-
ROSCOSMOS Orders Next Generation Cargo Ship Developed ASAP to Cut Costs, Etc.
by
russianhalo117
on 22 Aug, 2016 15:23
-
-
#1
by
Dalhousie
on 23 Aug, 2016 10:06
-
-
#2
by
TakeOff
on 24 Aug, 2016 09:09
-
It will be a ton heavier than Progress? How is that good for a cargo ship? It will still not be able to bring more cargo than Progress even using the Soyuz 2-1B launcher. Couldn't one stow a ton more in the Progress instead and reduce number of flights by about 30%?
-
#3
by
Jim
on 24 Aug, 2016 13:30
-
No, can't fit anymore into a Progress
-
#4
by
woods170
on 24 Aug, 2016 13:57
-
It will be a ton heavier than Progress? How is that good for a cargo ship? It will still not be able to bring more cargo than Progress even using the Soyuz 2-1B launcher. Couldn't one stow a ton more in the Progress instead and reduce number of flights by about 30%?
You are mis-interpreting the article. The 8 ton figure applies to the fully loaded spacecraft (including cargo). The new cargo spacecraft in facts delivers a lot more cargo, in a single flight, to the ISS than the current Progress. Fuel capacity of the new ship is almost identical to the current Progress, but the dry mass cargo capacity is significantly increased. The total cargo upmass capacity (fuel and dry cargo combined) has increased even more and is around one metric ton greater than current Progress.
-
#5
by
TakeOff
on 24 Aug, 2016 16:09
-
It will be a ton heavier than Progress? How is that good for a cargo ship? It will still not be able to bring more cargo than Progress even using the Soyuz 2-1B launcher. Couldn't one stow a ton more in the Progress instead and reduce number of flights by about 30%?
You are mis-interpreting the article. The 8 ton figure applies to the fully loaded spacecraft (including cargo). The new cargo spacecraft in facts delivers a lot more cargo, in a single flight, to the ISS than the current Progress. Fuel capacity of the new ship is almost identical to the current Progress, but the dry mass cargo capacity is significantly increased. The total cargo upmass capacity (fuel and dry cargo combined) has increased even more and is around one metric ton greater than current Progress.
Is it the fuel payload that makes up for the difference?
I read in the article linked that this new spacecraft will be able to deliver about 2½ tons of cargo to the ISS. Which seems to be the same as what the Progress can do today. Although the new one will use the more powerful Soyuz 2-1B launcher.
The article:
"around 2.4 tons of food, clothes, and other supplies"
And about the old Progress:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/progress.html"Progress M1
Total payload limit
2,230-3,200 kg"
Sources like this don't make me any the wiser about what the bottom line improvement consists of.
-
#6
by
AS_501
on 24 Aug, 2016 16:26
-
Years ago wasn't their a plan for a "Big Progress" (or was it "Big Soyuz"?). Same design, just bigger?
-
#7
by
russianhalo117
on 24 Aug, 2016 17:15
-
Years ago wasn't their a plan for a "Big Progress" (or was it "Big Soyuz"?). Same design, just bigger?
yes, and flying on a Zenit
Progress Versions Flown and proposed:
http://russianspaceweb.com/progress.htmlAn overview of the Progress spacecraft family:
Project (official) name
Development index - "Tail" number series - First launch or status - Launcher - Notes
Realized variants:Progress - 11F615A15 - 100 - 1978 Jan. 20 - Soyuz - 43 launches toward Salyut-6 and Salyut-7
Progress M - 11F615A55 - 200 - 1989 Aug. 23 - Soyuz - Launches toward Mir and ISS
Progress M1 - 11F615A55 - 250 - 2000 Feb. 1 - Soyuz - Launches toward Mir and ISS
Progress M-M - 11F615A60 - 400 - 2008 Nov. 26 - Soyuz - Launches toward ISS. Progress M with TsVN-101 instead of the Argon-16 computer; A miniaturized MBITS radio-telemetry system is introduced.
Progress-MS - 11F615A61 - 430 - 2015 Dec. 21 - Soyuz-2-1a - Upgraded with Kurs-NA system; missions to ISS
Progress M-SO (DC) - 11F615A55.40 - 300 - 2001 September - Soyuz - A version to deliver Docking Compartments to the ISS
Unrealized variants:Progress M1-01M - 11F615A70 - 500 - N/A - Soyuz - Progress M1 with TsVN-101 instead of Argon-16
Progress M2 - unknown - 600 - unknown - Zenit - Enlarged cargo module. Launches toward the ISS
Progress MT - unknown - unknown - Under consideration in 1987 - Zenit/Yamal - Stretched cargo module, retained main diameter from base vehicle, new propulsion system
Progress (gruzovozvrashaemyi) - unknown - unknown - unknown - Yamal - Originally based on Soyuz TM spacecraft; around 2006 on Soyuz TMA spacecraft; equipped with reentry capsule;
Progress (minimal length) - unknown - unknown - Under consideration circa 1999 - Yamal - A configuration to fit under a payload fairing developed by NPO Lavochkin
Progress M3 - unknown - unknown - Under consideration since 1999 - Yamal - Streched and increased diameter of the cargo module
Progress MTsM - unknown - unknown - Preliminary design in 2000 - Zenit/Proton - A version to deliver Enterprise MTsM module to the ISS
Progress-Centaur - unknown - unknown - unknown - Preliminary study in 2008 - Ares I/Atlas-5 - A cargo delivery to the lunar orbit
-
#8
by
Nicolas PILLET
on 24 Aug, 2016 19:10
-
Progress DC - unknown - 300 - 2001 September - Soyuz - A version to deliver Docking Compartments to the ISS
The real name of this version is Progress M-SO, with index 11F615A55.40.
-
#9
by
fregate
on 25 Aug, 2016 16:51
-
This is an intermediate version of Progress to be launched on Soyuz-2.1B LV before creating new generation cargo transportation vehicle GTK NP derived from PTK NP (Federation).
-
#10
by
topopesto
on 25 Aug, 2016 17:10
-
My model of the PROGRESS M2.
-
#11
by
woods170
on 25 Aug, 2016 18:08
-
It will be a ton heavier than Progress? How is that good for a cargo ship? It will still not be able to bring more cargo than Progress even using the Soyuz 2-1B launcher. Couldn't one stow a ton more in the Progress instead and reduce number of flights by about 30%?
You are mis-interpreting the article. The 8 ton figure applies to the fully loaded spacecraft (including cargo). The new cargo spacecraft in facts delivers a lot more cargo, in a single flight, to the ISS than the current Progress. Fuel capacity of the new ship is almost identical to the current Progress, but the dry mass cargo capacity is significantly increased. The total cargo upmass capacity (fuel and dry cargo combined) has increased even more and is around one metric ton greater than current Progress.
Is it the fuel payload that makes up for the difference?
I read in the article linked that this new spacecraft will be able to deliver about 2½ tons of cargo to the ISS. Which seems to be the same as what the Progress can do today. Although the new one will use the more powerful Soyuz 2-1B launcher.
The article:
"around 2.4 tons of food, clothes, and other supplies"
And about the old Progress:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/progress.html
"Progress M1
Total payload limit
2,230-3,200 kg"
Sources like this don't make me any the wiser about what the bottom line improvement consists of.
Your reply indicates to me that you completely missed this part of the popular mechanics article:
The most important new feature of the proposed cargo ship will be the six-tank cluster to carry more than 1.8 tons of propellant to the station. It will simultaneously serve as a tanker for the space station while also feeding the ship's own propulsion system. As a result, the new design provides significant mass savings in comparison to the current Progress ships, which need two separate sets of tanks for refueling and maneuvering.
So, it's not just the 2.4 tons of dry cargo in the pressurized cargo section. There is also the ability to carry 1.8 tons of propellant.
The combined upmass (mixture of dry cargo and propellant) is significantly increased from Progress. That's why the overall weight of the vehicle is a ton above that of Progress. The weight difference, for a large part, is additional cargo capacity (dry and/or propellant).
-
#12
by
baldusi
on 25 Aug, 2016 19:23
-
Please remember that Progress is currently flying on Soyuz-2.1a, as it can't really take advantage of Soyuz-2.1b extra performance (and is something like 25% more expensive).
-
#13
by
russianhalo117
on 25 Aug, 2016 22:24
-
Please remember that Progress is currently flying on Soyuz-2.1a, as it can't really take advantage of Soyuz-2.1b extra performance (and is something like 25% more expensive).
the prices for Soyuz-2 family are already starting to drop as flight rate increases and since test programme is finished.
-
#14
by
Danderman
on 26 Aug, 2016 07:34
-
OK, here is some actual data. The dry cargo compartment of all Progress flown to date can accommodate about 1300 kg of cargo, due to volume constraints and also control authority issues. The new version uses the new 3.3 meter diameter tooling to allow more dry cargo and to allow the current thruster system to maintain control authority. The prop system is moving to a truly unified system, so that all tanks can feed all thrusters, or can transfer prop to ISS.
-
#15
by
jacqmans
on 06 Sep, 2016 19:30
-
RSC Energia is developing of the increased load-carrying capacity cargo vehicle
09/05/2016
By the end of 2016 RSC Energia plans to complete the preliminary design of the cargo vehicle of the increased load-carrying capacity (CV ILCC) for transport and logistics support of the International Space Station (ISS).
The new vehicles will be able to deliver to the Station more cargo by one flight than the Progress MS cargo vehicles used, which are able to take aboard no more than 2600 kg.
General Director of RSC "Energy" Vladimir Sun: "Development of high-load cargo vehicle is at the stage of conceptual design, which is scheduled for completion in December 2016."
The question of the establishment of TGC increased carrying capacity became urgent after appearing on the "Soyuz-2.1b" launch services market an upgraded launcher with advanced features and increased payload fairing dimension. Terms of creation of the new ship has significantly reduced through the use of on-board systems and constructive solutions used on the cargo ship "Progress MS" and the ship-module "Progress M-PA".
The layout of the new "truck" will be accommodated delivered goods in the cargo hold of the increased dimension with a central aisle and standard cells, which greatly simplifies the work of loading and unloading of the ship.
Increased supplies of fuel delivered and boosters increased traction will allow efficient use of the ship for the correction of the ISS orbit and provide the possibility of reducing the space station from orbit upon completion of its existence.
-
#16
by
Targeteer
on 06 Sep, 2016 19:35
-
-
#17
by
baldusi
on 07 Sep, 2016 20:22
-
OK, here is some actual data. The dry cargo compartment of all Progress flown to date can accommodate about 1300 kg of cargo, due to volume constraints and also control authority issues. The new version uses the new 3.3 meter diameter tooling to allow more dry cargo and to allow the current thruster system to maintain control authority. The prop system is moving to a truly unified system, so that all tanks can feed all thrusters, or can be transfr prop to ISS.
Still using the KTDU-80 derivative of the MS series?
-
#18
by
Danderman
on 21 Sep, 2016 14:04
-
OK, here is some actual data. The dry cargo compartment of all Progress flown to date can accommodate about 1300 kg of cargo, due to volume constraints and also control authority issues. The new version uses the new 3.3 meter diameter tooling to allow more dry cargo and to allow the current thruster system to maintain control authority. The prop system is moving to a truly unified system, so that all tanks can feed all thrusters, or can be transfr prop to ISS.
Still using the KTDU-80 derivative of the MS series?
Not according to the Russianspaceweb.com article:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/tgk-pg.html
-
#19
by
baldusi
on 21 Sep, 2016 18:17
-
OK, here is some actual data. The dry cargo compartment of all Progress flown to date can accommodate about 1300 kg of cargo, due to volume constraints and also control authority issues. The new version uses the new 3.3 meter diameter tooling to allow more dry cargo and to allow the current thruster system to maintain control authority. The prop system is moving to a truly unified system, so that all tanks can feed all thrusters, or can be transfr prop to ISS.
Still using the KTDU-80 derivative of the MS series?
Not according to the Russianspaceweb.com article:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/tgk-pg.html
Zak wrote literally:
The new cargo shop was expected to carry a main engine developed at KB Khimmash for another spacecraft. The attitude control thrusters would be borrowed unchanged from Soyuz and Progress transport ships.
Unchanges thrusters probably means the new DPO-B only configuration of Soyuz-MS. So, they might use a different orbital engine than the S5.80? But still needs to be compatible with the .88MPa pressure. And I can't find any other that fits right in. Any potential ideas?
-
#20
by
Stan Black
on 21 Sep, 2016 18:44
-
OK, here is some actual data. The dry cargo compartment of all Progress flown to date can accommodate about 1300 kg of cargo, due to volume constraints and also control authority issues. The new version uses the new 3.3 meter diameter tooling to allow more dry cargo and to allow the current thruster system to maintain control authority. The prop system is moving to a truly unified system, so that all tanks can feed all thrusters, or can be transfr prop to ISS.
Still using the KTDU-80 derivative of the MS series?
Not according to the Russianspaceweb.com article:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/tgk-pg.html
Zak wrote literally:
The new cargo shop was expected to carry a main engine developed at KB Khimmash for another spacecraft. The attitude control thrusters would be borrowed unchanged from Soyuz and Progress transport ships.
Unchanges thrusters probably means the new DPO-B only configuration of Soyuz-MS. So, they might use a different orbital engine than the S5.80? But still needs to be compatible with the .88MPa pressure. And I can't find any other that fits right in. Any potential ideas?
What are S5.167 and 3D34 ??
S5.167 seems like new engine of series used in Briz-M and Fregat-M/MT/SB
Im told that S5.167 is very likely new common version to reduce costs and replace all previous retired and active versions of S5 Engine Family. That potentially includes Spacecrafts such as Progress-MS and Soyuz-MS which use the S5.80 engine version.
-
#21
by
Danderman
on 22 Sep, 2016 17:38
-
IIRC, the S5 engine uses a turbopump, and it is not likely that such an engine would be used for a spacecraft carrying people. Also, the failure rate of the Briz engine is quite high.
The Russianspaceweb.com article is quite specific that the new engine would be one previously intended for a new spacecraft, implying that the new engine will indeed be new. Also, it will have a thrust of 600 kgs, which has never been demonstrated on a Russian spacecraft.
-
#22
by
Danderman
on 23 Sep, 2016 20:20
-
There is a definite similarity between Tiangong and the proposed new Russian cargo ship.
They both use 3.3 meter tooling for the cargo compartment, which came from ................ somewhere.
-
#23
by
baldusi
on 23 Sep, 2016 20:56
-
Well, there is a certain similarity. But the unpressurized section is completely different, AIUI.
-
#24
by
Kryten
on 23 Sep, 2016 21:37
-
They both use 3.3 meter tooling for the cargo compartment, which came from ................ somewhere.
For the Chinese, could be related to the 3.35m tooling for CZ-2/3/4 core stages.
-
#25
by
Bob Shaw
on 23 Sep, 2016 21:45
-
They both use 3.3 meter tooling for the cargo compartment, which came from ................ somewhere.
For the Chinese, could be related to the 3.35m tooling for CZ-2/3/4 core stages.
Cross-fertilisation between China and Russia could work both ways; however, the Russians have been toying with big changes to Progress for years.
-
#26
by
russianhalo117
on 23 Sep, 2016 21:58
-
They both use 3.3 meter tooling for the cargo compartment, which came from ................ somewhere.
For the Chinese, could be related to the 3.35m tooling for CZ-2/3/4 core stages.
Cross-fertilisation between China and Russia could work both ways; however, the Russians have been toying with big changes to Progress for years.
Yes and don't forget ESA and its member states. They have conducted lots of technology transfers/interchanges with both countries. They all have had multiple ongoing/completed joint projects in these fields and others.
-
#27
by
baldusi
on 24 Sep, 2016 00:39
-
3.3m fit right in industry standard 3.7m fairing. I wouldn't read too much into that. It also looks a bit like Cygnus and ATV and HTV.
-
#28
by
B. Hendrickx
on 20 Nov, 2016 19:21
-
-
#29
by
baldusi
on 31 Dec, 2016 11:31
-
-
#30
by
B. Hendrickx
on 23 May, 2017 21:38
-
-
#31
by
Tywin
on 19 Mar, 2019 18:48
-
Somebody have news about the status of this new cargo spacecraft, TGK PG?
-
#32
by
russianhalo117
on 20 Mar, 2019 01:38
-
Somebody have news about the status of this new cargo spacecraft, TGK PG?
First launch NET Q1 2023. Russia is busy with launcher families so it ended up delayed a bit.