Russian Space Program: News & Discussion #1

Putin warns heads will roll after failed rocket launch

https://www.rt.com/news/341133-vostochny-cosmodrome-putin-jail/

First Launch From Vostochny Cosmodrome

Roscosmos launched of a Soyuz-2.1a rocket, carrying three satellites, at 05:01 a.m. Moscow time (02:01 GMT) on Thursday.

http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160428/1038742805/vostochny-cosmodrome-launch.html

Rmf wrote:problems for the first launch?
another scandal?
all that trip and pr show for nothing !
it seems putin is furious !

You really are a rucking fetard....  seriously.....  words simply fail me....

PapaDragon wrote:

sepheronx wrote:Weird. So it cancelled launch automatically? All these systems are closed systems right? No access from outside sources?

Rocket was running self-diagnostics, detected a problem and aborted launch. There is no human involvement at that phase. Same thing happened at Kurou the other day. They fixed the problem and launched later.

Apparently the launch control system did not receive a confirmation for one of the valves that were commanded to close, so the logic aborted the cycle. Good call.

Congrats to Russia !

on another note.. it was one of the nicest camera angle of any launch in the day in a long time.



Unfortunately the monkeys at RT cut the video ,too early ,did not allowed people to fully appreciate the travel all the way when the rocket start to reach space .

Can someone please translate this?

^^^ Thanks Kvs, that one is funny. Someone should PM it to Rmf, he is on my ignore list but I assume he is going trough 3 boxes of tampons a day lately.


Also, clarification of the delayed launch, rocket was fine but problem was with data cable. They replaced it and went ahead.

http://russia-insider.com/en/science-tech/vostochny-cosmodrome-first-launch-eye-witness-account/ri14131

Amur region after Soyuz launch, first stage. Gotta say, it took the fall like a pro given the altitude. I think I can see set of airbags and a parachute in a not too distant future.

kvs wrote:Indeed.  They could recover most of the key parts if they parachuted them with some initial retro-rocket assist in the thinner
layers of the atmosphere.

Yup, the most valuable part is engine itself so that would simplify whole thing even more.

Although I think that retrieval will be reserved for Angara, Soyuz is pretty much el-cheapo by rocket standards.

Speaking of retrieval, if they are really that keen on reusing the whole booster they might go with installing parachute on top that would bring it back just above ground and combine it with rocket engines also installed on the top, like the escape system on the Soyuz capsule.

Before it hits the ground engine activates and brings whole thing to a soft touchdown and because it is on top of the rocket instead on the bottom it makes the whole thing very stable from the get go and removes the need for stabilization engines like on other systems. This would work very nice on Angara 5 because top part of the 4 stage 1 boosters is already unused empty space.

Basically same approach they plan on using on Federation (PTK-NP) down the road.

But I still think it would be simpler to just focus on retrieving the engines. Parachute and airbags both attached on the bottom part would do. Get the engines and let rest of it crash on impact. It's mostly just fuel tanks, no big deal.

its impossible to use land way unlike kazakh grasslands this is pure wilderness and heavy forest. it will be cut up and transported with helicopter to nearest road.

if you could use paraglider for controled landing and small landing gear ,that would be much better then any parashute.

Rmf wrote:its impossible to use land way unlike kazakh grasslands this is pure wilderness and heavy forest. it will be cut up and transported with helicopter to nearest road.
https://servimg.com/view/19063838/10][img]https://i.servimg.com/u/f86/19/06/38/38/iqqdxw10.jpg
if you could use paraglider for controled landing and small landing gear ,that would be much better then any parashute.

Those things do not fall at random, trajectory is known in advance.

If they need empty space they can just clear out section of a forest. As for transport, that is what helicopters are for. Or trucks. Its is Siberia not Antarctica. Definitely looks more accessible than some Kazakh shithole.

Kazakhstan is old news, Baikonur is slowly but surely headed for decommissioning. Borat cannot into space, deal with it already.

kazahstan is civilisation comared to that mountains and taiga in the midle of nowhere.
thats why i think a wing ,or if you use paraglider it gives a controlled landing like a wing with benefit of a parashute ,you can glide to the launch site which is very important.

The Baikal concept is my idea of a practical booster return system.  A modified URM-1 module with a swing wing, a small air-breathing engine and UAV controls to provide cross-range capability to allow flight to a recovery airstrip.  If the engine module could be made easily decoupled by bolted structural sections, graylock couplings for piping connections and plug-in electrical connectors for controls & instrument loops, the Baikal could be rapidly turned around by fitting a new engine and full systems retesting before going back into the inventory.  The disconnected engine module then goes to refurb for inspection, boroscope checks, clean-up/de-coking and a test burn before going back into the pool.

SpaceX has persisted with their powered stack descent and tripod landing, and have managed to land on a marine barge (an impressive achievement), but I still don't like the concept. Its too hit or miss, and a failed landing scraps the whole stack. I'm also not convinced that a powered vertical ascent isn't a lot of thermal strain on the engine bay. I'd much rather a UAV-style return and aircraft landing, as its gentler on the hardware and is far more fault-tolerant (depending on fuel supply, you can stack the cores in a holding pattern while you bring them home).

Big_Gazza wrote:The Baikal concept is my idea of a practical booster return system.  A modified URM-1 module with a swing wing, a small air-breathing engine and UAV controls to provide cross-range capability to allow flight to a recovery airstrip.  If the engine module could be made easily decoupled by bolted structural sections, graylock couplings for piping connections and plug-in electrical connectors for controls & instrument loops, the Baikal could be rapidly turned around by fitting a new engine and full systems retesting before going back into the inventory.  The disconnected engine module then goes to refurb for inspection, boroscope checks, clean-up/de-coking and a test burn before going back into the pool.

SpaceX has persisted with their powered stack descent and tripod landing, and have managed to land on a marine barge (an impressive achievement), but I still don't like the concept.  Its too hit or miss, and a failed landing scraps the whole stack.  I'm also not convinced that a powered vertical ascent isn't a lot of thermal strain on the engine bay.  I'd much rather a UAV-style return and aircraft landing, as its gentler on the hardware and is far more fault-tolerant (depending on fuel supply, you can stack the cores in a holding pattern while you bring them home).

there reverse landing could proof to be invaluable for reverse landing in surfaces like moon or mars. if you deploy first the pad for landing.

Vann7 wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:The Baikal concept is my idea of a practical booster return system.  A modified URM-1 module with a swing wing, a small air-breathing engine and UAV controls to provide cross-range capability to allow flight to a recovery airstrip.  If the engine module could be made easily decoupled by bolted structural sections, graylock couplings for piping connections and plug-in electrical connectors for controls & instrument loops, the Baikal could be rapidly turned around by fitting a new engine and full systems retesting before going back into the inventory.  The disconnected engine module then goes to refurb for inspection, boroscope checks, clean-up/de-coking and a test burn before going back into the pool.

SpaceX has persisted with their powered stack descent and tripod landing, and have managed to land on a marine barge (an impressive achievement), but I still don't like the concept.  Its too hit or miss, and a failed landing scraps the whole stack.  I'm also not convinced that a powered vertical ascent isn't a lot of thermal strain on the engine bay.  I'd much rather a UAV-style return and aircraft landing, as its gentler on the hardware and is far more fault-tolerant (depending on fuel supply, you can stack the cores in a holding pattern while you bring them home).

there reverse landing could proof to be invaluable for reverse landing in surfaces like moon or mars. if you deploy first the pad for landing.

Rocket powered descent is a tried and tested techology for lunar landings - Surveyor, Apollo, Lunokhod, Luna Sample Return, Chang'e 3.  Its been done on Mars as well with the Vikings and Phoenix, and the sky-crane used with Curiosity rover.