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

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.
Photos used:
Roskosmos
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

40 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. ultra 29 January 2020 15: 22 New
    • 25
    • 0
    +25
    Of course, they didn’t test the Soviet, but it was the only one that saved the two crews of the Soyuz.
    1. Andrey VOV 29 January 2020 15: 27 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      not three times?
      1. ultra 29 January 2020 16: 07 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        1983 and 2018, I no longer recall.
        1. Lexus 29 January 2020 16: 50 New
          • 10
          • 0
          +10
          1983 and 2018, I no longer recall.

          In 1975. This is not counting the tests without the crew, where the system also worked properly.
          1. ultra 29 January 2020 18: 13 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Exactly, I didn’t know that there was such an emergency start.
        2. opus 29 January 2020 20: 20 New
          • 6
          • 2
          +4
          Quote: ultra
          1983 and 2018, I no longer recall.

          April 5 1975
          Soyuz (7K-T No. 39) with astronauts Vasily Lazarev and Oleg Makarov on board was supposed to dock with Salyut-4.

          However, soon after the launch, an accident occurred during the inclusion of the third stage of the rocket, and the ship did not enter orbit. Soyuz made a suborbital flight (it lasted 21 minutes 27 seconds) and landed on a mountainside in the uninhabited area of ​​Altai, near the border with China and Mongolia.

          The emergency descent of the Soyuz to Earth took place in 1975 from an altitude of approximately 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
      2. ultra 29 January 2020 18: 15 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        You are right, the three manned were emergency, I add the 1975 Soyuz-18-1. Lazarev and Makarov.
    2. svp67 29 January 2020 19: 37 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Quote: ultra
      Of course, they didn’t test the Soviet, but it was the only one that saved the two crews of the Soyuz.

      Excuse me, how did you not test this? Yes, before she was accepted she underwent such a range of trials that “Mama Do not Cry”, since the USSR did not save on this. One thing can be said 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 we’ll "practice on cats first"
    3. opus 29 January 2020 20: 15 New
      • 6
      • 2
      +4
      Quote: ultra
      Of course, they didn’t test the Soviet, but it was the only one that saved the two crews of the Soyuz.

      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
  2. Sergey39 29 January 2020 15: 25 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    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.
  3. voyaka uh 29 January 2020 15: 29 New
    • 15
    • 3
    +12
    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.
    1. ultra 29 January 2020 18: 18 New
      • 5
      • 3
      +2
      And how can you know the launch price for Ilon Benderovich if the entire financial component of the “space” under the heading is “secret”?
      1. voyaka uh 29 January 2020 18: 54 New
        • 5
        • 5
        0
        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.
        1. ultra 29 January 2020 20: 31 New
          • 1
          • 3
          -2
          And why, then, does the “space” hide its financial statements?
    2. opus 29 January 2020 20: 30 New
      • 6
      • 2
      +4
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Musk exploded a rocket

      Not right away.
      In 2015, Orn experienced how all the "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.
  4. Vasily Ponomarev 29 January 2020 15: 29 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    imitate or that, it is not clear, the UNION could do without it
  5. knn54 29 January 2020 15: 35 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Would have studied at ... NASA looking .. "Woe from Wit," today.
  6. bars1 29 January 2020 15: 39 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    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.
  7. Blackmokona 29 January 2020 15: 51 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Just recently, the American company SpaceX tested the rescue system in a similar way, 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.
    1. eklmn 29 January 2020 18: 13 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      “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.
      1. Blackmokona 29 January 2020 18: 19 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Something I did not find in this article. Can I quote from the article?
        1. eklmn 29 January 2020 18: 33 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          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.
          1. Blackmokona 29 January 2020 18: 39 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            There is nothing declared by you here. In bold text, Musk says it was immediately known that the rocket would explode.
            1. eklmn 29 January 2020 20: 34 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              "Musk says it was immediately known 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.
              1. Blackmokona 29 January 2020 20: 50 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                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
                1. eklmn 29 January 2020 20: 52 New
                  • 0
                  • 2
                  -2
                  !!!!! +++++ !!!!!
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. opus 30 January 2020 15: 13 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        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 "escaped"
        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

    2. opus 29 January 2020 20: 50 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      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,
    3. sp77ark 29 January 2020 23: 11 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      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.
  8. nm76 29 January 2020 16: 05 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    A bad example is contagious!
    Max blew up and we need ...
    What if Max jumps from the roof? )))
  9. honest people 29 January 2020 16: 25 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    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
  10. krokodil25 29 January 2020 16: 59 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    Our union has already proved everything!
  11. honest people 29 January 2020 19: 22 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    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
  12. orionvitt 29 January 2020 19: 29 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    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?
  13. opus 29 January 2020 19: 49 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    Quote: Author
    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.

    ... 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.

  14. tarakan 29 January 2020 20: 00 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Ento how much (for the sake of insurance) can I attribute equipment to a rocket?
  15. slipped 30 January 2020 01: 42 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    "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 on ground stands."



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

    Successive modernization of the SAS KGCH RN Soyuz

  16. viktor_ui 30 January 2020 04: 45 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    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.
  17. Mikhail3 30 January 2020 16: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    How's Hasek? "Plague barracks burned. And with them smoke evidenced the theft of those who profited from the construction."
  18. Victor March 47 31 January 2020 18: 39 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    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.