How is this possible? (New Roscosmos space capsule)

[fredinno]

2 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

The SMs look the same to me. The Lunar mission is carrying an extra Block-D upper stage, probably for LOI.

 

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ptk_2012.html

It was originally using 2 different SMs, but apparently they changed it to 1 to save money, and used a separate existing upper stage for lunar missions.

[1greywind]

7 hours ago, fredinno said:

How are they supposed to domesticate Zenit? It would pretty much be like making an entirely new rocket, as they'd need new tooling. And I just showed a link showing the Federation was using a Angara A5 without a 2nd stage for LEO missions (RussianSpaceWeb.com)
 

Russia need rocket to use RD-171 and may be even RD-175 engine (980 ton thrust upgrade of RD-171 that is now under development in РКА Энергия). And according to Dmitry Rogozin (vice-premier of Russian government in charge of space and military programs) Феникс's development has funding in ФКП 2016-2025 list.

Actually it is not yet truly known which configuration of Angara will be used for manned flights. And Anatoly Zak's (author of RussianSpaceWeb.com) site has many dated pictures.

 

Quote

And the only Super Heavy Launcher that is likely to get off the ground in the near future is SLS.

Is existence of Chinese CZ-9 a surprise for you? And why SLS should stop Russians from designing next SHL? People in Russian space industry have ambitions (sadly) and always beg government for money on something "big and glorious".

[fredinno]

3 hours ago, 1greywind said:

Russia need rocket to use RD-171 and may be even RD-175 engine (980 ton thrust upgrade of RD-171 that is now under development in РКА Энергия). And according to Dmitry Rogozin (vice-premier of Russian government in charge of space and military programs) Феникс's development has funding in ФКП 2016-2025 list.

Actually it is not yet truly known which configuration of Angara will be used for manned flights. And Anatoly Zak's (author of RussianSpaceWeb.com) site has many dated pictures.

 

Is existence of Chinese CZ-9 a surprise for you? And why SLS should stop Russians from designing next SHL? People in Russian space industry have ambitions (sadly) and always beg government for money on something "big and glorious".

The Long March 9 is a proposal that will likely never get to frutition (just like Magnum). The problem bascially is that neither Russia or China have the space budget to support a UHLV. I'd say even NASA can barely support SLS- and any sign of a moon mission is likely to be international, destroying the point of multiple UHLVs.

 

Source? I thought the configurations were Angara A5P (no upper stage) for LEO, and Angara A5 (hydrogen upper stage) for Lunar misssions. But if they haven't even selceted a booster at this point, that's pretty crabby news for the program. I smell high risk of cancellation.

 

And also, the RD-17x line is in good hands in the form of RD-180 and RD-170s. After all, the latter two are the same engine with less combustion chambers (and thus less thrust).

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Russia_Developing_Futuristic_Methane_Powered_Rocket_Propulsion_999.html

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz5.html

Seems to be a re-design of the Soyuz 5 concept, which apparently had to be cut down tremendously to survive budget cuts. However, I can't see the point in a Zenit 2.0- Angara A3 + Hydrogen upper stage does the same job just fine, and the Hydrogen upper stage was proposed for Angara A5 also, as it allows for future expansion fo even heavier GEO sats (the low ISP of the upper stages makes this necessary, currently,the Angara A5 can only launch up to 6.5T to GTO, GTO sats are expected to grow to 8T, and the KVTK upper stage makes alunching up to 7.5T)http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara_kvtk.html

Angara A3 was originally rejected due to being too small to launch the 3T GTO satellites it needed to be able to do, but the KVTK upper stage would allow for this to be possible. It also seems to be a lot farther along than Soyuz-5/Zenit-2.

There also is the question of why Zenit-2 would replace the Soyuz. The original Zenit and Soyuz were in entirely different payload categories!

[DECQ]

Cheap simple and reliable, always appreciated these qualities in Russia, but when I listen to statements by officials who do not understand what they say. I think that Federaziya come with a sheet of paper, but the first flight will be around in the years 2028-9. They claim that the funds for extra heavy Rocket is not, then the statement that Roscosmos is considering a new super-heavy rocket based on the Soyuz 5 "Fenix", then the statement that all manned lunar projects removed from the program, but then why extra heavy Rocket and new ship, Soyuz copes with his work in earth orbit ... Too much idle chatter, unfortunately.

The Soviet Union did not make loud declarations when building Energia-Buran, which are ahead of their time in the decades ahead.

[Dr. Jet]

21 hours ago, DECQ said:

The Soviet Union did not make loud declarations when building Energia-Buran, which are ahead of their time in the decades ahead.

Buran is still there. Not the rusted remnaints of what had flown, but the blueprints and infrastructure to make new ones. But (and this is a very heavy "BUT") it simply does not have suitable tasks. Too much cargo and crew capacity for humble ISS needs, design not suitable for lunar program... Buran is too big, too expensive, it will be just a waste of money to resurrect right now. The most plausible scenario where it will be demanded again is asteroid mining. Unpiloted (because it can!) delivery of machinery and return of mined goods (Maybe platinum? Cannot think what else can be valuable enough to start asteroid rush). 

[DerekL1963]

1 hour ago, Dr. Jet said:

Buran is still there. Not the rusted remnaints of what had flown, but the blueprints and infrastructure to make new ones.

Given that they're put zero effort into preserving the existing vehicles, I suspect they put even less effort into preserving the production tooling and jigs.

[Nibb31]

1 hour ago, Dr. Jet said:

Buran is still there. Not the rusted remnaints of what had flown, but the blueprints and infrastructure to make new ones.

Paper blueprints are useless nowadays. Manufacturing techniques and materials have evolved. If you went to a modern machine shop with blueprints they'd send you home and ask you to come back with proper CAD files.

The infrastructure and supply chain for Buran and Energia is long gone. Bringing them back would be a stupid as trying to rebuild a Ford Model T in a modern car factory. You would spend so much time redesigning parts and processes that it's cheaper to simply design a new Ford Focus from scratch.

 

[wumpus]

On 3/21/2016 at 5:21 AM, 1greywind said:

Is existence of Chinese CZ-9 a surprise for you? And why SLS should stop Russians from designing next SHL? People in Russian space industry have ambitions (sadly) and always beg government for money on something "big and glorious".

I've heard rumbling of huge boosts to Roscosmos, but all google could show me (for recent years) was further cuts.  I don't expect any more money (and further cuts) until the price of oil comes back up.

While I'm not at all familiar with Russian politics (reading the biography of Sergei Korolev is enlightening, at least for old-school USSR politics), but yo-yoing the NASA budget tends to be a disaster.  Somehow cranking up the budget always finds new places for congressional (and friends') pork just to do what NASA wants, but reducing the budget means protecting the pork and throwing away NASA goals (check the SLS and shuttle debriefing threads for plenty of examples).

[Dr. Jet]

Politics? It's more a question of economy. RosKosmos is surprisingly profitable today, concidering relatively poor state of both russian and world economy, and finishing PTK-NP project will raise it's profits even more. It would be a huge mistake to cancel almost finished program in such conditions. 

As for Buran blueprints, I don't know in what format they are stored, but as latest Buran works were dated 1993, I suspect those are some kind of AutoCad or Kompass (russian analogue since 1989) files. Still readable and convertable. Board electrics and electronics should be PCAD files for sure, PCAD is old as mammoth crap... but those are obsolete anyway... if Buran will ever be resurrected that will call for new electronics.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Dr. Jet

[1greywind]

3 hours ago, wumpus said:

I've heard rumbling of huge boosts to Roscosmos, but all google could show me (for recent years) was further cuts.  I don't expect any more money (and further cuts) until the price of oil comes back up.

While I'm not at all familiar with Russian politics (reading the biography of Sergei Korolev is enlightening, at least for old-school USSR politics), but yo-yoing the NASA budget tends to be a disaster.  Somehow cranking up the budget always finds new places for congressional (and friends') pork just to do what NASA wants, but reducing the budget means protecting the pork and throwing away NASA goals (check the SLS and shuttle debriefing threads for plenty of examples).

To better understand why where are funding for new Super Heavy Luancher development in Russian Federal program for Space 2016-2025 you should take a closer look onto structure of modern russian space industry. Where are two state corporations: one - ОРКК (United Rockets and Space Corporation) is in charge of R&D, testing and production of space related hardware (launchers, engines, spaceships, etc), another is Roskosmos (it was reformed into corporation from state agency in october 2015 - main diffirence is that corporation is responsible to Government, not directly to President, so ОРКК and Роскосмос are on same level). Roskosmos is in chage of planning space programs (manned, applyed and sciencetific), managing space infrastructure (launch sites, communication sites), cosmnauts training program, international relations, and (very important) R&D on perspective projects.

Russian Federal Program for Space (FPS) includes projects selected from both state corporations. This is why there are so many launch vehicles: ОРКК with realictic Союз-5 and Феникс and Роскосмос with unnamed Super Heavy Launcher development. Cuts in latest edition of FPS resulted in rivalry between projects - this is why Феникс was proposed as module for perspective heavy launch system (to steal some money from Roskosmos)

 

On 3/21/2016 at 4:13 PM, fredinno said:

But if they haven't even selceted a booster at this point, that's pretty crabby news for the program. I smell high risk of cancellation.

Not you alone. Many in Russia how are interested in space are very sceptical about "Federation" perspectives - it is interesting and potent design (not without flaws, but much more versatle than Soyuz - Federation rivals TKS) but it does not have point: where are no resources to go to the Moon orbit, it is overcomplicated to be used as space taxi for ISS or teoretical Russian space station. But it has funding for at least 6 years of development. We'll see.

 

On 3/21/2016 at 4:13 PM, fredinno said:

I can't see the point in a Zenit 2.0- Angara A3 + Hydrogen upper stage does the same job just fine, and the Hydrogen upper stage was proposed for Angara A5 also, as it allows for future expansion fo even heavier GEO sats (the low ISP of the upper stages makes this necessary, currently,the Angara A5 can only launch up to 6.5T to GTO, GTO sats are expected to grow to 8T, and the KVTK upper stage makes alunching up to 7.5T)

The main real customer of Angara A5 is russian military - they need independent access to GSO from their cosmodrome - Plesetsk. They also had some interest in Angara A1 - as replacement to Rokotz, but Soyuz 2-1v is good alternative that already has history of succeseful launches. No one is interested in Angara A3. Military don't have payloads of such weight. Same for Roskosmos. Where are no public plans to market Angara family for international launchers. And btw, where are many doubts about hydrogen upper stages for Angara family - where are no LH2 production infrastructure on Plesetsk and Vostochniy - so much more likely that Angara will fly with Block-DM and Briz-M (Brick-KM for Angara-A1).

As for hypothetical Zenit-2.0 it should not replace Soyuz, main reason is to secure new implementation for record engines family and may be to finaly get some progress Байтерек enterprize with Kazakhstan.

Edited March 23, 2016 by 1greywind

[DECQ]

Why do you have clung to the Buran? This war machine is not more than that, the strength in  Energia.
Energia was set up in the framework of the new lunar program with a view to development, its universality is striking, with the modifications it could be from Zenit to Vulkan, and the like for Rocket Groza, Deitron, Energia, Energia M used alone infrastructure as possible, "I do not know exactly "for Energia2 and Vulkan, only the replacement block Z. Buran is not worth it, not in vain Glushko opposed him.

Of course the base on which the rocket is outdated, but I think it was the most promising of all the Rocket heavyweights.

Unfortunately Roskosmos wants too much, but he does not understand what he wants, at least I have a feeling. Federaziya? what is it for? Who can say what is its objective?

[kunok]

10 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Paper blueprints are useless nowadays. Manufacturing techniques and materials have evolved. If you went to a modern machine shop with blueprints they'd send you home and ask you to come back with proper CAD files.

The infrastructure and supply chain for Buran and Energia is long gone. Bringing them back would be a stupid as trying to rebuild a Ford Model T in a modern car factory. You would spend so much time redesigning parts and processes that it's cheaper to simply design a new Ford Focus from scratch.

That's true, but it's usually a lot easier to star from a proven design, and even if you lose all the blueprints you should had some documentation, I expect being that documentation being more like overburocratic (good if you want to retake an old project or improve an old one, but a pain to work doing papers) than chaotic (I currently work this way, you don't loss time making papers...but it's crazy)

2 hours ago, Dr. Jet said:

As for Buran blueprints, I don't know in what format they are stored, but as latest Buran works were dated 1993, I suspect those are some kind of AutoCad or Kompass (russian analogue since 1989) files. Still readable and convertable. Board electrics and electronics should be PCAD files for sure, PCAD is old as mammoth crap... but those are obsolete anyway... if Buran will ever be resurrected that will call for new electronics.

A good design is suited for a method of manufacturing, but not always for everything, is usually made by thinking how this part will be done and optimizing for that. In the last 20 years there were a lot of changes in the manufacturing, even more in the aerospace environment, specially the expansion of composite materials, the advance in cam systems and 5 axis machining, and even the additive manufacturing (3d printing). Lots of old designs are not optimal in the new manufacturing processes, don't take the advantages of new manufacturing tech or are not compatible at all.

[fredinno]

3 hours ago, Dr. Jet said:

Politics? It's more a question of economy. RosKosmos is surprisingly profitable today, concidering relatively poor state of both russian and world economy, and finishing PTK-NP project will raise it's profits even more. It would be a huge mistake to cancel almost finished program in such conditions. 

As for Buran blueprints, I don't know in what format they are stored, but as latest Buran works were dated 1993, I suspect those are some kind of AutoCad or Kompass (russian analogue since 1989) files. Still readable and convertable. Board electrics and electronics should be PCAD files for sure, PCAD is old as mammoth crap... but those are obsolete anyway... if Buran will ever be resurrected that will call for new electronics.

Well, Roskosmos (the space agency, which I know was merged, but I don't know if the profits from rocket launches can be used by the space agency, or vice versa) is largely generating money via sending foreign astronauts to the ISS. CCrew will kill that money line.

And I don't think PTK NP would raise profits; it's a lot bigger, and its larger human capacity may be useless, as there doesn't seem to be a likelihood of a similar sized station to the ISS any time soon.

3 hours ago, 1greywind said:

On 3/21/2016 at 6:13 AM, fredinno said:

 

The main real customer of Angara A5 is russian military - they need independent access to GSO from their cosmodrome - Plesetsk. They also had some interest in Angara A1 - as replacement to Rokotz, but Soyuz 2-1v is good alternative that already has history of succeseful launches. No one is interested in Angara A3. Military don't have payloads of such weight. Same for Roskosmos. Where are no public plans to market Angara family for international launchers. And btw, where are many doubts about hydrogen upper stages for Angara family - where are no LH2 production infrastructure on Plesetsk and Vostochniy - so much more likely that Angara will fly with Block-DM and Briz-M (Brick-KM for Angara-A1).

As for hypothetical Zenit-2.0 it should not replace Soyuz, main reason is to secure new implementation for record engines family and may be to finaly get some progress Байтерек enterprize with Kazakhstan.

Angara A1.2 (3.8T to LEO) is still being developed as a larger alternative to Soyuz 2-1v (2.8T to LEO), basically in between 2-1v and Soyuz 2-1a payload capacities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angara-1.2pp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz-2-1v

http://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/angara-a3/

And I said Angara A3 WAS viable if it used the proposed hydrogen upper stage- which is itself farther in development than Soyuz 5 or The Russian SUper Heavy lifter.

Why are there no plans to offer Angara commercially? Angara IS to replace Proton...

Oh wait, it seems Angara IS being offered commercially...from Vostkonsny. http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara5.html

Which also raises the question why the Russian military would not use Vostkonsny...

 

1 hour ago, kunok said:

That's true, but it's usually a lot easier to star from a proven design, and even if you lose all the blueprints you should had some documentation, I expect being that documentation being more like overburocratic (good if you want to retake an old project or improve an old one, but a pain to work doing papers) than chaotic (I currently work this way, you don't loss time making papers...but it's crazy)

A good design is suited for a method of manufacturing, but not always for everything, is usually made by thinking how this part will be done and optimizing for that. In the last 20 years there were a lot of changes in the manufacturing, even more in the aerospace environment, specially the expansion of composite materials, the advance in cam systems and 5 axis machining, and even the additive manufacturing (3d printing). Lots of old designs are not optimal in the new manufacturing processes, don't take the advantages of new manufacturing tech or are not compatible at all.

You know what else will be a proven design by the time Rocosmos might actually be able to make a super-heavy launcher? SLS. Seriously, Energia is "proven"...but it's also over 30 years old. Good freaking luck reviving a 30 year old design when the manufacturing components and processes are often retired. Not to mention the Energia configuration is assymetric, and thus less than optimal.

Seriously, why not merge efforts together and make an international lunar base?

[kiwi1960]

On 14/03/2016 at 7:29 AM, Spaceception said:

I guess it shows how much better capitalism is

In all seriousness, I'm quite intrigued to see what their manned Moon program looks like.

it does look cool though.

Seriously?? Russia is now also capitalist, you do know communism died in Russia circa 1990 ... don't you? The Soviet Onion ( ) is no more....

Russia has always built space craft with LESS technology... rather than install a computer that ensure the coffee is made just right..... they install a coffee machine and let the crew work it out.... although, they do send their crew to coffee making school for a month...

The USA has "more is good...".... Russia has "we only need what we need to get into orbit, and back down!"

If you ask me, if NASA had that philosophy, they would probably be able to go to the Moon again this year.....

BUT... NASA's problem is that if they don;t embrace technology, then the private sector won't be able to develop all these cool toys for the the consumers.... and their funding will be cut.

 

[kunok]

23 minutes ago, fredinno said:

You know what else will be a proven design by the time Rocosmos might actually be able to make a super-heavy launcher? SLS. Seriously, Energia is "proven"...but it's also over 30 years old. Good freaking luck reviving a 30 year old design when the manufacturing components and processes are often retired. Not to mention the Energia configuration is assymetric, and thus less than optimal.

That's was my point I was only adding that having info of an old project has advantages over starting of nothing, the post was about one point in favour, one point against.

[1greywind]

13 hours ago, fredinno said:

Angara A1.2 (3.8T to LEO) is still being developed as a larger alternative to Soyuz 2-1v (2.8T to LEO), basically in between 2-1v and Soyuz 2-1a payload capacities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angara-1.2pp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz-2-1v

http://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/angara-a3/

And I said Angara A3 WAS viable if it used the proposed hydrogen upper stage- which is itself farther in development than Soyuz 5 or The Russian SUper Heavy lifter.

Why are there no plans to offer Angara commercially? Angara IS to replace Proton...

Oh wait, it seems Angara IS being offered commercially...from Vostkonsny. http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara5.html

Which also raises the question why the Russian military would not use Vostkonsny...

Proton will fly at least for year 2025. It will remain only competitive Russian heavy launcher on international market (and only if oil prices will not go up and ruble-dollar rate remains high). Angara is twise more expensive and less than 10 are ordered until 2025.

 

Btw, relatively new image with zoo of proposed launchers. Ангара-А5В - angara A5 + LH2 third stage instead of URM-2. Энергия-xx it is that is now called Фкникс: 1К - Зенит-like monoblock, 5KИ - super heavy all RP-LOX - (uses 5x 1К modules), 5КВ - same as 5КИ but LH2 core stage. Soyuz 5 in 3 configurations (I don't know much about it) and I first time see this СТК-I Jebediah's dream.

 

[fredinno]

8 hours ago, 1greywind said:

Proton will fly at least for year 2025. It will remain only competitive Russian heavy launcher on international market (and only if oil prices will not go up and ruble-dollar rate remains high). Angara is twise more expensive and less than 10 are ordered until 2025.

 

Btw, relatively new image with zoo of proposed launchers. Ангара-А5В - angara A5 + LH2 third stage instead of URM-2. Энергия-xx it is that is now called Фкникс: 1К - Зенит-like monoblock, 5KИ - super heavy all RP-LOX - (uses 5x 1К modules), 5КВ - same as 5КИ but LH2 core stage. Soyuz 5 in 3 configurations (I don't know much about it) and I first time see this СТК-I Jebediah's dream.

 

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara5.html

Quote

 

Nesterov admitted that at the beginning of flight testing, each Angara-5 had been twice as expensive when compared to the operational Proton rocket, however he expressed confidence that the price per launch would come down significantly as the launch vehicle enters mass production. However Angara-5 was not expected to fully replace Proton until the new rocket had completed its flight test program, logged enough successful missions and received its hydrogen-powered upper stage, Nesterov said. Moreover, its entrance into the commercial launch market would depend on the availability of the new launch pad in Vostochny. Industry officials confirmed that in order to become economical, the Angara-A5 would have to launch all federal and all commercial payloads that Russia could win around the world.

That's because of the low launch rate, and since it's literally launching nothing. The mass production of Anagra cores have not picked up. Also, Hypergol is a LOT cheaper in Russia.