Russian Launch Vehicles and their Spacecraft: Thoughts & News

With a almost complete lack of space program news, I'll post some interesting information from "Rocket Propulsion Elements 7th edition"... First, let see some info on SRB's.

TABLE 11-2. Classification of Solid Rocket Motors:
                    
Basis of Classification                  Examples of Classification 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application                 See Table 11-1. 
Diameter/Length 
Propellant                   0.005-6.6 m or 0.2-260 in.; 0.025 to 45 m or 1 to 1800 in. 
                                   Composite: Heterogeneous (physical) mixture of powdered 
                                   metal (fuel), crystalline oxidizer and polymer binder 
                                   Double-base: Homogeneous mixture (colloidal) of two 
                                   explosives (usually nitroglycerin in nitrocellulose) 
                                   Composite-modified double-base: Combines composite and 
                                   double-base ingredients 
                                   Gas generator and others: See Chapter 12 

Case design 
                                   Steel monolithic: One-piece steel case 
                                   Fiber monolithic: Filament wound (high-strength fibers) with 
                                   a plastic matrix 
                                   Segmented: Case (usually steel) and grain are in segments 
                                   which are transported separately and fastened together at 
                                   launch site 

Grain configuration 
                                   Cylindrical: Cylindrically shaped, usually hollow 
                                   End-burning: Solid cylinder propellant grain 
                                   Other configurations: See Figs. 11-16 and 11-17 

Grain installation 
                                   Case-bonded: Adhesion exists between grain and case or 
                                   between grain and insulation and case; propellant is 
                                   usually cast into the case 
                                   Cartridge-loaded: Grain is formed separately from the motor 
                                   case and then assembled into case 

Explosive hazard 
                                   Class 1.3: Catastrophic failure shows evidence of burning 
                                   and explosion, not detonation 
                                   Class 1.1: Catastrophic failure shows evidence of detonation

Thrust action 
                                   Neutral grain: Thrust remains essentially constant during the 
                                   burn period 
                                   Progressive grain: Thrust increases with time 
                                   Regressive grain: Thrust decreases with time 
                                   Pulse rocket: Two or more independent thrust pulses or 
                                   burning periods 
                                   Step-thrust rocket: Usually, two distinct levels of thrust

Toxicity 
                                   Toxic and nontoxic exhaust gases 

 
- Please tell me if you want to see more of these as there are lots of em'. It takes 15 minutes or more for me to post them here, and if no one wants them it is a waste of my time!

12.1. CLASSIFICATION 
Processed modern propellants can be classified in several ways, as described 
below. This classification is not rigorous or complete. Sometimes the same 
propellant will fit into two or more of the classifications. 

1. Propellants are often tailored to and classified by specific applications,
such as space launch booster propellants or tactical missile propellants;
each has somewhat specific chemical ingredients, different burning rates,
different physical properties, and different performance. Table 11-1
shows four kinds of rocket motor applications (each has somewhat different
propellants) and several gas generator applications. Propellants for
rocket motors have hot (over 2400 K) gases and are used to produce
thrust, but gas generator propellants have lower-temperature combustion
gases (800 to 1200 K) and they are used to produce power, not thrust.
Historically, the early rocket motor propellants used to be grouped
into two classes: double-base (DB*) propellants were used as the first
production propellants, and then the development of polymers as binders
made the composite propellants feasible.


2. Double-base (DB) propellants form a homogeneous propellant grain,
usually a nitrocellulose (NC*), a solid ingredient which absorbs liquid
nitroglycerine (NG) plus minor percentages of additives. Both the major
ingredients are explosives and function as a combined fuel and oxidizer.
Both extruded double-base (EDB) and cast double-base (CDB) propellant
have found extensive applications, mostly in small tactical missiles of
older design. By adding crystalline nitramines (HMX or RDX)* the
performance and density can be improved; this is sometimes called
cast-modified double-base propellant. A further improvement is to add
an elastomeric binder (rubber-like, such as crosslinked polybutadiene),
which improves the physical properties and allows more nitramine and
thus improves the performance slightly. The resulting propellant is called
elastomeric-modified cast double-base (EMCDB). These four classes of
double base have nearly smokeless exhausts. Adding some solid ammonium
perchlorate (AP) and aluminum (A1) increases the density and the
specific impulse slightly, but the exhaust gas is smoky. The propellant is
called composite-modified double-base propellant or CMDB.


3. Composite propellants form a heterogeneous propellant grain with the
oxidizer crystals and a powdered fuel (usually aluminum) held together
in a matrix of synthetic rubber (or plastic) binder, such as polybutadiene
(HTPB)*. Composite propellants are cast from a mix of solid (AP crystals,
A1 powder)* and liquid (HTPB, PPG)* ingredients. The propellant is
hardened by crosslinking or curing the liquid binder polymer with a small
amount of curing agent, and curing it in an oven, where it becomes hard
and solid. In the past three decades the composite propellants have been
the most commonly used class. They can be further subdivided:

(1) Conventional composite propellants usually contain between 60 and
72% ammonium perchlorate (AP) as crystalline oxidizer, up to 22%aluminum powder (A1) as a metal fuel, and 8 to 16% of elastomeric
binder (organic polymer) including its plasticizer.

(2) Modified composite propellant where an energetic nitramine (HMX
or RDX) is added for obtaining a little more performance and also a
somewhat higher density.

(3) Modified composite propellant where an energetic plasticizer such as
nitroglycerine (used in double-base propellant) is added to give a little
more performance. Sometimes HMX is also added.

(4) A high-energy composite solid propellant (with some aluminum),
where the organic elastomeric binder and plasticizer are largely
replaced by energetic materials (such as certain explosives) and
where some of the AP is replaced by HMX. Some of these are called
elastomer-modified cast double-base propellants (EMCDB). Most
are experimental propellants. The theoretical specific impulse can
be between 270 and 275 sec at standard conditions.

(5) A lower-energy composite propellant, where ammonium nitrate (AN) is
the crystalline oxidizer (no AP). It is used for gas generator propellant.
If a large amount of HMX is added, it can become a minimum
smoke propellant with fair performance.

This will finish off the info on solid-fuels...

12.2. PROPELLANT CHARACTERISTICS

The propellant selection is critical to rocket motor design. The desirable propellant
characteristics are listed below and are discussed again in other parts of
this book. The requirements for any particular motor will influence the priorities
of these characteristics:

1. High performance or high specific impulse; really this means high gas
temperature and/or low molecular mass.

2. Predictable, reproducible, and initially adjustable burning rate to fit the
need of the grain design and the thrust-time requirement.

3. For minimum variation in thrust or chamber pressure, the pressure or
burning rate exponent and the temperature coefficient should be small.

4. Adequate physical properties (including bond strength) over the
intended operating temperature range.

5. High density (allows a small-volume motor).

6. Predictable, reproducible ignition qualities (such as reasonable ignition
overpressure)

7. Good aging characteristics and long life. Aging and life predictions
depend on the propellant's chemical and physical properties, the cumulative
damage criteria with load cycling and thermal cycling (see page
461), and actual tests on propellant samples and test data from failed
motors.

8. Low absorption of moisture, which often causes chemical deterioration.

9. Simple, reproducible, safe, low-cost, controllable, and low-hazard manufacturing.

10. Guaranteed availability of all raw materials and purchased components
over the production and operating life of the propellant, and good
control over undesirable impurities.

11. Low technical risk, such as a favorable history of prior applications.

12. Relative insensitivity to certain energy stimuli described in the next section.

13. Non-toxic exhaust gases.

14. Not prone to combustion instability (see next chapter).

The information is interesting but you are probably wasting your time. It would be good to get some sort of specific
information that is probably not easy to find. For example, Russian solid rocket fuel technology has improved significantly
compared to the Soviet level of the 1980s. So the current railway mounted ICBMs in development will be much lighter,
I believe by a factor of two.

I wonder what chemical constituent improvements were involved. From the above description it seems like there is not
much room for such increases in performance. So there must be some chemical tricks not covered by the reference
you quote.

kvs wrote:The information is interesting but you are probably wasting your time.   It would be good to get some sort of specific
information that is probably not easy to find.  For example, Russian solid rocket fuel technology has improved significantly
compared to the Soviet level of the 1980s.   So the current railway mounted ICBMs in development will be much lighter,
I believe by a factor of two.

I wonder what chemical constituent improvements were involved.   From the above description it seems like there is not
much room for such increases in performance.   So there must be some chemical tricks not covered by the reference
you quote.

Yeah, that is what I figured.... The problem with finding information on older, Soviet space developments, is that there is only one source. - That would be RSW. So while I'd love to cover the topic, it is a pain, would get repetitive, and doesn't align with the purpose of this thread...

There really isn't when it comes to solid-fuels... It is  a "this is the best you can do" kind of thing. - There are other additives that can be used etc.

New article on Soyuz from RSW!



Critical milestones in the Soyuz launch (as of 2014):

Milestone	Elapsed time
Liftoff	0.00
Emergency escape rocket, SAS, jettison	114.16 seconds
Stage I separation	117.80 seconds
Payload fairing separation	157.48 seconds
Stage II separation	287.30 seconds
Separation of Stage III tail section	297.05 seconds
Stage III main engine cutoff	524.96 seconds
Stage III - spacecraft separation	528.26 seconds

Search and rescue bases and their assets during manned Soyuz launches:

-	Search and rescue bases	Military assets on standby	Civilian assets on standby
0	Baikonur (Krainy airfield)	Two Mil-8 helicopters, one Antonov-12, one Antonov-24 aircraft	-
1	Dzhezkazgan	-	-
2	Arkalyk	-	-
3	Kustanai	-	-
4	Karaganda	Two Mil-8 helicopters	-
5	Semipalatinsk	-	-
6	Gorno-Altaisk	2 Mil-8	One Antonov-2 aircraft
7	Novosibirsk	-	-
8	Kyzyl	One Antonov-26 aircraft	One Mil-8 helicopter
9	Kyren	-	-
10	Irkutsk	-	One Mil-8 helicopter
11	Dzhida	-	-
12	Bada	-	-
13	Chita	-	-
14	Khabarovsk	-	One Mil-8 helicopter, one Antonov-26 aircraft
15	Sovetskaya Gavan	-	-
16	Kamenny Ruchei	Two Tupolev-142 aircraft	Two Tupolev-142 aircraft
17	Chernigovka	-	-
18	Vladivostok	-	One Mil-8 helicopter
19	Sea of Japan	"Antarktida" vessel	-

Like all other rockets in the Soyuz family, launch vehicles carrying manned Soyuz spacecraft blast off with four strop-on boosters of the first stage and a core booster of the second stage igniting simultaneously on the ground. Following a vertical liftoff from Site 1 or Site 31 in Baikonur, the Soyuz rocket heads east to enter an initial orbit with an inclination 51.6 degrees toward the Equator. According to one version of the flight profile, the emergency launch escape system would be jettisoned first (114-115 seconds in flight) to maximize the payload carried during the mission. Alternatively, the escape rocket could be jettisoned after the separation of the first stage. From that point on and practically until the end of the powered flight, the emergency return to Earth can be accomplished with existing propulsion systems.
The four boosters of the first stage separate slightly less than two minutes in flight (T+118-119 seconds) at an altitude of 42-45 kilometers. They then crash 350 kilometers from the launch site.
The payload fairing then splits into two halves and separates two minutes, 40 seconds in flight at an altitude of 85 kilometers. Its fragments fall around 500 kilometers downrange, along with the launch escape rocket.
The second stage separates slightly less than five minutes after the liftoff at an altitude of 168-169 kilometers. Around 10 seconds later, a connecting ring, which serves as an interface between the second and third stages, splits into three sections and separates from the third stage.
The third stage inserts Soyuz into orbit at an altitude of 205 or 208 kilometers and at a distance of 1,640 kilometers from the launch pad. As soon as Soyuz flies free, a valve onboard the third stage opens venting pressurized gas in the direction of the flight and pushing it away from the spacecraft.
Upon reaching the orbit, the Soyuz deploys a pair of solar panels, radio-communications and rendezvous antennas as well as sensors. Also, the docking probe in the nose of the spacecraft is extended into the operational position.
In the meantime, inside the ship, crew members can unbuckle their seatbelts and after leak checks open hatch from the descent module into the habitation module and use the toilet. By all accounts, it happens many hours after the last time cosmonauts had access to such conveniences on the ground. Yet, for many years Russian cosmonauts would not adopt diapers -- an integral part of the US astronaut outfits onboard the Shuttle.

Tests in orbit
Normally, during the second orbit around the Earth, the crew and the control center in Korolev, near Moscow, test crucial systems onboard the spacecraft, including, two-way communication links with the ground, the flight control system, the radio-controlled rendezvous system and TV-transmitters.

Rendezvous profile
Since the beginning of the 1970s, the primary function of the Soyuz spacecraft has been the delivery of the crews to the orbiting space stations, for which developers adopted a two-day flight profile. The rendezvous maneuvers would be initiated on the first day of the flight and continued on the second day.
An automated rendezvous system is designed to bring the Soyuz all the way to the station, including physical docking of the vehicles. During every stage of the rendezvous, crew has ability to monitor the progress of the flight and conduct docking under manual control, if necessary.
At the distance of 150 meters from its destination (plus/minus 50 meters), as the the Soyuz normally orbits within the range of the Russian ground control network, the spacecraft enters station-keeping position. As two spacecraft fly in formation, the mission control monitors telemetry data and TV pictures to give a "go" to final rendezvous and docking.
(More to come!)


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

latest Soyuz with the women cosomonauts.. cool video.

Thanks for posting the video Vann7, for some reason I couldn't find it...

On a side note, thank you all for posting on this thread, I appreciate it!

I've got some GOOD news!!!!!

Leading designer for Russia's super-heavy booster to be chosen by yearend — official

A competition for the booster rocket has not been held yet

BAIKONUR, September 26. /ITAR-TASS/. Russia’s Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos) will decide on a leading designer of a super-heavy booster rocket till the end of the year, Roscosmos head Oleg Ostapenko said on Friday.
A competition for the booster rocket has not been held yet, he said.
“We’ll hold a conciliatory meeting shortly to decide what [of the super-heavy booster] should look like, where the work will be done and who is to lead the way,” he said.
Three leading Russian enterprises - the Progress design bureau, the Energia Rocket and Space Corporation, and the Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Centre - are now designing and developing the super-heavy booster, Ostapenko said.
 
- Remember that I posted info on all the contenders a page or two ago, or you could look for yourself on RSW. 

This time around they should do a proper job compared to the N1. Good Russian engineering software exists that can evaluate all of the vibrational modes of any design they can propose. I hope they retained some know-how from the Energia project.

Ultimately, research and development of nuclear propulsion should restarted.

kvs wrote:This time around they should do a proper job compared to the N1.   Good Russian engineering software exists that can evaluate all of the vibrational modes of any design they can propose.   I hope they retained some know-how from the Energia project.

Ultimately, research and development of nuclear propulsion should restarted.  

They've learned their lessons... The failure of the N1 was a direct result of Energia's reliance on Korolev, and the CCCP's insistence on speeding the project up. As you said, hopefully they can have a "repeat" of the Energia when it comes to success!

Not only on nuclear propulsion, but on the RD-270 and other high-performance designs.... Methane anyone? (Yes, I know they are working on it...)

Mike E wrote:

kvs wrote:This time around they should do a proper job compared to the N1.   Good Russian engineering software exists that can evaluate all of the vibrational modes of any design they can propose.   I hope they retained some know-how from the Energia project.

Ultimately, research and development of nuclear propulsion should restarted.  

They've learned their lessons... The failure of the N1 was a direct result of Energia's reliance on Korolev, and the CCCP's insistence on speeding the project up. As you said, hopefully they can have a "repeat" of the Energia when it comes to success!

Not only on nuclear propulsion, but on the RD-270 and other high-performance designs.... Methane anyone? (Yes, I know they are working on it...)

If they go the nuclear route, I hope they develop a LFTR for it's one of the safest reactors and no worry of hydrogen explosions, 1/100th to 1/250th the reactive waste of uranium analogues, can be scaled up or down to a high degree, dirt cheap fuel...I know I'm preaching to the choir.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Mike E wrote:

kvs wrote:This time around they should do a proper job compared to the N1.   Good Russian engineering software exists that can evaluate all of the vibrational modes of any design they can propose.   I hope they retained some know-how from the Energia project.

Ultimately, research and development of nuclear propulsion should restarted.  

They've learned their lessons... The failure of the N1 was a direct result of Energia's reliance on Korolev, and the CCCP's insistence on speeding the project up. As you said, hopefully they can have a "repeat" of the Energia when it comes to success!

Not only on nuclear propulsion, but on the RD-270 and other high-performance designs.... Methane anyone? (Yes, I know they are working on it...)

If they go the nuclear route, I hope they develop a LFTR for it's one of the safest reactors and no worry of hydrogen explosions, 1/100th to 1/250th the reactive waste of uranium analogues, can be scaled up or down to a high degree, dirt cheap fuel...I know I'm preaching to the choir.

 The problem with that would be that they wouldn't generate much thrust due to lower temperatures - Good on Earth, not in space...

Mike E wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Mike E wrote:

kvs wrote:This time around they should do a proper job compared to the N1.   Good Russian engineering software exists that can evaluate all of the vibrational modes of any design they can propose.   I hope they retained some know-how from the Energia project.

Ultimately, research and development of nuclear propulsion should restarted.  

They've learned their lessons... The failure of the N1 was a direct result of Energia's reliance on Korolev, and the CCCP's insistence on speeding the project up. As you said, hopefully they can have a "repeat" of the Energia when it comes to success!

Not only on nuclear propulsion, but on the RD-270 and other high-performance designs.... Methane anyone? (Yes, I know they are working on it...)

If they go the nuclear route, I hope they develop a LFTR for it's one of the safest reactors and no worry of hydrogen explosions, 1/100th to 1/250th the reactive waste of uranium analogues, can be scaled up or down to a high degree, dirt cheap fuel...I know I'm preaching to the choir.

 The problem with that would be that they wouldn't generate much thrust due to lower temperatures - Good on Earth, not in space...

Que? Maybe a hybrid design, LFTR could be the main workhorse in the space portion but not the liftoff portion.

"Traditional" designs would be better, once again, due to higher temperatures. LFTR's could be used to generate power and not much more... (Higher temperatures are very desirable, more so in vacuum conditions.)

Mike E wrote:
 - Lasers have found the reflectors, if that means anything to you...

I explained you already ,several times but you seem to totally ignore it.. one more time.
you   dont  need astronauts in the moon to deposit  reflectors there.
Russia have reflectors in the moon since 1971..they even have 3 land rovers there and other equipment and they never sent humans there. never claimed it.Russia even have soil samples of the moon and NEVER have sent men to the moon. You simply send ROVERS to the moon with reflectors and thats it. No need for humans to do it ,when a rover can do the same...

Any proof of Apolo missions on the moon can be all unmanned. without humans.. you send reflectors and a rover
and thats it.. you can claim you were there.. but can you see a human walking in the moon playing golf? no you cant. The only "Evidence" that Amstrong was in the moon was his word and NASA manipulated photos and nothing else. hopefully we can also finally put to end the Lazer-Reflectors argument.   About Russia not saying anything of the fake.. simply they were fooled first and/or they had a monetary agreement so they say nothing.  Is not the first time Russia keep silence of as scandal..  The Kursk disaster for example ,that was torpedo by an american submarine ,that happened unintentionally and that Putin covered it.. because of Many Billions $$ they received in change for the accident. Since Putin is very practical decided that it was better to keep silence since 1) the money 2) americans apologized for the incident. 3)To avoid major rage in Russia asking for a retaliation or declaration of war to US.  So in order to avoid a major war for an unintended accident Putin keep silence.. Same with the 9/11... Putin official version is that it was Alqaeda who did it.. but Russia Today Kremling funded media says the opposite.  I can go on and on.. Russia have also secrets that will not like US to reveal , like that GAGARIN was not who did the first flight..others Russians did it and got wounded and he took credit. etc..  The important thing.. is .. that Russia Did had a real space program..and never faked their achievements ,contrary to American Holywood.. and the way Russia beat americans in the moon ,mars ,venus ,Jupiter being first to visit it with a Probe was of sending waves after waves of space rockets non stop after they get it right.  

But  you can ignore.. what i told you about the Reflectors  you can ignore the Camera film problems with radiation and extreme cold and heat of space.. you can even ignore how Amstrong nearly DIE while testing the moon lander and that they never got it working.. you can ignore tons of evidence of manipulatled photos.. and believe by faith is you like. but so far evidence says different.

No idea why the Proton-M was made with the Angara being so close to release... and already having
different versions of Soyus.. anyway good video..

Vann7 wrote:

No idea why the Proton-M was made with the Angara being so close to release... and already having
different versions of Soyus..  anyway good video..

The Proton-M was released in 2001. It is not recent. Angara is only going to have its first full scale launch test in December of this year or
early next year.

Never going to happen... what rockets would Israel launch?

The rig was designed for the Ukrainian-Russian Rocket and i suspect the Russians can build the components the Ukrainians were providing... I doubt Israel could do the same.

- On the Mars spacecraft topic... - Inflatables are a possibility, with better protection against radiation and space trash 'floatin round'. Read this; http://www.russianspaceweb.com/inflatable.html

I remember reading a while back about a similar idea where a very light inflatable material was to be used for the shell, with the structure being formed by water ice. the design has a large rear array of solar panels that blocked off the suns light so the space craft was going to be cold anyway... it was intended to be used as a freighter/freezer to be put in orbit around Mars.

When manned ships arrived they could dock onto the vessel and it would be stocked with food and equipment and of course contain water that can be used for drinking and air and rocket fuel.

GarryB wrote:I remember reading a while back about a similar idea where a very light inflatable material was to be used for the shell, with the structure being formed by water ice. the design has a large rear array of solar panels that blocked off the suns light so the space craft was going to be cold anyway... it was intended to be used as a freighter/freezer to be put in orbit around Mars.

When manned ships arrived they could dock onto the vessel and it would be stocked with food and equipment and of course contain water that can be used for drinking and air and rocket fuel.

Do you think that you could find it? - No "pressure", but I'd love to see it! Using ice seems like an unusual decision, as the idea is to keep it as inflated and "flexible" as possible. The skin itself is relatively lightweight and wouldn't weigh as much as ice, or so I think... I think that flexible solar cells could be incorporated into the skin easily, and that would keep it simple rather than adding hard points on the craft.

Inflatables could also incorporate the stored hydrogen "around the body" idea to reduce the effects of radiation.