Jump to content

Russian Launch and Mission Thread


tater
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.interfax.ru/russia/791514

Rogozin has stated that the new super-heavy rocket (about whose cancellation was previusly said) will be reusable, and its development has never stopped.

The methalox engines for it are in development, and are expected by 2024..2025.

He explained that as the new rocket should be used for 20..30 years and will be very expensive, it makes sense to use the perspective technologies instead of the current designs.

So, it will take a pause of 3..4 months in its development to have its redesign officially accepted.

P.S.
Imho, it's important and wise that they aren't trying to revive the N-1 scheme with 30 turbopumps in one hull.
Without a single nozzle in center such scheme looks weird and causes doubts.

Happily, they are going to start building ROSS and launch Zeus by 2030, so there is enough time to develop this rocket.
I guess, it will be using composites instead of obsolete materials like aluminium or steel.

Interesting, how much better than Raptor will be the engine?
At least, it's  will much younger, or at least modified later, with more modern technologies.

P.P.S.
The current Yenisei design uses 7.7 m central core, like the Energy did.
That's what Zak was meaning when said about the Energy resurrection.

Expectedly, the Energy design unlikely will be used irl. 

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

https://www.interfax.ru/russia/791514

Rogozin has stated that the new super-heavy rocket (about whose cancellation was previusly said) will be reusable, and its development has never stopped.

The methalox engines for it are in development, and are expected by 2024..2025.

He explained that as the new rocket should be used for 20..30 years and will be very expensive, it makes sense to use the perspective technologies instead of the current designs.

So, it will take a pause of 3..4 months in its development to have its redesign officially accepted.

P.S.
Imho, it's important and wise that they aren't trying to revive the N-1 scheme with 30 turbopumps in one hull.
Without a single nozzle in center such scheme looks weird and causes doubts.

Happily, they are going to start building ROSS and launch Zeus by 2030, so there is enough time to develop this rocket.
I guess, it will be using composites instead of obsolete materials like aluminium or steel.

Interesting, how much better than Raptor will be the engine?
At least, it's  will much younger, or at least modified later, with more modern technologies.

P.P.S.
The current Yenisei design uses 7.7 m central core, like the Energy did.
That's what Zak was meaning when said about the Energy resurrection.

Expectedly, the Energy design unlikely will be used irl. 

Completely changing their mind not only in the span of a month but also while never having stopped developing it. Roscosmos truly embraced rapid iterative development!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Interesting, how much better than Raptor will be the engine?
At least, it's  will much younger, or at least modified later, with more modern technologies.

They're developing an all-new engine? I thought they were going to use the RD-171MV...

By the time they do that, they'll be competing with Raptor 3.0 or 4.0. And who knows what kind of rocket cycle the new Russian one will use. Probably not full-flow staged combustion, but I could be wrong.

Do we have any information on it at all?

1 minute ago, Beccab said:

Completely changing their mind not only in the span of a month but also while never having stopped developing it. Roscosmos truly embraced rapid iterative development!

:sticktongue:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SOXBLOX said:

They're developing an all-new engine? I thought they were going to use the RD-171MV...

It's a time to wait for 3..4 months until they decide what are they using.

Also, I can't see in Rogozin's words the RD-171MV cancellation/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Also, I can't see in Rogozin's words the RD-171MV cancellation/

Whaaaaa....

Are they using the RD-171MV and the methalox design?

Oh, wait, you said they haven't selected between the two yet. That makes sense.

Edited by SOXBLOX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Interesting, how much better than Raptor will be the engine?
At least, it's  will much younger, or at least modified later, with more modern technologies.

If they build it from scratch, it could potentially be better than Raptor because it can be made with more modern technology. 

But chances are they will just make trivial modifications to some bone-old Soviet invention, or quietly shelf the entire thing in a few years while announcing an even newer and better project five more years down the line. The Russian space sector has delivered a lot of talk and little actual innovation in the recent few decades, but a new and big pie in the sky has always been "right around the corner" the whole time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SOXBLOX said:

And who knows what kind of rocket cycle the new Russian one will use. Probably not full-flow staged combustion, but I could be wrong.

Do we have any information on it at all?

There’s some information, but nothing concrete. The most likely option is a new engine based on RD-0162 and RD-0177, full flow staged combustion cycle, gas-gas, up to 200 tons thrust (latest info). Roscosmos is in the process of reallocating funds from the super heavy rocket to the development of methane engines by KBKhA design bureau, as Rogozin said.

Edited by sh1pman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.interfax.ru/russia/791570

The mockup of the Rosalind Franklin rover for the ExoMars -2022 mission has drilled and extracted the ground samples from 1.7 m depth.

Current Martian record is 7 cm.

It has gotten a concreted ground pellet 1 cm wide and 2 cm long.

The ESA & Roscosmos mission is planned on Sep, 22, 2022, Proton-M + Breeze.

It includes the Russian landing pad Kazachok and the ESA rover Rosalind Franklin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:

Are they using the RD-171MV and the methalox design?

RD-171MV for Soyuz-5, methalox for Soyuz-6 and likely the SHLV core.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a couple questions that I want to put out there in case anyone has some info on the answer-

1. I recall reading somewhere (maybe RussianSpaceWeb? Might have been Wikipedia too...) that Korolev made a proposal sometime between Vostok and Voskhod to reorganize the Soviet space program under a civilian organization along the lines of NASA. Are there any details available on his proposal (if it was even detailed at all)?

2. Just how dependent was the existence of Sputnik on de-Stalinization? RussianSpaceWeb seems to put a lot of emphasis on how the "more openness-ness" between Stalin's death and 1956 was pivotal in allowing the satellite project to be proposed and approved. Might there have been no Space Race at all (America puts first satellite into orbit, Soviets do some catching up by no dramatic contest in space) if Stalin lived longer or de-Stalinization never happened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

2. Just how dependent was the existence of Sputnik on de-Stalinization? RussianSpaceWeb seems to put a lot of emphasis on how the "more openness-ness" between Stalin's death and 1956 was pivotal in allowing the satellite project to be proposed and approved. Might there have been no Space Race at all (America puts first satellite into orbit, Soviets do some catching up by no dramatic contest in space) if Stalin lived longer or de-Stalinization never happened?

Anatoly Zak has access but he also has a frequently-voiced bias that may cloud his judgement.

Sputnik was based on a series of conceptual studies from 1950-1953, proposed to Ustinov in December 1953, and was officiated in 1956:

Spoiler

ris08-4e8f205279d410337563845295128d2f.j

However, what effect Stalin's survival would have had is highly speculative. He's certainly not to blame for any kind of delay in developing R-7 unless you want to go with absolutely fanciful scenarios, nor was there any satellite proposal to obstruct without a flying R-7; it was him who signed off on № 443-213 on February 13, 1953, with section 2a authorizing an ICBM (and section 2b authorizing Burya) -R-7 was already in design ohase, but wouldn't be officiated until next year.

At best you're looking at innuendo that Stalin would have gone on a purge of Zhukov, the military leadership, and thus the arms industrues, but this would be pure speculation.

Stalin and Korolev personally crossed paths in the Kremlin on April 14, 1947, and the meeting had gone well, Stalin's quips about Beriya and deadlines notwithstanding. It was Stalin who authorized the "NII Nordhausen" reverse-engineering center, it was who signed off on forming NII-1 - while Korolev's appointment seems to have been an intra-ministry affrair, his entire star team of designers would be appointed by Stalin's decrees e.g. the aforementioned № 443-213. He was effectively a Stalin appointee overseen by Beriya (via Serov) as part of the nuclear project, and at least some sources imply he actually got hampered by that connection in the early Khrushchev years before the new boss developed an affinity for rocketry.

This is all in line with my observations from other sectors. The purges did not seem to particularly deter established Soviet designers from pirsuing their favored agendas. For example, ZiS-3, the mainstay Soviet divisional cannon of WWII, was designed without a government procurement order and went into production without authorization - Grabin just went to Stalin half a year afterwards to receive a retroactive blessing.

Edited by DDE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

1. I recall reading somewhere (maybe RussianSpaceWeb? Might have been Wikipedia too...) that Korolev made a proposal sometime between Vostok and Voskhod to reorganize the Soviet space program under a civilian organization along the lines of NASA. Are there any details available on his proposal (if it was even detailed at all)?

Korolyov was already the chairman of the Council of the Chief Designers
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Совет_главных_конструкторов
(google failed to translate this page)

In the military sphere he was being decisively pushed out by Yangel and Chelomei, because they were developing hypergolic missiles, rather than old-style post-WWII cryogenic ones.

In the space his influence was reduced to R-7 and N-1 programs, while Yangel's and Chelomei's rockets were pressing him from bottom and from top respectively.

He was in very complicated relations with Glushko, who was almost an engine monopolist and was enough happy with Yangel and Chelomei.

His main goal in the space life was a Martian expedition, and everything he did mentioned this as a hidden intention. Whle this was not relevant for that time at all.

So, he was making a lot of proposals to keep the situation under control, but this doesn't mean that anybody would ever alow him to stay the king of the hill.

 

5 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

2. Just how dependent was the existence of Sputnik on de-Stalinization? RussianSpaceWeb seems to put a lot of emphasis on how the "more openness-ness" between Stalin's death and 1956 was pivotal in allowing the satellite project to be proposed and approved. Might there have been no Space Race at all (America puts first satellite into orbit, Soviets do some catching up by no dramatic contest in space) if Stalin lived longer or de-Stalinization never happened?

Both space programs were pure military, with civilian pom-poms and cheerleaders.

There were several vital tasks of the rocket building:

  • a multimegaton single warhead delivery;
  • a fast recon flight to locate and highlight the targets;
  • a long recon flight for reconnaisance;
  • a fast inspection and intercept of an orbital object.

All of them were requiring the same: a couple of tonnes launched to a very low orbit.
So, at that point there was no difference between the required rockets for these tasks.

While the USSR was designing an ICBM, the USA had a lot of heavy bombers, they delayed the ICBM development until the moment when they realized that Russkies are above head.

Actually, a human spaceflight itself was not required at all.
And von Braun in his time was almost arrested in the Pedant Germany for dreaming about a spaceflight instead of making the combat rockets as form of sabotage.

***

But the problem was in the poor and unreliable electronics.

The long-term recon satellites were able just to make photos on timer and drop a film capsule (or deorbit themselves).
90% of recon photos would be (and later actually were) photos of clouds, and in any case filming anything but the required direction.
So, a human operator would save the film and make quick decisions what to photo and is it urgent to report by radio.

The short-term recon sats were able just to photo and land, but this still required hours to get the filmed images.
While a human onboard could pass above an opponent's target (say, a carrier) and report its coordinates and other info right in a half-hour after launch.
Then stay in orbit and observe and report the strike results.

The anti-sat craft without a human could not inspect a target at all.
Also the human pilot could intercept the target with precise burst of fragmentation rockets, compensating the low accuracy of the launch.

So, the single-man orbital craft, the crewless craft, and various types of a heavy warhead were being devloped at once, and a single rocket to launch them all, too.

So, the only thing which matters was the necessity born to ability, and unlikely somebody's death was affecting anything but the choice of the chief maintainer.

***

The "Space Race" actually looks like a race against the opponent's ability to capture the Moon first.

Since the early 1950s the USA was developing Horizon and Lunex for it, and they were a pure military lunar base project.

The very first orbital flights of Mercury and Vostok were dedicated to aiming at an orbital target (early Mercuries with inflatable targets and Vostok-4 aiming Vostok-3).
Also the Vostok-3 offcially reached a 3-day flight duration, so it was officially stated the possibility of the Moon flight.

Once the first Vostok flight happened, the USA got worried about reaching the Moon first, and offcially started the lunar hype, declaring the kinda-sport competition between the flags, explaining to the average American taxpayer how much he can't live without the Moon.

As the Soviet authorities didn't need to convince the community in the lunar race necessity to fund something, they skipped this circus step and started to develop their own lunar program to not let the Americans be first.
And it looks doubtful that they spent the billions just for a flag race.
After all, the N1 and the minor lunar craft flights were cancelled not after the Apollos had landed, but before the Apollo flights cancelled resumption and right before the improved N1 test. After a two-year pause.

So, the only real reason of the lunar race was the fear of the opponent's monopolization of the Moon, and would happen in any case until the lunar colonisation got proven hardly accessible for decades, by the Apollo hard flights.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the answers!

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

As the Soviet authorities didn't need to convince the community in the lunar race necessity to fund something, they skipped this circus step and started to develop their own lunar program to not let the Americans be first.

Another question in relation to this- (in anyone who wishes to respond's view/opinion) was the (in the American view, at least) delayed Soviet response to Apollo inherent to the nature of the Soviet Union or was it more so the general attitude of those in charge at the time + plus skepticism given how seemingly lackluster previous American "responses" to Soviet achievements (Vanguard/Explorer/Mercury-Redstone) were?

If someone else had been in power would there have been potential for a quicker response?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Thanks for the answers!

Another question in relation to this- (in anyone who wishes to respond's view/opinion) was the (in the American view, at least) delayed Soviet response to Apollo inherent to the nature of the Soviet Union or was it more so the general attitude of those in charge at the time + plus skepticism given how seemingly lackluster previous American "responses" to Soviet achievements (Vanguard/Explorer/Mercury-Redstone) were?

If someone else had been in power would there have been potential for a quicker response?

Everything we know about the Soviet programs tells that they did all they could as fast as possible, and the American achievements affected only the "should it be done yesterday or a day before yesterday" decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Thanks for the answers!

Another question in relation to this- (in anyone who wishes to respond's view/opinion) was the (in the American view, at least) delayed Soviet response to Apollo inherent to the nature of the Soviet Union or was it more so the general attitude of those in charge at the time + plus skepticism given how seemingly lackluster previous American "responses" to Soviet achievements (Vanguard/Explorer/Mercury-Redstone) were?

If someone else had been in power would there have been potential for a quicker response?

The general sense I'm getting is that Korolev didn't care much for the Moon. That, and a rocky transition of power in 1964, with the new admin critiquing its predecessor for "voluntarism", undermined support in the Kremlin and on the Old Square.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, DDE said:

The general sense I'm getting is that Korolev didn't care much for the Moon. That, and a rocky transition of power in 1964, with the new admin critiquing its predecessor for "voluntarism", undermined support in the Kremlin and on the Old Square.

By 1962 (the Cuban Missile Crysis) the USSR had just 5 combat Korolyov's R-7 launchpads (unprotected, cryogenic, with 10-12 h launch readiness, crew of 1 500 ), and above ten Yangel's R-16 (silo, hypergolic).

Also the cruise missiles on Cuba were Yangel's.

Every Korolyov's SLBM required a dedicated submarine project, built in a single number.

So, the result of their competition was more than expected.

Edited by kerbiloid
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...