|
mr.columbus
|
|
« on: 07/14/2006 10:38 AM » |
|
Any news on the first launch of an Angara rocket? Last I heard was that the first launch of an Angara A3 was scheduled for next years. Are there any updates?
|
|
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
« on: 07/14/2006 10:38 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Damon Hill
|
|
« Reply #1 on: 07/15/2006 05:40 AM » |
|
Hard to tell if there has even been any metal bent yet. I think Angara is still in the somewhat indefinite future.
Krunichev has been showing a mockup of the Angara-derived Baikal flyback strapon, but that's not flight
hardware.
|
|
|
|
anik
|
|
« Reply #2 on: 07/15/2006 11:02 PM » |
|
According to last plans the launch complex at Plesetsk should be fully constructed by the end of 2009... There will be tests of launch systems after that during the half of year... For the finishing of tests of RD-191 engine is required another two-three years... The first launch of Angara rocket (A1 or A5, I do not know; A3 is not included into plans for a long time already) is planned now on 2011... Very sadly... 
|
|
|
|
Yodha
|
|
« Reply #3 on: 07/31/2006 06:57 PM » |
|
Yes, I have also heard that the Baitarek facility within Baikonur will be complete sometime during 2009. The funding for the RD-191 firing tests has been woefully inadequate and only about 10 firings have been done so far, to my knowledge. I know the Angara 3 has the full backing from ILS and that there id forecasted demand for the vehicle to the tune of 1-3 launches per year but without more committment on the $$ side of the equation, it looks like 2011 is indeed the best hope for Angara's maiden launch.
|
|
|
|
anik
|
|
« Reply #4 on: 08/08/2006 06:15 PM » |
|
The chief of Plesetsk cosmodrome the general-lieutenant Anatoly Bashlakov has informed today that the first launches of Angara rockets are planned on 2010-2011... Angara-1 rocket will fly first, then Angara-5 rocket... He has added that the launch table for Angara rockets has arrived at Plesetsk at the end of July... Source: http://www.strana.ru/news/289273.html (in Russian)
|
|
|
|
mr.columbus
|
|
« Reply #5 on: 08/08/2006 06:25 PM » |
|
Very interesting, thanks anik. Why will Angara-5 be the second class of Angara to fly? What has happened to Angara A-3?
But very nice to hear that things are still ongoing, flight schedules are actually prepared and that the program is ongoing.
|
|
|
|
Space Lizard
|
|
« Reply #6 on: 08/09/2006 11:09 AM » |
|
South Korea's KSLV-1, based on the Angara booster stage, was once planned for launch in late 2007. However, I don't know if they'll meet this schedule.
|
|
|
|
anik
|
|
« Reply #7 on: 08/09/2006 03:34 PM » |
|
As I said earlier, Angara-3 launches are not included in plans already for a long time... The prime customer of Angara rocket is Russian Ministry of Defence... And the military require only Angara-5 rocket, because they want to launch their heavy satellites by Angara rocket from Plesetsk, not by Proton rocket from Baikonur... The military do not need in Angara-3, because they will use Soyuz-2.3 rocket in near future...
For the present, South-Koreans and Kazakhs have not paid the producing of KSLV-1 and Bayterek rockets, therefore the future of these rockets is very foggy...
|
|
|
|
mr.columbus
|
|
« Reply #8 on: 08/09/2006 03:44 PM » |
|
Ok, that makes sense. So in the end the Russian arsenal of new rockets in the 2012-2015 timeframe will be:
Angara 1 for 2-3.5t to LEO
Soyuz 2 and derivatives for 8t-12.5t to LEO or up to 2.5t to GTO
Angara 5 for 25t to LEO and up to 10t to GTO (replacing Proton)
If that will work they have a sound business case for launches in the next decade. Arianespace has chosen to do it this way a couple of years back with Vega, Soyuz 2 and Ariane 5.
|
|
|
|
Space Lizard
|
|
« Reply #9 on: 08/09/2006 07:40 PM » |
|
Angara 3 was supported by ILS but it has mostly disappeared from their website although it was intended to compete with Soyuz 2 and Land Launch...
|
|
|
|
jacqmans
|
|
« Reply #10 on: 08/28/2006 06:30 PM » |
|
28-08-2006 flight tests RN OF "ANGAR" are planned during the years 2010-2011 http://www.federalspace.ru/NewsDoSele.asp?NEWSID=1748On 26 August, 1995, was signed the decision of the government of the Russian Federation about the measures for the guarantee of creation of the space missile complex (KRK) of "Angar". High demands for space transportation means in 1990- X yr. designated new approaches to the development of the carrier rockets of heavy class. Sharply was raised the question about the creation of the "carrier OF THE XXI century" on the ecologically pure forms of fuel. In connection with this on 26 August, 1995, was signed the decision of the government of the Russian Federation about the measures for the guarantee of creation of the space missile complex (KRK) of "Angar". To the development of such type of carrier rocket was declared the competition, in which took part GKNPTS im. M.T. Of khrunicheva, RKK "energy" im. S.P.Koroleva and GRTS "KB im. V.P.Makeyeva". As a result of the detailed consideration entered in project competition, was accepted the proposal of the Defense Ministry RF, Russian Space Agency and State Committee RF on the defense branches of industry about the creation of the rocket space complex of "Angar". Uniqueness "hangars" consists in the fact that this is the first space rocket, created only in Russia. For the first time in the judgment of specialists and visitors the dummy rocket "of Angar -1" was represented in 1995 in France on 43- m international aerospace salon in Le Bourget and became its main exhibit. Family of the carrier rockets of "Angar" - the new generation of the carriers, developed on the basis of universal rocket module with the oxygen-kerosene engines. With the creation of such type of rocket GKNPTS im. M.V.Khrunicheva it attempts to maximally level the problem of harmful ejections into the environment with the starting. But the application of highly effective and ecologically clean propellant components is even and the important condition of achieving the efficiency, which is very important for the modern Russian industry. In particular, for the carrier rockets of heavy class, the application of oxygen and hydrogen on 2-1 step and starting block KVRB will make it possible to descend by approximately 40% starting mass of rocket (645 t) and, correspondingly, the mass of its construction. In this case the cost of hydrogen comprises less than 1% cost of launching. All this (taking into account several increased cost of hydrogen engine, tanks, system of servicing, storage and so forth.) steady gain in the specific cost of removal in size of 30-35% guarantees. The family RN of "Angar" includes the carrier rockets of four types from the light class with the load capacity in low orbits from 1,7 to 3,7 t to the heavy with the load capacity to 28,5 T. in the basis of these carriers it is assumed universal rocket module with the engine RD -191, which works on the components kerosene + liquid oxygen. One such module is first stage of carrier rockets of the light class "of Angar -1.1" and "Angar -1.2", which are distinguished by the types of the second steps. The carrier rockets of average and heavy classes "of Angar -3" and "Angar -5" are formed by addition to the carrier rocket "of Angar -1.2" respectively two or four universal modules. Depending on specific objectives is provided the use on these carriers of the starting of the unit "Breeze- M" and of oxygen-hydrogen starting block KVRB. In the overall design of "Angar" it will noticeably differ from the usual carriers. In the basic housing of first and second stages of rocket the fuel tanks are placed, and tanks for liquid oxygen are suspended on the side. This layout will make it possible to change the configuration of carrier, as this is provided for for RN "Ariane" of French company "arianespas". Launchings of all carrier rockets of a series of "Angar" it is planned to carry out from the spaceport Of plesetsk with the use of a ground-based infrastructure, created for RN "zenith". At the spaceport already they approached the installation of launching pad for the family of the carrier rockets of "Angar". Such launching pad by length and with the width of 14 m and by the height of more than 5 m consists of 16 blocks with a weight of from 20 to 50 tons. From the standardized launching system at the spaceport Of plesetsk heavy of "Angar" will be able to place in low orbits payload more than 26 tons (for the comparison RN "proton" are derived 20 tons from the spaceport Baikonur), and to the geostationary - into 4,5 tons. The introduction of complex into the system will allow Russia to start the automatic spacecraft of all types from its territory. This ensures to our country the independent output into space, which makes this rocket even of of more unique and more irreplaceable for Russian cosmonautics. The flight tests RN of "Angar" are planned during the years 2010-2011. At the beginning of flight tests will be created the standardized systems for entire family of the ecologically clean carriers of "Angar". The project of the space missile complex of "Angar" constantly is enlarged, drawing into its orbit new components. On 22 December, 2004, between RF and republic Kazakhstan was signed "agreement about the creation at the spaceport Baikonur the space missile complex (KRK)" Of bayterek "on the base RN" of Angar ". This agreement provides for the creation of the launch and technical complexes RN of "Angar" at the spaceport Baikonur. The realization of project "bayterek" on the more neighbor to the equator, in comparison with Plesetskom, spaceport will make possible to most effectively use the potential possibilities, placed in RN of "Angar". Today is already created functions joint Russian- Kazakhstan enterprise "bayterek", which is occupied by the coordination of works on the creation of launching system at the spaceport Baikonur. The planned technical characteristics of the carrier rockets of "Angar" are located on the level, which makes possible for them successfully to compete with the best world models of rocket-space technology. It will make it possible to ensure the lower, in comparison with the analogous rockets of peace, prime cost of the removal of payload over a wide range of orbits with the use of advanced technologies of production.
|
|
|
|
|
|
publiusr
|
|
« Reply #12 on: 11/03/2006 08:59 PM » |
|
I don't think they are going with those side mounted propellant tanks. I remember seeing pictures of Mark Wade depicting what looked to be a Zenit with saddle tanks, but I thought Angara was going to be more conventional...
|
|
|
|
edkyle99
|
|
« Reply #13 on: 11/15/2006 10:28 PM » |
|
I've read that the Angara boosters will be produced at the PO Polyot factory in Omsk. Does anyone know if any substantial work will be done at Krunichev State Research and Production Space Center in Moscow, where Proton assembly takes place? Could a production floor turnover to Angara be at the root of recent comments by Arianespace officials alluding to possible limits on Proton availability?
- Ed Kyle
|
|
|
|
dmitrik
|
|
« Reply #14 on: 11/16/2006 12:30 PM » |
|
edkyle99 - 15/11/2006 4:11 PM
Could a production floor turnover to Angara be at the root of recent comments by Arianespace officials alluding to possible limits on Proton availability?
- Ed Kyle Apparently the problem is limited production capacity at KB KhimMash who make C5.98 engines used on Breeze-M/KM upper stages and also C5.92 used on Fregat upper stages. (source: Ivan Safronov, Kommersant Daily)
|
|
|
|
anik
|
|
« Reply #15 on: 03/13/2007 05:15 PM » |
|
See new photos (February 26, 2007) of construction of launch complex no. 35/1 for Angara rockets at Plesetsk cosmodrome on Novosti kosmonavtiki website...
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #16 on: 03/14/2007 05:52 AM » |
|
Under that snow, its a little hard to tell exactly how much work has been done, but its good to see human beings at the site.
|
|
|
|
publiusr
|
|
« Reply #17 on: 03/30/2007 07:03 PM » |
|
anik - 13/3/2007 12:15 PM
See new photos (February 26, 2007) of construction of launch complex no. 35/1 for Angara rockets at Plesetsk cosmodrome on Novosti kosmonavtiki website... Thanks for the pictures. I like the shots of the large models towards the end.
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #18 on: 03/30/2007 10:58 PM » |
|
There was a story the other that the Kazakh government pulled over $100 million in funding for the Balterek (Angara) program.
|
|
|
|
|
|
pm1823
|
|
« Reply #20 on: 09/02/2008 06:59 PM » |
|
New press-release on the russian part of Khrunichev's site: http://www.khrunichev.ru/main.php?id=1&nid=750To the FKP NIC RKP (the former NII HIMMASH, town Peresvet, Sergiev-Posad district, Moscow region) is delivered universal rocket module URM-2 of LV Angara for undertaking the fire test. The Family of the LVs Angara is a new generation of LV, based of the universal rocket module with oxygen-kerosine engine from light to heavy classes within the range of payload capacity from 1,5 t to 25 tons on LEO. The launch pad for LVs Angara, on the russian cosmodrome Plesetsk, is unique technical decision, which allow with one pad to realize launching of all LVs in the Angara family.  
|
|
|
|
Damon Hill
|
|
« Reply #21 on: 11/02/2008 07:00 PM » |
|
Details on Russian Space Web for a proposed Angara-7, with about double the payload of a Proton. It would use six RD-191 boosters, a beefed up core and expanded upper stages. Depends of course on funding and actual payload demand, so I wouldn't expect to see it developed until the end of next decade. Could it use an existing Angara pad without significant modifications? I wonder what the price of a mass-produced RD-191 is? Lockheed-Martin certainly got a bargain on the RD-180 with their order of 101 units--about $10 million/unit. Angara seems to be the "universal rocket" that could replace virtually the entire stable of Russian rockets. I think it will eventually displace all of the hypergolic-fueled launchers, just as Long March 5 should replace nearly all existing Chinese launchers. http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara7.html
|
|
|
|
patchfree
|
|
« Reply #22 on: 11/09/2008 11:47 PM » |
|
Angara-7 can't use the existing pad in Plesetsk. An entire new pad would be necessary and elsewhere (Vostochny?). Anyway with the likely shrinking of the space activity in the next years due to financial crash, I am thinking that such an Angara version has no chance to see the light...
The present versions of Angara (1 to 5) will be not man-rated, so they can't replace soyouz vehicle in the next close years.
I am predicting a standby for new important space hardware developments and more likely an intensive use of venerable spacecrafts and rockets: soyouz, progress...
|
|
|
|
pm1823
|
|
« Reply #23 on: 11/14/2008 09:39 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
patchfree
|
|
« Reply #25 on: 06/21/2009 03:03 PM » |
|
As you can view on that picture from ZAK website the Angara 7 version has its mockup but the location of the seven URMs could not fit the wearing table at Plesetsk pad. So such a version will remain a mockup only...  http://www.russianspaceweb.com/lebourget2009/index.htm
|
|
|
|
JimO
|
|
« Reply #26 on: 06/22/2009 12:47 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sammie
|
|
« Reply #28 on: 06/22/2009 06:54 PM » |
|
And in the article I think you mention that the Russian government doesn´t use the Ukrainian Zenit anymore. I think this is rather a government objective, but not practice. Considering the future use of the Zenit-3F on Russian scientific missions, such as Phobos-Grunt and Spektr.
|
|
|
|
zaitcev
|
|
« Reply #29 on: 06/22/2009 08:14 PM » |
|
Check out my recent article in Aerospace America:
http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/AA_Angara_JAN2009.pdf
Bet you regret some of the premature speculation now that Rus-M is anounced. It has no chance to fly ahead of Angara (what with KSLV-1 being a flying testbed and a month away from first flight). But it gave a rallying point to the other manufacturers, unnamed in the article. -- Pete
|
|
|
|
JimO
|
|
« Reply #30 on: 06/23/2009 09:36 PM » |
|
Thanks y'all -- comments logged and indexed, for future use.
|
|
|
|
zaitcev
|
|
« Reply #31 on: 07/30/2009 07:55 PM » |
|
Insiders report on NK forums that the first fire test of URM-1 was completed successfuly a few hours ago.
-- Pete
|
|
|
|
|
|
fregate
|
|
« Reply #33 on: 08/01/2009 01:41 AM » |
|
Check out my recent article in Aerospace America:
http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/AA_Angara_JAN2009.pdf
James, Thanks a lot for your article. Just a curious history fact - Khrunichev unsuccessfully tried to promote Angara LV for a Australian commercial spaceport project, LV has not been even shortlisted because it simply did not exist at the time (there were multiple attempts to establish spaceport in various locations) as well as vendor could not provide a decent upper stage for GEO/GTO market.
|
|
|
|
anik
|
|
« Reply #34 on: 08/04/2009 03:27 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
cd-slam
|
|
« Reply #35 on: 08/04/2009 05:37 PM » |
|
Just a curious history fact - Khrunichev unsuccessfully tried to promote Angara LV for a Australian commercial spaceport project, LV has not been even shortlisted because it simply did not exist at the time (there were multiple attempts to establish spaceport in various locations) as well as vendor could not provide a decent upper stage for GEO/GTO market.
Interesting, was this at the same time as the proposal to launch Avrora (Soyuz variant) from Christmas Island? As I understand, that idea was squashed when Arianespace signed the contract to launch Soyuz rockets from Kourou. One of the conditions was that the Russians could not sell any Soyuz or variants to any other buyer competing against them. Plus the Indonesians were not too happy about spent rocket stages flying over them.
|
|
|
|
PDJennings
|
|
« Reply #36 on: 10/06/2009 04:06 PM » |
|
Didn't see any notice here of this test -- apparently the first full length URM-1 firing, some 200+ seconds, and a success. http://www.khrunichev.ru/main.php?id=1&nid=1320Khrunichev chief designer Yuri Bakhvalov is in one of the candid shots. You can see his name on his badge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #38 on: 10/08/2009 04:03 PM » |
|
Didn't see any notice here of this test -- apparently the first full length URM-1 firing, some 200+ seconds, and a success.
http://www.khrunichev.ru/main.php?id=1&nid=1320
Khrunichev chief designer Yuri Bakhvalov is in one of the candid shots. You can see his name on his badge.
Of course, there was a more important test a few weeks ago, the actual launch of an Angara first stage by the South Koreans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
osiossim
|
|
« Reply #40 on: 11/20/2009 07:15 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
Space Pete
|
|
« Reply #41 on: 07/19/2010 12:37 PM » |
|
RIA Novosti: "Russia to start testing new Angara rocket in 2013". Test launches of Russia's new booster rocket, the Angara, are to start in 2013, the rocket designer said on Thursday.
Vladimir Nesterov, head of the Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center, said the rocket assembly would be completed in the first quarter of 2011, adding that the first-stage engine was "99% ready" and the second-stage engine had already been tested three times.
He said the only problem that could affect the schedule of tests was delays in the purchase of ground-based equipment that the center was unable to order due to underfunding.
Angara rockets, designed to provide lifting capabilities between 2,000 and 40,500 kg into low earth orbit, are expected to become the core of Russia's unmanned launcher fleet, replacing several existing systems.
The main purpose of the Angara rocket family is to give Russia independent access to space. The rockets will reduce Russia's dependence on the Baikonur space center it leases from Kazakhstan by allowing the launch of heavy payloads from more northerly sites such as Plesetsk and a new space center in Russia's Far East.
Khrunichev is also developing a super-heavy-lift version, the Angara 7, capable of orbiting payloads of 45 to 75 tons, and for which there is no equivalent in Russia's current rocket fleet.
MOSCOW, July 15 (RIA Novosti) http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100715/159826586.html
|
|
|
|
Space Pete
|
|
« Reply #42 on: 08/05/2010 10:46 PM » |
|
Khrunichev Space Center PAO: "Cold Tests of Universal Rocket Module URM-2 for Angara Launcher will Continue in August".NITS RKP, Peresvet, continues cold firing tests of Universal Rocket Module URM-2 for Angara launcher. URM-2 is to be used in the third stage of the rocket. The first and second sessions of the cold firing tests have been completed in June-July. URM-2 bench firing tests are planned for the third quarter of 2010. Firing tests of the URM-1 for the first stage of Angara have been completed in 2009. Development of the Angara launcher is the high-priority national objective. Angara‘s customers are Russian Federal Space Agency and the Ministry of Defense. Khrunichev Space Center is the prime contractor in the project. www.roscosmos.ru/main.php?id=2&nid=10023&lang=en
|
|
|
|
Dmitry_V_home
|
|
« Reply #43 on: 11/18/2010 04:36 PM » |
|
Today have taken place fire test URM-2. Duration of 399 seconds. Full success!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #45 on: 12/29/2010 06:44 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #47 on: 04/01/2011 04:02 AM » |
|
http://www.khrunichev.ru/main.php?id=1&nid=2012
The first (suborbital) launch of Angara-1.2PP rocket is planned in the second quarter 2013, the first (orbital) launch of Angara-A5 - in the fourth quarter 2013.
I thought the first suborbital launch happened in 2009, and the second in 2010, over the Eastern Cosmodrome.
|
|
|
|
fregate
|
|
« Reply #48 on: 04/29/2011 01:54 PM » |
|
From RIA Novosti multimidea presentation about Khrunichev strategic Space Exploration Program 2020-2050
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #49 on: 04/29/2011 02:59 PM » |
|
I wonder if the A7 variant can use the same GSE for installing the strapons as does Proton.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Downix
|
|
« Reply #51 on: 04/29/2011 04:40 PM » |
|
While interesting, I can see issues with their layout of A5 vs A7. A5 straps the boosters to the core in a cross arrangement, while A7 straps them in a hexagon. This means that either a) your core will be heavier due to the need to support not 6 mounts, but 8 due to the different connection points of boosters 3 and 4 in the two arrangements, or b) the core is customized between the two, which increases cost to produce and overhead needs.
A slight change would solve this. Instead of a cross, simply consider it an A7 arrangement, but leave off boosters 5 and 6. I've taken a moment to make a picture to demonstrate how this would work, and attached it here. By doing so, they can improve both their production cost and overhead, and there is no loss in performance for this arrangement in my experience. The only concern comes with staging, releasing both boosters on each side at the same time can cause a collision in rare scenarios. There are several solutions for this, but the simplest is to not stage them simultaneously. So, boosters 1,2 stage, 4 seconds later boosters 3,4 stage. The RD-191 engine allows for the throttling down, so to ensure smooth hand-off for this, is you run the center at a lower thrust for most of the flight, the minimum is 40% but I suspect 50-60% would be better but I don't have the time to run through the full calculations. 15 seconds before staging, you throttle down boosters 3,4 to 70% while keeping boosters 1,2 at 100%, then once boosters 1,2 stage, you throttle up boosters 3,4 to 100% and when booster 3,4 stage you then throttle up the core to 100%. What this does is slow down acceleration slightly as you stage, which reduces the g-force stress on the payload and smooths out the fuel burn rate.
|
|
|
|
zaitcev
|
|
« Reply #52 on: 04/29/2011 05:15 PM » |
|
A7 is designed with a larger diameter core, which is still barely railroad-compatible. Probably same size as Rus-M core or similar. It should be enough for clean separation or the 6 URM-1.
|
|
|
|
Moe Grills
|
|
« Reply #53 on: 04/29/2011 07:37 PM » |
|
1154 tonnes launch mass.
Launch thrust must be at least 1,300 tonnes then.
40.5 tonnes to low earth orbit? Wow.
That's better than the Falcon 9 Heavy capability.
|
|
|
|
Downix
|
|
« Reply #54 on: 04/29/2011 08:43 PM » |
|
A7 is designed with a larger diameter core, which is still barely railroad-compatible. Probably same size as Rus-M core or similar. It should be enough for clean separation or the 6 URM-1.
It would be. Although, they may just adapt the Proton tooling of 4.15 meters as well. And yes, a larger core stage would make for cleaner separation.
|
|
|
|
grdja
|
|
« Reply #55 on: 04/30/2011 01:36 PM » |
|
A7 using larger diameter core and being specifically noted to be intended for beyond LEO manned exploration; all that clearly translates into "will never be built, ever".
|
|
|
|
ArbitraryConstant
|
|
« Reply #56 on: 05/31/2011 07:58 PM » |
|
1154 tonnes launch mass.
Launch thrust must be at least 1,300 tonnes then.
40.5 tonnes to low earth orbit? Wow.
That's better than the Falcon 9 Heavy capability.
Somewhat less from what SpaceX has disclosed since you made this post, though Angara's LH2 will be an advantage for GTO. Both vehicles will benefit from customers taking advantage of the greater lift, which some might be reluctant to do if it were only one provider.
|
|
|
|
Prober
|
|
« Reply #57 on: 06/02/2011 10:48 PM » |
|
May 23, 2011
First RD191 Production Engine Delivery
In May 19, 2011 OAO NPO Energomash delivered the first RD191 production engine No. D023 to Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center (SRPSC). The engine is intended for the utilization within Angara 1.2 launch vehicle first launching. 5 more RD191 production engines No., No. D012-D016 are to be delivered to SRPSC to provide Flight Design Testing of Angara 5 heavy class Launch Vehicle.
|
|
|
|
Stan Black
|
|
« Reply #58 on: 06/04/2011 08:50 AM » |
|
“ANGARA” LAUNCH VEHICLE FAMILY CONCEPT, DEVELOPMENT STATUS AND OPERATIONAL PLANS A. Medvedev, A. Kuzin, E. Motorny, Khrunichev Space Center, Russia, B. Katorgin, NPO Energomash, Russia http://propulsion2002.aaaf.asso.fr/papers.html
|
|
|
|
libs0n
|
|
« Reply #59 on: 06/04/2011 07:05 PM » |
|
I'd like to propose a booster recovery option for the Angara vehicles, as opposed to the hypothetical Baikal flyback stage, that the vehicle is ideally suited for.
1. Parachutes - to slow the descent
2. Airbags - to cushion the impact
3. Helicopter retrieval of the booster - to return the booster for remanufacture.
The vehicle seems ideally suited for this for the following reasons. The boosters stage at a lower velocity than in a TSTO vehicle. The landing zone of Angaras launched from Baikonur would be over land; I not familiar with the landing zones from the new launch sites within Russia. The booster mass is within the payload capability of a helicopter for retrieval.
This is similar to the plan to recover Zenits in Energia, except that concept included retro rockets and landing legs, while this uses a Kistler like airbag system, although either method would be open for the manufacturer to pursue. There is also an American concept for mid-air helicopter retrieval that would be applicable to this method.
I present this idea as this seems like a low hanging fruit idea for booster reuse. It first came to mind during discussion of an all NK-33 powered Soyuz, as in that case it would have allowed for preservation of the legacy engine stock over a larger amount of flights.
edit:
The closing section of the PDF in the post above mine implies that there are intermediate options for booster reusability that can be pursued prior to development of flyback boosters.
"At the same time, with an existence
of the RD-191M engine’s reusable version
and with an introduction of necessary
changes into the design of the URM-1 basic
module itself, we can start with the “inter-
mediate” version of the first stage’s univer-
sal booster with limited level of reusability. "
"We are convinced that practical reali-
zation of the modular concept as well as an
introduction of reusability for separate
stages (modules) of space launch vehicles
are one of the most promising ways for
radical enhancement of operational capabili-
ties and reducing costs of current and ad-
vanced space transportation systems."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dmitry_V_home
|
|
« Reply #61 on: 09/30/2011 08:36 PM » |
|
Angara-A5P with PTK NP:
|
|
|
|
anik
|
|
« Reply #62 on: 10/05/2011 08:07 PM » |
|
http://www.ilslaunch.com/sites/default/files/Sat-Magazine-October-2011-McKenna.pdf"The Angara launch system will initially support federal missions with first flight test anticipated in late 2013 or early 2014 on an Angara 1.2 vehicle" "ILS is offering a commercial payload opportunity for the second launch of Angara family of launch vehicles using the heavy Angara 5. The idea is to provide our commercial customers and the insurance community an early view of the Angara system. However this opportunity is a unique one, as we would consider commercial use of Angara only after it becomes fully flight-proven on Russian federal missions"
|
|
|
|
anik
|
|
« Reply #63 on: 10/23/2011 08:39 PM » |
|
Photos of Angara launch pad in Plesetsk cosmodrome from Novosti kosmonavtiki forum (July 2011).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #65 on: 11/12/2011 03:53 AM » |
|
http://www.khrunichev.ru/main.php?id=52
When did this get updated?
New, two engine version of KVTK upper stage; and new potential launch site?
Hmmm ... it appears that Khrunichev is hoping to have a Centaur equivalent upper stage by 2020. I don't know how they plan to ship a 4.0 meter diameter stage to the Far East.
|
|
|
|
|
|
zaitcev
|
|
« Reply #67 on: 01/24/2012 01:48 AM » |
|
I don't know how they plan to ship a 4.0 meter diameter stage to the Far East. Russian railroads can take 4m wide cargo with some limitations. It is much simpler if it is short, like an upper stage.
|
|
|
|
zaitcev
|
|
« Reply #68 on: 01/26/2012 04:16 AM » |
|
BTW... Mrs. Blinov, Ivanov, Mikulov, Husainov, all the designers of Polyot, now the main production plant for URM-1, consdered an Atlas Redux based on URM-1, made by installing a vernier engine on well-known URM-1 (flown twice in KSLV-1), and adding a system to jettison RD-191. Payload 1640 kg to 200 km, dropping to 155 kg to 800 km when flown without airstart. http://www.ihst.ru/~akm/35t11.htmBet we're going to see a lot of crazy mods as Angara ramps up. Remember that Baikal started as URM-1 with wings. Next on the menu is a Siberian Grasshopper, I suspect!
|
|
|
|
russianhalo117
|
|
« Reply #69 on: 01/26/2012 05:09 AM » |
|
Photos of Angara launch pad in Plesetsk cosmodrome from Novosti kosmonavtiki forum (July 2011).
Are there any recent 2012 construction updates for service tower assembly? How far along is it percentage wise? Could someone please include some more recent pictures. Google Earth images are a bit out of date for 45 degree angle viewing. I've been hearing recently about a plan to start building pad 35/2 where the other Zenit pad was supposed to go. Where in relation to pad 35/1 would 35/2 go if ever fully built? Are there any known light towers for 35/2? What will become of the mobile servicing towers (rails) from Zenit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prober
|
|
« Reply #71 on: 01/27/2012 03:10 AM » |
|
Photos of Angara launch pad in Plesetsk cosmodrome from Novosti kosmonavtiki forum (July 2011).
Are there any recent 2012 construction updates for service tower assembly?
How far along is it percentage wise?
Could someone please include some more recent pictures. Google Earth images are a bit out of date for 45 degree angle viewing.
I've been hearing recently about a plan to start building pad 35/2 where the other Zenit pad was supposed to go.
Where in relation to pad 35/1 would 35/2 go if ever fully built?
Are there any known light towers for 35/2?
What will become of the mobile servicing towers (rails) from Zenit?
How about they use those Zenit parts in the launcher pad destroyed in Baikonour?
|
|
|
|
russianhalo117
|
|
« Reply #72 on: 04/30/2012 02:50 AM » |
|
What is the percentage of completion for 35/1 at this point and when is it estimated to be completed? Are there any new pics from 35/1
|
|
|
|
zaitcev
|
|
« Reply #73 on: 05/02/2012 01:42 AM » |
|
What is the percentage of completion for 35/1 at this point and when is it estimated to be completed? Are there any new pics from 35/1 I saw quite a few. Now that the pad is taking shape visibly, they are much more open about letting people take pictures than when it was just a sad, never-changing hole in the ground. News TV post segments about it from time to time as well, although they gravitate to action shots of T/E being tested at Zvezdochka. Can't really say what the completion percentage is. It was 80% ready for 15 years, so it probably does not matter.
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #74 on: 06/03/2012 10:51 PM » |
|
http://www.roscosmos.ru/main.php?id=2&nid=19119Work on the creation of the launch vehicle "Angara" are in accordance with the general schedule. The first launches of rockets light class "Angara-1.2PP" and heavy-duty "Angara-5" is scheduled for 2013. 
|
|
|
|
Salo Ukr
|
|
« Reply #75 on: 06/14/2012 06:32 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
woods170
|
|
« Reply #76 on: 06/14/2012 10:19 AM » |
|
http://www.roscosmos.ru/main.php?id=2&nid=19119
Work on the creation of the launch vehicle "Angara" are in accordance with the general schedule. The first launches of rockets light class "Angara-1.2PP" and heavy-duty "Angara-5" is scheduled for 2013.
This statement coming from Roscosmos. You best add at least 18 months to that date.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Salo Ukr
|
|
« Reply #78 on: 07/20/2012 06:33 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
Prober
|
|
« Reply #79 on: 07/21/2012 04:13 PM » |
|
Pads look very different from the way Zenit and Proton pads are designed. Why the change in pad design?
|
|
|
|
russianhalo117
|
|
« Reply #80 on: 07/21/2012 10:20 PM » |
|
Pads look very different from the way Zenit and Proton pads are designed. Why the change in pad design?
For starters, look at the fixed servicing and launch umbilical tower, resemble to a degree, of the former Energia Launch System's FSS structures at Site 108(? N1 pads), but are consolidated into a compact structure with connected walkways between the two tower. The Servicing arm structures closely resemble the design used for Chinese FSS arms. Also if look on google earth (overhead and 40 degree viewing angles) for the launch complex Iran is building to support larger/more powerful rockets, the FSS almost completely identical in size and design, which also makes me wonder if Russia is somewhat involved given the similarities.
|
|
|
|
Rahkashi
|
|
« Reply #81 on: 07/21/2012 10:46 PM » |
|
According to an MSNBC article (which I can't link to because I'm using my iPhone), the PPTS will be using the Angara A5 as its launcher, in light of Rus-M getting the axe.
|
|
|
|
russianhalo117
|
|
« Reply #82 on: 07/21/2012 10:58 PM » |
|
According to an MSNBC article (which I can't link to because I'm using my iPhone), the PPTS will be using the Angara A5 as its launcher, in light of Rus-M getting the axe.
We already know this. This section is for the Angara LV, not PPTS and Rus-M, which has its own thread. Rus-M LV was not planned for Plesetsk.
|
|
|
|
sdsds
|
|
« Reply #83 on: 07/21/2012 11:03 PM » |
|
According to an MSNBC article (which I can't link to because I'm using my iPhone), the PPTS will be using the Angara A5 as its launcher, in light of Rus-M getting the axe.
You might be referring to Rob Coppinger's article titled, "Russia Converts Unmanned Rocket to Carry New Crewed Spaceship," which is available at: http://www.space.com/16658-russia-crew-spacecraft-angara-rocket.html
|
|
|
|
hkultala
|
|
« Reply #84 on: 07/26/2012 07:33 PM » |
|
Will the multi-core versions of angara(3,5,7) use cross-feed?
And is it true that A5P does not have a second stage? without cross-feed this would have severe effect on capacity as it would be almost like SSTO but cross-feed helps a lot(makes it practically TSTO) and makes if feasible?
|
|
|
|
baldusi
|
|
« Reply #85 on: 07/27/2012 03:23 AM » |
|
Will the multi-core versions of angara(3,5,7) use cross-feed?
And is it true that A5P does not have a second stage? without cross-feed this would have severe effect on capacity as it would be almost like SSTO but cross-feed helps a lot(makes it practically TSTO) and makes if feasible?
I've seen a picture of an Angara cross feed connection on a Falcon Heavy discussion.
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #86 on: 07/27/2012 05:54 PM » |
|
Also if look on google earth (overhead and 40 degree viewing angles) for the launch complex Iran is building to support larger/more powerful rockets, the FSS almost completely identical in size and design, which also makes me wonder if Russia is somewhat involved given the similarities.
If the Iranian launch complex is that close in design to the Angara site, the implication is that someone from KBTM (which is now a part of Tsenki) may be helping them.
|
|
|
|
baldusi
|
|
« Reply #87 on: 07/27/2012 05:57 PM » |
|
Will the multi-core versions of angara(3,5,7) use cross-feed?
And is it true that A5P does not have a second stage? without cross-feed this would have severe effect on capacity as it would be almost like SSTO but cross-feed helps a lot(makes it practically TSTO) and makes if feasible?
First link on google (on this very site): http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28424.msg877014#msg877014
|
|
|
|
russianhalo117
|
|
« Reply #88 on: 07/27/2012 10:41 PM » |
|
Also if look on google earth (overhead and 40 degree viewing angles) for the launch complex Iran is building to support larger/more powerful rockets, the FSS almost completely identical in size and design, which also makes me wonder if Russia is somewhat involved given the similarities.
If the Iranian launch complex is that close in design to the Angara site, the implication is that someone from KBTM (which is now a part of Tsenki) may be helping them.
The picture below is what it looks like. The only major difference on the FSS is the diagonal beams on the back of the FSS Tower. The launch mount at base and to the tower matches the 35/1 launch mount dimensions with enough space for slots for four additional booster cores similar to the design of A5. The location of the tower is placed identical to 35/1. On Google Earth it looks like it is nearing 90+% completion. However, the Iranian complex more closely resembles Chinese and the recently built North Korean pads. The Rocket however is an orbital derivative of R-27 SLBM. Goto: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11734.100 for related info ------- Wikileaks release also contains some information about North-Korea supplying Iran with missile technology. It seems that Iran now has missiles based on the Russian R-27 SLBM. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/middleeast/29missiles.html?_r=1------- http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1003/S00147.htmoriginal article: Imagery of Construction of New Launch Site in Iran Saturday, 6 March 2010, 12:36 pm Press Release: IHS Inc. IHS Jane’s Analyses Satellite Imagery of Construction of New Launch Site in Iran LONDON (5 March 2010) Through the use of commercial satellite imagery from DigitalGlobe and GeoEye, IHS Jane’s has revealed that a new launch pad is being constructed at Iran’s Semnan space centre that could ultimately launch Tehran’s next-generation Simorgh rocket. To view satellite image: http://press.ihs.com/ihsjanes/imagegallery/Jane’s Defence Weekly, 4 March 2010, reported that Iran unveiled the Simorgh space-launch vehicle (SLV) on 3 February, but as of March 2010 has not publicly revealed the location of the rocket’s launch complex. However, IHS Jane’s has observed a new site four kilometres northeast of Iran’s existing launch facility at Semnan on a WorldView-2 satellite image dated 6 February 2010. It contains a gantry tower, which is 13 metres wide, approximately18 – 20 metres tall and has a cliff-side flame bucket nearly as high as the tower itself. It appears midway towards completion. Although the tower is not yet tall enough to facilitate vertical assembly of the 27-metre Simorgh, the launch pad could easily accommodate Iran’s new rocket if the gantry were to be extended by an additional 10 metres. In addition to this site, IHS Jane’s has observed another facility two and a half kilometers to the southwest; between the new site and the existing one. Although this facility is in early stages of construction, its heavily secured nature and restricted access indicate it is a primary element of the newly constructed complex. Using satellite imagery from the Ikonos and WorldView-2 satellites taken on 11 February 2010, IHS Jane’s has identified the Simorgh and Safir-2 rockets displayed during the pro-revolution rallies in Tehran’s Azadi Square. The commercial satellite imagery is coded with geographic metadata that enables IHS Jane’s to garner several accurate measurements of the Simorgh. The development of the Semnan facility and the Simorgh SLV both demonstrate the likelihood of collaboration with North Korea in Iran’s missile programme. The platforms seen on the new gantry tower resemble those seen on the gantry tower at North Korea’s new launch pad at Tongchang. A drainage pit 170 metres directly in front of the pad also mirrors one at Pyongyang’s new west-coast launch site. Similarly, the first stage of the Simorgh strongly resembles the North Korean Unha-2, with four clustered engines and nearly the same dimensions. IHS Jane’s concludes that given these investments in its missile infrastructure, and despite the United States attempting to garner support for further sanctions against Iran for its nuclear programme, Tehran appears determined to continue developing its missile and rocket capabilities in the foreseeable future. Further analysis of the Simorgh 3 SLV and the new installation at Semnan can be viewed at jmr.janes.com and in the April edition of Jane's Missiles and Rockets . IHS Jane’s is an IHS (NYSE: IHS) company. ENDS © Scoop Media
|
|
|
|
Salo Ukr
|
|
« Reply #89 on: 07/28/2012 08:48 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
hkultala
|
|
« Reply #90 on: 07/28/2012 08:57 AM » |
|
Will the multi-core versions of angara(3,5,7) use cross-feed?
And is it true that A5P does not have a second stage? without cross-feed this would have severe effect on capacity as it would be almost like SSTO but cross-feed helps a lot(makes it practically TSTO) and makes if feasible?
First link on google (on this very site):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28424.msg877014#msg877014
So, there are unidirectional valves between the boosters and core, and some kind of pressurization system to put more pressure to the tanks of the boosters? My russian skills are not good enough to really understand most of the components. How is the pressurization done? and can they get enough pressure to make the core ful or almost full during separation? or will it be like "half full" ? And how do they control that same amount of fuel comes from all boosters, so that they run out of fuel at the same time?
|
|
|
|
Salo Ukr
|
|
« Reply #91 on: 07/28/2012 09:39 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
HappyMartian
|
|
« Reply #92 on: 08/08/2012 08:12 AM » |
|
Russia readies rocket for Moon flight By Alexander Sotov August 8, 2012 http://indrus.in/articles/2012/08/08/russia_readies_rocket_for_moon_flight_16867.html"Testing is underway at the Plesetsk Cosmodrome in preparation for launch of Russia’s new Angara rocket, according to the press service of the Russian Ministry of Defense. The tests began in late July and will last three months." And, "The range of rockets under development will be able to lift from 1.5 to 25 tons into low Earth orbit. But, as Russian media have already reported, Russia will use the Angara as the basis for a superheavy rocket, capable of launching manned flights to the Moon."
|
|
|
|
zaitcev
|
|
« Reply #93 on: 09/25/2012 03:46 PM » |
|
Greetings from our sister forum, a 3D-video Angara manufacturing:
<![CDATA[<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/jmT6UR0sjUA&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/jmT6UR0sjUA&rel=1</a>]]>
|
|
|
|
Prober
|
|
« Reply #94 on: 09/25/2012 04:09 PM » |
|
nice video.....lots of friction stir machines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
LeVent
|
|
« Reply #96 on: 10/25/2012 03:36 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
Prober
|
|
« Reply #97 on: 10/25/2012 06:25 PM » |
|
The pics look strange......like the project is worked on and off when funds are available or something?
The rust and amount of weeds show the fixure isn't used much.
|
|
|
|
Prober
|
|
« Reply #98 on: 10/25/2012 06:27 PM » |
|
Does a successful "Naro" launch on Friday advance the Angara program to pick up some speed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
edkyle99
|
|
« Reply #100 on: 10/26/2012 04:00 PM » |
|
The pics look strange......like the project is worked on and off when funds are available or something?
The rust and amount of weeds show the fixure isn't used much.
I think that is common in Russia. They tend to focus on the things that really matter, like the stage being tested, rather than things that don't, like the weeds. A test fixture like this is going to be used sporadically, so it is going to see less maintenance. Look at photos of little-used Baikonur buildings for similar maintenance practices. - Ed Kyle
|
|
|
|
patchfree
|
|
« Reply #101 on: 10/26/2012 04:14 PM » |
|
The pics look strange......like the project is worked on and off when funds are available or something?
The rust and amount of weeds show the fixure isn't used much.
I think that is common in Russia. They tend to focus on the things that really matter, like the stage being tested, rather than things that don't, like the weeds. A test fixture like this is going to be used sporadically, so it is going to see less maintenance. Look at photos of little-used Baikonur buildings for similar maintenance practices.
- Ed Kyle
Correct. The test stand probably originates from the soviet period. Here no need of a new stand for an occasionnal use. A1 is already tested (and Naro-1 provides real flight tests) but A3 and A5 need remaining tests at the level of structure.
|
|
|
|
pargoo
|
|
« Reply #102 on: 10/26/2012 11:11 PM » |
|
It's not only Russia. If you've been to KSC you can't help but notice that anything not directly in contact with flight-hardware looks pretty natty and rough around the edges, especially at ground-level...
|
|
|
|
russianhalo117
|
|
« Reply #103 on: 12/16/2012 09:10 PM » |
|
Has anyone come across any new construction images taken during this quarter for 35/1 or 35/2? I am seeking a new status update/report on latest progress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Galactic Penguin SST
|
|
« Reply #105 on: 01/20/2013 08:50 AM » |
|
Has anyone come across any new construction images taken during this quarter for 35/1 or 35/2? I am seeking a new status update/report on latest progress.
There are two pads at area 35? I thought there will only be one....
|
|
|
|
anik
|
|
« Reply #106 on: 01/20/2013 09:47 AM » |
|
Two launch pads will be built on area 35.
|
|
|
|
Galactic Penguin SST
|
|
« Reply #107 on: 01/20/2013 04:13 PM » |
|
Oh BTW, anyone got the performance data values for different orbits of the Angara 1.2 version with the Briz-KM upper stage? (or if possible, even other versions) Especially if the performance data are in the form of graphs. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Salo
|
|
« Reply #108 on: 01/20/2013 04:34 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
Salo
|
|
« Reply #109 on: 01/20/2013 04:37 PM » |
|
And some else:
|
|
|
|
patchfree
|
|
« Reply #110 on: 01/20/2013 10:16 PM » |
|
Two launch pads will be built on area 35.
Two?!! If so, where will be built the second pad on area 35?
|
|
|
|
patchfree
|
|
« Reply #111 on: 01/20/2013 10:17 PM » |
|
And some else:
What is the strange object on image 9845 ? A Gemini ghost? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
ChileVerde
|
|
« Reply #113 on: 01/20/2013 11:18 PM » |
|
And some else:
I don't think I've seen the НЖ/NZh designators before. Presumably some modern evolution of the GRAU sustem?
|
|
|
|
russianhalo117
|
|
« Reply #114 on: 01/21/2013 05:44 AM » |
|
Two launch pads will be built on area 35.
Two?!! If so, where will be built the second pad on area 35?
AFAIK, where second Zenit pad was to be on the other side propellant storage and unloading stations are (mirrored to the other)
|
|
|
|
zaitcev
|
|
« Reply #115 on: 01/21/2013 06:26 AM » |
|
Two?!! If so, where will be built the second pad on area 35?
AFAIK, where second Zenit pad was to be on the other side propellant storage and unloading stations are (mirrored to the other)
That was my understanding too. Due to layout of the surface, in particular the river not being completely straight, the symmetry is not ideal, but general. I am afraid, however, that it's going to turn into LC-37A: there's a pad in theory, but in practice there isn't.
|
|
|
|
Stan Black
|
|
« Reply #116 on: 01/21/2013 06:55 AM » |
|
And some else:
I don't think I've seen the НЖ/NZh designators before. Presumably some modern evolution of the GRAU sustem?
It is a ‘макет’, a non-flight rocket. 14С43Ж - заправочный макет РБ 14С43 14С43Н - технологический макет РБ 14С43 http://88.210.62.157/content/numbers/211/34.shtml
|
|
|
|
russianhalo117
|
|
« Reply #117 on: 01/22/2013 02:41 PM » |
|
Two?!! If so, where will be built the second pad on area 35?
AFAIK, where second Zenit pad was to be on the other side propellant storage and unloading stations are (mirrored to the other)
That was my understanding too. Due to layout of the surface, in particular the river not being completely straight, the symmetry is not ideal, but general. I am afraid, however, that it's going to turn into LC-37A: there's a pad in theory, but in practice there isn't.
Some of the structures are there but rundown and some have been removed from 35/2 for reuse on 35/1. ULA has preparing been SLC-37A for a new lease on life by removing the last of Apollo era structures and starting to prepare to raise the ground level to be at the same height as 37B. However, no Delta IV structures will be installed on 37A yet until needed. 37A activation was recommended as way to increase the DIV flight rate out of CCAFS and lower DIV costs a bit more after fleet standardization is completed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Galactic Penguin SST
|
|
« Reply #119 on: 03/07/2013 10:24 AM » |
|
What kind of tests are required on the rocket, engines and control systems before the first flight can happen (late this year or early 2014)? (sorry if I am missing some readings, but there has been too much new rockets waiting to fly - Antares, Falcon-9-1.1/Heavy, Vega, Soyuz-2-1v, Angara series, a new Japanese rocket, not to mention the whole bunch of new Chinese rockets - all to fly in the next 3 years! )
|
|
|
|
Salo
|
|
« Reply #120 on: 04/10/2013 06:33 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Galactic Penguin SST
|
|
« Reply #122 on: 04/18/2013 04:45 AM » |
|
What will the test flight program(me) look like? I know that the first one (an A1.2) will fly sub-orbital - any details on how its trajectory will look like? How many flights will the A1.2 need before it is certified for use by the Russian DoD/Space Forces? What are the plans (payloads etc.) for the first few flights of the A5 (any commercial customers found yet by ILS?)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
fregate
|
|
« Reply #124 on: 04/24/2013 12:18 PM » |
|
Khrunichev's "Anagara" LV project - BAU: 2 years till maiden flight!
I am ready to bet that first Angara launchpad on Vostochny might be build
before first flight from Plesetsk...
|
|
|
|
Salo
|
|
« Reply #125 on: 04/25/2013 07:37 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
Prober
|
|
« Reply #126 on: 04/25/2013 01:32 PM » |
|
One less launcher debut in 2013: http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?pg=2&id=412350
"At least we are hoping for 2014," Ostapenko said responding to a question as to when the first Angara launch will take place. why the slowdown.....the single core (naro) type should be going to operational?
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #127 on: 04/25/2013 03:11 PM » |
|
No bucks, no Buck Rogers.
Despite pronouncements from politicians, actual money passed through Roskosmos to the contractors is not great.
|
|
|
|
Prober
|
|
« Reply #128 on: 04/25/2013 05:08 PM » |
|
No bucks, no Buck Rogers.
Despite pronouncements from politicians, actual money passed through Roskosmos to the contractors is not great.
sure all those mission HW failures didn't help the bottom line. They are stuck with the Proton, when they should double efforts with Angara.
|
|
|
|
owais.usmani
|
|
« Reply #129 on: 04/25/2013 06:34 PM » |
|
No bucks, no Buck Rogers.
Despite pronouncements from politicians, actual money passed through Roskosmos to the contractors is not great.
Strangely the Russian ministry of defence seems to have funds for a gazillion different types of ICBMs, but not a dedicated launch vehicle.
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #130 on: 04/25/2013 07:12 PM » |
|
No bucks, no Buck Rogers.
Despite pronouncements from politicians, actual money passed through Roskosmos to the contractors is not great.
Strangely the Russian ministry of defence seems to have funds for a gazillion different types of ICBMs, but not a dedicated launch vehicle.
I don't want to go o/t here, but the above statement is not exactly valid. The Russian MoD, in fact, has funded updates to venerable systems, and given them new names, but there are very few entirely new Russian missile systems.
|
|
|
|
Salo
|
|
« Reply #131 on: 05/03/2013 06:01 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
InvalidAttitude
|
|
« Reply #132 on: 05/03/2013 05:38 PM » |
|
^^ Still snowy there?
|
|
|
|
owais.usmani
|
|
« Reply #133 on: 05/03/2013 05:51 PM » |
|
Judging from the recent pictures, I'd say there is a good chance that Angara would become operational from Plesetsk,........in this decade.
|
|
|
|
russianhalo117
|
|
« Reply #134 on: 05/03/2013 06:18 PM » |
|
^^ Still snowy there?
yes, should be gone by start of June at the latest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nicolas PILLET
|
|
« Reply #137 on: 05/14/2013 09:42 AM » |
|
He says that the decision to build the Angara pad on the old incomplete Zenit pad was a mistake.
|
|
|
|
owais.usmani
|
|
« Reply #138 on: 05/14/2013 09:52 AM » |
|
He says that the decision to build the Angara pad on the old incomplete Zenit pad was a mistake.
Oh great! that is just great!! they realized that a little "too quickly" it seems! 
|
|
|
|
zaitcev
|
|
« Reply #139 on: 05/14/2013 11:28 PM » |
|
He says that the decision to build the Angara pad on the old incomplete Zenit pad was a mistake. It would've worked if not for the monstrous fixed tower they come up with and the settling of the ground under its weight. Zenit did not use a tower, only a cable/piping mast.
|
|
|
|
Moe Grills
|
|
« Reply #140 on: 05/15/2013 08:41 PM » |
|
He says that the decision to build the Angara pad on the old incomplete Zenit pad was a mistake.
Oh great! that is just great!! they realized that a little "too quickly" it seems!
I don't understand why you are upset.
|
|
|
|
owais.usmani
|
|
« Reply #141 on: 05/20/2013 05:01 AM » |
|
He says that the decision to build the Angara pad on the old incomplete Zenit pad was a mistake.
Oh great! that is just great!! they realized that a little "too quickly" it seems!
I don't understand why you are upset.
Because they wasted nearly 20 years and billions of rubles, only to come to the conclusion that they screwed it up from the very beginning. I am certain that in 2014 the first flight will again be postponed to 2015, and this cycle would continue.
|
|
|
|
Prober
|
|
« Reply #142 on: 05/20/2013 04:39 PM » |
|
He says that the decision to build the Angara pad on the old incomplete Zenit pad was a mistake.
Oh great! that is just great!! they realized that a little "too quickly" it seems!
I don't understand why you are upset.
Because they wasted nearly 20 years and billions of rubles, only to come to the conclusion that they screwed it up from the very beginning.
I am certain that in 2014 the first flight will again be postponed to 2015, and this cycle would continue.
you are allowed to "vent" your thoughts. I understand very well your feelings on this as I have some of the same thoughts with taxpayer money spent on SpaceX 
|
|
|
|
asmi
|
|
« Reply #143 on: 05/21/2013 01:42 PM » |
|
Because they wasted nearly 20 years and billions of rubles, only to come to the conclusion that they screwed it up from the very beginning.
I am certain that in 2014 the first flight will again be postponed to 2015, and this cycle would continue.
OK, crap happened, they screwed up, but at least they have the guts to publicly admit it, unlike some other agency.
|
|
|
|
owais.usmani
|
|
« Reply #144 on: 05/21/2013 05:29 PM » |
|
OK, crap happened, they screwed up, but at least they have the guts to publicly admit it, unlike some other agency.
I suppose you are talking about NASA and SLS. If that's so, I would appreciate if you could explain to me (probably in some other appropriate thread) how can you consider SLS a screwjob comparable to Angara.
|
|
|
|
russianhalo117
|
|
« Reply #145 on: 05/21/2013 10:22 PM » |
|
OK, crap happened, they screwed up, but at least they have the guts to publicly admit it, unlike some other agency.
I suppose you are talking about NASA and SLS.
If that's so, I would appreciate if you could explain to me (probably in some other appropriate thread) how can you consider SLS a screwjob comparable to Angara.
I believe that the poster was referring to the public admittance of several major failures (aka mistakes) by Russian officials which are mentioned earlier in this thread. One of the admittances was by the Russian Space Forces, where they said that it was a drastic, costly, and major failure (mistake) to reuse via extreme modification the former Zenit facilities located at Plesetsk Cosmodrome's Site 35. The main source of construction delays and significant cost overruns was and still is because of the mandate (order) to reuse the Zenit launcher table (the concrete and metal structural assemblies that make up the superstructures and substructures, that in the USA we call the launch pad, which forms the launcher table and the flame trench) and fueling systems with modifications at 35/1. I hope that when they get around to converting the facilities that make up 35/2, following the completion and activation of 35/1, from Zenit to Angara, I hope they consider learning from the mistakes/failures created by conversion of 35/1.
|
|
|
|
asmi
|
|
« Reply #146 on: 05/22/2013 01:13 PM » |
|
If that's so, I would appreciate if you could explain to me (probably in some other appropriate thread) how can you consider SLS a screwjob comparable to Angara.
At least Angara exists in metal: http://lenta.ru/news/2013/05/22/angara/ (in Russian). As per article, both light (Angara 1.2) and heavy (Angara A5) rockets are built and will be shipped to Plesetsk later this year for launch next year.
|
|
|
|
anik
|
|
« Reply #147 on: 05/22/2013 01:43 PM » |
|
Angara-1.2PP suborbital launch with mock-up is planned in May 2014, Angara-A5 orbital launch with Briz-M and mock-up - at the end of November 2014.
|
|
|
|
asmi
|
|
« Reply #148 on: 05/22/2013 01:57 PM » |
|
Angara-1.2PP suborbital launch with mock-up is planned in May 2014, Angara-A5 orbital launch with Briz-M and mock-up - at the end of November 2014.
Anik, as far as I understand, the new crewed vehicle is nowhere near flight-ready, so manned A5 launches are out of the question for the next few years. Are there going to be any more A5 launches during next several years and what payloads are going to be? Are you aware of any such plans' existence?
|
|
|
|
anik
|
|
« Reply #149 on: 05/22/2013 02:24 PM » |
|
Are there going to be any more A5 launches during next several years and what payloads are going to be? GEO military satellites.
|
|
|
|
Galactic Penguin SST
|
|
« Reply #150 on: 05/22/2013 02:26 PM » |
|
Are there going to be any more A5 launches during next several years and what payloads are going to be?
GEO military satellites.
...as well as commercial flights. IIRC ILS was to market some of the early flights to potential customers at discounted prices.
|
|
|
|
Moe Grills
|
|
« Reply #151 on: 05/22/2013 07:57 PM » |
|
Assuming the Angara booster family does well and several successful launches occur between 2014 - 2016, than one wonders if Russia will
simply cease paying for more Ukranian-built Proton boosters after that.
Bit of politics there; bit of economics; bit of logistics.
|
|
|
|
anik
|
|
« Reply #152 on: 05/22/2013 08:03 PM » |
|
Ukranian-built Proton boosters Ukranian? 
|
|
|
|
asmi
|
|
« Reply #153 on: 05/22/2013 08:03 PM » |
|
Assuming the Angara booster family does well and several successful launches occur between 2014 - 2016, than one wonders if Russia will
simply cease paying for more Ukranian-built Proton boosters after that.
Bit of politics there; bit of economics; bit of logistics.
I think you're confusing Proton (which are built in Russia) with Zenit (which are made in Ukraine).
|
|
|
|
a_langwich
|
|
« Reply #154 on: 05/22/2013 10:47 PM » |
|
Assuming the Angara booster family does well and several successful launches occur between 2014 - 2016, than one wonders if Russia will
simply cease paying for more Ukranian-built Proton boosters after that.
Bit of politics there; bit of economics; bit of logistics.
I think you're confusing Proton (which are built in Russia) with Zenit (which are made in Ukraine).
Angara A3 is the version which would offer Zenit-class payloads, A5 offers Proton-class payloads. As I understand it, there are definite plans for 1.2 and A5, by the end of next year (hopefully). Are there any A3 launches planned right now (with launch payload identified)? What about A7? Seems like it might be handy for launching space-station-sized components, but I guess the need for that would be out in the 2020s, unless Russia jumps for an L1/L2 gateway. Is the launch pad infrastructure at Site 35 built to handle the A7, in addition to A5?
|
|
|
|
anik
|
|
« Reply #155 on: 05/23/2013 06:11 AM » |
|
Are there any A3 launches planned right now (with launch payload identified)? No. What about A7? Nothing. Is the launch pad infrastructure at Site 35 built to handle the A7, in addition to A5? No.
|
|
|
|
owais.usmani
|
|
« Reply #156 on: 05/23/2013 06:12 AM » |
|
Is the launch pad infrastructure at Site 35 built to handle the A7, in addition to A5?
Nope. A3 and A7 versions are not funded. They just exist in Khrunichev slides.
|
|
|
|
russianhalo117
|
|
« Reply #157 on: 05/25/2013 02:27 AM » |
|
Is the launch pad infrastructure at Site 35 built to handle the A7, in addition to A5?
Nope. A3 and A7 versions are not funded. They just exist in Khrunichev slides.
Site 35 cannot support A7 because launch mount only has 5 booster flame holes and both pads flame trenches are to narrow to handle A7 launch mount and generated thrust. A new launch pad would be required in order to support launch A7.
|
|
|
|
owais.usmani
|
|
« Reply #158 on: 05/25/2013 07:39 AM » |
|
Is the launch pad infrastructure at Site 35 built to handle the A7, in addition to A5?
Nope. A3 and A7 versions are not funded. They just exist in Khrunichev slides.
Site 35 cannot support A7 because launch mount only has 5 booster flame holes and both pads flame trenches are to narrow to handle A7 launch mount and generated thrust. A new launch pad would be required in order to support launch A7.
First Khrunichev would need to get the A7 version approved and get funding for its development. Launch pad comes way after that.
|
|
|
|
Salo
|
|
« Reply #159 on: 05/28/2013 05:49 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
aga
|
|
« Reply #160 on: 05/28/2013 08:30 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Star One
|
|
« Reply #163 on: 05/28/2013 09:02 PM » |
|
Is the A5 designed for BEO launches as well, and if so what are its capabilities to the Moon & Mars for example?
|
|
|
|
Prober
|
|
« Reply #164 on: 05/28/2013 09:08 PM » |
|
Is the A5 designed for BEO launches as well, and if so what are its capabilities to the Moon & Mars for example?
News Releases First Angara Flight Article Shipped to Baikonur 28.05.2013The Khrunichev Space Center has shipped the first flight model of light-weight Angara 1.2 PP (PP is the Russian for “Maiden Launch”) to the Plesetsk Cosmodrome. In accordance with the Angara 1.2 Maiden Launch Master Schedule, the train carrying the Angara 1.2 PP hardware departed for Plesetsk in the early hours of May 28. Angara family is a new generation of environmentally friendly launchers now under development at the Khrunichev Space Center on the basis of the URM-1 Common Core Booster (CCB), using oxygen/kerosene engine. The Angara product line includes lightweight to heavy-lift launchers featuring LEO payload capabilities of 3.8 MT to 35 MT (Angara A7). One CCB is used by the light-weight Angara 1.2 LV. The maximum number of CCBs is seven (Angara А7). The high degree of modularity combined with the unique design solutions employed would allow any member of the Angara family to be launched from the same pad. The Angara Space Launch System has been declared a matter of national importance. The commissioning of the Angara system will provide to Russia the capability to launch any type of spacecraft from its own territory, and will secure for our country an independent access to outer space Khrunichev is the designer and manufacturer of this system while the Ministry of Defense and the Federal Space Agency are the Government customers. Work on Angara SRC is in full swing in accordance with approved schedules. KhSC is also engaged in continued development of the heavy-lift Аngara-А5 launch vehicle. Its shipping to Plesetsk is scheduled for November 2013. At present the launch master schedules for both the small-lift and heavy-lift Angara LVs have been approved. The Angara SRC program is personally supervised by Vice-Premier D.Rogozin and Defense Minister S.Shoigu.
|
|
|
|
Star One
|
|
« Reply #165 on: 05/29/2013 09:54 PM » |
|
Thanks for that.
|
|
|
|
Moe Grills
|
|
« Reply #166 on: 06/01/2013 07:21 PM » |
|
Ukranian-built Proton boosters
Ukranian?
I'm sorry that I may have caused you offence or confusion by my typing error; spelling Ukrainian, "Ukranian". I do know that the UR-500 (Proton) was designed by Mr. Chelemoy, born in the Ukraine. My mistake was thinking he established the Proton factory in the Ukraine. BTW, it is good to see real progress with the manufacture/assembly and testing of the Angara. 2014 is going to be an exciting year. I do hope the bigger Angara boosters will soon be used to send men to the Moon.
|
|
|
|
Dmitry_V_home
|
|
« Reply #167 on: 06/02/2013 05:46 AM » |
|
I do know that the UR-500 (Proton) was designed by Mr. Chelemoy, born
in the Ukraine.
Mr. Chelomey was born in Poland 
|
|
|
|
Moe Grills
|
|
« Reply #168 on: 06/03/2013 07:20 PM » |
|
I do know that the UR-500 (Proton) was designed by Mr. Chelomey, born
in the Ukraine.
Mr. Chelomey was born in Poland
Since I have Ukrainian heritage on my mother's side of the family, many Ukrainian people take great offense when Russians or Poles claim Mr. Chelomey as one their own. Dmitry? I know you meant no offense, so I hope you will recognize the complete story of that great man and his heritage; and how the Ukrainian people take great pride in the man and his work.
|
|
|
|
Prober
|
|
« Reply #169 on: 06/03/2013 08:28 PM » |
|
I do know that the UR-500 (Proton) was designed by Mr. Chelomey, born
in the Ukraine.
Mr. Chelomey was born in Poland
Since I have Ukrainian heritage on my mother's side of the family,
many Ukrainian people take great offense when Russians or Poles claim
Mr. Chelomey as one their own.
Dmitry? I know you meant no offense, so I hope you will recognize the complete story of that great man and his heritage; and how the Ukrainian
people take great pride in the man and his work.
well done you got me to look his name up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Chelomei would you agree with the information listed?
|
|
|
|
Salo
|
|
« Reply #170 on: 06/05/2013 01:25 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
Salo
|
|
« Reply #171 on: 06/05/2013 01:29 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
newpylong
|
|
« Reply #175 on: 06/10/2013 06:24 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
newpylong
|
|
« Reply #178 on: 06/17/2013 01:56 AM » |
|
Got it, thanks.
A5 supposed to have similar lift capability of Proton correct?
|
|
|
|
fregate
|
|
« Reply #179 on: 06/17/2013 05:28 AM » |
|
Got it, thanks.
A5 supposed to have similar lift capability of Proton correct?
Did you mean "Payload Capability"? Angara LV Family Performance Data is here
|
|
|
|
