Soyuz-5: the next stage has been passed
The chief designer of the promising Soyuz-5 launch vehicle, Alexander Cherevan, spoke about the stages of work on the creation of a new rocket, its differences from Soyuz-2 and technologies that for the first time in the history of the Progress Rocket and Space Center (part of the State Corporation Roscosmos ") will be used in the production of a new carrier.
A completely different "Union"
For the consumer - the customer of the launch services - the Soyuz-5 rocket differs from the Soyuz-2 first of all in its carrying capacity. The Soyuz-2 medium-class launch vehicle will launch about 8 tons into low-earth orbit, depending on the launch site. Soyuz-5 is also a medium-class carrier, but into the same orbit, for example, from the Baikonur cosmodrome, it will launch 17 tons. Thus, the characteristics of the new vehicle are more than twice better in terms of the payload mass.
As for the layout of the Soyuz-5 launch vehicle, it is also fundamentally different: the Soyuz-2 is designed according to the packet-tandem scheme, while the Soyuz-5 uses a tandem layout, that is, the stages are connected in series, not in parallel. as in "package". The new rocket will be two-stage. Such an arrangement is more profitable from the point of view of the complexity of manufacturing, simplicity of design, and the complexity of preparing the product at the launch and technical complexes. Soyuz-5 will be able to launch various payloads into low-earth orbits, and with the use of an upper stage - into geo-transfer and geostationary orbits, into departure trajectories - to solve a fairly wide range of tasks.
One of the serious advantages of the new rocket is that the Soyuz-5 units have the maximum possible overall and mass characteristics, at which the components of the rocket can be transported by any means of transport: road, rail and air. The diameter of the first stage block is 4,100 mm with a length of about 35 meters - a load of such dimensions can be transported by rail, in addition, such a block will fit into the An-124 aircraft.
Domestic components
The Soyuz-5 will use onboard electrical systems, including the control system, created on the basis of domestic components. The control system is effective both in terms of overall weight characteristics and the number of tasks to be solved. For the first time, the new rocket will use a strapdown inertial unit with sensitive elements on small-sized and lightweight fiber-optic gyroscopes. The construction of the control system "Soyuz-5" with the use of a high-speed productive on-board computer will minimize the connection between the missile and the equipment of the technical and launch complexes. This will simplify the process of preparing the product, simplify and reduce the cost of ground equipment. The capabilities of the on-board computer will ensure the deployment of all test modes directly on board,
It should be especially noted that according to the project, the Soyuz-5 launch vehicle will use engines with the world's best characteristics in terms of specific thrust impulse. The main engine of the first stage RD-171 MV developed by the Scientific and Production Association "Energomash" named after academician V.P. Glushko and RD-0124MS developed by the Voronezh Design Bureau of Chemical Automatics (part of the State Corporation "Roskosmos") on the second provide the maximum possible performance on the fuel vapor oxygen - naphthyl.
Safety is key
The Soyuz-5 will use an emergency engine protection system. Throughout the entire area of operation of the engines, starting from the start-up, this system will allow cyclically with a duration of several milliseconds to assess the state of the engine according to the parameters of its operation. Such a system will help to identify a possible emergency situation, prevent its further development and promptly issue a command to turn off the engine and an "Accident" command to the payload. The emergency protection system is installed on the first and second stages of the new launch vehicle. In the event of an emergency on the first stage engine, it will save the rocket and the launch complex, and in the second stage flight section, if it is possible to continue flying on one of the engine blocks, it will turn off two cameras of the emergency unit, and two cameras of the second unit will work.
New materials - new technologies
The material from which the tanks of the Soyuz-5 launch vehicle will be made - aluminum alloy 1580 - will be used for the first time. Compared to the alloy used in the production of Soyuz-2, it has improved mechanical characteristics combined with a fairly acceptable cost. Thanks to the new alloy, the technical characteristics of the rocket are significantly improved.
For the first time in the practice of the Progress Rocket and Space Center, a combined bottom of the oxidizer and fuel tanks is used at the second stage. This makes it possible to reduce the mass of the second stage structure, to lighten it in relation to the traditional scheme, and it also allows to reduce the dimensions of the unit.
Friction stir welding will be used in the production of Soyuz-5. This new technological process will be used for the first time in the Progress RCC for assembly and welding of tanks. The equipment for automatic friction stir welding is manufactured by the Russian company ZAO Cheboksary Enterprise Sespel. For "Soyuz-5" by order of the RCC "Progress" for friction welding with stirring of parts from aluminum alloys "Sespel" will manufacture three units and accessories for them. According to the terms of reference, the installations must provide welding of plates with a thickness of about 30 mm. The use of this technological process will provide welding of the required thickness in one pass, with high quality and characteristics. By the end of the third quarter, the first unit will be delivered to our plant.
The first launch from Baikonur
The Soyuz-5 launch vehicle can be operated at different cosmodromes. So far, launches are planned from the complex at Baikonur within the framework of the Russian-Kazakh project "Baiterek". But Soyuz-5 will be able to launch from any cosmodrome - from Vostochny and Sea Launch - provided that an appropriate ground infrastructure is created: a technical position and a launch complex.
+49
owais.usmani
Lennox
Kiko
Arrow
ALAMO
thegopnik
LMFS
Nomad5891
nemerson
Daniel_Admassu
Tsavo Lion
Scorpius
limb
lancelot
dino00
The-thing-next-door
Isos
Gazputin
chinggis
Hole
KiloGolf
kvs
Nibiru
BlackArrow
Big_Gazza
Project Canada
PapaDragon
GunshipDemocracy
AlfaT8
gaurav
miketheterrible
Morpheus Eberhardt
Book.
Austin
max steel
Svyatoslavich
sepheronx
flamming_python
George1
KomissarBojanchev
collegeboy16
Rmf
Viktor
Vann7
coolieno99
magnumcromagnon
mutantsushi
GarryB
Mike E
53 posters
Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News
owais.usmani- Posts : 1824
Points : 1820
Join date : 2019-03-27
Age : 38
https://www.roscosmos.ru/29146/
Big_Gazza and kvs like this post
George1- Posts : 18510
Points : 19013
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
Russia to decide on resuming launches of rockets re-converted from ICBMs in 2020-2021
The decision will depend on two programs for creating two clusters of small-size satellites, for which Start-1 rockets are convenient launch vehicles, according to the chief designer of the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology
MOSCOW, November 2. /TASS/. A decision on resuming the launches of Start-1 carrier rockets re-converted from Topol intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) is expected in the next twelve months, Chief Designer of the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology (the Topol developer) Yuri Solomonov told TASS on Monday.
"A decision on this issue is planned to be made in 2020-2021," the chief designer said, replying to the corresponding question.
Everything will depend on two programs for creating two clusters of small-size satellites, for which Start-1 rockets are convenient launch vehicles, the chief designer said.
The Start-1 is a light-class solid-propellant carrier rocket based on the Topol ICBM. With a lift-off weight of 47 tonnes, it can deliver a payload of over 500 kg to a low Earth orbit. In 1993-2006, Russia conducted seven Start rocket launches from the spaceports of Plesetsk and Svobodny (currently Vostochny).
https://tass.com/science/1219189
GarryB, Big_Gazza and kvs like this post
George1- Posts : 18510
Points : 19013
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
The new Russian rocket engine RD-171MV, developed by NPO Energomash for the Soyuz-5 launch vehicle, has passed fire tests. This was announced by the head of Roscosmos Dmitry Rogozin.
https://en.topwar.ru/178309-raketnyj-dvigatel-rd-171mv-proshel-pervye-ognevye-ispytanija.html
https://en.topwar.ru/178309-raketnyj-dvigatel-rd-171mv-proshel-pervye-ognevye-ispytanija.html
Hole- Posts : 11109
Points : 11087
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 48
Location : Scholzistan
GarryB, George1, flamming_python, dino00, magnumcromagnon, Big_Gazza and LMFS like this post
lancelot- Posts : 3139
Points : 3135
Join date : 2020-10-18
This is 2020. I thought by now Russia had the technology to make single nozzle engine of this size.
Oh well another rocket to compete with Angara for scarce government funds as I expected.
A single core rocket with this engine basically has same characteristics as an Angara A3 would have.
So, does this "Soyuz" rocket use the same launch pad or different launch pad also to be built?
I assume it's the latter. Let's see if they'll claim it will use existing Zenit pads and then build new pads anyway.
What happened to the Methane powered rocket?
Oh well another rocket to compete with Angara for scarce government funds as I expected.
A single core rocket with this engine basically has same characteristics as an Angara A3 would have.
So, does this "Soyuz" rocket use the same launch pad or different launch pad also to be built?
I assume it's the latter. Let's see if they'll claim it will use existing Zenit pads and then build new pads anyway.
What happened to the Methane powered rocket?
GarryB- Posts : 40489
Points : 40989
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
What makes you think single nozzle engines are superior?
These Russian rockets are the most powerful available... do you think if they were single nozzle that they would have even more power... and if that were true why they don't bother making single nozzle engines if single nozzle engines are better?
These Russian rockets are the most powerful available... do you think if they were single nozzle that they would have even more power... and if that were true why they don't bother making single nozzle engines if single nozzle engines are better?
Big_Gazza likes this post
PapaDragon- Posts : 13463
Points : 13503
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
lancelot wrote:This is 2020. I thought by now Russia had the technology to make single nozzle engine of this size.
Oh well another rocket to compete with Angara for scarce government funds as I expected
A single core rocket with this engine basically has same characteristics as an Angara A3 would have....
This engine will be used (if Rogozin doesn't fuckit up yet again) for super-heavy rocket (Yenisei)
You can't make super-heavy launcher with Angara
Last edited by PapaDragon on Tue Dec 22, 2020 4:26 am; edited 1 time in total
Big_Gazza likes this post
kvs- Posts : 15840
Points : 15975
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
GarryB wrote:What makes you think single nozzle engines are superior?
These Russian rockets are the most powerful available... do you think if they were single nozzle that they would have even more power... and if that were true why they don't bother making single nozzle engines if single nozzle engines are better?
The RD-171MV is a superior variant of 4 x RD-191M. It is perfect for the new Zenit replacement that will act like modules for the SHLV.
There are non-trivial weight savings by unifying 4 engines.
A detail missed by the peanut gallery is that scaling engines is not linear. It is harder to get an optimal fuel-oxidizer mixture in upscaled
models. So you have to add weight by modifying the design to compensate. This is the same Dunning-Kruger nonsense as with the Su-57.
Supposedly the USSR and Russia cannot into rocket engine tech. Just maybe the lack of any effort to develop ginormous rocket engines
has nothing to do with ability but everything to do with physics. Sure, if you don't care, then just build F1 type engines and wave your dick
around. For some reason the US is not only not using F1 derivatives, it even forgot how to make them. Meanwhile Americans were shocked
at the Soviet engine tech and thought it was impossible. Yes, that was a the case when they got access to these engines after the break
up of the USSR.
Big_Gazza, LMFS and Hole like this post
lancelot- Posts : 3139
Points : 3135
Join date : 2020-10-18
The Falcon 9 Merlin engine is also a gas generator just like the Saturn V's F-1 engine. It ain't high tech but it is good enough for space launch.
The USA spent a lot of effort on the Apollo program on perfecting liquid hydrogen propulsion while the Soviets spent their time perfecting staged combustion engines.
I would argue that the engines developed for the N1 weren't reliable enough even with the upgrades. There were projects even just the past decade to use the NK-33 engine and both projects essentially gave up on it for some sort of RD-191 variant despite the NK-33 being available for next to nothing. The engine as manufactured was unreliable simple as that. Problems only solved with Energia launcher which brings us to the RD-171 engine. Yes the RD-171 was superior to other engines available back then and at least in thrust terms superior even to other engines available now. SpaceX Raptor engine for example has only 2MN of thrust while this engine is 8MN I think.
But the combustion cycle that SpaceX uses in Raptor is more advanced technically than this engine. It uses full-flow staged combustion. It also uses LOX/Methane. Which is a fuel combination everyone has been working on since the 1990s (by everyone I mean Europe, Japan, Russia, USA). They "only" need to make a rocket that works with it. SpaceX decided to go with a horrendously complex rocket called Starship. This Russian rocket seems to be more modest and aims to just replace Zenit and supposedly make a superheavy launcher later.
I don't know what's the big deal with superheavy launchers. None has proven to be commercially viable. No government payload of significance (unless you think hopping around on the Moon is something of significance) has used superheavy launchers. Much like supertall skyscrapers they are a monument to humanity's vanity more than anything else. But unlike skycrapers they disintegrate in flight. So.
With nuclear propulsion or solar electric propulsion upper stages you don't need superheavy launchers anyways. Both are technologies Russia dominates quite well.
The whole point of having a single nozzle engine, something that Korolev used to bash Glushko on the head for enough to make him go to Kuznetsov for engines, is that it makes the engine lighter and cheaper. It is as simple as that. With modern CFD simulation tools it is possible to make a single nozzle engine with high power. Back in the 1960s the USA with the F-1 engine detonated small explosives to simulate the loads on the engine chamber until they figured out the right configuration. No fancy computer software stuff.
USA Blue Origin BE-4 engine in turn, looks to me to be still inferior to this engine in performance characteristics. It has about the thrust of the RD-191 but the combustion chamber pressure is like half. That demonstrates the engine is way behind in technology to RD-171. While SpaceX Raptor has even more combustion chamber pressure than RD-191 so it is pretty high tech.
You can compare state of the art in rocket engine with combustion chamber pressure much like you use turbine inlet temperature in jet engines.
The USA spent a lot of effort on the Apollo program on perfecting liquid hydrogen propulsion while the Soviets spent their time perfecting staged combustion engines.
I would argue that the engines developed for the N1 weren't reliable enough even with the upgrades. There were projects even just the past decade to use the NK-33 engine and both projects essentially gave up on it for some sort of RD-191 variant despite the NK-33 being available for next to nothing. The engine as manufactured was unreliable simple as that. Problems only solved with Energia launcher which brings us to the RD-171 engine. Yes the RD-171 was superior to other engines available back then and at least in thrust terms superior even to other engines available now. SpaceX Raptor engine for example has only 2MN of thrust while this engine is 8MN I think.
But the combustion cycle that SpaceX uses in Raptor is more advanced technically than this engine. It uses full-flow staged combustion. It also uses LOX/Methane. Which is a fuel combination everyone has been working on since the 1990s (by everyone I mean Europe, Japan, Russia, USA). They "only" need to make a rocket that works with it. SpaceX decided to go with a horrendously complex rocket called Starship. This Russian rocket seems to be more modest and aims to just replace Zenit and supposedly make a superheavy launcher later.
I don't know what's the big deal with superheavy launchers. None has proven to be commercially viable. No government payload of significance (unless you think hopping around on the Moon is something of significance) has used superheavy launchers. Much like supertall skyscrapers they are a monument to humanity's vanity more than anything else. But unlike skycrapers they disintegrate in flight. So.
With nuclear propulsion or solar electric propulsion upper stages you don't need superheavy launchers anyways. Both are technologies Russia dominates quite well.
The whole point of having a single nozzle engine, something that Korolev used to bash Glushko on the head for enough to make him go to Kuznetsov for engines, is that it makes the engine lighter and cheaper. It is as simple as that. With modern CFD simulation tools it is possible to make a single nozzle engine with high power. Back in the 1960s the USA with the F-1 engine detonated small explosives to simulate the loads on the engine chamber until they figured out the right configuration. No fancy computer software stuff.
USA Blue Origin BE-4 engine in turn, looks to me to be still inferior to this engine in performance characteristics. It has about the thrust of the RD-191 but the combustion chamber pressure is like half. That demonstrates the engine is way behind in technology to RD-171. While SpaceX Raptor has even more combustion chamber pressure than RD-191 so it is pretty high tech.
You can compare state of the art in rocket engine with combustion chamber pressure much like you use turbine inlet temperature in jet engines.
GarryB- Posts : 40489
Points : 40989
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Yeah, I heard it all before... single engines are lighter and cheaper.... that is why MiG-29s are so expensive and F-35s are so cheap.
Clearly the Russians want their stuff to be as expensive as possible so of course they developed twin nozzle designs even though you say it is possible to make lighter cheaper single nozzle designs that are more powerful.
It is interesting that they don't know what they are doing and you and LMFS can so clearly point out their error yet are not on their staff making these vehicles with superior single engine nozzle designs... what a world what a world...
BTW you do understand that there is a real difference between theory and reality....
Clearly the Russians want their stuff to be as expensive as possible so of course they developed twin nozzle designs even though you say it is possible to make lighter cheaper single nozzle designs that are more powerful.
It is interesting that they don't know what they are doing and you and LMFS can so clearly point out their error yet are not on their staff making these vehicles with superior single engine nozzle designs... what a world what a world...
BTW you do understand that there is a real difference between theory and reality....
Big_Gazza- Posts : 4883
Points : 4873
Join date : 2014-08-25
Location : Melbourne, Australia
lancelot wrote:I would argue that the engines developed for the N1 weren't reliable enough even with the upgrades. There were projects even just the past decade to use the NK-33 engine and both projects essentially gave up on it for some sort of RD-191 variant despite the NK-33 being available for next to nothing. The engine as manufactured was unreliable simple as that.
The "problem" with the NK-33s is that they had been left in sealed warehouse for over 20 years without proper preservation. AFAIK only one failure of the N-1 was actually atrtibutable to engine failure (the 2nd flight N1-L3 where a turbopump expoloded) and the NK-33 used by Russia in the Soyuz-1V have flown reliably (the only failure was the Aerojet unit that had been "modernised" by the US company). There has been talk about restarting NK-33 production, but Russia already has a good range of engines with heaps of development potential, and has zero real need for NK-33s. Better uses of money can easily be found.
kvs likes this post
kvs- Posts : 15840
Points : 15975
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
More powerful single nozzle engines is some sort of myth. The F-1 burned a hydrocarbon fuel and LOX. It has a substantially
lower specific impulse than the RD-170 (not RD-171MV) and has almost the same thrust. The WikiCrapia page screws up the
thrust to mass ratio (it is 83 and not 75) which is less than the 94 claimed for the F-1. This parameter is actually irrelevant.
The lower specific impulse of the F-1 requires significantly more fuel weight to reach the same speed. So a token difference
of under 300 kg is offset by many times this weight savings in fuel.
The F-1 would have to redesigned from scratch to introduce a staged combustion cycle. Without it it would not have improved much in
terms of specific impulse. The Shuttle main engine (RS-25) used a staged combustion cycle and burned liquid hydrogen and LOX which
enabled it to have a specific impulse about 33% larger than the RD-170. But that is mostly due to the use of LH-LOX. Also,
the RS-25 had a maximum vacuum thrust of 2.28 MN vs 7.9 MN for the RD-170.
So America does not have any rocket engine today that is more powerful than the RD-170. Thus any talk about super size engines
is some sort of speculative hot air.
lower specific impulse than the RD-170 (not RD-171MV) and has almost the same thrust. The WikiCrapia page screws up the
thrust to mass ratio (it is 83 and not 75) which is less than the 94 claimed for the F-1. This parameter is actually irrelevant.
The lower specific impulse of the F-1 requires significantly more fuel weight to reach the same speed. So a token difference
of under 300 kg is offset by many times this weight savings in fuel.
The F-1 would have to redesigned from scratch to introduce a staged combustion cycle. Without it it would not have improved much in
terms of specific impulse. The Shuttle main engine (RS-25) used a staged combustion cycle and burned liquid hydrogen and LOX which
enabled it to have a specific impulse about 33% larger than the RD-170. But that is mostly due to the use of LH-LOX. Also,
the RS-25 had a maximum vacuum thrust of 2.28 MN vs 7.9 MN for the RD-170.
So America does not have any rocket engine today that is more powerful than the RD-170. Thus any talk about super size engines
is some sort of speculative hot air.
Big_Gazza and LMFS like this post
kvs- Posts : 15840
Points : 15975
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
RD-171MV from a post by Rogozin on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/Rogozin/status/1093791995972198400
owais.usmani- Posts : 1824
Points : 1820
Join date : 2019-03-27
Age : 38
https://ria.ru/20201223/dvigateli-1590483643.html
MOSCOW, Dec 23 - RIA Novosti. Scientific and Production Association "Energomash" (included in " Roskosmos ") plans next year to send to the United States six engines RD-180 for missiles Atlas-5 and four engines RD-181 for the Antares rocket, follows from the materials placed on the website of state purchases.
According to the materials, NPO Energomash intends to insure the transportation in 2021 of six RD-180 and four RD-181.
In January, NPO Energomash announced that it plans to deliver six RD-180s to the United States in 2020, but no further mention was made of their transportation.
The RD-180 engine is used in the first stage of the Atlas-5 rocket. In total, according to NPO Energomash, 116 engines have been sent to the United States since 1999, of which 92 have already been used.
The RD-181 engine is placed on the first stage of the Antares rocket (two each). In total, 22 engines have been delivered to the United States since 2015, of which 16 have already been used.
NPO Energomash produces RD-191 liquid-propellant rocket engines for the Angara launch vehicle , RD-180 for the American Atlas-5 rocket, and RD-181 for the American Antares rocket. In addition, the enterprise is currently developing the RD-171MV engine for the new Soyuz-5 (Irtysh) rocket.
dino00 likes this post
owais.usmani- Posts : 1824
Points : 1820
Join date : 2019-03-27
Age : 38
RD-171MV test at 31:18
magnumcromagnon, kvs and LMFS like this post
kvs- Posts : 15840
Points : 15975
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
So a clustered Soyuz 5 = Saturn V. I must be slow not to catch the game with the name.
Saturn V had five F-1 engines. The Soyuz 5 will be clustered into an SHLV consisting of a cluster of five modules
each with an RD-171MV with a thrust and specific impulse exceeding the F-1. The upper stages can be LH-LOX with
no less performance than the Saturn V upper stages. So Russia will have a worthy successor to the N-1 and
the Saturn V.
The Saturn V second stage had a cluster of five J-2 engines giving a combined thrust of 1.16 million lbf. So
one RD-171MV is enough to replace the whole thrust of the Saturn V second stage. A single Soyuz 5 module
can do the job since it carries a similar amount of fuel by mass. LH-LOX is not necessary even if it gives
more specific impulse. The thrust difference more than compensates and the burn duration can be controlled
with the RD-170 class engines. It does not need to burn out in 150 seconds and all the WikiCrapia style links
on the web that repeat the 150 seconds number as the actual burn time are total rubbish. Also, slower burn
just means slower acceleration and there is no particular need to do this.
The Saturn V third stage used a single J-2 and had a thrust of about 233,000 lbf and a total mass about 123 tons.
The USSR left more than one LH-LOX engine design around. Russia can make them or any improvements.
Saturn V had five F-1 engines. The Soyuz 5 will be clustered into an SHLV consisting of a cluster of five modules
each with an RD-171MV with a thrust and specific impulse exceeding the F-1. The upper stages can be LH-LOX with
no less performance than the Saturn V upper stages. So Russia will have a worthy successor to the N-1 and
the Saturn V.
The Saturn V second stage had a cluster of five J-2 engines giving a combined thrust of 1.16 million lbf. So
one RD-171MV is enough to replace the whole thrust of the Saturn V second stage. A single Soyuz 5 module
can do the job since it carries a similar amount of fuel by mass. LH-LOX is not necessary even if it gives
more specific impulse. The thrust difference more than compensates and the burn duration can be controlled
with the RD-170 class engines. It does not need to burn out in 150 seconds and all the WikiCrapia style links
on the web that repeat the 150 seconds number as the actual burn time are total rubbish. Also, slower burn
just means slower acceleration and there is no particular need to do this.
The Saturn V third stage used a single J-2 and had a thrust of about 233,000 lbf and a total mass about 123 tons.
The USSR left more than one LH-LOX engine design around. Russia can make them or any improvements.
kvs- Posts : 15840
Points : 15975
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
Masturbatory graphic from delusional yanquis.
I think the Yanisei is not all that limited to 103 tons of payload.
The image of the "Starship" is just some kiddie scribble.
The Saturn V first stage had a loaded mass of 5,030 tons. One Soyuz 5 module (first stage) has a loaded mass of
about 400 tons. The Yanisei is supposed to have a first stage cluster consisting of six such modules so a loaded
mass of 2,400 tons. The Saturn V second stage had a loaded mass of 480 tons so it is similar to a Soyuz 5 module
but actually gets more out of this fuel thanks to the higher specific impulse of hydrogen engines.
So it would look like the Saturn V had more payload ability. But the low low specific impulse of the F-1 engine
(263 seconds at sea level vs 311 seconds for the RD-171MV) means that an equivalent using the RD-171MV engines
would need roughly 263/311 = 84% the fuel or 4,254 tons. On top of this, the more fuel you carry, the less acceleration
you have. So at first stage separation below 60 km, the Yanisei would have more speed than the Saturn V. Since
it would have a combined first stage thrust of 1,630,000 x 6 = 9,780,000 lbf at sea level vs. 1,522,000 x 5 = 7,610,000 lbf
for the Saturn V. Using a 150 second burn for the Yanisei vs. a 165 second burn for the Saturn V first stage puts
the Yanisei second stage moving faster than the Saturn V first stage on second stage separation.
There is no way around it, the only way the 5,030 tons of fuel of the Saturn V first stage would do more is if there
was a substantially longer burn. Taking 165/150 = 1.1 does not overcome the thrust difference alone: 1.285. Forgetting
about the 5,030 tons + upper stages mass to 2,400 tons + upper stages mass difference.
Someone correct me if I am barking up the wrong tree, but the first stage mass of the Saturn V now looks ridiculous
to me. The second and third stages mass of the Saturn V was not so huge as to justify this first stage fuel load and
if it really needed the thrust, it would have used more than 5 x F-1 engines.
kvs- Posts : 15840
Points : 15975
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
OK, according to NASA itself:
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-was-the-saturn-v-58.html
The total mass of the Saturn V as 2,800 tons. So my mistake for taking the rubbish numbers from Wiki-Crapia at face value.
So my estimation of the clustered (with 5 modules) Soyuz derived SHLV is valid. The payload of the Yanisei can be
substantially higher than 140 tons.
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-was-the-saturn-v-58.html
The total mass of the Saturn V as 2,800 tons. So my mistake for taking the rubbish numbers from Wiki-Crapia at face value.
So my estimation of the clustered (with 5 modules) Soyuz derived SHLV is valid. The payload of the Yanisei can be
substantially higher than 140 tons.
Big_Gazza- Posts : 4883
Points : 4873
Join date : 2014-08-25
Location : Melbourne, Australia
The so-called "Starship" is a fucking joke. It boggles the mind that the smart people in NASA can read/listen to this Muskian masturbatory tech-porn and be able to resist the urge to condemn his endless nonsense. Its a wonderful example of how the US has ceased to be a sensible nation as establishment narratives become all important and facts and critical thinking no longer matter. This what inevitably happens when a society chooses to give unaccountable power to elite money and the selfish narcissists who manage to haul themselves to the top of the wealth pyramid, and the elected officials abandon all pretense at reigning in the corruption.
magnumcromagnon and kvs like this post
kvs- Posts : 15840
Points : 15975
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
BTW, that graphic is retarded on multiple levels. It is not to scale even though it pretends to be. The RD-170 maximal diameter
is 3.8 meters. The F-1 maximal diameter is 3.7 meters. In the graphic the F-1 engine nozzles are shown larger than the diameter
of the Yanisei module engines. Also, the Soyuz 5 first stage length is 37 meters and is rendered as much shorter than the Saturn
V first stage which was 42 meters long.
Musk's barn cistern called the Starship is nowhere near the size shown in the graphic. So what is he testing? A smaller scale
model. Yeah, right.
is 3.8 meters. The F-1 maximal diameter is 3.7 meters. In the graphic the F-1 engine nozzles are shown larger than the diameter
of the Yanisei module engines. Also, the Soyuz 5 first stage length is 37 meters and is rendered as much shorter than the Saturn
V first stage which was 42 meters long.
Musk's barn cistern called the Starship is nowhere near the size shown in the graphic. So what is he testing? A smaller scale
model. Yeah, right.
GarryB- Posts : 40489
Points : 40989
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
So at 100 tons the Energya is unable to carry the 120 ton Buran into orbit... kinda strange because I am pretty sure it did....
magnumcromagnon likes this post
kvs- Posts : 15840
Points : 15975
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
GarryB wrote:So at 100 tons the Energya is unable to carry the 120 ton Buran into orbit... kinda strange because I am pretty sure it did....
I recall that it had a 120 ton to LEO payload as well. It is also not properly scaled in that graphic. The Energiya had a 59 meter length and
they make it look like it is only 1/6 longer than the Saturn V first stage. It should be 40% longer.
Either I misread the WikiCrapia Saturn V page or it has been edited to fix the 5,030,000 kg number. It now has 5,040,000 lb.
A six module Yanisei would likely be able to deploy around 180 tons to LEO with a LH-LOX 1st stage core module and second and
third stages.
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/yenisei5.html
But it does not need this approach to give it a payload similar to the Saturn V. A key point is acceleration. Slowing down a rocket
to deliver both cargo and humans is dumb. Send the humans in another rocket.
limb- Posts : 1550
Points : 1576
Join date : 2020-09-17
Can someone explain why the russians always used Kerolox or hydrazine engines instead of Hydrogen-oxygen rocket engines, when the latter offers best impulse? It cannot be storage, since liquid oxygen is only marginally less difficult to store than liquid hydrogen. Also wouldn't it make it easier to fire high value large payloads from hydrolox engined rockets compared to kerolox?
kvs- Posts : 15840
Points : 15975
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
limb wrote:Can someone explain why the russians always used Kerolox or hydrazine engines instead of Hydrogen-oxygen rocket engines, when the latter offers best impulse? It cannot be storage, since liquid oxygen is only marginally less difficult to store than liquid hydrogen. Also wouldn't it make it easier to fire high value large payloads from hydrolox engined rockets compared to kerolox?
Those were military propellants that could be deployed to missiles for prolonged periods of time. There is nothing particularly wrong
with hydrazine and all the bitching about its toxicity is overblown. From the BS claims it would sound like plutonium that never goes
away from any spent rocket stage crash site. Total and utter BS. It is photochemically decomposed.
Even the Saturn V used RP-1 for its first stage. Energiya used LH-LOX for its core. So it was like the Shuttle but did not use
solid rocket boosters. The only dedicated LH-LOX rockets America uses today is the Delta IV range. The Delta IV heavy has a payload
to LEO of 29 tons vs. 24 tons for the Proton. This difference is not a trivial result of using LH instead of hydrazine. Bigger boosters
on the Proton would make up for the 5 ton difference in payload. Neither kerosene nor hydrazine require cryogenic liquefaction.
The Delta IV heavy was introduced in 2004 while the Proton was introduced in 1965. That is a 39 year difference so any comparison
is apples to oranges. The Angara is the replacement for the Proton and the A5V model will use LH-LOX upper stages to deliver
35 tons to LEO and over 13 tons to GTO.
Handling hydrogen is a PITA, there is no particular reason to use LH-LOX instead of kerosene and liquid oxygen. Hydrogen diffuses
into metal and makes it brittle, and it takes more energy to liquify it compared to oxygen. Claims that storing and pumping liquid
hydrogen is similar to liquid oxygen is pure nonsense. Oxygen does not compromise the structural integrity of the piping. If you are
claiming that the USSR and Russia cannot handle LH-LOX technology, then you are wrong.
BTW, no new Russian rocket designs use hydrazine. Only the Proton currently uses it and it will be retired soon.
GarryB, Big_Gazza and LMFS like this post
Big_Gazza- Posts : 4883
Points : 4873
Join date : 2014-08-25
Location : Melbourne, Australia
LH2 is also a very low density fluid, so the tankage and piping needs to be of large diameter which adds cost. LH2 is much colder than LOX (boiling point of -253 degC versus -183degC) so the thermal insulation needs to be considerably improved. Look how big the Delta IV is (bigger than Falcon Heavy) yet its payload capacity is only 5T more than Proton.
LH2 is great for high energy upper stages, but it sucks as a choice for first stage. Too expensive, too large, too much drag thru the lower atmosphere.
Russians opted for simplicity in their launch systems and went for unified fuelling systems on their launch pads - is same propellents for all stages that require to be fuelled once the stack is assembled on the pad (upper stages with hypergolics get fuelled prior to rollout). One set of tanks, pumps, pipes etc for one propellent combination. Introducing a 2nd propellent combo needs more infrastructure, intrduces more potential failure points, and complicates launch operations. AFAIK the Buran pads were the only exception.
LH2 is great for high energy upper stages, but it sucks as a choice for first stage. Too expensive, too large, too much drag thru the lower atmosphere.
Russians opted for simplicity in their launch systems and went for unified fuelling systems on their launch pads - is same propellents for all stages that require to be fuelled once the stack is assembled on the pad (upper stages with hypergolics get fuelled prior to rollout). One set of tanks, pumps, pipes etc for one propellent combination. Introducing a 2nd propellent combo needs more infrastructure, intrduces more potential failure points, and complicates launch operations. AFAIK the Buran pads were the only exception.
kvs and LMFS like this post