First rollout of Angara-A5 rocket

[1greywind]

First rollout of Angara-A5 heavy class (~24 tons to 200x200 low orbit) rocket. Maiden flight is scheduled on december 25.

[Streetwind]

Two boosters short of asparagusland

Will it be lifting something, or will it be purely a demonstration flight?

[J.Random]

Dummy payload (comm sat mockup) to GSO.

[Kryten]

Mass simulator, to either GSO or GTO.

[1greywind]

Two boosters short of asparagusland

Will it be lifting something, or will it be purely a demonstration flight?

It uses specific type of parallel staging: all modules of 1 (4xURM-1 side boosters) stage and 2 (core URM-1 module) stage has same amount of fuel and oxidiser. 1 and 2 stage engines are fire at 100% thrust on liftoff, but then the core engine is throttled down to ~40% thrust to save fuel. After first stage separation core stage engine is throttled up to 100%.

Official plan is to launch dummy payload.

[J.Random]

Mass simulator, to either GSO or GTO.

I stand corrected. GTO is way more plausible, as that's where Briz-M usually delivers payload. Satellite would then get to GSO by itself, but there's no reason why dummy would have propulsion system to do that.

[ANWRocketMan]

Very excited to finally have a contender for the Delta-IV Heavy. The more competition the better. To a certain point of course.

[Tommygun]

I'm always a little disappointed when I hear about a rocket going up with a dummy payload when there are so many universities with CubeSats or other experiments that could go up.

But I guess there is always a very small chance that one of those experiments could mess up a launch too.

[1greywind]

I'm always a little disappointed when I hear about a rocket going up with a dummy payload when there are so many universities with CubeSats or other experiments that could go up.

But I guess there is always a very small chance that one of those experiments could mess up a launch too.

Remember Falcon-1 test launches? 3 from 5 were unsuccessful and all were with real payloads. Russia space industry already had had enough failures in 2013-2014 launch seasons to risk additional reputation damage.

[Tommygun]

Remember Falcon-1 test launches? 3 from 5 were unsuccessful and all were with real payloads. Russia space industry already had had enough failures in 2013-2014 launch seasons to risk additional reputation damage.

I guess so, but if you get to ride for free, do you still get to complain?

[Streetwind]

That's not how it works, though. You cannot just attach any random thing to any given rocket like we do in KSP.

To carry a bunch of cubesats "for free", the Angara-A5 would require a custom mounting rack to be built, which would then need to be integrated into the fairing. The rack would also be responsible for ejecting the cubesats. This mechanism would have to be tested and certified for each individual bay. Software and hardware interfaces with the rocket to facilitate sending deployment commands to the rack would need to be developed and tested. The device would require approval from the appropriate regulatory bodies in order to receive permission to be launched into space.

You could potentially save money by using an already built and certified cubesat deployment mechanism designed for a different rocket; that would require only some adaptions. But it would also limit the Angara-A5 to what that mechanism can handle, and not to what the Angara-A5 itself can handle. And presumably you want to test the full payload capability during the maiden flight.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Streetwind

[J.Random]

Very excited to finally have a contender for the Delta-IV Heavy. The more competition the better. To a certain point of course.

Finally? Do you mean Proton never existed?

[Kryten]

I stand corrected. GTO is way more plausible, as that's where Briz-M usually delivers payload. Satellite would then get to GSO by itself, but there's no reason why dummy would have propulsion system to do that.

That would make sense, but there are recent russian sats (e.g. Express) that have required direct injection to GSO. Perhaps they'd want to fly the more demanding GSO profile for the test.

[1greywind]

Angara A5 installed on launch pad.

[Sky_walker]

Very excited to finally have a contender for the Delta-IV Heavy. The more competition the better. To a certain point of course.

Finally? Do you mean Proton never existed?

Ariane 5 is also a direct equivalent.

[Camacha]

I'm always a little disappointed when I hear about a rocket going up with a dummy payload when there are so many universities with CubeSats or other experiments that could go up.

But I guess there is always a very small chance that one of those experiments could mess up a launch too.

I feel the same. It seems to wasteful. Even when you need to test with full payload, something can be cobbled together to have the proper dimensions and distribution of weight. Not to mention it is space littering in its purest form.

[Kryten]

I feel the same. It seems to wasteful. Even when you need to test with full payload, something can be cobbled together to have the proper dimensions and distribution of weight. Not to mention it is space littering in its purest form.

ILS was offering the flight at a discount rate, but nobody bit. They only withdrew that last year-there wouldn't be enough time to produce any sat of this size.

I'm always a little disappointed when I hear about a rocket going up with a dummy payload when there are so many universities with CubeSats or other experiments that could go up.

But I guess there is always a very small chance that one of those experiments could mess up a launch too.

This is going either to GTO or directly to GSO. Dumping cubesats into either of those orbits would be an incredibly bad idea.

[Sky_walker]

I feel the same. It seems to wasteful. Even when you need to test with full payload, something can be cobbled together to have the proper dimensions and distribution of weight. Not to mention it is space littering in its purest form.

One larger, more solid debris is by far safer than dumping dozens of cubesats (or even worse than that: dumping pikosats/femtosats) on anything else than low earth orbit with short life span.

[edit] Kryten got there before me

[Bill Phil]

The concept of Angara is really interesting. It's similar to EELVs, but the single core version (Angara 1) has only a few tons worth of payload ( ~ 3.8 metric tons) rather than almost 10 tons for Delta IV. NASA should have gone this route rather than SLS. SLS can deliver 70 tons to LEO for Block 1, when three Angara A5s can deliver a total of 72. If they were mass produced, you could get a much cheaper alternative. But NASA doesn't choose what to fund, and Congress just loves those super-heavy launchers... which we don't need.

[Sky_walker]

SLS can deliver 70 tons to LEO for Block 1, when three Angara A5s can deliver a total of 72.

There's a lot of benefits in delivering cargo in one go instead of multiple. Most importantly: It's BY FAR less risky. But also allows you to fly different payloads that otherwise wouldn't be possible to bring into orbit (either due to weight or volume limitations - remember that SLS also takes much larger cargo than Angara, not just heavier).

[Bill Phil]

There's a lot of benefits in delivering cargo in one go instead of multiple. Most importantly: It's BY FAR less risky. But also allows you to fly different payloads that otherwise wouldn't be possible to bring into orbit (either due to weight or volume limitations - remember that SLS also takes much larger cargo than Angara, not just heavier).

Oh yes. However, most of those 70 tons is a stage in and of itself, so you could divide it into two stages ( more efficient, too) and dock them, then depart from Earth. Now for the boil off problem...

SLS is most likely going to be cancelled. Although super-heavy launchers are useful, they aren't needed for Mars. In fact, once we build a good infrastructure in space based on in-space resources, the only launches will be crew and payload that only Earth can build.

[Sky_walker]

Oh yes. However, most of those 70 tons is a stage in and of itself, so you could divide it into two stages ( more efficient, too) and dock them, then depart from Earth. Now for the boil off problem...

1. Risky.

2. Requires additional hardware on both parts (Orion never was build for orbital assembly)

3. There's no launcher capable of launching Orion in 2 parts and then directing it at a correct orbit out of LEO.

4. Risky.

SLS is most likely going to be cancelled.

The "most likely" version is that it won't be cancelled.

Although super-heavy launchers are useful, they aren't needed for Mars.

Depends what you want to do there. Obviously they are not needed - we have rovers and orbiters on Mars, somehow they made it there.

In fact, once we build a good infrastructure in space based on in-space resources, the only launches will be crew and payload that only Earth can build.

Yea..... future.... will be bright and beautiful. I'm sure of that too

[Bill Phil]

1. Risky.

2. Requires additional hardware on both parts (Orion never was build for orbital assembly)

3. There's no launcher capable of launching Orion in 2 parts and then directing it at a correct orbit out of LEO.

4. Risky.

The "most likely" version is that it won't be cancelled.

Depends what you want to do there. Obviously they are not needed - we have rovers and orbiters on Mars, somehow they made it there.

Yea..... future.... will be bright and beautiful. I'm sure of that too

1. Not Orion in this scenario

2. It's more risky to launch all eggs in one basket ( one thing fails, you lose the whole rocket, but if it's a bunch of rockets, one can fail, and the whole mission isn't screwed)

3. Have you seen Congress lately? They'll cancel it just because a democrat started it.

4. SLS isn't needed for sending crew. EOR is going to be done anyways from what I hear.

[Klingon Admiral]

There's a lot of benefits in delivering cargo in one go instead of multiple. Most importantly: It's BY FAR less risky. But also allows you to fly different payloads that otherwise wouldn't be possible to bring into orbit (either due to weight or volume limitations - remember that SLS also takes much larger cargo than Angara, not just heavier).

I'd love if we could generally stop comparing launch systems of vastly different size. Angara will simply launch other payloads than the SLS will, both excel at different things. There simply is no "catch-all" solution for surface-orbit transportation, just as there is none for transportation within our atmosphere. Not specifically directed at you, but at this whole discussion.

[Bill Phil]

Besides, we're getting off topic..

On topic: Congrats Angara team! Someone's making Progress in space! ( get it, Progress, ah. Ever mind)