Author Topic: Angara size (Read 3185 times)

spacenut · « **on:** 07/22/2015 04:56 pm »

Why did the Russians make the Angara around 3m or a little less than 10' in diameter? The Zenit rocket was about 12' in diameter. Seems like a little larger, by clustering them like they do, they would have had a much heaver payload. I know a lot has to do with their rail transportation, but 12' would be the size of Falcon 9 and Zenit.

edkyle99 · « **Reply #1 on:** 07/22/2015 05:15 pm »

Quote from: spacenut on 07/22/2015 04:56 pm

Why did the Russians make the Angara around 3m or a little less than 10' in diameter? The Zenit rocket was about 12' in diameter. Seems like a little larger, by clustering them like they do, they would have had a much heaver payload. I know a lot has to do with their rail transportation, but 12' would be the size of Falcon 9 and Zenit.

It is the size that provided the desired performance range. Angara is designed to replace not just heavy lift Proton using five URMs, but also light-lift Kosmos 3M/Rokot using a single URM. Once upon a time it was expected to also replace R-7/Soyuz as a 3xURM Medium variant, but those plans were shelved.

Why would Russia need a "much heavier payload"? Angara 5 will beat or match Proton, working up to Atlas 551 range for GTO and to Delta 4 Heavy range nearly for LEO.

- Ed Kyle

spacenut · « **Reply #2 on:** 07/22/2015 11:33 pm »

So the Russians still have no plans for humans beyond LEO? I guess the 5 core version can deliver, what 28 tons, so they could build beyond LEO payloads in space.

tp1024 · « **Reply #3 on:** 07/23/2015 12:13 am »

Quote from: edkyle99 on 07/22/2015 05:15 pm

Quote from: spacenut on 07/22/2015 04:56 pm
Why did the Russians make the Angara around 3m or a little less than 10' in diameter? The Zenit rocket was about 12' in diameter. Seems like a little larger, by clustering them like they do, they would have had a much heaver payload. I know a lot has to do with their rail transportation, but 12' would be the size of Falcon 9 and Zenit.
It is the size that provided the desired performance range. Angara is designed to replace not just heavy lift Proton using five URMs, but also light-lift Kosmos 3M/Rokot using a single URM. Once upon a time it was expected to also replace R-7/Soyuz as a 3xURM Medium variant, but those plans were shelved.

Why would Russia need a "much heavier payload"? Angara 5 will beat or match Proton, working up to Atlas 551 range for GTO and to Delta 4 Heavy range nearly for LEO.

- Ed Kyle

Can you elaborate or link to something that explains why the Angara 3 was shelved?

fregate · « **Reply #4 on:** 07/23/2015 04:08 am »

Quote from: spacenut on 07/22/2015 11:33 pm

So the Russians still have no plans for humans beyond LEO? I guess the 5 core version can deliver, what 28 tons, so they could build beyond LEO payloads in space.

Angara-5 by Khrunichev specs has a LEO payload capability of 24.5 tones, from Vostochny hopefully it would be 25 tones (not confirmed yet). Russians have plans for humans beyond LEO - the destination is cis-lunar space, and in 2015 they decided to use a 2 launch schema by using a man-rated Angara-5V and cargo Angara-5V with LEO payload capability 35-38 tones. They called a Heavy class Launch Vehicle (HLV) with extended payload capability. At this stage they could not afford Super Heavy Launcher that would be capable to deliver manned spacecraft to cis-Lunar space in a single shot

However they are trying to work on key technologies on SHLV

TrevorMonty · « **Reply #5 on:** 07/23/2015 10:31 am »

On Russian Manned Moon Architecture forum see posting 67. They had a EDS but it needed a Angara 7.

Danderman · « **Reply #6 on:** 07/25/2015 03:06 pm »

I will try to answer the OP's question.

The diameter of the Angara first stage (URM) is 2.9 meters. This happens to be the same diameter as the FGB class modules, and the UR-200 ICBM, which leads me to believe that this is no coincidence - tooling is expensive, and so Khrunichev is simply using its existing tank tooling for Angara.

The only other tooling for tanks at Khrunichev would be the 1.65 meter tanks used for the Proton first stage (these are at Omsk) or the 4.1 meter tanks for the Proton upper stages. These are either too narrow or too wide for Angara.

Energia now has tooling for 3.3 meter tanks, so many of their proposed designs use this diameter, starting about 2006.

Apart from the N-1 project, Russia has never taken the approach of building prop tanks at the launch site, so all designs are constrained by railroad issues. Similarly, flying oversized tankage to the launch site hasn't been done in many years.

baldusi · « **Reply #7 on:** 07/25/2015 11:12 pm »

The Anagara manufacturing video showed them using FSW. And I understand it that they are building Angara at Omsk, not in the Proton manufacturing plant. So I am inclined to think that tooling is sort of new, those FSW machines weren't available before. It might has something to do with plate size?