Angara - Russia's Replacement For The Proton Rocket 

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 👍

Yes, and vozvrat means return.

@@user-ic5wz2xu8r 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!

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.

Не нужно оправдываться перед ними.

​@@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.

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.

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

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.

MIR?

Mirror

Clever typo

@@travishardaway6348 oh, thanks

it even uses energia engines

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 :)

Still hasn't come out yet 😕

It can't just stay there forever. After all, it's a goddamn rocket!

Hi Jupiter

big pp launching

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.

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

Nice

Can we stop with these 'jokes'. Every video has a comment like this. I don't even know where it comes from.

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!

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.

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).

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.

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)

I wonder what the "dummy" payload to geo was. Regardless, it will fly safe ;)

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.

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.

There are a lot of animations on roscosmos' RU-vid channel.

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.

Was it tasty?

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.”

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

It never got off the drawing board. I don't know that ever even got to a point of trying to address that issue.

@@odysseusrex5908 thanks for the response, I know its a super simple engine and very inefficient, but a brute force engine like that might make a great tanker booster. If we could get 500 Tons at a time into orbit that would make more sense than dozens of starship launches to fuel anything in orbit. I would be curious to see if they could build such an engine

@@michaelreagan7149 It wouldn't be rapidly reusable.

Falcon Havey and Delta-V Hevey they do this it is fire to assume that the Angara like most Multicore Rockets do this

Other than a couple of mockups, they haven't produced any hardware.

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)

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.

No, I was in the US then

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!

What capsule?

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.

It works that is good