Soyuz-based launchers (proposed and canceled) in one picture

[1greywind]

Excellent picture that shows Soyuz-based designs evolutions during period 2000-2012. Most were driven by idea of using flight-proven Soyuz base scheme, add fuel+oxidizer mass (by changing shape and\or diameter of 1-2 stages) and put in more powerful or effective (or both) engine (NK-33, NK-33-1, RD-190). The limitation were maximum allowed launch weight for launch-pad - 400 tons.

source - www.b14643.de

The results of natural selection follows:

Soyuz-2.1b - Most conservative upgrade: digital flight control system, slightly boosted engines. New, large and wide payload faring. Operational.

Soyuz-2.1v - Uses same new flight control system as 2.1b, has new first stage with cyllindrical tanks and NK-33 + àÃâ€-0110à (vernier engine). Operational.

Soyuz-2-3 - Upgrade for 2.1b: core stage with increased diameter and NK-33-1 engine. Postponed(?)

Dead species:

Geos-Yamal, Yamal, Soyuz-M, Soyuz-3, Onega, Aurora, Aurora-Yamal, Yamal - proposed and rejected.

Soyuz-2-3v - Upgrade for 2-3: core stage with LOH-LH2 engine. Canceled(?)

[sgt_flyer]

Well, the soyuz 2-1v flew only once - and with the recent problems with refurbished nk33s, i'm not so sure they will continue to fly it (unless they are able to better analyse if one NK33s has problems) - which would increase the cost per engine, if you need more thorough tests than other engines.

If they decide to not continue with nk33s, i guess angara 1.2 will fully replace the soyuz 2.1v. (Which is the same concept as the 2-1v - but with 1 ton more payload to leo)

[Kryten]

They already have a replacement engine lined up for Soyuz 2.1V; RD-193. The NK-33s would have be replaced soon due to the limited stock, this just makes it sooner.

[Steel]

On a completely unrelated note... Wow! The website you sourced that from is a treasure trove of information, great find!

[Sky_walker]

On a completely unrelated note... Wow! The website you sourced that from is a treasure trove of information, great find!

It's also a treasure trove for layouts made in '90s.

"That's, kids, how the internet looked like when you had your first diapers".

[Mazon Del]

I've never been able to understand the Russian fascination with those weird strut skirts on their rockets. It seems like that just degrades the aerodynamic characteristics of the rocket.

[Kryten]

Allows the second stage to fire before separation without damaging itself. Means you don't have to start the engine in freefall, or include separation motors.

[Tommygun]

Allows the second stage to fire before separation without damaging itself. Means you don't have to start the engine in freefall, or include separation motors.

I've always wondered if the lower stage didn't decouple, due to a malfunction, if the motor could break the lower stage away.

[Mazon Del]

Allows the second stage to fire before separation without damaging itself. Means you don't have to start the engine in freefall, or include separation motors.

Fair enough, though it still seems like you could make that happen AND have nice aerodynamics through the use of blow-out panels. As in, its a surrounded skirt, but when its time for the engine to light off, explosive bolts detach the panels.

[SciMan]

You probably don't need explosive bolts (aka pyro fasteners) to get rid of those panels before the engine fires. Instead, just make the panels strong enough to take the aerodynamic forces but weak enough that the ignition of the next stage's engine(s) will blow them out. Same idea as the panels that are used to reduce damage from dust explosions.

Or you could make them as strong as you want, but have them hinged outwards from the top, so that air and gravity both act to close them, but any pressure from the inside (caused by the engine on the next stage firing) will act to force them open. Pretty much the inverse of a nuclear bunker's blast shutters.

[Kryten]

The Russians don't like interrupting production and doing testing just for minor performance gains. They probably could make a better system, but this one's worked fine since 1959-that's good enough for them.

[hugix]

I've always wondered if the lower stage didn't decouple, due to a malfunction, if the motor could break the lower stage away.

It can, but it will throw the second stage + payload of course. This happened in the April 5 anomaly : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-T_No.39