How should Russia evolve the Soyuz rocket family?

[Hyperion5]

The R-7 rocket family, alternatively and better-known as the Soyuz rocket family, has been with us for a long time.  Since its first flight in 1957, the family has seen 22 flight-proven variants launched over 1700 times.  The family got its start as an ICBM, but proved more useful as a satellite and manned mission launcher instead. 

I've read that even now the family is in the midst of evolving with the Soyuz-U & Soyuz-fg models due to be retired in favor of the Soyuz-2 family.  The 2.1a features improved avionics that allows a bigger PLF up top with uprated booster & core engines thanks to improved injection systems.  The 2.1b improves on that with the high-efficiency RD-0124 US engine.  Of course, this being the Soyuz family, there's already another version, the single core Soyuz-2.1V, with an enlarged core stage powered by an NK-33 & vernier engine, that will fly shortly. 

But that brings us to where the family should go from here.  How do you think the Russians should best evolve the family in the era of Spacex?  There are so many possibilities, and we could be debating which of them are the best for a long time.  For instance, should the 2.1V be the basis of all future LVs in this family?  Should any new Soyuz use an uprated NK-33 for its main engine or NPO Energomash's new RD-193?  Should future versions use more powerful and efficient booster engines or stick with the ever-reliable RD-110 family?  One thing's for certain, times are changing, and the stalwart Soyuz is about to lose its place as Russia's manned launcher in favor of the far larger Angara-5. 

That change to me suggests the family needs to up its capabilities, so I'd replace the Soyuz-2.1a/b with a new family based off the larger core of the 2.1V (AKA Soyuz-1).  But enough about how I'd evolve this family, what about you?  Are there evolutions even the Russians haven't considered that you think are ideal for improving this family's long-term prospects?   

[zaitcev]

Meanwhile Mr. Kirillin said that TsSKB opened the work on the "Soyuz-5" project, which apparently is going to use a number of technologies from the cancelled "Rus-M". This is a completely new development and nobody knows what it looks like. Rumours are that it's going to require a heavily modified launch facility which disposes with almost all of the iron, including the famous "tulip", just keeping the concrete. Presumably this permits to increase the launch mass.

[William Graham]

One thing's for certain, times are changing, and the stalwart Soyuz is about to lose its place as Russia's manned launcher in favor of the far larger Angara-5.     

Why should the Angara's larger size mean that it will automatically become Russia's manned launch system? The evolved Soyuz is perfectly-sized for launching evolutions of the spacecraft which it was developed together with in the 1960s, and as long as Russia relies on Soyuz-derived spacecraft, the R-7 family is the logical choice to launch them.
Russia currently has no need of the increased capacity of the Angara-5 for manned missions, and I doubt the Soyuz spacecraft will be replaced by anything but a derivative of itself for some years to come.

[Hyperion5]

One thing's for certain, times are changing, and the stalwart Soyuz is about to lose its place as Russia's manned launcher in favor of the far larger Angara-5.     

Why should the Angara's larger size mean that it will automatically become Russia's manned launch system? The evolved Soyuz is perfectly-sized for launching evolutions of the spacecraft which it was developed together with in the 1960s, and as long as Russia relies on Soyuz-derived spacecraft, the R-7 family is the logical choice to launch them.
Russia currently has no need of the increased capacity of the Angara-5 for manned missions, and I doubt the Soyuz spacecraft will be replaced by anything but a derivative of itself for some years to come.

It's automatically becoming the next manned launch system because the decision to build a successor to the Soyuz spaceship has already been made: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23160.0 

There is no way, barring the use of quintuple RD-193 engines on some sort of super-sized Soyuz rocket, that it could lift the 20 mt PTK-NP into LEO.  The Angara-5, which masses more than 700 mt, or more than double the Soyuz-2.1b, will be required to get that capsule into orbit.  Given this development, I think the Soyuz family design ought to reflect a prioritization towards launching satellites only. 

To me this means standardizing around a larger common core (the 2.1V core), powering it with an RD-193 engine, and using 0-4 boosters to vary the payload range like the Atlas V varies its capability with SRBs.  You also standardize around a common PLF size of 4.1 meters from the Soyuz-2.1b so that you can launch almost any satellite by volume, if not mass.  I think a hydrolox US with an RD-0146D would be a great addition to the rocket for launching GEO comsats.  I'd keep the Fregat stage around simply because it's proven and offers a huge amount of fine maneuvering ability. 

[russianhalo117]

One thing's for certain, times are changing, and the stalwart Soyuz is about to lose its place as Russia's manned launcher in favor of the far larger Angara-5.     

Why should the Angara's larger size mean that it will automatically become Russia's manned launch system? The evolved Soyuz is perfectly-sized for launching evolutions of the spacecraft which it was developed together with in the 1960s, and as long as Russia relies on Soyuz-derived spacecraft, the R-7 family is the logical choice to launch them.
Russia currently has no need of the increased capacity of the Angara-5 for manned missions, and I doubt the Soyuz spacecraft will be replaced by anything but a derivative of itself for some years to come.

It's automatically becoming the next manned launch system because the decision to build a successor to the Soyuz spaceship has already been made: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23160.0 

There is no way, barring the use of quintuple RD-193 engines on some sort of super-sized Soyuz rocket, that it could lift the 20 mt PTK-NP into LEO.  The Angara-5, which masses more than 700 mt, or more than double the Soyuz-2.1b, will be required to get that capsule into orbit.  Given this development, I think the Soyuz family design ought to reflect a prioritization towards launching satellites only. 

To me this means standardizing around a larger common core (the 2.1V core), powering it with an RD-193 engine, and using 0-4 boosters to vary the payload range like the Atlas V varies its capability with SRBs.  You also standardize around a common PLF size of 4.1 meters from the Soyuz-2.1b so that you can launch almost any satellite by volume, if not mass.  I think a hydrolox US with an RD-0146D would be a great addition to the rocket for launching GEO comsats.  I'd keep the Fregat stage around simply because it's proven and offers a huge amount of fine maneuvering ability. 

it is only possible with current R-7/R-7A family's booster attachment mechanisms to fly either with four first stage boosters around the second stage core or to fly without any. There is no in between when using current booster attachment mechanisms so Atlas V options cannot be mimicked as it would require rather extremely major changes to both 1 stage and 2 stage for all versions of the family.

[russianhalo117]

One thing's for certain, times are changing, and the stalwart Soyuz is about to lose its place as Russia's manned launcher in favor of the far larger Angara-5.     

Why should the Angara's larger size mean that it will automatically become Russia's manned launch system? The evolved Soyuz is perfectly-sized for launching evolutions of the spacecraft which it was developed together with in the 1960s, and as long as Russia relies on Soyuz-derived spacecraft, the R-7 family is the logical choice to launch them.
Russia currently has no need of the increased capacity of the Angara-5 for manned missions, and I doubt the Soyuz spacecraft will be replaced by anything but a derivative of itself for some years to come.

It's automatically becoming the next manned launch system because the decision to build a successor to the Soyuz spaceship has already been made: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23160.0 

There is no way, barring the use of quintuple RD-193 engines on some sort of super-sized Soyuz rocket, that it could lift the 20 mt PTK-NP into LEO.  The Angara-5, which masses more than 700 mt, or more than double the Soyuz-2.1b, will be required to get that capsule into orbit.  Given this development, I think the Soyuz family design ought to reflect a prioritization towards launching satellites only. 

To me this means standardizing around a larger common core (the 2.1V core), powering it with an RD-193 engine, and using 0-4 boosters to vary the payload range like the Atlas V varies its capability with SRBs.  You also standardize around a common PLF size of 4.1 meters from the Soyuz-2.1b so that you can launch almost any satellite by volume, if not mass.  I think a hydrolox US with an RD-0146D would be a great addition to the rocket for launching GEO comsats.  I'd keep the Fregat stage around simply because it's proven and offers a huge amount of fine maneuvering ability. 

Max planned core stage upper segment and 3 stage starting with Soyuz-2-3V is 3.9m and bottom segment is to be identical to Soyuz-2-1v. Soyuz-2-3V Booster width remains same but conical design is to be possibly replaced with more modern, cheaper to manufacture, cylindrical booster design. Also starting with Soyuz-2-3V max diametre PLF becomes 5m.

[Hyperion5]

One thing's for certain, times are changing, and the stalwart Soyuz is about to lose its place as Russia's manned launcher in favor of the far larger Angara-5.     

Why should the Angara's larger size mean that it will automatically become Russia's manned launch system? The evolved Soyuz is perfectly-sized for launching evolutions of the spacecraft which it was developed together with in the 1960s, and as long as Russia relies on Soyuz-derived spacecraft, the R-7 family is the logical choice to launch them.
Russia currently has no need of the increased capacity of the Angara-5 for manned missions, and I doubt the Soyuz spacecraft will be replaced by anything but a derivative of itself for some years to come.

It's automatically becoming the next manned launch system because the decision to build a successor to the Soyuz spaceship has already been made: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23160.0 

There is no way, barring the use of quintuple RD-193 engines on some sort of super-sized Soyuz rocket, that it could lift the 20 mt PTK-NP into LEO.  The Angara-5, which masses more than 700 mt, or more than double the Soyuz-2.1b, will be required to get that capsule into orbit.  Given this development, I think the Soyuz family design ought to reflect a prioritization towards launching satellites only. 

To me this means standardizing around a larger common core (the 2.1V core), powering it with an RD-193 engine, and using 0-4 boosters to vary the payload range like the Atlas V varies its capability with SRBs.  You also standardize around a common PLF size of 4.1 meters from the Soyuz-2.1b so that you can launch almost any satellite by volume, if not mass.  I think a hydrolox US with an RD-0146D would be a great addition to the rocket for launching GEO comsats.  I'd keep the Fregat stage around simply because it's proven and offers a huge amount of fine maneuvering ability. 

Max planned core stage upper segment and 3 stage starting with Soyuz-2-3V is 3.9m and bottom segment is to be identical to Soyuz-2-1v. Soyuz-2-3V Booster width remains same but conical design is to be possibly replaced with more modern, cheaper to manufacture, cylindrical booster design. Also starting with Soyuz-2-3V max diametre PLF becomes 5m.

So is that a confirmation that the Soyuz-2-3V design has been agreed to and is being funded as the next logical step after the Soyuz-2.1V?  If you don't mind, could you post a few basic stats (payload, mass, core diameter, PLF diameter) on the 2.1B, 2.1V & 2.3V?  I was hoping we'd have a better discussion if we knew the true capabilities of everything being discussed. 

[russianhalo117]

One thing's for certain, times are changing, and the stalwart Soyuz is about to lose its place as Russia's manned launcher in favor of the far larger Angara-5.     

Why should the Angara's larger size mean that it will automatically become Russia's manned launch system? The evolved Soyuz is perfectly-sized for launching evolutions of the spacecraft which it was developed together with in the 1960s, and as long as Russia relies on Soyuz-derived spacecraft, the R-7 family is the logical choice to launch them.
Russia currently has no need of the increased capacity of the Angara-5 for manned missions, and I doubt the Soyuz spacecraft will be replaced by anything but a derivative of itself for some years to come.

It's automatically becoming the next manned launch system because the decision to build a successor to the Soyuz spaceship has already been made: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23160.0 

There is no way, barring the use of quintuple RD-193 engines on some sort of super-sized Soyuz rocket, that it could lift the 20 mt PTK-NP into LEO.  The Angara-5, which masses more than 700 mt, or more than double the Soyuz-2.1b, will be required to get that capsule into orbit.  Given this development, I think the Soyuz family design ought to reflect a prioritization towards launching satellites only. 

To me this means standardizing around a larger common core (the 2.1V core), powering it with an RD-193 engine, and using 0-4 boosters to vary the payload range like the Atlas V varies its capability with SRBs.  You also standardize around a common PLF size of 4.1 meters from the Soyuz-2.1b so that you can launch almost any satellite by volume, if not mass.  I think a hydrolox US with an RD-0146D would be a great addition to the rocket for launching GEO comsats.  I'd keep the Fregat stage around simply because it's proven and offers a huge amount of fine maneuvering ability. 

Max planned core stage upper segment and 3 stage starting with Soyuz-2-3V is 3.9m and bottom segment is to be identical to Soyuz-2-1v. Soyuz-2-3V Booster width remains same but conical design is to be possibly replaced with more modern, cheaper to manufacture, cylindrical booster design. Also starting with Soyuz-2-3V max diametre PLF becomes 5m.

So is that a confirmation that the Soyuz-2-3V design has been agreed to and is being funded as the next logical step after the Soyuz-2.1V?  If you don't mind, could you post a few basic stats (payload, mass, core diameter, PLF diameter) on the 2.1B, 2.1V & 2.3V?  I was hoping we'd have a better discussion if we knew the true capabilities of everything being discussed. 

That is what has mentioned for a while. I will upload some updated info following my return from an upcoming Expo this summer. While I am there I will also be seeking info on new LH2/LO2 Third stage in design stage based on KVTK US that is planned to start with 2-3V not to be confused with smaller 2-3v with kerolox third stage.

[fregate]

...
So is that a confirmation that the Soyuz-2-3V design has been agreed to and is being funded as the next logical step after the Soyuz-2.1V?  If you don't mind, could you post a few basic stats (payload, mass, core diameter, PLF diameter) on the 2.1B, 2.1V & 2.3V?  I was hoping we'd have a better discussion if we knew the true capabilities of everything being discussed. 

Phillip, with all due respect both"Союз-2.1B" and "Soyuz -2.1V" are Russian and English name of the same Launch Vehicle (to add a confusion, a.k.a. "Soyuz-1").

Regarding LV spacifications, the same rocket would have different payload capability depending on launchpad location (Plesetsk, Baikonur and Vostochny spaceports) .

Soyuz 2-3V is a design initiative from TsSKB Progress (Samara Space Centre), AFAIK never had been endorsed by Roscosmos. 

[russianhalo117]

...
So is that a confirmation that the Soyuz-2-3V design has been agreed to and is being funded as the next logical step after the Soyuz-2.1V?  If you don't mind, could you post a few basic stats (payload, mass, core diameter, PLF diameter) on the 2.1B, 2.1V & 2.3V?  I was hoping we'd have a better discussion if we knew the true capabilities of everything being discussed. 

Phillip, with all due respect both"Союз-2.1B" and "Soyuz -2.1V" are Russian and English name of the same Launch Vehicle (to add a confusion, a.k.a. "Soyuz-1").

Regarding LV spacifications, the same rocket would have different payload capability depending on launchpad location (Plesetsk, Baikonur and Vostochny spaceports) .

Soyuz 2-3V is a design initiative from TsSKB Progress (Samara Space Centre), AFAIK never had been endorsed by Roscosmos. 

Roscosmos has only expressed interest in Soyuz-2-3V, but TsSKB Progress has never received funding from government to date for the project because MoD was not trusting of the proposed launcher.

[William Graham]

It's automatically becoming the next manned launch system because the decision to build a successor to the Soyuz spaceship has already been made: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23160.0   

I thought that had been cancelled...I guess I must have lost track given how many Soyuz replacement programmes have been cancelled, which is my point - until there is hardware ready for flight I wouldn't take seriously any attempt to replace the Soyuz.

[Prober]

Seen an upgrade design somewhere that used the RD120.  That was a fine redesign with using the NK-33 in the Center.

[russianhalo117]

Seen an upgrade design somewhere that used the RD120.  That was a fine redesign with using the NK-33 in the Center.

RD-120.10F engine version was original plan as of 2005 in the design of orbital launcher Soyuz-3 a few years ago and that was before RD-193 was conceived into the design world of NPO Energomash.

This is one possible site that you may have seen the modified and upgraded RD-120.10F engine: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz3_lv.html

[Patchouli]

RD-120.10F engine version was original plan as of 2005 in the design of orbital launcher Soyuz-3 a few years ago and that was before RD-193 was conceived into the design world of NPO Energomash.

This is one possible site that you may have seen the modified and upgraded RD-120.10F engine: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz3_lv.html

Seems like a logical evolution esp since Aerojet may foot part of the bill for producing the NK-33.

Too bad they didn't follow through with Kliper as it seemed like the perfect replacement for the Soyuz spacecraft as it addressed most of it's limitations.

Other upgrades I think would make sense might be recovery of the boosters since they stage so low and slow.

[Hyperion5]

RD-120.10F engine version was original plan as of 2005 in the design of orbital launcher Soyuz-3 a few years ago and that was before RD-193 was conceived into the design world of NPO Energomash.

This is one possible site that you may have seen the modified and upgraded RD-120.10F engine: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz3_lv.html

Seems like a logical evolution esp since Aerojet may foot part of the bill for producing the NK-33.

Too bad they didn't follow through with Kliper as it seemed like the perfect replacement for the Soyuz spacecraft as it addressed most of it's limitations.

Other upgrades I think would make sense might be recovery of the boosters since they stage so low and slow.

Well the whole rocket's going to be slower off the pad, because a single NK-33 is not enough to make up for the ~190,000 lbs of thrust that disappear if you switch to RD-120 engines.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't an RD-120 booster engine have around 176klbf of thrust, while the current boosters boast 224klbf?  An NK-33 can't make up all of that thrust, though the rocket should still get off the pad fine.  An RD-193 on the other hand would be able to keep thrust levels much more similar. 

I think the biggest upgrade on the Soyuz-3 concept would be the one you didn't mention, Patchouli.  It replaces the RD-0124 engine with a quartet of RD-0146E engines.  Now I'm not certain what the stats are on an "E" variant of that engine, but the result still ought to create a 2nd stage with more thrust and far higher Isp.  That's the only way I figure the Soyuz goes from launching 8 mt max to topping out at over 14 mt to LEO.  The more efficient core & booster engines help, but the real heroes are the hydrolox engines dramatically improving the performance. 

[russianhalo117]

RD-120.10F engine version was original plan as of 2005 in the design of orbital launcher Soyuz-3 a few years ago and that was before RD-193 was conceived into the design world of NPO Energomash.

This is one possible site that you may have seen the modified and upgraded RD-120.10F engine: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz3_lv.html

Seems like a logical evolution esp since Aerojet may foot part of the bill for producing the NK-33.

Too bad they didn't follow through with Kliper as it seemed like the perfect replacement for the Soyuz spacecraft as it addressed most of it's limitations.

Other upgrades I think would make sense might be recovery of the boosters since they stage so low and slow.

Well the whole rocket's going to be slower off the pad, because a single NK-33 is not enough to make up for the ~190,000 lbs of thrust that disappear if you switch to RD-120 engines.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't an RD-120 booster engine have around 176klbf of thrust, while the current boosters boast 224klbf?  An NK-33 can't make up all of that thrust, though the rocket should still get off the pad fine.  An RD-193 on the other hand would be able to keep thrust levels much more similar. 

I think the biggest upgrade on the Soyuz-3 concept would be the one you didn't mention, Patchouli.  It replaces the RD-0124 engine with a quartet of RD-0146E engines.  Now I'm not certain what the stats are on an "E" variant of that engine, but the result still ought to create a 2nd stage with more thrust and far higher Isp.  That's the only way I figure the Soyuz goes from launching 8 mt max to topping out at over 14 mt to LEO.  The more efficient core & booster engines help, but the real heroes are the hydrolox engines dramatically improving the performance. 

Remember that the last time that the info on launcher Soyuz-3 was fully updated was November 2005 according to cited information found on several sites. New information has not been available for a while now and has been essentially shelved for the time being because MoD's Russian Space Forces wanted TsSKB Progress to prove NK-33s reliability in flight which led to compromise between MoD and TsSKB Progress a that led to creation of launcher Soyuz-2-1v as a confidence-building stepping stone for MoD on use of NK-33 on core stage since MoD refused to fully commit to implementation and production of designed launcher Soyuz-2-3 before the agreement to develop and fly launcher Soyuz-2-1v first which by the way  was not originally planned to be developed.

[Prober]

Had no idea the NK-33 was the plan as part of the Soyuz 3;  But it works
 
Sounds like the real question comes down to a political one as serial production of the 193 would be wanted within the Soyuz group of companies?
 
Also it comes down to RD-120 vs the RD-193
 
 

[russianhalo117]

Had no idea the NK-33 was the plan as part of the Soyuz 3;  But it works
 
Sounds like the real question comes down to a political one as serial production of the 193 would be wanted within the Soyuz group of companies?
 
Also it comes down to RD-120 vs the RD-193
 
 

Recent mentions on sites states that NPO Energomash wants TsSKB Progress to agree to consolidate/replace/switch all first and second stage main engines to RD-193 as it would make booster and core stage production a bit cheaper.

[Hyperion5]

Had no idea the NK-33 was the plan as part of the Soyuz 3;  But it works
 
Sounds like the real question comes down to a political one as serial production of the 193 would be wanted within the Soyuz group of companies?
 
Also it comes down to RD-120 vs the RD-193
 
 

Recent mentions on sites states that NPO Energomash wants TsSKB Progress to agree to consolidate/replace/switch all first and second stage main engines to RD-193 as it would make booster and core stage production a bit cheaper.

Just did the quick math on the effects of RD-193 engines on both the core & boosters, which you can imagine is on NPO Energomash's birthday wishlist.  Supposing you only put them on the boosters, a quartet of RD-193 engines would up thrust by 810,000 lbs, or nearly the equivalent of adding an Atlas V worth of thrust to the Soyuz.  Booster thrust would jump an amazing 88.23%, while an RD-193 would boast an astounding 17.689% more Isp from a liter a propellant than the current engines at sea level.  That advantage drops to a tad over 8% in vacuum however.  If you added an RD-193 to the core, its Isp jump would be identical but thrust would go up by 207,300 lbs of thrust.  Total thrust would go up ~1,017,000 lbs, which is roughly the equivalent of adding a Falcon 9 1.0's vac thrust at sea level to the Soyuz rocket. 

I don't know about using an all RD-193 setup.  I know it's what NPO Energomash wants, but it seems like a huge jump from the current setup.  It takes the design from producing a mere 1.142 million lbs of thrust at liftoff and transforms it into a 2.16 million lb of thrust monster.  I know it's dicey as to whether NK-33 production gets restarted at Kuznetsov, but that engine to me seems the better fit.  An NK-33 is only ~47% more powerful than the current boosters at liftoff, has a fantastic t/w ratio, good Isp 12.5% better than current engines, and it should be cheap to build in large quantities.  I personally prefer an all NK-33 setup on the boosters and core over NK-33 core/RD-120F booster setup, and especially over the all RD-193 setup NPO Energomash seems to be advocating (for reasons of self interest).