First rollout of Angara-A5 rocket

[Kryten]

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)

Of course the whole mission is crewed. Are they supposed to knock together another of whatever 20-odd ton component failed to launch in the few months the rest of the contraption would have in a stable orbit? This is one of the major reasons nobody uses EOR.

[Bill Phil]

Of course the whole mission is crewed. Are they supposed to knock together another of whatever 20-odd ton component failed to launch in the few months the rest of the contraption would have in a stable orbit? This is one of the major reasons nobody uses EOR.

Is it? Depends on the mission. If you use a small (say, Angara A1) to launch the consumables, and then you use one 10 ton dry-mass as a target, it's a lot less "risky".

If one, ONE, SLS fails, with a crew especially, the whole program, everything, will be delayed for a few years, if not outright canceled. But if ONE unmanned( the heavy versions will always be unmanned) launch fails, the whole program isn't necessarily screwed, especially if the rockets ( and thus the components for the LEO spacecraft) are much easier to replace. It's very difficult to mass produce HUGE rockets such as SLS.

Besides, who builds something in LEO and doesn't expect a launch failure? They would put thrusters on it to maintain orbit, it shouldn't be that expensive in terms of money or Delta-v to put small vernier thrusters on it to maintain orbit, considering the Dv to deorbit is very small. And thus logic dictates that maintains orbit should be easier than deorbiting.

[Kryten]

Is it? Depends on the mission. If you use a small (say, Angara A1) to launch the consumables, and then you use one 10 ton dry-mass as a target, it's a lot less "risky".

Except then you hit volume and timing issues. An EDS for, say, a Mars mission simply will not fit in the A5 fairing, and will be subject to prop boiloff between flights. Given the number of Angara pads (1) and the payload capability of A1, you'd have a struggle just to pump it in faster than it's coming out.

[Bill Phil]

Except then you hit volume and timing issues. An EDS for, say, a Mars mission simply will not fit in the A5 fairing, and will be subject to prop boiloff between flights. Given the number of Angara pads (1) and the payload capability of A1, you'd have a struggle just to pump it in faster than it's coming out.

It would load a small amount if consumables into an already in orbit vehicle. Which means we'll need to get a lot of them. Of course we could just use Antares. That'd be preferable.

[1greywind]

@Bill Phil: Honestly, Angara A5 never was considered as Mars or even Moon launcher. It is replacement for Proton and it's main mission is to launch military and civilian satellites to GEO. There was proposition for heavier version: Angara A7 with ~35 ton to LEO, but it wasn't received fund for development mainly because it requires larger core stage (4.1 m - Proton size).

@Kryten: Angara pad on Vostochny is confirmed and first flight is planned to 2018.

[Camacha]

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.

Apparently the discount was not large enough, but at least they tried.

[Commander Jebidiah]

That rocket looks severely underpowered

MOAR BOOSTERS!!!!

[Camacha]

It looks small to me, but when I look at comparisons it actually is not doing so bad.

[Tommygun]

That's Angara A7 in the picture with a proposed Launch weight of 1133 tons, Angara A5 Launch weight is about 759 tons.

But I think Angara A7 is just more wider than taller and has six boosters. About 55 meters A5 versus 70 meters for A7.

But those are proposed numbers of a paper rocket.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Tommygun

[Dodgey]

1133 tons? I think you missed a decimal point there.

[Kryten]

1133 tons? I think you missed a decimal point there.

Nope. 100 tons would be a very small rocket, smaller even then Vega.

[Tommygun]

1133 tons? I think you missed a decimal point there.

Here are the specs:

http://www.spaceflight101.com/angara.html

I found a size comparison too, it's a lot taller than the A5 that I've seen in other pictures:

Edited November 15, 2014 by Tommygun

[Dodgey]

Sorry I was think payload capacity not launch weight. My bad.

[Nicholander]

Sorry if I haven't been paying much attention to spaceflight news, but why are they launching the Angara A5 to a GTO flight now, even though the only other test flight was a suborbital one of the Angara 1.2? Shouldn't they do a LEO test flight of the Angara A3 first? (The Angara A3 is like the Angara A5 except with only 2 boosters, not 4)

[Kryten]

Angara A5 is the main reason for the entire program's existence, and is considered a high priority by the Russian military. The 'Angara A1' launch was actually a test of A5 stages (different upper stage); real Angara A1 isn't planned to fly for at least a year, and Angara A3 is entirely unfunded.

[Bill Phil]

@Bill Phil: Honestly, Angara A5 never was considered as Mars or even Moon launcher. It is replacement for Proton and it's main mission is to launch military and civilian satellites to GEO. There was proposition for heavier version: Angara A7 with ~35 ton to LEO, but it wasn't received fund for development mainly because it requires larger core stage (4.1 m - Proton size).

I never said to use Angara, I was saying that it's more efficient to use a modular rocket system similar to Angara, rather than a super-heavy launch vehicle like SLS. Angara was an example.

Hmm, what if we strapped a bunch more CBCs than the typical two around a Delta IV? Could we get more payload at all?

[Kryten]

You'd need both a completely new pad and an extensive redesign of the CBC.

[Bill Phil]

You'd need both a completely new pad and an extensive redesign of the CBC.

Obviously. However, it is possible, and how much payload could it deliver? Any estimates on that?

[Kryten]

Nobody's bothered, as far as I can tell. ULA have never considered a rocket with more than 3 cores.

[Bill Phil]

Nobody's bothered, as far as I can tell. ULA have never considered a rocket with more than 3 cores.

Huh. Well, that's a shame.

The concept is interesting, it's simpler than cross-feed, and it means you can use the same core module for the boosters. Although Angara has more flexibility, from 3.8 tons to 24.5 tons. If they use Angara A3, they could have a launch vehicle comparable to a Delta IV. IMO they should definitely develop the A3.

All-in-all, it's a good direction for the RSA to take.