Russia's new SHLV plan

[PB666]

What are they using as second stage, I saw earlier today on the site a hydrolox setup but its gone now, i dont think the russians have a SSME type hydrolox thruster. I tried to get 110 into orbit, the closest I could get was 70 kT.

[regex]

4 minutes ago, PB666 said:

i dont think the russians have a SSME type hydrolox thruster.

Check out the RD-0120.

[Gaarst]

The first Falcon Heavy will fly, and if it doesn't fail there might be the circumlunar launch mentioned a few months ago (if it's not just a PR coup, you never know with Musk). SpaceX have been pretty clear that they want to end the Falcon lineup, and while there might be an economic interest in keeping F9, FH doesn't fit anywhere in their plans (and remember that Musk himself said the rocket not N-1-ing its pad would be a success).

I pretty much agree with regex on the rest: Vulcan and New Glenn can make sense: Vulcan is basically Altas VI, and New Glenn can take advantage of reusability and fill Ariane 5's slot (though Ariane 6 is being created because Ariane 5's dual launch is too constraining). It looks like the Chinese actually want to take a shot at the Moon, and it will probably fuel a couple SLS launches before it is scrapped.

As for the Russians, I don't know if even them have an idea what they are doing. Angara seems dead, we don't really know how serious Feniks/Soyuz-5 is and who knows how much of Federation has been put together.

I continue to think that heavy launchers don't have any economic interest unless the satellite market suddenly explodes, but with satellites getting smaller it's not sure the heavy launchers will have a use even then. I feel like it's a self-proving concept: LSPs want to reduce the prices to space to trigger a boom in the satellite market that will eventually make their big rockets viable, but there's no guarantee this will actually happen. Arianespace (the leader in commercial payloads for a few decades) bet on cheaper and smaller launchers in response to Falcon 9.

 

8 minutes ago, regex said:

Check out the RD-0120.

The RD-0120 last flew 30 years ago. It shows the Russians can build a high thrust cryogenic engine, but you might as well try to resurrect Energia as a whole.

Edit: they might have a few of them in a hangar somewhere but you'd still need to start a production chain to power any else than a gimmick rocket.

Edited November 20, 2017 by Gaarst

[sh1pman]

18 minutes ago, regex said:

And yet we have here no less than five organizations proposing to build rockets that, at a minimum, put 13 tons into GTO (most of them much more). Of them New Glenn and Vulcan make about the most sense with Falcon Heavy being the most unicorn of almost-ready unicorns to ever exist (I personally doubt it'll ever fly but don't quote me). Meanwhile China and Russia have aspirations for the moon, with China IMO being the most likely to make it happen. Why POCKOCMOC isn't sticking with Angara and trying for -7 with the KVTK-A7 is beyond me, they'd be within reach of New Glenn's payload from Plesetsk (quite a feat) and they already have the tooling.

E: Also, have we forgotten SLS? Yeah, it'll probably get cancelled.

Well, as far as I know, A7 was just too big for Plesetsk facilities. A7 was projected to lift 35t to LEO vs 24t for A5 that already exists. A5B variant will be able to lift up to 38t to LEO from Plesetsk (projected to fly in 2027, no new launchpad required), which practically eliminates the need for A7 development.

[regex]

16 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

The first Falcon Heavy will fly

Four months from now. 

16 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

As for the Russians, I don't know if even them have an idea what they are doing.

Everyone else is doing it, why not?

Seriously though, retire Proton and refit the pads for Angara, much better use of money. Soyuz can just keep on being the Toyota Pickup of the industry: reliable, always there, and just enough payload.

16 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

The RD-0120 last flew 30 years ago. It shows the Russians can build a high thrust cryogenic engine, but you might as well try to resurrect Energia as a whole.

Edit: they might have a few of them in a hangar somewhere but you'd still need to start a production chain to power any else than a gimmick rocket.

No arguments, but they indicated they were trying it in KSP which was the main reason I suggested that. Also proves that the Russians can do it because they have done it.

[Ultimate Steve]

@ChrisSpace Yup, NASA does this as well. However, the difference at this time seems to be that NASA has definitely settled on a plan (even if it is an expensive and potentially obsolete one).

 

The more heavy lifters, the merrier, in my opinion.

Also another thing to realize, provided the rocket actually flies it will probably get a paint scheme other than "white."

[sh1pman]

@regex  I found a great article about A7. Basically, its central core was WAY too fat. That, combined with the fact that it had 6 side boosters instead of 4, made it completely incompatible with Plesetsk facilities (not only launchpad, but transporters and other stuff). And since the plan was “one standard to rule them all“, they had to scrap the A7 project and start looking into ways to bring A5’s performance up instead. This buffed variant was called A5B (up to 40t to LEO) and is scheduled to fly in 2027.

Edited November 21, 2017 by sh1pman

[PB666]

1 hour ago, regex said:

Check out the RD-0120.

Hasn't been used since 1988. 

 

[_Augustus_]

1 hour ago, regex said:

And yet we have here no less than five organizations proposing to build rockets that, at a minimum, put 13 tons into GTO (most of them much more). Of them New Glenn and Vulcan make about the most sense with Falcon Heavy being the most unicorn of almost-ready unicorns to ever exist (I personally doubt it'll ever fly but don't quote me). Meanwhile China and Russia have aspirations for the moon, with China IMO being the most likely to make it happen. Why POCKOCMOC isn't sticking with Angara and trying for -7 with the KVTK-A7 is beyond me, they'd be within reach of New Glenn's payload from Plesetsk (quite a feat) and they already have the tooling.

E: Also, have we forgotten SLS? Yeah, it'll probably get cancelled.

Falcon Heavy is literally a month from being on the pad.

Angara is too expensive.

[regex]

5 minutes ago, _Augustus_ said:

Falcon Heavy is literally a month from being on the pad.

Oh, it's only one month now? How long is it going to be one month away?

Quote

Angara is too expensive.

Yeah, that's a problem with those old-style rockets. How is this SHLV going to be less expensive though?

7 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Hasn't been used since 1988. 

 

vOv You asked whether they have one. I gave you one they had, because that's likely how they'd do a new one (cheap and rather simple, SSME is way overblown for the Russians).

Edited November 21, 2017 by regex

[Superfluous J]

7 hours ago, regex said:

Ah, yet another "common core" strategy. How many "common cores" does the world need?

I guess you could say they're ...

pretty common.

Of corese someone has to make a joke.

[PB666]

1 hour ago, regex said:

Oh, it's only one month now? How long is it going to be one month away?

Yeah, that's a problem with those old-style rockets. How is this SHLV going to be less expensive though?

vOv You asked whether they have one. I gave you one they had, because that's likely how they'd do a new one (cheap and rather simple, SSME is way overblown for the Russians).

No, but i as hoping there was an actual engine associated with a predicted PLtO. 

[regex]

6 minutes ago, PB666 said:

No, but i as hoping there was an actual engine associated with a predicted PLtO. 

Sub in an RL-10, the KVTK upper stage uses an RD-0146, which is basically a slightly improved version of the RL-10 with Pratt & Whitney help. The OP link has all the possible stages and engines.

http://russianspaceweb.com/rd0146.html

[PB666]

40 minutes ago, regex said:

Sub in an RL-10, the KVTK upper stage uses an RD-0146, which is basically a slightly improved version of the RL-10 with Pratt & Whitney help. The OP link has all the possible stages and engines.

http://russianspaceweb.com/rd0146.html

RL-10 lacks adequate thrust to boost second stage. 

 

 

[Rakaydos]

2 hours ago, regex said:

Oh, it's only one month now? How long is it going to be one month away?

The Rocket is ready, but they wont try launching it until they have another pad online in case this one blows up too.

So... 1 month away for a month, 2 weeks away for 2 weeks, week away for a week, and then count down the days.

Bet you a forum like they launch before febuary.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Rakaydos

[regex]

1 hour ago, PB666 said:

RL-10 lacks adequate thrust to boost second stage. 

The second stage doesn't use an RD-0146, it uses an RD-0124 two RD-0150, yet to be built, 40~80 tons of thrust, 462 isp. It's all in the OP link. Hell, it's all in the OP.

Edited November 21, 2017 by regex

[regex]

1 hour ago, Rakaydos said:

Bet you a forum like they launch before febuary.

I'll bet you one they don't launch until after March.

And believe me, I'd love to see it launch, but that thing is a literal unicorn.

[Rakaydos]

17 minutes ago, regex said:

I'll bet you one they don't launch until after March.

And believe me, I'd love to see it launch, but that thing is a literal unicorn.

Deal.

[PB666]

Anyway I used RS-68A. Instead of 5 boosters used 6 asparagas 2, 2, 2, 1.  160 T to orbit. RS68A made all the difference in the second stage.

They are wasting DV if they don't use something like the 68A in the core of stage I.

Edited November 21, 2017 by PB666

[kerbiloid]

So many rockets Proton has outlived in past, so many of them it has to outlive in future...

Simple, cheap, enough reliable.

5 hours ago, Gaarst said:

but with satellites getting smaller it's not sure the heavy launchers will have a use even then

With such trends we'll never build a Dyson sphere.

[NSEP]

8 hours ago, _Augustus_ said:

Falcon Heavy is literally a month from being on the pad.

If Zuma does not push FH back, that is.

[DDE]

11 hours ago, regex said:

Check out the RD-0120.

Effectively lost archeotech according to KhBMA themselves.

[PB666]

35 minutes ago, DDE said:

Effectively lost archeotech according to KhBMA themselves.

And 40-80 tons (RD-0150) of thrust is too low to be useful for pushing heavies into space.

http://thespacereview.com/article/3321/2

These things are a wish list, they don't appear to be real. Someone just drew in what they thought would impress the powers-that-be. The rockets themselves are 2033ish.

[regex]

4 hours ago, DDE said:

Effectively lost archeotech according to KhBMA themselves.

Yes, we've been over that.

3 hours ago, PB666 said:

And 40-80 tons (RD-0150) of thrust is too low to be useful for pushing heavies into space.

There are two of those engines on the stage. 80 tons is the minimum projected thrust, it would be more like 140 tons according the the OP link.

[PB666]

42 minutes ago, regex said:

There are two of those engines on the stage. 80 tons is the minimum projected thrust, it would be more like 140 tons according the the OP link.

Still low, I tried it with 6 RL10b-2s and was barely able to make orbit. RL10b-2 is 110kN. So each thruster needs to be something like 300kN