Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

Khrunichev Center has signed a contract for five Intelsat launches "Proton-M"

MOSCOW, November 11 - RIA Novosti. Khrunichev Center has signed a contract with a leading global satellite operator Intelsat five rocket launch vehicle (LV) "Proton-M" from Baikonur until 2023.

"International Launch Services, a subsidiary of the Space Center. MV Khrunichev, and Intelsat, the world's leading satellite communications operator, signed a contract for five launch rocket" Proton-M "from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in the period until 2023" - said in the release of the Center Khrunichev.

To launch satellites into orbit as part of the target pH will be used booster "Briz-M". The rocket heavy class "Proton-M" and designed and produced by Federal State Unitary Enterprise "State Research and Production Space Center. MV Khrunichev".

not Angara but nice pic hope not too of topic: Soyuz starting caught on camera




and movie:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:not Angara but nice pic hope not too of topic: Soyuz starting caught on camera




and movie:

Great picture and video, they could capture the famous "Korolyov's cross", when the four strap-on boosters are released.

Russia to Launch First Modernized Progress-MS Cargo Spacecraft Monday

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/science/20151221/1032066570/russia-progressms-spacecraft-monday.html#ixzz3v2VHvrTq

Russian space agency retains plans for creating Fenix rocket — source

The RD-171 engine from NPO Energomash, already used in the Zenit rocket, is regarded as a potential first stage

MOSCOW, December 22. /TASS/. The plan of creating the space rocket Fenix remains on the agenda of the Russian space agency Roscosmos plans and has been included in the draft of the federal space program for 2016-2025 despite certain cuts in budget financing, a source in the space rocket industry has said.

"Research and development under the Fenix project has been preserved in the draft of the federal space program which is undergoing inter-departmental coordination. True, the possibility of removing Fenix from the program was discussed at a certain point, but for now this promising project remains relevant," the source said.

Fenix is part and parcel of a product research and development portfolio, its eventual aim being creation of a new space rocket for manned programs. The Zenit-size rocket may be built according to a modular principle and consist of several modules. A super-heavy configuration is a possibility.

The RD-171 engine from NPO Energomash, already used in the Zenit rocket, is regarded as a potential first stage.

The previous federal space program draft extending till 2025 envisages feasibility studies for developing a medium class space rocket during 2016-2017. Research and development was due to begin as of 2018. Under the project Roscosmos in 2018 through 2025 was to spend more than 30 billion roubles ($430 million) for the purpose.

According to earlier reports the budget financing of the federal space program would be slashed from 2.004 trillion to 1.4 trillion.

Russia developing super-heavy rocket — deputy PM

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

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.

Proton to lift key space mission of 2016

For the first time since the ill-fated launch of the Mars-96 spacecraft almost two decades ago, Russia's flagship Proton rocket is tasked to send another scientific probe beyond the Earth's orbit. The launch of the ExoMars-2016 spacecraft will also mark the first European mission heading to the Red Planet since 2003.

The ExoMars 2016 spacecraft - the Trace Gas Orbiter (in the background) and the Schiaparelli lander (in the center) - in a clean room inside Facility 92A-50 in Baikonur Cosmodrome on Dec. 25, 2015.

The Proton's launch campaign in 2016 will open with a liftoff on January 28. Along with the delivery of the Eutelsat-9B communications satellite, the flight will be the final qualification for the Proton-M rocket and its Briz-M upper stage, before a similar vehicle lifts the historic ExoMars-2016 mission on its journey to Mars. Several Proton launches at the end of 2015, showed increasingly accurate performance of the Briz-M in delivery of its payloads to orbit -- a welcome news for the ExoMars team.

Limited by the relative positions of the Earth and Mars, the launch window for the ExoMars-2016 extends from March 14 to March 25 only. The window will not re-open until around two years later.

Depending on the launch of the Mars mission, another team preparing the launch of the Intelsat-31 (a.k.a DLA-2) communications satellite is eyeing April 23 for the third Proton mission of the year. However, the actual launch could take place a few days earlier, sources familiar with the situation say.

Planners are also considering whether it would be possible to advance the launch of the EchoStar-21 communications satellite to a late May or early June from the current window around June 25. However, the exact launch date for this mission depends on the status of three Russian federal payloads preliminary targeted for launch during a period from May to September. They include launching a trio of satellites to replenish Russia's GLONASS navigation constellation, the first classified Blagovest communications satellite for the Russian Ministry of Defense and another secret military payload.

The GLONASS mission was scheduled provisionally, because the constellation had had enough in-orbit capacity during 2015 and might not need replacements in 2016. Moreover, the replacement of a single satellite could be accomplished using a Soyuz-2 rocket based in Plesetsk. As of 2015, ISS Reshetnev, the prime developer of GLONASS satellites, had nine such spacecraft in storage.

Another commercial Proton mission to deliver the AsiaSat-9 satellite is currently scheduled for November. In addition, the US-based International Launch Services, ILS, the marketing arm for the Proton manufacturer, is currently looking at the possibility of arranging another commercial payload to fly in December, industry sources said.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/proton_2016.html

Russian Space Agency to Equip Zenit Rocket With Methane Engine

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160114/1033148717/rocket-engine-report-methane.html#ixzz3xKGIREu5

George1 wrote:Russian Space Agency to Equip Zenit Rocket With Methane Engine

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160114/1033148717/rocket-engine-report-methane.html#ixzz3xKGIREu5

So, Fenix is modification of Zenit now, or are those two completely separate projects?

well i was advocate for zenit , it is compact and self diagnostic rocket ,as a booster it can carry 100 tonns to orbit , methane could be usefull for mars missions because you could synthesize fuel with nuclear power ,nice video -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1MIAdBpZFA
so phoenix could be energia with methane engines

Rmf wrote:well i was advocate for zenit , it is compact and self diagnostic rocket ,as a booster it can carry 100 tonns to orbit , methane could be usefull for mars missions because you could synthesize fuel with nuclear power ,nice video -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1MIAdBpZFA
so phoenix could be energia with methane engines

If Fenix is properly upgraded Zenit then it is fine in my book. Angara has excellent self diagnostic system (proven in practice) and they can use it as basis for one on Fenix.

If they can save time and money with getting desired results then go for it.

But for Mars trip chemical rockets are dead-end in my book. Those distances require ion engine/nuclear reactor combo. We are talking about difference between 6 months (ion engine) and at least 3,5 years (rocket) trip under ideal circumstances, maybe even longer.

liftoff from mars or earth will always require chemical rocket propulsion, but for a cruiser ship/orbital station between earth-mars you can use plasma or ion engines agreed.

Rmf wrote:liftoff from mars or earth will always require chemical rocket propulsion, but for a cruiser ship/orbital station between earth-mars you can use plasma or ion engines agreed.

Goes without saying.

Soyuz successor named!

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ptk-2015.html#name

"On August 26, Roskosmos announced a contest for a new name for the spacecraft, which included a public poll coducted from December 4 to December 23. The results approved by a jury chaired by the head of Roskosmos Igor Komarov were announced only on January 15, 2016. The new ship would be named Federatsiya, a Russian word for "federation." Referring to the political structure of the Russian state, the name continued a tradition of the Soyuz spacecraft, whose name meant "union," reflecting the official name of the Soviet state -- the Soviet Union. Runner-up names in the contest, such as Gagarin and Vektor, were reserved for future space projects, the agency's announcement said.

The public reaction on social media was very mixed: critics noted that the name is long, phonetically unpleasant and has a good chance of being abbreviated to something unceremonious like "Fed." In addition, the name could present a potential minefield of various negative political connotations coming from the technical context, such as separation, delays and other problems."

How typical of 5th-columnist Zak to throw this little bitchy smear into the mix. "Federatsiya" was chosen by a public contest, yet we are supposed to believe that a majority decision isn't well received on social media? This guy seems to be incapable of reporting on the Russian space program without injecting his personal bias.

Federation would not be my choice and was not most popular option but was pretty high up nonetheless. I assume they are keeping Gagarin for something really big down the road and want to keep Soyuz ''tradition'' in some form. Only thing that would make sense because Gagarin was winner by wide margin.

As for Anatoly Zak, that clown is Julian Roepke of space journalism. (If what they both do can even be called journalism)

Rmf wrote:well i was advocate for zenit , it is compact and self diagnostic rocket ,as a booster it can carry 100 tonns to orbit , methane could be usefull for mars missions because you could synthesize fuel with nuclear power ,nice video -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1MIAdBpZFA
so phoenix could be energia with methane engines

Agree 100%. Zenit is an excellent vehicle, its just a huge pity that is was manufactured in Ukraine.... If Russia was to modernise the design and manufacture, fit it with Methalox engines, and develop the long-planned re-usability provisions then it would be a great basis for a future (heavy) Soyuz replacement, Angara competitor (*) and as a strap-on for a future SHLV as it was with the hydrolox Energia core. I have to say I REALLY like Methane as a fuel, mainly because it doesn't cause coking like kerosene does, and therefore make reuseability much easier, but also it is cheap and very plentiful, especially for Russia with its VAST reserves of natural gas.

(*) when I say "competitor" I mean in terms of an alternative capability to guarantee Russian access to space in the event of some future issues with the Khunichev product. I consider it important to have two independent launcher manufacturers, each with a current in-service product that duplicates the capabilities of the other. The US doesn't look to be abandoning either the Delta or Titan EELVs, probably because the USAF insists on a duplication of launch providers. A wise decision on their part, and one that Russia should adopt also.

Rocket Science: Russia Builds Atomic Engine for Exploring Distant Space

The Russian Federal Space Agency has presented its ten-year development plan, which includes the construction of a prototype engine powered by atomic energy, able to power a spacecraft on expeditions into the far reaches of the galaxy.

http://sputniknews.com/science/20160118/1033313127/russia-spacecraft-nuclear-power.html

The Russian Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos) has presented its ten-year development plan to the Russian government, which includes the construction of a prototype engine that uses a nuclear reactor to propel it on expeditions into distant space.

"All the work on the construction of the atomic engine is ongoing, in accordance with planned timescales. We can say with a large amount of certainty that the work will be completed within the provided timescale," Andrey Ivanov, a spokesman for Rosatom, Russia's State Atomic Energy Corporation, told Izvestiya.

The project is part of the 2016-2025 Federal Space Program, which Roscosmos has recently presented to the Russian government for approval.

Andrey Ionin of Russia's Tsiolkovskiy Cosmonautical Academy told Izvestiya that the program envisions a wider plan for space exploration, which will guide the direction of the engine's construction.

"It is clear that an atomic engine is necessary only for exploration of distant space," said Ionin.

"Projects like the creation of an atomic engine have to take place in the context of a larger project, in order to precisely understand what exactly we are making such a powerful energy source for."

On Monday, Rosatom revealed that some aspects of the engine's construction are already underway.

"Two important stages of the project have recently been carried out," said Ivanov.

"Testing of the reactor's casing has been successfully completed. This testing subjected the casing to excessive pressure and took 3D measurements of the metal, welding and conical intersection."

In addition, "A unique fuel element has been constructed which allows the engine to work in high temperatures, in large temperature gradients, and high doses of radiation," said Ivanov.

Currently, space probes such as NASA's Voyager and Pioneer spacecraft use Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTG) to convert heat from radioactive plutonium-238 into useful electricity.

These atomic batteries have been used since the 1960s to power long-term, unmanned, space missions to the dark, distant reaches of the solar system, or to the night side of planets where solar cells are not practical. When it was launched in 1977 Voyager 1's three RTG's produced about 470 watts of electric power, with the power output degrading over time.

actually Yuri is more apealing name to me then Gagarin , but i guess they could some deep space human vehicle not ptk capsule

Big_Gazza wrote:

Rmf wrote:well i was advocate for zenit , it is compact and self diagnostic rocket ,as a booster it can carry 100 tonns to orbit , methane could be usefull for mars missions because you could synthesize fuel with nuclear power ,nice video -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1MIAdBpZFA
so phoenix could be energia with methane engines

Agree 100%.  Zenit is an excellent vehicle, its just a huge pity that is was manufactured in Ukraine....  If Russia was to modernise the design and manufacture, fit it with Methalox engines, and develop the long-planned re-usability provisions then it would be a great basis for a future (heavy) Soyuz replacement, Angara competitor (*) and as a strap-on for a future SHLV as it was with the hydrolox Energia core.  I have to say I REALLY like Methane as a fuel, mainly because it doesn't cause coking like kerosene does, and therefore make reuseability much easier, but also it is cheap and very plentiful, especially for Russia with its VAST reserves of natural gas.

(*) when I say "competitor" I mean in terms of an alternative capability to guarantee Russian access to space in the event of some future issues with the Khunichev product.  I consider it important to have two independent launcher manufacturers, each with a current in-service product that duplicates the capabilities of the other.  The US doesn't look to be abandoning either the Delta or Titan EELVs, probably because the USAF insists on a duplication of launch providers.  A wise decision on their part, and one that Russia should adopt also.

space x is still work in progress it will get better im sure. methane is interesting since there is allot in universe of it it seems and its stable, or can be synthesised with CO2 and H20.
its simplest organic molecule CH4. so lost of hydrogen and high isp. its isp is lower then expected because it takes energy to break carbon -hydrogen bonds.

Russia to spend over $300 million on developing super heavy rocket

The prototypes and technology for the creation of the key elements of the super heavy class launch vehicle is expected to be developed by 2025

http://tass.ru/en/science/850822

some proposals in comparison , total mass/ payload to leo

Rmf wrote:some proposals in comparison , total mass/ payload to leo

Is that official? Also, would Lena use Angara engine? If yes than that would be most economic approach by far. RD-191 will be built on assembly line in Omsk, one engine to rule them all.

Russia's Angara5v may not have enough launch capacity for robust lunar missions.
If Russia really wants a more capable rocket for lunar missions, it needs a Zenit Heavy.
Admittedly the RD-171 engine isn't the most reliable or highest build quality, but if you were to substitute in four higher-quality rd-191 engines per core, you could get engine-out reliability.  It'd also let NPO Energomash max out RD-191 production numbers.  A Zenit Heavy (kerosine or methane version) ought to lift more to TLI than an Angara 5v even before adding in a LH2 upper stage.  This would be a much easier option than building an all-new mega rocket.
that energia -5kv with 105,3t to leo is interesting with 5 zenit in booster core ,and hydrogen 2nd stage.