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 padThe 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.
Someone gets to recycle their Rus-M PowerPoint charts.
Is this the http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/08/russia-evolve-veteran-launcher-soyuz-2-1v/ or something else?
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.
Quote from: Danderman on 06/17/2013 07:57 pmSomeone gets to recycle their Rus-M PowerPoint charts.And I'd be surprised if it doesn't meet the same fate as Rus-M.
Soyuz 5 (base version) Payload mass: 16 tonsLiftoff 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)
Quote from: Hyperion5 on 06/18/2013 08:35 pmSoyuz 5 (base version) Payload mass: 16 tonsLiftoff 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.
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?
Quote from: owais.usmani on 06/20/2013 05:36 pmIf 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.
Quote from: Hyperion5 on 06/20/2013 08:52 pmQuote from: owais.usmani on 06/20/2013 05:36 pmIf 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?