Are Russian rocket designs going back to the future?

[Hyperion5]

A few days ago Fregate showed me a proposal for a rocket that might use an RD-175 engine.  I noted that the design was almost as efficient as the Energia, which fregate noted as well.  He also noted that the payload mass fraction on new Russian rockets apart from the Soyuz appears to be going into reverse.  The $5 billion spent on the Angara family has resulted in a rocket so conservatively built it is barely more efficient in lifting payloads to orbit than any Soyuz-2, a design only modestly evolved in more than 50 years of existence.  Apparently some other designers in Russia have also noticed this, for they've proposed a 516 mt Super Zenit that could lift just as much as the 714 mt Angara.  That design would be so efficient it'd rival the Energia in efficiency. 

But all of this begs the question, when looking at the chart below, of why this is happening.  Is Russia seeing the after-effects on the USSR breaking up on its LV engineering, or are the designers there just being off-scale conservative and taking designs "back to the future?" 

--

I wanted to add that Russia is also going back to the future with its LV designs in one other way.  http://blogs.nature.com/news/2013/04/russia-announces-new-space-spending-plan.html

Russia will give its Roscosmos space programme a whopping US$52 billion boost between now and 2020 in an effort to maintain its position as a leading space power.

The announcement came from President Vladimir Putin as he told cosmonauts aboard the International Space Station on Friday that Russia will send up the first mission from its new Vostochny launch pad by 2015. Russia has been developing the Vostochny cosmodrome, in Russia’s Far East, as a way to reduce dependency on the Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. Putin added that the first manned missions would launch in 2018, with “super-heavy” rockets capable of missions to the Moon ready by 2020.

If the Russians go through with this commitment, that will make it 3-for-3 on them attempting to match the US' new launch systems. 

1960s

US launches race to moon and completes it with Saturn V
USSR attempts the same with its failed N-1 mega rocket

1980s

US accidentally creates a "shuttle" race with STS
USSR matches it with Energia/Buran before its collapse

2010s

US creates a new HLV for deep-space missions called the SLS
Russia announces plans for their own HLV in 2013 to match or exceed the SLS


If there's a better example of a country "going back to the future" than Russia with its space plans, I haven't heard of it yet, though North Korea sure seems to try in other ways.   

[fregate]

You question would be answered soon - Roskosmos is busy preparing a tender for Russian HLV (with LEO payload in range from 70-75 to 130-150 mt). This was announced by Head of Russian Space agency V.Popovkin and President of RSC Energia V.Lopota in  last few weeks prior to 12th of April celebrations.
AFAIK LV would be used for both Russian Manned Lunar and Marsian Missions. 
The major competitors might be:
- Khrunichev
- Energia+Yuzmash
- Energia+TsSKB "Progress"   
- Makeev+TsSKB "Progress"   

[Danderman]

Because Roskosmos has been focused on modular designs for its proposed LVs, the mass fraction for larger proposed LVs has suffered, since 5 small modules have a worse mass fraction than one large unit.

The only way for Roskosmos to develop an efficient large LV is to accept that large stages either be manufactured at the launch site or flown in.

[Moe Grills]

Are we going to see the resurrection of the G1 booster, with all it's
engineering issues resolved 40 years later?  LOL   

   IMHO I would like to see the Russians finally get the 1.2 million Newton RD-103 rocket motor working properly, after it was abandoned 60 year ago by Korolev and Glushko.
With today's Russian metallurgy and engineering know-how, they could get it working right and cluster it (like Saturn 1 or G1); twelve will do nicely;
over 16 million Newtons (3.5 million Ibf) at lift-off.
Eight of the engines could be jettisoned after two minutes (like Atlas).

Hey! Am I being serious, or is my tongue-in-cheek? You can't tell on the internet
without a webcam.

[Hyperion5]

Because Roskosmos has been focused on modular designs for its proposed LVs, the mass fraction for larger proposed LVs has suffered, since 5 small modules have a worse mass fraction than one large unit.

The only way for Roskosmos to develop an efficient large LV is to accept that large stages either be manufactured at the launch site or flown in.

The size of the Angara wasn't quite the point, because although larger rockets tend to be more efficient, there's also another explanation for their relative inefficiency.  We should remember that even the smallest Angara is equipped with two highly advanced kerolox engines.  The RD-191 engine is one of the best out there for its combination of outstanding impulse density, thrust & has a good t/w ratio.  The RD-0124A engine powering the upper stage is the most efficient kerolox engine ever flown on an LV.  This makes sense given Russian engines are some of the best out there.  So it isn't the engines that are letting Angaras down.  Indeed, you might make the argument that the RD-0146 engines due to power the biggest variants are some of the best hydrolox engines ever engineered. 

The Angaras' size disadvantages against the Falcons due to modularity might also be overplayed.  When I checked the payload mass fraction of a Falcon 9 without engine-out capability, it was a surprisingly good 3.22%.  Now why can't an Angara 1.2 get anywhere close to this?  Could it be due not just to their core size but the design's conservative nature?  I would argue this is the case, because the Angara features no common bulkheads, it does not use many of the light alloys used on the Falcon 9, and its only real advance in efficiency might be the use of friction stir welding to construct the cores.  It can't be all down to size, because if that were the case that Super Zenit ought to get clobbered by the Falcon Heavy in efficiency.  The 1400 mt Falcon Heavy has a payload mass fraction of 3.64%, far short of the 516 mt Super Zenit's 3.8% efficiency. 

I am fairly confident that it would take more than just engine upgrades to get a Zenit relative up to that efficiency.  It would take using a more advanced, lighter design.  Btw, speaking of going "back to the future" again, has anyone else noted the irony of Russia announcing an HLV meant to rival the SLS?  The USSR did this twice.  The first time they wanted to beat us to the moon, thus the N-1 was born.  The second time the Soviets wanted strategic parity with the Shuttle, thus the Energia/Buran system was created.  Now we have a third recurrence of this phenomenon where the US is again creating a huge HLV, and now once again, Russia is announcing plans for an HLV to rival ours.  So you could say Russian LV designs are going "back to the future" quite literally, especially if Energia-derived tech is used to create the new monster. 

[Danderman]

AFAIK Russia has not "announced" any HLV at this time.

[spaceStalker]

What suppose to be G1 booster?

[fregate]

AFAIK Russia has not "announced" any HLV at this time.

Not yet...
12 April of 2013 RIA Novosti
РФ планирует до 2030 г обеспечить техвозможности для полетов на Марс
RF is planning to provide a technical capability of (Manned) Mars Missions
According to Russian Vice-Premier Dmitry Rogozin presentation on Russian Government council meeting (agenda Space Exploration) in Blagoveschensk the following goals had been discussed (as a part of national space polity framework till 2030):
- Creation of Super-heavy LV (LEO capability 130-180 mt);
- Achieving Manned Mars Mission capability;   
- Heavy Interplanetary Space tugs with electrical propulsion;
- Stand-alone (or specialised) LEO modules;
- LEO servicing and re-fuelling (it's unclear for automatic or manned spacecrafts)
- Lunar Robotic missions;
- PPTS and PTK-L (including EDS for PTK-L) - readiness for a maiden Lunar flight;
- Lunar Manned Descending/Ascending Spacecraft;   
- Permanent Scientific Lunar base.

[baldusi]

I don't think that payload mass fraction really matters. I think that final price and reliability with good enough performance matters. Look at the true objective of Angara: to make all national security/defense payloads fly on the same platform. Thus, you'd need just four pads in two launch sites to cover all the needs. Just to huge efficient MIKs. Complete and easy compatibility of platforms from LEO to BEO. A single factory churning standardsized cores at abou 30 to 40 per year. And if they keep the Proton-M share, they could do more than 50 cores per year.
Single launch procedures, single launch crew training, etc. If you were consolidating Tsyclone, Stella, Rockot, Soyuz-U, Zenit and Proton it might not be a bad proposal. They might save about eight pads/GSE/crews, etc. think of the fairing consolidation, the track record, etc. Plus, it's probably optimized for the "small" SSO size, were it will probably be extremely competitive for its performance. Have you done a matrix of weights and orbital energy of their national launches on the las decade? Then correct by the GLONASS factor going to fleet maintenance rather than fleet contstruction. And assume they only do seven commercial GTO per year. Look how does the matrix do. Then try to minimize the overall cost. Think that higher small launch cost losses a lot a "missions". Specially the ones that are cheaper on the margin.

[kkattula]

Since when is payload mass fraction the primary measure of efficiency?

The Big Dumb Rocket camp would argue cost is the most important measure. It doesn't matter if a LV is twice as heavy for the same payload, if the launch cost is lower. That doesn't exclude the cheaper launcher being less massive, but extreme weight savings are usually expensive.

[Hyperion5]

Since when is payload mass fraction the primary measure of efficiency?

The Big Dumb Rocket camp would argue cost is the most important measure. It doesn't matter if a LV is twice as heavy for the same payload, if the launch cost is lower. That doesn't exclude the cheaper launcher being less massive, but extreme weight savings are usually expensive.

Who says weight savings have to be expensive?  Apparently Spacex didn't get the memo on their rockets.  Spacex' incredibly lightweight Falcon 9 family is undercutting almost all major launch vehicle families in price per kg to orbit.  If Spacex can pull off a lighter-than-normal rocket for less than 1/5th the cash spent on the Angara family, you can see why I doubt your premise is entirely true.  That's another way in which Russia's going "back to the future".  It shouldn't be costing them astronomical sums to develop a new family with a conservative design and one new engine derivative (of an existing engine).  So you could say Spacex is pressing towards the future while Russia is heading "back to the future". 

[asmi]

Well, you can look at this "US vs USSR/Russia" game from different angle. Lunar race, although lost by USSR, yielded NK-33/43 which is so advanced that even now, 40 years later, outperforms any other kerolox engine of its class. Second, Buran/Energia yielded RD-170 family which are also unmatched, not to mention RD-0120 which was close to SSME but much simpler and cheaper - at some point US even considered incorporating some features from RD-0120 into SSME.
Now, there is one very important thing to keep in mind when looking at Angara family and their new SHLV (whatever it will end up being). Angara is going to be used for DoD/government launches, so performance is not as important as reliability, price and availability (so it have to be domestic-built). SLHV is going to be a civilian rocket (that is unless DoD will want to launch military orbital outposts , so the requirements for it include performance, not so much price, and I won't be surprised to see some international cooperation in it's development.

[kch]

What suppose to be G1 booster?

Not sure, but it might be this:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/g1.htm

 

[Prober]

Since when is payload mass fraction the primary measure of efficiency?

The Big Dumb Rocket camp would argue cost is the most important measure. It doesn't matter if a LV is twice as heavy for the same payload, if the launch cost is lower. That doesn't exclude the cheaper launcher being less massive, but extreme weight savings are usually expensive.

Who says weight savings have to be expensive?  Apparently Spacex didn't get the memo on their rockets.  Spacex' incredibly lightweight Falcon 9 family is undercutting almost all major launch vehicle families in price per kg to orbit.  If Spacex can pull off a lighter-than-normal rocket for less than 1/5th the cash spent on the Angara family, you can see why I doubt your premise is entirely true.  That's another way in which Russia's going "back to the future".  It shouldn't be costing them astronomical sums to develop a new family with a conservative design and one new engine derivative (of an existing engine).  So you could say Spacex is pressing towards the future while Russia is heading "back to the future". 

The real problem is not the design, but taking too long.

[Danderman]

The real problem is the politics, not the design. The Russian HLV project is predicated on political dictates, and the politics are still not lined up for the HLV project to move forward.

In some ways, we are seeing a repeat of the Soviet lunar program debacle, with the difference that there is no American crash program with which the Russian leadership feels must be matched. There is a slowly developing US exploration program, and the Russian leadership still has many years before the US program is realized.

[fregate]

Unlike original Space Race age, Russians now are completing with China (as well along with NASA) and young but very ambitious private space enterprises.
Good example - a "QUICK" SOP of manned spacecraft docking (happened first time since 1969).
From political point of view - it's a new Dawn of space exploration, when Russia is trying to catch up with Soviet Union "state of an art" in end of 80th.     
Unlike the last 20 years, money is not a major constraint, IMHO it's a HUMAN factor: there is a BLACK HOLE in generation gap (in terms of passing of engineering KNOW HOW). It takes 5-6 years to educate a student plus at least another 5 to ensure that those young designers could be useful and became a reliable members of project team. It's not an IT where ANYBODY who plays with the latest software toolkit for 2-3 month could claim that they are TOP LEVEL experts.