Military Review

Commercial space. New Challenges and Answers

99
At present, very interesting phenomena are observed in the market of commercial launches of spacecraft. One of the relatively young private commercial organizations not only brought its rocket and space technology to operation, but also shows the most serious results. Its share in the field of commercial launches is constantly increasing, while the recognized market leaders have to make room. To cope with the existing competition and prevent the loss of their share of launches, old and experienced organizations will have to take appropriate measures.


The main threat to the commercial performance of the old market participants in recent years has become the American private company SpaceX. With certain financial, organizational and technological support, this organization was able to develop new models of rocket and space technology and then bring it to the practical use stage. The introduction of non-standard solutions and profitable commercial proposals, complemented by an aggressive advertising campaign, led to the results.

Since the beginning of 2017, the SpaceX digging company has performed 12 launches of Falcon 9 launch vehicles with a payload on board. Until the end of the year it is planned to launch more 11 missiles of this type. Three launches this year were held in the interests of NASA. Another rocket carried a military payload. Customers for the remaining launches were various commercial organizations from different countries. The situation is similar with the upcoming launches, which will mainly be carried out in the interests of private companies in various industries.


Launch of Falcon 9


For comparison, the Russian space industry has so far performed 11 launches, including 2 from a space launch site in French Guiana. 11 starts are scheduled for autumn and winter. This year, Russian launch vehicles launched a military device, an 3 spacecraft for the International Space Station and one scientific payload into orbit. Two more launches were performed with the participation of the Arianespace organization. Only one launch was carried out by Russia on the order of a commercial organization.

Not so long ago, SpaceX announced its plans for the near future. Its experts believe that, by the end of 2017, the Falcon 9 missiles will be able to occupy the 45% of the international market for commercial launches. The European Space Agency in this analysis is given 40%, Russia - only 15%. Next year, 2018, American merchants intend to increase their share in this market to 60-65%. European launches will not exceed 30% of the total, Russian - up to 10%.

No less interesting are the financial indicators of the rocket and space industry. So, last year, world companies in total earned billion dollars from commercial launches of 2,5. The gain in comparison with the previous year was 300 million. American businesses earned $ 1,185 billion on such services, while European enterprises earned 1,152 billion. The commercial launches of rockets brought Russia only 130 million US dollars. In this case, only one private SpaceX earned about three times more than the entire Russian space industry.

It should be noted that the rocket and space sphere is not limited to commercial launches alone. The payload of military, scientific or other non-commercial purposes still has a large share in the overall structure of launches, and therefore in a certain way affects the rocket and space sphere. However, we should not forget the fact that commercial launches, unlike “state” ones, allow companies and countries to earn serious money on advanced technologies.

Thus, in the existing situation, recognized market leaders need to take certain measures aimed at maintaining a favorable situation and obtaining the maximum possible market share. At the same time, it is necessary to take into account the recent successes of SpaceX merchants who claim leadership positions. Taking into account the peculiarities of this company, as well as the current market trends, it is possible to imagine which projects should be developed and which areas should be given special attention.

As events of recent years show, commercial spacecraft operators are interested in middle-class launch vehicles capable of bringing low-Earth orbit up to 5-10 t. At the same time, the launch cost is an important factor influencing the choice of contractor. American specialists involved in the implementation of ideas for the return of individual units have already managed to obtain certain results in this area, which has become a clear competitive advantage.

Over the next few years, Russia will have to use several types of launch vehicles. This technique has already managed to show itself in a good way, and therefore can remain in operation. Nevertheless, the events of recent years may show that the existing Russian missiles are far from fully meeting the requirements of potential customers, and there is a need to create new samples.

Commercial space. New Challenges and Answers
The principle of building missiles Proton Medium and Proton Light


Russian organizations are currently developing several projects of promising launch vehicles suitable for solving several basic tasks. Thanks to their appearance, Russia will be able not only to ensure the existence of a group of spacecraft or to conduct various scientific programs, but also to count on increasing its share of the global market for commercial launches.

Back in 2015, the leaders of the rocket and space industry announced the launch of the Soyuz-5 project, which should result in the emergence of a promising medium launch vehicle. In the future, the main Russian enterprises were busy forming the overall appearance of the rocket and the technical specifications for it. At the same time, approaches to the implementation of the project were determined with a certain participation of foreign countries, and the approximate dates for the completion of the main stages of the project were announced.

Just a couple of weeks ago, it became known that the project "Soyuz-5" passed into the stage of preliminary design. In the course of these works, it is planned to work out a variant of the rocket equipped with one RD-171М engine at the first stage and two RD-0124 engines at the second. It was reported that the draft design will be ready in November of this year. Apparently, after this, the industry will be able to proceed with the full-fledged design and preparation of all the necessary documentation.

According to existing plans, the modernization of one of the launches will begin at the very beginning of the next decade at the Baikonur cosmodrome, after which it will be able to operate the Soyuz-5 missiles. The first start will take place no earlier than 2022-23's. One of the first payloads for a promising rocket will be the Federation spacecraft. Not earlier than the mid-twenties, the rocket will be put into full operation. It can be launched both from Baikonur and from the East. Having received such a launch vehicle, the Russian specialists will be able to send up to 15-17 tons of cargo of one sort or another into low earth orbit.

Just over a year ago, the leadership of the State Space Research and Production Center (GKNPTs) them. Mv Khrunicheva spoke about plans to create promising launch vehicles, originally intended for commercial operation. New domestic missiles will have to compete with foreign counterparts in the launch of five-ton geostationary satellites. It is noteworthy that, commenting on new projects, the leaders of the Center were directly talking about creating an answer to the development of SpaceX.

GKNPTs them. Mv Khrunicheva and the company International Launch Services talked about the development of two projects at once, designated as “Proton rocket variations”. These developments have received the working names Proton Medium (“Proton” Medium ”) and Proton Light (“ Proton ”Light”). As it is clear from the names of the projects, their goal is the creators of the light and middle class, capable of solving problems in different niches of the market. To simplify and reduce the cost of the project, it was proposed to use the most widely used components and assemblies of the Proton-M production missiles currently in use.

According to the 2016 of the year, “Proton” Medium ”was supposed to be a basic“ Proton-M ”without a regular second stage. Own two steps should be complemented by the Briz-M upper stage. As part of the “light” project, it was proposed to rework the design of the serial first stage. Instead of the six engines installed in the side units of the case, you should use only four, which will lead to a corresponding change in the basic characteristics. According to calculations, the middle class rocket will be able to send a payload of up to 5,5 t of the payload to the geostationary orbit, and up to 4,17 t of the lightweight class.


Comparison of the Proton family of missiles with foreign counterparts


A year ago it was reported that the first Proton Medium rocket will be able to go to space for the first time already in 2018. It was supposed to be launched from the site №24 of the Baikonur Cosmodrome. The first launch of Proton Light was supposed to be done already in 2019. Such an early realization of a bold project should have contributed to the widest use of ready-made components and assemblies. Being a rebuilt Proton-M, the new “rocket variations” did not need a significant number of specially designed parts. The development of the required new devices, in turn, should not take a lot of time.

According to the latest reports received at the end of August, at the moment, an average version of the updated Proton has been chosen for implementation. At the same time, the project implementation dates were changed. So, the first flight of the Proton Medium was moved to the beginning of the 2019 of the year. The timeline for the start of assembly and launches of the “light” launch vehicle is not yet specified. In the framework of the new project Center. Khrunicheva plans to use the so-called principle. dispatch. Thus, a specific person will be responsible for internal and external cooperation, as well as for the technological chain.

Modernization projects of the Proton-M rocket are still at the development stage and the new equipment is not yet ready for operation. However, their first commercial successes are already known. International Launch Services, which will organize the operation of Proton Light and Proton Medium rockets, announced it has received an order from Eutelsat Communications. One of the largest satellite communications operators intends to put its new device into orbit with the help of a promising Russian rocket.

Over the past few years, very interesting trends have been observed on the international market for commercial launches of spacecraft. Not so long ago, private development companies simply were not taken seriously, but now the situation has changed completely. The merchants not only managed to bring new models of equipment to the market, but also to show quite remarkable results. For several years, the most successful company, using certain assistance from third parties, has managed to win a significant part of the market.

How long this redistribution of the market will last, and what results will it lead to - it’s too early to say. However, it is already clear that the recognized leaders of the industry, whose positions are threatened by the activities of new participants, will take all the necessary steps and try to preserve the most advantageous situation for themselves. This means that in the very near future new information about the plans of the rocket and space industry and its new developments of various kinds may be made public.


On the materials of the sites:
http://ria.ru/
http://tass.ru/
http://rg.ru/
http://ilslaunch.com/
http://spacex.com/
http://mediasat.info/
http://take-off.ru/
Author:
Photos used:
SpaceX / spacex.com, International Launch Services / ilslaunch.com
99 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Same lech
    Same lech 5 September 2017 06: 31 New
    +3
    US-based private company SpaceX


    With a capital of $ 20 billion ... it's too early for her to compete with the state.
    While her niche is tourism into space ... before commercial transport is still oh how far.

    But the question was posed correctly ... young wolves appeared on the horizon and they are very hungry.
    1. opus
      opus 5 September 2017 23: 28 New
      +1
      Quote: The same Lech
      With a capital of $ 20 billion ..

      21

      July 2017: attracted investments worth $ 350 million. Capitalization reached 21 billion. Since 2015, the indicator has almost doubled.

      Quote: The same Lech
      compete with the state.

      which state?

      Apple's market capitalization on Monday, May 8, 2017 exceeded $ 800 billion - not a single public company has ever been worth it


      Threat.
      The Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation for the fiscal year 2015 adopted a budget in which the amount of income is set at 15,082 trillion rubles. At the current dollar exchange rate, this amount corresponds to $ 234 billion and is 2015 revenue for fiscal year XNUMX.
      Apple does not have social programs, pensions, patients, children and the army (with a fleet)

      Since the start of its program (capital return) in August 2012 and until March 2017, Apple returned to shareholders over $ 211 billion, including the repurchase of shares in the amount of $ 151 billion.
    2. ariman1
      ariman1 6 September 2017 00: 05 New
      +1
      at least you sometimes watch the news and the articles that you comment, read - it is already engaged in commercial launches
  2. Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 5 September 2017 08: 51 New
    +4
    Another illiterate compilation.
    Sad.

    Quote: The same Lech
    While her niche is tourism into space ... before commercial transport is still oh how far.

    The experiments of the Chinese with quantum communication have led to failures in time.

    Dear Lech from 2010! Do not do nonsense. While the connection with 2017 has not disappeared, rather google Bitcoin!
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 5 September 2017 21: 52 New
      0
      Bitcoins had to be "google" in the 2008th - when they cost an ode thousandth cent.
  3. aiw
    aiw 5 September 2017 09: 36 New
    +6
    Farewell to space
    Guskov Alexey


    Take away the “Protons”
    take away "Unions"
    Last tons
    last cargo
    Former before
    native orbits
    To be
    just about forgotten.
    There will be no greetings
    Venus and Mars
    From us exchanged
    cassock spacesuits
    Overalls for jeans,
    factories on exchanges.
    And space
    all further
    And the stars
    higher and higher ...
    What a pleasure
    would spit in a mug
    The scoundrels of today
    Yura Gagarin
    For having a victory
    in space rally
    We stupidly pissed off.
    Badly crap ...


    I want to believe that they did not forever shine.
    1. rubin6286
      rubin6286 6 September 2017 18: 08 New
      0
      The Russian people do not have an action plan ...
      He is terrible for everyone with his improvisation!
  4. Yuriy789
    Yuriy789 5 September 2017 10: 01 New
    +1
    that is why it is necessary to respond to sanctions against the usa by banning the sale of rocket engines. and build media ourselves using the currently exported taxiways for commercial use. this will give more experience in this segment of the market for commercial launches, thanks to this experience, the market for commercial launches + image hit in the United States will continue to develop. In addition, Baikonur flies a pretty penny - Kazakhstan is paying a rent. it’s necessary to somehow get rid of this load - intermediaries are not needed. but this must be done taking into account the 2-sided relations of our countries.
    1. iwind
      iwind 5 September 2017 10: 31 New
      +3
      Quote: Yuri789
      that is why it is necessary to respond to sanctions against the usa by banning the sale of rocket engines. and build media ourselves using the currently exported taxiways for commercial use. this will give more experience in this segment of the market for commercial launches, thanks to this experience, the market for commercial launches + image hit in the United States will continue to develop. In addition, Baikonur flies a pretty penny - Kazakhstan is paying a rent. it’s necessary to somehow get rid of this load - intermediaries are not needed. but this must be done taking into account the 2-sided relations of our countries.

      It will not give anything.
      These engines are not used for commercial work.
      Even a complete locked-up of sales will cause minimal harm to the United States (therefore, they are being sold) Of the 18 launches in the United States, only 4 ranged RD engines this year.
      They will be able to move to either Delta-4 or Falcon-9.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 5 September 2017 10: 52 New
      12
      "that's why we must respond to sanctions against the United States by banning the sale of rocket engines" ///

      This will be a real Space-X gift. They already hold 60% of commercial launches,
      without competitors from the Boeing Lockheed Alliance, there will be all 80 ...
      Elon Musk will come to Russia with a suitcase of dollars to thank smile
      1. owl
        owl 5 September 2017 17: 24 New
        +1
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Elon Musk will come to Russia with a suitcase of dollars to thank

        These dollars will probably come in handy for part-time workers due to loss of orders !? repeat
      2. Yuriy789
        Yuriy789 5 September 2017 17: 58 New
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh
        "that's why we must respond to sanctions against the United States by banning the sale of rocket engines" ///

        This will be a real Space-X gift. They already hold 60% of commercial launches,
        without competitors from the Boeing Lockheed Alliance, there will be all 80 ...
        Elon Musk will come to Russia with a suitcase of dollars to thank smile

        so already had to come and thank .... due to what he has 60% of commercial launches? due to the fact that the Russian Federation is proud here that America buys engines from us, they say, they don’t even have normal engines ... but in fact, there’s a flash about ***, although they could already work out the technologies themselves, although would be based on these engines, and carry out these launches. well, why ... people are being sent to space into them, so is it really impossible to deliver commercial cargo ...
      3. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 5 September 2017 21: 29 New
        +1
        Quote: voyaka uh
        This will be a real Space-X gift. They already hold 60% of commercial launches,
        without competitors from the Boeing Lockheed Alliance, there will be all 80 ...

        YULA, NYA, now has no commercial launches. All the Atlases were bought out by Uncle Sam, the military did not allow Delta to be allowed for money at all (they have all the rights to it, not from YULA).
        Even if the ban on the RD-180 removes several long-range launches (to America’s short-range engines), this will not bring the mask to market share. Highs a couple of government contracts.

        Quote: voyaka uh
        Elon Musk will come to Russia with a suitcase of dollars to thank

        Will translate on the floor.
        It would be nice if it turned out that Boeing and Musk paid jokes about the trampoline and that’s all. Unfortunately, I’m sure that they have done their job here.
    3. tamnun
      tamnun 5 September 2017 11: 24 New
      +7
      Quote: Yuri789
      from therefore it is necessary to respond to sanctions against the us by banning the sale of rocket engines

      How can you ban the sale of US American engines?
      To begin with, there is no “Russian engine RD-180” in nature. There is an RD-180 engine created in the framework of Russian-American cooperation, which was developed in Russia by order of the USA, and which is currently produced by the American company Pratt & Whitney on Russian production facilities. Therefore, the very presentation of the material in the Russian media, who write that "the United States buys engines in Russia" 100% thick lies. It's like writing that “Apple buys its Iphone in China” only on the grounds that all their production is concentrated there.

      More precisely, it’s possible to prohibit collecting them, of course, but to produce for yourself
      Quote: Yuri789
      , thanks to this experience, the market for commercial launches will continue to develop + image hit in the usa. to that ж

      in the USA laughing SpaceX almost buried the prospects for commercial launches of Roscosmos, and the Europeans did the same.
      One company with 4000 employees left Roscosmos deep behind
      with nearly 130000 employees.
      1. Pancir026
        Pancir026 5 September 2017 11: 32 New
        +3
        Quote: tamnun
        SpaceX almost buried the prospects for commercial launches of Roscosmos, and the Europeans did the same.
        One company with 4000 employees left Roscosmos deep behind

        It is you who so desire to see. And in fact, your vision is worth nothing.
        "As an entertainment, I love to read LJ of Russian blondes who are boiling in boiling water about the magnificent, amazing, unsurpassed, majestic United States.
        In terms of their ignorance and stupidity, this is simply breathtaking reading. Especially when in their zhezheshechkah the myth of a star-striped paradise sparkles dazzling against the background of the dark image of the backward, bast, crumbling "Raska" - a fantasy stubbornly promoted on social networks by Ukrainian "Svidomo" and Russian liberals.
        This time in the TOP LJ, an epic ode dedicated to the American Falcon-9 rocket caught my eye. "http://maxpark.com/community/4765/content/51692
        21
        1. tamnun
          tamnun 5 September 2017 13: 02 New
          +4
          Quote: Pancir026
          It is you who so desire to see. And in fact, your vision is worth nothing.

          I don’t want to see, it’s all the same to me.
          I look at the facts
          Quote: Pancir026
          "As an entertainment, I love to read LJ of Russian blondes who are boiling in boiling water about the magnificent, amazing, unsurpassed, majestic United States.

          Your right .
          Quote: Pancir026
          This time in the TOP LJ, an epic ode dedicated to the American Falcon-9 rocket caught my eye

          A lot of buccaff. do you have something to say?
          1. Pancir026
            Pancir026 5 September 2017 13: 10 New
            +3
            Quote: tamnun
            A lot of buccaff. but you have something to say

            Exactly, there’s nothing to tell you, except for eternal Jewish raging about anything?
            The Pentagon faced technical and financial difficulties in creating analogues of the RD-180 rocket engine. About it writes The Wall Street Journal.
            Where is the vaunted Falcon seen?
            According to WSJ, the United States decided to continue using Russian engines until 2024 or 2025. The source of the publication believes that this period can be extended until 2028.

            The representative of ULA said that at the moment there are 22 contracts for the launch of Atlas V.
            Again .. where is the boasted Falcon? At point-blank range it is not seen in the USA as something necessary for the existing needs of the military and civilian cosmonautics.
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 5 September 2017 20: 43 New
              +1
              2/3 Starts in the USA made Falcons this year
            2. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 5 September 2017 21: 40 New
              +1
              Quote: Pancir026
              The Pentagon faced technical and financial difficulties in creating analogues of the RD-180 rocket engine. About it writes The Wall Street Journal.

              USG did not write anything like that. He wrote that transferring RD-180 production to the United States would cost Lockheed and PV (and not the Pentagon) some billions, making it easier and cheaper to make another engine instead. Under which Congress has already allocated 700, it seems, lyamov.
              Quote: Pancir026
              22 Atlas V launch contracts signed
              Again .. where is the vaunted Falcon

              Far ahead
              Quote: Pancir026
              something necessary for the existing needs of military and civilian space

              In 2017, Falcon and Atlas equally (6) state launches.
        2. aiw
          aiw 5 September 2017 14: 21 New
          +5
          As an entertainment, I love to read LJ of Russian blondes pissing boiling water about the magnificent, amazing, unsurpassed, majestic United States.

          You from these blondes apparently differ only in gender, hair color and polarity of opinion.
      2. Yuriy789
        Yuriy789 5 September 2017 18: 17 New
        +1
        Quote: tamnun
        Quote: Yuri789
        from therefore it is necessary to respond to sanctions against the us by banning the sale of rocket engines

        How can you ban the sale of US American engines?
        To begin with, there is no “Russian engine RD-180” in nature. There is an RD-180 engine created in the framework of Russian-American cooperation, which was developed in Russia by order of the USA, and which is currently produced by the American company Pratt & Whitney on Russian production facilities. Therefore, the very presentation of the material in the Russian media, who write that "the United States buys engines in Russia" 100% thick lies. It's like writing that “Apple buys its Iphone in China” only on the grounds that all their production is concentrated there.

        More precisely, it’s possible to prohibit collecting them, of course, but to produce for yourself
        Quote: Yuri789
        , thanks to this experience, the market for commercial launches will continue to develop + image hit in the usa. to that ж

        in the USA laughing SpaceX almost buried the prospects for commercial launches of Roscosmos, and the Europeans did the same.
        One company with 4000 employees left Roscosmos deep behind
        with nearly 130000 employees.

        "in nature does not exist," and the United States buys them. some garbage! RD-180, roughly speaking, is the export engine of RD 170, converted for operation on American ships, in particular atlases ... and is assembled entirely in Russia, there is nothing American there, no brand like a bitten apple, no technology, only "order"...
        and the fact that xspace buried is, again, roughly speaking, our mistake. having engines, and ships, and carriers, give way to those who started with a "0" ... it's .... a complete scribe. although not all is lost
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 5 September 2017 21: 43 New
          +2
          Quote: Yuri789
          it’s going all the way to Russia, there’s nothing American there, no brand like a bitten apple, no technology, just an “order” ...

          If you were aware of the statistics of accidents of Atlas engines and Zenith engines (in which there is really nothing American), it would be more difficult for you to write this garbage.
      3. Yura
        Yura 5 September 2017 20: 48 New
        0
        Quote: tamnun
        How can you ban the sale of US American engines?

        Enough probably to quote, the same single article written by a narrow-minded person. The Americans have the right to own this engine according to the agreement only in their territory and not even own the right in the full sense of the word, but the right to buy and sell this engine, this engine of ours, adapted for their rocket, according to the order.
    4. rubin6286
      rubin6286 6 September 2017 18: 12 New
      +1
      When I served in the army, I thought: "Wow, so that all the stupid people have gathered in one place with me!" Then, after dismissal, he began to look at life more broadly and realized that the matter was not limited to the army ...
  5. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 5 September 2017 10: 51 New
    +5
    Space-X is a terribly muddy company, it seems that it was created for the "laundering and cutting" of NASA money. Since the company did not enter an IPO, its financial statements are not transparent. There is evidence that their launches are unprofitable, but nobody cares ...
    1. iwind
      iwind 5 September 2017 11: 06 New
      +6
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Space-X is a terribly muddy company, it seems that it was created for the "laundering and cutting" of NASA money

      What review?
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Since the company did not enter an IPO, its financial statements are not transparent. There is evidence that their launches are unprofitable, but nobody cares ...

      And who should care?
      The company is private. Her losses are her business and her investor.

      This should worry.
      This is state money.
      The media learned about the plans of the Khrunichev center to receive another 33 billion rubles. from the budget
      The Khrunichev State Space Research and Production Center (GKNPC) again needs the help of the state to solve the financial problems of the enterprise, Kommersant writes with reference to sources. 65 billion rubles allocated earlier from the budget. it was not enough.

      Read more at RBC:
      http://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/59a3c6409a7947812e6
      dd338

      In an interview with TASS, the new head of the Center. Khrunicheva Alexey Varochko, who replaced Andrei Kalinovsky at this post, spoke about what kind of policy he plans to pursue at the enterprise. Asked about the goals of developing a new modification of the Angara launch vehicle, known as the Angara-A5M, he said that this rocket would be able to bring up to 24,8-25 tons of cargo into low Earth orbit, i.e. will approximately correspond to the design parameters of Angara-A5. On the new rocket, in particular, RD-10M engines boosted by about 191% will be used.

      The current Angara-A5 rocket, according to Varochko, has a carrying capacity of 22,3 tons. According to data from the website of the developing company, it should remove 24 tons from Plesetsk or 24,5 tons from Vostochny Cosmodrome.

      The first launch of Angara-A5 took place on December 23, 2014. It was officially recognized as successful, despite the fact that, according to rumors, due to a malfunction in the Briz-M upper stage, the payload mockup did not reach the geostationary orbit. However, even then, experts noted unusual features in this launch, in particular, an unexplained underfilling of fuel in the rocket modules of the first stage of the URM-1.
      In addition, Alexei Varochko touched on plans to create a weighted Angara-A5V rocket with oxygen-hydrogen third stage, which have not yet been officially canceled. According to him, "the task has gone beyond the horizon of 2025." It can be assumed that the launch complex for the Angara at the Vostochny cosmodrome will not include work with a 37-ton version of the rocket.

      The situation with the repair of the Multifunctional Laboratory Module “Science” for the ISS in the interview is also described pessimistically. According to Varochko, the completion of repairs by the end of this year, as previously planned, can not be expected. “There was a delay in the manufacture of 21 equipment parts. Today, seven of them have been commissioned, nine are in production and eight parts are in the assembly line. ” - noted the head of GKNPC them. Khrunicheva. “Now, on my instructions, a full audit of the components of the MLM is being carried out in order to determine the deficit and approve a clear timetable for their manufacture. The exact date of the MLM shipment to the cosmodrome can be announced after the completion of these works. ”
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 5 September 2017 11: 32 New
      +9
      "for" laundering and cutting "NASA money" ////

      NASA, by contrast, has adopted Space-H very reluctantly (like the Pentagon).
      Both NASA and the military put on a Boeing Lockheed Alliance. Verified
      Sharks technology and business.
      The mask had a hard time breaking its way. But he outbid himself
      America’s best engineers, in all areas. To him in California
      flock engineers, rocket launchers, car builders, chemists ...
      And accordingly, the results are excellent. "Cadres decide everything" fellow .
      3/4 of space in 10 years in his hands.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 5 September 2017 21: 47 New
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Both NASA and the military put on a Boeing Lockheed Alliance

        Military yes, but NASA decided to train on cats on supply missions. Say, there is a European truck, Russian, Japanese, even if businesses screw up - get out. One screwed up, the second not, the third - Musk.
  6. alexey1213
    alexey1213 5 September 2017 10: 53 New
    -1
    Why our missiles do not meet the requirements of the customer, or maybe not the ability to attract the customer. It’s more pleasant to cut public money, and all the failures in attracting customers can be attributed to the fact that our missiles are not the same. And SpaceX digging can work with the client getting good results. face and frowning eyebrows is not a job.
    1. Pancir026
      Pancir026 5 September 2017 11: 35 New
      +3
      Quote: alexey1213
      . And digging SpaceX with the client can work getting good results. Making a significant face and frowning is not a job.

      It is worth comparing the Falcon-9 payload mass with other competing rocket launchers.
      This unit throws from 9 (v1.0) to 13 tons (v1.1) into a low reference orbit. Into a geo-transition orbit from 3,4 (v1.0) to 4,8 tons (v1.1). Apparently, the Falcon-9 does not finish off to the geostationary orbit.
      Now let's see the characteristics of the Russian Proton-M. It displays 23 tons into a low reference orbit. To the geo-transitional orbit - 6,7 tons (with the RB "Breeze-M"). Into a geostationary orbit - up to 3,7 tons (with RB "Briz-M").
      At the moment, the launch of Falcon-9 costs from 56 to 77 million dollars. To launch Proton-M, 69-70 million dollars are needed.
      What does simple arithmetic tell us? That Falcon-9 is beneficial for launching a variety of small things into orbit, but completely loses to the Russian Proton-M in terms of delivering heavy loads there.
      So who is there who frowns and makes significant physics, having not the best results?
      1. tamnun
        tamnun 5 September 2017 11: 49 New
        +8
        Quote: Pancir026
        СIt is worth comparing the Falcon-9 payload mass with other competing rocket launchers.
        This unit throws from 9 (v1.0) to 13 tons (v1.1) into a low reference orbit. Into a geo-transition orbit from 3,4 (v1.0) to 4,8 tons (v1.1). Apparently, the Falcon-9 does not finish off to the geostationary orbit.
        Now let's see the characteristics of the Russian Proton-M. It displays 23 tons into a low reference orbit. To the geo-transitional orbit - 6,7 tons (with the RB "Breeze-M"). Into a geostationary orbit - up to 3,7 tons (with RB "Briz-M").

        Should you compare? What with what?
        The existing Falcon and the non-existent Proton -M.
        What skin of a bear do you share?

        Quote: Pancir026
        Now let's see the characteristics of the Russian Proton-M. It displays 23 tons into a low reference orbit. To the geo-transitional orbit - 6,7 tons (with the RB "Breeze-M"). Into a geostationary orbit - up to 3,7 tons (with RB "Briz-M").

        It doesn’t output, so far this rocket is not.
        When will we then talk.
        As with the Hangar - request
        Quote: Pancir026
        What does simple arithmetic tell us? That Falcon-9 is beneficial for launching a variety of small things into orbit, but completely loses to the Russian Proton-M in terms of delivering heavy loads there.

        Simple arithmetic tells us that next year Musk will control 60% of commercial launches, and Roscosos at best 10%

        Quote: Pancir026
        So who is there that frowns and makes significant physicshaving not the best results?

        it’s better to smile of course - having nothing laughing
        1. Pancir026
          Pancir026 5 September 2017 11: 57 New
          +3
          Quote: tamnun
          Should you compare? What with what?
          The existing Falcon and the non-existent Proton -M.

          Before snorting, according to the eternal Jewish method, study the question.
          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Список_космических_
          launches_Russia_in_2016_year
          Even on Wikipedia. For people like you, everything is chewed.
          Quote: tamnun
          Simple arithmetic tells us that next year Musk will control 60% of commercial launches.

          Your next lie. Run the weight of the suitcase and no more than at least a hundred starts per year.
          Quote: tamnun
          it’s better to smile of course - having nothing

          So you have nothing.
          1. iwind
            iwind 5 September 2017 12: 07 New
            +6
            Quote: Pancir026
            Your next lie. Run the weight of the suitcase and no more than at least a hundred starts per year.

            Start Falcon-9
            July 5, 2017, 23:38 FT Kennedy CC, Intelsat 39e LC-35A satellite weight on GPO 6761 k
            number of starts.
            By country
            USA-18
            RF-9 (11 if with Kuru)
            EC-8
            China 8
            on missiles
            Falcon 9 FT United States 12
            Arian-5 ECA European Union 4
            Atlas 5 401 United States of America 4
            Changzheng-3B China 3
            PSLV-XL India 3
            H-IIA 202 Japan 2
            Soyuz-2.1a Russia 2
            Soyuz-FG Russia 2
            Vega European Union 2
            Proton-M Russia 2
            Quote: Pancir026
            This unit throws from 9 (v1.0) to 13 tons (v1.1) into a low reference orbit. Into a geo-transition orbit from 3,4 (v1.0) to 4,8 tons (v1.1). Apparently, the Falcon-9 does not finish off to the geostationary orbit.

            These Falcon-9 variants no longer fly.
            Now. Falcon-9 FT Block 3
            Payload mass
            - at the DOE
            FT: 22 800 kg
            - at GPO
            FT: 8300 kg
            end of year BLock 5
            1. Pancir026
              Pancir026 5 September 2017 12: 21 New
              +1
              Quote: iwind
              end of year BLock 5

              What did you want to say?
              With the same success, in the beginning of 18 and later ANGARA in all its forms. What remains of your plucked folk there? Http: //maxpark.com/community/4765/content
              / 5169221
              1. iwind
                iwind 5 September 2017 12: 30 New
                +2
                Quote: Pancir026
                What did you want to say?

                So. We wait until November
                Angara 5
                In an interview with TASS, the new head of the Center. Khrunicheva Alexey Varochko, who replaced Andrei Kalinovsky at this post, spoke about what kind of policy he plans to pursue at the enterprise. Asked about the goals of developing a new modification of the Angara launch vehicle, known as the Angara-A5M, he said that this rocket would be able to bring up to 24,8-25 tons of cargo into low Earth orbit, i.e. will approximately correspond to the design parameters of Angara-A5. On the new rocket, in particular, RD-10M engines boosted by about 191% will be used.
                The current Angara-A5 rocket, according to Varochko, has a carrying capacity of 22,3 tons. According to data from the website of the developing company, it should remove 24 tons from Plesetsk or 24,5 tons from Vostochny Cosmodrome.
                The first launch of Angara-A5 took place on December 23, 2014. It was officially recognized as successful, despite the fact that, according to rumors, due to a malfunction in the Briz-M upper stage, the payload mockup did not reach the geostationary orbit. However, even then, experts noted unusual features in this launch, in particular, an unexplained underfilling of fuel in the rocket modules of the first stage of the URM-1.
                Quote: Pancir026
                http://maxpark.com/community/4765/content
                / 5169221

                What did you want to say?
                Sheer nonsense is written
                1. Pancir026
                  Pancir026 5 September 2017 12: 43 New
                  +1
                  Quote: iwind
                  Sheer nonsense is written

                  You? Why?
                  1. iwind
                    iwind 5 September 2017 12: 52 New
                    +4
                    Quote: Pancir026
                    You? Why?

                    Did I write this?


                    Quote: Pancir026
                    Your next lie. weighing with a suitcase and no more

                    or is it
                    Quote: Pancir026
                    It is worth comparing the Falcon-9 payload mass with other competing rocket launchers.
                    This unit throws from 9 (v1.0) to 13 tons (v1.1) into a low reference orbit. Into a geo-transition orbit from 3,4 (v1.0) to 4,8 tons (v1.1). Apparently, the Falcon-9 does not finish off to the geostationary orbit.

                    This is either stupidity or a lie.
                    1. Pancir026
                      Pancir026 5 September 2017 13: 13 New
                      +2
                      Quote: iwind
                      This is either stupidity or a lie.

                      This is DATA, and you have some kind of torrent in defense of the fakecomet Mask.
                      https://lenta.ru/news/2017/09/...где тут ваш хваленый Фалкон просматривается?Нет его,не нужен.
                      1. iwind
                        iwind 5 September 2017 13: 22 New
                        +3
                        Quote: Pancir026
                        This is DATA, and you have some kind of torrent in defense of the fakecomet Mask.

                        This is a lie on not data.
                        I can write again
                        Start Falcon-9
                        July 5, 2017, 23:38 FT Kennedy Center, LC-39A Intelsat 35e satellite weight on GPO 6761
                        http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/intelsat-35e.h
                        tm

                        Falcon-9 FT Block 3
                        Payload mass
                        - at the DOE
                        FT: 22 800 kg
                        - at GPO
                        FT: 8300 kg
                        http://www.spacex.com/falcon9
                        Quote: Pancir026
                        https://lenta.ru/news/2017/09/...где тут ваш хваленый Фалкон просматривается?Нет его,не нужен.

                        laughing launches this year
                        Falcon 9 FT 12

                        Atlas-5 401 4
                        Who is not needed?
                        military?
                    2. Pancir026
                      Pancir026 5 September 2017 13: 30 New
                      +1
                      Quote: iwind
                      Who is not needed?
                      military?

                      You feel sick. You really feel bad - with a diameter of 3.7 meters you need to ensure the flight strength of the "pasta" 70 meters long (divide 70 by 3.7 and get a ratio of 18.9 - one to nineteen!). The worst thing is that you need to ensure the stability of the first step of this "pasta" on a platform in the ocean (who said waves?!) - columns 55 meters high - and keep it in normal breeze (who said wind pressure ?!). You feel very bad - you need to increase the "legs". They should be corny longer. With their dimensions, they need to be made thicker, stronger (who said - we cut by weight ?!). For every extra kilogram of “legs”, for every extra kilogram of “pasta” - you need extra fuel and oxygen.
                      https://newsland.com/user/804482197/content/falco
                      n-9-makaronnyi-monstr-ilona-maska ​​/ 5424055
                      In general gopoda feykomety from I.Maska.
                      https://cont.ws/@eurorus/605561
                      1. iwind
                        iwind 5 September 2017 13: 31 New
                        +4
                        Quote: Pancir026
                        In general gopoda feykomety from I.Maska.

                        and again nonsense ...
                        but the facts
                        Falcon 9 FT United States 12
                        Arian-5 ECA European Union 4
                        Atlas 5 401 United States of America 4
                        Changzheng-3B China 3
                        PSLV-XL India 3
                        H-IIA 202 Japan 2
                        Soyuz-2.1a Russia 2
                        Soyuz-FG Russia 2
                        Vega European Union 2
                        Proton-M Russia 2
                      2. aiw
                        aiw 5 September 2017 14: 39 New
                        +4
                        with a diameter of 3.7 meters, you need to ensure the flight strength of the "pasta" 70 meters long (divide 70 by 3.7 and get a ratio of 18.9 - one to nineteen!).

                        Mdya ... this pasta is able to withstand the load during take-off being filled with fuel + on top of another stage and the payload.

                        In general gopoda feykomety from I.Maska.

                        Will you forgive someone by profession? In order to carry such nonsense as you carry, you must be surprisingly dense man in the natural sciences ...
                      3. Pancir026
                        Pancir026 5 September 2017 15: 38 New
                        +1
                        [quote = 6] Forgive someone by profession? [/ quote]
                        aiw Today, 14:39 ↑ [/ quote]
                        Something I didn’t see, I didn’t read that you were at least one iota, you proved to be a specialist in this field.
                      4. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 5 September 2017 22: 05 New
                        +3
                        Quote: Pancir026
                        You feel sick. You really feel bad

                        This Petrosyanshchina walks in Runet along with the Khibiny module and other bedtime stories
          2. tamnun
            tamnun 5 September 2017 13: 06 New
            +2
            Quote: Pancir026
            Quote: tamnun
            Should you compare? What with what?
            The existing Falcon and the non-existent Proton -M.
            Before snorting, according to the eternal Jewish method, study the question.
            https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Список_космических_
            launches_Russia_in_2016_year
            Even on Wikipedia. For people like you, everything is chewed.

            Before spreading your fingers, learn to understand what you read.
            I ask you - does the Proton rocket of the declared modifications exist?
            That's when it will be - then we'll talk (I mean medium and light) - we are talking about them in the article
            1. Pancir026
              Pancir026 5 September 2017 13: 14 New
              +1
              Quote: tamnun
              Before spreading your fingers

              Well, what are you waving your fingers at? You are for your Israel, for example. Something to tell. At the expense of success in space exploration - = have something to say? No? Keep quiet.
              Quote: tamnun
              I ask you - does the Proton rocket of the declared modifications exist?

              Give a magnifier?
            2. Cannonball
              Cannonball 5 September 2017 20: 13 New
              +1
              I ask you - does the Proton rocket of the declared modifications exist?
              That's when it will be - then we'll talk (I mean medium and light)

              Yah? Whose words are these?
              The existing Falcon and the non-existent Proton -M.

              Proton-M, mind you!
        2. Cannonball
          Cannonball 5 September 2017 20: 08 New
          +4
          non-existent proton -M

          What are you saying? Proton-M has been flying since 2001. Already carried out 100 launches of Proton-M.
          It doesn’t output, so far this rocket is not.
          When will we then talk.
          Read a little higher. There is such a rocket, it has been flying for 16 years.
          Simple arithmetic tells us that next year Musk will control 60% of commercial launches, and Roscosos at best 10%
          Commercial launches for Roscosmos are not the main task.
          Roscosmos carries out functions to ensure the implementation of state policy and legal regulation, the provision of public services and the management of state property in the field of space activities.
      2. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 5 September 2017 21: 53 New
        0
        Quote: Pancir026
        This unit throws from 9 (v1.0) to 13 tons (v1.1) into a low reference orbit. Into a geo-transition orbit from 3,4 (v1.0) to 4,8 tons (v1.1)

        I look, the communication channel with the past works without interruption. Now 2014 is connected, it seems.
        Quote: Pancir026
        Apparently, the Falcon-9 does not finish off to the geostationary orbit.

        What does "apparently" mean? This is called "direct withdrawal to GSO." Atlas and Delta with hydrogen second steps can do this, but Falcon is not. Because of this, he recently missed an order from the military. For this, including, Heavik is made - he should be able to abandon the second step immediately before the GSO.
        By the way, what about Proton’s direct conclusion?
        1. Cannonball
          Cannonball 5 September 2017 22: 04 New
          +2
          By the way, what about Proton’s direct conclusion?
          Easy - 3,7 tons
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 5 September 2017 22: 50 New
            +1
            Quote: Cannonball
            Easy - 3,7 tons

            Have you read the Ruwicks?

            Question on reading comprehension. How many steps does a Proton-M rocket have?
            1. Cannonball
              Cannonball 5 September 2017 22: 59 New
              +4
              I don’t read about Proton, I do it. Have more questions?
              And Proton has three steps, if that.
              There is no need to tell tales about the “two-stage” Atlases and Deltas only. Formally, they are two-stage, but in fact they still have solid fuel accelerators, which are quite pulled to an additional, third stage.
              1. owl
                owl 5 September 2017 23: 06 New
                0
                Do you nail the sensors ??
                1. Cannonball
                  Cannonball 5 September 2017 23: 13 New
                  0
                  Do you have something against the sensors?
                  1. owl
                    owl 5 September 2017 23: 17 New
                    0
                    No, I’m just for GOSTVA nails.
                    1. Cannonball
                      Cannonball 5 September 2017 23: 19 New
                      +3
                      Not, solely by the heads of dolboklyuy, so more reliable.
                      1. AlexanderVP
                        AlexanderVP 6 September 2017 09: 14 New
                        0
                        Quote: Cannonball
                        Not, solely by the heads of dolboklyuy, so more reliable.

                        Now it’s clear why they fall :)))) GOST nails and heads of dolboklyuy.
              2. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 5 September 2017 23: 10 New
                0
                Quote: Cannonball
                I do it. Have more questions?

                In this case, the question of the number of steps should not cause difficulties, I hope.
                1. Cannonball
                  Cannonball 5 September 2017 23: 13 New
                  +1
                  I already answered, read above.
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 5 September 2017 23: 20 New
                    0
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    By the way, what about Proton’s direct conclusion?

                    Quote: Cannonball
                    Easy - 3,7 tons

                    Quote: Cannonball
                    Proton has three steps

                    You said that the Proton energy with three steps is enough for output to the GSO, it seems?
                    1. Cannonball
                      Cannonball 5 September 2017 23: 38 New
                      +1
                      Federal spacecraft are mainly displayed directly on the GSO. But commercial PN in most cases is withdrawn through GPO. Therefore, there is a difference in the mass of the spacecraft. Federal ones are obviously lighter, while commercial ones are already up to 6,8 tons.
                      1. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 6 September 2017 00: 14 New
                        0
                        Quote: Cannonball
                        here commercial PN in most cases is withdrawn through GPO. Therefore, there is a difference in the mass of the spacecraft. Federal ones are obviously lighter, while commercial ones are already up to 6,8 tons.

                        Commercial vehicles come in almost any weight, but that wasn’t about that.

                        The three-stage Proton-M rocket can output 3,7 tons on GSO. Did you say this or not?

                        Quote: Cannonball
                        in fact, they still have solid fuel boosters

                        Either you do not know that the most popular Atlas is the 401st, or you think that I do not know this.
      3. opus
        opus 5 September 2017 23: 39 New
        0
        Quote: Pancir026
        It is worth comparing the Falcon-9 payload mass with other competing rocket launchers.

        you cannot compare them!
        they have different latitude launches


        45° 57′58 ″ s. w. 63 ° 18′28 ″ c. d.
        Baikonur

        28° 28′03 ″ s w. 080 ° 33′59 ″ s d.HGYAO
        US Air Force base at Cape Canaveral

        The most critical latitude of the cosmodrome when entering geostationary orbits lying in the equatorial plane
        Each degree of deviation from the equator costs about 100 m / s of an additional set of speed by the spacecraft. In this regard, the best places are occupied by the new European Kourou Cosmodrome, located at a latitude of about 5 °, the Brazilian Alcantara Cosmodrome with a latitude of only 2,2 ° and the floating La La Cosmodrome, which can launch directly from the equator.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 6 September 2017 00: 34 New
          +1
          Quote: opus
          they have different latitude launches

          For the NOU no difference. The ISS, for example, was made specifically for Baikonur. From other spaceports to launch it harder.

          Your calculations make sense for the GPO. But about the extra 2 km / s that Baikonur requires compared to Canaveral, you seem to be mistaken. GPO standards - 1500 and 1800 - this is according to the Kur and Canaveral, respectively, it seems. Between them more than 20 degrees. Or I somehow misunderstood you.
      4. ariman1
        ariman1 6 September 2017 00: 18 New
        +1
        you compare different classes of rockets. Then compare with Falcon Heavy. By the way, F9, like heavy ones, is reusable in the future, they have already made commercial launches for used ones, so the cost will drop from the current 62 million to 48
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 6 September 2017 00: 38 New
          0
          Quote: ariman1
          Then compare with Falcon Heavy

          What, excuse me, you need to compare with Heavy?
  7. andrewkor
    andrewkor 5 September 2017 11: 01 New
    +2
    The number of launches is certainly impressive, please announce the comparative weight of the total tonnage of spacecraft launched into space.
    1. tamnun
      tamnun 5 September 2017 11: 27 New
      +3
      Quote: andrewkor
      The number of launches is certainly impressive, please announce the comparative weight of the total tonnage of spacecraft launched into space.

      In general, from the point of view of commerce, this does not play any role.
      The market segment held by you and the level of profit plays a role.
      1. SPACE
        SPACE 5 September 2017 19: 08 New
        +1
        Quote: tamnun
        The market segment held by you and the level of profit plays a role.

        The price is determined by traders, gravity, the laws of physics.
        Quote: tamnun
        In general, from the point of view of commerce, this does not play any role.

        And from the point of view in general, commerce does not play any role.
        1. tamnun
          tamnun 5 September 2017 19: 16 New
          +2
          Quote: SPACE
          The price is determined by traders, gravity, the laws of physics

          you live for material means, otherwise the laws of physics will quickly bring your weak and exhausted body to a horizontal position
          Quote: SPACE
          And from the point of view in general, commerce does not play any role.

          Du ren thought gets richer (old proverb)
          1. SPACE
            SPACE 5 September 2017 23: 50 New
            0
            Quote: tamnun
            you live for material means

            Material means, but not fake money. Hence the conclusion, in order to objectively evaluate, it is necessary to compare not the cost in various monetary units and calculation methods, but the amount of material resources.
            Quote: tamnun
            Du ren thought gets richer (old proverb)

            For you it is very noticeable, therefore, to teach you, only to spoil.
      2. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 5 September 2017 21: 57 New
        0
        Quote: tamnun
        The market segment held by you and the level of profit plays a role.

        A bit more complicated, by the way, the author of the article is confused. Constantly jumps from the number of starts to money and vice versa.
        In terms of the number of launches (and weight), spaces are in the lead, but in terms of money - on par with the expensive, but very reliable Arian.
      3. nPuBaTuP
        nPuBaTuP 17 November 2017 21: 34 New
        0
        Quote: tamnun
        Quote: andrewkor
        The number of launches is certainly impressive, please announce the comparative weight of the total tonnage of spacecraft launched into space.

        In general, from the point of view of commerce, this does not play any role.
        The market segment held by you and the level of profit plays a role.

        Correctly wrote to you about suitcases
        And I would also like to know how many commercial launches NASA made
    2. SPACE
      SPACE 5 September 2017 11: 30 New
      0
      Though someone thinks and asks normal questions good
  8. Pan_hrabio
    Pan_hrabio 5 September 2017 11: 12 New
    +8
    The funny thing is that satellite launches and production make up only about 10% of the market, the rest is the provision of services and the creation of ground-based infrastructure, where Russia is practically not represented. As a result, Russia's share in the commercial market fluctuates around 1%. What surprised me at one time, even in the strongest side of Roscosmos - missile launches - the European Arianespace is consistently getting much more profit.

    Very entertaining and objective reading, if you want to get acquainted with the current and real review of the industry: http://ecoruspace.me/report/v2017_1.pdf

    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 5 September 2017 22: 03 New
      +2
      Quote: noviczok
      the rest is the provision of services and the creation of ground-based infrastructure, where Russia is practically not represented. As a result, Russia's share in the commercial market fluctuates around 1%.

      Uh-huh.
      Therefore, in monetary terms, the cosmonautics of Russia (Roscosmos budget) is less than the cosmonautics of such a power as Luxembourg (satellite operator SES).
  9. aiw
    aiw 5 September 2017 16: 33 New
    0
    Pancir026,
    It is enough that you have shown yourself to be an absolute layman. About the "pasta" repeat, or do you understand?
  10. andrewkor
    andrewkor 5 September 2017 16: 52 New
    +2
    Quote: tamnun
    Quote: andrewkor
    The number of launches is certainly impressive, please announce the comparative weight of the total tonnage of spacecraft launched into space.

    In general, from the point of view of commerce, this does not play any role.
    The market segment held by you and the level of profit plays a role.

    Actually, I turned to those who own specific information, not market bargainers.
    1. Maki Avellevich
      Maki Avellevich 5 September 2017 17: 40 New
      +3
      Quote: andrewkor
      Actually, I turned to those who own specific information, not market bargainers.

      ABOUT! You will be pleasantly surprised by the knowledge of the bazaar traders.

      where will you be from?
      Do you have a rare flag, not an hour with Papua Guinea?
      1. andrewkor
        andrewkor 6 September 2017 12: 12 New
        0
        Do not consider it work, delve into the wiki, maybe you will grow wiser.
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 5 September 2017 22: 07 New
      +1
      Quote: andrewkor
      Actually, I turned to those who own specific information,

      How are you going to add GPO to the NOU?
  11. Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 5 September 2017 19: 14 New
    0
    ... talked about the development of two projects at once, designated as “Proton rocket variations”

    Again the inexplicable leapfrog! Heptyl again! sad
  12. rubin6286
    rubin6286 6 September 2017 17: 58 New
    +1
    Whatever the plans of the rocket and space industry in any country, this industry should be profitable. The basis for making profit so far is the inclusion of the enterprise in the system of state orders. The state will determine the contractor and allies, allocate funding, set deadlines and will monitor their implementation. Where does the profit come from, if an estimate has been drawn up which takes into account all the costs, and the prices agreed with the suppliers are solid. It appears when performing R&D, as a result of which new materials, technologies are created that are in demand by other industries and implemented by him on a paid basis. In our country, this is only within the scope of defense industry enterprises, and to date, no merchant can do this. So, competition from commercial organizations in space exploration does not threaten our country. They just don’t have anything for this.
    Elon Musk is a man so rich that he was able to pay for the project, place an order with enterprises, rent a launch pad, equipment, hire qualified personnel and so on.
    Let's abstract and consider that the problems that the commentators write about are resolved. Russia and the United States have any reliable rocket engines and rockets (including reusable) for launching a payload into space. So what? The space exploration program in Russia and the USA is being implemented. What, besides space tourism, can be offered to the population today? How many such tourists will a modern spaceship take on board? Roughly speaking, “the game is not worth the candle.” Now, if scientists found a planet near the Earth, which would be 50 percent gold, tomorrow all Africa, my respected Israel and Kim Jong-un, will rush to build cosmodores.
    1. aiw
      aiw 6 September 2017 18: 33 New
      0
      In general, space tourism and manned space exploration are far from the main directions. The main ones are communication satellites, remote sensing of the earth, various scientific instruments (for example, orbital telescopes), etc. etc.

      Separately, there are interplanetary missions - an area in which the Russian Federation, alas, has now completely merged all that is possible, but when the USSR was the leader here ...
      1. rubin6286
        rubin6286 6 September 2017 21: 19 New
        0
        Today there are these communication satellites in orbit. Remote sensing of the earth, orbital telescopes. As the resource is used up and the orbit decreases, they are replaced. The VKS system has an orbiting constellation of satellites in far and near space. As for interplanetary missions, one can hardly be considered the leader in a country that launched three astronauts on the moon or landed a lunar rover on its surface. This is only the first step and far from leadership.
        1. aiw
          aiw 6 September 2017 21: 41 New
          0
          Today in orbit there are these communication satellites. Remote sensing of the earth, orbital telescopes

          Thanks, Cap. The fact is that as the technology develops, more and more satellites are launched with significantly higher performance, the groupings are constantly growing - it is this activity that forms the main market for commercial launches.

          One can hardly be considered the leader of a country that launched three astronauts on the moon or planted a lunar rover on its surface. This is only the first step and far from leadership.

          Leadership is relative and not absolute. And the USSR actively used the AMS to work en Mars and Venus. In addition to Mars, NASA has recently been making wonderful long-range missions.
          1. rubin6286
            rubin6286 7 September 2017 11: 24 New
            +1
            You do not particularly trust the epaulettes and flags drawn on the site. I am far from being a “cap”, but I know everything that is connected with the launches of space rockets by hearsay.
            It touches me that “as technology develops, more and more satellites are launched with significantly higher performance, the groupings are constantly growing - it is this activity that forms the main market for commercial launches”, if only because even today the enterprise producing night pots prefers not to work “at the warehouse”, and the groups are not continuously growing at all, because There is a certain kind of agreement with our sworn “friends” about this.
            Our entire cosmos works for the defense industry either purposefully or indirectly, and these launches cannot be called commercial. For example, Moscow State University and MSTU jointly developed a meteorological satellite project. He was interested in Roscosmos, included in the launch plan, manufactured and launched. Where is commerce? Universities received nothing but access to information from the spacecraft; project participants were modestly awarded - and that’s all. Commercial launches are those where
            “Who pays, he orders the music.” Only foreign partners can afford it. They pay for the insertion of their spacecraft into the low Earth orbit, and Roscosmos takes all the risks associated with this.

            No one will argue that our missiles, created in Soviet times, have the highest degree of reliability, although sometimes failures occur here. Launchers, refueling, test and start-up equipment, units and systems of the launch complex and MIK, communications and telemetry equipment are all properly prepared and maintained by qualified personnel. Who will trust a spacecraft worth several million to some obscure merchant?
            Well, what, in the "philistine sense" of these launches to a simple citizen. Nothing, but if he works at the enterprises of the space industry, then the guaranteed salary and benefits provided by the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. In 1987, more than 1 million people worked in space in the country, now a little more than 300 thousand, but this is also a lot. We will not sell engines to America, the shops will be mothballed, some of the workers will be reduced. This happens in many industries. A situation will come when people have nothing to live on and that very situation will arise when “the tops cannot and the lower classes do not want to!” What then? ....
            1. aiw
              aiw 7 September 2017 11: 39 New
              0
              You do not particularly trust the epaulettes and flags drawn on the site. I'm far from a cap

              The phrase "Thank you, Cap!" spoke to the odious Captain Evidence after his next statement.

              I know everything that is connected with the launches of space rockets by hearsay.

              Are you right here all-all-all? repeat The situation that you describe is typical for the Russian Federation - the Russian Federation in this market has almost nothing. What I wrote about is characteristic of the world as a whole.

              Who will trust a spacecraft worth several million to some obscure merchant?

              Look at Google's list of Space X customers ...

              History teaches that for such large-scale industries, the state first conducts research and development, prepares a base and forms a market, and then businessmen come to this market.
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 7 September 2017 01: 28 New
      +2
      Quote: rubin6286
      Elon Musk is a man so rich

      Nonsense. Musk started SpaceX with about $ 100 M in cache. This is slightly more expensive than a Ramzan airplane. The cost of a couple of street tiles.
      Quote: rubin6286
      Now, if scientists found a planet near Earth that would be 50 percent gold,

      It seems that I already read this nonsense. A ton of gold costs about $ 30M, it seems. You can even return from the moon dozens, well, hundreds of kilograms of matter. Well, a couple of tons. Having paid for the mission from hundreds of millions to several billion $.
      A more technological thing is to catch a metal asteroid (which may contain billions of tons of precious metals) to pull it into orbit and carefully lower it, so that not like with dinosaurs the last time is a task of incredible difficulty, which is actually unattainable by the efforts of even united humanity. I can’t say for the Jews, but Eun and Africa are definitely not shining. Normally.
  13. Cannonball
    Cannonball 6 September 2017 19: 24 New
    0
    Quote: Cherry Nine

    The three-stage Proton-M rocket can output 3,7 tons on GSO. Did you say this or not?

    Quote: Cherry Nine

    Commercial vehicles come in almost any weight, but that wasn’t about that.

    We are talking about spacecraft launched to the GSO either by direct launch, or through a geo-transition orbit. Direct launch at GSO requires increased energy of launch vehicles, therefore, a rocket with the same energy is able to bring either high-mass spacecraft to the gas engine or smaller spacecraft to the gas station.
    According to the site GKNPC them. M.V. Khrunicheva, the mass of spacecraft launched directly to the GSO can reach 3,7 tons.

    http://www.khrunichev.ru/main.php?id=42

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Quote: Cannonball
    in fact, they still have solid fuel boosters

    Either you do not know that the most popular Atlas is the 401st, or you think that I do not know this.

    And tell me please, how many spacecraft were launched directly to the GSO by the most popular version of Atlas-5 -401?
    I will answer you - not one!

    Lack of knowledge of the subject of conversation. Learn the materiel, my friend! wink
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 7 September 2017 00: 52 New
      +1
      Quote: Cannonball
      how many spacecraft were launched directly to the GSO by the most popular version of the Atlas-5 -401?

      And where did I write that the 401th displays on GSO? On the GSO displays the 411th (up to 1955 kg) and above (up to 3856 kg). Specifically, the 411th + $ 6M to 401th.
      If you think one booster is pulling at an additional stage of the Atlas, I cannot forbid you to think so, of course. Five of these boosters really give out more than 800 tons of traction, and by this indicator, as well as by operating time, they are slightly inferior to the 1st stage of the Proton.

      Quote: Cannonball
      According to the site GKNPC them. M.V. Khrunicheva, the mass of spacecraft launched directly to the GSO can reach 3,7 tons.

      No, it says something else.
      Apparently, rocket engineers nowadays need to be expressed directly, not by questions.

      Proton-M with three stages does not start anything with standard GPOs, especially with GSOs. For high orbits, he needs RB. Although the Breeze is called the Republic of Belarus, it’s actually the 4th stage: the reference orbit is formed after its first inclusion, it seems, and if it fails, the PN will be withdrawn somewhere beyond Baikal.
      Therefore, I asked a question about the number of steps to run on the GSO. The correct answer is not 3, but 3 + RB. Perhaps inside Khrunichev there are people who know why the Centaurus can be the second stage of the Atlas, and the Breeze-M the 4th stage of the Proton cannot (and it must be RB), but from the outside it is poorly visible.

      Falcon, at the same time, does not use RB. And this is a plus, not a minus - the GPO he forms the 2nd stage. The need for direct withdrawal to the GSO, at the moment, is required by one order of several dozen.

      I do not consider the key issue of the number of stages as a key, although the four stages on a rocket engine at the present time look wildly. Would fly normally - there would be no questions. The fundamental question was that need is presented as virtue - Proton displays on GSO because there is RB, and Falcon does not have RB because its two steps and so bring out almost everything that is needed.
      1. Cannonball
        Cannonball 7 September 2017 19: 37 New
        0
        First you write about two-stage Atlases and Deltas that can bring spacecraft directly to the GSO, I clarified that these Atlases are two-stage purely formally, since the presence of solid fuel accelerators can be compared with the third or “zero” stage. For reference: The accelerator is 20 meters long and 1,58 m in diameter. The dry weight of the accelerator is 5740 kg. Holds about 41 tons of fuel.
        You issued a new passage stating that the main modification of the Atlas is the 401th, that is, without accelerators. However, this modification of the spacecraft on GSO does not output.
        So what the hell are you trying to resent? Check your own statements about the two-stage Atlases that display Mon directly to the GSO and your own connection to this discussion of the 401th modification.
        To us, my opinion, this is pure casuistry on your part.
        I think that your drain is counted.
      2. Cannonball
        Cannonball 7 September 2017 20: 29 New
        0
        Firstly, the Breeze-M is not the fourth step of the Proton. This is a completely independent product, which is for the "Proton" the same payload as that displayed on the GSO spacecraft.
        The same "Breeze-M" was used when launching the "Angara-A5", by the way. So your "actually" is just your speculation, not the real facts.

        Secondly, Centaur is a rocket stage, which can be used as the “upper” stage - upper stage. While the Breeze-M was initially positioned as an upper stage.

        Thirdly, the Proton-M launch vehicle, which we are talking about, is an integral part of the Proton-M space rocket, which includes the actual launch vehicle and the KSCh (space warhead). But the acceleration unit, a spacecraft with an adapter and a transition system, and a head fairing enter the KGCH. This is about the knowledge of "people inside Khrunichev" and "smart people" like you.
        If you want a specific answer, then correctly and specifically form your question. "The devil is in the details." You do not trouble yourself with the knowledge of details, which allows you to represent you as an amateur in this matter.

        Fourthly, Falcon does not bring anything to the GSO due to insufficient energy. Dot. Excuses about the small number of withdrawal requirements directly to the GSO are not accepted. Falcon stupidly can not do this.

        Why do you say that you do not consider the number of steps as a key issue? After all, you focused on the two-stage American missiles. They probably wanted to dunk the Russian cosmonautics for their “inability” to make “normal” two-stage rockets capable of delivering spacecraft directly to the GSO.

        And your last conclusion is generally about nothing, only confirms your amateurism.
        "Proton" displays on GSO not because there is RB, but because there are customer requirements to withdraw directly to GSO. Some customers are satisfied with the GPO, and some, due to the low power of the spacecraft and low fuel supply, require direct withdrawal to the GSO.
        Falcon can not do this in principle. Its capabilities are limited to the delivery of spacecraft to the GPO.

        And to put an end to the meaningless debate about Falcon and Proton, I will give two figures. The height of the "Proton" together with the accelerating block, the spacecraft and the head fairing - 58,2 m.
        Height Falcon 9 FT - 70 m.
        Sometimes rocket stages are very long. wink



        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 8 September 2017 00: 48 New
          +1
          Quote: Cannonball
          First you write

          People who are less likely to fuck you usually use the "quote" button at the bottom of the message, rather than retelling someone else's post in their own words. If you suddenly got this button stuck, I’m ready to help a little once.
          Quote: Pancir026
          Apparently, the Falcon-9 does not finish off to the geostationary orbit.

          Pancir026 suggested that the Falcon-9 of its old modifications does not allow direct output.
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          What does "apparently" mean? This is called "direct withdrawal to GSO." Atlas and Delta with hydrogen second steps can do this, but Falcon is not.

          I added that this is not an assumption, but a fact, and for all flying versions of Falcon, and not just old ones. Its relatively heavy kerosene second stage does not have enough MI for the transition from GPO to GSO, in contrast to the hydrogen stages of EELV (unlike Falcon, EELV was created for a set of requirements, including those set by the military, which included direct output) .
          Quote: Cannonball
          There is no need to tell tales about the “two-stage” Atlases and Deltas only. Formally, they are two-stage, but in fact they still have solid fuel accelerators, which are quite pulled to an additional, third stage.

          You entered into a conversation and reported that EELV are not two-stage. The cut-offs that you discuss only the GSO were not in your post.
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Either you don’t know that the most popular Atlas is the 401st, or you think that I don’t know

          I replied that the Atlas was strictly two-stage in more than half of the launches (43). In half of the remaining starts (12), boosters provided less than half of the maximum starting thrust (I do not take into account the possible throttling of the first-stage engine).
          Delta yes, it started without boosters 3 times in total. But in her case, most of the traction comes from boosters only in the four-booster version or Heavy. There were 15 such launches, i.e. less than half.
          Quote: Cannonball
          And tell me please, how many spacecraft were launched directly to the GSO by the most popular version of Atlas-5 -401?

          You have limited the discussion of the GSO.
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          On the GSO displays the 411th (up to 1955 kg)

          I said that in this case, at least one booster is needed, which gives another 160 tons of traction in addition to 380 RD-180. Do you want to consider it the first step, the kerosene second, and the Centaurus the third - consider your business.
          Quote: Cannonball
          this is pure casuistry on your part.

          If you want to discuss technique, not dolboklyuy, you should carefully approach the wording.
          Quote: Cannonball
          I think that your drain is counted.

          I can not argue with a man who in the plums cuts like a pro. Unlike rocket science.
          Quote: Cannonball
          The same "Breeze-M" was used when launching the "Angara-A5", among other things

          What do I care? The centaur on what just did not fly.
          Quote: Cannonball
          which is for the "Proton" the same payload as that displayed on the GSO spacecraft.

          The payload is the Centaurus inside the Shuttle. Did the breeze enter the reference orbit without turning on its own engines? In which mission?
          Quote: Cannonball
          While the Breeze-M was initially positioned as an upper stage.

          Mom’s marketers. Is it now called making protons?
          It makes no difference to me how the Breeze is positioned. This stage or not depends on whether he participates in the formation of the support orbit, or does not participate. If it flies with a load - then RB, if without its inclusion the orbital block will fly away into the swamp - that is a step.
          Quote: Cannonball
          Thirdly, the Proton-M launch vehicle, which we are talking about, is an integral part of the Proton-M space launch vehicle

          You are right, that explains everything. With Breeze, Proton-M will be a space rocket, and without Breeze - taiga suborbital. Handsomely.
          Quote: Cannonball
          to represent you as an amateur in this matter.

          And there is. A little curious in this direction.
          Quote: Cannonball
          Falcon stupidly can not do this.

          Of course. It was made under the program Commercial Resupply Services, which did not imply anything like that. She didn’t even anticipate GPO initially, but the Spaceians were able, relatively speaking, to upgrade the Union to Proton. For a couple of years. For ridiculous, by the standards of the industry, money.
          Quote: Cannonball
          Why do you say that you do not consider the number of steps as a key issue?

          Because I don’t think so.
          Quote: Cannonball
          After all, you focused on the two-stage American missiles.

          You clung to this.
          Quote: Cannonball
          Probably wanted to dunk

          That's it for such cases, and there is a button "quote". But talking with your imagination is probably more interesting.
          Quote: Cannonball
          for "inability" to make "normal" two-stage rockets

          Ariane 5 G, G +, GS, ES are even more abnormal rockets (hydrogen below, hydrazine above), but they do their work, questions except for the money of French taxpayers. If there were no missiles in the world for 60 lyam, if the proton showed trouble-free series of 100 launches, as they once said, it could - there would be no questions.
          Quote: Cannonball
          "Proton" displays on GSO not because there is RB, but because there are customer requirements to withdraw directly to GSO.

          The proton displays on the GSO because it drags a 20-ton block anyway, which is turned on around the 700th second. This block is enough for both GPO and GSO. There would be an opportunity to do without him - there would be a different conversation.
          Quote: Cannonball
          Falcon can not do this in principle. Its capabilities are limited to the delivery of spacecraft to the GPO.

          You're right. The second stage of the Falcon begins to work at about 150th (as it is today) second (30 seconds later than the 2nd stage of the Proton), and is no longer able to brake at the exit from the GPO (plus the satellite’s weight, it can also slow down its own weight). She does a lot more work below.
          Quote: Cannonball
          Sometimes rocket stages are very long

          Who cares? Starting Falcon mass is less, starting thrust less. The geometry of Falcon is a minus, not a plus, it is more rational to make a rocket as a whole, for example, five-meter (for the diameter of the head fairing, Falcon has 5,2 m), like Delta 4.
          Quote: Cannonball
          And to put an end to a pointless argument

          What is the argument about?
          1. Cannonball
            Cannonball 8 September 2017 19: 13 New
            0
            If there is no dispute, then why answer? winked
            The important thing is not what you think, the important thing is how you are understood. Therefore, I wrote, if you want to not be understood ambiguously, write as specifically as possible.
            Once again I repeat "the devil is in the details", and the details do not seem to care for you.
      3. nPuBaTuP
        nPuBaTuP 17 November 2017 21: 48 New
        0
        because they’ve already talked about the difference in the location of spaceports?
        if the proton is pulled by the GSO how much will it take out? .... without Breeze and ...
  14. Old26
    Old26 6 September 2017 20: 34 New
    +1
    Quote: Pancir026
    The representative of ULA said that at the moment there are 22 contracts for the launch of Atlas V.
    Again .. where is the vaunted Falcon? At point-blank range it is not seen in the USA as something necessary for the existing needs of the military and civilian cosmonautics.

    Yes, stop writing nonsense.
    Until 2021, Atlasov-5 was absolutely definitely planned 19. in 2017-2019 (not yet specifically specified) - 6 launches. Another 3 starts are not defined.
    As for Falcon, in 2017 it is planned 13, in 2018 - 26, in 2019 - 5 launches, in 2020 and 2021 - one launch each. This is what has already been determined by year. In 2017-2019, another 7, another 7 are not defined, but exactly in the next decade
  15. Pacifist
    Pacifist 3 October 2017 17: 59 New
    0
    Another American cheating. SpaceX is not a private office, it is pumped into both the mouth and the train ... with the money and technology of the government, including the nasa pentagon and the rest of the shobla. All projects of the Mask are still unprofitable, but they are promoting it and supporting it with one single purpose, to remove Russia and China from the market and create the appearance that a private entrepreneur can do better and America is a leader.
  16. nPuBaTuP
    nPuBaTuP 17 November 2017 22: 03 New
    0
    How many commercial launches did NASA make?