Russian Space Program: News & Discussion #1

PapaDragon wrote:

Austin wrote:Last Proton-M launch today Successful , Out of the total 8 Proton-M launch in GTO orbit this year , 7 are successful and 1 failure  

Express-AMU1 telecommunications satellite taken to designated orbit

http://tass.ru/en/science/846884

Good news on the launch but I just can't wait for this Proton junk to finally be replaced....

PapaDragon wrote:

Austin wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Austin wrote:Last Proton-M launch today Successful , Out of the total 8 Proton-M launch in GTO orbit this year , 7 are successful and 1 failure  

Express-AMU1 telecommunications satellite taken to designated orbit

http://tass.ru/en/science/846884

Good news on the launch but I just can't wait for this Proton junk to finally be replaced....

The designer mentioned Proton-M will be operational till 2025 , till that time Angara will become fully operational. They would be upgrading Proton some where in 2020 with some digital stuff not major upgrade as such.

Proton has been very reliable launch platform they need better QA and QC process

And yet every relevant scientific mission that involved Proton failed spectacularly (Phobos-Grunt anyone?)

You can polish the turd but it is still a turd. QA and QC are no excuse, whole concept is obsolete, electronics, design, fuel, infrastructure, everything....

Rmf wrote:only real work of energya company is building engine and other components of zenit and you want it cancelled??.... omg its mostly russian stop self-trolling yourself.

Big_Gazza wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Austin wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Austin wrote:Last Proton-M launch today Successful , Out of the total 8 Proton-M launch in GTO orbit this year , 7 are successful and 1 failure  

Express-AMU1 telecommunications satellite taken to designated orbit

http://tass.ru/en/science/846884

Good news on the launch but I just can't wait for this Proton junk to finally be replaced....

The designer mentioned Proton-M will be operational till 2025 , till that time Angara will become fully operational. They would be upgrading Proton some where in 2020 with some digital stuff not major upgrade as such.

Proton has been very reliable launch platform they need better QA and QC process

And yet every relevant scientific mission that involved Proton failed spectacularly (Phobos-Grunt anyone?)

You can polish the turd but it is still a turd. QA and QC are no excuse, whole concept is obsolete, electronics, design, fuel, infrastructure, everything....

errr.... Phobos-Grunt was launched on a Ukrainian Zenit.

In any case, Protons problems over the last 10 years are all QA/QC or human related, (and most are Briz issues, not Proton) and its unfair to judge the entire system on the inevitable problems caused by 20+ years of brain-drain, aging/retiring workforce and economic hardship since the USSR break-up.  Consider the last few failures:

MexSat-1 (16-6-2015) - Cause was QA/QC fail. 3rd stage vernier engine failure due to use of down-graded material. (*)

Express AM4R (15-5-2014) - Cause was QA/QC fail. Same details as the subsequent failure of MexSat-1.

Glonass x3 (02-07-2013) - Cause was QA/QC fail and human error. Yaw sensors installed upside down.

Yamal-402 partial-failure (08-12-2012) - Cause was QA/QC fail and/or design issue. Early shutdown of Briz-M 4th burn caused by turbopump bearing failure.

Telkom-3/Express MD2 (06-06-2012) - Cause was QA/QC FAIL.  Piping rupture in Briz-M upper stage on 4th burn.

Express AM4 (17-08-2011) - Cause was human error. Incorrect parameter entered into Briz-M flight program.

Glonass x3 (05-12-2010) - Cause was human error. Excessive fuel loaded to upper stage.

AMC-14 (14 March 2008) - Cause was QA/QC fail.  Piping rupture in Briz-M upper stage on 2nd burn.

JCSAT-11 (5 September 2007) - Cause was QA/QC fail. Damaged pyro-bolt firing cable.

(*) This was a known issue back in the USSR, but the material upgrade which solved the issue was not properly documented, and subsequent generations of engineering and QAQC personnel simply were not aware of the issue.  Crazy as it sounds...

Ultimately, how long Proton continues to fly is not just dependent upon the A5 test program, but on the Kazakh government and how long it is content to fly a heavy launcher in spite of its toxic propellants and consequent environmental issues.  Proton manufacturing and launch infrastructure (and the manned expertise to operate it) exist today and I can't see either the Russian or Kazakh governments throwing away a capability that is cost effective and provides a back-up to Angara services.

Vann7 wrote:

Quality control issues are totally unaceptable  , that only means the supervision failed big
time and that people needs to be fired from his job. Mounting electronics or equipment
"up side down" is total idiocy.. if Russian engineers had any brain they will design 100%
of all its mechanical and electronics parts and sensors in such a way that are idiot proof.
that cannot connect if done wrongly. after 50 years of launching rockets ,they should have
developed a Rocket that can only be assembled in only one way and is impossible to
connect any equipment incorrectly.. either is done right or doesn't fit. This happen in Computer
parts . that most connectors only work in one way , like your hard drives ,cables.. that is impossible to attach them in reversed way..simply does not fit.  Also Russia after 50 years
in space should have a system to very quickly inspect and or repair and check easily any space rocket part or sensor operation.

My believe are some of those crashes however have been Sabotage ,and things like this have been said not by just me or the average joe ,who nobody knows.. but by no less that Rogozin.
So Russia needs to deal with the potential malicious sababotage by Americans on its space program.. will Americans be capable to do something like that? absolutely.. Sabotage is part of their style ,it will be rare for me, if the CIA or Pentagon did not at very least attempted to shutdown a Russian space rocket before.  Americans cannot allow Russia to take the lead in space , that will be a major boost for Russia world image and boost to its economy in contracts
and cooperation with Europe.. in times that Americans wants to see Russia isolated from the world.

for example look at the proton rocket explosion last year..
look the video in 1080p in full screen and notice the white object..



You will notice with pure naked eye ,without zooming the came at the second 53 an object that should not be there near collision path of the rocket.  , that an object flew towards the
proton rocket. it was clearly visible , from RT video when was live and noticed that thing.
before any conspiration of "aliens" began. The first thing i though ,was shut down . because that
object was not supposed to be there. But Russia denied all ,but a clear object was suspiciously in the same flight path of the Proton,and seems as if it intercepted the rocket. by more more careful studied video i posted using special programs of contrast.  hit by a big object.and Americans will have no problem to shut it down secretly if they know the flight path of the rocket and the time it will be launched.

later conspiration theorist began to claim it was an "UFO"..  but for me it was more likely either space junk ,that will be really bad luck.. or either it was a explosive ,an american deployed space mine from one of its satellites ,(that they militarised space already) that the proton flew near , or a rail gun attack. Something hit the Proton and Russia covered it.. with an excuse. perhaps to have time to think in the retaliation for the attack and keep things under the radar ,to solve the issue through internal channels ,avoiding an humiliation for not responding with war ,if it was one.

kvs wrote:@Vann7,

You are wrong, it is always easier to destroy than to build.   Even your hypothetical "foolproof" systems would be
open to sabotage.   It was not an "idiot" that hammered in the sensors upside down, it was a saboteur.   The
act of hammering proves it was sabotage.   The sensors are designed to only go in one way and need to be
forced any other way.    So right there your whole spiel about Russian engineers failing to design "foolproof"
components is BS.

Big_Gazza wrote:

kvs wrote:@Vann7,

You are wrong, it is always easier to destroy than to build.   Even your hypothetical "foolproof" systems would be
open to sabotage.   It was not an "idiot" that hammered in the sensors upside down, it was a saboteur.   The
act of hammering proves it was sabotage.   The sensors are designed to only go in one way and need to be
forced any other way.    So right there your whole spiel about Russian engineers failing to design "foolproof"
components is BS.

Yeah, I still strongly suspect that the loss of the 3x Glonass-M was a case of deliberate sabotage.  It sounds like the yaw module isn't a good fit when inserted upside down, and a real effort had to be made to make it go together.  Interestingly, the faulty installation apparently gives the correct signals when the booster is stationary, and the error is only apparent when the core is moved, so the normal pre-flight checks would not pick it up.  Sounds like exactly the sort of weak point that a knowledgable saboteur would direct his minions to attack.

The recent loss of Kanopus-ST is also fishy.  Sounds like a pyro-bolt failed to fire, so i wonder if a wire was cut?  I'd be interested to know if the pyrobolt firing circuit allows for cut-wire detection, ie drives a low mA current to continuously prove electrical continuity, and doubles as a positive confirmation of bolt firing (ie subsequent continuity loss detected).  The fact that the satellite was testing technologies for possible detection of sea surface disturbances to track submarines makes me suspect that the Uh'muricans may have wanted to prevent/delay Russian progress in this Holy-Grail of remote sensing technology.  Never over-estimate the loyalty of your workers when 5th columnists offer them outrageously large sums of money to commit treachery...

kvs wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

kvs wrote:@Vann7,

You are wrong, it is always easier to destroy than to build.   Even your hypothetical "foolproof" systems would be
open to sabotage.   It was not an "idiot" that hammered in the sensors upside down, it was a saboteur.   The
act of hammering proves it was sabotage.   The sensors are designed to only go in one way and need to be
forced any other way.    So right there your whole spiel about Russian engineers failing to design "foolproof"
components is BS.

Yeah, I still strongly suspect that the loss of the 3x Glonass-M was a case of deliberate sabotage.  It sounds like the yaw module isn't a good fit when inserted upside down, and a real effort had to be made to make it go together.  Interestingly, the faulty installation apparently gives the correct signals when the booster is stationary, and the error is only apparent when the core is moved, so the normal pre-flight checks would not pick it up.  Sounds like exactly the sort of weak point that a knowledgable saboteur would direct his minions to attack.

The recent loss of Kanopus-ST is also fishy.  Sounds like a pyro-bolt failed to fire, so i wonder if a wire was cut?  I'd be interested to know if the pyrobolt firing circuit allows for cut-wire detection, ie drives a low mA current to continuously prove electrical continuity, and doubles as a positive confirmation of bolt firing (ie subsequent continuity loss detected).  The fact that the satellite was testing technologies for possible detection of sea surface disturbances to track submarines makes me suspect that the Uh'muricans may have wanted to prevent/delay Russian progress in this Holy-Grail of remote sensing technology.  Never over-estimate the loyalty of your workers when 5th columnists offer them outrageously large sums of money to commit treachery...

Those are good observations about remote detection of sabotaged parts.   I guess it is a very difficult and costly task to engineer such capability.
At the end of the day some level of trust has to be placed in the employees.   Of course this is a weakness, but then everything should be robotized
and a minder assigned to the few remaining employees.

kvs wrote:

Austin wrote:Russia developing super-heavy rocket — deputy PM

http://tass.ru/en/science/847810

So Russia has not dropped the plans for a heavy rocket.   I guess we can put all that liberast fantasy to rest.
But we lack details about this project.  

Rmf wrote:there is some thrust augmentation due to engine spacing and incoming air heating and expanding underneath it. even n-1 was using that effect.
like i said less then 10% loss of isp is impressive for simplicity ,less parts, and low pressure chamber which other cheaper and easily produced materials can be used and still be reusable. tolerances are amazing. you can put small steel bearing and pump would still works thats advantage of gas generator compared to closed cycle , and closed cycle engines are heavier ,and because combustion pressure is low you dont waste much fuel for gas generator anyways ,lol. there is usually always some fuel left in primary stages i am surprised you didnt know ,because you never cutoff at 0 fuel but at 2-5% fuel because you can have instability... so 5% -7%even that is enough to land.
and youre wrong -combustion pressure doesnt increase isp proportionatly, but very slightly the higher you go ,less and less gain you have.
merlin still cant replace rd-180 its stupid they are diferent categories -i cant belive you pull this off only to discredit yourself.

Anatoly Zak wrote:Russia's Big Plan To Finally Put Cosmonauts on the Moon

The Russian space agency, Roscosmos, typically celebrates the new year in a traditional Russian fashion: With a two-week bash lasting from New Year's Eve until the Orthodox Christmas on January 14. But this year, things were a little more subdued. Workers building the new Vostochny spaceport in the country's remote far-eastern taiga were given just two days to mark the coming of 2016.

Now, that's partly because of the lagging construction at Vostochny. But Roskosmos had another reason to be in a less-then-festive mood. The Kremlin crossed off the biggest item on the agency's Christmas list: a flight to the Moon.

The annexation of Crimea, the war in Ukraine, and the resulting economic sanctions from the West—combined with falling oil prices—have squeezed the Russian economy and forced Moscow to tighten the belt across the board. Not surprisingly, all but most essential projects in the Russian space program were slashed.

But don't write off Russia just yet. Kremlin officials were quick to reassure everyone that all the ambitious plans were only postponed, not canceled. Without much fanfare, Russia space experts have been planning a new way to send the first cosmonauts to the moon.

Back From the Brink

Russian space strategists eyed the Moon as the ultimate destination a decade ago, as soon as the booming oil prices pulled the country's economy out of the post-Soviet rubble. (Then, as now, many had left the Russian space program for dead.) But big plans had to wait while Roscosmos struggled to rebuild its battered Soviet legacy and to reshape itself for the new millennium. One small step in this process happened last week, when Russian president Vladimir Putin signed a decree (eerily numbered 666) that formally transformed the government agency of Roscosmos into a so-called state corporation, modeled after existing Russian industry giants such as the highly successful nuclear conglomerate Rosatom.

In the meantime, Russian engineers have been hard at work devising plans to revive the unrealized Soviet dream of sending cosmonauts to the moon. Visions of a next-generation manned spacecraft that would replace the venerable but small Soyuz capsule appeared on the drawing board, and some of its components are now undergoing testing. Soon to be christened with a new name based on the results of the online poll, the new four-seat vehicle is designed to travel 99 percent of the distance between the Earth and the moon.

When the huge rocket needed to launch the new lunar ship in a single shot was deemed too expensive in 2015, Russian engineers rejiggered their lunar expeditions to be blasted by four smaller, cheaper Angara boosters, which could pay for themselves by delivering commercial and military satellites in addition to flying cosmonauts. As a result, the planned Russian lunar expeditions promise to be much cheaper than those that NASA would launch with the behemoth SLS rocket the United States is currently developing, which is too big for most commercial purposes.

The Lunar Strategy, Detailed

Over the course of 2015, Russian engineers quietly devised a moon-going strategy including 41 launches of Angara rockets to support the nation's lunar program during the next two decades. According to this grand plan, beginning in 2023 seven Russian crews would fly the new spacecraft, and five of them land on the moon, concluding with the establishment of a modular habitable moon base.

Here is how the Russian moon-exploration program would proceed, according to the latest schedule:

Unmanned flight testing of the new spacecraft in Earth orbit would start in 2021, followed by an automated docking at the International Space Station in 2023. In the same year, the first crew would fly the new ship to the ISS.

In 2025, the new Russian spacecraft would be ready to make its first flight beyond the Earth's orbit without crew. The year later, the lunar module designed to take cosmonauts from the lunar orbit to the lunar surface would also make an unmanned test flight. By that time, a pair of Russian robotic landers, currently under development, is expected to pave the way for human explorers.

By 2027, the first Russian crew is scheduled to venture into deep space and reach the lunar orbit, matching the feat of NASA's Apollo 8 mission in 1969. Finally, in 2029, the first Russian cosmonauts would land on the Moon. Four more expeditions would follow through 2035. From the outset, each manned landing would be preceded by the delivery of a habitable module to the lunar orbit and then to the lunar surface.

Still Aiming for the Moon

Last October, during the International Astronautics Congress in Jerusalem, a Russian industry team offered this lunar strategy publicly to seek cooperation with international partners. NASA is reportedly evaluating the proposal.

With more than a decade of efforts invested into the lunar program, Russia is unlikely to drop its ambitions despite the current budget slump. The main thrust of the Russian space program will remain aimed at the Moon. Even after the latest financial woes, the development of the new-generation spacecraft remains on the books as does the development of robotic pathfinder missions to the Moon.

If history is any guide, the price of oil will not stay very low forever and the economic downturn should eventually give way to growth in Russia—hopefully, helped by normalizing relations with its neighbors and Western allies. After that, it's on to the moon.