Russian Space Program: News & Discussion #2

Speaking of moon:

NASA and Russia Partner Up for Crewed Deep-Space Missions

https://www.space.com/38287-nasa-russia-deep-space-gateway-partnership.html


NASA, Roscosmos Sign Joint Statement on Researching, Exploring Deep Space

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-roscosmos-sign-joint-statement-on-researching-exploring-deep-space


This is even better news than it sounds. With the the whole thing becoming joint project it will mean that defunding or canceling this or any related project will become not only harder but also will bring the risk of losing prestige and image.

And politicians don't like to lose image.

This will make projects like Soyuz-5, Fenix, Federation, SLS, Orion and others much harder to cancel.

Russia to participate in project for creating Deep Space Gateway cislunar station

News of the plans for creating a lunar station emerged in the spring of 2016

ADELAIDE /Australia/, September 27. /TASS/. The heads of the Russian and US space agencies have agreed on joint efforts to create what has been called a Deep Space Gateway (DSG) cislunar station, Roscosmos CEO Igor Komarov told the media at an International Astronautical Congress in Australia.

"We’ve agreed to jointly participate in the project for creating a new international lunar station Deep Space Gateway. In the first phase we will create the orbital component with a view to eventually use well-tested technologies on the surface of the Moon and, in the longer term, Mars. The first modules may be put in space in 2024-2026," Komarov said.

So far the participating countries have held a preliminary discussion on their likely contributions.

"We may provide one to three modules and the standards for a unified docking mechanism for all spacecraft that would be approaching the station. Also, Russia offers to use its future super-heavy space rocket, currently in the development phase, for taking parts and components to the Moon’s orbit," Komarov said. Roscosmos’s manned programs director, Sergey Krikalyov, said that alongside the airlock unit Russia might provide a residential module for a future station.

Komarov said individual countries’ technological contribution and the financial aspect of a future project would be the subject matter of the next phase of the talks.

"For now we’ve signed a joint statement on the intention to work on a lunar space station project and to eventually work on missions on the surfaces of the Moon and Mars. A future treaty will require fundamental research and examination at the inter-state level," Komarov said.

Participation of the BRICS member-states in this project was approved.

"Our initiative was taken into account of expanding the number of countries that might take part in discussing this project. It was decided that China, India and other BRICS countries would be involved in the joint work on the lunar station," Komarov said.

Last June Komarov told the media that Russia was going to become the main partner in creating a lunar station alongside NASA and the European Space Agency.

Energia Corporation CEO Vladimir Solntsev told the media that the corporation was prepared to provide an airlock chamber for spacewalks, a descent module capable of landing on the Moon's surface and a spacecraft to take crews to the Moon (a special configuration of the Federatsiya vehicle).

Solntsev then told TASS Energia and the United States’ Boeing Defense, Space & Security hoped to ink a detailed agreement soon on cooperation in exploring deep space.
Deep Space Gateway project

News of the plans for creating a lunar station emerged in the spring of 2016. TASS then quoted documents of the Russian space rocket corporation Energia as saying that joint research with the United States’ Boeing corporation was in progress into future lunar infrastructures to support the national space agencies’ long-term plans.

Two options of a lunar station were proposed - one having two smaller inhabitable modules and the other with one bigger module. Both concepts imply that up to four cosmonauts would be able to work on board the station at any time. Future missions’ duration was estimated at 30 days to 360 days. Flights to the station would be made once a year.

Two options of a future station’s position are considered: one in a high elliptical orbit and the other in a low orbit about 100 kilometers above the Moon’s surface. One will allow for sending probes into deep space and the other, for expeditions to the Moon’s surface.

Earlier, Energia corporation suggested a lunar orbital platform might begin to be created at the end of 2022 and the first crew sent to it in the first half of 2025.

According to NASA plans that appeared in open sources earlier, the first module called Power and Propulsion Bus would be put in orbit around the Moon in 2023. Another two inhabitable modules would be added to it in 2024-2025. All modules would be taken to space by the US super-heavy rocket SLS. Crews would travel to the lunar station on board the Orion spacecraft. There are plans for creating a special cargo vehicle to deliver essentials and other supplies.


More:
http://tass.com/science/967781

....... a station in the Moon's orbit...... are we ever gonna colonize the Moon?
At least a Space-Port FFS.

Just another ISS.

AlfaT8 wrote: ....... a station in the Moon's orbit...... are we ever gonna colonize the Moon?
At least a Space-Port FFS.

Just another ISS.

Easy there dude, this is definitely not just another ISS.

With outpost in moon's orbit it will be much easier and safer to construct lunar surface stations. That is in fact one of follow up steps of this project. Even Zak is reporting about it:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/lunar_base.html#2017

NASA and Roskosmos are playing this smart. They not only halved budget requirements for this mission but also gotten politicians in a situation where they will not be able to pull the funding without huge PR fallout.

ISS would have been defunded long ago but PR aspect is still keeping it running.

I see, so a good 30% improvement in thrust, perhaps with further development it could be increase to 50%, that does seem revolutionary.

A 5% improvement in thrust is the result in the investment of research of time money materials etc etc... 30% improvement is revolutionary...

Regarding closed cycle engines:

Liquid-fueled rockets function by mixing a hydrocarbon — typically kerosene — with oxygen that then ignites in a combustion chamber. By raising the pressure in the combustion chamber, it is possible to generate even more thrust from that violent reaction. To do so, a pre-burner is used to pump the fuel at higher speeds. The Soviet innovation was to “close” this cycle and funnel the exhausts from the pre-burner into the combustion chamber. Previously, those exhausts had been vented to the engine’s side, wasting energy and possible power.

The NK-33’s design did something that American engineers thought had been impossible. Closing the cycle created a precarious balance within the rocket engine that operated at the edge of physics, producing previously unheard of efficiency and power.

GarryB wrote:

I see, so a good 30% improvement in thrust, perhaps with further development it could be increase to 50%, that does seem revolutionary.

A 5% improvement in thrust is the result in the investment of research of time money materials etc etc... 30% improvement is revolutionary...

Regarding closed cycle engines:

Liquid-fueled rockets function by mixing a hydrocarbon — typically kerosene — with oxygen that then ignites in a combustion chamber. By raising the pressure in the combustion chamber, it is possible to generate even more thrust from that violent reaction. To do so, a pre-burner is used to pump the fuel at higher speeds. The Soviet innovation was to “close” this cycle and funnel the exhausts from the pre-burner into the combustion chamber. Previously, those exhausts had been vented to the engine’s side, wasting energy and possible power.

The NK-33’s design did something that American engineers thought had been impossible. Closing the cycle created a precarious balance within the rocket engine that operated at the edge of physics, producing previously unheard of efficiency and power.

Americans did not believe such designs were possible as late as the early 1990s and demanded proof from Russians.
The N1 failure symbolizes the schizophrenic Soviet system. Brilliant achievements sabotaged by bureaucratic twats.
The N1 failed in components that required nowhere near the sophistication of the NK-33, i.e. in the tanks and
piping nightmare that had fatal resonance modes. If Korolev did not die, the Soviet Moon landing would have happened.

ILS‏ @ILSLaunch

Mission success with #AsiaSat9! Press release: http://www.ilslaunch.com/newsroom/news-releases/ils-proton-successfully-launches-asiasat-9-satellite-asiasat … @sslmda #AsiaSat #satellite #aerospace #rocketlaunch #ILS

https://twitter.com/ILSLaunch/status/913624309691813888

PapaDragon wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote: ....... a station in the Moon's orbit...... are we ever gonna colonize the Moon?
At least a Space-Port FFS.

Just another ISS.

Easy there dude, this is definitely not just another ISS.

With outpost in moon's orbit it will be much easier and safer to construct lunar surface stations. That is in fact one of follow up steps of this project. Even Zak is reporting about it:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/lunar_base.html#2017

NASA and Roskosmos are playing this smart. They not only halved budget requirements for this mission but also gotten politicians in a situation where they will not be able to pull the funding without huge PR fallout.

ISS would have been defunded long ago but PR aspect is still keeping it running.

Ok, looks sorta decent.
Now 3 things:
1: How does SpaceX's Martian mission look
2: How does there Raptor engine compare to what Russia currently has and will soon have.
3: This is my own thing,
Could the high energy particle radiation form space be used as a propulsion option if enough of it was manipulated be a magnetic-field in a sorta cone like shape?

I have seen sort of ramjet designs where an enormous magnetic field is projected in front of a space craft... scooping up free atoms in space (space is not actually totally empty... there is just no air pressure there) and capturing them. Such material could be injected into a circular particle accelerator and accelerated up to enormous speeds and then ejected out the rear of the craft to produce continuous thrust.

Obvious issues with capturing slow moving material in space in a very high speed space craft...

AlfaT8 wrote:
Ok, looks sorta decent.
Now 3 things:
1: How does SpaceX's Martian mission look
2: How does there Raptor engine compare to what Russia currently has and will soon have.
3: This is my own thing,
Could the high energy particle radiation form space be used as a propulsion option if enough of it was manipulated be a magnetic-field in a sorta cone like shape?

Just my thoughts:

1. Too optimistic, specially the "living in Mars" part. There are lots of unknown things to solve.
2. Produces less than half thrust of RD-170. But more efficient I assume because its newer than RD-170.
3. I have no idea what is that. I'll be just happy to see Russian nuclear powered space freighters or tugs. Maybe by using the Helium-3 from Moon!

T-47 wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:
Ok, looks sorta decent.
Now 3 things:
1: How does SpaceX's Martian mission look
2: How does there Raptor engine compare to what Russia currently has and will soon have.
3: This is my own thing,
Could the high energy particle radiation form space be used as a propulsion option if enough of it was manipulated be a magnetic-field in a sorta cone like shape?

Just my thoughts:

1. Too optimistic, specially the "living in Mars" part. There are lots of unknown things to solve.
2. Produces less than half thrust of RD-170. But more efficient I assume because its newer than RD-170.

The efficiency is purely a function of the design. We are not talking about tweaking internal combustion engines
with direct cylinder injection and piston and valve timing changes. All the efficiency progress was done back in the 1960s and 1970s
with design innovation. The raptor engine must be based on a new design concept that is distinct from the RD-170 and
the US open cycle engine for it to be more efficient.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_(rocket_engine_family)

They are claiming a specific impulse of 361 seconds for space and 334 seconds for sea level even though there is no
actual deployment. I will take Musk's showman bleating with a ton of salt. The Raptor engine is supposedly a
staged combustion engine (a first for Musk). Russia is by far the leader in staged combustion engine design so I
do not find these numbers credible:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine_family)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-170
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-191

The Merlin-1C has a sea level specific impulse of 275 seconds while the RD-170 (1985 vintage) has 307 seconds.
For vacuum the specific impulse numbers are 305 seconds vs. 337 seconds. The Merlin-1D takes the vacuum specific impulse
to 310 seconds. So in the real world Space-X does not have engines more efficient than Russia/Soviet designs. But
is hyping its "yet to be developed" Raptor engine as superior. Show me the money.

T-47 wrote:Just my thoughts:

1. Too optimistic, specially the "living in Mars" part. There are lots of unknown things to solve.
2. Produces less than half thrust of RD-170. But more efficient I assume because its newer than RD-170.
3. I have no idea what is that. I'll be just happy to see Russian nuclear powered space freighters or tugs. Maybe by using the Helium-3 from Moon!

I am simply wondering whether the high energy radiation that can be manipulated by a cone shaped magnetic-field can be used as a propulsion option.

GarryB wrote:I have seen sort of ramjet designs where an enormous magnetic field is projected in front of a space craft... scooping up free atoms in space (space is not actually totally empty... there is just no air pressure there) and capturing them. Such material could be injected into a circular particle accelerator and accelerated up to enormous speeds and then ejected out the rear of the craft to produce continuous thrust.

Obvious issues with capturing slow moving material in space in a very high speed space craft...

Its a "Bussard Ram". A high powered laser is used to ionize the neutral interstellar gasses (hydrogen) which are then swept up and fed into a fusion reactor which drives some form of advanced reaction drive such as ion or photon drive. Its unlikely to be even remotely feasible as the laser power required to ionize the gasses is probably greater than the energy generated by the reactor. Additionally, the magnetic scoop needs to be absolutely HUGE... some calculations call for an effective scoop area equal in size to JUPITER.... Also how do you slow incoming ionized gas moving at relativistic speeds relative to the spacecraft? The amount of power required to generate such a field would be astounding, and how could we build magnetic coils large enough to generate such a huge field. Final issue - the concept is OK for accelerating a spacecraft, but isn't reversible... you can't use it to decelerate.

Its a nice Sci-Fi concept, but not practical.

kvs wrote:

T-47 wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:
Ok, looks sorta decent.
Now 3 things:
1: How does SpaceX's Martian mission look
2: How does there Raptor engine compare to what Russia currently has and will soon have.
3: This is my own thing,
Could the high energy particle radiation form space be used as a propulsion option if enough of it was manipulated be a magnetic-field in a sorta cone like shape?

Just my thoughts:

1. Too optimistic, specially the "living in Mars" part. There are lots of unknown things to solve.
2. Produces less than half thrust of RD-170. But more efficient I assume because its newer than RD-170.

The efficiency is purely a function of the design.   We are not talking about tweaking internal combustion engines
with direct cylinder injection and piston and valve timing changes.    All the efficiency progress was done back in the 1960s and 1970s
with design innovation.   The raptor engine must be based on a new design concept that is distinct from the RD-170 and
the US open cycle engine for it to be more efficient.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_(rocket_engine_family)

They are claiming a specific impulse of 361 seconds for space and 334 seconds for sea level even though there is no
actual deployment.   I will take Musk's showman bleating with a ton of salt.    The Raptor engine is supposedly a
staged combustion engine (a first for Musk).   Russia is by far the leader in staged combustion engine design so I
do not find these numbers credible:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine_family)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-170
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-191

The Merlin-1C has a sea level specific impulse of 275 seconds while the RD-170 (1985 vintage) has 307 seconds.
For vacuum the specific impulse numbers are 305 seconds vs. 337 seconds.    The Merlin-1D takes the vacuum specific impulse
to 310 seconds.    So in the real world Space-X does not have engines more efficient than Russia/Soviet designs.   But
is hyping its "yet to be developed" Raptor engine as superior.   Show me the money.

The advantage of methane LCH4 engines is that, unlike kerosene, methane doesn't result in coking, ie doesn't leave carbon deposits in the engine combustion chamber or within the turbopump.  This is advantageous if the aim is to enhance reuseability.  Also, methane results in a higher ISP, just as LH2 does. It also has a higher density than LH2, typically 300-450 kg/m3 (depending on temperature) compared to 70 kg/m3, so doesn't require the oversized tankage that LH2 requires, but is still much more voluminous than kerosene @ ~800 kg/m3.

I'd be more inclined to believe Muskian claims if the Merlins were closed cycle, but as they use basic gas generator cycle, I'm skeptical to say the least.

(edited to correct errors in LCH4 density... its late and I'm more than a little tipsy...)

AlfaT8 wrote:Could the high energy particle radiation form space be used as a propulsion option if enough of it was manipulated be a magnetic-field in a sorta cone like shape?

Most high energy particles are neutral (ie no electric charge) and therefore cannot be collected or funneled by magnetic fields, and being sub-atomic particles, unlike interstellar H2 they cannot be used as fuel for fusion-based systems. The biggest issue is that particles incoming evenly from all directions has zero net momentum (velocity is a vector and opposite directions of travel will cancel each other). If the particles have an aggregate zero momentum, you cannot generate a resulting positive reaction force from them, even if it was somehow possible to deflect them into a common direction.

Finally, practically speaking, particle flux is very low and even if the energy could be somehow collected, useful power would be minuscule and insufficient to drive a spacecraft.

Big_Gazza wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:Could the high energy particle radiation form space be used as a propulsion option if enough of it was manipulated be a magnetic-field in a sorta cone like shape?

Most high energy particles are neutral (ie no electric charge) and therefore cannot be collected or funneled by magnetic fields, and being sub-atomic particles, unlike interstellar H2 they cannot be used as fuel for fusion-based systems.  The biggest issue is that particles incoming evenly from all directions has zero net momentum (velocity is a vector and opposite directions of travel will cancel each other).  If the particles have an aggregate zero momentum, you cannot generate a resulting positive reaction force from them, even if it was somehow possible to deflect them into a common direction.

Finally, practically speaking, particle flux is very low and even if the energy could be somehow collected, useful power would be minuscule and insufficient to drive a spacecraft.  

I see, a pity, thx for the reply
I guess we'll have to keep waiting for the Alcubierre Warp Drive.

Big_Gazza wrote:

kvs wrote:

T-47 wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:
Ok, looks sorta decent.
Now 3 things:
1: How does SpaceX's Martian mission look
2: How does there Raptor engine compare to what Russia currently has and will soon have.
3: This is my own thing,
Could the high energy particle radiation form space be used as a propulsion option if enough of it was manipulated be a magnetic-field in a sorta cone like shape?

Just my thoughts:

1. Too optimistic, specially the "living in Mars" part. There are lots of unknown things to solve.
2. Produces less than half thrust of RD-170. But more efficient I assume because its newer than RD-170.

The efficiency is purely a function of the design.   We are not talking about tweaking internal combustion engines
with direct cylinder injection and piston and valve timing changes.    All the efficiency progress was done back in the 1960s and 1970s
with design innovation.   The raptor engine must be based on a new design concept that is distinct from the RD-170 and
the US open cycle engine for it to be more efficient.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_(rocket_engine_family)

They are claiming a specific impulse of 361 seconds for space and 334 seconds for sea level even though there is no
actual deployment.   I will take Musk's showman bleating with a ton of salt.    The Raptor engine is supposedly a
staged combustion engine (a first for Musk).   Russia is by far the leader in staged combustion engine design so I
do not find these numbers credible:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine_family)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-170
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-191

The Merlin-1C has a sea level specific impulse of 275 seconds while the RD-170 (1985 vintage) has 307 seconds.
For vacuum the specific impulse numbers are 305 seconds vs. 337 seconds.    The Merlin-1D takes the vacuum specific impulse
to 310 seconds.    So in the real world Space-X does not have engines more efficient than Russia/Soviet designs.   But
is hyping its "yet to be developed" Raptor engine as superior.   Show me the money.

The advantage of methane LCH4 engines is that, unlike kerosene, methane doesn't result in coking, ie doesn't leave carbon deposits in the engine combustion chamber or within the turbopump.  This is advantageous if the aim is to enhance reuseability.  Also, methane results in a higher ISP, just as LH2 does. It also has a higher density than LH2, typically 300-450 kg/m3 (depending on temperature) compared to 70 kg/m3, so doesn't require the oversized tankage that LH2 requires, but is still much more voluminous than kerosene @ ~800 kg/m3.

I'd be more inclined to believe Muskian claims if the Merlins were closed cycle, but as they use basic gas generator cycle, I'm skeptical to say the least.

(edited to correct errors in LCH4 density...  its late and I'm more than a little tipsy...)

The chemical advantage of burning CH4 is marginal. The heat released per kg is as follows:

Hydrogen: 141.79 MJ
Methane: 55.50 MJ
Kerosene: 45.42 MJ

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion

Consider the Shuttle main engine as a way to gauge the impact on Isp. It had a sea level specific impulse of 366 seconds
and a vacuum specific impulse of 452.3 seconds. It was a staged combustion design. So the chemical energy ratio of the
three types of combustion are not going to scale the Isp. The Raptor is specified as a full flow staged combustion engine.
So it is both oxygen and fuel rich. The USSR designed such an engine during the 1960s: the RD-270 for the UR-700 and UR-900:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-270

The Isp for sea level is 301 seconds and 322 seconds for space but it used N2O4 (UDMH) as the fuel which
releases 19 MJ/kg on combustion. So it looks like Musk's claims are actually plausible. But the key here is
the full flow staged combustion. This is what should give the Raptor better Isp numbers than the oxygen rich
staged combustion RD-170.

https://www.rt.com/news/329003-roscosmos-methane-powered-engine/

I am betting that the new Russian LCH4 engine will be a full flow design.

Progress cargo launch on Soyuz 2.1 aborted minute before take off. Self-diagnostic system again to the rescue (AKA Krunichev's worst nightmare)

Progress MS-07 Cargo Spacecraft Launch Delayed Until Oct 14 - Mission Control

https://sputniknews.com/world/201710121058169173-progress-ms-07-spacecraft/


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


Also another Soyuz-5 concept image, this time with some data. Apparently 18 tons to LEO from Baikonur:

Ground infrastructure for Baiterek space rocket compound may cost $300 mln

The design of the Baiterek compound will be developed by November 2017

http://tass.com/science/971483



Next launch from Vostochniy is scheduled for November 28.

http://tass.ru/kosmos/4662944

'
Female applicants for Russian astronaut team on the rise


http://tass.com/science/972314





UAC is designing rescue hydroplane for Vostochniy missions


http://tass.ru/kosmos/4676728






Russia’s lunar base to serve as stopover for inter-planetary travels after 2050

Russia’s space rocket corporation Energia unveils the likely phases and dates of implementing the national space program

http://tass.com/science/972346

What's the rush...

Finally stumbled on that official image of Soyuz-5/super-heavy from convention in Adelaide:


50-ton version has interesting offset on strap-on boosters, looks like they will be using identical core on all of them without any alterations whatsoever.

Also, LEO station made of 108-ton segments would really be something.  

PapaDragon wrote:
Finally stumbled on that official image of Soyuz-5/super-heavy from convention in Adelaide:


50-ton version has interesting offset on strap-on boosters, looks like they will be using identical core on all of them without any alterations whatsoever.

Also, LEO station made of 108-ton segments would really be something.  

This is optimal for cost reduction. Every custom component costs a lot because there are no economies of scale.

The could easily strap on six boosters judging by the cluster of five in the diagram (i.e. enough space to accommodate
another booster just by shuffling the other five). With some additional tweaks that would give them 125 tons to LEO
using the same upper stages as the 2033 variant.

Russia defines technical layout of new Soyuz-5 carrier rocket

http://tass.com/science/976735


Russian space agency to receive new engine’s final design in November (Soyuz-5)

http://tass.com/science/975349


Russian project to build moon orbiter estimated at over $33.5 million

http://tass.com/science/976140