One of the major reasons for such long delay was moving the whole Angara production to the factory in Omsk to achieve better logistics. Omsk is located exactly in the middle between Plesetsk and Vostochny (and Baykonur). That move involved about complete Omsk factory equipment upgrade, teaching people, preparation for mass production and certification of each production stage. So that huge delay was not because of Angara development itself. Also there was no any reason to rush before Angara launchpad at Vostochny ready and payload it intended to carry ready.
@@vladimirgoryachev3707 To keep quiet about secrets has nothing to do with brainwashing and is not a uniquely Soviet feature. Anyway, I find N. Decorsys' comment uncalled for since I don't see how andreyz4k's comment revealed any secrets.
@@Decorsys he didnt worked there, he said "serving". Pretty sure he was just a soldier private rank without any responsibilities. Plesetsk is a military rocket/missile site with alot of drafted soldiers, they mostly do nothing there but guarding those sites. No one of them have never seen any rocket there in closer view. These people who is relative (in personal close contact) with rockets in Plesetsk will not speak with you in youtube comments, most of them even not allowed to have any social networks accounts (actually all russian armed forces personell forbidden to have these accounts, but most of non secret parts officers dont give a fuck about it) .
@@diplodoker The Russian army is made up mostly of unwitting conscripts. That is, this is slavery in its purest form. It’s funny to demand that slaves keep their mouths shut.
This is excellent timing. Your Proton video popped up again for me a few days ago, I watched it then was disappointed when you didn't have one on the Angara. But here we are! Thanks for all the great content.
Yeah, also it is the first Russian rocket planned with the reusable stages and this platform accommodates a future superheavy variant. Also right now there are talks about making Angara URMs reusable too, we'll see how that develops.
@@mihan2d There were some preliminary plans for "Energia-2" launching vehicle with reusable 1st stage units, that were supposed to land in gliding mode.
AFAIK, the production delays were due to reorganization rather than any problems with the rocket or its production itself. Given the mess in the Russian space industry with its strategic view, project consistency, and quality control, which resulted in failures when launching perfectly tested long-serving rockets, getting things back in order was a priority over faster Angara adoption. As you pointed out, Angara is about guaranteed independent access to space for Russia. The rocket is essentially ready to use, it's just that there are no tasks and payloads that can be easily switched from Soyuz and Proton. I expect it to gradually increase its role in the Russian national space program, especially when Angara launchpad will enter service at Vostochniy, but not expect it to be a mass commercial working horse.
I'm confidant enough in it to say that an Angara A5 will probably launch the next Russian space station whenever the ISS gets too old to be safe to occupy. If the Russians decide to start to participate in the Artemis program in a meaningful way (read: sending up their own modules), I'm pretty sure an Angara will be the thing putting them in orbit. Of course, they'd probably have to use an Angara-A5 or -A7 using the URM-2v and KVTK upper stages (perhaps with the A7 they could do a tank stretch on the URM-2V), because you don't send things to the moon efficiently without using hydrogen or alternatively a lot more time and electric propulsion.
Essentially ready, but delayed. Unlikely to fly this year after it gets moved from the pad to the hangar. Right now it says Dec 4, but since issues were found may be longer
A little correction: main launchpad for Angara, meant to be Vostochny kosmodome, on the Far East of Russia ("Vostochny" is actually mean "Eastern"), but since they haven't finished launch complex for it there, Plesetsk still the only avalible option for testing the vehicle. General plan was to launch commercial payloads from Vostochny, and leave Plesetsk mainly fot DOD needs. These days nobody knows when all this plans will actually come to life, which is sad, because it's pretty capable booster, and would be nice to see some happy ending after all troubles it went through.
Lol Scott flexing on Tim Dodd. Tim is spending months putting together a guide the Soviet/Russian rocket family, while Scott just turns this out like it’s no biggie. I all seriousness though, Love both of them and really looking forward to Tim’s mini-documentary
@@TheRadioactiveBanana32 Well, it certainly wasn't "BOAOPOA".))) Funny thing, in the early years of mobile, latin script was kinda unintentionally forced on SMS communication, so people usually have no trouble recognizing words transliterated in English latin. Imagine if you routinely were getting garbled messages like: "гет милк, плс". It didn't stick.
Two additions: 1. strange projects at the beginning of the program, caused by the customer's requirement (MoD) to use the launch table from the Zenit rocket (13 tons), which was built at 85%. And they wanted to get the payload capacity of the Angara as the Proton rocket from Baikonur (23 tons). That's why the engineers did their best. 2. during the audit in 2007, it was revealed that from the beginning of the program in 1995 to 2006, 4% of the necessary money was allocated for the project. That's why the development period is so long. Source: book of the Angara rocket designer V. V. Nesterov ."The KPK Angara. History of creation". Два дополнения: 1. странные проекты в начале программы, вызваны требованием заказчика (MoD) использовать стартовый стол от ракеты Зенит (13 тонн), который был построен на 85%. А грузоподъёмность у Ангары хотели получить как у ракеты Протон с Байконура (23 тонн). Поэтому инженеры и изворачивались как могли. 2. При аудите в 2007 году было выявленно, что с начала программы в1995 и по 2006 на проект выделили 4% денег от необходимого. Поэтому и срок разработки такой длинный. Источник: книга конструктора ракеты Ангара В.В.Нестеров ."КРК Ангара. История создания".
там скорее добивались аналогичной ПН на высокие орбиты а-ля ГПО и ГСО. Если вы посмотрите на статистику пусков, то заметите, что 90+% летят туда. Ангара Же значительно проигрывает протону, если запускать с плесецка
Я начал "болеть" за Ангару, будчи ещё школьником. С тех пор закончил школу, универ, работал, снова универ, учёная степень, жена, двое детей. А воз и ныне там.
The delay is due to a deep reorganization of the whole Russian space industry. Lots of merging and optimization happened over the last decade. Looks like the whole reorganization process is now finally done, so projects that were on hold should now gradually become a thing.
@@MouradMokrane Actually no. Russia signed with Kazakhstan agreement that it have right to launch Protons until 2025. Exactly after this Angara lost own importance. When developed Angara, decide to build new factory in Omsk instead of Moscow (3000 km from Moscow, on south and middle of Russia). Also was accepted decision that Angara will be launched in new Vostochny Cosmodrome. But because was signed contract with Kazakhstan, all deadlines was postponed. Factory planned to build somewhere in 2022 (it almost done and actually already produce modules of Angara for future usage, on youtube exist video from it). On Vostochny decide first launchpad to build for Soyuz rocket (done), while for Angara only after (now in progress, must be ready in 2023). So actually they are no any delays, it is just priorities was changed because gone risk that Kazakhstan will deny Protons. Angara itself was ready already in 2012, but at that year was no place to launch it. It light and heavy versions was launched in 2014 when on military cosmodrome Plesetsk made temporary launch pad for rocket (it was formally tests to confirm project, actually first stage already flew from 2009 as part of South Korean rocket). After that about rocket everyone forgot because there are no needs in it until 2025.
Protracted development - the true curse for any invention in an age of rapidly progressing technologies. Something conceived as cutting-edge can be obsolescent by the time it's ready for market.
Great looking rocket, love the look of the common cores. Hopefully the project doesn't sputter out and die before it starts flying regularly. Imo best looking russian rocket so far, in fact not even just russian, just in general imo
The core problem with the Angara is its time has passed before it started. In the era of reusability, an expensive single use rocket just doesn't have an economic rationale. The Angara is a fine rocket but it is a remnant of a by gone era.
All reusable rockets are Americans and America has a habit of abusing every leverage it gets. So russian program would remain viable, less intense but still useful. Program delays are however a clear demonstration that Russian space program is not in same league with soviet one. They had good 30 years milking legacy systems to max, now realisation is setting in that they didn't invest in newer technologies. Angara is a belated attempt to correct that oversight. I don't think it'll commercially successful but it would retain niche applications.
@@Sciolist LOL, yeah, Russia didn't abuse USA ISS costs after the Shuttle stopped flying. (/sarcasm off) Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos will happily fly Russian payloads as long they don't run afoul of government regulations. Every spacefaring nation probably should retain ability to self-launch even if they are throw-away rockets.
@@Sciolist There are no any delays actually. Story of Angara: 1) 1992 Let’s build new rocket; organize competition, what developers will propose. 2) 1994 Proposed some project. Okey. But our country just dissolved, it is even worse than WW2, industry destroyed, civil wars, we have no money, so let’s return to it in future. 3) 1997 Guys, we have better project, let’s do it instead of current. Okey. Proposed absolutely different project. 4) 1998 Russia declared about own bankruptcy. Nobody still funded Angara. 5) 1999 Two Protons fall, Kazakhstan is angry and promise deny for Russia to launch Protons. 6) 2004 Signed agreement that Russia will build new rocket to replace Proton which use poisoned fuel. Russia got right to launch Protons until 2025. Angara postponed somewhere in far future. 7) 2006 South Koreans visited Russia: guys, you are clever and know how to build rockets. Can you help and build rockets for us, we will pay? Russians: let’s take our project Angara, modify it and use for Koreans, they will pay for our rocket? Okey. 8) 2009 First stage of Angara done and launched as part of new South Korean rocket. 9) 2012 Russian Angara 100% done. Guys, regards to Korean money we build new rocket yearly than planned, but there are no place to launch it. ...now we need to build launchpad for Angara in new Vostochny Cosmodrome and new factory closer to it. But because we already signed with Kazakhstan agreement that we have right to launch Protons rockets until 2025, there are no reasons to hurry. So, let’s build launchpad in 2023 (after launchpad for Soyuz), while factory in 2022. Okey. 10) 2014 On military cosmodrome Plesetsk created temporary launchpad for tests of Angara. In that year launched light and heavy versions. Hurray! At same time somewhere in military stuff: guys, we need big rockets to deliver ‘light and heat’: 2007: SLBM Sineva ready. 2009: ICBM Yars ready. 2014: SLBM Lainer ready. 2018: SLBM Bulava ready. 2019: Hypersonic glider ready. In development ICBM Sarmat, at tests anti-space defense system A-235, with fastest in world (in class of large rockets which can in space) ABM A-925 and 58R6.
@@juliap.5375 that’s a fine piece of the official Russian propaganda 😬 Fact: Angara is not flying any time soon. Yes, it is being moved from the pad as we speak.
Man, the Russians are really having trouble letting go of the idea of a Universal Rocket. They're building a Universal Rocket Module to replace the Universal Rocket-500.
Scott, Russian space program is mostly projects by now. The head of space agency makes bigger cash than Nasa's director (before adjusting the costs of living!) while average salary in Roskosmos is ~1000$. Which is not too bad in Russia, but it is average and we are talking top notch engineers, scientists etc. - which should be attracted to the production. So by now it is mostly soviet 80-years old engineers. Because top notch engineers and scientists won't take a job with a disrespectful pay + Roskosmos priorities are kinda reflecting the direction where the agency is rapidly diving so good specialists are not exactly thrilled to work ideologically either.
@@oberguga What was that recent thing about the Russians testing some sort of nuclear engine then? Happened before Covid-19 was a big thing so it's ancient history now, but it was all over the (space) news and Scott did a video on it.
A test vehicle is indeed being built (photos of the assembly are available online), and will probably be launching next year. The nuclear-powered space tug should be a great orbit to orbit transfer vehicle, and is planned to be the main workhorse for the Russian moon program, with Mars coming next.
@@MouradMokrane no it's probably mockup for exibition. Russian launched spacecraft with nuclear thruster in late 80s bu it failed. Sinse I don't hear about real project. Only projects with rapidly sliding date if with date at all. I think if they do something it would be done in 30s.
@@44R0Ndin They changed main contractor in 19 or late 18... So basically project start again. Only concept more or less stable. As I said ~10 years if they lucky.
So the boosters fire for 3 1/2 minutes. Does that mean the center core is vacuum optimized and initial runs a lower throttle at lower altitudes? I don’t understand much of rocket design but must be amazing to figure the correct design of each stage. At what point is a 3rd stage beneficial?
No. Different kind of economic. Space and military industrial complexes in Russia de facto living in soviet system. It is build by state, on state owned factories, without foreigners, mainly from state resources. Nobody will buy for self new yacht or collection of Ferrari cars because made profit (earned state money just because owned factory and sell parts in 2-3-50 times more of real price; typical situation in USA). Price of rocket is equal to price of materials from which it made + salary of workers which earn the same salary regardless amount of rockets they produce (fixed salary once per month). Significant share of this money very soon return back to state. While you comparing with American system where whole space industry in hands of commercial companies. Each of they want some profit (and people in that companies actually incredible rich, including billionaires, they have more money than Russia spent of whole own space program). It is why on each stage of production of any part price is growing to some inadequate values, so everything is incredible overpriced. In such conditions arrived SpaceX which proposed reusable rockets. It allow to save money. In USA it is works because everything overpriced, in Russia it can’t work, because prices already equal to prime cost. It is possibly in Russia to decrease price, but only a bit (cost of scrap), but actually it is complicated and expensive process. It need to rebuild factories. As I said, workers earn same salary, irrelevant amount of rockets they made. So, with reusables rockets, if you made 3 rockets per year, and spend on this 3 months, what workers must to do rest 9 month? You need to reorganize factory in such way, that workers will do another work, as example build satellites, engines and so on. Maybe you need to fire some of them, but you need before to find for them another work. Then you comparing prices on market. But actually there are no real open market. Why at Soviet times nobody used Russian rockets to launch satellites? Why nobody almost never use Chinese rockets nowadays? Because Americans deny to whole world, threat with sanctions and close access to American parts/electronics for satellites. In 1990s after dissolve of USSR, Americans afraid that without money Russian scientists will spread around whole world and build for a lot of countries rockets (like Ukrainians which moved to North Korea where built ICBM/SLBM). As example India signed with Russia such deal, they ordered creation of whole space industry from ground to space station. Americans in panic forced Yeltsin to cancel this deal and signed agreement, that they will not block for other countries orders of Russian rockets, but Russia must hold prices somewhere near average of American market, so American space industry could live and not died (as it happened with uranium enrichment industry in USA because Russians have more developed technology which costs in over 20 times cheaper). So, you see not real Russian prices on rockets, but some overpriced. Actually reusable American rockets cost in several times more than non-reusable Russian or Chines.
The propaganda that Julie is spreading is actually very common inside Russia. That the reusable rockets will never be as cheap as disposable ones. Paradox, but many believe.
Actually, it took 6 years to launch another Angara because the production was moved completely from Moscow to another city, which is almost same distanse from "Plesetsk" and Russian new launching site "Vostochny". This decision was also in line with the so-called "regional develorment" program (an attempt to somehow equalize the economy growth in different areas of Russia). Although it got a bit out of shedule, Russian govermnent is quite happy with the way things go. New Angaras should now be produced and tested much quicker and easier.
Unlikely. Proton production was stopped in December 2019. There are 7-9 remaining sets of hardware available for launches through 2025. After that even the launch facilities for proton will be decommissioned.
Wait, did you say from the *North* of Russia? Doesn't that limit the orbits they can reach efficiently quite a bit? I thought the reason Soyuz launches from Kazachstan is not because of any legal obligation to involve that country but rather because it's conveniently closer to the equator.
yeah, u are quite right. Plesetsk has 61-63 inclanation, so Angara has a vary little GTO and GEO. For comparison from Plesetsk it is 5,5\2,8. From Vostochny it is 7\4
@@odysseusrex5908 The intent was to have a slightly cheaper 20-25t to LEO capability than Proton. The aspiration was about $30m per launch at mass market and initial cost in $50-60 range. The official price tag now is $90-100m. Big cost drivers are composite materials that they were counting on from the international partners. Russia currently doesn’t have a manufacturing capability to build comparable performance characteristics materials. They attempted to build a factory in 2010s to match that but the endeavor collapsed. As a result they decided to continue using old heavier materials that require a significantly more labor intensive process, increasing mass and reducing effectiveness. Avionics components, operating systems, other software modules also became a factor after 2014. A lot of it had to be built from scratch. There’s a lot of fitting round pegs in square holes going on on that rocket. None of it is conducive to mass manufacturing and reducing the cost.
@@A31415 Thank you for your response. That is extremely interesting. Unless you actually work for Roscosmos, I can't imagine how you dig out all the information you are posting. It certainly isn't the kind of thing one finds of Wikipedia.
Scott, what's your take on last nights Starship static fire? The sound of that raptor was almost animalistic, like it didn't want to get shut down at all.
2:58 good that they printed "Hot Fire" on the side of the rocket engine, just to make everyone standing next to it while firing aware that it's not firing cold fire.
"All very practical, and all very Kerbal." Anytime someone describes a spacecraft as Kerbal, all I picture is the rocket just exploding on the pad or going up in the air a little bit and then exploding in the air. lol
Well, the point is Russian space agency (Roskosmos) knows full well they don't want to go to the Moon, it will require too much work. In a meantime, it's head, Dmitri Rogozin, the right-hand man of ex-president Medvedev (a placeholder who kept the chair warm while Putin didn't still want to rewrite constitution in his favour) also knows he wants to have a new mansion and a bigger, better yacht. So, first they say on TV how Russia is planning to build a base on the Moon by 2022 and invest money to Roskosmos, then they let people forget about it a little, then Crimea heppens, the rouble plumits and ukrainian manufacturers refuse to sell engines to Russia, so everything can be blamed on them
Yes, I was only a teenager when Proton Rocket launched the Buran orbiter without the help of SRB's in late 1988. If it wasn't the Russian rocket to have placed the heaviest payload into low earth orbit it was surely among the 3 heaviest. So sad to see it almost abandoned after so many years of such an engineering breakthrough.
Thanks for this video Scott. I had a pretty negative view on the Angara, mainly because it seemed a step back from some of the energia plans of the USSR (and also cus it's kinda ugly), but it's promising to see there is atleast some innovation from the manufacturing side of things, and the political considerations do help put things into context.
in a post-soviet russia there was no chanse to resurrect energia-type rockets, cuz of its diametr and propellent. russian railroads supports 4.1 m in diametr, while Energia-type rockets were 7,7 and 8 meters. And an only one hydrogen plant in USSR were in Uzbekistan. Nowadays in Russia still ther's no hydrogen plant. But it will be built by 2025, cuz KVTK and A5V must be launched a year later
Intresting design & looks better than the aging Proton. Will you be doing any updates on the PTKNP crewed spacecraft that's supposed to go with this rocket lineup? Always thought the PTKNP spacecraft was a pretty intresting design but not much news on it since the reveal of the concept.
From what I've heard from Russian sources Angara-7 was abandoned because it needed a wider central core and a new bigger launch pad had to be designed and constructed.
I suppose the Russian military will be the only customer for this thing. There is a lot of competition in the commercial satellite market between SpaceX and Rocket Lab.
@@A31415 American regime introduced so-called sanctions against China (actually only UN have right for this, but regime violate international laws as always), it is deny to launch on Chinese rockets any payloads where exist any American-made electronics and rest stuff. Of course in satellites of 3rd countries it is always some American stuff, so they afraid to buy launches on cheap Chinese rockets. It is need to have satellites where there are no any American electronics. But even this not always have, american regime introduce sanctions against other countries even without reasons, only if they buy something from Russians or Chinese. As example not so long ago story with Indonesia, they wanted to buy Russian aircrafts, but American regime deny. Tried to deny similar deal for Egypt. And so on.
Yeah, like, why not launch a tank into space, after all? There are plenty of T-54 and T-62 to spare. First-ever space tank, how's that, Elon Musk, huh? HUUUUH?
@@TheEvilmooseofdoom do you realize that low cost and cheap are synonyms? And either way the rocket is where most of the expense comes from. So might as well take the chance.
@@thelonelyrogue3727 Okay. Something that took a team to engineer and build vs. a hunk of concrete. You speak of taking chances like resources are unlimited. It's not cost but risk. You don't spend the time and money even on a cheap satellite to risk blowing it up on a untried system because it can be hard or impossible to get your payload insured and you might not get the money or material to try again.
It's a very desirable mechanism in terms of efficiency, but extremely complex to implement. Shut off valves need to be duplicated for _both ends_ of the fuel-transfer plumbing. That may triple complexity in the core, where engines feed from three sources. The space shuttle used this technology to transfer fuel between the main external tank and the shuttle body. No hot-swapping. Starship is going to have two sources for the main engines, but all within the same hull, and no hot-swapping. Starship is first going to demonstrate 10 tons of oxygen transfer between internal tanks, and later, propellant ullage transfer between ships. Still no hot-swapping.
@@imconsequetau5275 yes, i guess there are more things to fail, and that is bad, but what if.. those same valves ware used to fill the rocket, or to do cold-swapping anyway, i guess they should just be increased to handle bigger flow. also maybe one per core would be enough if you are dropping boosters at the same time
They seem to be a little bit slower than SpaceX in terms of development speed. My guess is that it’ll be fully operational by the time Starship first lands on Mars
It really doesn’t matter. Fully operational, there will be extremely low numbers of Angara produced. Starship will be cranked out by thousands. At this time Angara is a steam boat someone is building in 1995 while Starship is a Boeing 787. They are not competing in the same market. They are projects from two different eras.
Ignoring issues like abort options; are there any technical reasons that a core + strap-on-booster system can't light the core in flight just before booster jettison? Are there technical reason that would be less effective than throttling down to ~30%?
You just hit the nail. Most rockets have reliable upper stages and wait until later to start, yet it seems that first stage cores invariably are lit at liftoff. Why? Because of *gravity drag:* _It is better to add thrust than not,_ unless forces would exceed design limitations. Even the space shuttle lit the main engines before the SRBs. They could have increased the SRB thrust in the design until they had 10% more thrust than total mass. The spacecraft would then be hanging from the tank instead of pulling its own weight. But even then it would be better to start the core engines at launch so they contribute thrust and a faster leap off the pad, _even though the core would consume fuel right from the beginning._ Doing so increases payload capacity *to LEO.* Starship has 3 sea-level engines and 3 vacuum-optimized engines, yet all 6 are used during launch after stage separation. Why? Because of _gravity drag._ Even though the sea-level engines have a lower ISP (efficiency) than the vacuum-optimized engines, they still reduce _gravity drag_ enough to be useful. Once the ship is mostly out of the atmosphere, you should consider the apogee as nearly fixed, while the engines are striving to raise perigee out of the atmosphere as well. The sooner the better. _Once LEO is reached, it is better to use only the vacuum-optimized engines. However, those engines are still most effective when used closest to perigee._ Use beyond perigee - that is, a longer burn - will begin to somewhat contribute to raising perigee as well as apogee, in contrast engine use exactly at apogee only modifies the perigee.
@@imconsequetau5275 on the question of more thrust vs less that is a nice explanation. However my question is about getting the same trust by throttling down the core vs staring it later and running the strap-ons harder. If the strap-ons are running 100% from launch till staging then there is the answer: throttle the core to sit at your thrust limit. But I get the impression that it's more common to throttle the core as far down as it can go and still work at all, suggesting that whatever is being optimized for would be even better with even more of the the trust coming from the strap-ons. Also: if you light it higher, you can use a bigger nozzle. Maybe not fully vacuum optimized, but still bigger than woud work at sea level.
@@benjaminshropshire2900 I have increased my original comment size. Read it again for a clue as to why the core is alway lit immediately. The core is best set at full thrust in the beginning, if at all possible. Throttling back is mostly to prevent breakup at MaxQ. The Falcon Heavy has further considerations of returning the side boosters to a landing site or ADS.
@@imconsequetau5275 you are still giving an answer to a question I'm not asking. I knew before I made my original comment why you want to launch with as much trust as you can tolerate. My question is: when you have more available thrust than you can tolerate (e.g. max-Q, cargo handling limits, etc.), and where other constraints force using less than 100% throttle on the available engines (as many systems with strap-ons do) and where the boosters could generate as much thrust as can be tolerated, why run the core from the start? You can still max out at the same allowable thrust, while getting a higher IDP (higher average pressure in the running engines) and discard empty tankage sooner (faster burn). Is the assumption that the boosters are more than can be tolerated generally not true?
@@benjaminshropshire2900 "Is the assumption that the boosters are more than can be tolerated [full thrust at MaxQ] generally not true?" No. In general, boosters are throttled back only at MaxQ, _because of gravity drag._ SRBs are typically timed so some pair expire just before MaxQ, *or* the liquid propellant engines throttle back. Some designs ignite another pair of SRBs _after_ MaxQ is past. Again because of gravity drag. You may lob the second stage far above perigee so that it falls while gaining horizontal velocity, but this is generally not an optimal design. A scenario where the core is a second stage rocket is intriguing, but MaxQ always occurs within the atmosphere, so the second stage must be designed for well beyond that specific altitude, and light before all side cores shut down. (The rocket needs authoritative control while within the atmosphere.) A design where a pair of SRBs expire or detach just before MaxQ, and another SRB pair - _or your second stage core_ - starts after MaxQ is the most compatible design to your desired mode.
The mission Mr Manley mentions in this video was launched on 14 December 2020. Today, 27 December 2021 is the scheduled test launch of another Angara A5.
What is Soyuz 5? Whatever it is they will have to big shoos to fill. Also, where did Soyuz 3 and 4 go? That capsule on the Angara Lookt nothing like Soyuz. Are they bilding a new Spaceship?
There is a great channel by дмитрий конаныхин, who was an engineer working on the Angara. He talks a lot about how the Angara was developed and may other space projects. Unfortunately only in Russian.
No! Konanihyn is crazy. Biased and deceitful. I say this as a person in the Russian space industry. Конаныхин городской сумасшедший. Необъективный, лживый пропагандист. Я это говорю как человек, находящийся внутри космической отрасли.
@@NuclearNoise24 the energía was not supposed to fly 25 times per year? There isn't a giant, deprecated "space room" where the Buran was tested? The N1 wasn't supposed to be a military missile? India didn't get the hydrogen upper stage from Russia? Find me an unbiased, "normal" space Person on TH-cam and I'll watch it. Until then I'll get all the bits of information I can get.
There’re a few really interesting videos on nuclear propulsion in space on his channel, but personally I can’t stand the author’s numerous speculations that have nothing to do with the rocket science but tend to please some pro-Putin bureaucrats in the Russian state media (where he actually works nowadays) or even Roscosmos administration. For me his channel looks like a place where you would find some interesting facts about space propulsion while listening the endless blablabla on why SpaceX sucks. That’s pretty annoying.
@@dmitryvrn I love the part about Crew Dragon's launch abort system. How the distance between the engines and the fuel tanks creates a delay in their activation time. If it turns out to be true, interesting. If SpaceX has solved it, even better.
In development - A1.2 , A5, A5P(M), A5V space rockets. 14C48 (DM-03 modification) - main upper stage for А5 and A5M, then it will be forced 14С49, scheduled for the third launch. The second launch should confirm the competence in the production of the Angara space complex of the new plant in Siberia.
Another director went to jail in October 2020. “Roman Bobkov was arrested for two months on suspicion of incitement to abuse of office and official forgery.”
Annnnd it launched December 14, 2020. Came back here to refresh. Lots of launch clips from lots of angles. No other flight info yet... Curious to see if it works well.
According to Dimitri Rogozin (МОСКВА, 8 октября. /ТАСС) the long delay between the first and second launch of Angara-A5 was (mainly) due to the fact that the first launch did not put the required payload mass into orbit and it was required to completely revise the design documentation (my translation).
There's nothing like grabbing some food, sitting down to find something to watch while you eat and see Scott Manley just uploaded a video.
Ha ha. That's exactly what I've just done.
Food for thought.
GET OUT OF MY HEAD
i mean.. there are other things quite a lot like it though.
Reduces my main dish to a side all the time this happens 👍
Russian word for hydrogen is indeed vodorod, and Scott's pronunciation was on point.
Yes, and vozvrat means return.
@@Анатолий-д8щ1п not to be confused with "rozvrat" :)
𝗩odorod, hmmm...
So, the Russians never _had_ an "H-bomb".
We've been lied to all these years!
@@-danR Correct :D "H-bomb" in Russian is pronounced "vah dah rOd nah ya bOm bah" (водородная бомба)
@@-danR Troll!
One of the major reasons for such long delay was moving the whole Angara production to the factory in Omsk to achieve better logistics. Omsk is located exactly in the middle between Plesetsk and Vostochny (and Baykonur). That move involved about complete Omsk factory equipment upgrade, teaching people, preparation for mass production and certification of each production stage. So that huge delay was not because of Angara development itself. Also there was no any reason to rush before Angara launchpad at Vostochny ready and payload it intended to carry ready.
Не нужно оправдываться перед ними.
When I was serving in Plesetsk 10 years ago (nowhere near Angara though), it was already called "A very promising project since 1984"
@@Decorsys It's more like a brainwashed soviet zombie proverb.
@@vladimirgoryachev3707 To keep quiet about secrets has nothing to do with brainwashing and is not a uniquely Soviet feature. Anyway, I find N. Decorsys' comment uncalled for since I don't see how andreyz4k's comment revealed any secrets.
@@Decorsys he didnt worked there, he said "serving". Pretty sure he was just a soldier private rank without any responsibilities. Plesetsk is a military rocket/missile site with alot of drafted soldiers, they mostly do nothing there but guarding those sites. No one of them have never seen any rocket there in closer view. These people who is relative (in personal close contact) with rockets in Plesetsk will not speak with you in youtube comments, most of them even not allowed to have any social networks accounts (actually all russian armed forces personell forbidden to have these accounts, but most of non secret parts officers dont give a fuck about it) .
@@diplodoker The Russian army is made up mostly of unwitting conscripts. That is, this is slavery in its purest form. It’s funny to demand that slaves keep their mouths shut.
@@Decorsys Да, и сор из избы не выносить. Так и осталась изба полная хлама. О проблемах надо говорить. Пока не стало (стало) поздно.
"All very practical, and all very Kerbal". Ahh, KSP, the measure of all things.
real life rocket science grows more and more kerbal every day. which is either very frightening or very cool
Kerbal and practical? IMPOSSIBLE
They just need to uncheck that
[ √ ] yelloweyish
filter in their Lada CGI app.
2:28
Replying to myself ^^: And how many of us learnt to Kerbal properly from watching Scott?
@@coreytaylor447 I vote for very cool. Kerbal presupposes a level of modularity and dependability that would benefit any "real" space program.
This is excellent timing. Your Proton video popped up again for me a few days ago, I watched it then was disappointed when you didn't have one on the Angara. But here we are! Thanks for all the great content.
"On all three flights, the first stage was said to have worked correctly."
*image of a rocket wobbling its way into the sky*
I thought it DID look a bit wobbly on a couple of those flights!
Testing the rarely-used dance party mode.
@@rpavlik1 lol
@@rpavlik1 sounds like a phrase GLaDOS would say
is like that russian tank party meme all over again.
Since you mentioned it, we now need a Soyuz-5 video.
Yeah, also it is the first Russian rocket planned with the reusable stages and this platform accommodates a future superheavy variant. Also right now there are talks about making Angara URMs reusable too, we'll see how that develops.
@@mihan2d There were some preliminary plans for "Energia-2" launching vehicle with reusable 1st stage units, that were supposed to land in gliding mode.
Are you sure it's not Fenix/Feniks? Oops, I mean Sunkar. Oops, it's now Irtysh.
It have as much name change as PTK/PPTP/Federatsiya/Orel
AFAIK, the production delays were due to reorganization rather than any problems with the rocket or its production itself. Given the mess in the Russian space industry with its strategic view, project consistency, and quality control, which resulted in failures when launching perfectly tested long-serving rockets, getting things back in order was a priority over faster Angara adoption.
As you pointed out, Angara is about guaranteed independent access to space for Russia. The rocket is essentially ready to use, it's just that there are no tasks and payloads that can be easily switched from Soyuz and Proton.
I expect it to gradually increase its role in the Russian national space program, especially when Angara launchpad will enter service at Vostochniy, but not expect it to be a mass commercial working horse.
I'm confidant enough in it to say that an Angara A5 will probably launch the next Russian space station whenever the ISS gets too old to be safe to occupy. If the Russians decide to start to participate in the Artemis program in a meaningful way (read: sending up their own modules), I'm pretty sure an Angara will be the thing putting them in orbit.
Of course, they'd probably have to use an Angara-A5 or -A7 using the URM-2v and KVTK upper stages (perhaps with the A7 they could do a tank stretch on the URM-2V), because you don't send things to the moon efficiently without using hydrogen or alternatively a lot more time and electric propulsion.
@@Rankin1111 Не завидуй
@@Rankin1111 Не завидуй
Essentially ready, but delayed. Unlikely to fly this year after it gets moved from the pad to the hangar. Right now it says Dec 4, but since issues were found may be longer
@@Rankin1111, смирительную рубашку примерьте.
The Saturn V is missing in the background! :O
I really appreciate the frequency of your videos these days!
It can't just stay there forever. After all, it's a goddamn rocket!
A little correction: main launchpad for Angara, meant to be Vostochny kosmodome, on the Far East of Russia ("Vostochny" is actually mean "Eastern"), but since they haven't finished launch complex for it there, Plesetsk still the only avalible option for testing the vehicle. General plan was to launch commercial payloads from Vostochny, and leave Plesetsk mainly fot DOD needs. These days nobody knows when all this plans will actually come to life, which is sad, because it's pretty capable booster, and would be nice to see some happy ending after all troubles it went through.
"Angara" is a big river in Siberia....
RIVER ROCKET
@@hamburgerhamburger4064 RIVER ROCKET
Angara is also nearly identical to the french word 'angora' which means 'long haired cat'.
@@francoisleveille409 CAT ROCKET 🐈
So this is a place it supposed to drop down :)
It's nice to see that Russia has a Mir of the SLS program; difficulties and all.
MIR?
Mirror
Clever typo
@@travishardaway6348 oh, thanks
it even uses energia engines
I was in a bad mood until I saw Scott uploaded!
Hi Jupiter
Lol Scott flexing on Tim Dodd. Tim is spending months putting together a guide the Soviet/Russian rocket family, while Scott just turns this out like it’s no biggie.
I all seriousness though, Love both of them and really looking forward to Tim’s mini-documentary
Still hasn't come out yet 😕
No, actually "водород" came out pretty good!
vodorod?
@@TheRadioactiveBanana32 Well, it certainly wasn't "BOAOPOA".)))
Funny thing, in the early years of mobile, latin script was kinda unintentionally forced on SMS communication, so people usually have no trouble recognizing words transliterated in English latin.
Imagine if you routinely were getting garbled messages like: "гет милк, плс".
It didn't stick.
Yeah I caught that.
It is perfectly legible to me, as I speak Greek.
5:35 Haha, he said "PP"
sorry, im tired today...
lol ok sound PeePee, did not catch your PP lol
Not native English
Also just woke up ;)
Strap on and pp in 1 video is just too much
he almost said like "i want to pee-pee" )
@@ronmaaskant wow Scott is sliding a few under the radar!
Now we all know where your minds are located.
I miss Energia.
Me too...
So do I ! That rocket was ballsy.
Sadly, nowadays there is hardly any payload that requires such a monster.
@@DmitryKandiner only new orbital station perhaps. Also, drafts of Energia 2 were even ballsier, but USSR went kaput a bit to early.
@@John-tg8uk kaput is a German word, the closest Russian equivalent is kopetz (копец).
9:40 You are right, it is a Russian word for Hydrogen. And your pronounciation is all right, except that the stress goes on the last "o".
I'm sure someone's got an old Lada they could use instead of a dummy payload. Sending cars into space is _traditional_ now, dammit.
Thing is a Lada would be quite the artificial asteroid in comparison to the SpaceX one
Oh yeah, a VAZ-2101 (the very first model of the line) would be very iconic!
@Valeri Magomаdov Ok, then perhaps a VAZ-2106, an entirely-Soviet car.
Aurus
Lada? What are you some sort of capitalist spy? It's called a Zhiguli!
Last time I was this early Mir was still in orbit.
Nice
Can we stop with these 'jokes'. Every video has a comment like this. I don't even know where it comes from.
You pronounced 'vodorod' absolutely perfect, like being a native speaker! Kudos!
5:34 Great name for a rocket.
big pp launching
Two additions:
1. strange projects at the beginning of the program, caused by the customer's requirement (MoD) to use the launch table from the Zenit rocket (13 tons), which was built at 85%. And they wanted to get the payload capacity of the Angara as the Proton rocket from Baikonur (23 tons). That's why the engineers did their best.
2. during the audit in 2007, it was revealed that from the beginning of the program in 1995 to 2006, 4% of the necessary money was allocated for the project. That's why the development period is so long.
Source: book of the Angara rocket designer V. V. Nesterov ."The KPK Angara. History of creation".
Два дополнения:
1. странные проекты в начале программы, вызваны требованием заказчика (MoD) использовать стартовый стол от ракеты Зенит (13 тонн), который был построен на 85%. А грузоподъёмность у Ангары хотели получить как у ракеты Протон с Байконура (23 тонн). Поэтому инженеры и изворачивались как могли.
2. При аудите в 2007 году было выявленно, что с начала программы в1995 и по 2006 на проект выделили 4% денег от необходимого. Поэтому и срок разработки такой длинный.
Источник: книга конструктора ракеты Ангара В.В.Нестеров ."КРК Ангара. История создания".
там скорее добивались аналогичной ПН на высокие орбиты а-ля ГПО и ГСО. Если вы посмотрите на статистику пусков, то заметите, что 90+% летят туда. Ангара Же значительно проигрывает протону, если запускать с плесецка
I was fascinated by that for a pretty long time! Thanks for making a video about it)
Я начал "болеть" за Ангару, будчи ещё школьником. С тех пор закончил школу, универ, работал, снова универ, учёная степень, жена, двое детей. А воз и ныне там.
1:55 this is the most Kerbal thing I’ve seen in a while
Actually, you pronounced "vodorod" pretty good.
Every time Scott pronounces Russian I rush to the comments section to see if he got it right - learning one word at a time lol
Yes, certainly better than "Energia". :)
But how well do you pronounce English words?
@@romanrm1 yes, the stress should be on second "e" - enErgia, but otherwise it was not bad phonetically.
@@John-tg8uk it seems that it is pronounced as in Greek Ενέργεια (enEryia) γ = y while γκ = g (where is its origin)
1:08 Damn! Imagine you're up in space, and one day you get a call telling you your country is no more and you may or may not be able to get home. : (
They promised it since 2013 and now they are finally realizing it? I was waiting a lot. Now I'm satisfied.
The delay is due to a deep reorganization of the whole Russian space industry. Lots of merging and optimization happened over the last decade. Looks like the whole reorganization process is now finally done, so projects that were on hold should now gradually become a thing.
@@MouradMokrane Actually no. Russia signed with Kazakhstan agreement that it have right to launch Protons until 2025. Exactly after this Angara lost own importance. When developed Angara, decide to build new factory in Omsk instead of Moscow (3000 km from Moscow, on south and middle of Russia). Also was accepted decision that Angara will be launched in new Vostochny Cosmodrome. But because was signed contract with Kazakhstan, all deadlines was postponed. Factory planned to build somewhere in 2022 (it almost done and actually already produce modules of Angara for future usage, on youtube exist video from it). On Vostochny decide first launchpad to build for Soyuz rocket (done), while for Angara only after (now in progress, must be ready in 2023). So actually they are no any delays, it is just priorities was changed because gone risk that Kazakhstan will deny Protons.
Angara itself was ready already in 2012, but at that year was no place to launch it. It light and heavy versions was launched in 2014 when on military cosmodrome Plesetsk made temporary launch pad for rocket (it was formally tests to confirm project, actually first stage already flew from 2009 as part of South Korean rocket). After that about rocket everyone forgot because there are no needs in it until 2025.
No go. Launch for next week is scrubbed due to technical issues. It will now be moved from the launch pad into a hangar.
I’m glad you’re doing a video about this rocket
heard your name mentioned last night on LabPadre
keep up the good work, always interesting subjects.
Protracted development - the true curse for any invention in an age of rapidly progressing technologies. Something conceived as cutting-edge can be obsolescent by the time it's ready for market.
Great looking rocket, love the look of the common cores. Hopefully the project doesn't sputter out and die before it starts flying regularly. Imo best looking russian rocket so far, in fact not even just russian, just in general imo
The core problem with the Angara is its time has passed before it started. In the era of reusability, an expensive single use rocket just doesn't have an economic rationale. The Angara is a fine rocket but it is a remnant of a by gone era.
All reusable rockets are Americans and America has a habit of abusing every leverage it gets. So russian program would remain viable, less intense but still useful.
Program delays are however a clear demonstration that Russian space program is not in same league with soviet one. They had good 30 years milking legacy systems to max, now realisation is setting in that they didn't invest in newer technologies. Angara is a belated attempt to correct that oversight. I don't think it'll commercially successful but it would retain niche applications.
@@Sciolist LOL, yeah, Russia didn't abuse USA ISS costs after the Shuttle stopped flying. (/sarcasm off) Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos will happily fly Russian payloads as long they don't run afoul of government regulations. Every spacefaring nation probably should retain ability to self-launch even if they are throw-away rockets.
@@Sciolist There are no any delays actually. Story of Angara:
1) 1992 Let’s build new rocket; organize competition, what developers will propose.
2) 1994 Proposed some project. Okey. But our country just dissolved, it is even worse than WW2, industry destroyed, civil wars, we have no money, so let’s return to it in future.
3) 1997 Guys, we have better project, let’s do it instead of current. Okey. Proposed absolutely different project.
4) 1998 Russia declared about own bankruptcy. Nobody still funded Angara.
5) 1999 Two Protons fall, Kazakhstan is angry and promise deny for Russia to launch Protons.
6) 2004 Signed agreement that Russia will build new rocket to replace Proton which use poisoned fuel. Russia got right to launch Protons until 2025. Angara postponed somewhere in far future.
7) 2006 South Koreans visited Russia: guys, you are clever and know how to build rockets. Can you help and build rockets for us, we will pay? Russians: let’s take our project Angara, modify it and use for Koreans, they will pay for our rocket? Okey.
8) 2009 First stage of Angara done and launched as part of new South Korean rocket.
9) 2012 Russian Angara 100% done. Guys, regards to Korean money we build new rocket yearly than planned, but there are no place to launch it.
...now we need to build launchpad for Angara in new Vostochny Cosmodrome and new factory closer to it. But because we already signed with Kazakhstan agreement that we have right to launch Protons rockets until 2025, there are no reasons to hurry. So, let’s build launchpad in 2023 (after launchpad for Soyuz), while factory in 2022. Okey.
10) 2014 On military cosmodrome Plesetsk created temporary launchpad for tests of Angara. In that year launched light and heavy versions. Hurray!
At same time somewhere in military stuff: guys, we need big rockets to deliver ‘light and heat’:
2007: SLBM Sineva ready.
2009: ICBM Yars ready.
2014: SLBM Lainer ready.
2018: SLBM Bulava ready.
2019: Hypersonic glider ready.
In development ICBM Sarmat, at tests anti-space defense system A-235, with fastest in world (in class of large rockets which can in space) ABM A-925 and 58R6.
@@juliap.5375 that’s a fine piece of the official Russian propaganda 😬 Fact: Angara is not flying any time soon. Yes, it is being moved from the pad as we speak.
video about soyuz 5 in the making?
Man, the Russians are really having trouble letting go of the idea of a Universal Rocket. They're building a Universal Rocket Module to replace the Universal Rocket-500.
Thanks Scott, I have no clue how you do it. Yet, always done so well. 👍👍
I wonder what the "dummy" payload to geo was. Regardless, it will fly safe ;)
Thanks for that 'Fly Safe', Scott Manley...I am flying from LAX to DTW today....I sincerely hope everything goes...safely...😁😜😉
Scott, Russian space program is mostly projects by now.
The head of space agency makes bigger cash than Nasa's director (before adjusting the costs of living!) while average salary in Roskosmos is ~1000$. Which is not too bad in Russia, but it is average and we are talking top notch engineers, scientists etc. - which should be attracted to the production. So by now it is mostly soviet 80-years old engineers. Because top notch engineers and scientists won't take a job with a disrespectful pay + Roskosmos priorities are kinda reflecting the direction where the agency is rapidly diving so good specialists are not exactly thrilled to work ideologically either.
Hey, Scott.
Have you heard (i guess you have) about russian nuclear space tug? I want a video from you about that thing )
Project looks stuck... For 10-15 years))
@@oberguga What was that recent thing about the Russians testing some sort of nuclear engine then? Happened before Covid-19 was a big thing so it's ancient history now, but it was all over the (space) news and Scott did a video on it.
A test vehicle is indeed being built (photos of the assembly are available online), and will probably be launching next year. The nuclear-powered space tug should be a great orbit to orbit transfer vehicle, and is planned to be the main workhorse for the Russian moon program, with Mars coming next.
@@MouradMokrane no it's probably mockup for exibition. Russian launched spacecraft with nuclear thruster in late 80s bu it failed. Sinse I don't hear about real project. Only projects with rapidly sliding date if with date at all. I think if they do something it would be done in 30s.
@@44R0Ndin They changed main contractor in 19 or late 18... So basically project start again. Only concept more or less stable. As I said ~10 years if they lucky.
Last time I was this early Angara actually flew
Looks like a very cool rocket, let's hope it flies again!
So the boosters fire for 3 1/2 minutes. Does that mean the center core is vacuum optimized and initial runs a lower throttle at lower altitudes? I don’t understand much of rocket design but must be amazing to figure the correct design of each stage. At what point is a 3rd stage beneficial?
Falcon Havey and Delta-V Hevey they do this it is fire to assume that the Angara like most Multicore Rockets do this
This thing made me imagine a "Falcon 7x9" (like 3x9 Falcon Heavy), would be quite the beast...
3:55 An it's me, Dio moment when the fairing open to show just a fuel tank
Love your videos Scott!
Then there’s the minor issue that it costs too much, since none of it is reusable.
No. Different kind of economic. Space and military industrial complexes in Russia de facto living in soviet system. It is build by state, on state owned factories, without foreigners, mainly from state resources. Nobody will buy for self new yacht or collection of Ferrari cars because made profit (earned state money just because owned factory and sell parts in 2-3-50 times more of real price; typical situation in USA). Price of rocket is equal to price of materials from which it made + salary of workers which earn the same salary regardless amount of rockets they produce (fixed salary once per month). Significant share of this money very soon return back to state.
While you comparing with American system where whole space industry in hands of commercial companies. Each of they want some profit (and people in that companies actually incredible rich, including billionaires, they have more money than Russia spent of whole own space program). It is why on each stage of production of any part price is growing to some inadequate values, so everything is incredible overpriced. In such conditions arrived SpaceX which proposed reusable rockets. It allow to save money. In USA it is works because everything overpriced, in Russia it can’t work, because prices already equal to prime cost.
It is possibly in Russia to decrease price, but only a bit (cost of scrap), but actually it is complicated and expensive process. It need to rebuild factories. As I said, workers earn same salary, irrelevant amount of rockets they made. So, with reusables rockets, if you made 3 rockets per year, and spend on this 3 months, what workers must to do rest 9 month? You need to reorganize factory in such way, that workers will do another work, as example build satellites, engines and so on. Maybe you need to fire some of them, but you need before to find for them another work.
Then you comparing prices on market. But actually there are no real open market. Why at Soviet times nobody used Russian rockets to launch satellites? Why nobody almost never use Chinese rockets nowadays? Because Americans deny to whole world, threat with sanctions and close access to American parts/electronics for satellites.
In 1990s after dissolve of USSR, Americans afraid that without money Russian scientists will spread around whole world and build for a lot of countries rockets (like Ukrainians which moved to North Korea where built ICBM/SLBM). As example India signed with Russia such deal, they ordered creation of whole space industry from ground to space station. Americans in panic forced Yeltsin to cancel this deal and signed agreement, that they will not block for other countries orders of Russian rockets, but Russia must hold prices somewhere near average of American market, so American space industry could live and not died (as it happened with uranium enrichment industry in USA because Russians have more developed technology which costs in over 20 times cheaper). So, you see not real Russian prices on rockets, but some overpriced. Actually reusable American rockets cost in several times more than non-reusable Russian or Chines.
@@juliap.5375
Do you have numbers showing that the Russian and Chinese boosters are less expensive?
The propaganda that Julie is spreading is actually very common inside Russia. That the reusable rockets will never be as cheap as disposable ones. Paradox, but many believe.
Actually, it took 6 years to launch another Angara because the production was moved completely from Moscow to another city, which is almost same distanse from "Plesetsk" and Russian new launching site "Vostochny". This decision was also in line with the so-called "regional develorment" program (an attempt to somehow equalize the economy growth in different areas of Russia). Although it got a bit out of shedule, Russian govermnent is quite happy with the way things go. New Angaras should now be produced and tested much quicker and easier.
Can you please do a video on expedition 7 of the ISS?
What happened on expedition 7?
@@LSF17 It was after the Columbia disaster, they sent up a crew of 2 to keep things running - Ed Lu & Yuri Malenchenko
@@scottmanley OMG HE REPLIED TO ME!!!!
Also thanks for the info!
Very good video as always. On 11 April 24 the Russians successfully lunched the next Angara-A5 from Vostochny.
That's a nice looking launch at 7:00 flying into clouds.
Great Scott! Nice coverages. Soon they wont be needed anyway
At this rate the venerable Proton's future is assured for years (maybe decades!) to come.
Unlikely. Proton production was stopped in December 2019. There are 7-9 remaining sets of hardware available for launches through 2025. After that even the launch facilities for proton will be decommissioned.
Hey, Scott! I've seen soyuz model in one of your videos lately. Can you tell where I can get one of those? tnx
You nailed vodorod pronunciation, btw
Wait, did you say from the *North* of Russia? Doesn't that limit the orbits they can reach efficiently quite a bit? I thought the reason Soyuz launches from Kazachstan is not because of any legal obligation to involve that country but rather because it's conveniently closer to the equator.
yeah, u are quite right. Plesetsk has 61-63 inclanation, so Angara has a vary little GTO and GEO. For comparison from Plesetsk it is 5,5\2,8. From Vostochny it is 7\4
Just in time for me to watch while I eat lunch!
Was it tasty?
Have they done anything to drive down the costs so that they can compete on price?
No.
They say they will but currently it costs 3x of a Proton launch. After intended cost cuts it will be only 1.5x
@@A31415 Good grief. How can you build a new rocket and have it cost more than the old one?
@@odysseusrex5908 The intent was to have a slightly cheaper 20-25t to LEO capability than Proton. The aspiration was about $30m per launch at mass market and initial cost in $50-60 range. The official price tag now is $90-100m.
Big cost drivers are composite materials that they were counting on from the international partners. Russia currently doesn’t have a manufacturing capability to build comparable performance characteristics materials. They attempted to build a factory in 2010s to match that but the endeavor collapsed. As a result they decided to continue using old heavier materials that require a significantly more labor intensive process, increasing mass and reducing effectiveness.
Avionics components, operating systems, other software modules also became a factor after 2014. A lot of it had to be built from scratch. There’s a lot of fitting round pegs in square holes going on on that rocket. None of it is conducive to mass manufacturing and reducing the cost.
@@A31415 Thank you for your response. That is extremely interesting. Unless you actually work for Roscosmos, I can't imagine how you dig out all the information you are posting. It certainly isn't the kind of thing one finds of Wikipedia.
1:47 excellent selection of games 👍
Why this program resembles SLS, with all the delays?
Its actually way further ahead than SLS which has been in the works since the late 2000's/early2010's. Angara has at least test flown.
@@theatom7264 yeah but Angara has 16 years on SLS. It started in 1995.
Scott, what's your take on last nights Starship static fire? The sound of that raptor was almost animalistic, like it didn't want to get shut down at all.
It works that is good
2:58 good that they printed "Hot Fire" on the side of the rocket engine, just to make everyone standing next to it while firing aware that it's not firing cold fire.
"All very practical, and all very Kerbal." Anytime someone describes a spacecraft as Kerbal, all I picture is the rocket just exploding on the pad or going up in the air a little bit and then exploding in the air. lol
Very interesting . Thanks Scott
Moscow: Billion dollar subsidy for a manned moon rocket.
Russians: get a dummy payload to GEO.
Most “dummy” payloads are almost always military satellites
Pretty much the Russian SLS, lol
Well, the point is Russian space agency (Roskosmos) knows full well they don't want to go to the Moon, it will require too much work. In a meantime, it's head, Dmitri Rogozin, the right-hand man of ex-president Medvedev (a placeholder who kept the chair warm while Putin didn't still want to rewrite constitution in his favour) also knows he wants to have a new mansion and a bigger, better yacht. So, first they say on TV how Russia is planning to build a base on the Moon by 2022 and invest money to Roskosmos, then they let people forget about it a little, then Crimea heppens, the rouble plumits and ukrainian manufacturers refuse to sell engines to Russia, so everything can be blamed on them
Rogozin offered to sent an electric Kamaz truck as the payload.
Russia or better soviets were on the moon back in 1967 with the robot of course but they were there first. (luna programme)
1:52 seems like my first mission to the Mun in KSP.
That website. Such 2000's Energy.
First I've heard of the Soyuz 5... can you do us a video about this?
That Angara 7 version is the personification of "Moar Boosters!" :-)
Love the channel!
Angara and Nauka are quintessence of Roskosmos. As soviet space industry fan boy, this makes me cry! :D
Since the Russians claim they are finally going to launch Nauka next Spring, Scott should do a video about it.
@@odysseusrex5908 I would not rush this video. There is no evidence it will actually fly :)
@@dmitry6472 Yeah, I have to admit, I will believe it when I see it.
Yes, I was only a teenager when Proton Rocket launched the Buran orbiter without the help of SRB's in late 1988. If it wasn't the Russian rocket to have placed the heaviest payload into low earth orbit it was surely among the 3 heaviest. So sad to see it almost abandoned after so many years of such an engineering breakthrough.
Good morning nerds.
Thanks for this video Scott.
I had a pretty negative view on the Angara, mainly because it seemed a step back from some of the energia plans of the USSR (and also cus it's kinda ugly), but it's promising to see there is atleast some innovation from the manufacturing side of things, and the political considerations do help put things into context.
in a post-soviet russia there was no chanse to resurrect energia-type rockets, cuz of its diametr and propellent. russian railroads supports 4.1 m in diametr, while Energia-type rockets were 7,7 and 8 meters. And an only one hydrogen plant in USSR were in Uzbekistan. Nowadays in Russia still ther's no hydrogen plant. But it will be built by 2025, cuz KVTK and A5V must be launched a year later
Intresting design & looks better than the aging Proton. Will you be doing any updates on the PTKNP crewed spacecraft that's supposed to go with this rocket lineup? Always thought the PTKNP spacecraft was a pretty intresting design but not much news on it since the reveal of the concept.
I might be wrong, but wasn't the angara supposed to carry the Orel capsule? And is it still in development anyway?
Other than a couple of mockups, they haven't produced any hardware.
You pronounce “Vodorod” (Hydrogen) correctly.
Hello from Russia)))
From what I've heard from Russian sources Angara-7 was abandoned because it needed a wider central core and a new bigger launch pad had to be designed and constructed.
Considering their problems building the current one....
I suppose the Russian military will be the only customer for this thing. There is a lot of competition in the commercial satellite market between SpaceX and Rocket Lab.
You are correct. Plus Chinese who will start sending other countries payloads.
@@A31415 American regime introduced so-called sanctions against China (actually only UN have right for this, but regime violate international laws as always), it is deny to launch on Chinese rockets any payloads where exist any American-made electronics and rest stuff. Of course in satellites of 3rd countries it is always some American stuff, so they afraid to buy launches on cheap Chinese rockets. It is need to have satellites where there are no any American electronics. But even this not always have, american regime introduce sanctions against other countries even without reasons, only if they buy something from Russians or Chinese. As example not so long ago story with Indonesia, they wanted to buy Russian aircrafts, but American regime deny. Tried to deny similar deal for Egypt. And so on.
Do you have a link to some of the sim renderings that you showed ? if they are public ?
There are a lot of animations on roscosmos' TH-cam channel.
Why do they use dummy payloads, instead of low cost instrumentation or experiments?
Yeah, like, why not launch a tank into space, after all? There are plenty of T-54 and T-62 to spare. First-ever space tank, how's that, Elon Musk, huh? HUUUUH?
@@lake258 actually these dummy payloads traditionally were military satellites
Because if it's going to potentially blow up or do something else bad you want something cheap on the top.
@@TheEvilmooseofdoom do you realize that low cost and cheap are synonyms?
And either way the rocket is where most of the expense comes from. So might as well take the chance.
@@thelonelyrogue3727 Okay. Something that took a team to engineer and build vs. a hunk of concrete. You speak of taking chances like resources are unlimited. It's not cost but risk. You don't spend the time and money even on a cheap satellite to risk blowing it up on a untried system because it can be hard or impossible to get your payload insured and you might not get the money or material to try again.
i know it was proposed but was there ever any rocket where booster tanks feed core engine..to keep core fully fueled till booster separation?
No. SpaceX tried to do that with the Falcon Heavy but could not make it work.
It's a very desirable mechanism in terms of efficiency, but extremely complex to implement. Shut off valves need to be duplicated for _both ends_ of the fuel-transfer plumbing. That may triple complexity in the core, where engines feed from three sources.
The space shuttle used this technology to transfer fuel between the main external tank and the shuttle body. No hot-swapping.
Starship is going to have two sources for the main engines, but all within the same hull, and no hot-swapping. Starship is first going to demonstrate 10 tons of oxygen transfer between internal tanks, and later, propellant ullage transfer between ships. Still no hot-swapping.
@@imconsequetau5275 yes, i guess there are more things to fail, and that is bad, but what if.. those same valves ware used to fill the rocket, or to do cold-swapping anyway, i guess they should just be increased to handle bigger flow. also maybe one per core would be enough if you are dropping boosters at the same time
I see you lunched the Angara in kerbal space program, did you use any mods for it? If so, please link me them!
They seem to be a little bit slower than SpaceX in terms of development speed. My guess is that it’ll be fully operational by the time Starship first lands on Mars
It really doesn’t matter. Fully operational, there will be extremely low numbers of Angara produced. Starship will be cranked out by thousands.
At this time Angara is a steam boat someone is building in 1995 while Starship is a Boeing 787. They are not competing in the same market. They are projects from two different eras.
9:33 - You were right "vodoród" (stress on the last syllable).
Ignoring issues like abort options; are there any technical reasons that a core + strap-on-booster system can't light the core in flight just before booster jettison? Are there technical reason that would be less effective than throttling down to ~30%?
You just hit the nail. Most rockets have reliable upper stages and wait until later to start, yet it seems that first stage cores invariably are lit at liftoff. Why? Because of *gravity drag:* _It is better to add thrust than not,_ unless forces would exceed design limitations. Even the space shuttle lit the main engines before the SRBs. They could have increased the SRB thrust in the design until they had 10% more thrust than total mass. The spacecraft would then be hanging from the tank instead of pulling its own weight.
But even then it would be better to start the core engines at launch so they contribute thrust and a faster leap off the pad, _even though the core would consume fuel right from the beginning._ Doing so increases payload capacity *to LEO.*
Starship has 3 sea-level engines and 3 vacuum-optimized engines, yet all 6 are used during launch after stage separation. Why? Because of _gravity drag._ Even though the sea-level engines have a lower ISP (efficiency) than the vacuum-optimized engines, they still reduce _gravity drag_ enough to be useful. Once the ship is mostly out of the atmosphere, you should consider the apogee as nearly fixed, while the engines are striving to raise perigee out of the atmosphere as well. The sooner the better.
_Once LEO is reached, it is better to use only the vacuum-optimized engines. However, those engines are still most effective when used closest to perigee._ Use beyond perigee - that is, a longer burn - will begin to somewhat contribute to raising perigee as well as apogee, in contrast engine use exactly at apogee only modifies the perigee.
@@imconsequetau5275 on the question of more thrust vs less that is a nice explanation. However my question is about getting the same trust by throttling down the core vs staring it later and running the strap-ons harder.
If the strap-ons are running 100% from launch till staging then there is the answer: throttle the core to sit at your thrust limit. But I get the impression that it's more common to throttle the core as far down as it can go and still work at all, suggesting that whatever is being optimized for would be even better with even more of the the trust coming from the strap-ons.
Also: if you light it higher, you can use a bigger nozzle. Maybe not fully vacuum optimized, but still bigger than woud work at sea level.
@@benjaminshropshire2900
I have increased my original comment size. Read it again for a clue as to why the core is alway lit immediately. The core is best set at full thrust in the beginning, if at all possible. Throttling back is mostly to prevent breakup at MaxQ. The Falcon Heavy has further considerations of returning the side boosters to a landing site or ADS.
@@imconsequetau5275 you are still giving an answer to a question I'm not asking. I knew before I made my original comment why you want to launch with as much trust as you can tolerate. My question is: when you have more available thrust than you can tolerate (e.g. max-Q, cargo handling limits, etc.), and where other constraints force using less than 100% throttle on the available engines (as many systems with strap-ons do) and where the boosters could generate as much thrust as can be tolerated, why run the core from the start? You can still max out at the same allowable thrust, while getting a higher IDP (higher average pressure in the running engines) and discard empty tankage sooner (faster burn).
Is the assumption that the boosters are more than can be tolerated generally not true?
@@benjaminshropshire2900
"Is the assumption that the boosters are more than can be tolerated [full thrust at MaxQ] generally not true?"
No. In general, boosters are throttled back only at MaxQ, _because of gravity drag._ SRBs are typically timed so some pair expire just before MaxQ, *or* the liquid propellant engines throttle back. Some designs ignite another pair of SRBs _after_ MaxQ is past. Again because of gravity drag.
You may lob the second stage far above perigee so that it falls while gaining horizontal velocity, but this is generally not an optimal design.
A scenario where the core is a second stage rocket is intriguing, but MaxQ always occurs within the atmosphere, so the second stage must be designed for well beyond that specific altitude, and light before all side cores shut down. (The rocket needs authoritative control while within the atmosphere.) A design where a pair of SRBs expire or detach just before MaxQ, and another SRB pair - _or your second stage core_ - starts after MaxQ is the most compatible design to your desired mode.
The mission Mr Manley mentions in this video was launched on 14 December 2020. Today, 27 December 2021 is the scheduled test launch of another Angara A5.
So now you know the secret of the modern Russian space program: it's being run as a real world version of the Kerbal Space Program.
What is Soyuz 5? Whatever it is they will have to big shoos to fill. Also, where did Soyuz 3 and 4 go? That capsule on the Angara Lookt nothing like Soyuz. Are they bilding a new Spaceship?
The Orel, but aside from a couple of mockups, they have not actually built anything, nor are they likely to in the foreseeable future.
@@odysseusrex5908 Thanks now I can Google Orel
@@stekra3159 There's a Wikipedia entry about it.
Absolutely, водород is hydrogen. And you nailed it.
That was a pretty cool booster separation.
Not quite as balletic as the Soyuz' Korolyev Cross, but close.
There is a great channel by дмитрий конаныхин, who was an engineer working on the Angara. He talks a lot about how the Angara was developed and may other space projects. Unfortunately only in Russian.
No! Konanihyn is crazy. Biased and deceitful. I say this as a person in the Russian space industry.
Конаныхин городской сумасшедший. Необъективный, лживый пропагандист. Я это говорю как человек, находящийся внутри космической отрасли.
@@NuclearNoise24 the energía was not supposed to fly 25 times per year? There isn't a giant, deprecated "space room" where the Buran was tested? The N1 wasn't supposed to be a military missile? India didn't get the hydrogen upper stage from Russia?
Find me an unbiased, "normal" space Person on TH-cam and I'll watch it. Until then I'll get all the bits of information I can get.
There’re a few really interesting videos on nuclear propulsion in space on his channel, but personally I can’t stand the author’s numerous speculations that have nothing to do with the rocket science but tend to please some pro-Putin bureaucrats in the Russian state media (where he actually works nowadays) or even Roscosmos administration. For me his channel looks like a place where you would find some interesting facts about space propulsion while listening the endless blablabla on why SpaceX sucks. That’s pretty annoying.
@@dmitryvrn I love the part about Crew Dragon's launch abort system. How the distance between the engines and the fuel tanks creates a delay in their activation time. If it turns out to be true, interesting. If SpaceX has solved it, even better.
@@dmitryvrn Nice, seems like a cool dude, i'm gonna check out his channel then.
Damn, didn't know Russians had so much hardware. Thanks Scott!
In development - A1.2 , A5, A5P(M), A5V space rockets. 14C48 (DM-03 modification) - main upper stage for А5 and A5M, then it will be forced 14С49, scheduled for the third launch. The second launch should confirm the competence in the production of the Angara space complex of the new plant in Siberia.
Whats the status of Vostochny? I haven’t heard much about it for a long time?
Another director went to jail in October 2020.
“Roman Bobkov was arrested for two months on suspicion of incitement to abuse of office and official forgery.”
Annnnd it launched December 14, 2020. Came back here to refresh. Lots of launch clips from lots of angles. No other flight info yet... Curious to see if it works well.
But the venerable Proton rocket launched several Venera probes to Venus -- various veritable victories
I'm going to miss it.
Various veritable Venusian victories?
@@odysseusrex5908 invariably!
According to Dimitri Rogozin (МОСКВА, 8 октября. /ТАСС) the long delay between the first and second launch of Angara-A5 was (mainly) due to the fact that the first launch did not put the required payload mass into orbit and it was required to completely revise the design documentation (my translation).
The factory where the proton and angara rockets are manufactured, is called the Khrunichev factory, located in Moscow
I thought they move manufacturing to Omsk?
@@scottmanley maybe parts were fabricated there
@@scottmanley They WERE manufactured in Moscow. The production moved to Omsk. Still moving.
One launch per three years - this all you need to know about the "replacement".
I was just reading about this. perfect.
There were talks of baikal boosters on Angara. Have they given up on those boosters?