Fire tests of the new RD0124MS rocket engine began in Voronezh

Fire tests of the new RD0124MS rocket engine began in Voronezh

At the Voronezh Center for Rocket Engines, which is part of NPO Energomash, firing tests of the latest Russian RD0124MS rocket engine began. This was reported by the press service of Energomash.


According to the report, two successful fire tests of the first power plant with a shortened nozzle were carried out at the fire stand of the enterprise. Tests confirmed the stability of the combustion chambers under reduced pressure. A second power plant is also being prepared for testing. After testing both installations, specialists will proceed to testing the engine assembly.

As explained in the press service, the new RD0124MS rocket engine was created on the basis of the RD0124A engine with a thrust of 30 tons. The thrust of the new taxiway is twice as much as that of the base engine - 60 tons. The engine runs on naphthyl-liquid oxygen fuel components.

The RD0124MS engine consists of two units located on a common frame and thermal protection. Each of the blocks includes two diagonally located combustion chambers. The engine provides swinging of cameras in two planes, as well as operation when one of the blocks is turned off.

In the future, the new engine is planned to be used at the second stage of the promising Russian Soyuz-5 launch vehicle Irtysh, the first launches of which in unmanned mode are scheduled for 2022-2023.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Thrifty 12 February 2020 13: 24 New
    • 5
    • 8
    -3
    "Irtysh" instead of "Hangar 4," as far as I remember. If only the Irtysh had not been turned into a project of an even larger and more powerful missile, or they would even destroy it, as is now customary with MEENEZHAROV ...
    1. Lontus 12 February 2020 13: 44 New
      • 5
      • 10
      -5
      Quote: Thrifty
      "Irtysh" instead of "Hangar 4," as far as I remember.

      Instead of Angara-A3.
      And this was the purest frank recognition of the failure of the "modular" concept of the Angara.
      Without a wide range of launch vehicles (at least 1,3,5 URM at least) there is no sense in modularity - it’s only heavier and more expensive.
      It should be borne in mind that a wide line is a necessary, but not sufficient condition.
      even if there would be many different media on the workstation, it is not a fact that the modular concept was justified.

      It is not too late to abandon the Angara in its current form.
      You can even return to the original "eared" hangar - it was very competently and interestingly arranged.

      Scheme of the initial Angara (left) and modular Angara-A5 (right)

      1. Mityay65 12 February 2020 14: 15 New
        • 3
        • 3
        0
        Quote: Lontus
        It should be borne in mind that a wide line is a necessary, but not sufficient condition.
        even if there would be many different media on the workstation, it is not a fact that the modular concept was justified.

        Modularity allows changing modules (URM1,2,3) gradually to more technically advanced ones. The current Angara is only the first stage launch vehicle. In principle, it was implied on the machines of later stages that the composite design of URM1, reusability and, the last trend before the dispersal of Khrunichev, a change in fuel pair. Last, IMHO, the trend of fashion and not expediency.
        But it is modularity that makes the design flexible and gradually and constantly updated.
        You can even change the manufacturers of URM to others who offer something more reasonable.
        Quote: Lontus
        It is not too late to abandon the Angara in its current form.

        Well, modularity implies the development of the structure in breadth - for A5, both A7 and A9 were viewed, at 48 and 56 tons. PN at the IEO. What does it give? This will allow to abandon the development of a separate superheavy carrier, which is very expensive and rarely needed. Test pH in parts.
        1. slipped 12 February 2020 15: 19 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: Mityai65

          Well, modularity implies the development of the structure in breadth - for A5, both A7 and A9 were viewed, at 48 and 56 tons. PN at the IEO. What does it give? This will allow to abandon the development of a separate superheavy carrier, which is very expensive and rarely needed.


          Today, the creation of modular missiles is underway - A1.2, A5, A5M (P). Subsequently, by the end of the current federal-space program, the A5B will be created - with a hydrogen stage, which in turn will be one of the stages of the Yenisei superheavy carrier.
          1. Mityay65 12 February 2020 15: 47 New
            • 1
            • 3
            -2
            Quote: slipped
            Today, the creation of modular missiles is underway - A1.2, A5, A5M (P).

            These are the miserable remnants of the wonderful Angara family A1,3,5,7,9. At first, clever guys from Energy pushed the A3 off the road, which was already completed by development and slipped the Soyuz-5 understudy, then they even finished off the mention of the A7,9, taking advantage of the rout of Khrunichev and the fact that the Moscow Region froze ...
            Quote: slipped
            Subsequently, by the end of the current federal-space program, A5B will be created

            Unfortunately, some time later, the story is thought, and A1 and A5 will also end. Alas.
            If there is an opportunity to spend money twice on the same thing, will someone miss such a fart?
            Quote: slipped
            A5B will be created - with a hydrogen step, which in turn will be one of the steps of the Yenisei superheavy carrier.

            In all this venture, this is what scares - the creation of superheavy. With us overly heavy one disappointment - both H1 and Energy were not needed. Because not flexible. Switching to something other than the main task is problematic.
            The story of Saturn 5 is also not too happy - except for the flight to the Moon and Skylab, it was not claimed, and taking into account the funds spent on it, this is a complete fiasco .. sad
            1. slipped 12 February 2020 18: 07 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: Mityai65
              These are the miserable remnants of the wonderful Angara family A1,3,5,7,9.


              A3 was canceled, as it is not needed by the military, but for civilians it is completely replaced by Soyuz-5.

              Quote: Mityai65
              At first, clever guys from Energy pushed the A3 off the road, already completed by development


              A3 has never been developed, only miscalculated in the advance project.

              Quote: Mityai65
              and slipped the Soyuz-5 understudy, then they even finished off the mention of the A7,9, taking advantage of the rout of Khrunichev and the fact that the Moscow Region froze ...


              A7 was generally Khrunichev's proposal. No work was carried out on it.

              Quote: Mityai65
              Unfortunately, some time later, the story is thought, and A1 and A5 will also end. Alas.


              Not. All the heavy satellites of new projects that are now being created are designed for output on A5 (M), the Orel model will be displayed on A5P.

              Quote: Mityai65
              In all this venture, this is what scares - the creation of superheavy. With us overly heavy one disappointment - both H1 and Energy were not needed. Because not flexible. Switching to something other than the main task is problematic.


              In order to simply toss 20+ tons to the orbit of the moon, one superheavy rocket or four heavy rockets is required, in the latter case the cost of launching to the moon grows.
              1. Jurkovs 17 February 2020 07: 01 New
                • 0
                • 2
                -2
                A3 has never been developed, only miscalculated in the advance project.

                The funny thing is that the money was fully allocated, TsiH reported on their use, but did not even provide a draft Angara-A3 design. And this very quickly revealed the Accounts Chamber.
                1. slipped 17 February 2020 11: 59 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Jurkovs
                  The funny thing is that the money was fully allocated,


                  The funny thing is that money was allocated to the Angara by the Moscow Region in 2006. And it did not distinguish them on A3.

                  More precisely, the Ministry of Defense at that time had Zenit-2. And replacement was required for the Cyclone and Proton-M missiles. The first, because production ended, the second - at the insistence of Kazakhstan. That is why the tests were in the "almost light" rocket and in heavy in 2014 year. The need for A3 arose in connection with the cessation of operation of the Zenit-M air defense system. But by this time it was decided to create the Soyuz-5 launch vehicle for Zenit’s launch, without substantially redoing it, as was the case with the A5 launch in Plesetsk.
            2. Jurkovs 17 February 2020 06: 58 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              These are the miserable remnants of the wonderful Angara family A1,3,5,7,9.

              I don’t even want to comment on this quote. And I advise you to study this topic more deeply since 1995 and not to repeat the advertising slogans invented in TsiH for knocking money out of the government.
              1. Mityay65 17 February 2020 10: 41 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Quote: Jurkovs
                I don’t even want to comment on this quote.

                So do not comment if you do not want to. Do not torture yourself! Moreover, apparently, you do not understand what you are writing about.
      2. remal 12 February 2020 15: 09 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Yes, the same second stage from Soyuz-5 to lengthen and add as the central unit of the Angara A3, will be a lighter and cheaper rocket.
    2. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 12 February 2020 13: 51 New
      • 3
      • 4
      -1
      If only the Irtysh had not been turned into a project of an even larger and more powerful missile, or they would even destroy it, as is now customary with MEENEZHAROV ...
      The Energia rocket and space corporation believes that the characteristics of the medium-class carrier Soyuz-5, also known as the Phoenix or the Irtysh, are not optimal. (...) Today, an option has been worked out with the possibility of putting 18 tons of cargo into the NOO (low Earth orbit): according to new findings, the carrying capacity can be increased to 20 tons. The mass of refueling is proposed to increase by 60 tons, and thrust - by 80 tf.
      1. remal 12 February 2020 15: 13 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        If the second stage and the DM block on Sintin will translate more sense. And the fact that they offer “Optimization” is not, but a stupid increase, due to the extension of the development period. All hangars and zeniths, and so the last century, is another matter if the project is updated with new R&D.
      2. Jurkovs 17 February 2020 07: 09 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        ... that the characteristics of the Soyuz-5 medium-class carrier ... are not optimal.

        Therefore, the approval of the draft design is constantly postponed. Either RD-191MS added a bit of traction, then RD-0124MS in the second stage gives new opportunities, then the proposed option with a methane second stage in the geometrical dimensions of the kerosene stage allows the same 23-24 tons to be brought to DOE and questions the existence of Angara-A5. Burning of the RD-191MS has already been completed, last week we successfully burned the nozzle for the RD-124MS, so the approval of the outline design of Soyuz-5 is just around the corner and this media can become unique.
    3. slipped 12 February 2020 14: 56 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Thrifty
      "Irtysh" instead of "Hangar 4," as far as I remember. If only the Irtysh had not been turned into a project of an even larger and more powerful missile, or they would even destroy it, as is now customary with MEENEZHAROV ...


      Soyuz-5 or Irtysh is a middle-class missile similar to the already closed Zenit-2SLBF rocket



      Only thicker, larger and more powerful.

      It will be equipped with new upper stages of the DM-03 and Frigate-SBU class (pictured)



      As the launching complexes for this missile, the former 45th Zenit site on Baikonur is expected, recently returned to Kazakhstan and in a shortened version of the launch vehicle - Sea Launch, if S7 space, the current owner, has the opportunity to purchase it.

      Also the first stage of this rocket is the first stage of the superheavy Yenisei carrier.
  2. Lontus 12 February 2020 13: 28 New
    • 6
    • 6
    0
    Change the photo - on it is RD-0125A, and in the article about RD-0124MS ..
    These are different engines.
    1. major071 12 February 2020 13: 44 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Under the photo it is written that it is an RD-0125A engine. hi Damn, something with eyesight became, I repent, did not immediately understand. drinks
      1. Lontus 12 February 2020 13: 47 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: major071
        Under the photo it is written that it is an RD-0125A engine. hi

        No - it’s written under the photo that this is an RD-0124A engine

        But on the engine nozzle it says RD-0125A
    2. Lontus 12 February 2020 13: 55 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Lontus
      Change the photo - on it is RD-0125A, and in the article about RD-0124MS ..
      These are different engines.

      Photo caption
      "Engine RD0124A"
      fixed on:
      "RD0124A engine with a thrust of 30 tons, which is the prototype for the new RD0124MS"

      But the photo is RD-0125A.
      So it is the basis for RD-0124MS (judging by the article, this is a spark from RD-0125A)
      The foundation, not the prototype!
      1. Lontus 12 February 2020 13: 59 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Quote: Lontus
        Photo caption
        "Engine RD0124A"
        fixed on:

        In - now the photo has been removed.

        The photo was correct !!
        The signature was wrong!
        Need to sign:
        "RD-0125A .- the pair of such engines is the basis for RD-0124MS"
        1. slipped 12 February 2020 14: 42 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Lontus
          "RD-0125A .- the pair of such engines is the basis for RD-0124MS"


          It would be more correct to write that RD-0124MS will have two 14D23 engine combustion chambers and a pair of two such two-chamber engines will result in engines of the second stage of the Soyuz-5 rocket.
    3. Jurkovs 17 February 2020 07: 14 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Where is the photo, something is not found. Very intrigued, because the RD-125A exists only in the form of a layout for the exhibition. From there, his photo is usually taken. Actually, the horse didn’t lie there.
  3. AVA77 12 February 2020 13: 30 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Strange in the illustration is the RD-0125A engine and a comment on the illustration of the RD-0124A.
    Something is wrong here wink
    While the enemy is drawing offensive maps, we manually change landscapes winked
  4. rotkiv04 12 February 2020 13: 55 New
    • 2
    • 7
    -5
    In the USSR, 17 years after the Second World War, they flew into space, and here 30 years the rocket was built and the prospects for the effective managers seem vague
    1. orionvitt 12 February 2020 18: 03 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      And some of the "most technologically advanced" have forgotten how to fly into space. They use the services of "geopolitical opponents." laughing
  5. Lontus 12 February 2020 14: 14 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Strange - because of an incorrect signature, the author deleted the correct photo.
    Then I will post.

    RD-0125A .- a pair of such engines for 30 tf is the basis for RD-0124MS for 60 tf.

    1. AVA77 12 February 2020 14: 45 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      As explained in the press service, the new RD0124MS rocket engine was created on the basis of the RD0124A engine with a thrust of 30 tons.
      RD-0125A is not mentioned at all in the article.
      1. Lontus 12 February 2020 15: 07 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: AVA77
        As the press service explained, the new RD0124MS rocket engine is based on the RD0124A engine

        So RD-0125A also belongs to the RD0124 family.

        Quote: AVA77
        RD-0125A is not mentioned at all in the article.


        But in vain is not mentioned.
        That is why confusion and uncertainty arose.

        Here is what they write on the manufacturer’s website about RD-0125A:

        A single-chamber liquid rocket engine developed on the basis of the four-chamber RD0124A liquid propellant rocket engine, intended for use as a part of the Angara-A5 LV third stage unit.


        And here is how its intended use is described:
        Improving the characteristics of the launch vehicle is carried out by replacing one four-chamber RD0124A engine with a thrust of 30 tf
        "Spark"
        of two single-chamber engines RD0125A with a total thrust of 59 tf.
        This modernization leads to a significant reduction in the cost of the engine, as well as to an increase in the payload brought to orbits.


        Here, apparently, such a spark from RD-0125A was called the new engine "RD0124MS".
        --
        And such an unobvious zigzag in the title is quite familiar in the space industry.
        Recall only all kinds of LVs called Unions with different numbers without any logic and continuity.
        1. AVA77 12 February 2020 15: 25 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Lontus (Alexey)
          I don’t even have anything to answer your comment on. You’ll understand what they did based on what they did.
          I have convoluted for convolutions wassat The main thing that they did! hi
    2. slipped 12 February 2020 14: 47 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Lontus
      RD-0125A .- a pair of such engines for 30 tf is the basis for RD-0124MS for 60 tf.


      Then it’s worth adding a photo of the original RD-0124


      this is one, but four-chamber, and two RD-0124MS engines will have two each.
      1. Lontus 12 February 2020 15: 13 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: slipped

        this is one, but four-chamber, and two RD-0124MS engines will have two each.


        You are trapped in confusing names.
        One (and not two) RD-0124MS engine will have two cameras.
        RD-0124MS is a SPARK ONE-chamber RD-0125A.

        It is assumed that ONE two-chamber RD-0124MS (60 tf) is put on promising upper stages of kerosene launch vehicles.

        Two RD-0124MS are not planned for use yet.
        1. slipped 12 February 2020 15: 29 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: Lontus
          You are trapped in confusing names.


          No.

          Quote: Lontus
          One (and not two) RD-0124MS engine will have two cameras.


          Yes, I wrote that. RD-0124MS has two cameras.

          Quote: Lontus
          RD-0124MS is a SPARK ONE-chamber RD-0125A


          Not true. The basis is still 14D23.

          Quote: Lontus
          It is assumed that ONE two-chamber RD-0124MS (60 tf) is put on promising upper stages of kerosene launch vehicles.

          Two RD-0124MS are not planned for use yet.


          1. Lontus 12 February 2020 16: 12 New
            • 0
            • 7
            -7
            Quote: slipped
            Quote: Lontus
            RD-0124MS is a SPARK ONE-chamber RD-0125A
            ---

            Not true. The basis is still 14D23.

            It is from the fact that you are in a hurry opposing
            RD-0125A I wrote to the RD-0124 family:
            Quote: Lontus
            You are trapped in confusing names.

            .
            RD-0124MS is exactly the spark of RD-0125A.
            Or do you want to say that they threw in the garbage ready-made RD-0125A,
            made according to them on the basis of 14D23 and made the new engine completely identical to it?
          2. Lontus 12 February 2020 16: 16 New
            • 1
            • 5
            -4
            Than your picture
            Quote: slipped



            Denies my thesis
            Quote: Lontus
            It is assumed that ONE two-chamber RD-0124MS (60 tf) is put on promising upper stages of kerosene launch vehicles.

            Two RD-0124MS are not planned for use yet.

            She only confirms it
            1. slipped 12 February 2020 17: 44 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Lontus
              Than your picture
              Denies my thesis


              By that



              At the second stage, two engines RD-0124MS

            2. slipped 14 February 2020 02: 35 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Lontus
              Two RD-0124MS are not planned for use yet.


              Specified by the developer - you are right and wrong at the same time. laughing As well as I am. repeat

              Still, the name RD-0124MS is ONE engine. Of the two two-chamber on a common frame. At 60 tons of traction.
    3. Jurkovs 17 February 2020 07: 25 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      In the message of KBHA there is not a word about the use of backlog on RD-125A. Is this a subject of discussion? In your photo is a model from the MAX exhibition. It was assumed that this engine will have a thrust of 60 tons, which means a nozzle of 60 tons and a turbopump assembly of 60 tons. In the KBHA infa, it is said about the maximum use of parts from RD-0124 (with a thrust of 30 tons) and about the possibility of disconnecting one block of two nozzles. And this means that two turbopump units from RD-0124 and a nozzle from the backlog of the RD-0124M engine, which just needs to have not four but two nozzles for a total thrust of 30 tons, will be used.
  6. senima56 12 February 2020 16: 46 New
    • 0
    • 4
    -4
    Irtysh? But what about the Angara? Or was she already "buried" as a "dead end"? Then, please tell me who and how answered for the wasted money and time? And who will answer if Irtysh suddenly turns out to be a “failed” project ?! Aaaaaaaaa? !!! fool
    1. slipped 12 February 2020 18: 09 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: senima56
      Irtysh? But what about the Angara?


      Preparing to ship to the spaceport.
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. The comment was deleted.
  10. Victor March 47 12 February 2020 18: 58 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    Quote: rotkiv04
    In the USSR, 17 years after the Second World War, they flew into space, and here 30 years the rocket was built and the prospects for the effective managers seem vague

    But what, to repeat the experience when they ripped off the whole country, but gathered a thread from all collective farms, villages and cities? Then it was necessary, the question was, live, undead. Repeat? But do not you conquer first of all? Standing in line for Chernukha? And getting to work on a cold, unheated tram? Tell me, they will find a new Beria, do not worry. And they will not be transferred to the right in terms of execution. Shoot, yes.
  11. lvov_aleksey 13 February 2020 22: 57 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I haven’t read the chat yet, but I’ll say star-striped will come running to us again!