Russian SSTO

post more more more more

...

...

>What is JAXA?
>What is Kibo?
Who the fuck made these, and how do you fail that badly at general knowledge?

...

...

...

So this... is the power.. of russian nationalism
whoah

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CORONA_(SSTO)
That thing's been kicking around for years, apparently. I'll get excited once it starts to go somewhere.

It's pretty alarming.

...

whats up with poland having a dick?
I am confus

...

Hi, Veeky Forums! I'm from Russia and I learn English. I was translated this picture from Russian to English. Do you understand this? Can you correct my mistakes?

yes it's great, thank you for your service user

In Russian language "be on a hourse" means successfull.

great to see a serious science discussion here

well done lads

but it's about S-P-A-C-E

I read the RT article - there's no science in there

Literally just a rehashed concept proposal from a defunkt company with no financial backing confirmed

oh for fucks sake, i cant stop laughing at these

what's up with that cringe memes?

Welcome to /int/

>reclaimed
What did he mean by this?

...

In the original, Poland is seen as a pawn to NATO/US. Somehow it became a meme to just make Poland a rapist on a leash that keep fucking over Russia. For some reason it keeps triggering Armatard and other russophiles over at /k/

The Haas 2CA is already doing engine tests at White Sands Missile Range. Russia is a bit late.

Propagandists from a number of nations and organisations post all over the internet, including here. It's not new or interesting, friend.

>7 tons to LEO

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>You retards eat it up too.
Nobody ITT has expressed any belief in the story in OP

Korona is paper rocket bullshit at its worst

So the news is that Russia took twenty years to copy Rotary Rocket?

Also bears a striking resemblance to the DC-X testbed.

Very much like Delta Clipper.
But what's the connection to Rotary Rocket? A good idea -- in theory. Rockets are very inefficient until they're traveling at near their own exhaust velocity. Until then, most of the energy goes into the jet and winds up as hot air turbulence. I assume RR ran into engineering problems. (I never figured out how they intended to feed the fuel and oxidizer.)

>Ultra-lightweiht carbon fibre tanks + aerospike
Didn't Boeng try this and fail miserably?

Wouldn't that fall from space ass-down, like a bell? Engines would probably be heavier than the peak...

Whatever you say Sir-Gay.

I think you're confusing this with Lockheed's VentureStar. It had carbon fiber tanks and an aerospike engine.
Considering it would have undercut their highly profitable market in expendable launch vehicles, I sometimes wonder how hard they really tried to get it working.

It looks like the DC-X/Delta Clipper. And that was intended to land ass-down, like God and Robert Heinlein intended spacecraft should.
youtube.com/watch?v=JzXcTFfV3Ls

But what is the breakthrough here that allows SSTO operation? Obscene mass ratios? All the articles are just marketing wank, none explain what is supposed to make this average sized rocket an SSTO

>All the articles are just marketing wank
Given they've been at it for 25 years with nothing to show, it's pretty clear they don't have anything other than marketing wank.

>And that was intended to land ass-down, like God and Robert Heinlein intended spacecraft should.
And then a leg breaks, it falls over, and catches fire.

>I assume RR ran into engineering problems.
Rotary Rocket started out with obvious engineering problems. They ran into the fact that they were a team of hopeless space cadets who thought a space helicopter was a good, practical idea. They quit after building a crappy helicopter by putting together parts of a normal helicopter on a rocket-shaped fiberglass shell.

This is a company that had comparable funding to SpaceX when it built Falcon 1 and won the NASA contract for Dragon.

As a measure of their foolishness, calculations showed that the costly and difficult helicopter blades would make no net contribution to getting into orbit, but they didn't start out by building an expendable version without them.

The especially ridiculous thing is that they insisted on building an SSTO, when the helicopter concept was reasonably well suited to a small two-stage rocket (whereas the dynamics of a helicopter re-entry from orbit were entirely unexplored and unpredictable).

>(I never figured out how they intended to feed the fuel and oxidizer.)
They were using hydrogen peroxide monopropellant, which I believe was stored in a tank atop the rotor that simply spun with it.

1) aerospike engine, which is supposed to operate at maximum efficiency regardless of external pressure. Equivalent to changing the expansion-ratio of a conventional engine nozzle.
2) Miraculous fuel tank material improves mass-ratio.

I said "intended". Nothing wrong with the basic idea. Elon Musk likes it.

The idea of moving a large volume of air at relatively low speed is sound. Helicopters use much less power than a platform supported on rockets would.
I assume you were implying "advantage of blades during first part of ascent didn't compensate for lugging extra weight around."
H2O2 also inadequate for an SSTO.

Is there a book or a link about their travails? After initial hoopla they just vanished and I never heard anything more. Engineer, so technical details of interest.

It's just that they are the only ones that have so blatantly obvious origin and are so childishly primitive you recognize them as propaganda.

IMHO others do the same, but without stamping success, power and "thiscountry" all over the place. It's just forcibly implied. Like cultivating brands and lifestyles that equate to very specific message.

And due to this blatant self righteousness no neighbors like them.

>In Russian language "be on a hourse" means successfull.

>RT

it's a pretty dumbed down language. no articles, no continuous form, one present one past and one future tense. it;s like it hasn't evolved since the day cave men started speaking

>I said "intended". Nothing wrong with the basic idea. Elon Musk likes it.
And I posted that because it actually happened to the DC-X. With one minor difference. The leg collapsed because a hydraulic line was disconnected, which means two things: 1) some mong wasn't paying attention during maintenance, and 2) there were too many fiddly parts (and maybe not enough checklists), tempting fate in that people are stupid and will do things wrong.

Oh, yeah. I know the DC-X tipped because of human error.
SpaceX has lost some too during landing.

Rockets are complex things. Funny story. They wanted to test fire the first V2. Everything tested separately, but they wanted an all-up test where the rocket could use its jet-vanes to swivel. This was a hand-built job so they didn't want to lose it in a flight test and they didn't want to alter the rocket, say by welding a tether on.
You've seen pictures of V2s. Fattest about 1/3rd of the way up, ahead of the fins. So they girdled it with steel hoops before and behind that point and swung the whole thing out over the flame pit on a "cherry picker" arm.
It could twist and turn OK. So they pulled it back, fueled it up, and swung it out again.
Liquid oxygen is so damn cold that the rocket shrank -- slipped out of the hoops, fell into the pit, and exploded.

I'm not thrilled by Elon Musk's plan to save time by having his passenger-carrying Mars rockets fueled with the crew already aboard.

Aerospikes aren't good, regular nozzles are better. Aerospikes are a meme from the age where they insisted on SSTO's.

>I'm not thrilled by Elon Musk's plan to save time by having his passenger-carrying Mars rockets fueled with the crew already aboard.
t. a NASA bureaucrat

>I'm not thrilled by Elon Musk's plan to save time by having his passenger-carrying Mars rockets fueled with the crew already aboard.
The purpose isn't to save time. SpaceX uses subcooled propellant. It can't sit filled on the pad, or the propellant will warm and expand.

There's no alternative to having propellant flow while the crew is loaded, although some of SpaceX's opponents have called for SpaceX to be required to add an expensive, complicated recirculation system (which would, in effect, have propellant constantly be loading... if you don't see what's wrong with that, your reasoning may be driven by motivations you can't admit to).

Anyway, the other side of it is that passengers get to embark onto an inert launch vehicle, rather than one filled with rocket fuel and liquid oxygen. There's no reason to think this won't be more safe for the passengers and ground crew who help them get buckled in than the conventional way. The way SpaceX is doing it, they can prime the launch escape system before they start filling the main propellant tanks, so there's no time when the rocket can blow up with no eject option.

Aerospikes are interesting. For one thing, they have potential to be shorter and lighter than conventional nozzles, particularly for upper stage engines. The altitude compensation would also be a very useful feature for boosters.

The main argument against aerospikes is that there hasn't been enough work done on them for it to seem wise to take the gamble. The theoretical advantages are real, but since everyone's been using conventional nozzles, and no one has been using aerospikes, nobody who starts an aerospike engine development project knows what they're going to end up with.

It's also certainly safer for everyone to have empty rocket that physically can't explode into flames while people are around it

But then again this is the NASA that launched vehicles with 1000 tons of solids for decades.
And a vehicle with no abort capability at any point.

Maybe for boosters you can squeeze a little more Isp out of the nozzles with them
But its more complicated, more difficult, its going to be heavier/more expensive.

>Considering it would have undercut their highly profitable market in expendable launch vehicles, I sometimes wonder how hard they really tried to get it working.
The big issue iirc was that the technology wasn't there yet for the Fuel Tanks. They couldn't keep whatever composites they were using from cracking.

You left out the part where NASA hated them and refused to give them any meaningful support.

>its more complicated, more difficult, its going to be heavier/more expensive.
Aerospikes should be lighter. As for cost, that depends on a lot of things, and the advantage isn't purely on the side of conventional nozzles.

Aerospike engines favor numerous small combustion chambers, or a long, thin combustion chamber. So right away, you're looking at a very different engineering problem. It doesn't make sense to just put an aerospike nozzle on an otherwise conventional engine.

To do it right, you need a very unconventional engine, and that means you're basically starting over without the benefit of all the decades of practical experience.

>You left out the part where NASA hated them and refused to give them any meaningful support.
It started as a DOD project, but NASA demanded control of it, then actively sabotaged it.

I'm thinking of the Soviet Moon rocket.
Problem developed.
General in charge wanted it launched without delay to compliment speech Politburo bigwig was making.
Draining the tanks would have taken too long.
So he ordered technicians to work on fully-fueled rocket.
Blast killed them AND the general. (Lucky for him, in view of probable fate if he'd gotten back to the Kremlin.)

You are thinking about Nedelin event.
Russians were working on fueled up ICBM to avoid a scrub and it exploded taking with 100ish technicians and visiting military officials+ it was a hypergol rocket so anyone that survived the fire later had his lungs melted down by hydrazine fumes.

Holy shit when I first learned about the space helicopter I laughed my ass off. What were they thinking?

>dumbed down language. no articles
But articles are literally a dumbed down way to grammar, user. Ditch all the complexity in your word formation and just take the words for "one" and "that" to indicate wtf you're talking about.

Looks ugly af.