Russia to Develop Rocket for New-Generation Manned Spacecraft

[major_tom]

Aren't Roskosmos and/or Energia tired of announcing grand plans that never materialize?

I thought the world record on this category belonged to NASA...
Let's see:
NASP, NLS, X-33, X-34, X-38, OSP, ... am I missing any?

[Danderman]

Aren't Roskosmos and/or Energia tired of announcing grand plans that never materialize?

Roskosmos is not guilty lately of announcing plans that do not materialize. On the other hand, Energia has often announced "proects" in the hopes of getting funding that mostly don't get funded, since the late 1950s.  You will notice that Boeing and the US primes often do this as well, although sometimes their motivation is FUD rather than hopes of getting a project funded.

Under Koptev, Rosaviakosmos did throw up concepts against the wall in the hopes that the central government would provide funding, and this caused all sorts of confusion, as under the Soviet system, if the ministry advanced a project, that meant roubles were coming.

[aquarius]

Aren't Roskosmos and/or Energia tired of announcing grand plans that never materialize?

I thought the world record on this category belonged to NASA...
Let's see:
NASP, NLS, X-33, X-34, X-38, OSP, ... am I missing any?

The projects you mentioned are spread out over several decades, while Russians manage to announce several new projects almost every couple of years.

[Danderman]

Aren't Roskosmos and/or Energia tired of announcing grand plans that never materialize?

I thought the world record on this category belonged to NASA...
Let's see:
NASP, NLS, X-33, X-34, X-38, OSP, ... am I missing any?

Yep: Prop module, ICM, Fastrac, Freedom.

[Dmitry_V_home]

New generation of russian LV Rus-M

[Thande]

Nice image!

What's that payload shown for the lightest version on the left - it almost looks like an old Voskhod capsule, but that can't be right...

[Danderman]

Nice image!

What's that payload shown for the lightest version on the left - it almost looks like an old Voskhod capsule, but that can't be right...

It is and it is. The purpose is show the lift capability of the lightest launcher.

What I want to know is why use 2 NK-191s per stage when a single RD-180 would have the same capability.

[Dmitry_V_home]

While at the first stages it is planned to use ÐÄ-180

[Dmitry_V_home]

For comparison. Family of Angara LV (Novosti Kosmonavtiki magazine)^

[Danderman]

While at the first stages it is planned to use ÐÄ-180

What I want to know is: why use 2 RD-180s, when a single RD-171 would have the same capability?

[Dmitry_V_home]

What I want to know is: why use 2 RD-180s, when a single RD-171 would have the same capability?

Application RD-171 does not correspond to Roskosmos requirements

[Stan Black]

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/322/24.shtml

Rus-MP and Rus-MT-35 have the first stage URB working together; only on the Rus-MT-50 does the core burn longer like Delta or Angara

[Nickolai]

I'm curious about the launch infrastructure for Angara-7. With it's core clearly being significantly wider than the other variants, can it still use the same launch pad, or would a separate Angara-7 pad have to be built for it to be used?

[patchfree]

I'm curious about the launch infrastructure for Angara-7. With it's core clearly being significantly wider than the other variants, can it still use the same launch pad, or would a separate Angara-7 pad have to be built for it to be used?

A new launch pad have to be built. So Angara-7 remains a paper project.

[Aexalon]

What I want to know is: why use 2 RD-180s, when a single RD-171 would have the same capability?

Each core would have only a single RD-180 (like Atlas V), which is a dual-combustion chamber, dual-nozzle engine. The RD-171 is a quad-combustion chamber, quad-nozzle engine.

With there being no 2 RD-180's to replace (per-core), the conclusion becomes:

Application RD-171 does not correspond to Roskosmos requirements

[Danderman]

What I want to know is: why use 2 RD-180s, when a single RD-171 would have the same capability?

Each core would have only a single RD-180 (like Atlas V), which is a dual-combustion chamber, dual-nozzle engine. The RD-171 is a quad-combustion chamber, quad-nozzle engine.

Correct, I had a brain fade. I saw 2 nozzles on each core and concluded that these were 2 engines, forgetting that RD-180 has 2 nozzles. So, the core booster in this proposal is effectively an Atlas V core.

[major_tom]

So, the core booster in this proposal is effectively an Atlas V core.

Sort of... it is much shorter than an Atlas V core although the diameter
is pretty much the same.

Even the longer booster in the 50T variant is shorter than Atlas.

[Danderman]

So, the core booster in this proposal is effectively an Atlas V core.

Sort of... it is much shorter than an Atlas V core although the diameter
is pretty much the same.

Even the longer booster in the 50T variant is shorter than Atlas.

The core booster is short in length, plus the core variant only has 6.5 ton capability to LEO, which means that it can't replace Soyuz for crewed launches; I don't know if this is due to politics, but it would not seem logical to have a 7 ton Soyuz LV and a 6.5 ton Rus in joint operations, they would cannibalize each other's markets.

[sdsds]

So, the core booster in this proposal is effectively an Atlas V core.

Sort of... it is much shorter than an Atlas V core although the diameter
is pretty much the same.

Even the longer booster in the 50T variant is shorter than Atlas.

By implication they plan to get more from the upper stage than LM/ULA get from Centaur:

"Уже известная читателям «Русь-МП» имеет на первой ступени «жесткую» связку из трех не разделяющихся в полете УРБ; на второй ступени установлены четыре кислородно-водородных двигателя РД-0146 разработки КБХА."

An RD-0146 is pretty much an RL10 clone, and this upper stage uses four of them?

[major_tom]

My $0.02, on Russia's future rocket fleet:

- Soyuz 1 - Angara 1.1 will be no more than a test vehicle, Soyuz-1 has
  potentialy better performance, is most likely cheaper and indications
  are it will be ready sooner than the lightest Angara.
  Will substitute Rokot and Kosmos.

- Angara 1.2 - Although facing some competition from Soyuz-1, it has
  better performance both in mass and volume terms, so It will hold well
  against any competition from below. Anyway this
  market may be big enough for both Angara 1.2 and Soyuz 1.
  Will substitute Tsyklon and Dnepr.

- Soyuz 2.X - Maybe, in the long run, longer core versions of Rus-MS will
  substitute Soyuz 2.X, but Rus- MS is not a realistic offer in its current form,
  if one considers the competition (from Progress own rockets!).
  Maybe Soyuz 2.1 will substitute Soyuz FG in manned launches once
  "digital Soyuz-TMA" has been made operational. And IMHO Soyuz 
  spacecraft will be flying forever... 
  Soyuz 2.3 will offer improved performance if you need lifting a couple
  of tonnes more (ideal for lifting a stretched Progress, if needed).

- Angara 3 - Right now Progress has too much work on its hands to
  pull off the development of a rival Soyuz-3.
  So Angara 3 most likely will substitute Zenith.

- Rus-MP - Will be the main workhorse of russian manned spaceflight
  in the future (not very clear how near or far...), lifting PPTS, and
  the successor(s) of Progress. For unmanned missions faces the
  competition of Angara 5 which is simpler, cheaper (no redundancies
  for manned capability, no cryogenic fuel) and most likely will fly
  earlier than Rus-MP.

- Angara 5 - See above in Rus-MP. Has slightly better performance than
  Rus-MP and offers some other advantages for cargo lifting
  (simpler,cheaper, earlier).
  The disadvantages of Rus-MP for the cargo role make Angara 5 the most
  likely substitute of Proton.

- Rus-MT-XX - Will be Russia's heavy lift vehicles in the foreseeable
  future. At least until the logistic problems that limit the size
  of stages transportable to Vostochni are eliminated, so that 100+T class
  HLVs can be assembled there.
  Will be used to lift the heavier modules of proposed OPSEK station and
  NEP tug. The later, if successful, could make irrelevant the need for
  more powerful boosters (just like depot architectures).
  Khrunichev's rival proposition, Angara 7, requires a modified launch pad and has
  less growth potential, so it will most likely be discarded.

So, in my opinion, the future is bleak for Angara 1.1 and 7, Soyuz 3 and
not much brighter for Rus-MS (at least in its current form).