|
|
Searching for details: The author of this page will appreciate comments, corrections and imagery related to the subject. Please contact Anatoly Zak. Read more on:
or on:
Related pages:
|
Above: The Rus-M family of rockets, employing the RD-180 engine on the first stage and the RD-0146 engine on the second stage as of April 2009. Variant 1 would use three inseparable boosters on the first stage. Variant 2 would use five boosters, with four strap-on boosters separating earlier in flight, while the central core booster would burn longer by thrusting less than its full capability during the initial phase of the flight and throttling up to the full thrust upon the separation of four strap-on boosters. Variant 3 would employ stretched first stage for a larger propellant load. The fourth variation of the vehicle with a single first stage booster and an upper stage borrowed from the Soyuz 2 rocket would also be possible (not shown). It could deliver six tons to the low-Earth orbit. All four variations would use the same launch facility in Vostochny. Copyright © 2009 Anatoly Zak Previous chapter: ACTS/PPTS development during 2008
One of the challenges Russian designers faced in developing a next-generation manned spacecraft in the first decade of the 21st century was the need for a new rocket to launch it. Since the future ship replacing Soyuz would have to carry six instead of three crew members and weigh from 12 to 23 tons, it would need a much larger launch vehicle than existing Soyuz rocket capable of carrying just seven tons to the low-Earth orbit. Developers had few options to consider among existing rockets:
Pro and cons of various launch vehicle solutions for the next-generation spacecraft:
New launch site, transportation issues By 2008, the development of a whole new family of rockets for manned space flight had become attractive to the Russian government, especially in light of a decision in the previous year to build the new Vostochny launch site. A strategic decision to place the space center in the Russian Far East brought up the issue of transporting the vehicles from industrial centers in western Russia. The size of rocket stages would either have to be limited by the capabilities of railway transport, or the Russian government would have to commit to the development of a compatible air transportation system. Finally, the third alternative would be the development of a whole new manufacturing base right there in the Far East. Despite being probably the most expensive and economically difficult proposition, it would match the political goal of the Russian government to industrialize this isolated and sparsely populated region. Ultimately, Russian space agency made a pragmatic decision to keep the development of the rocket at the existing manufacturing base in the European part of Russia and use traditional rail transport to deliver fully assembled stages of the vehicle to Vostochny. Exotic ideas, like using dirigibles to transport oversized stages, were quickly rejected. As a result, the diameter of rocket stages was limited to 3.8 meters and length to around 25 meters, to ensure their unimpeded transport by rail via narrow tunnels and sharp turns of the Far-Eastern railway lines. Choosing the developer Upon committing to the development of the new vehicle, Russian space agency had to decide about the design of the future rocket and choose its manufacturer. During 2008, all major rocket "firms" competed for the role of building a future manned launcher. In the third quarter of 2008, the "system evaluation" of the possible architecture of the future vehicle was completed and several proposals for the rocket were apparently submitted to Roskosmos by Sept. 1, 2008. Although Roskosmos made no formal announcement on the matter at the time, unofficial postings on the forum of the Novosti Kosmonavtiki magazine indicated that the agency favored a two-stage launch vehicle, which would be developed by the conglomerate of TsSKB Progress in Samara, KB Mashinostroenia in Miass and RKK Energia in Podlipki (Korolev). TsSKB Progress would bear overall responsibility for the launch vehicle and its second stage. KB Mashinostroenia would develop the first stage. Finally, RKK Energia was expected to oversee the manned transport system. Thus, all key players in the industry would retain their traditional responsibilities and preserve their overall workforce. In an interview with BBC in March 2009, Aleksandr Chulkov, the head of the launch vehicle and infrastructure directorate at Roskosmos, said that the key factor determining the winner in the government tender would be the price tug. He confirmed previous reports that the launch vehicle would have to be able to carry at least 20 tons and a maximum 23 tons to low-Earth orbit. Within Russian nomenclature, the new rocket would be classified as a "medium-lifting-class vehicle with increased payload capacity," or "RN SK PG," while vehicles classified as heavy lifters would carry from 35 to 50 tons into the low-Earth orbit. Chulkov said that requirements for heavy-lifting capabilities within the manned space program would be met by the Angara family of rockets. Still, it was reported around the time, that the new rocket equipped with five standard boosters on the first stage instead of three would be able to deliver 35 tons to the low-Earth orbit, while another variation, including four standard boosters on the first stage and one on the second stage, could carry 50 tons. Thus, as a family, the new rockets would overlap the capabilities of Angara rockets. Even more ironically, Roskosmos apparently favored the architecture of the rocket, which closely resembled RKK Energia's failed bid to develop the Angara family of vehicles in the 1990s. Known as Angara-2, the proposal featured three standard boosters on the first stage, equipped with an RD-180 engine each. At the time, the Angara-2 concept was rejected in favor of the architecture proposed by Khrunichev enterprise. Since Roskosmos reportedly called for the construction of as many as 15 launchers per year, the program could require the production of as many as 45 RD-180 engines annually. (Official documentation later called for 15-20 launches per year!) Even with a "low" rate of four launches a year, 12 RD-180 engines would be required annually. Due to such high numbers compounded by the need to produce the same powerplants for the American Atlas rocket, it looked possible that an additional manufacturer based in the city of Perm would be brought into the project. The same company was responsible for mass production of the RD-191 engine for the Angara rocket. Design requirements By February 2009, Russian space agency, quietly published a set of official requirements for the future rocket dubbed Rus-M. Although on paper, prospective developers had to compete in a federal tender to meet these specifications, it was a mere formality. A published description of the rocket, including its name, was skewed heavily toward proposals made by the TsSKB Progress/RKK Energia team. As expected, the first stage of the medium-lifting rocket had to consist of three standard boosters, each equipped with a singe two-chamber RD-180 engine. The entire cluster of boosters would remain inseparable during the flight. The unmanned version of the rocket would have to deliver 23.8 tons to a 200-kilometer orbit with an inclination of 51.7 degrees after launch from Vostochny. The rocket modules of the first stage had to be adaptable to serve as the first stage of the heavy-lifting rocket with the payload of no less than 50 tons and super-heavy lifter with the payload above 100 tons. Emergency mode requirements Perhaps the most controversial set of requirements formulated by Roskosmos, included Rus-M's emergency capabilities, which seemed extremely conservative. From the moment of a liftoff, the rocket had to have the capability to clear the launch facility in the event of a complete failure of a single engine. There were also reports that, during manned launches, the rocket had to make it far and high enough on two remaining engines, to enable the crew vehicle to make a splashdown in the Pacific Ocean. Thus, the manned spacecraft would avoid landing in the difficult terrain of the Far Eastern taiga, downrange from Vostochny. Later in flight, the manned rocket would have to be capable of delivering a 18.8-20.3-ton spacecraft to a minimum 135 by 440-kilometer orbit, in case of the failure of a single engine on the first or second stage. Such a single-orbit trajectory would apparently enable the descent module to return for the emergency landing just north of Vostochny, while subjecting the crew to no more than 12 g. (A difference between the mass of a standard 12-ton PPTS spacecraft and available payload of 18.8 ton would likely be used by the emergency supply of propellant needed to provide thrust during a single-orbit flight.) Second stage According to unofficial reports in 2008, Roskosmos considered using either kerosene or hydrogen on the second stage of the vehicle. However at the beginning of 2009, the head of Roskosmos Anatoly Perminov told Russian press that hydrogen would be used on the second stage. The official technical assignment called for the monoblock second stage powered by four RD-0146 engines. The emergency abort mode would allow a 20.7-ton payload to make a single orbit around the Earth after the failure of one of four main engines on the second stage. Roskosmos also required the developer to provision a controlled deorbiting of the second stage. Back in July 2008, KBKhA design bureau in Voronezh first announced that it proposed a concept of new-generation engines for the prospective launch vehicles, which would fly from Vostochny. According to KBKhA, a new series would burn a mix of liquid oxygen and carbohydrate fuel and would feature high mass and performance characteristics, high reliability and low development and production cost. KBKhA documents showed that during 2007, the RD-0146 engine was test-fired eight times, burning hydrogen and six times burning methane fuel. Ironically, Khrunichev enterprise issued a technical assignment for the project. Ultimately, the hydrogen-propelled version was chosen for the Rus-M project. RD-0146 engine was reported to produce the thrust of 10 tons and deliver the specific impulse of 463 seconds. Follow-on rockets (50-60 tons payload) Borrowing a concept first developed for the Energia rocket, TsSKB Progress decided to use a special platform which would serve as an interface between the launch vehicle and its launch pad. Known as Block Ya, the structure would feature five receptacles and would be compatible with three- and five-booster configurations of the rocket. As a result, the future launch facility could host all but one rocket from the Rus family with payloads ranging from 3 tons to 40 tons, according to TsSKB documents circa 2008. In April 2009, the head of TsSKB Progress quoted 40-ton and 60-ton versions of the vehicle, which could use the same launch facility. As it transpired in the spring of 2009, the Rus-M project had a "built-in" capability for an upgrade to reach the payload capacity of 60 tons to the low-Earth orbit to support lunar expeditions. To achieve this capability, developers apparently hoped to use a five-booster combination on the first stage. All five boosters of the first stage would also have to be streched to accomodate larger propellant load. (341) With the use of variable thrust, the strap-on boosters of the first stage would separate prior to the core stage burnout. Instead of four RD-0146 engines on the original Rus-M, the second stage would likely sport a much larger single engine burning liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. Theoretically, it could be based on the RD-0120 engine, which powered the core stage of the Energia rocket. However any thought of increasing the diameter of the second stage beyond accepted 3.8 meters, would exclude the possibility of transporting the vehicle by rail. As of 2009, the exceeding parameters of rail transportation was not acceptable for the Russian government. If ever built, two Rus-M-derived rockets with 60-ton payload could support Russia's contemporary plans for its first expeditions to the Moon, involving rendezvous in the lunar orbit. Under such scenario, one launcher would carry a light-weight unmanned lunar lander and another a manned transport ship. Both spacecraft would be equipped with Earth escape stages, which would enable them to reach lunar orbit, where they would dock for crew transfer and subsequent landing. A heavier lunar lander, which would be needed for long-term exploration of the Moon, would require a third 60-ton rocket carrying a separate Earth-escape stage. Super-heavy launcher (100-150 tons payload) Although with the launch of the Rus-M preliminary design in April 2009, a basic architecture of the rocket was essentially "set in stone," Roskosmos still formally required the developer to evaluate alternative configurations of the rocket. The agency specifically asked the industry to consider monoblock version of the rocket, as well as possible use of the RD-0163 engine and of hydrogen propellant (on all stages). During 2009, TsSKB Progress also continued studying a possibility of using three-component propellant for the future reincarnations of Rus-M and other upgrades, which would potentially enable to develop a booster with a 100-ton payload capacity within limits of 3.8-meter diameter. (354) During an International Astronautical Congress in October 2009, the head of Roskosmos Anatoly Perminov said that building "blocks" of the Rus-M vehicle would enable a low-cost development of a heavy vehicle with payload of 50-60 tons, while the "components" of the same launcher would pave the way to a super-heavy rocket, capable of carrying 130-150 tons to the low-Earth orbit. Perminov also said that Rus-M could serve as a testbed for components and technologies of future reusable launch vehicles. Tender An industry-wide tender for the development of the manned launch vehicle was officially started on Feb. 14, 2009, when all participants were suppose to submit their proposals to Roskosmos. Only two main projects were actually competing -- one from Khrunichev enterprise, and one from TsSKB Progress. Since government requirements closely matched TsSKB's proposals and left practically no room for alternative architecture, Khrunichev had no choice but to draft a proposal identical to that of Samara. Still, the company apparently left on the table a proposal for the man-rated Angara-5P rocket, as an alternative. According to unofficial reports, a formal opening of envelopes with industry proposals on the new rocket would take place on March 16, 2009. The commission was then expected to make a decision on March 19, 2009. Chulkov told BBC that Roskosmos would have 10 days to complete the formal review of all proposals and the agency would pick a winner by March 25, 2009. The key consideration would be the cost-effectiveness of the proposal, Chulkov said. The decision would be followed by the preliminary design, which was expected to last for around one year. Ironically, both TsSKB Progress and GRTs Makeev (KB Mashinostroenia) chose April 1, 2009, to declare themselves winners of the government tender, as industry insiders have predicted. According to Makeev center's press-release, the tender commission made a formal choice on March 18, 2009. (According to most sources, the selection took place on March 19.) In an interview with RIA Samara in April 2009, the head of TsSKB Progress Aleksandr Kirilin said that his company had to be ready to defend the preliminary design of the rocket, comprising of more than 100 volumes of documentation, by September 2010 at the price tag of 145 million rubles. (The official documentation placed a price tag for the preliminary design at 375 thousand rubles.) The successful completion of the preliminary design would pave the way to the full-scale experimental development of the rocket, culminating with "cold" and "hot" testing of the vehicle at NIIKhimmash facilities in Sergiev Posad. Although Kirilin's interview run only days after TsSKB "won" the tender, the head of the company revealed that one of the former Energia-Buran facilities had already been cleaned up for the upcoming project. The building would now be used for the manufacturing of propellant tanks for the new rocket. (329) In June 2009, during the Paris Air and Space Show in Le Bourget, Kirilin told the editor of this web site that the building was previously used for the application of thermal protection layers on Energia. In the meantime, special chambers used for the thermal protection work had been preserved and could eventually accommodate Rus-M, which, like Energia, employs cryogenic propellants. In addition, extensive test facilities at TsSKB Progress in Samara went through active upgrades during 2008 and 2009. A vibration and strength test stand was renovated in 2009 and some critical test hardware was reportedly replaced for the purpose of Rus-M and Soyuz-1 projects. (354) At Le Bourget 2009, Kirilin also said that an immediate goal of the Rus-M program, would be the formation of the chief designer council. A long-time tradition for the Russian space industry, the group would include leaders of key organizations involved in the project. "In the nearest future, we have to form our industrial development team, or at least a core of it, assemble the council of chief designers and conduct the first meeting of this council," Kirilin said. At the time, the event was expected in the third quarter of 2009. According to Kirilin, the council would include representatives of the Makeev center, RKK Energia, TsENKI and NPO Avtomatiki. To accelerate the work on the project, TsSKB planned to conduct preliminary design in parallel with the preparation of the production documentation, Kirilin said, "The project will be developed entirely by means of electronic media." In the meantime, during the same show, representatives of Khrunichev enterprise said that they planned to re-submit their proposals for the PPTS launch vehicle before the end of 2009. The company would argue that the development of a man-rated launcher deriving from the Angara family would be cheaper than that of a currently approved design. The Angara-5P vehicle was apparently considered as a stop-gap measure to launch the 12-13-ton version of the PTK spacecraft on missions to the ISS or a future Russian station. The rocket would reportedly enable the spacecraft to reach the station after just five or six orbits around the Earth. On July 9-10, 2009, the first Scientific and Technical Council, NTS, was held on the Rus-M project at TsSKB Progress in Samara, which finalized the preliminary design development schedule. The Chief Designer Council and working groups on various aspects of the project were also formed. By the end of 2009, NITs RKP test center (former NIIKhIMMash) in Peresvet (near Sergiev Posad) announced that it was starting preparations for a test program to support the development of launch vehicles based in Vostochny. It would be similar to activities conducted during the development of the Angara family of rockets. APPENDIX Known specifications of the Rus-M launch vehicle (A version for 23.8 ton payload):
*No less than 20 tons according to the technical assignment; 23.8-ton payload will apparently require an additional impulse at apogee to enter orbit. **A payload would have to develop additional 1,500 meters per second in velocity (Delta V) with its own propulsion unit, in order to reach a geostationary orbit. Rus-M development team:
Chronology of the Rus-M launch vehicle development for the PPTS (PTK-NP) spacecraft: 2009 Feb. 14-16: The Federal space agency, Roskosmos, accepts proposals from the industry for the development of the PPTS launch vehicle. 2009 March 16: Roskosmos representatives unseal proposals for the development of the PPTS launch vehicle. 2009 March 19: Roskosmos formally names TsSKB Progress a winner of the tender for the development of the launch vehicle for the next-generation spacecraft. 2009 April 10: Roskosmos signs a contract with TsSKB Progress for the preliminary design phase, EP, of the development of the launch vehicle complex, RKK, for the Vostochny cosmodrome. 2009 July 8-10: Key participants in the Rus-M project held a Scientific Technical Council, NTS, at TsSKB Progress in Samara, which finalized the preliminary design development schedule. 2009 Sept. 22: Council of Chief Designers for the Rus-M project held its first meeting in Samara. 2010 January: Council of Chief Designers for the Rus-M project held a meeting in Samara. 2010 September: A preliminary design of the launch vehicle for the PPTS system to be completed.
Page author: Anatoly Zak; last update: January 20, 2010 Page editor: Alain Chabot; last edit: March 23, 2009 All rights reserved |
MEDIA GALLERY To order images and animations contact Anatoly Zak
During 2008, developers proposed several competing configurations of a rocket launcher for the next-generation spacecraft. Click to enlarge. Copyright © 2008 Anatoly Zak
In the summer of 2008, RKK Energia floated a proposal for a 575-ton launch vehicle equipped with three RD-0163 engines on the first stage and one RD-0120 engine on the second stage. The rocket would be able to carry 20 tons to the low-Earth orbit, however Roskosmos apparently considered the use of yet-to-be-developed RD-0163 engines too risky and/or costly. Click to enlarge. Copyright © 2009 Anatoly Zak
During 2008, TsSKB Progress in Samara proposed a Rus series of rockets, including what was identified as "medium-lift launchers with increased payload capability." All featured RD-0163 engine on the first stage. Click to enlarge. Copyright © 2009 Anatoly Zak
In 2008, Khrunichev enterprise demonstrated a "man-rated" Angara-5P (piloted) rocket as a potential carrier of the future manned spacecraft. With the liftoff mass of 712 tons, the two-stage vehicle could send 17.5 tons on the Earth-escape trajectories. However the company's proposals were considered unlikely to win the government tender. Click to enlarge. Copyright © 2008 Anatoly Zak
These scale models represent a family of rocket engines developed by the Moscow-based NPO Energomash. A four-chamber RD-170 engine like those powering the first stage of the Zenit rocket is on the right. This power plant was "split in half" to create a two-chamber RD-180 engine (center) for the latest version of the US Atlas rocket. The "half" of the latter engine became RD-190/191 -- a one-chamber power plant developed for the modular stages of the Angara family, including the Baikal stage. Click to enlarge. Copyright © 2001 Claude Mourier
Any new rocket developed within PPTS project was expected to fly from a future launch center in the Russian Far East. Copyright © 2007 Anatoly Zak
The Block Ya platform would serve as standard interface with the launch pad for all versions of the rocket. The concept was used in the Energia rocket (above). Click to enlarge. Copyright © 2000 Anatoly Zak
Leaders of two companies, which competed in the Rus-M tender: Aleksandr Kirilin of TsSKB Progress (center) and Vladimir Nesterov of Khrunichev enterprise (right) during the opening of the Paris Air and Space Show on June 15, 2009. Click to enlarge. Copyright © 2009 Anatoly Zak
Key figures behind the Rus-M program: Anatoly Perminov, head of Roskosmos (left) and Aleksandr Kirilin, director of TsSKB Progress in Samara. Click to enlarge. Copyright © 2009 Anatoly Zak
The Rus-M rocket was first presented as a scale model at Moscow air and space show in August 2009. Click to enlarge. Copyright © 2009 Anatoly Zak
In the first version of the Rus-M rocket, all three boosters of the first stage would remain connected during the entire flight. Click to enlarge. Copyright © 2009 Anatoly Zak
Artist rendering of the Rus-M launch with the PTK NP spacecraft, as it was envisioned by developers during 2009. Click to enlarge. Copyright © 2009 Anatoly Zak |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
