Russia to Develop Rocket for New-Generation Manned Spacecraft

[fregate]

There has been discussion here that the KVRB is so inefficient that its not cost effective to use (compared with Block-DM).

How did you estimate efficiency of non-existent hardware (KVRB not in production yet)?
Yes it might be less efficient than Centaur upper stage, but AFAIK it would have the same cryogenic
engines (RD-0146) that planned to use on a second stage of RUS-M LV.
That alone would drive cost of production down.
And there is no way to achieve an objective 5 tonnes on GEO without KVRB!

There seems to be some confusion here between the KVRB and the H2 stage used by India.

Please have a look to the links from Khrushchev site:
12KRB upper stage
The 12KRB upper stage was developed and fabricated by the Khrunichev Space Center for GSLV, a new Indian launch vehicle, under a contract with the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO). 12KRB is used as GSLV's third stage. Its sustainer developed by the Isaev Chemical Machine Building Design Bureau is a cryogenic engine using liquid propellants...
KVTK upper stage
The Khrunichev Space Center have been developing an oxygen/hydrogen upper stage for Angara. The LOX/Hydrogen upper stage known by its Russian acronym, KVTK, which stands for LOX/Hydrogen Upper Stage Booster for Heavy-Lift [LV] Class, will considerably enhance the performance characteristics of the heavy-lift Angara-А5 to enable the Angara launch system to inject payloads into high-energy orbits and trajectories

Please note that KVRB cryogenic booster (translation Oxygen-Hydrogen Upper Stage) designed for Proton LV is not presented anymore on company site, for RUS-M LV upper stages would be quite different (Krhunichev site shows only upper stages for their LV Angara family).

[Dmitry_V_home]

One more variant of a launch vehicle for a perspective spaceship PTK NP

... and a reality (thanks to vekazak from NK-forum)

[Danderman]

The small upper stage is going to be a problem. The constraint is transportation, they can't transport anything by rail with a diameter greater than 4.1 meters. For the 2nd stage, they really should invest in an exterior mounting for an AN-124 or similar aircraft, and fly the 2nd stage to the cosmodrome. It might cost a little more, but the ability to fly a 6 meter upper stage with more than 4 engines would be worth it over the long run.

[Stan Black]

The small upper stage is going to be a problem. The constraint is transportation, they can't transport anything by rail with a diameter greater than 4.1 meters. For the 2nd stage, they really should invest in an exterior mounting for an AN-124 or similar aircraft, and fly the 2nd stage to the cosmodrome. It might cost a little more, but the ability to fly a 6 meter upper stage with more than 4 engines would be worth it over the long run.

Or water transport?

[Danderman]

The small upper stage is going to be a problem. The constraint is transportation, they can't transport anything by rail with a diameter greater than 4.1 meters. For the 2nd stage, they really should invest in an exterior mounting for an AN-124 or similar aircraft, and fly the 2nd stage to the cosmodrome. It might cost a little more, but the ability to fly a 6 meter upper stage with more than 4 engines would be worth it over the long run.

Or water transport?

Are you suggesting that a canal be dug to Vostochny? 

[zaitcev]

The official site of Amur Region claims that although the completion of Zeya Dam caused a drop in water levels, Zeya river continues to support the minum standard depth. The river's navigation period is 167 days. Therefore, as long as the transport from the factory to port is arranged on the streets of Samara, it is possible to deliver large diameter stages by barge up the Volga River, through the Sukhona waterway, to Arkhangelsk. There, it can be loaded to an ocean-going ship for North Ocean Passage, through Bering straights, to Vladivostok. There, the stage can be loaded onto a barge travelling up Amur and Zeya right to the doorstep of spaceport. Note that since the navigation period on Zeya is limited, the use of North Ocean Passage does not add additional restraints. Still, the need to ship stages during the summer and then stockpile them may be disadvantageous.

[Lars_J]

Surely air transport with AN-124 is far simpler than transport by barge across the world and up small rivers? What is the maximum diameter that the AN-124 can carry internally? Surely more than 4.1m I would think...

A 3rd alternative is of course to build the rockets on-site. Invest in the required manufacturing - which would also be local economy boost. If you are designing a new rocket that will mainly (perhaps only) be launched from Vostochny, why not build it right there?

[Lars_J]

In the picture that Dmitry_V_home attached to his post - what exactly are the small 'pods' that are attached half-way up the 1st stage? SRBs? Some other kind of mini-boosters that fall off shortly after launch?

It really seems like a bizarre design.

[Danderman]

Surely air transport with AN-124 is far simpler than transport by barge across the world and up small rivers? What is the maximum diameter that the AN-124 can carry internally? Surely more than 4.1m I would think...

Max height is 4.4 meters.

[zaitcev]

In the picture that Dmitry_V_home attached to his post - what exactly are the small 'pods' that are attached half-way up the 1st stage? SRBs? Some other kind of mini-boosters that fall off shortly after launch?

They are SRBs that are mounted up there because Zenit launch table was not designed to channel the blast of SRBs. I am a bit confused as to what they are for. RD-171 can lift the whole stack off the pad, but after the 2006 Sea Launch explosion it is considered too risky -- and the SPKG program requirements explicitly state that winning design "MUST INCLUDE PAD-SAVING MEASURES". The SRBs guarantee saving the pad if RD-171 fails. They are not going to burn for a long time, maybe 25 seconds or so. Which is fine, but Energia-KV is not built to SPKG tender's requirements, or is it now? And it's not like adding SRBs to Energia-KV makes the last remaining launch table at Baikonur any safer if Land Launch continues to fly Zenit from there. I suspect that in the end these SRBs add to payload capacity, which why they are included.

[Stan Black]

In the picture that Dmitry_V_home attached to his post - what exactly are the small 'pods' that are attached half-way up the 1st stage? SRBs? Some other kind of mini-boosters that fall off shortly after launch?

They are SRBs that are mounted up there because Zenit launch table was not designed to channel the blast of SRBs. I am a bit confused as to what they are for. RD-171 can lift the whole stack off the pad, but after the 2006 Sea Launch explosion it is considered too risky -- and the SPKG program requirements explicitly state that winning design "MUST INCLUDE PAD-SAVING MEASURES". The SRBs guarantee saving the pad if RD-171 fails. They are not going to burn for a long time, maybe 25 seconds or so. Which is fine, but Energia-KV is not built to SPKG tender's requirements, or is it now? And it's not like adding SRBs to Energia-KV makes the last remaining launch table at Baikonur any safer if Land Launch continues to fly Zenit from there. I suspect that in the end these SRBs add to payload capacity, which why they are included.

Similar abort rockets were discussed in connection with Proton
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/258/02.shtml

[Danderman]

Similar abort rockets were discussed in connection with Proton
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/258/02.shtml

Those were 2 Proton SRBs made from Topol ICBMs, as a way to augment the payload capacity. The Topol motors don't generate close to the amount of thrust required to lift a Proton off the pad in the event of a main engine failure at liftoff.

[Danderman]

They are SRBs that are mounted up there because Zenit launch table was not designed to channel the blast of SRBs. I am a bit confused as to what they are for. RD-171 can lift the whole stack off the pad, but after the 2006 Sea Launch explosion it is considered too risky -- and the SPKG program requirements explicitly state that winning design "MUST INCLUDE PAD-SAVING MEASURES". The SRBs guarantee saving the pad if RD-171 fails. They are not going to burn for a long time, maybe 25 seconds or so. Which is fine, but Energia-KV is not built to SPKG tender's requirements, or is it now? And it's not like adding SRBs to Energia-KV makes the last remaining launch table at Baikonur any safer if Land Launch continues to fly Zenit from there. I suspect that in the end these SRBs add to payload capacity, which why they are included.

The graphic above states that the 4 motors are SRBs, with a total thrust of 760 tons, well more than is needed to lift the entire stack off the pad.

The question is whether the SRBs actually fire at liftoff, or are held in reserve in the event that the stack fails. It might be the case that a nominal launch could not accommodate the use of the SRBs, much as a nominal launch doesn't use the SAS.

[Lars_J]

That just seems like insanity, though. Are the pads so valuable to require creating a LAS for the entire LV, with all the associated costs and complexity - on the off-chance that not enough thrust is created at lift-off?

Isn't that what hold-downs are used for most LVs/launch pads to verify thrust before release? (I realize that Soyuz does not use hold-downs, but I thought other Soviet heritage LVs used them)

Has any LV ever become operational with these kinds of pseudo-LAS SRBs?

[Danderman]

Well, Zenit has cratered a couple of pads already, including a SeaLaunch pad. The irony is that the 1990 catastrophe destroyed the pad, even though the Zenit actually lifted off, and was a few seconds into flight. The LV just happened to drop back onto the pad from hundreds of meters in the air.

[zaitcev]

It may be some Russian thing. The Plesetsk Area 35 is being converted from an unfinished Zenit pad into Angara pad. They started years before SLC-40 was reassigned. By now, Falcon 9 has already flown, KSLV-1 has flown twice (using KBOM-designed mini pad), and the Angara pad is nowhere near completion. Given these things going on I can see why nobody is eager to rebuild damaged pads in Russia.

[fregate]

Similar abort rockets were discussed in connection with Proton
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/258/02.shtml

Below is Proton-M LV design concept with solid boosters from  Novosti Kosmonavtiki magazine (April 2004 Edition):

AFAIK Khrunichev designers did not plan to use those solid boosters as emergency measure - according to the article, SMEs attached to the first stage ignited simultaneously with first stage LREs, the same pattern applies for the second stage. That allows to increase GEO capability up to 20%.
Usually first stage LRE 5% thrust increase during first 30-60 sec of flight allows to put LV to a safe distance from launch complex.
For the most heaviest LV configuration Proton designers envisioned installation of 2-3 solid boosters attached to the top part of second stage (thrust 80 tonne-force each, burn time 4 sec). Those boosters should work like SAS - only in case of emergency.       
Please note that none of Topol ICBM solid stages are capable to get thrust 190 tonne-force as shown in the last row of the table below the Dmitry_V picture. Shape seems to be identical, but those are different solid boosters.   

[kollapsderwellenfunktion]

well, i believe the reason why the angara pad isn't finished has more to do with the fact that nobody really needs the angara, and so there isn't appropriate funding.

the rus-m pad seems to get money on the other hand, the government has allocated 800 million dollars over the next three years for the infrastructure at vostochny.

does anybody know how much money is allocated for the rus-m itself ?

[Dmitry_V_home]

does anybody know how much money is allocated for the rus-m itself ?

Cost of R&D Rus-M is estimated approximately in 1 billion US dollars. Totally.

[Lampyridae]

In the picture that Dmitry_V_home attached to his post - what exactly are the small 'pods' that are attached half-way up the 1st stage? SRBs? Some other kind of mini-boosters that fall off shortly after launch?

They are SRBs that are mounted up there because Zenit launch table was not designed to channel the blast of SRBs. I am a bit confused as to what they are for. RD-171 can lift the whole stack off the pad, but after the 2006 Sea Launch explosion it is considered too risky -- and the SPKG program requirements explicitly state that winning design "MUST INCLUDE PAD-SAVING MEASURES". The SRBs guarantee saving the pad if RD-171 fails. They are not going to burn for a long time, maybe 25 seconds or so. Which is fine, but Energia-KV is not built to SPKG tender's requirements, or is it now? And it's not like adding SRBs to Energia-KV makes the last remaining launch table at Baikonur any safer if Land Launch continues to fly Zenit from there. I suspect that in the end these SRBs add to payload capacity, which why they are included.

Shades of Ares I here? This seems not unlike the retro-firing anti-oscillation rockets, albeit for a different (technical) reason. They ought to just invest in the infrastructure... these "cost-saving measures" appease politicians and bean-counters in the short-term but end up costing more in the long-term...