Military Review

The project of the booster rocket of the energy class "Energy-5В"

107
The Russian space industry exploits launch vehicles of several classes and types. To solve some problems, astronautics needs super heavy-class missiles, but at the moment our country does not have such equipment. However, a promising project is already under development. Over the next few years, the industry will have to develop and bring to the test a promising rocket "Energy-5В".


The existence of plans to create an extra-heavy launch vehicle Energia-5В was announced last fall. In the middle of November, 2016 in Moscow hosted a conference devoted to the problems of the development of rocket and space technology. During this event, the Director General of Rocket and Space Corporation "Energia" named after. S.P. Queen Vladimir Solntsev. According to the head of the largest organization, the plans include the creation of a promising launch vehicle of a super-heavy class. It is planned to use a very interesting approach to the formation of the appearance of the rocket.

A new rocket was proposed to be built on a modular basis. Key nodes should be borrowed from already existing or developed projects of rocket technology. So, the first and second stages should be taken from the project of a promising middle-class rocket “Phoenix”. The upper stage with engines using hydrogen fuel was planned to be borrowed from the Angara-A5B projected heavy rocket. As V. Solntsev noted, the project “Energy-5В” proposes the creation of a kind of designer, from which it will be possible to assemble the carrier of the desired configuration with the required characteristics. The purpose of this approach is to reduce the time required to complete the work and the cost of the project.



By the time of the announcement of information about the promising project “Energy-5В”, there were already certain information about two other launch vehicles that are planned to be used as a source of components and assemblies. So, it is known that the Angara-A5B rocket is a variant of another project of its family, characterized by the use of the third stage with engines on the hydrogen-oxygen fuel pair. This modernization of the existing project, according to calculations, allows to significantly increase the payload.

The second source of aggregates is the Phoenix middle-class launch vehicle. Such a rocket will be able to lift to low Earth orbit up to 17 tons of cargo, including manned spacecraft. Also, the rocket will be able to output 2,5 tons of cargo to the geostationary orbit, for which she will need a booster. The development of Phoenix is ​​scheduled to begin in the 2018 year and be completed by 2025. Even last year, it became known that in the future, the units of this rocket can be used to create a promising carrier of a heavy or extra heavy class.

Last year, only the most general plans were announced, defining the course of further work in the field of promising launch vehicles. A few months later, some details of the future Energy-5B project became known. As it turned out, the rocket and space industry is planning to immediately offer two versions of a rocket with different characteristics and capabilities.

Information about new plans in the framework of a promising project was published at the end of January by the TASS news agency. Information was obtained from an unnamed source in the space industry. At the same time, it was noted that the press center of RSC Energia refused to comment on such news. However, in this case, the published information is of great interest.

A source from the TASS news agency reported that by that time the approximate shape of two super-heavy launch vehicles had been determined. Two versions of the rocket "Energy-5В" received their own working names "Energy-5В-ПТК" and "Energy-5ВР-ПТК". Preliminary studies on the two projects were planned to be submitted to the management of Energia Corporation, as well as to the leading organizations in the rocket and space industry.

According to the information, the missiles of both types will be built on a three-stage scheme and use liquid engines. The first and second stages of the two missiles are proposed to be equipped with engines RD-171МВ. The first should receive four such products, the second - two. The third stage will have to be completed with two RD-0150 engines using hydrogen fuel. Two variants of the rocket will be close in their characteristics, but it is supposed to foresee some difference in capabilities.

The launch vehicle Energia-5В-ПТК, according to the existing calculations, will have a launch mass of 2368 t. It will be able to put it into a low near-earth orbit up to 100 t of the payload. It will be possible to send to the near-moon orbit up to 20,5 t. The project “Energy-5BP-PTK” offers to equip the rocket with an upper stage equipped with hydrogen-fueled engines. In such a configuration, the carrier will have a starting mass of 2346 t. The use of an overclocking unit will give corresponding advantages in solving certain problems.

When using energy-5В rockets for delivery to the orbit of a manned Federation spacecraft or a promising landing module for a lunar expedition, it is possible to use so-called. interorbital tug. This product can be developed and built on the basis of one of the existing upper stages of the DM family.

Over the next few months, the enterprises of the rocket and space industry continued to work under a promising project. Among other things, the approximate terms of creating new launch vehicles and launch complexes for their operation were determined. 8 June TASS agency has published new data on plans for the rocket "Energy-5В." As before, information was obtained from an unnamed source in the industry. In addition, like previous reports, TASS officials were unable to get a comment from officials, this time from the Roscosmos State Corporation.

According to an unnamed source, the launch site for Energia-5В rockets will be built at the Vostochny space center. According to current plans, construction work will be completed in 2027. The first launch of super heavy media from the newest launch pad will be made in 2028. Also some features of the future complex were announced. As it turned out, the current plans of the rocket and space industry imply the creation of a universal launch pad.

A TASS source said that the launching table for Energy-5В will be built according to the same principles as the universal start-stand 17P31 complex for Energia carrier. This complex was built three decades ago at site No. XXUMX of the Baikonur cosmodrome and was subsequently used for two launches of the extra-heavy energy rocket. What principles of the starting table for the old “Energy” should be transferred to the new project - it was not specified.

It is stated that the launching table for the Energia-5В rocket will be universal and will allow launching of various types of equipment. With it, it will be possible to send prospective middle-class Soyuz-5 missiles into space, as well as other carriers made on their base by connecting several units. Among other things, such a launch complex can be used together with promising super-heavy rockets of the Angara and Energy-5В families.

Also 8 June became aware of plans to accelerate the development of super-heavy rocket. Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, said that the leadership of the industry had made a decision to force work on the subject of a super heavy class launch vehicle. To solve such problems, research work on the new RD-0150 engine has already begun. In the near future, this project will enter the development stage.

According to the vice-premier, the promising engine will be used on the Angara-A5В rocket, and will allow to bring its payload to 37 t. In the future, this power plant is planned to be used as part of the third stage of the super heavy rocket currently being built.

After the publication of news about the planned construction of the launch complex at the Vostochny cosmodrome, the acceleration of work in general and the beginning of the development of a new engine did not appear on the promising project Energy-5В. Thus, at the moment, only the most general information about the project is known, as well as the expected characteristics of the finished equipment. It is quite clear that the previously announced calculated information about the data and parameters in the future can significantly change. In addition, the fundamental points of the project may be revised. Finally, for one reason or another, the development of super-heavy carriers can be completely canceled.

It should be noted that, despite the similarity of the names and belonging to the same class, the promising rocket "Energy-5В" is not directly related to the carrier, created three decades ago. As follows from the previously published information, the new project of the super-heavy rocket will be created on the basis of modern ideas, solutions, components and assemblies. So, to save time and money, the authors of the project are considering the possibility of extensive use of large modules borrowed from existing samples of rocket technology.

It is known that the first and second stages of the Energia-5В-ПТК and Energiya-5ВР-ПТК missiles will be built on the basis of the corresponding units planned for development as part of the Phoenix project. The third stage, in turn, will be borrowed from the heavy "Angara-A5B", which is also quite far from the tests. The rocket will be able to use existing and prospective overclocking units. Such an approach will indeed speed up and cheapen the development of the project, although it will not provide an opportunity to realize all the plans in the near future. The fact is that the first flight of the Angara-A5B rocket is scheduled for 2023 year, and the Phoenix will take to the air in about two years. In order to design and prepare for testing, "Energy-5В" will need to wait for the completion of related projects used as a source of nodes.

Similarly, the situation with the engines. According to the reports of the beginning of the year, the first and second stages of super-heavy carrier will be equipped with RD-171MB engines. As far as we know, such a modification of the already existing RD-171 is not yet ready and will appear only in the foreseeable future. The RD-0150 engine also does not exist yet, and its development is in its very early stages. Thus, the lack of the necessary engines also will not allow the project “Energy-5В” to be completed in the near future.

The announced characteristics of a promising super-heavy launch vehicle are of great interest. A few months ago it became known that rockets could send low-Earth orbit up to 100 tons of cargo, and the Moon could deliver a little more than 20 tons. With the help of booster blocks of a particular model, it will be possible to get corresponding results. At the moment, serial launch vehicles with similar characteristics are not in use in the world. Several projects are being developed, but so far they have not been able to reach the test launches.

The emergence of a super heavy rocket can have the most serious impact on the further development of the national astronautics. In the past, in our country, attempts were made to master this direction, but they, for one reason or another, did not give real results. So, the first domestic super-heavy rocket H-1, capable of putting 75 into low-Earth orbit and cargo, was tested four times, and all launches ended in an accident. In the mid-seventies, the program was closed in favor of the new project.

The next attempt to master the super heavy direction was the Energy project. The maximum payload of such a rocket was 100 t. She could put into orbit both traditional spacecraft and the reusable Buran transport ship. In 1987-88, two test launches took place, after which work had to be stopped. The project was too expensive to implement at the time. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to the closure of the project.

In the future, it was repeatedly proposed to create a new project of a super-heavy launch vehicle. For example, during a certain time, the possibility of developing such a project within the Angara family was considered. However, for technical and economic reasons, it was decided to confine ourselves only to heavy class equipment. The creation of a super heavy carrier was postponed indefinitely.

Another discussion of the possibility of creating such a rocket began several years ago. Last year, specific plans were announced, and at the beginning of 2017, it became known about the formation of the technical appearance of two rockets with similar characteristics and different capabilities. According to the latest data, these projects will be brought to trial only at the end of the next decade. In 2027, the launch complex will be completed at the Vostochny cosmodrome, and the first launch will take place in 2028. At the same time, there is reason to believe that these deadlines may move to the left, since the country's leadership made a fundamental decision to accelerate the work.

To date, the domestic rocket and space industry has managed to begin the development of a number of promising launch vehicles, which in the future will have to replace existing and operated samples. Existing plans involve the creation of missiles of all classes, from light to extra heavy. This will allow not only upgrading the carrier fleet by replacing outdated technology, but also expanding the capabilities of the national astronautics, as well as increasing its competitive potential. Nevertheless, the implementation of all plans and the creation of all the desired missiles will take a long time - the first results of current programs will appear no earlier than the end of the current decade.


On the materials of the sites:
http://tass.ru/
http://interfax.ru/
http://ria.ru/
https://lenta.ru/
https://news.sputnik.ru/
Author:
Photos used:
Dimoc.mil
107 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Proxima
    Proxima 26 June 2017 15: 40 New
    26
    Again, the next “noodle” from Roscosmos and, accordingly, the cut of public funds. Why call this mythical super-heavy rocket "Energy" if there is nothing from the previous "Energy", namely, the most basic - central unit (stage C) with four hydrogen engines RD-0120. And “Energia” was probably nicknamed for a word of wit (brand) in order to squeeze more money from taxpayers.
    1. Yars
      Yars 27 June 2017 10: 28 New
      +4
      Quote: Proxima
      Again, the next “noodle” from Roscosmos and, accordingly, the cut of public funds. Why call this mythical super-heavy rocket "Energy" if there is nothing from the previous "Energy", namely, the most basic - central unit (stage C) with four hydrogen engines RD-0120. And “Energia” was probably nicknamed for a word of wit (brand) in order to squeeze more money from taxpayers.

      prove at the beginning that the noodles and then speak out !!! Liberal all-propalschik ............ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 28 June 2017 01: 26 New
        +4
        Quote: YARS
        prove at the beginning that noodles

        Sorry, but what is there to prove? Roscosmos was founded on 25.02.1992. What did he do during this time so that he could listen to any of his promises?
        1. Zveruga
          Zveruga 2 August 2017 16: 33 New
          0
          Actually, the matter is not in Roskosmos, but in the Energy Corporation, whose name is called the rocket.
        2. scorpius_13
          scorpius_13 16 September 2017 20: 29 New
          +4
          Let's count:
          1. ISS
          2. Launch vehicle Soyuz-2
          3. Four-turn flight scheme to the ISS instead of a two-day
          4. Four stages of modernization of the "Proton"
          5. The spaceport was built
          6. ExoMars
          7. Modernization of the Soyuz and Progress ships
          8. The Angara launch vehicle was developed
          9. Developed by the Federation Commission.
          10. Sea launch

          Enough, or something else?
    2. Romario_Argo
      Romario_Argo 13 December 2017 00: 18 New
      0
      Another "noodle" again

      in the states announced the lunar race, that's just see the veracity of your prophecy
  2. Engineer
    Engineer 26 June 2017 15: 53 New
    13
    A picture slightly similar to the Energia-Buran ISS, why was it posted in the article if it has nothing to do with the Energia-5V project? What attitude RKK Energia has to launch vehicles is also not entirely clear. Have you already cut the money for the Federation? Especially for what reason Samara from Progress will give their work for Soyuz-5, and Khrunichev’s center for the RKK Energy’s Angara hangar, so that they sculpted an extra-heavy rocket from them. Samarians themselves are working in this direction. And it is they who can really do something. Everything is very strange.
    1. Proxima
      Proxima 26 June 2017 16: 17 New
      +8
      Quote: Engineer
      Is the money for the Federation already all cut up?

      Yeah .. And also all the money was stolen, which were intended for the "Phoenix", the "Rus", the nuclear space tug and much more.
      1. Yars
        Yars 27 June 2017 10: 29 New
        +2
        Quote: Proxima
        Quote: Engineer
        Is the money for the Federation already all cut up?

        Yeah .. And also all the money was stolen, which were intended for the "Phoenix", the "Rus", the nuclear space tug and much more.

        evidence in the studio please !!!!!!!!
    2. Falcon5555
      Falcon5555 26 June 2017 17: 48 New
      0
      The oddity in the picture "Engineer" on the right with the caption "Energy" (with all sorts of letters) ... Such a pasta should fall apart from vibrations in flight.
      1. opoffis
        opoffis 27 June 2017 13: 11 New
        0
        Quote: Falcon5555
        The oddity in the picture "Engineer" on the right with the caption "Energy" (with all sorts of letters) ... Such a pasta should fall apart from vibrations in flight.

        Photoshop or any liberl-Vasya you can draw even more pasta!
  3. Tishka
    Tishka 26 June 2017 17: 06 New
    11
    They developed the "Angara", mastered the money, there are no rockets yet, it’s new in 2027, we are definitely riveting whether it will fly or not, this is still a question! The main thing, who developed it, will have time to leave, and will settle somewhere there, behind a hill, so that they don’t get it! With "Energy", everything is also interesting, we will collect as cubes from what is not yet, but we need money now! And so it all revolves around the Royal Seven, no prospects, neither you, the air launch, nothing new, we are transferring from one fuel to another, spending tremendous amounts of money, in the end, we are working in space cabs!
    1. opoffis
      opoffis 27 October 2017 16: 43 New
      0
      from where is this nonsense
  4. crambol
    crambol 26 June 2017 17: 33 New
    +4
    - I love our plans!
  5. FID
    FID 26 June 2017 17: 45 New
    13
    "Phoenix", "Angara" (of various types), "Energy" (of various types) ... Something this Lego constructor, the superjet is beginning to remind me ... Don't you think?
    1. avt
      avt 26 June 2017 19: 57 New
      +2
      Quote: SSI
      ", the superjet is starting to remind me ... Don't you think?

      To whom it is, but it does not seem to me. You are deeply mistaken! compared to THIS, the Super Budget ... well, how to steal a bun in a buffet. If Rogozin sells this grave misunderstanding, then there will be a 21st century scam, which should become a household name. Like ,, Panama "with the initial scam with the Panama Canal. It’s already today that Yudashkin’s cap should be ordered under that
      A TASS source said that the launch pad for Energia-5V will be built on the same principles as the universal start-stand complex 17P31 for the Energia carrier. This complex was built three decades ago at the site number 250 of the Baikonur Cosmodrome and was subsequently used for two launches of the superheavy rocket Energia.
      bully As it is remembered that Stalin wrote on one intelligence report -
      Send your source to your ... mother!
      They let her out of the stand so that she wouldn’t accidentally collapse the start, and then ,, Buran "wouldn’t be able to get out of nowhere. She left beautifully, but the stand almost collapsed right across the International - ,, To the base ..." bully In short, the old tables at Baikonur died, and they were redone in the USSR — they were originally sharpened under N-1. And to make a new country, and even on Vostochny, leave this country without pants and take off his pants too. But some people take a bath in chocolate and then a shower of champagne, Crystal will be for sure.
  6. god-given
    god-given 26 June 2017 18: 00 New
    0
    Yes, yes, interesting principles, modularity, as a constructor. The same thing was said about the hangar and it does not seem that it is in demand.
    1. opoffis
      opoffis 27 June 2017 13: 15 New
      +1
      And what is the head given !! ??? The launch pad for the Angara is NO, it has just begun to be built! From where will she fly from the potato field?
  7. Sergey-8848
    Sergey-8848 26 June 2017 18: 12 New
    +8
    It seems that they are either sick of space or banned for the sake of smaller (so to speak, carnal) technologies. After all, what was the breakthrough, dreams, hopes ... We are pushing in the 70s of the last century, telling everyone (and simultaneously deceiving everyone) what new thing (based on the already invented and worked out old analog technologies) they came up with. It’s sad, because in this situation not only we, but also our great-great-grandchildren will not be able to fly anywhere.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 27 June 2017 12: 16 New
      0
      Quote: Sergey-8848
      It seems that they are either sick of space or banned for the sake of smaller (so to speak, carnal) technologies. After all, what was the jerk, dreams, hopes ...

      Dumb rocket mass buildup is a dead end. Meaningless and useless projects. The dream of space cannot be realized in this way.
      1. opoffis
        opoffis 27 June 2017 13: 18 New
        0
        Quote: Setrac
        Quote: Sergey-8848
        It seems that they are either sick of space or banned for the sake of smaller (so to speak, carnal) technologies. After all, what was the jerk, dreams, hopes ...
        Dumb rocket mass buildup is a dead end. Meaningless and useless projects. The dream of space cannot be realized in this way.

        With your logic your dream can be realized ONLY by HOLLYWOOD !!!
        Let's cancel the wheel, otherwise it developed a very long time ....
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 27 June 2017 13: 40 New
          0
          Quote: opoffis
          Let's cancel the wheel, otherwise it developed a very long time ....

          But you don’t put a Ferris wheel on your landcruiser? Why are these non-parallel parallels?
          Quote: opoffis
          With your logic your dream can be realized ONLY by HOLLYWOOD !!!

          With my logic, it is necessary to build nuclear aircraft, master hypersound, and not build a bridge-train of several thousand tons to send 50 tons of cargo into space
          1. Narak-zempo
            Narak-zempo 27 June 2017 16: 40 New
            +1
            Quote: Setrac
            need to build nuclear aircraft


            Yeah. As soon as you can 100% guarantee the integrity and tightness of the reactor during a fall, you can start right away.
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 27 June 2017 17: 16 New
              0
              Quote: Narak-zempo
              Yeah. As soon as you can 100% guarantee the integrity and tightness of the reactor during a fall, you can start right away.

              Nuclear power plants do not give a XNUMX% guarantee, however they are used. A spaceport can be built far from residential places.
              1. Narak-zempo
                Narak-zempo 28 June 2017 10: 37 New
                0
                Quote: Setrac
                Nuclear power plants do not give a XNUMX% guarantee


                Only here are all "aerospace" added to the risks of purely "atomic" ones.
                A spaceport can be built anywhere. But even with regular launches, sometimes something falls on his head (the recent fire in Kazakhstan due to the remnants of the stage is an example). Not to mention accidents. And if heptyl from the sky is very unpleasant, then atomization of the reactor core is much worse.
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 28 June 2017 15: 28 New
                  0
                  Quote: Narak-zempo
                  A spaceport can be built anywhere. But even with regular launches, sometimes something falls on my head

                  You just think small, you need to think bigger. Further to build a spaceport, much further. New Earth, Fiji, ideally Antarctica.
                  1. Narak-zempo
                    Narak-zempo 28 June 2017 15: 45 New
                    0
                    Quote: Setrac
                    ideally Antarctica


                    Have you ever wondered why they are trying to locate spaceports closer to the equator? What will the additional cost of starting from the pole, for example, at GSO, cost?
                    In the process of launching into orbit, the carrier will still be over populated areas. And no one guarantees from entering "off-design orbit" with the subsequent uncontrolled descent.
                    And then, because you were talking about nuclear aircraft. They also fly only over uninhabited areas?
                    1. Setrac
                      Setrac 28 June 2017 15: 48 New
                      0
                      Quote: Narak-zempo
                      Have you ever wondered why they are trying to locate spaceports closer to the equator? What will the additional cost of starting from the pole, for example, at GSO, cost?

                      The larger the momentum, the less it matters.
                      Quote: Narak-zempo
                      And then, because you were talking about nuclear aircraft. They also fly only over uninhabited areas?

                      So.
                      1. Narak-zempo
                        Narak-zempo 28 June 2017 16: 46 New
                        0
                        Quote: Setrac
                        The larger the momentum, the less it matters.


                        I do not quite understand what is meant.
                      2. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 29 June 2017 22: 46 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Narak-zempo
                        I do not quite understand what is meant.

                        It is understood that a primeval atomic engine allows any kind of orbital maneuvers. At least with VAFB launch on GSO, against the rotation of the Earth.
                        Addiction, of course.
                      3. Narak-zempo
                        Narak-zempo 1 July 2017 19: 27 New
                        0
                        Cherry Nine,

                        Generally speaking, a nuclear rocket engine itself needs a carrier to get out of the atmosphere.
                      4. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 1 July 2017 22: 51 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Narak-zempo
                        Generally speaking, a nuclear rocket engine itself needs a carrier to get out of the atmosphere.

                        So what?
                        1. This does not contradict the thesis about orbital maneuver.
                        2. The solid propellants available in any capacity and quantity cope with the withdrawal of goods for the atmosphere.
                        3. About Antarctica, of course, nonsense. Kawajalein.
                        4. In a good way, the yard should not be removed from the atmosphere, but beyond the radiation belts.

                        But all this is an empty chatter. There will be no NRE until some serious tasks appear in deep space. With regard to Roscosmos - generally thick trolling.
  8. 1536
    1536 26 June 2017 18: 34 New
    +4
    They wouldn’t destroy their state, today they would buy tickets to Mars. One could fly there for a year. Lesson for the future ?! However, the "destroyers" will not calm down.
    1. Walanin
      Walanin 26 June 2017 21: 01 New
      +3
      Trips to Mars for sausage and other shortages.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 26 June 2017 21: 15 New
      +4
      Our Roskosmos, Mars is no longer visible - Musk and his rockets, there will be the first and most likely the only ones who will master this planet.
      1. Tsoy
        Tsoy 26 June 2017 22: 46 New
        +4
        Quote: Vadim237
        Our Roskosmos, Mars is no longer visible - Musk and his rockets, there will be the first and most likely the only ones who will master this planet.


        Yesterday SPACEX launched the Iridium-2 satellite, less than a week after the Bulgarian satellite was launched. For 2017, only SPACEX completed more starts than the RF. 9 vs. 8.
        1. prosto_rgb
          prosto_rgb 27 June 2017 02: 12 New
          +4
          Quote: Choi
          Yesterday, SPACEX launched the Iridium-2 satellite, less than a week after the launch of the Bulgarian satellite.

          or rather, within 48 hours
        2. opoffis
          opoffis 27 June 2017 13: 21 New
          +1
          Quote: Choi
          Yesterday SPACEX launched the Iridium-2 satellite, less than a week after the Bulgarian satellite was launched. For 2017, only SPACEX completed more starts than the RF. 9 vs. 8.

          Well then DOWNLOAD DOWNLOADS!
          But notice 8 starts was at least, there were big problems with PROTONS!
          And yet, you take into account the launch of the Union with French Guiana, there too, our missiles take off!
          1. Tsoy
            Tsoy 27 June 2017 19: 13 New
            +2
            Quote: opoffis
            Well then DOWNLOAD DOWNLOADS!


            Well, jumping is the prerogative of only Ukrainians. Although, judging by the comments, we also have enough mentally retarded people. Really? You probably know this very well.

            This is just a fact. And yes in the 8 start-up, the start with the Kuru is taken into account. There are no problems with Protons, but a complete stop of starts.
      2. Setrac
        Setrac 27 June 2017 12: 17 New
        +3
        Quote: Vadim237
        Musk and his rockets, there will be the first and most likely the only ones who will master this planet.

        For the colonization of other planets, a two-way transport system is needed; Musk with his one-way ticket will send people to death.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 28 June 2017 01: 32 New
          0
          Quote: Setrac
          Musk with his one-way ticket will send people to death.

          It’s worth distinguishing what Musk writes in Twi (especially if it’s not Musk at all, but anonymous ones like you) and what he does.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 28 June 2017 15: 30 New
            0
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            It’s worth distinguishing what Musk writes in Twi (especially if it’s not Musk at all, but anonymous ones like you) and what he does.

            What a dumb message that doesn't carry any information? But I spent on reading it for ten whole seconds of my life.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 28 June 2017 22: 08 New
              0
              For you, apparently, you should speak more simply.
              Musk is not going to send anyone to Mars in real life for the foreseeable future, except for automation. Either you yourself came up with a ticket, or trash like life.
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 28 June 2017 22: 50 New
                0
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                For you, apparently, you should speak more simply.

                You should always put it easier, I'm not your psychologist and I don’t know anything about your cockroaches.
                Apparently I was baffled by your desire to somehow offend the interlocutor, when you wrote something about me completely out of place in your answer, which was absolutely superfluous.
              2. Zveruga
                Zveruga 2 August 2017 16: 46 New
                0
                The commentator above promised that Musk will be the only one to master Mars, and from your words he will only send robots there, which is no different from the successes of today's rocket scientists.
      3. opoffis
        opoffis 27 June 2017 13: 10 New
        +2
        Quote: Vadim237

        Our Roskosmos, Mars is no longer visible - Musk and his rockets, there will be the first and most likely the only ones who will master this planet.

        Mask ISS can not master and you are talking about some kind of Mars ...
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 28 June 2017 08: 55 New
          0
          He’ll soon master it, especially since his trucks are already flying to the ISS.
    3. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 28 June 2017 01: 30 New
      +2
      Quote: 1536
      We wouldn’t destroy our state, today we would buy tickets to Mars

      Are you talking about the USSR? There are only 2 options:
      1. You are lying.
      2. You did not live in it, and you were not taught to distinguish fairy tales from history at school.
  9. nickname7
    nickname7 26 June 2017 19: 49 New
    0
    Here is another article about the hangar from Philip Terekhov
    https://geektimes.ru/post/289777/
  10. Mikhail m
    Mikhail m 26 June 2017 20: 02 New
    +5
    The first launch of the superheavy carrier from the latest launch pad will be performed in 2028.
    The current generation of Soviet people will live under communism. N.S. Khrushchev.
    Inspired.
  11. Walanin
    Walanin 26 June 2017 21: 02 New
    +5
    Another clowning from Rogozin.
    1. opoffis
      opoffis 27 June 2017 13: 08 New
      0
      It's time to take off the blue glasses ...
  12. Rplay
    Rplay 26 June 2017 21: 57 New
    0
    Good evening! If I’m not mistaken, there is a person on VO who wrote about cosmos. I would very much like to see in VO a competent article about the REAL position of Russia in space. Preferably, without Uraism. So, objective information. Maybe there is an opportunity to talk with the masters from outer space!
    1. prosto_rgb
      prosto_rgb 27 June 2017 02: 16 New
      +3
      Quote: Rplay
      REAL position of Russia in space. Preferably, without Uraism.

      everything is very regrettable
      in fact, only the Unions of the modern modification remained of the launch vehicle in Russia, but the Proton, which is leaving (and is already leaving), is no longer in economic terms.
      1. Zveruga
        Zveruga 2 August 2017 16: 52 New
        0
        5 years ago, Russia had only Proton and Union. Proton will replace the Angara since 2025. Everything happens according to the development plan. The hangar is already being tested. Soon, under it, they will begin to build a table on the East.

        they do not believe that a table under the Angara will be built on the east. They do not believe that the table for the Union has already been built and is functioning there. This year he will have a new launch.
        1. prosto_rgb
          prosto_rgb 3 August 2017 00: 39 New
          0
          Quote: Zveruga
          5 years ago, Russia had only Proton and Union.

          5 years ago were:
          100 million $ + protons per launch and
          4 launches of SpaEx Falcon 9 back in v1.0 under a NASA contract
          And in 2017 we have available
          SpaсeX Falcon 9 is already in version v1.1 / FT (actually v1.1 was launched 2016 time in 1 and is no longer used) and all this for about $ 60 million and not 100+
          Quote: Zveruga
          Proton will replace the Angara since 2025.

          or 2030 or 2040, and so the Angara has been sawing since 1992
          but it’s not even that, but that, in economic terms, it loses to SpaсeX
  13. Old26
    Old26 26 June 2017 22: 28 New
    0
    Quote: Engineer
    What attitude RKK Energia has to launch vehicles is also not entirely clear.

    In fact, all these projects - Energia-5K / 5KV / 5V / 5VR - all of them are developments of RSC Energia only from different years. The first is 2013, the second is 2014, the third and fourth are 2016.

    Quote: Falcon5555
    The oddity in the picture "Engineer" on the right with the caption "Energy" (with all sorts of letters) ... Such a pasta should fall apart from vibrations in flight.

    Well, the developers are unlikely to agree with you that it will fall apart. But it is really longer than the Energy-5V version. But this is because of the longer third stage, which would have to work twice. In fact, this option was intended for the lunar load in the two-start version of the lunar expedition. A manned spacecraft is being displayed on Energia-5V, and a tug and necessary for a lunar mission are being launched on version 5ВР

    The upper one is Energia-5V, the lower one is Energy-5VR. The names above are confused.
    1. Falcon5555
      Falcon5555 26 June 2017 23: 03 New
      +2
      Well, the developers are unlikely to agree with you that it will fall apart.

      I don’t know what kind of developers these are. This is more like the fantasies of "effective managers" - the so-called lawyers and economists.
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 28 June 2017 01: 35 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      In fact, this option was intended for the lunar load in the two-start version of the lunar expedition.

      I understand this phrase so that no one is going to do anything except get a budget. "Lunar program," it is necessary.
      IMHO, at present, money will not be given for sure.
  14. Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 27 June 2017 00: 35 New
    +4
    The "Energy", the one that "Buran" raised, EMNIP, had reusable nodes. Without pathos landing on the platform, but still hurt in the right direction was already a quarter century ago. And what about this wonderful project? And it doesn’t turn out that when (if?) He flies, then the cost of the launched kilogram will be several times higher than on the Falcons? Despite the fact that the tasks of launching large objects can be largely solved by orbital assembly (if you think about it, in the event of a superheavy carrier accident * the entire object is developed, and during orbital assembly only one module).
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 27 June 2017 09: 04 New
      +4
      And tomorrow, single-stage aerospace planes will fly like Skylon - and all these new Energies, Hangars, Unions 5 will remain unchallenged - forever. rockets are already a dead end branch of cosmonautics development, air launch and space planes are the future, but they do not want to understand this at Roskosmos.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 28 June 2017 01: 43 New
        0
        Quote: Vadim237
        Skylon

        The British state will not give money for such bullshit. And more like no one.
        Quote: Vadim237
        air start

        Incompatible with LRE of all types (cryogenic, including hydrogen, heptyl). It requires a fundamentally new launch vehicle, which no one has yet done or tested. Musk jumped from this topic back in 2012, and he, they say, is fumbling something in space.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 28 June 2017 09: 00 New
          0
          The British state will not give money for such bullshit. And more like no one. "- You are sleeping along the way" On July 17, 2013, the British government announced plans to invest £ 60 million in the development of the SABER air-rocket rocket engine. Thus, the most ambitious and bold space project of the last decades has received recognition and money for further work. The first tests of SABER engines are planned for 2019. In 2025, the first flight of the Skylon VKS is planned.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 28 June 2017 22: 20 New
            0
            Quote: Vadim237
            You sleep along the way

            You, along the way, read Wikipedia alone, and that is not English.
            therefore
            1. You do not see what your news says about the “plans” of the “government” (who is this? D. Cameron?) 2013. Or you see, but you don’t know what year it is. Scroll to the first comments, it says there. In 2017, the idea, in theory, should be about results, not plans.
            2. You do not understand to what extent the indicated sum and engine of the Pratt & Whitney F135 level are little related, not to mention SSTO. By the way, with some probability, in the long term, the engine (more precisely, its various elements) will become the only useful result of this program. Fortunately, there seems to be an interest not in “government”, but in BAE.
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 29 June 2017 21: 42 New
              0
              A total of 500 million have been allocated since 2013 and the results are positive
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 29 June 2017 22: 27 New
                0
                Quote: Vadim237
                and the results are positive

                About 500M did not find, and the results are mainly as follows
                There are three core building blocks to the SABER engine, the pre-cooler, the engine core and the thrust chamber. Each of these systems can be developed and validated using ground based demonstrations which saves cost and time relative to flight test, a design feature that benefitted the development of the propeller and jet engine, We plan to demonstrate each of these independently over the next four years , beginning with a high temperature test of the pre cooler in 2017.

                We're about to start building a significant new UK test site to test critical subsystems and aim to test a fully integrated engine core in 2020

                (developer's site)
                Well, wait and see. Today, the SSTO theme is rotten. But the year so by 2030 you never know what can change. Landing of the 1st stage on engines also 10 years ago seemed unscientific fiction.
      2. thinking
        thinking 17 February 2018 06: 55 New
        0
        Quote: Vadim237
        air start and space planes are the future, but they do not want to understand this at Roskosmos.

        What they understand there is unknown, but the matter is nevertheless moving forward:
        https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20151005/1297159118
        .html
        In Russia, created an engine for an aerospace plane
        16: 1605.10.2015 (updated: 21: 09 05.10.2015)
        The engine includes a power plant operating in two modes - air and rocket. There is no airplane yet. First, an engine will be created for him, then the machine itself will be put into operation.
        KUBIN (Moscow region), October 5 - RIA Novosti. An engine for a promising aerospace aircraft, which will be used both in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and in the civilian sphere, was created in the Serpukhov branch of the Peter the Great Strategic Missile Forces Military Academy, an Academy spokesman told RIA Novosti on Monday.
        The combined air-rocket engine with a ramjet pulsating combustion chamber, a prechamber and an air launch system was created to enable the propulsion system to operate both in the atmosphere and in outer space. A promising aircraft with such an engine can deliver cargo to orbital stations with greater benefit, the agency’s interlocutor noted.
        "The problem of creating a combined power plant for the aircraft to transfer the engine from air to rocket in space during flight in the atmosphere has been solved. The engine includes a power plant operating on two circuits (modes) - air and rocket," explained the representative of the Academy in during the exhibition "Innovation Day of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation - 2015".
  15. litus
    litus 27 June 2017 01: 11 New
    +1
    digital design technologies in action ... the picture is almost painted in oil
  16. g1washntwn
    g1washntwn 27 June 2017 07: 17 New
    +1
    I am not a jingoistic patriot, but I do not suffer from joholism either. The rest of the crying can continue to hum
    I hate 6dlos and the party in power, I am a Bedophile - I love misfortunes! (C)
    Cannibal bonner
  17. kuz363
    kuz363 27 June 2017 10: 14 New
    +1
    Cutting money can go on forever. There will no longer be any sense in shyness between types and classes of missiles. Competitors in the US and China will go far on existing designs.
  18. Old26
    Old26 27 June 2017 10: 16 New
    0
    Quote: Falcon5555
    Well, the developers are unlikely to agree with you that it will fall apart.

    I don’t know what kind of developers these are. This is more like the fantasies of "effective managers" - the so-called lawyers and economists.

    They are so effective that even such drawings are not capable. These studies from some presentation, at one time on the "Cosmonautics News" were photographs of these slides from the presentation. Of course, they have not yet been cheated by the strong people, but to say that this “pasta” has no real achievements underneath - I would not risk

    Quote: Narak-zempo
    The "Energy", the one that "Buran" raised, EMNIP, had reusable nodes. Without pathos landing on the platform, but still hurt in the right direction was already a quarter century ago.

    Reusable sidewalls should have become only in perspective. And the backlog of using (re) side blocks is over 35 years old. And the only ones who used it are the Americans. Shuttle Sidewalls
    1. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 27 June 2017 16: 47 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      And the backlog of using (re) side blocks is over 35 years old. And the only ones who used it are the Americans. Shuttle Sidewalls


      Was there a solid fuel sidewall on Energia?
  19. Dead duck
    Dead duck 27 June 2017 12: 05 New
    +5
    It was tested four times, and all launches ended in an accident. In the mid-seventies, the program was closed in favor of a new project.

    They closed it because it was no longer relevant and in vain .... but the engines still brought to mind.
  20. Old26
    Old26 27 June 2017 13: 56 New
    +1
    Quote: Vadim237
    And tomorrow, single-stage aerospace planes will fly like Skylon - and all these new Energies, Hangars, Unions 5 will remain unchallenged - forever. rockets are already a dead end branch of cosmonautics development, air launch and space planes are the future, but they do not want to understand this at Roskosmos.

    Well, about tomorrow you got a little excited. And aerospace aircraft have been heard for about 30 years, no less. I mean the HOTOL project. And projects, including and single-stage were before that. But basically they were based on the use of pure rocket engines. The HOTOL project and its reincarnation in the form of a Skylon is just an attempt to get something. There are no engines for it yet. And the payload of such an “airplane” is not very large. so in the coming decades, missiles will not be decommissioned. It is possible (only possible) that the missiles have a dead end. But they are evolving and if you look into a very distant future, they will also become reusable, their propulsion system, energy and fuel will change. But they will stay. what will be called - spaceships, planets or starships - so far we do not know. And behind the aerospace planes, only the nearest orbits of the planets will remain. Such a “plane” is unlikely to be capable of long-range action. But here we are already retreating into the realm of fantasy.
    about the fact that Roscosmos does not want to understand. with all the negativity regarding this organization and its leaders, it is still worth noting that they perfectly understand the situation. And they understand that VKSs now are still fantastic. But missiles, especially those built on a modular basis, are a real prospect.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 28 June 2017 01: 47 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      But missiles, especially those built on a modular basis, are a real prospect.

      Someone has a real perspective - missiles built on a modular basis, while someone has a feather to the side of a cellmate. And where whose perspective, IMHO, is understandably not the first year.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 28 June 2017 09: 06 New
      0
      "And they understand that VKSs now are still fantastic. But missiles, especially those built on a modular basis, are a real prospect." Yes, not fiction - the VKS Tu 2000 project is the most elaborated of all and it was possible to realize it even 15 years ago, but everything depends on money, and the state does not want to allocate it - they are lobbying for the rockets.
    3. thinking
      thinking 17 February 2018 07: 07 New
      0
      I agree with you all, but
      Quote: Old26
      VKSy now - it's still fantastic
      this is not true.
      https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20151005/1297159118
      .html
      In Russia, created an engine for an aerospace plane
      16: 1605.10.2015 (updated: 21: 09 05.10.2015)
      The engine includes a power plant operating in two modes - air and rocket. There is no airplane yet. First, an engine will be created for him, then the machine itself will be put into operation.
      KUBIN (Moscow region), October 5 - RIA Novosti. An engine for a promising aerospace aircraft, which will be used both in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and in the civilian sphere, was created in the Serpukhov branch of the Peter the Great Strategic Missile Forces Military Academy, an Academy spokesman told RIA Novosti on Monday.
      The combined air-rocket engine with a ramjet pulsating combustion chamber, a prechamber and an air launch system was created to enable the propulsion system to operate both in the atmosphere and in outer space. A promising aircraft with such an engine can deliver cargo to orbital stations with greater benefit, the agency’s interlocutor noted.
      "The problem of creating a combined power plant for the aircraft to transfer the engine from air to rocket in space during flight in the atmosphere has been solved. The engine includes a power plant operating on two circuits (modes) - air and rocket," explained the representative of the Academy in during the exhibition "Innovation Day of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation - 2015".
  21. Indifferent
    Indifferent 27 June 2017 14: 22 New
    +3
    A large article on how to hold a lady at the same time for all places of hands is not enough. If the author is competent about what he writes, then in Roscosmos there is no sane program for superheavy missiles at all. Each group pulls a blanket with money on itself and as a result, neither money nor a blanket. I do not understand. After all, where to do "Energy"? Ready, tested rocket, capable of pulling the same 100 tons. She had engines and everything else. Why can't it be built again? After all, they are building a new Tu-160 bomber. No less difficult task, but it is solvable. Why it is unclear what step “Angara” is to be invented, then combined with an engine, the design of which has not been started. After all, “Energy” had everything. It is only necessary to restore. Is it cheaper than designing from scratch? Or were there some gnawers who simply hold positions but don’t know anything? And I want to get huge salaries. Most likely it is. The engineering and design potential in Roscosmos has been lost and seems to be very long, if not for many decades.
    1. A1845
      A1845 27 June 2017 17: 24 New
      0
      Quote: indifferent
      After all, where to do "Energy"?

      First, they covered the N-1 due to allegedly “rotten” engines, which the Americans are still buying out by the piece and slowly launching. Then they tried to find at least some kind of load for the Energy, they didn’t find it. Now now everything has to be started anew.
      To solve some problems, astronautics need superheavy class rockets, but at the moment our country does not have such equipment.

      here .. for "some" tasks ..
      so you need to prepare a budget
  22. Old26
    Old26 27 June 2017 14: 47 New
    0
    Quote: Setrac
    Dumb rocket mass buildup is a dead end. Meaningless and useless projects. The dream of space cannot be realized in this way.

    Is there another way? No, of course I understand that nuclear engines, aerospace planes - all this is the future of astronautics. The question is one. WHEN. And here, I'm afraid not everything is going smoothly. And it seems that the creation of such monsters is the only option for putting large-sized products into orbit. . so they are not so meaningless and useless.

    Quote: opoffis
    Photoshop or any liberl-Vasya you can draw even more pasta!

    Not Photoshop. And not the drawing of liberal Vasya. The project of these Energia-5 missiles has indeed existed for about five years. But so far there is no intelligible program for decades that they should do in space, all of these projects will remain "paper". First, the program for what are needed and which media, then what exactly is

    Quote: opoffis
    And what is the head given !! ??? The launch pad for the Angara is NO, it has just begun to be built! From where will she fly from the potato field?

    Well, the launch pad under the "Hangar" that is. And for the needs of the Ministry of Defense, you can let it go. But for the needs of Roscosmos - there, on Vostochny, in reality the horse didn’t roll

    Quote: Sergey-8848
    It seems that they are either sick of space or banned for the sake of smaller (so to speak, carnal) technologies. After all, what was the breakthrough, dreams, hopes ... We are pushing in the 70s of the last century, telling everyone (and simultaneously deceiving everyone) what new thing (based on the already invented and worked out old analog technologies) they came up with. It’s sad, because in this situation not only we, but also our great-great-grandchildren will not be able to fly anywhere.

    No, just a jerk in the beginning turned into a routine afterwards. I once came across two forecasts of the American company RAND-corporation .. One - the end of the 60s, one - the end of the 80s. And there it is clearly visible that the first breakthrough of the 60s went into a routine, without any special breakthroughs.
    For example, in the first (1) and second (2) forecasts, the following events looked as follows
    1. Landing on Mars = (1) - 1975, (2) - 2020
    2. Landing on Mercury = (1) - the end of the 70s, (2) - 2070-2090
    3. Landing on the moons of Jupiter = (1) - 1985, (2) - 2070-2090
    4. Landing on Pluto = (1) - 1995-1997, (2) - not earlier than 2120
    5. Going beyond the limits of the Solar system = (1) - 2010-2030. (2) - not earlier than 2150-2200.

    Quote: opoffis
    It's time to take off the blue glasses ...

    In fact, they take off pink laughing
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 28 June 2017 15: 34 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      so they are not so meaningless and useless.

      I did not say that rockets are meaningless and useless. We need a different direction of their development, not mass building, but an increase in efficiency.
  23. 1536
    1536 27 June 2017 15: 06 New
    0
    Quote: Walanin
    Trips to Mars for sausage and other shortages.

    Who what.
  24. Old26
    Old26 27 June 2017 15: 35 New
    +2
    Quote: indifferent
    If the author is competent about what he writes, then in Roscosmos there is no sane program for superheavy missiles at all. Each group pulls a blanket with money on itself and as a result, neither money nor a blanket.

    You are not far from the truth. Over the last 20 years there have been so many contests that I am afraid that not everything can be remembered right away. But I will try
    1. Project "Angara". I will not paint much, and so everyone knows everything about her. I can only say that initially there were options "Hangar1.1, Hangar-1.2, Hangar A-3, Hangar A-4, Hangar-A5, Hangar A-7, Hangar-100. Moreover, A-3, A-4, A- 5 and A-7 also had variants based on the basic version. The first was Angara-4, then the EMNIP Angara-1.1 and Angara-A-3. The remaining were Angara 1.2 and Angara A-5. and “Hangar A-7.” The last went “Hangar A-7", when it became clear to everything else that the starting table from the Hangar A-5 was not suitable for her, and it was necessary to make a separate one for the Hangar A-7.

    2. The project "Rus-M". Alternative "Angara" with higher performance characteristics. But the project was buried by a personal decision of the Roskosmos leadership. EMNIP within the project there were 3-5 options

    3. The Amur-5 project". Created on the basis of the Angara-100 project
    4. The Yenisei-5 project.
    5. The project "Commonwealth"
    6. A family of super-heavy launch vehicles developed at the TsKB "Progress" in Samara. There are 8 options
    [b 7.] Project "Energy-5" [/ b] (with options). Their 4 options
    8. The Soyuz-5 project. He’s the Phoenix. Among the carriers of this project is the Russian-Kazakh Sunkar.

    This is what I remember offhand

    Quote: indifferent
    I do not understand. After all, where to do "Energy"? Ready, tested rocket, capable of pulling the same 100 tons. She had engines and everything else. Why can't it be built again? .

    Alas, the whole Soviet Union built “energy”. The side blocks in particular were made by Yuzhmash based on the Zenith. Stuffing - also in different republics of the USSR. That is, to recreate that "Energy" that was - will not work. In principle, Amur-5 and Yenisei-5, not to mention the missiles of the Samara progress, all of them to some extent repeat the construction of Energy

    Quote: indifferent
    Why it is unclear what step “Angara” is to be invented, then combined with an engine, the design of which has not been started. .

    I don’t remember something, so that there were no engines on the Angara. Model 1.2 has already flown, the A-5 too. Perhaps some promising engines for the next reincarnation of the "Angara" - but to be honest - I have not heard

    Quote: indifferent
    After all, “Energy” had everything. It is only necessary to restore. Is it cheaper than designing from scratch ?.

    Already wrote above. Trying to recreate Energy is unrealistic. You can make it look like her. But these are again trials, trials, trials
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 28 June 2017 01: 53 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      In principle, Amur-5 and Yenisei-5, not to mention the missiles of the Samara progress, all of them to some extent repeat the construction of Energy

      NYA, Energy - these are kerosene sidewalls and the hydrogen central block as a “half-second” stage. Arian-5 and SLS adjusted for the backlog of the USSR in solid propellant rocket engines. Now we are talking more about flying fences. Delta Heavy, Falcon Heavy. Longer operation of the central unit due to throttling. There are similarities, but not so direct.
      And this is a step, albeit a small one, to fully reusable systems.

      They write that the money step is quite a norm. Plus, SpaceX helps to quickly start up the launch line until Bezos and ULA appear on the field.
      30 engine system

      Haveick, by the way, 27. Ironically it turned out.
  25. Old26
    Old26 27 June 2017 17: 35 New
    0
    Quote: Narak-zempo
    Quote: Old26
    And the backlog of using (re) side blocks is over 35 years old. And the only ones who used it are the Americans. Shuttle Sidewalls

    Was there a solid fuel sidewall on Energia?

    No, the sides on Energia were liquid fuel. Although in the process of creating this system, solid fuel boosters were planned. But by that time they were still in their infancy, and if Energy had been done with them, this would have put off the program for another 10 years. The Americans began to apply the issue of reuse - the sides of their shuttle. Further, we became preoccupied with this and at EMNIP 10 launch of Energia it was already planned to save the side blocks. Well, now a new stage - the salvation of the first stage of the “Falcon” .. Alas, but here we are behind them. We have nothing of the kind. And this is a step, albeit a small one, to fully reusable systems.
    1. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 28 June 2017 10: 02 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      No, the sides on Energia were liquid fuel.


      That is, it was planned to return and reuse liquid blocks, which is more difficult than the Shuttle.
  26. Old26
    Old26 27 June 2017 19: 12 New
    +1
    Quote: A1845
    First, they covered the N-1 due to allegedly “rotten” engines, which the Americans are still buying out by the piece and slowly launching. Then they tried to find at least some kind of load for the Energy, they didn’t find it. Now now everything has to be started anew.

    They covered N-1 not at all because, as you say, “rotten” engines. The problem was different. At one time, Glushko refused to make high-thrust engines for this rocket on low-boiling fuel components. Then the order was given to Kuznetsov Design Bureau, which mainly worked with aircraft engines, although he also had rocket engines. But he did not succeed in creating a thrust engine. Only EMNIP with a thrust of about 150 tons. And for a rocket of such engines, 30 pieces were needed. They could not be synchronized, hence the engine shutdown, the fire, and the vibration that caused the fire. In short, their 30 engine system turned out to be UNABLE. After four launches, the program was suspended, and a few years later it was completely covered.
    1. thinking
      thinking 17 February 2018 08: 10 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Then the order was given to Kuznetsov Design Bureau, which mainly worked with aircraft engines, although he also had rocket engines. But he did not succeed in creating a thrust engine. Only EMNIP with a thrust of about 150 tons.

      You are wrong here. http://www.buran.ru/htm/gud%2019.htm
      The choice of the number of engines in a propulsion system is one of the fundamental problems in creating a launch vehicle. After the analysis, it was decided to use engines with a thrust of 150 tf for the following reasons:
      - an engine of this dimension could be manufactured and tested practically on the existing production, technical and experimental bases; the creation of an engine with a thrust of 600 ... 900 tf would require new production and experimental bases, which would significantly increase the time and cost of developing a rocket; it was then considered unacceptable;
      Further 3 more reasons follow.
      So the point is not that he was not able to create a high-thrust engine, but that he did what he was ordered.
      Failed to sync them.
      Controversial statement. We look further: http: //www.buran.ru/htm/gud%2019.htm
      The first launch of the space rocket complex N1-L3 (N 3L) from the right launch on February 21, 1969 ended abnormally. As a result of the occurrence of high-frequency oscillations in the gas generator of engine N 2, the pressure take-off fitting behind the turbine came off and a component leak formed, leading to a fire in the tail section, violation of the BCS of the engine operation control system, which issued a false command to turn off the engines for 68,7 s. This launch confirmed the correctness of the selected dynamic design, launch dynamics, launch vehicle control processes by mismatching the engine thrust, made it possible to obtain experimental data on launch vehicle loads and its strength, the effect of acoustic loads on the rocket and launch system, and some others, including operational characteristics in real conditions.
      The second launch of the N1-L3 complex was carried out on July 3, 1969 and also ended abnormally due to abnormal operation of engine N8 of block A. The cause of the accident was not clearly established. According to the conclusion of the emergency commission, chaired by V.P. Mishin the most likely cause of the accident was the destruction of the engine oxidizer pump when it entered the main stage.
      The third launch of the space rocket complex N1-L3 N 6L was carried out on June 27, 1971 from the left start. All 30 engines of block A reached the mode of preliminary and main thrust in accordance with the standard sequence diagram and functioned normally until they were turned off by the control system for 50,1 s, but since the beginning of the flight, the stabilization process was abnormal along the roll, and the mismatch in the rotation angle was continuous increased and reached 14,5 by 1450 s. Since the AVD command was blocked for 50 s, the flight to 50,1 s was practically uncontrollable.
      The fourth launch of the N1-L3 N 7L complex was carried out on November 23, 1972. The first stage worked almost without comment until 106,93 s, when the oxidizer pump of the N4 engine was destroyed, which led to the accumulation of the mixture
      By the fifth launch of the N1-L3 N 8L complex, all types of ground-based multi-resource engines (11D111, 11D112 and 11D113) of high reliability, mounted on a rocket after fire tests without bulkhead, were developed and passed all the tests. However, the fifth launch did not take place, since in December 1972 the United States completed its lunar program with the flight Apollo 17 and the political interest in the lunar program disappeared.

      So, in three accidents unreliable engines failed, and another accident due to loss of controllability.
      I will add a few words about the reliability of engines standing on the fifth, fully ready for flight, H1.http: //lpre.de/sntk/NK-33/tests.htm
      Benchmarking on materials [1] and [10]
      The high reliability of the engines was confirmed by the large positive statistics obtained during bench testing - 221 by testing 76 engines in a wide range (significantly exceeding the requirements of the technical specifications) of changes in external and internal factors.
      The reliability of multiple starts was confirmed on 24 engines with a repeat rate of starts up to 10 on one engine. At the same time, the parameters of the start-up process during repeated starts were kept stable and did not depend on the number of starts.
      To confirm the reliability, a complex of highly effective measuring and diagnostic tools for the analysis of fast-moving dynamic processes was developed and put into practice. The methods of detailed mathematical and hydrodynamic modeling of non-stationary modes of engine operation were applied, as well as methods of artificial physical reproduction during bench tests of various alleged (even unlikely) engine failures.
      For example, tests were carried out with throwing large portions of metal chips, fasteners (screws, nuts), large pieces of rough wiping cloth (60x60 cm in size) at the entrance to the oxygen pump of a working engine, etc. All this did not lead to accidental outcomes. Even a sharp, shock cutting (“guillotine”) with the help of a special device for the fuel inlet pipe with a running engine did not lead to an explosion and fire, but caused a gradual cessation of the working process while maintaining the engine’s operability during subsequent starts.
      In 1976, instead of 33 s, required by the terms of reference, one of the engines of the first stage NK-140 worked at a stand of 14.000 s.

      You write that this was our political leadership unworkable in this matter, I would agree.
  27. Old26
    Old26 28 June 2017 09: 53 New
    0
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Haveick, by the way, 27. Ironically it turned out.

    Well, the total number of engines is not always the same. To begin with, the first stage of the N-1 stage is all 27-30 engines in a single "mechanism." Folkon Heavy has 3 groups of 9 engines each. The dimensions of the stage and the location of the kmk engines also mean a lot. And the single thrust of each of the “Merlins” is almost half as much. As a result, they most likely managed to avoid the negatives that N-1 had (vibration)
  28. Setrac
    Setrac 28 June 2017 17: 12 New
    0
    Quote: Narak-zempo
    I do not quite understand what is meant.

    It is hard to explain the obvious.
    If you have a specific impulse reserve, you will launch a rocket into equatorial orbit from anywhere in the world. The difference in price will be scanty - the smaller - the more perfect the missiles.
  29. Old26
    Old26 28 June 2017 19: 30 New
    0
    Quote: Vadim237
    "And they understand that VKSs now are still fantastic. But missiles, especially those built on a modular basis, are a real prospect." Yes, not fiction - the VKS Tu 2000 project is the most elaborated of all
    and it was possible to realize it even 15 years ago, but everything depends on money, and the state does not want to allocate it - they are lobbying for the rockets.

    If, in your opinion, this is not a fantasy, then where are they, aerospace planes? Where are they? After all, our version of the single-stage VKS TU-2000 was developed in 1972-1992? Okay, we have an excuse in the form of the 90s. It’s very convenient to dump vus on them. A quarter of a century has passed since the beginning of the 90s and 17 years already in this century - and we all nod to those years. Stalin, for 19 years of being in power (before the war) created a powerful power from an agrarian, peasant country. We are over 17 years old .... Okay. This is not about that. Okay we are. And where, if the videoconferencing - are they reality in the west? Where is the same English HOTOL? Where is the Shatovsky X-30, how many more decades will the English SKYLON be developed? I no longer mention our projects NEVA or AJAKS.
    Remember the famous toast from the "Caucasian captive"? "so drink to ensure that our desires always match our capabilities"

    The desire to have a single-stage videoconferencing system is for now the desire, however well the projects are calculated, these projects .. There is no main thing - engines.

    And therefore, whether we like it or not, the only real way to bring payloads into orbit is rockets. The only way to get large loads out is super-heavy missiles
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 28 June 2017 21: 04 New
      0
      The engine is already there, the problem is different - there is no money and rocket lobbyists prevent the emergence of the aerospace forces, we created the Angara for about 10 years - there were many projects Clipper, Russia, MAKS, Baikal and others, but they were all closed in the middle of the way and most likely Energy 5 the same fate will befall, since the Roskosmos corporation is a big corruption, black hole, and as long as it exists in Russia in the space sphere there will be nothing breakthrough.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 28 June 2017 21: 10 New
      0
      Missiles also have a parasitic effect - space debris, the situation with which is already critical, hundreds of billions of dollars of metal flying in orbits, with the help of the aerospace system this material can be returned to the earth and put into re-production. X 37 flies quite successfully in the USA. So the videoconferencing be, in 8 -10 years
  30. Old26
    Old26 28 June 2017 21: 34 New
    0
    Quote: Vadim237
    The engine is already there, the problem is different - there is no money and rocket lobbyists prevent the emergence of the aerospace forces, we created the Angara for about 10 years - there were many projects Clipper, Russia, MAKS, Baikal and others, but they were all closed in the middle of the way and most likely Energy 5 the same fate will befall, since the Roskosmos corporation is a big corruption, black hole, and as long as it exists in Russia in the space sphere there will be nothing breakthrough.

    No need to see evil lobbyists in everything. TU-2000 began to be developed as an orbital bomber back in 1972 and was developed for 20 years. Do you think that if the military hadn’t been able to get it? But this was still the USSR.

    We will never have money. The question is not only in money, but sometimes in the reality of the project. A lot of examples. Take the same "Spiral". After all, it was closed not only because they began the development of "Buran". It became clear that we will not receive a hypersonic booster in the coming decades. At the stand you can drive any engine. One will work 100 seconds, the other 6000. The question is how real this plane is now. In the project, he had a "clogged" starting weight of about 300 tons. Take and calculate, at least approximately, how much he will be able to lift the load into orbit. What kind of engine thrust does he need to take off (his wings are completely “dead.” Make sure that you can talk a lot. The only realities are that you won’t create such VKS at present. Otherwise, companies would be in the queue, who would carry out these developments, and if we don’t have money, they would be found with the same Americans.

    It is possible that Energy 5 will suffer the same fate and it will not be realized. Although now the adherents of the "Angara" somewhat "burned", trying to "drag" the President at the show SOMETHING that they pass off as an extra heavy carrier. And they were besieged by the GDP, which stated (of course not verbatim) that "I do not need to hang noodles on my ears." The creation of superheavy is now an urgent problem. We can be on the sidelines when such carriers are made by the USA, Japan, China, Europe, India. And you will all bring the "Angara"
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 28 June 2017 22: 32 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      The creation of super-heavyness has now become an urgent problem

      Excuse me, for whom?
      Bring to the DOE? What? Russia will not pull its ISS, the Americans will do a new one without Russia, if any.
      Deep space? Roscosmos for 25 years of its existence nothing did not in outer space. Once or twice I put my scientific instruments on a strange ship.
      So what are you going to do with superheavy? To fly twice for a show, as last time? Explode four times, as before the year before?
      Quote: Old26
      We may be on the sidelines

      we can?
  31. Old26
    Old26 29 June 2017 10: 22 New
    +1
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Quote: Old26
    The creation of super-heavyness has now become an urgent problem

    Excuse me, for whom ?.

    And for us, including You can have any negative attitude to the work of Roscosmos, but it really is not happy, but it all ends someday. Until heavy loads are visible, such as 50-70 ton blocks? So they will not be visible until the designers know that there is a medium on which all this can be displayed. There will be no such carrier - there will be, like 40-45 years ago, 20-ton modules.
    Yes, of course the superheavy carrier will not be involved in the same way as the lungs. This is an axiom. But no one is planning any mass flights of superheavy. Now I don’t remember the exact numbers, but the meaning was approximately as follows.
    The number of launches of light carriers of the Angara-1.2 type per year is approximately 30. The number of launches of heavy launch vehicles of the Angara-A-5 type is approximately 10-12 per year. The number of launches of the superheavy Angara A-7 is 1-3 once a year.

    Now there is already a weighting of payloads. If, half a century ago, we had a “Soyuz” of about 7 tons and the same “Progress” with a payload of 2-2,5 tons, now we are talking about manned ships weighing 16-21 tons. The same Chinese have already launched their cargo ship with an EMNIP payload of 6 tons (almost three times more than the “progress”). Do you think the mass of modules for promising stations will remain within 20-25 tons? I'm afraid not. Already at the MIR-2 station, a 90-ton module was planned, which was planned to be powered by Energy. The superheavy carrier is not only the same 70-80 tons in low orbit. This is an opportunity to launch a satellite at a geostationary station not in 2-3 tons, but for example in 18-20. And what can be placed on such a platform - an open question (and not to me)

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Bring to the DOE? What? Russia will not pull its ISS, the Americans will do a new one without Russia, if any.

    If we do not participate in the ISS program, we will pull. Moreover, there is already talk that after the termination of work under the ISS program (and this is approximately estimated by 2020-2024), we can separate our segment. But ... We cannot say that it will be too efficient. We’ll have to supplement it with a number of modules and that’s what the modules will be, old with 80s architecture or something new will be the solution. what such a station will do. And somehow you will have to deliver such modules (new). Option "Hangar A-7" ​​is gone. So you need something else. Again, this requires a long-term program so that it doesn’t work out what will happen, well, for example, we have designed a 90-ton “orbital shipyard”, but there will be nothing to bring it out of. To bow to the Chinese or Americans? I prefer it to be the other way around. So that we have such a carrier, but they do not.

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Deep space? Roscosmos for 25 years of its existence nothing did not in outer space. Once or twice I put my scientific instruments on a strange ship.

    What a deep space. here we have a complete failure over the past quarter century. Whether something will change or not - I'm not Nostradamus and not Wang. I dont know

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    So what are you going to do with superheavy? To fly twice for a show, as last time? Explode four times, as before the year before?

    I already wrote a little higher. First, the task is set. If there are plans to create volumetric structures in orbit, heavyweight will be required. And the options for creating are mass. From my own orbital station to the output of heavy satellites to the geostationary station (I don’t even dream about planets at least in the version of automata). In the end, even the existing cosmic powers are completely unequal. Some can create heavy and superheavy media - others not. But the latter can create their own modules and stations, which someone will need to display. To whom? there are three options
    1. Americans
    2. Russians
    3. The Chinese
    Prefer us to drop out of this list?

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Quote: Old26
    We may be on the sidelines

    we can?

    We can. We can still say that we can be on the sidelines. There are no such superheavy carriers in iron yet; designing and testing of individual components is underway. Then the tests will go. And while we are not yet on the sidelines. But we can be.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 29 June 2017 22: 11 New
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      The number of launches of the super heavy Angara A-7 is 1-3 times a year.

      And again, our constant column "Roscosmos promises"
      What loads were they going to take out there? Not lunar bases named after Rogozin, for an hour?
      Quote: Old26
      "Angara-1.2 per year - about 30. The number of launches of heavy launch vehicles like" Angara-A-5 "- about 10-12 per year

      This is clear. An approximate number of launches of the Union and conversion ICBMs was taken in the first case, and Proton in the second.
      Quote: Old26
      Do you think the mass of modules for promising stations will remain within 20-25 tons? I'm afraid not.

      I’m somehow not sure that the stations will remain after the ISS. Somehow it’s not very clear what they are doing now. But this is fortunetelling, of course.
      Quote: Old26
      module, which was planned to display "Energy"

      Well, at least some kind of load for this rocket. Or do you want to say that the Energy for this module was created, and not just already, and for some reason was already?
      Why are 20-ton modules so bad? That is, they’re so bad as to justify the creation of super-heavy for the SLS budget?
      Quote: Old26
      Do you think the mass of modules for promising stations will remain within 20-25 tons?

      Quote: Old26
      and this is roughly estimated 2020-2024

      Quote: Old26
      they will not be visible until the designers know that there is a medium on which all this can be displayed.

      My opinion is that the development of Russian space goes down from the cliff - this is a matter of faith, which does not make sense to discuss. But if you are right, then you yourself perfectly understand that
      a) it is impossible to create superheavy in today's Russia within the time period indicated by you.
      b) no one will create modules for notexisting media. So there can be no options other than twenty-ton under Proton.
      c) the Russian segment without batteries will not wait 20 years in orbit until the modules and carrier are completed. So if someone is hoping for the autonomous functioning of the Russian module - you need to work now. And then do not have time for 7 years, not to mention 3. See the module Science.
      Quote: Old26
      If half a century ago we had a Soyuz of about 7 tons and the same Progress with a payload of 2-2,5 tons, now we are talking about manned ships weighing 16-21 tons

      Because, as you rightly noted, in this case, the load is created under existing media. All major commercial carriers under GSO bring out 20 tons to DOE. Making the ship smaller makes little sense.
      Quote: Old26
      but for example at 18-20. And what can be placed on such a platform - an open question (and not to me)

      How to tell you. In fact, this is the first question. The second - why it is impossible to deduce in parts. The third is why not Musk. And only the fourth - where to get the superheavy.
      Quote: Old26
      Well, for example, we have designed a 90-ton "orbital shipyard", but there will be nothing to bring it out

      If "we" begin to construct 90-ton solid blocks without understanding how to derive them, then the need for mass executions will become even more urgent. And on account of the fact that they will build the module and cannot bring it out, do not worry. They will not build.
      Quote: Old26
      To bow to the Chinese or Americans? I prefer it to be the other way around. So that we have such a carrier, but they do not.

      Well, I won’t say for Long Mach 9, but Americans, NYA, have 4 super-heavy loads in the foreseeable future (one is, the second will definitely be, the third will most likely (Bezos), the fourth will be said, but so far at the level of press releases (Orbital ATK ). So no, they won’t come to bow.
      Quote: Old26
      The task is set first

      Exactly. See Rice University. However, we hear about superheavy. And what about the task?
      Quote: Old26
      But the latter can create their own modules and stations, which someone will need to display

      A state that creates modules that do not fit into a twenty-ton? What is this strange state?
      Quote: Old26
      To whom? there are three options

      One. Only one superheavy carrier is available for commercial launches. Will Bezos - there will be two. In principle, the Russian superheavy (and not only superheavy) cannot be available at the request of a spherical state building 100-ton orbital modules in vacuum.
      Quote: Old26
      Prefer us to drop out of this list?

      "We" do not enter into it and never entered. Sorry, the topic of commercial super-power will not be real until the end of this year. Or do you think that the USSR could afford to launch not its load with Energy? Or USA Saturn?
      Quote: Old26
      And while we are not yet on the sidelines. But we can be.

      In my opinion, the term “on the sidelines” is really not very suitable. To describe the situation with Russian space, there is a large selection of discounted vocabulary.
  32. Old26
    Old26 29 June 2017 23: 18 New
    0
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    And again, our constant column "Roscosmos promises"
    What loads were they going to take out there? Not lunar bases named after Rogozin, for an hour?

    I don’t know whether or not lunar bases, but such projects are not done in a year. And again, I’m neither Vanga nor Nostradamus, I don’t know any plans for the next 5 years, or 10. Therefore, I don’t know what the payloads for such a carrier will be. I can extrapolate the information that at one time was based on Energy, or rather not according to its basic version, but according to subsequent planned modifications. Those were satellites at the geostationary mass up to 18 tons, there were automatic stations to the moon and Mars also weighing about 20-30 tons. What will happen on the new super-gravity - I don't know.

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    This is clear. An approximate number of launches of the Union and conversion ICBMs was taken in the first case, and Proton in the second.

    And I'm about the same. But such figures clearly show that launches of heavy and superheavy will be many times less than light ones. But they will

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    I’m somehow not sure that the stations will remain after the ISS. Somehow it’s not very clear what they are doing now. But this is fortunetelling, of course.

    The fact that the orbital stations will be - no questions asked. The question is whether it will be a huge international station or relatively small, with 5-7 modules national. The Chinese are now planning to launch a station similar to our Mir in the next year or two.
    What are they doing? The American-European segment has a fairly large number of research equipment, much more than ours. Work on scientific topics is being conducted, is being conducted mainly by them, and by no means by us. And such work will always be in demand. Sometimes getting a product outside the gravity zone can cost a lot more than a similar product obtained in the ground.

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    My opinion is that the development of Russian space goes down from the cliff - this is a matter of faith, which does not make sense to discuss. But if you are right, then you yourself perfectly understand that
    a) it is impossible to create superheavy in today's Russia within the time period indicated by you.
    b) no one will create modules for non-existent media. So there can be no options other than twenty-ton under Proton.
    c) the Russian segment without batteries will not wait 20 years in orbit until the modules and carrier are completed. So if someone is hoping for the autonomous functioning of the Russian module - you need to work now. And then do not have time for 7 years, not to mention 3. See the module Science.

    Until 2020? impossible. Until 2024-2025 - quite. Only it is necessary that it is not the same as with Rus-M. If it is decided to build something, it is necessary to build, allocating finances for it. And do not change the program every 2-3 years. Take the same "Federation". Over 10 years, probably 7 projects have been replaced, no less.
    You are right, no one will create a module for a nonexistent medium, just like no one will create a medium if there are no loads. Here, alas, a ring. But it is possible to simultaneously set the TTT to create, for example, a 50-70 ton module and the corresponding medium. Again, this should not be unfounded. That is, at the stage of the same pre-project, the designers will have to prove the need for both modules and media. Otherwise, everything will go in a circle. No media - see the module, no modules - see the media

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    c) the Russian segment without batteries will not wait 20 years in orbit until the modules and carrier are completed. So if someone is hoping for the autonomous functioning of the Russian module - you need to work now. And then do not have time for 7 years, not to mention 3. See the module Science.

    Batteries are on our modules. When it comes to the ISS, it is usually indicated that of the EMNIP 110 kW of energy consumed by the station, our segment provides about 30-32 (I don’t remember the exact numbers).
    With the module "Science" is somewhat different. He has long been ready, now almost repeatedly he has to be sorted out. since he stood waiting for the launch of 7 years, no less.
    We have vast experience in creating modules, as well as stations. Suffice it to recall at least the modules of the 37 and 77 series, the “Chelomeevsky truck” and three station models.

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Because, as you rightly noted, in this case, the load is created under existing media. All major commercial carriers under GSO bring out 20 tons to DOE. Making the ship smaller makes little sense.

    That's what I'm talking about. But everything is flowing. 15-20 years ago, the French did not even think, like the Japanese, to make cargo ships weighing 16 tons, now they do. Since there is something to deduce both the French and the Japanese. But the Indians have not yet reached such dimensions. 50 years ago we made 7 ton ships (TKS exception), now we have swung at 20 ton ships We are now marking time. "proton" is already leaving the scene, he has no replacement. In the future, the new manned also has nothing to bring. Since the "zenith" is not ours, and it will not stretch. "Angara A-5P" was covered with a copper basin, and "Soyuz-5" (aka Phoenix ") is also still a big question
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 30 June 2017 01: 22 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      there were satellites at the geostationary station weighing up to 18 tons, there were automatic stations to the moon and Mars also weighing about 20-30 tons. What will happen on the new super-gravity - I do not know.

      Again. You yourself (and far from you alone) told that the "Energy" was made without any understandable purpose, except for "catching up and overtaking." The ideas you described are just attempts to find at least some nuts in order to prick them with a large royal seal.
      From time to time we hear about launch vehicles (because at least someone seems to be able to do them) and don’t hear anything about their tasks (because these are not 25 years old, but all 50, as the moon closed). And without a task, this conversation does not make sense.
      Quote: Old26
      The Chinese are now planning to launch a station similar to our Mir in the next year or two.

      The Chinese are now disciplined to catch up with the big ones. What will they do when they catch up - I'm afraid they themselves do not know.
      Quote: Old26
      But such figures clearly show that launches of heavy and superheavy will be many times less than light ones.

      Where do they show you this? What real tasks over the past 25 years have been canceled only because there was not enough Energy?
      Quote: Old26
      such work will always be in demand

      I heard different opinions. But ok.
      Quote: Old26
      Until 2020? impossible. Until 2024-2025 - quite

      If I don’t confuse anything, you’re talking about a bunch of “Sunkars” that, by themselves, will not fly before 2025 even by promise (in the text of the article).
      Quote: Old26
      Here, alas, a ring. But it is possible to simultaneously set the TTT to create, for example, a 50-70 ton module and the corresponding carrier

      Yes, you can do something at the same time newlike a lunar program. But in this option, the deadlines are tight - the undocked modules will not last long.
      Quote: Old26
      designers will have to prove the need for both modules and media

      Yeah. And it is very not easy.
      Quote: Old26
      Batteries are on our modules. When it comes to the ISS, it is usually indicated that of the EMNIP 110 kW of energy consumed by the station, our segment provides about 30-32 (I don’t remember the exact numbers).

      Everything changes there. EMNIP, just with the panels of the Dawn of the problem. However, not quite in the subject.
      Quote: Old26
      We have vast experience in creating modules, as well as stations

      Quote: Old26
      Now I have to sort it out almost repeatedly. since he stood waiting for the launch of 7 years, no less.

      Quote: Old26
      "Angara A-5P" was covered with a copper basin, and "Soyuz-5" (aka Phoenix ") is also still a big question

      I understand you correctly, that instead of the indicated missiles, do you consider it reasonable to use heavyweight to launch the Federation?
  33. Old26
    Old26 29 June 2017 23: 19 New
    0
    Quote: Cherry Nine

    Quote: Old26
    but for example at 18-20. And what can be placed on such a platform - an open question (and not to me)

    How to tell you. In fact, this is the first question. The second - why it is impossible to deduce in parts. The third is why not Musk. And only the fourth - where to get the superheavy.

    Unfortunately, not everything can be deduced in parts. For example, the same module. Or a communications platform at a geostationary station. the same platform - a single mechanism. And the projects of such platforms apparently were in the future 9 approximately at the end of the 90s). But alas, the collapse of the Union. And at the time of the launch of Energy. which is typical, except for “Scythian” and “Buran” - for them there were no loads. Moreover, at full power or as it was called RLA-125 EMNIP there was no place under the payload "from above" at all. Only on subsequent models, such as the RLA-130 and RLA-135, not to mention the RLA-150, was this envisaged. On the energy itself - only on the side. As in principle, and on the "Neutron"
    Mask? He is quite possible to this and goes. EMNIP this or next year will go his “Falcon Heavy” on which he threatens to withdraw almost half a ton of cargo to the NOU

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    If "we" begin to construct 90-ton solid blocks without understanding how to derive them, then the need for mass executions will become even more urgent. And on account of the fact that they will build the module and cannot bring it out, do not worry. They will not build.

    I’m trying to say that something needs to be built. A 90-ton shipyard was planned for the MIR-2 station, and it was supposed to be launched at Energia or one of its variants. Of course, it did not come to construction. For this it is necessary to thank "Tagged". for he cut many projects. Few people know that the same modules of DOS "Mir" were displayed with a 2-3 year delay. And the latter in general ... In the full configuration, the station was supposed to be somewhere at the level of 85-87 years. In reality, in the mid-90s
    As for the possibility of building ... Technical reasons are not visible. It would be a “political” decision to create a module and media. And without subsequent shyness

    Quote: Cherry Nine

    Quote: Old26
    To bow to the Chinese or Americans? I prefer it to be the other way around. So that we have such a carrier, but they do not.

    Well, I won’t say for Long Mach 9, but Americans, NYA, have 4 super-heavy loads in the foreseeable future (one is, the second will definitely be, the third will most likely (Bezos), the fourth will be said, but so far at the level of press releases (Orbital ATK ). So no, they won’t come to bow.

    He certainly will not come. As you noticed, I asked a question, to bow to the Chinese or Americans. And he wrote that he would prefer that it be the other way around. but it will not be

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    A state that creates modules that do not fit into a twenty-ton? What is this strange state?

    You understand what I'm saying hypothetically. What, India will not be able, for example, to create sodul in 20-25 tons? Technically? Maybe, but there's nothing to run it. And if they want to have their own station, then there are several options
    1. Use small, approximately 8 tons of modules, as the Chinese now
    2. Create a module so that someone else starts it
    3. Do not create a module until they make the appropriate media.

    I didn’t mean any specific country ...

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    One. Only one superheavy carrier is available for commercial launches. Will Bezos - there will be two. In principle, the Russian superheavy (and not only superheavy) cannot be available at the request of a spherical state building 100-ton orbital modules in vacuum.

    It turns out that the Americans will be monopolists. And do not repeat about 90-ton modules and the lack of media for them. I already explained it

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    "We" do not enter into it and never entered. Sorry, the topic of commercial super-power will not be real until the end of this year. Or do you think that the USSR could afford to launch not its load with Energy? Or USA Saturn?

    Do not equate the American carrier of the 60s and our 80s. There were two systems and the withdrawal of other people's loads was not particularly visible and, all the more difficult. Light - there were many options. But from the moment the Shuttle program was operational, the Americans envisioned commercial launches. we switched to commercial launches only after the collapse of the Union. We could and created a completely acceptable medium, but the political system in the country could not allow us to use it except for defense.
    And if the Americans this year launch their super-heavyweight, which I have no doubt, we will again find ourselves in the role of catching up. Alas but unfortunately
    Perhaps I do not look so gloomy, saying that we are on the side of the road, and not on the edge of a cliff (abyss) ...
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 30 June 2017 01: 44 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      the same platform - a single mechanism

      Not quite. In the standard - it is perfectly divided into several functional blocks. EMNIP, half the weight when entering the GPO is generally satellite engines and fuel.
      Quote: Old26
      EMNIP will go this or next year

      Pre - October. Although he travels heavily to the right of the timeline.
      Quote: Old26
      on which he threatens to remove almost half a ton of cargo to the DOE

      Almost 64. And not threatened, but ready to sign contracts. The first rocket has already passed the test burn and is waiting for the modernization of the site.
      http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities
      Quote: Old26
      What, India will not be able, for example, to create sodul in 20-25 tons?

      Don't you think this hypothesis is slightly fancy?
      1. DOS exist, not least, for testing the orbital assembly. No, no one will launch them with alien forces.
      2. And from Russia? Create a Straight that suddenly maybe Indians need? Do you understand to what extent the problems of the Indians in such a project mean little?
      Quote: Old26
      It turns out that the Americans will be monopolists.

      American businessmen are the only people who can create such things for the market. State offices, NYA, do not imply CT for commercial launches. This also applies to SLS. I could be wrong.
      And SpaceX is the only organization that can do Streets and which they really need. But this is a unique situation tied to reusability (9FT pulls on the GPO the heaviest satellites only without returning 1 stage, in order to change this you need extra-heavy). Only Musk has reusability now.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 1 July 2017 00: 10 New
        0
        That's why Russia needs to create a single-stage VKS capable of outputting 100 tons of payload to the NOO.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 1 July 2017 03: 22 New
          0
          Quote: Vadim237
          That's why Russia needs to create a single-stage VKS capable of outputting 100 tons of payload to the NOO.

          You are absolutely right. Meaningless tramp for 30 years and 100500 billion - this is the favorite format of Roscosmos. Just a dream, not a project.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 3 July 2017 15: 14 New
            0
            A meaningless tramp is what Roscosmos is doing now, absolutely hopeless and unprofitable. Abroad VKS will fly in 10 years.
  34. ver_
    ver_ 18 October 2017 10: 41 New
    0
    Quote: Proxima
    Again, the next “noodle” from Roscosmos and, accordingly, the cut of public funds. Why call this mythical super-heavy rocket "Energy" if there is nothing from the previous "Energy", namely, the most basic - central unit (stage C) with four hydrogen engines RD-0120. And “Energia” was probably nicknamed for a word of wit (brand) in order to squeeze more money from taxpayers.

    ... it’s a pit .. for this indicated time, not one donkey will die ... the VNEU current for the submarines was doped, all the drooling already ended long ago .., and then space ..
  35. ver_
    ver_ 18 October 2017 10: 44 New
    0
    Quote: Vadim237
    That's why Russia needs to create a single-stage VKS capable of outputting 100 tons of payload to the NOO.

    ... you need to object, but at the appropriate level ..
  36. Sergey-8848
    Sergey-8848 5 March 2018 17: 23 New
    0
    Let's first master everything that was fantasized in “Young Technique”, then thought up in “Technique-Youth”, worked out a little in “Knowledge-Strength”, put it on paper in drawings in “Modeler-Designer”, and then patented in “ Inventor and Rationalizer. " The cleverest could even talk to each other in "Quantum", but already there were very bright heads. But “Science and Life” and “Chemistry and Life” - they were able to explain everything to all the profane, as well as to build paths between different areas of knowledge.