Our problems with space are the result of making the wrong decisions.
I have great respect for the Queen and Glushko, but this does not mean that these people were perfect. To understand what went wrong, you need to consider the mistakes that were made along with the great achievements.
Errors of the USSR.
1. Bet on kerosene. Kerosene is not bad fuel, but it has a number of negative properties. First of all, it has a very poor cooling capacity, which leads to expensive engines. Secondly, engines with a camera type like the H-1 cannot have a camera larger than 600 mm (H-1 is just the limit in all characteristics), RD-107 / RD-108 engines, etc. may not have a camera larger than 430 mm. The RD-170/180/191/193 family of cameras has a total of 380 mm. The dimensions of the camera seriously limit engine thrust and force the creation of multi-chamber engines. So RD-270 on AT-NDMG is possible, but not on kerosene.
')
2. The quarrel between Korolev and Glushko was associated with Glushko’s inability to create an oxygen-kerosene engine with the necessary parameters necessary for a heavy rocket. As a result, Korolev, who demanded the oxygen-kerosene engine, organized a fabricated contest for Kuznetsov Design Bureau. Since Kuznetsova Design Bureau did not have the necessary resources, the engine turned out, albeit outstanding, but single-chamber, only 150 tons. This resulted in problems with the H1 rocket, since such a number of engines was too large. The rocket was not very successful.
3. The creation of H1 without bench testing using the R-7 technology led to a slowdown in work and gave rise to the closure of the program. Although the rocket would definitely fly on a 5 or 6 launch.
4. The original Martian rocket Queen could not be anything other than an adventure. The fact is that without having spent technologies to immediately fly to Mars is a one-way ticket with a fatal outcome. Unfortunately, on the wave of enthusiasm and successes of the Soviet cosmonautics, this was not taken into account.
5. The redesign of the Martian H1 by 70 tons with five launches into the lunar single-launch H1 by 90 tons led to serious delays and increased technical risks. Naturally the right decision was to fly to the moon in two launches without reworking the rocket.
6. The mutual closure of Saturn-5 and H1 by backstage agreement. Khrushchev was removed in October 1964, while the difficulties with financing H1 began in early 1964:
“At the beginning of 1964, a number of difficulties arose, primarily due to the non-fulfillment of the planned scope of work due to insecurity or a total lack of funding, especially in the construction of the necessary production facilities, laboratories and departments. In 1964, work on the H1 rocket was not funded enough (two to three times less than required. "
It is possible both to compete with other RNs, and the fact that Khrushchev realized that the kerosene H1 cannot be used as a military missile or other reasons, such as reducing confrontation with the United States, it is also possible that with the weakening of Khrushchev, H1 funding also decreased. I do not harbor any illusions about Khrushchev, he is no better than Brezhnev, he needed rocket attacks and plowing up virgin lands for the introduction of social democracy and the settling of accounts with socialism and Stalin.
The death of the Queen *, the coming to power of Brezhnev and the occupation of the place of Queen Glushko led to a number of consequences:
I was sarcastically asked in the comments if I didn’t consider the death of the Queen as accidental. I do not know, I can only say that it was very timely, since the withdrawal of the Queen and the appointment of Glushko would have shocked the entire industry. Although H1 I think so and so would be closed.
6.1 The sharp decline in space enthusiasm in the USSR. In fact, all the projects of the Queen were minimized. So for example, the R-7 was abandoned for further improvement, H1 was closed (besides H1, two more missiles, which were at the high readiness level) were closed, the Proton-K was almost closed. Excellent engines NK-15/33, RD-270, RD-119 were scrapped. The closure of the almost finished H1 and the discovery of Energy-Buran is an absolutely typical example of sabotage, to create a situation of "running in place." Later, Energia-Buran will also be shut down under a false pretext in 1990. We see it now: Proton-Zenit-hydrogen (Angara-1) -Angara-A5, Ob.195-T14, MFI-PAK FA, Ka-50-Mi-28N, AEK-AK-12, Bark-Bulava and etc.
6.2 The appointment of an excellent engine engineer to the post of designer of missiles led to a dramatic change in the views of Glushko. So Glushko former supporter of UDMH suddenly turned into a supporter of kerosene. For example, Oxygen-UDMH has about 10 seconds more UI with the same pressure, and because of better cooling, the engine will be either cheaper or noticeably more powerful, say about 30%. Those. convert the RD-170 to oxygen-UDMH and 1000 tons of thrust can be obtained right now.
6.3 Glushko was a rather weak leader. First of all, because instead of his rocket, he actually began to make a unpromising copy of the Space Shuttle. Although Glushko did not like Buran and doubted its effectiveness, in the hope that he would be allowed to fly to the Moon in exchange for supporting Buran and closing H1, he agreed to make Energy - empty illusions.
In the comments I was informed that the alleged closure of H1 was due to lack of funds. This is certainly nonsense: you are closing a rocket on the development of which 4 billion Soviet rubles were spent.
“In June 1974, work on the H1-LZ complex was discontinued. The existing reserve was destroyed, the costs were written off (in the prices of the 70s, costs amounted to 4 billion rubles) "
The cost of one launch of the H1 is unlikely to be more than 100 million rubles, and given that the missiles were actually collected and already naturally paid, and even less. Moreover, you do not just close H1, but before H1 close, launch another rocket, which cost more than H1. The cost of Energia-Buran is estimated at about 16.4 billion rubles in 1990, if we assume that inflation has doubled since 74, then in prices of 74 years, the cost of Energiya-Buran cost 8.2 billion rubles, which is two times higher than the value of H1. Nice savings true?
The result of the closure of the lunar program and the cancellation of a number of missiles, engines and development was a huge damage and slowing down of the USSR’s space development to almost zero. Replacing H1 with the USSR Energy gave nothing at all. And if to consider the Buran, it led to squandering of means. Few people know that in general a good (for its time) R-7 became a long-lived just because there was simply nothing to replace it, since the development of the missiles were practically curtailed in favor of the unified Zenit-Groza-Energiya-Vulkan-Buran system. The collapse of this cyclopean universal and highly questionable system led to the collapse of almost everything. So we fly on tinned old men R-7, Proton, plus light rockets.
It is especially worth noting that very promising RD-270 engines were not used in Energy (in Western sources it is maliciously noted that the RD-270 had HF oscillations (a hint that RD-270 would never work), but HF and LF oscillations The RD-270s were in gas generators, not in the CS), and instead they began developing new RD-170 engines, which also led to a delay in creating the system.
Errors of Russia.
1. Refusal to force and increase the number of cameras on the RD-107/108. It is possible to force the RD-107 / RD-108 engines quite easily, for example, by cooling kerosene. Or replace the current cameras with analogues from NK-33. Methyl cyclohexane * fuels are also promising, cooled to -50 -60 degrees. The growth of Mon and economic indicators will be simply enchanting. So Soyuz-2v could be easily made on the forced five-chamber RD-107. Yes, the RD-107 is noticeably inferior to the NK-33 / RD-193, but it is also significantly cheaper, and most importantly, it does not require reworking of the rocket.
Methylcyclohexane can be extracted both from oil and by the method of synthesis of critics, well, at least look at your favorite Wikipedia:
“Production: Methylcyclohexane is contained in petroleum products and is released from them on an industrial scale. It is also possible to obtain it by catalytic hydrogenation of toluene. "
Industrial production means that it is not expensive within the framework of the cost of rocket fuel.
Quote from the book "Energy-consuming combustible for aviation and rocket engines":
“Receiving. Technical MTSG is produced according to TU 09-4345-76. In its pure form, MHZ is obtained by hydrogenation of toluene, which has been thoroughly observed by sulfonation and subsequent hydrolysis and clear rectification.
Toxic properties. MHZ refers to substances of the fourth class of danger. MPC 50 mg / m3. ”
Probably people compiling reference books on rocket fuels know a little more forum analysts. In addition, super cooling to -60 -50 and methylcyclohexane is required only if you are not going to refine the RD-107 / RD-108.
A mixture of methylcyclohexane with sintine allows to obtain a fuel that will have a low viscosity both at -50 and at a positive temperature (at sintin at -50 viscosity is greater than methylcyclohexane, and at +20 vice versa), in addition, it will reduce the toxicity and detination of sintin. Other cycloalkanes are also promising, for example methylcycloheptane or cyclopropanecycloheptane, cyclopropanecyclohexane (cyclopropanation increases the density and energy, at the same time reducing the crystallization temperature).
I think the responsibility here lies entirely on TsKB Progress, which followed the path of minor rocket improvements, but did not order an improved engine. It is ridiculous to think that Energomash, who created the RD-170, RD-191M, is not able to force the aged engine to 100-110 atm. For Soyuz-2b, only 2 accelerators would be required, and the payload would be 10-15 tons, and without the RD-0124. Roscosmos boasts that the current Union is worth $ 35 million, but there is nothing to brag about at current prices, Union 2 is a rather expensive rocket, since its Mon is not great either. But 35 million for 15 tons is another matter.
2. The organization of the competition for the first Angara was meaningless since we already had a Proton rocket. Few people know that as a result of an increase in thrust-to-weight ratio of engines, the power-to-power ratio became excessive. If you increase the starting mass of the Proton and reduce the thrust-to-weight ratio to the classic 1.25, then the Proton from Baikonur easily pulls out about 35 tons and 32.5 tons of Plesetsk. Here you have super cheap double launches.
If we make the first step on peroxide-kerosene, and the second and third steps on peroxide-borohydride, which are less toxic than AT-UDMH, then the MO easily rises a few more tons. In extreme cases, borohydride can be done at least RB. By reducing the engines could make and medium rocket.
An oxidizer from a mixture of tetranitromethane (1.643 g / cm3) 70% with AT (1.45 g / cm3) 30% is also promising, such an oxidizer is not only denser than pure AT, but also gives a higher ID with UDMH for about 3 seconds. Source: Himmotologiya rocket and jet fuels.
Borohydride is almost as toxic as UDMH. BUT Borodovodor in the presence of moisture in the air self-ignites and in the presence of water turns into non-toxic boric acid, while UDMH can decompose for years. In addition, non-toxic peroxide + toxic borohydride is still less toxic in total than toxic AT and toxic UDMH.
If you are interested in ecology, then there is an ideal fuel Peroxide-Acytilenedinitrile-Kerosene. Powerful, dense non-cryogenic, with excellent peroxide cooling capacity, simple single component HG and suitable for RD-276. Recently, information flashed that we signed a commitment to stop the use of toxic fuel in rockets until 2020; only a traitor or a fool could sign this agreement, especially given the difficult situation with new missiles and increased competition.
3. The organization of a new competition for the Angara led only to the fact that the new Angara became worse in terms of the economy of both the old established on the Soviet side and Proton. So the first Angara due to the reserve on RD-0120 had great reserves to increase the MO. And most importantly, she used the reserve on the automatic start of Zenith, the only one in the world.
4. Yes, the Angara-A5 is not perfect, but the situation can still be saved with small and inexpensive modifications, but it turns out that this is simply not necessary to anyone the rocket customer or developer. Considering the fact that the Angara is designed so that it has a maximum cost with a minimum PN and, accordingly, a maximum price for a CG (a sort of over-all-purpose F-35 4 in 1, which really cannot be a good light fighter, a good deck-based aircraft, or a good bomber or VTOL due to the error with the installation of the fan), then all this leads to serious reflections why it is necessary. You will see the fate of the Angara and the F-35 will be similar. I must say that the Angara among the missiles was not in a unique position.
5. If you look at Atlas-5 - Vulcan and Arian-5 - Arian-6, then everything moves there and that. As if lowering costs and forcing the engine at least to someone as a magician from a hat can make a new rocket out of the old one! Cosmetics from ugly, forgive me girls, or when the beauty does not, and the beauty will only beautiful.
6. Particularly interesting are the people who tried in the comments to the article about the Angara to openly lie that the alleged addition of nozzle nozzles weighing 22 kg (as much as 1% of the mass of RD-191) and adding at least 14 seconds and 8 tons above 10 km are supposedly too heavy for a rocket . What do you really do not need people to keep for idiots. Nozzle nozzles are ideal for Angara-A5 because it does not have multi-chamber engines, and the engines themselves are located far enough. By the way, at one time RD-0120 was planned to be made with retractable nozzles and this led to a noticeable increase in PN.
The same people claim that there are problems with mechanization, since the nozzles are put forward on the engine running. Pardon, but almost all of the nozzles are put forward on the working LRE, this is the specificity of their work, but apart from the RD-191, no one has problems with mechanization.
Where did the mass of nozzle nozzles come from: subtract the mass of the NK-33-1 from the mass of the NK-33 and get the mass of the hinge with the nozzle. Subtract the mass of the RD-191 from the RD-193 and get the mass of the hinge. Subtract the mass of the hinge and the nozzle from the mass of the hinge and get the approximate mass of the nozzle. However, and so it is clear that the mass of the nozzle can not be great.
7. Vostochny cosmodrome. I do not know whether the location of the cosmodrome in Sovetskaya Bay is really so unacceptable because of seismic danger, but not the location of the cosmodrome on the coast leads to serious costs when building heavy rockets. In the future, this may also lead to restrictions on the fields of incidence for new missiles. Suffice it to say that we are practically the only ones with a cosmodrome located far from the sea, and the question arises why. In Soviet times, it was clear that he was military and secret, but now he is civil and not secret. It remains to hope that the railway to Vostochniy will seriously expand in size. Otherwise, the operation of the East, like Baikonur, will be associated with serious costs.
8. I rejoiced at the Soyuz-5, which seems to have been created using backlog, which means it can be created quite quickly and will not be expensive until it became clear that the Soyuz-5 is part of the heavy Energy-K rocket, also known as Energy-5. You might think that if the Angara-5B will be done by another developer, then it will become another! If you want a good heavy rocket, then it is 4hRD-170 / RD-270 + 1hRD-170 / RD-270 + 1hRD-191M / 1hRD-276 / RD-0120 without options. Everything else is a repetition of the epic Energy-Angara. I want to replace that no foreign developer creates a new package of missiles package - they are all exclusively monoblock tendem. Perhaps there are some reasons for this?
Fuel.
Today, taking into account the requirements of the transportation of rockets by railways, we can distinguish a number of promising fuels with high energy, density and acceptable cooling properties. These are Peroxide-acitelendinitrile-kerosene and MAF gas. Perhaps even kerosene / cyclic hydrocarbons, with oxygen cooling. Methane is good and pleasant if it is necessary cheap and there are no restrictions on dimensions, while in our country most of the missiles are transported by rail.
Participation in the ISS under the influence of young reformers was our biggest mistake. First, we flooded with the World-1 part of the new, recently connected modules. Secondly, we connected World-2 units to the ISS. The world cost us $ 300 million and there was scientific equipment, the ISS costs us up to a billion, and we have very weak scientific equipment there. Those. the price has increased by three, and the possibilities have decreased. As far as I remember, our space on the ISS has decreased. Now the ISS serves as an incubator for the development of technologies of other countries, we have very little with the ISS. But when they stoked, they warned that it would be like that - we will subside, while other countries will use to fill up to our level. ISS is so unprofitable for us that it looks like a practically naked scam. In this regard, chronic problems with MLM (the name is what) Science does not look unexpected and is organically combined with our losses from the ISS, I think this is very beneficial for someone.
Sale of the floating cosmodrome S7. This company has not launched a single rocket yet, but it has already managed to throw us, sniff with our competitors, and spoil us in every way.In fact, to date, the floating spaceport for them is a media asset. This firm does not hesitate to openly work against us.
The revival of Lake Baikal. This is a Buran with all the consequences. You can make it economically impossible to use. If you want an effective shuttle, do it on air-rocket or direct-flow engines combined with rocket engines. Nevertheless, they have already passed, but someone is impatient to report a breakthrough and step on the same rake again after one. Rocket landing takes 30-45% of the PN and is not economically viable. The stage can be landed only on a parachute with the correction of the trajectory and the loss of 15% PN. All the rest is projecting.
Unfortunately Roskomos and KB did not draw any lessons from our remarkable experience, both positive and negative, neither from the Soviet nor from the post-Soviet mistakes. Of course, this is not a catastrophe, but nothing good is here, because it is much better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick. We must strive for the best, not for the worst.
Made some corrections and comments.
Sources:
Energy-consuming combustible for aircraft and rocket engines.
Himmotologiya rocket and jet fuels.
V.E.Goodilin www.buran.ru
Errors of the USSR.
1. Bet on kerosene. Kerosene is not bad fuel, but it has a number of negative properties. First of all, it has a very poor cooling capacity, which leads to expensive engines. Secondly, engines with a camera type like the H-1 cannot have a camera larger than 600 mm (H-1 is just the limit in all characteristics), RD-107 / RD-108 engines, etc. may not have a camera larger than 430 mm. The RD-170/180/191/193 family of cameras has a total of 380 mm. The dimensions of the camera seriously limit engine thrust and force the creation of multi-chamber engines. So RD-270 on AT-NDMG is possible, but not on kerosene.
')
2. The quarrel between Korolev and Glushko was associated with Glushko’s inability to create an oxygen-kerosene engine with the necessary parameters necessary for a heavy rocket. As a result, Korolev, who demanded the oxygen-kerosene engine, organized a fabricated contest for Kuznetsov Design Bureau. Since Kuznetsova Design Bureau did not have the necessary resources, the engine turned out, albeit outstanding, but single-chamber, only 150 tons. This resulted in problems with the H1 rocket, since such a number of engines was too large. The rocket was not very successful.
3. The creation of H1 without bench testing using the R-7 technology led to a slowdown in work and gave rise to the closure of the program. Although the rocket would definitely fly on a 5 or 6 launch.
4. The original Martian rocket Queen could not be anything other than an adventure. The fact is that without having spent technologies to immediately fly to Mars is a one-way ticket with a fatal outcome. Unfortunately, on the wave of enthusiasm and successes of the Soviet cosmonautics, this was not taken into account.
5. The redesign of the Martian H1 by 70 tons with five launches into the lunar single-launch H1 by 90 tons led to serious delays and increased technical risks. Naturally the right decision was to fly to the moon in two launches without reworking the rocket.
6. The mutual closure of Saturn-5 and H1 by backstage agreement. Khrushchev was removed in October 1964, while the difficulties with financing H1 began in early 1964:
“At the beginning of 1964, a number of difficulties arose, primarily due to the non-fulfillment of the planned scope of work due to insecurity or a total lack of funding, especially in the construction of the necessary production facilities, laboratories and departments. In 1964, work on the H1 rocket was not funded enough (two to three times less than required. "
It is possible both to compete with other RNs, and the fact that Khrushchev realized that the kerosene H1 cannot be used as a military missile or other reasons, such as reducing confrontation with the United States, it is also possible that with the weakening of Khrushchev, H1 funding also decreased. I do not harbor any illusions about Khrushchev, he is no better than Brezhnev, he needed rocket attacks and plowing up virgin lands for the introduction of social democracy and the settling of accounts with socialism and Stalin.
The death of the Queen *, the coming to power of Brezhnev and the occupation of the place of Queen Glushko led to a number of consequences:
I was sarcastically asked in the comments if I didn’t consider the death of the Queen as accidental. I do not know, I can only say that it was very timely, since the withdrawal of the Queen and the appointment of Glushko would have shocked the entire industry. Although H1 I think so and so would be closed.
6.1 The sharp decline in space enthusiasm in the USSR. In fact, all the projects of the Queen were minimized. So for example, the R-7 was abandoned for further improvement, H1 was closed (besides H1, two more missiles, which were at the high readiness level) were closed, the Proton-K was almost closed. Excellent engines NK-15/33, RD-270, RD-119 were scrapped. The closure of the almost finished H1 and the discovery of Energy-Buran is an absolutely typical example of sabotage, to create a situation of "running in place." Later, Energia-Buran will also be shut down under a false pretext in 1990. We see it now: Proton-Zenit-hydrogen (Angara-1) -Angara-A5, Ob.195-T14, MFI-PAK FA, Ka-50-Mi-28N, AEK-AK-12, Bark-Bulava and etc.
6.2 The appointment of an excellent engine engineer to the post of designer of missiles led to a dramatic change in the views of Glushko. So Glushko former supporter of UDMH suddenly turned into a supporter of kerosene. For example, Oxygen-UDMH has about 10 seconds more UI with the same pressure, and because of better cooling, the engine will be either cheaper or noticeably more powerful, say about 30%. Those. convert the RD-170 to oxygen-UDMH and 1000 tons of thrust can be obtained right now.
6.3 Glushko was a rather weak leader. First of all, because instead of his rocket, he actually began to make a unpromising copy of the Space Shuttle. Although Glushko did not like Buran and doubted its effectiveness, in the hope that he would be allowed to fly to the Moon in exchange for supporting Buran and closing H1, he agreed to make Energy - empty illusions.
In the comments I was informed that the alleged closure of H1 was due to lack of funds. This is certainly nonsense: you are closing a rocket on the development of which 4 billion Soviet rubles were spent.
“In June 1974, work on the H1-LZ complex was discontinued. The existing reserve was destroyed, the costs were written off (in the prices of the 70s, costs amounted to 4 billion rubles) "
The cost of one launch of the H1 is unlikely to be more than 100 million rubles, and given that the missiles were actually collected and already naturally paid, and even less. Moreover, you do not just close H1, but before H1 close, launch another rocket, which cost more than H1. The cost of Energia-Buran is estimated at about 16.4 billion rubles in 1990, if we assume that inflation has doubled since 74, then in prices of 74 years, the cost of Energiya-Buran cost 8.2 billion rubles, which is two times higher than the value of H1. Nice savings true?
The result of the closure of the lunar program and the cancellation of a number of missiles, engines and development was a huge damage and slowing down of the USSR’s space development to almost zero. Replacing H1 with the USSR Energy gave nothing at all. And if to consider the Buran, it led to squandering of means. Few people know that in general a good (for its time) R-7 became a long-lived just because there was simply nothing to replace it, since the development of the missiles were practically curtailed in favor of the unified Zenit-Groza-Energiya-Vulkan-Buran system. The collapse of this cyclopean universal and highly questionable system led to the collapse of almost everything. So we fly on tinned old men R-7, Proton, plus light rockets.
It is especially worth noting that very promising RD-270 engines were not used in Energy (in Western sources it is maliciously noted that the RD-270 had HF oscillations (a hint that RD-270 would never work), but HF and LF oscillations The RD-270s were in gas generators, not in the CS), and instead they began developing new RD-170 engines, which also led to a delay in creating the system.
Errors of Russia.
1. Refusal to force and increase the number of cameras on the RD-107/108. It is possible to force the RD-107 / RD-108 engines quite easily, for example, by cooling kerosene. Or replace the current cameras with analogues from NK-33. Methyl cyclohexane * fuels are also promising, cooled to -50 -60 degrees. The growth of Mon and economic indicators will be simply enchanting. So Soyuz-2v could be easily made on the forced five-chamber RD-107. Yes, the RD-107 is noticeably inferior to the NK-33 / RD-193, but it is also significantly cheaper, and most importantly, it does not require reworking of the rocket.
Methylcyclohexane can be extracted both from oil and by the method of synthesis of critics, well, at least look at your favorite Wikipedia:
“Production: Methylcyclohexane is contained in petroleum products and is released from them on an industrial scale. It is also possible to obtain it by catalytic hydrogenation of toluene. "
Industrial production means that it is not expensive within the framework of the cost of rocket fuel.
Quote from the book "Energy-consuming combustible for aviation and rocket engines":
“Receiving. Technical MTSG is produced according to TU 09-4345-76. In its pure form, MHZ is obtained by hydrogenation of toluene, which has been thoroughly observed by sulfonation and subsequent hydrolysis and clear rectification.
Toxic properties. MHZ refers to substances of the fourth class of danger. MPC 50 mg / m3. ”
Probably people compiling reference books on rocket fuels know a little more forum analysts. In addition, super cooling to -60 -50 and methylcyclohexane is required only if you are not going to refine the RD-107 / RD-108.
A mixture of methylcyclohexane with sintine allows to obtain a fuel that will have a low viscosity both at -50 and at a positive temperature (at sintin at -50 viscosity is greater than methylcyclohexane, and at +20 vice versa), in addition, it will reduce the toxicity and detination of sintin. Other cycloalkanes are also promising, for example methylcycloheptane or cyclopropanecycloheptane, cyclopropanecyclohexane (cyclopropanation increases the density and energy, at the same time reducing the crystallization temperature).
I think the responsibility here lies entirely on TsKB Progress, which followed the path of minor rocket improvements, but did not order an improved engine. It is ridiculous to think that Energomash, who created the RD-170, RD-191M, is not able to force the aged engine to 100-110 atm. For Soyuz-2b, only 2 accelerators would be required, and the payload would be 10-15 tons, and without the RD-0124. Roscosmos boasts that the current Union is worth $ 35 million, but there is nothing to brag about at current prices, Union 2 is a rather expensive rocket, since its Mon is not great either. But 35 million for 15 tons is another matter.
2. The organization of the competition for the first Angara was meaningless since we already had a Proton rocket. Few people know that as a result of an increase in thrust-to-weight ratio of engines, the power-to-power ratio became excessive. If you increase the starting mass of the Proton and reduce the thrust-to-weight ratio to the classic 1.25, then the Proton from Baikonur easily pulls out about 35 tons and 32.5 tons of Plesetsk. Here you have super cheap double launches.
If we make the first step on peroxide-kerosene, and the second and third steps on peroxide-borohydride, which are less toxic than AT-UDMH, then the MO easily rises a few more tons. In extreme cases, borohydride can be done at least RB. By reducing the engines could make and medium rocket.
An oxidizer from a mixture of tetranitromethane (1.643 g / cm3) 70% with AT (1.45 g / cm3) 30% is also promising, such an oxidizer is not only denser than pure AT, but also gives a higher ID with UDMH for about 3 seconds. Source: Himmotologiya rocket and jet fuels.
Borohydride is almost as toxic as UDMH. BUT Borodovodor in the presence of moisture in the air self-ignites and in the presence of water turns into non-toxic boric acid, while UDMH can decompose for years. In addition, non-toxic peroxide + toxic borohydride is still less toxic in total than toxic AT and toxic UDMH.
If you are interested in ecology, then there is an ideal fuel Peroxide-Acytilenedinitrile-Kerosene. Powerful, dense non-cryogenic, with excellent peroxide cooling capacity, simple single component HG and suitable for RD-276. Recently, information flashed that we signed a commitment to stop the use of toxic fuel in rockets until 2020; only a traitor or a fool could sign this agreement, especially given the difficult situation with new missiles and increased competition.
3. The organization of a new competition for the Angara led only to the fact that the new Angara became worse in terms of the economy of both the old established on the Soviet side and Proton. So the first Angara due to the reserve on RD-0120 had great reserves to increase the MO. And most importantly, she used the reserve on the automatic start of Zenith, the only one in the world.
4. Yes, the Angara-A5 is not perfect, but the situation can still be saved with small and inexpensive modifications, but it turns out that this is simply not necessary to anyone the rocket customer or developer. Considering the fact that the Angara is designed so that it has a maximum cost with a minimum PN and, accordingly, a maximum price for a CG (a sort of over-all-purpose F-35 4 in 1, which really cannot be a good light fighter, a good deck-based aircraft, or a good bomber or VTOL due to the error with the installation of the fan), then all this leads to serious reflections why it is necessary. You will see the fate of the Angara and the F-35 will be similar. I must say that the Angara among the missiles was not in a unique position.
5. If you look at Atlas-5 - Vulcan and Arian-5 - Arian-6, then everything moves there and that. As if lowering costs and forcing the engine at least to someone as a magician from a hat can make a new rocket out of the old one! Cosmetics from ugly, forgive me girls, or when the beauty does not, and the beauty will only beautiful.
6. Particularly interesting are the people who tried in the comments to the article about the Angara to openly lie that the alleged addition of nozzle nozzles weighing 22 kg (as much as 1% of the mass of RD-191) and adding at least 14 seconds and 8 tons above 10 km are supposedly too heavy for a rocket . What do you really do not need people to keep for idiots. Nozzle nozzles are ideal for Angara-A5 because it does not have multi-chamber engines, and the engines themselves are located far enough. By the way, at one time RD-0120 was planned to be made with retractable nozzles and this led to a noticeable increase in PN.
The same people claim that there are problems with mechanization, since the nozzles are put forward on the engine running. Pardon, but almost all of the nozzles are put forward on the working LRE, this is the specificity of their work, but apart from the RD-191, no one has problems with mechanization.
Where did the mass of nozzle nozzles come from: subtract the mass of the NK-33-1 from the mass of the NK-33 and get the mass of the hinge with the nozzle. Subtract the mass of the RD-191 from the RD-193 and get the mass of the hinge. Subtract the mass of the hinge and the nozzle from the mass of the hinge and get the approximate mass of the nozzle. However, and so it is clear that the mass of the nozzle can not be great.
7. Vostochny cosmodrome. I do not know whether the location of the cosmodrome in Sovetskaya Bay is really so unacceptable because of seismic danger, but not the location of the cosmodrome on the coast leads to serious costs when building heavy rockets. In the future, this may also lead to restrictions on the fields of incidence for new missiles. Suffice it to say that we are practically the only ones with a cosmodrome located far from the sea, and the question arises why. In Soviet times, it was clear that he was military and secret, but now he is civil and not secret. It remains to hope that the railway to Vostochniy will seriously expand in size. Otherwise, the operation of the East, like Baikonur, will be associated with serious costs.
8. I rejoiced at the Soyuz-5, which seems to have been created using backlog, which means it can be created quite quickly and will not be expensive until it became clear that the Soyuz-5 is part of the heavy Energy-K rocket, also known as Energy-5. You might think that if the Angara-5B will be done by another developer, then it will become another! If you want a good heavy rocket, then it is 4hRD-170 / RD-270 + 1hRD-170 / RD-270 + 1hRD-191M / 1hRD-276 / RD-0120 without options. Everything else is a repetition of the epic Energy-Angara. I want to replace that no foreign developer creates a new package of missiles package - they are all exclusively monoblock tendem. Perhaps there are some reasons for this?
Fuel.
Today, taking into account the requirements of the transportation of rockets by railways, we can distinguish a number of promising fuels with high energy, density and acceptable cooling properties. These are Peroxide-acitelendinitrile-kerosene and MAF gas. Perhaps even kerosene / cyclic hydrocarbons, with oxygen cooling. Methane is good and pleasant if it is necessary cheap and there are no restrictions on dimensions, while in our country most of the missiles are transported by rail.
Participation in the ISS under the influence of young reformers was our biggest mistake. First, we flooded with the World-1 part of the new, recently connected modules. Secondly, we connected World-2 units to the ISS. The world cost us $ 300 million and there was scientific equipment, the ISS costs us up to a billion, and we have very weak scientific equipment there. Those. the price has increased by three, and the possibilities have decreased. As far as I remember, our space on the ISS has decreased. Now the ISS serves as an incubator for the development of technologies of other countries, we have very little with the ISS. But when they stoked, they warned that it would be like that - we will subside, while other countries will use to fill up to our level. ISS is so unprofitable for us that it looks like a practically naked scam. In this regard, chronic problems with MLM (the name is what) Science does not look unexpected and is organically combined with our losses from the ISS, I think this is very beneficial for someone.
Sale of the floating cosmodrome S7. This company has not launched a single rocket yet, but it has already managed to throw us, sniff with our competitors, and spoil us in every way.In fact, to date, the floating spaceport for them is a media asset. This firm does not hesitate to openly work against us.
The revival of Lake Baikal. This is a Buran with all the consequences. You can make it economically impossible to use. If you want an effective shuttle, do it on air-rocket or direct-flow engines combined with rocket engines. Nevertheless, they have already passed, but someone is impatient to report a breakthrough and step on the same rake again after one. Rocket landing takes 30-45% of the PN and is not economically viable. The stage can be landed only on a parachute with the correction of the trajectory and the loss of 15% PN. All the rest is projecting.
Unfortunately Roskomos and KB did not draw any lessons from our remarkable experience, both positive and negative, neither from the Soviet nor from the post-Soviet mistakes. Of course, this is not a catastrophe, but nothing good is here, because it is much better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick. We must strive for the best, not for the worst.
Made some corrections and comments.
Sources:
Energy-consuming combustible for aircraft and rocket engines.
Himmotologiya rocket and jet fuels.
V.E.Goodilin www.buran.ru
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/425519/
All Articles