Russian Space Program: News & Discussion #3

Big_Gazza wrote:

kvs wrote:The droplet cooling concept requires hauling extra mass that is dumped into space.   So it is a negative payload account from the onset.   I am not dismissing it, but in principle
if a mass conserving cooling system is viable for a 1 MW electrical powerplant, then it is the optimal solution.   Perhaps for larger systems the droplet cooling approach will
be necessary, but larger systems can carry more cargo.  

The big unknown will be the recovery efficiency of the cooling media.  The Russians have been testing the concept on the "Drop-2" testbed installed to the ISS, and has apparently passed all ground-based vacuum chamber testing.

What I want to know is what cooling media they plan to use.  It would need to have a very low vapour pressure at the operating temperatures to be able to function in a vacuum.  No good if your hot coolant flashes into vapour as soon as it hits the vacuum of deep space.  Some form of mineral oil perhaps, stripped of volatiles?

Patent on Yandex that looks to be related

https://yandex.ru/patents/doc/RU2607685C1_20170110

The liquid would have to have a high heat capacity. Then it needs to be liquid long enough to form drops. So whatever the substance it has be heated by the reactor. So it may be just plain old water
with possibly some solutes that serve some purpose or other. Water molecules have a high electric dipole moment so do not degass easily. I am sure the liquid used for drop formation will be at zero
external pressure and will flow through the piping via simple hydraulic action. So water would do the job as it would produce droplets (of all sizes) due to self attraction. The technological solution would
be to control the size of the vapour droplets. So a staged release into space where these droplets have a chance to grow from the water vapour being generated looks like the right approach.

There is no flash freezing in space. That is only BS from movies. Regulated water vapour release would do the job. But I think they would need another fluid heated by the reactor to keep the
various compartments (vents) for the water warm to prevent accumulation of ice. Using some other substance would require similar solutions.

thegopnik wrote:As much as I am happy about the news of the century as in they are actually serious in the project to drop those images online.

Ion propulsion needs either a nuclear or solar source, you can go check different sources where they suggest 30-45 days to get to mars, no country is there just yet.

The droplet nuclear reactor or the nuclear space craft they let out in the news give estimates of 7-8 months which of course is better than chemical rockets estimating 1 year and 6 months. Just a correction for the posts I am seeing here but nevertheless this is excellent news.

What!? Your numbers are nonsensical. The whole point of a 1 MWe reactor powering an ion engine is to have non-inertial travel to
Mars. The numbers only make sense if they refer to 7-8 weeks.

thegopnik wrote:

kvs wrote:

thegopnik wrote:As much as I am happy about the news of the century as in they are actually serious in the project to drop those images online.

Ion propulsion needs either a nuclear or solar source, you can go check different sources where they suggest 30-45 days to get to mars, no country is there just yet.

The droplet nuclear reactor or the nuclear space craft they let out in the news give estimates of 7-8 months which of course is better than chemical rockets estimating 1 year and 6 months. Just a correction for the posts I am seeing here but nevertheless this is excellent news.

What!?  Your numbers are nonsensical.   The whole point of a 1 MWe reactor powering an ion engine is to have non-inertial travel to
Mars.   The numbers only make sense if they refer to 7-8 weeks.

Dont get me wrong Russia is advanced with anything missile to rocket related technology but what your asking in terms of space time travel is just a little too much.

"According to Russia's TASS news agency, Koshlakov believes that a flight to Mars using a nuclear propulsion engine is "technically feasible in the near future".

The space expert reckons it could take just over half a year for humans to travel to Mars using the nuclear system.

"[The journey] to the Moon will last several days, yes, while a flight to Mars will last about seven or eight months," said Koshlakov, speaking to the Rossiiskaya Gazeta.

Roscosmos has already been testing ground trials for the engine's cooling system, which are believed to have been a success.

And the space agency also has plans to make a prototype of a "megawatt class" nuclear engine, which would be used for "flights into deep space".

http://www.parabolicarc.com/tag/vladimir-koshlakov/ This guy is the head of the Keldysh Research Center and he was the one that referred to a 7-8 month travel. Sure ion propulsion was mentioned but when it was introduced by either Roscosmos or NASA they gave a literal 1 month to 1 month in a half time frame travel to Mars. The US has not presented anything better than their chemical rockets. I have doubts Space X will get to mars because nuclear energy is a whole nother department they do not specialize in. NASA fucked themselves cutting NERVA in the past. They are talking about ideas of getting a nuclear spacecraft but no mentions of starting or project or presenting any images online that such a project is being worked.

So who is left to compete for the Mars mission? I am sure that even FEDOR(i believe they will send a robot 1st) as a robot would shit himself on a 1 month travel to mars. 7-8 months is still excellent well according to what Koshlakov is saying.

Official talking heads in Russia routinely stick their heads into their asses. It is physically impossible for a continuous 1 MWe ion drive spacecraft to
take the same time as inertial flight. Even if the acceleration is a small fraction of "g" it adds up over the course of several weeks. There are a lot
of seconds in those weeks:

86,400 x 7 x 4 = 2,419,200

This Russian design is not going to use conventional ion thrusters. It will use MPD thrusters with a force of 200 Newtons at least.


a = 200/M where M is the mass of the spacecraft. Let's take M = 40 tons = 40,000 kg which gives
a = 0.005 m/s/s

So the velocity after 4 weeks is:

v = 0.005 * 2,419,200 = 12,096 m/s

The average velocity is 6,048 m/s = 21,772.8 km/hour

I have assumed only 50% of the trip with thrust towards Mars, this is wrong since the acceleration is small. It is more fair to talk about
8 weeks of thrust, giving 43,545.6 km/hour of average extra speed on top of the initial velocity imparted by the rocket launch from the
Earth's surface. Based on previous inertial trips, the initial velocity is around 58,000 km/hour.

The propelled flight to Mars with an average 43,546 km/hour speed on top of the 58,000 km/hour injection speed allows the selection
of a shortest path not possible with inertial guidance. If Mars did not move relative to the Earth the shortest path travel at 58,000 km/hour
would allow arrival after 39 days at the closest approach distance. This is not possible since the Earth and Mars move but movement
is not the only problem since inertial guidance requires the spacecraft to follow a chasing orbit and not the shortest path. With
propulsion at over 43,000 km/hour it is possible to reduce the distance dramatically. So the drip duration is reduced by a factor:

Z = X * Y where X is the extra speed and Y is the available reduced path fraction inverse

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/astronauts-isolate-mystery-air-leak-hunt-continues-international-space-station

One of the yanqui astronauts looks to be a head case. The holes drilled in one of the Russian components smell of sabotage in orbit and not on the ground during production.
So we have another air leak. Maybe this is innocent wear and tear but I have my doubts. It is also possible that this is some yanqui psyop.

For example, the yanquis make the air leak in one of the western sections and then use it as a pretext to temporarily occupy the Russian section. This allows them to
sabotage the Russian section during their distracting stay.

Big_Gazza wrote:Reconstruction of the Zenit launch complex at Baikonur under the Soyuz-5 will begin on October 16

source

MOSCOW, September 26. / TASS /. The Center for the Operation of Ground-Based Space Infrastructure Facilities (TsENKI, part of Roskosmos), together with Kazakhstani builders, will begin the reconstruction of the Zenit launch pad on October 16. This is stated in the message of Roskosmos, distributed on Saturday.

In 2018, a protocol was signed on amending the agreement between the governments of Kazakhstan and Russia on the creation of the Baiterek complex at Baikonur dated December 22, 2004. It defines the obligations of the parties to the project, withdrawal from lease and transfer to the Kazakh side of the ground space infrastructure facilities of the Zenit-M complex for modernization. Kazakhstan is responsible for the creation of ground infrastructure through the modernization of the Zenit-M missile complex. Russia is developing carrier rockets Soyuz-5 and Soyuz-6, which it plans to launch from there. The first start is scheduled for 2023.

The pad will be used to launch both Soyuz-5 and Soyuz-6.

Russia should focus on building its own Soyuz-5 launch facilities. Only token amounts on refurbishment should be spent in Kazakhstan. This country
has demented anti-Russian elites who are pandering to NATzO.