So, in my opinion, the future is bleak for Angara 1.1 and Soyuz 3 andnot much brighter for Rus-MS (at least in its current form).
Quote from: major_tom on 11/14/2009 11:38 amSo, in my opinion, the future is bleak for Angara 1.1 and Soyuz 3 andnot much brighter for Rus-MS (at least in its current form).Also against Angara 1.1 is that a different Briz upper stage is required because the URM1 1st stage has no avionics.Overall a good asessment Major Tom!
The core booster is short in length, plus the core variant only has 6.5 ton capability to LEO, which means that it can't replace Soyuz for crewed launches; I don't know if this is due to politics, but it would not seem logical to have a 7 ton Soyuz LV and a 6.5 ton Rus in joint operations, they would cannibalize each other's markets.
- Soyuz 1 - Angara 1.1 will be no more than a test vehicle, Soyuz-1 has potentialy better performance, is most likely cheaper and indications are it will be ready sooner than the lightest Angara. Will substitute Rokot and Kosmos.
- Angara 5 - See above in Rus-MP. Has slightly better performance than Rus-MP and offers some other advantages for cargo lifting (simpler,cheaper, earlier). The disadvantages of Rus-MP for the cargo role make Angara 5 the most likely substitute of Proton.
So, in my opinion, the future is bleak for Angara 1.1 and 7, Soyuz 3 andnot much brighter for Rus-MS (at least in its current form).
Quote from: major_tom on 11/14/2009 11:38 am- Soyuz 1 - Angara 1.1 will be no more than a test vehicle, Soyuz-1 has potentialy better performance, is most likely cheaper and indications are it will be ready sooner than the lightest Angara. Will substitute Rokot and Kosmos. Soyuz-1 is probably dead even in the short run due to limited supply of NK-33-1 engines (unless they re-engine it with RD-191).
Um, the NK-33 is under manufacture by Aerojet under the name AJ-28, you are aware, yes?
Soyuz-1 is probably dead even in the short run due to limited supply of NK-33-1 engines (unless they re-engine it with RD-191).
- Angara 5 - See above in Rus-MP. [...] The disadvantages of Rus-MP for the cargo role make Angara 5 the most likely substitute of Proton.
Well duh, that's what it's for.
Quote from: Downix on 11/16/2009 03:16 amUm, the NK-33 is under manufacture by Aerojet under the name AJ-28, you are aware, yes?Um no, they are definitely not manufacturing them. They are reworking old engines from that were mothballed when the Soviet N1 project was canceled. Aerojet reportedly has 30+ engines they purchased in the 90s. The Russians still have some too.There has been talk of resuming production, either in the US or Russia, but AFAIK it's only talk. Aerojet has enough engines that they only need to think about this if Taurus II is reasonably successful, or another customer is found. In any case, there's no way Russia would buy engines from a US company, although having Aerojet as a potential customer might provide some impetus to restart production.
Lopota did not elaborate, when RKK Energia would have to make a commitment to one launch facility or another and which launch vehicle would be used for possible missions from Baikonur. The Rus-M rocket, whose development officially started in 2009, was specifically designed to support the new manned space program and it was to be based exclusively in Vostochny, but not in Baikonur.Therefore, even for temporary missions from the Kazakh launch site, yet another newly developed vehicle or an existing rocket would have to be adapted to carry the new-generation spacecraft, known as PTK NP, into orbit. The Ukrainian-built Zenit launcher or a similar Russian-built vehicle would be a likely candidate, as it has the payload capacity of up to 13 tons, needed to lift the future spacecraft and the Zenit has an operational launch pad in Baikonur.The Soyuz rockets, which currently launch seven-ton Russian manned spacecraft from Baikonur, are not powerful enough to carry future ships. Although the 2015 launch date for the PTK NP, was announced back in 2007, Lopota's statement was the first to disclose the possibility of using Baikonur, as a launch site for the new-generation spacecraft. Previously, Russian prime-minister Vladimir Putin, admitted that the construction of a brand-new launch facility in Vostochny in Russia's remote far-eastern region was more difficult than originally expected.Unofficial reports also said that the completion of the launch center by 2015 was impossible due to lack of funds. The Russian government has planned the development of a launch site for the manned space program on the Russian territory ever since the disintegration of the Soviet Union left Baikonur in the newly independent republic of Kazakhstan.Previously, Russian industry sources cited the possibility of adapting the veteran Soyuz spacecraft for possible lunar missions, in case current efforts to develop PTK NP stall. A three-seat Soyuz first flew in 1966 and was originally intended to beat US Apollo missions to the Moon. In the past several years, Russian space officials have promised to prepare for possible manned lunar missions within a timeframe of the NASA effort to return to the Moon around 2020.