Russian space: the project "Crown" and other development GRTS Makeeva

240


It is considered that technologies always develop gradually, from simple to complex, from stone knife to steel - and only then to a programmable milling machine. However, the fate of space rocket was not so straightforward. The creation of simple, reliable single-stage rockets for a long time remained inaccessible to designers. Required such solutions, which could not offer any material scientists or engine. So far, carrier rockets remain multi-stage and disposable: an incredibly complex and expensive system is used in minutes, after which it is thrown away.




“Imagine that before each flight you would assemble a new plane: connect the fuselage with wings, lay electric cables, install engines, and after landing send it to the dump ... You cannot fly away,” the developers of the State Rocket Center told us. Makeev. “But that's exactly what we do every time, sending cargo into orbit.” Of course, ideally, everyone would like to have a reliable single-stage "car" that does not require assembly, but arrives at the cosmodrome, refuels and starts. And then it comes back and starts again - and more "...

On the halfway

By and large, rocket technology has tried to do with one step from the earliest projects. In the initial sketches of Tsiolkovsky appear exactly such constructions. He abandoned this idea only later, realizing that the technologies of the beginning of the twentieth century do not allow to realize this simple and elegant solution. Once again, interest in single-stage carriers arose already in the 1960-x, and such projects were worked out on both sides of the ocean. By the 1970-m in the United States worked on single-stage rockets SASSTO, Phoenix and several solutions based on S-IVB, the third stage of the Saturn V PH, which delivered astronauts to the moon.


CROWN should become robotic and get intelligent software for the control system. The software can be updated directly in flight, and in an emergency situation automatically “roll back” to the backup stable version.

“The load carrying capacity would not be such an option, the engines for this would not be good enough - but still it would be one step quite capable of flying into orbit,” continue the engineers. “Of course, economically it would be completely unjustified.” Only in the last decades composites and technologies for working with them have appeared, which allow the carrier to be made one-step and, moreover, reusable. The cost of such a "high-tech" rocket will be higher than the traditional design, but it will be "smeared" into many starts, so the launch price will be much lower than the usual level.

It is reusable media - today the main goal of developers. The Space Shuttle and Energiya-Buran systems were partially reusable. Repeated use of the first stage is being developed for the SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets. SpaceX has already made several successful landings, and at the end of March they will try to launch one of the steps that flew into space again. “In our opinion, this approach can only discredit the idea of ​​creating a real reusable carrier,” Makeev Design Bureau noted. “Such a rocket still has to sort out after each flight, assemble communications and new one-time components ... and we again return to what we started from.”




Fully reusable media are still only in the form of projects - with the exception of New Shepard of the American company Blue Origin. So far, the rocket with the manned capsule is designed only for suborbital flights of space tourists, but most of the solutions found during this can also be scaled for a more serious orbital carrier. Representatives of the company do not conceal plans to create such an option for which powerful engines BE-3 and BE-4 are already being developed. "With each suborbital flight, we approach the orbit," - assured in Blue Origin. But their promising New Glenn carrier will also be incompletely reusable: only the first block, created on the basis of the already tested construction of the New Shepard, should be reused.

Material resistance

The carbon fiber materials needed for fully reusable and single-stage rockets are used in aerospace engineering since the 1990's. In the same years, engineers at McDonnell Douglas quickly began to implement the Delta Clipper project (DC-X) and today they could well boast of ready-made and flying carbon fiber carrier. Unfortunately, under pressure from Lockheed Martin, work on the DC-X was discontinued, technology transferred to NASA, where they were tried to apply for the unsuccessful VentureStar project, after which many engineers engaged in this topic went to work at Blue Origin, and the company was absorbed by Boeing.

In the same 1990-e this interest was also interested in the Russian SRC Makeyev. Over the years since then, the CORONA project (“Space single-use rocket, single-stage carrier [of space] vehicles”) has undergone a noticeable evolution, and intermediate versions show how the structure and layout became more and more simple and perfect. Gradually, the developers abandoned the complex elements - such as wings or external fuel tanks - and came to the realization that carbon fiber should be the main body material. Together with the appearance, both mass and carrying capacity changed. “Using even the best modern materials, it is impossible to build a single-stage rocket weighing less than 60 − 70 t, while its payload will be quite small,” says one developer. “But as the starting mass grows, the structure (to a certain limit) has an ever smaller share, and it becomes more and more profitable to use it. For an orbital rocket, this optimum is approximately 160 − 170 t, starting from this scale its use may already be justified. ”

In the latest version of the CORONA project, the starting mass is even higher and is approaching the 300 t. Such a large single-stage rocket requires the use of a highly efficient liquid-propellant jet engine powered by hydrogen and oxygen. Unlike engines at certain stages, such a rocket engine must be able to operate in very different conditions and at different altitudes, including take-off and flight outside the atmosphere. “A conventional liquid engine with Laval nozzles is effective only at certain height ranges,” the Makeevsky constructors explain, “so we came to the need to use an air wedge LRE.” The gas jet in such engines adapts itself to the pressure “overboard”, and they retain their efficiency both at the surface and high in the stratosphere.


Payload container

So far, there is no working engine of this type in the world, although they have been and are being dealt with both in our country and in the USA. In the 1960s, Rocketdyne engineers tested such engines on a stand, but they did not come to installation on missiles. CROWN should be equipped with a modular version, in which the wedge-air nozzle is the only element that does not yet have a prototype and has not been tested. Russia also has all the technologies for the production of composite parts - they have been developed and are successfully applied, for example, at the All-Russian Institute aviation materials (VIAM) and JSC "Composite".

Vertical landing

When flying in the atmosphere, the carbon fiber power structure of the CROWN will cover the heat-shielding tiles developed at VIAM for Burans and has since been significantly improved. “The main thermal load on our rocket is concentrated on its“ nose ”, where high-temperature thermal protection elements are used, the designers explain. - At the same time, the expanding sides of the rocket have a larger diameter and are at an acute angle to the air flow. The temperature load on them is less, which allows the use of lighter materials. As a result, we saved more than 1,5 t. The mass of the high-temperature part does not exceed 6% of the total mass of thermal protection. For comparison, the "Shuttle" it accounts for more than 20%. "



The sleek, tapered design of the carrier is the result of countless trial and error. According to the developers, if you take only the key characteristics of a possible reusable single-stage carrier, you will have to consider the order of 16 000 and their combinations. Designers have estimated hundreds of them while working on the project. “We decided to give up the wings, like on the Buran or the Space Shuttle,” they say. - By and large, in the upper layers of the atmosphere they only interfere with the spacecraft. Such ships enter the atmosphere in a hypersonic sound better than the “iron”, and only at supersonic speeds they move to a horizontal flight and can properly rely on the aerodynamics of the wings. ”

The axially symmetric cone-shaped form not only allows to facilitate heat protection, but also has good aerodynamics when driving at very high speeds. Already in the upper atmosphere, a rocket receives a lift force, which allows it not only to slow down here, but also to maneuver. This, in turn, makes it possible to perform the necessary maneuvers at high altitude, heading for the landing site, and in the further flight it remains only to complete braking, correct the course and turn stern down using weak maneuvering engines.

Recall both the Falcon 9 and the New Shepard: in a vertical landing, nothing is impossible or even unusual today. At the same time, it makes it possible to get by with significantly smaller forces during the construction and operation of the runway — the lane on which the same Shuttles and Buran were supposed to have a length of several kilometers in order to slow down the vehicle at a speed of hundreds of kilometers per hour. “The CROWN, in principle, can even take off from an offshore platform and land on it,” adds one of the authors of the project, “our final landing accuracy will be about 10 m, the rocket goes down on retractable pneumatic shock absorbers.” It remains only to diagnose, refuel, put a new payload - and you can again fly.

CROWN is still being implemented in the absence of funding, so that the developers of Makeev Design Bureau only managed to get to the final stages of the draft design. “We have passed this stage almost entirely and completely on our own, without external support. Everything that could be done, we have already done, say the designers. - We know what, where and when to be produced. Now we need to move on to the practical design, production and development of key assemblies, and this requires money, so now everything depends on them. ”

Delayed start

The carbon-fiber rocket expects only a large-scale launch, with the receipt of the necessary support, the designers are ready to begin flight tests after six years, and after seven or eight to begin the trial operation of the first rockets. According to their estimates, this requires an amount of less than $ 2 billion - by the standards of rocket production, quite a bit. In this case, the return on investment can be expected after seven years of using the rocket, if the number of commercial launches remains at the current level, or even over the 1,5 year - if it grows at a predictable rate.



Moreover, the presence on the rocket of maneuvering engines, means of approach and docking allows you to count on complex multi-launch schemes. Having spent the fuel not on landing, but on adding the payload, you can bring it to a mass more than 11 m. Then the CROWN will dock with the second, “tanker”, which will fill its tanks with additional fuel necessary for return. But still, the reusability is more important, which for the first time will save us from having to collect the carrier before each launch - and lose it after each launch. Only such an approach can ensure the creation of a stable bilateral freight traffic between the Earth and the orbit, and at the same time the beginning of a real, active, large-scale exploitation of near-Earth space.

In the meantime, the CROWN remains in limbo, work on the New Shepard continues. A similar Japanese project RVT is also developing. Russian developers may simply not have enough support for a breakthrough. If you have a few extra billions, this will be a much better investment than even the largest and most luxurious yacht in the world.
240 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    11 June 2017 20: 56
    As if someone would not belittle me and sent me to study the mat. part, but the last word is left to me. Therefore, I repeat once again in unison to the designers that a reusable engine is possible only on a mechanical engine, but with extended parameters of rotor speeds, not by a few percent, but radically and by orders of magnitude. And such an engine is possible. It is possible not just as a fantasy, but as a completely obvious process organized by new algorithms of the stages that occur in it and where each stage is transformed into the next without loss of potential in the previous one. And all those physicists who suffer from conceit about their own greatness and the depth of their knowledge are not worth a penny to give at least any meaningful solution to create such a process and engine. And everything is much simpler and more logical. In this case, it is necessary to understand why any rocket engine will not make it possible to create a superheavy rocket. Everything is simple and the reason is that the fuel injection system has the same physical reasons as any propeller or impeller, which does not even allow the rotor part to be untwisted, and most importantly, with the increase in the rotational speeds of this rotor, the process is brought closer to its destruction. Now you don’t even have to bother guessing what design bureau and at what level of research it is in search of a technical solution, because it is obvious that there are no theoretical justifications for such a physical process that would radically change modern approaches. So you don’t have to wait for the result either. We will wait until someone smart knows that an external source of information cannot be dispensed with.
    1. +9
      11 June 2017 21: 43
      I absolutely agree with you ...
      In space vacuum, it is the stability of the rotor speed that plays the main role ...
      1. +16
        11 June 2017 21: 50
        Moderators, do you keep this clown specialist?
        1. +4
          11 June 2017 21: 55
          As Arkady Raikin said, usually big leaders hid their stupidity behind their status, and clowns their wisdom behind their appearance. You should understand the meaning of the article and the issue
        2. +1
          12 June 2017 06: 41
          tambourine to you in ace, ace of tambourine
        3. +12
          12 June 2017 07: 18
          The trouble is that this Mr., with his alternative physics, captures any cosmic theme.
          1. +2
            12 June 2017 11: 33
            For God's sake ! Sing your songs and no one bothers you. Only this will not solve the problem and it is obvious that there are no solutions. But we have solutions and it is justified, and perseverance and dogmatism are not in your favor. Very quickly, the balance of power changes and the advantage may be on the other side.
        4. +2
          12 June 2017 19: 01
          The waves rolled over the pier and fell down with a swift jack
      2. +3
        11 June 2017 21: 51
        Let me remind you that the problem of a heavy rocket consists precisely in its separation from the surface of the Earth, and not in space flight.
        1. aiw
          +12
          12 June 2017 01: 15
          It's five! Are you talking about the law of conservation of energy that a thread heard? To take the rocket off the ground, it is enough to have an engine creating a thrust greater than the weight of the rocket. To take the rocket off the ground, you can use the air start. In the end, any plane with a vertical take-off takes off from the earth for a sweet soul.

          But to bring the load into space, you need to disperse this load to the first space. Can you calculate the energy costs for this? Or in your League of Unconventional Understanding of Physics, the law of conservation of energy has already been canceled?
          1. +10
            12 June 2017 09: 05
            To take the rocket off the ground, it is enough to have an engine creating a thrust greater than the weight of the rocket.
            Moreover, to lift the rocket off the ground, a crane of the required carrying capacity is enough. Or even jacks. Yes, the same barge, sailing off from the pier. But as you rightly noted, this has nothing to do with the flight of a rocket into orbit.
            wassat
            For your unforgettable opponent, the fact of separation from the earth (mother) is the main thing.
          2. +2
            12 June 2017 11: 56
            Correctly ! I just mentioned simple separation for simpletons. Of course, acceleration is necessary, which will ensure a stable flight and a breakthrough through the dense layers of the atmosphere. The plane certainly takes off vertically beautifully, but there is no need to talk about the payload in such cases. And in general, I never say anything. that everything that is created is bad and this is not a great achievement in the development of science and technology. I am talking about a new step that can be taken. But you need to do it based on existing achievements. not again from scratch.
            The question is that the calculation of energy for launching a rocket into orbit is necessary only with technologies when energy is expended from external sources. We are talking about energy use technology that is mobilized from the substance of the flight environment. Well, there is no alternative science and fantastic devices. The approaches are just brand new. New solutions can dramatically change the results and quality indicators of processes. Personally, I myself am an opponent of alternative sciences. Another thing is that it is abnormal physical. phenomena are a source of breakthrough ideas.
            The law of conservation of energy can always be regarded as a balance of the forces expended and obtained to carry out some “work.” But! This is only for low potential and potential self-stabilizing processes. For high-potential physical processes, it is possible to create such an excess potential of the process when the work is performed not only due to kinetic energy, but also the potential energy of the transformation of matter. Therefore, in such a process, it is extremely important to provide capacitive parameters of the supplied part of the energy or energy taken from the medium in which the process is carried out. Again, if in such a process we provided an excess output potential, then with a closed cycle and the process loop, the energy itself will provide input parameters. Our basic postulates are completely identical with traditional views, but the process itself is provided by fundamentally new algorithms. Only!
      3. +2
        11 June 2017 23: 42
        Yes. can stick so you won’t tear it off.
        1. +1
          12 June 2017 08: 24
          to the surface of the earth, meant laughing
      4. 0
        10 February 2018 15: 57
        Gravitsapa?
    2. +1
      13 June 2017 07: 54
      To Durkee, to Durkee, to Durkee!
      1. +7
        13 June 2017 10: 22
        To Durkee, to Durkee, to Durkee!


        In vain. "Gridasovs" are useful in any design team. It is in the team that there must be both a "dreamer" and a "pragmatist". And it is quite possible that out of a bunch of stupid things said by the "dreamer" the skeptic will find a small grain (and even in another area). At the end of the 19th century, physicists closed their books and announced - "we understood almost everything." And then there was Planck, Heisenberg, Bohr. Look at the fate of Boltzmann in the end. After all, the genius persecuted to suicide. The Gridasovs have one valuable property - they make you at least think for a second before laughing.
  2. +1
    11 June 2017 21: 49
    Surprisingly, it can be observed that scientists should not only expand their knowledge of the world and the processes in it, but also cognize the world in its deepest processes. Therefore, scientists need to apply techniques to expand the ability of the brain to move from generalizations and a global vision of processes to particulars and concreteness. Scientists should be true masters of managing the brain as a tool for perception and analysis. This means that it is necessary to master the methods of not only TRIZ, but also the possibility of using various analysis techniques based on binary and multipolar logic.
    1. +8
      11 June 2017 23: 43
      we reviewed your offer and decided to buy some grass that you smoke ...
      1. +2
        12 June 2017 00: 32
        I remind you that the history of the emergence and use of psychotropic substances consists in changing the cognitive processes of consciousness, but this was because the possession of the techniques of controlled imagination was always kept secret by various occult organizations. And as in a fairy tale it was said that the brain is a temple that can create its own unique and optionally diverse world of imagination. You just need to be able to draw this world and leave it from the mundane vanity. . By the way, I was able to do this by the nature of my essence from childhood. Now all this has turned into a technique that can be used at the request and depth of the immersion process. Therefore, "grass" is a very primitive method and only for wimps. And judging by the fact that they often offer this to me, I think that it is not without reason, based on the fact that a person offers something that knows there is an effect.
        1. +6
          12 June 2017 09: 17
          By the way, I was able to do this by the nature of my essence from childhood.
          I see ... Your experience on this topic is very impressive.
          Now all this has turned into a technique that can be used at the request and depth of the immersion process.
          Systematic. The process of "diving" is organized on a grand scale and enviable regularity.
          Therefore, "grass" is a very primitive method and only for wimps.
          I agree. Judging by the experience of communicating with weed consumers (when you were a student) and the context of your theories, there is something stronger than weed. Not special, but most likely something synthetic.
          1. +2
            12 June 2017 15: 59
            Quote: abrakadabre
            By the way, I was able to do this by the nature of my essence from childhood.
            I see ... Your experience on this topic is very impressive.
            Now all this has turned into a technique that can be used at the request and depth of the immersion process.
            Systematic. The process of "diving" is organized on a grand scale and enviable regularity.
            Therefore, "grass" is a very primitive method and only for wimps.
            I agree. Judging by the experience of communicating with weed consumers (when you were a student) and the context of your theories, there is something stronger than weed. Not special, but most likely something synthetic.

            And Gridasov reminds me of one of the characters in the excellent series “Beyond the Boundary,” where the professor constantly sits on heavy synthetics to open the horizons of consciousness and facilitate understanding of the process.
            1. +1
              13 June 2017 19: 02
              Everything is so but without stimulants. Another thing is the methods of activating the brain. Trite is just the alternation of physical labor with mental.
          2. 0
            12 June 2017 19: 50
            Quote: abrakadabre
            Not special, but most likely something synthetic.

            Mushrooms, Dumplings.

            What would everyone do without Gribasov on a branch? And there would be no need to talk, and so everyone sparkles with mind and sarcasm
            1. +1
              12 June 2017 22: 26
              It seems like at least one comment mentioning L.P. Beria was on business ...
    2. +4
      12 June 2017 09: 10
      Therefore, scientists need to apply brain expansion techniques.
      The State Drug Control Service and narcologists are threatening with a finger towards such methods in general and distributors of such methods in particular.
      Scientists should be true masters of brain management as a tool for perception and analysis.
      And in this direction, evil uncles and psychiatrists and bodies supervising the circulation of potent drugs are also threatening.
      1. +2
        12 June 2017 11: 58
        There are no words to answer such nonsense. Themselves in the mind?
  3. +2
    11 June 2017 22: 02
    The argument that rocketry should be reusable is correct, although not at all complete. But the argument that the rocket should be single-stage is unconvincing from the area of ​​manilism. It would be better to make returnable reusable URNs for the Angara (Baikal?) Or for some other rocket - the Union, for example, and would not engage in difficult to explain Manilism.
    1. +3
      11 June 2017 22: 44
      Quote: Falcon5555
      It would be better to make returnable reusable URNs for the Hangar

      What for? The future lies with aerospace planes, not rockets. Landing a rocket on Earth is not a trivial task.
      1. +2
        11 June 2017 23: 00
        The Americans decided it a long time ago. But I am not against "aerospace aircraft."
        1. +4
          11 June 2017 23: 14
          Quote: Falcon5555
          The Americans decided it a long time ago. But I am not against "aerospace aircraft."

          They lied to you, the Americans haven’t decided anything. They managed to land one missile, but for further use it was unsuitable.
          1. +2
            11 June 2017 23: 35
            March 30 re-launched the Falcon. Experiments from the 80s, EMNIP, lead. Everyone lies?
            1. +1
              11 June 2017 23: 41
              Quote: Falcon5555
              March 30 re-launched the Falcon. Experiments from the 80s, EMNIP, lead. Everyone lies?

              They are lying, of course they are lying, you are lying, not telling which particular falcon they planted and whether they used it again, and for how long it was repaired - if used.
              1. +2
                11 June 2017 23: 45
                And am I lying? "Lying without telling?" Someone you really very strict. Have I been obligated to inform you? And do not report - it means lying?
                1. +3
                  11 June 2017 23: 54
                  Quote: Falcon5555
                  And do not report - it means lying?

                  Of the sixteen landings - eleven successful ones - this is not a reusable system, this is a two-time system.
                  1. +3
                    12 June 2017 01: 28
                    it is not a reusable system, it is a two-time system.

                    This is some kind of Stalinist syllable - repetitions are so specific. But you didn’t answer: to not report is to lie?
                    1. +3
                      12 June 2017 14: 35
                      not telling is lying
                      - mislead for some of their purposes, both intentionally and not intentionally. Superficial truth is a type of lie. hi
                      1. +1
                        15 June 2017 12: 56
                        agree with you!
                    2. 0
                      13 June 2017 00: 29
                      Quote: Falcon5555
                      But you didn’t answer: to not report is to lie?

                      Of course, the silence of important information is equated with a lie.
                      I wanted to write earlier, but I didn’t duplicate this section when rewriting the message.
                      1. +1
                        13 June 2017 00: 48
                        Of course, the silence of important information is equated with a lie.

                        Khe! I have never heard such a thing. And who said or decided this - "silence" is "equated"! .. laughing
                  2. 0
                    12 June 2017 08: 43
                    The last 7 in a row are successful. Just at the beginning they learned to plant, now the percentage of success is fast coming to the top
                2. +1
                  12 June 2017 00: 35
                  Oh oh oh! How to get others so he is a master, and as he himself got into the role, we immediately begin to breathe deeply.
                  1. +3
                    12 June 2017 01: 25
                    Do not understand. Where did anyone go and breathe deeply? Do you breathe deeply?
          2. +1
            17 June 2017 13: 01
            7 steps planted, of which so far only one flew 2 times
            1. +2
              17 June 2017 18: 13
              Do you have any doubts that the Americans will finish this program? In my opinion, we all, regardless of country, culture and nation, are profiting from the work of NASA and should be glad that the State Department throws money there. And if there is a product in Russia that is mass-produced and it is the best in terms of price and quality TTX, then this is great. In the end, the USSR was once quite actively studying space. Cosmos is such a unifying story, because the contribution, both mental and financial, to space exploration is so enormous that only together serious things can be done. Unfortunately, at the moment, Russia is losing ground and parts of the market, there is something to strive for.
              1. +1
                17 June 2017 18: 27
                Quote: karabas-barabas
                In my opinion, we all, regardless of country, culture and nation, are profiting from the work of NASA and should be glad that the State Department throws money there.

                Quote: karabas-barabas
                In the end, the USSR was once quite actively studying space.

                And why does the State Department push grandmothers there?
        2. +1
          11 June 2017 23: 44
          for some reason it read "behind the aerospace sleigh"
        3. +2
          13 June 2017 08: 01
          Even if the entire chain with the Falcons is debugged, the question remains: Is it necessary to hell? A significant reduction in costs will not succeed.
          1. In order to leave fuel for landing, one has to significantly reduce the payload. With an equal starting weight - less is displayed.
          2. After planting, it is necessary to completely disassemble-inspect-x-ray and assemble back. Also pretty much adds value.
          3. All this machinery often works to the limit and does not crash many times. 2-5 times, it seems to me.
          It’s easier to lower the first step by parachute. I remember - and figs with him. Part of the details can still be reused.
      2. +2
        11 June 2017 23: 15
        The solution is not in the name. and the possibility of the functional execution of all these processes of flight, landing, take-off, as well as flight in different density of the medium (for example, under water or space. After all, we perceive the same space as a vacuum. But it would be worthwhile to perceive it as one of the states of the medium that is in interconnected transformation from the great depths of the ocean to outer space remote from the gravitational forces of various individual planets or constellations and their groups.
        1. +1
          11 June 2017 23: 17
          Quote: gridasov
          After all, we perceive the same cosmos as a vacuum. but it would be worthwhile to perceive it as one of the states of the environment that is in an interconnected transformation from a great depth of the ocean to outer space remote from the gravitational forces of various individual planets or constellations and their groups.

          Why all this reasoning about the vacuum, if we can’t tear our "ass" from the surface?
          1. 0
            11 June 2017 23: 30
            You do not know how to read! A mathematical model is needed that can be itself in a dynamic transformation by algorithms that will display the entire set of processes in an environment or space. We are still solving everything with formulas and equations, which are always a particular and torn solution.
            1. +2
              11 June 2017 23: 37
              Quote: gridasov
              Math model needed

              The mathematical model cannot abolish the laws of nature, which means that such iron flying little things are needed, without them one can fly into space only after ending mortal life in this World.
              1. 0
                12 June 2017 00: 20
                Correctly ! The model does not replace physical processes. But information is the equivalent of these processes. Therefore, the information should also be not supplemented and distorted, but identical. Then information becomes an instrument of communication, knowledge and timely use of it. But! And from the opposite. If we can build an information model equivalent to physical. processes, this means that the world is built as a mathematical model. And such a model can be built on those new properties of the number, which we discovered.
                1. aiw
                  +2
                  12 June 2017 02: 24
                  Ohhh, you also discovered new properties of the number? It seems like you need to transform your League of Unconventional understanding of Physics into the League of Unconventional Understanding of Physics and Mathematics. LNPFiM, sounds almost as proud as PUKS.
                2. 0
                  13 June 2017 00: 32
                  Quote: gridasov
                  The model does not replace physical processes. But information is the equivalent of these processes.

                  But-but-no, no equivalent, but the most approximate (according to our concepts) image, actually far from the original.
                  Quote: gridasov
                  Therefore, the information should also be not supplemented and distorted, but identical.

                  It is physically impossible to achieve identity.
    2. 0
      11 June 2017 22: 47
      It would really be interesting to hear the rationale of those who made the decisions. However, I think that political aspects had a very strong influence on science, and especially related to space. Guaranteed successful projects were needed, and this had its negative results, which still have a residual effect. You should not be afraid to express ideas, the main thing is to be justified. See how many Americans created the convertiplanes before they started the series. By the way, they introduced separate articles for financing such "risky" projects. And I am positioning a fundamental solution with a complete justification of the process and as "against the wall with peas"
      1. +1
        11 June 2017 22: 54
        Oh Gridasov! And solve the equation: 2x ^ 2 - 14x + 20 = 0.
        1. 0
          11 June 2017 23: 08
          Oh Falcon5555! And build a model of transformation of the potential of the surface of the expiration of the rocket in the algorithm from when it stands at the start to the moment it leaves the atmosphere. Moreover, taking into account the location of the launch, the climatic state of the environment and all the cumulative factors of pressure, temperature, humidity, dust, state parameters of all levels of the atmospheric layers along the flight vector, taking into account air velocities. And most importantly, all this should correspond exactly to the moment when the flight takes place. Okay, don't build a model! Well, at least describe a technique combining the entire combination of these and other processes. Or show how to build an algorithm for transforming the potential of the surface of the expiration of the rocket body, well, at least in length from its beginning and end. I'm not talking about the ratio of algorithms for all vectors of dimension of the body. Or maybe I missed something?
          1. 0
            11 June 2017 23: 15
            Quote: gridasov
            Or maybe I missed something?

            Did you miss your childhood?
            1. 0
              11 June 2017 23: 22
              That's for sure ! Once Wolf Messing held his performances of the original genre in our city. And what do you think ? For an unknown reason, he personally asked me to leave the room. I forgot about this case until it was time to remember and think about the reasons. Therefore, I will not tell you stories from my life, but I do not advise you to think badly of me, but you can say anything you want. I will accept.
              1. 0
                11 June 2017 23: 43
                Quote: gridasov
                but I do not advise you to think badly of me

                Yes, everything is just the opposite, I think about you with Falcon 5555 well, do not think badly, I envy you. You are here measured by reproductive organs as children, here we are so falling into childhood.
                1. 0
                  12 June 2017 00: 10
                  In fact, childhood differs from other age-related states in its sincerity and carelessness. Therefore, older people also return to this cycle. Although you are right that I really began to understand too much too early, and now, perhaps having fulfilled some of my human obligations, I have freed myself from their burdens and returned to childhood. But in a different quality and complementing the best qualities, experience and accumulated knowledge
              2. +2
                12 June 2017 00: 15
                For an unknown reason, he personally asked me to leave the room.

                If it was (which I strongly doubt), then I know the reason. wink
          2. +2
            11 June 2017 23: 30
            So, Gridasov, you do not know how to solve this equation. From here we can already conclude about the level of your intelligence. Something like middle school. Interesting, but what is it called, do you even know?
            1. 0
              11 June 2017 23: 36
              With horror I remember my studies at the university. Therefore, I will not give you pleasure to follow your tactics. Teach your students, and I am already positioning my knowledge. Some of you are naive and primitive. Here I’m trying to find a highlight in you, There’s nothing worth it. Therefore, goodbye to you.
              1. +4
                11 June 2017 23: 56
                That is, the name of this equation do not know? Fine. University? This is a 4th or 5th grade school. Some of you are empty and confused, my friend. But if goodbye, then goodbye. Have a nice one you too.
              2. aiw
                +1
                12 June 2017 10: 26
                With horror I remember my studies at the university

                I think you are not alone here - your teachers also remembered you with horror. In fact, since you are not able to solve the quadratic equation, then no one will ever take seriously your pseudoscientific nonsense.
          3. aiw
            0
            12 June 2017 02: 27
            And build a model for transforming the surface potential of a missile’s surface in an algorithm - be careful, your rocket is expiring ... In general, discover the equations of hydrodynamics.
            1. +1
              12 June 2017 09: 22
              In general, discover the equations of hydrodynamics.
              Not in this life. Your opponent there, above, could not master the quadratic equation. And you shove him differential calculus and integrals.
              1. 0
                12 June 2017 12: 35
                When you are so smart, you will understand that turbulent processes are not calculated, and a dynamic model of the transformation of the flow is constructed according to the algorithms of transition from one state to another. From laminar to turbulent and sonoluminescent.
                1. aiw
                  0
                  12 June 2017 15: 12
                  turbulent processes are not calculated

                  And the men do not even know ... https://yandex.ru/search/?text=%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B4
                  %D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%
                  D0%B8%D0%B5%20%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%B
                  B%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85%20%D0%BF%D1
                  %80%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2&
                  ; lr = 213
                2. +1
                  12 June 2017 21: 31
                  You were asked a specific question about the name of a particular type of equation, which is part of the high school algebra program of a secondary school. You, instead of the answer consisting of ONE word - the actual name of the type of equation, have blown the snowstorm for a long time and carefully. From which the conclusion made by me above is drawn.
            2. 0
              12 June 2017 12: 05
              And you try to discover reality. not the illusion of how someone suggested in his fantasies. Why I'm not talking about air friction on the surface of a rocket. Because friction is an abstraction. There is a complex of phenomena that have quantitative parameters of process dimensions, geometric processes, and physical ones. But in general, what am I bothering with. . You and your sarcasm go to a comedy club. If you want to conduct a conversation normally, then learn to behave
              1. +7
                12 June 2017 12: 12
                Quote: gridasov
                And you try to discover reality

                Did you study the topic in this manual?
                1. 0
                  12 June 2017 14: 53
                  There is some truth in every joke) I laughed heartily, thank you)) lol hi

                  I realized one thing, that in alternative physics I can’t do it with my foot! Maybe it's for the better?
              2. +1
                12 June 2017 21: 36
                And you try to discover reality. not the illusion of how someone suggested in his fantasies.
                Strictly speaking, your own graphomanic passages are 100% suitable for what you said: "the illusion of how someone suggested it in your fantasies." Moreover, for all the years that I've been watching you here, NEVER your reasoning has been illustrated by any specifics useful in life.
                In full accordance with your own words: why should I take your reasoning for reality, and not illusion ... and hereinafter? Prove that your words are reality. Prove it.
                Why I'm not talking about air friction on the surface of a rocket. Because friction is an abstraction.
                Abstraction is what you write. Friction on the air of any object, including rockets, is a reality given to us in sensations. To verify this, it is enough to go outside and put your face on the wind.
          4. +2
            12 June 2017 16: 47
            Quote: gridasov
            Build a model for transforming the surface potential of a rocket’s outflow in the algorithm from when it stands at the start to the moment it leaves the atmosphere.

            A masterpiece

            need to piggy bank, especially in a compartment with
            Quote: gridasov
            taking into account the location of the launch, the climatic state of the environment and all the combined factors of pressure, temperature, humidity, dust

            Quote: gridasov
            Or show how to build an algorithm for transforming the potential of the surface of the expiration of the rocket body,

            I understood everything, but what is a “rocket body expiration”?
            GRIDASOV- YOU HAVE ALREADY USED THE CIRCUIT BREAKS? HOW DO THERE IN HOLLAND MUSHROOMS CHEAPER?
            1. 0
              12 June 2017 16: 57
              If there were a bit more guesswork what any scientist needed, then they would add the word SURFACE of the expiration of the rocket hull. But obviously. that you are not the one to whom it is
              quality is necessary.
              1. +1
                12 June 2017 17: 07
                Quote: gridasov
                But obviously. that you are not the one to whom it is
                quality is necessary.

                clear stump
                Quote: gridasov
                SURFACE OF Rocket Expiration

                SURFACE expiration Yes, even rocket hulls this is supermarasmic and = post clinical idiocy
                1. 0
                  17 June 2017 18: 24
                  Quote: opus
                  SURFACE OF Rocket Expiration


                  SURFACE of the expiration of the contour of the bend of the plane of the rocket body! Waking up like that .. Eh, the genius Gridassov simply forgot, you excuse him ..
        2. 0
          13 June 2017 09: 29
          But interestingly, do you know what in nature a matrix built on this equation means?
        3. 0
          14 June 2017 22: 37
          Well, why are you doing so, he will still get sick and it will not be so much fun at VO.
        4. +1
          15 June 2017 20: 28
          I will help Gridasov. Square ur core D is a real number. 2 and 5 number solutions.
    3. +1
      12 June 2017 17: 19
      Quote: Falcon5555
      But the argument that the rocket should be single-stage is unconvincing,

      it is not (argumentation).
      since 1556 years it is known
      A multistage rocket allows you to achieve a speed greater than each of its stages separately.


      I.N. Pentsak. The theory of flight and the design of ballistic missiles. - M.: Mechanical Engineering, 1974

      Quote: Setrac
      What for?

      cost
      1. the most expensive and the most technologically sophisticated step

      2. Only the first step has a chance to return painlessly (altitudes 70-90 km, speeds up to 5 km / s + the atmosphere has not yet been abandoned
      Quote: Setrac
      Landing a rocket on Earth is not a trivial task.

      1.step, not "rocket"
      2. decided
  4. 0
    11 June 2017 23: 37
    there, in the pictures, the Makeyevtsy collect something orbital - why should these modules be placed inside the rocket for thermal insulation when they are removed, all the walls of which also stand and weigh?
    what prevents this fool from raising a single-stage with a heavy plane, then dispersing it with a reusable solid fuel accelerator, then if you like it after parachuting, return by parachute? then get them out of the water, refuel, load and attach them to a reusable airplane again ...
    oh yes, it will be reusable but not one-stage ... L.P. Beria is not on them. lol
    1. aiw
      0
      12 June 2017 02: 29
      The theme of gloomy German genius is not disclosed, write more.
      1. 0
        12 June 2017 17: 48
        do not like L.P. or allergy to the flag? the topic of aircraft hanging tanks too - let's cancel them, like brake parachutes
        1. aiw
          +1
          12 June 2017 18: 19
          Allergy to bullshit. However, if your computer is a walkie-talkie, then everything else is too complicated for you. Sorry...
          1. 0
            12 June 2017 22: 29
            allergy is very often an autoimmune thing ... who in the top comment on the branch was wrong?
            1. aiw
              0
              12 June 2017 22: 39
              When a person like you, unable to solve the trivial task of the dynamics of space flight and confusing the radio with a computer, begins to talk about the design of rocket launchers, criticize the developers and call Beria on their heads - this is not so.
              1. 0
                12 June 2017 23: 08
                I repeat the question: what was wrong in that comment?
                your fantasies about confusing walkie-talkies and computers are not interesting - he invented himself, laughed himself ...
                solve your problems yourself. at the daughter course or at the recertification on the nose burns?
                1. aiw
                  0
                  13 June 2017 01: 05
                  I repeat the question: what was wrong in that comment?

                  Honey, I’m tired of disassembling your nonsense, you have guessed completely on all the issues discussed. First, try to learn how to behave and be responsible for your words - then maybe we'll talk.
                  1. -1
                    13 June 2017 08: 39
                    you're not tired of writing your own ...
  5. +7
    12 June 2017 07: 45
    The first one. You can draw a lot of things. Actually, our entire space industry has only recently been painting.
    The second one. In our cosmonautics some kind of idolatry has developed. We do not create anything new ourselves, we patiently wait for something new to be done over the hill, and then we try to repeat it at our level. Chinese syndrome so to speak.
    Brezhnev about Buran: "There is no need to invent anything, do as the Americans do. They flew and will fly." I have heard such statements about the choice of the shape of a new multi-seat ship, which was copied from Orion, and abandoned his Clipper project. Regarding the methane engine: having many years of experience, they said that they say nothing is clear, so let's see how Bezos turns out, and then we make a decision. Now, through the mouth of Kalinovsky, we declare that Russia will also have reusable steps, so how do you need to catch up with the Mask. They prefer to leave the question of whether reusable steps are needed, and whether launches with them will be much cheaper. Five years ago we laughed at Mask, and now the same people are already competing in search of evidence of his innocence, so to speak they are trying to be noted in this field. To ensure a certain achieved level of product quality, a certain series of output is needed. This is an axiom. Reusable steps undermine production, the series falls, the quality falls, the missiles also fall. Slightly reducing the cost of manufacturing only the first stage, we lose the reliability of the entire rocket. There is another way - these are disposable single-stage missiles. The engine is one (not two or three), two tanks (and not five or six). Yes, the first-stage engine will have excess power, this is one of the main objections. Like the step will be oversized. Toyota, Mercedes, BMW and other cars always have excess engine power, and no one panics. You just need a deeply throttled (up to 30% like RD-191) engine and that's it. The unification of production in itself will reduce the cost of the product. They objected to me at one of the forums, saying that a single-stage rocket is not possible, this is not allowed by the Tsiolkovsky formula. Apparently, Makeev’s design bureau does not know the theory well, otherwise they would not have drawn the Crown.
    1. 0
      12 June 2017 08: 31
      they still do not know much about practice, otherwise they would definitely not have painted like that.
      1. aiw
        0
        12 June 2017 10: 28
        Oh, you know the practice better than Makeev’s design bureau? Tell us more about your invaluable experience! How many rockets did you design and launch? Are you not Von Braun’s reincarnation for an hour?
        1. 0
          12 June 2017 10: 34
          better than those who draw like that, anyway
          no, he died later ... hi
          1. aiw
            0
            12 June 2017 10: 58
            Well, the fact that you are better able рисоватьI believe ...
            1. 0
              12 June 2017 11: 43
              For those who don’t know how, it’s as if nothing technical will ever work out ...
              1. aiw
                0
                12 June 2017 15: 10
                Oh, while a great practitioner and an ingenious draftsman, please tell me - here in your circular orbit with a height of 300 km a satellite weighing 1 ton flies. Give a cyclogram of the operation of the main engine for lifting the satellite’s orbit by 100 km, and calculate the fuel consumption for such a maneuver if the specific impulse of the engine is 300 s.
                1. +1
                  12 June 2017 15: 33
                  With all the evidence I can say that you are simply not capable of developing and searching for new solutions. I will repeat once again that I am not much concerned about your achievements in the subtleties. The conversation, on my part, is about fundamentally new principles for organizing processes in a new engine. And of course, that the analysis of these processes should be based on new techniques, which allowed us to see and understand the depth of these processes. In a generalized form, I say. that the quality of the process is radically changed. This engine fundamentally changes its position regarding the possibility of converting the kinetic energy of a hydro-gas-dynamic flow using potential energy. So why the hell do I do those things that you do. You, along with the falcon, fool like fools and don’t understand what I’m talking about and give me student tasks. that don't interest me. If you have decisions on the issues indicated, then solve them and I can only be happy for you. But if there are no such solutions and for decades there has been no breakthrough in fundamental solutions, then you should not impose those ideas and methods that have already proven to not work .. Is it really not clear?
                  1. 0
                    12 June 2017 17: 18
                    catch +, and then along the way his term paper doesn’t work out or the dissertation doesn’t get stuck, he walks around to find free tutors for himself wassat
                    1. aiw
                      +1
                      12 June 2017 18: 27
                      Well, that is, you are not able to solve the elementary problem of the dynamics of space flight, but do you undertake to criticize the design of Designev Makeev? You really are at the same level of development with Gridasov, I think that he will take you to his League, which will eventually be called something like the League of Unconventional Understanding of Physics, Mathematics and Alternative History (LNPFMAI named after Shvonder and Sharikov). RANS with Petrik and Co. will die of envy.
                      1. 0
                        12 June 2017 22: 32
                        that is, look for tutors yourself in another place, with your "explosion and burning" about a cumulative projectile
                  2. aiw
                    0
                    12 June 2017 18: 22
                    Calm down, this student task was not for you but for your colleague and like-minded person wazza. You are spared, and do not give puzzles more difficult than for the 6th grade of high school, however you are not able to solve them.

                    In each science there is exactly as much science as there is mathematics in it - in your verbiage of mathematics there is no mathematics at all. Be careful with the laws of conservation, this is the essence and foundation of the Universe; nobody has yet managed to deceive them.
                    1. 0
                      12 June 2017 22: 36
                      do you think he didn’t notice?
                2. +2
                  15 June 2017 20: 36
                  I will help wazza. If you exclude small thrust. Let’s take the thrust of 100 kn. Ascent from the perigee of the circular orbit of 0.3 with moving on, moving off in elliptical orbit 2700 sec, reaching high orbit moving on 0.3 sec. Fuel consumption approx. 21.6 kg.
                  1. aiw
                    0
                    16 June 2017 01: 21
                    It seems like the truth, but wazza is already ... a three-piece suit is on sale (s)
                  2. 0
                    16 June 2017 08: 50
                    How many new terms and unknowns were discovered ... lol
                    go now help Gridasov.
    2. 0
      12 June 2017 23: 18
      Quote: Jurkovs
      Brezhnev about Buran: "There is no need to invent anything, do as the Americans do. They flew and will fly."


      So did absolutely not like the Americans. God, what's the topic, the commentators all fell out of their mothers upside down on the concrete floor? People, if you do NOT understand ANYTHING, why write comments?
      1. 0
        16 June 2017 08: 54
        But they are experts ... though for some reason everyone loves to read books such as "space wings", etc. believe signs on the Internet lol
  6. 0
    12 June 2017 07: 52
    Quote: gridasov
    In this case, it is necessary to understand why any rocket engine will not make it possible to create a superheavy rocket.

    Energy and Saturn 5 super-heavy rockets?
    1. 0
      12 June 2017 10: 08
      Imagine - super-heavy, carrying capacity on them, it was possible to bring up to 200 tons
  7. 0
    12 June 2017 11: 06
    You are lying fishe .... The rocket will hit the vault of heaven and the rogue, and you will break the Bosco with fragments of sinners.

    But seriously. Attempts to create reusable systems have long been besides the shuttle and snowstorm, there was an English
    Hotl, German Senger (two options), Russian MAKS-2000, spiral, energy - M, energy 2 .... All with a different but rather good degree of elaboration. moreover, this is 70 - 80 years of the last millennium.
    For example, Timnat’s wonderful book “Rocket Engines on Chemical Fuels” is lying in front of you - there is a black and white description of a Rockettine engine with a double expansion nozzle and two fuels (kerosene hydrogen)
    For single-stage launch vehicles. Ask why it still does not fly - a high degree of technical risk (even for the United States), and as a result a long refinement period and large cap. investments for the long term. And since it flies like that, then God be with him. Actually, the shuttle is also semi-disposable for the same reason, development timelines, and financing ....
    Regards, Boris.
    1. 0
      12 June 2017 12: 42
      Absolutely right! The new principles laid down in the operation of a highly efficient engine for launching a rocket into space should also make the engine itself, as a device, simple and solid, with radically higher energy density parameters in its base part. It should be cheap in the literal sense of the word, and therefore quickly calculated in any modification of dimension. And we propose to use such an engine as a concept. But, resistance to progress has always been and will be.
  8. +1
    12 June 2017 11: 08
    I think that a couple of billions is a drop in the bucket, even the development of aircraft is much more expensive. So all this is suspicious. Ask for a couple of hundred billion at once.
    1. +2
      12 June 2017 13: 10
      I think that simple designers and engineers asked for this money, when “effective managers” ask, there will be just hundreds of billions. I'm not kidding....
  9. 0
    12 June 2017 11: 58
    It’s best not to fool your head, but to build a launch complex 10-30 km high at the equator. Which will dramatically reduce the cost of the displayed cargo. smile
    1. 0
      12 June 2017 13: 11
      You can go further - the space elevator.
      1. +1
        12 June 2017 13: 32
        Quote: hiroyashy
        You can go further - the space elevator.

        It’s not yet possible. There are no such materials. smile
  10. 0
    12 June 2017 13: 36
    I can’t judge the technical feasibility of the project, but the costly one is usually 3-5 times higher than the declared one, so less than 10 billion USD will not work :-)
  11. 0
    12 June 2017 14: 34
    I will support Hochma a bit. And why, in fact, the rocket is not round? in the case of a missile-accessible missile, it’s clear - the steps need to fall off somewhere laughing But, if we are drawing a single-stage, reusable ball, the ideal form for us. It has the best ratio of internal volume to surface area, which means it will have the maximum possible ratio of the mass of an empty ship to the mass of fuel. The shape of the ball, again, will allow more efficient braking in the upper atmosphere. And if the landing is unsuccessful, empty tanks will serve as a damper laughing hi
  12. +1
    12 June 2017 17: 28
    The problem of a single-stage rocket is one thing - the developers have at their disposal structural material with high specific strength, which allows to reduce the weight of the rocket structure to a minimum.

    With the starting weight of a single-stage rocket in 1000 tons and the weight of the 50 tons design, it becomes more economical than any multi-stage rocket even without returning a single stage to Earth.

    Increasing the starting weight of a single-stage rocket up to 7 times is achieved by the simplest way to assemble identical modules into a package.
  13. 0
    12 June 2017 19: 08
    An interesting project. It is not clear why the author gives a nozzle with a liquid circuit as something new; in aviation, ejector nozzles, where the circuit is created using ejected air, have been known since the middle of the last century. True, they have not yet found any use, but suddenly? As I understand it, to form the nozzle contour, you will have to use either a separate gas generator or separate the existing jet in such a tricky way. Apparently, such an engine has not yet been worked out and has not even been tested. And maybe it will. Good luck!
    1. 0
      12 June 2017 22: 40
      it's not like that, flat nozzles are ...
      it was easier to put an engine with a ring nozzle, but they are not looking for easy ways ...
      1. 0
        13 June 2017 08: 51
        Yes, where does the flat nozzle? Axisymmetric were considered. We examined it and put it in a long box. It’s another matter that the project, as I understand it, is being done based on the kind rich uncle who will spend money on the development of an engine with a nozzle, which the LRE has not yet
        1. 0
          14 June 2017 00: 53
          to a rich stupid ... they can have some kind of chip on such a technique only when they’re flat,
          if not, the bell is always better.
          1. 0
            14 June 2017 07: 56
            Flat nozzles on the media? This is something from the work of Gridasov.
            1. 0
              14 June 2017 08: 40
              wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_Air Propulsion
              spruce
            2. 0
              14 June 2017 08: 54
              in general - yes, especially when they start to turn them from square there into round ...
            3. 0
              14 June 2017 10: 04
              from creativity it was about non-use and about a liquid circuit with a gas generator in ejector nozzles
              1. 0
                14 June 2017 20: 41
                I looked at your link on Wiki, made sure of a pile of garbage on this topic. There, even an ordinary nozzle with a central body, as on our old anti-aircraft missile B-750 (Dvina complex) is called "NASA's toroidal wedge-shaped nozzle." However, maybe they do some kind of bypass, but there’s nothing close to the series either.
                1. +1
                  14 June 2017 22: 02
                  The garbage from the olosha Mask has already inflicted on the Makeevites ...
                  1. +1
                    14 June 2017 22: 40
                    It seems that Makeev’s are being steered by "effective managers"
                    1. 0
                      15 June 2017 22: 44
                      It seems they are already finishing ... request
  14. +1
    12 June 2017 19: 13
    The critical section of the nozzle burns out in the marching engine. Even carbon fiber or super-duper-nano-heat-resistant. Plus - the load on the power elements of the body. Repair will cost more than a new unit. What for such reusability? It's like a condom reused. Wash, darn and - go ahead
  15. +1
    12 June 2017 19: 46
    Abramovich and the company should be shaken. Let them sell their eggs and allocate money! laughing
  16. 0
    12 June 2017 20: 15
    Good evening.
    We carefully read http://www.newlibrary.ru/book/timnat_i_/raketnye_
    dvigateli_na_himicheskom_fuel.html.
    Then http://www.buran.ru/.
    We draw conclusions. When questions arise, we ask them. All....
    Regards, Boris.
  17. aiw
    0
    12 June 2017 22: 47
    wazza,
    The fact that you do not know elementary things (such as the fact that the motion of the detonation front in the explosive is described by partial differential equations that were obtained and solved by Zeldovich and Co., and that with the help of these solutions cumulative charges are designed including).
    The fact that you confuse the radio and the computer, and are not able to solve the elementary problem of the dynamics of space flight is also not surprising.

    It is amazing that you, with all your enchanting denseness and tenacity in the field of the history of technology and in general in technical matters, continue to write wild nonsense on the Internet. Aren't you tired of public disgrace? With Gridasov, everything has long been clear - but then you are even worse ...
    1. +1
      12 June 2017 23: 12
      What is the front of detonation? Change your dealer urgently. This is BURNING. The critical section of the nozzle. Aw! are there people with at least ELEMENTARY knowledge of internal ballistics? I ask those who graduate from the parish school - do not write this heresy.
      1. +1
        13 June 2017 00: 12
        Quote: sergo1914
        What is the front of detonation?

        Well, for the sake of justice ... it happens
        "Study of the principles of work and the creation of a demonstration sample of an oxygen-kerosene liquid rocket engine with a spin detonation combustion mode (Ifrit project)"
        (with spin detonation combustion mode)

        Although you are right: In most existing rocket engines, the chemical energy of fuel is converted into heat and mechanical work due to slow (subsonic) combustion - deflagration - at an almost constant pressure: P = const.
        Quote: sergo1914
        The critical section of the nozzle. Aw!

        in a sense?
        "burning in the critical section of the nozzle"?
        all the life was in the cop
        Quote: sergo1914
        at least an ELEMENTARY knowledge of internal ballistics?

        WB only for COP powder rockets.
        in a general sense it is not acceptable for RD
        1. 0
          13 June 2017 00: 28
          on afterburner it is usually not only in the cop and the waves go there different
          1. +1
            13 June 2017 11: 26
            Quote: wazza
            afterburner, it is usually not only in the cop

            we are talking about rocket engines, not jet engines in the general case.
            "afterburner" at the liquid propellant rocket engine / solid propellant rocket engine I haven’t watched something for 30 years
            1. 0
              14 June 2017 00: 55
              on F-1 at the start you can observe with the naked eye.
      2. 0
        13 June 2017 00: 23
        Quote: sergo1914
        Change your dealer urgently.

        The book still needs to be changed, it contains the wrong figs ...
      3. aiw
        0
        13 June 2017 00: 49
        What is the front of detonation?

        This is from another thread echoes of the discussion. wazza there, with foam at the mouth, he claimed that the cumulative charge was much more complicated than the atomic bomb of the cannon circuit on U235. I poked his nose into the book of Zeldovich, Librovich and Co., he still spits on. Or will you argue that there is a detonation front in the cumulative charge? wink Burning, by the way, is also detonation, but this is not about this topic, I agree.

        Not that I am an expert in internal ballistics, but there are a couple of publications about DDT, one in Phys.Rev.Let. hi
      4. 0
        13 June 2017 08: 48
        Quote: aiw
        This is from another thread

        There, aiw with foam on what else unprovenly claimed that the Germans did not have uranium raw materials, although the USSR for the first 15 years almost exclusively extracted it in German uranium mines, and that the Germans were not able to separate isotopes, although in the USSR the captured German centrifuges.
        The cumulative projectile is more complicated than the implosion scheme, not like a cannon, it is directed.
        1. aiw
          0
          13 June 2017 11: 15
          There aiw with foam on something else unprovenly claimed that the Germans did not have uranium raw materials, although the USSR for the first 15 years almost exclusively extracted it in German uranium mines

          Until 1946, there was no mass mining of uranium in Germany, a historical fact, google about the Bismuth concern.

          and that the Germans did not know how to separate isotopes,

          This is also a historical fact, confirmed by eyewitness accounts and archival documents.

          although in the USSR captured German centrifuges were repaired to separate them.

          This impudent lie from wazza, centrifuges for the industrial separation of uranium were developed in the USSR after WW2, this is confirmed by eyewitness accounts and archival documents.

          The cumulative projectile is more complicated than the implosion scheme, not like a cannon, it is directed.

          But it’s just in memoris, Gridasov is resting with his alternative physics and expiring rockets! Is high-precision casting of lenses from two types of explosives more difficult than manufacturing a single cylinder with a conical cavity? Is synchronous (accurate to the nanosecond) detonation of 30 detonators more difficult than one instant fuse? I'm not talking about the calculation of all this ... compare the construction of the Fat Man and the Faustpatron. Yes, rarely in VO there are such clowns as wazza.
          1. 0
            14 June 2017 02: 04
            The USSR was not made! Because for more than a year the mines have been put in order, the removed centrifuges - two years.
            I’ve just thought of “arrogant lies” laughing". Although the interview with the one who repaired them is through Google.
            Another memorial ... from the "Zeldwich specialist" who broadcasts about "manufacturing one cylinder with a conical cavity, "and did not answer about the ball ...
            Sit down TWO!
    2. 0
      13 June 2017 00: 22
      Did not guess...
      Super, how did the Germans who made cumulative shells do this without Zeldovich’s equations? Probably they were all the same better, like computers ...
      Again about the confusion of computers and walkie-talkies - he invented it himself and laugh.
      Solve your tasks. The neutron source ball only in the cannon scheme do not lose or break laughing
      1. 0
        13 June 2017 00: 35
        Someone incidentally, under another article, among other things, drove that there should not be considered "nothing of the sort ..." laughing And what does any country do cumulative garbage itself.
      2. aiw
        0
        13 June 2017 01: 01
        Again about the confusion of computers and walkie-talkies - he invented it himself and laugh.


        Quote: aiw
        What is the matter with German lamp computers of the times of 2MB, you aren’t ours ours? laughing


        Quote: wazza
        Same as with walkie-talkies, better than others.laughing


        Taken from here https://topwar.ru/117217-v-laptyah-is-kuvaldami-
        protiv-nemeckogo-geniya.html

        Quote: wazza
        The neutron source ball only in the cannon scheme do not lose or break laughing


        So you don’t know such basic things? OK.
        "the main detail of the bomb is the clipped barrel of the naval gun, at the muzzle end of which there is a target in the form of a uranium cylinder and beryllium-polonium initiator."(c) Wiki.



        Scheme of the atomic bomb Mk.I Little Boy.

        1 - steel reflector; 2 - neutron initiator; 3 - target (three rings of uranium-235); 4 - antenna of the Archie radio altimeter (4 pcs.); 5 - bomb suspension assembly; 6 - gun barrel; 7 - bomb body; 8 - electrical connector; 9 - block automation detonation; 10 - housing connector; 11 - collector of the pressure sensor; 12 - air intakes of the pressure sensor; 13 - a cylindrical shell of uranium-235; 14 - shutter; 15 - electric detonator; 16 - removable tail unit; 17 - powder charge.

        Taken from here http://coollib.xyz/b/258432/read
        1. aiw
          0
          13 June 2017 02: 29
          Here is a more suitable picture



          Pay attention to point G.
          1. 0
            13 June 2017 08: 53
            Attention should be paid at least to the remark in that Topvarov discus that there are no manuals on the assembly of WMD in the open press laughing
            1. aiw
              0
              13 June 2017 09: 01
              Anyone familiar with physics and reading at least something about creating nuclear weapons will understand why an initiator is needed - the more neutrons there are at the beginning, the more fissile material will have time to react before everything scatters and the reaction stops.

              But you do not belong to such people, your ceiling is to be rude to your opponents and yell, "You are all lying !!!!" You publicly cheated to the fullest (in this thread and in the thread about gloomy German genius), and now you are trying to excuse yourself miserably. There is nothing to talk about with you further - you can only be mocked at, as at Gridasov.
              1. 0
                14 June 2017 02: 20
                Quote: aiw
                familiar with physics and read

                but never thought with his head,
                it may be besides just how else they would make a mess of those around them.
                Quote: aiw
                not just a brehlo - you stubborn brehlo

                this, and a lot of things like who wrote?
                You also wrote about “getting out” ... when they poked you there that you really do it ... first denying the Germans had raw materials, and supposedly also imported them from Belgium, then admitting them, but denying the fact of extraction (in mines, mushrooms were probably grown there for almost 200 years), and denying the Germanism of the Soviet enrichment technology, then admitting that yes, the catch was there in some kind of needle laughing straight polar fox was to read what a solid clinic.
                So you are like “parsley”, and here, by the training manual, inadvertently started repeating!
                1. aiw
                  0
                  14 June 2017 09: 12
                  My dear, you’ve already become isolated and completely overthrown - and there was no neutron initiator in Malysh, and the implosive scheme is simpler than a cumulative projectile ... Go better help Gridasov, otherwise his rocket will expire and will soon expire.
                  1. 0
                    14 June 2017 12: 18
                    You got it wrong, unable to do this even according to the training manual ... and to higher education (?) You have completely lacked secondary technical thinking.
                    a cumulative projectile is an axisymmetric compression (two coordinates) and not central (one coordinate).
                    1. 0
                      14 June 2017 12: 32
                      which is the radius ...
                  2. 0
                    14 June 2017 13: 55
                    Quote: aiw

                    Pay attention to point G.

                    By the way, here's the misfortune, like without a compression (spherical, in vacuum) the cannon scheme worked well? her in 1945 without calculation 1946 lol on the decimal "Eniak" db push apart better any "pop"
                    look where some other point G ... which in "medicine" is also felts is felts it is not, laughing
                    1. aiw
                      0
                      14 June 2017 14: 35
                      “Look for tutors elsewhere.” (C) Your arguments have ended completely, only rudeness left? Rt
                      1. 0
                        14 June 2017 19: 42
                        ... although there are unclassified manuals and an experimental base.
                        It was essentially. Rudeness is with you.
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. 0
    13 June 2017 08: 40
    Quote: sergo1914
    So did absolutely not like the Americans.

    Actually, one of the options was ABSOLUTELY the same as the shuttle. In the final version, an option was adopted that was slightly different from the shuttle (there were no marching engines on the ship). But in fact, in its dimensions and performance characteristics, the Buran was still very close to the shuttle
    1. 0
      14 June 2017 02: 27
      Correctly absent. Nevertheless, he was significantly superior to him. In terms of autonomy, in height, and in lapel. And there was still “Energy” to him. The engine halves of which are now being used by the Americans.
  20. 0
    14 June 2017 17: 40
    Quote: wazza
    Nevertheless, he was significantly superior to him. In terms of autonomy, in height, and in lapel. And there was still “Energy” to him.

    He, the Buran, was not much superior to the Shuttle. In principle, the parameters were close, in some ways the parameters of the “Buran” were better, in some things - worse. By the way, a side maneuver. which in the Buran was called a "lapel" was +/- 1700 km, the shuttle had 2100. The autonomy was exactly the same
    1. 0
      14 June 2017 19: 44
      The side lapel, which you called the maneuver, the shuttle had less than half.
  21. +1
    14 June 2017 21: 22
    Quote: wazza
    The side lapel, which you called the maneuver, the shuttle had less than half.

    There is no such term - lateral lapel. There is a side maneuver. At OS-120 и OK-92 he was +/- 2200 km, at shuttle - +/- 2100, y Burana - +/- 1700 km.
    Not about any twice out of the question. The designs are about the same. With approximately the same TTX, one BM cannot have 2 times more than another. Therefore, before arguing - figure it out yourself. Compare the tabular values ​​of all four ships, in particular on the lateral maneuver
    1. 0
      14 June 2017 22: 58
      According to the data and terms of the Soviet military and specialists ... Nobody argues and the issue has been addressed for a long time. Around the same, he excelled in autonomy and ceiling.
      And the designs are not the same and the materials, too. Around the same B-1 is similar to the Tu-160, but not the size and performance characteristics. laughing
  22. +1
    15 June 2017 09: 44
    Quote: wazza
    According to the data and terms of the Soviet military and specialists ... Nobody argues and the issue has been addressed for a long time. Around the same, he excelled in autonomy and ceiling.
    And the designs are not the same and the materials, too. Around the same B-1 is similar to the Tu-160, but not the size and performance characteristics. laughing

    Do you argue for the sake of argument? Or to find out for yourself really something new?
    Terms exist for that, to use them, and not to invent something of their own. There was at one time such a “Ivan Ermakov” at Military Parity. He also didn’t like the terms, for example, a self-propelled or autonomous launcher. For them he coined his name “tractor.” You should not be like that. There is a term for lateral maneuver come up with your own, such as “lateral lapel.” In the end, the resource is military, so you should use the appropriate terms.
    They had similar ceilings (Buran, Shuttle). Our working altitude range was set to 100-500 km. The shuttle had about the same, given that the orbit of the ISS is sometimes above 400 km.
    Autonomy in both shuttles ABSOLUTELY same. From 7 to 30 days

    The design of the ship implies not only the materials from which they are made. Basically, this refers to engineering solutions. Structural schemes, aerodynamic schemes, etc. Prior to the creation of the Buran, he underwent major changes at least TWICE. First, the ship was designed under the index OS-120, which, like the shuttle, had engines on the ship in the amount of 3 pieces, had a carrier in the form of four “sides”, as subsequently “Buran” and in the center a fuel tank without engines. That is, the second stage constructively repeated the American shuttle.
    Then there was another option with the OK-92 ship. There, 3 engines were already transferred to the tank, and on the ship itself behind it was a fired solid propellant CAC engine. In addition, this option provided for the presence of engines for flight in the atmosphere. And finally, the option that became the “Buran” and which we all know.
    During this time, the parameters changed. Our payload was about 0,5-1 ton higher than the American. At certain inclinations of the orbit, even 4 tons more. But the sleep parameters are autonomy, the orbit remained at the same level. The only thing that the shuttle could launch into orbit of less than 30 degrees from the American spaceport, and ours - more than 50 degrees.
    The first models had more lateral maneuver than the shuttle, and Buran less.

    The first table compares the parameters of OS-120, OK-92 and Shuttle. The second - TTX "Burana"

    Table No. 1


    Table No. 2
    1. 0
      15 June 2017 11: 03
      About the "lateral lapel" of the ceiling and autonomy of Buran, and its superiority in this over the shuttles, the Russian military who related to this even explained on television. The resource was created by "professors" at the European Union hosting, the Russian Defense Ministry is sitting there with it ...
    2. aiw
      0
      15 June 2017 11: 13
      Wait, right now, wazza will explain to you that both the Buran and the Space Shuttle are degraded copies of a secret German nuclear-powered shuttle flying right on Mars directly from Peenemuende. In his alternative universe, both history and physics and terminology are very alternative.
      1. 0
        15 June 2017 11: 48
        I forgot to drag the time machine again ... when will you even figure out the cumulative projectile, clown? or do you think Zeldovich and Co. collaborated with the Nazis bully helping the Germans do the first such with their equations? laughing
  23. +1
    15 June 2017 18: 08
    Quote: wazza
    About the "lateral lapel" of the ceiling and autonomy of Buran, and its superiority in this over the shuttles, the Russian military who related to this even explained on television. The resource was created by "professors" at the European Union hosting, the Russian Defense Ministry is sitting there with it ...

    Well, okay. Information on TV is the most truthful. The military man - who had a relation to this, said on TV .... I am not a military man, and only 12 years had a relationship with this. But where am I against an unnamed military man with TV. So, garbage that you should not even pay attention to. Here TV is the ultimate truth. If you do not perceive the technical characteristics of the products - believe what they tell you on TV. Some already say.

    Quote: aiw
    Wait, right now, wazza will explain to you that both the Buran and the Space Shuttle are degraded copies of a secret German nuclear-powered shuttle flying right on Mars directly from Peenemuende. In his alternative universe, both history and physics and terminology are very alternative.

    Yes, I understand his level of knowledge, at least in the field of astronautics. If he does not care about the characteristics table and he believes what someone from the Ministry of Defense said on TV, let him believe. We have several such clowns. One of them agreed that through the South Pole the new Sarmat could deliver as many as 10 tons of warheads to the enemy. True, at the same time, having forgotten to calculate that the new ICBM should have a launch mass of about 600 tons. And at the same time be “easier” 200 tons of “Governor”. Another such clever man from the media is talking about something else. No, what say - TV is the ultimate truth
    1. 0
      15 June 2017 20: 24
      No, she is in VO it is not clear from anyone who is more truthful. 12 years specifically for what and in what quality?
      "lateral maneuver during the descent" is the "lateral lapel", it is underestimated in the table, the one who believes these tables just like a translator of foreign literature was most likely ...
      1. aiw
        0
        15 June 2017 21: 39
        Do-do-do, and the tables also lie.
        1. 0
          15 June 2017 22: 33
          No, newspapers write only the truth ...
    2. aiw
      0
      15 June 2017 21: 35
      Well, in the field of everything else, his level is not higher. The funny thing is that the topics of the first atomic bombs, the German atomic project, the first computers are driven up and down - take and read, sea information at any level, from science to fairly detailed options for people with specialized education. No, a man is eager to play conspiracy theories, and if some facts do not fit into his picture of the world - the worse for the facts, "the sources lie, the sources are intentionally distorted, co-ko-ko."

      Gridasov and he looks more sane.
      1. 0
        15 June 2017 22: 31
        The funny thing is that about the parallax that was available when aiming at the ousted Norden optical sight due to eye displacement, you also grabbed today and even “thank you, I didn't know” and wrote to someone in reply ... as well as about the fact that such a bomb they never threw this sight at the training ground to at least check how many hundred meters he could make a mistake ...
        This one wouldn’t buy such a crap, he himself drives it to everyone.
        1. aiw
          0
          15 June 2017 22: 56
          Mdya ... the fact of the matter is that they were thrown many times. But the terms KVO, the center of mass, the center of pressure naturally do not say anything to you - you sang something about the "poor plumage of a fat man" there. The fact that the best specialists worked on plumage for almost half a year is "well, dumb" ...
          1. 0
            15 June 2017 23: 17
            The fact of the matter is that you were paired with Alexey RA there, or just found out about it.
            It is clear that the word "optical" with such parallax risings of a scorer from a chair is about nothing ...
            The budget for plumage had to be mastered ... as in the electromagnetic and thermal diffusion method. There is enough brain for such a thing, for plumage itself - no longer.
  24. +1
    15 June 2017 22: 07
    Quote: wazza
    No, she is in VO it is not clear from anyone who is more truthful. 12 years specifically for what and in what quality?

    But do you care? He worked in the SCC system, in particular in the Orbit Design Bureau. He took part in the delivery of products "Beladonna", "Tusks", "Don". True business trips did not differ in variety - Moscow region and Turatam

    Quote: wazza
    "lateral maneuver during the descent" is the "lateral lapel", it is underestimated in the table, the one who believes these tables just like a translator of foreign literature was most likely ...

    This is information from a domestic resource. And you shouldn’t always consider all of ours to have no analogues. We also had not entirely successful developments, there were developments that did not go. There were developments that, although they went, but had and have characteristics lower than those of our competitors from across the ocean
    1. 0
      15 June 2017 22: 38
      Now all the same ... Such idiocy as with the shuttle gondolas, for example, in the USA there were many more, "because Zadornov."
  25. 0
    15 June 2017 22: 14
    Quote: aiw
    from science

    Interesting term. I have never seen such an option before. I will use it. By the way, I recently finished re-reading the Cosmic Wings for the second time. And do not stop wondering. as we know little about our own developments. Sometimes there were good ideas of popularization, but they were bent. At the time, a very good book was published about the aircraft of Ilyushin Design Bureau. And not just a listing, but with a description of development options. There were two magnificent volumes of Shavrov. They began to produce an encyclopedia of Myasishchev’s aircraft, but out of 8 volumes only 4 or 5 were released by the EMNIP. Another five are different in aviation subjects with a good historical background. There are good books on armor and navy, but with astronautics, it was not so lucky. But here is an unplowed field. It’s not without reason that I mentioned “Cosmic wings”, although there is at least a description of the options for our winged ships. Alas, not implemented
    1. aiw
      0
      15 June 2017 22: 45
      Thanks, downloaded, it is necessary to read. Lukashevich V.P., Afanasyev I.B.?

      There was an interesting O. Pavlenko “Ocean Support of Space Bridges” - but you can get the figs like, and there isn’t any electronic version either.

      I really liked R. Feynman, "Who cares what others say" - there the whole second part is devoted to the Challenger investigation. It was interesting to see how it works for them.
  26. +1
    15 June 2017 23: 09
    Falcon5555,
    Just today I watched the American docfilm about the space race. So, the creators of the film mentioned the successes of the Soviet cosmonautics only three times: satellite, Gagarin and, in passing, Luna-2. All. They just didn’t mention anything else. Thus, by the end of the film, there was an impression of the complete and irrevocable superiority of the United States in space before the end of the sixties. The creators lied in the film? No. And the conclusion is false. Here is an example for you.
    1. 0
      16 June 2017 19: 53
      Well, they didn’t lie, so what's the question? Your example for what? If your conclusion is false, then this is your problem. If you weren’t informed, then maybe they weren’t obliged. For example, I don’t have to tell you anything. Lied? I have not watched this movie, but you yourself say that they did not lie. As Old26 noted above:
      Terms exist for that, to use them, and not to invent something of their own.
      1. 0
        16 June 2017 23: 06
        You are mistaken. The truth is not said precisely for the conclusion of what has been said to be false. Either you don’t understand this, then sadness, or vice versa, you all perfectly understand.
  27. +1
    16 June 2017 00: 18
    Quote: netmag
    Falcon5555,
    Just today I watched the American docfilm about the space race. So, the creators of the film mentioned the successes of the Soviet cosmonautics only three times: satellite, Gagarin and, in passing, Luna-2. All. They just didn’t mention anything else. Thus, by the end of the film, there was an impression of the complete and irrevocable superiority of the United States in space before the end of the sixties. The creators lied in the film? No. And the conclusion is false. Here is an example for you.

    It is difficult to say something without seeing the film itself. It’s the same as being likened to that Christological character who stated about the book “Doctor Zhevago”: I haven’t read the book, but I know that it is anti-Soviet. So it is here. What can be said about the lunar direction of our space program. It was performed more or less and, unlike the Martian one, was not a failure. Although it’s impossible to say that luck always accompanied us.
    Everyone knows that the USSR for the first time in the world (and the only ones who did this) delivered lunar soil by the Luna automatic stations. But few people know that the soil was brought THREE station, but it was launched EIGHT. The first station to make a soft landing on the moon - LUNA-9 (a series of stations E-6) was the account of the TWELVE. The rest either did not leave the orbit of the Earth, or did not enter into orbit, three generally crashed into the moon, it missed nearly 160 thousand kilometers. And only station number 12 in the series landed.
    The Americans, admittedly, were no better. True, over time, they have become a larger percentage of successful launches than ours. But what to do. There was a race between the countries, a struggle for priority, and here only one won.
    1. aiw
      0
      16 June 2017 00: 53
      Well, before Luna-1, the task was to simply crash into the moon (deliver a pennant). But due to the fact that when transmitting control commands from the ground, they forgot to introduce an amendment for the delay in the passage of the signal, the station passed by and became the first artificial satellite of the Sun ;-)

      Only he who does nothing is not mistaken.
    2. +1
      16 June 2017 06: 46
      In fairness, you describe here only Soviet failures.
      The percentage of successful landings on Venus is probably even higher. lol
    3. 0
      16 June 2017 12: 17
      Silence is also a lie. So what else did they lie! )
  28. +1
    16 June 2017 07: 57
    Quote: wazza
    In fairness, you describe here only Soviet failures.
    The percentage of successful landings on Venus is probably even higher. lol

    And we describe the Soviet failures solely because of you, who only asserts that all the others are not suitable for outlining our satellites and ships. In the same way, I can describe to you the failures and the Americans in the exploration of the moon. Good luck in the Venusian program of the USSR and complete failure in the Martian. But you continue to believe that the parameters of the “Buran” are so outstanding that they bypass the shuttle. But this does not happen. I wrote as an answer that everything was. There were outstanding projects, there were projects that did not go, but there were projects that, although phenomenally reliable, in terms of their performance characteristics were behind competitors in the west.

    And the failures of the USSR in this case are described not in order to show how bad we are, but they are good, but in order for some to understand that not everything that is told to us from TV screens, on the radio and in newspapers is consistent reality. The failures were either silenced or presented as another victory in space.

    For example, the failed mission of the lunar station E-6 No. 6, known in the west as "Luna-5s" could sound like this on our radio and TV:
    "On March 12, 1965, as part of space research in the Soviet Union, the Cosmos-60 satellite was launched. The satellite was put into orbit with the specified parameters. The coordination and computing center is processing the incoming information."
    And the fact that the satellite simply “got stuck” in the Earth’s orbit and could not go to the Moon due to a power supply failure in the control system, we learned in 40-45 years
    1. +1
      16 June 2017 08: 45
      Oh, already at once the guilty parties were found ... But they didn’t write about the Americans, but again they wrote about the Soviet ones.
      Or maybe because of literate men like aiw who don’t know (or powder other brains) what is the line of sight in the optical sight, and that the sights are first tested or shoot?
      There was anti-Soviet sabotage across Mars. Which now likewise continues as anti-Russian. As part of the Masonic disposition of which of the countries or systems where should be successful. Especially considering the fact that Venus is much more difficult and unpromising to explore. At one time, some Roman pontiff also divided the countries of the world between Portugal and Spain.
  29. +1
    16 June 2017 11: 36
    Quote: wazza
    Oh, immediately and the perpetrators were found ...

    Of course. You are extreme. You started with the fact that our "snowstorm" has no analogues and surpassed the shuttle in characteristics. You were told that this is not so. That you can’t believe everything, what they say on TV or in newspapers. That we had excellent projects that were superior to Western ones (they always write about this, even if this is not entirely true.). And there were failed projects, in particular the E-6 project. And they gave examples of the fact that we never talk about it openly.
    Need examples of failed U.S. launches? Yes, no problem. Indicate either a period or a direction. I will give an example in this.

    Quote: wazza
    There was anti-Soviet sabotage across Mars. Which now likewise continues as anti-Russian. As part of the Masonic disposition of which of the countries or systems where should be successful. Especially considering the fact that Venus is much more difficult and unpromising to explore.

    Oh, already conspiracy theories went, searching for enemies under the bed, Masons. Oh well. Just answer the question, if you are so sure of the Masonic conspiracy, then why did the Americans have about 11% failures in exploring Venus, and 32 for Russians? By your logic, should we have zero at all? . Although you may not answer. All the same, you cannot name the real reason, and there is no desire to listen to conspiracy theories.
    Although, I must say that the Venusian program of the USSR was the least susceptible to accidents (only 32%) and achieved outstanding results.
    1. 0
      16 June 2017 12: 27
      Well, in fact, power and government in particular are not without conspiracies. There were conspiracies against the USSR, and even more so against Russia, there are and will be — and this is a fact. Another thing is that the intervention in the space program was not so obvious, super secret and in fact unprovable. And of course you don’t have to blame everything on this. Everything was.
      And about Venus, can you throw off the material with the numbers? hi
      1. 0
        16 June 2017 14: 48
        he threw it off, but again biased and without indicating the number of successful or unsuccessful American landings there lol
    2. 0
      16 June 2017 15: 14
      The question is probably still who said this on TV ...
      Rather like you with aiw or even worse. Who do not understand this from the difference between the Shuttle and Buran, or repeat various nonsense about the bomb sight.
      If a worker who has been working there for 12 years is not clear why, then this is a difficult case.
      What could be a failure N-1, which the Masons muddied only to surrender the moon to the Americans? Because it was possible to assemble a lunar ship in orbit by separately removing its modules, as technicians had originally planned.
      Or m. for you truman in an apron openly giving various interviews in June 1941 and then doing everything in accordance with him is this also about nothing? Maybe it’s just that there is one?
      According to your logic, it should be with the Americans. different from zero in terms of landings on it.
    3. 0
      17 June 2017 00: 23
      Quote: Old26
      and Russians have 32?

      and the language then betrays you ...
  30. 0
    16 June 2017 13: 32
    Quote: gridasov
    For high-potential physical processes, it is possible to create such an excess potential of the process when the work is performed not only due to kinetic energy, but also the potential energy of the transformation of matter. Therefore, in such a process, it is extremely important to provide capacitive parameters of the supplied part of the energy or energy taken from the medium in which the process is carried out. Again, if in such a process we provided an excess output potential, then with a closed cycle and the process loop, the energy itself will provide input parameters. Our basic postulates are completely identical with traditional views, but the process itself is provided by fundamentally new algorithms. Only!


    What are you grinding heresy here? Sit quietly and quietly in your sandbox and cook whatever you want in it. And do not breed hot disputes. Why do you want to dispute these disputes? That's when you are ready to fly out of the sandbox, then come and call the guests.
  31. 0
    16 June 2017 14: 17
    Quote: ALLxANDr
    And about Venus, can you throw off the material with the numbers?

    Yes, no problem. There are two options.
    1. Shortened.
    The year is indicated, the name of the satellite (without specifying who and when flew in the year, who earlier, who later
    2. Advanced.
    It indicates not only the year, but also the date and time of launch. Type of carrier, its serial number, number by international identifier, number by satellite catalog.
    According to the first option, I can right now. In the second, it will take time and only tomorrow in the evening

    So, the first option
    Research on Venus began in 1961

    1961 g -
    AMS "Venus-1 (1VA No. 1) - the launch is considered successful
    The station reached the vicinity of the planet, but due to a failure in communication equipment, the program was not completed

    November 1962, XNUMX
    AMC "Mariner-1 - the launch is not successful
    AMC "Mariner-2 - successful launch
    AMC "Venus" (2MV-1 No. 1) - the launch is not successful
    AMC "Venus" (2MV-1 No. 2) - the launch is not successful
    AMC "Venus" (2MV-2 No. 1) - the launch is not successful

    November 1963, XNUMX
    AMC "Venus" (3MV-1 No. 1) - the launch is not successful. Known as Cosmos 21

    November 1964, XNUMX
    AMC "Venus" (3MV-1 No. 2) - the launch is not successful
    AMC "Venus" (3MV-1 No. 3) - the launch is not successful. Known as Cosmos 27

    November 1965, XNUMX
    AMC "Venera-2" (3MV-4 No. 4) - successful launch
    AMC "Venera-3" (3MV-3 No. 1) - successful launch
    AMC "Venus" (3MV-4 No. 6) - the launch is not successful. Known as Cosmos 96

    In 1966, there were no launches to Venus

    November 1967, XNUMX
    AMC "Mariner-5 - successful launch
    AMC "Venera-4" (4V-1 No. 310) - successful launch
    AMC "Venus" (4B-1 No. 311) - the launch is not successful. Known as Cosmos 167

    In 1968, there were no launches to Venus

    November 1969, XNUMX
    AMC "Venera-5" (4V-1 No. 330) - successful launch
    AMC "Venera-6" (4V-1 No. 331) - successful launch

    November 1970, XNUMX
    AMC "Venera-7" (4V-1 No. 630) - successful launch
    AMC "Venus" (4B-1 No. 631) - the launch is not successful. Known as Cosmos 359

    In 1971, there were no launches to Venus

    November 1972, XNUMX
    AMC "Venera-8" (4V-1 No. 670) - successful launch
    AMC "Venus" (4B-1 No. 671) - the launch is not successful. Known as Kosoms-482

    November 1973, XNUMX
    AMC "Mariner-10 - successful launch

    In 1974, there were no launches to Venus

    November 1975, XNUMX
    AMC "Venera-9" (4V-1 No. 660) - successful launch
    AMC "Venera-10" (4V-1 No. 661) - successful launch

    In 1976-1977, there were no launches to Venus

    November 1978, XNUMX
    AMC "Pioneer-Venus-1" - successful launch (USA)
    AMC "Pioneer-Venus-2" - successful launch (USA)
    AMC "Venera-11" (4V-1 No. 360) - successful launch
    AMC "Venera-12" (4V-1 No. 361) - successful launch

    In 1979 and 1980, there were no launches to Venus

    November 1981, XNUMX
    AMC "Venera-13" (4V-1M No. 760) - successful launch
    AMC "Venera-14" (4V-1M No. 761) - successful launch

    In 1982, there were no launches to Venus

    November 1983, XNUMX
    AMC "Venera-15" (4V-2 No. 860) - successful launch
    AMC "Venera-16" (4V-2 No. 861) - successful launch

    November 1984, XNUMX
    AMC "Vega-1" (5ВК No. 901) - successful launch
    AMC "Vega-2" (5ВК No. 902) - successful launch

    On this, the research program in the USSR ended

    November 1989, XNUMX
    AMC "Magellan" - successful launch (USA)
    AMC "Galileo" - successful launch (USA)

    November 1997, XNUMX
    AMC "Cassini-Huygens" - successful launch (USA)

    November 2004, XNUMX
    AMC "Messenger" - successful launch (USA)

    November 2005, XNUMX
    AMC "Venera Express" - successful launch (ESA)

    November 2010, XNUMX
    AMC "Akatsuki" - successful launch (Japan)
    1. +1
      16 June 2017 17: 01
      Thanks for the work! If it’s not difficult, can you still advanced? Desirable to the source. Flight statistics are not entirely interesting, the program is more interesting, the satellite’s capabilities, what has done, what’s not .. well, etc.

      Thank you in advance! hi
  32. +1
    16 June 2017 19: 09
    Quote: ALLxANDr
    Thanks for the work! If it’s not difficult, can you still advanced? Desirable to the source. Flight statistics are not entirely interesting, the program is more interesting, the satellite’s capabilities, what has done, what’s not .. well, etc.
    Thank you in advance! hi

    But if only tomorrow afternoon. I must say that the Venus program was still the most successful in the USSR, despite the fact that the accident rate was quite high.
    And the question always arose, and how to consider whether the program was completed completely or not. Therefore, in principle, all of our stations that reached the "Venus" were considered to have fulfilled their mission. True, not everything is 100%, but it was still believed that they had completed.
    The flaws were different. For example, the Venera-11 station completed a mission of almost 100%. All measurements were made. The lander worked on the surface for 95 minutes. But I could not convey the photos. Everything to the point of banality is simple. The camera shutters did not open.
    The first stations of "Venus" No. 4, No. 5 and No. 6. - they were calculated on milder conditions. No one expected surface pressure to be nearly 100 atmospheres. The descent vehicles were designed for 20-25 atmospheres (this is a double reserve). As a result, the first lander was crushed at an altitude of 28 km, the second and third - at 18. But before these lines they worked and carried out the program
    As for the source. I’ll try to find a link to our Soviet publications on space exploration. They were issued until the collapse of the Union. A very detailed description of each of the flights. And not only our satellites and AMS, but also American and other countries. The only negative - all this until 1990 goa and, accordingly, with those installations - is only officially announced. Those that took place under the name "Cosmos-xxx", that is, those remaining in the orbit of the Earth and those that failed at the stage of withdrawal - there are no about them
    1. +1
      16 June 2017 22: 34
      Are crushed Americans counted as failures?
      About a much larger number of "Cosmos" is not because they are military satellites. DOS has such strange numbers, too, because of this.

      In terms of autonomy, the Shuttle is worse because in terms of autonomy in the manned space program, the United States lagged behind in general. Autonomous now, the unmanned mini-shuttle X-37 flies for more than a year because it is equipped with automatic equipment from Buran. The shuttle could not land automatically, so all flights would have to. short manned. Including the first test where NASA therefore risked two testers at once. The space shuttle needed a large size, thermal protection on it weighed more, orbital lateral maneuver and maneuver in height was limited. Because he carried less fuel with him, he weighed more and carried with him in space 2nd stage engines unnecessary there (to bring into a circular orbit the same ones were used as for the braking pulse located in the upper engine nacelles). First Columbia was so heavy that it was for this reason that it did not fly to the ISS even without any cargo. The pitch angles at the shuttle upon entering the atmosphere and roll maneuvering due to the SSME RS-25 marching far back and not added to the shuttle at the very beginning of the gondolas were limited. Therefore, everything was limited and lateral lapel during the descent, on which the Shuttle could only plan.
      In the following launches of Energy, the main engines of the 2nd stage to be saved, like the first steps as a whole. Rescue systems before the first two launches, the perestroika managers ordered to remove it, and to not install the thermal protection of the engines of the second stage. Only 2nd-level fuel tanks were to be lost in it, and it could be used without a Buran, for deriving payloads the weight of which was equal to the total payload weight in Buran plus its own weight. So the Shuttle is a very bad machine, and it was even worse to bring them out, less than Proton, almost what he was doing according to Zadornov. lol The Russian proton launched the main module of the ISS American segment, because the Shuttle would not have pulled it. Made by Russia, because it has all the life support systems. Now the Americans have come to their senses and are also trying to add a salvage engine compartment on the SLS for their reusable RS-25 left over from the shuttles. Laugh, laugh further on Zadornov ... NAZA on the shuttle in some ways can even give odds to the ololosh Mask, not according to his program for exploring Mars, of course, with its pasta lol
      1. +5
        16 June 2017 22: 44
        Quote: wazza
        Autonomous now, the unmanned X-37 mini-shuttle flies for more than a year because it is equipped with automatic from Buran

        Saturn no longer pour
        Quote: wazza
        The shuttle could not land automatically, so all flights would have to. short manned.

        laughing
        Quote: wazza
        The space shuttle needed a large size, thermal protection on it weighed more, orbital lateral maneuver and maneuver in height was limited.

        Call me 3 bands designed for Buran?
        let's talk laughing
        Quote: wazza
        In the following launches of Energy, the main engines of the 2nd stage to be saved, like the first steps as a whole.

        Did you participate in the launches of Energy and Buran?
        I am.
        Both Energy launches were partially successful.
        Buran launch (single) - took place only the second time.
        Quote: wazza
        So the shuttle is a very bad car,

        Of course bad - flew more than 100 times into space.
        Buran - cooler laughing
        Quote: wazza
        Laugh, laugh further on Zadornov ... NAZA on the shuttle can even give odds to the ololosh Mask, not according to his program for exploring Mars, of course, with its pasta

        what nonsense.
        1. aiw
          0
          16 June 2017 23: 08
          Well hold on, right now wazza will tell you awesome stories about the Shuttle and Buran. Already told me about the atomic project - it turns out Germany extracted 2 tons of uranium in 100500MB, enriched it in supercentrifuges, calculated the bomb on super-computers (disguised as radio stations) but failed to use it - all 560 tons of cleaned U235 were sent to the United States in German the submarine during surrender, and here amers’s business went. And the USSR went to German supercentrifuges for uranium enrichment, they are still working. Oh yes, even the Kid did not have a neutron initiator, and the German cumulative charge is much more complicated than the atomic bomb of the implosive scheme! And all this is said to be wazz sincerely, I'm not joking.

          Be careful with space - wazza in this thread could not solve the elementary problem of space flight dynamics, but Makeeva criticized the development of design bureau with great enthusiasm.
          1. 0
            17 June 2017 00: 16
            Yeah, the client is clearly hopeless ... No, of course you weren’t joking, even when you thoughtlessly repeated after others about shifting the aiming point in the optical sight hundreds of meters below because the B-29 striker fidgeted two inches in the chair. Yes
            1. aiw
              0
              17 June 2017 00: 35
              At a distance of 10 km, an offset of 100 m means an error in determining the direction of 0.01 radians or about half a degree. If you knew mathematics at least in high school, you would understand such things.
              1. 0
                17 June 2017 00: 41
                If you knew what a line of sight is and how a collimator or optical sight is designed.
                it’s not even that they are repeatedly tested and tuned before use. So that the shift to the hundred-meter troph below would suddenly "show up" later, after the vine. lol
                1. aiw
                  0
                  17 June 2017 11: 06
                  Well, yes, yes, it’s for you that a computer is a walkie-talkie, that a collimator sight, that an optical sight is all the same. You are a well-known expert!
                  1. 0
                    17 June 2017 11: 22
                    About "all one" you yourself came up with.
                    And about this and this - I did not know and forgot.
        2. +1
          17 June 2017 00: 11
          Both weren’t tired of carrying nonsense? Participated in what capacity that "did not understand" all this? Waving a broom? Or dragged cocktails?
          The Americans themselves have not mastered even the system of orbital docking on a machine, now they are using the Soviet one.
          1. 0
            17 June 2017 20: 06
            angry All the same, do not fight! stop
  33. +1
    17 June 2017 12: 47
    Quote: wazza
    Are crushed Americans counted as failures?

    The question is about knowledge of the subject. The only station whose launch was found to be unsuccessful is the Mariner-1 station. The carrier with the station was blown up 293 seconds after launch. If you wish, you will find the cause of the blast yourself. Americans didn’t have more NONE unsuccessful attempt to send their AWS to Venus. As there were no crushed American descent vehicles. "Pioneer-Venus-2" carried out the dump of four descent vehicles onto the planet at once. All safely reached the surface of Venus. You can find the coordinates yourself. So there were no crushed, because it was the only station with descent vehicles.

    Quote: wazza
    About a much larger number of "Cosmos" is not because they are military satellites. DOS has such strange numbers, too, because of this.

    Can you hear your version of why DOS had such strange numbers? And which of the DOS do you mean?
    USSR launched DOSy THREE different types. Models 715, 71 and 668. Which of them do you mean when talking about the oddities of numbering?

    Quote: wazza
    In terms of autonomy, the Shuttle is worse because in terms of autonomy in the manned space program the USA lagged behind in general.

    What nonsense are you talking about? Where did you get such knowledge? What a stupid comparison - the shuttle is worse because the Americans lagged behind in the manned space program?
    Do you know that ours reached the time of being in space equal to the American only at the SALUT-3 orbital station? Prior to that, they had a record of staying in space - 84 days. And it's completely stupid to compare the way you compare. Compare the time spent on the orbital station with the time spent on the shuttle. Any spaceship, whether it be the Soyuz, the Apollo or the shuttle, has two types of autonomy. Autonomy in "independent", autonomous flight and autonomy when flying as part of the complex. In the first case, this is calculated as a week for the shuttle, in the second case, as a month. And our Buran had exactly the same parameters. If he began to fly with people, then in an autonomous flight he would have a flight duration of 7 days, in combination with the Mir station - a month (30 days).

    Quote: wazza
    Autonomous now, the unmanned mini-shuttle X-37 flies for more than a year because it is equipped with automatic equipment from Buran.

    What kind of nonsense? where does the presence of automation from the "Buran", which was intended solely for landing with the autonomy of its flight? The autonomy of the flight is determined primarily for the "machine" by energy sources. For the manned - the presence of water, food and oxygen. And not by the kind of automation that stands on it

    Quote: wazza
    The shuttle could not land automatically, so all flights would have to. short manned. Including the first test where NASA therefore risked two testers at once.

    And how does this relate to autonomy? Or do you think that if the Buran didn’t make its short flight, then it would fly for six months or a year? His autonomy in autonomous flight was the same as that of the shuttle - 7 days. What they sent their astronauts on the first flight is a risk of course, but the risk is calculated. But they did not dare to rely entirely on automation. We took a chance. Lucky and became the first to automatically land such a ship. But the fact that he, the shuttle, did not automatically land autonomy has nothing to do

    Quote: wazza
    The space shuttle needed a large size, thermal protection on it weighed more, orbital lateral maneuver and maneuver in height was limited. Because he carried less fuel with him, he weighed more and carried with him in space 2nd-stage engines unnecessary there (to bring into a circular orbit the same ones were used as for the brake impulse located in the upper engine nacelles).

    The lane he needed was about the same as the Buran - that is, 4 km. The band at Baikonur was generally 4,5 km plus the corresponding section at the beginning and end of the strip - The total length of the runway was 5,5 km
    As for thermal protection, that it weighed more - pliz, weight characteristics of the Burana and Shuttle TK. About the fact that he was carrying less fuel - take and calculate the reserve at the shuttle and the Buran.
    In order not to search for you - I bring
    • The dry weight of the shuttle is 68,1 tons, the Buran has from 62 to 65 tons according to various estimates (so to say that because of the TK the shuttle weighed much more is stupid
    • Launch mass in orbit at the shuttle is 111 tons, at Buran - 105 tons
    • The payload (maximum) of the shuttle is 29,5 tons, of the Buran - 30 tons
    Consider what their weight reserve is and theirs.

    A statement that vertical maneuver was limited - by what? Both the vertical and horizontal maneuvers will be different with different aerodynamic qualities of the airframe. And they are almost the same
    What drove the engines? Well. This was their scheme, but the engines are included in the “dry weight of the ship.” And if you remove them, it is not known how much our Buran would be heavier than an American ship. In the OS-120 variant, ours also drove

    Quote: wazza
    In the following launches of Energy, the main engines of the 2nd stage to be saved, like the first steps as a whole.

    In the next launches of Energia, no changes were foreseen. EMNIP only 10 start-up planned to begin the salvation of the first stages. There was only talk of saving second-stage engines. Technically, such options were not even worked out, since it was not clear why it was necessary to save them from such a height and how to do it technically

    Quote: wazza
    Rescue systems before the first two launches, the perestroika managers ordered to remove it, and to not install the thermal protection of the engines of the second stage. Only fuel tanks of the 2nd stage were to be lost in it, and it could be used without a Buran, for deriving payloads the weight of which was equal to the total weight of the payload in Buran plus its own weight.

    What nonsense are you talking about. DID NOT HAVE no rescue system on first starts. The first stage containers were empty. The system did not even pass the flight tests at that time. This system was only planned in subsequent ones. And in your opinion, the evil managers took it off. You at least imagine (apparently not) what it meant to make changes to a particular design, to a particular set of equipment, materials, components. This was decided at the level of chief designers. And no managers with their decision simply could not do it.
    Thermal protection on engines of the second stage? How is that? How, how and where could this thermal protection be installed? Especially on the engines themselves? Fuel tanks and second-stage engines - IT IS ONE WHOLE. This is not an American scheme, when tanks are separate, engines are separate. Everything was united here. And what do you suppose were supposed to tear the fuel fittings to separate the engines from the tanks? But were you going to separate the engines from the frame?
    The fact that the RLA-130 series missiles were capable of removing not only shuttles is a well-known fact. As well as the fact that we were not able to make solid fuel accelerators more powerful than those on which Energy flew twice. This would push the program another 10 years.

    Quote: wazza
    So the Shuttle is a very bad machine, and it was even worse to bring them out, less than Proton, almost what he was doing according to Zadornov.

    Of course bad. Therefore, it flew 135 times. And the fact that she displayed less than the "Proton" - do not read murzilok, the proton also never displayed maximum weight.

    Quote: wazza
    The proton was removed the main module of the American segment of the ISS, because the Shuttle would not have pulled it. Made by Russia, because it has all the life support systems.

    The module we made is legally American, in fact, it is part of the Russian segment. And the rest of the modules, we also launched protons, or did they carry them on their shuttle?

    That's it, I pass to comment on all this, ALL THIS Nonsense

    Quote: karish
    Call me 3 bands designed for Buran? then let's talk laughing

    Comrad. I think that rummaging in the network, he will call them. I would ask him to name not only three finished ones, but those three that were planned (for the future). Those who are in the subject, their location know or could know. Those who know about this program from the network - no.
    By the way, from which "box" (can you PM)? Or are you from OIICH?
    1. +1
      17 June 2017 18: 17
      the answer speaks of ignorance of the subject and the level of demagogy ...
      What did they transfer from the surface from there without being squashed? The Americans have no successful landing on Venus, so they believe that it is "not necessary", all the same, he shared all the data of the USSR, and did only remote sensing.
      This "record" was supplied and at the station removed Saturn-5, they did not even know how to properly regenerate oxygen and especially water, emptied went into an empty fuel tank. The shuttle did not provide such amenities.
      They did not even have automation for docking in orbit, there was nothing to rely on.
      In terms of thermal protection (and engines), weights were not given (but asked).
      About aerodynamics, they pretended not to notice,
      They resented and laughed about the rescue systems ...
      Immediately "tired" to answer after this ...
      Well, just like "American Michael" on TV. learn from him, until he gets tired ... lol
      compartments with tracks are undocked for a long time, and descent vehicles have been saving since the beginning of the 60s
      with empty compartments of the rescue systems, she started both times, it was ordered to remove and not install. "for simplicity"...
      Americans use simple toxic solid fuel boosters because F-1 is even worse than them.
      "Of course it’s bad. Therefore, it flew 135 times." - simultaneously wriggling with one Israeli ... did they drag the cocktails to the Americans from Interlaunch in Baikonur with karish? this is the level of your competencies ... The rest of the modules weighed less and were equipped with equipment already in orbit after the withdrawal, all of their supporting systems in the "made in Russia" module that Proton brought to the Americans.
      "comrade" just as you walked looked what and how these "Russians" were on the verge of throwing a nut, or something else ...
  34. +1
    17 June 2017 18: 33
    All clear. I have never met such a stubbornly dense. Therefore, you can no longer respond to my statements. I will answer sane people, and not obsessed with the conspiratorial-Masonic version and firmly believing that in the USSR in space we were the very best, the rest did not even come close. I have never seen such a fool at VO.
    The level of your knowledge in the field of space is clear. finally. When there are no answers - immediately go to the person and everything else. You can continue to dream wet that you are here


    Camrad ALLxANDr. As promised later in the evening, by 22 o’clock I’ll drop you the statistics that you asked for. I’m not ready to answer yet. We need to look in the archive, and this is sorry three external drives in the amount of 5 TB. But in any case, if not today, you still get a link to those resources. The general information on the stations, of course, will be reset today
    1. aiw
      0
      17 June 2017 20: 22
      I have wazza above (after he began to "criticize" Makeev’s design bureau) he asked A satellite weighing 300 ton flies in a circular orbit 1 km high. Give a cyclogram of the operation of the main engine for lifting the satellite’s orbit by 100 km, and calculate the fuel consumption for such a maneuver if the specific impulse of the engine is 300 s.

      The answer was expected. wazza:look for tutors yourself elsewhere

      Against this background, Gridasov with his "expiring rockets" is a standard of common sense.

      Tell me better, as a refined theorist far from space, I have always been interested in two questions:

      1) The first stage with ramjet (this is what kind of savings, do not carry the oxidizing agent).

      2) All sorts of options with NRE.

      Do you think something similar will take off, and when?
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. aiw
          0
          18 June 2017 14: 20
          Quote: wazza
          in round optics and collimators (which are still targeted and tested) there is no parallax


          Norden's scope is never a collimator. The presence / absence of parallax in optical sights is associated not with the shape (round / square / letter si) but with where the reticle is projected. Congratulations on another pearl.

          Here and in the neighboring thread about bast shoes and sledgehammer, a total of five people have said that you are very wrong, and on a variety of issues. Maybe it's not about them (Freemasons with Rockefeller manuals), but about you?
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. 0
            1 July 2017 03: 18
            parallax in some types of optics appears in the form of a blurred mesh at ranges closer than 30 meters
            American pilots bombed from such a height? and of course, had they never tested their bombs and sights at the firing ranges before using weapons?
            1. aiw
              0
              1 July 2017 14: 18
              Parallax manifests itself in different ways in different types of optics.

              The QUO when dropping the entire pack of bombs due to interaction with the atmosphere significantly exceeded the error due to parallax, so no one bothered before they started throwing one bomb, but it was very heavy. S-but in that post it was all described, but as usual you did not understand.
              1. 0
                2 July 2017 03: 32
                Rare nonsense again, sights (like bombs) are tested by dropping one at a time
                high-explosive nuclear mock-ups were tested
                1. aiw
                  0
                  2 July 2017 17: 33
                  Due to interaction with the atmosphere, the CVO light bomb is significantly larger than the error due to parallax. He began to experience heavy bombs in the form factor of the baby when they were preparing to dump the baby - and here this problem appeared.

                  However, since you think that a cumulative charge is more complicated than an implosive bomb, any questions related to physics are obviously too complicated for your understanding. Sorry...
                  1. 0
                    3 July 2017 03: 25
                    you wrote something before repeating after others about a hundred-meter trophy from "parallax" laughing
                    about cumulative, you still do not understand, I will not scare Yes
        2. aiw
          0
          18 June 2017 14: 40
          http://profoptic.ru/articles/?id=109 - про параллакс в коллиматорных прицелах (он там таки есть).
          1. 0
            18 June 2017 15: 16
            the collimator has the same parallax as from a mouse on a computer screen, then they are made like that.
      2. 0
        1 July 2017 03: 20
        this is generally a school task, in the form in which your Israeli friend solved it for free for you, which is probably why they fly for several days, not hours, from such cheat sheets to the ISS. lol
        1. aiw
          0
          1 July 2017 14: 19
          Well, you even could not solve this school task.
          1. 0
            2 July 2017 03: 33
            It’s you, “KVO-Schnick”, who didn’t distinguish it from the university, therefore it is such a thing. In this connection, as with sights and bombs, there was an earlier question: what kind of theory do you write or rewrite ...
            1. aiw
              0
              2 July 2017 17: 28
              Problems in correcting the orbit at school do not solve, except in physical education classes, and even not in all. Moreover, I don’t think that many students of the physics and technology department at GOS-ah by profession could immediately solve such a problem, I regularly sit on these gosah. The task is not difficult, but you need to remember the formula for the energy of an elliptical orbit - if you do not remember, it would take some time to derive this formula.

              Meanwhile, you suddenly became in the M16 thread of caliber 7.62, and another independent person said that you are either a troll, or you absolutely do not understand the subject of discussion. I wonder why whoever starts discussing any technical issue with you, as a result, comes to the same opinion? Is this probably a Masonic conspiracy against you personally? How scary to live ...
              1. 0
                3 July 2017 03: 37
                they are thus solved for students of special colleges (with deviations) on different American aerospace sites laughing
                she was at first 7,62 and they began to make it in such a design simply because the M-14 lifted up during firing, as a result, they could not cope with the automation and reduced the cartridge power and caliber. the same thing happened when the Germans tried to copy the SVT-40, but only the cartridge power was reduced.
                and even there, this person-like-you didn’t know that self-loading differs from automation only in one detail. you better look further along with AlexeyRA into the optical sight as the untested bombs in the parallax warfare fall in the KVO! laughing can you see what ... lol for example, what medical institutions are located at the address on his profile picture laughing
    2. The comment was deleted.
  35. 0
    17 June 2017 23: 03
    Quote: aiw
    1) The first stage with ramjet (this is what kind of savings, do not carry the oxidizing agent).

    2) All sorts of options with NRE.

    Do you think something similar will take off, and when?

    Well, I won’t say anything for ramjet, when it will be at all, although of course the idea of ​​not carrying an oxidizing agent is very interesting. But the achievements in the field of heavy rockets with ramjet engines are generally zero. If on small missiles they are at least occasionally, but used, then as for heavy ....
    At one time, there was a competition for the creation of direct-flow rockets. Shavyrinsk Design Bureau proposed ICBM "Dwarf". Moscow Institute of Heat Engineering, then at its head Nadiradze presented four missiles at once:
    • tactical Rook
    • operational tactical "Owl",
    • ICBM "Ray"
    • The global rocket "Luch-20".
    But only the Rook tactical missile reached the test. Engines were tested for the Gnome, but there was essentially no rocket. Only a prototype, which now stands in the Museum of the Strategic Missile Forces
    Rather, I believe in the success of the use of a nuclear engine in space, especially since the last 2-3 years, this topic periodically appears on the network, then fades. But I am not a prophet and cannot say, but when will this significant event happen. But the fact that she will turn the entire space program is undeniable. The flight to Mars manned systems will take not 6 months, as calculated now, but significantly less time. And the complex itself from a thousand-ton can be 500 or 600 tons ..
    1. 0
      18 June 2017 06: 45
      Quote: Old26
      But developments in the field of heavy rockets with ramjet we generally zero.

      And what are there in the world?
    2. 0
      18 June 2017 07: 03
      And these LV with ramjet db with or without wings? Like Bertrutanov’s carrier aircraft or B-52 bombers with Pegasus, also not carrying an oxidizing agent with them? For the rest we will not. Yes, and this is also unclear. Or pretend that you are "tired", and did not notice ...
    3. aiw
      0
      18 June 2017 14: 07
      It seems that now the military is flying on ramjet - mosquito and onyx ...? I don’t remember right away, but there seemed to be some kind of missiles with the TTPVRD for air carriers, although I could be wrong.

      It’s clear that this is absolutely not the right size, and this thing scales with big problems - but IMNO looks very attractive, especially accelerators with TTPVRD with which thread the light composite case, subject to testing the technology, they will cost a penny, a ring of such accelerators around the second stage; -)

      There were some projects / projects of space tugs with the NRE, well, and an alternative option was plasma engines powered by the reactor, IMNO this is more feasible. For me, it’s a mystery why NRE still haven’t gone into production. Economic considerations or security?

      Of course there is EmDrive ... but if it turns out that this thing really works, then besides that it will radically change long-range missions, it will put all physics into your ears. We'll have to call Gridasov and Co. to explain the violation of the law of conservation of momentum ;-)
      1. 0
        18 June 2017 15: 18
        With ramjet, everything is simple, but you didn’t answer about the plane with turbojet engine. Does your photon engine put all physics into your ears? How ... there is no mass, but there is pressure! laughing They didn’t go because someone didn’t want it ...
  36. 0
    18 June 2017 15: 39
    Quote: aiw
    It seems that now the military is flying on ramjet - mosquito and onyx ...? I don’t remember right away, but there seemed to be some kind of missiles with the TTPVRD for air carriers, although I could be wrong.

    It’s clear that this is absolutely not the right size, and this thing scales with big problems - but IMNO looks very attractive, especially accelerators with TTPVRD with which thread the light composite case, subject to testing the technology, they will cost a penny, a ring of such accelerators around the second stage; -)

    There were some projects / projects of space tugs with the NRE, well, and an alternative option was plasma engines powered by the reactor, IMNO this is more feasible. For me, it’s a mystery why NRE still haven’t gone into production. Economic considerations or security?

    Of course there is EmDrive ... but if it turns out that this thing really works, then besides that it will radically change long-range missions, it will put all physics into your ears. We'll have to call Gridasov and Co. to explain the violation of the law of conservation of momentum ;-)

    I did not write that there is nothing with ramjet. I talked about serious complexes, with a large mass. About what was, which were developed, I wrote above. Attractive - no doubt. But so far this is not achievable
    Nuclear engines on spacecraft - yes, there are projects, but they don’t move at all. After all, first there should be a goal, why create such tugs. For example - well, for a flight to the moon. I repeat, for example. But to create such a tugboat, a program for studying our satellite is necessary. And this is not only ships and stations, but also the carriers themselves. Which are now absent and are unlikely to be planned. But there is no goal, meaning to develop. More powerful engines may appear over time, but so far they are not.
    1. aiw
      0
      18 June 2017 15: 41
      OK thanks!
    2. aiw
      0
      18 June 2017 16: 06
      I found about the Gnome - a hell of a car! http://raigap.livejournal.com/51489.html

      I’ll also forget about ramjet, m. You know (curious though). It is clear that in order to put the load into orbit using ramjet, it is necessary to carefully build the trajectory - the higher the lower the resistance and thermal load, but the less oxygen for the engine to work. Where is that something about this in the public domain? Surely they thought, but the results will depend heavily on materials science and engine design, well, at least estimates (of the type you can score at a maximum of 4km / s)?
      1. aiw
        0
        18 June 2017 16: 18
        I found it right there in VO - https://topwar.ru/18762-gnom-mobilnyy-kompleks-s-
        mezhkontinentalnoy-ballisticheskoy-raketoy.html

        5-7M apparently ... sparingly ;-(
  37. 0
    18 June 2017 20: 38
    Quote: aiw
    Where is that something about this in the public domain? Surely they thought, but the results will depend heavily on materials science and engine design, well, at least estimates (of the type you can score at a maximum of 4km / s)?

    Quote: aiw
    I found it right there in VO - https://topwar.ru/18762-gnom-mobilnyy-kompleks-s-
    mezhkontinentalnoy-ballisticheskoy-raketoy.html
    5-7M apparently ... sparingly ;-(

    In the public domain - hardly. Products did not go into series and were not subsequently decommissioned to leave their mark. They say that the two-volume S. Invincible was released about his work in the Design Bureau. Maybe there might be something there, but I do not have this two-volume.
    I also read this article. What can I say. A mixture of truth and half truth. I do not want the author to admit that at that time it was a dead end branch of the development of rocket technology.

    It is only known for certain that the Turaev Design Bureau made the engine and it was tested. Otherwise, just development would have lost its meaning. develop a rocket without having an engine. But the rocket itself was not tested. At least I have not seen such information anywhere. And here is the phrase

    Development for unknown reasons was discontinued at the end of 1965 of the year. He did not arrive at the armament of the “Gnome” ICBM.

    Here is what Sergey Alexandrov wrote about this (Youth Technique N 2 '2000 "Last Name", an interview with S. The Unbeatable):
    “... however, the rocket didn’t go beyond the bench samples, factors from the equipment were far away. Designer of the Moscow Institute of Thermal Engineering A.D. Nadiradze, relying on his experience of creating a Tempo mobile tactical missile, proposed the project ICBMs on conventional solid-fuel engines, but with a launch mass of 26 t. He was supported by the leadership of the Ministry of Defense, and as a result we have an 45-tonne Topol on the 7-axis MAZ centipede, as part of a complex with a total mass of 98 t ... "

    it is from the evil one. Nadiradze began developing four projects with ramjet ramps (he wrote the names above). He brought the tactical missile to the test. But ...
    It was not he who lost interest in the rocket, but the leadership of the industry. Moreover, Ustinov himself, turning to Nadiradze, said that it’s enough to engage in nonsense (rockets with ramjets) and it’s time to make serious missiles.

    And Nadiradze began to do two years before the decision of the Council of Ministers and the Central Committee. And Nadiradze did.
    Difficult, with many unacceptable options, but nonetheless. Created. Of course, not Poplar, but his ancestor, Temp-2S ICBM - the first Soviet truly mobile complex on a car chassis.

    Then two unrealized projects Temp-2СМ1 and Temp-2СМ2 followed with a divided warhead. But an OSV-2 treaty was pending, according to which Temp-2S was banned for deployment and all created missiles and launchers were used in the stationary version under the long-term storage program (MP). That was the name of this type of combat duty. But exclusively “Temp-2C” was forbidden, but others ... Since the adversary did not even know the appearance of the same launcher (all that now goes in the form of drawings and photographs is a fiction), but a few years later a monoblock version of the “Temp” rocket appeared -2CM2 "with a heavy head. Already called "Poplar". At the same time and earlier, having removed one of the steps from Temp-2C, Nadiradze created another unique complex - the famous Pioneer

    In general, the history of rocket science in the USSR is "terra incognita." We only know what went into the series. And others ... Others do not even know. How many people, even those interested in rocket science, know about such a missile system as the “Swirl”? Or about the Agat-1, Spear-R, Baikal, Albatross, Elbrus complex (not just the SCAD, but the solid MITO), or Tyurin missiles with the F-xx index.
  38. 0
    10 February 2018 16: 11
    Why so hard? In the future, the booster block, which is necessary to overcome the Earth’s gravity and “throw” into the near-Earth orbit of the “shell”, WILL NOT BE REQUIRED - the rocket will accelerate and toss the rocket on the principles of magnetic levitation along the speral-shaped track - the “path” according to the principle. "? The task of the "bean" is to throw a rocket 25-30 km up! And then go down to earth by parachute!