Military Review

Center Makeeva proposed to resume the development of reusable rocket "Korona"

92
Specialists of the State Rocket Center. Makeev was offered to resume work on the creation of a reusable single-stage rocket with a vertical take-off and landing "Crown". This is stated in the report of the company, which will be presented at the Academic Readings on cosmonautics.




“Technical and economic studies have been carried out and an effective development schedule for the launch vehicle has been developed. The necessary conditions for the creation of a launch vehicle have been investigated and the perspectives and results of both the development and operation of the proposed launch vehicle have been analyzed, ”the document says.

It is reported that “the rocket will have to have a launch mass of 280-290 tons and will be designed for launching payloads weighing up to 7 tons with traditional use or up to 12 tons with a special launching scheme to low near-earth orbits (from the territory of Russia - to 6 tons and to 11 tons, respectively), subject to the use of reusable booster blocks, the payload can be delivered to a height of up to 10 thousand kilometers and return back to Earth, after which it will be possible to restart after a day .

It is proposed to equip the carrier with a high-performance main engine for single-stage rockets, and carbon plastic is chosen as the main structural material, “the effectiveness of which was used in the construction of single-stage rockets was verified by a number of design studies”.

Experts clarified that the carrier will use only environmentally friendly components of the fuel - oxygen and hydrogen.

The Corona can be used in the interests of manned space flight in the construction of modular orbital stations and for the delivery of cargo to them or to the ISS. A comparison is made with previously created samples of reusable space technology and the correctness of the design studies carried out and the high probability of successful creation of this rocket ("Corona")

- Reported at the enterprise.

The development of the Korona rocket was conducted from 1992 to 2012 of the city. Works were stopped due to lack of funding.
Photos used:
https://ru.wikipedia.org
92 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. himRa
    himRa 20 January 2017 16: 26
    +5
    For such a small rocket (7 tons), a return is a chance for self-sufficiency!
    1. Alex_Rarog
      Alex_Rarog 20 January 2017 17: 08
      +4
      Definitely need to finish and put into series ... I think it space will be a strong competition ...
      1. himRa
        himRa 20 January 2017 17: 10
        +4
        there is nothing to argue, one must think about the future, alliances are already becoming obsolete
        1. hrych
          hrych 20 January 2017 17: 31
          17
          Quote: himRa
          unions are already becoming obsolete

          They said the same when looking at the Shuttles, but now he has survived the Union and carries the hitchhikers astronauts laughing In this case, we have the limit of technology and there is no need to look for good from good. Most likely they will be replaced, like AK, devices based on other physical principles. Also Proton, the transition to a digital unit has led to accidents. But there will be no better rocket, if it is a pity to lose the first stages, you can use elementary parachute systems to return them. Elon Musk is engaged in the lunar program under the pretext of exploring Mars and reducing the cost of casting weight. The lunar scam is close to universal exposure, in order to level it, a real landing on the moon is needed. The Japanese spoiled their Kaguya, for they did not find the landing sites, in particular Apollo 15 and 17, with high-resolution cameras, although this was part of the flight plan of the samurai machine gun.
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 20 January 2017 17: 33
            +1
            Now, if they found, having a resolution of 15 km, that would be a splash
            The scientific program of the Kaguya probe made it possible to compile a topographic map of the moon with a resolution of about 15 km. With the help of the Okin satellite, it was possible to map the distribution of gravity on the far side of the moon. Also, the data obtained allowed us to draw conclusions about the decay of the volcanic activity of the Moon 2,84 billion years ago [14]. The Kaguya probe was the first device to look at the bottom of Shackleton Crater, where it was supposed to find ice. [15]

            And the most accurate camera gives
            Optical means of observation are represented by a stereoscopic camera Terrain Camera and two spectrometer infrared (Multiband Imager) and visible range (Spectral Profiler). The camera resolution is 10 m / pixel. Using these instruments, a topographic and global mineralogical survey of the lunar surface was made.

            10 meters per pixel, if you put four Abrams in a box, the camera will see them as one point.
            1. hrych
              hrych 20 January 2017 18: 06
              +6
              The Americans launched the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, which, exactly 2 weeks after the fall of Kagui, entered the lunar orbit, which officially is looking for a place for future landings, and NASA published fake photos of it from places allegedly former landings, and although its LROC camera was announced at a resolution of 25 centimeters per pixel, they publish turbidity as proof (and this has not become a sensation for the world community, since Photoshop is now you won’t be surprised). In a word, a new lunar race began, where the Chinese joined with their Chang'e-1 and even the Indians. In principle, everyone is interested in the places of former landings, and naturally only the Americans found them laughing
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 20 January 2017 18: 22
                +1
                Firstly, not 25 cm, but 50 cm
                50 cm per pixel, this is dregs for reference
                The diameter of the lunar module is 4.3 meters, or 8.6 pixels with this resolution.
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 20 January 2017 18: 33
                  +4
                  I’ll add how the photo looks at different resolutions, in cm per pixel.
                  And recall, the bottom one is better than LRO can give
      2. Orionvit
        Orionvit 20 January 2017 20: 58
        0
        Definitely need to finish and put into series
        Here it is not necessary to finish. And finish and let into series good
      3. teder
        teder 20 January 2017 21: 13
        +2
        Quote: Alex_Rarog
        Definitely need to finish and put into series

        To finish the budget?
    2. Awaz
      Awaz 20 January 2017 17: 13
      15
      to be honest, this is nonsense. No need to be carried on MASK provocation. It’s better to come up with new ways and new technologies ... And for information, while all American super projects turned out to be dead ends ... this must be taken into account
      1. legkostup
        legkostup 20 January 2017 19: 59
        +3
        A dead end is now in the Russian Federation. On successful launches, even China was ahead of it.
        1. dauria
          dauria 20 January 2017 20: 13
          +7
          .... even China ....


          "Even China" surpassed America in terms of GDP. And considering how many of them there are, and all of them are covered by a decent education, you, gentlemen, Israelis, will soon go to them for treatment (it certainly does not hurt from pride and gloating). Yes, just do not forget - for some unknown reason they do not like Jews. Almost everyone was kicked out. I wonder why ? recourse
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 20 January 2017 20: 22
            +1
            Not yet ahead.
            18 against 11 trillion.
          2. teder
            teder 20 January 2017 21: 22
            0
            Quote: dauria
            Even China "outstripped America in GDP


            Quote: dauria
            And considering how many of them, and everyone is covered by a decent education, you gentlemen of Israel will soon go to see them for treatment


            Quote: dauria
            Yes, just don’t forget, for some unknown reason they don’t like Jews


            Quote: dauria
            They kicked out almost everyone. I wonder why ?

        2. Awaz
          Awaz 20 January 2017 21: 08
          +1
          China then flies on even older Soviet technologies ... They just have a lot of extra money, so to increase the importance of their own they shoot into space everything that is possible and that is not allowed. The USSR also went through this. And the dead end in the Russian Federation arose because of the stupidity at the top of the space industry. Effective managers "do not understand and do nothing in industries where quality and not quantity is important. That is, of course, they can slightly improve efficiency, but not significantly and it will not affect the overall picture in any way. Globally, if they do it, it will simply be a failure, which is planned in the Russian cosmonautics, given for the sake of such managers.In the USA, about the same nonsense, they are saved only by an unlimited amount of financial resources.
        3. maxim947
          maxim947 21 January 2017 14: 18
          +3
          A dead end is now in the Russian Federation. On successful launches, even China was ahead of it.
          [i] [/ i]
          You yourself are a dead end, the fact that China has overtaken Russia by launch is an inevitable fact that would have happened sooner or later. And the fact that the launches became less necessary to consider that the launches of the so-called Rokotov, i.e. in fact, military missiles end naturally, plus the new generation spacecraft have a much longer life and, no matter how strange it sounds, they are more reliable, their percentage of launches also disappears. In accordance with the program of Roscosmos, the number of launches from this year should increase, and then we'll see ...
    3. Corsair
      Corsair 20 January 2017 17: 15
      11
      Quote: himRa
      For such a small rocket (7 tons), a return is a chance for self-sufficiency!

      Starting weight 300 tons of which 6 tons payload, that is 2 percent, then the cost of diagnostics, etc. - an attempt to follow in the footsteps of Aymask will lead to meaningless costs.
      If you think about the future, then it's time to work on the space elevator, which Tsiolkovsky was thinking about.
      1. himRa
        himRa 20 January 2017 17: 43
        +6
        I agree especially in the light of new materials!
        the Japanese kind of wave a wave with this elevator and we had such projects, but it’s difficult so far, so it would be to saddle anti-gravity! (dream so dream! good drinks )
    4. opus
      opus 20 January 2017 17: 50
      +1
      Quote: himRa
      For such a small rocket (7 tons)

      USEFUL LOAD (mass of cargo put into orbit) = 7,5 tons
      and PH itself = launch weight 295 tons

      A.V. Vavilin, Yu.Yu. Usolkin “On possible ways of developing reusable transport space systems (MTKS)”, RK technique, scientific and technical collection, XIY series, issue 1 (48), part P, calculation, experimental studies and ballistic missile design with underwater launch, Miass, 2002, p. 121, fig. 1, p. 129, fig. 2).

      Threat. and the greater the mass of the launch vehicle (material consumption + power of the remote control) - the more FAVORABLE to make it multi-useable.
      and so. even Pegasus (XL) 18 500 kg (23 130 kg) are not reusable!

    5. A jacket
      A jacket 20 January 2017 19: 14
      +1
      20 years of development funding was not enough. How much more is needed, does anyone know?
  2. Observer2014
    Observer2014 20 January 2017 16: 26
    +7
    subject to the use of reusable booster blocks, the payload can be delivered up to a height of 10 thousand kilometers and returned to Earth, after which a restart can be carried out after a day. ”
    It certainly sounds impressive. And how much will it cost? I mean about the development. We don’t print money. And we earn. These are generally different things, print and earn. Unless, of course, put money on the stream (that is, replenishing the budget) from criminal funds, so to speak. Ulyukaev’s case, as there was no such colonel with one and a half green lards I remember. Yes, you can experiment. bully
    1. himRa
      himRa 20 January 2017 16: 29
      +7
      laughing crime tax is tin!
      Americans with reusable shuttles were already well burned so quickly realized that only the first-stage tanks should be returned, and there were still many unsuccessful landings
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 20 January 2017 16: 48
        0
        Entirely the first step, and not just tanks.
    2. 210ox
      210ox 20 January 2017 16: 29
      0
      It is necessary to put on the stream .... a criminal choir that hangs around construction sites and orders. And the stream will go to felling. And accordingly, the funds seized and earned by these "inmates" are he, the source ..
      Quote: Observer2014
      subject to the use of reusable booster blocks, the payload can be delivered up to a height of 10 thousand kilometers and returned to Earth, after which a restart can be carried out after a day. ”
      It certainly sounds impressive. And how much will the dough cost? I mean about the development. We don’t print money. And we earn. These are generally different things to print and earn. Unless, of course, put money on the stream (that is, replenishing the budget) from criminal funds, so to speak. Ulyukaev’s case, I don’t remember that colonel with one and a half green lards .Yes, you can experiment.
    3. Genry
      Genry 20 January 2017 16: 38
      +1
      Quote: Observer2014
      And how much will the dough cost? I mean about the development. We do not print money. We earn.

      That's what they used to say in the USSR when it came to developments in computer technology.
  3. Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 20 January 2017 16: 30
    +2
    There are a lot of ideas, but everything rests on a deficit budget.
    It turns out that detractors of a reusable rocket were mistaken, and this idea is bad because the Americans embody it .. In the same vein, scamming lasers, stealth and much more are scolded.
    1. himRa
      himRa 20 January 2017 16: 36
      +4
      Quote: Thunderbolt
      It turns out that detractors of a reusable rocket were mistaken and this idea is bad because the Americans embody it ..

      Not only because mattresses laughing but because maintenance, and most importantly, checking reusable systems is very expensive and not reliable! we must also add a reduced security system for the crew, imagine what temperatures are on the way back! protection ceramic tile stupidly glues to the hull lol
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 20 January 2017 16: 44
        +2
        Well, look at the Shuttle reliability of 98.6% (145 launches, two accidents)
        Soyuz-U, which displays Soyuz ships, 97.2% (792 launches, 22 accidents)
        Ship Union, 98.4% (125 launches, 2 accidents with casualties)
        I do not see reduced reliability here.
        1. himRa
          himRa 20 January 2017 17: 03
          +3
          Quote: BlackMokona
          I do not see reduced reliability here.

          the objection is accepted! but the victims are quantitatively larger since they had 8 crews each
          but that's not all - reusable systems are more expensive! and therefore the mattresses abandoned them!
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 20 January 2017 17: 12
            0
            Only we should look at qualitative indicators, not quantitative ones.
            Let's recount the loss of a person with one conclusion.
            Union up to 3 people, up to 125 * 3 = 375 people launched, max killed in two accidents 6, 4 actually died
            Shuttle up to 8 people, up to 145 * 8 = 1160 people launched, max of 16 dead, 14 actually died.
            Сonclusion
            The larger the result, the better. (The number of running on one dead, in the first line the max running to the maximum dead, in the second really dead to the max running. There are not enough third digits actually running to the real dead, but look for a long time)
            Union 62.5, and 93.75
            Shuttle 72.5 and 82.85
            The result, again, I do not see the fallen reliability.
            1. himRa
              himRa 20 January 2017 17: 19
              +8
              you are a little cunning with numbers! the unions had
              1 more starts
              2-they used to shuttles
              3-less accident rate I know for sure)
              but I like less and less of your perseverance in the obsession of Soviet and Russian cosmonautics!
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 20 January 2017 17: 21
                0
                1. Give figures, I took figures from open sources.
                2.So, but they flew all the time of the Shuttle flights, and somehow there was no replacement.
                3.Only in your head there is a scum. I stand for reusable projects, Corona, Buran, Russian woman and so on. But since they do not have normal statistics, they have to use bourgeois statistics.
                1. himRa
                  himRa 20 January 2017 18: 36
                  +5

                  From this table it follows that the USSR and the Russian Federation threw into orbit (Karman line) 1.7 times the total weight ...
                  the number of starts is more than 2 times! and with people on board respectively!
                  The death toll in connection with space needs to be calculated since for example the manager has not yet started but exploded (-7) how to count? you can find those who died in the pressure chambers during the tests and so on yourself if you want, but even from the number of launches (2 times) and the percentage, you can draw your own conclusions!
                  Now, comparatively many and one-time flights have also been said more than once already! There are people respected in the space industry and if your interest is not immediate (read it of course more difficult than Google), you can come to the same conclusions! the current state is a one-time start-ups talking about something?
                  1. Blackmokona
                    Blackmokona 20 January 2017 18: 47
                    +1
                    Your table does not indicate the number of people thrown into orbit.
                    1. himRa
                      himRa 20 January 2017 19: 39
                      +4
                      look for yours!
                      1. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 20 January 2017 20: 21
                        0
                        So I brought at the beginning of our conversation. Why should I look again ?. Your waiting for more.
  4. Pajamas
    Pajamas 20 January 2017 16: 32
    +2
    NOT in the subject, but I came across today, I decided to share:
    Former Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, answering questions from the Turkish Grand National Assembly (VNST) Commission investigating the July 15 coup attempt, explained why, after the destruction of the Russian aircraft, he said: “I gave the order.”

    Davutoglu, who drew attention to the fact that the instruction in question is the rules for using weapons established not only for Russia, but also for all aircraft violating our airspace, noted: “The rules for using weapons are a general instruction; it is agreed that due to the lack of sufficient time at the time of its application to the commander, pilot or military serviceman receiving this instruction, both are entrusted with the right to act within the framework of this general instruction; in the event of a violation, the duration of which is limited to seconds, no special requirements are required. ”

    The destruction of the Russian aircraft is a topic that I have been working on for a long time.

    The answer that Mr. Davutoglu sent to the VNST confirms the information I received. I would like to share them in chronological order.

    June 22, 2012 Syria shot down a Turkish aircraft RF4. Turkey changed the rules on the use of weapons and announced that fire would be fired on Syrian aircraft that would approach its airspace more than five miles. Under these rules, a Syrian helicopter was shot down on September 16, 2013, a Syrian MiG military aircraft on March 23, 2014, and a Syrian helicopter was shot down again on May 16, 2015.

    In connection with Russia, the rules have changed

    On October 1, 2015, the Russian Air Force began operations in Syria. During the period of bombing of opposition objects in the north of the Turkmen mountain, they began to fly over our villages in the south of Hatay.

    On October 4 and XNUMX, Russian aircraft repeatedly violated Turkish airspace. After the warnings, Russian officials apologized and pointed out a navigation error as a reason.

    On October 2015, XNUMX, at a meeting chaired by Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, cases of violation and air disturbance by Russia were discussed. It was decided to change the rule that has been in force since the Cold War and did not allow "to open fire on Russian (Soviet) aircraft with the aim of destroying them." From now on, when it came to a Russian plane that violated airspace, an order to open fire could be given by a commander or political leadership.

    On October 22, 2015, the Turkish Air Force Command through the General Staff sent a letter to the Office of the Prime Minister. It was emphasized that a change in the rules regarding Russia could give rise to problematic consequences not only from the point of view of Russian-Turkish relations, but also from the point of view of NATO.

    Events in Hatay on the day of the holiday

    On October 29, 2015, Turkey celebrated Republic Day. The country's leadership was at the celebrations. A Russian helicopter appeared in the sky above Khatai. When the fighter on duty could not take off, it was decided to hit the SAM rocket. But when this also became impossible due to a delay in the high command, the Russian helicopter left the Turkish airspace in which it had been for a long time. This situation caused great indignation of Davutoglu.

    On November 22, 2015, Davutoglu convened a security meeting at Cankaya Palace. The decision on Russian aircraft was left to the discretion of the pilots and the command and control tower. Some ministers from the Justice and Development Party have openly opposed such changes.

    On November 24, a Turkish fighter shot down a Russian plane that violated airspace. The strike was launched by a missile with a thermal guidance system, so that the pilots had the opportunity to escape.

    A major crisis broke out in relations with Russia, and in March 2016, the rules for using weapons against Russia were restored.

    Is the pilot a gulenist?

    Davutoglu explained that with the words “I gave the order” he took responsibility; at the same time, he wanted to examine the connection between the pilots who shot down a Russian plane and the FETÖ terrorist organization Fethullah Gülen. Davutoglu shared the following information: “So, at one of our subsequent meetings, our chief of the General Staff said that the past and the contacts of the pilots had been studied, it was not possible to establish any specific connection.”

    Davutoglu’s statement that he gave the order caused a very strong reaction from Russian President Vladimir Putin. How in the period when Putin began to believe that the FETÖ wants to harm Turkish-Russian relations in many areas, including the destruction of the plane and the attempt on the ambassador Karlov, will he appreciate this revelation of Davutoglu? Wait and see

    Deniz Zeyrek

    Hürriyet, Turkey
    1. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 20 January 2017 16: 54
      +2
      Quote: Pajama
      The strike was launched by a missile with a thermal guidance system, so that pilots had the opportunity to escape.

      What are these noble Turks.
    2. Cat man null
      Cat man null 20 January 2017 17: 10
      +2
      Quote: Pajama
      good

      - this would be material, but as an article on VO
      - instead of, for example, material about Poroshenkin "Roshen" ...
  5. Banishing liberoids
    Banishing liberoids 20 January 2017 16: 36
    +3
    The figure is futuristic and obviously has nothing to do with the article! But on the rocket, is it like an Indian hypersonic brahmos, only for space? What will be reusable in it — all or only the first and say the second stage, maybe also an orbital tug, although hardly there may simply not be enough fuel to return to the ground. How many steps are there in a rocket, why do not they want to build an aerospace plane with a launch from a transport aircraft? About a dozen such projects have been read in our country, they are easier to implement. They wanted to make reusable both sides for energy, and the second step of progress. .Don't dance yet on the rake, I see ...
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 20 January 2017 16: 56
      0
      Quote: Exorcist Liberoids
      Not yet danced on a rake, I see ...

      "Besides this shirt, Zin,
      You put on - one shame.
      Sewing will suit you arshin -
      Where is the money, Zin? .. "
      VS Vysotsky "Conversation at the TV"
    2. kunstkammer
      kunstkammer 20 January 2017 17: 24
      0
      there may simply not be enough fuel to return to the ground

      why not use what has already been worked out best - a parachute system for a return? It is possible to think over also capture by the heavy helicopter the block of the rocket descent on the parachute. And subsequent delivery and smooth lowering to the appointed place.
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 20 January 2017 18: 36
        0
        The parachute system is firstly very heavy, secondly a strong blow when opening the parachutes, thirdly there is a notable point of failure when intercepted by a helicopter.
  6. Yura
    Yura 20 January 2017 16: 37
    0
    Work for the future. With its help, output and assemble modules in space, and then where the eye will show.
  7. Vita vko
    Vita vko 20 January 2017 16: 41
    0
    If the technology allows multiple use, then of course you need to work for the future. Russia is obliged to maintain its leadership in space exploration, and this requires new missiles and new technologies.
  8. Ivan Ivanov
    Ivan Ivanov 20 January 2017 16: 49
    0
    Another thing! otherwise all masks and masks, 92 years of development, if only Gaidar with his "oil and sneakers" would fly now.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 20 January 2017 16: 55
      0
      The development of the Korona rocket was conducted from 1992 to 2012 of the city. Works were stopped due to lack of funding.

      Gaidar in 2012, has not made any decisions for a long time. He has been feeding worms underground since 2009.
      1. Ivan Ivanov
        Ivan Ivanov 20 January 2017 17: 48
        0
        Gaidar’s policy was largely not abandoned until recently.
  9. LVMI1980
    LVMI1980 20 January 2017 16: 56
    0
    Reusable launchers should have only an aerodrome launch, why burn fuel during vertical landing?
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 20 January 2017 16: 57
      0
      But why drag wings and others necessary for an aerodrome launch into space?
      The question is what is easier, everything you need for planning, or fuel for landing.
      1. zoolu300
        zoolu300 20 January 2017 17: 26
        0
        The most optimal (in terms of mass) is body braking, and then a parachute (Orion and Federation) for the spacecraft. For booster stages, for vertical landing, that for aircraft, it is necessary to increase the parameters of the strength of the steps, and this is a decrease in the output payload. So "the game is not always worth the candle".
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 20 January 2017 17: 29
          0
          Such a loss of 30% PN, against 0.3% of the price of consumables. The game is worth the candle if repairs are not too expensive.
  10. Großer feldherr
    Großer feldherr 20 January 2017 17: 07
    +4
    Well, I do not believe in reusable rocket - I DO NOT BELIEVE.
    The weight on the reinforcement of the structure and the fuel for landing take away from the payload, in addition, the efficiency and reusable engines will be lower a priori
    those. technically quite possible, but profitability is not the slightest.
    Much more interesting to replace a disposable launch vehicle is an "air launch" in combination with a "space truck" in orbit.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 20 January 2017 17: 16
      +1
      Much more interesting to replace a disposable launch vehicle is an "air launch" in combination with a "space truck" in orbit.

      An air start exists, and at the moment it is the most expensive kg in orbit. Google Pegasus PH.
      And 30% loss of payloads is paid off by the fact that the price of consumables (fuel, etc.) is less than 1% of the launch price of the launch vehicle (SpaceX claims that the price of consumables for Falcon-9 is 0.3% of the price)
      1. Großer feldherr
        Großer feldherr 20 January 2017 17: 56
        0
        Pegasus is so expensive because it is one of a kind now, and besides, it uses ordinary civilian cargo planes to launch, which imposes a lot of restrictions.
        Take SpaceShipTwo VSS Enterprise for example (thanks to Google), so far these are only suborbital flights, but at this altitude, a kick in the ass is enough for further entry into orbit.
        And the creation of suborbital airplanes will finally put an end to this issue, what will happen just around the corner, all countries are spending their money on this subject without regret.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 20 January 2017 18: 27
          0
          250 thousand dollars from the nose. If you plant 100 kg fat men, then this is $ 2500 per kg. Not yet in orbit, but a suborbital flight.
          Falcon-9 2719 dollars per kg, one-time execution for delivery to orbit. What's better?
    2. Corsair
      Corsair 20 January 2017 17: 25
      0
      Quote: Großer Feldherr
      Much more interesting to replace a disposable launch vehicle is an "air launch" in combination with a "space truck" in orbit.

      Even more interesting is the space elevator, but we alone will not pull it financially.
      And there is another third option, fantastic as well as the second - it is a kind of analogue of the Gauss gun.
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 20 January 2017 17: 27
        +1
        Even more interesting is the space elevator, but we alone will not pull it financially.

        Financially, even Belgium will pull it, but there is a trouble that there are no necessary materials for its production. Therefore, at the moment this is a fabulous project.
        And there is another third option, fantastic as well as the second - it is a kind of analogue of the Gauss gun.

        Here the problem is in hellish overloads, if you can still start the cargo, then it will not work with people.
        1. Corsair
          Corsair 23 January 2017 10: 01
          0
          Quote: BlackMokona
          Here the problem is in hellish overloads, if you can still start the cargo, then it will not work with people.

          I agree, but the goods also need to be delivered, people can still be used in the old fashioned way, civil engineers, let them build a future space shipyard in orbit)))
    3. Awaz
      Awaz 20 January 2017 17: 28
      0
      I fully support. In general, I am for new technologies, but for everything to be simple, stupidly safe and cheap ...
    4. AUL
      AUL 20 January 2017 18: 45
      +2
      I also don’t believe in the economic feasibility of reusable devices at the TODAY.
      1. Structurally, the apparatus must be laid back mechanisms. This is due to a decrease in MO, therefore, a rise in the cost of output kg.
      2. Once the machine is reusable, an appropriate margin of safety is laid in all units of the machine and the corresponding resource. For example, the proton turbopump unit develops power more than the Dnieper. Naturally, with such transcendental loads, the aggregate resource is scanty. To increase the resource, the weight of the unit will increase many times, hence the cost of the output kg.
      3. Promise readiness for the next start in 24 hours. 3 times ha ha! During this time, the device still does not have time to cool down properly! And it must also be tested. Moreover, if you check the electronics relatively quickly - run the testing system and sit, staring at the monitor - then the mechanics need to feel every screw. And non-destructive testing methods are not quick. Not all units can be crawled with equipment, others will have to be dismantled, disassembled, checked in detail, reassembled, set up checked in the complex at the stand, mounted in place and checked again ... In addition, the cost of this inspection is included in the start-up price and it is very substantial, hence the rise in price of the displayed kg.
      4. With all the haemorrhages with operation, the resource will not be infinite - 5-10 starts, and the car in color!
      BUT! That which is economically disadvantageous now, in the future, with the development of technology and other breakthroughs, may turn out to be quite acceptable. Therefore, work in this direction is necessary!
  11. Old26
    Old26 20 January 2017 17: 43
    +1
    Quote: AwaZ
    to be honest, this is nonsense. No need to be carried on MASK provocation. It’s better to come up with new ways and new technologies ... And for information, while all American super projects turned out to be dead ends ... this must be taken into account

    Actually, this, as you say, MASK provocation was about 15 years before Mask. This is so for information. The first studies - 1992 ....
    And what projects (American) turned out to be dead ends, do not tell me ???

    Quote: Exorcist Liberoids
    The figure is futuristic and obviously has nothing to do with the article!

    Actually, this is the drawing of the Korona launch vehicle

    Quote: Exorcist Liberoids
    And on the rocket, is it like an Indian hypersonic brahmos, only for space? What will be reusable in it - all or only the first and say the second stage, maybe also an orbital tug, although it is unlikely that it just might not have enough fuel to return to the ground. How many steps are there in a rocket, why do not they want to build an aerospace plane with launch from a transport aircraft? About a dozen such projects have been read in our country, it is easier to implement them. They wanted to make reusable both sides for energy, and the second step of progress. .Don't dance yet on the rake, I see ...

    "Corona" is a single-stage rocket. An aerospace plane launched from a transport plane? We had only one such projects - MAX. He was supposed to start with the AN-225 (or in the future with the AN-325) of other projects DID NOT HAVE

    Quote: LVMI1980
    Reusable launchers should have only an aerodrome launch, why burn fuel during vertical landing?

    And they are projected for the prospect of 30-50 years? Maybe it’s worth distinguishing Wishlist from really possible ???
    1. Banishing liberoids
      Banishing liberoids 20 January 2017 18: 07
      0
      Old26 - what about the "spiral" project? They even created a prototype of a spacecraft and launched it from a carrier aircraft? Look on the Internet - we had other projects.
  12. tchoni
    tchoni 20 January 2017 17: 49
    0
    And why did it in the form of a pyramid. ? maybe better then in the shape of a ball? And the weight and strength characteristics will be better ....
  13. prosto_rgb
    prosto_rgb 20 January 2017 17: 51
    0
    and for what?
    there is also a developed modular "Angara"
    with already built launch complex
    no, something else is needed and in the same class
    smacks of sabotage
  14. Altona
    Altona 20 January 2017 18: 06
    0
    Quote: Alex_Rarog
    Definitely need to finish and put into series ... I think it space will be a strong competition ...

    -------------------------------------
    Rather, Ilona Mask with his Falcon-9 rocket ...
  15. Phoenix_L'vov
    Phoenix_L'vov 20 January 2017 18: 23
    0
    The idea is good, but the leadership is so far behind Mask ...
    1. fa2998
      fa2998 22 January 2017 13: 12
      +2
      Quote: Phoenix_Lvov
      Good idea

      They laughed at Mask over the whole forum, started to do it, it turns out that the idea is a good, promising ... what In my opinion, complete nonsense.
      The reusable launch vehicle should have ADDITIONAL-maneuverable engines for orientation, additional fuel for braking impulse and soft landing and a landing control system (after all, it needs to be landed in a certain place). All this "steals" from the payload mass. What is 7-12 tons? close disposable "Zenith" (13,7 tons) starting weight 471 tons! And this is without any "charms" as mentioned above! hi
  16. Shadow of darkness
    Shadow of darkness 20 January 2017 18: 26
    0
    Or maybe you should not step on the rake that the Americans have already walked on ?!
  17. Zlat070
    Zlat070 20 January 2017 18: 27
    0
    And I believe the Makeevites: they said - they will do it !!!
  18. kunstkammer
    kunstkammer 20 January 2017 18: 47
    0
    Quote: BlackMokona
    The parachute system is firstly very heavy, secondly a strong blow when opening the parachutes, thirdly there is a notable point of failure when intercepted by a helicopter.

    I believe that the parachute and the opening system at the point of minimum speed of the returned module will be no heavier than the additional fuel for the return and the soft landing system.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 21 January 2017 07: 39
      0
      The whole problem is that Falcon-9 is slowed down by engines, so as not to suffer much when entering dense layers of the atmosphere. Parachutes here for example will not help.
  19. webdog
    webdog 20 January 2017 18: 54
    0
    this is not an article, but a solid bullshit ....)))
    apparently the author wanted to write something, but nothing sensible came to mind ...
    In principle, a single-stage carrier for DOE is not possible. In principle!
    1. AUL
      AUL 20 January 2017 19: 11
      +2
      Justify! (With Dr. Bulls)
      1. webdog
        webdog 24 January 2017 09: 30
        0
        Tsiolkovsky justified it ..))) teach physics!
  20. Old26
    Old26 20 January 2017 19: 46
    0
    Quote: Expelling Liberoids
    Old26 - what about the "spiral" project? They even created a prototype of a spacecraft and launched it from a carrier aircraft? Look on the Internet - we had other projects.

    What was created then was as far from a real spaceplane as a drawing in the framework of an advance project from a real product. An analogue aircraft was created. 50-11, which had neither mass-dimensional, nor instrumental similarity with an orbital plane. It was SUBSONIC analogue aircraft .. SUPERSONIC analogue aircraft - product 50-12 and HYPERSONIC analogue - product 50-13 - NOT CREATED.

    Not created and experimental manned orbital aircraft (EPOS) - or product 50.
    Create HYPERSONIC the accelerator aircraft in the framework of the Spiral project in the 70s is a technical fantasy, if not a gamble.
    It is now impossible to create. so that "SPIRAL" is more of a dream and a beautiful paper project. This became clear even at the stage of developing a subsonic analogue. By the way, the GSR for "Spiral" has never been a transport plane, and this is how the question stood and, accordingly, my answer

    The MAX program has also not been implemented. In this case, due to the collapse of the USSR. More than other projects that could be suitable for implementation in the USSR were not.
    So apart from a few launches of the subsonic counterpart, there was nothing. All other projects were even less worked out and were not implemented even in the paper version.
  21. doubovitski
    doubovitski 20 January 2017 20: 07
    +1
    Quote: Jacket
    20 years of development funding was not enough. How much more is needed, does anyone know?

    Where did you get that all these 20 years have been financed? It says just about the absence.
    It's not about the salaries of the designers. (Although they, people, will not work for free). The main costs are on experimental production, technological stands, test equipment.
    Now, if you draw, in principle, it is possible even after hours, then nobody will give you this iron without money. And without this, any project is handwriting that does not cost a dime.
  22. doubovitski
    doubovitski 20 January 2017 20: 12
    +2
    Quote: tchoni
    And why did it in the form of a pyramid. ? maybe better then in the shape of a ball? And the weight and strength characteristics will be better ....

    Acceleration in a vacuum is possible and the ball, and any other ship. But what do you propose to do with the atmosphere? Or do you have a launch project through an airtight pipe high enough to remove practically without resistance to the rarefied atmosphere of the pipe?
    1. himRa
      himRa 20 January 2017 20: 49
      +3
      Quote: doubovitski
      Or do you have a launch project through an airtight pipe high enough to remove practically without resistance to the rarefied atmosphere of the pipe?

      But the idea is not bad and quite feasible in a pinch for cargo launches that are not afraid of overloads! good and even for manned as a space elevator! drinks
      for example, in the light of new materials with a given crystal lattice!
  23. doubovitski
    doubovitski 20 January 2017 20: 18
    +2
    Quote: AUL
    I also don’t believe in the economic feasibility of reusable devices at the TODAY.


    I agree completely. I’ll add on my own, during this time they won’t even have time to sign documents allowing reuse. With our bureaucratic system.
  24. Orionvit
    Orionvit 20 January 2017 21: 04
    +2
    Quote: hrych
    who is officially looking for a place for future landings and NASA published fake photographs of it from places allegedly former landings

    Try to tell this to those "experts" who still firmly believe in America and its lunar program.
  25. Operator
    Operator 20 January 2017 21: 07
    0
    "The [reusable] rocket will have a launch weight of 280-290 tons and will be designed to launch payloads weighing up to 7 tons," that's just three percent of the weight recovery, compared to the five percent recoil of a single-use launch vehicle.

    Stillborn project, definitely.
  26. Orionvit
    Orionvit 20 January 2017 21: 10
    0
    Quote: hrych
    In this case, we have the limit of technology and there is no need to look for good from good. Most likely they will be replaced, like AK, devices based on other physical principles.

    Unfortunately, while the world is sitting artificially on an oil needle, we will not hear about other physical principles soon.
  27. doubovitski
    doubovitski 20 January 2017 23: 59
    +2
    Quote: Orionvit
    Quote: hrych
    In this case, we have the limit of technology and there is no need to look for good from good. Most likely they will be replaced, like AK, devices based on other physical principles.

    Unfortunately, while the world is sitting artificially on an oil needle, we will not hear about other physical principles soon.

    Any new one is born only when the person himself is ready to perceive it. Start by reinventing the wheel. A man has seen millions of times tree trunks and stones sliding down, but the image of a wheel appeared in the head of this genius only when it could not appear. And the abundance of oil is absolutely nothing to do with. Moreover, the lack of oil will impede the emergence of a new principle, since the heads will be busy with an urgent search for firewood. Pushkin's creations could not appear in the head of a serf illiterate boy. Sasha began to speak Russian and Greek simultaneously. This is not possible in a poor family.
  28. Filxnumx
    Filxnumx 21 January 2017 10: 08
    0
    Quote: opus
    Threat. and the greater the mass of the launch vehicle (material consumption + power of the remote control) - the more FAVORABLE to make it multi-useable.

    the greater the launch mass of the launch vehicle, the greater the mass of the launched payload. For self-sufficiency, regular starts are needed. Question: what will we carry? Where are these heavy loads that need to be regularly launched into space? In a past life, the absence of these cargoes became one of the reasons for the "closure" of both Buran and the Shuttle.
  29. Julio Jurenito
    Julio Jurenito 21 January 2017 10: 47
    0
    And nahoa hoa ?!
    20 years of operation Shuttles and a scam Ilona Mask have long proved that the financial benefits of developing the operation of reusable systems are repeatedly offset by their low reliability and the cost of interstart maintenance.

    Better direct your efforts to a heavy carrier.
    1. teder
      teder 21 January 2017 10: 50
      0
      Quote: Julio Jurenito
      0 years of operation Shuttles and scam Ilona Mask have long been proventhat the financial benefits from the development of the operation of reusable systems are repeatedly overlapped by their low reliability and the cost of inter-start service

      can you give me more details? hi
    2. teder
      teder 21 January 2017 10: 53
      0
      Quote: Julio Jurenito
      Better direct your efforts to a heavy carrier.

      Falcon Heavy (lit. Eng. - "heavy falcon") - the designed American launch vehicle of the heavy class of the Falcon family.

      Falcon Heavy is being developed by SpaceX. It is planned that the carrier can deliver up to 54,4 t into a low reference orbit, up 22,2 t into geo-transitional orbit and to 13,6 t to Mars [1].

      The first launch is planned in 2017..
  30. Pencil
    Pencil 21 January 2017 19: 59
    +1
    I read this next "news" and imagine space menager running around in prostration in the office, nervously repeating: "We must do something ... we must come up with something ... no matter what, but we must do something .... Or maybe we'll throw this in? ... We need to do something ... There is no exhaust, but time goes on ... We need to do something ... "
  31. Old26
    Old26 22 January 2017 10: 13
    0
    Quote: Pencil
    I read this next "news" and imagine space menager running around in prostration in the office, nervously repeating: "We must do something ... we must come up with something ... no matter what, but we must do something .... Or maybe we'll throw this in? ... We need to do something ... There is no exhaust, but time goes on ... We need to do something ... "

    Here you represent the managers, and I LARGE SPECIALISTS with VO, who unanimously claim that this project is stillborn, impossible and so on. In this case, a conclusion is made based on one picture. True, when it comes to another development of the Makeev center, they unanimously say that "Sineva" and "Liner" are hoo, and "Bulava" is bullshit. Now about the project "Crown" they say that bullshit, but then wow ??? "Angara", or what?
  32. Klaus
    Klaus 4 January 2018 19: 17
    0
    New physical principles are sought in the Academies of Sciences, leading laboratories, in the same collider and tokamak. This is a very leisurely and troublesome thing. Although there are sudden discoveries - for example, EM drive.
    As for the orbital elevator, its theory is, in general, more or less understood among specialists. There is nothing to do: drive a large asteroid into orbit of the Earth as a counterweight, and hook a rope of polymer nanocarbon compounds to it. Both are theoretically possible in the relatively distant, but foreseeable future. The Japanese were seriously busy with carbon threads, and even got a few meters. The asteroid can be towed with the help of a space tug on a yard, which we are working on.
    As for the Crown ... In the comments, for some reason, everyone forgets about the fact that a multi-stage disposable rocket, the same Union or Proton, is essentially a prefabricated designer of independent blocks with its own propulsion systems, stabilization systems and separation. All this can be manufactured at different enterprises and all this economy must be checked at the manufacturing stage, assembled correctly, checked at the assembly stage, put in the computer a flight program for each unit individually and for the entire system as a whole. And, as we see, it is the mismatch in the operation of the blocks that is the main cause of the crash. In this regard, a single-stage design looks preferable, even despite the complexity of the oxygen-hydrogen engine in tandem with low thrust shunting.