Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

kvs wrote:

Mike E wrote:Defense Ministry denies damage to Fregat booster at Plesetsk space site

MOSCOW, October 15. /TASS/. The Fregat booster received no damage as a result of an incident during its transportation at the Plesetsk space site, Air And Space Force spokesman, Colonel Aleksey Zolotukhin, said on Wednesday, adding that the booster was in order and preparations for the launch of the Soyuz-2.1b rocket were proceeding on time.
“The reports of an alleged fall of the container with the Fregat booster from a railway carriage at the Plesetsk space site have nothing to do with the reality,” Zolotukhin said.
Specialists have already checked Fregat for its integrity and the existence of latent defects.
“The Fregat booster is in full working order,” he said, adding that the booster was ready for fuelling and assembly with other parts of the Soyuz rocket.

Brain dead media hysterics.  The rail car that was carrying it did not flip over.

If you pay attention to coverage of news pertaining to Russia over the years you see the pattern of
spin and distortion applied to every aspect.   The above incident is transformed into some major
disaster and a government coverup.  

If people are going to wait for news that Russia is a normal country from the media, they will be
waiting into the infinite future.

kvs wrote:The Briz-M stage has been the source of most of the Proton failures over the last 15 years as far as I can
recall.  There is always some assembly issue.  By now they should have shot every diversant in the production
facility.   The Bulava was also failing because of bizarre assembly problems.   Seems to me like Russia needs
to solve compromised staff problems at its production facilities instead of actual technical faults.

Mike E wrote:

GarryB wrote:Will be cool in 20-30 years time when we can start planning to send a nuclear propelled rocket literally to the stars.

A nuclear powered rocket that can operate for years mounted on a large space ship with some sort of magnetic scoop on the front several kms long that drags in loose hydrogen atoms in free space and of course any dust particles and suck them in the front of the ship to be heated and accelerated out the back like a big scramjet.

Huge potential.

Of course the problem is that 20 years after you launch it you develop a new propulsion technology that is ten times faster so you launch that and it beats the first spaceship you sent....  

Yeah, it would be awesome if such a craft could pass Voyager 1 within my (our) lifespan. 

That would weight a ton, and while it would drag in molecules (very few of them), it would add to cosmic drag. In general, there are too few particles in space for that to be feasible... 

No potential... Though regular nuclear propulsion does have a lot of it...

Yep! But who said that is a bad thing?

Rmf wrote:problem with radars is they have to be close to earth for scanning and big antenna creates drag.
also power consumption means big solar panels and that creates additional drag quickly decaying orbit.
they used nuclear powerred batteries before...
but there is some changes now with rotating panels which offer least ressistance postition although less power.
also antenas are mesh type which is less draggy but still effective.
also with  ion propulsion metods now station keeping is easier and longer.
russia need many new radar satelites, resurs was great to awake establishment to its potential.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Agreed, 100%.  My dream is for Russia to develop a network of long-lived high-resolution radar surveillance satellites that can provide continuous and overlapping 24/7/365 coverage of the worlds oceans to allow every USN asset to be tracked realtime and firing solutions continuously available to anti-ship ballistic missiles and air/ground/sea launched cruise and AShMs.  Track the yankee b@$tard$ wherever they may be, and let them know that Russia can shove a hypersonic missile down their engine intakes at the simple push of a button.

I'm sure there are also many altruistic and wholesome applications of the technology (ie search and rescue) but securing the nation (and the world) against the endless geopolitical agression of our Western aristocracy is the highest priority.

PS: Actually my dream also to USE the capability when the yankee b@$tard$ provide a justification.  I long to turn on the TV and see the teary ashen faces of US corporate newsreaders when the images of USN carriers are shown, capsized and on fire, with their screws turning lazily in the air as they head inexorably to the bottom.  That would truly be a Moet Chandon moment...

Big_Gazza wrote:Agree with kvs, and I'll add that most of those failures happened early in the Protons development.  Over the last 35 years, proton has been very reliable, with most of the failures in this period being related to upper-stage (eg Briz) or payload problems, with the occasional human-factor thrown in.

Briz has had its share of problems, but they rarely seem to be caused by design issues - more like poor workmanship or outright malfeasance.  Any Russian launch to geostationary orbit is always going to be more contorted than an ESA launch (from equatorial French Guiana) or NASA (from Florida) due to the latitude of Baikonur and the requirement of Briz to make more engine firings to change orbital inclination and deliver the payload.  Briz has to work hard to acheive mission success and there is very little room for error or performance shortcomings (like a premature burn shutdown).  

Hopefully Krunichev have thrown enough resources in to fix the labour problems, and the FSB has managed to weed out those bastards who have been taking payments to throw a spanner in the works.  Saboteurs are the lowest form of life and should be shot...

Rmf wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:Agree with kvs, and I'll add that most of those failures happened early in the Protons development.  Over the last 35 years, proton has been very reliable, with most of the failures in this period being related to upper-stage (eg Briz) or payload problems, with the occasional human-factor thrown in.

Briz has had its share of problems, but they rarely seem to be caused by design issues - more like poor workmanship or outright malfeasance.  Any Russian launch to geostationary orbit is always going to be more contorted than an ESA launch (from equatorial French Guiana) or NASA (from Florida) due to the latitude of Baikonur and the requirement of Briz to make more engine firings to change orbital inclination and deliver the payload.  Briz has to work hard to acheive mission success and there is very little room for error or performance shortcomings (like a premature burn shutdown).  

Hopefully Krunichev have thrown enough resources in to fix the labour problems, and the FSB has managed to weed out those bastards who have been taking payments to throw a spanner in the works.  Saboteurs are the lowest form of life and should be shot...

what we have to remember is that , briz -m is/was a pure military project , designed as satelite killler , it was ment to fly solo on its own using advanced computer and precision multi- exaust (vernier) engine which can fire many times , with multiple droppable small tanks and many fireings to change its orbit and hunt enemy satelites.

it was not ment to cary and piggyback a payload (which can be as heavy as briz) on top of itself , that ment many modification to briz ,to remove military instruments anti satelite net and discs ,so it became more civilian briz-m or -km.
it replaced third stage block D , and offered more payload especially to GSO , mulitple payloads ,  and incertion of satelites into almost any orbit.

it has many tanks small ball like oxygen tanks are dropped one by one after exausted by engine fireing ,central fuel tank and donought fuel tank which is dropped ,many fuel lines and connections ,and center of gravity is constantly changing, developing briz-m was no easy task.
even today many pople dont know briz-m is controled from military command and final satelite insertion is done with them in charge.