Military Review

In the US, reported on the successful testing of an analogue of the Russian engine RD-180

308
The founder of the private space company Blue Origin, the creator of the American rocket engine, designed to replace the Russian RD-180, Jeff Bezos announced the success of the first tests.


The first fire tests of our engine BE-4 were successful. The great achievement of the whole Blue Origin team is a very important step!
- wrote Bezos on Twitter.

In the US, reported on the successful testing of an analogue of the Russian engine RD-180


Recall that the previous bench tests of the BE-4 rocket engine, which is analogous to the Russian RD-180, conducted by Blue Origin in May, ended in failure. Earlier, the company said it was creating three BE-4 work samples. ВE-4 is planned to be installed on the Vulcan rocket - replacement of the Atlas V carrier, where the Russian RD-180 are installed. Two single-chamber BE-4, installed on the first stage of Vulcan carrier, together will allow to develop more traction than one Atlas V two-chamber RD-180 of the first stage, the company says.

Aerojet Rocketdyne is also working on replacing the RD-180. Unlike the BE-4, the AR1 engine is suitable for installation on an operating Atlas V rocket. The company has not yet submitted a working model of the unit, however, in early May 2017 conducted fire tests of the AR1 prechamber.

Photos used:
@JeffBezos
308 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 20 October 2017 18: 29
    12
    Well, you want to live, know how to spin. If companies want to take a place in the market, then they will have to put out a more competitive product than they are today.
    1. Muvka
      Muvka 20 October 2017 18: 33
      22
      I don’t understand one thing, if they have super-duper cool falcons that are also cheap, why are they trying to make new, more expensive rockets?
      1. SRC P-15
        SRC P-15 20 October 2017 18: 37
        46
        Two single-chamber BE-4s, mounted on the first stage of the Vulcan carrier, together will allow to develop more traction than one two-chamber RD-180 of the first stage of Atlas V, the company said.

        And two two-chamber RD-180s can develop more traction than three single-chamber BE-4s! wassat
        1. Monos
          Monos 20 October 2017 19: 14
          33
          Two single-chamber BE-4, mounted on the first stage of the Vulcan carrier, together will allow to develop more traction than one two-chamber RD-180

          And three single-chamber BE-4 will develop more power than two BE-4. Dialectics, however! smile
          1. Shurik70
            Shurik70 20 October 2017 20: 40
            +9
            In fact, it is surprising that the Americans have just achieved at least something. Their technical and financial capabilities are ahead of the rest. And they were able to repeat what they did back in the USSR only now. And two nozzles or three - what difference does it make, engines are compared by their mass, thrust and fuel quantity, and not by the number of nozzles.
            And by the way, the video is beautifully shot.
            1. cniza
              cniza 20 October 2017 21: 16
              +7
              Quote: Aaron Zawi
              Well, you want to live, know how to spin. If companies want to take a place in the market, then they will have to put out a more competitive product than they are today.


              So, and who is against ... the goods in the studio ...
              1. Anarchist
                Anarchist 20 October 2017 21: 55
                19
                It was just a bend! Under striped patrons. Approval, so to speak ...
                1. Vladimir16
                  Vladimir16 21 October 2017 11: 41
                  +6
                  In the yard 2017. Americans claim the FIRST SUCCESSFUL bench test of an engine similar to the Russian engine of the last century.

                  WHAT THE FUCK THE MOON ?????? They sniff exhaust fumes.
                  They were able to create only what Ilyich wanted - CINEMA.
            2. zoolu350
              zoolu350 21 October 2017 05: 45
              +4
              A big difference. It is quite difficult to provide high pressure in the combustion chamber, which is why the Soviet school of engine building followed the path of having several combustion chambers in one engine. And there are still doubts about the parameters of the F-1 single-chamber engine - the "Achilles heel" of the entire mattress lunar program, which was suspiciously used only on the Saturn-5 launch vehicle and nowhere else.
            3. Awaz
              Awaz 21 October 2017 08: 31
              +4
              two-chamber and single-chamber - this is not the number of nozzles. This is just the efficiency of using the unit. Two-chamber and give the maximum return.
              If it weren’t for politics, then good cooperation could be bungled. They do not know how to make good engines for aircraft in the Russian Federation, but in the USA and the rest of the world for missiles, they would exchange them)))
              The United States really didn’t come up with anything really long ago in rocket science. However, like Russia. However, Russia has much more experience and use experience as well. Politics and the stupidity of space officials from Russia are ruining our space achievements and achievements, however, in the USA, too, problems are higher than the roof, although there is no limited money. As far as we have, there are people on whom to stick and they no longer have people, only crooks who only think about dough. Although we take their experience well ..
              1. aiw
                aiw 21 October 2017 10: 22
                +4
                The United States really didn’t come up with anything really long ago in rocket science.

                Please remind, who in iron before Mask realized the return of the first stage and its subsequent use? And what about long-distance missions? And with reusable ships?

                they no longer have people, only crooks who only think about dough.

                Well, yes, the cassini in Jupiter was drowned by Hollywood producers so that they could raise the money on broadcasts.
          2. Cutter
            Cutter 20 October 2017 22: 21
            10
            The first fire tests of our engine BE-4 were successful. The great achievement of the whole Blue Origin team is a very important step!

            Moreover, he was probably "ripped off" from the Russian ... yes
            1. Anarchist
              Anarchist 20 October 2017 22: 27
              27
              Quote: Cutter
              he was probably "ripped off" from the Russian

              Namesake hi
              Do not flatter them! Soviet! Ripped off from the Soviet ...
              1. Cutter
                Cutter 20 October 2017 22: 41
                +8
                Quote: Anarchist
                Quote: Cutter
                he was probably "ripped off" from the Russian

                Namesake hi
                Do not flatter them! Soviet! Ripped off from the Soviet ...

                More likely, Sasha! hi But anyway, "ripped off" ... am
                1. aiw
                  aiw 21 October 2017 11: 37
                  0
                  Russia is the birthplace of elephants. The Soviet elephant is the happiest elephant in the world!

                  And protorusses in your case did not dig the white sea?
                  1. VALERIK_097
                    VALERIK_097 21 October 2017 14: 18
                    0
                    You shouldn’t be so, about the White Sea. The ancestors were radical Pomors. They were stepping aside, of course, to enter Russia, but still.
                    For reference: neither Tatars, nor Poles, etc., etc. our territory is not trampled.
                    Tsar Peter the Great and he cautiously visited the Arkhangelsk province, there were a great many fugitives from the south.
                2. Vladimir16
                  Vladimir16 21 October 2017 11: 57
                  +2
                  Quote: Anarchist
                  Do not flatter them! Soviet! Ripped off from the Soviet ...

                  Ukrainians and other non-Russians fell off the USSR.
                  We continue to live in the former Russian country which has really been more than a thousand years old. Previously, our country was called Russia, the Russian Empire, the USSR, now Russia.
                  You look like bonfireheads, they also abandoned their history and their newly created country (with a thousand-year history laughing ) violently separated from the USSR-Russian Empire-Russia.
                  But Vai FUCK it needed ????
                  Everything that was in the USSR is our native, Russian. And inventions and most importantly people! This is us, our fathers and grandfathers.
          3. Do not care
            Do not care 21 October 2017 02: 43
            0
            if they have super-duper cool falcons that are also cheap, why are they trying to make new, more expensive rockets?


            Competition is the engine of progress ..
        2. Orel
          Orel 20 October 2017 19: 41
          36
          Quote: СРЦ П-15
          I don’t understand one thing, if they have super-duper cool falcons that are also cheap, why are they trying to make new, more expensive rockets?


          The title is completely wrong. BE-4 is a completely different engine and is not an analogue of the RD-180. BE-4 is much more promising, since the fuel vapor there is oxygen-methane, and not oxygen-kerosene RG-1. Kerosene RG-1 today is already too complicated and expensive to manufacture. The engines on it are the last century. It is no coincidence that the SpaceX Raptor engine makes oxygen-methane, which is the Bezos BE-4. Kerosene RG-1 will soon disappear just as the synthine disappeared in due time, which even we had to ease a manned ship due to the loss of specific impulse when changing fuel. Sintin simply became an extremely expensive fuel, which is now happening with RG-1 kerosene. And the oxygen-methane fuel pair is more promising from the point of view of future opportunities for the production of fuel in space. To produce methane and oxygen is much easier than kerosene.

          “For example, Soyuz rockets, which are made in Samara, now fly on artificially created fuel, because initially only certain grades of oil from specific wells were used to create kerosene for these rockets. Mostly this is oil from the Anastasievo-Troitsky field in the Krasnodar Territory. But oil wells are being depleted, and the kerosene currently used is a mixture of compositions that are extracted from several wells. The coveted brand of RG-1 is obtained through expensive distillation. Experts estimate that the problem of kerosene deficiency will only worsen.

          The concept currently being developed at Energomash envisages the development of a single-chamber engine with a thrust of 200 tons using “liquid oxygen - liquefied methane” fuel for the first stage of a promising light class carrier. Space technology in the near future promises to be reusable. And here one more advantage of methane opens. It is cryogenic, which means that it is enough to heat the engine at least to a temperature of -160 Celsius (or better above) and the engine itself will be freed from fuel components. According to experts, it is most suitable for creating reusable launch vehicles. Here is what the chief designer of NPO Energomash Vladimir Chvanov thinks about methane:

          - The specific impulse of the engine for LNG is high, but this advantage is leveled by the fact that methane fuel has a lower density, so the total is a slight energy advantage. From a structural point of view, methane is attractive. To free up the cavities of the engine, you only need to go through a cycle of evaporation - that is, the engine is easier to get rid of residual products. Due to this, methane fuel is more acceptable from the point of view of creating a reusable engine and a reusable aircraft.

          So why didn’t methane become practically used fuel in Russia? The answer is quite simple. From the beginning of the 80s in the USSR, and then in Russia, not a single new rocket engine was created. All Russian “novelties” are the modernization and renaming of the Soviet heritage. The only honestly created complex - “Angara” - was planned from the very beginning as a kerosene transport. Its alteration will cost a pretty penny. In general, Roscosmos constantly rejects methane projects because it links “good” to at least one such project with “good” to completely restructure the industry from kerosene and heptyl to methane, which is considered a long and expensive undertaking. "

          I hope we have some developments going on too. But nothing is heard of any trials. Apparently, we have nothing in iron.
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 20 October 2017 20: 21
            +7
            Quote: Orel
            Kerosene RG-1 today is already too complicated and expensive to manufacture.

            How is it?
            1. Orel
              Orel 20 October 2017 20: 23
              +9
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              How is it?


              It is difficult to produce, and therefore it cannot be cheap. Liquefied gas is much cheaper and easier. Its billions of cubes are produced. What can not be said about kerosene RG-1.
              And RG-1 is not ordinary kerosene. It is rocket fuel with special characteristics. Jet fuel or for lighters - this is not at all the same. If you know what I mean.
              1. NKT
                NKT 20 October 2017 20: 45
                +9
                It is unclear where does the oil from a certain field, if kerosene is the first oil cracking product along with the gasoline fraction. From which oil you don’t drive, there will still be kerosene, of course for high-sulfur and paraffin oils you will have to spend more effort, but the kerosene obtained, it is also kerosene in Africa. Another thing is that additives can be added to it.
                1. poquello
                  poquello 20 October 2017 21: 27
                  +9
                  Quote: NKT
                  It is unclear where does the oil from a certain field, if kerosene is the first oil cracking product along with the gasoline fraction. From which oil you don’t drive, there will still be kerosene, of course for high-sulfur and paraffin oils you will have to spend more effort, but the kerosene obtained, it is also kerosene in Africa. Another thing is that additives can be added to it.

                  he hasn’t finished it yet: the additive was created exclusively from the feces of Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev, the strategic supply of feces is running out and Energomash is rushing about, and the Americans ahead of the rest are already experiencing an analogue (yesterday)))))) rd180, but it’s not an analogue but finally - after all, on methane, it’s “darted and flew”
                2. abrakadabre
                  abrakadabre 20 October 2017 21: 52
                  +1
                  Yes, even if it would be expensive. But in storage and use in comparison with cryogenic tanks and infrastructure ...
              2. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 21 October 2017 08: 22
                +1
                Quote: Orel
                And RG-1 is not ordinary kerosene.

                Explain to the people what is in it.
                I then believed that kerosene for rockets was simply cleaned up to a certain density and that’s all.
            2. Popovich
              Popovich 20 October 2017 20: 24
              +5
              so in the training manual it is written ..
              1. Orel
                Orel 20 October 2017 20: 28
                +3
                Quote: Popovich
                so in the training manual it is written ..


                Yeah. At NPO Energomash ... The commentary is popularly written.
            3. Piramidon
              Piramidon 21 October 2017 08: 35
              +2
              Quote: Orel
              Kerosene RG-1 today is already too complicated and expensive to manufacture.

              And what does the Atlases with our engines fill in with the Yankees, and from which well do they take oil?
          2. mirag2
            mirag2 20 October 2017 20: 24
            +2
            My brother was a technologist at Energomash.
          3. Shadow of darkness
            Shadow of darkness 20 October 2017 20: 42
            +9
            Yes, apparently I did not study well if:
            And the oxygen-methane fuel pair is more promising from the point of view of future opportunities for the production of fuel in space.

            In addition to a thick-walled barrel with liquefied oxygen, it will be necessary to increase the walls under the fuel. The increase in the mass of the launch vehicle and the decrease in the payload really have a lot of prospects.
            1. Orel
              Orel 20 October 2017 20: 45
              +6
              Quote: Shadow of Darkness
              Yes, apparently I did not study well if:
              And the oxygen-methane fuel pair is more promising from the point of view of future opportunities for the production of fuel in space.

              In addition to a thick-walled barrel with liquefied oxygen, it will be necessary to increase the walls under the fuel. The increase in the mass of the launch vehicle and the decrease in the payload really have a lot of prospects.


              Here is a comment under an article about a new fuel pair found:

              “for the use of cryogenic fuel, it is necessary to make rocket tanks made of composite materials. We several times turned to Roskosmos with our best offers on this technology, but we were refused and we were forced to transfer the technology and the formulation to an American company in California”

              There are developments, but they do not reach working samples. Interest in Roskosmos this is not visible.

              http://elonmusk.su/metan-kak-perspektivnoe-raketn
              oe-goryuchee /
              1. SPACE
                SPACE 20 October 2017 20: 58
                +4
                However, methane even at a temperature of 91 K (its melting point 90,66 K) has a low density of 455 kg / m3, while the fuel density of methane + oxygen is only 830 kg / m3, which leads to an increase in mass storage costs due to the need to increase the volume of storage tanks components.
                The low density of methane + oxygen fuel and the impossibility of oxygen overcooling when using fuel component storage tanks with combined bottoms lead to the fact that for space RBs the time of possible fuel storage in near-Earth space is significantly (by 20% compared to kerosene + oxygen).
                Since the melting point of methane is higher than the boiling point of oxygen at a pressure of 1 at (i.e., above 90 K), the use of fuel component storage tanks with combined bottoms even for oxygen boiling at 1 at (and even more so when using supercooled oxygen, which boils at lower pressure) is impossible without the use of inter-tank insulation.
                In addition, since the fuel tank is charged with cryogenic methane, it must be insulated from external heat influx, which further increases the mass cost of storing fuel.
                All this leads to a significant increase in the mass and dimensions of methane + oxygen fuel storage tanks compared to kerosene + oxygen fuel, which significantly, and in some cases up to zero, reduces the effect that could be obtained from a higher specific impulse of the prototype.
                http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/218/2180050.html
                © FindPatent.ru - patent search, 2012-2017

                And if we add here the infrastructure, more complex than kerosene, for transporting, storing and refueling missiles with methane. This explains why Roscosmos itself does not bathe about methane, but uses time-proven kerosene. I admit that Russian specialists take their time and just wait for the Americans to be the first to take this dubious path, and in case of any success, they will easily catch up on the beaten track.
                1. Orel
                  Orel 20 October 2017 21: 11
                  +2
                  What to say. This means that either these shortcomings somehow learned to level out, or the Americans are simply very narrow-minded. Do you believe in what version, knowing that they have 3 rovers and AMS launched at different times to each planet of the solar system and also to Ceres?
                  1. Warrior-80
                    Warrior-80 20 October 2017 22: 53
                    +2
                    Well, let them crawl these rovers to no purpose, and you know our projects for the study of cosmos., I’ll tell you various telescopes and satellites for studying the earth, let the Americans scratch the ground there on Mars, at the moment it has no useful information. We can do this too, but why., It will not have practical value for another 500 years, they still drove Apollo to flight to the moon still can not find
                2. Orel
                  Orel 20 October 2017 21: 23
                  +7
                  Quote: SPACE
                  I admit that Russian specialists take their time and just wait for the Americans to be the first to take this dubious path, and in case of any success, they will easily catch up on the beaten track.


                  I would like to believe, but in fact we are only lagging behind. Our market share is declining, our AWS do not fly. The United States has already managed to send an AMS to all the planets of the solar system and to Ceres. We launched several rovers. We did not fly further than Mars. And if we take Russia, then we could not get beyond the near-Earth orbit. How long will we wait for more ??? In my opinion, it’s not at all “not worried”, although maybe you are right. They are "not worried." They just do not care in Roscosmos. Their personal well-being does not depend on the achievements of the country in space. Missiles are flying and okay.
                  1. SPACE
                    SPACE 20 October 2017 22: 29
                    +3
                    Quote: Orel
                    The United States has already managed to send an AMS to all the planets of the solar system and to Ceres. We launched several rovers. We didn’t fly further than Mars

                    So what? What does it give? WOW is that all?)))) Neher to do there, the nearest prospect is the Moon now for real.
                    Quote: Orel
                    This means that either these shortcomings somehow learned to level out, or the Americans are simply very narrow-minded. What version do you believe in, knowing that they have 3 rovers and AWS launched at different times to each planet of the solar system and also to Ceres?

                    You are very impressive)))
                    1. Topgun
                      Topgun 21 October 2017 07: 29
                      +1
                      and what then was “phobos-soil” ?, don’t rubbish - every space agency is trying to realize interplanetary missions and the point is not to “scratch” some stone for the sake of prestige, these missions are at the top of the pyramid of technological capabilities of the state, not engineers can get better doing everything only in the mind and on paper ...
                    2. Young_Communist
                      Young_Communist 21 October 2017 15: 37
                      +2
                      Quote: SPACE
                      So what? What does it give? WOW is that all?)))) Neher to do there, the nearest prospect is the Moon now for real.

                      Well, how are things on the moon, cheers-patriots? Already, go, a couple of years you fly there, to the Russian base, without getting up from the sofas?

                  2. Kerensky
                    Kerensky 21 October 2017 05: 38
                    +2
                    Calm Only calm! (How Carlson began).
                    Our market share is declining, our AWS do not fly.

                    What is this ?! In which market?
                    The Millennium Falcon will do the job, ask Chubaku in any tavern!
                    The United States has already managed to send an AMS to all the planets of the solar system and to Ceres. We launched several rovers.

                    And-and-and? Everything that we extract, outside of our atmosphere, becomes the extraction of scientists. Not just like that, but WORLDWIDE scientists ...
                    I will not remember those who lunar soil clutched "to see" ... There are all kinds of pictures ...
                  3. Shadow of darkness
                    Shadow of darkness 21 October 2017 11: 25
                    +1
                    We did not fly further than Mars. And if we take Russia, then we could not get beyond the near-Earth orbit. How long will we wait for more ???

                    Are we so rich that we are now engaged in long-distance flights having very distant prospects in applying their results? And for those AMCs, the States use, practically, the forces of the whole world, including ours, and we will have to do it alone! At that time, the USSR had tore its economy down by engaging in expensive scientific programs, including space ones, which did not bring a quick economic effect. Although the whole world still enjoys many of the results so far, the USSR has disappeared as a state.
              2. Shadow of darkness
                Shadow of darkness 21 October 2017 11: 07
                +1
                I see a generation of internet educated! If one crap fails, then a new theory appears with a bunch of "evidence" that again has to be refuted, and so on to infinity. The only reason that justifies the use of methane as rocket fuel is environmental friendliness, but you have to pay for it with a significant reduction in payload. It was still discussed, EMNIP, in the late 80s among rocket scientists. There are no other reasons for using methane and never will be, all the rest is an attempt to cram an idea using methane despite economic inexpediency.
          4. Warrior-80
            Warrior-80 20 October 2017 21: 37
            +3
            All your conclusions from the category of alternative energy, it is there but it is unprofitable, and the question is about oil and kerosene derivatives, that I have a great mistrust in your words., There are data about problems with kerosene of this brand, I think it’s unlikely
            1. ventel
              ventel 20 October 2017 22: 46
              0
              Can I intervene, I'm sorry of course I'm not a rocket or oil specialist. But somewhere I read that in the 20s and 40s all Maykop and Grozninsky oil went to the production of aviation fuel and oils.
              1. NKT
                NKT 20 October 2017 23: 20
                +1
                Baku and Groznenskaya, since Siberia was not there then, were just conducting reconnaissance in the Volga-Urals, and Krasnodar and the Stavropol Territory remained. But the main production is Baku and Grozny, which is why Hitler was eager for the Caucasus.
                In Krasnodar, the wells were abandoned during the retreat and after the war they had to drill again.

                And at the expense of rocket fuel and aviation - kerosene as kerosene with only various additives. They seem to be five types for subsonic and two for supersonic aviation.
                1. Kerensky
                  Kerensky 21 October 2017 05: 50
                  0
                  They seem to be five types for subsonic and two for supersonic aviation.

                  Similarly, with moonshine. Five and two .... Actually running to the toilet can be called a flight or planning ...
                  I’m not an aviator, unfortunately, but nonetheless ... I constantly deal with kerosene (a slightly alkaline reaction, the basis of the RFS, who knows), well, - kerosene is constantly dehydrated! Any! All types, damn it! I hope they understood and forgave me ...
              2. Squelcher
                Squelcher 21 October 2017 01: 18
                0
                You are right, absolutely oil is first of all a chemical base, and then fuel.
          5. abrakadabre
            abrakadabre 20 October 2017 21: 58
            0
            And here one more advantage of methane opens. It is cryogenic, which means that it is enough to heat the engine at least to a temperature of -160 Celsius (or better above) and the engine itself will be freed from fuel components.
            Etc.
            Due to this, methane fuel is more acceptable from the point of view of creating a reusable engine and a reusable aircraft.
            And then at high altitude, if you simply depressurize the tanks, kerosene does not boil away in seconds from ultra-low pressure
          6. Pivot
            Pivot 20 October 2017 22: 33
            +1
            I confirm about oil for rocket fuel, in my opinion, it is produced at the Krasnodar refinery twice a year, there are still specific distillation columns where exactly the most high-calorific fuel is obtained.
        3. Vlad.by
          Vlad.by 20 October 2017 19: 51
          +8
          Two single-chamber BE-4s are almost 2 times heavier than one taxiway. The thrust to weight ratio is naturally much worse.
          1. Kerensky
            Kerensky 21 October 2017 05: 53
            0
            The thrust to weight ratio is naturally much worse.

            Well done! I was waiting for this ....
        4. Ivan Sidorovsky
          Ivan Sidorovsky 21 October 2017 10: 04
          +1
          "" And two two-chamber RD-180s can develop more traction than three single-chamber BE-4 ""
          Then too RD-170 laughing
      2. dorz
        dorz 20 October 2017 18: 59
        +2
        Quote: Muvka
        I don’t understand one thing, if they have super-duper cool falcons that are also cheap, why are they trying to make new, more expensive rockets?

        Americans are developing heavy proton missiles.
        1. Muvka
          Muvka 20 October 2017 19: 05
          +3
          Well, there is the same Falcon Heavy or FT.
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 20 October 2017 20: 05
            +4
            Quote: Muvka
            Well, there is a Falcon Heavy

            Total when starting 27 engines Merlin 1D

            Mask has some problems with synchronization and weight distribution; it turned out to be not so simple.
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 20 October 2017 20: 40
              +2
              In any case, the current Falcon-9 drags like a Proton
      3. Nikolai Grek
        Nikolai Grek 20 October 2017 19: 34
        12
        Quote: Muvka
        I don’t understand one thing, if they have super-duper cool falcons that are also cheap, why are they trying to make new, more expensive rockets?

        most likely they assume that with the falcons some crap and fraud will come out !!! laughing laughing
        1. Muvka
          Muvka 20 October 2017 20: 21
          +3
          So I am inclined to this very much.
          1. Nikolai Grek
            Nikolai Grek 20 October 2017 20: 27
            +6
            Quote: Muvka
            So I am inclined to this very much.

            we will see !! wassat good
      4. spirit
        spirit 20 October 2017 19: 36
        +1
        The carrying capacity is less while there is no heavy. And they cannot afford to rely purely on private traders for obvious reasons
      5. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 20 October 2017 19: 44
        +7
        Several private firms are fighting for the market. Tough competition.
        1. Warrior-80
          Warrior-80 20 October 2017 22: 15
          0
          Here I have a question for the apologist for the private development of outer space, whether a private organization can compare with the well (ideally) attentive cooperation of dozens of enterprises that are tightly controlled by the state. Here I think the possibilities and prospects are different in perspective
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 21 October 2017 00: 05
            +8
            Example: Boeing Corporation - passenger airliners. The highest quality that can be imagined (after all, any accident is minus 200 people). And she successfully controls chains from many dozens of suppliers. Moreover, all suppliers are also private (there are simply no others in America).
            1. Awaz
              Awaz 21 October 2017 08: 51
              0
              I would believe you if I had not worked in such a similar system. I work in large-scale production, which belongs to two people who created all this. However, all production is fragmented into many small and small branches, which seem to be independent, however, they are all boiled in one boiler and subordinate to one center, and even receive wages from one office.
              Such a system has its advantages (each department strives to be and is even self-sufficient), however, in some industries and some technological processes it is hardly possible to work in the black.
              Therefore, I wouldn’t believe in Boeing so frankly .. The company has a good lobby. Although I do not argue that they know how to work
          2. Young_Communist
            Young_Communist 21 October 2017 15: 42
            +2
            Quote: Warrior-80
            can a private organization compare with the well (ideally) diligent cooperation of dozens of enterprises that are tightly controlled by the state. Then I think the opportunities and prospects are different in perspective


            And was the state tightly controlled the engines for the Protons, which were all branded?

      6. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 20 October 2017 20: 38
        +2
        Because Falcons are from SpaceX, and these engines from ULA and BO are different firms
      7. opus
        opus 20 October 2017 20: 39
        +4
        Quote: Muvka
        Are they trying to make new, more expensive rockets?

        they make engines, rockets they have and so the Atlas PH (where our RDs are used), Delta, etc.
        Quote: Muvka
        if they have a super duper cool falcons

        orders on the falcons are painted
        RD Merlin - not suitable for PH Atlas
      8. RASKAT
        RASKAT 21 October 2017 18: 25
        0
        Yes, this is some kind of divorce, in the photo the nozzle is more than human height, but in the video it is very small. I would say that this is some kind of steering engine in general.
    2. The_lancet
      The_lancet 20 October 2017 18: 34
      +8
      Quote: Aron Zaavi
      Well, you want to live, know how to spin. If companies want to take a place in the market, then they will have to put out a more competitive product than they are today.

      The founder of the company is one of the richest people on the planet, Jeffrey Bezos, the founder of Amazon. His condition is constantly growing. Therefore, I think he understands business
      1. Dym71
        Dym71 20 October 2017 19: 00
        +4
        Quote: The_Lancet
        Therefore, I think in business, he understands

        In the case of RD-180, there is no even a hint of business - a pure policy. yes
        1. opus
          opus 20 October 2017 20: 56
          11
          Quote: Dym71
          In the case of RD-180, there is no even a hint of business - a pure policy.

          Import substitution? Country security?
          1.RD-180 costs from 11 to 15 000 000 $, or maybe less, because the entire contract with United Launch Services costs 46 million dollars - this is the cost of all five RD-180 (on 2015)
          2011 year, Accounts Chamber: In this regard, only in 2008-2009 year the loss from their sales amounted to about 880 million rubles, or almost 68% of all Energomash losses
          RD-180 rocket engines sold in the USA at half price
          - Accounting Chamber.
          They say the contract is very catchy
          He then strongly backfired to the Russian military-industrial complex, because when Russia itself needed a “half” engine for the Rus-M and Angara missiles, it turned out that under the terms of the contract, she could not manufacture the RD-180 for her own purposes, but had to purchase it from the American company Pratt & Whitney.

          / therefore RD-180 is not on our RN
          suffer from the RD-180B (which was never completed), and on the Angara it was necessary to install not the “half”, but the “quarter” engine of the RD-191 (the expensive PH turned out).
          2. Vulcan BE-4 is likely to cost 40% less than AR1
          Aerojet Rocketdyne insists that cost per pair The new AR-1 engines will be in the 20-25 area of ​​millions of dollars
          12,5 million $ -40% = 7,5 million $ price Vulcan BE-4 (projected)
          $ 7 500 000 vs. 11 to 15 000 000 $
          what do you think it is
          Quote: Dym71
          net policy
          ?
          I would choose a policy for 7,5 mln.
          3.Vulcan BE-4 provides higher traction - 1 100 000 pounds vs 860 000 pounds for RD-180, which provides a greater payload and eliminates lateral accelerators for solid propellant rocket engines, costing more than 10 million US dollars per launch for comparable missions.
          2 + 3 = output is obvious.
          No policy, I would bet on Vulcan BE-4
          1. fzr1000
            fzr1000 20 October 2017 21: 09
            +1
            Only one thing is not clear to me. We take RD 180, we are redoing there some sort of minor block and that’s all, it is no longer RD 180. China would generally put on amerozhzhv in this matter. How does the USA know which engine is being put on the Angara?
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 20 October 2017 21: 18
              +1
              US espionage pumped, we have traitors in the sea.
              1. fzr1000
                fzr1000 20 October 2017 22: 17
                0
                C'mon, this is not a problem ... One thing more, one less. We are already - Empire of Evil 2.0
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 21 October 2017 09: 36
                  0
                  But corporations will revise the business of losing a bunch of industries.
            2. opus
              opus 20 October 2017 22: 44
              +4
              Quote: fzr1000
              We take the 180 RD, we redo some sort of minor block there and that's it, it is no longer the 180 RD

              not. dragged through the courts, Pratt & Whitney are still litigants
              Quote: fzr1000
              China would generally put on amerochzhv in this matter.

              here we will produce 80% of the world's junk and useful (bearings, including) and we will have millions of 800 inhabitants (citizens), then we’ll hammer the bolt at all.
              And so you can be left without all the money earned by "overwork":

              without SWIFT,
              without consulates and embassies in the USA
              Quote: fzr1000
              How does the USA know which engine is being put on the Angara?

              From South Korea.
              Hangar and KSLV-1
              originally designed for RD-191
              1. fzr1000
                fzr1000 20 October 2017 23: 01
                0
                I am sure that no one of my options for the minimum rework of the 180th did not bother, did not calculate the pros and cons. And yet, none of the successful businessmen play by the rules, this is a personal experience.
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 21 October 2017 09: 36
                  0
                  How to be developed for a while
          2. Gransasso
            Gransasso 20 October 2017 21: 10
            0
            Quote: opus
            No policy, I would bet on Vulcan BE-4



            Maestro, when you’re not obsessed with an overvalued idea about different spherical hypersonic horses .. you write reasonable things .. plus for this post! ..
          3. Dym71
            Dym71 20 October 2017 22: 25
            0
            Quote: opus
            2 + 3 = output is obvious.

            + program costs
            - statistics with accident-free launches of the RD-180, which is essentially nonsense, they’ll work their way, over time ....
            In the meantime, the RD-180 and editorials about successes with a photo of a star-striped in the background.
            We will look with interest hi
        2. MadCat
          MadCat 21 October 2017 00: 19
          0
          Quote: Dym71
          In the case of RD-180, there is no even a hint of business - a pure policy.

          Now space is a very fashionable direction, many work in the negative for the sake of capturing the market, so the competition is very strong now.
          1. Dym71
            Dym71 21 October 2017 00: 28
            0
            Quote: MadCat
            many work in the minus to capture the market

            And successful at the expense of states.
      2. Esoteric
        Esoteric 20 October 2017 19: 37
        +1
        Quote: The_Lancet
        The founder of the company is one of the richest people on the planet, Jeffrey Bezos, the founder of Amazon. His condition is constantly growing. Therefore, I think he understands business

        When the printing press is working in the "next room", you will begin to understand the fakes. Understands in business !!! fellow Look do not rejoice greatly, in the sense that - do not strain. A strange thing: as soon as the dollar became the world reserve currency in the United States, many talented businessmen appeared ... belay
        More than one rocket with a new newly-made engine will “collapse” ... Delovary ... Tell me that it is the Americans themselves who made the atom bomb without help and managed to bomb in Japan ... Let's look at your talents when the world ignores the dollar. ..
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 20 October 2017 19: 50
          +8
          "A strange thing: as soon as the dollar became the world reserve currency in the United States, many talented businessmen appeared ..." ////

          The dollar has been the world currency since 1974. But it was from this time that the US economic leadership was shaken. First, Japan crawled out with its "economic miracle."
          Then Germany became again the "locomotive of Europe", which led to the European Union and a new strong currency - the euro. And today - China is crushing, becoming the second economy in the world.
          So the "printing press" has nothing to do with it. Do not invent absurdities.
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 21 October 2017 09: 11
            0
            Quote: voyaka uh
            So the "printing press" has nothing to do with it. Do not invent absurdities.

            This is what you said without thinking. The United States has 20,4 trillion debt, a negative trade balance, if it had not been for the machine to go around the world long ago with an outstretched hand, they put Germany and Japan in a pose and might not ride with the Chinese.
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 21 October 2017 13: 15
              +3
              Their duty is internal. The US government owes its own Central Bank.
              At stake: salaries of ministers and other government officials, employees of national parks, post offices, museums. Once they have already been kicked out on forced 2-month leave. That's the whole "collapse of America." smile
              1. Rt-xnumx
                Rt-xnumx 21 October 2017 18: 53
                0
                Own central bank is state Central Bank.
                In the USA there is no central state bank.
                Its functions are performed private commercial banks.
                So the US debt is not domestic, but a group of private bankers.
                And if we take into account the phenomenon of dummies, it is generally a duty to some John Heitzmon.
                1. Vlad.by
                  Vlad.by 21 October 2017 23: 48
                  0
                  Excuse me, but the investment of China and other Japan in the treasury is also an internal debt ???
                  And what is the share of treasury in the total debt of the USA to the world?
              2. opus
                opus 22 October 2017 00: 33
                +1
                Quote: voyaka uh
                Their duty is internal. The US government owes its own Central Bank.

                1. External

                calculated primarily in its own currency - US dollars. This debt is identical to dollar savings of the foreign sector; its growth rate shows the desire of foreigners to realize savings in US dollars.

                2. in America there is no central bank.
                There is the Fed
                it issues bonds "(debt receipts), nerds buy them for real money (received for some real costs)
                well and so on

                The debt of the US federal government is equivalent to dollar savings of internal and external private sectors. The rate of its rise or decline shows the dynamics of the needs of the private sector to invest in dollars.


                The debts of the American government have a credit rating (AA - according to the Standard & Poors classification), since they are denominated in their own currency - US dollars and for this reason do not have credit risk (the US Federal Reserve System (FRS) has the exclusive right to issue dollars and always can formally settle accounts with creditors on completely different debts, which are denominated in their own currency).
                on xnumx g structure


                3.Internal Debt is Federal Government Debt
                US domestic debts are equal to the country's domestic savings and show the state of the US economy - the volume of economic relationships between its subjects.

                All US household debt is more than $ 13 trillion (on 2013)
    3. DEPARTMENT
      DEPARTMENT 20 October 2017 18: 35
      +6
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      Well, you want to live, know how to spin. If companies want to take a place in the market, then they will have to put out a more competitive product than they are today.

      Aron there clearly your compatriots and "our" ex made their contribution ..?
      Something so suddenly unexpected .. hehe Especially after the statement that Russia will reduce cooperation with the United States in space .. The sanction war continues and is gaining momentum!
      An outpost in Syria needs to be done and urgently nevertheless ..
      1. Deniska999
        Deniska999 20 October 2017 18: 37
        22
        Yes, you are clearly a sick person. Everywhere to drag Israel and Syria.
        1. Komsomol
          Komsomol 20 October 2017 18: 43
          +6
          I don’t understand, recently only here people clearly and intelligibly explained to all of us here, whose Erdeshki are now ...... the USA themselves have SELLED ALL PAPERS, handed over "appearances, passwords, ficus themselves moved ..." Again we begin, this is ours, they say? request am
          1. evil partisan
            evil partisan 20 October 2017 19: 04
            13
            Quote: Komsomol
            The USA itself SOLD ALL PAPERS, handed over "appearances, passwords, ficus themselves moved ..." Again we begin, is this ours, they say?

            Listen, Komsomol: change your nickname to Klaus. yes If you don’t know: what is going on, look at “17 Moments of Spring”. yes By the way, Stirlitz shot him like a dog. sad But that is ... repeat
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. evil partisan
                evil partisan 20 October 2017 19: 17
                +5
                Quote: By itself
                Ohhh, how is everything running with you.

                Not with you, but with you. This is the first. Secondly, post working links. And thirdly: among my friends there were rocket launchers (as they called themselves: 2nd generation rocket launchers). One of them was awarded the Gold Medal. S.P. Queen. Unfortunately, everyone is already deceased ... So I do not consider myself neglected. wink
                1. Per se
                  Per se 20 October 2017 19: 24
                  +5
                  Not with you, but with you. This is the first. Secondly, post working links
                  Similarly, do not spread it, but lay it out. The link is working, smart People will easily go over. For you, apparently, this does not shine.
                  1. evil partisan
                    evil partisan 20 October 2017 19: 35
                    +3
                    Quote: By itself
                    . You, apparently, this does not shine.

                    Well, type lol
                2. opus
                  opus 20 October 2017 21: 01
                  +4
                  Quote: Angry Guerrilla
                  One of them was awarded the Gold Medal. S.P. Queen.

                  come on?
                  Who was
                  Quote: Angry Guerrilla
                  among my friends were

                  your friend?

                  Is it really Makeev Victor Petrovich?
                  1. evil partisan
                    evil partisan 20 October 2017 21: 37
                    +3
                    Quote: opus
                    your friend?

                    Dryomin Vladimir Fedorovich.
                    And also was friends with VV Ilyinsky and
                    B.A. Popov. In the rocket community, they were quite famous people.
                    1. opus
                      opus 20 October 2017 22: 35
                      +2
                      Quote: Angry Guerrilla
                      In the rocket community, they were quite famous people.

                      None of these have been awarded
                      Quote: Angry Guerrilla
                      Gold Medal them. S.P. Queen

                      Award list:

                      http://www.ras.ru/about/awards/awdlist.aspx?awdid
                      = 18
                      http://www.ras.ru/win/db/award_dsc.asp?P=id-18.ln
                      -ru
                      1. evil partisan
                        evil partisan 20 October 2017 22: 39
                        +5
                        Quote: opus
                        None of these have been awarded

                        Strange ... I remember for sure that V.F. and I Dremin was washed with the Korolev Medal ... I was referring to it ... Year around 2008-2009 ... Paradox ... what
              2. Smog
                Smog 20 October 2017 19: 39
                +6
                I’m the commanding operator of the Combat Unit 2, Chief Petty Officer Chalov Alexy Yurievich,
                Quote: By itself
                Ohhh, how's it going
              3. Nikolai Grek
                Nikolai Grek 20 October 2017 19: 41
                +8
                Quote: By itself
                http://fishki.net/1975521-pochemu-rossijskij-dvig
                atel-rd-180-v-prirode-ne-suwestvuet.html
                Ohhh, how everything is running with you .......... Read it.

                Comments at least read there ??? lol lol lol good good good
                1. Per se
                  Per se 20 October 2017 19: 49
                  +6
                  I read a lot of incompetent, as usual. So it’s uninteresting. I’m better to read smart People, not cheers ..... wink
                  1. evil partisan
                    evil partisan 20 October 2017 19: 53
                    +7
                    Quote: By itself
                    I esteem smart People better

                    Oh read you well done yourself, do not re-read! Until old age. sad
                    1. Manul
                      Manul 20 October 2017 23: 44
                      +1
                      Quote: Angry Guerrilla
                      Oh read you well done yourself, do not re-read! Until old age.

                      VO dinosaurs pulled up tummies, rolled up their sleeves and went to hand-to-hand combat - to correct the atmosphere winked Very commendable. Is it too late? But better than never. drinks
                  2. Nikolai Grek
                    Nikolai Grek 20 October 2017 19: 55
                    +9
                    Quote: By itself
                    I read a lot of incompetent, as usual. So it’s uninteresting. I’m better to read smart People, not cheers ..... wink

                    look crown do not lose !!! wassat wassat laughing laughing
              4. SPACE
                SPACE 20 October 2017 20: 18
                +2
                Quote: By itself
                Honour

                Show me what you read and I'll tell you who you are fool laughing
            2. The comment was deleted.
          2. Monos
            Monos 21 October 2017 15: 52
            +5
            Quote: Komsomol
            I don’t understand even recently, only here people have clearly and intelligibly explained to all of us here, whose Erdeshki are now ...

            They did not explain nichrome. They mumbled something slurred and did not bring a single confirming fact. Solid spam. smile
        2. The comment was deleted.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. You Vlad
      You Vlad 20 October 2017 19: 11
      +2
      Quote: Aron Zaavi
      If companies want to take a place in the market, then they will have to put out a more competitive product than they are today.

      About that, will these engines be cheaper than ours? Definitely not! hi
    6. Stabilization
      Stabilization 20 October 2017 19: 15
      +3
      NPO Energomash respects the development of Blue Origin, but notes that the engine, which should replace the Russian RD-180, must go a long way before it can be used in missiles, said Igor Arbuzov, General Director of NPO Energomash .
    7. Nikolai Grek
      Nikolai Grek 20 October 2017 19: 32
      +5
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      Well, you want to live, know how to spin. If companies want to take a place in the market, then they will have to put out a more competitive product than they are today.

      yeah .... then again will be some kind of fraud !! wink yes lol lol lol good
    8. Maz
      Maz 20 October 2017 19: 52
      +1
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      Well, you want to live, know how to spin. If companies want to take a place in the market, then they will have to put out a more competitive product than they are today.

      Don’t give me a gop, Aron, until you jump. Let them first fly into orbit on their counterpart. And then we'll see - plus this is our outdated engine. Be atslaha partners.
    9. poquello
      poquello 20 October 2017 20: 58
      +1
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      Well, you want to live, know how to spin. If companies want to take a place in the market, then they will have to put up a more competitive product what is today.

      more competitive to them ours do not sell
    10. Juborg
      Juborg 20 October 2017 21: 10
      0
      This is your Jewish principle of “you want to live, know how to spin”, but simply theft, the Chinese took over and now they tortured the Yankees. Well, thieves finally taught other thieves, steal. What a pun came out ?! laughing hi
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 21 October 2017 00: 15
        +5
        If you want to live - know how to spin - a Russian proverb that calls for being energetic, enterprising.
        The proverb is listed in the Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language Ozhegov S.I., N. Yu. Shvedova, 1992, to the word "spin."
        It entered the Russian language in the second half of the 20th century. It was especially popular in the days of the USSR, when additional earnings (in addition to the main job) could be obtained through additional part-time jobs
    11. Kent0001
      Kent0001 21 October 2017 09: 48
      0
      I agree, but I have long had a question: on what did they fly to the moon?
      1. Golovan Jack
        Golovan Jack 21 October 2017 09: 56
        +6
        Quote: Kent0001
        I have long had a question: on what did they fly to the moon?

        I would answer, but you’ll be banned instantly recourse
      2. aiw
        aiw 21 October 2017 10: 35
        +1
        Saturn rocket, etc.

        You know, Leonov (who was the first to go into space and talked a lot with American astronauts) is sure that the Americans were on the moon. Do you know something that he does not know?
  2. The comment was deleted.
    1. DEPARTMENT
      DEPARTMENT 20 October 2017 18: 38
      +4
      Quote: DEZINTO
      An interesting name is Blue Start.

      The first blue astronaut will be launched, when tested, see ..))))
      1. Dezinto
        Dezinto 20 October 2017 18: 41
        +2
        Exactly, it will be an American peremoga, .... our first cosmanaut, the first female cosmanaut is ours, ..... and they are so hmmm ....... and let's launch the first blue cosmanaut! And what is very American! ))))) and of course black fellow ))))))))
        1. Partyzan
          Partyzan 20 October 2017 19: 13
          10
          Quote: DEZINTO
          ..a let's launch the first blue cosmonaut! And what is very American! ))))) and of course black

          in american it
          1. Stabilization
            Stabilization 20 October 2017 19: 16
            +3
            ... beer through a spacesuit?)
            1. Alex20042004
              Alex20042004 20 October 2017 19: 19
              +1
              Yeah, through the ass!
              1. Vasyan1971
                Vasyan1971 20 October 2017 19: 26
                0
                Quote: Stabilization
                ... beer through a spacesuit?)

                Quote: Alex20042004
                Yeah, through the ass!

                The vacuum pump pumps up.
            2. Partyzan
              Partyzan 20 October 2017 19: 19
              +7
              Quote: Stabilization
              ... beer through a spacesuit?)

              I don’t know, maybe through a bio toilet request
              1. DEPARTMENT
                DEPARTMENT 20 October 2017 22: 26
                +2
                Quote: Partyzan
                Quote: Stabilization
                ... beer through a spacesuit?)

                I don’t know, maybe through a bio toilet request

                Pure alcohol ...! Or Armenian brandy .. There the astronauts have such valves ..!
                like the divers .. heh heh ..
          2. Ace Tambourine
            Ace Tambourine 21 October 2017 02: 48
            +1
            Well, as always according to Hollywood ... in the photo the soil is gray, and in the reflection of the germac, brown ...
  3. svp67
    svp67 20 October 2017 18: 32
    +9
    Well done .... In the American ability to arrange the release of something, I definitely have no doubt.
    And what will Mr. Rogozin tell us now? Are we ready for such a turn of events? Our "Roskosmos" on the steepest rise?
    1. sir_obs
      sir_obs 20 October 2017 18: 37
      16
      Actually, there is an engine much more powerful than what we sell. And they certainly do not need to sell it.
      And what they said there, we’ll see if it flies.
      RD 180 is developed on the basis of the RD 170 of the late seventies. Great success, the Americans, having our model, were able to achieve something that passed in the seventies.
      And well done.
    2. da Vinci
      da Vinci 20 October 2017 18: 46
      +4
      On the rise, the coolest is not Roskosmos, but Rogozin! crying
    3. tol100v
      tol100v 20 October 2017 18: 54
      +5
      Quote: svp67
      And what will Mr. Rogozin tell us now? Are we ready for such a turn of events? Our "Roskosmos" on the steepest rise?
      A successful test, this is not a successful rocket launch! And Ragozin can repeat the advice "with trampolines"!
    4. You Vlad
      You Vlad 20 October 2017 19: 20
      +4
      Quote: svp67
      Well done .... In the American ability to arrange the release of something, I definitely have no doubt.

      Even if I’m not mistaken back in 1996, Russia sold the USA a license and technology for the RD-180, since then they have been mastering them. wink
      1. evil partisan
        evil partisan 20 October 2017 19: 47
        +6
        Quote: You Vlad
        back in 1996, Russia sold the USA a license and technology for the RD-180, since then they have been mastering them

        More precisely: they can’t master request
        1. You Vlad
          You Vlad 20 October 2017 19: 51
          +2
          Quote: Angry Guerrilla
          More precisely: they can’t master

          Thanks for the amendment! hi Your expression more accurately describes the situation. yes
        2. eklmn
          eklmn 20 October 2017 21: 35
          +4
          RD-180 is an American engine. Having bought a patent from Russia and having limited it "for himself" through Pratt & Whitney, the engine became American with all the rights to sell. 
          Even Russia cannot do it. Yes, the engine is assembled in Russia, but only for the United States. Collecting it in America is pointless; it will go up hundreds of times because of the cost of labor. Your work is much cheaper.
          1. Golovan Jack
            Golovan Jack 20 October 2017 22: 16
            11
            Quote: eklmn
            Having bought a patent from Russia ...

            It's true.
            Quote: eklmn
            ... and limiting "for themselves" through Pratt & Whitney ...

            But this, hike, a lie ...
            Quote: eklmn
            the engine has become an American with all rights to sell

            This is again true.
            Quote: eklmn
            engine collect in Russia, but only for the USA

            But from that moment in more detail, please ... "collect" and "make" - these are even two different words in your native language. Meaning completely different things.
            So "collect" or "make", after all?
            Quote: eklmn
            Collecting it in America is pointless ...

            ... because you get a coffee grinder ... that's the maximum ...
            Quote: eklmn
            it will rise hundreds of times because of the cost of labor. Your work is much cheaper

            And here it is again true yes
            1. eklmn
              eklmn 20 October 2017 22: 58
              +1
              C'mon, learn to use Wiki in Russian if you have problems with English.
               “For 2009 was an export engine. All rights to use the RD-180 in the USA belonged to the Space Systems Division of General Dynamics (USA), which in the early 1990s were purchased by Lockheed Martin for use on disposable Atlas (Atlas III and Atlas V) carriers. ...
                Since the goal of the engine program is to launch commercial satellites and satellites of the US government, Pratt & Whitney is considered to be the joint manufacturer of the RD-180 to comply with US legislation. At the moment, all engine production is concentrated in Russia. The sale was carried out by a joint venture between Pratt & Whitney and NPO Energomash called the RD-Amros JV (RD AMROSS). The acquisition and installation were handled by the United Launch Alliance. ”
                 Of course, I could be wrong, but not lie. I advise you to apologize if you 
              gentleman.
              1. Golovan Jack
                Golovan Jack 20 October 2017 23: 16
                +9
                Quote: eklmn
                limit to "for yourself" via Pratt & Whitney

                not equal (in Russian. If you write in the language, write correctly)
                Quote: eklmn
                rights to use the RD-180 ... in the early 1990s were bought back Lockheed Martin

                “Remaking for yourself” - in Russian it means not “having bought the rights”, but changing (constructively) to your requirements.
                What they wrote, they got it.
                Quote: eklmn
                I advise you to apologize if you are a gentleman

                I advise you not to advise yes
                There are no Russian Jetlmen, even a joke is in the subject.
                Learn the language, then come back again if the desire arises.
  4. Radikal
    Radikal 20 October 2017 18: 41
    +8
    Quote: svp67
    Well done .... In the American ability to arrange the release of something, I definitely have no doubt.
    And what will Mr. Rogozin tell us now? Are we ready for such a turn of events? Our "Roskosmos" on the steepest rise?

    And where does Rogozin, if he did not make the decision on the regular sale of our RD-180? It would be strange if the mattresses would not copy them! Why are they worse than the Chinese? wassat So the questions are not for him, but for those who made the decision to sell technologically advanced equipment to the Main Enemy. Or does anyone have doubts that the USA was, and still is, for us ?! sad
    1. Lex.
      Lex. 20 October 2017 18: 58
      0
      Yeah, millimeters to inches
      1. Roma 1977
        Roma 1977 20 October 2017 19: 32
        +2
        Not necessary. Modern machines with the click of a button recount.
        1. dubovitskiy.1947
          dubovitskiy.1947 21 October 2017 00: 03
          0
          Quote: Roma-1977
          Not necessary. Modern machines with the click of a button recount.

          Check your head. Is it in place. This is who the machine trusts the processing of drawings. In the drawing, one, but in kind, through the transfer coefficients. Maybe machines and brands of materials are moving to another standard?
          Have fun, tell me how the program recalculates some coordinates into others. After all, there are not sizes, but pieces.
          1. Roma 1977
            Roma 1977 21 October 2017 07: 45
            +2
            I do not mean documentation processing, but production in the USA according to metric documentation. Change the checkmark in the inch / mm section in the American machine and work on the metric model loaded into the memory without problems.
            1. dubovitskiy.1947
              dubovitskiy.1947 21 October 2017 14: 07
              0
              Quote: Roma-1977
              I do not mean documentation processing, but production in the USA according to metric documentation. Change the checkmark in the inch / mm section in the American machine and work on the metric model loaded into the memory without problems.

              Yes you never saw a drawing!
              Except the sizes. conventions adopted in the ESKD system, the drawings contain technical requirements, a lot of links to Standards, Testing Procedures, etc. ..... Further.
              According to the drawings, without technological documentation, no one, no clown can do anything, unless this clown works in a rural forge and the subject of work is a bracket for fastening logs. The volume of technological documentation is several times greater than the volume of design documentation.
              Further. Without tools specially made for production, tooling, molds, dies, broaches and automatic settings .... What about automatic programs? Where are they?
              Why the hell did you get into a conversation when you don't understand anything in this matter? Analogs of materials do they have? Replacement without testing? Crazy.
              And the last.
              To what decimal place will you calculate the conversion of inches to mm? And vice versa?
              1. Roma 1977
                Roma 1977 21 October 2017 18: 58
                0
                It's not about recounting. It's about working in the metric system on American equipment. In the USSR, in general, the American strategic bomber was copied in the late 40s, and before that it was transferred to the metric system of the air defense for several aircraft, having acquired a license for them from the United States. And this is when there was almost no means of automating the process.
                1. dubovitskiy.1947
                  dubovitskiy.1947 21 October 2017 23: 04
                  +1
                  Quote: Roma-1977
                  It's not about recounting. It's about working in the metric system on American equipment. In the USSR, in general, the American strategic bomber was copied in the late 40s, and before that it was transferred to the metric system of the air defense for several aircraft, having acquired a license for them from the United States. And this is when there was almost no means of automating the process.

                  No licenses have been acquired. We took advantage of the emergency landings on our territory for several aircraft, they were simply disassembled and copied. Tupolev was forbidden to use them only as an example, forcing him to copy exactly. Even some bracket in the cockpit was copied, the purpose of which no one knew. Full-fledged drawings were made, according to Soviet standards, as a drawing system (MN SCH, the predecessor of the ESKD), and from Soviet materials, scrupulously selected for similar characteristics. A particular headache was in the organization of the manufacture of thin-sheet duralumin for lining.
                  So the instantaneous organization of the production of other people's constructs using modern equipment is your imagination.

                  You should know one more subtlety - American equipment works in accordance with American standards - in an inch system that is not fully portable to the metric. Adapting it to the metric system is a different story.
                  1. Roma 1977
                    Roma 1977 24 October 2017 11: 29
                    0
                    The USSR acquired in the USA a license for the production of the legendary Douglas DC-3 aircraft before the war, which the USSR called PS-84, and later Li-2. The people called them "Douglas." They were produced in large series from 1940 to 1953, they were operated right up to 1973.
                    1. dubovitskiy.1947
                      dubovitskiy.1947 24 October 2017 13: 51
                      0
                      Quote: Roma-1977
                      The USSR acquired in the USA a license for the production of the legendary Douglas DC-3 aircraft before the war, which the USSR called PS-84, and later Li-2. The people called them "Douglas." They were produced in large series from 1940 to 1953, they were operated right up to 1973.

                      Recycle drawings to your standards? To apply their materials by selecting analogues, or having established production that is as similar as possible in terms of characteristics? Yes.
                      I will say more.
                      The first tractors we started producing, having bought American Fordsons. Having disassembled seven tractors to the cog, they took the drawings, measured all the details, compiled the tables, calculated the average values, and on this basis began production of the Fordson-Putilovets. At that time, they did not know either the system of tolerances, landings, the principles of interchangeability, typification, and everything that they had gained over the years.
              2. aiw
                aiw 21 October 2017 21: 22
                +1
                What are you doing now? ;-) Two simple facts:

                1) the United States has the entire set of technological documentation for RD-180.
                2) the engine described in the article is not a copy of the RD-180 in any sense. The United States and its own school of creating various engines is very good.
                1. dubovitskiy.1947
                  dubovitskiy.1947 21 October 2017 23: 29
                  0
                  Quote: aiw
                  What are you doing now? ;-) Two simple facts:

                  1) the United States has the entire set of technological documentation for RD-180.
                  2) the engine described in the article is not a copy of the RD-180 in any sense. The United States and its own school of creating various engines is very good.

                  You do not know what you are talking about. No one will ever give all the technical documentation. (By the way, you illiterate call it technological). This underlines your incompetence.
                  For reference: The volume (weight) of the TECHNICAL documentation in one copy on the SU-27 airplane is equal to the weight of the airplane itself. Note that all technical library documentation - standards, instructions, guidance materials, documentation of equipment, stands, instruments, tools, fixtures and so on, is not included in this kit. I would like to look at your physiognomy, holding 10 tons of paper in an unfamiliar language, in which references to documents unknown to you are recorded. And executed according to the rules you are not aware of. Moreover, in such documentation, there are nevertheless references to the fulfillment of the requirements set forth in top secret documents.

                  To call a drawing an international document that everyone understands is a journalistic exhaust. I assure you, you will not understand a damn thing, considering the American assembly drawing for some piece of iron.
                  1. aiw
                    aiw 22 October 2017 11: 01
                    +1
                    Of course, I am not a technologist but an ordinary physicist, but I have an idea about the amount of documentation. And since the RD-180 was made formally for amers and for their money, then a set of documents was handed over to them, be quiet. In the 1990s, and not that went abroad through the Soros line - people for $ 500 / month translated into English themselves and sent Uncle Sam everything they put their lives on ...

                    I'm not talking about all kinds of successful promotions for industrial espionage, such as the unauthorized receipt by Israel of a set of technical documentation for engines from Mirage and the subsequent deployment of production at home.

                    And I do not like your tone. You here, too, in a number of comments have demonstrated your incompetence, do you want to poke your nose?
                    1. dubovitskiy.1947
                      dubovitskiy.1947 22 October 2017 12: 44
                      0
                      Quote: aiw
                      Of course, I am not a technologist but an ordinary physicist, but I have an idea about the amount of documentation. And since the RD-180 was made formally for amers and for their money, then a set of documents was handed over to them, be quiet. In the 1990s, and not that went abroad through the Soros line - people for $ 500 / month translated into English themselves and sent Uncle Sam everything they put their lives on ...

                      I'm not talking about all kinds of successful promotions for industrial espionage, such as the unauthorized receipt by Israel of a set of technical documentation for engines from Mirage and the subsequent deployment of production at home.

                      And I do not like your tone. You here, too, in a number of comments have demonstrated your incompetence, do you want to poke your nose?

                      Read it again, you apparently could not understand the first time. Repeating the above is pointless. There is documentation provided to the buyer. Look at its contents in the operating instructions for your coffee grinder. Or a cell phone.
                      And try to make a copy of these friendly phrases.
                      A form document is transferred to a complex product, in which the rules and terms for changing the oil, tightening the nuts, and so on are recorded. There, of course, are FIGURES of the components in question. Believe me, the First Division very carefully checks the composition of the documentation sent to the side. And reports violations.
                      1. aiw
                        aiw 22 October 2017 17: 37
                        0
                        No, you inattentively read it. The relationship between the amers and Energomash during the development of the RD-180 differed from the relationship between the buyer and seller of the car in the cabin.
    2. Golovan Jack
      Golovan Jack 20 October 2017 23: 09
      +9
      Quote: Radikal
      who made the decision to sell technologically advanced equipment to the main enemy

      You would be so dishonored, though Vika would first be revered, or something ...
      RD-180 was created in the mid-1990s based on the RD-170 engine.
      In 1996, General Dynamics acquired the right to use the engine.

      The engine is two decades old, at least. Extremely "technologically advanced equipment", to some ...
      Quote: Radikal
      It would be strange if the mattresses would not copy them

      They still have not copied it. "Fire tests" - about nothing, practically. This means that the fuel burned out, but the engine did not, if at all on your fingers.
      Quote: Radikal
      Why are they worse than the Chinese?

      Everybody.
      The Chinese, by the way, with aircraft engines, too ... not really. That is - they are just like real ones, and even fly, only to the resource below almost an order of magnitude ... why would this be so, interesting? what
      Quote: Radikal
      Or someone has doubts ...

      Could you love the radical? laughing
  5. GABALIS
    GABALIS 20 October 2017 18: 43
    +2
    Quote: svp67
    Well done .... In the American ability to arrange the release of something, I definitely have no doubt.
    And what will Mr. Rogozin tell us now? Are we ready for such a turn of events? Our "Roskosmos" on the steepest rise?

    Our "Roskosmos" YES, but yours I don’t know ... hi
    1. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 20 October 2017 19: 01
      +7
      Quote: GABALIS
      Our "Roskosmos" YES, but yours I don’t know ...

      Whose is yours? Italian?
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 20 October 2017 19: 23
          +5
          Quote: Partyzan
          but they have a cool minister

          Yes, he looked in glasses and looked like ... I wanted to troll Gabalis a bit about svp67, but my friend was gone ... Boring. crying
          1. Partyzan
            Partyzan 20 October 2017 19: 28
            +9
            Quote: Mordvin 3
            I wanted to troll a little Gabalis about svp67,

            1. Mordvin 3
              Mordvin 3 20 October 2017 19: 33
              +7
              Listen, you don’t know what’s there. Which is a member of the Komsomol? It seems that his roof is going.
              1. Smog
                Smog 20 October 2017 19: 43
                +6
                Quote: Mordvin 3
                what does he have

                So day, bath ..... laughing laughing
                1. Mordvin 3
                  Mordvin 3 20 October 2017 19: 45
                  +7
                  Quote: Smog
                  So day, bath .....

                  I'm serious.
                  1. Smog
                    Smog 20 October 2017 20: 01
                    +6
                    Quote: Mordvin 3
                    I'm serious.

                    So climax ... laughing But seriously
                    It’s been leaking there a long time ago. sad
            2. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 20 October 2017 19: 54
              +3
              Do you know what it's called today?
              "Cossacks write to the head of the Turkish state a message based on unverified facts and a distortion of reality" laughing
              1. Komsomol
                Komsomol 20 October 2017 20: 11
                +4
                Watch your roofs, those who have expressed themselves above, there’s not even leaking. There’s no it at all. Absolutely. And put more pluses for each other, and bainki with a sense of accomplishment for today !!! laughing laughing laughing
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. Komsomol
                    Komsomol 20 October 2017 20: 30
                    +3
                    Nobody left me, Volodya, as they paid little, and continue, I don’t thump, Rosneft is now firing even for the fumes ... Nothing has changed ... What are you talking about? What have I changed?
                    1. DEPARTMENT
                      DEPARTMENT 20 October 2017 22: 14
                      +3
                      Quote: Komsomol
                      Nobody left me, Volodya, as they paid little, and continue, I don’t thump, Rosneft is now firing even for the fumes ... Nothing has changed ... What are you talking about? What have I changed?

                      Maybe you need to swell ... And check your state of mind?
                      I think oil production will not lose much ..! negative
                      The whining began and look for the guilty in their spiritual cockroaches .. hehe
                      Change your nickname ..! Do not disgrace the name ..
                      1. Manul
                        Manul 20 October 2017 23: 49
                        +1
                        Quote: DEPARTMENT
                        Change your nickname ..! Do not disgrace the name ..

                        I join. This name obliges a lot. Let change at least for the Komsomolets. I consider this offensive - a person speaks not only on behalf of all the Komsomol members who the great construction sites erected and laid their heads in the war. He seems to be responsible for the whole era. Komsomol - do not change your nickname - I am writing a complaint. Mihan, and others - support?
                        (For some reason, no one takes a nickname - Democracy or capitalism))))
                  2. DEPARTMENT
                    DEPARTMENT 20 October 2017 22: 21
                    +1
                    Quote: mordvin xnumx
                    Quote: Komsomol
                    Watch your roofs, those who have expressed themselves above, there’s not even leaking. There isn’t any

                    Lyokha, what's the matter? Pissed off all over the world? Small salary? So I’m almost three times less paid. Has the woman left? So find another. Swollen? So sober. Mouinay doing.

                    Friends means ... And a friend in need is not abandoned hehe
                    Komsomolchik, change your nickname .. dicks for people like you ... We substitute and try to represent ourselves .. Better be yourself! How am I ... I don’t care! fellow
                    1. Mordvin 3
                      Mordvin 3 20 October 2017 22: 29
                      +4
                      Quote: DEPARTMENT
                      Friends means ... And a friend in need is not abandoned hehe

                      I’m Vital and I’m normal towards you, even though you also don’t look like the former Mikhan.
                      1. The comment was deleted.
              2. SERGE ANT
                SERGE ANT 20 October 2017 20: 15
                +4
                You know what it's called, a fisherman, a fisherman! I’ve been able to with a Mordvin and have slept with my warrior, wow !!!
                1. Mordvin 3
                  Mordvin 3 20 October 2017 20: 45
                  +7
                  Quote: SERGE ant
                  You know what it's called, a fisherman, a fisherman! I’ve been able to with a Mordvin and have slept with my warrior, wow !!!

                  Revealed the underground?
                  Quote: Komsomol
                  How have I changed?

                  You became angry, some kind.
              3. Catherine II
                Catherine II 20 October 2017 21: 56
                +1
                Quote: voyaka uh
                untested facts and distortion of reality

                there is still swearing and insults were laughing
                "Citizen Sultan" could demand a court, since the information offends his reputation and religion.
                Administrator would threaten Kola (Cossack) ... hi
                But it’s very hard to prove that you are not a devil / devil ...
                Competition in the space race has ceased to be interstate.
                However, the Americans hold the palm and do not get tired to surprise. Although it is expensive and resource intensive.
        2. The comment was deleted.
          1. Partyzan
            Partyzan 21 October 2017 16: 26
            +5
            Quote: noviczok
            Damn, rushed to google, but it turned out to be photoshop)

            maybe not photoshop, but even so - a machine good
  6. Eurodav
    Eurodav 20 October 2017 18: 43
    +2
    Quote: Muvka
    I don’t understand one thing, if they have super-duper cool falcons that are also cheap, why are they trying to make new, more expensive rockets?

    This is all muddied up! So that the whole world scratched repo- Why and Why? And they will still buy it slowly! We need a special one to explain how much time goes from the First Fire Test to serial production! Then it will become clearer! If 20-30 years old ... Then I congratulate the Americans!
    1. prosto_rgb
      prosto_rgb 21 October 2017 17: 28
      0
      Quote: Evrodav
      We need a special one to explain how much time goes from the First Fire Test to serial production!

      Why do you need specials?
      Google the history of the development of merlins for falkans from spaceX.
  7. APASUS
    APASUS 20 October 2017 18: 44
    +2
    For the series to be launched, the engine for such a machine should run several hundred hours to confirm its suitability. As long as these are only successful tests, the final completion will still be in 2 years.
    1. Nikolai Grek
      Nikolai Grek 20 October 2017 19: 46
      +6
      Quote: APASUS
      For the series to be launched, the engine for such a machine should run several hundred hours to confirm its suitability. As long as these are only successful tests, the final completion will still be in 2 years.

      everything is smooth with you !!! most likely in a year there will be a scandal with swelled billions and a zero result !!! wassat wassat lol
      1. APASUS
        APASUS 20 October 2017 20: 06
        +1
        Quote: Nikolai Grek
        Quote: APASUS
        For the series to be launched, the engine for such a machine should run several hundred hours to confirm its suitability. As long as these are only successful tests, the final completion will still be in 2 years.

        everything is smooth with you !!! most likely in a year there will be a scandal with swelled billions and a zero result !!! wassat wassat lol

        It’s even possible. It’s just that I didn’t hear about the developments in this area and the Americans had to buy an RD-180 and a couple of years did not come when a new engine appeared.
        1. Shahno
          Shahno 20 October 2017 20: 11
          +1
          So it's time already, work in this vein has been underway since the end of the 90's. I think even a few long.
      2. eklmn
        eklmn 20 October 2017 22: 48
        +8
        Unfortunately, I didn’t, but someone gathered the statements into one idea.
        I want to share:

        That's when Falcon 1 flies them, then we'll talk.
        That's when there will be customers, then we'll talk.
        That's when there will be a contract with NASA, then we'll talk.
        That's when Falcon 9 flies them, then we'll talk.
        That's when they build their ship then we'll talk.
        That's when he reaches the ISS, then we'll talk.
        That's when the geostationary satellites will be launched, then we'll talk
        That's when they come up with how to plant missiles, then we'll talk
        That's when they put at least one, then we'll talk
        That's when they put on a barge, then we'll talk
        That's when they start to plant after the withdrawal of the GPO, then we'll talk. 
        When the used rocket flies, then we'll talk.
        ====== you are here ========
        That's when they launch their Falcon Heavy, then we'll talk.
        That's when they make their Dragon 2, then we'll talk. 
        That's when they start to carry people, then we'll talk.
        That's when they launch the device to the moon, then we'll talk. 
        That's when we learn to land a ship without a parachute, then we'll talk.
        That's when they launch Red Dragon, then we'll talk.
        That's when he sits on Mars, then we'll talk.
        That's when he makes his Martian transport, then we'll talk.
        That's when people land on Mars, then we'll talk.
        That's when he colonizes Mars, then we'll talk.
        That's when Mars terraforms, then we'll talk.
        1. SergeBS
          SergeBS 21 October 2017 20: 07
          0
          wink
          Long ago there were super-cool Shuttles. Died out. Let’s guess why they don’t fly into space today on the Shuttles? winked
          And then it was just like this: "you and the Shuttles did not work out, and here you are obkhayu ..". (The USSR did not make it with the Shuttles). One-to-one as it is now with the Falcons.
          1. eklmn
            eklmn 21 October 2017 23: 11
            +1
            “Let’s guess why they don’t fly into space on the Shuttles now?”
                Guessing is not even necessary. Google must be asked: 
            Why did NASA stop the shuttle program?
              answer:
            Discovery was the first of the three active space shuttles to be retired, completing its final mission on March 9, 2011; Endeavor did so on June 1. The final shuttle mission was completed with the landing of Atlantis on July 21, 2011, closing the 30-year Space Shuttle program.
              Discovery was the first to fly its resource in March 2011 (25 flights), Endeavor in June (33 flights), and Atlantis in July (29 flights). And NASA closed its 30-year program. Although each spacecraft was designed for 100 flights, NASA closed it due to the high cost.
            1. SergeBS
              SergeBS 23 October 2017 20: 39
              0
              In fact, in the 20th century it was calculated: the Shuttle will economically outperform Progress and Energy, starting every 2 weeks. On an equal footing - starting at least once a month (well, the rules for replacing blocks, changing fuel, etc.). It wasn’t.
              Those. The "super-efficient" Shuttle just turned out to be more expensive.
        2. dubovitskiy.1947
          dubovitskiy.1947 21 October 2017 23: 36
          0
          Quote: eklmn
          Unfortunately, I didn’t, but someone gathered the statements into one idea.
          I want to share:

          That's when Falcon 1 flies them, then we'll talk.
          That's when there will be customers, then we'll talk.
          That's when there will be a contract with NASA, then we'll talk.
          That's when Falcon 9 flies them, then we'll talk.
          That's when they build their ship then we'll talk.
          That's when he reaches the ISS, then we'll talk.
          That's when the geostationary satellites will be launched, then we'll talk
          That's when they come up with how to plant missiles, then we'll talk
          That's when they put at least one, then we'll talk
          That's when they put on a barge, then we'll talk
          That's when they start to plant after the withdrawal of the GPO, then we'll talk. 
          When the used rocket flies, then we'll talk.
          ====== you are here ========
          That's when they launch their Falcon Heavy, then we'll talk.
          That's when they make their Dragon 2, then we'll talk. 
          That's when they start to carry people, then we'll talk.
          That's when they launch the device to the moon, then we'll talk. 
          That's when we learn to land a ship without a parachute, then we'll talk.
          That's when they launch Red Dragon, then we'll talk.
          That's when he sits on Mars, then we'll talk.
          That's when he makes his Martian transport, then we'll talk.
          That's when people land on Mars, then we'll talk.
          That's when he colonizes Mars, then we'll talk.
          That's when Mars terraforms, then we'll talk.

          You pay this crook Mask for promises. You are doing much smarter than we do not believe in his advertising. Forward, and Christ to meet.
          1. eklmn
            eklmn 22 October 2017 00: 19
            +3
            “You pay this rogue Mask for promises.”
              What are these promises, if it is clear from my text that he has already fulfilled half!
            And he can’t be called a rogue, because he does not take money in advance (compare with Russian business!), but only after a successful (!) launch. 
                I understand that you are “offended by the power”, but don’t be upset - you are still ahead in the ballet (maybe).
              And if you go to the site www.spacex.com and look at the future launches of Falcon 9 (already 60 until the end of 2018) and the names of customers, then make sure how many suckers believed the Mask !!!
            1. dubovitskiy.1947
              dubovitskiy.1947 22 October 2017 12: 59
              0
              Quote: eklmn
              “You pay this rogue Mask for promises.”
                What are these promises, if it is clear from my text that he has already fulfilled half!
              And he can’t be called a rogue, because he does not take money in advance (compare with Russian business!), but only after a successful (!) launch. 
                  I understand that you are “offended by the power”, but don’t be upset - you are still ahead in the ballet (maybe).
                And if you go to the site www.spacex.com and look at the future launches of Falcon 9 (already 60 until the end of 2018) and the names of customers, then make sure how many suckers believed the Mask !!!

              Better, list what is done. Moreover, not in proclamations about ... in the near future, but really. PRE-ORDERED CAR? Two Falcons launched a second time? With an interval of a year. Is it- REPEATED use? Consumers do not need bench tests, but full implementation. Landings of the first stage are absolutely unnecessary for the consumer. This is the collection of scrap metal at the expense of the buyer starts. Let's get a list. Stop talking.
              1. eklmn
                eklmn 22 October 2017 16: 20
                +1
                10/11/2017 ECHOSTAR 105 / SES-11 Falcon 9
                10/9/2017 Iridium (Flight 3) Falcon 9
                9/7/2017 US Air Force (OTV-5) Falcon 9
                8/24/2017 National Space Organization (Taiwan) Falcon 9
                8/14/2017 NASA Resupply to ISS (Flight 12) Dragon & Falcon 9
                7/5/2017 Intelsat Falcon 9
                6/25/2017 Iridium (Flight 2) Falcon 9
                6/23/2017 BulgariaSat-1 Falcon 9
                6/3/2017 NASA Resupply to ISS (Flight 11) Dragon & Falcon 9
                5/15/2017 Inmarsat Falcon 9
                5/1/2017 National Reconnaissance Office (NROL-76) Falcon 9
                3/30/2017 SES (SES-10) Falcon 9
                3/16/2017 EchoStar Corporation Falcon 9
                2/19/2017 NASA Resupply to ISS (Flight 10) Dragon & Falcon 9
                1/14/2017 Iridium (Flight 1) Falcon 9
                8/14/2016 Sky Perfect JSAT Corporation (Japan) Falcon 9
                7/18/2016 NASA Resupply to ISS (Flight 9) Dragon & Falcon 9
                6/15/2016 Eutelsat and ABS Falcon 9
                5/27/2016 THAICOM 8 Falcon 9
                5/6/2016 SKY Perfect JSAT Corporation (Japan) Falcon 9
                4/8/2016 NASA Resupply to ISS (Flight 8) Dragon & Falcon 9
                3/4/2016 SES (SES-9) Falcon 9
                1/17/2016 NASA (Jason-3) falcon 9
                12/22/2015 ORBCOMM Falcon 9
                4/27/2015 Thales Alenia Space Falcon 9
                4/14/2015 NASA Resupply to ISS (Flight 6) Dragon & Falcon 9
                3/2/2015 Asia Broadcast Satellite / EutelSat Falcon 9
                2/11/2015 US Air Force (DSCOVR) Falcon 9
                1/10/2015 NASA Resupply to ISS (Flight 5) Dragon & Falcon 9
                9/21/2014 NASA Resupply to ISS (Flight 4) Dragon & Falcon 9
                9/7/2014 AsiaSat-6 Falcon 9
                8/5/2014 AsiaSat-8 Falcon 9
                7/14/2014 ORBCOMM Falcon 9
                4/18/2014 NASA Resupply to ISS (Flight 3) Dragon & Falcon 9
                1/6/2014 Thaicom (Thailand) Falcon 9
                12/3/2013 SES (SES-8) Falcon 9
                9/29/2013 MDA Corp. (Canada) Falcon 9
                3/1/2013 NASA Resupply to ISS (Flight 2) Dragon & Falcon 9
                10/8/2012 NASA Resupply to ISS (Flight 1) Dragon & Falcon 9
                5/22/2012
                NASA COTS (Demo 2/3) Dragon & Falcon 9
                12/8/2010 NASA COTS (Demo 1) Dragon & Falcon 9
                6/4/2010 Falcon 9 Inaugural Test Flight Falcon 9
                7/13/2009 ATSB (Malaysia) Falcon 1
                9/28/2008 Falcon 1 Flight 4 Falcon 1
                8/2/2008 US Government, ATSB and NASA Falcon 1
                3/20/2007 Demo Flight 2 falcon 1
                3/24/2006 Demo Flight 1
              2. eklmn
                eklmn 22 October 2017 16: 47
                +1
                And further.
                   You did not know about such a number of Falcon launches, because your media did not write about it. Or they wrote somewhere below, on the third page, as in the USSR about launching expeditions to the moon. I gave you a link where you can find ALL former Falcon launches (with dates) and
                future launches (no dates yet). And use foreign sites if you want to find out the facts and remove noodles from your ears. And if you do not want to know the facts, it’s also not scary. Your Duma is working on a law on turning the Internet into an intranet, i.e. closed from external influence, motivated by the fact that Russian people are very sensitive and impressionable and can gain / learn from the West very bad.
                    Welcome to China and North Korea !!!
                1. dubovitskiy.1947
                  dubovitskiy.1947 22 October 2017 19: 42
                  0
                  Quote: eklmn
                  And further.
                     You did not know about such a number of Falcon launches, because your media did not write about it. Or they wrote somewhere below, on the third page, as in the USSR about launching expeditions to the moon. I gave you a link where you can find ALL former Falcon launches (with dates) and
                  future launches (no dates yet). And use foreign sites if you want to find out the facts and remove noodles from your ears. And if you do not want to know the facts, it’s also not scary. Your Duma is working on a law on turning the Internet into an intranet, i.e. closed from external influence, motivated by the fact that Russian people are very sensitive and impressionable and can gain / learn from the West very bad.
                      Welcome to China and North Korea !!!

                  To amaze the imagination, dare everything in a heap, the former, the future, ...
                  For all the times. I will not become like your stupidity, I will not begin to search and compile lists for ALL flights of Soviet and Russian carriers. In 1957, a start in Cosmos was a rare and remarkable thing. Every start was a holiday. What, you, apparently, are in this emotional state, since .....
                  I asked to write how many starts were done a second time. However, there seems to be nothing to brag about here. Hence the horse’s move.
                  The launches of ordinary carriers today are commonplace and do not shock anyone. Already.
                  1. eklmn
                    eklmn 22 October 2017 21: 18
                    +2
                    “I will not become like your stupidity, I will not search and make lists for ALL flights ...”
                      stubbornness is good only when constipacion proverb.
                    Translated - stubbornness is good for constipation only. 
                      I gave you the Falcon website, where ALL past flights are collected in one column, and future ones in the other, so on my part it was not stupidity, but “cleverness” - knowledge of English and knowing where to look. By the way, and your cosm. the agency should also be officially proud of its achievements and collect them in one pile, so that it would be easier for patriots to rummage through the achievements.
                      Now about the used rockets. There were three launches so far and in all cases the rocket was planted again. Now it depends on the customers: they want it on a used one - 40% cheaper, but insurance is higher, they want it on a new one - the price is known (on the same site), but the insurance is cheaper. What a future launch is a trade secret.
                    1. dubovitskiy.1947
                      dubovitskiy.1947 22 October 2017 23: 55
                      0
                      Quote: eklmn
                      “I will not become like your stupidity, I will not search and make lists for ALL flights ...”
                        stubbornness is good only when constipacion proverb.
                      Translated - stubbornness is good for constipation only. 
                        I gave you the Falcon website, where ALL past flights are collected in one column, and future ones in the other, so on my part it was not stupidity, but “cleverness” - knowledge of English and knowing where to look. By the way, and your cosm. the agency should also be officially proud of its achievements and collect them in one pile, so that it would be easier for patriots to rummage through the achievements.
                        Now about the used rockets. There were three launches so far and in all cases the rocket was planted again. Now it depends on the customers: they want it on a used one - 40% cheaper, but insurance is higher, they want it on a new one - the price is known (on the same site), but the insurance is cheaper. What a future launch is a trade secret.

                      You see, knowledge of the English language does not save you from having to look for the reasons for only three starts again. And with a break, not nearly worth the promise of the Mask, 24 hours.
                      We affirm that this is a victory.

                      There is success, but it does not solve anything in the history of astronautics. In a hurry to get new pies, Musk will slowly lower this project on the brakes, replacing the more grandiose congressmen who did not impose in their teeth. For example, heavy reusable, and then superheavy, reusable.
                      In his strategy, Tamerlane’s strategy is seen - to increase pressure, even if he depletes resources.
          2. SergeBS
            SergeBS 23 October 2017 20: 45
            0
            “You pay this rogue Mask for promises.”
            What are these promises, if it is clear from my text that he has already fulfilled half!


            eklmn "overlooked" the MAIN argument: "that's when Falcon will be FAVORABLE."
            Launching a used spacecraft for the second time is not a trick (see Shuttles), but to make it cheaper than a one-time one is a problem (the same Shuttle).
            About reliability - also "lost sight of" (and again the Shuttles, as an example).
  8. Strashila
    Strashila 20 October 2017 18: 45
    +3
    Honestly ... honestly ... I don't believe in miracles. So that the company ... hop made a breakthrough, not when at the same time before doing this. To make an RD, this is not a lollipop to reproduce, specialized companies are not able to do it ... it is necessary to have a scientific, design, technological, production base ... and this costs significantly ... much more than private owners say, and not only financial but also of time costs, it is possible that stolen technologies are being sold from the same Ukraine, but they don’t talk about this, as is the case with the DPRK.
    1. dubovitskiy.1947
      dubovitskiy.1947 21 October 2017 23: 47
      +1
      Quote: Strashila
      Honestly ... honestly ... I don't believe in miracles. So that the company ... hop made a breakthrough, not when at the same time before doing this. To make an RD, this is not a lollipop to reproduce, specialized companies are not able to do it ... it is necessary to have a scientific, design, technological, production base ... and this costs significantly ... much more than private owners say, and not only financial but also of time costs, it is possible that stolen technologies are being sold from the same Ukraine, but they don’t talk about this, as is the case with the DPRK.

      In order not to be surprised, you need to know.
      Musk did not invent ANYTHING. He bought the designers who lost their jobs after the closure of the lunar program, and picked up reusable Shuttles after the closure. He received patents for free, and hardware left over from NASA programs. He received two starting complexes. He received several billion to develop his "reusable" missile program. He builds financial pyramids, taunting gullible fellow citizens and lobbying his interests through the congressmen hired by him.
      Note- EVERYONE of his next promise is more grandiose than the previous one. From the reusable falcons, usual for carrying capacity, he passes to the promise to build super heavy.
      From passenger electric vehicles to heavy duty trucks. From near-moon flights to near-Martian. From vacuum transport for passengers to vacuum transport for passengers in cars, with transportation from the place of “pick-up” in the car to the vacuum transport corridor at the specified address to the place of disembarkation. From free Internet through 450 of its satellites to free Internet through 1500 of its satellites. From a home storage power station serving an emergency in an apartment to a home power station with electricity being returned to the grid.
  9. dubovitskiy.1947
    dubovitskiy.1947 20 October 2017 18: 45
    +3
    The excellent results obtained at the stand are far from the actual launch of the medium. Do not remember. What ended the two launches of Falcons? Accident Where? In oxygen tanks, in which there were compartments for helium. Interestingly, they stand exactly on the stands, or of a different design? Different.
    What did I want to say?
    The trouble-free operation of the carrier depends on a billion reasons, and not only on the operation of the engines. Incorrectly installed sensor .... Or fastening a completely harmless detail, which does not experience vibration on the stand, in real life can break off and be the cause.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 20 October 2017 19: 56
      +4
      "Incorrectly installed sensor ..." ///

      The sensor upside down or the wrong solder from the new storekeeper is another reality.
      1. Manul
        Manul 21 October 2017 00: 01
        +3
        Quote: voyaka uh
        The sensor upside down or the wrong solder from the new storekeeper is another reality

        A warrior, didn’t you run wild from liberties without minuses? (In my mouth a mat constrained by new obscene rules) You and your Merkava crawl through the desert, comment on space is not your destiny. It is enviable - relax on sites about tanks. You have nothing to do here. You just wanted to blurt out? For the third time I speak VO - I had a better opinion of you. You and space ... ??? Go and walk through the desert for another 40 years.
        1. aiw
          aiw 21 October 2017 01: 41
          +1
          Suddenly, Israel has its own space program, nothing to itself. Especially taking into account the fact that they are forced to make launches in the wrong direction, otherwise the spent steps in densely populated areas fall.

          And about the sensor and the solder of the warrior is right - all this we had not so long ago ... Roscosmos is some kind of shame.
        2. Manul
          Manul 21 October 2017 08: 35
          +1
          Quote: Manul
          A warrior, didn’t you run wild from liberties without minuses? (In my mouth a mat constrained by new obscene rules) You and your Merkava crawl through the desert, comment on space is not your destiny. It is enviable - relax on sites about tanks. You have nothing to do here. You just wanted to blurt out? For the third time I speak VO - I had a better opinion of you. You and space ... ??? Go and walk through the desert for another 40 years.

          I do not seem to understand the subject of discussion, and decided that the warrior is teasing about the Proton accident. Friday tired recourse . I apologize for the harshness. hi
      2. dubovitskiy.1947
        dubovitskiy.1947 21 October 2017 00: 17
        +2
        Quote: voyaka uh
        "Incorrectly installed sensor ..." ///

        The sensor upside down or the wrong solder from the new storekeeper is another reality.

        This is all from one boiler. I would like to see you sitting in the elevator car, say, but provided that you are informed that the parachute elevator system has not been tested. But it was tested for winding the cable. Only. And that your relatives are warned about this.
        Will you mock, build jokes, or do you think that testing one component is not yet complex?
        Enough of your education and conscience to answer truthfully? When you are at the level of at least jumping into the near Cosmos, like Bezos, then speak. And so, it is better, of course, to keep silent, louder.
        1. MadCat
          MadCat 21 October 2017 02: 14
          +1
          Quote: dubovitskiy.1947
          When you are at the level of at least jumping into the near Cosmos, like Bezos, then speak. And so, it is better, of course, to keep silent, louder.

          are you going to bring warriors into outer space? laughing
          Israel has long been launching its own military satellites into geostationary orbit, and here you are treating near space. what
          1. dubovitskiy.1947
            dubovitskiy.1947 21 October 2017 13: 34
            0
            Quote: MadCat
            Quote: dubovitskiy.1947
            When you are at the level of at least jumping into the near Cosmos, like Bezos, then speak. And so, it is better, of course, to keep silent, louder.

            are you going to bring warriors into outer space? laughing
            Israel has long been launching its own military satellites into geostationary orbit, and here you are treating near space. what

            On your own or someone else's media?
            The second one. Launching hardware with an accident is just a financial loss. But to kill a person is another matter. (Although the same finances in the tube too). For some reason, people do not carry people on freight carriers. From what?
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. aiw
              aiw 21 October 2017 14: 18
              0
              On your own or someone else's media?

              Into a low elliptical orbit on their Shavit rockets. And now the cost (and manufacturing complexity) of the reconnaissance satellite is much higher than the cost of the launch vehicle.

              For some reason, people do not carry people on freight carriers. From what?

              The point is not reliability, but overload during take-off and coordination of the inhabited ship and LV.
              1. dubovitskiy.1947
                dubovitskiy.1947 22 October 2017 16: 23
                0
                Quote: aiw
                On your own or someone else's media?

                Into a low elliptical orbit on their Shavit rockets. And now the cost (and manufacturing complexity) of the reconnaissance satellite is much higher than the cost of the launch vehicle.

                For some reason, people do not carry people on freight carriers. From what?

                The point is not reliability, but overload during take-off and coordination of the inhabited ship and LV.

                Great answer. It's not about reliability, but overload. Is it really so difficult to slow down the pace in engines throttled everywhere already and provide the load endured for a person? As it turns out, everything is simple. And the emergency rescue system, and what is more, providing rescue over the entire period from the start of the launch to putting it into orbit? Didn’t you forget about it, or for you man is not a goal, but a means? The mass of the inhabited ship is somewhat different from the cargo. The mass of the descent ship is somewhat different from the cargo. Add up all the components of this and realize that to raise the same 20 tons, but with a person is a completely different cost, and means.
                1. aiw
                  aiw 22 October 2017 17: 31
                  0
                  Yes, let's throttle the Russian Railways - as a result, it will not work in + mode; the launch vehicle will not have enough fuel to launch the launch vehicle into orbit. Of course, for the conclusion of a person, the highest reliability is needed, but everything else is not a pity - nehai beats through time.

                  The mass of the inhabited ship is slightly different from the cargo

                  There are very different trucks and very different inhabited spacecraft. Excuse me what exactly did you design? Judging by your estimates of Space X, ignorance of the Israeli space program and other pearls is clearly not space technology ...
                  1. dubovitskiy.1947
                    dubovitskiy.1947 22 October 2017 19: 50
                    0
                    Quote: aiw
                    Yes, let's throttle the Russian Railways - as a result, it will not work in + mode; the launch vehicle will not have enough fuel to launch the launch vehicle into orbit. Of course, for the conclusion of a person, the highest reliability is needed, but everything else is not a pity - nehai beats through time.

                    The mass of the inhabited ship is slightly different from the cargo

                    There are very different trucks and very different inhabited spacecraft. Excuse me what exactly did you design? Judging by your estimates of Space X, ignorance of the Israeli space program and other pearls is clearly not space technology ...

                    You see. One had only to think a little, it turned out that the resource of the truck in human flight mode may not be enough, and reliability is not enough. For some reason, the rescue systems were not noticed. Lack of trucks. But this is, by the way, written from my scum.
                    Are you interested in my area of ​​work? This is not so important, the principles of design, the search algorithms for the new are the same for everyone. I will say that my work was related to both civilian products and the military. That's enough for you.
                    1. aiw
                      aiw 22 October 2017 23: 01
                      +1
                      Twenty five again for money fish ...

                      the truck’s resource in human flight mode may not be enough, and reliability is not enough.

                      And here is the resource and reliability? If for a truck you limit overloads to a level acceptable for people to withdraw, then this leads to a radical decrease in payload. Only ballistics and nothing more. The rescue system fits well with the mass of payloads - they don’t put it on trucks because it doesn’t make sense to bother like that for cargo (if it works, the satellite will go to waste anyway).

                      Not two, three, but millions of human lives depend on the reliability of ICBM operation, however, no one has taken people into outer space long ago removed from ICBM duty, although everything is OK with reliability. Oops?

                      I will say that my work was related to both civilian products and the military.

                      With all due respect to your age and working life - judging by what you write, you are by no means an expert in space topics. It is surprising that you, despite your life experience, continue to insist on your incorrect statements ... Have you ever had to make mistakes and admit your mistakes?
                      1. aiw
                        aiw 23 October 2017 00: 01
                        0
                        PS. The overload restriction does not appear on all LVs - say, Proton was planned to be used for a manned lunar mission, Zenit was planned as a replacement for the Union. Heavy trucks have acceptable overloads but are redundant for manned low Earth orbit flights.
                      2. dubovitskiy.1947
                        dubovitskiy.1947 23 October 2017 00: 02
                        +1
                        Quote: aiw
                        Twenty five again for money fish ...

                        the truck’s resource in human flight mode may not be enough, and reliability is not enough.

                        And here is the resource and reliability? If for a truck you limit overloads to a level acceptable for people to withdraw, then this leads to a radical decrease in payload. Only ballistics and nothing more. The rescue system fits well with the mass of payloads - they don’t put it on trucks because it doesn’t make sense to bother like that for cargo (if it works, the satellite will go to waste anyway).

                        Not two, three, but millions of human lives depend on the reliability of ICBM operation, however, no one has taken people into outer space long ago removed from ICBM duty, although everything is OK with reliability. Oops?

                        I will say that my work was related to both civilian products and the military.

                        With all due respect to your age and working life - judging by what you write, you are by no means an expert in space topics. It is surprising that you, despite your life experience, continue to insist on your incorrect statements ... Have you ever had to make mistakes and admit your mistakes?

                        I had to make a mistake. And how! And there are things that I would do differently now.
                        But we are not discussing my mistakes and my point of view? As far as I understand, we are discussing tests of the analogue of our engine. Or I'm wrong?
  10. Eurodav
    Eurodav 20 October 2017 18: 49
    +3
    Quote: svp67
    Well done .... In the American ability to arrange the release of something, I definitely have no doubt.
    And what will Mr. Rogozin tell us now? Are we ready for such a turn of events? Our "Roskosmos" on the steepest rise?

    But Ragozin will not say anything, especially to you, especially in response to the First Fire Test! If you still said, What our scientists and experts will say, would be the meaning of your statement, and so ... just to bite someone ...
  11. traper
    traper 20 October 2017 18: 55
    +4
    Of course, I could be mistaken, but the engine on the video clearly does not reach the RD-180, neither in terms of mass - dimensions, nor in the size of the torch, and as a result of traction. On the video, most likely the 3rd stage engine. Or not at all off topic.
    1. DEPARTMENT
      DEPARTMENT 20 October 2017 23: 15
      0
      Quote: traper
      Of course, I could be mistaken, but the engine on the video clearly does not reach the RD-180, neither in terms of mass - dimensions, nor in the size of the torch, and as a result of traction. On the video, most likely the 3rd stage engine. Or not at all off topic.

      Made in China most likely .. I look forward to. when they test!
  12. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 20 October 2017 18: 55
    +2
    But for mattresses, judging by the news, with import substitution, things are better ....
    1. Chestnut
      Chestnut 20 October 2017 19: 25
      +3
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      But for mattresses, judging by the news, with import substitution, things are better ....

      For them is not such a big problem as for us. In vain our words were thrown, unlike us, the Americans set bold goals and won. Let's see how much our first Russian aircraft carrier will cut, before the year 2080, in the end they will make a trough, of cheap Chinese parts, built on Chinese equipment, the Goliath crane is Chinese bought it.
      Alas, Putin has no ambitions.
  13. roman.roman24773
    roman.roman24773 20 October 2017 18: 56
    +8
    Have you missed the "indispensability"? On trampolines, after a few years, it was as if they themselves did not have to take off. Space cabs, damn it: ///
  14. Tarasios
    Tarasios 20 October 2017 18: 58
    +3
    Uhm ... As if the title of the article is misleading: "they reported a successful test" and "The first firing tests of our BE-4 engine were successful" are two very big differences. To everything - it turns out that the desire to create just ANALOGUE of the Russian engine is presented as a very great achievement. Forever gas station;)))
  15. Berkut24
    Berkut24 20 October 2017 19: 00
    +2
    The first fire tests of our BE-4 engine were successful. A huge achievement for the whole Blue Origin team, this is a very important step

    Well, that is, not the first, but the second. And, most importantly, the question is the price of the finished product. And it can turn out like with a super-duper fighter.
    1. prosto_rgb
      prosto_rgb 21 October 2017 17: 35
      0
      Quote: Berkut24
      And it can turn out like with a super-duper fighter.

      Toluo serial super-duper fighter is already cheaper than the latest modifications of the F-16 and F15.
      1. Berkut24
        Berkut24 21 October 2017 17: 48
        0
        Currently, all production fighters are significantly more expensive than the F-22. Do not look at the price tag. Firstly, all F-35 users continue to pay for improvements and elimination of jambs. Secondly, as I understand it, you also do not take into account the money for its development. The US National Guard chose to order the F-18 instead of the F-35 precisely for price reasons. And yes, the life cycle of all built for the United States will cost 1,5 trillion. dollars. If the F-35 was cheaper than the F-16, then it would have stood in line. In the meantime, the US allies are either abandoning it or drastically cutting down on proposed purchases.
        1. prosto_rgb
          prosto_rgb 22 October 2017 16: 34
          0
          Quote: Berkut24
          Do not look at the price tag.

          And what then to look when they say that it’s expensive and drank dough?
          Quote: Berkut24
          Secondly, as I understand it, you also do not take into account the money for its development.

          This price is included in every aircraft built. And the larger the series, the lower these costs in a single product. And the F-35 series is planned in more than 1000 pieces or even 2000.
          Quote: Berkut24
          The US National Guard chose to order the F-18 instead of the F-35 precisely for price reasons.

          The US National Guard is not an indicator in the acquisition of weapons.
          We must look at the combat units of the Navy and the ILC.
          Quote: Berkut24
          If the F-35 were cheaper than the F-16, then it would have stood in line.

          Yes, and for the F-16 there is no special queue. Mostly contracts for the modernization of long-built versions.
          1. Berkut24
            Berkut24 22 October 2017 18: 19
            0
            And then what to look at when they say that it’s expensive and drank dough

            Not yet. This is not the final price, but only a promise to the Senate. marketing, so to speak.
            This price is included in every aircraft built. And the larger the series, the lower these costs in a single product. And the F-35 series is planned in more than 1000 pieces or even 2000.

            You probably do not know that the Pentagon has a budget for promising developments. So, it is spent as a separate article for new projects of wunder-waffles, which kind of should ensure lifelong world domination. So to speak, venture financing. On the F-35 was added more than once or more, and this is tens of billions of dollars each time, because the Pentagon is now held hostage by the manufacturer. The old park is gradually being decommissioned, but there’s nothing to replace properly.
            Previously, plans for rearmament included 2500 aircraft, but the Pentagon is now instead ordering older models or spending on upgrading the existing fleet. There will no longer be 2500, or 2000, or perhaps 1000. The Allies also cut orders. There will be no declared price.
            The US National Guard is not an indicator in the acquisition of weapons.
            We must look at the combat units of the Navy and the ILC.

            Well, of those 2500, a significant part was attributable to NG. The combat units are still looking askance at the "conditionally combat" vehicles and are still wondering how many more "conditionally combat" they need right now.
            Yes, and for the F-16 there is no special queue. Mostly contracts for the modernization of long-built versions.

            And it is right. It already exists and their effectiveness is still significantly higher than "conditionally combat."
  16. Radikal
    Radikal 20 October 2017 19: 00
    +5
    Quote: Lex.
    Yeah, millimeters to inches

    This is of course a very difficult technical task for the USA! wassat
    1. SergeBS
      SergeBS 23 October 2017 21: 00
      0
      Quote: Radikal
      This is of course a very difficult technical task for the USA!

      One of the interplanetary descent vehicles was covered precisely because of the difference between the inch and metric systems. Moreover, ChSH, American. winked
      So "no problem." laughing
  17. HAM
    HAM 20 October 2017 19: 03
    +7
    I can’t understand, on which engines flew to the moon? If they managed to make "lunar", then why are they stuck on weaker taxiways?
    1. Black_Vatnik
      Black_Vatnik 20 October 2017 19: 07
      10
      Yes, in Hollywood, they flew to the moon)
      1. HAM
        HAM 20 October 2017 19: 10
        +3
        Here I am about the same thing --- to do something "cool" and get stuck on a simple one! The paradox, however ..
      2. fzr1000
        fzr1000 20 October 2017 19: 45
        +3
        Well, don’t. Saturn 5 is a unique rocket, it worked. Von Braun knew his job. I wrote here a few years ago that in one documentary about American aeronautics one of Werner's assistants appeared, then he was young, now he is a respectable elderly man. He told me what their problem was with the nozzle. It all the time either collapsed or did not reach the necessary characteristics. In short, quite by accident, according to him, the nth instance of the nozzle issued the necessary and did not collapse. And then they copied this copy for mass production. And the strangest thing he said at the end, today the United States does not have the opportunity to re-produce this nozzle.
        1. Tarasios
          Tarasios 20 October 2017 20: 34
          +3
          it's all about the "secret ingredient";)
        2. SPACE
          SPACE 20 October 2017 21: 32
          +2
          Quote: fzr1000
          the strangest thing he said at the end, today the USA has no opportunity to re-produce this nozzle.

          Well, yes F-1 is a random miracle, which is not possible to repeat today laughing
          Than to read about the former fascists, read better about Glushko! Especially about how he, like Von Braun, also tried to make a giant single-chamber engine and why he didn’t succeed, although in the end he still created the world's most powerful liquid rocket engine, the four-chamber RD-170 tongue half of which Americans fly today lol
          The main three problems he faced: the problem of uniform combustion of a giant amount of fuel, the pressure in the combustion chamber and cooling.
          1. fzr1000
            fzr1000 20 October 2017 22: 23
            0
            I am not going to discuss this topic. not a rocketeer. What I saw, about that and told. the film is not Russian, by the way.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 20 October 2017 21: 05
      +1
      It just turned out to be easier and cheaper to order them abroad - and most importantly quickly.
    3. dubovitskiy.1947
      dubovitskiy.1947 23 October 2017 00: 17
      +1
      Quote: HAM
      I can’t understand, on which engines flew to the moon? If they managed to make "lunar", then why are they stuck on weaker taxiways?

      The lunar program was announced from the national humiliation of America, which they experienced as a result of the victories of the USSR in space exploration. Nightmare money was invested in the program, these works were given preferences on all floors, THOUSAND firms, firms, and almost workshops for space orders were connected. We must pay tribute - the amazing organizers of the Americans. Wrap up the most complex and global plans. And the ability to achieve. Of course, bottomless financing will help them.
      The long-term work of this armada was successful. I am inclined to think that they, nevertheless, flew to the Moon, although there is another opinion. But this is not what I am talking about.
      Result: The program is completed. The Saturn 5 Carrier has nothing more to do. They lifted Skylab into orbit, a station weighing 80 tons, with one launch, but they could not even use it. They drove there only three expeditions. And in the end, flooded. The mass of firms, firms, workshops went about their usual business. Make money. Equipment, stands, laboratories, equipment, tools were sold. It’s only we who microfilmed the most important products, handing these microfiches into storage funds. It was only in the USSR that it was possible to preserve equipment, leaving it on the balance sheet and paying taxes and depreciation, since it was forbidden to write off it. EVERYTHING belonged to the state. . It is impossible to force a private trader to do this.
      So, very quickly, they lost both documentation, equipment and specialists, rebuilding factories and workshops to produce the required products. So, what they could successfully do THEN, today they do not know how.
      Restore old, materials, equipment, drawings are much more expensive. than to do new on a new basis.
      Thousands of sheets of drawings of the rocket itself turn into millions of sheets of technological processes, drawings of stands, machine tools, equipment, instruments, tools and everything else.
  18. Justme
    Justme 20 October 2017 19: 03
    +2
    Among my friends was a specialist calculator for strength. He rubbed a lot among a similar audience of ours, who used mainly Nastran. Well, they told him there that when the Americans wanted to use our rocket engines, they said - ".. and we should have - everything is certified, everything is right .. prove that your engines are right .." And how is it done - the design documentation is taken, .. it is explained in detail what is done and done there .. all of this is then thrust into Nastran .. Nastran chews it .. and then Nastran says "Okay" ..
    When the “OK” from Nastran is received, all this heap is taken and dragged to the Americans ..
    And now the Americans are saying - “OK”
    1. Curious
      Curious 20 October 2017 20: 09
      +2
      "When the OK is received from Nastran, all this heap is taken and dragged along to the Americans."
      To drag early. Still need to get "OK" from Thermal and Flow. Then that's all.
      1. Justme
        Justme 20 October 2017 20: 42
        0
        Well, if you still help them with gas-dynamic profiling and adjust the modeling of heat flows - this is generally gorgeous.
        1. Curious
          Curious 20 October 2017 21: 07
          0
          It is as if logical. I am not a specialist in rocket engines, but designing it is certainly not starting with strength calculations.
          1. Justme
            Justme 20 October 2017 21: 40
            0
            In such developments, everything is at its limit and every similar engineering and scientific field where analysis is carried out also contains a fairly complete reflection of everything else ... But in terms of complexity, dynamic strength and its analysis are very far from the static and quasi-static case.
            1. Curious
              Curious 20 October 2017 21: 50
              0
              I have a question, because dynamic loads are quite common when calculating various structural elements, including metallurgical units.
              1. Justme
                Justme 21 October 2017 07: 41
                +3
                In the initial conversation, my friend talked only about strength calculation .. But ..
                If in our turbochargers then the key safety factor was 1.6..1.7, we counted and measured turbine blades up to the seventh mode.
                Aviation engineers already take into account dozens of vibration modes of turbine blades ..
                And it is obvious that the safety margin of a rocket engine in problem areas will be 5-15%, that is, to calculate the dynamic strength, an absolutely accurate description of the dynamics of work is needed.
  19. gurzuf
    gurzuf 20 October 2017 19: 05
    +7
    Quote: roman.roman24773
    Have you missed the "indispensability"? On trampolines, after a few years, it was as if they themselves did not have to take off. Space cabs, damn it: ///

    Your comment lacks a cue that everything is lost and Katz offers to give up laughing
  20. Black_Vatnik
    Black_Vatnik 20 October 2017 19: 05
    +4
    I recently read an article, it seems to be from the Washington Post, they clearly wrote that before 2025 we will have to use our taxiways.
    1. Black_Vatnik
      Black_Vatnik 20 October 2017 19: 24
      +3
      That is, I read)))
      1. Dym71
        Dym71 20 October 2017 20: 53
        0
        Quote: Black_Jacket
        I read an article recently

        Quote: Black_Jacket
        That is, I read)))

        belay
  21. family tree
    family tree 20 October 2017 19: 07
    +3
    Eva! All my life, to hear this, they made an analogue of the Russian engine, seeing it for twenty years, twenty more years and will overcome, it’s cool, but I probably won’t survive what
  22. Nikolai Petrov
    Nikolai Petrov 20 October 2017 19: 09
    +5
    What’s so? After all, after all, after all, they went to the moon (they flew in Hollywood), and only in the 21st century did they say about flying into orbit. I will say the words of the hero from the famous film: I am tormented by vague doubts
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 20 October 2017 20: 03
      +3
      Not one film was shot, but as many as seven. But some monotonous: the same descent vehicles, the same devices they place - only in different places.
      And interesting! - some of these instruments - corner reflectors - the whole world, including Russia, still uses to calibrate instruments on Earth.
      They point to the Hollywood studio, and get the exact distance to several points on the moon.
      Here is the paradox ...
      1. nmaxxen
        nmaxxen 20 October 2017 21: 13
        +4
        Do not tell me - according to your logic, the USSR launched astronauts to the moon, since there are Soviet corner reflectors.
  23. 3vs
    3vs 20 October 2017 19: 13
    +2
    And what did you want, they, after all, flew to the moon!
    Or not? bully
  24. polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 20 October 2017 19: 19
    +2
    I think not without moles. Who is Vneshtorg, Rosoboronexport, the corresponding research institutes? And how many Soviet developments, developments have you sold, "presented" during the years of dermocratic transformations? We don’t know about a tenth of what effective managers "did" with the economy and defense industries, and right now, some Siluanov shouts that defense spending needs to be reduced, controlled, - YES, especially high technology , dual-use technologies, and we are already trying to "teach" the Chekists.
  25. hly
    hly 20 October 2017 19: 37
    +1
    A rare case when I do not wish good luck ..... we'll see.
  26. Maz
    Maz 20 October 2017 20: 06
    +1
    Quote: Lex.
    Yeah, millimeters to inches

    First, the Americans will have to translate in inches the size of two horse asses the size of which is made a tunnel along which rockets and engines are carried on a train to Cape Canaveral. What funny limits the size of the engine for spaceships
  27. andron-30
    andron-30 20 October 2017 20: 15
    +2
    to the detriment of our liberals, Russia Mother doesn’t supply oil and gas for the world, rocket engines for your lousy USA, so they don’t forget boobies, so they shake their soup with their fingernails, maybe they’ll go to good use.
  28. Andryukha G
    Andryukha G 20 October 2017 20: 35
    +4
    In the 60s, they informed the whole world that they supposedly flew to the Moon, and now for some reason they can’t fly to near Earth without Russians.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 20 October 2017 21: 09
      +1
      They flew on the Saturns, on the Shuttles 30 years they flew, since 2010 they do not have their own manned ships, in three years they will start flying on their own again - five different manned ones were made.
      1. nmaxxen
        nmaxxen 20 October 2017 21: 24
        +1
        haven’t done it, but have been trying to do it for a very long time - but it doesn’t work out ..
        constantly postpone deadlines ..
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 20 October 2017 21: 39
          +1
          Already everything in iron remains to be tested -
          manned dragon v2
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 20 October 2017 21: 42
            +1
            Orion spaceship
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 20 October 2017 21: 46
              +1
              Spaceship CST-100 Starliner
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 20 October 2017 21: 49
                +1
                Spacecraft Dream Chaser
                1. nmaxxen
                  nmaxxen 20 October 2017 22: 28
                  +4
                  Yes, I am aware of all these crafts no worse than you ..
                  But something you did not write that Orion was already launched in 2014?
                  And once again they rescheduled right up to 2019 !!!
                  5 years to restart the capsule, which is fundamentally no different
                  from the notorious Apollo .. and even easier to ensure its safety due to the absence of a completely insane pure oxygen atmosphere.
                  apparently some kind of jamb that still cannot be corrected got out in the year 14. (This is in contrast to the "legendary" and "great" Apollo engineers who immediately rolled out after a monstrous fire, such as working apollo.)
                  it's so offhand ...
                  and against this background (FOUR apparatuses at once so as not to crap), the statements of the nasa defenders that they like to fly in unions are especially touching, since it’s not a lordly job to work with space cabs ..
                  just clowning.
          2. Victor-M
            Victor-M 20 October 2017 22: 19
            0
            Quote: Vadim237
            Already everything in iron remains to be tested -
            manned dragon v2

            Somewhere I already saw it? what А fellow remembered! laughing
      2. SPACE
        SPACE 20 October 2017 21: 42
        0
        Quote: Vadim237
        They flew on Saturns, on Shuttle 30 years flew

        That's it flew, flew and flew laughing well, and hde all this? And now the Falcons, methane wassat what is so weak wassat This suggests that all of their concepts are stupid, that’s back to the missile technology of the last century.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 20 October 2017 22: 01
          0
          “Ask, well, where is all this?” All this worked out its own, the time has come for a new one - making money in space.
  29. foreman
    foreman 20 October 2017 20: 50
    +2
    OUR clowns ACHIEVED!
  30. Nikolai Petrov
    Nikolai Petrov 20 October 2017 21: 16
    +2
    Quote: 3vs
    And what did you want, they, after all, flew to the moon!
    Or not? bully

    Yes, this is a dark story. It seems that the exceptional ones flew in the 60-70s, while Werner von Braun was alive. And now even in orbit without aggressive Russia in any way. It is incomprehensible to this. So, what about the moon?
  31. Kerensky
    Kerensky 20 October 2017 21: 18
    0
    It seems to me that this is a tricky scam. And it is connected with investors. Here, there is such a thing: in such industries up to 30% of capital should be its own, the rest should be borrowed. And investors are well aware that they are at great risk, but they still don’t far remove the money bag. And from time to time they need to show something, they say - things are going! Here, a little bit of rigging with a sledgehammer, a file here and soon your profit will not fit in one bag! Most importantly, there is a small team who understands what they are doing. The rest blink their eyes with a smart look.
    Example? Yes please! How much money was slammed into the rovers ?! Did you sell a lot?
  32. avdkrd
    avdkrd 20 October 2017 21: 45
    +5
    And these are those who have already "flown" to the moon. Of course, this is an important step not only for Blue Origin, but also for the United States in general. Two latest engines can already replace the RD-180, developed on the basis of the still Soviet RD-170. A little more, about 20 years, and the Americans, relying on the very Soviet technologies, will make an engine for a lunar rocket)))))
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 20 October 2017 22: 04
      0
      They have a new SLS rocket for flying to the Moon and Mars will take off on a turbojet engine, and the second stage will be an improved RD 25 RS - an analog of RD 0120.
  33. Old26
    Old26 20 October 2017 21: 52
    +1
    Quote: СРЦ П-15
    And two two-chamber RD-180s can develop more traction than three single-chamber BE-4

    And where to put them? Three RD-180s have even greater traction, but if they have nowhere to put it - it doesn’t care

    Quote: Stabilization
    NPO Energomash respects the development of Blue Origin, but notes that the engine, which should replace the Russian RD-180, must go a long way before it can be used in missiles, said Igor Arbuzov, General Director of NPO Energomash .

    The Americans paid for the supply of engines before the 2019 EMNIP. In any case, over the past couple of years they will finish. Even taking into account the fact that the engine has less thrust than the RD-180 it is methane. And in this case, it is cheaper than hydrogen, although it is slightly inferior to hydrogen in energy and exceeds kerosene
    At least we still do not have such an engine, although work has been going on for 10 years

    Quote: APASUS
    For the series to be launched, the engine for such a machine should run several hundred hours to confirm its suitability. As long as these are only successful tests, the final completion will still be in 2 years.

    Of course. No one says that tomorrow there will be an engine. Moreover, the first launch of the Volcano is planned for the end of 2019. Moreover, given the fact that some difficulties are possible or if a delay occurs, there is an alternative with the AR-1 (kerosene) engine. The media is intended to replace Delta-4 and Atlas-5. And there will be no Atlas - RD-180 will not be needed either
    1. nmaxxen
      nmaxxen 21 October 2017 21: 56
      0
      Quote: Old26

      The first launch of the Volcano is planned for the end of 2019.

      I did not expect this from you .. They write that “not earlier than 2019” ..
      And this in the current American promises "mask - style" means the earliest 2021 ..
  34. Victor-M
    Victor-M 20 October 2017 22: 11
    0
    The first fire tests of our BE-4 engine were successful. A huge achievement for the whole Blue Origin team, this is a very important step!

    Did you detonate? laughing
  35. CAT BAIYUN
    CAT BAIYUN 20 October 2017 22: 17
    +7
    And you can write anything you want .. And take a beautiful picture. When it flies, then you will dance. In the meantime, this is only an atmospheric stand. There are still no other stands in the states, in my opinion.
    But let's not get angry! laughing Of course, there is reason to be happy - they finally caught up with the Russians. laughing In how many years?
    And this despite the fact that Russia was lying in a coma after the 90s, and EB2 and O1 visas (as I think they call it, but I can be wrong) no one stopped giving out ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
  36. Radikal
    Radikal 20 October 2017 22: 33
    0
    Quote: roman.roman24773
    Have you missed the "indispensability"? On trampolines, after a few years, it was as if they themselves did not have to take off. Space cabs, damn it: ///

    good
  37. - = ANTRAX = -
    - = ANTRAX = - 21 October 2017 05: 17
    +1
    this is the third "replacement". for 7 years.
  38. kos2910
    kos2910 21 October 2017 06: 22
    +1
    Successful testing is good, but for real use it is still far away.
  39. Bert
    Bert 21 October 2017 06: 36
    0
    Quote: Orel
    Quote: СРЦ П-15
    I don’t understand one thing, if they have super-duper cool falcons that are also cheap, why are they trying to make new, more expensive rockets?


    The title is completely wrong. BE-4 is a completely different engine and is not an analogue of the RD-180. BE-4 is much more promising, since the fuel vapor there is oxygen-methane, and not oxygen-kerosene RG-1. Kerosene RG-1 today is already too complicated and expensive to manufacture. The engines on it are the last century. It is no coincidence that the SpaceX Raptor engine makes oxygen-methane, which is the Bezos BE-4. Kerosene RG-1 will soon disappear just as the synthine disappeared in due time, which even we had to ease a manned ship due to the loss of specific impulse when changing fuel. Sintin simply became an extremely expensive fuel, which is now happening with RG-1 kerosene. And the oxygen-methane fuel pair is more promising from the point of view of future opportunities for the production of fuel in space. To produce methane and oxygen is much easier than kerosene.

    “For example, Soyuz rockets, which are made in Samara, now fly on artificially created fuel, because initially only certain grades of oil from specific wells were used to create kerosene for these rockets. Mostly this is oil from the Anastasievo-Troitsky field in the Krasnodar Territory. But oil wells are being depleted, and the kerosene currently used is a mixture of compositions that are extracted from several wells. The coveted brand of RG-1 is obtained through expensive distillation. Experts estimate that the problem of kerosene deficiency will only worsen.

    The concept currently being developed at Energomash envisages the development of a single-chamber engine with a thrust of 200 tons using “liquid oxygen - liquefied methane” fuel for the first stage of a promising light class carrier. Space technology in the near future promises to be reusable. And here one more advantage of methane opens. It is cryogenic, which means that it is enough to heat the engine at least to a temperature of -160 Celsius (or better above) and the engine itself will be freed from fuel components. According to experts, it is most suitable for creating reusable launch vehicles. Here is what the chief designer of NPO Energomash Vladimir Chvanov thinks about methane:

    - The specific impulse of the engine for LNG is high, but this advantage is leveled by the fact that methane fuel has a lower density, so the total is a slight energy advantage. From a structural point of view, methane is attractive. To free up the cavities of the engine, you only need to go through a cycle of evaporation - that is, the engine is easier to get rid of residual products. Due to this, methane fuel is more acceptable from the point of view of creating a reusable engine and a reusable aircraft.

    So why didn’t methane become practically used fuel in Russia? The answer is quite simple. From the beginning of the 80s in the USSR, and then in Russia, not a single new rocket engine was created. All Russian “novelties” are the modernization and renaming of the Soviet heritage. The only honestly created complex - “Angara” - was planned from the very beginning as a kerosene transport. Its alteration will cost a pretty penny. In general, Roscosmos constantly rejects methane projects because it links “good” to at least one such project with “good” to completely restructure the industry from kerosene and heptyl to methane, which is considered a long and expensive undertaking. "

    I hope we have some developments going on too. But nothing is heard of any trials. Apparently, we have nothing in iron.

    Great koment. Truthful. Often, Soviet developments are presented as Russian, which is fundamentally wrong.
  40. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 21 October 2017 07: 52
    0
    Different engines. On different fuels. Accordingly, the methane thrust ratio is unknown, not reported. As well as the specific impulse is carefully hidden.

    Methane fuel has a lower density than kerosene; the tanks are heavier, the rocket has a smaller recoil.

    Output: yes, in terms of traction, this engine can replace the RD-180.
    Whether he will be better is doubtful; especially considering that it is proposed to compare warm with soft.

    And still there is a cost. And then a certain ratio comes into force. The engine is cheap if the costs of its creation are nationalized, and the profit from use is privatized.
    The costs of creating the RD-180 were successfully nationalized in the USSR - as this is half of the Soviet RD-170 engine. Now the cost of this engine is only for its manufacture. According to the Bezos engine, it is alleged that it was created "without the participation of the state." So, the costs of development, testing, certification Bezos must "beat off"at the production stage; transfer part of the costs to the final cost of the engine.

    The new law of capitalism, invented not by Marx but by Obama and Co., will come into force. A totalitarian product is bad, regardless of its value; democratic goods - a priori good. This also applies to gas and rocket engines.

    In a normal competitive economy, the principle will not work - as long as the United States has non-economic advantages, in the form of a dollar, sixth fleet, etc.

    Bezos creates a promising engine, but you can put it on the Atlases only by force, by order of the State Department.
  41. cheburator
    cheburator 21 October 2017 08: 37
    0
    It remains to wish them an anchor to the ass and the handbrake is thicker and that would be more expensive!
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 21 October 2017 09: 26
      0
      The manufacturer of this engine has a fortune of 70 billion, handbrake and all the rest of the braking projects - they definitely will not.
      1. Golovan Jack
        Golovan Jack 21 October 2017 09: 31
        +6
        Quote: Vadim237
        The manufacturer of this engine has a fortune of 70 billion

        Vadim, do you imagine the distance from the first successful fire test of an engine to a real flight on it?
        So here, it’s like up to China in the knee-elbow approximately.
        What I mean is that 70 lard models and that ... not enough request
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 21 October 2017 19: 11
          0
          Now there are CAD programs that allow you to accurately simulate all structural, thermal loads of engines and everything else, after 3 years, the maximum is testing, and then flights.
          1. SergeBS
            SergeBS 21 October 2017 19: 59
            +1
            Quote: Vadim237
            Now there are CAD programs

            Yeah. And do the coefficients in these programs appear themselves?
            For reference: marine diesel is designed for 100 hours of operation MINIMUM, and tank diesel - for 000 hours MAXIMUM. The difference in the ratios.
            1. aiw
              aiw 21 October 2017 21: 27
              +1
              The coefficients in these programs for standard materials are already in place and are well known. I would not idealize modeling, but the fact that it radically speeds up development and simplifies the life of engineers is a fact.

              marine diesel is designed for 100 hours of operation MINIMUM, and tank diesel for 000 hours MAXIMUM. The difference in the ratios.

              The difference is in the margin of safety (wall thickness) and operating modes.
              1. SergeBS
                SergeBS 23 October 2017 21: 16
                0
                Quote: aiw
                The difference is in the margin of safety (wall thickness) and operating modes.

                Yeah. In the ratios. Which "little" more than the margin of safety and mode of operation (turbo + max. Compression of the mixture).
                Still (offhand) - heat transfer + operating temperature not of the cylinder, but of its "shell" (which affects the strength: natural cooling - "we live happily ever after", the fan - we live significantly shorter - thermal stress, so the safety factor is ONE coefficient like wall thickness if you don’t stick it, it also depends on the cooling method, for example, the temperature gradient with the adopted method, well, etc.), well, etc. As a result, hundreds of coefficients, and each affects "a little bit", 1-2% efficiency, and together - full apofigey.
            2. dubovitskiy.1947
              dubovitskiy.1947 21 October 2017 23: 55
              0
              Quote: SergeBS
              Quote: Vadim237
              Now there are CAD programs

              Yeah. And do the coefficients in these programs appear themselves?
              For reference: marine diesel is designed for 100 hours of operation MINIMUM, and tank diesel - for 000 hours MAXIMUM. The difference in the ratios.

              The engine of a Formula 1 car for some reason works one trip. Is it because the degree of forcing of all regimes is not comparable there? I suspect that afterburner rocket engines are even cooler. If you live 200 seconds, this is a victory.
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 22 October 2017 11: 46
                0
                "The engine of a Formula 1 car for some reason works one trip." You did not confuse it with other races for an hour.
              2. SergeBS
                SergeBS 23 October 2017 21: 20
                0
                Quote: dubovitskiy.1947
                I suspect that afterburner rocket engines are even cooler. If you live 200 seconds, this is a victory.

                The active mode of the 1st step of my "product" (cut in the last century, "thank you" EBN am ) - 300 sec. With FAST and Furious. The rabbits in the head did not survive.
          2. The comment was deleted.
  42. The comment was deleted.
    1. slipped
      slipped 21 October 2017 15: 37
      +1
      In the article, part of the information does not correspond to reality, but this is not interesting. The RD-180 engine is not planned for future Russian missiles. At present, the plans include the modernization of the RD-191 engine to the RD-191M version for the Angara-5M launch vehicle, the resumption of production of the modernized RD-171MV engines and the new two-chamber RD0124MS for the Soyuz-5 launch vehicle. Last year, a series of fire tests of the RD0162D2A oxygen-methane engine with a thrust of 40 tons was conducted, and a preliminary design for an oxygen-methane engine with a thrust of 85 tons was also developed.


      Photo of the Russian RD0162D2A at the test bench.
      1. nmaxxen
        nmaxxen 21 October 2017 21: 46
        0
        very slowly ... as if they specially give time to everyone to catch up with Soviet developments in the space and rocket field
        1. slipped
          slipped 22 October 2017 00: 25
          0
          In order for the engine with LNG fuel to fly, you need to make a decision to create a carrier for it, the engines themselves do not fly into space). So far, Samara has developed a preliminary project for a carrier with the code name "Soyuz-7" (formerly Soyuz-5.1), here we apply LNG. But then again, until such a carrier is in demand by our space industry. More or less, everything should change with the transition to new carriers designed for heavier payloads at the beginning of the next decade.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 22 October 2017 11: 54
            0
            Only these heavy carriers will be at the beginning of the next decade only in the USA, SLS and Falcon Heavy, and ours will be created already in 2026, but most likely it will be 2035, and there it will no longer be needed, since all orders go to competitors.
            1. slipped
              slipped 22 October 2017 14: 38
              0
              Again, carriers do not fly on their own - they need a payload. For SLS, such a PN, is the construction of a near-moon station, and flights will be rare, what to carry to the Falcon Heavy is a big question. At the same time, the lighter Angara-A5M can also be used to deliver goods to the near-moon station - it will deliver 4-7 tons there, for example, the new Progress or, in the A5V version, 10-ton research modules based on a pressurized compartment NEM. STK is planned for the first launch in 2028, however, the creation of Soyuz-5 will show how long this period will be sustained. As for orders and competitors, superheavy carriers have nothing to do with this.
        2. Vadim237
          Vadim237 22 October 2017 13: 25
          +1
          In the development of the US air launch, the same coolly bypass us Now the time is coming when in space they will seriously earn money, if we lag behind, we lose customers and the market - and only rocket engines will be sold.
          1. slipped
            slipped 22 October 2017 14: 48
            0
            Well, let's say, not all the salt is in the means of excretion, but in the delivery price and marketing policy. So far, here everything is moving in the right direction. “Proton-L” is being created on Khrunichev by launch in 2019 and there is already a contract for it - thereby reducing the cost of withdrawing payloads at the most popular weight of 5500 kg per GPO until 2025. An advance project is being drawn up for Soyuz-5 (will be presented in November), which will replace it in 2022. And small and microsatellites - the launch companies of Glavkosmos have already begun with the withdrawal of additional payloads in launches of Soyuz-2.
          2. SergeBS
            SergeBS 23 October 2017 21: 30
            0
            Quote: Vadim237
            Now there comes a time when in space they will seriously earn

            Yes SHCHAZZ! They will earn on space politics. But not in space.
            In space, as in fundamental science, it is impossible to make money. Like the Collider, for example. "Rich space tourists", etc. investments in space programs will not make profitable.
            If quite simply, then until now civil aviation of any country is subsidized by the country, i.e. in the "transfer" - some fly, but everyone pays (those who pay "for profit + amortization of the aircraft + infrastructure + fuel + discount on fuel", and others - "for a discount on fuel"). Due to preferential prices for kerosene. And this is "just" civil aviation.
  43. The comment was deleted.
  44. Strashila
    Strashila 22 October 2017 07: 03
    +2
    Quote: dubovitskiy.1947
    ... Musk did not invent ANYTHING. He bought the designers who lost their jobs after the closure of the lunar program, and picked up reusable Shuttles after the closure. He received patents for free, and hardware left over from NASA programs. He received two starting complexes. He received several billion to develop his "reusable" missile program. He builds financial pyramids, taunting gullible fellow citizens and lobbying his interests through the congressmen hired by him.
    ... all this is about nothing, even ideas expressed on paper will remain ideas, the implementation mechanism is important. In this system, the turner Uncle Vasya, or John in the American version, will probably be the most important link. To make one taxiway is one thing, and to make twenty is another. For example, Tupolev had a B-29 for the sample ... how many years it took to put it on the series, after the Americans studied the stolen MIG-25 in Japan, and when they saw a stainless steel in place of titanium, they generally recognized that they did not understand how it can fly. So let them have fun ... if you suffer for a long time, something happens, Russian wisdom confirmed by Chinese practice.
    1. dubovitskiy.1947
      dubovitskiy.1947 22 October 2017 13: 08
      0
      Quote: Strashila
      Quote: dubovitskiy.1947
      ... Musk did not invent ANYTHING. He bought the designers who lost their jobs after the closure of the lunar program, and picked up reusable Shuttles after the closure. He received patents for free, and hardware left over from NASA programs. He received two starting complexes. He received several billion to develop his "reusable" missile program. He builds financial pyramids, taunting gullible fellow citizens and lobbying his interests through the congressmen hired by him.
      ... all this is about nothing, even ideas expressed on paper will remain ideas, the implementation mechanism is important. In this system, the turner Uncle Vasya, or John in the American version, will probably be the most important link. To make one taxiway is one thing, and to make twenty is another. For example, Tupolev had a B-29 for the sample ... how many years it took to put it on the series, after the Americans studied the stolen MIG-25 in Japan, and when they saw a stainless steel in place of titanium, they generally recognized that they did not understand how it can fly. So let them have fun ... if you suffer for a long time, something happens, Russian wisdom confirmed by Chinese practice.

      When you worked as a constructor, you would understand that copying someone else's is a more difficult task than using something that you still don’t know, or what you doubt. To understand someone else's, you need to understand why this is done. It is much simpler to compare what you already know and the hint, as you did another. The constructor from God was pushed, the tyrant and the pithecanthropus from aviation. There can be no greater harm to aviation from this. Borrowing- ALWAYS stay on the sidelines, even if successful. Talent sometimes needs a simple hint, and he leaps into the future. Do not catch up, but get ahead. And for this it is impossible to steer from party and other offices.
      1. Strashila
        Strashila 22 October 2017 14: 14
        +1
        Imagine ... worked and far from one year.
        1. dubovitskiy.1947
          dubovitskiy.1947 22 October 2017 15: 58
          0
          Quote: Strashila
          Imagine ... worked and far from one year.

          Why so courageous in judgments? Turner has never been a decisive link.
          With all due respect to him. A good turner will certainly appear in five years. Be an interesting job, adequate housing and the prospect of a decent income. It is the perspective in which he will believe. Earning today, and the one that was disqualified in the last century, is not progress, but a brake on updating. A scientist who has the opportunity to realize his dreams. Constructor Technologist. And not the security guard, accountant, lawyer, whom we forged during the years of the damned collapse beyond measure.
          1. Strashila
            Strashila 22 October 2017 16: 09
            +1
            Well, let's wait five ... when a new turner is born ... and let everything wait.
  45. aiw
    aiw 23 October 2017 00: 09
    0
    dubovitskiy.1947,
    At the moment, we were discussing why manned ships are not being brought out by trucks. smile

    You argued that there were problems with reliability, I argued that with high overload and load balancing with the LV - I already wrote there above that for heavy trucks overload is acceptable, but for them there simply aren't enough heavy manned ships that would justify the launch of such a colossus. Not yet.
    And so there were plans to use trucks for manned launches, i.e. the main problem with load balancing.

    If we talk about the trials of the new dvigla, then there is nothing to discuss - the Americans will bring it to mind. All the cries of our jingoistic patriots that they say they cannot repeat ... they don’t repeat, they do their own thing. What they did not do before - but there was no need, the RD-180 suited them for the price / quality.
    1. dubovitskiy.1947
      dubovitskiy.1947 23 October 2017 14: 27
      0
      Quote: aiw
      dubovitskiy.1947,
      At the moment, we were discussing why manned ships are not being brought out by trucks. smile

      You argued that there were problems with reliability, I argued that with high overload and load balancing with the LV - I already wrote there above that for heavy trucks overload is acceptable, but for them there simply aren't enough heavy manned ships that would justify the launch of such a colossus. Not yet.
      And so there were plans to use trucks for manned launches, i.e. the main problem with load balancing.

      If we talk about the trials of the new dvigla, then there is nothing to discuss - the Americans will bring it to mind. All the cries of our jingoistic patriots that they say they cannot repeat ... they don’t repeat, they do their own thing. What they did not do before - but there was no need, the RD-180 suited them for the price / quality.

      I have no doubt that they will. Maybe very soon.
      But here are plans from a real achievement, I have been able to distinguish for a long time. You have yet to do it. And when this happens, it is up to you.
      1. aiw
        aiw 23 October 2017 17: 55
        0
        Oh wei .... again this mentoring tone. How do you know what my experience in this area is?

        You have already distinguished Mask's plans from achievements regarding the reuse of the first stage - it turned out silly and funny for you.
        1. dubovitskiy.1947
          dubovitskiy.1947 23 October 2017 20: 05
          +1
          Quote: aiw
          Oh wei .... again this mentoring tone. How do you know what my experience in this area is?

          You have already distinguished Mask's plans from achievements regarding the reuse of the first stage - it turned out silly and funny for you.

          If he had even been in its infancy, they would not have written nonsense.
          They fed me with plans all my life. Therefore, I do not believe anyone, especially if they smell like dough. The result is evaluated.
          The result is three re-launched with a break of one year. Plans - 100 launches with a period of 24 hours.
          Something tells me that before fulfillment it is like to Mongolia on karachik.
          It is much easier to start silent and build new ones, with a new rocket, and with a new object. What is more grandiose? Mars - the passed stage, promised and paid. Forget it.
          1. aiw
            aiw 24 October 2017 08: 47
            0
            The result is three re-launched with a break of one year. Plans - 100 launches with a period of 24 hours.

            Unfinished work is not shown to everyone. For 100 launches, we still need to find customers, so far Musk has confidently pushed Roskosmos into the far corner.

            I'm leaving this site, the moderators here are not adequate.
            1. dubovitskiy.1947
              dubovitskiy.1947 24 October 2017 10: 45
              0
              Quote: aiw
              The result is three re-launched with a break of one year. Plans - 100 launches with a period of 24 hours.

              Unfinished work is not shown to everyone. For 100 launches, we still need to find customers, so far Musk has confidently pushed Roskosmos into the far corner.

              I'm leaving this site, the moderators here are not adequate.

              Then do not groan with delight, having received intermediate results.
              Which can not be called even intermediate.
              Intermediate is the achieved stage stipulated in the plans. The first stage is three flights of one carrier with an interval of a year, the second is ten with an interval of a month ....
              Landing on the ground or platform without secondary launches is the collection of scrap metal at the expense of the customer.
              These are not the results; this is an ohmurilovka.
    2. SergeBS
      SergeBS 23 October 2017 21: 51
      0
      Quote: aiw
      If we talk about the trials of the new dvigla, then there is nothing to discuss - the Americans will bring it to mind.

      Yeah. Bring to mind YOUR copy of the RD-180. And sho?
      Copying other people's achievements at the cost of wild investments - you will not get ahead.
      The same China easily catches up cheap electronics - there are factories with technologies, there is no need to copy technologies. But with aircraft engines is a problem. There are no factories with ready-made technologies, and their copies have a resource an order of magnitude smaller and with traction also "slightly worse." But everyone around is shouting - "a super-technological country."
      1. aiw
        aiw 24 October 2017 08: 48
        0
        Can you distinguish a copy from an analog? Tu4 is a copy of the B-29, Tu-95 is an analogue of the B-52.
        1. SergeBS
          SergeBS 24 October 2017 21: 10
          0
          Quote: aiw
          Tu4 is a copy of the B-29, Tu-95 is an analogue of the B-52.

          Yeah. And the 600th Mercedes is an analogue of the Ford T3, for example. laughing
          And in general ALL cars are an analogue of a cart (what’s there, what - four wheels, this means an analogue). laughing
          And what about the “TTX analogue” is a bit “cooler” - it doesn’t matter. The analogue! The wings are similar, the engines too. So arguing, you can quite simply yell: "all modern diesel engines are analogues of the Rudolph Diesel engine." And that TTX "slightly different" - does not count. laughing