money too.
americans wont get any secrets dont worry.

I'm sorry, I may be no economic genius like some in this thread - but why exactly should Russia cut its own companies out of a market?
Only the West is stupid enough to do that.
Reason being is that they are arrogant enough to believe themselves irreplacable.

Of course in reality - nothing is irreplacable, particularly when it comes to big, powerful nations with a large science base such as America or Russia. If Russia refused to sell them the technology then they'd develop it themselves and Russia will get nothing. By keeping the current links, the engine-maker (I remember reading that the American contracts are a lifeline for them) gets good income; and industrial ties in this sphere increase, which opens the way for some future joint-R&D and production of engines or some other space technology.

Before anyone says anything, yes I know that the US and Russia have adversial relations but certain fields can be co-operated on to mutual benefit.. it was like that in the Cold War days too with certain economic or scientific ties. Russia is not stupid to burn bridges that can come in handy later, just because the West wants to do it that doesn't mean that Russia should follow suit. In as far as its neccessery to wean off ties with America and Europe now in favour of the BRICS, the time may come when building relations with EU and America will become important again.

Anyone calling for engine deliveries to be stopped is an idiot.

There are some Russian enterprises that exist in large part due to foreign orders.

kvs wrote:I have to second Vann's sentiment.   One billion measly bucks for 60 state of the art engines is absurd and yet more Russian appeasement
of its implacable enemies in the west.    The price comes to $16.7 million per unit.  This is laughably cheap considering that, for example,
an Atlas V launch costs over $300 million.

A more realistic price would be in the range $60-$100 million per unit.   The freaking engine is the most important part of the rocket.
The rest is mostly just tanks and plumbing.

The engines don't cost anywhere near that price to build if I recall... They'd still be making money all while messing with the US.