Project Energia 5V Heavy Launch Vehicle

[N_Molson]

Some nice progress, here we have the whole stack lifting off :



The boosters fire when the core thrust level is 100%.

Time to get back to Blender for the upper stages !

 

[N_Molson]

Added Stage 3 (remember, russians count boosters as "stage 1"). The engine is a brand new "RD-0150", not a lot of details about it on the Web but that's an high-performance LOX/LH2 twin chambered engine (Kosberg).



Of course this is a "paper rocket" so we have no flight profile, but I guess that stage is similar to the SaturnV SIVB : it will finish the insertion in parking orbit and re-ignite to perform the TLI.

 

[GLS]

Added Stage 3 (remember, russians count boosters as "stage 1"). The engine is a brand new "RD-0150", not a lot of details about it on the Web but that's an high-performance LOX/LH2 twin chambered engine (Kosberg).



Of course this is a "paper rocket" so we have no flight profile, but I guess that stage is similar to the SaturnV SIVB : it will finish the insertion in parking orbit and re-ignite to perform the TLI.

That doesn't look like Baikonur, Plesetsk or Vostoshny...

 

[N_Molson]

That doesn't look like Baikonur, Plesetsk or Vostoshny...

No here I'm at KSC because I wanted to be sure I had a flat surface to launch from...

Right now I'm mostly making a "draft" of all meshes and modules, and focusing on having them properly assembled. That's no small task, that rocket is really a russian dolls set ! Once the whole stack flies, I'll focus on a) make sure it doesn't "skids" on the ground like it currently does (I've seen posts on the forum about it and code samples) b) implementing manual control through thrust vectoring.

About the flight plan, Anatoly Zak writes on his website :

The Energia-5VR architecture offered obvious advantages over the Energia-5V: namely, it was shorter and lighter, while carrying practically the same cargo. Moreover, because it consisted of only three stages, rather than the four stages making up the 5V variant, the 5VR version would likely be cheaper and more reliable. During a lunar mission, the third stage of Energia-5VR would fire twice: first to accelerate the payload to nearly orbital velocity and then to deliver it into a highly elliptical orbit with an apogee of 35,000 kilometers. Once there, the crew of the PTK spacecraft could check all onboard systems and, if everything had gone according to plan, the spacecraft would fire its MOB-DM space tug to enter an Earth-escape trajectory toward the Moon.

In contrast, Energia-5V would use its third stage to enter an initial parking orbit and after its separation, the fourth stage would accelerate its payload on an Earth-escape trajectory.

so in the 5V configuration, Stage 3 puts the stack in parking orbit, then the KVRB (LOX/LH2 space tug, Stage 4) performs the TLI. Makes sense, because with that kind of tech we can't store LH2 in a liquid state for more than 12 to 24 hours. Stage 5 is an evolution of the Proton Block-DM, I guess it would use an hypergolic mix (roughly equivalent to Apollo SPS).

Note that the payload to Lunar Orbit is 20 tons, so two launches are required for a Lunar Landing (1 for the lander, 1 for the crewed spacecraft).

 

[N_Molson]

With the KVRB (4th) stage :

 

[N_Molson]

The whole stack, 100 meters tall :

 

[N_Molson]

One thing I was wondering about : do you think the RD-171 engine nozzles can gimbal independently ? Or do the 4 move as a block ?

On Astronautix they say :

"...the difference being one-plane gimballing in the RD-170 used in the Energia launch vehicle strap-ons versus two-plane gimballing in the RD-171 used on the first stage of the Zenit launch vehicle."

RD-171

RD-171

www.astronautix.com

But I don't get what they mean by "two-plane gimballing"... Does that mean it can gimbal on two axis ?

The thing is, if the 4 nozzles gimbal as one, I need some Verniers on the core booster in order to achieve roll control once the boosters are jettisoned...

 

[Urwumpe]

I think it is single plane in the sense of "2D" what they mean there, while 3D requires two planes to define the orientation. (Never mind the bollocks, that I wrote there. The translation from the page makes it clear, that I was wrong on my first guess)

Can this page help you there?

РД-170 (11Д521) и РД-171 (11Д520)

lpre.de

This part of it might be helpful in that case:

The chambers of the RD-170 engine as part of Block A of the Energia rocket swing in two planes: in the radial plane passing through the longitudinal axis of the engine and the chamber axis, and in the tangential plane perpendicular to it. Such a control scheme is more effective in the structure of the Energia rocket package, but it requires more powerful steering gears that overcome the load created by the oncoming aerodynamic flow on the protruding part of the combustion chamber nozzle beyond the parameter of the external bypass of the block when it is deflected in the radial direction.

About the RD-171 that Zenit uses, the following:

The combustion chambers of the RD-171 engine of the first stage of "Zenith" are deflected when controlled only in the tangential rolling plane. The nozzles of the chambers do not enter the aerodynamic flow around the stage and do not experience its load. Steering gears are significantly less powerful. The control efficiency of this option is sufficient for the Zenith missile.

So, yes, the nozzles of the RD-171 only gimbal along a single axis, the tangential one, while the RD-170 engines gimbal around two axes and require two actuators per chamber.

 

[N_Molson]

Very nice read, lots of useful data, thanks !

The RD-171 is supposed to be more cost-sustainable than the RD-170 (which was intended to be reused by parachute recovery, after all), so it makes sense.

So, if I understand correctly (I use Google Translation from Russian to French, which probably isn't the worse), the actuator axis for each chamber/nozzle is "tangential" (and so we have 4 actuators for each engine, and the RD-170 had 8, or 4x2). I made a quick dirty schema, do you think they mean the "red" axis, or the "blue" axis (both are "tangential" in their own way and are possible from a technical standpoint) ?

 

[GLS]

The actuators are 90º apart, which is the only way to do it. Now you can have the usual 2, or (for whatever reason) just 1.
The "tangential" wording IMO would mean just the red actuators are present. That would enable control on all 3 axis.

 

[GLS]

Wait, there are photos:

^^ 2 actuators (the green vertical cylinders)

^^ 1 actuator (in silver, on the left of the closest chamber)


So the images confirm the ideas above: on the RD-170 the gimballing is done towards the other nozzles, while on the RD-171 the nozzles gimbal tangentially (i.e., 45º from the direction of the RD-170, like the red arrows in the diagram above).

 

[N_Molson]

Yeah, it makes sense. Gimballing engines is a bit pointless if you don't have control on the 3 axis.

Also I realize that the core stage 4 nozzles form a "diamond" pattern (45° rotation). I'll mod my mesh in order to reflect that.

 

[MaxBuzz]

RD-171MV tests ended a week ago

 

[N_Molson]

Awesome !

And here is the correct configuration for the nozzles, with the core RD-171MV tilted by 45° :

 

[N_Molson]

I'm digging back (again) into animations. I have a pretty good idea on how to make an engine gimbal, etc... something dynamic, that changes in sim.

But I was wondering if there is a way to "quickly" change a mesh orientation when loading it into Orbiter. AddMesh supports transformation in _V3 coordinates, but can orientation be set the same way ?

The idea is to be able to re-use a single model instead of having different copies of it, rotated in different fashions (I have an engine mesh I want to rotate in 4 different positions, and I'd like to reuse the same mesh for my 20 nozzles !). If anything else, it will make the addon lighter to download !

I still want that mesh as "standalone" for practical reasons (I don't want the engine to be a meshgroup of the booster).

 

[GLS]

AFAIK, to change the orientation of a mesh you have to animate it.
As for reusing meshes, I'd say only do it if they are big, otherwise it will be too much work for little (or no) gain. It makes sense to have each booster using the same mesh (you probably do that already).
I think the bigger challenge here is having all engines gimbal in the intended direction.

 

[N_Molson]

As for reusing meshes, I'd say only do it if they are big, otherwise it will be too much work for little (or no) gain. It makes sense to have each booster using the same mesh (you probably do that already)

Thanks, that's what I wanted to know... Indeed, coding 10 lines to rotate a single mesh seems overkill... After all I only need 4 engine meshes for 20 nozzles, that's fair.

Yes the 4 strap on boosters are identical, so they use the same mesh.

 

[n72.75]

Glad to see you got your docked stages working. Did you ever figure out what was causing the issue?

How are these talking to each other, are you casting to the booster/other stage type and then directly accessing their members?

 

[Gargantua2024]

I'm curious: Is the Energia-5V rocket the same as the Soyuz-5/Irtysh rocket or they are different?

 

[Urwumpe]

I'm curious: Is the Energia-5V rocket the same as the Soyuz-5/Irtysh rocket or they are different?

Vastly different, the Yenisei variants for example use RD-180 engines for the second / Core stage.