Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

Big_Gazza wrote: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.

[]
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.....

Roskosmos head scientific organization - TsNIIMash - and the main economic institute of the rocket and space industry - Agat - have developed a new project for a superheavy class carrier. The creation of the "Energia-5.1" missile will cost two times cheaper than the previous version - 700 billion rubles instead of 1.5 trillion.

Specialists of the TsNIIMash institutes subordinated to Roskosmos and Agat analyzed options for developing super-heavy-duty rockets intended for manned long-range space missions and putting large structures into orbit. Specialists presented to Roskosmos a proposal to increase the carrying capacity of the superheavy missile at the first stage of its creation. Information on the sending of such a document to "Izvestia" was confirmed in TsNIIMash and "Agate".



In 2015, the Scientific and Technical Council of Roskosmos approved the project of the Energia-3 rocket - with the delivery of 70 tons of cargo to a low near-earth orbit with a height of about 200 km. In the next modification - "Energia-6" - the carrying capacity of the carrier was planned to be increased to 170 tons.

Now the specialists of the institutes proposed a new project: "Energy-5.1" with a carrying capacity of 100 tons. Later on, 130-140-ton "Energy-5.2" and 170-180-ton "Energy-7" can be created on its basis. The head of the working group that presented the project was the general designer of the withdrawal systems Alexander Medvedev.

"To create the version of the booster rocket - Energia-5.1" - will require about half the financing, "the document says on the new proposal.

The development of Energia-3 was estimated at about 1.4 trillion rubles - an amount commensurate with the amount of financing by the entire Federal Space Program for 2016-2025. The new project assumes a significantly smaller estimate - 700 billion rubles for the development and creation of a flying model.

For the construction of a new missile it is not planned to open new production facilities, it is a question of using existing capacities of enterprises of the rocket and space industry. It is proposed to abandon the construction of new test benches and use the existing infrastructure of the Research and Test Center of the rocket and space industry.

The first and second stages are proposed to be created on the basis of the Soyuz-5 rocket, and the third stage is to use the stage from the future hydrogen rocket "Angara-A5B". The costs for these projects will not be taken into account in the overall estimate of the creation of a superheavy missile. In this way, it is possible to reduce the total cost of tens of billions of rubles.

The current Federal Space Program for 2016-2025 for work on R & D "Phoenix" (Soyuz-5 missile) provides for the allocation of 29.296 billion rubles, for the creation of a complex of the oxygen-hydrogen upper stage - 12.354 billion rubles, for the development of key elements and technologies of the missile complex of a superheavy class - 24.319 billion rubles.

"If the levels of internal and external unification are correctly determined, in particular when developing a launch vehicle, it is possible to achieve a total reduction in the unit cost of deducing the payload by 50%. As a consequence, the cost of the entire program is significantly reduced, "the document says.

In addition, to save money, it is proposed to abandon the creation of expensive large-size structures at the Vostochny cosmodrome. Minimizing the use of liquid hydrogen in a superheavy missile will reduce the cost of building an expensive infrastructure.

The diameter of the rocket blocks is proposed to be reduced to 4.1 m. This will allow them to be delivered to the launch site by rail or inside cargo planes, without the development of new air delivery systems.

In the Agat organization, Izvestiya was informed that the final look of the super-heavy-class launch vehicle would be selected based on the results of the preliminary design, which should be completed in 2018-2019.

- The creation of the Russian space rocket complex of the superheavy class is a very serious responsibility. It will take a lot of money - financial, human, technological, scientific and technical, etc. When developing a preliminary design, it is planned to consider several alternative options that maximize the available reserve, "Izvestia" was told in the press service of the organization.

According to the scientific director of the Institute of Space Policy Ivan Moiseev, before making a decision to create a superheavy missile and determining its appearance, it makes no sense to talk about the price of the project. In addition, the expert considers the creation of such a media as a waste of funds that could go to more useful projects.

- This is the iron law: when the contractor offers a new project, the price is always understated several times, the terms are reduced, and the advantages are shown in colors and colors. While it is not even a sketchy project, but the game with prices has already begun. Specialists TsNIImash and Agata understand that this rocket is hypothetical in nature and can be played with prices. In general, the work on the superheavy carrier needs to start with the question: "Why is it needed?" There are no useful loads and tasks for it, but we have a huge experience in creating super-heavy carrier rockets - N1 and Energia. And all this experience is negative. The missile needs to be designed for existing tasks. It is not an end in itself, but a means of putting the load into space. In this case, we went along the old road, assuming that the goals will appear later. But by that time the rocket will eat all free financial resources, and our possibilities in this sphere are limited. Throwing money for one giant project, we automatically defeat many others, - said Ivan Moiseyev.


The first launch of a new Russian superheavy rocket from the Vostochny cosmodrome is tentatively scheduled for 2028.

...to save money, it is proposed to abandon the creation of expensive large-size structures at the Vostochny cosmodrome. Minimizing the use of liquid hydrogen in a superheavy missile will reduce the cost of building an expensive infrastructure...

..."Why is it needed?" There are no useful loads and tasks for it, but we have a huge experience in creating super-heavy carrier rockets - N1 and Energia. And all this experience is negative. ...

PapaDragon wrote:'
I don't get what are they trying to say here:

...to save money, it is proposed to abandon the creation of expensive large-size structures at the Vostochny cosmodrome. Minimizing the use of liquid hydrogen in a superheavy missile will reduce the cost of building an expensive infrastructure...

So are they canceling another launchpad on Vostochniy? Back to Baikonur? WTF???  

..."Why is it needed?" There are no useful loads and tasks for it, but we have a huge experience in creating super-heavy carrier rockets - N1 and Energia. And all this experience is negative. ...

Why is it needed? Is this guy fucking serious? Is he actually asking this? 

Who the fuck is hiring these fucktards?

Do they even plan on building this rocket at all? This sounds like they are dropping whole project altogether.

...to save money, it is proposed to abandon the creation of expensive large-size structures at the Vostochny cosmodrome. Minimizing the use of liquid hydrogen in a superheavy missile will reduce the cost of building an expensive infrastructure...

PapaDragon wrote:

..."Why is it needed?" There are no useful loads and tasks for it, but we have a huge experience in creating super-heavy carrier rockets - N1 and Energia. And all this experience is negative. ...

Why is it needed? Is this guy fucking serious? Is he actually asking this? 

Who the fuck is hiring these fucktards?

Do they even plan on building this rocket at all? This sounds like they are dropping whole project altogether.

KiloGolf wrote:
Nicely done Russia, soon China, Space X and other private companies in the US will be able to lift more payload to space than Russia

Papadragon wrote:Why is it needed? Is this guy fucking serious? Is he actually asking this?

gaurav wrote:They need huge amoutn of electronic components which are imported from U.S etc etc. When Russia completes teh technological backlog it can re start its heavy launch rocket development ..

KiloGolf wrote:I doubt they originate from USA. Most likely they work with Russian-designs and the stuff gets built in China, possibly Korea and Taiwan too.

gaurav wrote:Russi simply did not have the capacity to deliver really heavy lift rockets so it opted
for a compromise solution of Anagar A5 which will satisfy (weight requirements )of domestic satellites

kvs wrote:
US SHLV designs in the last 10 years have been some sort of joke.   Basically recycled components from the Shuttle consisting of the engine cluster mated to the former
external fuel tank and using the same two SRBs.    Yeah, there is a second stage (I don't count the SRBs as a stage) but really.   People can talk about the
Saturn V all they want.   The current design is not a Saturn V successor.  

Russia appears to be leading in SHLV design at present.   America seems to be bogged down in corporate pork welfare.    

BlackArrow wrote:

kvs wrote:........

Recycling shuttle components sounds like a good idea. If the rocket works and lifts the required payloads who care anyway?

Which SHLV launch vehicle are the Russians working on now that's leading the Americans?

PapaDragon wrote:
NASA SLS will have larger payload (130 tons to LEO) but will be more expensive and will be launched less often (once per year tops). But USA has cash so it's their party.

Soyuz-5​ super-heavy will have smaller payload (~100 tons to LEO) but will be cheaper and will be launched more frequently.

Problem with SLS would be solid fuel boosters in my opinion. Once you start them they are out of your hands. And they were reason behind Challenger disaster. They should have gone with something safer.

Also, saying that Saturn V was superior to anything is a joke. It was a deathtrap just like anything Von Braun ever designed.

kvs wrote:Saturn V was vastly better than the N1 crap, a design resulting from a personality conflict between red directors.    At least now Russia
is finally following the proper path: modular SHLV.     The USSR would have developed a modular system instead of the N1 joke if Korolev hadn't
died.  

BlackArrow wrote:...

Also, saying that Saturn V was superior to anything is a joke. It was a deathtrap just like anything Von Braun ever designed.

launch record of Saturn V would suggest otherwise.

kvs wrote:Recycling shuttle components to the 100% level shows zero design effort. It is not a good idea and indicates technological bankruptcy. The SRBs
are a good indication of where such "design" leads. ...

kvs wrote:There is nothing modular about the SLS. Nothing whatsoever. It is literally the Shuttle system rearranged into a regular rocket form
and a reversion to more primitive times compared to the "avant guard" Shuttle.

kvs wrote:....That you would equate the Souyz-5 to the SLS just confirms your anti-Russian bias.