Russia to Develop Rocket for New-Generation Manned Spacecraft

[Danderman]

Would this be an accurate synopsis:

- Krunichev (current builder of Rokot and Proton) are developing the RD-191 based Angara, and are funded and relatively on-schedule.
- Progress (current builder of Soyuz launcher) were proposing the Rus-M launchers but this is now not going ahead.
- Energia (current builder of manned and unmanned spacecraft) are proposing an NK-33 based plan to evolve the Soyuz launcher into a more powerful and versatile system. Some of the steps for this have already been taken but just how far the whole plan will go is uncertain.

Angara is receiving minimum funding, and may not fly for many years, except as part of the South Korean program.

Rus-M was a joint project of Energia and the Samara plant.

Soyuz-2-3 is a project of the Samara plant.

Apart from those quibbles, your post was right-on!

[baldusi]

I don't think there's any budget for any new rocket. They already have to finish Angara, and are actually launching the Soyuz-2.1v next year. They have suspended the NK-33-1 program, so they are missing on how to get extra engines if that program proves successful.
But I've not lost of sight the proposal for the RD-193 engine for Soyuz from Energomash/Energia. May be they want to get the business of all next generation launchers. Else, if Energia got to ha it's own LV,    Khrunichev would have its main competitor supplying engines. Not a good situation.

[Downix]

The Energia-K however is not an all new LV, but an integration and tank manufacturing domestic start.  A good number of systems are already built and in service on Zenit, Proton and Soyuz now.  Halfway between to ULA's migration of the Atlas line from Colorado to Alabama and an all new rocket, such as the work needed on Rus.  So, even without the money for a new LV, it still may go ahead anyways.

Please compare and contrast your assertions above and the real progress made towards development of Angara, a launch vehicle that uses existing engines (or derivatives of existing engines), standard avionics boxes, and has available tankage. Why should Energia-K be available in a shorter period of time than Angara? Note that Angara started out more than 15 years ago, and has still not flown.

I never said a shorter period than Angara.  I am only pointing out that Energia-K would not be an all new LV.  I suspect that it would, if given serious effort, be a 3-4 year program regardless, but would be less costly than Rus-M.

[Danderman]

The Energia-K however is not an all new LV, but an integration and tank manufacturing domestic start.  A good number of systems are already built and in service on Zenit, Proton and Soyuz now.  Halfway between to ULA's migration of the Atlas line from Colorado to Alabama and an all new rocket, such as the work needed on Rus.  So, even without the money for a new LV, it still may go ahead anyways.

Please compare and contrast your assertions above and the real progress made towards development of Angara, a launch vehicle that uses existing engines (or derivatives of existing engines), standard avionics boxes, and has available tankage. Why should Energia-K be available in a shorter period of time than Angara? Note that Angara started out more than 15 years ago, and has still not flown.

I never said a shorter period than Angara.  I am only pointing out that Energia-K would not be an all new LV.  I suspect that it would, if given serious effort, be a 3-4 year program regardless, but would be less costly than Rus-M.

The question is not about some Russian miracle all-out drive to develop a new LV, but the most realistic estimate of how long it would take for Energia-K to materialize if given ATP right now. My estimate is ten years +.

[Downix]

The Energia-K however is not an all new LV, but an integration and tank manufacturing domestic start.  A good number of systems are already built and in service on Zenit, Proton and Soyuz now.  Halfway between to ULA's migration of the Atlas line from Colorado to Alabama and an all new rocket, such as the work needed on Rus.  So, even without the money for a new LV, it still may go ahead anyways.

Please compare and contrast your assertions above and the real progress made towards development of Angara, a launch vehicle that uses existing engines (or derivatives of existing engines), standard avionics boxes, and has available tankage. Why should Energia-K be available in a shorter period of time than Angara? Note that Angara started out more than 15 years ago, and has still not flown.

I never said a shorter period than Angara.  I am only pointing out that Energia-K would not be an all new LV.  I suspect that it would, if given serious effort, be a 3-4 year program regardless, but would be less costly than Rus-M.

The question is not about some Russian miracle all-out drive to develop a new LV, but the most realistic estimate of how long it would take for Energia-K to materialize if given ATP right now. My estimate is ten years +.

Too many variables to determine an exact number, but you are likely correct, considering Russia's tendencies as of late.

[owais.usmani]

Anatoly Zak recently updated his website with a nice write-up about the development of PTK NP during 2012:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ptk_2012.html

[owais.usmani]

Angara-5P, by Anatoly Zak: 

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara5p.html

[Prober]

Angara-5P, by Anatoly Zak: 

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara5p.html

looks like someone cleaned up the design a bit.

[M129K]

I have no idea why they took out the second stage. Seems like an unnecessary decrease in performance.

[russianhalo117]

I have no idea why they took out the second stage. Seems like an unnecessary decrease in performance.

Main reason for change in look is it is now just planned to fly manned missions from Vostochny. Original plan was Plesetsk's 35/1

[simonbp]

Also has the nice safety feature of all engines running before release from the pad; never a bad thing for manned launches.

[Danderman]

So, Russia is going to spend cash to develop a new rocket for humans to fly into space that will be significantly less capable than Proton.

This does not seem like a winner.

The more reasonable path would be to develop a smaller capsule that could fly on an evolved Soyuz. The question is what are the requirements driving such a large capsule? If the requirement is a larger crew size, that requirement should be validated against Roskosmos budgeted plans.

[M129K]

Angara 5 is significantly more capable than proton with over 7.5 tons to a 1500m/s to GSO GTO, as well as simpler and supposedly cheaper. LEO payload for A5 is claimed at 24.5 tons. A5P lack an upper stage though, which reduced it to 18 tons. It also uses kerosene instead of hypergolics and the launch infrastructure is inside of Russia, not Kazakhstan.

[Danderman]

Angara 5 is significantly more capable than proton with over 7.5 tons to a 1500m/s to GSO GTO, as well as simpler and supposedly cheaper. LEO payload for A5 is claimed at 24.5 tons. A5P lack an upper stage though, which reduced it to 18 tons. It also uses kerosene instead of hypergolics and the launch infrastructure is inside of Russia, not Kazakhstan.

Sorry, my reference was to the Angara 5P, which AFAIK, is the latest version. And it is only 18 tons to LEO. The 18 ton limit will significantly constrain any advanced capsule that flies on this vehicle, and the costs of those constraints will outweigh any savings by not flying the standard Angara upper stage.

The lack of an upper stage is indeed mystifying.

[baldusi]

Angara 5 is significantly more capable than proton with over 7.5 tons to a 1500m/s to GSO GTO, as well as simpler and supposedly cheaper. LEO payload for A5 is claimed at 24.5 tons. A5P lack an upper stage though, which reduced it to 18 tons. It also uses kerosene instead of hypergolics and the launch infrastructure is inside of Russia, not Kazakhstan.

Sorry, my reference was to the Angara 5P, which AFAIK, is the latest version. And it is only 18 tons to LEO. The 18 ton limit will significantly constrain any advanced capsule that flies on this vehicle, and the costs of those constraints will outweigh any savings by not flying the standard Angara upper stage.

The lack of an upper stage is indeed mystifying.

They will, apparently, have to develop a human rated engine (RD-191V?). Basically a lower pressure RD-191. I remember that the problem with the Rus-M's RD-180V was that the cleanliness standards for Russian tanks had particles of such a maximum size that the lower pressure was required to reduce the chance of catastrophic explosion by FOD in the turbopump.
Also, I remember seeing, a graph that stated that the Angara 5 would have crossfeeding. This would men that the center core would act as a second stage, rather than a sustainer stage. Thus, the use of an upper stage would add little performance and some certain risk. I guess the option of a US would always be available. But since they apparently are betting on a 1.5 and 2.5 architecture for their BEO plans, this might be a reasonable trade off. Or, they are excluding the US to keep some growth margin.

[Danderman]

Also, I remember seeing, a graph that stated that the Angara 5 would have crossfeeding. This would men that the center core would act as a second stage, rather than a sustainer stage. Thus, the use of an upper stage would add little performance and some certain risk. I guess the option of a US would always be available. But since they apparently are betting on a 1.5 and 2.5 architecture for their BEO plans, this might be a reasonable trade off. Or, they are excluding the US to keep some growth margin.

Since Angara 5P will drag its core stage almost to orbit, the mass penalties will ensure that this is not an optimal design, and probably will never come to exist. Plus, "crossfeeding" in this context seems to mean "magic".

Remember that the US of A once used a crossfeed system, with an analogous stage and a half launcher (Atlas), which struggled to put 2,000 lbs into orbit (for a 200 ton thrust rocket). And that was with the core stage flying with "balloon" tanks, so that the mass of the core was fairly light.

[Prober]

So, Russia is going to spend cash to develop a new rocket for humans to fly into space that will be significantly less capable than Proton.

This does not seem like a winner.

Maybe this launcher is a winner politically ?
 

[Stan Black]

Angara 5 is significantly more capable than proton with over 7.5 tons to a 1500m/s to GSO GTO, as well as simpler and supposedly cheaper. LEO payload for A5 is claimed at 24.5 tons. A5P lack an upper stage though, which reduced it to 18 tons. It also uses kerosene instead of hypergolics and the launch infrastructure is inside of Russia, not Kazakhstan.

Sorry, my reference was to the Angara 5P, which AFAIK, is the latest version. And it is only 18 tons to LEO. The 18 ton limit will significantly constrain any advanced capsule that flies on this vehicle, and the costs of those constraints will outweigh any savings by not flying the standard Angara upper stage.

The lack of an upper stage is indeed mystifying.

They will, apparently, have to develop a human rated engine (RD-191V?). Basically a lower pressure RD-191. I remember that the problem with the Rus-M's RD-180V was that the cleanliness standards for Russian tanks had particles of such a maximum size that the lower pressure was required to reduce the chance of catastrophic explosion by FOD in the turbopump.
Also, I remember seeing, a graph that stated that the Angara 5 would have crossfeeding. This would men that the center core would act as a second stage, rather than a sustainer stage. Thus, the use of an upper stage would add little performance and some certain risk. I guess the option of a US would always be available. But since they apparently are betting on a 1.5 and 2.5 architecture for their BEO plans, this might be a reasonable trade off. Or, they are excluding the US to keep some growth margin.

I remember reading something about the RD-0124 and catastrophic failure; why they are going to use Soyuz-2-1A for future Soyuz and Progress.

[fregate]

Where did you guys get an idea of cross-feeding? IMHO central core engine would be ignited on the ground along with booster engines, but central core would be throttled to 30%-40% of the nominal thrust. After staging when boosters would be jettisoned (after 200 sec of the flight) engine would go for nominal burn. 

[baldusi]

Where did you guys get an idea of cross-feeding? IMHO central core engine would be ignited on the ground along with booster engines, but central core would be throttled to 30%-40% of the nominal thrust. After staging when boosters would be jettisoned (after 200 sec of the flight) engine would go for nominal burn.

From this post.