Jump to content

Russian Launch and Mission Thread


tater

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, DDE said:

Well, they did try. Zarya was basically a Dragon but with 24 kerosene-peroxide thrusters.

Which makes the Roscosmos guys even saltier.

Actual quote:

Was liquid hydrogen *that* hard to work with that Glushko preferred his exotic hypergolics, or was he only interested in missile engines and demanded a high shelf life for all his fuels?  Hydrolox typically beats all but nukes on that list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the published Khrunichev's Center docs (nested link), Angara costs 7 bln RUR (90..95 mln USD), three times more expensive than Proton. which costs 2.33 bln RUR (30+ mln USD).
It's planned that by 2024 it will cost 4 bln RUR (50..55 mln USD).

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ru&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https://www.rbc.ru/technology_and_media/29/06/2020/5ef934f69a7947d71570b6ac

 

10 hours ago, wumpus said:

that Glushko preferred his exotic hypergolics

Exotic was cryogenics.
Everywhere in the world ballistic missiles were hypergolics (except Atlas, early Titan, and Korolev's ones), as well as most of the used space rockets, derived from them.
R-36 and UR-500 were ICBM, R-56 was derived from ICBM by the main ICBM developer.

In the upper stages the storable hypergolics allowed to reach the high orbit, launching simple engines several times every next hours. And delay the launches as many times as you need.

Pentaborane and beryllium hydride were more efficient than liquid hydrogen, and not cryognic, so compact and storable.

ICBM-derived launch vehicles were having highly automated storage+railway+launchpad sites, which allowed to launch the prepared and fueled space rockets one-by-one in case of war, with minimal crew.
Both MOL and Almaz, as well as DynaSoar and Spiral were designed to be quicklaunched and start performing a combat recon mission right after reaching the orbit, so again hypergolics were the best choice.
(Though, Spiral originally would be using fluorine-based oxidizer to reach the orbit)

And liquid hydrogen was definitely not an option to use in reentry vehicles, while kerosene + peroxide were an obvious choice, relatively safe and relatively efficient.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, wumpus said:

or was he only interested in missile engines and demanded a high shelf life for all his fuels?

He did not consider that quality to be exclusive to missile engines. Going from another quote of his in my RD-600 post (also found on Atomic Rockets) he argued chemical terrestrial rocketry was peaking already, that all interplanetary flight will be nuclear or ion-based, and that further developments shoukd be directed at storeable lander engines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Shoigu's guys have just presented a plastic model of the Krylo-SV (miniaturized Baikal) methalox winged fly-back booster at their seaside... research center in Anapa.

It's slightly taller than a human and is painted white and blue, which, according to the reporters, is very important.

https://ria.ru/20200724/1574866932.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not combine them in dual blocks to get a lifting body flying catamaran, with symmetric wings (one per tank), and extendable fin with turbojet in between.

When I grow up, I will do this in KSP.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone in Energia really hates the superheavy boosters. So they have just patented a reusable lander-tug combo permanently hosted at the ISS.

The catch: each sortie requires three fuel tankers launched by hydrolox Angara-5s: one at the ISS, one on the Moon surface, and one during the return Moon-Earth flight.

https://ria.ru/20200725/1574896030.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

It's the most Kerbal plan I ever read about...

I remeber some Westerm commenter tried to cram a Chinese moon landing into the older Long March rockets - ten of them, or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the problem is Vostochny cosmodrome. Rails going to Baikonur could handle rockets up to 4.1m, for Vostochny it's 3.9m, IIRC. Both Energia and N1 were problematic, in that they essentially had to be built at Baikonur, and unlike that one, Vostochny has no facilities to that end. I think Angara's upper stages hit the rail transport limits already, so making anything bigger would be a significant logistical challenge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...