Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

I didn't find a dedicated thread for just Russian "lifters", so I decided to start this one. I've always been interested in Russia's upcoming launch vehicles and their spacecraft, hopefully some of you do too. Keep in mind there is the Angara thread, but if you so desire, you could also post Angara here. I added the "thoughts" part to get peoples opinion on this launch vehicles, because while news is great, hearing others opinions is even better!

Examples of some topics: Soyuz variants and their future, Proton replacement, Russian "moon rocket" of the future, inflatable spacecraft etc.

A new series of NK-33 tests
The NK-33 engine fired again on March 3, 2010, performing normally during an abbreviated 91-second test, a poster on the Novosti Kosmonavtiki forum said. It was followed on March 6, 2010, by another firing, which lasted for 287 seconds testing the engine's a full-duration cycle. The performance profile included 50 seconds of burn at 108 percent from nominal thrust of the engine. A third test firing in a series took place on March 12, 2010, and lasted 239 seconds.
On Oct. 24, 2011, TsSKB Progress announced that on October 15 OAO Kuznetsov conducted a live test of the NK-33A engine for the Soyuz-2-1v rocket. The firing tested a capability of the engine to withstand foreign particles inside oxidizer supply lines, TsSKB Progress said. A second test in a series was conducted on October 26, 2011. According to OAO Kuznetsov, both tests lasted 220 seconds and particles were added into the oxidizer and fuel supply lines. Yet, another test was planned clearing the way to the engine's certification for inter-agency tests, OAO Kuznetsov said.
What was announced as the fourth and final firing of the NK-33A engine took place at Vintay facility on April 20, 2012. The engine was reportedly operating flawlessly for 157.7 seconds logging a total of 600 seconds during multiple test runs, its manufacturer announced a week later. At the time, the company's representatives promised a decision of the inter-agency commission on the resumption of the engine's mass production within a month and a half.
On Jan. 15, 2013, OAO Kuznetsov announced that it started the year with a successful certification and acceptance test of NK-33A engine intended for flight tests of the Soyuz-2.1v rocket. The engine fired for a scheduled duration at the company's test stand and was then shipped to the assembly factory in preparation for shipment to the customer, OAO Kuznetsov said. Also, on the evening of March 22, the company conducted another firing of NK-33A, aimed to test the emergency shutdown command, which was successful. The third qualification test took place on March 30, 2013.
On August 13, 2014, the Samara Today newspaper reported that the NK-33 engine had undergone a 40-second certification firing before its installation on the third Soyuz-2-1v rocket.
Further upgrades
In mid-2012, a chief designer of OAO Kuznetsov said that the company had planned to boost the performance of the NK-33A engine by 10 percent before 2018 and also considered the possibility of a 20 percent increase in its thrust. However, at the same time, NPO Energomash started active development of the RD-193 engine, as a replacement to NK-33, whose production had not been yet resumed. As of 2013, NPO Energomash claimed that only 20 NK engines had remained available and they could support only around 10 missions of the Soyuz-2-1v rocket. However, in 2014, OAO Kuznetsov claimed that the company had already restored a considerable part of the manufacturing process for the NK-33 engine.

 - RSW

As some of you know, Putin was shown the TsSKB Progress design for a new heavy launch vehicle. (Here is the link; http://www.russianspaceweb.com/stk.html#2014 ) Anyway, here is what their design looks like;



As you can see, it has a 8 exterior booster stages. According to RSW, it can loft 85t into LEO with the whole rocket weighing ~2,500 tons. This puts it right at the NASA SLS Block 1 level, that can put at least 70t into orbit but weighs more than this concept shown above, at ~2,650 tons. So if this rocket is produced, Russia will one up the NASA's development, at least in this weight class. - This design differs from the earlier Progress designs, which you can see if you go to the site whose link is above.

Thanks Mike... good thread.

They are talking about a nuclear powered space tug that can remove rubbish from earth orbit and also tow supplies or even missions to the planets... I am really looking forward to seeing that....

Thanks!  

I've been looking forward to "vacuum" spacecraft for some time now... Trash is becoming a larger problem everyday, and could completely curb Mars missions etc. - Nuclear propulsion sounds good!

Here is some good news about Proton, from Russianspaceweb.

Proton to return to flight on September 28

On August 19, a third stage of the Proton rocket, which had been modified to address all the issues raised by investigators in the wake of the May 16 launch accident, departed its assembly factory at GKNPTs Khrunichev in Moscow on its way to Baikonur Cosmodrome.

The Proton's return to flight is currently scheduled for September 28. The launch vehicle is expected to carry a classified payload known as Olymp ("Olympus") or Luch ("Beam") for the Russian Ministry of Defense. The spacecraft, developed at ISS Reshetnev in Zheleznogorsk, will likely be inserted into a geostationary orbit 36,000 kilometers above the Equator with the help of a Briz-M upper stage, where it will provide communications for the Russian military. A Moscow-based Kommersant daily claimed that the satellite would be also used for electronic espionage for the Russian security service, FSB.

This mission was previously scheduled to lift off at the end of May and, following the accident, it was initially postponed to July 8.

As of August 19, Proton rockets were expected to fly four missions before the end of the year with a launch scheduled at the end of each month.

For those who don't know, the Fregat upper-stage which failed just under a week ago, isn't going to be used on future manned missions. This incident shouldn't affect the future lifters and spacecraft missions.

If you couldn't tell from the picture itself, this is Russia's "rocket-development" timeline into the late 30's. Some important things to note are the "heavy" and "super-heavy" classes of rockets outlined on the timeline. My guess is that the "heavy" class is some form of the Angara A7, and the "super-heavy" will be what Russian companies are working on as we speak... One thing that is confusing, is why the Angara A7 is put in the mid-20's (man, that sounds really weird to say) when it will most likely be launched before then... Even if it isn't launched by then, it will have completed R&D many years before. Another interesting thing to think about, is the inclusion of liquid-rocket-boosters on every competitors rocket. Typically, concepts of large launchers have SRBs instead. I personally prefer LRBs, but having SRBs is typically cheaper, never mind less time intensive... Maybe it could be that the Russian companies are just more familiar with LRBs, and don't want to screw things up. Either way, at least a single competitor rocket should include SRBs. Even more so when some of the concepts are hydrogen fueled on the core stage, as hydrogen isn't the best fuel for takeoff and going through the thick atmosphere... SRBs are "quick burning", and would offset the "slowness" of hydrogen.

Yet another interesting thing about the timeline, is that it shows missions to both the Moon and asteroids before missions to Mars. I assume that the missions to asteroids are unmanned, but even then it seems like Mars would be priority. Maybe Russia is interested in Asteroid resources....

I believe they're looking strongly at natural gas as fuel, not quite as powerful as hydrogen, but much cheaper.
That also lines up with a move to re-usable stages that would return to Earth somehow (glide back ala UAV etc).

Sea Launch is apparently being turned upside down, UKR coooperation is off the table, so Russia (being ~95% owner)
would be inclined to make it oriented to serve their own purposes better... Not sure if they would remodel existing barges
to handle Russian rockets, and/or build new ones...

While SpaceX is not untroubled, their cost model seems to be taken seriously by Russia as the future standard to match/beat.

mutantsushi wrote:I believe they're looking strongly at natural gas as fuel, not quite as powerful as hydrogen, but much cheaper.
That also lines up with a move to re-usable stages that would return to Earth somehow (glide back ala UAV etc).

Sea Launch is apparently being turned upside down, UKR coooperation is off the table, so Russia (being ~95% owner)
would be inclined to make it oriented to serve their own purposes better... Not sure if they would remodel existing barges
to handle Russian rockets, and/or build new ones...

While SpaceX is not untroubled, their cost model seems to be taken seriously by Russia as the future standard to match/beat.

True, other countries and SpaceX themselves are looking at methane/natural gas as an kerosene alternative. It is being looked into because of its performance, low price, "cleanliness", and abundance. Kerosene is actually superior when it comes to performance, but loses out on the other mentioned factors. As for "returnable" boosters, that technology is still in its infancy. SpaceX is the closest to actually applying it, but the Baikal booster looks promising as well. That is one advantage of SRBs, they can easily be reused (as demonstrated by the Space Shuttle).

Yeah, it is going to be interesting to see Sea Launch unravel... They could probably modify the launch system to fit the Angara or vice-versa, as that would make the most sense economically. Or they could just build new barges, which shouldn't be that hard.

Funny that a US company does better than NASA themselves... My only gripe with SpaceX is if they can live up to their promises. Their claimed price-per-launch of the Falcon Heavy seems a little optimistic, but that could just be me... That being said, don't worry as Russian companies are researching and developing reusable boosters, SSTO vehicles, and other cost-effective measures. 

 - If you don't go there already, go check out russianspaceweb.com, they have all the info on the Russian space industry.

If any of you want to learn more about rockets and their propulsion, there are a couple books that are free on google (PDF) that I suggest reading...

Rocket propulsion elements 7th edition

Space propulsion analysis and design

Modern engineering for design of liquid-propellant rocket engines

Search those exact titles, and you will find the PDF files... They are a little long, but are worth it!

Interestingly enough, Russia and Roscosmos appear to be taking notes from NASA and their SLS... At least in terms of their fueling system. Here are the possible next generation super-heavy lifters in R&D;

Sodruzhestvo, it would be built by RKK Energia and has been proposed as a cheaper option compared to others as it would use Zenit first-stages... The new turmoil in Ukraine has threatened this project because of that, and Energia has proposed a solution; a hydrogen first stage... I have nothing against Hydrogen, we saw how it worked for Buran and the Shuttle, however NASA is using it and for some reason it is bothering me... Solid fuel, Kerosene, and Methane are all better performing fuels for first-stages, so this choice is confusing... Anyway, the Sodruzhestvo would be able to lift ~90 tons using then Hydrogen set up. - Kerosene designs are said to weigh 2,132 tons, which is good for something of its capability. The third stage, including the booster stage, would also be from the Zenit's second stage on the Kerosene model. The Hydrogen model wouldn't have a third stage, and would just use the core stage instead.

Yenisei-5, built by GKNPT Khrunichev, it is a totally new development unlike the Sodruzhestvo. This rocket, has been envisioned to use a Hydrogen core-stage powered by three of the RD-1020 which powered the Energia, ever since it was thought up... Yenisei-5 is claimed be able to loft up to 125 tons into orbit, all while weighing all weighing 2,400 tons, which is the same as the Energia. The increased capabilities from Energia to the -5 is unexplainable due to having one less RD-1020, but it could just be its more conventional design... The -5 would use a minimum of four boosters, all using a RD-170 based engine running, of course, on Kerosene.

RKK's alternative to their own Sodruzhestvo, the Energia-5K (what a creative name). This proposal is by far the most down-to-Earth, as it uses current tech, and Kerosene..... It could put ~79 into orbit, and also weighs 2,400 like their alternative. It uses four boosters, five including the identical core-stage. The boosters are all powered by the proven four-chambered RD-170M, which quite obviously runs on Kerosene. The third stage uses a RD-191V, and the fourth uses two RD-0146D engines... In all honesty, this is a great contender, and probably is the easiest to approach, at least during the Ukrainian "crisis".

Now to Progress's competitor, the secretive STK. All that we know, is that is could launch anywhere between 85 and 190 (!) tons into LEO, and that the "small" version will weigh close to 2,500 tons. This is the rocket I posted a picture of earlier in this thread. Well ok, that isn't all we know, but most of this information is speculative and should be taken with a grain of salt... One guess is that it will use a Methane/LOX mix similar to what the proposed Soyuz-5 would use. It is rumored that it would be supplemented by an unknown number of SRBs, which is a first for large Russian lifters! The heavy 190 ton version would use a Hydrogen first stage, along with six Methane burning boosters, quite ambitious!

There are some more, but I need to "separate the dirt" so to speak... Using those links in my former comment, I'm going to investigate the whole Hydrogen "thing".

This proves my thoughts on Hydrogen... From the first mentioned link;

"One method to increase the density of hydrogen is to use a subcooled mixture of liquid hydrogen and suspended frozen small particles of solid hydrogen, which is denser than the liquid. Experiments and studies on this "slush" hydrogen have been performed; it is difficult to produce and maintain a uniform mixture. It has not yet been used in a flight vehicle.
Some studies have shown that, when burned with liquid oxygen, a hydro- carbon (such as methane or RP-1) can give a small advantage in space launch vehicle first stages. Here the higher average propellant density allows a smaller vehicle with lower drag, which compensates for the lower specific impulse of the hydrocarbon when compared to a hydrogen fuel. Also, there are some concepts for operating the booster-stage rocket engine initially with hydrocar- bon fuel and then switching during flight to hydrogen fuel. As yet, engines using two fuels, namely methane (or hydrocarbon) and hydrogen, have not yet been fully developed or flown. Some work on an experimental engine was done in Russia."

Mike E, great posts mate Keep them up!!

One question I have is that Angara 7 design is often disparaged as being incompatible with the Angara 1-5 pad design on account of its use of 6x URM-1 strap-ons as opposed to 4x on Angara-5. The assumption most make is that A-7 could never fly from Plesetsk or the planned Vostochny Angara pads.

The Angara pad modules however appear to be constructed of modular sections, so I wonder if the supporting structure is designed (or can be modified) to allow removal and reconfiguration of the modules to facilitate flame paths for 6x boosters around an expanded central core? Do the pad modules need to support actuated elements like lock-down clamps that require electric or hydraulic release systems, or is it solely a passive support structure?

Can we foresee a pad design where the usual A-5 config is occasionally reworked (with interchangeable modules) to facilitate infrequent A-7 launches? Its probably not possible with Plesetsk Pad #1, but a little innovative engineering on the Vostochny pads (or Plesetsk #2) could provide Russia with an intermediate heavy-lift capability in the 45-50 tonne class with minimal additional investment.

I'm thinking of heavy lift for manned space station modules and national-security payloads, ie high value and infrequent launch rate. An enlarged A-7 style core is probably not able to be rail-transported from Khrunichev factory but given the infrequent launch rates, air transport by An-225 Mriya would be an option (not sure if An-124 is up to the job).

My thought is that such a path offers a cost effective way of developing an intermediate heavy-lift capability by leveraging upon the Angara infrastructure. Am I dreaming, or this a plausible concept?

Big_Gazza wrote:Mike E, great posts mate  Keep them up!!

One question I have is that Angara 7 design is often disparaged as being incompatible with the Angara 1-5 pad design on account of its use of 6x URM-1 strap-ons as opposed to 4x on Angara-5.  The assumption most make is that A-7 could never fly from Plesetsk or the planned Vostochny Angara pads.

The Angara pad modules however appear to be constructed of modular sections, so I wonder if the supporting structure is designed (or can be modified) to allow removal and reconfiguration of the modules to facilitate flame paths for 6x boosters around an expanded central core?  Do the pad modules need to support actuated elements like lock-down clamps that require electric or hydraulic release systems, or is it solely a passive support structure?

Can we foresee a pad design where the usual A-5 config is occasionally reworked (with interchangeable modules) to facilitate infrequent A-7 launches? Its probably not possible with Plesetsk Pad #1, but a little innovative engineering on the Vostochny pads (or Plesetsk #2) could provide Russia with an intermediate heavy-lift capability in the 45-50 tonne class with minimal additional investment.

I'm thinking of heavy lift for manned space station modules and national-security payloads, ie high value and infrequent launch rate.  An enlarged A-7 style core is probably not able to be rail-transported from Khrunichev factory but given the infrequent launch rates, air transport by An-225 Mriya would be an option (not sure if An-124 is up to the job).

My thought is that such a path offers a cost effective way of developing an intermediate heavy-lift capability by leveraging upon the Angara infrastructure.  Am I dreaming, or this a plausible concept?

Thank you, and you came up with a great question. As far as I know, the A-7 is simply to large in terms of dimensions, not weight, to be transported and launched from the two pads. However, they are considering the option to upgrade infrastructure in Plesetsk instead... Obviously, they go to different orbits, so this limits the A-7's capabilities dramatically... (The diameter of the A7 would be 4.1 meters, which is too large for some other pads, as they can't be transported by rail.)

While current/future Angara pads could be enlarged, they will most likely restrict it to just Plesetek.

Air transport is great, but the cosmodrones would need lots of work to get them air-transport ready.

It also appears like the built "super-heavy" will be related to the Kaskad, which I will post about here.

I'd love to hear all your (all forum members) opinions on these rockets. I'm relieved that Russia might be going Kerosene for earlier stages, and Hydrogen for the later ones. A few SRBs wouldn't hurt, as they are literally (overused, I know, but in this case it is used seriously) like strapping bombs to a rocket (that doesn't sound good, does it?). The power of those things is incredible, for example, 85% (!) of the Space Shuttles early stage thrust was SRB produced! Imagine what would've happened if Buran/Energia had a couple of those things! 

- This isn't 100% relevant, but I want to share it anyway...

As some of you know, within ~10 years the Ariane 5 will be completely replaced by the Ariane 6. The 6 is smaller, and as such has a much smaller payload, around 7 tons. This leaves a huge gap open in the ~20 ton market, and because the Delta is old and Atlas is screwed (RD-180 engine), the Angara A5 and Proton, nevermind the possible small version of a Kaskad, should be able to thrive!

A significant factor in choosing Hydrogen is the fact that it is non toxic.

The Russians get a lot of stick with every launch from baikanor... especially the exmilitary ICBMs because of their toxic fuel.

Having rockets that use cheap easily available hydrogen is a good thing...

GarryB wrote:A significant factor in choosing Hydrogen is the fact that it is non toxic.

The Russians get a lot of stick with every launch from baikanor... especially the exmilitary ICBMs because of their toxic fuel.

Having rockets that use cheap easily available hydrogen is a good thing...

Good point, I should've mentioned that earlier...

The Proton is by far the worst offender, thanks to UDMH.

Yes, but in my hoest opinion, Hygrogen should be left for the upper stages. Their lower stage performance just isn't that good, and they basically require SRBs to get anywhere.

Hydrogen?  Meh..  overrated except for upper stages (where hydro-lox truly does shine).  First stages suffer from excessive drag due to large core diameter that is required for such a low density fuel (forget about slush hydrogen - the difficulties outweigh any perceived advantages)

Solids?  Pfftt.. Low ISP, very poor efficiency.  Great thrust but uncontrollable and unthrottleable (poor safety), and a poor use of available launcher mass.  How the US ever justified the man-rating of these slow-motion high-explosive monsters is simply a mystery to me....

IMHO the first stage and strap-ons should be liquid fuelled, either Kero-Lox or Metha-Lox, and the 2nd and upper stages should be Hydro-Lox.  (I prefer Metho-Lox especially if hardware is to be recovered as hydrocarbon fuel results in coking of turbines and piping, and complicates engine reuse).  Specialist upper stages for mission-specific orbit injections and/or convoluted maneuvers can be hypergolics as they are almost infinitely store-able, but the use of propellant combinations such as N2O4/UDMH should be strictly limited to such applications. Lets not mess with hideously toxic chemicals that can cause terminal cancer from a single inhalation. Life is precious and should be enjoyed to the maximum...

Yep, you have got it!

I wasn't a fan of solids, until recently. They have a terrible isp, and poor safety like you mentioned etc. However, they make up for it with their thrust, and the sheer violence used to create that thrust. - That is why they are good for booster stages within the atmosphere. 

IMHO, boosters (depending on the kind of rocket) should be either solid, liquid, or gel (?). The core should be liquid, and further stages should be hydrogen.

Methane is good, but not as powerful or dense as kerosene, so it is more of a backup plan.