Military Review

Multipurpose aerospace system (MAKS)

15
The multipurpose aviation and space system (MAKS) is a two-stage complex consisting of an aircraft carrier (An-225 “Mriya” - more precisely, based on the An-225 it was intended to develop a new aircraft carrier An-325) on which the orbital plane is installed. An orbital plane can be both manned and unmanned. The An-225 design allows the installation of a cargo container with an external fuel tank with cryogenic fuel components instead of an orbital plane.



The development has been conducted since the beginning of the 1980-ies under the leadership of G. E. Lozino-Lozinsky in the NPO Molniya.

Instead of the first stage of an ordinary rocket, the An-225 is used here; the second stage can be performed in three versions:

MAKS-OS with an orbital plane and a disposable tank;
MAKS-M with an unmanned aircraft;
MAKS-T with a one-time unmanned second stage and a load of up to 18 tons.
“The system is based on the usual airfields of the 1 class, which were equipped with the necessary fueling components for the MAKS, ground technical and landing complex, and fit mainly into the existing facilities of the ground control system for space systems.”



MAKS can be used for emergency rescue of space objects crews or for ground reconnaissance purposes. Lack of reference to the spaceport also extends the use of such a system.

This project was started back in 1980-ies by the research and production association "Lightning". At the same time, experience and results of work on the Spiral project and on experimental BOR devices were used. This project, unlike Burana, is based on the principle of self-sufficiency. According to calculations, the costs will pay off in 1,5 of the year, and the project itself will give 8,5-fold profit. This system is unique; no such device is developed in the world. In addition, MAKS is much cheaper than missiles due to repeated use of the aircraft carrier (up to 100 times), the cost of removing cargo into low-Earth orbit is about 1000 dollars / kg; for comparison: the average cost of elimination is currently around 8000-12 000 $ / kg, for conversion PH “Dnepr” - 3500 $ / kg. The benefits can also be attributed to a greater environmental purity due to the use of less toxic fuel (three-component engine RD-701 kerosene / hydrogen + oxygen). Currently, about 14 billion dollars has already been spent on the project.



The MAKS program received a gold medal (with honors) and the special prize of the Belgian Prime Minister in 1994 in Brussels at the World Salon of Inventions, Research and Industrial Innovations "Brussels-Eureka-94".

15 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 24 November 2012 10: 07
    +2
    And the carrier will survive at the time of launch? Somehow painfully dangerous this moment looks ...
    1. Ivan Tarasov
      Ivan Tarasov 24 November 2012 10: 18
      -3
      Somehow the start from the back does not look reliable.
      An advance project is better to redo.
      The launch platform is based on a flying wing, and the orbital vehicle itself is suspended (starting from a height of 15 km).
      1. postman
        postman 24 November 2012 21: 17
        0
        Quote: Ivan Tarasov
        Somehow the start from the back does not look reliable

        think correctly, they don’t start like that, and they probably won’t
        1. Sergh
          Sergh 25 November 2012 14: 16
          +5
          Quote: Postman
          think correctly, they don’t start like that, and they probably won’t

          Sometimes I am just in awe of such comments, such as, G. Ye. Lozino-Lozinsky in the NGO "Molniya" with a huge team - all round FOOLS, and the "postmen" and "Tarasovs" without thinking and not realizing anything in this matter , decided and decided to close the project ALL OVERALL and start all over again in their own way, purely "smart" program! POC, I have no words, drooling to my knees with envy. "Keep it up", to hell with professionals, we will make a spaceship on a stool at home!

          I apologize for the harshness.
          But if I’m a stump in some issue, then at least I’m trying to figure it out and start with questions, and not with tips, so that I don’t look like a fool.
          1. postman
            postman 25 November 2012 22: 49
            0
            Quote: Sergh
            Sometimes I am just in awe of such comments, such as "postmen" and

            Did you get so broke? Should you first ask you for permission to leave a comment?

            Quote: Sergh
            G. E. Lozino-Lozinsky in the NGO "Lightning" with a huge team - all round Fools
            -that you wrote. I didn’t say that. THE DIAGRAM IS NOT IMPLEMENTED AND IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO BE IMPLEMENTED
            Repeat:
            1. Center of gravity
            2. The nature of the flow around the aircraft
            3.Not possible to turn on the remote control to remove the object from the media

            (the lower suspension is "unhooked", the force of gravity is working, the top is uncoupled, the kick has come)
            This method (upper) is applicable only to small aircraft, in which the stream of gases exiting the ejectors has a small supply of kinetic and thermal energy.
            The large amount of energy possessed by the jet of gases that leave the rocket engines weighing 50..100 tons or more does not allow the engines to be removed to remove the rocket from the carrier aircraft (SN) for some safe distance.
            Of course there are options:
            1.) The lifting of the object relative to the SN: the overload on the "fragile" object grows, and the force up to 250 tons (deterioration of the SN indicators)
            2.) Raise the bow of the CH to obtain an angle
            attack, which corresponds to the magnitude of the lifting force of the object:
            calculation-angle of attack> 20◦, i.e. additionally increase the angle of attack by 12◦
            For this purpose, an object located at a distance of 9 m from the toe of the SN must be raised to a height of 3,6 m - again, the load and weighting (complication) of the SN
            3) Pulling the object back along the guides with the help of tor-
            brain devices: using a parachute for example, but what to do with the shift of the center of the Mac? and the BENDING (SPILLING) of the object when the back is overhanging?
            4) Retraction of the carrier aircraft down from the rocket: translation of CH into negativity
            the actual angle of attack ...... But you imagine that how it will behave as a whole, this mondula as a whole? Dramatically slide and leave at the peak?


            / EXAMPLES IS - SHOW !!! ///
            Quote: Sergh
            I have no words, drool to the knees with envy

            Wear a diaper, directly on the saliva excrement, will probably help.

            Quote: Sergh
            I apologize for the harshness.
            - This is not harshness, but rudeness.


            Quote: Sergh
            without thinking or understanding in this matter nothing at all
            и
            Quote: Sergh
            But if I'm in some issue phnom-stump

            I don’t know what you are and what the stump is, I’m a bit aware of "this business". Is the diploma enough? or add a copy of the labor?
            1. Sergh
              Sergh 26 November 2012 00: 16
              -1
              Quote: Postman
              Put on a diaper, directly on the saliva excrement, will probably help

              Listen, rocketeer, shove this shnyag into your goose ... oh! I can show you the same, only ten years older.
              http://www.gdediplom.com/info/kupit_diplom_mgtu_baumana
              You’re carrying a blizzard, ... yo, dvoeshnik. Go to a plumber apprentice with a trial period, but this peel only
              Do not show anyone.

              Think at your leisure, why the 9P78-1 SPU 9K720 Iskander-M complex even has rubber wheels,
              I repeat for ...- the rubber ones did not burn with a blue flame, where there is no protection?



              Although the shot is not a baby slingshot:



              And here your diploma can be thoroughly wrinkled in your hands before use.
              After starting, even the paint on the rear side did not burn, and the reflectors with brake lights did not melt.
              In the smut ...



              Once apologized, that's enough. You’re overbearing.
              1. postman
                postman 26 November 2012 01: 30
                +2
                Quote: Sergh
                imagine this shnyaga in goose ... oh
                If you constantly put something in yourself there, you do not need to accustom others to the evil.
                Quote: Sergh
                I can show you the same, only ten years older

                I'm waiting only his own, and not from this "site", even about the unfinished average.

                Quote: Sergh
                You’re carrying a blizzard, ... yo, dvoeshnik. Go to a plumber apprentice with a trial period, but this peel only
                Do not show anyone.
                You can not comment. a beer? or a cup n-th in a row?
                Quote: Sergh
                Think at your leisure, why the 9P78-1 SPU 9K720 Iskander-M complex even has rubber wheels,

                "Thinking" is probably not a typical process for you?
                Why torment cheating:
                9K720 - no open data, but with a slight flaw, we use
                9M79 / 9M79M "Point", 9M79-1 (+/-)
                Weight: - 2000 kg
                Engine thrust - 9788 kg = 96,11 kN
                MAX
                Weight 275 kg
                thrust 4 kN / 000,12 kN.
                I specifically singled out for the gifted.
                Master the difference: 2 kg / 000 kg (weight over 275 orders)
                96 kN / 1 kN (albeit smaller) (569 times thrust)
                About the dynamic effect of the jet, I will not say anything.
                About the fact that SPU 9P78-1 (travels on the ground and stands), and Mriya (flies and starts from the air) = keep quiet
                Think at your leisurewhy RT-23U (15ZH61):
                Starting weight, kg 104 500 (and not 275 000 kg and of course not 2 000 kg)
                Thrust 283 kN / 311 kN (and not 4 kN / 000,12 kN and of course not 1 kN)
                called the "dancing rocket"

                with 3: 05
                The wheels there are IRON
                Or at the shooting Topol, Yars, at least I advise you to take a look.


                Quote: Sergh
                Once apologized, that's enough. You’re overbearing.

                CAA, thank you. + put?
                I shouldn’t interrupt. I feel the pampers are not used? DRESS and goodbye. communicate with marshals in this tone.
          2. Region-25.rus
            Region-25.rus 27 November 2012 11: 16
            +1
            Quote: Sergh
            and the "postmen" and "Tarasovs"


            In the present time, "Comrades" with much more famous names were bred according to the full SDI program, although scientists proved its complete utopianism!
    2. Professor
      Professor 24 November 2012 10: 28
      +3
      Nothing will happen to him. The technology has already been used repeatedly.
      1. postman
        postman 24 November 2012 15: 08
        0
        Quote: Professor
        . The technology has already been used repeatedly

        When?
        It is over the fuselage! Yes, such a mondule! IT WASN'T (any Projects Spirals with GSR "mind you")
        You do not confuse with Project Pilot (NOTS)

        NOTSNIK II (Caleb)

        etc., as well as FLIGHT TESTS OF ANALOGUE OS 105-11:
        [media=http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/4012/vkadenko.13/0_37803_12986e3b_M]
        Far from it, not that.
        1. Professor
          Professor 24 November 2012 15: 51
          0
          Above the fuselage or under the fuselage - does not matter much.
          Orbital launches NASA's NuSTAR satellite





          1. postman
            postman 24 November 2012 16: 19
            +4
            Quote: Professor
            Above the fuselage or under the fuselage - does not matter much.

            It also has some, don’t be kidding, I’m not Kaaars.
            1. Center of gravity
            2. The nature of the flow around the aircraft
            3.Not possible to turn on the remote control to remove the object from the media

            (the lower suspension is "unhooked", the force of gravity is working, the top is uncoupled, the kick has come)
            This method (upper) is applicable only to small aircraft, in which the stream of gases exiting the ejectors has a small supply of kinetic and thermal energy.
            The large amount of energy possessed by the jet of gases that leave the rocket engines weighing 50..100 tons or more does not allow the engines to be removed to remove the rocket from the carrier aircraft (SN) for some safe distance.
            Of course there are options:
            1.)The rise of the object relative to the SN: the overload on the "fragile" object grows, and the force up to 250 tn (deterioration of the SN indicators)
            2.)Lifting the bow of the CH to obtain an angle
            attack, which corresponds to the magnitude of the lifting force of the object
            :
            calculation-angle of attack> 20◦, i.e. additionally increase the angle of attack by 12◦
            For this purpose, an object located at a distance of 9 m from the toe of the SN must be raised to a height of 3,6 m- again, the load and weighting (complication) of CH
            3) Pulling the object back along the guides with the help of
            brain devices:
            using a parachute for example, but what to do with the shift of the center of the Mac? and the BENDING (SPILLING) of the object when the back is overhanging?
            4) Retraction of the carrier aircraft down from the rocket: e.g. translation of CH into negativity
            the actual angle of attack ...... But you imagine that how it will behave as a whole, this mondula as a whole? Dramatically slide and leave at the peak?

            Moreover, the examples that you cite and I cited are somewhat different:
            BIG CH and small an object.
            SO IT WILL BE SO:

            But not like that:


            Therefore, Stratolaunch Systems will do HERE SO:



            And not any "Technology NOT have already been used ", even more so" repeatedly "/ professor /
            THERE ARE NO
            1. Professor
              Professor 24 November 2012 17: 02
              +1
              don't make fun, I'm not kaaars

              How could you think of me like that? wink

              I mean launching a spacecraft from an airplane and not necessarily over-fuselage. You yourself perfectly described how this can be done. IMHO the most acceptable option is to undock and then start the "second stage" engines. Building a launch pad, maintaining it, and creating the first stage, which then falls on the head of the "allies", is also not a simple and costly business.
              1. postman
                postman 24 November 2012 17: 39
                +1
                Quote: Professor
                How could you think of me like that?
                he wanted to amuse himself, with sweet_s * he was remembered today.

                Quote: Professor
                option to undock

                Here's the difficulty here JUST TO CARRY OUT THE INTERVERSION (in this version). I NEVER CONSIDERED why: the hidden bomb compartments (on f-22,35, T-50) - ALWAYS LOWER?
                Although according to the EPR, layout, launching at supersonic (there will be no jumps and shock waves) is easier from above, behind the cockpit.
                So there and the ratio "racket" / CH is not like MAX ....


                Quote: Professor
                Build a launch pad, maintain it,

                Not VKS, certainly more promising, who argues.
                We are waiting for Interim HOTOL when the British deign to do Rolls-Royce RB545
            2. Old skeptic
              Old skeptic 25 November 2012 21: 56
              0
              Quote: Postman
              But not like that:


              Well, and somehow?
              1. postman
                postman 25 November 2012 22: 59
                +1
                Quote: Old Skeptic
                Well, and somehow?

                Did you read:
                Quote: Postman
                This method (upper) is applicable tonly for small aircraftin which the stream of gases exiting the ejectors has small stock of kinetic and thermal energy.

                RD-701

                with thrust from 2x2000,6 kN to 2x784 kN
                Vyzhit and Mriya and another 150 meters to her mod, about the kinetic effects and I do not say

                Note PADs for separating the object from the SN will not help here and the weight and impact of the incoming flow are completely different here than for the pair: RCC and ekranoplan
      2. Ivan Tarasov
        Ivan Tarasov 24 November 2012 18: 57
        0
        Give examples.
  2. imguskov
    imguskov 24 November 2012 10: 18
    +7
    The giants of thought - Soviet designers are admirable. Well done! They defended their homeland, disinterestedly and free of charge, they did everything to make the Soviet people feel safe. Glory to the heroes of Soviet cosmonautics and a low bow for their titanic work!
  3. Karish
    Karish 24 November 2012 10: 55
    -1
    I still do not understand from the article, they are developing it further, have they started or buried the project again?
    1. Vasily79
      Vasily79 24 November 2012 11: 00
      +1
      Buried in 91
    2. postman
      postman 24 November 2012 15: 25
      +1
      Quote: Karish
      or buried a project

      Buried.
      Reason 1:
      After the collapse of the USSR, the only flying aircraft in 1994 stopped flying, engines and other equipment for use in Ruslans were removed from it. (restored only to 2000m).
      Reason 2:
      complete lack of state funding.

      but most likely not this kilda would fly, but the An-225 and Interim HOTOL with remote control
      Rolls-Royce RB545:
      [/ Center
      [Center]


      On June 21, 1991, the ESA headquarters hosted a presentation of the international aerospace system for near-earth space exploration, which consisted of the An-225 and the 250-ton reusable spacecraft Interim HOTOL, developed by the British Aerospace company. The two aircraft almost perfectly matched each other, because the An-225 was originally designed for the air launch of such products. The implementation of this project actually promised an approximately fourfold reduction in the cost of launching a payload into orbit in comparison with a vertical launch. Among other things, Khotol could more effectively solve the problem of delivering crews to orbital stations and evacuate them from there in emergency situations more efficiently than other vehicles.

      And we would solve the problem with the inclination of the orbit (

      spacecraft starting from the Baikonur cosmodrome do not start directly into orbits with an inclination below 51 °. The fall of spent rungs allowed only in the USSR or in the ocean. Inclination of the red orbit 51 ° blue 65 °
  4. Astartes
    Astartes 24 November 2012 14: 34
    +1
    It is a pity that the writer Maxim Kalashnikov buried the system very well, and lamented that such a project had disappeared. In addition to economic benefits, this would be a powerful weapon. The real killer of aircraft carriers.
    1. edge
      edge 24 November 2012 14: 42
      +2
      the project did not disappear, the amerosos grabbed it and worked on it using our scatter of the 90s, and if we do not return to the topic, we will remain in a big train ......
      1. postman
        postman 24 November 2012 16: 53
        0
        Quote: hert
        the project did not disappear, amerosos hapnuli it and worked

        Well, not really writing
        Project Weapon System WS-199B by Glenn L. Martin Company maq 1958

        Convair and Lockheed WS-199C High Virgo Project -1958

        NASP X-30 (canceled 1990)

        SHAAFT (Supersonic / Hypersonic Attack AircraFT)

        in 1996, students of the Air Force Academy developed a set of projects under the code name "USAF-2025" commissioned by the US Air Force
    2. Nik_One
      Nik_One 24 November 2012 15: 28
      0
      What is this weapon, and "aircraft carrier killer" !!! ??
      What are you talking about? Wake up ...
      1. Astartes
        Astartes 24 November 2012 15: 54
        +1
        To be honest, again, I read about it from the same Kalashnikov and it turned out quite logically, from a quote about military capabilities:
        "strike systems - based on MAKS. They are capable of a blitzkrieg, a lightning attack of all fifteen aircraft carriers from heights of 50-60 kilometers at several speeds of sound. And the West has no weapons capable of shooting down these machines! Each MAKS will replace several dozen missile-carrying aircraft , whose main mission is to break through to your ships, even at the cost of huge losses.Aircraft carriers can strike 85 percent of the Earth's territory? You wanted to rule the world, relying on the power of these iron monsters? The Russians answer you with a miracle weapon that will reach you in an hour and a half flight anywhere in the world, speeding at Mach 15. And each MAKS costs eight times less than the smallest aircraft carrier. Each attack aircraft will replace two or three missile cruisers or an entire fleet of missile destroyers, smashing enemy squadrons from dizzying heights. "
        http://lib.rus.ec/b/135891/read
        1. postman
          postman 24 November 2012 17: 33
          0
          Quote: Astartes
          shock systems - based on MAX.

          1. tank unit hydrogen oxygen-kerosene- Forget about military use (in a refilled state for 15 minutes, refueling for more than 2 days)
          2. Not every airfield will accept Mriyu
          3. The time in orbit is limited
          4. there is no resource (fuel) for maneuver
          Quote: Astartes
          And the West has no weapons that can bring down these cars!

          SM-3
          Quote: Astartes
          Each MAKS will replace dozens of missile carriers

          it costs 1n as 50 missile carriers, not including Mriya and the runway
          Quote: Astartes
          Each strike aircraft will replace two or three missile cruisers

          how?
          --------------------
          Kalashnikov will write something else / "The Broken Sword of the Empire"
          1. Astartes
            Astartes 24 November 2012 18: 11
            +1
            And you know, all problems are solved, there would be a desire. The main thing is at least to see which way to develop.
            1. postman
              postman 24 November 2012 18: 24
              0
              Quote: Astartes
              And you know all the problems are solved,

              Of course, only at what cost? And as far as appropriate.
              If the VKS for combat use, then the Burlak project (Le Bourget 1995 sensation)

  5. in reserve
    in reserve 24 November 2012 14: 54
    0
    If only the second stage of the return would be made then, in general, the price would not have been for this project.
    1. Nik_One
      Nik_One 24 November 2012 15: 29
      0
      it remains only to find out why this is necessary
      1. sniper
        sniper 25 November 2012 13: 29
        +1
        Quote: Nik_One
        it remains only to find out why this is necessary

        Well, the Spiral project was created as a space fighter, I think that all the others are sharpened for military use ... After all, no one is immune from the use of space-based strike systems by the enemy .... Let not today, but the technology does not stand still .. And it is necessary to prepare for such a development of events, Well, the price of international agreements, our country is well known, it is enough to recall the non-aggression pact with Germany, the ABM treaty with America ...
    2. postman
      postman 24 November 2012 16: 57
      +4
      Quote: in stock
      Still the second step of the return

      such a thin-walled "fool", keeping its shape, only under internal pressure, cannot be returned from such a height, whole.
      It was possible to save 11C771 accelerators from Energy (11K25), but not to reuse it.
  6. gregor6549
    gregor6549 25 November 2012 06: 30
    0
    The first impression is that the Shuttle circuit looks more rational, since not only the shuttle’s engines but also engines mounted on detachable fuel tanks are involved in take-off. And this allows you to put a larger payload into orbit, put a more small-sized and economical fuel-propulsion system onto the shuttle itself, and, therefore, leave more space for the payload. Again, you don’t need to bother with the complex system necessary for pumping fuel and oxidizer from the outboard tank to the shuttle engines, which significantly increases the reliability and safety of the entire system at the site of its orbit. There is, after all, the slightest leak and everything will burn with a blue flame.
    1. gregor6549
      gregor6549 25 November 2012 13: 51
      0
      I would like to see not only an anonymous minus, but also literate objections in essence ... if there are, of course, such. Or any mention of the advantages of the "foreign" scheme immediately causes something like childhood urticaria combined with diarrhea? laughing
    2. postman
      postman 25 November 2012 23: 32
      0
      Quote: gregor6549
      Shuttle's scheme looks more rational, since not only engines of the shuttle itself but also engines mounted on detachable fuel tanks are involved in take-off

      the shuttle did not have a remote control on the fuel tank, there were side steps-solid propellant rocket motors
      STS-124 SHUTTLE DISCOVERY EXTERNAL TANK VIDEO

      The main remote control on the shuttle
      MTKS BURAN-ENERGY, on the contrary.

      Quote: gregor6549
      after all, even the smallest leakage is enough and everything will burn with a blue flame.

      blazed just because of the "reusable solid propellant rocket" SRB

      ==============
      Moreover, the Americans lost only the tank (a relatively cheap single-use design element), while maintaining an orbital rocket plane with expensive rocket engines and solid propellant rocket engines SRB - this was before the disasters.
      At the ISS Energia-Buran (and RN Energia) launches - an irretrievable loss of an expensive carrier with its unique engines and autonomous control system
      The orbital glider (expensive) with relatively cheap NOT MARCH engines has returned.
  7. -ш-
    -ш- 26 November 2012 17: 25
    +1
    8 photo - he is already on Mars)
  8. vladds
    vladds 28 November 2012 15: 09
    0
    all aircraft are again suitable only for bombing countries weak from technology! there you can use ordinary bombers to attack a large country, it’s not suitable, of course (China, USA)
    the rest is a trifle! and it’s easy to bring aircraft out with an electromagnetic pulse or a laser beam, in short, until the mess on the ground is worth looking into the air, and even more so into space!
  9. astra30va
    astra30va 2 December 2012 02: 13
    +1
    I seem to be late for discussion ... However, I think it will be useful to set out the fundamental considerations for the Postman's super-categorical thesis. I quote:

    "... (lower suspension -" uncoupled ", the force of gravity is working, uncoupled from above, the kick has come) ..."

    “The postman, clearly underestimates the capabilities of the air platform.”
    Let me explain: The carrier, at the reference height of the launch, when performing a slide, is capable of performing a simple aerobatics figure called "SEMI-BARREL" (!). In this position, the suspension - the second stage, will be DOWN the carrier! Nothing prevents the carrier from launching the second stage from this position (inverted flight).
    The "half-barrel" figure does not require exorbitant overloads. In addition, the execution of the figure will be calculated in advance and "stitched" into the carrier's ACS, and will be performed together with the launch, in automatic mode (of course, under the control of the crew).

    In this version of the launch, there is no need to develop a super-expensive naval carrier and delay the program for another 30 years ("... when the donkey dies, or the padishah" ...)
    1. Ged
      Ged 19 December 2012 03: 29
      0
      Half a barrel on such a thing !!?
      Oo, crazy russians!
  10. studentmati
    studentmati 2 December 2012 02: 22
    0
    Competent comment! Everything has long been developed by Gleb Evgenievich Lozino-Lozinsky! The time has not come yet ....
  11. Ged
    Ged 19 December 2012 03: 51
    0
    One of the important features of MAKS is the dynamic firing separation of the second stage (linking the orbital aircraft with an external fuel tank) and the first stage (the An-225 Mriya carrier aircraft) in flight (see the figure on the right). A large volume of studies of the separation mode has made it possible to select the optimal parameters, which after patenting are the exclusive "know-how" of NPO Molniya.
    http://www.buran.ru/htm/makszad.htm