Soyuz-5 launch vehicle: will we make it to the last carriage?

142
Soyuz-5 launch vehicle: will we make it to the last carriage?
Launch vehicle "Soyuz-5" or "Irtysh"


Engineering delights


The Soyuz-5 program was launched in 2015 with the goal of creating a medium-class launch vehicle capable of launching into orbit 17 tons of payload. In the wide range of domestic rocket technology for space, the product occupies an intermediate position between Soyuz-2.1 and Proton-M. The first is capable of launching up to 9 tons into low Earth orbit, the second - 22,4 tons at once. The absence of an intermediate link in the missile line does not threaten anything critical, if you do not take into account the interests of business.



The cost of putting one kilogram of payload into orbit for Proton-M is just under 3 thousand dollars, but first you need to load the heavy rocket with orders for 22 tons. The situation is similar with the even heavier Angara-A5 launch vehicle, which, in addition, currently has no commercial launches at all. And they are unlikely to happen in the near future - the cost of launching one rocket is approaching $120 million. Moreover, each kilogram of payload costs five thousand dollars. The heaviest middle-class rocket in Russia is Soyuz-2.1, for which one kilogram of cargo in low Earth orbit costs from 5,5 to 7 thousand dollars. At the same time, the cost of launching the rocket itself is about $48 million, which is currently very budget-friendly.


The main task of the developers of the Soyuz-5 system was not just to get into the niche between Soyuz-2.1 and Proton-M, but also to achieve a launch cost of no more than 55-56 million dollars. To achieve this, the rocket must become the most economical among the entire Roscosmos line. First of all, due to the RD-171MV rocket engines. Last year, 2023, two more engines were assembled, the characteristics of which are unique not only for Russia, but also for the whole world.

Comparing the giant with modern rocket engines can be very conditional - the most advanced of them, Raptor and Merlin from Elon Musk’s office, live in a completely different weight category. Developed at NPO Energomash in Khimki near Moscow, the RD-171MV weighs 10,3 tons and develops 246 thousand horsepower. Most likely, this is now the most powerful power plant in the world among all types. For comparison, the projected and most powerful domestic icebreaker of the Leader class in the world is planned to be equipped with a nuclear power plant with a capacity of “only” 75 thousand horsepower. If everything goes according to plan, then one RD-171MV engine should be enough to power the first stage of the Soyuz-5 launch vehicle. A characteristic feature of the engine is four combustion chambers and, accordingly, four jet nozzles.

The thrust of the RD-171MV is estimated at 800 tons, which is 110 tons higher than that of the once most powerful American F-1. It was the engines of this series with a single combustion chamber that were installed on the Saturn 5 launch vehicle, which carried astronauts to the Moon. The developers of the RD-171MV are considering the possibility of using it to launch missions not only to the Moon, but also to Mars. The engine will be installed on the Soyuz-5 medium-class rocket, as well as on the Yenisei super-heavy rocket. The latter must finally return Russia to deep space.


RD-171MV

The RD-171MV was not developed from scratch. Like many things in domestic engineering technology, the engine has its origins in the Soviet Union. Firstly, the potential inherent in the design of the 70-80s of the last century has not yet been exhausted. Secondly, creating completely new products is now an unaffordable luxury for Roscosmos. Especially such complex ones as rocket engines. There is neither time nor funds for this. Nobody in the world practices this - everyone tries to squeeze out proven solutions to the last. The exception is Elon Musk - his Raptor and Merlon were created from scratch only due to the lack of rocket engines of this class in the United States.

The prototype for the RD-171MV was the RD-171M, developed for the Energia - Buran program. By the way, the predecessor with 230 thousand horsepower was also the most powerful rocket engine in the world of its time. But it's not just about power. You can create an engine that, in theory, will pull halfway around the world, but at the same time consume an indecent amount of fuel. To assess the energy perfection of products, rocket scientists have a specific impulse indicator, measured in seconds. To put it very simply, the larger it is, the more efficient the engine uses fuel. For the RD-171MV, the specific impulse is 311 seconds at sea level, which is a record in its class. But not absolute - as stated, the American Raptor produces 330 seconds. Much here depends not only on the perfection of the design, but also on the fuel used. For example, the main engine of the Soviet "Energia" was powered by an almost ideal fuel - hydrogen (oxidizer - oxygen), which is why the specific impulse reached 450 seconds. But the difficulties and dangers with hydrogen are clear to everyone, which is why it is not widespread in the space industry.

Killer Falcon 9 rushes into space


RD-171MV is not the only unique solution within the framework of the Soyuz-5 program or, as it is also called, Irtysh. Engines from Khimki are installed on the first stage of the launch vehicle, and RD-0124MS are provided for the second. It is interesting that the prototype was the RD-0124, created back in 1993 - it was the first rocket engine in post-Soviet Russia. The MS modification is currently at the design and testing stage of the first prototypes, but the stated parameters are encouraging. In a vacuum (the main operating environment), the product produces up to 60 tons and consumes fuel (oxygen and naphthyl) very efficiently - 334 seconds at sea level.


RD-0124MS for the second stage of Soyuz-5

They plan to install two four-chamber engines on each Soyuz-5 rocket. Tests at the Voronezh Chemical Automation Design Bureau are in full swing, but the time has not come for the production of commercial samples. It will be very good if this happens in the current 2024.

The list of innovations of the Soyuz-5 project includes the use of promising aluminum-magnesium alloy 1580 for tanks and transition compartments of the launch vehicle. Let's tell you a little about this high-strength alloy. Judging by open data from 2020, it was developed by specialists from RUSAL. Alloy 1580 is magnesium-containing with 0,1 percent scandium and 0,15 percent zirconium used as alloying additives. The technical specifications for metallurgists initially included the possibility of manufacturing launch vehicle compartments using WAAM technology, that is, 3D printing with metal wire, which uses arc welding.

As a result, Soyuz-5 developers have the opportunity to create complex structures with a unique strength-to-weight ratio from aluminum-magnesium alloy 1580. At the end of December 2023, an experimental tank from this alloy was assembled at the Progress Rocket and Space Center, and in the near future it will be dynamically tested at the Central Research Institute of Mechanical Engineering. We are talking about the first stage tank for the oxidizer - oxygen. The fuel tank, naphtha, was created even earlier and has already been fully tested. At the second stage, engineers were the first in the industry to use a combined bottom of the fuel and oxidizer tanks, which reduced the final weight and size of the product. Using aluminum-magnesium alloy 1580 is much cheaper than aluminum-lithium from SpaceX for Falcon 9 launch vehicles. However, domestic products made from alloy 1580 are larger and heavier than those produced by Elon Musk’s office.

A non-trivial engineering solution seems to be the use of welding parts of tanks using the friction stir method. The technology makes it possible not to melt the welded surfaces to a liquid state, which is why there are practically no weld defects after cooling. All equipment for such a delicate engineering process was developed at the domestic JSC Cheboksary Enterprise Sespel.

The main advantage of the Soyuz-5 launch vehicle is the greater mass of payload delivered into orbit than that of its main competitor, the Falcon 9. According to calculations, by about 10-15 percent. At the same time, the cost of launching the rocket should remain the same - 55-56 million dollars, which is lower than the Falcon 9 with its 62 million, even in the version with a returnable first stage. By the way, within the framework of the Soyuz-5 topic, the authors are considering the possibility of returning the first stage to Earth and reusing it. There are no problems with engines in this sense - they are initially reusable. They plan to carry out a soft descent using parachutes. If everything goes according to plan, then Russia could take over some of SpaceX’s customers, especially from friendly countries. For example, private developers from India and China may well use the services of Soyuz-5. Given the continued growth of traffic into near space, cost-effective launch vehicles will not remain idle in any case.

At the end there is a little bit of tar in the ointment. At the beginning of 2024, the developers are planning the first launch of the finished Soyuz-5 rocket on December 24, 2025. If you look at the archives for 2017-2019, the commercial operation of the new system should have started last year. Launch dates are constantly being delayed and, to a certain extent, this is justified. The main thing is that this does not become a permanent process.
142 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -7
    5 January 2024 08: 40
    To the author of the article. Where will you launch Soyuz-5 from? There are no launch sites and none are expected. The managers cut the money and are celebrating. Everything as usual. I’ll just keep quiet about the rest of the inaccuracies in the article.
    1. +6
      5 January 2024 10: 28
      Actually, the union is intended to replace the zenith and for this launch site.
      1. +6
        5 January 2024 12: 23
        The fact that this launch vehicle is replacing Zenit does not mean that the launch pad for this launch vehicle is suitable for it.
        1. +8
          5 January 2024 12: 42
          The main advantage of the Soyuz-5 launch vehicle is the greater mass of payload delivered into orbit than that of its main competitor, the Falcon 9. According to calculations, by about 10-15 percent.
          At the same time, the author was not even embarrassed that Soyuz-5 belongs to the middle class carriers, and Falcon - to the heavy one?
          1. +5
            6 January 2024 00: 28
            No, that's right.
            The comparison is with the Falcon 9, and this is just an average launch vehicle. It is not compared to Falcon Heavy here.
            1. +3
              6 January 2024 00: 50
              Falcon-9 launches up to 22 tons into LEO (https://www.spacex.com/media/Capabilities&Services.pdf), this is a heavy-class carrier by all classifications. Falcon Heavy with its 64 tons is super heavy.
              1. +4
                6 January 2024 01: 30
                This is if the launch vehicle operates in a one-time mode and completely spends fuel on loading the cargo. But the nine is mostly “put back” after launch. And in this mode, it launches only 17 tons of cargo.
                1. +2
                  6 January 2024 01: 33
                  But the carrier class is calculated by its maximum possible load.
                  1. +3
                    6 January 2024 01: 39
                    Formally, yes, it’s heavy.
                    But objectively, in almost 9 cases out of 10, the nine is launched in a reusable version. And this toga is just a load-lifting medium launch vehicle
                    1. +3
                      6 January 2024 01: 49
                      Comparing the average load of one carrier with the maximum possible load of another is quite manipulative. So, no carrier usually outputs its maximum possible load on average, and there is no reason to believe that Soyuz-5 will be any different in this regard.
        2. +1
          5 January 2024 14: 30
          Why won't it work? Soyuz-5 is a slightly fatter Zenit. Accordingly, the Zenit launch table, after a slight re-equipment, will be suitable for Soyuz-5.
        3. 0
          5 January 2024 23: 14
          they said that Soyuz-5 is compatible with Sea Launch
          1. +3
            5 January 2024 23: 27
            It doesn’t matter anymore, Sea Launch is understaffed and there is nothing to equip it with. This is a lost technology, like Energia-Buran, the remains of which are also out there somewhere, but they will no longer fly into space.
            1. 0
              10 January 2024 14: 18
              Everything is fine with Sea Launch. Until it completely rusts, finishing it for Soyuz-6 (the naval version of Soyuz-5) will not be difficult.
      2. +1
        6 January 2024 10: 18
        Don't show your ignorance. Zenit has a diameter of 3,9 meters, and Soyuz-5 has 4,1 meters. Consequently, all old structures are not suitable for scrapping. The only launch left from Zenit is at Baikonur and is in a state of permanent reconstruction. That is, the Kazakhs started, and then changed their minds.
        1. +1
          10 January 2024 14: 16
          That's exactly why you don't need to show ignorance. The launch site at site 31 was reconstructed to a PN diameter of 4,1 meters without any global reconstruction of the structure itself. In the same way, it can easily be converted to 4,1 m and the start to fit the former Zenit.
    2. +9
      5 January 2024 14: 27
      I heard a ringing, but don’t know where it is? Just to crow about cutting? The launch complex for Soyuz-5 will be refurbished at Baikonur on site 45, where Zeniths were previously launched. This time. A unified launch pad will also be equipped at the Vostochny Cosmodrome.
      If there was a rocket, there would be somewhere to launch it.
      1. -4
        8 January 2024 20: 55
        “It will be,” well, well.
        “If there was a rocket, there would be somewhere to launch it.” - This only works for Musk.
        1. +1
          10 January 2024 14: 14
          Firstly, not from Musk, but from the Union. Which has 5 launch pads at different cosmodromes. Secondly, this is Zenit. Which, for the first time in the world, had two diverse cosmodromes - a land-based one, a sea-based one, and a floating one. Thirdly and fourthly, we will give them to the Americans, whose rockets also flew from different cosmodromes. And only fifthly, in the sixth decade of the space age, Musk appeared, who, by his own admission, studied the works of Korolev and is his fan. So no need to blame Musk. Yes, he made a revolution. But domestic achievements should not be forgotten, much less disparaged.
          1. 0
            April 17 2024 13: 40
            Before denouncing domestic achievements in space, let's wait for them first.

            It’s better not to remember the USSR - 30 years have passed, it was a completely different country and industry.

            And it’s better to read about the prospects of the Russian Federation in the white paper of the state Agency for Strategic Initiatives
            https://asi.ru/library/main/198226/
    3. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    4. 0
      6 January 2024 14: 07
      It’s somehow unclear, they wanted to install the NK5 with a thrust of 33 tons on the Soyuz185, but you changed your mind, they began to adapt the RD170 with a thrust of 740 tons.
      -RD170 -740t/thrust--9.7t/weight
      -NK33 -185t/thrust - 1.4t/weight, respectively, four NK33 - 740t/thrust, 5.6t/weight
      so Kuznetsov’s engines will be better than Glushko’s engines.
      Then the question is, why are they pushing the Kuznetsov Design Bureau?
      1. +1
        10 January 2024 14: 21
        Because the philosophies of rockets are different. NK for package Soyuz, RD-171MV for tandem former Zenit, now Soyuz-5.
        1. 0
          10 January 2024 21: 01
          K under the package Soyuz, RD-171MV under the tandem former Zenit, now Soyuz-5.


          What is a package union?
          tandem zenith, what is this?
          they wanted to install NK33 on the Soyuz, but then they forgot and now they decided to install RD, and Zenit is Voevoda Dnepropetrovsk, and he was always with RD170.
  2. +15
    5 January 2024 11: 06
    Soyuz-5 launch vehicle: will we make it to the last carriage?

    Whether we have time or not... The main thing is not to slip and stretch out on the platform.
    It is not necessary to continue doing what has already worked, and it is not necessary to “trumpet” successes in advance.
    1. +9
      5 January 2024 12: 09
      Which last car? We have already squeezed out the clientele for commercial launches - sanctions will finish off the rest. Of course, there is also our sidekick from the DPRK and Iran, but they have their own launch vehicles and there is a problem with the currency, after all, we are not doing all these twists and turns for pure science..
      Space-X has already achieved the reusability of the first stage, now they will work on the reusability of the second (if they haven’t given up on this direction, perhaps my information is outdated) - in this situation, we won’t impress anyone with disposable garbage of average weight. Taking into account the development, deployment of production, washing down the launch pad, testing and emergency situations inevitable for a new design, the gain from the scheme, taking into account homeopathic launches for its loading, will be minimal, if any. If they are going to use the C5 there to launch heavy military satellites - that is, (sort of) a heavy version of the Angara (A5B), which seems to be ready for launch in 2027 - and this will allow the launch of 2 PNs instead of the one launched by Soyuz-5. It feels like in addition to the trend for reusability, we are also ignoring the trend for multi-booting..
      1. +5
        5 January 2024 13: 21
        Quote: Knell Wardenheart
        now they will work on the reusability of the second (if they haven’t given up on this direction, perhaps my information is outdated)

        The carrier with a reusable second stage is Starship/Superheavy. It is being developed on the basis that after development is completed, the Falcons will be taken out of service. (At least, that’s what Musk said at the time when Starship was still called BFR.) That is, yes, they were talking about a reusable second stage specifically for Falcon, but in general, a reusable second stage is already being developed in testing.
      2. -1
        5 January 2024 20: 37
        Don’t whine, don’t panic, it’s better Shura saw weights, there will be more benefits
      3. -1
        6 January 2024 18: 08
        We don’t ignore the trend towards reusability, there is Wing, there is Cupid, but everything is led by “effective managers”. That’s why topics are sometimes opened and then closed. As with everything else, apparently they cannot decide what is more profitable for them personally.
        1. 0
          6 January 2024 21: 38
          The “wing” is a frankly crazy concept; for this to work, the rocket must be made much stronger to withstand lateral loads. Moreover, the entire structure will have to be strengthened literally, because with an aircraft type of landing, the load will be both on the wing and the attachment of the wing to the body (and associated areas), and on the landing gear, its attachment and associated areas, and on the nose and tail of the rocket - and so that all this does not deform, it will have to be strengthened = make the body heavier, make it more expensive, use composites with other properties, which will also be more expensive (since they will have to keep the body not only in a vertical position, but also in a horizontal position, with empty tanks ) .Plus the mass of the wings themselves and the inevitable deterioration in aerodynamic qualities from them during rocket launch.

          Я I admit that for light launch vehicles this is POSSIBLE and justified, but for heavier launch vehicles (starting from medium ones) this is a complete waste - it is much more profitable either to save the engine by parachute or to land it “Mask-style”, at least there are no such lateral loads and the need to stuff the hell out of the design under them.
          Any rocket is very good. flimsy on the sides, and it is also very long, and empty tanks will be subject to deformation during an airplane landing - and if all this is corrected, it will not be a rocket but a stupid iron, it’s easier to immediately saw the “CROWN”, the same endless race for reusability will result.
          1. +2
            6 January 2024 23: 18
            Where did I evaluate these projects? You said that reusability is ignored. So she is not ignored. I agree that the Wing is a very controversial idea, but we don’t know all the arguments. By the way, have you ever noticed the difference in the crumpling of a capped and open plastic soda bottle? This brings me to the question of deformations.
  3. -3
    5 January 2024 11: 30
    The process is underway. Let's not be discouraged!
    1. 0
      7 January 2024 11: 04
      The process is going on, only in the opposite direction.
  4. +12
    5 January 2024 11: 32
    Killer Falcon 9 rushes into space


    and we learned how to write catchy headlines!
    but my grandmother, on this occasion, said: “Can our calf eat a wolf?”
    we are not able to do this - due to objective reasons: we need interested people - and not managers from Sberbank or Skolkovo, we need people who understand the “topic” - and not officials,
    well, etc. throughout the list - today's vertical
    1. +4
      6 January 2024 00: 41
      Killer Falcon 9 rushes into space

      You must be more modest ...
      Here is the Boeing killer that keeps rushing into the sky every year...
      May God grant that we finish something on the old groundwork... It is very difficult for an entire industry that does not have leaders to compete.
      Development and production is not a minaret, it’s a pyramid, and we have strong restrictions on the size of the foundation...
  5. +11
    5 January 2024 11: 57
    Killer Falcon 9 rushes into space

    Just a hell of a mountain of optimism!
    The main advantage of the Soyuz-5 launch vehicle is the greater mass of payload delivered into orbit than that of its main competitor, Falcon 9. According to calculations, by about 10-15 percent

    Well, yes, the current Falcon is returnable, but the Soyuz-5 is not. And this wonderful engine, which is cooler than the Saturn, after one start will stupidly become a pile of twisted oxides.

    No, of course, the specialists from Roscosmos know better, but for me, investing in the development of a middle-class launch vehicle now is unrealistic nonsense. This is simply unrealistic. There is the ancient crap "Soyuz-2.1b" and it is quite capable of supplying our orbital needs - where it is not capable ALREADY there is "Proton-M", which was discontinued not so long ago and, taking into account the not so widespread need for such launches, it is quite possible to maintain this targeted production (or to bring to life the Angara-A5 with generally the same throw weight). There is also Soyuz-7, which will throw 2-3 tons more than Soyuz-2.1b and is planned to be reusable, which is much more attractive than a disposable product.
    Thus, Soyuz-5 is being developed for a niche from 12t (maximum output for a one-time version of Soyuz-7) to 23.7-24t (Proton-M and Angara-A5) - well, what is so important we are going to launch in quantities sufficient to develop was another RN justified?
    For the construction of the ROSS, in any case, it is more rational to use heavy launch vehicles due to the larger size of the launch cargo and better launch-launch mass ratios (the lighter the rocket, the worse these ratios and the potentially more expensive the launch), for supplying the ROSS, taking into account its intended orbit, it will also be Soyuz-7 (and the Soyuz ship for it) is enough. “Eagle” or “Federation” or whatever they call it again is excessively heavy and large for utilitarian tasks in earth orbit.
    But even if we assume that Soyuz-5 is “for the Federation,” it turns out that the power of Soyuz-5 may not be enough to launch to the intended ROSS orbit, taking into account the load and mass of this ship - and the question of the rationality of such launches is generally extremely ambiguous.

    In short, if I analyze the developments of our rocket scientists, I get the feeling that for them space is firmly the orbit of the Earth. The Yenisei, which seems to have been mentioned by the author, has been frozen until 2021 since 2024 and something tells me that it is unlikely to be unfrozen in 2024 (taking into account the economy and other things), and even if this happens - the “standard” development schedule (in 2021 ) pointed to the first launch in 2032 - that is, our heavyweight will, at best, be ready no earlier than 2035. By that time, our Stars and Stripes buddies will have already built a DSG and maybe a lunar base.
    So yes, Soyuz-5 is very good for us. needed, this is a definite ticket to the future for the remnants of our astronautics. It feels like someone at Roscosmos is a fan of Pokemon - this stupid passion for collecting 100500 types of rockets without a case for filling them for launches cannot be explained otherwise.

    We need a super heavy rocket and we need a reusable medium rocket - we have the rest.
    1. +8
      5 January 2024 13: 53
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      where it is not capable ALREADY there is Proton-M, the production of which was discontinued not so long ago
      Collapsed means that it is no longer there.

      I think everything can be explained something like this: production of Proton-M has been discontinued, Angara is very expensive with no prospects for cheaper, Soyuz-2 is not enough to launch it at the GPO, but it needs to be launched there. Soyuz-5 is the only thing whose development, according to realistic estimates, can be completed (because it is essentially an import-substituted Zenit from the 80s), all other Soyuz-7, Amur-LNG and Krylo-SV no one expects to see made in hardware, not speaking of superheavy. As, however, no one expects a return to the commercial market in the foreseeable future (where Zenit, in much more favorable times, was not very in demand, unlike Proton).
      1. +1
        12 January 2024 15: 56
        The Proton engine ran on heptyl (a terrible poison!) and the oxidizer was no better. After protests from environmentalists and the state of Kazakhstan, Proton was taken out of production. Initially, the Proton was designed as an intercontinental missile UR-500 to deliver to the adversary (that is, the States) the Kuzkina Mother, a super-powerful thermonuclear warhead. In such cases, they do not think about the environment. "Angara" is a successful project, its cost is low. The high cost is explained by the debts (and interest on them) of the developer, Khrunichev Software. It’s easier to bankrupt Khrunichev; all debts will go away with bankruptcy. Angara is also expensive.
        1. 0
          April 17 2024 13: 44
          Hangar is cheap, but expensive.
          "Do you see the gopher? But it exists"
    2. -3
      5 January 2024 16: 41
      Knell, strange guy. Why should RD-171 become trash? You write rubbish.
      1. +2
        5 January 2024 17: 18
        There is no need to make up your sexual fantasies for me - I don’t have a single line about the RD-171. But we need to reduce the rocket zoo - such diversity is from the evil one. Unification and large parties rule, and everything else from the evil one. The RD-171 you mentioned, if I’m not mistaken, is considered part of a promising super-heavy project, but this project is currently frozen. So you and Roscosmos should discuss this about “trash” and not with me.
        1. -4
          5 January 2024 17: 30
          Knell, quote: Well, yes, the current Falcon is returnable, but the Soyuz-5 is not. And this wonderful engine, which is cooler than the Saturn, after one start will stupidly become a pile of twisted oxides.
          1. +5
            5 January 2024 17: 52
            Well, it will become a bunch of oxides, won’t it? Do you deny it? For all its powerful parameters, it is not reusable. This is very good in a number of cases - but if we are making a NEW rocket, wouldn’t it be better to make it reusable? Design taking into account the preservation of the engine - there are a lot of variations here. If the conceptual design of a rocket is archaic, this does not mean that the engine is bad. But it’s definitely bad that such a technological product is lost after 1 launch. Maybe you disagree on this, I don’t understand you.
            I don’t write “engine hat - make Raptor.” Within the framework of Soyuz-5, the mass launched into LEO is excessive (for an average launch vehicle) and it is quite possible to conceptually develop an engine recovery system based on a parachute scheme or solid propellant shunting engines.
            If it is possible to do this, it must be done, if this is impossible to do, then the very point of developing a more budget-friendly launch vehicle than the Angara is lost - even if it is more budget-friendly than the Angara, it will still be inferior to the Proton in the short term , and in the long run with a large number of starts it will be inferior to reusable systems.
            My main complaint about the C5 is that it is too powerful a medium rocket and at the same time it is disposable. There are no complaints about the engine - the complaint is about the concept.
            1. -2
              5 January 2024 17: 53
              Knell, rd-171 reusable. Initially, even the technical specifications for him were like this.
              1. -1
                8 January 2024 21: 00
                It doesn't throttle enough to act as a landing gear.
                1. 0
                  12 January 2024 09: 07
                  Kmesa, reusable and landing are two different things.
    3. -2
      6 January 2024 18: 19
      You apparently don’t know what the production of a launch vehicle is if you write about the “spot production” of Proton.
      Well, and its fuel. How many have butted heads with Yakutia over much more harmless Unions.
  6. +10
    5 January 2024 12: 06
    Killer Falcon 9 rushes into space


    It is torn, but this is not Soyuz-5, but a fully reusable American Starship ship.
    The domestic cosmonautics in the post-Soviet years lived well at the expense of the same Americans. who made the Shuttle too expensive and preferred to use Russian rockets, simultaneously preventing the sale of Russian technologies to China or India due to lack of money.
    That time has passed. The United States, thanks to Musk’s inexpensive and very reliable rockets: 267 accident-free launches in a row, monopolized the commercial launch market.
    Statistics of orbital launches by country:
    2003 - 61 launches
    -USA: 23 (38%)
    -Russia: 21 (34%)
    -China: 7 (11%)

    2013 - 82 launches:
    -USA: 19 (23%)
    -Russia: 33 (40%)
    -China: 15 (18%)

    2023 - 218 launches:
    -USA: 107 (49%)
    -Russia: 19 (9%)
    -China: 63 (29%)
    https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_chr/lau2023.htm
  7. +11
    5 January 2024 12: 22
    Can I ask a question - where does the author plan to launch the Soyuz-5 launch vehicle? It’s just that the Baiterek project, joint with Kazakhstan, is stalling, and this is the only launch site for this launch vehicle, and they haven’t even started building it yet.

    Killer Falcon 9 rushes into space


    Gods, who writes such nonsense anyway? Falcon 9 is the undisputed leader in the market of commercial services for launching payloads into orbit, having completed as many as 91 launches last year. Are you going to compete with him with a one-time “Union”? And who will buy the services of Roscosmos in 2024? Laughter, and that's all.
    1. -7
      5 January 2024 13: 22
      Falcon carries mostly Musk's own satellites. The Russian Federation excluded this gentleman from competitors with the help of sanctions, even if capital countries will not supply their satellites for launches

      What about launcher 45? For what reason is it not suitable?
      1. -5
        5 January 2024 17: 06
        Alex, I agree. That's right.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
      2. -1
        6 January 2024 04: 59
        What about launcher 45? For what reason is it not suitable?


        Because it is under Zenit, and not under Soyuz-5. If it fit under the Union, then such a project as Baiterek simply would not exist.
        1. +1
          6 January 2024 19: 57
          Did you come up with this yourself? There, the inscription on a rocket assembled from almost the same parts is not considered correctly by optical systems and nothing will fly anywhere?
          By the way, what kind of rocket did Baiterek envision? What is it called?
      3. -2
        6 January 2024 07: 47
        Quote from alexoff
        Falcon carries mostly Musk's own satellites. The Russian Federation excluded this gentleman from competitors with the help of sanctions, even if capital countries will not supply their satellites for launches

        What about launcher 45? For what reason is it not suitable?

        India, despite the sanctions, buys our oil and weapons. But Musk signed up to launch her heavy satellite into orbit. The main problem we have is that Rogozin managed to screw up quite a bit by confiscating the satellites from Oniveb along with the funds for the launch. But the group is British-Indian. Therefore, now we won’t see launches like our ears
        1. -1
          6 January 2024 19: 52
          You don’t look for sanctions at all. Oil is one thing, satellites are another. By the way, no one imposed sanctions on oil, they only interfered with the calculations
          1. -1
            7 January 2024 11: 20
            Quote from alexoff
            You don’t look for sanctions at all. Oil is one thing, satellites are another. By the way, no one imposed sanctions on oil, they only interfered with the calculations

            And on oil, the ceiling on oil prices and on weapons. And on transactions and on companies that extract oil and make weapons
        2. 0
          10 January 2024 14: 31
          To be fair. The satellites have not been confiscated. By agreement, they are kept in storage at the MIC. The nuance is that it is impossible to take them out due to lack of customs clearance. Under exactly the same conditions, 2 of our Soyuz rockets are stored at the Kourou cosmodrome. We are waiting for better times when we can come to an agreement and exchange property.
          And second. Vanweb is a British company that is owned by the British government after bankruptcy. India is not even close there.
          1. -1
            10 January 2024 16: 55
            Quote: Lomaster
            To be fair. The satellites have not been confiscated. By agreement, they are kept in storage at the MIC. The nuance is that it is impossible to take them out due to lack of customs clearance. Under exactly the same conditions, 2 of our Soyuz rockets are stored at the Kourou cosmodrome. We are waiting for better times when we can come to an agreement and exchange property.
            And second. Vanweb is a British company that is owned by the British government after bankruptcy. India is not even close there.

            Vanweb has long written off satellites from its assets. Therefore, consider it confiscated and it is definitely impossible to get it back within a reasonable time.
            And about the owners. India is the largest there. By the way, the Chinese are also among the owners.
            Owner of
            Bharti Enterprises (21.2%) (India)
            Bpifrance (13.6%) (France)
            UK Government (10.9%) (Britain)
            SoftBank (10.9%) (Japan)
            Hanwha (5.4%)(South Korea)
            Free float and others (28.3%) [6]

            Therefore, everyone was shodded and everyone is very unhappy
            1. 0
              12 January 2024 09: 11
              Mokona, haven’t they screwed us over? Are we very satisfied?
  8. +2
    5 January 2024 13: 20
    The Americans collected a huge amount of money for Mask so that he could conquer Western markets with low prices and political lobbying; it is useless to compete here. The cheapest Indian and Chinese missiles in the world are not of interest to potential Western buyers. But we need to learn how to make a sufficient amount of payload for a bunch of missiles of different calibers and learn how to benefit from it ourselves
    1. +1
      6 January 2024 07: 50
      Quote from alexoff
      The Americans collected a huge amount of money for Mask so that he could conquer Western markets with low prices and political lobbying; it is useless to compete here. The cheapest Indian and Chinese missiles in the world are not of interest to potential Western buyers. But we need to learn how to make a sufficient amount of payload for a bunch of missiles of different calibers and learn how to benefit from it ourselves

      Nope, ULA (Boeing and Lockheed Union) uses lobbying there and pours money into it. How are you doing?
      And India itself recently bought a launch from Musk. Because its missiles are not as powerful and cheap as you imagine. But China has a reputation as a technological thief and no one trusts its satellites since it lost one for a while. Not a single satellite operator will give up its technology even for free launches. After all, you’ll save a penny, and then copies of your satellites will gobble up your market. hi
      1. +1
        6 January 2024 09: 40
        Quote: BlackMokona
        and then copies of your companions will gobble up your market.

        What are you talking about? Who will allow them to copy satellites? So they will take it and gut it? At one time, the USSR/Russia agreed to simply dock a satellite through connectors in order to guarantee trade secrets and gain access to launches. At the same cosmodrome in Guiana, satellites are docked was under the control of the French, try to copy it. China is simply given sanctions for access to the Western launch market, just like Russia
        1. -2
          6 January 2024 12: 40
          Quote from Kartograph
          Quote: BlackMokona
          and then copies of your companions will gobble up your market.

          What are you talking about? Who will allow them to copy satellites? So they will take it and gut it? At one time, the USSR/Russia agreed to simply dock a satellite through connectors in order to guarantee trade secrets and gain access to launches. At the same cosmodrome in Guiana, satellites are docked was under the control of the French, try to copy it. China is simply given sanctions for access to the Western launch market, just like Russia

          But they took someone else’s satellite and lost it. Then, after a couple of days of scandal, they found him. After that they stopped using them wassat
          1. +2
            10 January 2024 14: 33
            Nonsense. That's not the reason. And the fact is that the State Department prohibits the use of Chinese missiles and satellites.
            1. -1
              10 January 2024 16: 57
              Quote: Lomaster
              Nonsense. That's not the reason. And the fact is that the State Department prohibits the use of Chinese missiles and satellites.

              Only for Pentagon launches. wink
        2. +1
          10 January 2024 14: 35
          Absolutely right! The finishing chambers where foreign satellites undergo pre-launch preparation are the territory of a foreign state. And Aboriginal people are not allowed to enter there.
      2. -2
        6 January 2024 19: 48
        Quote: BlackMokona
        ULA (Boeing and Lockheed Union) uses lobbying there and pours money into it.

        They don’t pour in much there, and for Musk the laws were rewritten back in the early 2000s. And the investments into him are fabulous, and the American military is actively giving him money.
        Quote: BlackMokona
        And India itself recently bought a launch from Musk. Because its missiles are not as powerful and cheap as you imagine.

        So powerful or cheap? Light rockets in India cost pennies, there are no heavy ones yet, but Musk launches not only heavy satellites
        Quote: BlackMokona
        But China has a reputation as a technological thief and no satellites trust it

        And I thought this was because of US sanctions, and not from the conscious choice of each satellite creator
        1. -2
          7 January 2024 11: 21
          Quote from alexoff
          They don’t pour in much there, and for Musk the laws were rewritten back in the early 2000s. And the investments into him are fabulous, and the American military is actively giving him money.

          Read about ULA, the alliance of Boeing and Lockheed. By the way, they received 60% of all military orders. And by the way, they don’t have missiles to launch. But such a small thing. wassat
          1. +2
            12 January 2024 09: 13
            Mokona, Musk with all his projects relies on gigantic government subsidies. Stop talking nonsense and learn the materiel. And his lobby is incredibly powerful.

            This is a simple example of American government support for new industries.
  9. -4
    5 January 2024 13: 55
    Super heavy, heavy and even medium launch vehicles don’t make sense right now. Electronics have advanced so much that satellites sometimes weigh pennies and almost students can pay for the launch of a satellite at some universities.

    There is no workload as such... except for status projects. And they are rare.

    Take their Webb... he didn’t open anything intimate at all... I’m disappointed... compare Hubble and Webb... apart from the launch itself, I haven’t heard anything new from him.
    The same Musk’s task... dumping prices by injecting unsecured paper, so that such missiles have no commercial meaning - not only in our country, but also in other countries.
    1. 0
      April 11 2024 20: 24
      on the contrary, no one needs lungs. At this point, both ours and the hangar made a mistake, as did Musk with the first falcon.

      due to the fact that satellites are becoming lighter and smaller, it becomes more profitable to send dozens of them on a heavy rocket than to launch a whole rocket, albeit light, to each satellite.

      Well, if you really want a light missile, we have three armies of “Voevod” and “Topol” standing on the database, waiting for them to be replaced by “Yars” and “Sarmat” ;)
      1. 0
        April 11 2024 20: 32
        A year ago, Emnip reported to Yars that 80% of the replacement was completed request
        1. 0
          April 13 2024 10: 16
          this means there is already a supply of light missiles :), and the Yars also have upgrades...
  10. +3
    5 January 2024 14: 23
    Note to the author. A launch vehicle is a rocket that carries a payload. A launch vehicle is a carrier for a rocket to move it. It can be wheeled, caterpillar, even rail-mounted. Accordingly, a space rocket is, first of all, a launch vehicle.
  11. +4
    5 January 2024 14: 44
    Killer Falcon 9 rushes into space
    Usually loud, very loud! Just what is this amazing claim based on???
  12. 0
    5 January 2024 14: 57
    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    now they will work on the reusability of the second (if they haven’t given up on this direction

    The second stage has been returning for a long time. But in rare cases. When launching heavy satellites, the second stage is not returned.
  13. +3
    5 January 2024 15: 01
    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    there is “Proton-M”, the production of which was discontinued not so long ago and, taking into account the not so widespread need for such launches, it is quite possible to maintain this local production

    The proton will no longer be produced. There are 9 manufactured rockets left, which are planned to be launched within 3 years.
  14. +2
    5 January 2024 15: 05
    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    But even if we assume that Soyuz-5 is “under the Federation”

    The Federation or now Eagle will be launched by Angara. This is already a settled issue.
    1. +2
      5 January 2024 16: 23
      Then under what load do we need a carrier heavier than the Soyuz? The Federation is a ship for the Moon or for some exceptional, large projects (which are unlikely to be on the ISS). The supply of the ISS has already been adjusted with the current range of manned and unmanned vehicles (and existing launch vehicles for them), by the time the ROSS is built (if it appears at all), qualitatively different tasks will come to the fore - the need to be present on the Moon (at a minimum) for which the average launch vehicle to put it mildly, it will not be particularly needed (especially in the one-time version), scientific programs (the same Phobos-3) and everything further than the Moon is also a heavy launch vehicle+, Mars is also at least a heavy launch vehicle.
      Should military satellites be launched with a larger mass? Why then was the well-functioning Proton shut down - a more than sufficient product for the military, including for the future and taking into account relocation outside Baikonur.
      Yes, the “Proton” was toxic, but the design itself was less ancient than the “Soyuzovskaya” and for targeted launches it was possible, with a squeak of heart, to continue launching on UDMH, one hell we’ve long since gotten all these environmentalists in the habit and all this will be done one way or another not for foreign customers.

      I don’t see the logic in the desire to plug the gap between Soyuz-2.1b and Angara with two (5,7) rockets at once. As for me, this is an overspend and we clearly do not look further - neither at the commercial potential from the heavyweight and related programs, nor at any large projects where the average carrier is not needed at all.
      This is some kind of stuck tightly in the early 2000s, in which there was no Musk and the lunar race was somewhere on the horizon.
      1. -7
        5 January 2024 17: 04
        Knell, what load does America need a Falcon for?
        1. +6
          5 January 2024 17: 11
          Under commercial! The Americans, unlike us, are cutting hellishly from commercial space. The capacity of their market and ours is absolutely incomparable - the same "Starlink" and GPS are global technologies, while besides GLONASS we don’t see anything global (and that’s a stretch).
          They will always have something to fill up the free space on the Falcons; they have far more scientific projects with cubesats and institutes capable of affording these projects as well.
          1. -3
            5 January 2024 17: 12
            Knell, we need those middle union-5 even more, since we have little workload. It is cheaper than a hangar.
            1. +2
              5 January 2024 17: 30
              The only good thing about "Angara" is the concept of modularity, environmental friendliness and engine developments. Everything else is rather sad and outdated rather than worthy of serious attention. The optimal “Angara” is actually an environmentally friendly “Proton” and there was no point in inventing this at all. The light "Angara" is actually a "Soyuz-2.1v" and, all the more, there is no point in this since the "Soyuz", although as old as a mammoth city, has long since recaptured all its R&D and has a well-functioning production line, ready-made launch pads, etc. d.
              The maximum heavy "Angara" is essentially a pathetic attempt to survive without a superheavy in the future, in which it is impossible to survive without a superheavy. And everyone understands this - except for Roscosmos, which apparently hopes to forever shuttle to orbit and back.
              1. +1
                5 January 2024 17: 51
                There's nothing good there. Everything is 20 years out of date.
                1. +1
                  5 January 2024 22: 49
                  Falcon uses the concept of modularity, and this is still the current generation and the most successful modern rocket. One module is used in Falcon 9, three in Falcon Heavy. The main thing that the Angara developers did not guess right was the size of the base module; they have to make a bundle for the most popular type of commercial tasks, for which Falcon uses one module and wins in the simplicity of the circuit.
                  1. +2
                    6 January 2024 21: 52
                    The main thing that the Angara developers did not guess right was the size of the base module; they have to make a bundle for the most popular type of commercial tasks, for which Falcon uses one module and wins in the simplicity of the circuit

                    Exactly ! They also missed the reusability trend. In general, in an amicable way, they initially had to cut the side module as the most popular mid-class rocket and with the potential for modernization - for 9-12 tons in LEO (in a reusable version) and up to 13-15 tons in a disposable version. In this case, we would not need these pains with the need for 2 or more types of medium missiles. The central block had to be designed to launch “by itself” a mass commensurate with the launchable “Proton”, so that with the maximum soldering “Central block + 3 sidewalls” we would have, although the most miserable, but falling into the “superheavy” launch vehicle capable of launching 50.t+ .
                    With this approach, we would have a working “medium” rocket with minimal costs and large series, a heavy analogue of the Proton and an ersatz superheavy, capable of launching what we need when we participate in the Moon Race or the construction of ROSSA. We don’t need light launch vehicles at all, this is nonsense if we have a reusable and wide-scale medium rocket and develop batch launch technologies. For the needs of light launch vehicles, the conversion carriers that we will have in any case are quite sufficient; for other tasks, developments in “air launches” are sufficient, fortunately our aircraft zoo has enough high-altitude products.
                    1. 0
                      13 January 2024 15: 33
                      Knell, no one screwed up. On the contrary - we were the first with Baikal. But our entire industry is under the state, and they don’t need anything. What kind of introduction of new things can we talk about, are you under the paw of bureaucrats?
                    2. 0
                      April 11 2024 20: 31
                      so you just described the “Irtysh” and “Yenisei”, the blocks of which are unified with the “Irtysh” ...
                      1. 0
                        April 11 2024 22: 10
                        We have built a very extensive rocket zoo for a country with such weak commercialization of space. We should have 1 heavy, 1 medium and 1 super heavy and not all of this. Maximum unification between them is desirable - and it is unlikely that they will be based on kerosene engines.
                        Without a superheavy, we won’t see the Moon or explore Mars, we won’t see a truly modern and useful orbital station. Without in-depth modularity, it is economically stupid for us to fight off these developments commercially until the Last Judgment, taking into account the childish dimensions of our own needs for launches.
                        Generally speaking, our needs could be narrowed down to super heavy and medium launch vehicles - if we operate with trends towards reusability and batch launch technologies.
                      2. 0
                        April 13 2024 10: 38
                        where is the zoo?

                        "Irtysh" is a medium/light-heavy aircraft, the most popular segment in which the "Falcon-9" currently flies with increasing stages.

                        "Yenisei" - heavyweight.

                        "Angara-5" - closes the segment of heavy loads where the "Irtysh" falls short and in which the "Falcon-9" is now flying _without_ stage return. As we can see, there is very little demand for this.

                        The Irtysh can be scaled down further when it is made reusable with landing on Vostochny.
                  2. +1
                    13 January 2024 15: 31
                    Kitten, yeah. Agree. That's why I say that there is nothing good there. A morally and technically outdated rocket.
            2. +1
              5 January 2024 17: 40
              We need a rocket approaching Soyuz-7 as the best mass-carrying product that is reusable. We already had powerful spent missiles for 20+ and I don’t see the point in designing another one for 17.5. A new medium rocket is needed, but it must be a conceptually modern rocket, otherwise there is no point in spending money on it.
            3. +4
              5 January 2024 17: 56
              Quote from Savage3000
              Knell, we need those middle union-5 even more, since we have little workload. It is cheaper than a hangar.

              You probably already got it
              We would like to understand civil aviation, the production of new aircraft, some statistics........
              2017 - 41 civil aircraft.
              2018 - 35 aircraft.
              2019 - 23 aircraft.
              2020 - 20 pcs.
              2021 - 19 pcs.
              2022 - 16.
              2023 - 9 aircraft!
              .......
              After such figures for airplanes, it was somehow uncomfortable to take aim at “Wilm Shakespeare” himself in space.
              Civil space has already been lost to the United States and China, and maybe already to India, no matter how much they puff themselves up with us. The level of interest in space in Russia is an order of magnitude lower than it was in the USSR. Hence the results + “management” of the industry. Russia needs space only for defense purposes!
              1. +3
                5 January 2024 18: 01
                Cmax, one does not replace the other. We need to figure out everything that no one has thought to deal with in 25 years.
                1. +1
                  5 January 2024 18: 04
                  Quote from Savage3000
                  Cmax, one does not replace the other. We need to figure out everything that no one has thought to deal with in 25 years.

                  Sometimes it seems to me that some people have a completely different interest in growth, and they do not provide for its development. It's good if I'm wrong. We'll see in 10 years. One thing doesn't replace the other. If they didn’t pull one, where is the hope that they will pull the other. The footage is the same.
                  1. +4
                    5 January 2024 18: 12
                    Cmax, I personally have no hope - they lost everything.
                  2. +6
                    5 January 2024 19: 00

                    Sometimes it seems to me that some people have a completely different interest in the industry, and they do not provide for its development

                    Sometimes I have the feeling that our entire modern cosmos works on the principle “because mom said so.” Not because it is necessary (and further why it is necessary) - but because “well, it’s necessary and something like that.” I do not feel the emphasis on current and retrospective and long-term activities.
                    Some lazy soulless attempts to saddle Phobos, a lunar program that is always being pushed back to death, scandals and intrigues with the ISS and some delusional muddy ROSS, it is unclear what it should do and it is unclear what kind of money it should be created with. No Mars, no Venus, no deep space.
                    The only thing you can somehow cling to is the “Specters” - the rest are tightly stuck in compulsive attacks in the orbit of the earth. Individual highly promising developments such as "Nuklon" are floundering in this stream of meaningless routine nonsense and, apparently, periodically drown in it without a trace - or they move according to deadlines and then drown.
                    It seems that the participants have no desire at all to either seriously engage in advanced science, or try to make money, or simply think seriously “for the future”, taking into account competitive activity in the foreseeable future. The cosmos is devoid of spirit and flesh, all this is very similar to an egg from which everything was blown out through a small hole and only the outer shell remained.
              2. +1
                5 January 2024 18: 50
                I agree about airplanes, etc., but we need space not only for the purposes of direct defense. More precisely, that’s how it was - but for some time now the rules of the game have changed.
                Now space is acquiring strategic and economic interest for us - although not everyone has yet managed to enter the beginning of this process. However, progress is inexorable.
                You may not agree with me, they say all this is nonsense and fantasy - but everything always starts with fantasy. And it ends with some gaining a technological advantage over others.

                The United States has been crawling around Mars with rovers for years - they have honed their automation so much that they can actually make mobile vehicles that can survive without repair for years on other planets and in other atmospheres.
                The United States really wants to push us and other oil pumpers, and for some time now they also want to put pressure on the outsiders of our nuclear industry.
                The USA, like the Europeans, are investing significantly in ITER and in general in the development of thermonuclear reactors, because they understand that this thing would save them from dependence on oil and gas pumpers. In preparation for such a development, they are also investing in “green technologies” with electric cars and other such nonsense. Now, yes, this seems like an untimely thing - but this is the case when the sleigh is prepared in the summer.
                The successes in thermonuclear fusion are already quite noticeable - in recent years, it is true that this has been regularly noted not by the United States but by the Chinese, but facilities for curbing technology are being actively sawed in the countries of the “collective West” and are pumped up with funds. That is, they see the need for this, they believe in the success of this direction.
                Musk has developed reusable technologies and is now developing, with amazing persistence, a super heavyweight that promises the most budget-friendly output possible.
                Some time ago, the United States discussed legislative issues regarding mining and conducting business in lunar territories and revitalization of their Lunar program is clearly related to this.
                And finally, yes, at the current technological level, the most profitable and least “dirty” thermonuclear reaction for comms. reactors are deuterium-helium-3.

                It is helium-3 that the Americans consider as the most important nail in the coffin of the “oil workers” for the future. For many, this will seem like naive science fiction - but study investments in fusion and you will understand that this is a very pragmatic and very resource-intensive direction. If they succeed with the fusion itself at ITER, they will have everything ready to expand the exploration of the Moon in decades and dominate both the market for creating turnkey thermonuclear reactors and providing them with fuel.
                To remove what they have extracted from the surface of the Moon, they will use water immediately extracted from the regolith, or they will build a magnetic accelerator, which is preferable because the Moon is stably oriented relative to the earth.

                All this potentially threatens our interests, but in terms of “what will we cover with?” the horse is not lying around. It still seems to us that this is a distant fantasy, although we ourselves participate in ITER and in the 2010s we talked about the extraction of helium-3 on the Moon.
                1. 0
                  8 January 2024 21: 13
                  Well, about ITER - just building a large reactor is not enough. Already, small reactors can do more and more as part of experiments. Considering how things are changing, if I were the current participants, I would not rush to invest in the next iteration. Most likely, giant thermonuclear reactors are a technological dead end.
                  1. +1
                    9 January 2024 11: 11
                    In large installations, the efficiency is always higher than in small ones due to lower heat loss and greater utilization of this heat, as well as the ability to use more efficient things such as low-temperature superconducting magnets.

                    Technical feasibility and economic profitability are still a question. Bye. They will talk about it at ITER - it’s not a fact that it will come out, I can’t argue with that. However, there are not so many uranium reserves, and fast neutron reactors are damn dirty things that leave a lot of activated waste from operation - so they will dig in the direction of thermonuclear fusion, there are simply no alternatives.
  15. +4
    5 January 2024 17: 02
    Author Fedorov, I read you and am not surprised at the quality of your article and this entire resource.


    Quote: the most advanced of them, Raptor and Merlin from Elon Musk’s office, live in a completely different weight category.
    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

    Author, did you study the materiel before posting this article???

    You yourself write below: stages of the Soyuz-5 launch vehicle. A characteristic feature of the engine is four combustion chambers and, accordingly, four jet nozzles.

    You didn’t understand what you said, did you? RD-171 is actually 4 engines combined. Almost like 4 Raptors or any other engines. Musk also catches this raptor in batches. Don't you think at all?

    Next:

    Quote: -171MV was not developed from scratch. Like many things in domestic engineering technology, the engine has its origins in the Soviet Union.

    Quote: The prototype for the RD-171MV was the RD-171M, developed for the Energia - Buran program.

    Has RD-171 been developed? Does RD-171 have a prototype??? There is no prototype and no one developed anything.

    RD-171 was made in the USSR a long time ago. Now they are simply restoring its production and that’s it. Along the way, updating its equipment based on modern technologies.

    Otherwise, you write nonsense the same way.
    There are no unique solutions or anything else in Union-5. Soyuz-5 is the zenith, which will be produced in Russia. All solutions from Zenit.

    And yes, the specific impulse of the raptor is better and the energy-mass perfection is better. RD-171 is outdated, in any version. Unfortunately.

    Quote: Falcon 9 killer rushes into space

    Banality and nonsense. SpaceX is supported by the state and the entire space complex. They have already run far away - they can’t catch up.
    1. 0
      6 January 2024 00: 37
      Alas, you have problems with logic. That’s right, the RD-171MV is a modification of the RD-171 using other technologies. Soyuz-5 is not a Soviet Zenit; the launch vehicle went through all stages of development independently, and from several options. The question is not for SpaceX, but for Roscosmos. - These companies have different directions, tasks and resources. They initially take different roads and this is an objective fact. You cannot catch up by moving perpendicularly.
      1. +1
        6 January 2024 17: 35
        Ont65, and not yours, by any chance? No other technologies have emerged since that time. They just restored production, there is not much new there at all. The usual evolution of the Soviet engine.

        Soyuz-5 is being made clearly on the basis of Zenit design documentation. All technical solutions are from there.

        I have no questions for SpaceX, never have had and cannot have any. I am a citizen of the Russian Federation, not the USA.
  16. +1
    5 January 2024 17: 10
    Author, and more. Falcon brings almost 23 tons to the noo. This is a heavy rocket, an analogue of the Proton. Not Zenit.
    1. +1
      6 January 2024 00: 10
      Falcon 9 has never launched more than 16,7 tons into low orbit and will not, because some of the engines are reserved in case of failure. Soyuz-5, starting from Canaveral using Musk's refueling technology, will carry the same 22 tons and without weight restrictions - there is only one engine. They are in the same class with Falcon both in weight and power.
      1. +1
        6 January 2024 07: 56
        Quote: ont65
        Falcon 9 has never launched more than 16,7 tons into low orbit and will not, because some of the engines are reserved in case of failure. Soyuz-5, starting from Canaveral using Musk's refueling technology, will carry the same 22 tons and without weight restrictions - there is only one engine. They are in the same class with Falcon both in weight and power.

        Nonsense, all engines work at the start. Watch any launch stream
        1. 0
          6 January 2024 12: 17
          They should all work at the same time, but some of them are in throttling mode, otherwise they cannot compensate for those that turn off.
          1. 0
            7 January 2024 11: 22
            Quote: ont65
            They should all work at the same time, but some of them are in throttling mode, otherwise they cannot compensate for those that turn off.

            Compensation is not for power, but for duration of operation. More fuel is poured than needed for start-up
      2. 0
        6 January 2024 17: 37
        Ont65, you are talking nonsense.

        I did not display it because it is always launched in a reusable version. And for a reusable one, the maximum is about 17 tons. In a disposable one there are almost 23 tons.
        1. 0
          7 January 2024 08: 01
          You don't know the history of the issue well. Firstly, there were 9-stage launches without landing; secondly, in two, the load launched at the GPO was 4.5 tons, and for Soyuz-5 it would be 5 tons in a more disadvantageous position. You don't want to accept reality as it is. -That's your business. The experts know what we're talking about.
          1. 0
            7 January 2024 10: 57
            Falcon-9 carried 7.35 tons to the GPO (Galaxy 33+34).
            Welcome back to the first stage.
            1. 0
              7 January 2024 14: 31
              3,654 kg look better.
            2. -1
              7 January 2024 14: 46
              It’s not a fact that we didn’t get there on our own, like the majority.
              1. 0
                7 January 2024 16: 50
                Quote: ont65
                look better
                Don't be in a hurry to give advice.

                Quote: ont65
                It’s not a fact that we didn’t get there on our own, like the majority.
                This is called “output to GPO”.
          2. 0
            12 January 2024 09: 17
            Ont, you are confusing something. And you’re still talking nonsense about the light union and the heavy falcon.
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. 0
    5 January 2024 17: 17
    What will we fight, if we talk about payloads and commercial launches? You'll have to fight on the moon too.
  19. +1
    5 January 2024 20: 10
    Yes.
    I remember our numerous “iPhone killers” and everything becomes somehow clear...
    And: both China and India are intensively developing their missiles. So there will be no significant orders from them... And perhaps the remaining customers will leave them...
    Bad article..
  20. Rob
    +2
    5 January 2024 22: 35
    Maybe it's time to stop talking and start working? Once the first country to launch rockets, it is already approaching the achievements of New Zealand. While Rogozin said that the Americans would fly into space on a broomstick, even the Americans and the Chinese launched more than 1 rockets in 150. What about Roscosmos? How many? 2023?
  21. +6
    6 January 2024 01: 27
    They will build a rocket, I have no doubt.
    The experience is in something else - there is no built-in model of where we are going!
    NASA is now spending most of its resources on achieving its goal - returning to the moon with the goal of finally securing it there.
    SpaceX is moving towards the goal of the first manned flight to Mars
    China is striving to become the second country in the world to make a manned flight to the Moon, and at the same time immediately with the development of a permanent scientific base there.
    The European Space Agency chose to return to the moon jointly with NASA, because it understands that it itself will not be able to do this, but as an assistant, it can bring a lot.
    And we... we don’t have a clear goal, we are developing interesting projects that can do a lot, but there is no plan for what exactly we will do!!! In our country, they rather create something, and then look at “where to apply it”!
    For example, we are developing a project on which we should place the main emphasis, since this technology will allow us to improve our deep space research not quantitatively but qualitatively. This is a TEM project. Or as it is also called “Nuclear Tug”. This technology is the key not just to research, but to the development of the solar system!!! It is heavy tractor ships with a nuclear reactor on board that will make it possible to send any cargo to the distant solar system FASTER and CHEAPER than now!!!
    BUT instead of concentrating all resources, time and decisions on this project, its maintenance and building a plan for the entire domestic space program on this unique technology that we have almost ready. On the contrary, we are scattering energy and money on projects that will not change the overall picture if successful, but money and time will be wasted.
    Soyuz-5 is of course a good rocket, but within the framework of the global perspective of the development of the solar system, the advent of TEM does not show an advantage compared to the current Soyuz. Both can send cargo to LEO. And then they can still be towed by TEM to other orbits. Including the orbits of other bodies.
    Let the current “Angara” remain in this form and continue to develop in this way without any appearance of “superheavies”. After all, with the advent of TEM, there will be no need to use super-heavy launch vehicles for space exploration. It will be possible to limit ourselves to ordinary medium and heavy launch vehicles. Where both the first and second send cargo only to LEO, and to other bodies, or to higher orbits, let them be towed by REUSABLE and ECONOMICAL nuclear tugs.

    Even for flights to the Moon and Mars, you can create 2 variations of tractors.
    1 - ionic. Tractors powered by engines like our ID series, slowly accelerating, are capable of incredibly cheaply sending cargo far away. And if cargo is sent to a distance further than the orbits of Mars, then the gain will also be in the speed of cargo delivery (On current chemical rockets, it takes about 5 years to fly to Jupiter, it can be less, but then it must be a light cargo but on a very powerful rocket. And a nuclear tug can fly there in about 1 year).
    2 - plasma. A tractor that loses a little in efficiency gains in acceleration. Suitable for sending those cargoes for which travel time is critical (People, fuel and provisions).

    In the first type, we send heavy loads to the orbit of the Moon and Mars, from which an orbital scientific transfer station will be automatically assembled. The same devices will send cargo and provisions there for a future manned mission. They also deliver the necessary cargo to the surface of the Moon and Mars in advance.
    And the second, plasma ones, after everything has been prepared by ion tractors, send a manned expedition with people. And they will be delivered faster, so that the ionizing radiation of space has less influence on them.
    THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO FOCUS ON!!!
    1. +1
      6 January 2024 07: 58
      Quote: Mustachioed Kok
      are towed by REUSABLE and ECONOMICAL nuclear tugs

      According to the estimated service life of the tug. The same delivery of cargo to Jupiter will be his first and last. Well, you need to calculate the flight time with the cargo, and then you need to return back. Not forgetting about braking for entering Jupiter orbit and for entering Earth orbit
      1. 0
        6 January 2024 12: 52
        Well, firstly, you can’t always use them for Jupiter, you can use them closer - for Mars or Venus, for example))
        And secondly, we are talking about the first generation of TEMs.
        Perhaps the successful experience of using the first tractors will improve the technology and increase the operating life of the reactors to 12, 15 or even 17 years.
        “Unions” were also not built right away.
        1. +1
          6 January 2024 12: 55
          Quote: Mustache Cock
          Well, firstly, you can’t always use them for Jupiter, you can use them closer - for Mars or Venus, for example))
          And secondly, we are talking about the first generation of TEMs.
          Perhaps the successful experience of using the first tractors will improve the technology and increase the operating life of the reactors to 12, 15 or even 17 years.
          “Unions” were also not built right away.

          And the closer the flight distance, the worse; winning begins only from deep space. It takes him 180 days to fly from high orbit to GSO
          1. 0
            6 January 2024 17: 21
            Yes, I know. But until the orbit of the moon there is no gain only in time. But for the price of sending the device, there is already a gain.
            1. 0
              7 January 2024 11: 23
              Quote: Mustache Cock
              Yes, I know. But until the orbit of the moon there is no gain only in time. But for the price of sending the device, there is already a gain.

              Starship, the expected commercial launch price is 50 million bucks. How much will a tug cost there? Oh, for one launch into space it’s already 240 million for two Hangars
              1. -1
                8 January 2024 14: 49
                Quote: BlackMokona
                How much will a tug cost there? Oh, for one launch into space it’s already 240 million for two Hangars

                Khe khe.

                Now comes the bad news for the imaginary Russian nuclear tug.

                Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the DRACO program will carry a single performer forward to the flight demonstration, which is envisioned to take place by FY27. This performer will be responsible for building the NTR and its demonstration system stage. Phase 2 will involve a cold flow test of the rocket engine without nuclear fuel. Phase 3 will involve assembly of the fueled NTR with the stage, environmental testing, and launch into space to conduct experiments on the NTR and its reactor.
                https://www.darpa.mil/program/demonstration-rocket-for-agile-cislunar-operations
                1. +1
                  25 February 2024 16: 34
                  Negro
                  Khe khe.
                  Now comes the bad news for the imaginary Russian nuclear tug.
                  ..... DRACO program will carry a single performer forward to the flight demonstration, which is envisioned to take place by FY27. This performer will be responsible for building the NTR.....

                  DRACO program, NTR is a 60 year old program. roughly - this is a program to create an American nuclear engine. They will blow hydrogen through a pipe through a zone with uranium into outer space. what comparative attitude can the Russian have to it? nuclear tug?
                  Americans, even if Santa Claus gives them this engine right now, will be able to simply “humanly” put it into operation in space several times (3,4,5) longer for acceleration when starting from the Earth - this is it will just give you speed and a radioactive plume, and nothing more. further, after the start - it is unnecessary and dangerous - you need to unfasten it.
                  the tug is a closed reactor cooling circuit, reactor - only for generating electricity. what kind will be there electric jet engines at first (brand, power, etc. and it doesn’t really matter) - it will be finally known this year.
                  .
                  Draco-Smako can only quickly launch into deep space - then he is helpless - only photos, beep-beep, measuring the temperature, radioactivity of the surrounding space.
                  the tug will approach another planet, land in orbit and turn on a payload with the power of two ISS - it can chop ice for five to ten years without a break, it can pump the radar, scan the planet, jam, change the orbit, defend itself, be used as a factory - there is power supply !
                  1. 0
                    25 February 2024 16: 57
                    news for an imaginary Russian nuclear tug.

                    It was the Americans who abandoned this topic in the 2000s due to unresolved problems with materials.
                    - our full-size reactor has been standing at VDNH since this year for a reason
                    - cooling options are being tested on the ISS
                    - several engine options are ready and almost ready
                    money has been allocated for the implementation of the project.
                    work has been actively carried out since 2015
                    2019-2024 - development of preliminary design.
                    2030 - launch.
                  2. 0
                    29 February 2024 20: 32
                    Quote: Disant
                    DRACO program, NTR is a 60 year old program

                    I gave you a quote from the current Dapra website.
  22. 0
    6 January 2024 03: 50
    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    how, besides GLONASS, we don’t see anything global (and that’s a stretch)

    Not true. There is a cool radio telescope Spectrum RG
    1. +2
      6 January 2024 11: 47
      "Spectra" is certainly a respectable scientific project - but it is not "global", do not confuse hot with loud. The same GLONASS had and has the potential to become a competitor to GPS with the introduction of funds from it into our budget global operation. And its infrastructure itself in this case would inevitably be located all over the planet (monitoring stations), which would also make this project global - at the moment these stations exist somewhere, somewhere a bolt has been hammered into them and others are stepping on their heels regional positioning systems - Beidou (PRC) and Galileo (EU).
      Global is a project covering significant territories outside and generating income from these territories. The income from Spectra outside is small, if we don’t give out data from them on a “qui-pro-quo” basis, this project is not global, although from a scientific point of view it is a success (one of the few), that’s for sure.
    2. 0
      6 January 2024 19: 15
      "Spectrum RG" is an X-ray telescope. The radio telescope was Spektr-R, but it worked for 7 years, and contact with it was lost in 2019.
  23. 0
    6 January 2024 16: 01
    Note to the author. RD-0124MS on the second stage alone. Consists of two two-chamber blocks.
  24. +2
    6 January 2024 21: 26
    The Soyuz 5 rocket is good, but it has one BUT. Even if the cost of launching a kilogram on it will be 10 times less than Falcon, the so-called. unfriendly, and in fact enemy, 54 countries will not launch not only military satellites with its help, as was the case not so long ago, but also peaceful satellites. And then we will launch only our military ones, and rarely peaceful satellites, for which the price is not so important, you can even use the R-7 (not young, but reliable, remember the genius of Sergei Pavlovich!) And in general, we are the undisputed leaders in space race, because if in 2013 we successfully launched as many as 32 missiles, and the United States only 19 missiles, then in 2023 we launched as many as 19 missiles, and the United States only launched a measly 108 missiles (in 2024 they are planning 161, dreamers, you understand) And China is some kind launched a measly 65 missiles in 2023. But if we, in addition to Soyuz 5, also had a super-trampoline for them. Comrade Ragozin (or now Borisov?), then these runts would have merged altogether, Russia would simply have become the first in everything and everywhere. The time of the first, you know, will return. The infection will return. How do you like this, I. Musk?
    1. 0
      April 13 2024 10: 04
      > And then we will launch only our military, and rarely, peaceful satellites...

      but the namesake by the name of Borisov believes that we need to make satellites on an assembly line, which means we will need to launch them often.

      > unfriendly, and in fact enemy, 54 countries will not launch not only military satellites with its help, as was the case not so long ago, but also peaceful satellites.

      firstly, it’s not a fact at all.
      secondly, we have potentially huge domestic demand. Yes, at first it will need to be shaken up, but this is a matter of political will, money and time.
      c-3, The Global South is coming.

      And in general, your namesake correctly says that the main thing is satellite services, the launches themselves are a few percent of the space pie.
  25. 0
    7 January 2024 07: 07
    How long can you broadcast this duck about ov on the Moon? Really annoying.
  26. 0
    7 January 2024 07: 13
    How did you decide that Falcon's launch cost is 62 million?
  27. 0
    7 January 2024 15: 05
    In two years, Starship will most likely begin commercial launches.

    Just like that, new-generation starlink satellites with direct connection to smartphones will also be loaded for it.

    What should kill cellular operators in the future.
  28. 0
    7 January 2024 20: 31
    The question is different, the niche of Soyuz-5 should be occupied by Angara in a medium configuration. But... but... but... IMHO, the Soyuz will fly faster. The only question is the launch complex: Vostochny or Plesetsk.
  29. +1
    9 January 2024 15: 02
    Quote: d4rkmesa
    “It will be,” well, well.
    “If there was a rocket, there would be somewhere to launch it.” - This only works for Musk.

    Well, Musk is generally on the spot, launched a super heavyweight on the playground and nothing. Ours will also come up with something.
  30. 0
    10 January 2024 14: 45
    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    Why then was the well-functioning Proton shut down - a more than sufficient product for the military, including for the future and taking into account relocation outside Baikonur.

    Proton was never planned to be relocated. Never and nowhere. He was born in Baikonur, will die in Baikonur and will be buried in Baikonur.
    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    Yes, the “Proton” was toxic, but the design itself was less ancient than the “Soyuzovskaya” and for targeted launches it was possible, with a squeak of heart, to continue launching on UDMH, one thing we have long ago got used to all these environmentalists

    1. The Proton design has been around since the mid-1960s. Only 10 years younger than the Union. But for some reason this doesn’t bother you.
    2. It was precisely the Kazakh ecologists who were not disciplined. It was at their instigation that this good rocket was shut down. With all its disadvantages. We still don’t have any other heavy load at Baikonur. And it won't.
  31. +1
    11 January 2024 08: 11
    Quote: Trinitrotoluene
    What is a package union?
    tandem zenith, what is this?

    In general terms. The package arrangement of the engines provides for tying the starting and detachable first stages to the second stage block. Examples - R-7 and its entire family, Proton, Energy.
    Tandem layout - sequential arrangement of stages and engines, respectively. Examples are all silo-based missiles, Cosmos, Cyclone, Zenit missiles.
    Quote: Trinitrotoluene
    they wanted to install NK33 on the Soyuz, but then they forgot and now they decided to install RD,

    What kind of porridge? Union is the great-grandson of R-7. The Royal rocket, for which its own RD-107 engines were developed, designed by Energomash under the leadership of Glushko.
    The NK-33 engines, designed by Nikolai Kuznetsov, an aircraft engine designer, were created at the request of Korolev for the N-1 rocket. After Korolev had a fight with Glushko when he refused to make kerosene engines for the N-1, considering them ineffective and suggesting heptyl ones. As a result, Korolev remained with the NK-33, and Glushko began making heptyl engines for other missiles. In particular, on UR-100, 200, 500 Chelomey.
    Quote: Trinitrotoluene
    and Zenit is Voevoda Dnepropetrovsk, and he was always with RD170.

    Well, this is absolutely nonsense! Voivode is an R-36 missile. Main engine RD-264. Later she received the RS-20 index. It was created for silo deployment, according to the NATO classification Satan. Made up the nuclear shield of the USSR. Subsequently, according to the conversion program in the 2000s, it was named Dnepr. After a deep modernization, the R-36M2 version received the name Voevoda.
    The Zenit missile has nothing to do with the R-36. It was created for other purposes, using other technologies on other RD-170 engines and control systems. The only thing that unites these two completely different missiles is that they were manufactured at Yuzhmash in Dnepropetrovsk. It’s a shame not to know the basic concepts of materiel and to get involved in a dispute.
  32. +1
    11 January 2024 09: 35
    Why don’t they know what to load the missiles with?
    Where is our Starlink?
  33. 0
    April 26 2024 06: 24
    The problem with underload: about 15 years ago and then more than once, I proposed launching rockets on a schedule, like buses, so that the industry would work rhythmically and customers could count on a launch schedule. And the underload should be replenished with excess fuel, which can then be delivered to the ISS or refueled in equatorial orbit for tugs on geostationary orbit or other purposes.
    In principle, you need to have three refueling stations in orbit: on the ISS, in equatorial orbit and in the ecliptic plane.
    .
    By the way, the current ROS project is complete nonsense and a waste of money.