Orbiter-Forum  

Go Back   Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Spaceflight News
Register Blogs Orbinauts List Social Groups FAQ Projects Mark Forums Read

Spaceflight News Share news, stories, or discussions about government and private spaceflight programs; including ESA, ISS, NASA, Russian Space Program, Virgin Galactic, & more!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-30-2009, 03:17 AM   #31
Pquardzvaark
Orbinaut
 
Pquardzvaark's Avatar
Default

The rocket landing sounds cool, but I'd think liquid propellants would be better since they're more controllable than solids.

According to the article it seems they can't use parachutes because it could get blown off course. I guess they don't want it winding up in Kazakhstan...
Pquardzvaark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2009, 03:59 AM   #32
tl8
Addon Developer
 
tl8's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pquardzvaark View Post
 The rocket landing sounds cool, but I'd think liquid propellants would be better since they're more controllable than solids.

According to the article it seems they can't use parachutes because it could get blown off course. I guess they don't want it winding up in Kazakhstan...
I think working would be a better start then controllable. Liquids have a history at not quite working properly first time.

A solid is simple and even a basic vane or gimbal system should give enough control needed.

That said I think it would be possible to design a parachute that is controllable. Surely you could adapt a HAHO(High Altitude High Opening, Spec Ops) chute for the task
tl8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2009, 08:34 AM   #33
SiberianTiger
News Sifter
 
SiberianTiger's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzy View Post
 Rockets add weight and complexity. Better to stay with parachutes?
You have to take into account the mass of the payload to figure out which design is better. For a Soyuz size (about 3 tonnes) parachutes are indisputably best.

For something wieghing more than 20 tonnes, adequate parachute systems become too awkward and unreliable; in addition, retro rockets are necessary nevertheless for the final meters deceleration, especially if there are any people inside. Here's the picture of an air-dropped 13 tonnes capable parachute system:


The projected mass of the ACTS' return vehicle is about 8 tonnes, which puts it into the uncertainty margin where different solutions might be applicable, ranging from parachutes to wings and paved runway landing.

A different note here: the project has got a new acronym designation: instead of PPTS (Advanced Crew Transport System) it is now PTK NP (ПТК НП, пилотируемый транспортный корабль нового поколения) which stands for New Generation Crew Transport Spaceship (NG CTS).

And one more note on my personal preference on the public name proposal for the discussed spaceship. The idea was not mine, but I think that Kedr (Cedar) is a better name than Rus'. Defence follows:

1. Kedr was Gagarin's callsign.
2. It's not even slightly pretentious.
3. It's irrelevant to politics.
4. Trees called Kedr in Russian are ubiquitous in Siberia (where the ship will be launched from).
5. Sounds good in Russian.
6. Easily translated in other languages, at least, European: Cedar, Zeder, Сèdre, Cedro, add your own spelling.
7. These species of trees are long living.
8. The name should please the greens and reflects relative environmental friendliness of the project.
9. The return vehicle looks very much like a pine cone (not yet opened) if you turn it upside down.

Last edited by SiberianTiger; 04-30-2009 at 09:13 AM.
SiberianTiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2009, 09:09 AM   #34
tblaxland
Webmaster
 
tblaxland's Avatar


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SiberianTiger View Post
 The projected mass of the ACTS' return vehicle is about 8 tonnes, which puts it into the uncertainty margin where different solutions might be applicable, ranging from parachutes to wings and paved runway landing.
Orion Crew Module is about 8 tons also and they are using parachutes+water landing - understanding of course that water landing is not is probably not a practical option for PTK NP . The land landing version used parachutes+air bags but was designed out because it was too heavy (or the launcher too small but that's a different argument). Another option is somewhere between parachutes and wings - a parafoil (ala X-38 whose parafoil was nearly 700 square meters).
tblaxland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2009, 12:35 PM   #35
SiberianTiger
News Sifter
 
SiberianTiger's Avatar

Big Grin

Just could not resist posting it here. RKK Energia PTK NP design - Crew Stations (really developed within Energia)



Top to bottom:

Captain
Pilots
Flight Attendant
Tourists
Radio Boy
Coal Heavers
SiberianTiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2009, 01:44 PM   #36
Anariaq
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SiberianTiger View Post
 A different note here: the project has got a new acronym designation: instead of PPTS (Advanced Crew Transport System) it is now PTK NP (ПТК НП, пилотируемый транспортный корабль нового поколения) which stands for New Generation Crew Transport Spaceship (NG CTS).
Spaceship... My fantasy start to produce a russian version of Delta

Find it kinda weird that we a heading backward in to the "future" seems they are just copying the old Designs and make them bigger... an a little more advanced avionics

Was hoping that someone will actually start a research and build prototype airplane/shuttle designs. They seem more logical and less expensive than the 1 time use rocket America non included maybe 5 time. But still lots of the hardware is 1 time use. And don't think they are cheap ether. But maybe I'm just stupid.

But it will be if it is a "Spaceship" they are building ( or I just have a wrong meaning with the word "Spaceship" )

Anariaq
Anariaq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 09:07 AM   #37
SiberianTiger
News Sifter
 
SiberianTiger's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anariaq View Post
 But it will be if it is a "Spaceship" they are building ( or I just have a wrong meaning with the word "Spaceship" )

Anariaq
We simply call in Russian a Space Ship anything to be flown to space by people. That's it.
SiberianTiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2009, 11:59 AM   #38
SiberianTiger
News Sifter
 
SiberianTiger's Avatar

Photos

The model of carrier rocket for PTK NP is on display at MAKS-2009 Air and Space Technologies Show near Moscow.



The information plaque:



It reads:

Samara State-owned Scientific and Production Space Centre

Medium Class Carrier Rocket With Increased Payload Capability

Application ScopeLaunching manned and unmanned transport space ships and space station modules from Vostochny Cosmodrome to meet the goals of LEO manned flight programme; Launching domestic and international payloads of scientific, commercial and double purpose on near and far space missions
Mass at Launch, metric t673
Stages2
Fuel components 
- oxidizerLiquid O2
- 1st stage blocks' fuelNaphtyl
- 2nd stage block's fuelLiquid H2
Payload Mass, kgNo less 20,000 at LEO
 up to 7,000 at GTO
 up to 4,000 at GEO
Rocket's Length, m61.1
Development StatusThe draft project is under development at Samara Space Centre in collaboration with Energia Rocket and Space Corp. and Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau
SiberianTiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-20-2009, 09:34 AM   #39
ijuin
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anariaq View Post
 Find it kinda weird that we a heading backward in to the "future" seems they are just copying the old Designs and make them bigger... an a little more advanced avionics

Was hoping that someone will actually start a research and build prototype airplane/shuttle designs. They seem more logical and less expensive than the 1 time use rocket America non included maybe 5 time. But still lots of the hardware is 1 time use. And don't think they are cheap ether. But maybe I'm just stupid.
First of all, as the Space Shuttle has shown, we can not make a spaceplane cheap without first making it failure-resistant enough that we don't need to half-dismantle the whole vehicle to check every last nut, bolt, diode, and weld after every flight. Half of the turnaround cost for the Shuttle orbiters was from this need to repeatedly test every part.

That said, what limits us at present is weight--we just don't have the mass budget to spare to make the vessels' structure strong enough to have a safety factor of 2.0-2.5 like aircraft do--instead we have to shave it to something like 1.2-1.3, which means that we have almost no margin at all, which in turn is why we have to recheck everything so much.
ijuin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2009, 01:39 PM   #40
SiberianTiger
News Sifter
 
SiberianTiger's Avatar

Photos

Here's a picture of construction plans map for Vostochny Space Centre
(51°42' N, 128°00' E, near Uglegorsk) displayed at MAKS-2009 air show. Legend translation is mine.

SiberianTiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2009, 01:00 PM   #41
SiberianTiger
News Sifter
 
SiberianTiger's Avatar

Default

Land allocation was done for Vostochny Cosmodrome.

An allocation map for the area:



A saved Google map with marked boundary of the cosmodrome, projected launch azimuth, launch pads and sites of infrastructure objects (found here):

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...83026&t=h&z=10
SiberianTiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2009, 01:29 PM   #42
Urwumpe
Certain Super User
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

isn't it a bit far away from the coast like that? 400 km to the coast minimal and two bigger cities below the 90° launch azimuth...
Urwumpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2009, 01:52 PM   #43
SiberianTiger
News Sifter
 
SiberianTiger's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urwumpe View Post
 isn't it a bit far away from the coast like that? 400 km to the coast minimal and two bigger cities below the 90° launch azimuth...
I guess it's to minimize the implications of doing a S&R of the crew in the sea in case of an emergency abort. By the way, why do you think having two cities southwards of the track is an issue?
SiberianTiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2009, 01:57 PM   #44
Sunhillow
Donator
 
Sunhillow's Avatar
Default

stupid to answer to a post from page 1

... but the launch vehicle resembles the UR 700 a bit. Only less complex luckily

Last edited by Sunhillow; 12-28-2009 at 02:00 PM.
Sunhillow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2009, 02:04 PM   #45
SiberianTiger
News Sifter
 
SiberianTiger's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunhillow View Post
 ... but the launch vehicle resembles the UR 700 a bit. Only less complex luckily
That's what you get when you must satisfy a strict requirement to make rocket modules fit into standard rail cargo cars. A bunch of sausages.
SiberianTiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Spaceflight News


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:52 PM.

Quick Links Need Help?


About Us | Rules & Guidelines | TOS Policy | Privacy Policy

Orbiter-Forum is hosted at Orbithangar.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2007 - 2017, Orbiter-Forum.com. All rights reserved.