There were two launches in 2014 of their brand new rocket, and they haven't launched in a year and a half since. Does anyone know the reason for this?
Quote from: Arcas on 05/30/2016 01:56 amThere were two launches in 2014 of their brand new rocket, and they haven't launched in a year and a half since. Does anyone know the reason for this?Angara costs more than Proton.
It probably has something to do with this..
Quote from: gospacex on 05/30/2016 09:22 amQuote from: Arcas on 05/30/2016 01:56 amThere were two launches in 2014 of their brand new rocket, and they haven't launched in a year and a half since. Does anyone know the reason for this?Angara costs more than Proton.That is at first, since they did it mostly manually in Moscow and are moving to a highly automated factory in Omsk. Of course that having the company basically broke doesn't help.
Quote from: baldusi on 05/30/2016 12:30 pmQuote from: gospacex on 05/30/2016 09:22 amQuote from: Arcas on 05/30/2016 01:56 amThere were two launches in 2014 of their brand new rocket, and they haven't launched in a year and a half since. Does anyone know the reason for this?Angara costs more than Proton.That is at first, since they did it mostly manually in Moscow and are moving to a highly automated factory in Omsk. Of course that having the company basically broke doesn't help.Having highly automated factory doesn't help one iota when you have no orders.
Quote from: gospacex on 05/30/2016 11:48 pmQuote from: baldusi on 05/30/2016 12:30 pmQuote from: gospacex on 05/30/2016 09:22 amQuote from: Arcas on 05/30/2016 01:56 amThere were two launches in 2014 of their brand new rocket, and they haven't launched in a year and a half since. Does anyone know the reason for this?Angara costs more than Proton.That is at first, since they did it mostly manually in Moscow and are moving to a highly automated factory in Omsk. Of course that having the company basically broke doesn't help.Having highly automated factory doesn't help one iota when you have no orders.Orders have been placed. Look at the Russian Launch Schedule. Also keep in mind that the Angara Family is still solely in the testing and certification phase.
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 05/31/2016 01:30 amQuote from: gospacex on 05/30/2016 11:48 pmQuote from: baldusi on 05/30/2016 12:30 pmQuote from: gospacex on 05/30/2016 09:22 amQuote from: Arcas on 05/30/2016 01:56 amThere were two launches in 2014 of their brand new rocket, and they haven't launched in a year and a half since. Does anyone know the reason for this?Angara costs more than Proton.That is at first, since they did it mostly manually in Moscow and are moving to a highly automated factory in Omsk. Of course that having the company basically broke doesn't help.Having highly automated factory doesn't help one iota when you have no orders.Orders have been placed. Look at the Russian Launch Schedule. Also keep in mind that the Angara Family is still solely in the testing and certification phase.Two or three launches in 2017, none in 2018, and one in 2019? Among them only one is not a Russian govt launch? That's basically nothing.
You are not addressing my point: Angara has almost no orders now, and will have rather low chances of getting new orders in 2020+. Of course, Russian govt payloads will fly on Russian LVs. But hardly anything else. Under these conditions, Angara will stay more expensive than today's Proton.
Be excellent to each other, participants should try to carefully read and understand what the other person is saying, and explain why they think someone's off the mark, rather than accusing each other of not listening.What I hear is someone saying the low launch rate means the development process might be drawn out, and the cost won't come down as much as might be desired, while someone else is saying that the low launch rate doesn't mean that development isn't happening at all, it's just a process that isn't as fast as some folks not familiar with Russian practices might expect.Is that correct?
it's not the LV of choice for the Russian government nor for the commercial company of Khrnuchev (ILS).
When they have the Eastern pad and start offering at the commercial market, and the Russian government uses it for heavy launches, then it will ramp up production. Not until then. And just the government work would mean five to six launches per year for the heavy version. The light version will probably see a couple extra of launches. But that's all post 2020 and it is too far in the future to have a realistic manifest.Russian officials have been very clear in the fact that currently an Angara-5 costs three times more than a Proton. If they start launching from Voistochny, use the more efficient factory at Omsk and start moving all launches to it, it will be, in fact cheaper than Proton.
If you launch an Atlas 5 or an Ariane 5 without any other in assembly at the moment of the launch, you will also wait for two years the following liftoff !
And the fact that there was no Angara in assembly at the moment of the 2014's launch is not the consequence of some economical problems. It is a strategy which has been decided long before the first launch.
But if they want to compete with SpaceX, they are going to have to pick up the pace a little...
Maybe it isn't slow, and we're just used to the fast pace of what SpaceX is doing. But if they want to compete with SpaceX, they are going to have to pick up the pace a little...
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 05/31/2016 10:31 pmMaybe it isn't slow, and we're just used to the fast pace of what SpaceX is doing. But if they want to compete with SpaceX, they are going to have to pick up the pace a little...So far the only thing that is "fast" about SpaceX is their PR. For example FH was supposed to fly in 2013...
A comparison is in order here. Angara project was approved by Russian govt in 1997, that is nearly 20 years ago, and about twice as long as entire history of SpaceX.
Quote from: asmi on 06/01/2016 02:26 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 05/31/2016 10:31 pmMaybe it isn't slow, and we're just used to the fast pace of what SpaceX is doing. But if they want to compete with SpaceX, they are going to have to pick up the pace a little...So far the only thing that is "fast" about SpaceX is their PR. For example FH was supposed to fly in 2013...A comparison is in order here. Angara project was approved by Russian govt in 1997, that is nearly 20 years ago, and about twice as long as entire history of SpaceX.
Quote from: gospacex on 06/01/2016 02:33 pmQuote from: asmi on 06/01/2016 02:26 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 05/31/2016 10:31 pmMaybe it isn't slow, and we're just used to the fast pace of what SpaceX is doing. But if they want to compete with SpaceX, they are going to have to pick up the pace a little...So far the only thing that is "fast" about SpaceX is their PR. For example FH was supposed to fly in 2013...A comparison is in order here. Angara project was approved by Russian govt in 1997, that is nearly 20 years ago, and about twice as long as entire history of SpaceX.SpaceX has been around since 2002 - 14 years1997 was 19 years ago. 19/14 is 1.35x, not "twice as long".
Quote from: ncb1397 on 06/01/2016 06:43 pmQuote from: gospacex on 06/01/2016 02:33 pmQuote from: asmi on 06/01/2016 02:26 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 05/31/2016 10:31 pmMaybe it isn't slow, and we're just used to the fast pace of what SpaceX is doing. But if they want to compete with SpaceX, they are going to have to pick up the pace a little...So far the only thing that is "fast" about SpaceX is their PR. For example FH was supposed to fly in 2013...A comparison is in order here. Angara project was approved by Russian govt in 1997, that is nearly 20 years ago, and about twice as long as entire history of SpaceX.SpaceX has been around since 2002 - 14 years1997 was 19 years ago. 19/14 is 1.35x, not "twice as long".I accept your correction.It's is still illogical to complain that SpaceX is so "slowly" developed two new LVs, one new capsule, and three new engine families, but not have similar feelings towards Angara which took *longer* to develop one (modular) rocket and one new derivative of venerable RD-170.
Indeed, the situations are utterly different.Unlike SpaceX, Angara developers did not have to earn one rusty ruble of R&D money, they had it all handed to them by Russian govt.
Quote from: gospacex on 06/02/2016 12:41 pmIndeed, the situations are utterly different.Unlike SpaceX, Angara developers did not have to earn one rusty ruble of R&D money, they had it all handed to them by Russian govt.Just what exactly is your issue with Angara, surely on here we should have similar enthusiasm for all launcher systems.
Quote from: Star One on 06/02/2016 01:06 pmQuote from: gospacex on 06/02/2016 12:41 pmIndeed, the situations are utterly different.Unlike SpaceX, Angara developers did not have to earn one rusty ruble of R&D money, they had it all handed to them by Russian govt.Just what exactly is your issue with Angara, surely on here we should have similar enthusiasm for all launcher systems.I have enthusiasm for all launch systems which make trips to space cheaper.Why I should be positive towards organizations which would very much like to prevent that from happening, I don't understand. Khrunichev is one of them.
A lot of belly-aching here! I'm just glad they're finally replacing Proton, which is a crazy environmental disaster every launch. Angara is a nice step, the first big basically clean-sheet rocket since the end of the Cold War. I wish the Russians luck.
Quote from: gospacex on 05/31/2016 12:49 pmYou are not addressing my point: Angara has almost no orders now, and will have rather low chances of getting new orders in 2020+. Of course, Russian govt payloads will fly on Russian LVs. But hardly anything else. Under these conditions, Angara will stay more expensive than today's Proton.Only Angara-1.2 variant is presently the only variant available for commercial orders. In order to accelerate its launch rate the ICBM conversional launcher fleet must be retired because their prices are to low compared to Angara, Which by the way is still in the flight test and certification phase. Until Vostochny pad(s) for Angara are built and come online there will only be Medium payload class launches to GTO and SSTO via Plesetsk. The government plan once Vostochny pads are online is to first phase out government Proton missions and then kick the commercial payloads over to Angara-A5 by setting in thew second phase a finite amount of Proton-Ms available for order and by setting retirement dates for all of Khrunichev Space Centres' hypergolic launchers.
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 06/08/2016 05:48 pmQuote from: gospacex on 05/31/2016 12:49 pmYou are not addressing my point: Angara has almost no orders now, and will have rather low chances of getting new orders in 2020+. Of course, Russian govt payloads will fly on Russian LVs. But hardly anything else. Under these conditions, Angara will stay more expensive than today's Proton.Only Angara-1.2 variant is presently the only variant available for commercial orders. In order to accelerate its launch rate the ICBM conversional launcher fleet must be retired because their prices are to low compared to Angara, Which by the way is still in the flight test and certification phase. Until Vostochny pad(s) for Angara are built and come online there will only be Medium payload class launches to GTO and SSTO via Plesetsk. The government plan once Vostochny pads are online is to first phase out government Proton missions and then kick the commercial payloads over to Angara-A5 by setting in thew second phase a finite amount of Proton-Ms available for order and by setting retirement dates for all of Khrunichev Space Centres' hypergolic launchers.What commercial payloads?
СБОРКИ И БЛОКИ ДАЮТ НАМ УРОКИОсновные объемы производства «Полета» стремительно перемещаются в сторону «Ангары». У цеха окончательной сборки за номером 66 работы прибавляется. Об этом – разговор корреспондента «ЗЖ» с начальником цеха 66 П.А. Литвиненко.
Quote from: gospacex on 06/10/2016 05:13 pmWhat commercial payloads?Angara-A1.2 will pick up payloads from Dnepr, Rockot. Only already manifested payloads on Dnepr and Rockot will not fly on Angara-A1.2. Several payloads which have applied to launch those conversional launchers but have not been assigned a launcher is being directed toward Angara-A1.2
What commercial payloads?
Can you give names of those payloads?
Quote from: gospacex on 06/26/2016 03:09 pmCan you give names of those payloads?Gonets and Rodnik communications satellites.
Today Khrunichev announced a successful static firing test of the agregate module of Angara 1.2 - the lightweight version of the rocket. http://www.khrunichev.ru/main.php?id=1&nid=3540
What exactly is the point of this stage? I thought the whole point of Angara was to reduce redundant production lines, but they've just gone and added yet another stage which seems to be, from what little I can find of it, inferior in performance to even Volga, nevermind Briz-KM (which already is available for Angara 1.2 anyway), with similar longevity and restart capability. Does there really exist sufficient demand for launches in this extremely narrow performance bracket to justify development of a whole new upper stage, and all that entails, just to save a tiny bit on the per-unit costs?
I'll point out two other possible problems with the Angara program:-- shifting production of a very complex product to a new plant several time zones away usually involves sending some key personnel from the old site to the new site on a permanent or semi-permanent basis. But the Muscovites working at Khrunichev's main plant will be very reluctant to move to Siberia. They look down their noses at St. Petersburg, but Omsk might as well be on Mars to them. Everyplace in Russia outside Moscow is undergoing a rapid economic and social decline. The other day I read a story from Omsk that the city government had stopped repairing the streets, and citizens were filling potholes with potatoes,-- Khrunichev has recently been tasked with developing and building an all-Russian version of the Ukranian R-36M2 ICBM, to be called "Sarmat". The 46 R-36 missiles still in service carry about 1/3 of Russia's strategic warheads but are rapidly decaying since product support was withdrawn. Of course nobody in their right mind would order a hypergolic-fuel ICBM in the 21st century, but Putin is driven by nostalgia for everything Soviet and wants to demonstrate that he can get along just fine without Ukraine. The Soyuz-5 program (Russian version of Zenit comes from the same mindset. Sarmat undoubtedly enjoys a higher priority than Angara.