Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

kvs wrote:We are basically at the level of the 1960s today.

Yaah I actually mixed up lot pf topics. Well to be low cost they are using conservative approach .

How , much wait will that ion engine space craft will be. I do not think that mass configuration , testing and  related hardware will be available by 2027. -2028. I do not think Russ industry is prepared for that , that will be huge cost to fine tune and test the performance of ion engines

First let us give a break ... First let the  Russian industry  test ion engines it on Earth orbiting satellites or for probes to moon and mars.
Then think about space craft ,space ships

As for ion engine, once it's developed they will use it, in the meantime no need to wait, use what's available

I think they will revert to ion engines when it becomes available.The budget is very restricted , they do not have any risk margins.
This budget has been extracted from future recession based Russian economy.
We will see a decrease in military spending to take this moon mission forward.

They been already testing it. They already have the money.

They have been talking about nuclear powered space craft for quite a bit... including an earth orbit space tug that could fly around clearing up large areas of space junk.

These high energy ion engine powered craft are actually rather interesting.

The low power long burn ion engines are very interesting for long flights even just for their creation of microgravity which will make a lot of things more bearable for the crew... for a start fans need to operate continuously on the space station to circulate air... without that your breath is not strong enough so once you breathed in the O2 near you you would suffocate in your own CO2.

nuclear ion engine is only good for unmanned light probes or  slow cargo shuttle. the weight of reactor ,shielding ,radiators is immense , and acceleration is very slow that means lot of life support  in weight too.
its a dumb idea.
its easy for heavy submarine to carry reactor with whole ocean as coolant. in space  it doesnt work that way.
nuclear thermal rockets on other hand is very good propulsion ,except political problems and some treaties, it could be doable and be 2 times better then hydrogen powered engines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Timberwind

Using ship twice the size is definitely an advantage

Not really.

Don't think about the ship size as being the useful thing... when you double your weight of ship and its capacity then to make a trip you used to make you now need 10 times more fuel to do the same job.

Look at the Yak-38 and Yak-38M.

The Yak-38M has more powerful engines that burn more fuel faster, but the engines are not powerful enough to make the plane supersonic, so the end result is that the Yak-38M can take off with more weapons and more fuel, but its range is reduced because it burns more fuel and while it accelerates faster it does not have a higher top speed.

For a space craft it is more like an expedition to the south pole or the top of everest... you have hundreds of people carrying supplies which they take so far and then drop off and return home, so the main expedition goes with little actual supplies and stops at each of the supply dumps on the way to eat. The end result is enormous weights of food and fuel carried to allow 4-5 people to do the actual journey there and back... in terms of space travel the vast majority of material carried in terms of weight is fuel... not just to get you there, but to also get you back.

Increase the weight of the vessel and you greatly increase the amount of fuel you need to get you there and also to get you back...

With a nuclear powered ion engine you can greatly increase the volume of fuel being used.

A normal ion engine it is the velocity of the particles that provides the huge advantage... 3kgs of some exotic material can last for years but its high velocity means it can operate for years.

A nuclear ion engine you can have what looks like a particle accelerator, but instead of smashing them into solid walls to look at what the collisions create you vent them out the rear of the space craft to provide thrust. 1kg of material might give 2kg of thrust in a normal rocket but accelerating that material to a large fraction of the speed of light means thousands of kgs of thrust... but over days rather than seconds.

Of course having to carry 20 tons of fuel instead of 2000 tons makes things lighter and cheaper...

nuclear ion engine is only good for unmanned light probes or slow cargo shuttle. the weight of reactor ,shielding ,radiators is immense , and acceleration is very slow that means lot of life support in weight too.
its a dumb idea.

All the references I have seen describe a space tug that operates only outside the atmosphere... have it fly around earths atmosphere removing rubbish from earth orbit, or attaching a few to a space craft going to the moon or Mars.

they would need little life support on board and could be connected to other platforms including long range space craft to supply power too.

Russia to complete tests of new lightweight carrier rocket in 2018

No engine replacements are envisaged

ZHUKOVSKY (Moscow Region), July 18. /TASS/. The flight tests of Russia’s new Soyuz-2.1v lightweight carrier rocket are expected to be completed next year, CEO of the Samara-based Progress Rocket and Space Center Alexei Kirilin said at the MAKS-2017 international airshow on Tuesday.

"We should conduct flight tests next year. We have scheduled five launches as part of flight development tests. No engine replacements are envisaged," the chief executive said.

"This rocket will operate under the Federal Space Program through 2025," Kirilin said.

More:
http://tass.com/science/956726

Russia to start manufacturing new medium-class carrier rocket

The Russian government is expected to allocate almost $498 million for the launcher’s development

ZHUKOVSKY (Moscow Region), July 18. /TASS/. Russia’s Progress Rocket and Space Centre is ready to manufacture new Soyuz-5 medium-class carrier rocket, Progress CEO Alexander Kirilin said on Tuesday.

"We are ready for the production of this rocket," the chief executive said.

Russia’s federal space program for 2016-2025 stipulates developing a new-generation medium-class space rocket complex (the Phoenix R&D work) from 2018 to 2025. The Russian government is expected to allocate almost 30 billion rubles ($498 million) for the launcher’s development. The project’s budget financing will begin in 2018.

RD-171MV engines are expected to be mounted on the rocket’s first stage. The second stage will use the RD-0124M engine (developed by the Chemical Automatics Design Bureau and is currently part of the third stage of the Soyuz-2.1b carrier rocket) instead of the RD-120 (produced in Ukraine).

In order to expedite flight tests, there are plans to use the launch pad of the Zenit carrier rocket at the Baikonur cosmodrome, which Kazakhstan will modernize under the Baiterek program for the new Russian rocket. The Sea Launch compound is also expected to be used for rocket launches.

The first launch of the Soyuz-5 carrier rocket from the Baikonur spaceport is scheduled for 2022.

More:
http://tass.com/science/956734

First launch of Russia’s super-heavy carrier rocket scheduled for 2028

In Roscosmos’s estimates, the development of the super-heavy rocket and the construction of infrastructure for it at the Vostochny cosmodrome will cost $25 billion

ZHUKOVSKY (Moscow Region), July 19. /TASS/. The first launch of Russia’s super-heavy carrier rocket is scheduled for 2028, according to the presentation delivered by Energomash Research and Production Association at the MAKS-2017 international airshow on Wednesday.

"The first flight of a super-heavy-class carrier rocket is planned for 2028," the document says.

A source in the rocket and space industry earlier told TASS that the first launch of a Russian Energiya-5 super-heavy carrier rocket was planned for 2028.

Energiya Rocket and Space Corporation CEO Vladimir Solntsev presented earlier at a Moscow conference his project of an Energiya-5V super-heavy carrier rocket designed for a manned mission to the Moon. According to him, the upper hydrogen stage of the Angara-A5V carrier will be used in the super-heavy rocket’s development along with the first and second stages of the new Soyuz-5 medium-class rocket.

A source in the rocket and space industry later told TASS that Energiya had defined the approximate design of two types of rockets intended for implementation: the Energiya-5V-PTK and the Energyia-5VR-PTK with the liftoff weight of 2,368 and 2,346 tonnes, respectively.

Both variants are capable of delivering about 100 tonnes of payload into the low-Earth orbit, and also 20.5 tonnes into the near-Moon orbit, which is tantamount to the weight of the lunar version of the Federatsiya spacecraft.

Instead of a spacecraft, a lunar take-off and landing module can be mounted on a carrier rocket. An inter-orbital tug based on the DM acceleration unit is intended to be used for delivering the Federatsiya spacecraft or a lunar take-off and landing module to the Moon.

In Roscosmos’s estimates, the development of the super-heavy rocket and the construction of infrastructure for it at the Vostochny cosmodrome will cost 1.5 trillion rubles ($25 billion).

Roscosmos also earlier stated that there was no need to hurry up with the creation of a super-heavy carrier rocket as no payloads were available for it.

The new Russian super-heavy carrier rocket may get four stages, Energomash’s materials say.

According to the materials, the first stage is expected to get four RD-171MV engines, the second stage - one RD171MV and the fourth stage - one 11D58MF engine.

At the same time, three variants are considered for the super-heavy rocket’s third stage: the RD-191V, the RD-0150 or two RD-0124AP engines.

More:
http://tass.com/science/956957

Russia’s Energiya space corporation picked as chief developer of Soyuz-5 carrier rocket

The first launch of the new Russian Soyuz-5 carrier rocket is scheduled for 2022

MOSCOW, August 11. /TASS/. Russia’s Energiya Rocket and Space Corporation has been chosen as the chief developer of the new Russian Soyuz-5 medium-class carrier rocket, according to a statement posted on the corporation’s website on Friday.

"The work is being carried out in compliance with a Russian government resolution where Energiya Rocket and Space Corporation has been defined as the chief developer of the space rocket complex," the statement says.

The other contractors include Progress Rocket and Space Center and the Center for Operation of Ground-based Space Infrastructure Facilities.

In addition to the rocket proper, the space rocket complex that will be developed by Energiya Corporation includes a medium-class carrier rocket, a DM acceleration unit and also ground-based infrastructure that should be upgraded.

The first launch of the new Russian Soyuz-5 carrier rocket is scheduled for 2022 from the Baikonur space center. The rocket is expected to be subsequently maximally adapted for launches from the Sea Launch floating platform and then from the Vostochny spaceport in the Russian Far East. In 2024, the carrier rocket is planned to orbit a manned Federatsiya spacecraft with a crew on its board.

The basic elements and technologies of the Soyuz-5 carrier rocket can be eventually used for developing a super-heavy launcher.

Russia’s federal space program for 2016-2025 stipulates developing a new-generation medium-class space rocket complex (the Phoenix R&D work) from 2018 to 2025. The Russian government is expected to allocate almost 30 billion rubles ($498 million) for the launcher’s development. The project’s budget financing will begin in 2018.

RD-171MV engines are expected to be mounted on the rocket’s first stage. The second stage will use the RD-0124M engine (developed by the Chemical Automatics Design Bureau and is currently part of the third stage of the Soyuz-2.1b carrier rocket) instead of the RD-120 (produced in Ukraine).

In order to expedite flight tests, there are plans to use the launch pad of the Zenit carrier rocket at the Baikonur cosmodrome, which Kazakhstan will modernize under the Baiterek program for the new Russian rocket. During space launches under the Baiterek project, the rocket will be called Sunkar (Falcon), although in Russia the rocket was named Soyuz-5.

The first launch of the Soyuz-5 carrier rocket with an unmanned Federatsiya spacecraft from the Baikonur spaceport is scheduled for 2022 and with a manned Federatsiya space vehicle for 2024.

The Soyuz-5 is set to eventually become the first stage of a new Russian super-heavy carrier rocket, which is planned to blast off from the Vostochny cosmodrome in 2028.

In the wake of the Soyuz-5 carrier rocket’s development, Russia has revised the manned flight concept envisaging the development of the piloted version of the Angara rocket, the Angara-A5P. It was also decided to postpone the construction of piloted infrastructure at the Vostochny cosmodrome.


More:
http://tass.com/science/960071

George1 wrote:...In order to expedite flight tests, there are plans to use the launch pad of the Zenit carrier rocket at the Baikonur cosmodrome, which Kazakhstan will modernize under the Baiterek program for the new Russian rocket. During space launches under the Baiterek project, the rocket will be called Sunkar (Falcon), although in Russia the rocket was named Soyuz-5....

There was discussion earlier about what will be difference between Soyuz-5 and Sunkar and I pointed out that only difference will be the name in order to fluff Kazakh ego. Nice to have official confirmation.

Not that I want to brag but...oh who am I kidding, I am totally bragging...



About Soyuz-5, fact that they will be using it for super-heavy launcher has not only some massive financial benefits but also technical ones. Soyuz-5 is little more than upgraded Energia rocket with new materials and electronics most notably self-diagnostic system (one that already saved Soyuz 1.2 and Angara from exploding like they were Proton-M​) so super-heavy rocket based on it will enable lot more launches annually than competition, most notably SLS (NASA super-heavy).

Use of multiple launch approach instead of single launch will also help big time because they will have more flexibility with design and planning of future missions since not everything will need to fit in one rocket that will launch relatively infrequently.

Original Energia rocket was fully functional super-heavy rocket already. So any discussion about will they be able to create new super-heavy rocket based on it is mute since they already done it before. And it will be easier this time because payload type is much simpler unlike Buran orbiter. This means that they can base entire thing on RD-170 unlike Energia which had to use different engines for core stage.

I watched interview today with NASA astronaut and he said that purpose of privatizing Low Earth Orbit is to free up NASA's resources so they can focus on deep space missions. And this is something that commercial fanboys keep forgetting. Commercial segment is just entry ticket for government launch contracts and that's where real money is. 

There is no profit to be made in non-subsidised launch of privately owned satellites where you have to cut down the price to win over the competition. But government gigs? Now that's the elusive meal ticket that everyone wants. It's also a reason why Russia was never going to last on private launch market in the West: because it was not created for them, plain and simple.

And that leads us back to reason for existence of space programs in the first place (other than military) which is scientific and manned deep space segment. And like NASA said, this can only be done by massive state funded programs​.



One more thing to look forward to about later multi core Soyuz-5 and super-heavy will be larger modules for new space stations. Station built​ with modules weighing up to 80 tons will really be something.

PapaDragon wrote:
Soyuz-5 is little more than upgraded Energia rocket with new materials and electronics most notably self-diagnostic system

Not quite, as Soyuz-5 is essentially going to be a modernised Zenit, and they were products of Yangels design bureau (now called Yuzhnoye).  RSC Energia is the current name of Korolevs old OKB-1.

It remains to be seen how much of the old Zenit engineering legacy will find its way into Soyuz-5.  Electronics and avionics have moved on, and Zenit controls are well obsolete (and Ukropi-orcish in origin), but its structural design is still perfectly relevant.  People are talking about a little over 4 years to 1st flight, so taht suggests that the Zenit design is being heavily leveraged.

Now that I've had some time to think it all through, I think ditching Angara-5P for Soyuz-5 is a good move.  Baikonour, being more southerly,  is better for meeting ISS-type orbits, and the program locks in Kazakh involvement and their paying for Zenit pad upgrade.  Soyuz-5 modules lead to SHLV capability, which Angara never could.  Angara won't require man-rating, so that saves some cash that is better spent elsewhere, such as high-energy upper stages.

My only lingering issue is that Federation manned vehicle will only be flyable from Kazakhstan, and not from Russian territory until the SHLV pad comes along in 2030.  As long as the Russia-Kazakh political relationship remains stable, that is no issue, but never discount the potential for upset due to fucking Yankistani sedition....  Most of us expected the Ukropi to remain sane, but Uncle Scam interfered and it all went tits-up....

Finally, agree 100% re commercial space.  The Government is the only customer in town that has cash to splurge on the high-profit activity of manned flight, and if the USGov hits a rough patch and has to pull back on funding, the wet dreams of Musk and Bezos will come to a screeching halt.  Satellite launching is small change, and doesn't really affect the dynamics of the industry as payload schedules govern the laucnh rate (not launch costs) and payloads are determined by real world needs of communications, weather, remote sensing, navigation etc.  Cutting the cost of launch services by 10-20% will only leave more money in the pockets of the satellite owners, and won't boost launch rates significantly (whats 10M launch savings against the cost of a 300M satellite?)

Big_Gazza wrote:
Not quite, as Soyuz-5 is essentially going to be a modernised Zenit, and they were products of Yangels design bureau (now called Yuzhnoye).  RSC Energia is the current name of Korolevs old OKB-1......

Zenit and Energia are practically same thing.

Zenit uses RD-171 which is basically same engine as Energia (RD-170) with altered electronics and different fuel tanks. Rocket is 90% identical to Energia. What Ukranians did was to take Energia strap-on booster, tweak it a bit and give it a new name in order to project an illusion that they designed something new which they most certainly did not.

Just look at Soyuz-5/Sunkar situation. It is literally same thing but almost everyone is convinced that Sunkar is something new that was created with some contribution from Kazakhs. Nothing could be further from the truth but that's marketing for you.  

Here is wiki:

RD-171

Building on the technology from the Energia launch vehicle the Zenit (rocket family) was developed, which uses a RD-170 variant, the RD-171. While the RD-170 had nozzles which swiveled on both axes, the RD-171 swivels on just one axis.[2] RD-171 was intended to be used on Zenith rocket, and one-axis swiveling allowed to avoid additional aerodynamic forces. .....

Simplified redesign but basically same thing.

Big_Gazza wrote:......
......Now that I've had some time to think it all through, I think ditching Angara-5P for Soyuz-5 is a good move.  Baikonour, being more southerly,  is better for meeting ISS-type orbits, and the program locks in Kazakh involvement and their paying for Zenit pad upgrade.  Soyuz-5 modules lead to SHLV capability, which Angara never could.  Angara won't require man-rating, so that saves some cash that is better spent elsewhere, such as high-energy upper stages.......

Angara was a good project and it could have been used as basis for manned and super-heavy launcher. RD-191 is also Energia derivative although quite improved.

Krunichev should have designed a larger core for super-heavy rocket with multiple engines. They had everything they needed.

Problem is that Krunichev never wanted to create super-heavy launcher. Neither did they want to build manned rocket, to move away from Baikonur, to launch rockets from Vostochniy, to pursue deep space missions nor leave their comfy Moscow headquarters and move to Omsk.

They basically never wanted to move on from Proton-M and their little commercial launch scam.

They muscled into Angara project and then intentionally wasted decades procrastinating and promoting obsolete Proton rocket. When original super-heavy project was put on ice in 2014 they thought that they were in the clear. All they had to do then was to scuttle Angara altogether and sabotage transfer to Vostochniy.

But they forgot that Vostochniy is too big and too important to fail. It was also a chain with which Kazakhstan was whipped into submission.

Later when super-heavy project was restarted Krunichev was promptly dumped and Energia corporation was put on the job.

There is still room for Angara but it is in light and medium segment. Maybe Sea-Launch as well if they have enough brains to pursue it. And it will be just a sideshow for Soyuz-5 and backup for Soyuz-2.1 way down the road. They made their bed.

Big_Gazza wrote:.....
My only lingering issue is that Federation manned vehicle will only be flyable from Kazakhstan, and not from Russian territory until the SHLV pad comes along in 2030.  As long as the Russia-Kazakh political relationship remains stable, that is no issue, but never discount the potential for upset due to fucking Yankistani sedition....  Most of us expected the Ukropi to remain sane, but Uncle Scam interfered and it all went tits-up....
....

There is not enough time left for Kazakhs to do anything stupid. They may try but with Vostochniy in play whatever problems they cause will be temporary.

Like with Ukrainian ship turbines it will buy them couple of years at most. Construction projects can always be fast-tracked if need arises. Just look at Kerch Straight Bridge.  Launch pads are nothing compared to that.


-------------------------------------------


ALSO:

Russia's First Super Heavy-Lift Carrier Flight Tests Set for 2027 - Deputy PM

https://sputniknews.com/russia/201708151056470437-angara-launch-vehicle-2027/

Colossal error in article, super-heavy is not related to Angara. See what I was talking about when I mentioned marketing?

Sputnik needs some extra staff...

kvs wrote:The timeline for the Sunkar does not reflect the actual development time.   The engines are there and Russian companies can
make rocket stages 4 meters in diameter without trying.    If there was a push, Energia could launch the Sunkar by 2019.
Assembling a strap on cluster for the SHLV does not actually require 10 years of design work.   The details are handled during the module
design stage.   Clearly Russia is not in a hurry.

Exactly. Main reasons for that is simple: no payload (yet)

-Federation capsule is still under development​. 
Now, once SpaceX and Boeing capsules have their big premiere it might bruise Russia's ego just enough to put some steam into Federation development the same way SpaceX rockets did with Soyuz-5​ but until then they are not in a hurry. 
Not to mention that Soyuz capsule still runs like clockwork.

-ISS is expected to stay in use until at least 2024. 
They won't be building new station before then so no large space station components to be launched until at least then. No large components-no need for large rockets.

-Ground infrastructure. 
Vostochniy is still being built and Specstroi fuckup is still being cleared up. Not to mention that Kazakhs​ are feeling cooperative again. They did move planned launch of super-heavy 3 years forward but I assume it's the consequence of ease of development of Soyuz-5 that you talked about.

-No scientific payload. 
All planned scientific missions like Spektr or Luna and Venera are to be done with medium launchers like Proton or Angara 5. Nothing bigger is in the works especially since scientific budget is total barebones at the moment.

First concept of Soyuz-5 and Super-heavy:

kvs wrote:To think that the USSR already had essentially all the elements to build a modular Moon rocket instead of the monolithic N1 POS.
Looks like these days Russia is run by sober professionals and not commie clowns engaged in bureaucratic games.    
For all of Russia's problems this is serious progress.

Well in all honesty those elements came around after N1 during Buran program but you are right about commie bureaucrats.

They should have kept working on lunar missions instead of just giving up the moment Apollo touched down like some preteens throwing a tantrum. Who gives a crap if they weren't there first, what matters is who is there now.




As for Soyuz-5/Super-heavy it's pretty much what I expected to see with exception of 5 strap-on boosters. I assumed it would be 4 but hey, more juice is always good news.

Single core will be enough to launch Federation into low earth orbit. That RD-170 series is gift that keeps on giving.   

kvs wrote:Anyway, the Soyuz-5 modular system will finally undo the N1 failure.  I am glad they are not going to waste time on building new
inner core with different dimensions and engines.   This would have been a waste of time and money.    It is nice to see Energiya
leveraging the RD-170 for this and I hope they do a good job.

Russian manned Moon mission???

kvs wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

kvs wrote:Anyway, the Soyuz-5 modular system will finally undo the N1 failure.  I am glad they are not going to waste time on building new
inner core with different dimensions and engines.   This would have been a waste of time and money.    It is nice to see Energiya
leveraging the RD-170 for this and I hope they do a good job.

Russian manned Moon mission???

Moon class or Mars class is the same category of rocket.   Both are designed to overcome the gravitational well of the Earth and deliver spacecraft on
inertial trajectories to their targets.   A Moon rocket is also a Jupiter and Pluto class rocket.   They do not need to keep growing larger and larger.

They do if we're talking colonization missions, btw what's the timeline for Russia's moon mining operation.

AlfaT8 wrote:..............

They do if we're talking colonization missions, btw what's the timeline for Russia's moon mining operation.

No they don't. Going above certain tonnage is wasteful. In-orbit assembly is superior approach.

ISS has 420 tons but was built with ~30-ton or lower payload rockets.

Which just shows how useful Buran would have been over the US space shuttle... you could take the Buran off the Energyia rocket and replace it with a 250 ton object for launch into earth orbit already assembled on the ground... link and lock them together in orbit and you have a quick build space station in 3-4 launches.

Came across some interesting info regarding the planned recovery methods for the Energia SHLV strap-ons.  It was always obvious that the Zenit-based strap-ons were designed for reuse, but AFAIK it was not clear exactly how Soviet engineers planned to recover them.

Firstly, details of the strap-on recovery features - landing gear and solid rockets for cushioning the landing. Landing struts look to be gas powered with gas bottles located in the nose and protected during re-entry by thermal insulation.:


Secondly, the recovery method involving parachutes and horizontal landing


From the article @ http://www.buran-energia.com/energia/energia-consti-1eretage.php

At 135 s from the launch and 50 km of altitude the blocks are ejected, their speed is 1800 m/s. At 150-165 s the blocks separate individually, they are at 65-70 km of altitude and their speed is 1760-1720 m/s. At the time of the entry in the dense layers of the atmosphere at 80 km height and a speed of 1650 m/s the orientation system starts. The block penetrates now in the atmosphere, the nasal part ahead, which is equipped with a thermal protection. Its speed of penetration is of 1780 m/s but it decreases because the parachute was spread. Between the 285th second and the 450th the parachute slows down the block up to 70 m/s and height a 5 km. At this altitude the main parachute spread and makes speed fall to 30 - 20 m/s. At 3-4 km height the fixing node of the parachute moves towards the centre of gravity of the block to put it in horizontal position its speed is of 13-19 m/s. Then the shock absorbers spread, at 30-50 m height, the retrorocket start and the unit gently lands 11 to 12 min after the launch of the rocket.

The soviets don't seem to have made any recovery attempts on the Polyus or Buran flight.  I assume the recovery system wasn't ready at the time, and unfortunately, now we'll never know for sure.  Its frustrating to think that the Soviets were within a whisker of reusable rocketry back in 1987-88.....

GarryB wrote:Which just shows how useful Buran would have been over the US space shuttle... you could take the Buran off the Energyia rocket and replace it with a 250 ton object for launch into earth orbit already assembled on the ground... link and lock them together in orbit and you have a quick build space station in 3-4 launches.

Energia was a scaled down version of the ultimate Vulkan SHLV. Vulkan would have had ~250T capacity to LEO.  This graphic gives you an idea of what the extended family would have looked like. The Polyus on the inaugural flight (prototype orbital laser-weapon) represented the "half-way house" variant of the Energia with a side-mounted load in place of Buran).

Project of new cargo vessel:


Text in Russian, if someone would be kind enough to give us a rundown, machine translation kills the details:

Spoiler:

https://ria.ru/science/20171003/1506076675.html