Russia to Develop Rocket for New-Generation Manned Spacecraft

[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.

From this post.

Make sense - 5-7.5% of nominal propellant mass for 2nd stage would be "borrowed" from each of 4 boosters in flight to make second stage work on 90-100% of usable propellant mass after staging.   Boosters and central core engines are ignited on the ground, while central core engine is throttled to decrease propellant usage (I assumed 30% of nominal thrust).
As a result more propellant by central core would be burned on higher altitude with bigger specific impulse.
       

[Lars_J]

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.

Why do you persist in not understanding this? The A5P (human-rated) version of the A5 accepts the sacrifice of less performance by adding the safety feature of igniting all engines at lift-off. Trading performance for safety is not a new thing.

The cargo A5 will have an proper upper stage. Stop thinking that all A5 will be A5P. Not the same, not for the same purpose.

Besides, if the cargo A5 flies enough without incident, there is not reason why they couldn't later add an upper stage for lifting a heavier spacecraft for BEO missions.

[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.

Why do you persist in not understanding this? The A5P (human-rated) version of the A5 accepts the sacrifice of less performance by adding the safety feature of igniting all engines at lift-off. Trading performance for safety is not a new thing.

The cargo A5 will have an proper upper stage. Stop thinking that all A5 will be A5P. Not the same, not for the same purpose.

Besides, if the cargo A5 flies enough without incident, there is not reason why they couldn't later add an upper stage for lifting a heavier spacecraft for BEO missions.

As Russiaspaceweb reports:

http://russianspaceweb.com/ptk_flight_testing.html

near term plans for the new generation spacecraft revolve around flights on Zenit or Proton in the near future. Angara seems to be a long ways off.

[Lars_J]

The Zenit and Proton flights are only for the early unmanned test flights. Not manned flights - they have been Angara 5 based for a while now.

[Prober]

The Zenit and Proton flights are only for the early unmanned test flights. Not manned flights - they have been Angara 5 based for a while now.

Have they even ordered the Zenits for this program?

[russianhalo117]

The Zenit and Proton flights are only for the early unmanned test flights. Not manned flights - they have been Angara 5 based for a while now.

Have they even ordered the Zenits for this program?

Anatoly Zak states that he believes so since NKAU recently talked about it with ROSCOSMOS representatives at MAKS 2013 and the manufacturing corporations have increased their production backlog to include the same number of Zenit's Russia has mentioned. However I have not found a formal document published to date by Russian authorities ordering them yet and the last time I checked was the last day of MAKS so we might be waiting on some other intergovernmental approval or something within the government of Russia. Anatoly Zaks' info is either directly from interviews while he was at MAKS 2013 and/or his sources.

[Danderman]

So ... the plan is to fly the new spacecraft unmanned on established rockets, and manned on new, untested  rockets.

[owais.usmani]

So ... the plan is to fly the new spacecraft unmanned on established rockets, and manned on new, untested  rockets.

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

It is logical to assume that the switch of the PTK NP spacecraft to the Angara-5-derived launch vehicle based in Vostochny would require additional unmanned launches into low Earth orbit.

[baldusi]

Russians have a nice tradition of stating very long trial periods and in practice compressing them to just a couple of unmanned launches. They've also certified a Soyuz-FG after the failure of the Progress-13 with a Soyuz-2.1B. So I would expect one or two Zenits, and one Angara-5P before a manned launch. The biggest issue I see is the LAS. They don't appear to have settled on one, and they'll need some extensive testing on it. If I'm not mistaken, part of the reason of not going to the Soyuz-2.1B for Soyuz-MS was that if they increased the weight to fall on the same drop zones, the LAS wouldn't be able to escape fast enough for it to be certified. Which makes it logical that they'll test the LAS with the heaviest possible capsule (polar moon orbit).

[fregate]

Russians have a nice tradition of stating very long trial periods and in practice compressing them to just a couple of unmanned launches. They've also certified a Soyuz-FG after the failure of the Progress-13 with a Soyuz-2.1B. So I would expect one or two Zenits, and one Angara-5P before a manned launch. The biggest issue I see is the LAS. They don't appear to have settled on one, and they'll need some extensive testing on it. If I'm not mistaken, part of the reason of not going to the Soyuz-2.1B for Soyuz-MS was that if they increased the weight to fall on the same drop zones, the LAS wouldn't be able to escape fast enough for it to be certified. Which makes it logical that they'll test the LAS with the heaviest possible capsule (polar moon orbit).

Please check you facts about Progress launch failure in 2011
Spacecraft Progress M-12M (As a matter of fact Progress-13 successfully completed Salyut-7 supply mission in May-June 1982)
LV Soyuz-U (Nothing to do with neither manned Soyuz-FG nor Soyuz 2.1B)

[baldusi]

Russians have a nice tradition of stating very long trial periods and in practice compressing them to just a couple of unmanned launches. They've also certified a Soyuz-FG after the failure of the Progress-13 with a Soyuz-2.1B. So I would expect one or two Zenits, and one Angara-5P before a manned launch. The biggest issue I see is the LAS. They don't appear to have settled on one, and they'll need some extensive testing on it. If I'm not mistaken, part of the reason of not going to the Soyuz-2.1B for Soyuz-MS was that if they increased the weight to fall on the same drop zones, the LAS wouldn't be able to escape fast enough for it to be certified. Which makes it logical that they'll test the LAS with the heaviest possible capsule (polar moon orbit).

Please check you facts about Progress launch failure in 2011
Spacecraft Progress M-12M (As a matter of fact Progress-13 successfully completed Salyut-7 supply mission in May-June 1982)
LV Soyuz-U (Nothing to do with neither manned Soyuz-FG nor Soyuz 2.1B)

Yes, I shouldn't quote from memory. I meant Progress M-12M (Americans called it Progress 44, I think).
The failure was on the RD-0110. Which it shares with the Soyuz-FG. It was my understanding that it needed three successful launches to be cleared for human flights (the engine).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the chronology was:
2011-08-24  Progress-M 12M on Soyuz-U (RD-0110 Block I) from Baikonur LC-1/5 FAILURE
2011-10-03 Kosmos 2478 (Uragan-M #37) on Soyuz-2.1B (RD-0124 Block I) from Plesetsk LC-43/4
2011-10-21 Galileo IOV PFM & IOV FM2 on Soyuz-STB (RD-0124 Block I) from Kourou ELS
2011-10-30 Progress-M 13M on Soyuz-U (RD-0110 Block I) from Baikonur LC-1/5
2011-11-14 Soyuz-TMA 22 on Soyuz-FG (RD-0110 Block I) from Baikonur LC-1/5

So, they didn't flew three times the failed component (the RD-0110), but flew three times some Soyuz before the human rated flight. The failure was obviously some process failure, and may be I misunderstood and only could fly humans on the third flight, instead of after the third, yet they only flew the engine one time before. Could you clarify?
BTW, I was also stating how the original plans for Buran included something like 10 unmanned flight, that were later compressed to one or two. And the original Soyuz-1 had one or two prototypes, and after the failure, I think they had just the one extra unmanned flight (Soyuz-2) to clear for Soyuz-3. So, my general statement is that plans for many unmanned flights have to be taken with a grain of salt.

[Danderman]

The Angara-5 design would be much more capable IF:

the core stage and the four boosters operated jointly (ie same thrust period); and

a 6th Angara core were added as a "second" stage. It could be wider, and/or shorter, but air-launching an Angara core after using 5 as a "first stage" would generate a much more capable LV.

If the RD-0124 engine is considered too scary for passengers, this alternate approach may be preferable.

[M129K]

Might as well use an A7 without upper stage then. The problem isn't RD-0124, that one's supposed to take over manned flight from the RD-0110 on Soyuz anyway.

[fregate]

The Angara-5 design would be much more capable IF:

the core stage and the four boosters operated jointly (ie same thrust period); and

a 6th Angara core were added as a "second" stage. It could be wider, and/or shorter, but air-launching an Angara core after using 5 as a "first stage" would generate a much more capable LV.

If the RD-0124 engine is considered too scary for passengers, this alternate approach may be preferable.

And If you replace in your design 4 boosters and central core propelled by RD-191 by 4 boosters and central core propelled by RD-171M (with diameter 4.1 m) plus an upper stage with mid-air ignited RD-191V (with extended nozzle) you'll magically get the most recent Energia-5K proposal      
Stages according to Russian school of rocketry would be: 
- Stage I - 4 boosters
- Stage II - Central core block
- Stage III - Upper Stage   

[Danderman]

Might as well use an A7 without upper stage then. The problem isn't RD-0124, that one's supposed to take over manned flight from the RD-0110 on Soyuz anyway.

Not.

The current plan seems to be to migrate to Soyuz 2.1a someday for the Soyuz spacecraft.

[Danderman]

Might as well use an A7 without upper stage then. The problem isn't RD-0124, that one's supposed to take over manned flight from the RD-0110 on Soyuz anyway.

You don't want to drag a full Angara core into orbit. The mass penalty is significant for bringing a full core up.

[Danderman]

And If you replace in your design 4 boosters and central core propelled by RD-191 by 4 boosters and central core propelled by RD-171M (with diameter 4.1 m) plus an upper stage with mid-air ignited RD-191V (with extended nozzle) you'll magically get the most recent Energia-5K proposal      
Stages according to Russian school of rocketry would be: 
- Stage I - 4 boosters
- Stage II - Central core block
- Stage III - Upper Stage   

Not really.

There is a big difference between a cluster of 5 Angara cores bundled together with a single core on top, compared with a traditional large 171-M core with 4 strap-ons that are jettisoned after a couple of minutes.
The stage ratios for Energia 5K are 5:1, followed by 4:1. The Angara I am talking about is 5:1.

In all cases, none of these will be built. Angara 5P makes the most sense, though, as a design that has some possibility of cutting through the politics and flying.

[fregate]

Russians have a nice tradition of stating very long trial periods and in practice compressing them to just a couple of unmanned launches. They've also certified a Soyuz-FG after the failure of the Progress-13 with a Soyuz-2.1B. So I would expect one or two Zenits, and one Angara-5P before a manned launch. The biggest issue I see is the LAS. They don't appear to have settled on one, and they'll need some extensive testing on it. If I'm not mistaken, part of the reason of not going to the Soyuz-2.1B for Soyuz-MS was that if they increased the weight to fall on the same drop zones, the LAS wouldn't be able to escape fast enough for it to be certified. Which makes it logical that they'll test the LAS with the heaviest possible capsule (polar moon orbit).

Please check you facts about Progress launch failure in 2011
Spacecraft Progress M-12M (As a matter of fact Progress-13 successfully completed Salyut-7 supply mission in May-June 1982)
LV Soyuz-U (Nothing to do with neither manned Soyuz-FG nor Soyuz 2.1B)

Yes, I shouldn't quote from memory. I meant Progress M-12M (Americans called it Progress 44, I think).
The failure was on the RD-0110. Which it shares with the Soyuz-FG. It was my understanding that it needed three successful launches to be cleared for human flights (the engine).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the chronology was:
2011-08-24  Progress-M 12M on Soyuz-U (RD-0110 Block I) from Baikonur LC-1/5 FAILURE
2011-10-03 Kosmos 2478 (Uragan-M #37) on Soyuz-2.1B (RD-0124 Block I) from Plesetsk LC-43/4
2011-10-21 Galileo IOV PFM & IOV FM2 on Soyuz-STB (RD-0124 Block I) from Kourou ELS
2011-10-30 Progress-M 13M on Soyuz-U (RD-0110 Block I) from Baikonur LC-1/5
2011-11-14 Soyuz-TMA 22 on Soyuz-FG (RD-0110 Block I) from Baikonur LC-1/5

So, they didn't flew three times the failed component (the RD-0110), but flew three times some Soyuz before the human rated flight. The failure was obviously some process failure, and may be I misunderstood and only could fly humans on the third flight, instead of after the third, yet they only flew the engine one time before. Could you clarify?
BTW, I was also stating how the original plans for Buran included something like 10 unmanned flight, that were later compressed to one or two. And the original Soyuz-1 had one or two prototypes, and after the failure, I think they had just the one extra unmanned flight (Soyuz-2) to clear for Soyuz-3. So, my general statement is that plans for many unmanned flights have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Have a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_R-7_launches_(2010-2014)#2011
I believe that manned Soyuz-FG LV had been cleared for flight (14th of Nov 2011) within a fortnight after a single launch of Progress M-13M cargo vehicle on top of the Soyuz-U LV (30th of October 2011).
Please note that launches from Plesetsk and Kourou in Oct 2011 used RD-0124 on third stage (LV Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat and Soyuz-STB/Fregat accordingly)

[Lars_J]

Might as well use an A7 without upper stage then. The problem isn't RD-0124, that one's supposed to take over manned flight from the RD-0110 on Soyuz anyway.

You don't want to drag a full Angara core into orbit. The mass penalty is significant for bringing a full core up.

Yes, we all understand this. The Russians understand this. What you don't seem to understand is the safety over efficiency trade.

Besides, did you complain that the Shuttle brought the entire ET to a near orbit?

[fregate]

From interview with TsNIIMash director Alexander Mil'kovskiy (27th of May 2014)
Federal State Unitary Enterprise "Central Scientific & Research Institute of Machine-building is a major Roscomos "think tank" that define Russian space program strategy. 

В новой редакции программы («Космическая деятельность России на 2013-2020 годы») прописана также необходимость создания сверхтяжёлой ракеты - до 2025 года предусмотрено создание технологического и проектного задела, а также начало наземной экспериментальной отработки элементов РН. [/size]

New edition of the program ("Russian Space Activity in 2013-2020") contains a requirement for new SHLV - Preliminary Design, Technical Design should be completed till 2025 as well as ground testing of major LV components should be commenced.     

Битва за супертяж
- Расскажите, пожалуйста, о сверхтяжёлой ракете, вы уже определились с её характеристиками?
- В настоящее время ведущими КБ отрасли – это ОАО «РКК “Энергия” имени С. П. Королёва», ГНПРКЦ «ЦСКБ – Прогресс», ГКНПЦ имени М. В. Хруничева и ОАО «ГРЦ Макеева» – предложен ряд предпроектных проработок ракет-носителей сверхтяжёлого класса различной грузоподъёмности. Предварительно, в соответствии с принятыми исходными данными и проектом технического задания на разработку, ракета-носитель на первом этапе должна выводить на низкую орбиту полезный груз массой около 80 тонн. Обладая такой грузоподъёмностью, она сможет выводить пилотируемый корабль для облёта Луны, а также обеспечивать экспедиции на поверхность Луны со стыковкой пилотируемого корабля и лунного посадочно-взлётного комплекса на её орбите.
- Когда вы окончательно определитесь с обликом ракеты?
- В этом году. По заданию Роскосмоса, в рамках научно-исследовательской работы «Магистраль», подготовлен проект технического задания и начата разработка головными КБ аванпроектов по космическому ракетному комплексу (КРК) с РН сверхтяжёлого класса со сроком завершения в декабре 2014 года. По результатам экспертизы аванпроектов ФКА совместно с заинтересованными организациями будет окончательно определён облик и технические характеристики комплекса и подготовлено тактико-техническое задание на его создание. Опытно-конструкторские работы по созданию КРК с РН сверхтяжёлого класса предусмотрены проектом Федеральной космической программы России на 2016 – 2025 гг.
- Вы сказали, что вышеописанные характеристики нужны для первого этапа создания ракеты, значит, вы уже думали и над вторым?
- На втором этапе предполагается дальнейшее увеличение энергетических возможностей РН на основе использования и развития базовых элементов, созданных на первом этапе. Повышенная энергетика РН потребуется для решения амбициозных задач более дальней перспективы (создание лунных баз, экспедиция на Марс, посещение астероидов и др.).
С этого этапа начнутся регулярные полёты на Луну и подготовка полётов во внеземное пространство, то есть более чем за 1,5 млн. км от Земли. Второй этап – это полёты на Луну по однопусковой схеме (без промежуточных стыковок), регулярные полёты экипажей на лунную базу, создание лунной энергетики (солнечной, ядерной, термоядерной), создание первых лунных производств, увеличение длительности пребывания человека на Луне с нескольких недель до нескольких месяцев, испытания комплексов для полётов к астероидам и к Марсу. По нашим оценкам, для решения задач второго этапа потребуется РН грузоподъёмностью более 160 тонн.

A Battle for Super Heavy Launch Vehicle

Q. Could you please tell about Super Heavy Launch Vehicle,  did you already define her specifications?
A. Currently leading design bureaus of the [Russian space] industry such as Rocket and Space Corporation Energia, Samara Space Center TsSKB Progress, Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center as well as Makeyev State Rocket Center proposed their conceptual design of SHLVs with different payload capability. For a Stage I (according to technical requirements) LV should be able to provide LEO payload capability around 80 tones. This would allow to perform a manned Lunar flyby mission, as well as support Lunar landing missions via manned spacecraft and lunar module LOR concept of operation [Note: lunar module is a reusable manned lunar descent & ascend module aka PLVPK].   

Q. When the conceptual design of the LV would be finalized?
A. It would be done till the end of this year. By Roscosmos contract (within framework of R&D Project "Magistral"), we prepared a technical requirements; leading design bureaus started preliminary design of Space Launch Vehicle of the Super Heavy class (due in December 2014) [Note: Roscosmos so far did not announced a tender for SHLV conceptual design]. After completion of critical design review milestone, Russian Federal Space agency and all involved parties would finalize a conceptual design and technical specifications as well as would prepare technical requirements for LV implementation. Draft of Russian Federal space program for 2016-2025 has a specific statement about SHLV Design and Development Program.

Q. You mentioned requirements for Stage I, is there a plan for Stage II?
A. During Stage II implementation we should further increase LV's payload capability by re-using and enhancing basic building blocks that would be created during Stage I. An enhanced payload capability would pave a way to materialize more ambitious perspective tasks  (such as establishment of Lunar Bases, mission to Mars, visiting asteroids, etc.)
Upon completion of Stage I we would able to perform regular missions to the Moon and would be fully committed for Deep Space missions, i.e. as far as 1.5 million km away from Earth. [Note: This is approximate distance from Earth to each of L1 and L2 Earth-Sun Lagrangian points. Wink, wink]). Stage II includes Lunar Missions with a single launch concept of operation (without any intermediate docking); regular manned expeditions to Lunar Base; creation of Lunar Energy infrastructure (solar, nuclear and thermonuclear); creation of Lunar industrial plants; extending human presence on Lunar surface from weeks to months; testing hardware for asteroid and Martian bound missions. According to our preliminary estimations, objectives for Stage II would require a development of LV with LEO payload capability above 160 tones.

My personal compliments to Natalia Vedeneeva (Journalist from Moskovkiy Komsomolets newspaper, Science and Technology Section Editor), who interviewed A. Minkovskiy. I wish she could made a photo of the BIG poster in his office - looks like a roadmap.