Military Review

Phoenix launch vehicle project

84
At the moment, the Russian space industry has several types of launch vehicles that have different characteristics and are capable of working together to solve a wide range of tasks to put the payload into orbit. In parallel with the operation of existing missiles, new models of such equipment are being developed. The most well-known promising project "Angara". In addition, the design work on the topic "Phoenix" has already begun. The result of this program should be the emergence of a promising middle-class launch vehicle capable of replacing some existing samples.


Over the past few decades, the main launch vehicles of the middle class used by our country are the systems of the Soyuz family. Despite the solid age of the family as a whole, the equipment is undergoing regular upgrades, and in addition, completely new versions of missiles are being created, which are very different from previous ones. Nevertheless, by now there is a need to create a completely new missile that can replace the "Unions" of all existing versions.

The reasons for this are quite simple. The rockets of the existing lineup are distinguished by sufficiently high characteristics and great potential, but the modernization of even the best samples cannot continue indefinitely for objective reasons. Thus, it is necessary to begin the development of a completely new rocket, initially using modern technologies and the element base, as well as meeting the current and future requirements. Taking into account such features of the development of rocket technology, several years ago, space industry experts suggested starting development of a promising carrier.

Phoenix launch vehicle project
Booster "Zenith-2". Photo Bastion-karpenko.ru


About new plans for the development of rocket technology became known a little more than two years ago. In April 2015, the domestic media published information from unnamed sources in the rocket and space industry. Later reports of the new project received official confirmation from the leaders of key industrial enterprises. Then the name of the project - “Phoenix” became known. Subsequently, the initially published data was repeatedly refined and corrected, probably due to the current development of the project.

According to the first two-year-old reports, in the very near future the leading enterprises of the rocket and space industry were to determine the main features of the future project, as well as to form a technical task. Roscosmos was to be responsible for carrying out this stage of work. Formation of the requirements was planned to spend about two years, 2016 and 2017 years. Only with 2018, development work had to be carried out. It was planned to spend several more years to develop the project and the subsequent stages of the program.

In accordance with the preliminary plans of the 2015 of the year, the main phase of the project was to continue from 2018 to 2025 years. Also, sources who reported on the launch of the Phoenix project revealed some details of a financial nature. For seven years, starting with 2018, it was supposed to spend at least 30 billion rubles to develop a project and new type of missiles.

At the same time, it was reported that the Progress Rocket and Space Center (Samara) became the initiator of the development of the promising Phoenix project. For obvious reasons, two years ago the exact shape of the launch vehicle was not yet formed, but even then certain assumptions were made on this matter. According to the information of that time, the rocket had to be built in a monoblock scheme and put into a low near-earth orbit a load of more than 9 tons. The possibility of using a power plant operating on different fuel pairs was considered. Depending on the customer’s decision, it was possible to use engines that use liquefied natural gas or kerosene and liquefied hydrogen.

In this form and with such characteristics, the Phoenix launch vehicle could occupy an intermediate position between the existing Soyuz and Zenit complexes. In addition, the possibility of using a promising missile as a module for the construction of carriers of heavier classes with increased payload was not ruled out. In the proposed form, according to statements by unnamed representatives of the industry, the Phoenix rocket was supposed to be an addition to the carriers of the Angara family. It was indicated that in the event of any problems with the latter, forcing the operation of all carriers of the family to cease operation, the presence of Phoenix will allow the continuation of small and medium payloads into orbit.

For some time, no new progress reports were made under the Phoenix program. Some details of the existing plans were announced only at the end of March 2016. The head of "Roskosmos" Igor Komarov spoke about the conduct of several research projects needed to shape the appearance of a number of promising carrier rockets of different classes. In the case of the Phoenix project, it is planned to speed up the work. According to the available schedule, the design should have been completed in 2025 year. Nevertheless, it was planned to once again analyze the existing opportunities and find a way to accelerate the development of the rocket with the completion of the project until the middle of the next decade. As the head of the state corporation noted, the market and life demand the acceleration of work.

I. Komarov also confirmed the possibility of using the Phoenix rocket not only as an independent carrier. The main objective of the project was still the creation of a middle-class rocket, but it did not exclude the use of the Phoenix as the first stage of a promising super-heavy carrier. Any details of a technical nature related to the use of such a rocket were not disclosed.

New reports on the progress of work on the Phoenix project and information about the technical appearance of the rocket had to wait for more than a year. Only at the end of April 2017, new interesting features of the project were revealed. Vladimir Solntsev, General Director of Rocket and Space Corporation Energia, said that, at least in the early stages, the Phoenix rocket will be disposable. However, he clarified that the issue of multiple use of rocket stages is subject to additional justification. To solve the problem of returning the spent stage to the ground, it is necessary to use special control systems, new equipment and additional fuel. As a result, savings on returning the stage are either absent or it turns out to be minimal. At the same time, a convenient way to save on launches is a reduction in the size of the area of ​​falling steps.

V. Solntsev also spoke about plans for maximum automation of work with a new type of rocket. On board the Phoenix and as part of the launch complex will be a large number of automatic systems responsible for carrying out prelaunch. Thanks to this, all the preparations for the launch will be performed by the technician independently, without human intervention. The assembly of launch vehicles of a new type is currently supposed to be set up at the production facilities of RCC Progress in Samara.

22 May TASS news agency published new information on the progress of work under the Phoenix program. This time the information was received from the press service of the Central Scientific Research Institute of Mechanical Engineering, which is one of the main organizations of the domestic rocket and space industry. Representatives of TsNIImash reported that the creation of a promising rocket will begin with a preliminary design. In accordance with the indication of "Roskosmos", this phase of work will be completed before the end of this year. Accelerate the work will be due to some features of the existing regulatory framework. It permits the omission of certain stages of the program if there is sufficient justification for this.

In addition, the most important prerequisite to reduce development time will be to use the existing groundwork. The project "Phoenix" proposed to apply the developments on the project of the launch vehicle "Zenit", created and operated previously in cooperation with Ukraine. The final assembly of Zenit missiles was carried out abroad, but about 85% of all components were manufactured in Russia. The proposal to use the existing reserve was taken into account when creating a technical task. The latter also took into account the possibility of reducing experimental development associated with the borrowing of finished elements.


Models of rockets of the Angara family. Photo of Wikimedia Commons


In the future, it is also planned to save time on flight tests. It is proposed to conduct them at the Baikonur cosmodrome. To conduct inspections of Phoenix, it is proposed to modernize the existing launch of Zenit launch vehicles in the framework of the joint Baiterek project. The modification of the Phoenix rocket, modified for launches from Baikonur, received its own name “Sunkar” (kaz. “Falcon”). It is also possible to create a unified "sea" missile, which will be used together with the existing launch complex "Sea Launch". Naturally, a launch complex at the Vostochny cosmodrome will be built by a certain date.

According to the current plans of Roscosmos, the modification of the Phoenix for the Sea Launch will be tested in 2020 year. Next year, the Sunkar rocket will fly from Baikonur for the first time in 2021. The first launch from East is scheduled for 2034 year.

The emergence of the Phoenix project and the receipt of certain results made it possible to revise some of the existing plans for the further development of the rocket and space program. In the foreseeable future, it is planned to send the first manned ship “Federation”, currently under development, into orbit. Earlier it was claimed that the first flight of the "Federation" will take place in 2021 year and will be performed with the help of the Angara launch vehicle, launched from Vostochny cosmodrome. According to recent reports, in the new project, the role of the carrier of a manned spacecraft will be transferred to Phoenix.

27 May TASS, citing unnamed representatives of the space industry announced the postponement of the first launch of the "Federation" and the replacement of the launch vehicle. Due to some peculiarities of current projects and existing opportunities, it was decided to postpone the launch to 2022 year, execute it at Baikonur and use a new type of launch vehicle. The launch of the rocket with the manned spacecraft will be carried out within the framework of the “Baiterek” project. A TASS source noted that such a change in plans would allow it to dispense with major modifications to the launch complex, the missile, or the Federation ship.

Also a few days ago it became known that the construction of a new infrastructure necessary for the operation of manned spacecraft at the Vostochny space center would be postponed for some time. These works will be carried out only after the start of the development of a super-heavy launch vehicle for flights to the Moon. Thus, part of the new facilities on the East will be built only in the second half of the next decade. At the same time, the change in the existing plans will in no way affect the preparation for the operation of the Angara family of missiles carrying unmanned payloads.

According to available data, at present, the domestic rocket and space industry is developing a draft design of the Phoenix launch vehicle. As a result, the exact technical shape of the rocket is not yet fully formed, but there is already some information about the features of its design. For obvious reasons, the current estimates regarding the architecture and design of the rocket may not correspond to the outcome of the project due to the continuation of its development and the introduction of certain changes.

According to existing estimates, the Phoenix rocket will be built on a two-stage scheme and will be able to carry the upper stage. Despite the use of certain developments of the Zenit project, the prospective carrier will be larger and heavier, and will also be able to show higher performance. Thus, the length of the first stage can be increased to 37 m, the second - to 10 m with an increase in the maximum diameter to 4,1 m. The starting weight can reach 520 t.

Assumptions about the possible composition of the power plant. So, the first stage can receive RD-171М, RD-170М or RD-180 liquid engines. In the first two cases, the stage will receive one engine, while the RD-180 should be used in pairs. The second stage can be equipped with two engines RD-0124. It is assumed the use of different overclocking blocks of domestic production.

Earlier it was reported that the proposed technical appearance will significantly improve the basic characteristics in comparison with the originally named. So, it will be possible to output up to low Earth orbit up to 17 and payload. When using the corresponding upper stage and flight path over the territory of China, it will be possible to deliver to the geostationary orbit up to 2,5 tons of cargo.

Since 2015, when the first sufficiently detailed information about the promising project appeared, the Phoenix launch vehicle has been positioned as a replacement or, at least, as an add-on for some systems of the Soyuz family. Nevertheless, in fact, these missiles will become a substitute for Zenit, the operation of which is seriously hampered due to the well-known events in the neighboring state. The emergence of a new carrier with similar capabilities, apparently, will allow to finally abandon the existing international cooperation.

At the same time, Phoenix / Sunkar will indeed be able to complement the existing Unions. First of all, this will allow for the launches of the new manned “Federation” ships, which, according to the latest data, will be used precisely with the “Phoenix”, and not with the “Angara”, as planned earlier. In addition, the simultaneous use of several launch vehicles with similar capabilities may provide some operational advantages.

In the context of the creation and commissioning of the Phoenix rocket, questions arise about the future of certain projects of the Angara family. As part of the latter, construction of different types of missiles with different configuration and various characteristics is proposed. Some rockets of such a modular architecture (first of all, the Angara-3) are, by their capabilities, a direct analogue of the Phoenix. When creating a heavy or super heavy carrier on the basis of the Phoenix, a new competition problem will arise. How these issues will be solved - time will tell.

According to reports in recent months, the program to create a promising middle-class launch vehicle "Phoenix" has moved into the stage of preliminary design. This stage should be completed before the end of this year, after which new work will begin, as a result of which, by the middle of the next decade, the first rocket of the new type will be sent to the cosmodrome. Successful implementation of the Phoenix / Sunkar project will lead to an expansion of the range of available media with corresponding positive operational and economic consequences. At the same time, the project may face technical or other problems. In addition, specialists will have to resolve certain issues directly related to the simultaneous creation of several missiles with similar characteristics.


On the materials of the sites:
http://tass.ru/
http://ria.ru/
http://rg.ru/
http://lenta.ru/
http://interfax.ru/
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/
Author:
84 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. kugelblitz
    kugelblitz 2 June 2017 06: 58 New
    +1
    A direct analogue of the Proton is the A5 Angara, five RD-191 cameras against four Zenit or Phoenix RD-171 cameras. Similarly, A3 cannot be a direct analogue of the Phoenix. It is generally not clear here, in fact, the muhlezh in the network began with the stuffing of the Green Cat. How to abandon a rocket for which a plant has already been built? Most likely, the Federation will simply be launched on two missiles, depending on the orbit or destination. As for the resemblance to Zenit, it’s understandable, there’s a hurt there, it’s more likely that the tank assembly technology will even be similar due to the existing technological chain for the Unions. Let’s see, nevertheless, two missiles, more precisely, two types of URM are obtained, are even somehow more profitable, you can combine the options, creating modifications that are beneficial for a particular load.

    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 2 June 2017 07: 43 New
      0
      Rogozin confirmed.
      1. AUL
        AUL 2 June 2017 09: 56 New
        +8
        And what, they don’t give money under the Angara, since they have muddied a new project? New feeding trough ...
        1. maxim947
          maxim947 2 June 2017 15: 47 New
          +2
          Complain that dear. In general, this mess is already enraging! One thing, then another. If the Angara is closed, and they only talk about, it will be very disappointing, it was born in such torment. And the rocket is good so that they don’t speak there. The article is full of porridge, they wrote: The second stage can be equipped with two RD-0124 engines.
          This engine is four-chamber, how are two of them going to cram into the second stage? etc.
      2. Dead duck
        Dead duck 2 June 2017 10: 21 New
        +6
        Quote: BlackMokona
        Rogozin confirmed.

        That's what Rogozin would confirm laughing
        From a cohort of “effective managers” and reports about the beginning of “glorious deeds”.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 2 June 2017 21: 52 New
          +6
          A brief overview of the state of the space industry in the Russian Federation according to the Russophobes version.

          In terrible times, the decline of Russia, when it was called (and for the cause) a "space cab", Russia was constantly in first place in the number of launches. Proton started about once a month, occupying 1% of the GSO launch market.
          In the current times of the dawn of Russia:
          Proton - does not fly. Last launch a year ago. 71 engines were rejected due to a violation of technology at the Voronezh Mechanical Plant.
          It is impossible to resume the production of protons in the amount of 10 + units per year. GKNPC them Khrunicheva stolen (in the literal sense, 4/5 of the area was cut off from the enterprise).
          Hangar - does not fly. When in Omsk will establish the release of the 1st stage - HZ. A stable release of missiles in a series, launching on schedule is ridiculous to speak. Where to start up is not clear. Cost - $ 100M +. There are no commercial prospects, given the current US launch price list.
          Zenith - does not fly. Ukraine.
          Dnepr is the same
          The rumble is the same.
          The arrow is the same.
          Union - this one is still alive. But it is not capable of displaying satellites on GSO. Hefty "Federation" will not raise.

          Total - in the middle of 2017, Russia has 1 operational launch vehicle designed by S.V. Queen. Model 1957, with improvements and additions.

          Rogozin promises a new beautiful rocket? How can this be believed? The production of rockets with 400+ launches, which took 50 years, has collapsed. Bad location of the plant, unfortunately. The land is too expensive beneath it. Let them make rockets in Omsk and Samara, there are more important things to do in Moscow.

          Somewhere, they definitely slander Russia. But where?
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 2 June 2017 22: 03 New
            0
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            S.V. Queen

            Sergei Pavlovich, of course.
          2. kugelblitz
            kugelblitz 3 June 2017 08: 38 New
            0
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            When in Omsk will establish the release of the 1st stage - HZ

            The issue was established just, the machines for friction welding tanks are. No orders yet.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 3 June 2017 12: 58 New
              +1
              Quote: kugelblitz
              The issue was established just, the machines for friction welding tanks are. No orders yet.

              I see the problem of chicken and eggs. No rocket - no demand, no demand - no rocket. Maybe not right.
              1. FlyEngine
                FlyEngine 4 June 2017 17: 36 New
                +3
                However, it’s very convenient to call Russophobe anyone who understands how bad everything is with us in space.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                somewhere just slander Russia

                That is the essence of the fact that in the information given above you are nowhere. You can check in open sources. The problem is easier to solve if you acknowledge its existence, agree.
                Quote: kugelblitz
                The issue was established just, the machines for friction welding tanks are. No orders yet.

                Well established, so what? Where is the product? Nowhere. “Not yet” = “pray that you will,” judging by today's realities. In fact - the collapse. It is necessary to replace 80% of all people responsible for space, managers, I mean. Half of these 80% are transplanted, since they are thieves and accomplices. The other half to send a kick in the ass for an incompetent ignoramus. That is the whole solution.
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 8 June 2017 21: 04 New
                  0
                  Quote: FlyEngine
                  The problem is easier to solve if you acknowledge its existence, agree.

                  I do not need to agitate, I myself am a Russophobe.
                  However, the launch of Proton on June 8 was pleasantly surprised. I didn’t think what would happen to see.
  2. iwind
    iwind 2 June 2017 08: 23 New
    11
    mdaaaaa

    20 years of work and money. But the hangar is not needed. But now there will be a new rocket which is better and cheaper. And if the new rocket shows itself well, then in general it is possible to refuse the Angara. ......
    Get enslaved. And yes, when the main feature is taken away from the Angara, this is a large series of URMs - as a result, a small launch price. What to be surprised.
    And what remains of the Angara family ?. A-3 cancel as A-7, Now A-5P, A-1,2 are in a coma next start in 2020. But then where to get the big series of URM from? And now internal competition is still added ......


    The new rocket will be used to launch manned ships instead of the "Angara-A5P"

    MOSCOW, May 29. / TASS /. The new Russian middle-class launch vehicle, developed as part of the Phoenix development work, and designed, in particular, to launch the Federation manned spacecraft, will be called Soyuz-5, a source in the space and rocket industry told TASS.

    Built East called "The Eastern Tale of Roscosmos"
    and what got
    A cosmodrome with a little pride was built, and launches will be, only to maintain potential, rare "Unions" with commercial or scientific loads of up to 5 in better years. "
    And the content of this infrastructure (repairs, heating, etc.) is distributed to these launches - then they will be gold. There is a good modern spaceport, maybe then it costs 2/3 launches to move there? Why then?
    What to do?
    Wait for the hangar until 2023? But it will not be canceled?
    "The Eastern Tale of Roscosmos" ..... sad
    The Deputy Minister of Defense inspected the objects of the first and second stage at the Vostochny spaceport, among which was a complex for the Angara. Mr. Ivanov also held a meeting with the head of Roscosmos Igor Komarov and representatives of subordinate organizations of the military construction complex at the cosmodrome.

    “The approximate cost of building a launch pad for Angara will be 58 billion rubles. The work will begin this year and be completed by 2023, ”said a representative of the design institute


    Created the "East" for what? They spent billions for independent spacewalks ... and a new rocket from Baikonur ... what Logics?
    1. Dead duck
      Dead duck 2 June 2017 10: 25 New
      10
      On the "East" will still be building a launch pad under the "Hangar" A-5, A-7.
      There is still sawing and sawing. Universalization is now not held in high esteem.
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 2 June 2017 11: 01 New
        0
        Isn't the A7 canceled?
        1. Dead duck
          Dead duck 2 June 2017 11: 53 New
          +4
          They definitely wanted to build under A-5.
          In principle, they can do combined, if at all built.
    2. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 2 June 2017 11: 33 New
      +1
      Quote: iwind
      20 years of work and money. But the hangar is not needed. But now there will be a new rocket which is better and cheaper.

      As I understand it, they took a backlog on the Zenit rocket (which was 85% made in Russia), under which there are launch complexes at Baikonur + Sea Launch, and decided to replace the parts that were made in Ukraine with their own + slightly modernized. The result is Phoenix (a rather symbolic name).
      One of the advantages of this project: those engines that could not be used in other projects will be used.
      By the way, over time, Zenith was supposed to become the main rocket (instead of the Union) for our astronauts, which means that there should be a reserve in this direction.
  3. tchoni
    tchoni 2 June 2017 08: 27 New
    +9
    . The reasons for this are very simple. The missiles of the existing line are distinguished by sufficiently high characteristics and great capabilities, but the modernization of even the best samples cannot continue indefinitely for objective reasons.
    From scientifically popular into Russian: “we don’t know what exactly needs to be changed, but it really hurts to want to change something. Therefore, we’re sawing another flightless“ hangar. ”, Oh, ugh,“ phoenix ”
  4. Aviator_
    Aviator_ 2 June 2017 08: 44 New
    +1
    [/ quote] How to abandon a rocket for which a plant has already been built? [quote]
    Here in Zhukovsky they built a huge building for the KLA - they had to abandon Pogosyan, who lobbied for this construction. The building is empty, Poghosyan is sitting in the chair of the rector of the Moscow Aviation Institute, which is for him a very strong decrease.
  5. Old26
    Old26 2 June 2017 08: 44 New
    +4
    It seems to me that while there is only an informational stuffing. What is the Phoenix project? How does it correlate with work on the Soyuz-5 project? Or is it something very close, and perhaps the same thing, although the performance characteristics still differ?

    Already 10 years ago there was talk that the Angara was a dead end, but alas, the head of Roskosmos Popovkin pushed it despite the fact that the project generally lost the contests that were made specifically for it. You can talk a lot about the shortcomings of this design, but ....
    I understand, of course, that having spent more than 160 billion on it, it would be comme il faut to abandon this development. However, what happens in the dry residue. The only launch complex at the Plesetsk cosmodrome in quantity ONE TABLE. Plans for creating TWO launching tables on Vostochny are now, sorry, cool ...... us. They will build one table until 2021 (oh).
    And what is one table? At one time, the accident at Baikonur at the "Gagar" start took the launch pad out of operation of the EMNIP for 2 years. And only due to the fact that there was also the 31st platform, we were able to continue to launch our cargoes into orbit. No one is safe from an accident at the start. And the explosion of the same "Angara" on the launch pad will put an end to the program "Angara". He, this project, was stuck somewhere, and in the absence of a table, in general.

    Further. The Phoenix Program. maximum payload brought to low orbit - 17 tons. "Federation" depending on the gas station (which means depending on the mission) will have from 14,4 to 19 tons. What turns out. “Pencil” (the same “Senkar” will no longer be able to output it, more precisely, it will not be able to be a standard means of output. What should I use? “Phoenix” with 2 outboard engines (copy of “Angara A-3”, which was canceled)? Probably. Question arises in another.
    1. Will the Angara launch pad differ from the Phoenix launch pad. That is, is it possible to let both that and another product from it (on Vostochny)
    2. So what will happen? Will we pull both projects - “Angara” and “Phoenix” or will there be only one?
    3. Now, on paper, everything is fine and you don’t even need to especially modify the launch complex at the 45th site of the Baikonur Cosmodrome. But this launch is intended for the simplest version of the “Phoenix” (“Sunkara”). And if we start up the modular versions of the “Phoenix” from “Baikonur”. then most likely you will have to either redo the start on pl. 45 or build a new one. All these issues should already be considered now, and it seems that we are having a regular shy. I would be glad to be mistaken, however ....
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 2 June 2017 11: 02 New
      0
      Soyuz-5 = Phoenix
    2. Falcon5555
      Falcon5555 3 June 2017 03: 28 New
      0
      Already 10 years ago there was talk that the "Angara" - a dead end branch

      Xs, why is it dead end.
      And there are some problems with the “starting tables”. It seems that the launch pad is nothing compared to a rocket. Pour the site with concrete, dig a side pit, and weld the glands where necessary. Maybe it seems to me in vain that this is nonsense, but something is not audible for the Americans to have problems with the starting tables. They launch all new types of rockets, and there are no problems with tables. If necessary, then apparently they are done, and that’s all.
  6. sa-ag
    sa-ag 2 June 2017 09: 19 New
    +2
    M-yes, the Angara is covered with a copper basin ...
  7. Sergey-8848
    Sergey-8848 2 June 2017 09: 42 New
    +3
    Layouts, sketches, projects and endless interviews about how soon everything will be fine. And the efficiency from the industry is less and less, and the scandals with corruption, failure to meet the deadlines for construction and delayed payments more ...
  8. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 2 June 2017 09: 42 New
    11
    Unfortunately, the entire development of our cosmonautics is a series of conceptual errors, which we simply cannot refuse because of lack of money and desire to somehow use the existing backlog.
    First mistake. The choice of space launch site. The list of candidates included Baikonur, Makhachkala and Kapustin Yar. The military needed a military base, they did not think about the space program. Together with Baikonur, our space program was limited by the railway gauge (3,9 meters with two-way traffic and 4,1 meters with stopping oncoming traffic along the entire route). The USA did not have such a restriction; the first steps with a diameter of up to 7 meters were delivered by car trailers from factories in Florida to the launch pad. Makhachkala allowed delivering the first steps by barges on water, the Caspian Sea easily solved the problem of the fields of incidence and landing of descent vehicles into the water. The limitation in railway size affected immediately. It is from him that the proton layout with hinged tanks, the welding of spherical tanks for N-1 practically in the field, the construction of a whole (no longer needed) plant in Baikonur for the production of the central unit of Energy come from.
    The second mistake. Imposed by the Politburo and personally by Comrade Brezhnev, a one-on-one repetition of the American Shuttle project. It was not possible to convince him, although there were interesting options (the air launch of Lozino-Lozinsky). As a result, there are still no payloads for Energy. Hydrogen technologies have already been lost, and we cling to the legacy in the form of RD-171 and its half RD-180 and quarters RD-191. We have nothing more. Engines are the best in the world in their class, but nobody knows how to apply them.
    The third mistake. Again political, but connected already with the names of Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Just in case, the Americans asked to bury the entire Energy project. And their wish was fulfilled, they buried everything up to Energy-M. Although there they needed money only for the conservation of the product. As a result, we had today 36 tons and stored hydrogen technologies.
    The fourth mistake. The desire (it is not clear why) to create a project of the Hangar. As a result of violation of the terms of the tender and one-sided changes in the ToR by the customer, today we have come to the absolute unnecessaryness of the entire project. No one wants to admit a mistake and prefer to slowly dig in the Angara, first A-3, then A-5P, inventing A-5B and the four-way scheme for it. And time is running out forever.
    The fifth mistake. Creation of the Phoenix project. The desire to use the backlog in the form of RD-171 prevails over common sense. 17 tons is the maximum of RD-171 with railway restrictions. There is no load for this weight. The collapse of Zenith was the result of economic loss, even with the condition of Sea Launch. For low-orbit satellites this is a lot and, as a consequence, expensive, for a geostationary orbit it is not enough. The same fate awaits the Phoenix, and hopes for its use as a super-heavy acceleration block may remain hopes.
    What can be done. Many experts point out that, due to the next increase in geostationary satellites, we need a cheap monoblock of 30 tons. A bunch of their three / five monoblocks easily solves any lunar tasks. In this monoblock, you can use three or four RD-171s in the first stage, but then you will urgently have to solve the problem with the railway gauge. And this is primarily the creation of a carrier aircraft. Those that we have already lost. Just yesterday, the Americans rolled out their project of a two-hull aircraft sharpened specifically for these purposes. Then the implementation of the idea of ​​Lozino-Lozinsky will follow. There truly is no prophet in his own country.
    For reference. All RD-171, RD-180, and RD-191 engines manufactured to date are made at a pilot experimental site in the Moscow Region, and not at a serial plant in Perm. Hence the high cost of the engine and the rocket itself.
    1. Operator
      Operator 2 June 2017 11: 31 New
      +3
      It is necessary to forget, as a nightmare, the dead-end solutions of "Energy" and "Angara" and switch to two-stage launch vehicles of the classical Soyuz-5 type scheme.

      With a modern approach to designing a LV with a railway dimension of 4,1 meters and a length along with a payload of 70 meters, it will have a launch weight of the order of 600 tons, which will allow us to put a payload of 30 tons into a low reference orbit with zero inclination.

      For such equatorial launches, Russia has the Sea Launch marine launch complex.

      The payload will be launched into orbit with an inclination of 50 degrees weighing 20 tons of the type of the manned spacecraft Federation can be launched on an equal footing from Baikonur and the Vostochny space center, thus reserving launch complexes.

      The launch of heavy assemblies consisting of two to seven Soyuz-5 launch vehicles with a launch weight of up to 4200 tons for the lunar and Martian expeditions can be launched from the Vostochny spaceport (payload up to 140 tons) and the Kuru spaceport (payload up to 210 tons )

      And yes - it is necessary to send kerosene engines RD-171, RD-180 and RD-191 to the furnace and develop a new methane engine for the Union-5. Otherwise, domestic cosmonautics will lose its competitiveness.
      1. sa-ag
        sa-ag 2 June 2017 12: 30 New
        0
        Quote: Operator
        and develop a new methane engine for Union-5.

        They tried to do it, but for some reason they are in no hurry to contact hydrogen, although it is the best option for space
        1. Operator
          Operator 2 June 2017 13: 17 New
          0
          I had in mind a methane + oxygen fuel pair.
      2. nPuBaTuP
        nPuBaTuP 18 November 2017 15: 31 New
        0
        Quote: Operator


        For such equatorial launches, Russia has the Sea Launch marine launch complex.


        There is a launch complex, but there are no missiles for it .... Sunkar if only .... and when else will he fly ...
    2. ALEX_SHTURMAN
      ALEX_SHTURMAN 2 June 2017 12: 31 New
      +5
      A very good comment, I’ll add another error 6: The ongoing series of changes in the heads of Roscosmos and the general enterprise for the manned space program RSC Energia, from here and side-to-side hopping with various projects, and meanwhile the train leaves us farther and farther .. It's sad that it feels like they recall about the space industry once a year on April 1 at a government meeting they will say a few words .. And as always, no one is responsible for failures .. In the Queen stands the GLONASS center, construction began in 12, a 2010-story building worth more than 5 billion. Rubles !! 1 million were stolen during construction. And this is only evidence. Consequence .. No one really incurred any responsibility .. Simply people quit or switched to other work as Serdyukov. Now the center has not yet been built in 200, and the building itself has already begun to collapse .. It seems that bandagers are managing the space industry ... They have one task: to saw and divide ..
    3. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 4 June 2017 12: 16 New
      0
      Quote: Operator
      It will have a starting weight of about 600 tons, which will allow us to put a payload of 30 tons into a low reference orbit with zero inclination.

      PN 5% of the starting mass? Trim sturgeon. A 30-ton kerosene monoblock will weigh 900 tons. 733 tons are fully hydrogen, and the insanely expensive Delta 4 Heavy weighs 28 tons on IEO.
      Quote: Jurkovs
      in connection with the next heavier geostationary satellites

      Drive these these specialists with a broom. The weight of commercial satellites is determined by the capabilities of carriers available on the market. Delta 4 Heavy is not used by civilians, so the maximum weight that can actually be brought to GPO for a previously known price is 10,5 tons of Arian 5 ECA. Moreover, the weight of most "heavy" satellites revolves around 5 tons.
      Falcon Heavy will appear with its 26,7 tons at the GPO - we will see what happens to the satellites. But while it is not there, not least, because there is no demand.
  9. Gust
    Gust 2 June 2017 10: 08 New
    0
    It seems to me it makes sense to change the Proton to A5 and use A1 in different ways. The rest will give rise to internal competition. For manned flights, the Phoenix on the basis of RD170 and modifications is better than A5P, because the probability of failure of five engines is higher. Side blocks on the same base can be saved by parachute scheme, finalizing the option for Energy. Here is a super-power based on the Angara, a real Frankenstein, and rightly these schemes were abandoned.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 2 June 2017 11: 04 New
      +1
      The hangar is 2 times more expensive than Proton
  10. alexey1213
    alexey1213 2 June 2017 10: 40 New
    +4
    I think this is another money laundering, not the development of a promising rocket. From the hangars they refuse because of its high cost. And the engines on the phoenix according to this article will be the same as on the hangar. RD-171 is practically the same as RD-180, RD-191. They differ in little things. The cameras are the same. RD-124 is also used on the hangar. Where are the savings and prospects? Engine prices how to reduce? The price of the RD-124 engine in the region of 64 ml. and RD-110, which was replaced by RD-124 9 ml. The same when compared with engines that are mounted on protons with RD-171,180,191. And they will not be cheaper even if you take the cost of the materials from which they are made.
  11. I gor
    I gor 2 June 2017 11: 39 New
    11
    PutMadevsky pederasts without much difference to the side, which project to saw (Angara, Phoenix or Union) and plunder budget funds. This all-consuming omnivorous excessively gluttonous hydra with the characteristic name of OPR EdRo will in addition also ask for supplements. Indeed, it has long been clear to all rocket and space technology experts that for the next decade there will be no innovative developments in the space field, besides the existing ones. The cut of the budget and fraud with state funds will continue, while EdRosnya is in power and sympathetic references and other similar purulent growths on the body of our people deceived
    1. Vpk72
      Vpk72 2 June 2017 16: 18 New
      +4
      it's still put it mildly ..
      After the first reports of Soyuz 5 with methane at all stages
      there was a weak hope for the revival and development of astronautics,
      but the leadership of the colonial administration
      poheril this opportunity to regain leadership in space,
      forcing to return to a path whose wretchedness and inefficiency
      was visible even at the beginning of development in the 70s and 80s of the last century.
      If before it seemed that the collapse of the Soviet and Russian cosmonautics
      comes from the greed and stupidity of thieves' puppet "elites",
      now malice is clearly visible.
  12. silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 2 June 2017 11: 56 New
    +1
    The article is very muddy ... apparently I just wanted to convey to the author ... that we are tying up with the Angara and ruining the economy and the meaning of the East in favor of Baikonyr and relations with "fraternal" Kazakhstan ...
    There are a lot of annoying nuances ... they raked all the Unions in one place ... and these are very different carriers with a good general idea ... you can and still make the next carrier on a similar idea, and perhaps again call the Union ...
    The potential of IDEAS (for example, use a "bunch of blocks at the start) is used and will continue to be used ...
    Other annoying ... the program for space exploration over the past few years, such as 30, resembles a rabbit loop on the virgin snow ...
    We need to answer basic questions ... what do we want ... space exploration ... orbits ... Spacecraft payload ... will there be a Lunar program? ... will we fly to Mars / Venus ... do we need launches on the periphery of the Solar system ... If there are answers ... then on the TK path ... technologies (and they constantly change and this is normal) and understanding how much we want / can spend ...
    1. sa-ag
      sa-ag 2 June 2017 12: 35 New
      0
      Quote: silberwolf88
      We need to answer basic questions ... what we want ...

      Expansion into space, a nuclear tug aka RD-0410, lunar hotel "Rainbow Bay", extraterrestrial production of a product with high added value, reduced time for interplanetary flights, in a word extraterrestrial civilization ...
  13. lance
    lance 2 June 2017 12: 03 New
    +1
    so the tales ended. from the USSR no where. Does energy in recovery cost more? and where to 160 billion? We want to have a heavy one and we must end the fuss with projects in nowhere and restore energy like that 160.
  14. Curious
    Curious 2 June 2017 13: 17 New
    +6
    In Russia, as in the entire post-Soviet space, the most profitable business is cutting budget money. It really has become a business. Not petty theft, but real business. The military-industrial complex, space is a system based on the fact that all your expenses can be attributed to the country's defense capability, hiding behind a veil of secrecy. Therefore, more missiles - good and different.
  15. gridasov
    gridasov 2 June 2017 13: 21 New
    +1
    Unfortunately, few people understand that the whole problem of solving the issue of increasing the payload brought to orbits boils down to the possibility of separation of the entire mass of the rocket from the Earth and its optimal acceleration. But! All this rests on a device that can dramatically increase the flow of all or any type of fuel into the combustion chamber of the engine. Therefore, we are talking about a turbo fuel supercharger that will be able to increase the performance of the device. But this is not a key element of the question. The main thing is how to organize a process in which the centrifugal forces of rotation of the rotor of the device, activated by the ionization processes of the outflow of fuel along the surfaces of the outflow of the rotor blades, will be able to spin this rotor to completely new speed levels and not be destroyed. It is this crucial aspect that is key to increasing the carrying capacity of missiles. I'm not talking about what physical effects can be generated in a new device, which in turn can minimize the increase in the amount of necessary parasitic fuel weight while increasing the total weight of the rocket. In general, again and again we have to remind you that fundamental discoveries in understanding the physics of motion processes hydro-gas-dynamic flows and devices providing such processes remain a stumbling block for scientists. Failing to solve these theoretical problems, it is impossible to create effective rocket engines, and therefore to increase the useful weight by orders of magnitude.
    1. Curious
      Curious 2 June 2017 14: 08 New
      +1
      Methamphetamine or desomorphine?
      1. ZVO
        ZVO 30 October 2017 21: 26 New
        0
        Quote: Curious
        Methamphetamine or desomorphine?


        No, I do not like pills. I choke on them. I like to breed fish more. So I don’t need drugs at all. Even without them I see a picturesque life. I have a certificate. (c) Down House
    2. Zefr
      Zefr 4 June 2017 11: 05 New
      0
      So decide already if no one understands
      1. gridasov
        gridasov 4 June 2017 11: 23 New
        0
        So the question is resolved! It remains to find a buyer for these solutions.
  16. The comment was deleted.
    1. Vpk72
      Vpk72 2 June 2017 16: 21 New
      +4
      what do you mean why?
      cut for yourself
      window dressing for the masses
      the collapse of space and high-tech industries for the owners.
  17. Old26
    Old26 3 June 2017 13: 01 New
    0
    Quote: BlackMokona
    Soyuz-5 = Phoenix

    Comrad. I have heard this repeatedly. Here are just TTX "Phoenix" in the version of "Sangar" and TTX "Soyuz-5" in version 5.0 are still different. And almost 2 times. Soyuz 5.0 has 9 tons, Sungar 17

    Quote: Bad_gr
    As I understand it, they took a backlog on the Zenit rocket (which was 85% made in Russia), under which there are launch complexes at Baikonur + Sea Launch, and decided to replace the parts that were made in Ukraine with their own + slightly modernized. The result is Phoenix (a rather symbolic name).

    The only clarification. At Baikonur, there is only ONE Zenit complex. At the 45th site. The second one was destroyed during an accident in the 80s and could not be restored.

    Quote: Falcon5555
    Already 10 years ago there was talk that the "Angara" - a dead end branch

    Xs, why is it dead end.
    And there are some problems with the “starting tables”. It seems that the launch pad is nothing compared to a rocket. Pour the site with concrete, dig a side pit, and weld the glands where necessary. Maybe it seems to me in vain that this is nonsense, but something is not audible for the Americans to have problems with the starting tables. They launch all new types of rockets, and there are no problems with tables. If necessary, then apparently they are done, and that’s all.

    Dead end? If only because when it began to be developed, it was a medium for the needs of the Ministry of Defense. For civilian needs, this project was losing to other projects, the same project "Rus-M" (it was more load-lifting) and could not compete with Western carriers. However, when Popovkin came to Roscosmos, who had previously pushed the Angara for the Ministry of Defense, he began to push it like a car for Roscosmos. Although, I repeat, she was losing contests. But the Rus-M project was closed, as it has now become clear FINALLY. Gradually, the number of models and modifications of the Angara line began to decline. "Gone" Angara-1.1, Angara A-3, Angara A-4, Angara A-7. Now the "Angara A-5P" modification (manned) has "gone", although from the very beginning it was clear that it did not ensure the safety of the astronauts entering orbit.

    As for the starting tables. You're not right. This is a fairly complex, multi-story engineering structure. The Americans have slightly different launch systems. And accordingly, cardinally starting tables do not have to be changed. In our country, for example, the starting table of the Soyuz differs from the starting table of the same Proton.

    Quote: Jurkovs
    Unfortunately, the entire development of our cosmonautics is a series of conceptual errors, which we simply cannot refuse because of lack of money and desire to somehow use the existing backlog.
    The first mistake. The choice of space launch site. The list of candidates included Baikonur, Makhachkala and Kapustin Yar. The military needed a military base, they did not think about the space program. Together with Baikonur, our space program was limited by the railway gauge (3,9 meters with two-way traffic and 4,1 meters with stopping oncoming traffic along the entire route). The USA did not have such a restriction; the first steps with a diameter of up to 7 meters were delivered by car trailers from factories in Florida to the launch pad. Makhachkala allowed delivering the first steps by barges on water, the Caspian Sea easily solved the problem of the fields of incidence and landing of descent vehicles into the water. The limitation in railway size affected immediately. It is from him that the proton layout with hinged tanks, the welding of spherical tanks for N-1 practically in the field, the construction of a whole (no longer needed) plant in Baikonur for the production of the central unit of Energy ..

    Makhachkala and Kapyar really were at the initial stage. But KapYar did not fit due to the fact that the fall zones of the first steps were in densely populated places.
    Makhachkala was not suitable due to the fact that initially a radio command control system was used for the same R-7. And for this station should have been spaced on "both sides" from the start. From the north (in Kalmykia) to deliver the station was quite realistic. But mountains interfered from the south. so alas, only Baikonur remained. In addition, the space center in Dagestan would be extremely limited. It is impossible to compare it with Baikonur.
    As for the railway dimensions. Okay, it would be possible to transport “Unions” from Kuibyshev (Samara) by water also by water. But from the Khrunichev factory? Or later from Omsk? Yes, and from Ukraine? By water? With a lot of overloads?

    Quote: Jurkovs
    The second mistake. Imposed by the Politburo and personally by Comrade Brezhnev, a one-on-one repetition of the American Shuttle project. It was not possible to convince him, although there were interesting options (the air launch of Lozino-Lozinsky). As a result, there are still no payloads for Energy. Hydrogen technologies have already been lost, and we cling to the legacy in the form of RD-171 and its half RD-180 and quarters RD-191. We have nothing more. Engines are the best in the world in their class, but nobody knows how to apply them ..

    We can agree with this error. Of course, this decision entailed the creation of a carrier for which there were no loads.
    1. Falcon5555
      Falcon5555 3 June 2017 15: 46 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Quote: Jurkovs
      Imposed by the Politburo and personally by Comrade Brezhnev, a one-on-one repetition of the American Shuttle project.
      We can agree with this error.

      Well, you agree with just what you don’t need. Is Brezhnev and Co. didn’t only require that there were characteristics like the Shuttle, carrying capacity, etc.? And that the ship will be launched in appearance like a Shuttle, and also launched from the side - I think he did not expect this. Politically, from the point of view of the communes, and indeed from the point of view of people who are simply interested in technology, this is a deliberate loss and stupidity! This was done by some council of designers and representatives of ministries, who once voted for it "collectively." They quarreled there for a long time, pulled a blanket, and intrigued. Someone wanted to do this, but thought they couldn’t, someone didn’t want to, but they could, well, once they got together and “voted” for this stupidity. To make a reusable ship at once of this size is also stupid.
      1. kugelblitz
        kugelblitz 3 June 2017 18: 56 New
        +1
        Kakbe why did you use the Shuttle form on the Buran? Yes, for a simple reason, they decided to discard the technical risks, as they were afraid of delaying the deadlines, and so they made their analogue. But for me, Buran is useless like a Shuttle, it would be better if Spiral were brought to mind. Could launch from rockets like the same Zenith, would be useful for flights to the World and later the ISS. At least the thermal protection area did not require such maintenance costs as the Shuttle. And replacing the expensive RS-25 engines.

        As for Energy, I also see now as a mistake. From the same N-1 would be more useful due to the scalability of the options. Or a package of URM of Zenith dimension with RD-170, it may not have such loading capacity and efficiency, but it’s convenient.
        1. Falcon5555
          Falcon5555 3 June 2017 19: 53 New
          0
          Yes, for a simple reason, they decided to discard the technical risks, as they were afraid of delaying the deadlines, and so they made their analogue.

          They decided to save a couple of years on blowing other options in the wind tunnel.
          But the Spiral, as far as I know, has already been tested. Zoom in a little to take 3-4 people, add a docking station, dock an emergency rescue system, add all sorts of little things like replace stupid shoes with wheels, put all this on one of the existing missiles - and fly. There would be a logical replacement for the Union, with a controlled landing. Then try to make part of the steps also reusable. So it would be necessary.
    2. Falcon5555
      Falcon5555 3 June 2017 16: 07 New
      0
      For civilian needs, this project was losing to other projects, the same project "Rus-M" (it was more load-lifting) and could not compete with Western carriers.

      The basis of the Hangar - Universal missile modules - the idea looks logical. Still to make them reusable and it would be great.
      Now the "Angara A-5P" modification (manned) has "gone", although from the very beginning it was clear that it did not ensure the safety of the astronauts entering orbit.

      Why doesn't it provide security?
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 3 June 2017 20: 02 New
        0
        Quote: Falcon5555
        The basis of the Hangar - Universal missile modules - the idea looks logical. Still to make them reusable and it would be great.

        Yes, it looks attractive. I will not be surprised if in 5-10 years we will see the implementation of this idea. With candy bars on the Raptor SpaceX.
  18. Old26
    Old26 3 June 2017 13: 02 New
    0
    Quote: Jurkovs
    The third mistake. Again political, but connected already with the names of Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Just in case, the Americans asked to bury the entire Energy project. And their wish was fulfilled, they buried everything up to Energy-M. Although there they needed money only for the conservation of the product. As a result, we had today 36 tons and stored hydrogen technologies ..

    I do not think that this was the request of the Americans. Mikhail Sergeyevich already had enough dope. His stillborn idea of ​​detente and new thinking led to the curtailment of all applied military-technical programs. It would be possible to preserve the Energy-M product itself. There would be no technical problems. But what to do with the factories, with the workshops that produced this rocket, with equipment? Canning too? In addition, do not forget that the “Energy” was made by the entire Soviet Union. And the collapse of the Union broke the entire chain of cooperation. . Energy-M simply could not be restored now. Again, it would be necessary to start everything, starting with the chain of cooperation, but already within Russia

    Quote: Jurkovs
    The fourth mistake. The desire (it is not clear why) to create a project of the Hangar. As a result of violation of the terms of the tender and one-sided changes in the ToR by the customer, today we have come to the absolute unnecessaryness of the entire project. No one wants to admit a mistake and prefer to slowly dig in the Angara, first A-3, then A-5P, inventing A-5B and the four-way scheme for it. And time is running out forever.
    .

    Everything is clear with the Angara. The complex, which was initially created for the needs of the Ministry of Defense, was decided to be used for the needs of Roskosmos. And there he was uncompetitive, lost all contests, but work continued due to lobbying of this project by the leadership of Roscosmos

    Quote: Jurkovs
    What can be done. Many experts point out that, due to the next increase in geostationary satellites, we need a cheap monoblock of 30 tons. A bunch of their three / five monoblocks easily solves any lunar tasks. In this monoblock, you can use three or four RD-171s in the first stage, but then you will urgently have to solve the problem with the railway gauge. And this is primarily the creation of a carrier aircraft. Those that we have already lost. Just yesterday, the Americans rolled out their project of a two-hull aircraft sharpened specifically for these purposes. Then the implementation of the idea of ​​Lozino-Lozinsky will follow. Truly there is no prophet in his own country ..

    A cheap monoblock capable of lifting 30 tons even into a low orbit - this does not exist in nature. Any carriers with a carrying capacity of 2 dozen or more tons are already modular, with the addition of side blocks. Both with us and with them

    Quote: Operator
    It is necessary to forget, as a nightmare, the dead-end solutions of "Energy" and "Angara" and switch to two-stage launch vehicles of the classical Soyuz-5 type scheme.
    With a modern approach to designing a LV with a railway dimension of 4,1 meters and a length along with a payload of 70 meters, it will have a launch weight of the order of 600 tons, which will allow us to put a payload of 30 tons into a low reference orbit with zero inclination.
    For such equatorial launches, Russia has the Sea Launch marine launch complex.
    The payload will be launched into orbit with an inclination of 50 degrees weighing 20 tons of the type of the manned spacecraft Federation can be launched on an equal footing from Baikonur and the Vostochny space center, thus reserving launch complexes.
    The launch of heavy assemblies consisting of two to seven Soyuz-5 launch vehicles with a launch weight of up to 4200 tons for the lunar and Martian expeditions can be launched from the Vostochny spaceport (payload up to 140 tons) and the Kuru spaceport (payload up to 210 tons )
    And yes - it is necessary to send kerosene engines RD-171, RD-180 and RD-191 to the furnace and develop a new methane engine for the Union-5. Otherwise, domestic cosmonautics will lose its competitiveness.

    I will not comment on everything, but I will say only one thing. Not the Angara. nor "Energy" are not dead ends. Just "Energy" was born too early, but the "Angara" - too late. Its characteristics for the withdrawal of goods would be in demand sometime in the late 80s, but not now. In addition, the desire to save and adapt a rocket suitable for civil defense to the MoD in the presence of competitors is far from the best option

    Quote: Lance
    so the tales ended. from the USSR no where. Does energy in recovery cost more? and where to 160 billion? We want to have a heavy one and we must end the fuss with projects in nowhere and restore energy like that 160.

    Energy cannot be restored as before. Cooperation was all over the Union. Let's just say, functional analogues of "Energy" - they are in the projects now. These are carriers of the Yenisei-5 and Amur-5 type.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 3 June 2017 20: 13 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      they are in projects now. These are carriers of the Yenisei-5 and Amur-5 type.

      From URM to RD-170/171? Type of Zenith? This Zenith seems to you promise by 2025, only draw. This is if they do not lie, which in itself is unbelievable.
  19. Old26
    Old26 3 June 2017 16: 54 New
    0
    Quote: Falcon5555
    Well, you agree with just what you don’t need.

    I agree that it was. And not specifically with whether it is a mistake or not

    Quote: Falcon5555
    The basis of the Hangar - Universal missile modules - the idea looks logical. Still to make them reusable and it would be great.

    For others, for the same "Rus-M" they were also universal. Only not the same as the "Angara". An attempt to make a reusable Baikal module was unsuccessful. As they wrote about this, the difficulty was to immediately plant all four Baikal modules.

    Quote: Falcon5555
    Why doesn't it provide security?

    As far as I remember these publications, safety was not ensured by the presence of one engine in the second stage instead of four in the same Rus-M. the trajectory of the manned carrier at launch from the Vostochny at the stage of operation of the second stage passed over the Pacific Ocean. Moreover, the EMNIP distance was equal to about 4-6 thousand kilometers. Maybe even more, about 8, but I don’t remember exactly. The failure of the only engine led to the fact that the capsule with the crew splashed on this segment and there was not enough time to quickly get to it. That is, to guarantee that the capsule will be found until it sinks or if it is carried at all, where it was not. The Rus-M carrier had 4 engines in the second stage, which allowed it to nevertheless put the ship into orbit, if not with the same parameters or send it from the Earth to a previously known point. Like that.
    1. Falcon5555
      Falcon5555 3 June 2017 17: 32 New
      0
      As far as I remember these publications, safety was not ensured by the presence of one engine in the second stage instead of four in the same Rus-M. the trajectory of the manned carrier at launch from the Vostochny at the stage of operation of the second stage passed over the Pacific Ocean.

      It’s strange. As far as I remember, the argument for building the east there is just that the launch paths of what should fly over Russia pass over land - the shore of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and the coast of Chukotka. True, I have little idea what would happen if the uncontrolled capsule descended by parachute onto the slope of the Chukchi hills.
      As they wrote about this, the difficulty was to immediately plant all four Baikal modules.
      With modern electronics? It’s strange.
  20. Old26
    Old26 3 June 2017 19: 03 New
    0
    Quote: Falcon5555
    It’s strange. As far as I remember, the argument for building the east there is just that the launch paths of what should fly over Russia pass over land - the shore of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and the coast of Chukotka. True, I have little idea what would happen if the uncontrolled capsule descended by parachute onto the slope of the Chukchi hills.

    The first step is yes over our territory. And then when launched into certain orbits, with a large angle of inclination of the orbit. Moreover, when the issue of building a new cosmodrome was being decided, it was not a question of specifically the "Angara". Then they also wanted to use Baikonur for it - first the 200th site, then the 250th. The Vostochny positioned itself as a cosmodrome, which would give us independent access to space, without regard to Kazakhstan’s bans. And how and on what manned ships will be launched then it was not yet clear. Either on the Unions, or on a new medium. And it was not clear then what it would be for Roscosmos. For the Angara for commercial launches was far from the best

    What will happen if you descend to the slope of the Chukchi hills? Better not to imagine. Once in Altai it ended successfully due to a combination of circumstances, as it will be the next time - better not

    Quote: Falcon5555
    With modern electronics? It’s strange.

    I do not know. With modern electronics or not, but EMNIP rejection of "Baikal" was justified by this reason
  21. Old26
    Old26 3 June 2017 20: 44 New
    0
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    From URM to RD-170/171? Type of Zenith? It seems that they promise you this very Zenit by the year 2025 only to draw. This is if they do not lie, which in itself is unbelievable.

    Of course not. Not with URM. Projects that is, to replace the "Energy", but no more. When they will realize it and whether they will realize it at all, nobody knows this. You yourself see how we handle projects. They put it off, as the Soyuz-5 was laid out first. they are now beginning to implement Phoenix as part of the development work. And what OCD will end with - no one knows. So with "Cupid" and "Yenisei." You can come up with, and when to implement and for what tasks - again, no one knows
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 3 June 2017 23: 34 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      when to implement and for what tasks - again, no one knows

      I think if the tasks appear, the famous Russophobe will attach 4 bushes to the central unit instead of two for two or three years and $ 200-300 million.
  22. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 4 June 2017 08: 07 New
    0
    Quote: Old26
    I do not think that this was the request of the Americans. Mikhail Sergeyevich already had enough dope.

    In the book of Gubanov this is said in detail.
  23. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 4 June 2017 08: 13 New
    0
    Quote: Old26
    A cheap monoblock capable of lifting 30 tons even into a low orbit - this does not exist in nature.

    This does not mean that it cannot be done. Or, according to our habit, we will wait for someone else to do it (for example, Mask) and then proudly begin to catch up. Like a moment of truth. After the Americans rolled out their two-hull aircraft, we began to form hysteria. We already blame the amers for stealing ideas and lay out sketches of a similar plane, Lozino-Lozinsky. Here in this we have been strong lately. And who prevented themselves from doing this project?
  24. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 4 June 2017 08: 16 New
    0
    Quote: Old26
    An attempt to make a reusable Baikal module was unsuccessful.

    But the horse didn’t lie there. Drawn, talked and forgot. In addition, Baikal was more intended for Energy-M, and there are only two modules.
  25. Old26
    Old26 4 June 2017 10: 59 New
    +1
    Quote: Jurkovs
    In the book of Gubanov this is said in detail.

    I know. I was on a business trip in Leninsk about a month after Gorbachev’s visit. people's mood was below the plinth. For the first time in history, the leader not only did not show any interest in the industry, but in every way tried to multiply it by zero, closing the program

    Quote: Jurkovs
    This does not mean that it cannot be done. Or, according to our habit, we will wait for someone else to do it (for example, Mask) and then proudly begin to catch up. Like a moment of truth. After the Americans rolled out their two-hull aircraft, we began to form hysteria. We already blame the amers for stealing ideas and lay out sketches of a similar plane, Lozino-Lozinsky. Here in this we have been strong lately. And who prevented themselves from doing this project?

    You can do everything. The question is what are the overall dimensions of such a monoblock. After all, making a candy bar is not an end in itself. The main thing is to bring it to the cosmodrome. The launch complex itself plays an important role. It will have to be done from scratch. And the candy bar options - well, this already happened. EMNIP were variants of the monoblock UR-500, which later became the "Proton" and UR-700. True overall (transverse) dimensions were simply huge. It makes sense to make a monoblock with a diameter of 7 or 10 meters (for example), if the railway gauge is a maximum of 4,1 meters?
    Therefore, in some cases they rejected monoblocks in favor of the “package”

    About the plane. You can blame each other many times that someone stole an idea from someone. The final result is important - whoever flew it. If we consider the same Lightning-100 Hercules plane, yes. and he has more take-off, and cargo can take 450 tons, and not 230, like an American. The idea is one, but the aerodynamic schemes are different. And the most important thing. "Hercules" is only in the drawings and models - the Americans have already rolled out and are preparing for the first flight.

    Quote: Jurkovs
    Quote: Old26
    An attempt to make a reusable Baikal module was unsuccessful.

    But the horse didn’t lie there. Drawn, talked and forgot. In addition, Baikal was more intended for Energy-M, and there are only two modules.

    Baikal was not intended for Energia-M. It was designed on the basis of the Angara universal missile module (URM). And about the draw and forget - I also do not agree. In 2001, 4 full-scale models of Baikal were released. He, "Baikal", as far as I remember, was blown in TsAGI. But in the future, work on it was stopped
    1. Svetlana
      Svetlana 4 June 2017 11: 10 New
      0
      All these Protons, Energies, Baikals, Hangars - the last century, the rate of outflow of the jet from the nozzles of the rocket engine and turbojet engine is too low. If we want to overtake Elon Mask, then the issue must be solved fundamentally - by microwave launch, focusing the radiation of the active phased array antenna on an object launched into space.
      1. gridasov
        gridasov 4 June 2017 11: 34 New
        0
        At least one smart person who understands the essence of the problem. In addition, it is not necessary to compete with the Masks, but simply look for the most effective methods and ways to achieve the necessary goals. I’ll say “foggy” because I already feel a manifestation of interest, that with modern methods and devices it is simply impossible to increase the speed physically. And we discovered such an algorithm for organizing a process that increases speed many times, but the main thing is that it makes the process easy to manage and eliminates the proportionality of increasing tension in the process, which leads to the destruction of devices.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 4 June 2017 12: 00 New
          0
          Quote: Svetlana
          the issue must be addressed fundamentally

          Quote: gridasov
          we discovered such an algorithm for organizing a process that increases speed many times over

          No one will serve you, friends.
          1. gridasov
            gridasov 4 June 2017 12: 13 New
            0
            And who said what we ask? In addition, I often enough remind you that on the Internet information is distributed in such a way that the main thing is to launch it, and the one who understands it will accept it.
  26. Old26
    Old26 4 June 2017 12: 33 New
    0
    Quote: Svetlana
    All these Protons, Energies, Baikals, Hangars - the last century, the rate of outflow of the jet from the nozzles of the rocket engine and turbojet engine is too low. If we want to overtake Elon Mask, then the issue must be solved fundamentally - by microwave launch, focusing the radiation of the active phased array antenna on an object launched into space.

    You found in the face of a comrade gridasov grateful listener in terms of super-promising and supernova methods of putting into orbit
    The question is different. And at least basic research on this topic has been carried out? With a microwave start? They didn’t recognize, and the steak from the astronauts will be very fried or only with a crust? And why not immediately switch to photon traction or something else? Pancake. To say that this is outdated, we won’t achieve anything with it - sorry, you are broadcasting us about Open Secret. This is already well known to all. They know that the specific impulse of solid fuel is less than that of liquid. They know that with the use of current fuels we have already reached a local maximum. But there are still opportunities to move forward
    5-10-15 years will pass, perhaps a sufficiently efficient nuclear engine will be created, first for space, then for launch from planets.
    But dreaming is not bad. It’s not harmful to dream. But at the same time, to say that everything is outdated and it is necessary to switch to the methods that you propose, despite the fact that there was no fundamental research - this, sorry, ornate.

    Whether you like it or not, in the coming years and decades, the existing chemical engines will remain largely uncontested
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 4 June 2017 13: 30 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      But there are still opportunities to move forward

      It seems that we have already discussed this topic with you (either I am not with you, or you are not with me)))))
      Development comes either from tasks or from dreams (see speech at Rice University). Now dreams are sour (although Musk and Bezos work in this genre in words), so that development comes from tasks. And the usual tasks are to establish the economy (which Musk does in practice) To transform space from interstate sports, such as the Olympics, into business as usual. I note that if this works out (and it seems to work out), there will simply be nothing for states to catch. The state will never win a business on its field.
      And in the area of ​​high-tech business opportunities, the balance of forces between Russia and the USA (and at least Russia and Finland), I think, is not in doubt.
    2. gridasov
      gridasov 4 June 2017 14: 05 New
      0
      I really understand you! However, I note that due to very subjective internal reasons, I position myself and the idea in that area of ​​knowledge. which is extremely important, it is on the pages of a special and Russian-language site. At the same time, I understand that if a development that is practically ready for use falls into the hands of either side, then it will become dominant in determining the new technology in the future. Therefore, in principle, I would like for someone to offend me with words in such a way that I no longer have to deal with Russians. But apparently there are none yet. All your arguments about a grateful listener are just chatter and nothing more. I understand that everyone is annoyed by the inability to understand what I'm talking about. All this intolerance is based on that. that people are overwhelmed by conceit and corporatism of views on the issue. You are not able to see the objective aspects of the questions .. But again, this is not my problem. No one has seen our developments, but no one is even smart enough to organize the process of getting acquainted with them. Therefore, it is a matter of time how events will develop. I repeat this. that the problem remains and solutions must be found. But! They are not and will not be other than decisions from us. Those who do not think of this are of little interest to us.
      1. Falcon5555
        Falcon5555 4 June 2017 16: 31 New
        0
        All this intolerance is based on that. that people are overwhelmed with conceit ... Solutions must be found. But! They are not and will not be other than decisions from us. Those who do not think of this are of little interest to us.

        So I took two fragments of this fiery speech. And I have a small question for the speaker. So who is overwhelmed with conceit? laughing
        1. gridasov
          gridasov 4 June 2017 16: 39 New
          0
          Yes, but I just do not show intolerance and expressions regarding individuals. Or you do not notice the difference.
          1. Falcon5555
            Falcon5555 4 June 2017 16: 51 New
            0
            That is, you acknowledge that you are overwhelmed with conceit? But do not be intolerant?
            1. gridasov
              gridasov 4 June 2017 16: 58 New
              0
              You mix concepts. When we talk about sound ideas and theories, these are arguments that have foundations and perspectives. Therefore, having modern theories that objectively and conclusively lead to a dead end, and they are offered an alternative, this can hardly be called a manifestation of self-conceit.
              1. Falcon5555
                Falcon5555 4 June 2017 17: 46 New
                0
                As you already very ornately put it. What kind of concepts am I mixing? Do you speak Russian well? Do I need to translate for you? If someone offers an unproven alternative to modern proven theories, then yes, this can be called a manifestation of conceit. Even megalomania.
                1. gridasov
                  gridasov 4 June 2017 18: 09 New
                  0
                  Obviously, the proof of modern theories is challenged just the same. If you can fly so fly. but you can’t, so gain knowledge. In addition, you have not heard what you call an alternative unproven theory. Therefore, the conclusions are premature. And most importantly, you have not seen and do not understand the essence of the work of the new device, which is at the base and allows you to take a step into the future.
                  1. Falcon5555
                    Falcon5555 4 June 2017 18: 16 New
                    0
                    Again somehow ornate. And so they did not explain what concepts I am confusing.
                    Who specifically disputes the "evidence of modern theories"? You?
                    Yes, and my conclusions are very timely. laughing
                    1. gridasov
                      gridasov 4 June 2017 18: 23 New
                      0
                      Although our dialogue is entertaining, the prospects for its development are quite clear. Therefore, we will not waste time in vain.
                      1. Falcon5555
                        Falcon5555 4 June 2017 18: 30 New
                        0
                        I look, you have some kind of clarification. laughing
  27. Svetlana
    Svetlana 4 June 2017 16: 56 New
    0
    Quote: Old26
    Will the astronaut steak be deep fried or only with a crust?

  28. gridasov
    gridasov 4 June 2017 18: 39 New
    0
    Falcon5555,
    And now it is becoming much easier to conduct dialogue. A problem, or rather a complex of problems exist. !? Do they need to be addressed or not? Therefore, for those who need and are looking for solutions, and most importantly understand the complexity of the current situation, we are positioning our developments. Conversations and discussions will be needed. when there will be a substantive dialogue in which each side will see its interests. Therefore, my tolerance for various attacks in my direction has no boundaries.
    1. Falcon5555
      Falcon5555 4 June 2017 22: 26 New
      0
      Is it easier now? And what happened between 18:23 and 18:39?
      Did the radiogram come from Sirius?
  29. Drummer
    Drummer 11 June 2017 07: 03 New
    +1
    Quote: Cherry Nine

    Union - this one is still alive. But it is not capable of displaying satellites on GSO. Hefty "Federation" will not raise.

    There is no “Federation” either and will not be, so everything is in order here.
  30. rus_2
    rus_2 12 February 2018 21: 02 New
    0
    Quote: kugelblitz
    A direct analogue of the Proton is the A5 Angara, five RD-191 cameras against four Zenit or Phoenix RD-171 cameras. Similarly, A3 cannot be a direct analogue of the Phoenix. It is generally not clear here, in fact, the muhlezh in the network began with the stuffing of the Green Cat. How to abandon a rocket for which a plant has already been built? Most likely, the Federation will simply be launched on two missiles, depending on the orbit or destination. As for the resemblance to Zenit, it’s understandable, there’s a hurt there, it’s more likely that the tank assembly technology will even be similar due to the existing technological chain for the Unions. Let’s see, nevertheless, two missiles, more precisely, two types of URM are obtained, are even somehow more profitable, you can combine the options, creating modifications that are beneficial for a particular load.



    I’m certainly not an expert, but judging by the Falcon picture with approximately the same amount of fuel, I explain the 30-ton difference by the expense of returning 1 stage has a much more efficient design, outputting 5 tons more. Who in the know explain why so?
    1. Ace Tambourine
      Ace Tambourine 2 March 2018 18: 13 New
      0
      I suspect the total power of the dviglov more, in an amateurish opinion ...