Jump to content

Russian Launch and Mission Thread


tater
 Share

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Does it even exist anymore? I thought the roof collapsed on it...

Buran, the only completed shuttle which did its orbital flight 30 years ago today, was destroyed in a roof collapse in 2002. The one in the picture is probably Ptichka, meant to be the second shuttle and nearly completed by 1993, stored in another hangar at Baikonur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DDE said:

In TWR it was always beaten by the NK-33, and the Soviets were always willing to sacrifice it for staged combustion’s higher ISP.

Glushko tried to build a hypergolic full-flow staged combustion engine in the mid-1960s, but Raptor’s cycle broke even his teeth.

I was under the impression that Glushko got the RD-270 working on the test stand, but the rockets it was being built for (UR-700, R-56) never got funded.

Now, the RD-270M on the other hand... Pentaborane/N2O4 is just asking for trouble.

Edited by IncongruousGoat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, IncongruousGoat said:

I was under the impression that Glushko got the RD-270 working on the test stand, but the rockets it was being built for (UR-700, R-56) never got funded.

It wasn't working well. Lots of problems during firings, and nowhere near enough funding to work out the expected kinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are going to postpone the maiden flight of PTK NP Federation from 2022 to 2024.

https://translate.google.com.tr/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&u=https://www.interfax.ru/russia/638102&edit-text=

(The previous message was about its launchpad in Vostochny, i.e. the main future launchpad).

8 hours ago, IncongruousGoat said:

Glushko got the RD-270 working on the test stand

Not exactly. He got them working for 1-2 seconds before they exploded.
But they were near completion when the program was cancelled.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Teilnehmer said:

Raptor is not a kerolox engine.

Some methane engine designs to compare to raptor :

RD-0164 (340t, 311-358s,3t) and RD-0169 (73t, 372s,0.75t?) both FRSC, look very promising from 2015.

here - https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32161.40

Could do 2SL + 1vac + S1 landing thrusters(4mx65m, 440t) for roughly Falcon 9 performance 14t LEO, 4t GTO , RTLS S1, expend S2.

Or 9+1 all SL (7.4mx90m, 2100t) for roughly New Glenn performance : 55t LEO, 12t GTO, RTLS S1, expend S2.

I would rather see single stick designs that go past 4.1m diameter than multiple urm style.

Give up rail / road transport of cores. Fly piggyback or ship.

These engine designs were presented 3 -4 years old now, we need to see some test stand data. Anything really.

Most recent thing i could find on soyuz-7 : http://tass.com/science/1029619

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RedKraken said:

Fly piggyback or ship

We’ll need to capture Ukraine for the piggyback, they still have a partially built An-225.

And build another Vostochny for water shipping.

@RedKraken, @kerbiloid‘s interview lambasts the Soyuz-7 team as being led by people who are grossly incapable of bringing the designs beyond the bluebrint stage. It’s from their former boss, though, so, grain of salt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Is that Russian for SLS, by chance? :P

Nay, the Russian SLS is six times the trouble.

energia5v_vr_info_1.jpg

4 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

?

It’s how the S7 Space team calls their rival Zenit replacement.

3 hours ago, RedKraken said:

I would rather see single stick designs that go past 4.1m diameter than multiple urm style.

I’m also going to disagree with that part directly rather than through appeals to utilitarian reasons.

Using LEGO rockets helps spread the costs of the superheavy, which is unlikely to become a workhorse. Half the trouble with the SLS is that there are few payloads and so the program proceeds at a snail’s pace, which makes it costlier, so the program proceeds even slower...

There are rumours, though, that Vostochnyi’s getting a VAB for that thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DDE said:

Using LEGO rockets helps spread the costs of the superheavy, which is unlikely to become a workhorse. Half the trouble with the SLS is that there are few payloads and so the program proceeds at a snail’s pace, which makes it costlier, so the program proceeds even slower...

This is a really good point. The only issue is that most of the government-sponsored super heavy payloads need large volumes (space station segments, etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DDE said:

Nay, the Russian SLS is six times the trouble.

It’s how the S7 Space team calls their rival Zenit replacement.

It is certainly a massive rocket built out of Shuttle parts, but if they started after Buran was canceled I'd expect 6 times the cost of SLS would have been a large part of what bankrupted the USSR.

Being six times the trouble would be impressive, but I don't think I've heard of it.  I'd also expect the engine parts are somewhat available, aren't they using half-sized [RD-180] (and possibly quarter sized) engines currently?  Of course resurrecting the rest of the rocket is probably starting from scratch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, tater said:

This is a really good point. The only issue is that most of the government-sponsored super heavy payloads need large volumes (space station segments, etc).

Things like inflatables or Reshetnev’s work on a 48 m deployable radio antenna may mitigate that to some degree, apparently. Remember, Keldysh thinks this thing can fit on an Angara:

9fd2fe5bc9158e2074c4f9619dab085b.jpg

5 minutes ago, wumpus said:

It is certainly a massive rocket built out of Shuttle parts, but if they started after Buran was canceled I'd expect 6 times the cost of SLS would have been a large part of what bankrupted the USSR.

Being six times the trouble would be impressive, but I don't think I've heard of it.  I'd also expect the engine parts are somewhat available, aren't they using half-sized [RD-180] (and possibly quarter sized) engines currently?  Of course resurrecting the rest of the rocket is probably starting from scratch.

No, it’s a new (circa 2016) design slapped together from Soyuz-5 first stages, so, full-sized 171s. They rejected an actual Energia core (albeit with three engines) as too expensive. It’s Angara that uses the quarter-sized engine.

And it’s reportedly so serious they’re doing land survey at Vostochnyi.

Edited by DDE
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...