Proton vs. Falcon: the battle for the right to be a space cab

68


GKNPTs them. Khrunichev 13 September 2016 announced the creation of the "Middle" and "Light" versions of the "Proton-M", according to a press release, the design bureau will make new modifications to the Proton launch vehicle. A Russian-American joint venture, International Launch Services (ILS), took part in the development.
The Khrunichev Center announces the expansion of the Proton PH product line with the Briz-M upper stage by creating two additional modifications - light and middle class



The new "Protons" will be presented in two versions - medium and light. The first launch of the average gravity of the Proton, according to the press release, is scheduled for 2018 year, easy - for 2019.

The basis of the new launch vehicles was taken by their predecessor, the Proton-M,



as well as the previously used Briz-M overclocking module.



The average Proton will repeat the configuration of the Proton-M with the possibility of installing the same four meter head fairing as the older model.

Two versions of fairings for the Proton-M, developed in conjunction with ILS



ILS- International Launch Services Inc.
In 1993, the GKNPTs, RSC Energia and the American Lockheed Corporation created the Lokhid-Khrunichev-Energy joint venture (LCE). The main goal of the joint venture was marketing launch services of the Proton launch vehicle. Within the framework of this enterprise, the GKNPTS provided manufacturing of the launch vehicle, adaptation of the payload to it, development and manufacturing of the fairing and provision of launch services. LHE joint venture 7 June 1995 was reorganized into JV International Launch Services Inc.

International Launch Services (ILS) has the exclusive right to marketing and commercial operation of the Russian heavy-duty carrier rocket Proton and the promising Angara space launch system. ILS is registered in 1995 in the United States, headquartered in Reston, Virginia. The controlling stake in ILS belongs to the Russian State Space Research and Production Center named after M.V. Khrunichev (Moscow), the developer and manufacturer of the Proton and Angara launch vehicles.


GKNPTs them. Khrunichev did not reinvent the wheel and used already tested configurations and models of equipment in the creation of the new “Protons”. The first stage of the middle and light “Proton” will repeat that in “Proton-M”, the head fairing with the upper stage “Breeze-M” is also the legacy of the “older” launch vehicle. The key differences between the Proton-M and the announced innovations are the rejection of the second stage to reduce the cost of launch.

Comparison of "Proton-M" and new models of PH / site GKNPTs them. Khrunichev

Proton vs. Falcon: the battle for the right to be a space cab


New missiles are optimized two-stage versions of the Proton-M, on which only the commercial load will be displayed.


It is assumed that the emergence of such carriers will allow for the cost-effective launch into various types of spacecraft into geostationary orbit (GSO). And this will enhance the commercial potential of Proton in the market of geostationary satellite launches.
The press release cites the following data regarding the payload of launch vehicles of the Proton line, equipped with a four-meter head fairing:

PH of the heavy class “Proton-M”, energy characteristics: 6300 kg at ΔV = 1500 m / s;
PH middle class "Proton Middle", the minimum energy characteristics: 5000 kg at ΔV = 1500 m / s;
PH light class "Proton Light", the minimum energy characteristics: 3600 kg at ΔV = 1500 m / s.

In 2018, the Khrunichev Center plans to provide the first launch of a middle-class two-stage Proton rocket. It will have the standard configuration of the Proton-M carrier. It is planned to use a head fairing with a diameter of 4 meter. The payload capacity will be 5,0 tons when deriving the payload on a typical geo-transient orbit.



In 2019, the launch of the “light” version of “Proton” is planned. This modification will have four engines in the first stage and a head fairing with a diameter of 4 meters. Load capacity - 3,6 tons.



"Protons" fly with 1965 year and have undergone many modifications and improvements. Announcement of new lightweight models is a direct application of the domestic space industry to the fight for commercial launches, which will not only give the CB finance for further development and constant live missile launches, but also ensure the survival of the country's rocket and space industry as such.



Activation in this direction can be understood: successful commercial launches of SpaceX missiles, the announcement of Blue Origin's own launch vehicles and the development of space programs from other countries. At a certain point, the Russian space industry occupied a dominant position due to the abandonment of the program of space shuttles from the United States and a powerful base received from the USSR.




In modern realities, the creation of lighter and accessible for private companies of rockets is a necessity, since superheavy launchers no longer enjoy the same demand as before.

Back in 2015, the GKNPTs them. Khrunicheva reduced the cost of launching the Proton-M rocket from medium 95 million to about 70 million. Launched versions of the Proton will be even cheaper.

For comparison: now the output to the GPO of a satellite weighing up to 5,5 t using the Falcon 9 will cost the customer 62 million dollars (only on the condition that SpaceX will try to return the first stage and reduce costs). Quite possible, that it is a very significant difference in 8 million dollars and became the reason for the refusal of the Israelis from the withdrawal of the satellite Amos-6 using the Proton-M in favor of the Falcon 9which, unfortunately, exploded on the first of September during the pre-launch check.


In addition to the possible reduction in launch costs below 62 million dollars that the Mask company is asking for, Protons-M have been flying for about fifteen years, and from 98 known launches, only 10 of them have ended unsuccessfully. At the same time, the majority of failures are associated not with the rocket explosion at the start, but with the output of the payload (satellites) to the wrong orbit due to equipment failures.

The Republic of Belarus 14С43 “Breeze-M” is distinguished by a high degree of continuity of the design of previous developments that have successfully proven themselves in flights. Thus, the central fuel tank, which combines the remote control and pneumatic-hydraulic system units, came from the Republic of Belarus "Breeze-K", which flew as part of the Rokot launch vehicle. By design, the systems of separation and discharge of the head fairing (GO) are similar to the fairings of the modules of the Mir station, the Zarya module and universal head fairings of the UGO, created for the Proton-K commercial launches. In general, the continuity of aggregates and systems of the Republic of Belarus exceeds 90%.



Original designs (DTB, dry compartments, new units and systems) have been carefully developed and have been extensively tested. A new control system was developed and manufactured by the Moscow Design Bureau Mars, a new Pyrite telemetry measurement system — NPO IT, and a modified 14D30 propulsion engine — KBMH.



RB "Breeze-M", having a length of 2654 mm and the largest diameter 4100 mm, includes:
- central unit (diameter without upper screen - 2490 mm, length - 2654 mm),
- DTB toroidal shape (outer diameter - 4000 mm, internal - 2490 mm, length - 2071 mm),
- the lower spacer with a diameter of 4100 mm and a height of 583 mm.

The dry mass of the Republic of Belarus is 2600 kg, the maximum mass of fuel refilled (AT + NDMG) 19800 kg (5200 kg in the central unit and 14600 kg in DTB). The maximum mass of the PN output by the RB as part of the Proton-M PH 8K82KM to a geo-transfer orbit (GPO, 5500Х35786 km, 25 °) is 5500 kg, to the geostationary orbit (GSO) 3000 kg. The extended HE in the composition of the space head with the RB "Breeze-M" provides for the placement of the PN volume 97 м3. During active flight (24 hours), you can complete up to 10 main engine engagement.



The new line of "Protons", therefore, will include:
• A heavy class Proton – M + or Proton Heavy PH, outputting 6,3-7 tons of PN to GPO (with ΔV = 1500 m / s);
• Medium class PH “Proton Medium” (this is the current “Proton M” without a second stage), with 5 tons per GPO at the same ΔV = 1500 m / s;
• Light Proton PH “Light Proton” (this is the current “Proton M” without a second stage and with four engines instead of six in the first stage), outputting 3,6 tons per GPO under the same conditions.


It is possible that this project from 2012 will be revived - a heavy PH "Proton-M 1А (+)"


It was calculated that the use of two accelerators solid propellant "Topol-1" in the first stage of the carrier rocket Proton-M will increase the MO to 570 kg for launch into geostationary orbit. Two accelerators "Topol-1" at the first stage and two accelerators "Topol-2" for the second increases the "Proton-M" launch vehicle by 900 kg.

Another option - three Topol-1 boosters in the first stage and three Topol-2 boosters - will be able to deliver more payloads to the 1240 kg than the standard Proton-M. The use of boosters at the first stage of the rocket does not require too complex modifications of the carrier. Using accelerators "Topol-2" at the second stage of the rocket already requires some technical changes in its design.

Why side accelerators for solid propellant rocket engines were called "Topol" - I do not know ...;)

Information:
Market share of International Launch Services (ILS):
During the 2008-2014 years, the company made about 8 rocket launches of Proton-M with RB Briz-M per year. However, under the influence of competition, it lost 50 percent of the market and is now planning to launch 3-4 per year.





Basic world PH and their accident rate (data for 2014 year)



On 2016 g of 98 known launches PH "Proton" only 10 ended in failure. More precisely, five unsuccessful launches, in other cases Breeze-M let down (and then one partially unsuccessful, albeit emergency).

More than 8000 tons of cargo was put into orbit.

The cost of production of the launch vehicle in 2014 was estimated at about 1,5 billion rubles, while the services accompanying its launch were estimated at about 1 billion rubles.

Interesting shots.
Armor for the satellite: in the Khrunichev Space Center, a mechanism is checked that reveals the head fairing of the Proton launch vehicle in space. A rare opportunity to see the process on the ground.


Used photos, videos and documents
www.rbc.ru/
http://leninsk.ru/
http://www.astro.cz/
http://www.3dnews.ru/
https://en.wikipedia.org/
http://www.ilslaunch.com/
https://www.youtube.com/
http://www.roscosmos.ru/
http://www.khrunichev.com/
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/
68 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    26 November 2016 06: 57
    Without heptyl in any way?
    1. +1
      26 November 2016 08: 17
      Quote: demiurg
      Without heptyl in any way?

      And what do you suggest? That is all there is. http://rocketpolk44.narod.ru/stran/toplivo.htm
      The main characteristics of two-component liquid fuels with an optimal ratio
      components (pressure in the combustion chamber, 100 kgf / cm2, at the nozzle exit 1 kgf / cm2)

      Oxidizing agent Fuel Calorific value - Density Temperature Pulse pulse
      fuel rate *, g / cm2 * in the chamber in a vacuum,
      kcal / kg of combustion, K sec

      Nitric Kerosene 1460 1,36 2980 313
      set (98%) TG-02 1490 1,32 3000 310
      Aniline (80%) +
      furfuryl 1420 1.39 3050 313
      alcohol (20%)
      Oxygen Alcohol (94%) 2020 0,39 3300 255
      (Liquid) Hydrogen. 0,32 3250 391
      Kerosene 2200 1,04 3755 335
      UDMH 2200 1,02 3670 344
      Hydrazine 1,07 3446 346
      Ammonia 0,84 3070 323
      AT Kerosene 1550 1,27 3516 309
      UDMH 1,195 3469 318
      Hydrazine 1,23 3287 322
      Fluoride Hydrogen 0,62 4707 412
      (liquid) Hydrazine 2230 1,31 4775 370
    2. +4
      26 November 2016 13: 05
      Quote: demiurg
      Without heptyl in any way?

      First rockets flew on ethanol, nitric acid, and other fun substances
      Bottom line: the most common were three pairs of rocket fuel: oxygen / kerosene, oxygen / hydrogen, asymmetric dimethylhydrazine / nitrogen tetraxide.

      UDMH / AT. MI 344 s in void, averaged density 1,185 g / cm ^ 3. UI just below oxygen / kerosene, very high density, boils at positive temperature, self-ignites when components are mixed, it seems to be a dream, not fuel.
      One trouble, UDMH is a terrible poison. Highest toxicity class NFPA 704, mutagen, teratogen, carcinogen.
      AT is also not a gift, but it is a hazard class lower, it is poisonous like chlorine, and the plants grow well after it - nitrogenous fertilizer. The minor disadvantages of this fuel pair include corrosion of materials (but this can be combated) and a higher cost than the oxygen / kerosene pair. On it fly the "Proton", "Great Campaign" of the Chinese and the GSLV Indians. The "Titans" of the Americans and the "Arians" of the Europeans flew, but in launch vehicles it will gradually come to naught. The danger of spilling hundreds of tons of components during an accident and the need to deactivate the drop section of the spent stage makes it unpromising to use this pair in launch vehicles. But it is used in booster units and propulsion systems of satellites, because it can be stored in flight for a long time and without problems.

      CZ-5DY (Long March-5, or LM-5) with oxygen-kerosene engines

      Third stage (CZ-5 (optional)) - Yuanzheng-2 (YZ-2)
      2 × YF-50D main engines
      Fuel unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine
      Oxidizer dinitrogen tetroxide

      Oxygen / Kerosene. MI 358 c in void, averaged density (mixture density in the ratio for engine operation) 1,036 g / cm ^ 3.
      The most popular fuel, the easiest to use and the most mastered. There are two main drawbacks - not the highest UI, and the fact that oxygen is stored in tanks in liquid form. Thermal insulation is sometimes not even put on launch vehicles, and when it starts, ice frozen from the air beautifully falls from it. But for accelerating blocks, thermal insulation is needed and requires additional mass. Also, liquid oxygen cannot be stored for months for orbit corrections.

      Oxygen / hydrogen. MI 455 s in void, averaged density 0.3155 g / cm ^ 3. The largest IA, but there are serious flaws.
      Evaporated hydrogen must be drained because its mixture with air is explosive. The booster unit with these components should work for several minutes, long-lived modifications of the blocks that lived for hours were made in single copies and were much more expensive.
      1. +3
        26 November 2016 13: 30
        Quote: opus
        At first, rockets flew on ethanol, nitric acid, skies and other fun substances

        Actually, I wrote:


        and other fun substances
        The automatic mat tracking system works funny.

        I didn’t even think that a liquid mixture of terpenes and terpenoids obtained from coniferous resins would cause such a reaction

        wink
        1. +1
          26 November 2016 13: 44
          Quote: opus
          The automatic tracking system of the mate ...

          Just as funny:
          - she turns "freak" into an "idiot"
          - "idiot" she turns into ""
          - She turns "Gay-Lussac" into "Gay-Lussac" ... and earlier, by the way, she turned into "Pederast-Lussac" belay

          Your works are wonderful, Lord request
          1. +2
            26 November 2016 14: 03
            Quote: Cat Man Null
            - She turns "Gay-Lussac" into "Gay-Lussac" ... and earlier, by the way, she turned into "Pederast-Lussac"

            good
  2. +8
    26 November 2016 07: 02
    The article is voluminous, a whole "work". The author has tried +. But even so it is clear that we will not give up the primacy in space.
    1. +3
      26 November 2016 08: 31
      primacy in space? Where did you see the championship there? At least something interesting would be launched into space.
      1. +8
        26 November 2016 09: 21
        Of interesting things, Russia launches Americans and Europeans on its missiles. Or is it an uninteresting load?
        1. +2
          26 November 2016 14: 01
          They are "uninteresting" cargo for the West.
    2. avt
      +1
      26 November 2016 10: 23
      Quote: aszzz888
      But it is already clear that we will not give up the primacy in space.

      wassat
      Quote: Outlaw
      primacy in space?

      Actually, we are talking about "transporting" into orbit, and Superiority in space also implies something like this ... something that is put into orbit, for this very
      Quote: aszzz888
      primacy in space

      So the author did not write about him. laughing
    3. +3
      26 November 2016 13: 29
      The article is excellent. But there is no answer to the question posed in the title

      I myself will not answer him - we will lose; this is a sanction.

      Because it is proposed to compete with the budgets of a country that earns and a country that draws currency in unlimited quantities.

      Everyone knows that the price of the Mask is the financing of the State Department. He has never missiles as cheap as he painted. If Russia starts to finance Khrunichev, who will run out of money before?

      The only defense here is that he has already painted; he will not be able to redraw in a smaller direction - suspicion will cause.

      The latest version of the Falcon, judging by the investigation of the extreme accident - Rotten. She will not be in that form anymore.
      It must also be such a depot from engineering that you put an extremely cold tank of liquid helium inside relatively warm oxygen! Here is helium and boiled; the tank exploded (along with the oxygen tank), and outside the ready-made kerosene is refueling. Lepota. All this needs to be redone, and do not tell me that everything will be done for free, and that the new version will not become 10% more expensive from modernization. If he doesn’t, the State Department, ay; I have fresh plutonium prepared for you here.
      1. +4
        26 November 2016 14: 00
        Quote: Gormengast
        Because it is proposed to compete with the budgets of a country that earns and a country that draws currency in unlimited quantities.

        We had a chance:
        The Space Transport System program was completed in 2011. All operating shuttles were decommissioned after their last flight.

        On Friday, July 8 of 2011 of the year, the last launch of the Atlantis [25] with a crew reduced to four astronauts was carried out. This was the last flight under the Space Transport System program.

        1. Look at the office buildings of the RKS Energia, Khrunichev (Roman Skomorokhov wrote in my opinion) and production workshops, at auto management, top managers 'salaries, engineers' salaries, investments in research, Roscosmos (building, managers).
        Money was spent "in the wrong place."
        We stupidly ate (stole) a head start, which fate gave.
        As with oil / gas (Gazprom), when the barrel cost from 150 $. Moreover, this has already happened twice (2 times for the Russian Federation, and taking into account the USSR three times, four times)
        2. The national currency. The RMB art course allows them to live fairly calmly and spit on the Fed's printing press.
        Why do we have naebulin and the following rule: we print as many rubles as we received paper $?

        Quote: Gormengast
        It must also be such a depot from engineering that you put an extremely cold tank of liquid helium inside relatively warm oxygen!

        1.Not quite so
        preliminary analysis of data and debris showed that there was a significant damage to the cryogenic helium tank boost system with liquid oxygen of the second stage.

        plot from T-10 minutes to T-7 minutes.

        T-0: 10: 00 Stage 2 Venting for LOX Fast Fill - the beginning of the second stage drainage for quick filling with liquid oxygen.
        T-0: 09: 50 Flight Software Final Setups complete - the last flight software settings are completed.
        T-0: 09: 45 TEA-TEB Ignition System Setup - setting the engine ignition system (a self-igniting mixture of triethylaluminum-triethylborane).
        T-0: 09: 45 Stage 2 Transmitter Re-Activation - re-enable the second-stage transmitter.
        T-0: 09: 30 M1D Trim Valve Cycling - cyclic valve switching M1D.
        T-0: 09: 15 Stage 1 Helium Topping - filling the boost tanks.
        T-0: 07: 45 MVac Fuel Trim Valve Setup - MVac fuel valve setting
        T-0: 07: 30 Engine Chill Readiness - readiness for engine cooling (there may be a pause in preparation for starting if the readiness is not reached)
        T-0: 07: 00 Engine Chilldown (Bleed Valves Open, both Stages - cooling the engines of the first and second stages - opening the drain valves.



        From this list, the first operation was unambiguously performed - the white smoke of the oxygen vaporized from the tanks is clearly visible on the video.
        And the last two operations were definitely not performed - there was no pause in the drainage of evaporated oxygen.
        2. it's okay (to put a tank in the fuel tank inside the tank) there isn’t (as many do)
        Not O2 liquid, difference T, not at all what O2 liquid and Kerosene at room temperature.
        Delta is almost an order of magnitude (O2 + K): - 182,96 ° C and 20 ° C, compared to
        −270 ° C and -182,96 ° C
        fuel tank (lower) of the first stage of the Soyuz-2.1в launch vehicle.

        Pay attention to the large corrugated pipe. This is an oxidizer conduit. Since the oxidizing agent is liquid oxygen, it is necessary to put thermal insulation so that kerosene does not freeze on the pipe.
        (Alas, all this requires additional mass)

        At the second and third stages of the Saturn-V rocket, a very beautiful solution was applied - tanks of oxygen and hydrogen had a common wall

        compare (for example) with the third stage of the Soyuz launch vehicle


        And this is the Angara launch vehicle.

        Highlighted in yellow - an oxygen pipeline led out to the side to simplify and reduce the cost of production. On the one hand, this is unaesthetic, but the digital control system will cope with missile asymmetry.
        1. +2
          26 November 2016 14: 35
          We had a chance


          You contradict yourself - effective managers both sat down on our neck in the year 92, and they sit. And they should sit - in Kolyma, and engineers must manage! My bile spreads when I hear about office buildings, top managers' cars and salaries; and this is also with a complete lack of knowledge of the subject, which you control yourself!

          Not certainly in that way


          Musk voiced the cause of the accident; unless, of course, I didn’t read some fake from his alleged name. Here: http://alex-anpilogov.livejournal.com/160143.html

          According to the cyclogram - there should be clarity not only in the first operation (according to the visual), but also in the subsequent ones, because there are computer and similar operations there - is it really possible for Mask to deal with telemetry?

          Not O2 liquid, difference T, not at all what O2 liquid and Kerosene at room temperature.


          There, in my opinion, not only and not so much the temperature difference matters, but the latent heat of vaporization and enthalpy in general.

          tanks of oxygen and hydrogen had a common wall


          I was always curious how they did it; but, in my opinion, was there a foam between them?

          In general, Musk was still deep - either he applied an idiotic solution, or brought an idiotic excuse, because he knows no reason. laughing
          1. +1
            26 November 2016 15: 39
            Quote: Gormengast
            You contradict yourself - effective managers

            I am not talking about that.
            After the Shuttle closed, we were monopolists.
            Managers are a separate issue.
            Quote: Gormengast
            Musk voiced the cause of the accident; if, of course, I didn’t read some fake from his alleged name. Here:

            That's what he voiced
            Quote: opus
            A preliminary analysis of the data and debris showed that there was significant damage to the cryogenic helium pressurization system of the second-stage liquid oxygen tank.

            Why read fakes?
            http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-upd
            fire


            Quote: Gormengast
            There, in my opinion, not only and not so much the temperature difference matters, but the latent heat of vaporization and enthalpy in general.

            But this is not related to the boiling point of TC?
            There are many difficulties there:
            - the temperature of the flash of fuel in the environment of the oxidizing agent (pressurization by the oxidizing agent, after the TNA). Fuel films on the walls of the tank during the operation of the remote control (under the influence of flight vibrations and overloads, it immediately collapses and flows onto the mirror). Therefore, in the upper part of the tank it is possible to significantly increase the gas temperature to values ​​not exceeding the lower
            self-ignition limit of fuel vapor and oxidizer.
            - temperature of the upper layer of fuel
            etc.
            there is nothing criminal in helium boost, much less for cryogenic TC



            Quote: Gormengast
            In general, Musk still drove

            Well, it's you in vain.
            He is clearly not a victim of the exam.
            Byryga burnt - yes
            1. +1
              26 November 2016 16: 54
              After Shuttle closed, we were monopolists
              .

              Do you believe that? laughing Have you done anything at least one big thing (not according to the Soviet project and not from Soviet preparations) in 25 years (not even from 11 years)? Do not remember the godless Angara with me! laughing

              Thank you for the Soviet patent; always nice to see!

              Well, it's you in vain.
              He is clearly not a victim of the exam.


              Deepil, deepil! laughing He refuted the law of conservation of energy - he decided that if he puts gas turbines on his shit car that would spin the incoming flow during movement, he would allegedly receive (from nothing) some additional energy to power the electric motor. There was a heated discussion of this discovery.
    4. Hon
      0
      13 October 2019 11: 06
      Three years passed, they gave the championship ...
  3. 0
    26 November 2016 08: 04
    The announcement of new lightweight models is a direct application by the domestic space industry for the struggle for commercial launches, which will not only give KB finance for further development and constant “live” rocket launches, but also ensure the survival of the country's rocket and space industry as such.
    For me, personally, it will be very good. If the application does not remain just an application. VMZ is in the "paddock", and so the work will boil again. I hope all be fine.
  4. +3
    26 November 2016 08: 43
    No one else laughing at Mask? Uryaki, auuuuuuuuuuu? Where are you? wassat
    The facts are such that the price of launching kg into orbit is beyond competition and this is only the beginning.
    1. +1
      26 November 2016 08: 48
      And this is just the beginning. soon space will really take up then we'll see.
      1. +5
        26 November 2016 13: 47
        Sell ​​your hut and buy a ticket to Mars. You will be a pioneer.
      2. 0
        26 November 2016 14: 03
        Then we'll see. In the meantime, you are guests at the Russian "unions".
        1. 0
          26 November 2016 18: 54
          What guests? We pay you money for this.
    2. +2
      26 November 2016 09: 05
      Quote: professor
      No one else laughing at Mask? Uryaki, auuuuuuuuuuu? Where are you? wassat
      The facts are such that the price of launching kg into orbit is beyond competition and this is only the beginning.



      Out of competition)) We need to look at Yandex traffic jams, apparently at the Mask office there is now a traffic jam of 9-10 points. Customers shaft rod. The queue of who is forward on hand is recording. lol
      1. +2
        26 November 2016 09: 13
        Quote: demiurg
        Out of competition)) We need to look at Yandex traffic jams, apparently at the Mask office there is now a traffic jam of 9-10 points. Customers shaft rod. The queue of who is forward on hand is recording.

        Yandex traffic jams do not work in the United States because it violates the American patent of the company Wise.
        List of upcoming Mask launches:
        http://www.spacex.com/missions
        1. +1
          26 November 2016 09: 21
          Quote: professor
          Quote: demiurg
          Out of competition)) We need to look at Yandex traffic jams, apparently at the Mask office there is now a traffic jam of 9-10 points. Customers shaft rod. The queue of who is forward on hand is recording.

          Yandex traffic jams do not work in the United States because it violates the American patent of the company Wise.
          List of upcoming Mask launches:
          http://www.spacex.com/missions

          AND? Queue for launches from all manufacturers. Not even that, I will tell you the TRUTH. Any manufacturer of complex equipment, the production cycle of which takes a year or two, has a turn.
          If it’s not difficult (I was banned on Google, and I am weak in English), you can’t poke a finger, which of these launches was planned for Proton / Soyuz, and suddenly seeing low prices, went to the Mask?
          At the same time, tell me when the rocket will be reused)))
          1. +1
            26 November 2016 09: 26
            Quote: demiurg
            AND? Queue for launches from all manufacturers. Not even that, I will tell you the TRUTH. Any manufacturer of complex equipment, the production cycle of which takes a year or two, has a turn.

            You asked to show the line, I showed it to you. fellow

            Quote: demiurg
            If it’s not difficult (I was banned on Google, and I am weak in English), you can’t poke a finger, which of these launches was planned for Proton / Soyuz, and suddenly seeing low prices, went to the Mask?

            All. If there wasn’t a Mask, then they would go in line to the one who is engaged in space transportation.

            Quote: demiurg
            At the same time, tell me when the rocket will be reused)))

            And it is without reuse out of competition in its weight category. Show the list of customers standing in his queue again? wink
            1. +1
              26 November 2016 09: 33
              Quote: professor

              And it is without reuse out of competition in its weight category. Show the list of customers standing in his queue again? wink

              We will throw out of the queue those who are indicated by the directive, and those who have a profit from launches. What will remain there?
              And the line will be like Zenith with Sea Launch love
              1. +1
                26 November 2016 09: 35
                Quote: demiurg
                We will throw out of the queue those who are indicated by the directive, and those who have a profit from launches. What will remain there?

                Announce pliz list of these.

                Show the list of customers standing in his queue again? wink
                1. +1
                  26 November 2016 09: 47
                  Quote: professor

                  Announce pliz list of these.

                  Show the list of customers standing in his queue again? wink

                  NASA, Dragon, demo launches. Speyskoy :)) The big question is Iridiums and CEC.
                  1. +1
                    26 November 2016 09: 53
                    Quote: demiurg
                    NASA, Dragon, demo launches. Speyskoy :)) The big question is Iridiums and CEC.

                    Nasa and others there solely because of the cost of putting kg into orbit. The demo is not on the customer list. Materiel however.

                    Mask succeeded not only in making the launch cheaper, but also making the whole industry stir. This is what the article is about. hi
                    1. +1
                      26 November 2016 10: 07
                      Quote: professor

                      Nasa and others there solely because of the cost of putting kg into orbit. The demo is not on the customer list. Materiel however.
                      Mask succeeded not only in making the launch cheaper, but also making the whole industry stir. This is what the article is about. hi

                      I don’t know about cheaper, but everyone started to move, here I strongly agree.
                    2. +1
                      26 November 2016 11: 19
                      Professor, you'd better write how our BESHK extinguish your fires and purely humanly say THANKS. But obviously this word is not familiar to you (there is no waste of cash only).
                      1. 0
                        26 November 2016 13: 11
                        Quote: rotmistr60
                        Professor, you'd better write how our BESHK extinguish your fires and purely humanly say THANKS. But obviously this word is not familiar to you (there is no waste of cash only).

                        I don’t know how to stew, thanks already said. Now, in each thread, regardless of the topic, should I say thank you? Thanks to Azerbaijan, Italy, Ukraine, Greece, Cyprus USA, Russia, Croatia and other countries who rushed to help us. THANK YOU! hi
                      2. +1
                        26 November 2016 14: 26
                        Quote: rotmistr60
                        Professor, you'd better write how our BESHK extinguish your fires and purely humanly say THANKS

                        Gennady, and write who came to us (at least once) to help put out the fires?
                        Yesterday I thought myself after reporting from Israel ..
                        In 2010, a large-scale fire of natural origin occurred in Russia. Because of the heat wave, peat deposits and forests of Central Russia burned from July to early September. In total, almost 200 thousand hectares were covered by fire in 20 regions of the country. + According to official data from the Ministry of Emergencies, in 2010, large fires in Russia took the lives of about 12 thousand 900 people.

                        Israelis, Greeks, Spaniards, Portuguese, ..... yyyy

                        Baikal is on fire. Emergencies Ministry can not cope with the raging fires in Siberia


                        The Western press has been writing for several weeks about the emergency situation around Lake Baikal. Journalists have reported that nature is turning into a hellish landscape (Tech Times, Weather.com).

                        https://weather.com/news/news/lake-baikal-wildfir
                        es russia
        2. 0
          26 November 2016 14: 26
          Quote: professor
          List of upcoming Mask launches:

          Planning and doing are two different things. Musk planned a lot of things, only from this much - much has already been forgotten.
    3. +3
      26 November 2016 13: 20
      Quote: professor
      that the price of putting kg into orbit is beyond competition and this is only the beginning.

      Correction
      Willsubject to reuse (3,4,5, etc.) of the use of return stages and LRE Merlin /


      Until:
      SpaceX stores all the steps on Launch Complex 39A, the spaceport on Cape Canaveral.
      In a huge hangar, 39A can simultaneously store up to 5 objects the size of the first stage of the Falcon 9 rocket.

      As soon as they begin to fully assemble the Falcon Heavy, they will have to take everything to the test facility in McGregor, Texas. This means a long journey for the Falcon 9 (back and forth).
      No, of course, at the refinancing rate of 0,5% (FRS-USA) and 11% (CBR), the difference between the costs and the selling price of the start-up for Mask assets can be covered by credit (at 1,2% per annum, against 15% per annum with us) ...
      However:
      1. If the Fed rate changes, the situation will change radically
      2. If the barrel price rises to 150 $, kerosene will rise in price by 6 times .. the situation will change
      3. There is information that Spacecom demanded from SpaceX $ 50 million or a free launchThere is also information about a possible lawsuit against SpaceX.
      http://www.reuters.com/article/us-spacex-blast-sp
      acecom-idUSKCN11A0YV? feedType = RSS & feedName = topNew
      s & utm_source = twitter & utm_medium = Social

      https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/5139fj/s
      pacecom_plans_to_sue_spacex /

      If the court really will be, then reputational losses may still increase.
      This is really just the beginning, and as mathematics shows: with an increase in the number of starts, the likelihood of failure, an accident, both new stages and DU, and "restored"
      1. +2
        26 November 2016 13: 56
        If a...
        If a...
        If a...
        But without the "if", but as it is, then Musk now the cheapest delivery of kg payload into orbit in this weight category. Cheaper than in China and Russia. Here is such a materiel. fellow
        1. +2
          26 November 2016 14: 18
          Quote: professor
          But without the "if", but as it is, Musk now has the cheapest

          You just did not understand my thought.

          1. The General Prosecutor's Office demanded to initiate a criminal case against Dmitry Strashnov and two heads of departments of the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications. Strashnov was suspected of abuse of authority, employees of the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications - of negligence. According to the supervisory authority, in June 2015, he received 95,4 million rubles. (premium) illegal payments for "excellent" financial and economic activities of the organization in 2014.
          His salary REMEMBER somewhere 340 000 p / month
          2. Strashnov said that he was surprised by the requirements of the Prosecutor General. After all, the post of Russia (according to its reporting) received a profit of 2014 in the amount of 1 400 000 000,00 rubles.
          3. However:
          The prosecutor general’s office does not agree.
          Russian Post Received State Subsidies IN THE SIZE OF 5 400 000 000,00 RUB
          The bottom line to him (Strashnov) is not a bonus in 995 lyamov (with a salary in 340 mp) you need to write out, but a fine in 95 lyamov and put ....

          Katya Osadchaya certainly does not agree with this.


          "Receiving a subsidy," Russian Post "partially covered the costs"
          "In 2014, Russian Post received a subsidy in the amount of 3 billion rubles. This amount could not be indicated in the income, because it is immediately sent to organize a subscription campaign. In addition, the post office added 3 billion rubles to organize a subscription campaign itself." , - he said.

          "Amount indicated by the Prosecutor General in the amount of 5,4 billion rubles. incorrect, because in accordance with the federal law "Post" for the 2014 year, subsidies in the amount of 3,1387 billion rubles were provided. (3 billion subscription, 138,7 million rubles. Work in the Far North), ”added Osadchaya.
          From one point of view and some manipulation of reporting, the yield of 1,4 billion rubles
          on the other (in fact) losses in 4 billion rubles

          Space X also
          -------------------------------------------------
          -
          What is it for me?
          So with Space X:
          the cost of starting WHILE in 90 000 000 $
          but when and if it will be reused, then yes according to the FACT m. will be $ 62 million

          And so, for reflection: Khrunichev wants to come out with an offer of $ 55 million for Proton-M
          about 48 per proton average
          and in the 30 area for Proton easy.
          Let's see
          1. +1
            26 November 2016 14: 46
            Quote: opus


            So with Space X:
            the cost of starting WHILE in 90 000 000 $
            but when and if it will be reused, then yes according to the FACT m. will be $ 62 million

            And so, for reflection: Khrunichev wants to come out with an offer of $ 55 million for Proton-M
            about 48 per proton average
            and in the 30 area for Proton easy.
            Let's see

            Sorry, but they ask 62 million from the client. 90-62 = 28 At whose expense is the banquet? And how long can the party last?
            By the way, how many launches calculated falcon?
            And from how many starts is the cost of 62 million calculated?
            1. +2
              26 November 2016 15: 51
              Quote: demiurg
              90-62 = 28 At whose expense is the banquet? And how long can the party last?

              Space X (Musk personally or his Co.).
              at the Fed rate in 0,5% (and in US banks less than 1,2% ANNUAL) .. it’s not so expensive
              28 000 000,00 * 1,2% = 336 000,00 $ per year?
              For Ilon, this is pooh. On advertising it will beat.
              About his immense stomach, I'll try to write more
              Quote: professor
              fewer words and more numbers.

              I already sorted out with numbers it seems.
              30August (BEFORE ***)
              the company announced an agreement with SES to launch the SES-10 communications satellite into the geostationary orbit in Q4. 2016 of the year. The very first stage with the serial number 1021, which successfully returned 8 on April 2016 of the year, from flight number F9-023 (SpaceX CRS-8 mission) to deliver the expandable BEAM module and other cargo to the ISS - will be sent to space - and then made the first ever in space history successful landing on the offshore platform.

              The agreement reached on launching the return stage of the launch vehicle means that customers are ready to entrust their equipment to re-launch a reusable rocket. Insurance companies have determined the tariffs for such a service based on a new risk assessment. And the client himself was pleased with the price reduction. Prior to the deal, SES representatives said they would like to cut prices by about 30% compared to the previous cost of $ 60 million.

              We'll see.

              Quote: professor
              How much they NOW require from customers:

              Everything is in the open press.
              All numbers are not correct:
              - we do not take into account the costs of the USSR in the RK industry, up to ***
              -Space X R&D and freebie received from NASA and Co.
              - China is a separate issue.
              Let's wait what will happen next

              Uber Technologies Inc. Capitalization $62,5 billion (2015)

              Uber capitalization comparable to Rosneft capitalization
              I about it
              in general, if I am not mistaken, the capitalization of the top 10 of the world surpasses the REVENUE of each of the "top" over the past 15 years.
              Bubble is everything.
              And he will burst
              1. 0
                26 November 2016 16: 35
                Quote: opus
                Bubble is everything.
                And he will burst

                I am for health, and you for peace. Everything is very simple. The author of becoming suspiciously bypassed the main question in commercial launches - how much does this pleasure cost the client. Simplify the task. I am the owner of the Amos-7 satellite. I want to launch it into orbit. I apply for a quota to the Mask, to Russia, to the Chinese and to the Europeans. My companion weighs 5500kg. How much will it cost to launch each driver in accordance with current prices?
                1. +1
                  26 November 2016 17: 01
                  Quote: professor
                  The author of becoming suspiciously bypassed the main question in commercial launches - how much does this pleasure cost the client.

                  1. There was no such task.
                  2.Why bypassed? Backlog

                  Quote: Author
                  The cost of production of a rocket launcher (Proton) in 2014 was estimated at approximately 1,5 billion rubles, and the services associated with its launch were estimated at approximately 1 billion rubles.

                  2,5 billion rubles (2014) / 64,62 = $ 38 687 712
                  About A-7 not in the know.

                  Amos-6 - geostationary telecommunication satellite
                  5400 kg (at startup)




                  $ 38 687 712 / 6000 kg = 6447 $ / kg

                  AMOS-6 launch cost $ 34 819 000
                  (a trifle can still be withdrawn along the way)

                  Amos-5 was Launched in a cluster with the Russian Luch-5A repeater satellite, a Proton-M space rocket with a Breeze-M booster
                  This is the cost.
                  Further insurance + fat (greed)

                  Quote: professor
                  Amos-7. I want to launch it into orbit.

                  AMOS-4 (4250 mass kg) was perfectly put into orbit by the Zenit-3SLБ launch vehicle from the Baikonur Cosmodrome
                  1. 0
                    26 November 2016 17: 44
                    1. The photograph is not readable. Fine blurred font.
                    2. How much does it cost to run 5500 kg on LEO for you, for Mask, for the Chinese and Europeans? elementary question. Four digits and I merge from this branch.
                    1. +1
                      26 November 2016 17: 52
                      Quote: professor
                      Fine blurred font.

                      I have nothing to do with
                      Click on the picture or open in a new tab.




                      Or here:
                      http://i12.pixs.ru/storage/4/5/3/e17JPG_6700103_2
                      4190453.jpg

                      I recall:
                      This is the data for April 2015. Forecast for Falcons (this is also seen by the blurriness of the launch cost)
                      This is commerce
                      Quote: professor
                      Four digits and I merge from this branch.

                      You yourself are able to do this
                      1. +1
                        26 November 2016 17: 58
                        Quote: opus
                        I have nothing to do with



                        copy it
                        http://i12.pixs.ru/storage/5/0/6/e15JPG_3958311_2
                        4190506.jpg
                        and to the browser line
                      2. 0
                        26 November 2016 19: 47
                        Quote: opus
                        You yourself are able to do this

                        Already done. And not only me, but also those who stand in front of the Mask in the queue.

                        PS
                        Launching Amos-6 cost only $ 85 lemons including insurance. Obviously a bubble. Looks like the losses to Mask are covered by the State Department from secret accounts. laughing
                        http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-1000759794
          2. +1
            26 November 2016 14: 58
            Quote: opus
            Let's see

            Let the respected author have fewer words and more numbers. How much are they NOW customers require:
            SpaceX Price per Orbit (LEO) 1 kg (lb) payload- ???
            Russia price for launch into orbit (LEO) 1 kg (lb) payload- ???
            China cost per orbit (LEO) 1 kg (lb) payload- ???
            Europe cost per orbit (LEO) 1 kg (lb) payload- ???
            1. +1
              26 November 2016 17: 21
              Quote: professor
              How much they NOW require from customers:

              You will be interested

              Calculator: Mon, the inclination of the orbit, the type of orbit, you can draw conclusions.
              This is the declared commercial value on 04.2015.
              As you can see at the falcons, she rose
  5. +1
    26 November 2016 11: 23
    Something like the Angara vice versa? Conversion from a finished carrier to a design kit instead of a new generation rocket with unclear timing?
  6. 0
    26 November 2016 12: 34
    Why are we silent about skiaparelli. nasa or euronasa arranged for us to crash on a satellite. How much money we spent on the exomars program. Burned again for nothing. Who will be responsible for this?
  7. +1
    26 November 2016 12: 42
    Quote: Outlaw
    primacy in space? Where did you see the championship there? At least something interesting would be launched into space.

    So you ghouls and run ......
  8. +2
    26 November 2016 12: 45
    Quote: rotmistr60
    Professor, you'd better write how our BESHK extinguish your fires and purely humanly say THANKS. But obviously this word is not familiar to you (there is no waste of cash only).

    No, thank you, this is not about them. They (I mean professors, atalef and other gop companies) are specialists in only one thing - throwing shit on a fan.
  9. +2
    26 November 2016 13: 04
    For some reason it seems to me that the drawings of both the consoled and the lightweight "Proton" will remain drawings, due to the fact that "effective managers" can draw, but do not.

    Meanwhile, it turned out that there will be no launch of the Angara this December (as it was painted). And next year it won't. For this "the greatest rocket of all times and peoples" Putin should have taken someone by the ear for a long time.

    But, in general, it is better to strip to cowards, and let them to London.
  10. +1
    26 November 2016 14: 58
    opus,
    Quote: opus
    ennady and write WHO WAS US (at least once) to help us put out the fires?
    Yesterday I thought myself after reporting from Israel ..

    Anton, help is provided - upon request.
    I think if the Russian Federation asked. Israel would definitely not refuse.
    1. +2
      26 November 2016 15: 59
      Quote: atalef
      Anton, help is provided - upon request.

      Alexander ...
      The Ministry of Emergencies sometimes imposes its services (and someone happened and refused).
      Well, what can we do: we are such wadtniks, worship of foreigners, and ourselves in ***
      We have always treated our own people worse: "Birch", "Albatross", "Intourist"
      Quote: atalef
      Israel would definitely not refuse.

      I have nothing against helping Israel, and of course I would not refuse.
      In this regard, you are well done (and I will recall the sanctions, and in general).
      Israel certainly needs help — the situation there is complicated, but the forest is small, the density is large.
      about helping us is just a word.
      Yesterday I watched the report and thought about it, checked, NOT WHO.
      Maybe the Emergencies Ministry is to blame, maybe "the Soviets have their own pride"

      The overwhelming majority of Russian citizens are proud of the country's history (90%) and culture (88%), a strong army (90%), and science (82%). The pride is also sport (75%), Russia's position in the international arena (72%). At the same time, only 19% of respondents are proud of the standard of living of the population.
      wink
    2. 0
      26 November 2016 16: 09
      Quote: atalef
      I think if the Russian Federation asked. Israel would definitely not refuse.

      I do not think, I am sure. But the Kremlin is proud. He does not ask for help.

      Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a telephone conversation asked Russian President Vladimir Putin on assistance in fighting fires in Israel. This is stated in a message on the Kremlin website.


      Read more at RBC:
      http://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/5836bd889a79478f7d6
      8b991
  11. 0
    26 November 2016 15: 46
    Quote: opus
    And so, for reflection: Khrunichev wants to come out with an offer of $ 55 million for Proton-M
    about 48 per proton average
    and in the 30 area for Proton easy.

    "I am plagued by vague doubts. Shpak has a tape recorder, the ambassador has a medallion ..." (C)
    Anton! Do you have doubts that the launches of the highly publicized "Angara" are postponed indefinitely if you start working on versions of "Protons"?

    By the way, Zack’s average flight dates are not determined for 2018, but for 2019-2020
    1. +1
      26 November 2016 16: 15
      Quote: Old26
      that the launches of the highly publicized "Angara" are postponed indefinitely if they started working on versions of the "Protons"?

      Price....
      1.
      RD 191 standing on the "armament" of the Angara RN, in relative prices, is considered one of the most expensive kerosene LPR in the world - 36 000 $ / ton (250 million rubles).


      The price of 171 EP, on the basis of which the 180 / 191 RD was created, is within 22 000 $ / tf (13-15 million $). This scatter is partly due to the fact that the last two engines were created for the US domestic market, in particular for Atlas 5 launch vehicle (180 taxiway as the main engine of the central unit, and 191 taxiway as the engine for side blocks). However, the 191 RD remained unclaimed in the United States, even after the creation of a more budgetary 193 RD (version without UVT).

      Obviously, the price rises in proportion to the complexity of the engine and its efficiency.
      So RS 68 standing on the Delta 4 launch vehicle cost NASA 60 000 $ / ts of thrust (20 million $).

      A kerosene liquid propellant rocket engine with a higher thrust but lower specific pulse of the 180 RD (Atlas 5 launch vehicle) is NASA's nominally half the cost - 30 000 $ / tf (11 million $).

      The most “cheap” closed-cycle engine can be considered the 33-1 LRE. Provided production is restored, the price of 33-1 modification for the new Soyuz 2-3 launch vehicle can be up to 25 000 $ / tf (4,5 million $).

      Under the 2005 contract of the year, RD-181 engines were supplied by Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne Energomash at $ 10 million apiece in a batch of 50 engines. By 2010, the price of export RD-181 rose to $ 15 million

      Merlin 1D with an approximate price of 15 000 $ / tf (~ 1 million $) is very relevant (but not included in the LCI)



      RD-107 / 108. BEST drinks


      Paradoxically? Low parameters? Total 90 tons of traction? 60 atmospheres in the chamber? Turbo pump drive from hydrogen peroxide, what is out of date at 70? All this doesn’t matter if the engine has the highest reliability, and in terms of cost, it’s approaching a “big stupid carrier”.
      2.Angara is not yet on stream:
      Angara rocket: two years before launch / Angara rocket family

      In mass production, such workstations should be cheap. (video from the future, because it uses friction welding, which has not yet been mastered)
  12. +1
    26 November 2016 18: 30
    As of 2016, out of 98 known launches of the Proton launch vehicle, only 10 failed.
    - only ... as it seems to me, "already" is more appropriate here.
  13. 0
    26 November 2016 18: 57
    opus,
    This is the problem. First you need to help yourself.
  14. 0
    26 November 2016 20: 24
    The article, except for a minus, has nothing more to offer. Except, as in the title of the article, there are no mentions, let alone comparisons with "Falcon", no - grandfather Ivan, against the Andromeda nebula.
  15. 0
    26 November 2016 20: 51
    Quote: Alone
    Of interesting things, Russia launches Americans and Europeans on its missiles. Or is it an uninteresting load?

    Nothing is eternal under the Moon.
    By the way, according to my calculations, the total cost of launching a Proton is 49 million ye so there is a reserve for reducing the cost
  16. 0
    26 November 2016 21: 02
    Quote from DiViZ
    Why are we silent about skiaparelli. nasa or euronasa accident arranged for us on a satellite

    Schiaparelli is an EU craft. Ours is flying in orbit- "Roscosmos was responsible for: launching the mission using the Proton launch vehicle (14.03.2016/XNUMX/XNUMX) and two of the four scientific instruments (ACS and FREND) of the TGO orbital module, which successfully operate on orbit of Mars. "In short, we delivered the cargo, but the fact that the movers broke it is not our fault
  17. 0
    26 November 2016 21: 21
    Quote: professor
    Show the list of customers standing in his queue again?

    How much will the queue be reduced if the Falcons continue to explode at the start? And what will be the price if the steps continue to emergency land?
  18. 0
    27 November 2016 02: 21
    opus,
    Gennady, and write who came to us (at least once) to help put out the fires?

    For Western countries, rendering assistance to Russia is today tantamount to recognizing oneself as an "agent" of the GDP. Russia should rely only on its own strength and not wait for the Western "manna from heaven". At the same time, we always show that someone else's grief is not alien to us and often come to our aid.
  19. +1
    28 November 2016 18: 34
    The article contains many inaccuracies and errors, which greatly reduces the value of the proposed material.
    I will try to identify the most obvious:
    The joint Russian-American venture International Launch Services (ILS) took part in the development.
    ILS is not a design company, it is a launch services provider and to the development of materiel - neither by sleep, nor by spirit.
    The new "Protons" will be presented in two versions - medium and light. The first launch of the average gravity of the Proton, according to the press release, is scheduled for 2018 year, easy - for 2019.
    The basis of the new launch vehicles is taken from their predecessor - Proton-M
    The presence of two light versions of Proton does not mean the demise of Proton-M. He is not a predecessor, he is a prototype, the operation of which will continue further, in parallel with new versions.
    overclocking module "Breeze-M"
    "Breeze-M" is an upper stage, not an upper stage.
    The average Proton will repeat the configuration of the Proton-M with the possibility of installing the same four meter head fairing as the older model.
    Sorry, but this is crazy. New versions are two-stage, "Proton-M" - three-stage. Their configuration is different a priori, just like a two- and three-story house. The gross mistake.
    Two versions of fairings for the Proton-M, developed in conjunction with ILS
    I already wrote about ILS. One can only coordinate something with this company, but not how to develop it jointly. ILS - consider a store in which space launches are bought, not the manufacturer, or even, not the design bureau.
    GKNPC them. Khrunichev did not ...
    The Russian language is great and mighty. GKNPTs is a Center (male genus) and "GKNP Center them. M.V. Khrunichev is gone "- clearly from the lexicon with the Russian language having problems.
    The first step of the middle and light "Proton" will repeat that in "Proton-M"
    Another technical mistake. The first steps will not be repeated. They will be made taking into account the design of the first stage of "Proton-M" with significant design differences, including the dimensions and weight of the stages, the number of engines, the placement of compartments and fuel tanks.
    New missiles are optimized two-stage versions of the Proton-M, on which only the commercial load will be displayed.
    Not entirely correct. The new rockets are indeed two-stage, made on the basis of the technical solutions used in the design of the Proton-M, but have a distant relationship to the Proton-M.
    In 2018, the Khrunichev Center plans to provide the first launch of a two-stage Proton missile of the middle class. It will have a standard Proton-M carrier configuration.
    Repetition of the mistake about the "identical" configurations of two- and three-stage missiles. The standard configuration of the Proton-M is three-stage.
    Back in 2015, GKNPTs im. Khrunicheva reduced the cost
    Again "Center has lowered" ...
    • A heavy class Proton – M + or Proton Heavy PH, outputting 6,3-7 tons of PN to GPO (with ΔV = 1500 m / s);
    • Medium class PH “Proton Medium” (this is the current “Proton M” without a second stage), with 5 tons per GPO at the same ΔV = 1500 m / s;
    • Light Proton PH “Light Proton” (this is the current “Proton M” without a second stage and with four engines instead of six in the first stage), outputting 3,6 tons per GPO under the same conditions.
    At present, we can only talk about "Proton-M" and "Proton" "average". The rest of the modifications are not yet in operation.
    It is possible that this project from 2012 will be revived - a heavy PH "Proton-M 1А (+)"
    In my opinion, the return to this freak is zero.
    As of 2016, out of 98 known launches of the Proton launch vehicle, only 10 failed.
    The Proton had 4 launches in the 60s, in total. Proton-M had 98 launches. Proton and Proton-M are different launch vehicles.
    Carrier production cost
    A typical mistake of modern "journalists". A launch vehicle is any vehicle carrying (carrying) any missiles.
    A booster rocket is a rocket itself carrying a payload. Agree, things are completely different.

    Because of such annoying mistakes and inaccuracies, reading such "materials" causes an understandable desire to swear at the author with bad words for disrespecting readers, who treats them with his technical and grammatical illiteracy.
  20. 0
    29 November 2016 21: 09
    Reuse of steps is utopia. The loads are such that reuse is not practical. The presence of microcracks will lead to explosions. Musk is just a lucky Ostap Bender near the printing press ...