Author Topic: Fenix / Soyuz 5 Rocket  (Read 45937 times)

Offline brickmack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 502
  • USA
  • Liked: 206
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Fenix / Soyuz 5 Rocket
« Reply #100 on: 07/05/2018 07:05 PM »
RD-170 is not very simple engine, being high-pressure ORSC.

GG-based engine would be simpler.

...

AFAIK the RD-170 family was originally designed to be reusable. So the thing mostly needed would be the ability to air-start.

But wasn't that already proposed for some rocket where rd-191 would have powered the second stage?

Another thing needed would be ability to throttle low enough. RD-170 -series does not have pintle injectors, making deep throttling harder?

Simpler at the engine level doesn't mean simpler at the vehicle level. RD-170/its derivatives already exists, AFAIK Russia doesn't have any suitable gas generator engines, so thats a lot of new development. And with a reusable rocket, manufacturing cost matters very little. Plus, reusability is generally expected to be easier with ORSC than with a gas generator, at least for kerosene.

RD-170 and 180 were/are reusable. I don't know if 171M has ever been specifically marketed as such, but given its near-complete commonality with both of those, its hard to imagine what change could've been made to irreparably render it expendable.

Air-start is a major component of, but not the only difficulty in, restart. Even on the ground, restartable enginss are hard. Both have been proposed at various times for the RD-170 family, but I don't think any got past the powerpoint stage. Not sure how far NK-33 got either though.

RD-170 can throttle lower than NK-33 (40 vs 50%). But NK-33 benefits from being clusterable. Even then though, you're going to struggle to get to a reasonable minimum throttle level. If you've got 5 NK-33s (produces a bit more thrust than 1 RD-171), you can throttle to 0.5/5 = 10% by landing just on the center engine. Even that is over twice the proportional thrust of a single-engine F9 landing at minimum throttle. But packing that many (not that 5 is a very large number...) engines into a feasible diameter is hard, given Russias limited transport infrastructure. NK-33 is ~2 meters wide, but square packing to allow one central engine forces a 6 meter vehicle diameter at minimum (even without room for gimbaling). Largest object you can move to the launch site is, what, 4.1 meters wide? So you'll probably need to manufacture (or at least do extensive assembly) on-site. Most proposals for vertical booster landing from Russia have assumed dedicated landing rockets to solve all these problems.
« Last Edit: 07/05/2018 07:06 PM by brickmack »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17302
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 5721
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: Fenix / Soyuz 5 Rocket
« Reply #101 on: 07/06/2018 04:42 AM »
NK-33 is ~2 meters wide, but square packing to allow one central engine forces a 6 meter vehicle diameter at minimum (even without room for gimbaling). Largest object you can move to the launch site is, what, 4.1 meters wide? So you'll probably need to manufacture (or at least do extensive assembly) on-site.

There is another way.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4769
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1223
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: Fenix / Soyuz 5 Rocket
« Reply #102 on: 07/06/2018 06:40 AM »
RD-170 is not very simple engine, being high-pressure ORSC.

GG-based engine would be simpler.

...

AFAIK the RD-170 family was originally designed to be reusable. So the thing mostly needed would be the ability to air-start.

But wasn't that already proposed for some rocket where rd-191 would have powered the second stage?

Another thing needed would be ability to throttle low enough. RD-170 -series does not have pintle injectors, making deep throttling harder?

Simpler at the engine level doesn't mean simpler at the vehicle level. RD-170/its derivatives already exists, AFAIK Russia doesn't have any suitable gas generator engines, so thats a lot of new development. And with a reusable rocket, manufacturing cost matters very little. Plus, reusability is generally expected to be easier with ORSC than with a gas generator, at least for kerosene.

RD-170 and 180 were/are reusable. I don't know if 171M has ever been specifically marketed as such, but given its near-complete commonality with both of those, its hard to imagine what change could've been made to irreparably render it expendable.

Air-start is a major component of, but not the only difficulty in, restart. Even on the ground, restartable enginss are hard. Both have been proposed at various times for the RD-170 family, but I don't think any got past the powerpoint stage. Not sure how far NK-33 got either though.

RD-170 can throttle lower than NK-33 (40 vs 50%). But NK-33 benefits from being clusterable. Even then though, you're going to struggle to get to a reasonable minimum throttle level. If you've got 5 NK-33s (produces a bit more thrust than 1 RD-171), you can throttle to 0.5/5 = 10% by landing just on the center engine. Even that is over twice the proportional thrust of a single-engine F9 landing at minimum throttle. But packing that many (not that 5 is a very large number...) engines into a feasible diameter is hard, given Russias limited transport infrastructure. NK-33 is ~2 meters wide, but square packing to allow one central engine forces a 6 meter vehicle diameter at minimum (even without room for gimbaling). Largest object you can move to the launch site is, what, 4.1 meters wide? So you'll probably need to manufacture (or at least do extensive assembly) on-site. Most proposals for vertical booster landing from Russia have assumed dedicated landing rockets to solve all these problems.
RD-171MV is the expendable version of RD-171M per paywalled http://russianspaceweb.com/protected/rd171mv.html

Online nsn

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • Moscow, Russia
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Fenix / Soyuz 5 Rocket
« Reply #103 on: 07/17/2018 11:04 AM »
A contract between Roscosmos and RSC Energia is signed: https://www.roscosmos.ru/25322/

Offline Stan Black

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2918
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 109

Offline SciNews

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Romania
  • Liked: 326
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Fenix / Soyuz 5 Rocket
« Reply #105 on: 11/07/2018 05:32 PM »

Offline SciNews

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Romania
  • Liked: 326
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Fenix / Soyuz 5 Rocket
« Reply #106 on: 11/08/2018 06:23 AM »
TASS: S7 Space to modernize Sea Launch floating spaceport for reusable rocket http://tass.com/science/1029619
Quote
S7 Space is developing its own reusable rocket based on the conceptual design of the Soyuz-5 carrier (being developed by Energia Space Rocket Corporation). The company has dubbed the new rocket "Soyuz-7" and "Soyuz-7SL" (Sea Launch).

Offline fregate

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 910
  • Space Association of Australia
  • Melbourne Australia
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Fenix / Soyuz 5 Rocket
« Reply #107 on: 11/08/2018 10:51 AM »
Some news about Soyuz-5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmAaV0akFz8?t=242
First photo does not make any sense  - it shows Federation on top of cancelled Rus-M launched vehicle (unless I missed something BIG) propelled by RD-180M engines and in manned version it would be capable to deliver 35 tones to LEO.
It seems to be a two-launch Lunar Mission profile all over again, where manned LV delivers a payload that consists of Federation spacecraft and MOB-DM orbital tug.  After EOR it would be docked with cryogenic MOB-KVTK that would perform a "lion share" of TLI burn.   
« Last Edit: 11/08/2018 10:54 AM by fregate »
"Selene, the Moon. Selenginsk, an old town in Siberia: moon-rocket  town" Vladimir Nabokov

Offline B. Hendrickx

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 534
  • Liked: 249
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Fenix / Soyuz 5 Rocket
« Reply #108 on: 11/08/2018 08:44 PM »
TASS: S7 Space to modernize Sea Launch floating spaceport for reusable rocket http://tass.com/science/1029619
Quote
S7 Space is developing its own reusable rocket based on the conceptual design of the Soyuz-5 carrier (being developed by Energia Space Rocket Corporation). The company has dubbed the new rocket "Soyuz-7" and "Soyuz-7SL" (Sea Launch).

This is a brief summary of a rather interesting TASS interview with Sergei Sopov, head of S7 Space. There are many more details in the full interview, available here (only in Russian):
https://tass.ru/interviews/5760322

He doesn't reveal much about the differences between Soyuz-5 and Soyuz-7(SL), except for the reusability of the first stage. They seriously looked at the possibility of installing NK-33 engines on the first stage, but to their surprise got a lukewarm response from the owners of the NK engines (ODK Kuznetsov in Samara), which is why they're probably going to stick with he RD-171M.

All this reminds Sopov of a situation in the early 1980s when serious development problems with the RD-170 engine (including an explosion on a test stand) forced Energiya chief designer Boris Gubanov to look at the NK-33 engines as an alternative to power the strap-on boosters of Energiya. A possible deal with Kuznetsov's design bureau fell through when Kuznetsov demanded that the engine and his design bureau be officially rehabilitated after the cancelation of the N-1 project. Sopov doesn't say why that was so problematic, but the reason probably was that the head of NPO Energiya at the time was Valentin Glushko, who had played a leading role in the cancelation of the N-1. Gubanov writes about this episode in his memoirs and says that even solid rocket boosters were briefly considered as an alternative to the RD-170.   

Sopov says S7 Space is planning to build its own factory to build the Soyuz-7(SL) rockets. The first payload for the rocket should be an unmanned cargo ship that S7 Space hopes to develop jointly with Rоscosmos. This will probably be based on Federatsiya (but using composite materials) and Sopov says they may also draw on experience gained earlier with Kliper as well as the Zarya vehicle developed by NPO Energiya in the 1980s. The man placed in charge of this work at S7 Space is Nikolai Bryukhanov, who was responsible for piloted vehicle development at RKK Energiya until he moved to S7 Space last week. There seems to be something of a drain brain taking place at RKK Energiya, because Bryukhanov is the second leading RKK Energiya official to move to S7 Space in the past two months. Igor Radugin, who was the head of the Soyuz-5 and HLLV projects at RKK Energiya, became the head of launch vehicle development at S7 Space in early September. Here is a recent RIA Novosti interview with him (in Russian):

https://ria.ru/interview/20180913/1528308391.html 

Bryukhanov will also lead S7 Space's so-called "Orbital Cosmodrome" project, which envisages the use of the International Space Station as an orbiting garage and staging point for missions to higher orbits and eventually the Moon and Mars.

Sopov says they're still on schedule to resume launches of the Zenit-3SL from the Sea Launch platform in December 2019 and are holding talks with a potential foreign customer which he didn't identify.

Tags: