Author Topic: Soyuz 5/6/7 Rocket Family - Updates and Discussions  (Read 197585 times)

Offline Hyperion5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1681
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 302
Could the Soyuz be evolved into an all-methalox rocket?  The latest news from Russiaspaceweb (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz5.html) and the forums at Novosti Kosmonavtiki show TsSKB Progress are working on a new proposed Soyuz called the "Soyuz V".  It would ditch the flower-petal style boosters it currently has for a more conventional setup.  The core and every booster at liftoff would be propelled by a single RD-0162 staged combustion methalox engine providing 203.9 tf of thrust and developing an impressive 321/356 seconds of SL/Vac Isp.  Topping off each rocket would be a methalox version of the RD-0124, called the RD-0124M. 

Quote from: Anatoly Zak
Soyuz-5 could eventually replace current rockets in the Soyuz family capable of delivering up to eight tons of payload to the low Earth orbit. Moreover, follow-on versions of the proposed rocket could carry 16 tons, thus replacing Zenit, and 25 tons, replacing Proton in the current Russian fleet. Farther into the future, Soyuz-5 could pave the way to heavy and super-heavy rockets, as well as to low-cost reusable space boosters, planners at TsSKB Progress believe.

.......................

Between 2002 and 2005, KBKhA teamed up with European industry to develop a reusable methane engine with a thrust of 200 tons under the Volga project. Finally, in 2006, the company started work on the reusable engine designated RD-0162 for the Russian MRKS-1 reusable space booster. RD-0162 would have a thrust of 203.9 tons. Due to complexity of the technology, in 2012, KBKhA decided to precede the full-size engine with a scaled demo named RD-0162SD with a thrust of 42.5 tons. In case of the success of the project, the engine could propel a compact launch vehicle.

.......................

The launch pad

The Soyuz-5 could reportedly use modified launch facilities of the Soyuz family. However a major departure of the Soyuz-5 design from the classic cone-shaped architecture of Soyuz rockets toward more traditional cylindrical design will likely mean that an iconic "tulip" structures of the launch pad would have to go.

As of 2013, a pair of Soyuz pads operate in Baikonur, four Soyuz launch pads are in various conditions exist at Russia's northern launch site in Plesetsk, one pad is operational at the European space center in Kourou, French Guiana, and one more pad is under construction in Vostochny in the Russian Far East.

If this evolution were approved, it would have strong implications for the future of LV design and the Russian space program.  I find it interesting that both Spacex and now the Russians are developing SC methalox engines and are looking into developing all-methalox rockets.  Feel free to comment, discuss, update, opine on the Soyuz V, and express whether you think this is a good way to evolve such a venerable launcher.  Whatever one says, I think we can all agree this is a pretty radical evolution being proposed. 
« Last Edit: 05/27/2016 11:29 pm by Galactic Penguin SST »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10324
  • Liked: 720
  • Likes Given: 734
Re: Soyuz 5/6/7 Rocket Family - Updates and Discussions
« Reply #1 on: 06/17/2013 07:57 pm »
Someone gets to recycle their Rus-M PowerPoint charts.

Offline Nicolas PILLET

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2478
  • Gien, France
    • Kosmonavtika
  • Liked: 698
  • Likes Given: 154
Re: Soyuz 5/6/7 Rocket Family - Updates and Discussions
« Reply #2 on: 06/17/2013 08:18 pm »
Soyuz-5 is on display in Le Bourget.
Nicolas PILLET
Kosmonavtika : The French site on Russian Space

Offline Damon Hill

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Auburn, WA
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 366
Re: Soyuz 5/6/7 Rocket Family - Updates and Discussions
« Reply #3 on: 06/17/2013 10:28 pm »
What of the Soyuz 4?  Was that anything like the Atlas 4, which of course never existed?

But seriously, it's a long-overdue redesign of the classic Soyuz; should have a much lighter and more efficient structure as well as much improved engines (Isp).
« Last Edit: 06/17/2013 10:32 pm by Damon Hill »

Online Chris Bergin

Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 724
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Soyuz 5/6/7 Rocket Family - Updates and Discussions
« Reply #5 on: 06/17/2013 10:45 pm »
Someone gets to recycle their Rus-M PowerPoint charts.

you can see the whole trend now.....dump the use of the NK-33 and sell them off to Aerojet.  Move on.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Hyperion5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1681
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 302
Re: Soyuz 5/6/7 Rocket Family - Updates and Discussions
« Reply #6 on: 06/17/2013 10:55 pm »
Is this the http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/08/russia-evolve-veteran-launcher-soyuz-2-1v/ or something else?

It's not the Soyuz 2.1V, Chris.  That launcher will use a single NK-33 engine on its core stage and an RD-0124 on its upper stage.  This new Soyuz 5 will use a much more potent RD-0162 (203.9 tf staged combustion methalox engine) on its core and a methalox-burning RD-0124M on its upper stage.  The boosters will also use a derivative of the RD-0162 engine, which I presume is why they're referring to the RD-0164 in the article. 

Offline zaitcev

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
    • mee.nu:zaitcev:space
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Soyuz 5/6/7 Rocket Family - Updates and Discussions
« Reply #7 on: 06/18/2013 01:34 am »
As I already mentioned elsewhere at NSF forums, the name of the game here is to attain a 16-tonnne-class payload while staying within the limits of liftoff mass that a Soyuz pad can take. Obviously raising the Isp is way to stuff this camel into this needle. However, removing the "tulip" and switching to Zenit-like processing without the folding or tower-like gantry saves a few tonnes too. According to KBOM calculations, the ultimate load for Pad 1 is 380 tonnes. This may have a little wiggle room, so typical number thrown around on forums is 400 tonnes.

The mobile tower built by "MIR" (aka "PAX") for Kourou weighs 850 tonnes, as a point of comparison. So savings from dumping the tulip and service gantry is probably on the magnitude of low hundreds of tonnes.

But the most important is the fuel change, of course.

Note also that Mr. Kirillin complained somewhat bitterly about having already established significant infrastructure for the ill-fated Rus-M. Buildings were built, designers and technicians hired. He may be trying to save that effort by finding it a new objective. The question is, who pays until the new launcher can turn profit.

Offline M_Puckett

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 63
Re: Soyuz 5/6/7 Rocket Family - Updates and Discussions
« Reply #8 on: 06/18/2013 01:42 am »
This is my Grandfathers Axe.  My Father replaced the Handle and I replaced the Head.  This is my Grandfather's Axe.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 724
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Soyuz 5/6/7 Rocket Family - Updates and Discussions
« Reply #9 on: 06/18/2013 02:43 am »
As I already mentioned elsewhere at NSF forums, the name of the game here is to attain a 16-tonnne-class payload while staying within the limits of liftoff mass that a Soyuz pad can take.

seems like the design of the Soyuz 3 was perfect to use existing materials with little upgrade costs.
 
« Last Edit: 06/18/2013 02:44 am by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Online owais.usmani

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 761
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: Soyuz 5/6/7 Rocket Family - Updates and Discussions
« Reply #10 on: 06/18/2013 04:35 am »
Someone gets to recycle their Rus-M PowerPoint charts.

And I'd be surprised if it doesn't meet the same fate as Rus-M.  ::)

Offline Hyperion5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1681
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 302
Re: Soyuz 5/6/7 Rocket Family - Updates and Discussions
« Reply #11 on: 06/18/2013 08:35 pm »
Someone gets to recycle their Rus-M PowerPoint charts.

And I'd be surprised if it doesn't meet the same fate as Rus-M.  ::)

I wouldn't start making hard predictions on that until Roskosmos starts funding it, although I think it stands a better chance of being realized than the NK-33 does of having its production restarted. 

There's been some more information released by Anatoly Zak since he first created the Soyuz 5 page. 

The core and the CCBs will all use a derivative of the RD-0162 called the RD-0164.  This derivative is rated at 280 tf of thrust at sea level and 300 tf in a vacuum.  I suspect that like the RD-0162, that this engine can achieve a higher initial thrust rating.  The 203.9 tf RD-0162 can up its thrust to 133% of nominal, or up to 272 tf.  This might explain why the Soyuz 5 variants can be as heavy as specified.  Interestingly, the heaviest of these launchers would be the most mass-efficient LV to LEO since the Energia (beating the Delta IV Medium & upcoming Falcon Heavy). 

GLOW = Gross Liftoff Weight

Soyuz 5.1
Payload mass: 8.5 tons
Liftoff mass: 252 tons   
Number of stages: 2
Payload as % of GLOW: 3.262%
Stages: SI (central core w/RD-0164)  + SII (US w/RD-0124M)

Soyuz 5 (base version)
Payload mass: 16 tons
Liftoff mass: 577.7 tons   
Number of stages: 2   
Payload as % of GLOW: 2.694%
Stages: SI (two RD-0164 CCBS) + SII (central core w/RD-0164)

Soyuz 5.2
Payload mass: 25 tons
Liftoff mass: 643.5 tons   
Number of stages: 3      
Payload as % of GLOW: 3.739%
Stages: SI (two RD-0164 CCBS) + SII (central core w/RD-0164) + SIII (US w/RD-0124M)

If this were approved, this new "Soyuz" family would immediately give the Angara some stiff competition.  I'd be curious to see if the Soyuz 5 would eventually steal back the title of Russia's manned launcher from the Angara 5.  It certainly wouldn't hurt that the biggest Soyuz 5 masses ~83% of the biggest Angara 5 and has nearly identical performance to LEO.  If the Russians really do intend to build the RD-0164, a super-sized version of the RD-0162, it might be a top contender for use in an eventual HLV. 


   

Offline input~2

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6835
  • Liked: 1567
  • Likes Given: 566
Re: Soyuz 5/6/7 Rocket Family - Updates and Discussions
« Reply #12 on: 06/20/2013 06:32 am »
Mock-up on display at Paris Air show
« Last Edit: 06/20/2013 12:45 pm by input~2 »

Offline zaitcev

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
    • mee.nu:zaitcev:space
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Soyuz 5/6/7 Rocket Family - Updates and Discussions
« Reply #13 on: 06/20/2013 05:07 pm »
Soyuz 5 (base version)
Payload mass: 16 tons
Liftoff mass: 577.7 tons   
Number of stages: 2   
Payload as % of GLOW: 2.694%
Stages: SI (two RD-0164 CCBS) + SII (central core w/RD-0164)
The 578 tonnes liftoff mass sounds about right from what I heard. Note that you cannot take away all of the metal from the Soyuz launch table. The ring has to stay, and a new structure must support the rocket instead of the tulip and lower directors.

Offline Stan Black

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3132
  • Liked: 377
  • Likes Given: 230
Re: Soyuz 5/6/7 Rocket Family - Updates and Discussions
« Reply #14 on: 06/20/2013 05:08 pm »
Soyuz 5 (base version)
Payload mass: 16 tons
Liftoff mass: 577.7 tons   
Number of stages: 2   
Payload as % of GLOW: 2.694%
Stages: SI (two RD-0164 CCBS) + SII (central core w/RD-0164)
The 578 tonnes liftoff mass sounds about right from what I heard. Note that you cannot take away all of the metal from the Soyuz launch table. The ring has to stay, and a new structure must support the rocket instead of the tulip and lower directors.

But the ring does not have to rotate, and will they still require that sliding structure underneath?

Online owais.usmani

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 761
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: Soyuz 5/6/7 Rocket Family - Updates and Discussions
« Reply #15 on: 06/20/2013 05:36 pm »
If Roscosmos ditched Rus-M because of being too expensive and also overlapping with Angara, I wonder why would they ever approve Soyuz 5? Is the methane fuel a strong enough reason?

Offline Hyperion5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1681
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 302
Re: Soyuz 5/6/7 Rocket Family - Updates and Discussions
« Reply #16 on: 06/20/2013 08:52 pm »
If Roscosmos ditched Rus-M because of being too expensive and also overlapping with Angara, I wonder why would they ever approve Soyuz 5? Is the methane fuel a strong enough reason?

I think it has more to do with the NK-33 being an inadequate engine for a single-core launch vehicle.  A NK-33 produces 153 tf of thrust at sea level, while an RD-191 produces 196 tf, and an RD-0164 would produce 280 tf.  I also think there's some engine politics going on.  It obviously would probably not be a wise idea to have every Russian LV using NPO Energomash booster engines.  It would mean little competition and if something went bad in its production, the entire Russian fleet of LVs would be grounded. 

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 724
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Soyuz 5/6/7 Rocket Family - Updates and Discussions
« Reply #17 on: 06/20/2013 08:58 pm »
If Roscosmos ditched Rus-M because of being too expensive and also overlapping with Angara, I wonder why would they ever approve Soyuz 5? Is the methane fuel a strong enough reason?

I think it has more to do with the NK-33 being an inadequate engine for a single-core launch vehicle.  A NK-33 produces 153 tf of thrust at sea level, while an RD-191 produces 196 tf, and an RD-0164 would produce 280 tf.  I also think there's some engine politics going on.  It obviously would probably not be a wise idea to have every Russian LV using NPO Energomash booster engines.  It would mean little competition and if something went bad in its production, the entire Russian fleet of LVs would be grounded. 

Wasn't the point that the Soyuz group has production of their own engines?
 
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Soyuz 5/6/7 Rocket Family - Updates and Discussions
« Reply #18 on: 06/20/2013 09:09 pm »
Sounds like fantasy to me.

Soyuz and Proton are the only things the Russians ever launch. All supposed future evolutions have been vaporware.

I'm not trying to pour cold water all over this. I'm just saying it's very hard to actually bring a new rocket into service.

I'd like to know who is building what and where the funding comes from.

Rather than discussing how cool it would be how about showing the process in how this can actually become a reality.

Offline Hyperion5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1681
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 302
Re: Soyuz 5/6/7 Rocket Family - Updates and Discussions
« Reply #19 on: 06/20/2013 09:13 pm »
If Roscosmos ditched Rus-M because of being too expensive and also overlapping with Angara, I wonder why would they ever approve Soyuz 5? Is the methane fuel a strong enough reason?

I think it has more to do with the NK-33 being an inadequate engine for a single-core launch vehicle.  A NK-33 produces 153 tf of thrust at sea level, while an RD-191 produces 196 tf, and an RD-0164 would produce 280 tf.  I also think there's some engine politics going on.  It obviously would probably not be a wise idea to have every Russian LV using NPO Energomash booster engines.  It would mean little competition and if something went bad in its production, the entire Russian fleet of LVs would be grounded. 

Wasn't the point that the Soyuz group has production of their own engines?
 

I'll leave that to fregate to comment on, but apparently NPO Energomash is already pushing their RD-193 engine as the NK-33's replacement on the Soyuz 2.1V. 

Tags: baiterek 
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0