"Angara-A5" on Vostochny: the foundation for a great future

82
"Angara-A5" on Vostochny: the foundation for a great future
Launch of "Anragy-A5" from Vostochny, April 11, 2024


On April 11, the first launch of the promising Angara-A5 heavy-class launch vehicle took place from the Vostochny Cosmodrome. The launch was successful, and the rocket's payload was delivered to the desired orbit at the estimated time. This event is of particular importance for Russian cosmonautics. It shows the readiness of the rocket and the new launch pad for full operation, and also determines the path for the development of the industry for the long term.



First start


As the Roscosmos state corporation reported, the Angara-A5 rocket for the first launch from Vostochny was built at the end of last year. In the last ten days of December, PA "Polet" (Omsk) from the State Space Research and Production Center named after. M.V. Khrunichev sent the product in disassembled form to the cosmodrome. In January, Vostochny received the rocket and began preparations for a future launch. At the same time, the Energia rocket and space corporation sent the 14C48 Orion upper stage to the cosmodrome.

Assembling the rocket and installing the payload, testing and other activities took several months. On March 26, the Angara-A5 was taken out of the workshop and installed at the launch complex, after which a new stage of preparation for the flight began. Over the next two weeks, systems and units were checked, refueling, etc.

The rocket's launch was initially scheduled for noon on April 9. The final preparations went according to plan, but two minutes before launch the automation reported problems and canceled further procedures. Soon, Roscosmos said that there was a failure in the pressurization system of the oxidizer tank in the central block module of the rocket. Specialists began to fix this problem, and the launch was postponed for a day.


On April 10, the second launch attempt also failed. Immediately before the start, the automation noticed problems in the launch control system of one of the engines. To avoid undesirable consequences, the launch was interrupted. The Angara-A5 flight was again postponed for a day due to the need to correct the identified deficiency.

Finally, on April 11 at 12:00 Moscow time, the launch vehicle, having gone through all the procedures and automatic checks, turned on the engines and took off from the launch pad. Over the next few minutes, Angara-A5 gained the required altitude and speed, followed the specified trajectory and launched the payload into the intended orbit. The launch and flight took place without any problems and were considered successful.

The Orion upper stage with a spacecraft weight simulator, as well as the Gagarinets small satellite, were used as a test payload on the rocket. The latter separated from the rocket in low orbit, and Orion continued its flight. At 19:50, Roscosmos reported that the upper stage with the test load had successfully reached the design point of the geostationary orbit; the load was not separated. In the near future, in order not to interfere with space activities, Orion with a test cargo will move to a storage orbit.

Confirmed by practice


The launch on April 11 was carried out as part of flight development tests of the Amur missile complex, consisting of the Angara-A5 rocket and the Orion upper stage. Despite all the delays and two postponements, it took place and was considered successful. At the same time, during preparation for the launch and during the flight, a number of important tasks took place, and their successful solution contributes to the further development of the Angara and Amur programs, and also has a positive impact on the prospects of the rocket and space industry.


The Angara-A5 product for the recent flight was manufactured by the Omsk Polyot Production Association. This enterprise mastered the production of Angara family missiles only in the second half of the XNUMXs, and to date has managed to build only three heavy-class carriers. During the construction of the next rocket, Polet specialists were able to check the production line and supplement existing experience. Similar results from current work will help the serial construction of rockets in the future.

The entire new infrastructure of the Vostochny Cosmodrome has been tested. The installation and testing complex and its personnel confirmed their competence in the field of launch vehicle assembly and payload installation. The newly built launch complex and associated support facilities were inspected. If there were any difficulties, we dealt with them and gained the necessary experience useful for further work.

Unfortunately, the launch of Angara-A5 had to be postponed twice due to the incorrect operation of individual systems. However, correcting the shortcomings did not take much time. In addition, these incidents helped identify new potential sources of problems. Based on the results of the work carried out, the design of the rocket and its components will be improved to eliminate such situations in the future. Such results of work fully justify the postponement of the launch.

After correcting all the shortcomings, Angara-A5 successfully launched the Orion upper stage into a given orbit and confirmed its characteristics when launched from the new cosmodrome. Then the upper stage demonstrated its potential, delivering its cargo into geostationary orbit in a few hours. At the same time, data on the operation of all systems has been collected, on the basis of which conclusions can be drawn about the need for further improvement of the Angara or Orion.


Global implications


The rocket and space complex based on the Angara-A5 heavy-duty launch vehicle continues to undergo flight design tests, demonstrates its potential, and also helps to identify and correct design flaws. All these activities bring the launch of full operation of the new rocket and the new launch complex closer. In addition, current work will have a serious impact on the further development of domestic astronautics.

The main result of the Angara-A5 project is the emergence of a new heavy-class launch vehicle. For now, this niche is occupied by the Proton product, but its operation will be completed in the near future. The two rockets have similar payload characteristics, and the appearance of the heavy Angara will allow our rocket and space industry to maintain the required capabilities for launching heavy loads.

Angara-A5 has a number of important advantages over Proton. First of all, this is the novelty of the design. Officially, the Angara project started in 1995, but active work began later. The first launch of the new family of rockets took place in 2014. The new launch vehicle was built using modern technologies and materials, as well as taking into account the operating experience of older equipment. In addition, it was created from scratch and without the restrictions typical for projects to modernize existing products.

With the required characteristics, the Angara-A5 is easier and cheaper than the Proton to operate. Thus, all stages of the new rocket use kerosene as fuel, and liquid oxygen serves as the oxidizer. Proton engines use unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide, which are dangerous and require special measures. Refusal of such a fuel pair makes it possible to simplify the ground infrastructure of the missile system and reduce the cost of operation. Fuel standardization with other modern carriers is also ensured.


Rocket under assembly, March 2024

After completion of flight development tests, Angara-A5 will be involved in real projects. With its help, it is planned to send blocks of the future ROS orbital station into orbit. It is also expected to be used in manned missions, incl. in the most difficult ones. Unlike Proton, the new rocket will be able to lift heavy spacecraft with a crew on board.

Previously, Angara rockets were launched from the Plesetsk cosmodrome, which has its own characteristics and limitations. Operation of the launch complex on Vostochny has now begun. This facility has a more advantageous geographical location and allows for better results in the context of launches. In addition, Vostochny is located on Russian territory, and its operation does not depend on third countries. All this provides new important opportunities.

It should be recalled that the key feature of the Angara project is the modular architecture of the missiles. Media with different characteristics are assembled from standardized modules in one quantity or another. Due to this, it is possible to build rockets of different configurations with different payload capacities, and in the future such products will be able to replace not only the Proton, but also other carriers.

Reserve for the future


Thus, the domestic industry has successfully developed and brought to testing a new heavy-class launch vehicle and is already testing it at a new site. All necessary tests and related activities may take several more years, after which the Angara-A5 will go into full operation. In the future, other products of the promising family will be put into operation.

It is assumed that the new Angara-A5 rocket will occupy the niche of a heavy carrier over the next few decades. This means that the implementation of both already planned programs of various kinds and future promising projects directly depends on it. Accordingly, the recent launch of a new rocket from the Vostochny Cosmodrome is the most important event in stories national cosmonautics, and its importance is already difficult to overestimate.
82 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +10
    April 13 2024 05: 13
    The launch of the Angara from Vostochny - we are still in the space race, although we are not leaders like the USA and China, but the foundations have been laid for the coming decades. And second, independence from the Soviet “baggage” in the form of the Baikonur Cosmodrome. Today Tokayev, who wants to be friends with everyone, tomorrow a 100% pro-Western politician can come to power. There, China is nearby and will completely prevent the West from dominating, but it can turn a blind eye to individual pro-Western programs like “Don’t lease Baikonur to Russia.”
    The article hasn't written anything important yet. Behind any "Angara" is the work of UAZs" :)
    1. -1
      April 13 2024 09: 04
      Angara launch from Vostochny - we are still in the space race


      Who are you racing with, excuse me? Of course, import-substituted Zenit is better than no Zenit, but the launch race is now taking place in other places.

      And essentially one company is racing against itself.
    2. -1
      April 14 2024 18: 43
      The Angara launch from Vostochny - we are still in the space race...

      Well, yes, we are ahead of the EU and India in rocket launches, and behind the EU, Japan and India in research astronautics.
      As for the Angara, this is a Russian rocket that is unsuccessful in concept. Universality did not happen - there will be no Angara-3 and Angara-7. The rocket is complex and expensive, compared to the same Proton. Outdated yesterday. But we don’t have anything else and don’t expect it. So we rejoice, but quietly :)
      1. KCA
        -1
        April 15 2024 09: 28
        The first 4 A5s may be more expensive, but the Angara has a huge potential for cost reduction - modularity, it can be assembled from two stages, from three, from three with two propulsion modules on the sides, they did not do it, because it turned out to be a competitor to Soyuz-5, so there will be no Angara-3, there will be A2.1 and A5, with five engines on the sides
        1. 0
          April 28 2024 00: 12
          In Falcon 9, this “potential” is realized much more simply - landing on land and/or refueling with less fuel.
      2. 0
        April 15 2024 09: 34
        Universality did not happen - there will be no Angara-3 and Angara-7

        Hangar 7 can be replaced with a hydrogen third stage on the A-5. The niche of Angara-3 is currently blocked by the Soyuz. The hangar was needed specifically to replace Protons, and not for racing, but in order to maintain the ability to launch rockets of this class, and from its own territory.

        Outdated? compared to what to whom?
        1. 0
          April 15 2024 16: 39
          alexmach Okay, what then will replace the A-7 with a hydrogen third stage? And the Soyuz DOES NOT COVER A-3 - the carrying capacity is two (almost) times lower. Soyuz-5 is blocking, but it’s not there. It would be necessary to make S-5 first, and then attach smaller side frames to it. But “versatility” was fooled into the minds of someone in the country’s leadership and the result was an A-5 with a dubious ability to increase its carrying capacity. This is obvious.
          1. 0
            April 15 2024 17: 32
            It would be necessary to make S-5 first, and then attach smaller side frames to it

            They seem to be doing it little by little. Is not it so?
            But “versatility” was fooled into the minds of someone in the country’s leadership and the result was an A-5 with a dubious ability to increase its carrying capacity. This is obvious.

            It's not at all obvious at all.
            Why are you complaining that you only made A-5 and didn’t make A-3 and A-7? Is it possible that not everything has been lost yet, and they will be completed using the same universal components?
            The A-5, as I understand it, was urgently needed to replace the Proton and for the Vostochny cosmodrome. And it is, in principle, conceptually justified to make the same return stages for the Angara, unlike the same Proton.

            Well, how would you see the ideal for the development of astronautics?
            1. 0
              April 15 2024 18: 56
              alexmach It’s not that I’m complaining, I just don’t consider Angara to be any kind of progress. And taking into account 30 years of fuss, this is a clear regression. Ideally, it was necessary to take the design of the same Proton as a basis and re-size it for kerosene and RD-190. And don’t build a Lego set from small blocks, from scratch. It would be cheaper and more powerful. Well, or “dance” from Zenit, hanging 2-4 light sides if necessary. BUT! This is how government orders are structured, that it is more profitable (for interested parties, not for the state) to do it expensively and take a long time than to do it cheaply and quickly.
            2. 0
              April 17 2024 08: 10
              Quote: alexmach
              Is it possible that not everything has been lost yet, and they will be completed using the same universal components?

              To complete something, you need to do something. But these configurations were simply abandoned and excluded from the project. The result was that yes, all the modularity and configurability is just an overcomplication of the design out of the blue.
              1. 0
                April 17 2024 10: 05
                As far as I understand, all space rockets are modular to one degree or another. The same mentioned Protons are modular and even unified with the UR-100, although other than the Protons themselves, no other configurations are currently being produced.

                But these configurations were simply abandoned and excluded from the project.

                Well, let’s say you were expelled today and returned tomorrow? I don’t understand why you think this can’t happen. As far as I understand, there are no technical obstacles to this.

                In addition, it is not entirely clear to me how expensive this modularity was.
            3. 0
              April 28 2024 00: 14
              To make “returnable” steps, you need to have at least a theoretical place where they could be planted. The location of the cosmodrome will not allow landing on water. There is nowhere to plant them. But it can be done, yes
              1. 0
                April 29 2024 12: 46
                The concept of the returnable sides of the Angara had a folding wing. Perhaps with such a wing the stage can be leveled to land and to the nearest suitable landing strip...
  2. The comment was deleted.
    1. +5
      April 13 2024 06: 01
      Where is Mask from Kirill Ryabov?
    2. +10
      April 13 2024 06: 28
      Quote: Army General
      But Musk doesn’t brag like that.

      Are you saying it doesn't have ads?
      1. 0
        April 28 2024 00: 20
        What's the point of advertising? There are no competitors.

        Just landed the first stage for the 300th time. Well, here's the message on Twitter. But this is an achievement that no one can even come close to repeating. Angara A5 flew for the 3rd time, so they danced in circles for a week. And what a trifle this is, just think about it for the 300th time
        1. 0
          April 28 2024 06: 38
          Quote: Hyperstein
          Just landed the first stage for the 300th time

          Well, this is not just one first stage, but 300 in total. In addition, the reusable use of these stages has one caveat - each time they eat up the payload that can be launched into space, which is why no one actually contacted them all this time.
          1. +1
            7 June 2024 02: 24
            I thought everyone understood everything. Look, here's the economics of Vial 9:
            First stage - 42,
            Second stage - 12
            First stage maintenance between flights - 3
            Full rocket refueling - 0.2

            * 2019 prices in million US dollars.

            The low efficiency of a reusable rocket means you spend more money on fuel. Which is much cheaper than a new first stage
            1. 0
              7 June 2024 16: 46
              Quote: Hyperstein
              I thought everyone understood everything. Look, here's the economics of Vial 9:

              And besides the steps? If the conditional 20 tons need to be put into orbit, then until they are taken out the task is not solved. Each launch is not only stages and fuel, it is a huge complex of activities - assembly, adjustment, testing, plus the manufacture of the carrier ship itself, in which the cargo will be placed.
    3. +1
      April 13 2024 16: 12
      Yeah, wasn’t it Musk who talked about a million people on Mars? no, isn't he?
    4. +1
      April 13 2024 21: 27
      Yes you what.
      Musk has an advertising budget larger than the entire budget of Roscosmos for this Angara, I think.
      Musk is the one who receives funding and has become famous precisely because he “shows off.”
      Of course, to say that NASA’s budget flows smoothly into Musk’s budget and that NASA technologies were given to Musk for free - well, this cannot be said. Otherwise, you can disgrace the bright genius of the super engineer.
      In fact, Musk is a very talented organizer. He has a good sense of what will be in demand. And he's damn lucky. An explosive mixture in general.
      But in general, the USA gave him everything. Technology, permits, financing, everything.
      And yes, with this he started droning on an awesome startup and got up.
      Well done, no questions.

      But it’s impossible to say that “Musk doesn’t brag.” This is precisely where he rises constantly.
      1. +1
        April 14 2024 18: 53
        Quote: Denis812
        But in general, the USA gave him everything. Technologies, permits, financing, everything...

        no, not everything. Musk has his own technologies, and they are the majority. And the fact that the state invests in a promising business that it itself needs is normal. Unlike some...
      2. +2
        April 15 2024 08: 42
        I didn't notice that NASA has reentry stage technology. Or an oxygen-kerosene engine with a price tag of 800 thousand and the ability to restart. I didn’t notice that they had methane engines with the ability to restart.
  3. -4
    April 13 2024 06: 40
    Everyone is interested in the prospects of Baikonur. To what extent will it be advisable in the future to depend on the whims of the Kyrgyz?
    1. +9
      April 13 2024 07: 15
      Not Kyrgyz, but Kazakhs. It doesn't matter at all. All look the same wassat
      1. +7
        April 13 2024 10: 04
        In Tsarist Russia they had never heard of any Kazakhs. These current ones were called Kirghiz-Kaysaks. But I don’t know the self-name of this nationality - Russian speakers in Kazakhia called the locals Kalbits.
        1. +10
          April 13 2024 10: 29
          I remember from childhood they were always called Kalbits
      2. 0
        April 13 2024 10: 11
        They themselves have not really decided whose descendants, tomorrow I will call Kazakhs, are not the essence, but I agree on one thing, there is no difference, the main point in the question, but I have not heard the answer.
        1. 0
          April 14 2024 13: 22
          They can also say Uighurs, like the first president Nazarbayev.
      3. 0
        April 14 2024 18: 57
        Quote: Sergey250455
        Not Kyrgyz, but Kazakhs. It doesn't matter at all. All look the same

        This is true. It’s like Russians and Ukrainians, the division is mainly territorial.
  4. +1
    April 13 2024 07: 16
    Our future is still in a thick fog, but if "Angara - 5" (started work in 1995), similar in payload capacity to the "Proton" (development 1961-1967) - this "several decades ahead"- This is not an enviable future for our country. Even with all the optimism of the author.
    1. +9
      April 13 2024 09: 03
      Quote: ivan2022
      "Angara - 5" (start of work in 1995), similar in payload capacity to "Proton" (development 1961-1967)

      Let me remind you: the Gorky Automobile Plant began its work with the production of GAZ-AA one and a half trucks in 1932. Currently it produces Gazelles with the same carrying capacity. Following your logic - why would they continue to make GAZ-AA? Read the article carefully again.
      1. +8
        April 13 2024 09: 38
        Currently produces "Gazelle" of the same carrying capacity

        )))
        The newest American Vulcan rocket has a thrust of the first methane stage of about 500 tons. This is a third of the thrust of one side of the Shuttle and 2/3 of the thrust of one of the five engines of the first stage of Saturn.

        They have deteriorated, it turns out.
        1. 0
          April 14 2024 13: 28
          The Yankees, after the death of the designer, a naturalized German by birth - Wernher von Braun, were no longer able to repeat the creation of an engine like Saturn.
          Only Elon Musk is trying to recreate Brown's Saturn-type engine.
          1. +1
            April 14 2024 13: 45
            This is, of course, awesome news, but Brown did not work on engines at all, just like Korolev. And Space X engines have nothing in common with F1. I mean, nothing in common at all.
          2. 0
            April 14 2024 15: 14
            Did you mean naturalized American of German descent?)
          3. 0
            April 14 2024 19: 06
            Only Elon Musk is trying to recreate Brown's Saturn-type engine.

            No. These are different engines. The closest thing to the Saturn in terms of thrust and size is the RS-68 from Delta, also created in the 1970s, but not kerosene, but hydrogen.
          4. 0
            April 15 2024 08: 56
            The F-1 (and E-1) were created at Rocketdyne. Before the lunar program. And yes, this is a private company
    2. +1
      April 13 2024 09: 57
      But in this scheme you can’t invent anything breakthrough; everything was invented in the 60s, both here and in America. It’s just being improved technologically. But when the working fluid is metal vapors accelerated by an electromagnetic field powered by a thermonuclear reactor, then this will be a breakthrough.
  5. +14
    April 13 2024 08: 56
    The hangar became conceptually obsolete after the start of commercial operation of the Falcon 9 with a reusable first stage and a returnable fairing. Tonight they set a new record - the 20th successful landing of the same first stage. Falcon is by far the most reliable rocket in the world in terms of the duration of a series of accident-free launches.
    Since the beginning of the year, 73 launches have taken place around the world:
    -USA: 41 (56%)
    -China: 12 (17%)
    -Russia: 6 (8%)
    -New Zealand: 4 (5%)
    -Japan: 3 (4%)
    -India: 2 (3%)
    -Iran: 2 (3%).

    Moreover, back in 2019, out of 103 launches, the first place was occupied by China: 34, Russia: 25, USA: 21.
    1. +10
      April 13 2024 09: 21
      Moreover, back in 2019, out of 103 launches, the first place was occupied by China: 34, Russia: 25, USA: 21.


      These are stupid numbers. In the states we flew nines, twice heavy, deltas (once heavy) and atlases. The Chinese mainly have medium and light class missiles. The United States was already in the lead in terms of workload.

      Well, on the plus side, the numbers show a huge increase in the number of launches: in the 1st quarter, almost the same amount was launched as in a year 5 years ago. This growth is driven by low-orbit satellite constellations, that is, first of all, again by Musk.

      Yes, Angara is conceptually outdated, but nevertheless it’s better than nothing. The booster first landed more than 8 years ago, and the second Falcon has not yet been seen (except for the senior ship, cough cough). Some have been left without missiles ever since, and without all of them at once - just ask Aryan.
      1. +2
        April 13 2024 09: 41
        Yes, Angara is conceptually outdated, but nevertheless it’s better than nothing. The booster first landed more than 8 years ago, and the second Falcon has not yet been seen (except for the senior ship, cough-cough).


        A proton is nothing, although it is clear that there is no point in developing reusable rockets on heptyl engines, but on the Angara with oxygen-kerosene engines this is potentially possible, the question is whether they can.
        According to your classification, I would call Heavy the second Falcon.
        Nine - first successful landing in 2015
        Heavy - 2018.
        This year marks the first successful orbital launch of Starship, I hope they will learn how to land and bring it to commercial operation by 2026. Our market for commercial launches will still not be returned, but at least there will be an opportunity to look at a space station on the Moon, and maybe at the beginning of the colonization of Mars.
        1. +3
          April 13 2024 10: 01
          Well, I still perceive Mars as somewhat crazy. They forgot about the market for Roscosmos; the market and geopolitics do not go together. Rumor has it that it is not the rockets that are dragging the Russian cosmonautics into the well - they still exist - but the loads, in the sense of their absence. Angara has launched mock-ups all the time, this is the first time a cubesat. One cubesat on a heavy-duty rocket.

          It's funny that right now Bezos is buying up all the launches he sees. So I could buy a dozen Angara launches. But when you take off your head, you don’t cry over your hair, as they say.

          As for the senior officer, let's not exaggerate for now. Regarding the Hawaii option, one can still argue about its orbitality, with reference to Gagarin (although I, for example, am ready to agree that Gagarin’s launch was not orbital either). But the launch into the Indian Ocean was definitely not orbital, and the ban on orbital speed was directly stipulated. Until Musk learns how to deliver Starship to the water in one piece with an accuracy of plus or minus a stop, at least a train stop, he will not be allowed to launch such a colossus into orbit.
        2. +2
          April 13 2024 12: 27
          We need a whole heap of everything for Mars - this is at least 1 rover, which will ride there for a year to the places where we would like a station. And this is already a horizon of at least 5 years - until they do it, until it gets there, until it works there, until it’s digested. And we don’t have a Mars rover.
          It is commercially feasible to launch only spacecraft and rovers to Mars without a superheavy; as long as there is no superheavy, you can forget about Mars and the same can be said about the Moon. Of course, yes, it is possible to send ships with little men to the Moon in 2 launches with heavy rockets, but I’m afraid to even imagine how much money and number of launches it would cost to create a base using the same “Angara”. What is needed here is a more powerful solution - which does not exist at the moment. It seems like it was designed but frozen.
          In our case, they “designed” it at least 10 years before metal. That is, tomorrow, if the super-heavy project is ready, then in about 10 years there will be the first flight. For now, the bottom line is that real success is still +3-4 years away. That is, this is all at the end of the 2030s-early 2040s, according to the most optimistic estimates. Mars is even further because we need to develop more on Mars, we have no experience of Mars rovers, except for PROPs, which, purely technically, visited the surface during the time of the king of peas.

          We can say that we have already hopelessly missed the Martian race, we may still have time to stake something out in the Lunar race, the main thing is not to slow down..
        3. +1
          April 13 2024 20: 03
          Quote: Ivan Seversky
          and on the Hangar with oxygen-kerosene engines this is potentially possible
          No, kerosene must be removed: it slagging the engine.
          1. +1
            April 14 2024 13: 38
            No, kerosene must be removed: it slagging the engine.

            Then the question is: what then can replace the fuel on a rocket engine? Methane or hydrogen???
            We went through with hydrogen - this is “Energia”, which launched Buran into orbit.
            Methane - it is still in development, it is not known when it will be brought to fruition.
            1. 0
              April 14 2024 13: 47
              Hydrogen is very hemorrhoids and expensive, although it is most effective. Methane will probably work. The fact that it is still in development is not scary: we don’t yet have anything to launch in such quantities that we would need reusable rockets. In terms of money, I’m not sure that our reusable rockets will be cheaper than conventional ones (our conventional ones were very cheap).
            2. KCA
              +1
              April 15 2024 09: 36
              Hydrogen is a little aggressive and destroys not only plastic and rubber gaskets, but also metal, I doubt that hydrogen-oxygen tanks and engines can be reused
              1. 0
                April 15 2024 09: 50
                That’s why I wrote that we have passed the hydrogen technology. The only remaining option is methane. When it will be brought to fruition is unknown. request
                1. KCA
                  +1
                  April 15 2024 10: 03
                  Fire tests of the RD-191M have already taken place; in a couple of years they will deliver the A5 to the Angara
                  1. 0
                    April 15 2024 11: 01
                    But I somehow lost sight of this new type of engine.
                    Well, now we are waiting for a test run with this methane engine for the Angara-5, and not only for it, but also for other modifications.
                    Thank you for clarification! hi
          2. 0
            April 17 2024 08: 04
            Quote: bk0010
            No, kerosene must be removed: it slagging the engine.

            The 9th landing of a Falcon 1 single stage shows that it's not all that slagging. And all because rockets use not just kerosene, but RP-1 (in the West) or naphthyl (in the Russian Federation). Fractions that form soot have been removed from it, and according to the standard naphthyl contains even less of them than in RP-XNUMX (which Falcons fly on).
    2. +4
      April 13 2024 14: 08
      Isn't the wheel or the knife conceptually outdated? The main work is carried out using reliable, well-established technologies. Angara A5 is a “workhorse” in the heavy class for Russia in the near future. In 10 years, a methane reusable one in this class may appear. Russia is not in the mood for records now; it needs to solve its problems, trying not to fall behind critically in key technologies.
      1. 0
        April 15 2024 08: 59
        In 10? Ahem, the Angara has been in development for 29 years. And here's another test run
        1. 0
          April 15 2024 11: 07
          Let's see. Soyuz-LNG is currently planned to be launched in 2030. On its basis, the creation of a super-heavy launch vehicle is being considered. Work on the methane engine is still ongoing, two prototypes (RD-0162, RD-0177) are working. You may have to tinker with the return system. But in any case, I’m sure the topic will not be dropped.
  6. 0
    April 13 2024 09: 54
    I remember how they laughed at Musk after the successful flight of the Dragon, saying that Musk repeated what Russia did in 1961.
    Therefore, I would like to remind all those who talk about significant success and breakthroughs in Russian cosmonautics that Angara did what the Flakonovskaya nine have already done more than 200 times))
    1. +1
      April 13 2024 10: 37
      You're a little behind)
      Falcon 9 has already made 323 launches (of which 320 were successful, one partially successful), Falcon Heavy 9 launches, all successful. I remember always watching the broadcasts of the Niners’ first touchdowns. Now I only continue to watch Heavy and Starship, the rest is routine.
      1. +3
        April 13 2024 11: 45
        . Falcon 9 has already completed 323 launches (of which 320 were successful, one partially successful)


        Arithmetic. 323 launches, one accident with loss of load, one partial success (the main load flew away, but due to insufficient speed and adjustment of the second stage orbit, NASA prohibited the launch of the secondary load due to the risk of its collision with the ISS). So 321 successes. If the hint is a launch at Zuma into the ocean, then this launch is considered successful from the point of view of the rocket’s performance.
      2. 0
        April 15 2024 09: 00
        The 300th landing of the first stage is coming soon. In the beginning of May
  7. +4
    April 13 2024 09: 54
    The future belongs to annular, two-stage, landable launch vehicles, in which the first-stage upper stage assemblies, "Angara" type, are connected by a single frame into a ring, which uses the operation of an open thermal rocket engine (ORTE), initiated by the ejection of atmospheric air into the pinched annular zone combustion of rocket launchers (ring assembly of launch vehicles). This is the only way to put an extremely massive load into orbit. (Patent in the public domain)
    1. 0
      April 14 2024 16: 07
      Quote: 89824024836
      The future belongs to annular, two-stage, landable launch vehicles, in which the first-stage upper stage assemblies, "Angara" type, are connected by a single frame into a ring, which uses the operation of an open thermal rocket engine (ORTE), initiated by the ejection of atmospheric air into the pinched annular zone combustion of rocket launchers (ring assembly of launch vehicles). This is the only way to put an extremely massive load into orbit. (Patent in the public domain)
      These annular launch vehicles are similar to the ramjet engine of the first stage of the launch vehicle with an ejector thrust increaser. By the way, a superconducting magnet can be inserted into the mentioned ring. And you get a magnetohydrodynamic jet engine with a magnetic nozzle. Particularly good for use at altitudes of 50..100 km, because allows you to increase the payload of the launch vehicle by reducing the mass of the on-board oxidizer and increasing the speed of the jet stream by increasing the stagnation temperature of the jet stream and eliminating problems with overheating of the thin walls of the Laval nozzle of the rocket engine. These walls glow white during Falcon-9 launches. The temperature of the nozzle walls is on the verge of softening the metal from which they are made.
      1. 0
        April 20 2024 23: 49
        The proposed type of annular landing hypersonic first stage of the launch vehicle, which uses the ejection of atmospheric air into the pinched annular combustion zone of the rocket jet torches (ring assembly of the launch vehicle):
  8. +2
    April 13 2024 10: 50
    Well done guys, you did everything right. There is no need for rush and fever. Clear actions, worked out scenarios of emergency situations without adventurism and other nonsense. Smart guys. Now you can exhale and praise yourself. And Borisov’s lesson for the future is to never engage in verbiage again until the task at hand is completed. Any comments ahead of the curve are a sign of failure.
  9. +2
    April 13 2024 13: 47
    But we had “Energy”. Up to 100 tons in low-Earth orbit and up to 32-34 tons in lunar orbit. But, thanks to “effective management”, the technology, sort of, was lost... The fact that they switched to safer fuel is, of course, a big plus. But mass characteristics are still far away...
    1. +2
      April 13 2024 14: 17
      Quote: Doc1272
      . The fact that we switched to safer fuel is of course a big plus.
      At Energia, the first stage operated at oxygen-kerosene, second on oxygen-hydrogen - for today - this is an ideal selection of fuel components
      1. +2
        April 13 2024 14: 22
        Did not know. Hmm, then why are they reinventing the wheel? Surely some diagrams and materials remain. Use what is known and develop again what is lost. In my unprofessional opinion, this is both simpler and cheaper. Or as always; do we create difficulties and then courageously overcome them?
        1. 0
          April 15 2024 08: 57
          . Did not know. Hmm, then why are they reinventing the wheel?

          What do you mean they didn't know? Didn't you know that all royal rockets are kerosene?
          1. 0
            April 24 2024 10: 23
            I didn’t know the details about Energy. I'm not an expert, far from it. I just read that it was officially recognized that “the technology has been lost.” And I couldn't understand how or why. After all, everything is stored, at least in archives.
      2. 0
        April 15 2024 09: 16
        .at the moment this is an ideal selection of fuel components

        Hard to say. Energy is a strange rocket in general.

        Spheroconic TT boosters are removed from the dense layers of the atmosphere, a kerosene or methane block is thrown onto a ballistic trajectory, and a hydrogen block is sent into orbit. In practice, Musk has proven that all this can be done with the same engine, respectively, on the same fuel pair. Losing in mass perfection, but gaining in economics. To launch the same load, a rocket that is half the price will outperform a rocket that is half the weight. No one is interested in the weight of the rocket at all.
    2. 0
      April 14 2024 13: 42
      thanks to "effective management" technology, like, lost...

      Nothing of the kind, this technology has been preserved, but the game is too expensive...
      Oops, you beat me to it:
      At Energia, the first stage operated on oxygen-kerosene, the second on oxygen-hydrogen - at the moment - this is an ideal selection of fuel components

      Here is your answer to the “loss” of technology.
  10. +1
    April 13 2024 14: 07
    At one time, in our manned cosmonautics, the Soyuz launch vehicle was supposed to be replaced by the Zenit launch vehicle. But with the collapse of the Union, this topic died out (Zenit launch vehicle developed by Yuzhnoye Design Bureau). Now, according to this scheme (with an RD-171 engine), the Soyuz-5 launch vehicles (aka Irtysh) are being created. But we haven’t heard anything about it coming to replace our workhorse “Soyuz”. It's a pity.
    And the reusable spacecraft "Zarya" is the same, undeservedly forgotten...
    1. +1
      April 13 2024 16: 08
      So Soyuz-5 is not planned to replace Soyuz-2. If the 2nd can be launched from all available cosmodromes (meaning different models), then the 5th is so far focused exclusively on Baikonur. From the start of Zenit, which was transferred into the possession of the Kazakhs and should be modernized by them. And whether this will be done or not - only Allah knows. And given the state of work here, the prospects for Soyuz-5 are very vague.
  11. +1
    April 13 2024 14: 16
    Orion with the test cargo will move into storage orbit.

    There might be an interesting deal there.
    It may not be. Now let the “partners” in the game rack their brains.
  12. -1
    April 13 2024 18: 03
    Why not launch from Baikonur? After all, the closer to the equator, the less expensive the launch?
    1. +2
      April 13 2024 19: 57
      Baikonur is the property of Kazakhstan under the lease of the Russian Federation, and if something happens, the Russian Federation will lose the manned program as such for several years, because for another 10 years there will be no place to let people from the East, and there is nothing to use.
      1. 0
        April 13 2024 19: 58
        When and if something happens - this will be in the future - but for now, why not let it in - not raise the carrying capacity?
        1. +2
          April 13 2024 20: 07
          Why build a new launch pad at Baikonur if the Russian Federation will have to leave there anyway? The only question is when this will happen. If they had built a launch pad at Baikonur, then there would have been no point at all in Vostochny.
  13. -2
    April 13 2024 19: 58
    Refusal of such a fuel pair makes it possible to simplify the ground infrastructure of the missile system and reduce the cost of operation.
    Heavy Angara is much more expensive than Proton
  14. +4
    April 13 2024 20: 01
    Well done, of course. The main thing is that they made a patriotic rocket that will launch exclusively Russian cargo. But it was a little late in the development of the Angara (although it was developed very quickly, in just 32 years (1992-2024), not to mention still flying since then in the form of the Soyuz-2 rocket R-7, which was developed for as long as 3 (three) years 1954-57) and the Proton, which was developed for a long 6 years 1961-67, and then Nothing new has been developed either in the USSR or in the Russian Federation was, Energy doesn’t count) Because the same Falcon 9 already launches cargo at about 2 times cheaper than the Angara, according to experts’ calculations, and Starship in general will be 15-20 times cheaper. And alas, that’s why the greedy bourgeoisie and others like them won’t never use the Angara, even theoretically. So, ourselves, only ourselves, only and exclusively our own, Russian (well, also Belarusian) After all, we are rich, not like the future American space beggars. Cry, poor I. Musk!
  15. +2
    April 13 2024 21: 07
    Congratulations to all specialists who took part in this multi-year program! I wish you further success!
  16. 0
    April 13 2024 22: 37
    Quote: Negro
    These are stupid numbers. In the states we flew nines, twice heavy, deltas (once heavy) and atlases. The Chinese mainly have medium and light class missiles. The United States was already in the lead in terms of workload.

    That's right!

    If we compare, then by class, by mass launched into a certain orbit, by load.

    Otherwise it turns out like the joke about cabbage soup and beef cutlets.
    The launch of balloons into the stratosphere would also attract attention.
    Here we (Russia), in the opinion of home-based liberals and all sorts of political eunuchs, are generally thousands of years behind))
  17. 0
    April 15 2024 00: 19
    From 1992 to 2012, the Makeev Design Bureau carried out work on the reusable Korona rocket. Payload up to 7 tons when launched into an orbit of 200 km. In 2012, development was curtailed due to lack of funding.
    This is it - “How do you like this Elon Musk”?