A heavy Angara A5 rocket was proposed to be destroyed in flight during tests

The Rocket and Space Corporation Energia proposes to test the emergency rescue system of the new Russian manned spacecraft Eagle by destroying the Angara-A5 heavy-class launch vehicle in flight. This is stated in documents submitted to Roscosmos.

According to the documents of RSC Energia, tests of the Orel ship and the emergency rescue unit are planned in March 2023 during the take-off of the Angara and the passage of maximum air pressure. Thus, to conduct this test, an additional launch vehicle will be required in addition to the three that are supposed to be used for the first launch of the spacecraft in 2023, as well as for unmanned and manned flights to the ISS in 2024 and 2025.

The rescue system should work at different stages: from the moment the astronauts land on the ship until the ship is separated from the carrier. To do this, you do not need to blow up a rocket, but you need to test the system in flight. You can try to use the Angara-1.2 light rocket for testing, which is much cheaper than the heavy Angara

- leads RIA News words of corresponding member of the Tsiolkovsky Russian Academy of Cosmonautics Andrei Ionin.

According to him, neither in Soviet time, nor in modern Russia, tests of the astronaut’s rescue system in flight were never carried out - only at ground-based stands.

Just recently, the American company SpaceX tested the rescue system in a similar way by launching the Falcon 9 rocket with the Crew Dragon on board. 1 minute 24 seconds after the start, at an altitude of about 20 kilometers, having received a signal from the Earth about the "emergency", the Crew Dragon ship separated from the rocket using the emergency evacuation system, starting the engines. The rocket itself, according to the scenario, "collapsed" in space (it was destroyed on command from Earth). Using four parachutes, Crew Dragon successfully splashed in the Atlantic Ocean.

Comments

[ultra]

The Soviet, of course, was not "tested", but it is the only one that saved two Soyuz crews.

[Andrey VOV]

not three times?

[ultra]

1983 and 2018, I no longer recall.

[Lexus]

1983 and 2018, I no longer recall.

In 1975. This is not counting the tests without the crew, where the system also worked properly.

[ultra]

Exactly, I didn’t know that there was such an emergency start.

[opus]

Quote: ultra

1983 and 2018, I no longer recall.

April 5 1975

Soyuz (7K-T # 39) with cosmonauts Vasily Lazarev and Oleg Makarov on board was to dock with Salyut-4.

However, shortly after the launch, an accident occurred during the inclusion of the third stage of the rocket, and the ship did not go into orbit. The Soyuz made a suborbital flight (it lasted 21 minutes 27 seconds) and landed on a mountain slope in an uninhabited region of Altai, not far from the border with China and Mongolia.

The emergency descent of the Soyuz to Earth took place in 1975 from an altitude of about 170 kilometers.

In order to reach the astronauts, rescuers took almost a day. Only on the morning of April 6, Lazarev and Makarov were evacuated from the landing site by helicopter

[ultra]

You are right, three manned were emergency, I add the 1975 "Soyuz-18-1". Lazarev and Makarov.

[svp67]

Quote: ultra

The Soviet, of course, was not "tested", but it is the only one that saved two Soyuz crews.

Forgive me, how have you not experienced this? Yes, before she was accepted, she went through such a circle of tests that "Mama do not cry", since in the USSR they did not save on this. One thing we can say is that, of course, no one specifically thought of blowing up the launch vehicle, but they built special stands for this.
And here, there is no rocket yet, it is not clear when it will be and how it will fly, but they decided to destroy it in advance ...
Maybe still "first we will practice on cats"

[opus]

Quote: ultra

The Soviet, of course, was not "tested", but it is the only one that saved two Soyuz crews.

1. And on December 14, 1966 - Union 7K-OK No. 1?
2. And 1975? 2020 marks 45 years since the first Flight design test of TKS / VA using capsule No. 005 and CAC, developed by NPO Iskra.

Quote: Andrey VOV

not three times?

3 crew and many without crew

3. In fairness, the first were Americans
Little Joe 1959

and even remember the report (when we were still friends with America), how our astronauts handed the award to the inventor

[Sergey39]

To offer does not mean to fulfill. Situations may be different. And for each alleged accident to blow up a rocket for testing? You do not foresee all situations.

[voyaka uh]

Do not! It is disposable.
Musk blew up a rocket that had already flown with a load three times. She was already almost free.
But the Boeing refused such a check. He has expensive and disposable missiles.

[ultra]

And how can you know the cost of Ilon Benderovich's launch, if the entire financial component of the "space" is classified as "secret"?

[voyaka uh]

What’s secret there? All cost components are publicly available. And the salaries of maintenance technicians, and the cost of fuel, and the cost of the 2nd stage, and the cost of transporting the stage, renting a site and more. No more complicated than calculating the cost of inter-flight service of an Airbus or a Boeing at the airport.
And then to these calculations, the cost of the 3rd-4th launch of Falcon-9 does not exceed $ 20 million.

[ultra]

Why then does the "space" hide its financial statements?

[opus]

Quote: voyaka uh

Musk exploded a rocket

Not right away.
In 2015, Orne experienced like all "normal" people


with a certificate from NASA, it’s dynamic, although (see below) Lockheed drove for free

Quote: voyaka uh

But the Boeing refused such a check. He has expensive and disposable missiles.

Lockheed Martin also does not want to get paid
July 2019 of the year

On Tuesday morning, NASA conducted an emergency rescue system (LAS) flight test for its Orion manned spacecraft from the Cape Canaveral Air Force Base (CCAFS) in Florida. The test assembly with a high degree of reliability simulated the Orion crew module, with the installed flight version of the LAS and Peacekeeper rocket, modified to launch the Ascent Abort-2 (AA-2) rocket

To reduce costs in a single test test, there is no requirement to fly into orbit, move from Earth to the Moon and back, or return to Earth’s atmosphere and parachute at a low speed. The lack of all this equipment allowed NASA to avoid certification of any of them for any of these phases of spaceflight or for emergencies at any of these phases of flight.

The layout of the crew module along with the spent LAS and the accelerator will be destroyed when exposed to water and is not intended to be restored.

Data from nine hundred sensors measuring temperature, pressure, acceleration and acoustics will be collected during the test. The test product will transfer the data collected during the test to the ground, as well as write it to the onboard removable recorders. The AA-2 team uses an existing system to restore recorders.

 Show / Hide text

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/07/aa-2-orions-in-flight-abort-test-launch/

[Vasily Ponomarev]

imitate or that, it is not clear, the UNION could do without it

[knn54]

Would study at ... NASA looking .. "Woe from Wit", today.

[bars1]

No stands can replace full-scale tests. At the stands, the result is more or less similar to what will be in reality, everyone understands this. But full-scale tests are expensive.

[Blackmokona]

Just recently, the American company SpaceX tested the rescue system in a similar way by launching the Falcon 9 rocket with the Crew Dragon on board. 1 minute 24 seconds after the start, at an altitude of about 20 kilometers, having received a signal from the Earth about the "emergency", the Crew Dragon ship separated from the rocket using the emergency evacuation system, starting the engines. The rocket itself, according to the scenario, "collapsed" in space (it was destroyed on command from Earth). Using four parachutes, Crew Dragon successfully splashed in the Atlantic Ocean.

A couple of mistakes.
1. The ship did not receive an emergency signal from Earth. On a rocket at this altitude, engine shutdown was programmed. What was perceived by the ship as an emergency and it separated.
2. The rocket itself at that moment was at the point with maximum aerodynamic drag, and having lost the fairing which is the spacecraft, it collapsed due to a sharp deterioration in aerodynamic quality and subsequent effects.

[eklmn]

“2. The rocket itself ... collapsed due to a sharp deterioration in aerodynamic quality and subsequent effects.”
Well, not quite like that - Musk had planned to blow it from the very beginning, Voyaka Uh is right.
orig. article here
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-crew-dragon-escape-fireball-like-star-wars-2020-1
“Elon Musk says that the Crew Dragon spaceship will be scuttled from a fireball“ literally like something from Star Wars. ”
“Elon Musk celebrated the first result of a“ risky ”explosive test, which showed that the Crew Dragon could safely escape in the event of a missile failure.”
The rocket could have collapsed - it's a fact, you're right, but there was a lot of fuel left in it, and Musk wanted to blow it up. And blew it up.

[Blackmokona]

Something I did not find in this article. Can I quote from the article?

[eklmn]

https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-crew-dragon-spaceship-abort-test-success-elon-musk-nasa-2020-1
On any other day, such a catastrophe might be a tragedy. But during a post-launch press briefing, the faces of Musk and NASA executives beamed with smiles: the rocket failure was an intentional sacrifice designed put Crew Dragon, a new commercial spaceship for NASA astronauts, through an ultimate safety test.
https://www.wired.com/story/watch-spacex-launch-falcon9-rocket-crew-dragon/
“We tried to design a way to save B1046, but not possible,” CEO Elon Musk tweeted, referring to the rocket by its block number. Instead, he wrote, it will be “destroyed in Dragon fire.”
In his interviews before the test, he said that he was not going to return the rocket, because this is her fourth start and he will blow it up due to the large amount of fuel in it.

[Blackmokona]

There is nothing declared by you here. In bold text, Musk says it was immediately known that the rocket would explode.

[eklmn]

"Musk says he knew right away that the rocket would explode."
Right, but not by itself, but they will blow it up, create “Dragon Fire”
If you have no problems with English. then go to Twitter Ilona Mask and read for yourself.

[Blackmokona]

So there is nothing about to explode, but that it will explode is quite obvious. Since she loses a dragon-shaped cowl at the time of Max Cue

[eklmn]

!!!!! +++++ !!!!!

[opus]

Quote: eklmn

Musk from the very beginning planned to blow it up,

did not plan, it happened

Quote: eklmn

Elon Musk says that the Crew Dragon spaceship will be scuttled from a fireball when tested.

will not, but "ran away"

Quote: eklmn

orig. article here
https://www.businessinsider

The businessinsider has the same attitude to space as I do to insider trading (I don’t even know what it is with)

“Fairly quickly, Falcon will be going through a lot of aerodynamic issues,” said Benji Reed, director of crew mission management at SpaceX, during a pre-flight press conference Jan. 17.With the capsule no longer on top of the rocket, the top of the upper stage became “a big air scoop,” he said. “At some point we expect the Falcon will start to break up” with some of the remaining fuel and oxidizer igniting.

NASA, SpaceX Complete Final Major Flight Test of Crew Spacecraft

 Show / Hide text

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-spacex-complete-final-major-flight-test-of-crew-spacecraft

 Show / Hide text

https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1lDGLozemrbKm

[opus]

Quote: BlackMokona

On a rocket at this altitude, engine shutdown was programmed.

by speed
on the initiative of a “special” setting of the built-in acceleration trigger - when the Falcon 9 was moving at a speed of about 1200 miles per hour. (536 meters per second)
While the Crew Dragon boosted itself away from the Falcon 9, the rest of the rocket was expected to break apart from aerodynamic forces. It did just that, disintegrating suddenly in a fireball as the crew capsule safely sped away.

Quote: BlackMokona

2. The rocket itself at that moment was at the point with maximum aerodynamic, and having lost the fairing which is the spacecraft, it collapsed

not not maximal
-they did not rely on women (according to calculations, it should have simply lagged behind due to the increased aerodynamic forces), but this was a bonus, they also experienced thermal protection

In principle, the system is designed to withstand an unplanned booster explosion ... which occurs even before the capsule is withdrawn

Musk said at a press conference after Sunday's interruption test.

And since the spacecraft has a very powerful basic heat shield and even a side heat shield, it should not be significantly affected by a fireball,

[sp77ark]

It is clearly seen how the heat from the hot nozzles ignites the fuel flying from above from the tank destroyed by the air pressure.

[nm76]

A bad example is contagious!
Max blew up and we need ...
What if Max jumps from the roof? )))

[honest people]

Quote: voyaka uh

Do not! It is disposable.
Musk blew up a rocket that had already flown with a load three times. She was already almost free.
But the Boeing refused such a check. He has expensive and disposable missiles.

We look

[crocodile25]

Our union has already proved everything!

[honest people]

Quote: voyaka uh

What’s secret there? All cost components are publicly available. And the salaries of maintenance technicians, and the cost of fuel, and the cost of the 2nd stage, and the cost of transporting the stage, renting a site and more. No more complicated than calculating the cost of inter-flight service of an Airbus or a Boeing at the airport.
And then to these calculations, the cost of the 3rd-4th launch of Falcon-9 does not exceed $ 20 million.

Satellites are successfully undocked from the 2nd stage!
To summarize the 88 launch of SpaceX:
The launch is successful! 60 satellites put into orbit.
The landing of the first stage is successful! (not every day you see how an orbital rocket does twine

[orionvitt]

tests of the astronaut’s rescue system in flight have never been carried out - only on ground stands.

However, it works great. Why reinvent the wheel?

[opus]

Quote: Author

The Energia Rocket and Space Corporation proposes to test the emergency rescue system of the new Russian manned spacecraft Eagle by destroying the Angara-A5 heavy-class launch vehicle in flight.

... a rich country, why should there be little things ..
get used and minus $ 150 for testing ..

It was better with Rogozin

2018: The head of Roscosmos Dmitry Rogozin proposes to test a new emergency rescue system (CAC) for cosmonauts created for the Federation spacecraft, directly on its developers.

 Show / Hide text

https://www.5-tv.ru/news/227995/rogozin-predlozil-ispytyvat-sistemu-spasenia-kosmonavtov-naeerazrabotcikah/

[tarakan]

Ento how much (for the sake of insurance) can I attribute equipment to a rocket?

[slipped]

"According to him, neither in Soviet times, nor in modern Russia, in-flight tests of the cosmonaut rescue system have never been carried out - only on ground stands."



and on this video KGCh did not fly, so bounced except that, low, low

Successive modernization of the SAS KGCH RN "Soyuz"

[viktor_ui]

where the peasants, there and the monkey ... copy-paste. Hi roskokosmos from I. Mask. Let's take a look at the whole technological chain: take-off + triggering of the emergency rescue system and withdrawal + self-liquidation of the carrier and is comparable to what I. Mask has already done with Crew Dragon SUCCESSFULLY.

[Mikhail3]

How is Hasek doing? "The plague barracks were burning. And along with them the evidence of the theft of those who profited from the construction went away in smoke."

[Victor March 47]

Quote: bars1

No stands can replace full-scale tests. At the stands, the result is more or less similar to what will be in reality, everyone understands this. But full-scale tests are expensive.

The difference is that bench tests give accurate numbers that are not obtained in full and in full confidence. Thus, full-scale are, as it were, a psychological sedative. Evidence base that does not have all that has a poster. Such is the paradox.