Russian Space Program: News & Discussion #2

Big_Gazza wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Also, let us be real here.  What is the point of making money from the company when companies like Elon Musk rely on over $6B in subsidies just to be able to do his work.  In other words, it will be a major loss, not gain unlike what RMF claims.

The fact Russia still launches shit into space and does what it needs, is fine by me.  Commercial market is getting over inflated anyway thanks to China, India and others joining in.  Oh well.

Russia builds rockets to launch payloads.  Commercial space is nice, but its not core.  Its essential to be able to produce domestic launch services to orbit Russian gov, military and industry payloads, to do so at an efficient price and in reliable fashion, and to ensure that the industry generates local jobs and supports domestic high-tech engineering and manufacturing capability (and supports local tax base).  Its not just about dollars per kilo to orbit, nor manufacturer "profit" or stock value inflation....

Admittedly Russia has issues with reliablity (mainly Proton & Briz-M), but these are mostly to do with the impact of the catastrophic 90s and the failure to maintain recruitment and training of a new generation of specialists.  The Old Guard designers and engineers retired (or died off) and the lost talent was not replaced.  Proton was reliable in the 80s, 90s and early 00s, but afterwards suffered losses due to non-design issues, either human errors, QA/QC failures, or build-problems with the then-new Briz-M upper stage, which is consistent with "brain-drain" of experienced personnel.  Interestingly, Soyuz hasn't been similarly impacted, so it seems to be mostly a Khrunichev issue.  Angara should be free of these issues as its an all-new project with much younger key personnel, new serial manufacturing lines and newly trained/qualifed manufacturing workforce. Despite the 5th columnist BS, Angara costs will be on a par with Proton and will become cheaper as the serial manufacture of common modules becomes established and more streamlined.

In any case, SpaceX have yet to show that they are particulary low cost, or that his recovery technique will substantially reduce launch costs.  A F9 costs ~60M, which is the same as a Proton to commercial customers.  Russian gov federal launches cost significantly less.  Musk talks big, but he hasn't delivered on low costs to orbit, and only has ULA and ArianeSpace to compete against, who are clearly not setup to be low cost operators (as their focus is maximum reliability and it has a premium price).

SpaceX is producing some good tech, but expectations on their impact on the industry is way overblown.  Musk will take launch service contracts from ULA, but he won't deliver on huge cost reductions, and there will be no huge surge in commercial space activities as other than the current established activities like commsats and remote sensing, there is simply no way to generate a profit from space.  Space activities are driven by earthly demand for services, and launch costs are not a significant driver. Does anyone really believe that halving the cost to orbit will double the launch rate when the cost of the commsat bird is up to 10x the cost of the launch vehicle?  Likewise Musk isn't going to colonise Mars, thats just an absurd pipedream.  If he gets F9 heavy working, he won't have any customers so he won't launch many.  Commercial operators are not going to engage in planetary exploration as there are no profits to be made, and the USG is going to be financially constrained and won't fund missions either.  What payloads are there in the 50-60T range eagerly awaiting the F9H?

and roscosmos is 100% government subsidized so what???
commercial space is very inmportent you deny competitors of money
you can have larger production driving costs down, more workers ,better salaries etc. only in your imaginary worlds its not important , eventually even russian companies will go too space x , but im sure you all will say its fine, ....
russian space is in chaos , you can pretend, but downhill slope is showing.

Big_Gazza wrote:

"engine commonality"....  WTF is this important?  What is the issue with having different spec engines on the 1st and 2nd stage?  I suppose it makes sense for SpaceX to use their small crappy gas-generator cycle inefficient lower-thrust engines on both stages, but Russia has access to real engines like RD-170 family so why compromise?

"sunkar will have 8 engines in second stage" - No, 2 x R0124A with each having a single turbopump set and 4x combustion nozzles, ie a classic Russian solution to avoid combustion instability.  Its mature tech and its rock-solid reliable. Each is 570kg, so 1140kgs total.  Falcon 9 FT has 1x Merlin 1C of 630kgs, but it has a much lower ISP (304 vs 359sec) and total thrust (480 vs 600kN) due to the significantly higher chamber pressure of the RD (which requires greater engine mass).

Available Sunkar stats call up 17,000 kgs to 200km LEO @ 51.6 degrees.  The F9 FT has a stated payload capability of 22,800 kgs, but it doesn't specify orbital height or inclination, so this is probably based on 185km circular and 28 degrees which will tend to overstate its performance relative to the Sunkar stat. In the true Muskian self-promotional manner, the F9 value is likely to be a theoretical maximum, and I'll believe the FT can orbit 22-23T when they orbit something other than a commsat or Dragon cargo ship. The Sunkar 17T is realistic given the Zenit can do 13.8T and the Sunkar has a increased core size, more powerful engines, and more up-to-date fabrication ie weight savings.

Finally, Russian launch numbers are "plummeting" because of a confluence of short-term factors such as temporarily reduced budgets and the Proton engine QA/QC fiasco.  its just a temporary bump in the road, yet Rmf predictably has his old fella out and is busy stroking himself into an ecstatic state...  Yeah, its predictable, and a little disturbing, but stupid is as stupid does.

first read carefully i said no engine commonality with angara so 1st stage engines are different and its a problem in many ways.
yes 8 nozzles is not good for second stage and structural mass is not only engines but many other things so sunkar second stage is highly inferior , and usually you have 1-2 engine nozzles in second stage. combustion instability is long resolved and in smaller thrust engines is non issue - again fail.
yes overstated but less then 5% so not very much.
falcon engines are 15.000$ per tonn of thrust and high thrust/ weight ratios , while sunkar engines will be in 25.000 range and angara rd-191 in 35.000. so again fail.
musk is going for simple cheap reliable option, you know something russians like to brag about.

Rmf wrote:
first read carefully i said no engine commonality with angara so 1st stage engines are different and its a problem in many ways.
yes 8 nozzles is not good for second stage and structural mass is not only engines but many other things so sunkar second stage is highly inferior , and usually you have 1-2 engine nozzles in second stage. combustion instability is long resolved and in smaller thrust engines is non issue - again fail.
yes overstated but less then 5% so not very much.
falcon engines are 15.000$ per tonn of thrust and high thrust/ weight ratios , while sunkar engines will be in 25.000 range and angara rd-191 in 35.000. so again fail.
musk is going for simple cheap reliable option, you know something russians like to brag about.

The falcon engines are inferior compared to the RD-181.

The RD-181 has higher weight because it has higher efficiency,and that translate higher payload compared to the merlin 1D .
The efficiency means the next: to lift one ton of material to LEO needs 19 tons of fuel for RD-181, and 26 tons for Merlin 1D.
Means the weight difference is compensated by the less fuel mass.

The difference become bigger for GEO.


Like comparing a hyundai truck to a volvo : )

And actually the cost of the falcon is the same as the cost of the Angara, each of them cost one advanced fighter jet.


And you trolling again, try to conduct emotions .

It is typical for psychopaths, they are too scared to show themself in the front of the real world, they play games in they mind or over the internet.

But you know, we will catch you finally. Not over the internet,and not anyone from this forums , but all normal person around you will found out who you are.

In a war you would be the first to get fragged.

Rmf wrote:..............
and roscosmos is 100% government subsidized so what?.........

Because Russian (and any other government for that matter) has different set of goals for it's space agency than commercial launches

Stop conflating public and private sector because you sound like a commie

Rmf wrote:.........
commercial space is very inmportent.....

.....for private enterprises. Any money made by comercial launches carried out by Roskosmos DOES NOT go back to Roskosmos, it goes to federal budget.

From there they get (predictably small) amount of money allocated for next period. Majority of it goes elsewhere as usual.

Scientific and manned space programs everywhere depend on government charity. Always have, always will.



As for (state) space programs being in chaos, they are in good company. Just look up NASA SLS situation (or affectionately called Senate Launch System by folks in the states). I would say to check out Chinese or Indian but good luck getting accurate data on those.

Commercial space launch segment is a jungle but if you want to discuss that then open a separate tread for it.

Singular_Transform wrote:

Rmf wrote:
first read carefully i said no engine commonality with angara so 1st stage engines are different and its a problem in many ways.
yes 8 nozzles is not good for second stage and structural mass is not only engines but many other things so sunkar second stage is highly inferior , and usually you have 1-2 engine nozzles in second stage. combustion instability is long resolved and in smaller thrust engines is non issue - again fail.
yes overstated but less then 5% so not very much.
falcon engines are 15.000$ per tonn of thrust and high thrust/ weight ratios , while sunkar engines will be in 25.000 range and angara rd-191 in 35.000. so again fail.
musk is going for simple cheap reliable option, you know something russians like to brag about.

The falcon engines are inferior compared to the RD-181.

The RD-181 has higher weight because it has higher efficiency,and that translate higher payload compared to the merlin 1D .
The efficiency means the next: to lift one ton of material to LEO needs 19 tons of fuel for RD-181, and 26 tons for Merlin 1D.
Means the weight difference is compensated by the less fuel mass.

The difference become bigger for GEO.


Like comparing a hyundai truck to a volvo : )

And actually the cost of the falcon is the same as the cost of the Angara, each of them cost one advanced fighter jet.


And you trolling again, try to conduct emotions .

It is typical for psychopaths, they are too scared to show themself in the front of the real world, they play games in they mind or over the internet.

But you know, we will catch you finally. Not over the internet,and not anyone from this forums , but all normal person around you will found out who you are.

In a war you would be the first to get fragged.

first of all its expendable launcher anyway- you want low cost of engines- which you skipped like little brat, and you dont want high pressures if you want to reuse it anyway-less damage - logic is not your strong side.
i smell total bullshit , falcon is much cheaper then angara a5. plz state the prices here .
psycho is your mother and you cant be helped, trying to frame others with insults and blatant lies only shows your own frustration and child abuse.

Rmf wrote:
first of all its expendable launcher anyway- you want low cost of engines- which you skipped like little brat, and you dont want high pressures if you want to reuse it anyway-less damage - logic is not your strong side.
i smell total bullshit , falcon is much cheaper then angara a5. plz state the prices here .
psycho is your mother and you cant be helped, trying to frame others with insults and blatant lies only shows your own frustration and child abuse.

Higher pressure means higher exhaust velocity, means smaller rocket.
And the equatation is exponential, so small change in exhaust speed change the dimensions of the rocket dramaticaly.

So, the Falcon save money on the engine, and lose it on the rocket .




It was a description of your behaviour.

2-5% of the population is psychopaths, I think it was higher thousands of years ago, but the humankind killed them one by one.

The main purpose of the death penalty was that to get rid of the psychopaths.

Rmf wrote:and roscosmos is 100% government subsidized so what???
commercial space is very inmportent you deny competitors of money
you can have larger production driving costs down, more workers ,better salaries etc. only in your imaginary worlds its not important , eventually even russian companies will go too space x , but im sure you all will say its fine, ....
russian space is in chaos , you can pretend, but downhill slope is showing.

As expected, more fktardishness.... some people simply are incapable of learning...

Roskosmos? We are talking about Khrunichev. Its not "100% government subsidized" but is a publically-owned enterprise that essentially delivers domestic products at cost to the public purse. Commercial activities thru ILS are secondary, and while they are certainly helpful, they are not essential to the enterprises continuance. What do you not understand about that?

Deny your competitors of money?? Why is that even considered a goal? Which competitors are we speaking of, and for what products/services? Given that Russian aerospace function primarily to deliver domestic needs, the commercial battles between SpaceX and ULA mean nothing to Russia, as neither of them have any chance of taking launch contracts away from Russian satellite operators. SpaceX, ULA and Arianespace are not competitors of Russian manfacturers as the former have dominant market position, and Russia will find itself blocked by political action if it were ever to challenge the Western launchers in any real way (as the Chinese were in the 90s). Western payloads launched by Western rockets are not a threat to Russia. In contrast, any contracts that Russia wins from Western customers is icing on the cake. Western builders go under if they don't launch commercially while Russian builders can exist solely on government and domestic public-private contracts.

Larger production driving costs down? That is subject to a law of diminishing returns as there are practical limits on how far one can push down costs. More workers? You think Western corporations go on a hiring spree when they land a few contracts? Nope, they pocket the cash and enrich their owners. Russian public companies are expected to seek out commercial opportunies where they can, and then use the funds to support their development activities, ie self funding. That way, the public purse is spared, and the profits from commercial launches goes into something useful rather than being skimmed by greedy investors. Don't bother with any blabber about "stolen money" or "corruption" as its not the 90s anymore, and industry corruption these days is mostly grass-roots level or dodgy private construction contractors like hit the news at Vostochny.

eventually even russian companies will go too space x??? You must be joking Why would Russian operators want to spend more by using Muskian launchers??? In any case, the Feds will pull the needed strings to ensure local industry is supported. Again, its not all about dollars in absolute terms.....

Russian space in chaos? There have been problems since 1991, and there will always be problems of some sort. The engine fiasco is an acute embarrasment, but its only a blip in the road, and will serve as a wakeup call to tighten QA/QC regulatory regimes. Nauka is a fuck-up, but even money-bags NASA screws up sometimes, like Challenger/Columbia, HST mirror fault, Galileo HGA failure to deploy etc.

Rmf wrote:
first of all its expendable launcher anyway- you want low cost of engines- which you skipped like little brat,  and you dont want high pressures if you want to reuse it anyway-less damage -  logic is not your strong side.
i smell total bullshit , falcon is much cheaper then angara a5. plz state the prices here .
psycho is your mother and you cant be helped,  trying to frame others with insults and blatant lies only shows your own frustration and child abuse.

falcon is much cheaper then angara a5. plz state the prices here . Given that the only A5s flown so far have been developmental prototypes hand-assembled at Khrunichev Moscow (rather than the serial manufacturing plant at Omsk) there is no useful pricing data yet on Angara, but authorities are on record as saying that they expect A5 will be cheaper than Proton. Once the assembly line gets up to speed, per unit pricing will become more apparent.

In the meantime, its clear that Proton is CHEAPER than SpaceX. Lets use as an example a Proton-M/DM-03 3xGlonass-M as an example. Prices from contracts 2012:

Proton-M 1,436,500,000 rubles
Fairing 140,808,600 rubles
DM-03 425,584,000 rubles
Delivery 27,122,100 rubles [source]

Total: 2,030,014,100 rubles or ~ 62,500,00 USD @ 0.0308 ruble/USD (typical of June 2012)

Lets see Musk put up 3x Glonass-M class payloads for less than $62M.....

I won't respond to your infantile taunts, as I understand that foetal alcohol syndrome is a common illness in socio-economically deprived neighbourhoods and has a devastating impact on the intellectual development of those so afflicted, so my daily act of charity will be to extend you my sympathies, and best wishes for the future.

Russia to hold launches of new medium-class carrier rocket from sea platform

Russia plans to hold launches of its new Soyuz-5 medium-class carrier rocket from the Sea Launch platform, Russia’s state space corporation Roscosmos Head Igor Komarov said on Thursday.
"This project [Soyuz-5] will be used by our private partners and we are going to use it in the Sea Launch. The partnership with S7, which we signed last year, will develop," the Roscosmos chief said.
According to Komarov, Roscosmos intends to use this project both for state and private needs.
"We see serious prospects for increasing the number of private partners to make this project really interesting," the Roscosmos chief said.

http://tass.com/science/948873

Rogozin: manned launches from the East will be carried out on super-heavy rocket

http://tass.ru/pmef-2017/articles/4300206

So like I said:

....Russia has no plans to abandon manned launches from the East. "This is wrong information,"....

We can start officially calling it Soyuz-5 from now on. Fenix is just project name and Sunkar is Kazakh name:

Carrier rocket "Soyuz-5" will be launched in 2022

http://tass.ru/pmef-2017/articles/4299507




These are from Vostochniy:

The first satellite company OneWeb will be launched on the "Soyuz" in 2018

http://tass.ru/pmef-2017/articles/4299482




Russia presented proposals for the development of Brazil spaceport Alcantara

http://tass.ru/kosmos/4302547

Big_Gazza wrote:

Rmf wrote:
first of all its expendable launcher anyway- you want low cost of engines- which you skipped like little brat,  and you dont want high pressures if you want to reuse it anyway-less damage -  logic is not your strong side.
i smell total bullshit , falcon is much cheaper then angara a5. plz state the prices here .
psycho is your mother and you cant be helped,  trying to frame others with insults and blatant lies only shows your own frustration and child abuse.

falcon is much cheaper then angara a5. plz state the prices here . Given that the only A5s flown so far have been developmental prototypes hand-assembled at Khrunichev Moscow (rather than the serial manufacturing plant at Omsk) there is no useful pricing data yet on Angara, but authorities are on record as saying that they expect A5 will be cheaper than Proton.  Once the assembly line gets up to speed, per unit pricing will become more apparent.

In the meantime, its clear that Proton is CHEAPER than SpaceX.  Lets use as an example a Proton-M/DM-03 3xGlonass-M as an example.  Prices from contracts 2012:

Proton-M      1,436,500,000 rubles
Fairing    140,808,600 rubles
DM-03    425,584,000 rubles
Delivery          27,122,100 rubles    [source]

Total:   2,030,014,100 rubles or ~ 62,500,00 USD  @ 0.0308 ruble/USD (typical of June 2012)

Lets see Musk put up 3x Glonass-M class payloads for less than $62M.....

I won't respond to your infantile taunts, as I understand that foetal alcohol syndrome is a common illness in socio-economically deprived neighbourhoods and has a devastating impact on the intellectual development of those so afflicted, so my daily act of charity will be to extend you my sympathies, and best wishes for the future.

i sincerely doubt angara will ever be cheaper then proton- money/ per usefull payload.

lol thats what i said proton is very competitive , zenit not so much, and you turned me into some kind of stubborn proton defender.

i guess will have to wait for falcon to get gps satelite contract to compare. but getting 1 or 3 satelites in same orbit is not much difference logistically ,satelites move on their own power.

Rmf wrote:lol thats what i said proton is very competitive , zenit not so much, and you turned me into some kind of stubborn proton defender.

Yes, I agree with you, and I've never accused you of being a Proton defender.  I'm a "Proton Defender" and I've never seen you at the weekly meetings...  

Jokes aside, I support the Proton in the short to medium term, regardless of their awful reliability over the past decade (~10% failure rate).  Other posters see the Proton as an outdated piece of junk, but its problems are not design or technology level, but is almost solely due to problems within Khrunichev enterprise.  All mission losses are due to either QA/QC problems (which are avoidable) or human error (again avoidable), and a fair number are Briz-M related rather than the Proton itself.  Consider the following list of failed missions since 2000.

 MexSat-1 (16-6-2015) - Cause was QA/QC fail. 3rd stage vernier engine failure due to use of down-graded material.

 Express AM4R (15-5-2014) - Cause was QA/QC fail. Same details as the subsequent failure of MexSat-1.

 Glonass x3 (02-07-2013) - Cause was QA/QC fail and human error. Yaw sensors installed upside down.

 Yamal-402 partial-failure (08-12-2012) - Cause was QA/QC fail and/or Briz-M design issue. Early shutdown of Briz-M 4th burn on turbopump bearing failure, caused by high temperature in fuel line resulting in fluid cavitation and bearing vibration.  Poor positioning of fuel line and thermal insulation is suspected.

 Telkom-3/Express MD2 (06-06-2012) - Cause was QA/QC fail or Briz-M design issue.  Piping rupture in Briz-M upper stage on 4th burn. (similar to AMC-14?)

 Express AM4 (17-08-2011) - Cause was human error. Incorrect parameter entered into Briz-M flight program.

 Glonass x3 (05-12-2010) - Cause was human error. Excessive fuel loaded to upper stage.

 AMC-14 (14 March 2008) - Cause was QA/QC and/or Briz-M design issue.  Piping rupture in Briz-M upper stage on 2nd burn. Pipe design changes introduced.

 JCSAT-11 (5 September 2007) - Cause was QA/QC fail. Damaged pyro-bolt firing cable prevented 2nd stage seperation.

 Arabsat-4A (28-02-2006) - Cause was premature shutdown of Briz-M, most likely caused by contaminated propellent feed.

 Astra 1K (25-11-2002) - Cause was premature shutdown of Blok-DM3 upper stage.

(I haven't detailed Express-AM6 as this wasn't a failure as such, but a less than perfect placement of payload which subsequently positioned itself correctly post-release)

QA/QC and human errors dominate the list, and this supports the view that Protons problems are associated with admin failings within the Khrunichev enterprise.  These issues are correctable, and Khrunichev need to demonstrate that they are capable of getting their @#$%ing house in order.  They also need to ensure that these problems are compartmentalised within the Moscow facilities and cannot cross-contaminate the new Omsk line for Angara.

So yes, Russia should replace the Proton with Angara once the new launcher is available, but its not fair to malign the old venerable workhorse.  Khrunichev management however is a different story - if I was in charge over there I would have re-instated a gulag or two and filled them with under-performing management, not just Khrunichev but across the board and in all industries and government...  

More than 70% of the program for the development of Russian cosmodromes will be spent on the construction of the Vostochniy

http://tass.ru/pmef-2017/articles/4304974




Roskosmos intends to build a complex for a super-heavy rocket in the Vostochniy until 2030

http://tass.ru/pmef-2017/articles/4309253




The launch complex for the Angara will be completed in the Vostochniy by 2021

The competition for choosing a general contractor will be held this autumn

http://tass.ru/pmef-2017/articles/4304971





Too soon, this means Proton launch. Just hope it doesn't go the way of Phobos-Grunt (I will never forgive them for that one)

The launch of the Russian module "Nauka" is postponed for 2018

http://tass.ru/pmef-2017/articles/4304993

"Yuzhmash" will resume production of Zenit-3SL carrier rockets for Russia

As reported on June 2, 2017, the Department of Marketing Communications of the State Enterprise "Production Association Southern Machine Building Plant named after A.M. Makarova "(" Yuzhmash ", Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine), on April 28 of this year, a contract was signed between YuzhMASh and S7 Sea Launch Limited on the production and supply of Zenit rockets. In general, the contract provides for the production of 12 launch vehicles for use in the Sea Launch and Ground Launch programs for the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes within the framework of international space projects. Now in production there are two missiles of modifications of Zenit-3SL and Zenit-3SLB.

Signing of this contract made a big step in overcoming the deep crisis in which YUZHMASH stayed since 2013 and which resulted from a massive decline in production volumes.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2643864.html

PapaDragon wrote:
Too soon, this means Proton launch. Just hope it doesn't go the way of Phobos-Grunt (I will never forgive them for that one)

I hear you... Phobos-Grunt and its ignominious end was a real gut-punch, and a great opportunity for the usual transatlantic gloating and arrogant "we-told-ya-so" bullshit. In many ways it was worse than the Mars-96 fiasco, and that was my personal low-point in planetary exploration...

I only hope that the Russian gov has learned its lesson and understands that these sorts of techincally challenging missions require long-term committment and adequate funding. If they can't manage that, they should stick to basic engineering flights with descoped basic science until funding situation improves (the Indian Mangalyaan Mars probe is a gtreat example of what can be done on a comparitively small budget). They may not be as glamourous as a world-first sample recovery from a martian moon, but they are likely to suceed, instead of being a fucking national embarassment and source of Yankistani/Eurotrash mirth...

George1 wrote:

"Yuzhmash" will resume production of Zenit-3SL carrier rockets for Russia

As reported on June 2, 2017, the Department of Marketing Communications of the State Enterprise "Production Association Southern Machine Building Plant named after A.M. Makarova "(" Yuzhmash ", Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine), on April 28 of this year, a contract was signed between YuzhMASh and S7 Sea Launch Limited on the production and supply of Zenit rockets. In general, the contract provides for the production of 12 launch vehicles for use in the Sea Launch and Ground Launch programs for the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes within the framework of international space projects. Now in production there are two missiles of modifications of Zenit-3SL and Zenit-3SLB.

Signing of this contract made a big step in overcoming the deep crisis in which YUZHMASH stayed since 2013 and which resulted from a massive decline in production volumes.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2643864.html

WTF???  

Why spend a single ruble to support these Banderite cunts?  Let Yusnoye/Yuzmash (and Antonov) wither and die...  Its not the like the Uh'murikkkanz or Eurotrash will spend any money to buy the products of outdated Ukropi aerospace, and the sooner the Kiev nazis loose the ability to launch rockets the better for all concerned.

Big_Gazza wrote:.......

WTF???  

Why spend a single ruble to support these Banderite cunts?  Let Yusnoye/Yuzmash (and Antonov) wither and die...  Its not the like the Uh'murikkkanz or Eurotrash will spend any money to buy the products of outdated Ukropi aerospace, and the sooner the Kiev nazis loose the ability to launch rockets the better for all concerned.

Don't know ins and outs here but they might want to use these for SeaLaunch until Soyuz-5 is ready (still several years away)

Also, soft power. Message to ukrops: "only one who will buy this is us and won't be doing it forever, especially if you keep those clowns in power"

A!so, that Canadian spaceport project hinged on Zenits. Now no more Zenits available.

Or I might be wrong. But I am fairly certain that it's a SeaLaunch stopgap.

kvs wrote:....

Yuzhmash cannot be trusted to make rockets that won't crash at excessive rates.   The recent Antares rocket failure was due to failure
of Yuzhmash parts and not Enerogmash rocket motors.   Of course, the racist, hater US media only focused on Enerogmash.    No stop
gap can be justified when it comes to compromised Banderastani product.    (Even if Yuzhmash is "honest", the Kiev regime routinely
lets foaming at the mouth dogs, such as those that blew up the power pylons to Crimea and block railway traffic from the Donbass,
do as they please: this implies that Yuzhmash products can be readily sabotaged before reaching Russia's hands).  

I think that S7 company that is new shareholder in SeaLaunch comes into play here. They want to get things rolling now and start doing business. Like I said, Soyuz-5 is still several years away.

Zenits are probably purchased by them.

As long as they inspect them thoroughly upon delivery then no big deal.

I was never big fan of this SeaLaunch thing. Makes sense on paper but with so many participants it is completely futile. Just look at track record of constant accusations and bullshitting among participants. You have too many cooks in the kitchen who despise each other, who do not want to be in that kitchen and who do not want to cook anything together.

Why does that thing even exist I will never understand.

Just like ISS. Lots of forced "cooperation", fake smiles, barely hidden resentment, low key slander, hypocrisy and no useful work done whatsoever especially given the cost of the whole boondoggle.





I really think that we should have separate tread for commercial space projects where we can post stuff about SpaceX, SeaLaunch, Blue Origin and all other commercial space stuff. It's getting bit crowded and hard to keep on topic here

so, angara is not flying, vostochny left without manned rocket , and now giving money to ukranians .
roscosmos is looking desperate .
rip russia space program.

The sky is falling and you are gloating...

What an ass you are.

Except the sky is not falling.

Angara will fly, just not to the current schedule.

Ohh no... vostochny has no man rated rocket right now... big fucking deal. If it was needed they could spend money and make it happen soon enough...

And they are GIVING money to no one... they are buying a product.

Just because the Ukraine is currently run by Aholes does not mean Russia should build a wall and forget them.

They might wake up and realise their enemies are in Washington and London and Brussels, but they are not going to bother if Russia turns its back on them completely and plays into western hands.

How old are you... 12?

They are getting that Ukrainian shit because it's probably dirt cheap by now and they don't want that SeaLaunch platform doohickey to collect dust for next three years until Soyuz-5 rolls in.

For someone obsessed with commercial launch segment he is pretty incapable of noticing one.

GarryB wrote:Ohh no... vostochny has no man rated rocket right now... big fucking deal. If it was needed they could spend money and make it happen soon enough...

Thats the hilarious part. Other than lunar or deep-space missions (which need a SHLV), what is the driver to develop Federation in the short term? Soyuz/Progress is adequate for current needs, so stick with it until Federation/A5P/Soyuz-5 is ready. No need to splurge cash on fake deadlines just to satisfy a space-groupies need for fufillment.

The reality is that manned space isn't important from a strategic viewpoint. Unmanned space is where the action is for both science and national security. The ISS is little more than a geo-political stunt, consuming a lot of money and effort, but doing very little other than keeping Cosmonauts/Astronauts/Eurofagonauts living and breathing and shitting in space while going around and around the world for months at a time. I'm all for a next generation manned transport system, but its hardly urgent.

PapaDragon wrote:
They are getting that Ukrainian shit because it's probably dirt cheap by now and they don't want that SeaLaunch platform doohickey to collect dust for next three years until Soyuz-5 rolls in.

For someone obsessed with commercial launch segment he is pretty incapable of noticing one.

that could be interesting ,that s7 group is private like https://youtu.be/t2hXCo4j1ws
filev trying to be elon musk , 12 rockets- sea launch and land launch .
but will energomash supply engines
soyuz -5, another waste of resources, but who cares let them all have their pet project.
in the end they finish with 10 different but simmilar rockets
and they want low cost soyuz , which is funny because you mention cost is not important , youre geting too emotional with your russophilia , cant be objective....

Interview : Head of the Center Khrunichev: no contract for the launch of "Proton-M" is avoided


http://tass.ru/opinions/interviews/4317518