Military Review

In the United States began to develop a reusable space truck

177
According to the blog sandrermakoff, Boeing Corporation issued a new order from the US Government Agency for Advanced Defense Research Projects (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency - DARPA), widely practicing the allocation of grants for advanced research.



Planned development of the spaceplane "Experimental Spaceplane"(aka XS-1 or" Phantom Express "), designed to bring satellites weighing up to 1360 kg into the reference orbit. As can be inferred from existing concepts, the product will serve as the first stage of the system. , "Spiral"Envisaged a similar approach. It is expected that the device will be distinguished by a high degree of operation: during the demonstration, it must perform 10 flights within 10 days. It is declared that it will be equipped with the Aerojet Rocketdyne AR-22 engine, created on the basis of the RS-25 main engine "Shuttle".

In the United States began to develop a reusable space truck


Previously, the company developed an orbital X-37 mini-shuttleconfidently climbed into the air.
177 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. xetai9977
    xetai9977 25 May 2017 09: 37
    +14
    Whoever didn’t say anything, the American space program is developing successfully. Let us leave aside all their achievements, I note only that they are the only ones who have visited all the planets of the solar system!
    1. The black
      The black 25 May 2017 09: 42
      +16
      Quote: xetai9977
      they are the only ones who have visited all the planets of the solar system!

      Yah! belay ... except in the movies ... laughing ... the probes, yes, they flew, but THEY HAVE tried something like that .... or did the taxi drivers drive the probes? .. smile
      1. maxim947
        maxim947 25 May 2017 09: 52
        +13
        Merikos do everything right, nefig stomp on the spot. For reusability, the future is an absolute fact. And whoever has mastered this before, he will steer. And in modern times, many countries have a desire to have their own devices in orbit (even not very developed). The market is huge. Please, all delays ... i.e. lose it.
        1. bulvas
          bulvas 25 May 2017 10: 09
          +4
          Quote: maxim947
          Merikos do everything right, nefig stomp on the spot.


          Whatever it was, but they will get something from this program

          Even if they don’t fly this time, they’ll keep working.
          1. maxim947
            maxim947 25 May 2017 10: 24
            +5
            Their goal is different - to crush the market. Take Microsoft, for example, total market dominance. The same thing can be done here. Musk has already reduced the number of Proton launches by more than half, and will continue to reduce it. But our workers need to pay wages and they need to develop, but there is no money. That’s the whole moral. In business, if you stand still, consider moving back. In general, bold decisions and a good team are needed.
            1. mahoney
              mahoney 25 May 2017 10: 50
              +2
              Microsoft did not crush the market for itself, it holds most of it .... there are still poppies, Linux)
          2. serguchcho
            serguchcho 25 May 2017 11: 43
            +1
            Yeah, they will) As from the lunar program ...
        2. Zoldat_A
          Zoldat_A 25 May 2017 11: 01
          +10
          Quote: maxim947
          Merikos do everything right, nefig stomp on the spot. For reusability, the future is an absolute fact.

          I remember, “Shuttles” with “Challengers” have already been seen somewhere ... Am I confusing anything ??? And the launch price of one Shuttle in comparison with the launch price of the Union does not bother anyone? If reusable devices and the future, it is SO far away that hardly any of today's visitors to Topvar will see this ....
          1. maxim947
            maxim947 25 May 2017 11: 06
            +9
            I do not agree with the version that these are very distant prospects, we will all see this. And yet, I did not mean that here they will create this pepelats and they will immediately be happy, I am for development and new developments, nothing more.
        3. nickname7
          nickname7 25 May 2017 14: 06
          +1
          Reusability is the past. Shats have refused it. The peak of fuel combustion technology - a jet engine - is an advanced steam locomotive. What is in the Stone Age, what is now, the basis of energy is the burning of fuel. Therefore, in our Stone Age, chemical missiles, the best thing is disposable serial missiles.
          Reusable will appear when thermonuclear reactors, ion or photon engines come up. In order not to oversleep, you need to develop science, physics, chemistry and technology.
          1. maxim947
            maxim947 25 May 2017 14: 10
            +6
            Ion or photon engines - effective only in outer space, due to low MI, you don’t have to pile everything up.
      2. dik-nsk
        dik-nsk 25 May 2017 09: 53
        +4
        Of course, mattresses do not really boast of results in space, and now they fly there on our engines, but what is unfortunate - we ourselves have stolen our achievements - Buran, Mir, etc. ... but will we recover? question
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 25 May 2017 10: 01
          +8
          deltas and falcons fly on American engines. And read how many interplanetary vehicles they have, Mars rovers, etc.
          1. Nasrat
            Nasrat 25 May 2017 10: 12
            +13
            In deep space exploration, Americans are indisputable leaders now. By throwing vehicles into orbit, we can definitely say that they are not far behind! Moreover, they are looking for new ideas in this area, stuffing bumps, but looking.
            But the use of a domestic engine in the segment of one of the American missiles warms the soul. Therefore, they continue to scream rya !!!
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 25 May 2017 10: 17
              +13
              At the current moment of 2017.
              US 10 launches
              PRC 5 launches
              EU 5 launches
              Japan 3 launches
              Russia 2 launches
              India 2 launches.
              It’s high time to sound the alarm and disperse the "effective"
              1. Nasrat
                Nasrat 25 May 2017 10: 19
                +13
                Quote: BlackMokona
                At the current moment of 2017.
                US 10 launches
                PRC 5 launches
                EU 5 launches
                Japan 3 launches
                Russia 2 launches
                India 2 launches.
                It’s high time to sound the alarm and disperse the "effective"


                In vain did you post this info, the comrades won’t believe the numbers, they will nod at the trampoline and the Americans were not screaming on the moon !!! And of course - Urya-I-I !! wassat
                1. sir_obs
                  sir_obs 25 May 2017 11: 17
                  +1
                  I only counted fifty launches in my yard, but on holidays this way.
                  You, by the weight of the payload, count who brought what, and quantity is quality
                  1. Blackmokona
                    Blackmokona 25 May 2017 11: 33
                    +4
                    By mass, too, the total dominance of the States, we have two alliances left, they have 6 Falcons, 3 Atlases and Delta medium. Falcons are an analogue of our heavy Proton, Atlases are slightly smaller than Proton, and the Delta medium is slightly larger than our union.
                    Our two Unions together would not have pulled out the satellite that launched Falcon in the last launch
                2. Rostovchanin
                  Rostovchanin 25 May 2017 15: 12
                  +1
                  In fact, there were 3 of our launches (today another launch was launched for this article), in addition, two Alliances with the Kuru started, formally, of course, this is not our launch, but missiles are still ours. (And the Japanese of three starts, one is not successful)
            2. maxim947
              maxim947 25 May 2017 11: 07
              +1
              Correct not in one rocket. in two (NK-33)))))
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 25 May 2017 11: 44
                +1
                On Antares, HK 33 has already been abandoned, now there is RD-191. True, this year Antares has not yet flown.
            3. spirit
              spirit 25 May 2017 18: 44
              +1
              Yeah, which is still created with US money and the patent belongs to them)
          2. wazza
            wazza 26 May 2017 00: 57
            0
            Quote: BlackMokona
            BlackMokona Yesterday, 01:01 p.m. ↑
            deltas and falcons fly on American engines. And read how many interplanetary vehicles they have, Mars rovers, etc.

            and almost all of these interplanetary spacecraft and rovers have now flown to Atlas-5 with Russian engines from Buran-Energia.
            From the S-300, Arrow and SM-3 came out, from the Yak F-35.
            "everything goes according to plan" ...
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 26 May 2017 13: 24
              0
              Atlas-5 has only one engine from 2-8, depending on the version, Russian. laughing
              And many devices flew to the Deltas. wink
              F-35 did not come from Yak; he had his ancestors in the USA.
              SM-3 has nothing to do with the S-300. Arrow too.
              1. wazza
                wazza 26 May 2017 21: 15
                0
                Well done, you’ll go to New York ... What are the rest of 2-8? A lot more flew to Atlas-5.
                Not relevant SM-2
                There were no F-35 ancestors besides those drawn in the USA.
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 27 May 2017 09: 14
                  0
                  Solid fuel engines and RL-10 engines
                  So S-300 we can in the kinetic interception?
                  Of course, and they had no Harriers?
                  1. wazza
                    wazza 27 May 2017 09: 32
                    0
                    How hard is a solid fuel accelerator? How comparable is the thrust of the RL-10 with the RD-180?
                    Maybe kinetic. SM-2 could not do it at all.
                    Harrier was subsonic, and they also unlicensedly capitalized him with Britons.
        2. jonhr
          jonhr 25 May 2017 11: 59
          +1
          yeah and sky lab union once launched into orbit laughing
          1. wazza
            wazza 26 May 2017 00: 59
            0
            by the way, Scalab was an empty third step, the emphasis on the word "empty."
          2. wazza
            wazza 26 May 2017 01: 03
            0
            I do not claim that the Americans were not on the moon, but if they flew there, it certainly became uninhabited from their smell ...
      3. donavi49
        donavi49 25 May 2017 10: 46
        +8
        Cassini-Huygens - gave more fundamental data than all Apollo missions on the moon.
        New Horizons.
        Martian rovers.
        Juno.

        Now in general, there is a big question, but whether manned flights beyond orbit are needed. Almost everything can be accommodated in an autonomous probe that does not require eating and breathing, and if it is a failure, then sadness is sadness, but nothing serious (unlike the loss of a manned mission).
        1. KaPToC
          KaPToC 25 May 2017 13: 42
          +3
          Quote: donavi49
          Now in general, there is a big question, but whether manned flights beyond orbit are needed. Almost everything can be accommodated in an autonomous probe, which does not require eating and breathing

          Automation does not know how to think. Bases on other planets must be made habitable so that scientists study these same planets. Another planet is a different environment, other materials, other conditions. For example, dust on the moon flows like a liquid. All this must be studied and here people’s machines will not be replaced.
          1. insular
            insular 26 May 2017 00: 30
            0
            Quote: KaPToC
            For example, dust on the moon flows like a liquid

            And a liquid can exist only under pressure (atmosphere) ...
            In an atmosphereless atmosphere, dust has some fluid properties.
            And for the sake of this BASIC knowledge, manned missions are needed?
            To do this, you don’t need to fly away from the earth ... We studied this in physics school in experiments ... And you fly to the moon for this?

            And the cars can be autonomous, but can be controlled remotely ...
            1. wazza
              wazza 26 May 2017 00: 42
              0
              And what is difficult in manned missions to low Earth orbit? Not for Americans now, of course? Remotely already on the moon to control there was a delay of 2 seconds.
              1. insular
                insular 26 May 2017 02: 52
                +1
                Quote: wazza
                And what is difficult in manned missions to low Earth orbit?

                Everything is more complicated. At least the cost of the return trip. And the dimensions of residential modules are ballast.
                Quote: wazza
                Remotely already on the moon to control there was a delay of 2 seconds.

                Even with the current automation equation, manned routine data collection missions are stupid. And the trend toward automation is killing the whole point of manned flights.
                A delay of even 15 minutes is not critical for setting and editing remote tasks.
                Man in space and on other planets, only as a colonizer. Everything else is better, easier, faster and cheaper. What is happening now.
                Quote: wazza
                into near Earth orbit

                It’s nothing complicated to near-Earth orbit, it’s now under the shield of the native planet (radiation from the “gentle sun” is not a joke or a myth). And in outer space? What is the point of such excess ballast? To say we are the first? No more...

                Well, what is it ... On the home planet, drones and cars take people out even from military missions.
                1. wazza
                  wazza 26 May 2017 02: 59
                  0
                  It is more difficult to lower something or manually repair it in orbit in a spacesuit when automation is not provided. Ballast is a weight that is not size.
                  For the speed of riding rovers, it is so critical that it is difficult to imagine. With moon rovers, it was difficult.
                  The ISS and Mir-1 before it were quite a colony.
                  1. insular
                    insular 26 May 2017 03: 08
                    0
                    Quote: wazza
                    It is more difficult to lower something or manually repair it in orbit in a spacesuit when automation is not provided.

                    When there are no residential modules, regular repairs disappear. Example? Yes, just count the automated satellites in orbit and the tasks that they perform. Already to grow a flower in the bank, the machine can handle it.
                    Quote: wazza
                    Ballast is a weight that is not size.

                    Module weight and meat weight to perform the same function? And also the weight of the module, life support systems and shielding ... Ballast.
                    Quote: wazza
                    For the speed of riding the rovers, it is so critical that it is difficult to imagine

                    Hurry up somewhere? The quieter you go, the further you'll get. Again, do not drag cylinders with air there and BACK ... Or are you going to shoot lunatics there, that you need a reaction in a split second?
                    I have an unmanned vacuum cleaner at home very carefully drives around all corners in an area of ​​90 squares and very quickly and efficiently performs the cleaning function and returns to the recharging module myself. From service - once a week to shake off the past from the receiver ...
                    Itself took off the charge, he cleaned himself (vacuumed), he returned to charge and then when I programmed it, without scandals and persuasion.
                    I do the same work with the same quality not faster, but slower and not so often, when compared.
                    Do you think the moonwalker functions are much more complicated?
                    Quote: wazza
                    The ISS and Mir-1 before it were quite a colony.

                    Not a colony but a long flight in low Earth orbit, completely not intended for autonomous living on self-sufficiency.
                    1. wazza
                      wazza 26 May 2017 06: 04
                      0
                      An example is the Hubble, to which the Americans flew many times to repair manually.
                      It would be nice to compare the weights of sealed and non-sealed ISS modules. Different equipment must also be shielded, from radiation and from vacuum.
                      There are such systems of air and water regeneration. The USSR was the leader in this, now Russia.
                      It is clear that the remnants of the Soviet must be ruined, especially since the Americans are at odds with this.
                      I think it’s yes, more complicated than with a vacuum cleaner on a solid level floor in a given square.
                      It is easily transformed into autonomous as on a submarine. Just from Earth orbit nearby. Somehow I want to see her ... Not the "Bender robots," who even wanted to start their own ...
            2. KaPToC
              KaPToC 26 May 2017 11: 25
              0
              Quote: insular
              And for the sake of this BASIC knowledge, manned missions are needed?

              You know, in the nineteenth century they suggested abolishing the patent office because everything was already invented, such as you proposed.
      4. Waf
        Waf 25 May 2017 17: 46
        +1
        Quote: Black
        Yah! ... except in the movies ... laughing ... the probes yes, they flew ...

        God bless us so fly!
    2. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 25 May 2017 09: 43
      +12
      Quote: xetai9977
      they are the only ones who have visited all the planets of the solar system!

      is not a fact...
      1. bouncyhunter
        bouncyhunter 25 May 2017 09: 46
        +9
        Even in the states themselves, there are enough skeptics of flying to the moon. And not one book was written there on this subject.
        1. dik-nsk
          dik-nsk 25 May 2017 09: 51
          +4
          xetai9977 Today, 13: 37
          I note only that they are the only ones who have visited all the planets of the solar system

          bouncyhunter Today, 13:46 ↑
          Even in the states themselves, there are enough skeptics of flying to the moon

          The moon is a planet belay laughing
          1. cniza
            cniza 25 May 2017 09: 57
            +8
            Quote: bouncyhunter
            Even in the states themselves, there are enough skeptics of flying to the moon. And not one book was written there on this subject.


            The funny thing is that they lost all the lunar soil, and why did they lose? because he was asked to show. laughing
            1. bouncyhunter
              bouncyhunter 25 May 2017 09: 59
              +10
              Or maybe this lunar soil is "very secret, so we will not show it to you"? lol
              1. cniza
                cniza 25 May 2017 10: 02
                +3
                Joke, it’s not to be called otherwise.
            2. sir_obs
              sir_obs 25 May 2017 11: 20
              +1
              And all the drawings of the rocket and engines (and this is the official statement of Nasy), so they buy from Russia, because they themselves can not make a powerful engine. Then the question is, on which moon did you fly?
              1. Waf
                Waf 26 May 2017 07: 01
                0
                Quote: sir_obs
                They are buying from Russia, because they themselves cannot make a powerful engine.

                Do not even argue, because stupid! Well, at least take the Shuttle - were there too weak engines, or did they buy them from? laughing
                1. wazza
                  wazza 26 May 2017 21: 17
                  0
                  Compared to the F-1 and RD-171, they are weak of course.
            3. Extraneous
              Extraneous 25 May 2017 12: 05
              +2
              The funny thing is that they lost all the lunar soil, and why did they lose? because he was asked to show

              Did the Russian Academy also lose it? Lunar soil was distributed to all major research centers in the world, including Russia.
            4. Waf
              Waf 25 May 2017 17: 55
              +3
              Quote: cniza
              The funny thing is that they lost all the lunar soil

              How much can this nonsense be repeated ??? The lunar soil intact, is located in the storage of lunar soil, located on the territory of the Space Center named after Johnson in Houston.
              http://avivas.ru/topic/kak_i_gde_hranitsya_lunnii
              _grunt_v_amerike.html
            5. region58
              region58 25 May 2017 21: 46
              +2
              Quote: cniza
              they lost all lunar soil

              Quote: bouncyhunter
              this lunar soil is "very secret, so we won’t show it to you"

              No, they show ... read, see ...
              http://avivas.ru/topic/kak_i_gde_hranitsya_lunnii
              _grunt_v_amerike.html

              Just say that the installation ...
              PS Oops ... ahead of me ... well, good.
          2. bouncyhunter
            bouncyhunter 25 May 2017 10: 00
            +3
            Quote: dik-nsk
            The moon is a planet

            Of course not ! Only - t-s-s! - do not tell mattresses. wink
            1. cniza
              cniza 25 May 2017 10: 03
              +3
              You ask them very difficult tasks, for this they have scientists.
              1. bouncyhunter
                bouncyhunter 25 May 2017 10: 09
                +4
                Quote: cniza
                for this they have scientists.

                The same as the British? laughing
                1. cniza
                  cniza 25 May 2017 10: 12
                  +3
                  Not replaceable for all occasions, they know the answers to all questions.
                  1. bouncyhunter
                    bouncyhunter 25 May 2017 10: 14
                    +3
                    Well, do not forget about "exclusivity."
                    1. cniza
                      cniza 25 May 2017 10: 17
                      +4
                      But the "holy" I ask you not to touch laughing they go to bed with it and live with it.
                      1. bouncyhunter
                        bouncyhunter 25 May 2017 10: 29
                        +4
                        All-all, I'm already a candidate for "banned", which I am proud of. yes
          3. KaPToC
            KaPToC 25 May 2017 13: 43
            +1
            Quote: dik-nsk
            The moon is a planet

            Is not it so?
        2. sa-ag
          sa-ag 25 May 2017 10: 08
          +1
          Quote: bouncyhunter
          And not one book was written there on this subject.

          book publishing is a good business, why not write, even Chertok said that even at that time it was written
        3. Smog
          Smog 25 May 2017 10: 13
          +8
          Quote: bouncyhunter
          in the states themselves there are enough skeptics of flying to the moon

          Pasha! drinks soldier soldier !!! Once again drinks
          Of course enough. True, she is such as you do not hide, it will still break out!
          Want some evidence? You are welcome! laughing
          1. bouncyhunter
            bouncyhunter 25 May 2017 10: 26
            +6
            Hi, Kostya! soldier drinks Vidos smiled, especially where the ukroastronaut ruined the air! good lol
            1. cniza
              cniza 25 May 2017 10: 32
              +3
              Quote: bouncyhunter
              All-all, I'm already a candidate for "banned", which I am proud of. yes


              What have you done to them there, called an indecent word? belay laughing
              1. bouncyhunter
                bouncyhunter 25 May 2017 10: 36
                +3
                Quote: cniza
                What have you done to them there, called an indecent word?

                No, the moderator does not miss obscenity. All my fault is that I am an Americanophobe.
                1. cniza
                  cniza 25 May 2017 10: 42
                  +3
                  lol , I'm even afraid to ask what and how it is expressed ...
                  1. bouncyhunter
                    bouncyhunter 25 May 2017 10: 46
                    +3
                    I will not go into details, otherwise the CIA will stretch its tenacious rake in my direction. They are capable of such that they have repeatedly proved. wink
                    1. cniza
                      cniza 25 May 2017 10: 53
                      +3
                      Pasha, you know how many specials they have. intelligence services? , I always wondered, why do they need so much?
                      1. bouncyhunter
                        bouncyhunter 25 May 2017 10: 56
                        +3
                        You are not the only one to ask this question, Vitya. Parted the parasites ...
                2. Waf
                  Waf 25 May 2017 17: 50
                  +2
                  Quote: bouncyhunter
                  All my fault is that I am an Americanophobe

                  Phobia - (from the Greek. Φόβος - fear), fear is a symptom, the essence of which is an irrational uncontrolled fear or a steady experience of excessive anxiety in certain situations.
                  Afraid of the Americans? smile
          2. cniza
            cniza 25 May 2017 10: 38
            +3
            The ending was very amusing, that there is something in it. good
        4. jonhr
          jonhr 25 May 2017 12: 03
          +2
          why did the USSR recognize these flights?
          by chance, not because the USSR automatic station fixed all this?
        5. Waf
          Waf 25 May 2017 17: 47
          +1
          Quote: bouncyhunter
          Even in the states themselves, there are enough skeptics of flying to the moon.

          Yes, they also have Mukhins! laughing
      2. Nasrat
        Nasrat 25 May 2017 09: 48
        +5
        Quote: Andrew Y.

        is not a fact..


        Nonsense this is your picture! Bravado and bitterness (two in one) from the unrealized manned lunar program of the USSR!

        It turns out that if the Americans did not fly, then the USSR simply abandoned the idea of ​​flying to the moon, with an almost ready carrier. belay
        1. KaPToC
          KaPToC 25 May 2017 13: 45
          +2
          Quote: Nasr
          It turns out that if the Americans did not fly, then the USSR simply abandoned the idea of ​​flying to the moon, with an almost ready carrier.

          Perhaps they just realized that this flight is not feasible? Here the key word is ALMOST.
          1. Nasrat
            Nasrat 25 May 2017 14: 07
            +2
            send a lunar rover (and not one), return the ship with soil, then it’s feasible, but a person - unrealizable? (purely technical)
            1. KaPToC
              KaPToC 25 May 2017 19: 01
              +1
              Quote: Nasr
              return the ship with soil

              Man is not soil.
              Quote: Nasr
              and man is not feasible? (purely technical)

              If only technically.
        2. CT-55_11-9009
          CT-55_11-9009 26 May 2017 01: 08
          +3
          The carrier was almost ready, only the trouble was with reliability. At the first stage there were 30 (!!!) engines, the stable operation of the stage was with the number of failed engines up to 4 (or 6, I do not remember). The probability of an accident-free flight of the system was low, because N-1 did not fly. All 4 test flights were unsuccessful. In addition, while the rocket was being brought up, the Americans "flew" to the moon, after which they "scored" the rocket.
    3. RASKAT
      RASKAT 25 May 2017 10: 23
      +4
      Well, which side to look at. On the one hand, reusable use, on the other hand, the displayed weight is too small. What is the best way to bring out 15 tons at a time or 10 times at 1.5 tons? Perhaps there are skeptics who will support the second option, but for some large projects this is clearly not enough. Let’s take space exploration for example, we need reconnaissance, for this we need telescopes, both optical and X-ray, etc. And these are huge masses, for example, a Hub weighs 11 tons with a mirror diameter of 2.4 meters. Or display new blocks for the ISS. So not everything is so simple.
    4. ALEX_SHTURMAN
      ALEX_SHTURMAN 25 May 2017 11: 15
      +2
      They visited all the planets .. It is impossible to visit all the planets in principle due to the fact that some planets do not have a hard shell, but are gas giants such as Saturn Jupiter Uranus Neptune .. And about the number of satellites of these planets I generally keep silent only two with Saturn and Jupiter more than a hundred ..
    5. 4thParasinok
      4thParasinok 29 May 2017 13: 40
      0
      Quote: xetai9977
      I note only that they are the only ones who have visited all the planets of the solar system!

      laughing good laughed ... they even could not visit the moon, about Jupiter just keep quiet.
  2. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 25 May 2017 09: 37
    +1
    but precisely, what is not the "one hundred and eighties" called: Aerojet Rocketdyne AR-22, will work? what
    1. novel66
      novel66 25 May 2017 09: 41
      +3
      not exactly, problems appeared there
    2. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 25 May 2017 10: 02
      0
      These are modified Shuttle engines.
    3. sa-ag
      sa-ag 25 May 2017 10: 18
      +1
      There are plans for oxygen-kerosene AR-1 from rocketday, and oxygen-methane BE-4 from Blue Origin by Jeff Bezos, it seems like BE-4 is closer to the final, but a new Glenn rocket is planned for him, but they are moving forward
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 25 May 2017 10: 30
        +1
        New Glenn and Volcano will be on BE-4
  3. Ferdinant
    Ferdinant 25 May 2017 09: 38
    +1
    And we buried our "Buran"
    1. Nasrat
      Nasrat 25 May 2017 09: 43
      +4
      If only Buran !!!
      1. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 25 May 2017 09: 49
        +9
        Quote: Nasr
        If only Buran !!!

        the country was buried ... that there "Buran" ...
    2. nod739
      nod739 25 May 2017 10: 47
      +1
      how was it buried ??
      you, dear, do not see the trees of the forest !!!
      Buran is first of all a bunch of technologies - cryocooling, fire-resistant materials, automation -
      read science school, element base ... etc.
      and all this somehow came into our life !!!
      1. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 25 May 2017 11: 02
        +2
        Quote: nod739
        and all this somehow came into our life !!!

        Yes Yes... lol
      2. CT-55_11-9009
        CT-55_11-9009 26 May 2017 01: 18
        +2
        Not exactly what was buried. From the developments of Energy and Buran, little is left. Cryogenics is not particularly widely used in our cosmonautics. Although not, I turned it down, we still use liquid oxygen decently. But we have practically no business with liquid hydrogen, rockets and booster blocks on hydrogen are only being developed.

        One way or another, it entered, only the Soviet backlog is practically “eaten up” at the moment, we need our own developments, and with them it’s a bit tight, there are not enough engineers, especially good ones. The same Energy is dying (and in the direct sense of the word - old people are dying, and young people are not enough, and there is no development experience), GKNPTs im. Khrunicheva generally became a household name, they go there only from complete hopelessness. Of the large "space" design bureaus lives, and so-so, the NGO Lavochkina, "Progress" (now he has his own good school), TsNIImash, VNIIEM and more specialized offices. But they are already smaller.
  4. novel66
    novel66 25 May 2017 09: 42
    +2
    Well, maybe even to the moon, finally, fly
  5. JonnyT
    JonnyT 25 May 2017 10: 04
    +10
    Everything is clear where the Americans are driving. They need a quick recovery of a military satellite constellation. 10 times in 10 days you will agree the pace is extremely shocking.
    And the most important thing is that they realize their idea with a probability of 90%, and in a short time, as experience has been gained in creating reusable steps, there is already a flying mini shuttle.

    The question is what will our country answer? the next populist “trampoline” statement, a computer 3 model for many billion rubles and raising a salary for its secrets in Roscosmos?
    1. avg-mgn
      avg-mgn 25 May 2017 10: 39
      +3
      I have to agree with your opinion, because I don’t have mine yet. Nevertheless, they cannot do with one shuttle - time for prevention, regulations, preparation for launch - refueling, loading .... However, there will not be enough days, I think so.
      1. jonhr
        jonhr 25 May 2017 12: 10
        +1
        so this is the first step like a shuttle. and then a rocket starts from it, which brings the satellite into orbit. he will not go into space. but it’s going to land on an airplane. by the way, the shuttle’s engine is oxygen-hydrogen. so it’s also an environmentally friendly carrier
        1. CT-55_11-9009
          CT-55_11-9009 26 May 2017 01: 25
          +1
          And the first stage needs to be serviced, otherwise it will explode at the launch in the third or fourth (in the absolutely best case). So I agree with avg-mgn that several such media will be needed.
          Liquid hydrogen, by the way, is a big hemorrhoids for ground services. Energy-intensive - yes, environmentally friendly - yes, but expensive, wildly cryogenic (temperature range - from 14 to 20 degrees Kelvin, in Celsius - (-259) - (- 253)), difficult to store. Another pleasure, in general.
    2. Kelwin
      Kelwin 25 May 2017 11: 05
      +3
      Quote: JonnyT
      They need a quick recovery of a military satellite constellation.

      There is a strong suspicion that they want to be able to quickly display not only satellites. Why such urgency is needed, in the threatened period, if only, and even then it is doubtful. In a full-blown conflict, no one will start anything, at least you can’t count on it. It seems that they want to put something trump into orbit, and very quickly, until no one understood anything. That's what they are messing with the railgun, they themselves made conclusions about low efficiency in the atmosphere, but the program continues, the question is why. Maybe because no one is going to use it in the atmosphere. Not, of course, it sounds fantastic, but if you imagine what kind of business uranium scrap will do ten meters, but from orbit, and with an initial speed of 12-15 kilometers. This is check and checkmate, I don’t feel sorry for any money; Yes, and what’s stopping, there’s a kind of technique, only contracts, peaceful space and all that, but when the mattresses of the contract were stopped. Only in paranoid don't you have to write me down smile
  6. sa-ag
    sa-ag 25 May 2017 10: 12
    +1
    "... As you can conclude from existing concepts, the product will serve as the first stage of the system."
    Well, Musk realized this idea, what they want to make it heavier and more expensive, in general it is not clear why, they don’t like the X-37, it immediately puts it into near-earth orbit
    1. jonhr
      jonhr 25 May 2017 12: 11
      +1
      X-37 must be put into low Earth orbit
  7. K-50
    K-50 25 May 2017 10: 29
    +3
    How much dough has already been sawn into these "reusers", and "things are still there."
    A few units were brought to the “product” and operation, but with such a scale it turns out to be many times more expensive than disposable devices.
    It seems to me that until an engine is created that allows you to switch to a single-stage scheme, to talk about reusability, just another drank money. request
    1. sa-ag
      sa-ag 25 May 2017 10: 32
      +1
      Quote: K-50
      It seems to me that until an engine is created that allows you to switch to a single-stage scheme, to talk about reusability, just another drank money

      It’s not a matter of the engine, but of the fuel, by the way it’s known - atomic hydrogen, it’s extremely difficult to keep it from recombination, and it would be possible to fly to the Moon on ecologically clean fuel by plane :-)
      1. K-50
        K-50 25 May 2017 10: 38
        +2
        Quote: sa-ag
        It's not about the engine, but about fuel,

        Let me disagree. While there will be no engine with traction necessary for, at least, access to the NOO, what difference does it make to us to “sink” this engine. hi
  8. Altona
    Altona 25 May 2017 10: 39
    0
    Quote: cniza
    The funny thing is that they lost all the lunar soil, and why did they lose? because he was asked to show.

    ----------------------
    Opus wrote to me in the comments that they did not lose. I read something, info by reference, but she did not convince me. Are there any substances trying to pass off as rigalit?
    http://zelenyikot.livejournal.com/83598.html
    1. CT-55_11-9009
      CT-55_11-9009 26 May 2017 01: 26
      +1
      Oh, Green Cat. Yes, he fumbles in the space theme. Now read.
    2. CT-55_11-9009
      CT-55_11-9009 26 May 2017 01: 31
      +1
      Hard to tell. According to "soil science", especially alien, not special, not a geologist. And these stones and moon rover could collect.
  9. Old26
    Old26 25 May 2017 10: 54
    +5
    Quote: dik-nsk
    Of course, mattresses do not really boast of results in space, and now they fly there on our engines, but what is unfortunate - we ourselves have stolen our achievements - Buran, Mir, etc. ... but will we recover? question

    Stop repeating this already bored cheers-patriotic garbage. Of all the launches that Americans carry out, 75 to 80% of launches are on their own engines. How much the engine created by us and manufactured by us is Russian - I think in a few years they will tell us. How many patents in it are American, and so on. And the number of engines that we are allowed to release is also a separate song. And then you read everything. If there were no Russians, the American space program would be multiplied by zero. We have been working as "taxi drivers" for several years - and the joy is: "Americans without us will only be able to get to the ISS in trampolines." Or something like that. So what? They PAY - we carry. We have not proudly given up on this? No? We raise and raise prices. It was at first 20 million, then 40, now either 63, or 65.
    And they calmly, without screaming that they are the very most in space - they make their ships. And how many are new? At least 5 in the near future (2 in unmanned are already flying). And now we have moved our new ship already to 2023, although we planned EMNIP either for 2017 or for 2018. The ship can and will be, and the carrier flew only 1 time, the next flight will be next year. Then on the carrier, which by that time flies 5-6 times, put down a new manned ship and ....


    Quote: Nasr
    Quote: BlackMokona
    At the current moment of 2017.
    US 10 launches
    PRC 5 launches
    EU 5 launches
    Japan 3 launches
    Russia 2 launches
    India 2 launches.
    It’s high time to sound the alarm and disperse the "effective"

    In vain did you post this info, the comrades won’t believe the numbers, they will nod at the trampoline and the Americans were not screaming on the moon !!! And of course - Urya-I-I !! wassat

    Right In vain. They, comrades, will argue that the EU did not make 5 launches, but only 3, but 2 launches on our Unions, which means they are ours laughing
    If nothing changes on Sunday, the Tundra will leave. It will be hard to say whether Proton will start next Thursday (when HZ is planned)

    Quote: cniza
    The funny thing is that they lost all the lunar soil, and why did they lose? because he was asked to show

    The funny thing is that we regularly repeat this nonsense. Not so long ago, comrade opus cited as an example a photograph from a museum where this soil is stored under glass. Well, this is not proof. Mukhin is a block. He can be trusted as a god, he only tells the truth.
    The fact that having paid a considerable amount you can get access to the photo film archive, where photos and films of lunar expeditions are stored - is also not an argument. That there are several tens of thousands of photographs and kilometers of film. After all, I do not see them - that means they are not there.
    No one ever answers the question.
    = If the Americans never had machine guns that started from the surface and brought soil (our three "moons"), then where did they get the soil that they gave us in exchange? But their soil was recognized as the real institute of Vernadsky, who studied both our samples and them? WHERE?
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 25 May 2017 11: 07
      0
      Quote: Old26
      WHERE FROM? [/ B]
      why no one has been repeating the “feat” for so many years? ah ... nobody needs ...
      and now all of a sudden, “necessary” and we won’t start ... they have lagged more than forty years in technology ... it happens.
    2. Kelwin
      Kelwin 25 May 2017 11: 19
      +1
      And the number of engines that we are allowed to release is also a separate song

      Who is "allowed" .. Can I read about it somewhere? Well, for the overall development ... Thanks in advance)
    3. Extraneous
      Extraneous 25 May 2017 12: 22
      +4
      With films - full crap. They are clearly studio. Shooting from several exit points of astronauts is generally a classic of the genre. Who installed the cameras to capture the historical moment? There are two astronauts in the crew. Cameras installed themselves? Or was there a third?
      But the presence of studio shootings does not mean that the Americans were not on the moon. These surveys only show that the hopes for real filming were not high, given the technical capabilities of the time.
      Personally, another thing bothers me: The lunar program carrier was tested only two times. Both times are unsuccessful. And the third launch - and immediately to the moon? This is where the first causes of doubt arise.
      1. ALEX_SHTURMAN
        ALEX_SHTURMAN 25 May 2017 13: 12
        0
        But you don’t mind that Yuri Alekseich went on a flight on a raw rocket .. The probability of success of the mission was close to 50% .. There was such a time, they are all heroes and among the Americans they too .. Do not underestimate them ..
        1. Extraneous
          Extraneous 25 May 2017 13: 23
          +1
          On raw. But there were successful launches. And do not compare the USSR of those times and the States. In the states, there was a different approach to possible drug losses, especially given the claimed live broadcast. Two unsuccessful launches and immediately broadcasting sings to the moon ?! This does not fit into any, even Soviet, framework.
          1. ALEX_SHTURMAN
            ALEX_SHTURMAN 25 May 2017 14: 55
            +1
            Who told you about two starts ??? Apollo 11 landed on the lunar surface before its launch there were 10 starts !! Do not write nonsense at least a little history of the launches read ...
            1. Extraneous
              Extraneous 25 May 2017 15: 18
              0
              Big messed up, I repent! Accept my apologies. Five flights (not ten) of the Saturn-5 carrier rocket. One of them is unsuccessful. 6th flight - Apollo 11. This is official.

              And here is other information:
              http://www.manonmoon.ru/book/1.htm
              1. ALEX_SHTURMAN
                ALEX_SHTURMAN 25 May 2017 15: 40
                +1
                It’s just a hackneyed topic, they weren’t .. And it seems to some modern people that if they can’t do anything (now I don’t mean you) even on modern computers, then how could “backward ancestors” do it on slide rules, and they they did and their eyes burned, they gave their lives for a great cause .. And if not for the fucking politicians, then we would certainly be on Mars !!! Therefore, American astronauts are for me the same heroes as our illustrious astronauts! Yours faithfully..
                1. Extraneous
                  Extraneous 25 May 2017 16: 18
                  0
                  And I do not deny this. Leonov is also confident in the reality of flying to the moon. Who am I to argue with him?
                  But one also has to doubt the authenticity of the lunar program. Too many dark spots and no docking.
                  For example: no one doubts the reality of our flights and failures. And many Americans did not believe in the reality of Apollo at the same time when these flights were carried out. Quite revealing, don't you find?
                  1. ALEX_SHTURMAN
                    ALEX_SHTURMAN 25 May 2017 16: 31
                    +1
                    I don’t know who raises these topics and what goals they will pursue, but I can tell you that I worked at RSC Energia SP Korolev and talked with a person who was present at Tsupa during Apollo 11 flight. Telemetry and radio talks were from the Moon. He’s confirmed exactly (ours watched their flight), and as you have already said, among our cosmonauts, there were no doubters.
                    1. Extraneous
                      Extraneous 25 May 2017 16: 46
                      0
                      And this is like killing Kennedy - the topic is inexhaustible. Therefore, it is exaggerated. By the way, who can guarantee that the lunar program was not a joint project of the USSR and the USA? Times were dark. The tasks are unclear. It would be necessary to throw this idea to the apologists of the world conspiracy.
                      1. ALEX_SHTURMAN
                        ALEX_SHTURMAN 25 May 2017 16: 59
                        0
                        Yevgeny Yanych Satanovsky had a very interesting guest in the “from 2 to 5” program so he looked at Kennedy’s murder in great detail .. the topic is really inexhaustible .. It’s clear that the matter is dark ...
                2. reminin
                  reminin 25 May 2017 20: 23
                  0
                  Unfortunately, from the US leadership we hear lies all the time:
                  Test tube with white powder at a UN meeting. Crashed "out of laughter" building number 5 of the shopping center (which did not hit the plane of terrorists) a few minutes after the announcement of its collapse on the air. The mysteriously disappeared Boeing, who fell into the office of the accounting department in the Pentagon, "Peaceful demonstrators attacking government forces with heavy weapons Gaddafi." The mysterious deaths of US Presidents. And so on, so on. The more monstrous the lie, the faster they will believe in it.
                  In the hackneyed topic of landing on the moon, US media only talk about how a flag can flutter without air, and on this basis they assure the falsity of the arguments of those who do not believe in the reality of the lunar program. But over time, more and more facts become clear that cannot be easily explained, and these facts become more serious and more obvious. Meanwhile, evidence and witnesses to the lies of propaganda from the United States are being actively destroyed.
          2. ALEX_SHTURMAN
            ALEX_SHTURMAN 25 May 2017 15: 11
            0
            What a different approach to losses .. In almost the first trials, they lost the entire crew preparing for flight .. The guys burned alive in a descent capsule during a test with a simulation of the onboard power supply of the box.
      2. Scalpel
        Scalpel 25 May 2017 13: 56
        +1
        There were many trials: both on earth and in space. The moon landing was carried out by Apollo 11. Apollo 10 simulated a landing with a flyby. Prior to that, he worked out the various stages of the expedition.
      3. Kelwin
        Kelwin 25 May 2017 14: 38
        +1
        the Americans themselves screwed up, which prevented the inscription "Reconstruction" from being drawn on studio tapes; obviously, there was no one to shoot the output from the outside. In general, they themselves gave reason to doubt. Yes, and on other points, there are the same questions, the same medium, walking back bracingly, well, and everything else. Although, Leonov claims that there was a flight, we tracked him, I see no reason not to believe him. Another thing is what was being tracked, maybe some kind of imitation ...
        Anyway, there were none, what is the difference in principle, what to do there on this moon, and even more so on Mars, the screen is all for military programs, IMHO.
        1. KaPToC
          KaPToC 25 May 2017 19: 17
          0
          Quote: KelWin
          Americans themselves screwed up, which prevented the inscription "Reconstruction" on studio tapes

          And you watch documentaries where you saw such an inscription? This is normal practice, documentaries are shot on Earth here and now. Discovery has such a wonderful series about dinosaurs, what do you think they flew in the past to shoot it.
          The fact that the film about the flight to the moon was completed on Earth does not prove anything.
          1. Kelwin
            Kelwin 25 May 2017 19: 55
            +1
            Yes, I in no way argue, of course, does not prove anything. Just, you must admit, there is some difference between an educational film about dinosaurs and a flight to the moon, one could guess that the records would be sorted into atoms and they would definitely say, in! here it’s a lie, it’s a pavilion, the light is falling incorrectly!)) National Geographic doesn’t write, but says in a voice that the film about the investigation of a plane crash or accident is a reconstruction, and it’s also like Discovery didn’t watch dinosaurs, but it’s already obvious why report there. In general, like it or not, a reason for complaints was given, although not on purpose, just “it happened”. In general, I believe Leonov, they were there.
            1. KaPToC
              KaPToC 25 May 2017 22: 44
              0
              Quote: KelWin
              you must admit, there is some difference between an educational film about dinosaurs and a flight to the moon, one could guess that the records would be taken into atoms and they would definitely say

              We all saw exactly the documentary about flights to the moon, and not at all the original recordings made by the astronaut ... by astronauts.
              Quote: KelWin
              In general, I believe Leonov, they were there.

              It's a shame that t
              we use the word "were", not the word "is"
              1. Kelwin
                Kelwin 25 May 2017 23: 49
                +1
                Quote: KaPToC
                It's a shame that we use the word "were", and not the word "is"

                Well, the achievement itself has not gone away after all, the next step is possible and will be the lunar base. And in a sense, people still exist, albeit remotely, but they exist. Everything has its time, about fifty years ago, there was no talk of any private developers, but now please. It's a shame another thing, everything new is first done and applied to kill their own kind, but there would be no cure for cancer ...
      4. jonhr
        jonhr 25 May 2017 22: 30
        0
        I’m wondering where in the pavilion came the wind that waved the flag? laughing
        and after all, an intelligent man Alexei Leonov explained why this happened, but it is a private matter for everyone to believe in what he wants to believe.
        By the way, traces of rovers and take-off platforms are still on the moon. who does not believe can fly and make sure laughing although as I understand it, sensational hunters are more authoritative personalities. because they make money from it
    4. reminin
      reminin 25 May 2017 19: 49
      0
      = If the Americans never had machine guns that started from the surface and brought soil (our three "moons"), then where did they get the soil that they gave us in exchange? But their soil was recognized as the real institute of Vernadsky, who studied both our samples and them? WHERE?
      The USSR acquired its own soil from automatic stations that visited the moon. This year, the “Secret” stamp should be removed from the soil brought by the USA and it will be allowed to be analyzed by other countries. NASA never shared the lunar soil from the USSR. Milligrams (possibly made by analogy with what the USSR gave them from its reserves) were allocated. And the presented pebbles to the leaders of other states turned out to be fake. The USA shared the lunar soil only with those in whom they were sure that they would not blurt out i.e. with countries under the United States. .
      And so after so many years, the United States, faced with the problem of creating an engine of equal power with what was used by their astronauts to fly to the moon. The problem is that the drawings and the authors and manufacturers (all in bulk) of the "lunar engine" are irretrievably lost, like the originals of the photo - video materials of the first flights to the moon. Now it is impossible to analyze whether the TOT engine could, in principle, develop the necessary thrust for flying to the moon.
      At the moment, there are no secrets of the internal structure of the engines of orbital rockets of various manufacturing countries (with the exception of the Saturn rocket engine).
      1. jonhr
        jonhr 25 May 2017 22: 33
        0
        really? and I heard something that in 2018 there will be a flight of their super-heavy rocket which they are going to use in the Martian program
        1. CT-55_11-9009
          CT-55_11-9009 26 May 2017 01: 38
          +1
          I also heard about SLS. We’ll look at the flight in the 18th, before they definitely won’t start.
  10. mahoney
    mahoney 25 May 2017 10: 57
    0
    I don’t understand why they need it when Musk has already done everything?
    it would be better if they focus on Mars ....
  11. serguchcho
    serguchcho 25 May 2017 11: 46
    0
    Quote: BlackMokona
    EU 5 launches

    Of these, 2 are Union.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 25 May 2017 11: 49
      0
      Only profit from start-up and start-up services in the EU pocket.
      1. CT-55_11-9009
        CT-55_11-9009 26 May 2017 01: 38
        +1
        However, Russian missiles were launched.
  12. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 25 May 2017 12: 02
    0
    Quote: Nasr
    And of course - Urya-I-I !!

    Something Urya ... I ... I! not yet visible. They talk about our engines that the Americans use. And here is your Urya ... I ... I! Americans have already sounded several times. Or is this normal?
  13. Old26
    Old26 25 May 2017 12: 13
    +2
    Quote: Andrey Yurievich
    why no one has been repeating the “feat” for so many years? ah ... nobody needs ...
    and now all of a sudden, “necessary” and we won’t start ... they have lagged more than forty years in technology ... it happens.

    And you are right. Nobody needs it. The lunar race of the 60s was on a wave of euphoria, everyone thought that 10-15 years would not pass and we would already be on Mars, Venus, the Satellites of Jupiter. I once came across two studies of the American company RAND Corporation, related to space exploration. One was dated around 1970 (maybe a little earlier) the year, the second EMNIP either in the late 80s, or in the early 90s. So there the ratings varied, that they say, "like heaven and earth." If in the first review the landing on Mars and Venus was supposed in 1975-1980, then in the second case it is closer to 2040. The landing on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn (people) in the first case is somewhere in the mid-90s, in the second case around the year 2080-2100.

    so what am I talking about? And that no one needs.
    That is exactly the case. The Americans won the race. Having spent about 26 billion dollars on this in prices of the late 60s. There were 7 expeditions. Design solutions were checked for entering the atmosphere of an apparatus flying at a second space speed. But by and large, apart from half a ton of stones and winning from the Soviets, this expedition yielded nothing. We have shown that even though a smaller amount of soil can be delivered without any risk and much cheaper. Human foot on the moon? Yes, spectacularly, and such a flight is on a par with the flight of Gagarin, Leonov. What next? Then everything was prosaic. Do not forget that the United States in those years waged a war in Vietnam, which ate a sickly portion of the money. After all, the Americans did not even fully carry out their lunar program. There should have been 3 more flights, but the question arose, WHY? Russian "pulled the nose", the meaning in further flights, in principle, disappeared. task. set Kennedy they performed.
    The question arose about further ways of developing manned space exploration. There were several options
    1. A large orbital station in orbit of the earth with a crew of about 50 people
    2. Orbital station in orbit of the moon with a crew of 6-10 people.
    3. Create reusable media
    4. The creation of partially reusable media

    According to option 1, the Americans counted and found out that the amount needed would be 5 times more than the "lunar program" had eaten. According to the second, is it meaningful if there are no bases on the surface with people? According to paragraph 3, this was technologically unrealistic at that time. Point 4 remained - a partially reusable orbital transport system. That was the Shuttle. For several years, before the Shuttle’s flight, they didn’t fly into space at all (this is because if we shut off oxygen now, then for them the pipe)
    What now? To be honest, I don’t see much need for just flying to the moon, except for the prestige for Starn. Again, if there will only be a flight according to the scheme:
    Start landing on the moon - flag-thrusting - photoshoot - collecting stones - reverse start
    The sense of flying to the moon will arise if at least a base for 2-3 people is created. Then any costs will be paid off even by research on the surface, and long-term and complex. Then it makes sense and the station in orbit ISL with people as a transfer base and safety net. And so - the SENSE of spending tens if not hundreds of BILLIONS just to repeat what has already been done by others?

    As for the 40-year backlog in technology. Let us nevertheless look at this not through the prism of lulling, but really.
    What technologies are spent? Technologies for creating a Saturn-5 launch vehicle? Yes, for sure. This is the past, past etam. We are unlikely now to be able to restore the technology (namely the technology) of creating something of the sample of the 50s. New materials and equipment have disappeared. Therefore, they say "about the loss of technology." There is no corny main mass of those products, those materials that were produced then, in the 60s.
    Speaking of soil. You are aware that for the delivery of soil we launched automatic stations to the moon EMNIP in the amount of EIGHT stations. Soil brought only three. But even all these 8 launches with the price of all stations were less than one Apollo launch to the moon
    1. Kelwin
      Kelwin 25 May 2017 15: 06
      +2
      Quote: Old26
      The sense of flying to the moon will arise if at least a base for 2-3 people is created. Then any costs will be paid off even by research on the surface, and long-term and complex

      And what is there that can be justifiably investigated? Well, at the orbital station it’s understandable, a deep vacuum is abundant, weightlessness again, but on the Moon what to do. Moreover, the lunar base must be constantly supplied, it will result in huge costs, isn’t it easier to send automation one way? Although, again, I do not understand why.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 25 May 2017 17: 20
        0
        It seems that there is a lot of thorium, rich titanium ore, uranium ...?
        1. Kelwin
          Kelwin 25 May 2017 18: 14
          +1
          About thorium and uranium did not come across, titanium, magnesium, aluminum is, the notorious helium-3 yet. But as a mine, we will not be able to use the moon for a long time, so it makes sense. Here on Earth, it buried itself at 200 meters - everything is not profitable, because it’s expensive, but investors need cheap and fast. Therefore, it is not clear why this is all, and at whose expense the banquet)
          1. KaPToC
            KaPToC 25 May 2017 19: 24
            0
            Quote: KelWin
            Then on Earth something buried 200 meters - everything is not profitable

            Bring a kilogram of helium-3 from the moon, it’s like a ship with coal to fit into tens of thousands of tons of displacement. It will pay off already at the current level of space development.
            1. Kelwin
              Kelwin 26 May 2017 00: 04
              +1
              Unfortunately, it won’t even pay for it, not to burn it efficiently. Here it is very well and intelligibly painted http://mirvn.livejournal.com/33043.html
            2. CT-55_11-9009
              CT-55_11-9009 26 May 2017 01: 44
              +1
              As far as I know, even the theory of the use of helium-3 has not been developed, not like conventional engines or internal power plants. There are ideas, and more.
    2. reminin
      reminin 25 May 2017 20: 31
      0
      During the flights of US astronauts to the moon, they did not even have a dry closet technology. What kind of lunar station could be spoken of in those years?
      Even now there is not enough technology needed to build a habitable base on the moon.

      Note: recent studies have revealed that due to the presence of a strong static field that occurs in the moon dust on the moon, the astronaut cannot survive there in a simple spacesuit.
    3. CT-55_11-9009
      CT-55_11-9009 26 May 2017 01: 42
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      What technologies are spent? Technologies for creating a Saturn-5 launch vehicle? Yes, for sure. This is the past, past etam. We are unlikely now to be able to restore the technology (namely the technology) of creating something of the sample of the 50s. New materials and equipment have disappeared. Therefore, they say "about the loss of technology." There is no corny main mass of those products, those materials that were produced then, in the 60s.

      On this occasion, we (especially active students) talked a lot with teachers at the Moscow Aviation Institute, so they unanimously say that we won’t repeat the energy, there are no technologies left. And you about the 50s ...
  14. Rabinovich_007
    Rabinovich_007 25 May 2017 13: 19
    +1
    When we will fly across the galaxy. Or not better.
    1. ALEX_SHTURMAN
      ALEX_SHTURMAN 25 May 2017 13: 30
      0
      They vryatli across the galaxy, at least during our lifetimes. Even the light from one edge of the galaxy to the other goes 20.000 years .. To travel to such distances, you only need teleportation, but so far it's fantastic, like the speed of light in principle ... So far, we are talking about speeds of the order of 200-300 km / s and that it will be a huge leap forward !!!
      1. KaPToC
        KaPToC 25 May 2017 13: 56
        0
        Quote: ALEX_SHTURMAN
        Even the light from one edge of the galaxy to the other goes 20.000 years.

        Speed, a second-order derivative, is a relative concept. The concept of speed makes no sense if there is no distance scale, that is, speed can only be calculated with respect to something. What speed can be where there is nothing?
        It’s me that limiting the maximum speed to the speed of light is the speculation of scientists.
        1. ALEX_SHTURMAN
          ALEX_SHTURMAN 25 May 2017 15: 19
          0
          But do I argue, I just said that humanity will not be able to travel in the universe even at the speed of light .. For our life is very good. Short, therefore, either teleportation or creogenic sleep. And this and that is fantastic so far ...
          1. KaPToC
            KaPToC 25 May 2017 19: 11
            0
            Quote: ALEX_SHTURMAN
            Short, therefore, either teleportation or creogenic sleep. And this and that is fantastic so far ...

            Well, for example, a ship of generations. Or the life span of people may increase.
            This is all because we live in a galactic outback, somewhere in star clusters the distances between the stars are much smaller.
        2. CT-55_11-9009
          CT-55_11-9009 26 May 2017 01: 58
          +1
          Relative to what speed is the second derivative? Modern science considers displacement, the second derivative is acceleration, and speed is the first derivative.

          In space, there is “nothing”, there is still a high vacuum, and this is not an absolute void. The presence of hydrogen in deep space has been confirmed. In addition, there is a theory about a kind of "dark matter", but at the moment it is still fantastic. Although, 150 years ago, flying into space and the existence of submarines were also fantastic, so ...
      2. Rabinovich_007
        Rabinovich_007 26 May 2017 05: 49
        +1
        Warp speed needed.
  15. 3 Gradient
    3 Gradient 25 May 2017 17: 55
    0
    "Julitta is going ... How soon will it be" ....
    All forces are thrown ... to create a "missile defense" ...
    For the new missile defense ....
    On the "reusable" ... While the "pull" ...
    Lacks...
  16. Dmitry_superenot
    Dmitry_superenot 25 May 2017 22: 54
    0
    Regarding the flights of Americans to the moon in the shaggy 60s and 70s.
    Let those who believe in it holy say - where are these technologies? Where are they now? When was the last flight to the moon? If it was of course. If there was this technology - a flight to the moon of 3 cosmonovates, the possibility of landing 2 of them on a special descent vehicle to the moon, the opportunity is on the moon for several days, then safely take off from the moon, find the command module in the orbit of the moon, successfully dock with him, successfully fly to Earth, successfully land on Earth according to the two-hole scheme (with double entry into the atmosphere for braking).
    If all this was, was so successful, then why flights to the moon no longer continue? Why??? How many years have passed ??? And answer a simple question - do any countries now have similar technologies, as described above? The answer is naturally negative. What further can you pick out - were they there or weren’t? You don’t even have to climb into the wilds (photo, video, rocket, engine, rust on museum samples of the moon rocket, samples of the moon soil, regolith talus in the photo, in some places uncrapped cables from the spacesuits (which can be found on the video during the storyboard), strange jumps in spacesuits from a lying position to a sitting position and further to a standing position and other and other and other).
  17. Old26
    Old26 26 May 2017 01: 27
    0
    Quote: reminin
    The USSR acquired its own soil from automatic stations that visited the moon. This year, the “Secret” stamp should be removed from the soil brought by the USA and it will be allowed to be analyzed by other countries. NASA never shared the lunar soil from the USSR. Milligrams (possibly made by analogy with what the USSR gave them from its reserves) were allocated.

    We had a whole institute doing this. probably there were exceptional dumbasses, once they concluded that the American soil is lunar. As for how much they transmitted - the transmission was on a parity basis. We are to them - they are to us, and not so that we are first to them, and then they are to us. Transferred to each other 3,7 g of EMNIP. The truth is asked, why didn’t the Americans give us more? And the question is, why did they have to give us kilograms in response to our grams? If I have some very expensive mineral, but it is very small, and you have it for half a ton at a price of hundreds of thousands per gram, how will we exchange these minerals with you for research? I give you 5 grams, and you give me 5 kg? Nonsense. so no one ever does, especially since it is too expensive soil

    Quote: KelWin
    Quote: Old26
    The sense of flying to the moon will arise if at least a base for 2-3 people is created. Then any costs will be paid off even by research on the surface, and long-term and complex

    And what is there that can be justifiably investigated? Well, at the orbital station it’s understandable, a deep vacuum is abundant, weightlessness again, but on the Moon what to do. Moreover, the lunar base must be constantly supplied, it will result in huge costs, isn’t it easier to send automation one way? Although, again, I do not understand why.

    I do not know. I just don’t know and that’s it.
    As an assumption - the materials of the station, mining of a residential complex, the search for minerals, drilling not by 20-30 centimeters, but by tens and hundreds of meters. In the end, astronomical research. research. how the human body can behave in conditions of reduced gravity. Yes, you never know what else. Yes, the pleasure is extremely expensive. You're right. It is necessary to supply, it is necessary to keep the station in orbit of the ISL, in order to save if necessary. But sooner or later, such studies will be conducted. Time will do.

    Quote: Stranger
    Personally, another thing bothers me: The lunar program carrier was tested only two times. Both times are unsuccessful. And the third launch - and immediately to the moon? This is where the first causes of doubt arise.

    You are wrong about the fact that the media starts (the first two) were unsuccessful.

    Quote: Stranger
    And here is other information:
    http://www.manonmoon.ru/book/1.htm

    This is a fragment from the book of Mukhin. better search the net and read the monograph by I. Shuneiko "Manned Flights to the Moon", With tables, graphs, diagrams. On this monograph, more than one generation of specialists in space specialties is studying,

    Quote: jonhr
    really? and I heard something that in 2018 there will be a flight of their super-heavy rocket which they are going to use in the Martian program

    Yes. The media is called SLS for now. What name will be given later - HZ.

    Quote: Dmitry_superenot
    Let those who believe in it holy say - where are these technologies?

    I have already answered this question above. The technology of the 60s and the technology of the second decade of the 21st century are heaven and earth. These technologies are simply a thing of the past and replaced by others. It is unlikely that now it is possible to do something “from the 50s or 60s” precisely with the technologies of that time. The remake is elementary. But do not repeat the same. Dozens, if not hundreds of materials that were then, but now are not, have gone. Here is a purely everyday example. There were Bologna raincoats in the 60-70s. The older generation remembers. Small, you could easily roll up and put in a modern man purse. And where are they? Where is the technology of these raincoats? But not her. Lost Now raincoats from the film. But if it was a raincoat, then the modern version is a pure raincoat. Here is an example of the lost technology of 60-70 years. On elementary examples. But in aerospace technology this has happened more often and more.
    And gets a paradox. We cannot make Saturn 5 due to the loss of a number of technologies. Make a new one, possibly even more powerful - no problem. give me the money. And to restore dozens if not hundreds of technologies of the 70s - alas.
    1. wazza
      wazza 26 May 2017 02: 30
      0
      90% of rocket technology is its engine, which is now cheaply sold to Americans by Energy, and here about raincoats.
  18. igorserg
    igorserg 26 May 2017 11: 11
    0
    Interestingly, will our nuclear spacecraft be modified or not?
  19. The comment was deleted.
  20. The comment was deleted.
  21. Dmitry_superenot
    Dmitry_superenot 26 May 2017 16: 40
    0
    Interestingly, what is common between a Bologna cloak and a flight to the moon? By the way - give a link to Aliexpress or Alloy? Need a raincoat? (: -)) - Modern raincoats collapse in a very small volume.
    As you know, Russia still flies into space on the royal R-7, of course, greatly modernized. And those same Soyuz spacecraft - which are still in use and which have no replacement yet, were developed in the 60s specifically for flying to the Moon. To be precise - to fly around the moon. Which was done in automatic mode during test flights. Of the 14 launches, only 4 were deemed successful. This is to the fact that the Americans all the "flights to the moon" were successful. And about technologies that are forgotten over time ... Unions - fly so far, R-7 rocket - fly so far, Protons - are also used or have been used until recently. It was the Protons that launched the Unions (Probes) to the Moon. Somehow we see that our technologies of the 60s are still working, but of course upgraded in accordance with technological progress. Once again I will ask a simple question - where are they these American Saturns, Apollo and other technologies for a successful flight to the moon?
    If the Saturn-5 rocket really existed - it would still be used, however, after the Hollywood advertisement of its pavilion shootings of the moon, this rocket disappeared somewhere with the Apollos ... And the Shuttles appeared. For some reason nobody was going to send to the moon.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 26 May 2017 17: 29
      0
      H-1 is still in use? Energy Buran still used? If not, why? winked
      1. wazza
        wazza 26 May 2017 21: 23
        0
        The engine from Energy is used by the Americans. The engine from Satrurn-5 is not used by them. Why?
        N-1 was just an excuse for the "Khrushchev thaw" to merge the moon with the Americans. A modular spaceship for the flight of two astronauts to the moon could be easily assembled by 2 Protons and one P-7 in low Earth orbit. Around how later Apollo docked with the Union or the modular near-Earth DOS "Mir" and the ISS were going.
  22. Dmitry_superenot
    Dmitry_superenot 26 May 2017 17: 58
    0
    What did N-1 and Buran with Energy give? N-1 is not a finished rocket for a manned flight to the moon. Korolev originally wanted to use it for a flight to Mars. Then, for the sake of competing with the Americans, she was reoriented to fly to the moon. N-1 flew to the moon? What about Buran? What is the essence of these remarks?
    The question was - where is the American technology of flying to the moon? If it really existed, then these flights would be carried out so far, maybe not so often, say, once every 5 years.
    Adherents of holy democracy claim that technology has been lost. Those. it was worked out, it worked perfectly and flawlessly, and then .... it ended like Moccona coffee ... Who is this noodle for? Maybe jet technology will soon be lost and we will fly on piston engines? Maybe soon the ICE technology will be lost and we will ride on steam cars, or maybe we will soon live by candlelight - will the technology of generating electricity be lost?
    NASA themselves did a disservice by laying out studio-quality lunar photos in the public domain. Study, increase, look.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 26 May 2017 18: 29
      0
      The fact that Atlases and Deltas have been flying to the United States since the 60s, Saturn-5 is an analogue of H-1, the task was to win the Lunar race, it was completed, Saturn -5 is not needed, like H-1. Nafig they do not need new flights to the moon, without competitors, the race without rivals spectators do not care.
      1. wazza
        wazza 26 May 2017 21: 27
        0
        "Skylab" then was, the Apollo flew at him. Why are F-1 engines not put on rockets smaller than Saturn-V2 but bought for Atlas-5 half of the Russian RD-171 (RD-180) from Energia?
  23. Dmitry_superenot
    Dmitry_superenot 26 May 2017 19: 07
    +1
    The argument is lethal in its senselessness.
    Create a rocket for sporting achievement ....? Not even a rocket, but a whole technology of flight to the lunar orbit, with a successful landing on the surface of the moon and a successful return to Earth.
    And all this for the sake of ... sports ??? And then throw it all into the toilet ??? Nonsense.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 26 May 2017 20: 12
      0
      They fly into Lunar orbit, the LRO satellite, for example, is spinning there. But Saturn-5 is a purely sports rocket. You probably just were not interested in how much money a professional sport eats, the Winter Olympics in Sochi cost more than Saturn-5, and nothing.
      1. wazza
        wazza 26 May 2017 21: 31
        0
        Saturn-5 could then launch orbital automatic probes such as the European "Cassini-Geigens" to all the planets of the solar system. Instead, they were not allowed to launch just sporting spans. Why?
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 27 May 2017 06: 49
          0
          Because Saturn 5 was redundant, they launched the Voyagers without it.
      2. wazza
        wazza 27 May 2017 09: 12
        0
        ONCE AGAIN, Voyagers were sports-flying. Why didn’t Saturn-5 launch serious AMSs of the Cassini type with Guygens landing moles to all the planets of the solar system even then?
    2. wazza
      wazza 26 May 2017 21: 37
      0
      Quote: Dmitry_superenot
      Nonsense.

      When there are no arguments, it helps. Moreover, this is not true because the toilet on Satrun-5 was not. Throw nowhere. Therefore, after they realized that, according to the law of probabilities, "right now, she’s fucking up," they put me in a museum.
  24. Old26
    Old26 26 May 2017 21: 37
    +1
    Quote: Dmitry_superenot
    Interestingly, what is common between a Bologna cloak and a flight to the moon? By the way - give a link to Aliexpress or Alloy? Need a raincoat? (: -)) - Modern raincoats collapse in a very small volume ..

    Already forgotten how to generalize? I did not speak specifically about anything. He gave the most commonplace example available to everyone - about the same raincoats. The fact that technology has changed and now start to produce something that was more expensive in the 60s. But it seems that the example did not go for the future. A raincoat is not needed. there is

    Quote: Dmitry_superenot
    As you know, Russia still flies into space on the royal R-7, of course, greatly modernized. .

    That's it. The design may have remained the same, with minor changes, but the manufacturing technology has changed. The R-7 rocket of the sample of the 50s or the Soyuz of the 60s and the modern version of the Soyuz launch vehicle are technologically different missiles. And this is provided that it is produced for half a century. And it’s technologically different. And it is hardly possible to recreate the “Union” of the 60s right now because of the fact that technologies have changed, some are not used and lost. And we sometimes scoff at the fact that the technology of the same Saturn has been lost. There are none of them. And now it is IMPOSSIBLE to restore them. Making a remake using new ones is technically possible. But why reproduce a rocket 50 years ago, when you can make a more modern one?

    Quote: Dmitry_superenot
    If the Saturn-5 rocket really existed - it would still be used, however, after the Hollywood advertisement of its pavilion shootings of the moon, this rocket disappeared somewhere with the Apollos ... And the Shuttles appeared. For some reason nobody was going to send to the moon.

    The Saturn-5 rocket REALLY EXISTS. But sometimes you don’t hear what others write. Or do not want to hear. I already explained the situation of the late 60s - early 70s in the United States. I can repeat it. The question arose about what to do next. The lunar program was completed (whether anyone likes it or not). The question arose about what to do next. The Americans have relied on a partially reusable Space Shuttle system. There was simply no place in that program for Saturn 5. As there was no place in the Soviet program for the N-1 rocket. There were no loads to withdraw this missile. One brought out a 70-ton Skylab, and at that the program of long-term orbital stations with the Americans ended. Maybe it was not like a program at all. What to do? What to display "Saturn"? Apollo for the orbital program was quietly displayed and Saturn-1B. The load for this rocket did not become
    And you continue to bear the nonsense of Mukhin "about the Hollywood pavilions. You still give an example of Mukhin about the remake of" Saturn-1V "in" Saturn-5 ".
    Speaking of pavilion shootings. No one had ever shot manually on camera. Just no one knew how this was done when there were several tens of centimeters between the video viewfinder of the camera and the human eye, and again, between the viewfinder and the eye, the multi-layer visor of the helmet. No one could know what the result of such a survey would be. Moreover, you can say with almost a 100% guarantee. that in a similar situation for the cover of "Twinkle" would use a muddy and not sharp photo. made by Soviet astronauts on the moon, and pavilion shooting. And what, under such conditions, it could be argued that the Russians were not on the moon?

    "Shuttles" in general, no one and never intended to send to the moon. This was an option for the development of their manned ships. After a few years, we came to the same ship.

    Quote: Dmitry_superenot
    What did N-1 and Buran with Energy give? N-1 is not a finished rocket for a manned flight to the moon. Korolev originally wanted to use it for a flight to Mars. Then, for the sake of competing with the Americans, she was reoriented to fly to the moon. N-1 flew to the moon? What about Buran? .

    You all bring down in one bottle. And N-1, and "Energy", and "Buran". If the first one was really planned for the Soviet lunar program, then neither Energy nor a blizzard were planned for this.

    Quote: Dmitry_superenot
    The question was - where is the American technology of flying to the moon? If it really existed, then these flights would be carried out so far, maybe not so often, say, once every 5 years ..

    Answer the question - why? Why throw billions on such flights. What will they give? WHAT? They completed their task. Why do you need to repeat such flights every 5 years? I'm not saying that instead of investing in something new, it would be necessary to support the release of Saturn and Apollo? What would such flights give? bringing hundreds of kilograms of stones? Is it too expensive a pleasure to do this every 5 years?
    I believe that even now such flights do not make much sense if there is no long-term base on the moon or in its orbit. Moreover, in orbit, the need for it is also not visible. Even such an enterprise will be very expensive (a base on the moon) and it can be pulled only within the framework of international cooperation. Yes, in this case it would make sense to fly there now. And to fly only so that astronauts or taikunauts stick the flag of Russia or China on the surface - is it worth throwing hundreds of millions?
  25. Old26
    Old26 26 May 2017 21: 38
    0
    I will continue
    Quote: Dmitry_superenot
    Adherents of holy democracy claim that technology has been lost. Those. it was worked out, it worked perfectly and flawlessly, and then .... it ended like Moccona coffee ....

    You perceive the phrase lost too straightforwardly. She was here and she was gone. I explained to you the essence of the term "lost." The manufacturing technology of the F-1 engine differs from the manufacturing technology of the RD-180 engine. Other materials, solders, components and more are used. Since they did the F-1, the RD-180 engine does not. And this provided that in fact less than 50 years have passed. So it is in all other areas. Can we now produce the same technology from the 50s .... vinyl vinyls? Are there any materials that were then. Are there any technological lines (technological chain) that were used then? No. There will be new materials and a new technological chain. The old one is lost. so with Saturn. A number of materials that were used there are no longer produced. NO THEM. There are others. This is called - lost technology. And not that blueprints and everything else suddenly took up and disappeared.
    I repeat. It’s technically possible to recreate Saturn 5. But firstly, this will not be the same Saturn 1; secondly, the product will have to be redesigned. B-5 - the very concept of launch vehicles has changed. They become MODULAR. Question - NAFIG recreate Saturn 5?

    Quote: Dmitry_superenot
    The argument is lethal in its senselessness.
    Create a rocket for sporting achievement ....? Not even a rocket, but a whole technology of flight to the lunar orbit, with a successful landing on the surface of the moon and a successful return to Earth.
    And all this for the sake of ... sports ??? And then throw it all into the toilet ??? Nonsense.

    Judging by this statement, you are simply too young and did not live in those days. You do not know what the "space race" between the USSR and the USA was. At the forefront was put PRESTIGE state PRESTIGE TOUCH SOCIAL SYSTEM which were personified by these states. The main thing was MAKE FIRSTno matter what. And the “one-time rocket” for such victories was nothing special. Even if billions were spent on it. The race was. And everyone tried to win months, weeks, sometimes days. We took a tremendous risk. And they were. And if something went wrong, who knows how things would turn out. Examples can be given dozens

    For example, did you know that the Vostok ship was launched NOT TO A TARGET ORBIT?. Before its launch, there were only two successful launches of EMNIP. Brought out. But not into a self-braking orbit from which the ship would still descend to Earth within 10 days, but into orbit the descent from which would last for 25 days. There were 10 days' supply of air and food on the ship. It was not known whether the astronaut could withstand a 10-day flight, but he was withdrawn anyway, despite the risk. But if the brake engine did not work, the descent vehicle would fall to the surface in about a month and with the corpse of the astronaut. Would we know who was the first? I think in a row. BUT they took such a risk, because they knew. that in early May, the Americans were planning their first space launch. Any accident with the ship (would have found a malfunction) or with the carrier and the first would be an American. Despite the fact that he had a suborbital flight. Suborbital - but space.

    Did you know that in order to get around the Americans (and they were planning to launch their multi-seater ship "Jameny") we ventured to send three astronauts in a two-seater crew essentially. There was no place for catapult seats in the emergency rescue system. And the three flew in the volume of a two-seater ship, and without spacesuits. Horoo that everything ended well and we became FIRST. And in a different scenario. And such cases can lead a lot. THE SYSTEM RACE WAS. And at the same time, to create a rocket that would fly off a dozen times and then not use it is nonsense. QUESTION OF PRESTIGE WAS TOP
  26. Dmitry_superenot
    Dmitry_superenot 27 May 2017 00: 57
    0
    "Answer the question - WHY? Why throw out billions on such flights. What will they give? WHAT? Have they completed their task. Why do we need to repeat such flights every 5 years? I’m not saying that instead of investing in Is there anything new to support the production of Saturn and Apollo? What would such flights give? The delivery of hundreds of kilograms of stones? Is it not too expensive a pleasure to do this every 5 years? "
    And if you think carefully with YOUR head and throw the Pindopropoganda out of it, or at least try?
    Why fly into space? Well - what versions? For prestige? Only? Why the hell are the giant funds pumped into the ISS? Why flights to Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Pluto ... the study of comets and much more? With the scientific and research goals of CARL !!! Exactly! Do not jump like dumb blanks with a striped rag in a hangar covered with cement and draped in black velvet and so on 6 times in a row, namely for the purpose of scientific research? Or are you shield that there is nothing to explore on the moon?
    I won’t repeat it again, the technical feasibility of a man’s flight to the Moon for 50 YEARS WAS NOT BACK, as it is not now. Believe pindorazvodki - the height of stupidity.
    As for the N-1, well, read why they abandoned it. Firstly, Korolev died, and secondly, there was a tacit agreement with Ami, why Lunokhod-3 was not launched. We “believe” that you “flew to the moon, 6 times in a row and all are successful”, and you sell us wheat at bargain prices, enter into trade agreements and agreements to reduce military rivalry (arms limitation treaties) well, in the same spirit. Take an interest, instead of repeating propaganda the light of democracy again and again.
    As for Enegia and Buran - in what year did they fly ??? Need to be reminded? And then what happened? Now the developments and technical documentation of the Energy rocket are considered as prerequisites for the creation of an extra-heavy rocket, if necessary. Buran - this was an attempt by the military to understand why am Shatly. Take an interest in the background of the Buran - read about BOR.
  27. Dmitry_superenot
    Dmitry_superenot 27 May 2017 01: 23
    0
    "Answer the question - WHY? Why throw out billions on such flights. What will they give? WHAT? Have they completed their task. Why do we need to repeat such flights every 5 years? I’m not saying that instead of investing in Is there anything new to support the production of Saturn and Apollo? What would such flights give? The delivery of hundreds of kilograms of stones? Is it not too expensive a pleasure to do this every 5 years? "
    By the way - what about the launch of the Shuttles was very cheap? Compared to the mythical Saturn-5, it’s probably not cheaper, because in terms of the carrying capacity of the system, it was the Shuttle launches that really put a lot of weight into orbit. What was the point of shuttle launches? Why did they run so much? Answer your own questions !? What was the pleasure of launching the expensive Shuttles? And what did they give science? And they were launched a little more often than once every 5 years. I would say much more often. Prestige? In what? What was the urgent need for so many Shuttle launches, as well as for them in general? Well, Karl - bolder !!!? Indeed, unlike Saturn-5, which began to become covered with rust (!!!) on museum sites (say that these are not real rockets there - they are such a simple model, they quickly slap them for posterity, and a real rocket was quickly disposed of with 700 boxes (!!!) technical documentation, so that God forbid the evil Russians do not stole the drawings of the super-rocket (:-)) Shuttle system really flew and quite often. "Why throw billions on such flights. What will they give? WHAT?" What did the Shuttle flights useless in your opinion give?
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 27 May 2017 06: 54
      0
      "Answer the question - WHY? Why throw out billions on such flights. What will they give? WHAT? Have they completed their task. Why do we need to repeat such flights every 5 years? I’m not saying that instead of investing in Is there anything new to support the production of Saturn and Apollo? What would such flights give? The delivery of hundreds of kilograms of stones? Is it not too expensive a pleasure to do this every 5 years? "

      Read American science fiction writers, publicists and so on. For the USA, the launch of the satellite and Gagarin was a shock, the absolute confidence that their most progressive system was shaken. This was urgently needed to be fixed, and the US government did not want money for it, the Lunar was taken, and the spirit was restored, that's all.
      And for the future, an ARPA agency, now DARPA, was created. To whom they give good money every year, so that such a subversion would never happen again.
      By the way - what about the launch of the Shuttles was very cheap?

      It was planned that he would fly very often, and then his price went a penny. However, the USSR fell apart, the space war program is gone. And a reusable system without a large number of starts, has become expensive and not needed.
  28. Leonid Har
    Leonid Har 27 May 2017 01: 53
    0
    Budget cut
  29. Dmitry_superenot
    Dmitry_superenot 27 May 2017 17: 56
    0
    Quote: BlackMokona
    Read American science fiction writers, publicists and so on. For the USA, the launch of the satellite and Gagarin was a shock, the absolute confidence that their most progressive system was shaken. This was urgently needed to be fixed, and the US government did not want money for it, the Lunar was taken, and the spirit was restored, that's all.

    They have the shock of testing every new USSR / Russia missile. Was always and always will be. For some reason, they unreasonably shield themselves with the dominant world country (why would it? Maybe because the little Vietnamese kicked them a point, albeit with the help of a big brother). “The moon was taken” - in terms of Hollywood, they have no equal, although the same Kubrick can be considered an extramural student of Klushantsev. So here they are also far from the first. All space special effects were invented in the USSR.
    That's part of the nonsense of the USA - just ahead of the rest. What is their space program worth (the first "flights into space", the lunar scam (by the way, here you can recall the first swallows casting doubt on this achievement, not only the film "Capricorn - 1", but also another film that came out even earlier - "Diamonds Forever" from Bondians), “rovers” plowing the Canadian island of Devon, strange photos of Pluto, prohibitive mortality among astronauts (not only in space, but on Earth - it’s just some kind of pestilence), Boeing in the Far East on September 1983, 11, the Boston marathon Boeing over Ukraine, from the last - the guys are not shy about anything - “Russian interference in the election of the President of the United States.” Well, it somehow should be a shame to them, you can imagine that, say, Reagan said such a chick - well, what a shame it would be, and now they disgrace themselves and do not even notice, degradation is progressing.
    Quote: BlackMokona
    It was planned that he would fly very often, and then his price went a penny. However, the USSR fell apart, the space war program is gone. And a reusable system without a large number of starts, has become expensive and not needed.

    Was it cheap and badly needed? And suddenly it became expensive. It's like crayfish - yesterday 5 rubles, but large, and today 3 rubles, but small. Apparently the Shuttles were initially far from cheap. And there was only one benefit from them - during the construction of the ISS.
  30. Dmitry_superenot
    Dmitry_superenot 27 May 2017 19: 04
    +1
    About recreating old technologies. You are fatally wrong. Modern industry allows you to recreate a lot of the past, if not all, then almost everything. Recreate old ships, tanks, planes, uniforms, small arms, cars, motorcycles. Something is still being done according to old technologies - an example is the cars of the British company Morgan. On an ash frame! And they drive great and even crash tests pass.
    Regarding American old technology. Until recently (the 2000s) they had in service aircraft carriers built in 1945: Midway and the Coral Sea. And also the battleships of the last series (New Jersey, Quince, Wisconsin, Missouri) built during WWII. Still in service are the ancient B-52 bombers, created much earlier than the technology of flying to the moon and returning from there. What is the use of them? If then B-2 and B-1B appeared? But however, they are in service and fly as before. The same can be said about the famous U-2 spy planes. They were created in the 50s, but are still in service, although it seemed to them for a long time a place in the landfill - there are satellites and drones (which can stay in the air at high altitude for a day). Many more examples can be cited. And where is the Saturn-5 rocket now and what remains of it? Where is the technical documentation? Of course, having technical documentation can recreate anything. But there was only a couple of some strange museum exhibits that, due to oversight, began to rust (!!!?) And that’s all. On the basis of what you need to believe that half a century ago, Americans ran on the moon? Based on what they think so? Well, 25-30% of Americans do not think so, and this is about half the population of the Russian Federation. Can you imagine that in the Russian Federation half of the population, or at least a quarter do not believe in Gagarin’s flight, say ??? So God help the believers in the holy tan.