Russian Space Program: News & Discussion #3

Anyway, my point was that gliding back to the surface using the atmosphere is vastly smarter than burning fuel to fight gravity to achieve
a vertical landing. As you noted, it reduces the payload substantially. It is just another SpaceX gimmick. Like their so-called ventilators for
Covid-19.

Agreed. Either Karma doesn't work or it works very slow.

However, we as individuals can develop a value system without citing such supra-human divine database & evaluation

Sujoy wrote:Agreed. Either Karma doesn't work or it works very slow.

However, we as individuals can develop a value system without citing such supra-human divine database & evaluation

Big_Gazza wrote:I didn't invoke any supernatural influences. Karma may originally be a Hindu/Buddhist concept, but the idea of the cumulative effects of endless lying, stealing and cheating hardly requires the intervention of Shiva the Destroyer.

Big_Gazza wrote:It will happen to the USA, sooner than people think, and no amount of frenzied self-exultation, hypocritical virtue signalling and smug circle-jerking from these stupid arrogant #$%&s is going to miraculously save them.

Big_Gazza wrote:My idea of an ideal reuseable system is the use of winged flyback boosters like Baikal but using methalox propellents so that the engines don't suffer from coking and can be returned to service with an absolute minimum of  refurbishment.  The problem with Musks vertical landing method is that the vehicle flys tail-first thru its own rocket wash resulting in damage to the engine bay and external scorching of the core.  SpaceX doesn't discuss the real costs of refurbishment but i reckon they are probably very high and probably require a complete dismantlement and inspection of the 1st stage, and replacement of all damaged thermal protection blanketing at the very least (and probably a good deal of cabling as well).

Recovery of strap-ons is fairly easy, but the central core is much harder as it will have high altitude at burn-out and mass efficiency is paramount to maximizing the payload to orbit.  Any solution will be more expensive and gives diminishing returns.  My idea would be make this stage (and the upper stages) expendable.  Not really an issue for an A5-type modular vehicle as the core is same size as the strap-ons and reusing 4/5 of the 1st stage hardware is good enough.

In the longer term, a vertically launched flyback winged (or lifting body) booster would be an efficient system, but it should leverage Baikal strap-ons to avoid the need to carry a large number of heavy engines. The main impediment here is development cost & operating expenses vs cost of expendable cores and upper stages. Personally i doubt that its cost effective.

Finally, the issue that is usually ignored is that excess reliance on re-useability means that your production lines will degrade as the frequency of new-builds declines.  The Shuttle was a great example as once the 5x units were delivered the line was shutdown and the tooling disposed of.  That equals no ability to replace lost units like Challenger or Columbia.  The Angara assembly plant will kick into gear once Vostochny is ready and the last Protons are used.  How many new build F9 cores will be built each year compared to URM-1s?  You can't maintain manufacturing skills and worker knowledge on refurbishments alone...

kvs wrote:The Angara does not have a special first stage core.   It is an assembly of 3-5 (and possibly 7) identical modules.   So they can all burn out at the same
time leaving the second stage to fly through the outer atmosphere.   So all the first stage modules are in principle recoverable.

Big_Gazza wrote:

kvs wrote:The Angara does not have a special first stage core.   It is an assembly of 3-5 (and possibly 7) identical modules.   So they can all burn out at the same
time leaving the second stage to fly through the outer atmosphere.   So all the first stage modules are in principle recoverable.

I mostly agree, but the overall lift capability is much enhanced if the fuel in the core is conserved on low throttle until the strap-ons burn-out and are jettisoned.  The core then throttles up and burns to completion at high altitude.  You'll put a heavier payload into orbit using staged burns than running all stages at the same rate.

KSP (kerbal space program) is a pretty good sandbox for playing around with rocket designs Try building an A5 analog and not igniting the core stack until you're at altitude, and compare the result with burning all stages simultaneously.

miketheterrible wrote:I wonder how Space X flight will go?

GarryB wrote:But this stuff is easy so anything going boom is just poor quality control or incompetence... fire everyone...

miketheterrible wrote:Why would roscosmo go with any agreement with a nation that wants to see them dead

miketheterrible wrote:
There is nothing in it for them.

miketheterrible wrote:
And while your hate for Rogozin is unfounded

miketheterrible wrote:
he isn't wrong in saying they need a trampoline

miketheterrible wrote:
the US has to use Russian engines.

miketheterrible wrote:
What America just achieved is nothing that Russia didn't achieve 60 years ago

miketheterrible wrote:And this achievement comes at the backbone of taxpayers

miketheterrible wrote:consider it more of a win for NASA

miketheterrible wrote:he isn't wrong in saying they need a trampoline

By AFP

Russian space agency chief Dmitry Rogozin once ridiculed the lack of a U.S. manned flight programme, saying it might as well "deliver its astronauts to the ISS by using a trampoline".

Six years later Elon Musk and NASA had the last laugh.

"The trampoline is working," quipped the 48-year-old U.S. entrepreneur at a post-flight news conference alongside NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine.

Both men laughed. "It's an inside joke," Musk added.

On Saturday, his SpaceX made history by becoming the first commercial company to send humans into orbit.

The U.S. feat and Musk's joke set Russian social media alight, with wits ridiculing Rogozin, and the Russian space chief's name began trending on Twitter.

"How do you like this, Dmitry Rogozin?" one critic prodded.

Russia still prides itself on sending the first human into orbit in 1961 and other achievements of the Soviet-era space programme.

Rogozin has remained conspicuously silent but his spokesman was forced to react.

"We don't really understand the hysteria sparked by the successful launch of a Crew Dragon spacecraft," spokesman Vladimir Ustimenko said on Twitter.

"What should have happened a long time ago happened," he added.

While cosmonaut Sergei Krikalev, Roscosmos executive director for crewed space programmes, saluted the US achievement in a brief video address, not everyone was in such a gracious mood.

Alexey Pushkov, a member of the upper house of parliament, declared Saturday's flight was not a big deal.

"This is a flight to the International Space Station, not to Mars," he said on messaging app Telegram.

He pronounced it time to stop ferrying Americans to the orbiting lab.

"Russia needs spaces for its own young cosmonauts.

By now, the launch complex for the Soyuz-2 family of missiles is already fully operational, and in 2019, construction of the second stage of the cosmodrome — the launch complex for the Angara launch vehicles-began. Construction works on the East coast are increasing at a rapid pace, and they should be completed in 2022. From January 2023, first Autonomous, then complex tests of equipment will begin here, so that everything will be ready for the launch of the rocket by autumn.

MOSCOW – Russia has lost its long-held monopoly as the only country able to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station following the flawless manned launch by U.S. company SpaceX.

The Russian space agency congratulated the United States and Elon Musk's SpaceX on the first crewed flight ever by a private company, but experts said the launch should be a wakeup call for Roscosmos.

"The success of the mission will provide us with additional opportunities that will benefit the whole international program," cosmonaut Sergei Krikalev, Roscosmos executive director for crewed space programs, said in a brief video address.

Saturday's launch was the first of American astronauts from U.S. soil since the mothballing of the U.S. shuttle program in 2011 that left Russia's more basic and reliable Soyuz spacecraft solely responsible for transporting crews.

Astronauts since then have all trained at Star City outside Moscow and studied Russian before blasting off from Baikonur launchpad in Kazakhstan.

"These flights have been an unexpected chance for Moscow to keep producing Soyuz and retain a significant voice in negotiations over the ISS," said Isabelle Sourbes-Verger, a specialist in space policy at the French National Centre for Scientific Research.

The Russian space agency has also earned large sums by ferrying astronauts: a seat in the Soyuz costs NASA around $80 million.

If SpaceX starts taking up all U.S. astronauts, "the annual losses could be more than $200 million, a significant loss for Roscosmos's budget of around $2 billion," said Andrei Ionin, an expert at the Tsiolkovsky Space Academy in Moscow.

While Musk, the ambitious entrepreneur behind SpaceX, has named the price of a seat on his spacecraft as $60 million, Roscosmos chief Dmitry Rogozin has announced Russia is working to cut its price by 30 percent.

Ionin voiced skepticism over the plan.

"SpaceX is saving money by using cheap engines and manufacturing almost all its own parts," he said. "To do this, Russia would have to change its production process."

Another option is a barter system proposed by NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine: for every Russian riding in a U.S. spaceship, one American would take a Soyuz.

'Wakeup call'

In a broader sense, the appearance of a rival such as SpaceX should be a "wakeup call" for the Russian space industry, which is "in far worse shape than those in charge admit," said Ionin.

A decade ago Russia was behind a large proportion of the world's launches, but that is no longer the case today due to competition from China and SpaceX.

"When we were losing the launches market, Roscosmos said everything was fine because we were the only ones sending people up to the ISS. Now that fig leaf has fallen off."

Russia's space sector is marred by corruption, with multiple scandals over the construction of the new Vostochny launchpad in the Far East.

The country's space industry has also failed to innovate, concentrating on modifying "Soviet technology without any major evolution," Ionin said.

The Russian space program is renowned for having sent the first man into space in 1961 and launching the first satellite four years earlier, and its achievements remain a major source of national pride.

But more recently it has endured a series of setbacks, notably losing expensive spacecraft and satellites in recent years.

The rise of private companies like SpaceX, which has ambitions to conquer Mars, risks leaving Russia irrecoverably far behind, experts said.

Mars next?

For Russia to keep up, a government body independent of the space sector's main players needs to develop a new strategy, Ionin said.

"U.S. President (Donald) Trump reestablished a body — the National Space Council — to set policy goals. We need to do the same thing."

Some observers sense a lack of political will from President Vladimir Putin who appears to be more focused on using rocket science to develop military capabilities, particularly hypersonic missiles.

"For Putin, space exploration isn't a priority when it comes to showing off the might of the state," said independent space expert Vitaly Yegorov.

For Ionin, reinvigorating the Russian space program requires international cooperation, too.

Sourbes-Verger suggested any manned international mission to Mars "could be an opportunity for Russia to regain its standing by sharing its skills."

But, she said, the costs of any such mission would be so high that China — now the world's second space power in terms of launches — would need to be included.

Yet that prospect seems unlikely, she added, given that "the U.S. Congress refuses any space cooperation with China."

miketheterrible wrote:And this achievement comes at the backbone of taxpayers and what not so spaceX has its entire history thanks to NASA so I consider it more of a win for NASA than some bullshit "private" company.

x_54_u43 wrote:this whole trampoline conversation gets more and more annoying and really needs to be let go.