Author Topic: Russia to Develop Rocket for New-Generation Manned Spacecraft (Read 256068 times)

grdja · « **Reply #20 on:** 08/22/2009 10:47 pm »

You see, its not only powerpoint, it has maquettes. Can they possibly afford to continue Soyuz and Proton, and develop Rus and Angara. World economic crisis or no, Russian state budget is too small to afford such extravagance.

Meh. If something happened to French pride and stubbornness and they chose "some" new engines for Arianne 6, we could see nearly everyone on the world using RD-170s and RD-180s for their rockets. Invasion of EELV lookalikes.

Though I suppose this particular one has closest ties to original Zenith derived LVs?

Svetoslav · « **Reply #21 on:** 08/24/2009 01:10 pm »

I'm very worried that they are going to use retrorocket only landing (without parachutes). Isn't this too risky?

grdja · « **Reply #22 on:** 08/24/2009 04:38 pm »

Does anyone possibly have a full res version of this picture?

Sure its just some very very paper spaceships, but very nice and shiny paper spaceships, and pointing to Mars. USA doesn't even try to do nice paper Mars spaceships.

What would big parabolic dishes in HEO or GEO be, space solar? Are those ships NEP or NTR? So many questions...

Edit. Mostly unreadable, but nice.
http://pano.1drey.com/various/maks2009/maks2009_1.html
Click the navigation icon called
Павилон "Роскосмос"

fregate · « **Reply #23 on:** 08/25/2009 06:18 am »

More photos of LV from MAKS-2009 - credit of Vovan from NK forum:

Danderman · « **Reply #24 on:** 08/25/2009 11:02 pm »

MAKS Rockets The Movie

in Russian

isa_guy · « **Reply #25 on:** 08/26/2009 06:08 pm »

To grdja those triangle shaped space ships in the photo use nuclear electric propulsion.

Hungry4info3 · « **Reply #26 on:** 08/26/2009 10:10 pm »

Quote from: Svetoslav on 08/24/2009 01:10 pm

I'm very worried that they are going to use retrorocket only landing (without parachutes). Isn't this too risky?

From what I read on Russiansaceweb, it will also have emergency parachutes.

wannamoonbase · « **Reply #27 on:** 08/26/2009 10:35 pm »

More noise from Russia on human spaceflight.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that nothing is going to come out of this.

Russia is big on talk but doesn't have the money or political will or reason to actually develop anything new.

Danderman · « **Reply #28 on:** 08/26/2009 11:16 pm »

Quote from: wannamoonbase on 08/26/2009 10:35 pm

More noise from Russia on human spaceflight.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that nothing is going to come out of this.

Russia is big on talk but doesn't have the money or political will or reason to actually develop anything new.

Given the last ten years of history, saying "nothing will come of this" is rather extreme. For example, Angara has been vaporware for many years, but an Angara component did fly within the last week. Similarly, Soyuz 2 was long discussed, but is now a reality.

If I had to guess, I would speculate that all of the RD-191 based launchers will ultimately merge, and that in the future, there will be a single core vehicle based on RD-191, and maybe even a triple core, using a kerosine fueled upper stage first, and in the far future, some LH2 based engine. But it will happen much later than current predictions indicate.

grdja · « **Reply #29 on:** 08/26/2009 11:19 pm »

Sad thing is that even with all corruption and leftover communist inefficiencies, I'd trust Russians over NASA to actually succeed a program and do something if money was provided.

gospacex · « **Reply #30 on:** 08/26/2009 11:35 pm »

Quote from: grdja on 08/26/2009 11:19 pm

Sad thing is that even with all corruption and leftover communist inefficiencies, I'd trust Russians over NASA to actually succeed a program and do something if money was provided.

Probably because you didn't look closer at the inner program workings...

EE Scott · « **Reply #31 on:** 08/26/2009 11:58 pm »

Quote from: grdja on 08/26/2009 11:19 pm

Sad thing is that even with all corruption and leftover communist inefficiencies, I'd trust Russians over NASA to actually succeed a program and do something if money was provided.

Ha! I would however like to see what the Russians could do even with NASA's "constrained budget." But their government doesn't ever seem likely to provide even that to them. Not even close.

Edit: Of course they wouldn't, as that would probably make their space agency, like, 20% of their annual budget.

wannamoonbase · « **Reply #32 on:** 08/27/2009 12:44 am »

Quote from: grdja on 08/26/2009 11:19 pm

Sad thing is that even with all corruption and leftover communist inefficiencies, I'd trust Russians over NASA to actually succeed a program and do something if money was provided.

Oh yeah no corruption in Russia that would funnel space money into some billionaires wallet.

Perhaps Russia has made some progress at an extremely slow pace. But much of that has been because of partnerships with western companies and money from commercial launches and selling the RD-180 to the US.

A new manned spacecraft is a much bigger step than any of their post soviet improvements. I still don't think they are going anywhere.

Declining population, a generation of rot after the fall of the soviet union, a single resource economy, horrible government and a social system that punishes risk taking and sticking out from the crowd.

It's much more likely that in the not too distant future that Russia is fully out of manned spaceflight instead of flying a new vehicle. Only if ESA drags them across the finish line will they still be involved.

Danderman · « **Reply #33 on:** 08/27/2009 05:48 am »

Quote from: gospacex on 08/26/2009 11:35 pm

Quote from: grdja on 08/26/2009 11:19 pm
Sad thing is that even with all corruption and leftover communist inefficiencies, I'd trust Russians over NASA to actually succeed a program and do something if money was provided.

Probably because you didn't look closer at the inner program workings...

I HAVE looked at the inner workings of the Russian program, and my conclusion is that NASA and Roskosmos exhibit strikingly different behavior in operating projects. Many NASA projects are canceled and simply disappear, whereas Russian projects are delayed, descoped, but rarely vanish.

Off the top of my head, NASP, X-33, X-34, X-38, Fastrac, Prop Module, ICM, they all just vanished, whereas most Russian projects tend to hang around until something gets launched, often years late.

Case in point, the Russian effort to replace Soyuz has been around now for about 5 years or so, when Energia started making noises about Klipr. I suspect that within the next 10 years, some sort of next generation vehicle will be launched, and slowly take over from Soyuz. It probably won't look like the design being floated now, though. I would speculate that it will be launched on a 10 ton LV, probably an updated Soyuz.

As for the Russian program disappearing, I would bet real money that the Russian program will outlive the NASA human spaceflight program. In fact, if Ares and then Orion are killed, Virgin Galactic may be the US spaceflight program.

patchfree · « **Reply #34 on:** 08/27/2009 05:47 pm »

"whereas Russian projects are delayed, descoped, but rarely vanish."

Hum... I am a fan of soviet and russian space but I would remind that they cancelled 2 enormous projects at the final phase: LV lunar N1 and Energia-Buran!! Now fortunately they are more pragmatic (money!)

Patch

William Barton · « **Reply #35 on:** 08/27/2009 05:51 pm »

Quote from: patchfree on 08/27/2009 05:47 pm

"whereas Russian projects are delayed, descoped, but rarely vanish."

Hum... I am a fan of soviet and russian space but I would remind that they cancelled 2 enormous projects at the final phase: LV lunar N1 and Energia-Buran!! Now fortunately they are more pragmatic (money!)

Patch

Except the engines from N1 are going to be flying on the bottom end of Taurus II next year (we hope!) and the strap-on boosters for Energiya became Zenit (and, sort of, Atlas V, and maybe Angara, if you count "cut downs").

Danderman · « **Reply #36 on:** 08/27/2009 06:00 pm »

Quote from: patchfree on 08/27/2009 05:47 pm

"whereas Russian projects are delayed, descoped, but rarely vanish."

Hum... I am a fan of soviet and russian space but I would remind that they cancelled 2 enormous projects at the final phase: LV lunar N1 and Energia-Buran!! Now fortunately they are more pragmatic (money!)

Patch

Perhaps I was not being sufficiently precise in my statement. The lunar program and Energia/Buran did not exactly vanish in these sense of X-33, NASP, etc. Both programs produced both flight tests and resulting technologies used today. In fact, Energia/Buran was canceled in the sense that Apollo was canceled, as the Russian program met its program goals and then was killed.

The Zenit rocket is a result of Energia/Buran. It still flies today.

fregate · « **Reply #37 on:** 08/27/2009 11:47 pm »

From Russian Web Space site

Jorge · « **Reply #38 on:** 08/27/2009 11:53 pm »

Quote from: Danderman on 08/27/2009 06:00 pm

Quote from: patchfree on 08/27/2009 05:47 pm

"whereas Russian projects are delayed, descoped, but rarely vanish."

Hum... I am a fan of soviet and russian space but I would remind that they cancelled 2 enormous projects at the final phase: LV lunar N1 and Energia-Buran!! Now fortunately they are more pragmatic (money!)

Patch

Perhaps I was not being sufficiently precise in my statement. The lunar program and Energia/Buran did not exactly vanish in these sense of X-33, NASP, etc. Both programs produced both flight tests and resulting technologies used today. In fact, Energia/Buran was canceled in the sense that Apollo was canceled, as the Russian program met its program goals and then was killed.

You really expect us to believe that Buran's program goal was to fly once and then quit?

Pathetic rationalization, IMO.

EE Scott · « **Reply #39 on:** 08/27/2009 11:59 pm »

Variant 2 - does that show five RD-180? That would be around 4 million lbs of thrust for just 35 tons to low orbit?