Author Topic: Russia to Develop Rocket for New-Generation Manned Spacecraft (Read 256059 times)

fregate · « **Reply #240 on:** 04/19/2011 02:37 pm »

As usual something "Missed in translation"
Russian spaceflight abbreviations according to the industry standard ОSТ 134-1020-99 "Spaceflight Hardware. Terms and definitions"
ГО (головнoй обтекатель) - Payload Fairing (PLF).
КА (космический аппарат) - Spacecraft.
КГЧ (Космическая головная часть) - Space-bound orbital payload block, consists of РБ (Space Tag), ГО (PLF), adapters and spacecraft (as payload).
РБ (разгонный блок) - Space tug, please note that it's not the Upper Stage of LV.
РКН (ракета космического назначения) - Integrated Launch Vehicle оr Launch Vehicle (short version), consists of РН (LV) and КГЧ (Payload block).
ПН (полезная нагрузка) - Payload.
СЗБ (сборочно-защитный блок) - Protection Assembly, consist of ГО (PLF) and inter-stage adapter.

Danderman · « **Reply #241 on:** 04/19/2011 10:58 pm »

Quote from: fregate on 04/19/2011 02:37 pm

As usual something "Missed in translation"
РБ (разгонный блок) - Space tug, please note that it's not the Upper Stage of LV.

I believe that calling an "upper stage" a "space tug" will lead to confusion.

A tug is more generally called the literal translation as "буксир". That's what the folks at Energia tended to call them.

fregate · « **Reply #242 on:** 04/19/2011 11:55 pm »

Quote from: Danderman on 04/19/2011 10:58 pm

Quote from: fregate on 04/19/2011 02:37 pm
As usual something "Missed in translation"
РБ (разгонный блок) - Space tug, please note that it's not the Upper Stage of LV.

I believe that calling an "upper stage" a "space tug" will lead to confusion.

A tug is more generally called the literal translation as "буксир". That's what the folks at Energia tended to call them.

IMHO the closest translation for РБ (разгонный блок) would be a propulsion module. In most cases it's a expendable propulsion module (used exclusively for a given missed).

What the folks at Energia tended to call "буксир" is completely different cattle of fish: they are promoting a concept of multi-use refueled propulsion module (with LRE aka "Parom") or multi-use nuclear propulsion module.

BTW tug in Russian is "буксир"...

Ronsmytheiii · « **Reply #243 on:** 04/20/2011 03:27 pm »

A reminder, do not embed images on the forum, save and then attach them

zaitcev · « **Reply #244 on:** 04/20/2011 07:03 pm »

Maybe we should call RB a "kick stage", by borrowing from Star, but working more like Orbital ORK. Or just use "RB".

patchfree · « **Reply #245 on:** 04/21/2011 07:55 pm »

RB could also be named "injection block" or "injection stage". Some examples: Breeze-M, Breeze-KM, Fregat, Fregat-SB, DM,...

fregate · « **Reply #246 on:** 07/29/2011 02:04 pm »

From the ROSKOSMOS presentation in Madrid, SPAIN in May 2011:

Downix · « **Reply #247 on:** 07/29/2011 02:42 pm »

Quote from: fregate on 07/29/2011 02:04 pm

From the ROSKOSMOS presentation in Madrid, SPAIN in May 2011:

From this it looks like the Rus-M has had a serious downgrade. And MRKS is back to boot.

Danderman · « **Reply #248 on:** 07/29/2011 11:47 pm »

Quote from: Downix on 07/29/2011 02:42 pm

Quote from: fregate on 07/29/2011 02:04 pm
From the ROSKOSMOS presentation in Madrid, SPAIN in May 2011:
From this it looks like the Rus-M has had a serious downgrade. And MRKS is back to boot.

I would look at that chart as a single data point among many concerning Roskosmos future plans.

luke strawwalker · « **Reply #249 on:** 08/17/2011 03:12 am »

Quote from: Downix on 04/14/2011 06:31 pm

Quote from: Danderman on 04/14/2011 06:24 pm
I am waiting for someone to suggest crossfeed for this one. I guess if NASA were to design a system with crossfeed, then ESA and the Russians would follow along, with JAXA a little later.

I can understand why not to persue crossfeed. I studied it a bit when working on AJAX, for the Delta IV varient. I realized quickly how much of a challenge it would be. It would increase costs dramatically for little gain, due to the complexities. Instead of a single staging event per booster, you're now dealing with four. One for each of the fuel lines, one for the control line, and the booster staging itself. If any one of them has an issue, your rocket fails to reach orbit. And it only benefits for more rockets, single sticks would have no benefit but would have a weight penalty for it.

If it is pulled off, great. It is just a severe challenge to pull off. Easier to improve isp for payload performance.

It would seem to me that crossfeed wouldn't be much more difficult that stage-and-a-half staging like the original Atlas-- the propellant lines to the outer two booster engines had to be closed and severed, and whatever controls (hydraulic/pneumatic/electronic) severed and the booster stage decoupled physically from the sustainer vehicle...

Shuttle has essentially used the essentials of crossfeeding for decades-- the ET lines had to uncouple from the orbiter and the physical disconnect of the ET from the vehicle had to occur with PERFECT reliability or you'd have a LOV... including the additional complexity of having to have complete reliability in closing the heat shield hatches for the propellant lines under the shuttle... if those don't close you've probably got a LOV or at the very least severe damage upon return...

So you've got a functional example of the equipment needed for crossfeed right there... and it worked with complete reliability for 134 flights. The rest is just plumbing...

Later! OL JR

Blackjax · « **Reply #250 on:** 08/17/2011 02:46 pm »

It probably doesn't add much that is new, but there is a decent overview of the lineup of new Russian rockets just posted here:

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/08/17/what-the-frak-is-going-on-with-russian-rocketry/

Dmitry_V_home · « **Reply #251 on:** 08/26/2011 06:02 pm »

New picture from Energia:

Danderman · « **Reply #252 on:** 08/26/2011 08:25 pm »

The Energia poster doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I get the impression that technology from Rus-M would be used to modernize Zenit somehow.

John Santos · « **Reply #253 on:** 08/26/2011 08:44 pm »

Quote from: luke strawwalker on 08/17/2011 03:12 am

[...]

Shuttle has essentially used the essentials of crossfeeding for decades-- the ET lines had to uncouple from the orbiter and the physical disconnect of the ET from the vehicle had to occur with PERFECT reliability or you'd have a LOV... including the additional complexity of having to have complete reliability in closing the heat shield hatches for the propellant lines under the shuttle... if those don't close you've probably got a LOV or at the very least severe damage upon return...

So you've got a functional example of the equipment needed for crossfeed right there... and it worked with complete reliability for 134 flights. The rest is just plumbing...

Later! OL JR

This has drifted OT, but the shuttle staging (ET disconnect) happens after the engines shut down (even in an abort where the tank isn't empty), so it isn't under thrust. This has to make it a lot easier. Most if not all of the parallel staging with cross-feed scenarios (including the Atlas booster separation) involve staging under thrust, which must present very different, and dynamic, structural loads to the system. I.E. speaking as a pure amateur, this sounds to me like a much more difficult engineering problem.

Dmitry_V_home · « **Reply #254 on:** 09/07/2011 04:54 pm »

Two version of Energia-K (from NK forum)^

Danderman · « **Reply #255 on:** 09/07/2011 05:48 pm »

For some reason, Energia-K doesn't use the Yuzhnoye 3.9 meter tankage, but either 3.8 meter or 4.1 depending on the engine to be used. Although Energia-K is described as a Zenit derivative, it doesn't seem very Zenity to me.

In both cases, small boosters are attached for the purpose of making absolutely sure that the LV gets off the pad in case of main engine failure, I guess they are tired of rebuilding launch pads.

baldusi · « **Reply #256 on:** 09/07/2011 06:08 pm »

If I'm not mistaken, 3.8m (and 25m long) is the maximum width for rail transport to the Vostochny, one of the requirements of anything to be launch from there.

Dmitry_V_home · « **Reply #257 on:** 09/07/2011 06:20 pm »

Quote from: Danderman on 09/07/2011 05:48 pm

In both cases, small boosters are attached for the purpose of making absolutely sure that the LV gets off the pad in case of main engine failure, I guess they are tired of rebuilding launch pads.

Yes, indeed!

Lars_J · « **Reply #258 on:** 09/08/2011 06:19 pm »

Quote from: Dmitry_V_home on 09/07/2011 06:20 pm

Quote from: Danderman on 09/07/2011 05:48 pm
In both cases, small boosters are attached for the purpose of making absolutely sure that the LV gets off the pad in case of main engine failure, I guess they are tired of rebuilding launch pads.

Yes, indeed!

Such a bizarre idea. Are they not using hold-downs to verify engine performance before release?

Danderman · « **Reply #259 on:** 09/10/2011 09:22 pm »

Quote from: Lars_J on 09/08/2011 06:19 pm

Quote from: Dmitry_V_home on 09/07/2011 06:20 pm
Quote from: Danderman on 09/07/2011 05:48 pm
In both cases, small boosters are attached for the purpose of making absolutely sure that the LV gets off the pad in case of main engine failure, I guess they are tired of rebuilding launch pads.

Yes, indeed!

Such a bizarre idea. Are they not using hold-downs to verify engine performance before release?

The RD-171 engine has demonstrated the ability to spontaneously disassemble itself, even after the normal release point, ie 100 meters up.