The Start-1M launch vehicle

[B. Hendrickx]

Russia is planning to introduce a lightweight rocket called Start-1M in the coming years. This is a modified version of the Start-1 rocket that launched several satellites from both the Plesetsk and Svobodny cosmodromes between 1993 and 2006.  Developed by the MIT Corporation, Start-1 was a four-stage rocket built on the basis of decommissioned Topol (RT-2PM/RS-12M/SS-25) solid-fuel ICBMs (a single five-stage version simply named Start failed to orbit its payload in 1995). The rocket was launched from a mobile transporter erector launcher.

Plans for the return of the Start-1 launch vehicle (under the name Start-1M) were first revealed by the head of the MIT Corporation Yuri Solomonov in 2018, at which time the first launch was considered possible in 2022. More details were given at an exhibition in Moscow in April last year, where a model of the Start-1M was put on display (see attachment 1). It consists of three stages topped by what was called an “apogee stage” and is capable of launching payloads of between 150 and 700 kg into orbits between 200 and 1,500 km from both Plesetsk and Vostochny.  More specifically, it has a payload capacity of 440 kg to a 550 km Sun-synchronous orbit (compared to 300 kg to a 500 km polar orbit for the original Start-1 rocket).

Solomonov recently confirmed speculation that Start-1M will be based on the modified Topol-M (RT-2PM2/RS-12M2/SS-27) ICBM (which at least partially explains its higher payload capacity). Deployment of these began in the late 1990s (both in silos and on transporter erector launchers) and they are now approaching the end of their 25-year service life (they have been gradually replaced by various versions of the Yars ICBM). According to unofficial information, a total of about 50 Topol-M ICBMs may be eligible for conversion into Start-1M rockets.

In April this year, Russia’s Minister of Industry and Trade announced the first of launch of the Start-1M rocket would take place in 2026 (a target date also confirmed by Solomonov). He said that lightweight expendable rockets are being built both in the interests of the Ministry of Defense and Roscosmos and that Start-1M is being developed in the interests of Roscosmos. It is not entirely clear if this should be interpreted as meaning that there are no plans to fly Start-1M with military payloads from Plesetsk. Actually, this would be quite surprising. All the infrastructure for Topol-M test launches is in place there and very little work would be required to adapt it for Start-1M launches. Another converted ICBM, Rokot-2, will fly from Plesetsk, possibly as early as this year.

In any case, concrete plans have so far only been announced for Start-1M launches from Vostochny. In early July, Roscosmos reported that a reconnaissance team had decided where exactly at the cosmodrome the rockets will be prepared and launched. Space industry officials told the TASS news agency later that month that work on Start-1M was being sped up and that the first launch could take place even earlier than planned.

Much more information on Start-1M and its infrastructure at Vostochny became available late last month with the publication of a report that assesses the environmental impact of Start-1M launches from the cosmodrome. The report, published in two parts, can be downloaded here:

https://disk.yandex.ru/d/ekjf5bok8SAobg

Here's a quick summary of the main information contained in the report:

Rocket design and launch profile

Start-1M is nearly identical in design to Start-1, but has a bigger payload capacity thanks to the use of lighter composite materials, more efficient propulsion systems and a more efficient launch profile. The launch mass with a 500 kg payload is given as 47.267 tons (which is actually the same launch mass given for Start-1). No information is given in the report on the payload capacity to various orbits.

Included in the report is a drawing of the upper composite of the rocket, which includes the fourth stage (the "apogee stage"), the guidance and control system and the payload area (see attachment 2). The G&C system is a new design and incorporates Glonass satellite navigation receivers. Not seen in the drawing is a solid-fuel “kick stage”, which sits in between the apogee stage and the payload and is needed to increase the accuracy of orbit injection. This was also present on the Start-1 launch vehicle. The kick stage, which has a set of side-mounted nozzles, remains attached to the fourth stage after the latter burns out. Mounted on the apogee stage is a “gas reaction control system” which is used to stabilize the vehicle during the coast phases after the burnout of thе third stage and the kick stage. The report says that the payload needs to use its own propulsion system to put itself into the final orbit. Possibly, this is only necessary if the kick stage is not on board (an option mentioned in the report).

The first three stages are largely identical to those of Start-1M's progenitor (not mentioned by name in the report, but clearly the Topol-M missile). The apogee and kick stages are said to have been newly developed. It is possible that the kick stage is similar or identical to one of two types of kick stages being developed for the Bureya missile, yet another mobile missile system in the Topol/Yars family. It is configured similarly to Start-1M, but lacks the latter’s apogee stage, consisting of three stages topped by a kick stage. It will fly suborbital test missions from both Plesetsk and Kapustin Yar, but its purpose so far remains unknown. There could be a link with the Aerostat anti-missile system, but that is far from certain. More on Bureya in the latest post in the Aerostat thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=54978.0

(I wrongly speculated there that Bureya’s kick stage may be similar to Start-1M’s apogee stage. It was not known at the time that Start-1M had a kick stage itself)

Start-1M can carry one or more satellites and place them into both circular and elliptical orbits. The report only discusses launches into 89° inclination orbits, suggesting the majority of the payloads are expected to be remote sensing satellites in polar orbits. Although virtually all Soyuz-2 launches from Vostochny have been northbound, that particular launch azimuth has so far not been used. The planned impact zones for Start-1M’s first three stages are in the Amur province, the Sakha Republic and the Arctic Ocean. According to the report, it took five years to get approval for the Soyuz-2 impact zones, so obtaining the necessary clearances for Start-1M could be a lengthy process that has to be started well in time.

Vostochny infrastructure

Start-1M will not use any of the old infrastructure that was employed for Start-1 launches from Svobodny between 1997 and 2006 (this was located several kilometers southwest of the newly built cosmodrome). Instead, the rockets and payloads will be prepared for launch in the same area where Soyuz-2 and Angara-A5 rockets and payloads undergo launch preparations (see attachment 3). Payloads will be delivered by airplane and then transferred to the satellite/upper stage preparation facility also used for Soyuz and Angara payloads. They will also use the same satellite fueling station.

The rocket will be delivered to the cosmodrome by rail. After reaching the launch preparation zone, it will be mounted on its transporter erector launcher (TEL), a 16x16 vehicle known as MZKT-7922 (also used by Topol(-M) and Yars). When the report was drawn up, no final decision had been made on where the rocket will be prepared for launch and mated with its payload. It is not recommended to do this in the Soyuz/Angara assembly building because Start-1M does not meet the building’s clean room requirements (possibly because of the exhaust fumes produced by the TEL when it enters and leaves the building). The plan is to place the rocket either in the storage facility right next to the rocket assembly building or in a quickly erectable, inflatable building.

After mating with the payload, the TEL will transport Start-1M to the launch zone. Its exact location is not discussed, but it can be seen in several maps published in the report. It is situated about 2 km southeast of the rocket/satellite preparation zone. One map shows the route from the rocket/satellite preparation zone to the launch zone (indicated as СП) (see attachment 4). Also attached is a context image showing the location of the Start-1M launch zone with respect to other facilities at Vostochny.  The launch can be controlled from a support vehicle parked within 100 m of the launch position or from a building situated within 2 km of the launch position.

It would appear from the report that one or more test flights of Start-1M will be flown with mock-up payloads. No specific payloads for the rocket have been announced yet. Still, the rocket should fill a significant niche in Russia’s current launch vehicle fleet. Russia has no lightweight launch vehicles specifically designed to orbit payloads weighing less than 1 ton, meaning that such payloads have to be flown either solo or piggyback on rockets with significantly higher payload capacities.

[JetProp]

Hm... Pictures from report and patent is very similar...

[B. Hendrickx]

Hm... Pictures from report and patent is very similar...

The patent was published by the MIT Corporation in 2019 and discusses the possibility of using the Start rocket to carry two or three payloads that need to be placed into different orbits. To achieve that goal, each of the satellites is attached to what is called a "universal module" that incorporates a kick stage (position 7) and a control system with a satellite navigation system (positions 4 and 5). So instead of carrying a single kick stage, this version of the Start rocket would have two or three kick stages with their individual control systems mounted on top of the fourth stage.

The kick stage seems to differ from the standard one in that in addition to four downward facing nozzles (position 8 ) it also has four radially mounted nozzles (position 9) that can be gimballed and are needed to place the module into the proper orientation prior to satellite separation. On a standard Start launch, this is done with the gas reaction control system installed on the fourth stage, which remains attached to the kick stage. In this scenario, however, the fourth stage is separated from the "universal modules", which then individually deliver the payloads to their intended orbits.

I guess that this particular configuration of the rocket would considerably reduce the mass of the payloads. Not only are there individual kick stages with their own control systems, the four-stage rocket also needs to retain its own control system, further adding to the rocket's mass.

The environmental protection assessment report does mention the possibility of Start-1M carrying two or more payloads, but apparently only in a situation where they need to be placed into the same orbit and therefore can be placed on top of a single kick stage. There are no indications from the report that the configuration described in the patent is being seriously considered.

[smoliarm]

There is substantial problem with Start as its fuel contains Al+Be alloy.
Long time ago Al+Be was suggested as improvement over pure Al, because it is lighter and some thermodynamic properties are better. Later it turned out that the alleged improvement is barely detectable, but the fuel composition was already accepted on the state level.
Now, what this means for environment?
Be2+ compounds are highly toxic for humans and animals.
Toxicity of beryllium is similar that of arsenic and mercury, although Be is more mobile in groundwater systems.
The drop regions of first and second stages pose serious danger, as was recorded during launches of Start-1.
The launch site itself is also dangerous because the plume contains BeCl2 and BeO.

[russianhalo117]

There is substantial problem with Start as its fuel contains Al+Be alloy.
Long time ago Al+Be was suggested as improvement over pure Al, because it is lighter and some thermodynamic properties are better. Later it turned out that the alleged improvement is barely detectable, but the fuel composition was already accepted on the state level.
Now, what this means for environment?
Be2+ compounds are highly toxic for humans and animals.
Toxicity of beryllium is similar that of arsenic and mercury, although Be is more mobile in groundwater systems.
The drop regions of first and second stages pose serious danger, as was recorded during launches of Start-1.
The launch site itself is also dangerous because the plume contains BeCl2 and BeO.

Start-1M = Topol-M, whereas Start-1 = all versions before Topol-M. Not sure if there are propellant differences for the different versions.

[B. Hendrickx]

All I can say is that beryllium is not mentioned in the environmental impact assessment report that I discussed in the first post here. The only chemical elements used in the solid propellant are oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, chlorine and aluminium. The only combustion products given are hydrogen, water, chlorine, hydrogen chloride, nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and aluminium oxide.

Perhaps beryllium was eliminated from the solid propellant used by Topol-M, which is the basis for Start-1M. But is there any evidence for beryllium having been used even on the original Start-1 launch vehicle (based on Topol)?

[smoliarm]

All I can say is that beryllium is not mentioned in the environmental impact assessment report that I discussed in the first post here. The only chemical elements used in the solid propellant are oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, chlorine and aluminium. The only combustion products given are hydrogen, water, chlorine, hydrogen chloride, nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and aluminium oxide.

Perhaps beryllium was eliminated from the solid propellant used by Topol-M, which is the basis for Start-1M. But is there any evidence for beryllium having been used even on the original Start-1 launch vehicle (based on Topol)?

Sorry for a delay with answer.

And I have to admit yesterday I could not find any of publications on Be in solid rocket fuel.
Although such publications did exist, and I do remember some specifics.

#1
The third launch Start-1 from Svobodny was jn March 4, 1997 (IIRC), and it was the first such launch to SSO (and the first with drop-zone in Yakutia).
For this launch the second stage fell near village Keptin (rus - Кептин) in Yakutia, some 1200 km from Svobodny.
The village is on the bank (or nearby) of the lake with the same name.
The report indicated large number of dead fish in the lake soon after the stage went down. Also several dogs died, presumably they ate some such fish.
#2
Same month the government of Sakha (Yakutia) canceled the permit on use territory as "drop zones" for launches of Start-1:
Постановление Правительства Республики Саха (Якутия) «О расторжении Договора «Об использовании участка территории Республики Саха (Якутия) под район падения отделяющихся частей ракеты-носителя «Старт-1»
Obviously, later the cancellation was reversed (under the pressure from Moscow presumably), and the next launch of Start-1 took place pretty soon - the same year, IIRC.
Nevertheless, the fact is still standing - this "Постановление Правительства Республики Саха" did exist, and it should be present in archive (although may be not on the web).
#3
It was the first case with "Start-1" but it was not the first incident of environmental damage to Yakut territory from spent solid fuel stages. There was VERY negative experience with РСД-10 ("Пионер"). These РСД-10 were subject to INF Treaty. At first they were disposed simply by launch to Arctic ocean. Some 80 РСД-10 were launched in 1988 from site in Chita region, with many cases of stages falling in Sakha, some with severe environmental damage. This had very negative reaction, and later they stop using disposal by launch. So, people in Sakha republic got experience with solid-fuel rockets pretty early - and pretty bad experience/

In all these incidents (#1,2,3) there were numerous reports of dead fish, birds, mammals indicating clearly *some poison*. Such effect can NOT be explained just by Al₂O₃ or AlCl₃, it is obvious that there was something much more dangerous.
However, I do not recall any mentioning of Beryllium - just because finding Be²⁺ at such levels - it is not an easy task in the lab, and it is definitely beyond a field-test kit. I do not think there were ANY reports of Beryllium because it is quite difficult determine nature of poisoning and prove the source.

So, where can we find Be as component of rocket fuel?
Well, e.g. in "Энциклопедия Космонавтики" by V.Glushko et al. - on several occasions in different articles Be mentioned as minor component which improves thrust and Isp.

Another place to look for Al-Be allow in solid fuels - NASA archives: I heard in early 90s NASA purchased many archives from Russian rocket industry, so there might be "Авторские Свидетельства" for solid rocket fuel IMPROVEMENT.

[TheKutKu]

https://tass.ru/kosmos/23493993

TASS: Start of Start-1M launch vehicle tests scheduled for 2026
Experts are working on the fourth stage of the launch vehicle

MOSCOW, March 25. /TASS/. The start of flight design tests of the Start-1M conversion launch vehicle is scheduled for next year. A source in the rocket and space industry told TASS about this.

"The first launch of the Start-1M is planned for 2026. Work is currently underway on the fourth stage of the launch vehicle," he said.

TASS has no official confirmation of this information.

On April 12, 2024, then Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation - Head of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation Denis Manturov also said that the first launch of the Start-1M conversion launch vehicle is planned for 2026.

Still planned for 2026

[russianhalo117]

https://tass.ru/kosmos/23493993

TASS: Start of Start-1M launch vehicle tests scheduled for 2026
Experts are working on the fourth stage of the launch vehicle

MOSCOW, March 25. /TASS/. The start of flight design tests of the Start-1M conversion launch vehicle is scheduled for next year. A source in the rocket and space industry told TASS about this.

"The first launch of the Start-1M is planned for 2026. Work is currently underway on the fourth stage of the launch vehicle," he said.

TASS has no official confirmation of this information.

On April 12, 2024, then Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation - Head of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation Denis Manturov also said that the first launch of the Start-1M conversion launch vehicle is planned for 2026.

Still planned for 2026

Vostochniy launch site is changed to Site-2.2 (like Soyuz Site-1.1 and Angara Site-1.2). We are awaiting a formal letter designation for the new pad which might later be built in a similar manner to Rockot-M's launch complex to allow vertical integration and pad access of payloads onto the launch canister.

[Tywin]

Any updates in this rocket or the pad of Vostochny?

[B. Hendrickx]

Any updates in this rocket or the pad of Vostochny?

Attached is a Roscosmos slide posted on a Russian space forum not long ago. It shows all the rockets that Russia intends to fly from its three cosmodromes in the coming years. Start-1M should start flying in 2026, not only from Vostochny, but also from Plesetsk.

The only other recent news I've seen is about surveying work going on in the impact zone for the second stage in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) in Russia's Far East. This was to be finished by late November.
https://yakutia.mk.ru/social/2025/10/23/v-kobyayskom-rayone-yakutii-nachalis-obsledovaniya-territoriy-dlya-budushhikh-zapuskov-rakety-start1m.html