Energia 2.0 – Russia's Answer to SLS?
Super-heavy carrier rocket could be created jointly with Ukraine, Kazakhstan – Energia, Interfax
“The Energia-Buran project includes the launch system, which is still viable. At least it can be brought back to life. It also includes the “A” rocket units, used in the Zenit carrier rocket, and also engines made today. We proposed using oxygen-kerosene engines instead of the hydrogen central part, and make the first and second stages of five units,” he said. “Concerning the carrying capacity, it’s difficult to speculate, but it could be up to 70 tonnes, which is sufficient to circle the Moon,” Lopota said.” “If ambitions and political will are there, this project could be accomplished in a few years without falling behind our American colleagues,” [Energia President and General Designer Vitaly] Lopota added.
Super-heavy carrier rocket could be created jointly with Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Voice of Russia
“The Energia-Buran project was suspended in the 1990s, when five rocket frames at various degrees of readiness were available at the Baikonur cosmodrome and at the Energia corporation assembly premises. They were destroyed. The RD-170 rocket engine, developed for the Energia project, has been upgraded and is used in Zenit Russian-Ukrainian carrier rockets as RD-171, and in American Atlas 5 launch systems as RD-180.”
“If ambitions and political will are there … could be accomplished in a few years”
Since the end of the Cold War, when has RSA ever had either of these?
Every six months the Russians announce another plan for an advanced space capability that isn’t going to happen. Six months ago it was a moon mission http://m.smh.com.au/technol…
Before that it had been missions to Mars, nuclear thermal spacecraft, a six-person Soyuz replacement ship (“The design’s suite of capabilities is similar to NASA’s Orion spacecraft already under development, already earning Russia’s spacecraft the tongue-in-cheek nickname “Orionski” (http://www.newscientist.com…, a moonbase, and an asteroid-defense mission to Apophis.
Don’t underestimate Russia either. All you are seeing is efforts to wrestle with devout cynicism verses realism.
They gear efforts by gauging how sincere competing efforts are. Usually they get it wrong, fall behind, and then have to play “catch up”. Which is how Energia came to be in the first place.
The problem is what to target and why. HLV/HSF is costly to develop/maintain. Plus you need to have some idea of what missions to optimize for.
Rus-M was an Atlas V Phase 2 approach that allowed for an attractive defense base. Angara was intended as a Proton replacement that was scalable, non toxic, and allowed them to launch from Plesetsk and get away from paying the Kazakh’s.
Energia was a Saturn-V scale booster that employed a HydroLOX core. But it was dependant on Ukrainian Zenit boosters, not unlike Atlas V depending on Russian engines. Which was why Angara …
A question of deciding when you need to have a new capability.
So when will they get “real”? When they are certain that America is “real”. Is SLS “real” ?
Thanks for reaffirming what I have been saying for years. Energia’s all-liquid heavy booster reminds me of the Great Western iron steamship built by Isambard Brunel in 1837, decades before the world was ready for it. It eventually was used to lay transAtlantic cable , and foreshadowed the Great Ships that came later as the world’s global economy opened up due to economical bulk sea cargo becoming the norm . Such as the Great Eastern. Fast forward to today and you see container ships and huge supertankers.
I see the Energia booster that launched the Buran orbiter in the same way . It was ahead of its time in 1989, but makes huge sense today. It worked, unlike the Soviet N-1 moon rockets, which did not, spectacularly so. The Buran shuttles died an undignified death. Conversely , Russia’s plans for the new Angara booster system seem odd and untenable to me. Yet they are still flying Sergei Korylev’s Soyuz boosters and Soyuz capsules from the 60’s. The real successes and progress in RussSpace have been largely gestated in the Ukraine.
Russia always has grand plans for the future in space. So few actually come to fruition . Energia worked.
This is potentially a big move. Note that they can compete with a economically sustainable footprint … while retaining a HydroLOX core upgrade, a 4 to 6 booster upgrade, a enhanced booster upgrade, and a core stretch as longer term options.
So they can be competitive to 270 Mt … for a fraction of SLS cost.
Just have to put up with those pesky “Orange” revolutions now and then …
Calling this thing Commonwealth sounds too much like Constellation. It’s almost like asking for trouble.
On the plus side of the ledger, this proposed design reuses the RD-171 engines and uses them in both major stages. This, to me, signals an important difference between Commonwealth and both Constellation and earlier Soviet/Russian proposals. Where these programs have too often failed, or bled out of funding, is in the addition of new and/or ambitiously upgraded components that don’t yet exist. These things all automatically fall onto the program’s critical path and blow the budget and schedule predictions farther out into the future. If Commonwealth is basically using all existing, proven components, as appears to be the case (although I can’t find a definite claim for this), then it might actually happen, unlike so many earlier proposals. This could have been done at any time in the last 15 or so years (with considerable political advantage), so the obvious question to me is, why now?
Steve
“why now?”
The quote from the Energia President is probably as good an explanation as any, “this project could be accomplished in a few years without falling behind our American colleagues”
Just as the Soviet Union thought that the U.S. could actually pull off Star Wars, it could be that the current Russian leadership is similarly unnerved by SLS
I suspect there’s concern about China’s plans for the moon, combined with their own recent launch failures, creating a sense of Russia falling behind. (Ironically the same feeling many have about being dependent on the Russians for US HSF.)
Yes. The other issue is judging what technology base to work from, given the young engineering talent base they have. You can get them to field this faster than the others for peculiar reasons.
They have known this all along.
hehe – nothing like a mirror thrust in front of SLS to show how futile it is. (SLS, not the mirror!)
Biggest banana republic in the world ridden with corruption can do that? I don’t think so.
Such a Russian/Ukrainian heavy lift vehicle could give Bigelow Aerospace another option, besides the SLS, for launching its heaviest space station: the 65 tonne plus Olympus BA-2100. China also intends to develop a heavy lift vehicle capable of lifting at least 100 tonnes into orbit, per Liang Xiaohong, deputy head of the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology.
Marcel F. Williams
Absolutely correct. Plus it is the only HLV where any significant effort was made for economically scalable, reusable components was ever intended. SLS is totally uncompetitive.
It remains unclear what customer has the payload and funding to purchase such services.
They’re called the United States of America.
If you have the capability, someone will use it. Besides, one launch with multiple smaller payloads is much cheaper than using smaller rocket for each one.
But … but … the boosters ARE “smaller rockets” … so they do get much of the cheaper advantage. Its effectively a cluster of small LV’s.
And, Energia has a significant advantage over all its competition. It has launched very large payloads (e.g. Buran, Polyus) “side mount”. Meaning not limited to shroud dimensions ..
Since when is ~70 mT a “super-heavy”?
Seems medium-heavy in my book.
It’s a DIRECT (or better AJAX) approach. Thus 70 Mt.
So its something you can do cheap/fast. Unlike SLS/CxP bloat.
They are intentionally downplaying capacity.
Great we have a race.
Let’s see who gets to the fail line first.
Oh look, Russia still thinks it can be relevant when it some to space. I’d love to see that, but based on their actions or inaction I’d say that’s rather unlikely.
Why follow us down this path? Didn’t they follow us down the path of Shuttle only to realize it was too expensive for them? How is this different?
Maybe they just want us to think they will fly it so that way Griffin and others can beat their drums next time it comes up in front of congress. Get us to keep going down this SLS path as long as possible so the thing they are worried about most, our new commercial rockets that can compete with their reliable Soyuz, doesn’t get any more additional funding.
If they fly it, good for them. If they develop a payload, even better. But I would really be worried if they where talking about fuel depots or ISRU or even talking about HLV payloads as opposed to the HLV itself.
“Maybe they just want us to think they will fly it so that way Griffin and others can beat their drums next time it comes up in front of congress. Get us to keep going down this SLS path as long as possible so the thing they are worried about most, our new commercial rockets that can compete with their reliable Soyuz, doesn’t get any more additional funding.”
[Laughs] Kind of like Star Wars (SDI) did to them? I guess payback really is a bear.
Had more time to think about it. While our reaction may just be that indeed, I think I was being too cynical of the Energia folks. I think they just want their rattle back. Angara may change the whole formula over there. Energia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan want to remain in the game.
I can see many don’t understand what is going on here. Let me try to put things in context.
Note the cancellation of Rus-M, its “replacement” by Angara, problems endemic to Russian with launch/spacecraft/missions, and the recent directions with Soyuz 1 nee’ 2.1v. Oh, and the near shit fit caused over COTS 2+ success at the ISS.
These all play heavily into the game afoot here.
Russia, US, and China (others too) share the same problem – their arsenal systems are depending too much off the past (people, culture, processes, technology, subsystems, …) , they have too many competing systems that “cost share” / “volume to scale” too little to keep alive, … and thus the footprint as a base for national security is crumbling.
Note also that the concepts of what national security means here is also under play, from the “retarded conservative ditto-head” (Russia and China have them too albeit differently adorned) just put more money into what we did before and suddenly “its great” again.
They also have what are apparently called by some “Obamaton’s”, who see how the game is changing, and apparently don’t think you just mindlessly, irrationally pour more money (even as they call themselves “conservatives” which they can’t possibly be, because rational use of money is at the very heart of fiscal conservatism in my book).
Apparently the “Obamaton” game is to develop a more results per buck approach that threatens the fake “conservatives”, who feel it undercuts their old antiquated power base that they cling to like barnacles – less so in the US than elsewhere.
So, this is the first sign that Russia fears “commercial” in the US. Why? Because the use of Energia allows them to factor in a first step away from the cost debacle of HLV. How?
Like the AJAX or RAC-3 proposal, it uses as boosters already developed and used KeroLOX. Rather than custom solids/other. This means that a substantial part of the launch vehicle gets reused on medium launch as well.
Even more, what if someone in the world succeeds at recovering a spent booster. Well, the Energia was planned for reusable boosters … perhaps they feel they might quickly learn the trick as well, and have a highly cost leveraged SLS equivalent?
So its SpaceX that’s driving the thinking here. Also, with an all KeroLOX HLV, they can again lower operations cost. Another advantage of the AJAX/Energia arrangement is that you can scale larger incrementally than you can with SLS because the weight limits force you to two boosters instead of six boosters.
Why did they give up on Rus-M? Angara was further along. Why give up on Angara? Engeria further along cause it was done.
add:
Forgot about Soyuz 2.1v significance – note that even as you evolve there’s still 10 years to factoring it in to widespread use, given how long/inertia of dealing with the R-7 family heritage (thousands).
All you’re seing here is a potential split in what/cost/time to address the competitive landscape. Which is driven by the fear of falling too far behind.
Could you explain what the current status of Angara is? I’m reading things that say that things are moving along, and launching next year? You think they would drop it for Energia?
And why would Russia change course and re-embrace Energia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan after reading through all the reasons they started developing Angara in the first place? I just don’t see all the ducks lining up like you say they will.
Could you explain what the current status of Angara is?
Korea’s Naro-1 used a downrated engine on a Angara URM as a first flight test. Angara has a pad under construction and might be flight ready in the next few years, budget permitting. But this wasn’t intended as a human rated system. Expendable only.
You think they would drop it for Energia?
Same question was asked earlier about Rus-M.
Look, you never know about funding politics at the top level. So I have no idea what happens with the final selection of musical chairs.
Just look at history. N1 was a bust due to Korelev dying, KORD insufficient, engine under spec, … So then dual Proton … spacecraft control issues due to stretching “too small” “too premature tech”.
Energia worked but spent them dry, and required Ukraine and Kazahkstan.
Angara was meant to displace Proton w/o Ukraine / Kazahkstan for unmanned launches yet was being put off on budget and lack of flight history.
Rus-M was meant as a manned launcher from the start, using highly reliable engines (chief flaw with Angara) yet was consuming too much development cost. And Vostochny pad was … unfortunate.
Soyuz modernization takes you the long way around the barn, with incremental development yielding something on the smallish/slowish side of what they’d like. Look for this one to fly next.
Proposing Energia would mean that there’s doubt of being able to afford the indefinite development costs of a manned LV of adequate capacity. And that the Angara A-5P and Plesetsk + Vostochny pads … are misfortunate casualties yet again. Thus we are back to Baikonur and Energia …
And why would Russia change course and re-embrace Energia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan after reading through all the reasons they started developing Angara in the first place?
For the same reasons America’s most used national launch vehicle uses Russian RD-180 engines.
And why Zenit -3SL exists.
Oh, and Angara (unmanned) will never be cancelled. Just put off like before. And before. And before …
Mr. C.,
Your explanation is insightful and self-consistent, as always, and makes for a clean take on what’s likely happening over there.
However, there’s one possibility that we may be overlooking. Many of us over here have expressed the opinion that SLS will never happen; that it will get cancelled before it’s completed. It’s not unreasonable to assume that some of the leadership in Russian Space agree with this assessment. If they do, and if they feel that there actually will a significant market for medium-heavy to super-heavy lift in coming years, then maybe Commonwealth is their answer to that marketplace. With Atlas and Falcon Heavy presumably being the limiting factors on western heavy lift capability and rate, Commonwealth and Ariane could easily become the heavy lift champions of the world, so to speak. This also strengthens the existing ESA/Russia space cooperation at a time when NASA is managing to alienate ESA through cancellations and budget cuts, a point which the Russians, I’m sure, would love. The nice part from Russian perspective is that it would apparently be simply a marketing strategy; with nothing obviously adversarial or political about it.
Since their proposed program is largely reuse and KerLox, they can cancel it at any time without major loss. Also, since they’re not falling into the trap of snubbing good enough to try for better, there’s a good chance that their budget and schedule actuals may be good this time around (and no Ukrainian union is going to SNAFFU them).
Steve
Mr. Steve,
With Atlas and Falcon Heavy presumably being the limiting factors on western heavy lift capability and rate, Commonwealth and Ariane could easily become the heavy lift champions of the world, so to speak.
Yes they know they need heavy lift beyond Proton. Falcon Heavy bothers them because it will drive the market down for Proton to the point that Zenit becomes only viable product in the bottom of that segment.
Thank you for bringing up Ariane. Ever notice how much the Energia-M looks like Ariane V?
Now, Ariane VI is on the development path … its smaller, similar to EELV in size/function.
This also strengthens the existing ESA/Russia space cooperation at a time when NASA is managing to alienate ESA through cancellations and budget cuts, a point which the Russians, I’m sure, would love.
The europeans have a on/off relationship with Russian space in addition to being p.o’d with American abandonment issues (small note – they’re not blameless in many of these due to attempting “too self-serving a deal at times” … ironically exactly what they blame the Russians for doing to them).
Look at Vega’s AVUM fourth stage – “currently made in Ukraine”. And the mixed bag of Soyuz ST launching out of Kourou. And that uprating Vega with larger solids and a German liquid stage covers the Soyuz capability.
ESA’s ambitions are always 10x its budgets. It would like to have indigenous HSF but finds it hard to afford a LV and a RV/CRV. Note also a lack of resolve as to where to go next.
Typically Russian efforts here overplay their hand. And American nationalism with European awkward “contributions” is an unstable mix. Not to mention that the Chinese “partnerships” also are provocative but low yield.
Also, since they’re not falling into the trap of snubbing good enough to try for better, there’s a good chance that their budget and schedule actuals may be good this time around.
Yes, that’s the deal. Ostensibly its cost sharing, but where it comes unstuck is the nature of a long partnership with autocratic nations where the bargain becomes uncertain and one wonders if the money might be better spent on developing indigenous (but less controlled, potentially way over budget) capacity/capabilities – never clear.