Military Review

About engines for intercontinental ballistic missiles

97
Russia has developed strategic nuclear forces, the main component of which are intercontinental ballistic missiles of various types used as part of stationary or mobile ground systems, as well as in submarines. With a certain similarity at the level of basic ideas and solutions, products of this class have noticeable differences. In particular, rocket engines of various types and classes are used, which correspond to one or another customer's requirements.


From the point of view of features of power plants, all outdated, relevant and promising ICBMs can be divided into two main classes. Such weapon can be equipped with liquid-propellant rocket engines (LRE) or solid fuel engines (RDTT). Both classes have their advantages, due to which they are used in various projects, and so far none of them have been able to oust the "competitor" from their field. The question of power plants is of great interest and is worth a separate consideration.

History and theory

It is known that the first rockets, which appeared many centuries ago, were equipped with solid-fuel engines on the simplest fuel. Such a power plant maintained its position until the last century, when the first liquid fuel systems were created. In the future, the development of two classes of engines proceeded in parallel, although the LRE or RDTT from time to time replaced each other as industry leaders.

About engines for intercontinental ballistic missiles
The launch of the UR-100N UTTH rocket with a liquid engine. Photo Rbase.new-factoria.ru


The first long-range missiles, the development of which led to the emergence of intercontinental complexes, were equipped with liquid engines. In the middle of the last century it was the LRE that allowed us to obtain the desired characteristics using available materials and technologies. Later, experts from leading countries began to develop new varieties of ballistic powders and mixed fuel, resulting in the emergence of solid propellant rocket propellers, suitable for use on ICBMs.

To date, both liquid and solid propellant rockets have proliferated in strategic nuclear forces of various countries. It is curious that the Russian ICBMs are equipped with power plants of both classes, while the United States, a few decades ago, abandoned liquid engines in favor of solid-fuel engines. Despite this difference in approaches, both countries managed to build missile groups of the desired appearance with the required capabilities.

In the field of intercontinental rockets, the first liquid engines. Such products have a number of advantages. Liquid fuel allows you to get a higher specific impulse, and the design of the engine allows the change of thrust relatively simple ways. Most of the volume of the rocket with the LRE occupy the fuel and oxidizer tanks, which in a certain way reduces the requirements for the strength of the body and simplifies its production.

At the same time, the rocket engines and missiles equipped with them are not without flaws. First of all, such an engine is characterized by the highest complexity of production and operation, which negatively affects the cost of the product. The first models of ICBMs had a drawback in the form of preparation for launch. The fuel and oxidizer were refueled immediately before the start, and in addition, in some cases it was associated with certain risks. All this had a negative effect on the combat qualities of the missile complex.


Liquid missiles R-36М in transport and launch containers. Photo Rbase.new-factoria.ru


The rocket engine of solid fuel and the rocket built on its basis has positive sides and advantages over the liquid system. The main plus is the lower cost of production and simplified design. Also, solid propellant rocket motors have no risks of aggressive fuel leaks, and in addition, they are distinguished by the possibility of longer storage. On the active part of the flight of an ICBM, a solid propellant engine provides better acceleration dynamics, reducing the likelihood of successful interception.

A solid fuel engine loses its liquid in its specific impulse. Since the burning of a charge of solid fuel is almost uncontrollable, the control of the engine, stopping or restarting require special technical tools that are complex. The solid propellant rocket motor housing functions as a combustion chamber and therefore must have adequate strength, which places special demands on the units used and also has a negative effect on the complexity and cost of production.

LRE, RDTT and SNF

Currently, Russia's strategic nuclear forces are armed with about a dozen ICBMs of various classes designed to solve actual combat missions. The Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN) operate five types of missiles and expect the appearance of two more new complexes. The same number of missile systems is used on submarines of the Navy, but in the interests of the marine component of the “nuclear triad”, fundamentally new missiles are not yet developed.

In spite of its solid age, the UR-100N UTTH and P-36М / М2 missiles still remain in the troops. Such heavy-duty MBRs have several stages with their own liquid-propelled engines. With a large mass (more than 100 t at the UR-100N UTTH and about 200 t at the P-36М / М2), the two types of missiles carry a considerable fuel reserve, ensuring the shipment of a heavy warhead at a distance of at least 10 thousand km.


General view of the RS-28 Sarmat rocket. Drawing "State Rocket Center" / makeyev.ru


Since the end of the fifties in our country, the problems of using solid propellant solid propellant engines on promising ICBMs have been studied. The first real results in this area were obtained by the early seventies. In recent decades, this direction has received a new impetus, thanks to which a whole family of solid-propellant rockets has emerged, representing the consistent development of common ideas and solutions based on modern technologies.

Currently, the Strategic Missile Forces have missiles RT-2PM Topol, RT-2PM2 Topol-M and PC-24 Yars. In this case, all such missiles are operated with both mine and mobile ground launchers. The three types of rockets, created on the basis of common ideas, are built according to a three-stage scheme and are equipped with solid-fuel engines. Having fulfilled the requirements of the customer, the authors of the projects were able to minimize the size and weight of the finished missiles.

The PT-2PM, PT-2PM2 and PC-24 missiles have a length of no more than 22,5-23 m with a maximum diameter of less than 2 m. The starting mass of the products is about 45-50 t. The throw weight, depending on the type of product, reaches 1. 1,5 T. The rockets of the Topol line are equipped with a monoblock warhead, while Yars, according to known data, carries several separate warheads. Flight range - at least 12 thousand. Km.

It is easy to see that with the main flight characteristics at the level of older liquid rockets, solid Topoli and Yarsy are distinguished by smaller dimensions and starting weight. However, with all this, they carry a smaller payload.


Movable soil complex "Topol". Photo of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation


In the future, several new missile systems should be put into service with the Strategic Missile Forces. Thus, the PC-26 “Rubezh” project, created as an option for the further development of the “Yars” system, once again provides for the use of a multi-stage scheme with solid propellant rocket motors at all levels. Previously, information appeared according to which the Rubezh system is intended to replace the aging RT-2PM Topol complexes, which affected the main features of its architecture. According to the main technical characteristics, the Boundary should not significantly differ from the Topol, although it is possible to use a different payload.

Another promising development is the heavy Sarmat PC-28 ICBM. According to official data, this project involves the creation of a three-stage rocket with liquid engines. It was reported that the Sarmat rocket will have a length of the order of 30 m with a starting mass above 100 t. It will be able to carry "traditional" special warheads or a hypersonic shock system of a new type. Due to the use of LRE with sufficient characteristics, it is expected to obtain the maximum range at the level of 15-16 thousand.

At the disposal of the naval fleet There are several types of ICBMs with different characteristics and capabilities. Ballistic missiles of submarines of the R-29RM family: the R-29RM, R-29RMU1, R-29RMU2 Sineva and R-29RMU2.1 Liner are currently the basis of the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces. In addition, a few years ago, the latest R-30 Bulava missile hit the arsenals. As far as we know, now the Russian industry is developing several projects for the modernization of missiles for submarines, but there is no talk of creating fundamentally new complexes.

In the field of domestic ICBMs for submarines, trends are observed, reminiscent of the development of "land" complexes. Older products Р-29РМ and all variants of their modernization have three stages and are equipped with several liquid engines. With the help of such a power plant, the P-29РМ rocket is capable of delivering four or ten warheads of different power with a total mass of 8300 tons to at least 2,8 km. The P-29МР2 “Sineva” modernization project provided for the use of new navigation and control systems. Depending on the available combat load, a missile with a length of 14,8 m and a mass of 40,3 t is capable of flying to a range of up to 11,5 thousand km.


Loading missiles complex "Topol-M" in the mine launcher. Photo of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation


The newer missile project for the P-30 “Bulava” submarines, on the contrary, provided for the use of solid propellant engines in all three stages. Among other things, it allowed reducing the length of the rocket to 12,1 m and reducing the starting weight to 36,8 t. At the same time, the product carries a combat load of 1,15 t mass and delivers it to a distance of up to 8-9 thousand km. Not so long ago, it was announced that a new modification of the Bulava, with different dimensions and increased mass, would be developed, due to which it would be possible to increase the combat load.

Development trends

It is well known that in recent decades, the Russian command has relied on the development of promising solid-fuel missiles. The result was the consistent appearance of the Topol and Topol-M complexes, and then the Yars and Rubezh complexes, the missiles of which are completed with solid propellant rocket motors. LREs, in turn, remain only on relatively old "land" missiles, the operation of which is already coming to an end.

However, a complete rejection of liquid ICBMs is not planned yet. As a replacement for the existing UR-100Н УТТХ and Р-36М / М2, a new product PC-28 "Sarmat" is created with a similar power plant. Thus, in the foreseeable future, liquid engines will be used only on heavy-class missiles, while other systems will be equipped with solid-fuel systems.

The situation with submarine ballistic missiles looks similar, but has some differences. In this area, a significant number of liquid missiles are also preserved, but the only new project provides for the use of solid propellant rocket motors. Further developments can be foreseen by examining the existing plans of the military department: the development program of the submarine fleet clearly indicates which missiles have a great future, and which ones will be written off over time.


Self-propelled launcher PC-24 "Yars". Photo by Vitalykuzmin.net


Older R-29РМ missiles and their latest modifications are intended for the nuclear submarines of the 667БДР and 667БДРМ projects, while the Р-30 were developed for use on the newest missile carriers of the 955 project. The ships of the 667 family gradually develop their resources and over time will be written off due to complete moral and physical obsolescence. Together with them, respectively, the fleet will have to abandon the missiles of the P-29RM family, which simply remain without carriers.

The first missile submarine cruisers of the 955 "Borey" project have already been adopted by the Navy, and in addition, the construction of new submarines continues. This means that in the foreseeable future, the fleet will receive a significant grouping of Bulava missile carriers. The service "Boreev" will continue for several decades, and therefore the P-30 rocket will remain in service. It is possible to create new modifications of such weapons that can complement and then replace the ICBM basic version. Anyway, the products of the P-30 family will eventually replace the aging P-29РМ missiles as the basis of the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces.

Advantages and disadvantages

Different classes of rocket engines used on modern strategic missiles have their pros and cons of one kind or another. Liquid and solid fuel systems are superior to each other in one parameter, but lose in others. As a result, customers and designers have to choose the type of power plant in accordance with existing requirements.

Conditional rocket engine differs from solid propellant rocket motors by higher specific impulse indices and other advantages, which allows to increase the payload. At the same time, the corresponding supply of liquid fuel and oxidant leads to an increase in the size and weight of the product. Thus, the liquid-propellant missile turns out to be the optimal solution in the context of deploying a large number of silo launchers. In practice, this means that at present a significant part of the mines are occupied with the P-36М / М2 and УР-100Н УТТХ rockets, and in the future they will be replaced by the prospective PC-28 "Sarmat".

Rockets of the "Topol", "Topol-M" and "Yars" types are used both with mine installations and as part of mobile soil complexes. The last opportunity is provided, first of all, by a small starting weight of rockets. A product weighing no more than 50 can be placed on a special multi-axle chassis, which is not the case with existing or hypothetical liquid-propellant rockets. The new PC-26 complex “Frontier”, considered as a replacement for Topol, is also based on similar ideas.


Submarine missile R-29РМ. Drawing "State Rocket Center" / makeyev.ru


A characteristic feature of missiles with solid-propellant rocket motors in the form of a reduction in size and mass also matters in the context of fleet armaments. The missile for the submarine should have a minimum size. The ratio of the dimensions and flight characteristics of the P-29PM and P-30 missiles shows how exactly these advantages can be used in practice. So, unlike their predecessors, the newest submarines of the 955 project do not need a large superstructure covering the upper part of the launchers.

However, the reduction in weight and dimensions has its price. Lighter solid-propellant missiles differ from other domestic ICBMs with a lower combat load. In addition, the specificity of solid propellant rocket motors leads to less high weight perfection in comparison with liquid rockets. However, it seems that such problems are solved by creating more efficient combat units and control systems.

***

Despite the lengthy scientific and design work, as well as a lot of disputes, the conventional opposition of liquid and solid fuel engines has not yet ended with an unconditional victory of one of the "competitors". On the contrary, the Russian military and engineers came to a balanced conclusion. Engines of different types are used in those areas where they can show the best results. Thus, light missiles for land mobile complexes and submarines receive solid propellant rocket propellers, while heavy rockets with a miner launch must now be completed with liquid installations.

In the existing situation, given the existing opportunities and prospects, this approach looks the most logical and successful. It allows in practice to obtain maximum results with a noticeable reduction in the influence of negative factors. It is possible that such an ideology will continue in the future, including with the use of promising technologies. This means that in the near and in the distant future, Russian strategic nuclear forces will be able to receive modern intercontinental ballistic missiles with the highest possible characteristics and combat capabilities that directly affect the effectiveness of deterrence and the security of the country.


On the materials of the sites:
http://ria.ru/
http://tass.ru/
http://interfax.ru/
http://flot.com/
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/
http://kapyar.ru/
http://missiles.ru/
http://makeyev.ru/
Author:
97 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Same lech
    Same lech 9 November 2017 07: 52
    +5
    Thanks to the author for this article. hiSoviet and now Russian strategic nuclear forces have been a defense against World War 3 for many years ... keep it up.
    1. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 9 November 2017 15: 01
      +6
      Then the author did not note:
      - in terms of energy of solid fuels, we lag behind the Americans, as well as in terms of storage;
      - for construction materials - “wound” cases - heavier than their Western counterparts;
      - the weight characteristics of the stages of "distribution" and astroorientation systems leave much to be desired - the problem of miniaturization due to a lag in the elemental base;
      - BB miniaturization is very close to "competitors"
      1. Lem
        Lem 9 November 2017 15: 44
        +1
        Quote: DimerVladimer
        as in terms of storage;

        For how long, 2-3 years? And how does it help, coupled with lightweight buildings, the forty-year-old Minutemans "?
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 9 November 2017 21: 21
          +1
          The article has a lot of mistakes: ((
          1. maxim947
            maxim947 26 November 2017 16: 41
            0
            Criticizing - suggest where the bloopers are? Everything is written on the case
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 27 November 2017 20: 19
              +1
              Quote: maxim947
              Criticizing - suggest where the bloopers are? Everything is written on the case

              1. Liquid fuel is more energy-intensive than solid, therefore liquid-fuel missiles have higher characteristics in terms of the ratio of thrown weight of the warhead / to the weight of the rocket.
              2, Liquid fuel rockets in encapsulated state can be stored for decades. Solid fuel changes its characteristics over time.
              3, What should be the upper stage of the rocket laid designers, depending on the terms of reference. Which engine is on the rocket (solid fuel or liquid) does not matter.
              4, and so on. etc. Here everything is written in the comments.
              1. maxim947
                maxim947 27 November 2017 21: 40
                0
                That's right, but now tell me where the article says otherwise.
                The article has a lot of mistakes: ((
                It is about this that it is written.
                1. Bad_gr
                  Bad_gr 28 November 2017 00: 27
                  0
                  ".... It is easy to see that, with the basic flight characteristics at the level of older liquid rockets, the solid propellant" Topoli "and" Yars "differ in smaller dimensions and starting weight ....."
                  although it is mentioned further in the article about a twice as large load of liquid rockets, which in meaning crosses out the above.

                  ".... In an active section of an ICBM flight, a solid-fuel engine provides better acceleration dynamics, reducing the likelihood of a successful interception ...."
        2. PPK
          PPK 9 November 2017 22: 05
          0
          Quote: Lem
          And how does it help, coupled with lightweight buildings, the forty-year-old Minutemans "?

          for example, there is no need to change fuel every 3-4 years, unlike rockets on UDMG
          1. DimerVladimer
            DimerVladimer 10 November 2017 09: 46
            +1
            Quote: PPK
            for example, there is no need to change fuel every 3-4 years, unlike rockets on UDMG


            Where are these figures from?
            Ammunized SLBMs on high-boiling components, at least 10 years on duty and 10 years in the arsenal - I draw your attention - MINIMUM.
            With a solid propellant rocket rocket a little less.
            1. PPK
              PPK 10 November 2017 10: 23
              0
              Quote: DimerVladimer
              Where are these figures from?

              the shelf life of heptyl is about 3x years. Then it starts to oxidize and you need to change it.
              I also recommend reading about the K-219 submarine accident.
              1. Andrey NM
                Andrey NM 10 November 2017 18: 08
                +8
                Ryabov Cyril, unfortunately, only heard the ringing. The BDRs were never equipped with the R-29RM missile. So many blunders in the article I have not seen. Again raises the theme of Solomon, Dvorkin and others like them. Have you stepped on a rake a little?
                Quote: PPK
                I also recommend reading about the K-219 submarine accident.

                K-219 died due to the gouging of the personnel of the warhead-2 and the commander of the warhead-2. On this submarine precisely for this mine there were several situations.
                Quote: PPK
                for example, there is no need to change fuel every 3-4 years, unlike rockets on UDMG

                Ammunized SLBMs have been serving for at least 25 years without any refueling. Who told you nonsense about 3-4 years?
                Also, solid propellant rocket engines have no risks of leaking aggressive fuel, and in addition, they differ in the possibility of longer storage.

                About the transition of solid fuels to a state of brisant, the author kept silent. Or didn’t know.
                However, the reduction in weight and size has its price. Lighter solid-fuel missiles differ from other domestic ICBMs in a lower combat load.

                Where did the author see lighter "solid" rockets, all other things being equal? Well then, compare by weight 3M-37 and Trident2. Roughly 40 and 60 tons with approximately equal ranges and payloads, the 3M37 is even slightly better. Americans would like to make decent LRE, but they cannot. We have the same position on solid propellant rocket motors. But the liquid propellant rocket engine also has a space direction, and the solid propellant rocket engine apart from the first-stage accelerators has no prospects there.
                The first missile submarine cruisers of project 955 Borey have already been accepted into the combat structure of the Navy, and in addition, construction of new submarines continues. This means that in the foreseeable future, the fleet will receive a significant grouping of Bulava rocket carriers.

                That's just Makeev’s design bureau got a task to develop a new missile for submarines ...
                1. Bad_gr
                  Bad_gr 11 November 2017 22: 13
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey NM
                  That's just Makeev’s design bureau got a task to develop a new missile for submarines ...

                  The good news is these will do. If only the financing was not the same as when working on the Bark.
                2. The comment was deleted.
              2. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 10 November 2017 19: 08
                0
                Quote: Andrey NM
                Americans would like to make decent LRE, but they cannot.

                Again belay
                1. Bratkov Oleg
                  Bratkov Oleg 12 November 2017 23: 26
                  +1
                  Really can not do it! They first sent the astronaut into space 9 years later than Gagarin, but they laughed in the most shameless manner that they also managed to fly to the moon. First of all, Americans are liars and liars, they have such a nature, and their aircraft carriers are unsinkable, but they can only fight against politically isolated third world countries. Under this and their aircraft carriers are imprisoned.
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 13 November 2017 21: 34
                    +1
                    Quote: Bratkov Oleg
                    the first time in space the astronaut was sent 9 years later to Gagarin

                    Yu.A. Gagarin, 12.04.1961/280/XNUMX, LV Vostok, XNUMX t.
                    T + 23 days A. Sheppard, suborbital flight, PH Mercury-Redstone, 30 t.
                    T + 314 days D Glenn, orbital flight (3 turns), Atlas LV-3B LV, 120 t.
                    Perhaps the weight of the pH will lead you to some thoughts about the perfection of their design. Although unlikely.
                    Quote: Bratkov Oleg
                    Really can't do

                    To discuss with you the lines of American missiles with cryogenic rocket engines (Thor-Delta and Atlas - from the year 57 until now) and with rocket engines with high boiling components (the Titans line from 1962 to 2005), I think, is unnecessary.
              3. DimerVladimer
                DimerVladimer 13 November 2017 16: 42
                +1
                Quote: PPK
                the shelf life of heptyl is about 3 years. Then it starts to oxidize and needs to be changed


                Oxidize? In a sealed container, in an atmosphere of nitrogen under pressure?
                Repeat the materiel.

                Heptyl is more effective than kerosene, which is used in space rockets. It spontaneously ignites when combined with an oxidizing agent (nitric acid), is cheaper than solid rocket fuel, and can be stored under nitrogen pressure in the fuel tanks of a rocket ready for launch for up to 20 years (guaranteed storage period is 10 years).
                1. Andrey NM
                  Andrey NM 14 November 2017 05: 31
                  +1
                  I don’t remember the source, but there was information that the period of use of heptyl, subject to storage conditions, can reach 50 years.
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  To discuss with you the lines of American missiles with cryogenic rocket engines (Thor-Delta and Atlas - from the year 57 until now) and with rocket engines with high boiling components (the Titans line from 1962 to 2005), I think, is unnecessary.

                  The second Titans in terms of energy-mass characteristics, to put it mildly, were not the height of perfection. And what does the product on liquid hydrogen and oxygen?
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 14 November 2017 21: 44
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey NM
                    The second Titans in terms of energy-mass characteristics, to put it mildly, were not the height of perfection

                    Not been, it's true. Compared to what?
                    Quote: Andrey NM
                    What does the product on liquid hydrogen and oxygen?

                    Are you talking about the Delta? Kerosene second delta fly today, launch delayed. The latter is September 2018. The second Atlas flew until 2004, like, of the year. The perfection of both missiles - in the area of ​​Union 2 seems.
                    The topic of the message, I recall, was the catastrophic situation of the American liquid-propellant engine building.
              4. DimerVladimer
                DimerVladimer 10 May 2018 13: 25
                0
                Quote: PPK
                the shelf life of heptyl is about 3x years. Then it starts to oxidize and you need to change it.
                I also recommend reading about the K-219 submarine accident.


                I draw your attention - AMULIZED refueling at the plant for the entire service life (20 years) what is the oxidation of the components? If there is no oxygen in the tank and it is pressurized, say with nitrogen or another gas.
        3. DimerVladimer
          DimerVladimer 10 November 2017 09: 27
          +1
          Quote: Lem
          For how long, 2-3 years? And how does it help, coupled with lightweight buildings, the forty-year-old Minutemans "?


          There is no idea of ​​how many years we are behind - we just can’t do it at the level of several decades.
          Americans invest 10 times more in science than Russia - consider what we go through in 1 year - they go ahead 10 years.
          Of course there is industrial espionage, and something can be partially stolen by reducing the backlog, but globally, we are lagging behind the world's science.

          In military production, there are several sectors where we are either almost not far behind or slightly ahead - in the next imposed arms race, we still lose.
          The Americans will achieve an overwhelming advantage, but it will not give them anything:
          the emergence of new types of weapons, such as hypersonic missiles, will depreciate the fleet of the latest destroyers, anaerobic submarines, depreciate nuclear multipurpose submarines, new radars, depreciate stealth aircraft systems - so everything is not as gloomy as it looks where the arms race starts from scratch.
          In addition, the strategic nuclear forces both served and serve as a deterrent to a major war.
          1. Lem
            Lem 10 November 2017 16: 19
            +1
            Quote: DimerVladimer
            No idea how many years behind

            The question was not about this, but about the shelf life. And the shelf life is 2-3g. more, by and large, is not so important for the 40-45 year old Minutemen, who should have been completely replaced three times during this period (the release was discontinued in 78), which, in fact, was not, despite various propaganda modernization. I, myself, can hardly imagine how it is possible to replace TT without replacing the entire stage. And if we take into account that the United States released the last nuclear G / H in 1992, and yagch have their own storage periods, then the picture turns out to be funny .....
            1. PPK
              PPK 10 November 2017 19: 56
              0
              Quote: Lem
              which during this period should have been completely replaced three times (release discontinued in 78).

              and they were essentially replaced. There is practically nothing left of the 78goda release.
              1. Lem
                Lem 10 November 2017 21: 07
                0
                Quote: PPK
                and they were essentially replaced.

                What if the production line disappeared immediately after 1978?
                1. PPK
                  PPK 11 November 2017 00: 06
                  0
                  What exactly did the production line disappear? There were only shells left from the rockets and that’s all. The production of fuel and control devices has not gone anywhere.
                  1. Lem
                    Lem 11 November 2017 22: 44
                    0
                    Quote: PPK
                    There were only shells left from the rockets and that’s all.

                    Where exactly?
                    1. PPK
                      PPK 12 November 2017 14: 14
                      0
                      And what were we discussing?
                      1. Lem
                        Lem 12 November 2017 19: 12
                        0
                        The fact that, somewhere there, there was nothing left.
          2. Bratkov Oleg
            Bratkov Oleg 12 November 2017 23: 28
            0
            They leave and leave for ten years, and still cannot bring astronauts into orbit.
            And not only to the Moon, they generally did not fly into space for another 9 years after Gagarin, but they lied and SLAUGHTER that they also flew to the Moon.
  2. andrewkor
    andrewkor 9 November 2017 07: 56
    +6
    The most important thing: do not be shy about your Complexes!
  3. Old26
    Old26 9 November 2017 08: 33
    +8
    He put the article a plus, but exclusively for the "work done." And so in the article there are too many mistakes. Cyril writes well, but you need to "carefully" approach the material. Our journalists admit so many mistakes that I would like to have less
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 9 November 2017 09: 08
      +9
      Quote: Old26
      there are too many mistakes in the article

      The clear opinion is that the author passed an essay drawn from the Internet. The topic does not fumble.
      A characteristic feature of rockets with solid propellant rocket engines in the form of reduced dimensions and mass

      Wow!

      Author!
      The main reason for the transition of Americans to the solid propellant rocket motor was the lack of the need for pre-launch preparation of such missiles (refueling with liquid oxygen). Currently, the problem of fueling rockets with LRE is partly solved by encapsulating the components of the fuel pair, but not everyone is happy with this solution. Too troublesome.

      As for the other components of efficiency, a rocket on a solid propellant rocket motor is always heavier than a rocket of the same technical level on a liquid propellant rocket engine. For money, too, is not all clear. Of the space-based cosmic RNs currently being created, the state uses solid propellant solid propellants, while private ones do not, which raises doubts about their (solid propellant) cheapness.

      The fact that both types of ICBMs are being made in Russia speaks to you of a "balanced approach", to me - about impotence of aces and departmental lobbying, which is why a decision on technical policy in this area has not yet been made and squandering of forces and means is allowed obviously unnecessary projects. The Americans began to consider a return to liquid-propellant rocket engines at the upper stages only in recent years, when the energy requirements for new versions of SM-3, for example, were sent to get into the UVP.
      1. ism_ek
        ism_ek 9 November 2017 18: 26
        +1
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Of the spacecraft that are currently being created, state-owned ones use solid propellant rocket engines, and private ones do not, which raises doubts about their (solid rocket propulsion) cheapness.

        A commercial launch vehicle should not be in constant readiness for 20 years. The shelf life of heptyl is 3 years. After that, it must be replaced by a complicated, dangerous and expensive procedure.
    2. opus
      opus 9 November 2017 09: 59
      +6
      Quote: Old26
      Put an article plus, but only for the "work done."

      C'mon old ... what are you?
      Quote: Author: Ryabov Cyril
      About engines for intercontinental ballistic missiles

      so much wool ... and NO WORDS ABOUT MOTORS.
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      The main reason for the transition of Americans to the solid propellant rocket motor was the lack of the need for pre-launch preparation of such missiles (filling with liquid oxygen)

      what
      SM-65 Atlas and HGM-25 Titan I: RP-1 + LOX
      Well, at we clearly understand our P-7 = both PH
      а

      LGM-25C Titan II: aerosin + diazoto tetroxide

      The main reasons for 3i are:
      1. "Quantity always beats quality" / E.Hall
      2. Chemists make progress
      3.pneumatic bearing and programmable computer D-17
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      Americans began to consider a return to the LPRE on the upper steps only in recent years,

      1. They have never and never abandoned LRE on high-boiling components
      LGM-30A / LGM-30B / LGM-30F / LGM-30G
      Step breeding Rocketdyne RS-14 LRE (MMG + AT 1: 1,6)
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      when the energy requirements of the new versions of SM-3, for example, have been mailed

      “energy” has nothing to do with it.

      3 level RIM-161 Standard Missile 3- solid fuel Mk.136 from ATK


      on KW not "those LRE"


      Although their work is similar to "those"
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 9 November 2017 12: 18
        0
        Quote: opus
        The main reasons for 3i are:

        Read another opinion
        1. Quantity - didn’t seem to complain about the number of atlases and titans.
        2. Chemists - yes. But for the progress of chemists to go into action, you need a desire to switch from an existing atlas / titanium to a fundamentally new rocket.
        3. Bearings and computers - I read that this is a consequence, not a cause. Minute readiness of the missiles did not allow, as before, to spin gyroscopes and introduce a flight mission cut out not by wire. I had to strain with electronics and air bearings.
        Quote: opus
        They have never given up on high boiling propellant rocket engines.
        LGM-30A / LGM-30B / LGM-30F / LGM-30G
        Step breeding Rocketdyne RS-14 LRE (MMG + AT 1: 1,6)

        Here you seem to get excited.
        LRE was used precisely on the breeding of warheads, if I do not confuse anything. This is modification G, 70th year. Monoblocks without LRE. And the topic of breeding has absolutely nothing to do with energy and AI. More with the possibility of re-inclusion.
        Quote: opus
        3 level RIM-161 Standard Missile 3- solid fuel Mk.136 from ATK

        I'm not sure about the next block, SM-3 Block II or SM-3 Block IIa.
        But you are right about the kinetic interception, the use of these devices greatly reduces the gesheft from the solid propellant rocket engine.
        1. opus
          opus 9 November 2017 22: 14
          +1
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          1. Quantity - didn’t seem to complain about the number of atlases and titans.

          ICBMs with solid propellant rocket engines can be baked like hot cakes.
          On 1962, the first U.S. Air Force solid fuel ICBM was put into service: LGM-30A, before the start of 1966 (!!) they were planed by MORE 800 (!) Pieces
          Missile Farm Concept / New Automated Assembly Lines / = US Air Force Colonel Edward Hall = idea + research funding at Boeing and Thiokol

          + 665 pieces of Polaris SLBMs
          The missile design itself was based purely on lowest possible cost, reducing its size and complexity because "the basis of the weapon's merit was its low cost per completed mission; all other factors - accuracy, vulnerability and reliability - were secondary."
          With rocket-propelled ICBMs, this is simply not possible.
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          But for the progress of chemists to go into action, you need a desire to switch from an existing atlas / titanium to a fundamentally new rocket.

          to the successes of Thiokol Chemical Corporation (Morton-Thiokol Inc., Cordant Technologies Inc., Thiokol Propulsion, AIC Group, ATK Thiokol, ATK Launch Systems Group; today it is Orbital ATK) 1,45Mt BCH could only be conveyed by HGM-25 Titan I.
          And sho there "fundamentally" new? (in a rocket with a solid propellant)
          Caramel can be made at home. Bill Colburn used this sweet for the first time in 1948

          but ammonium perchlorate + polyurethane with aluminum, and even with additives (binder NTRV (Hydroxyl Terminated Poly Butadien - polybutadiene with a terminal hydroxyl group) - in the kitchen ... almost impossible (I tried it myself)
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          3. Bearings and computers

          Before gyro spin from 14 to 30 minutes. In combat position-hours. The gyro was stopped.
          During this time, you can refuel, an air bearing appeared, the ICBM could be on duty for weeks, the clearance time of refueling became critical
          D-17B + NDRO gave:
          -working for failure 5,5 years
          -the ability to quickly change the flight task.
          - small mass (not so critical is the lag of the solid propellant for iod)
          vacuum tubes and rocket engines on P-7 = 280 000 kg starting mass (USSR)
          DRL and DTL on LGM-30A / B gave the same as P-7 (+/-) with 36 000 kg starting weight
          and spit on the worst Iud on 40%
          It is understandable


          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Here you seem to get excited.

          in what
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          The Americans began to consider a return to the LRE on the upper stages only in recent years, when the requirements for energy of new versions of the SM-3, for example, were sent to go into the CIP.

          Where are they "returned" or began to "consider"?

          Quote: Cherry Nine
          And the topic of breeding is absolutely in no way connected with energy and IA

          and where, where are they?
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Americans began to consider returning to the LPRE on the upper steps

          ?
          On what?
          they have TE-M-364-4 (Star-37E), RTDT, if not up to date, he pulled out the missions "Voyager-1", "Voyager-2" by doing what he could not
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          with energy and UI.
          “Two-half-step” “Titan”, “Centaur” and an additional upper stage, reaching 15,2 km / s, even despite the error AACS


          Quote: Cherry Nine
          I'm not sure about the next block, SM-3 Block II or SM-3 Block IIa.

          wassat
          You read wrong
          (
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Read another opinion
          ) wink
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 10 November 2017 08: 38
            0
            Quote: opus
            With rocket-propelled ICBMs, this is simply not possible.

            What is impossible? Make a thousand rockets on a rocket engine? Do the Bolsheviks know?
            Quote: opus
            And sho there "fundamentally" new? (in a rocket with a solid propellant)

            Quote: opus
            air bearing appeared

            Chicken and egg problem. Colonel Hall because progress, or progress because Colonel Hall?
            Quote: opus
            cost per completed mission;

            This is yes.
            Quote: opus
            in what

            The fact that there were no rocket engines on the mini-monoblocks. So they still refused. He returned after 8 years and for reasons not related to the IA.
            Quote: opus
            On what?

            I wrote. The next standard, spacewalk from UVP. Maybe, of course, they deceive the Russian man, the enemy. In this case, it is already required to increase energy in a given size.
            Quote: opus
            having done what he could not fulfill

            Colleague, if you drown for solid-fuel booster blocks in our time, you are in vain. Although for the 60s 70s the idea was quite working.
            1. opus
              opus 10 November 2017 11: 09
              0
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Make a thousand rockets on the rocket engine?

              - for three years to 1965 ??
              -in USA?
              (what have the Bolsheviks to do with it? We had toilet paper on coupons, I don’t imagine such a situation in the USA)
              Shl. and
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Bolsheviks

              don't know


              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Colonel Hall because progress,

              I don’t know how Colonel Hall owes his appearance to progress, the chicken or the egg.
              No eggs, no chicken nothing to do with. Brains and practice with.
              Director of the weapons development program 315A (Thor) and subsequently supervised the installation of Thor rockets in England. Here he was also stuck in a star-shaped cross section of the solid propellant solid-propellant charge, something the British invented.

              Quote: Cherry Nine
              In the fact that there were no LRE monoblocks on the minutemen.

              Come on? Again by!


              on 2, the steps are the only A191-AJ-1 nozzle with fluid injection to control thrust vectoring and ... AND FOR an increase in I (range increased by 1600 km).
              Although it is not zhrd.
              It was a saying.
              For W56 (monoblock tongue ) used a rocket engine from Bell Rocket Engine (internal. No. SE256A1) -expressive


              here is his live photo (Bell Aerosystems transferred it to the Smithsonian Museum already in 1968).

              post-boost propulsion system
              Shown here is the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) for the Minuteman II intercontinental ballistic missile. Unlike the solid-propellant system liquid propellants to help steer the missile. The system consists of helium tank to the chapel.


              Quote: Cherry Nine
              . The following standard, the exit into space of the CIP.

              Lagging behind life, I seem to be.
              It already comes out, years old in 2018 will be with UVP
              (In February, 2008, the Americans shot down their failed satellite at an altitude of 247 km.)


              If what is space is above km 100 (from an engineering point of view)

              SM-3 IIA increased the casing from 34 to 53 cm, that is, marching steps were leveled in diameter with the first accelerating stage

              No there (except for KV) no LRE
              SM-3 IIB, too, will not be LRE, there will be integration with Aegis BMD 5.1
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              if you drown for solid fuel accelerating blocks in our time,

              1.No where I do not drown.
              2.In LRD I shave more than in solid propellant rocket motors, this is my VUS
              3. Solid fuel booster units in our time - this is the main thing on which we still can not pull
              Even the Europeans and those pulled EAP P241

              It is understandable:
              In spite of the dead Iud

              You get a cheap fantastic traction on the table (to take the op from the table)


              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Although for 60-x 70-x the idea was quite working.

              Roscosmos tell it. And then he whines all because of lack
              Europeans and Americans are stupid.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 10 November 2017 14: 00
                0
                Quote: opus
                -in USA?

                IN USA. Any doubts? The fact that the minuteman was a better solution - it may well be.
                Quote: opus
                post-boost propulsion system

                To adjust the trajectory. But I didn’t know about the fact, thanks.
                Did they keep him tucked in all the time?
                Quote: opus
                If what space is above 100 km

                You understand me perfectly. The development of this particular rocket requires energy growth for a given size.
                Quote: opus
                SM-3 IIB will also not be LRE

                Perhaps my picture from the English is lying, this also happens. Do you know the final rocket design? Where from?
                Quote: opus
                you get cheap fantastic cravings on the table

                A colleague, more careful when cornering. I talked about the overclocking unit - the upper stage on the example of Star-37E. It seems that now only the Minotaur remains. For some reason you switched to boosters.

                And what a strange tablet? Delta 4 with Ariana boosters?
                1. opus
                  opus 10 November 2017 14: 39
                  0
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Did they keep him tucked in all the time?

                  who cares? on "Voyager-1,2" 40 years in "refueled".
                  They flow (flowed) in them only "Titan", there from the birth with the 1 level of the problem that cannot be solved
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  requires an increase in energy at a given size.

                  She doesn’t need anything (energy) in the software and the new sensor. Matrix 512х512 passed the test

                  Energy "" when using TP-H-3340A, PBAN polymer with an excess
                  ASAS AKS-2 in the series




                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Where from?

                  Yes, the other day there talked with the chief.
                  wink
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  You for some reason switched to boosters.

                  I did not understand
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  on the Minotaur

                  Minotaur is a separate topic
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Delta 4 with Ariana boosters?

                  MoNe Mining Co. + Aerojet Rocketdyne's brains are straining to reach 2000 RW37 in 2021
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 10 November 2017 17: 44
                    0
                    Quote: opus
                    when using TP-H-3340A, excess PBAN polymer

                    Ok, it will fly - we will find out for sure.
                    Quote: opus
                    Aerojet Rocketdyne's brains are straining

                    And how is this related to drug addiction? Ariana boosters are 2 times lighter than written. If you cross the delta with Ariana, you get degraded Arian.
                    The weight of the boosters is SRB, but with Delta second stage there is one hell of an addiction. Shuttle sides + hydrogen are SLS.
                    1. opus
                      opus 10 November 2017 19: 13
                      0
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      Ariana boosters xnumx times lighter

                      belay
                      there in lb
                      gross weight 278 330 kg * 2,20462 =
                      tare 38 200 kg * 2,20462 =
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      And how is this related to drug addiction?

                      thats exactly what I mean:
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      By weight, it’s SRB

                      fool
                      Gross mass 590,000 kg ( 1,300,000lb)
                      1. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 10 November 2017 19: 23
                        0
                        Quote: opus
                        there in lb

                        I thought so too, but the load was too embarrassing. Two booster Ariana and only the second stage of the Delta? Instead of your own Arian's Core stage 407,200 lb weight? What is it like? Not to mention why?
      2. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 9 November 2017 15: 07
        0
        Quote: opus
        3.pneumatic bearing and programmable computer D-17

        what pneumatic bearings? What period are you talking about?
        What age are you from?
        The MX already had a gyroscopic platform floating in a conductive fluid.

        I'm not talking about the digital laser currently in use.
        1. opus
          opus 9 November 2017 22: 16
          0
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          What age are you from?

          fool
          speech about LGM-30A / B = first test-fired on 1 February 1961.
          And I’m 1967 of the year of release, if “Che,”
          And what?
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          What period are you talking about?

          ... we look at what we’re talking about, and farting isn’t possible in any case - our country is free "
          1. DimerVladimer
            DimerVladimer 10 November 2017 09: 48
            0
            Quote: opus
            speech about LGM-30A / B = first test-fired on 1 February 1961.
            And I’m 1967 of the year of release, if “Che,”
            And what?


            I apologize - I really did not see what it was about a specific product.
  4. 100ik
    100ik 9 November 2017 09: 13
    +1
    A product weighing no more than 50 tons can be placed on a special multi-axis chassis, which cannot be done with existing or hypothetical liquid rockets.

    Never say never
  5. Old26
    Old26 9 November 2017 09: 35
    +1
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Quote: Old26
    there are too many mistakes in the article

    The clear opinion is that the author passed an essay drawn from the Internet. The topic does not fumble.
    A characteristic feature of rockets with solid propellant rocket engines in the form of reduced dimensions and mass

    Wow!

    Author!
    The main reason for the transition of Americans to the solid propellant rocket motor was the lack of the need for pre-launch preparation of such missiles (refueling with liquid oxygen). Currently, the problem of fueling rockets with LRE is partly solved by encapsulating the components of the fuel pair, but not everyone is happy with this solution. Too troublesome.

    As for the other components of efficiency, a rocket on a solid propellant rocket motor is always heavier than a rocket of the same technical level on a liquid propellant rocket engine. For money, too, is not all clear. Of the space-based cosmic RNs currently being created, the state uses solid propellant solid propellants, while private ones do not, which raises doubts about their (solid propellant) cheapness.

    The fact that both types of ICBMs are being made in Russia speaks to you of a "balanced approach", to me - about impotence of aces and departmental lobbying, which is why a decision on technical policy in this area has not yet been made and squandering of forces and means is allowed obviously unnecessary projects. The Americans began to consider a return to liquid-propellant rocket engines at the upper stages only in recent years, when the energy requirements for new versions of SM-3, for example, were sent to get into the UVP.


    In some ways I agree with you, comrade, in some ways not.
    The transition to solid-propellant solid-propellant technology by the Americans actually allowed the pre-start preparation to be reduced to extremely low levels. And I also agree with the questions of refueling modern missiles.

    But the fact that a rocket with solid propellant rocket engines is always heavier than liquid rockets - let me disagree. It’s problematic to compare with American ones; they haven’t had any liquid for how many years, so they’ll have to compare with domestic
    Still, if we compare roughly equal systems, the ratio is in favor of solid-fuel ones. Sometimes they are much easier, sometimes not much, but easier.
    For comparison, two rockets
    P-14. Liquid with a drop weight in 1,5 tons and a range in 4500 km. And the first version of the RSD-10 "Pioneer". The range is 4500, the cast weight is approximately 1,5 tons. But the P-14 weighed 87, and the RSD-10 - 36 tons. You can object to me that these are rockets of different generations. Yes. but perform the same task and were in service at the same time
    You can consider another pair. UR-10Н УТТХ and РТ-23УТТХ
    Let the first one be half a ton, but harder. And carries its load at a distance of almost less than 500 km. If you bring them to the same parameter - this difference will affect even more

    As for the joint production of liquid propellant rocket engines and solid propellant rocket engines. Here, it’s more likely not even impotence, but, as you correctly wrote, banal lobbying. When I just started talking about the Sarmat, I honestly thought that the rocket would be solid fuel. Moreover, the Perm plant can produce the steps necessary for a heavy missile dimension. But alas. We stopped at the liquid. Of course, they have some advantages over solid fuel (in particular in specific impulse), but there are also disadvantages
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 9 November 2017 10: 38
      0
      Quote: Old26
      . But the P-14 weighed 87,

      Colleague, we both know that a little more of this mass was enough for Glenn's flight. I fully understand that with due courage, it is possible to create an arbitrarily heavy missile of arbitrarily low efficiency. However, in general, a more efficient (high-pulse) fuel vapor should provide higher mass perfection.
      Quote: Old26
      there are advantages over solid fuel (in particular, specific impulse

      Colleague, well, you then understand that UI is not an advantage, but one of the technical parameters that ensure the fulfillment of the task is to give Delta V to the payload. Talk about increasing the MI due to other parameters (production, operational, economic) can be made only if the energy requirements are in insoluble conflict with the requirements for mass or dimensions. About Sarmat did not hear anything like that.
  6. Old26
    Old26 9 November 2017 09: 37
    +1
    Quote: 100ik
    A product weighing no more than 50 tons can be placed on a special multi-axis chassis, which cannot be done with existing or hypothetical liquid rockets.

    Never say never

    Well, carrying a fueled liquid rocket on a wheeled chassis is the height of masochism
    1. 100ik
      100ik 9 November 2017 10: 25
      +1
      Once upon a time, the engine inside the fuel tank seemed sacrilege
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 9 November 2017 11: 07
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Well, carrying a fueled liquid rocket on a wheeled chassis is the height of masochism

      Size matters. smile P-17 "Elbrus" is dragged and allowed to still - and in fairly harsh conditions (the same chaosites Hussites).
    3. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 9 November 2017 15: 50
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Well, carrying a fueled liquid rocket on a wheeled chassis is the height of masochism


      This is also very dangerous, and in the event of a vehicle capsizing accident, the lateral overloads will be so great that the rocket will not only fail (like the rocket on the solid propellant rocket engine), but at least the toxic components will leak, as a result of depressurization or an explosion components.
  7. tolancop
    tolancop 9 November 2017 11: 34
    0
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Quote: Old26
    Well, carrying a fueled liquid rocket on a wheeled chassis is the height of masochism

    Size matters. smile P-17 "Elbrus" is dragged and allowed to still - and in fairly harsh conditions (the same chaosites Hussites).

    Do not enlighten when this R-17 in a tucked state dragged?
    1. 100ik
      100ik 9 November 2017 12: 23
      +1
      Do not enlighten when this R-17 in a tucked state dragged?

      We were born to make a fairy tale come true ...
  8. gridasov
    gridasov 9 November 2017 11: 53
    0
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    I fully understand that with due courage, it is possible to create an arbitrarily heavy missile of arbitrarily low efficiency. However, in general, a more efficient (high-pulse) fuel vapor should provide higher mass perfection.

    Obviously, you are one of not many people who see real issues at a fundamental level. And I can say without fear that I was engaged in this task in order to find a way to move away from the proportional dependence of mass growth and lowering the energy efficiency of the flight of the whole body. We solved this problem with simple mechanical devices, but at the same time we got into a confrontation with huge mass people who do not see all the key issues of ensuring the flight of an aircraft or missiles, etc. But who are even further removed from solving these problems.
    1. Strategy
      Strategy 11 November 2017 16: 30
      0
      Quote: gridasov
      flight support aircraft or missiles

      Enlighten, is the rocket an aircraft or not?
      1. gridasov
        gridasov 11 November 2017 17: 03
        0
        Or maybe it’s better to tell how to “ignite” the fuel mixture in its entirety at once. not linear
        1. Strategy
          Strategy 11 November 2017 17: 06
          0
          No, don’t. Let's go from simple to complex - define the concepts.
  9. ism_ek
    ism_ek 9 November 2017 12: 23
    0
    The military requires solid fuel rockets. They are significantly easier to operate. The plant for the production of powerful rocket engines at TT (Pavlograd Chemical Plant) remained in Ukraine. There is no money for the construction of such a production in the Russian Federation. There are no technologies. Intelligence agencies are catching the opposition and sawing oil revenues; they cannot steal missile secrets in the United States. Production in Biysk is antediluvian. Heavy rockets are types of Satan, not eternal. So it was decided to return to liquid fuel.
    1. Locksmith
      Locksmith 9 November 2017 13: 46
      +3
      Quote: ism_ek
      There is no money for the construction of such a production in the Russian Federation. There are no technologies.

      And the mace and yars that you think are being done in Ukraine? belay
      1. ism_ek
        ism_ek 9 November 2017 18: 31
        0
        Yars is only three warheads and a small range. You can get to the American mine launchers only by firing from the European part of the Russian Federation. If the Americans deploy a missile defense system in Ukraine, then we will have very big problems.
        For heavy missiles, fundamentally different engines are needed.
    2. gridasov
      gridasov 11 November 2017 17: 06
      0
      So I don’t understand why to bring fuel with me when it is around. Create a compressor and all business.
    3. Krabik
      Krabik 15 November 2017 21: 55
      0
      "they cannot steal rocket secrets in the USA"

      No need to steal anything from them, quite a lot of Russian engineers work there and they will give everything themselves.

      Only there is no one to use this information ...
  10. geologist
    geologist 9 November 2017 15: 12
    0
    We fly on kerogases - some people associated with this topic joke bitterly. However, I knew a man who was looking for future technologies in the remote taiga. At that time, I had to do a lot of GIS technology and mathematical statistics. The work was overwhelming and none of my colleagues considered it possible to understand me. The closest consultant lived for a thousand kilometers, and with advanced people for 10 thousand kilometers it was possible to communicate only in video conferencing mode. It is all the more surprising that I did not find words of sympathy for a congenial person who was generally an outcast and a marginal from the point of view of most of my friends. Our first meeting took place in a car park near the office. He called me by name and offered to see something interesting. He opened the trunk and began to poke some sort of melted stones. “These are traces of the landing of an alien ship,” he shouted with enthusiasm and gleam in his eyes. "No, Valera!" I answered - "... this is ordinary Neogene volcanism" I saw such bombs after the Tolbachik eruption in Kamchatka. “You crossed out the results of my expedition,” he growled with anger. "I found in the drafts of the geological expedition mentions of finding a plate of silver metal, and this was in 1947, long before missile flights." “Some sort of nonsense,” I burst out. At that time, Douglas made of metal could fly over our deaf-mouther, and in the year 38 TB-3 flew to Khasan. Probably something fell off the plane. The next meeting took place in the laboratory of geophysicists. Some woman brought a piece of shiny silver stone. "What is it?" asked Valery. “Probably slag from a metallurgical plant,” I said. "And here it is. The stone was found on the road of an abandoned quarry." "Well, that quarry I know," I declared with aplomb. There seems to be a small amount of Germany discovered. These are scanty concentrations. In front of our amazed eyes, Valery grabbed a stone, broke it, put it in his pocket and left. Later I learned that it was an artificial material, which is now widely used in electronics. How did he end up in places far from developed industrial centers? Unfortunately, Valery Dvuzhilny left us in 2014. His last expedition was to the area where the stone was found. It is not difficult to guess that he was looking for the wreckage of an interplanetary ship, or rather intergalactic. Maybe someone else is lucky.
  11. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 9 November 2017 15: 44
    +2
    I did not catch the point of the article ...
    Copyrast of famous materials. Conclusion? It is well known that solid propellant rocket motors are safer during transportation, operation, storage, due to higher transverse overloads and relative simplicity.
    Again, the disadvantages of solid propellant rocket engines are well known: lower energy efficiency (compared to LRE), difficulty in controlling pitch, yaw (swinging the nozzle or valves in the nozzles, respectively, additional energy accumulators for the control system), heavier nozzle systems (since it is impossible to organize fuel cooling), the need to ensure a stable temperature of solid fuel, shorter shelf life and environmental friendliness of use.

    This is all well known - what is the point of the article?
    At the solid propellant rocket engine, we are still lagging behind in the energy sector of fuels.

    Compound shuttle-sized solid propellant solid propellants were not mastered in production in the USSR and in Russia.
    1. Strategy
      Strategy 11 November 2017 16: 59
      0
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Solid propellant safer during transportation, operation, storage, due to higher lateral overloads

      ??
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 13 November 2017 16: 56
        +1
        Quote: Strategia
        Quote: DimerVladimer
        Solid propellant safer during transportation, operation, storage, due to higher lateral overloads

        ??

        Cross overload.
        When a conveyor with a rocket (in a horizontal position) "bounces" on bumps or "lies down" in a ditch - transverse overloads occur ...
  12. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 9 November 2017 17: 59
    +3
    Production of solid propellant rocket engines is 3-5 times more expensive than rocket engines. Shelf life is less: 10 years of solid propellant rocket engines and 30 rocket engines. The moroman have a term of 10 years due to operating conditions. RTB for RTT is more complicated and expensive. They are afraid of blows .. The Cinevu-Liner can be put into mines on land in exchange for the UR-100. In the photo not R-29r, but R-29 RMU2 .. bully
  13. rubin6286
    rubin6286 9 November 2017 18: 29
    +4
    The content of the article does not match its title. The author writes about rockets, but it is necessary to write about engines. The classification of engines is not given, there is no image of even the simplest liquid propellant rocket engines and solid propellant rocket engines. There is talk about the specific impulse, but the impulse of what, where is not clear. For engines there are characteristics “specific pressure pulse in the combustion chamber”, “Specific thrust”, “nozzle thrust coefficient”, etc., but there is nothing about it. Instead, there is a chatter characteristic of “couch strategists” about the complexity and high cost of production. Any seventh grader can write such an abstract, carefully choosing material from the Internet. Evaluation of the article is “unsatisfactory”.
    1. 100ik
      100ik 9 November 2017 20: 05
      +1
      Quote: rubin6286
      idle talk typical for “sofa strategists” about the complexity and high cost of production

      Surprisingly, the gentleman who adapted the steam engine to the mine cart did not finish the railway university, Marconi and Popov were radio engineering, and the caterpillar mover and the noble name TANK that adapted the tank did not suspect Malinovsky's BTA. A step into the unknown is made by amateurs, not scientific-assault battalions. But, in order to gain arrogance and take this step, such sources of information are needed. Personally, I like K-A-A-TSYA! smile
    2. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 10 November 2017 09: 41
      0
      Quote: rubin6286
      The content of the article does not match its title. The author writes about rockets, but it is necessary to write about engines. The classification of engines is not given, there is no image of even the simplest liquid propellant rocket engines and solid propellant rocket engines. There is talk about the specific impulse, but the impulse of what, where is not clear. For engines there are characteristics “specific pressure pulse in the combustion chamber”, “Specific thrust”, “nozzle thrust coefficient”, etc., but there is nothing about it. Instead, there is a chatter characteristic of “couch strategists” about the complexity and high cost of production. Any seventh grader can write such an abstract, carefully choosing material from the Internet. Evaluation of the article is “unsatisfactory”.


      Right.
      Before entering the specialized department, most of the students already knew these general points.
      They are touched upon in passing at introductory classes and then further in-depth study - the material does not draw on a lecture of a 2nd year student of the DLA faculty (aircraft engines).
  14. Old26
    Old26 9 November 2017 20: 08
    +1
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    About Sarmat did not hear anything like that.

    And they could not hear. I wrote that when the first information about SARMAT appeared I honestly thoughtthat it will be solid fuel. I thought, and not that there was any information about SARMAT at the RDTT

    Quote: Alexey RA
    Size matters. smile R-17 "Elbrus" is dragged and allowed up to now - and in rather harsh conditions (the same Chaosite Husits).

    Well, as I understand it, it's about strategists

    Quote: ism_ek
    The military requires solid fuel rockets. They are significantly easier to operate. The plant for the production of powerful rocket engines at TT (Pavlograd Chemical Plant) remained in Ukraine. There is no money for the construction of such a production in the Russian Federation. There are no technologies. Intelligence agencies are catching the opposition and sawing oil revenues; they cannot steal missile secrets in the United States. Production in Biysk is antediluvian. Heavy rockets are types of Satan, not eternal. So it was decided to return to liquid fuel.

    Do not smack nonsense. She is in pain. The Perm plant could produce solid propellant rocket motors with a diameter of up to 3 meters and a stage weight of up to 75 tons. What do you call the lack of technology?

    Quote: Locksmith
    And the mace and yars that you think are being done in Ukraine? belay

    By all means there. IMHO somewhere on a farm, near Poltava laughing

    Quote: ism_ek
    Yars is only three warheads and a small range. You can get to the American mine launchers only by firing from the European part of the Russian Federation. If the Americans deploy a missile defense system in Ukraine, then we will have very big problems.
    For heavy missiles, fundamentally different engines are needed.

    Do you think 10000 - 11000 km is a short range? Have you ever tried to draw a trajectory in the same Google Earth? Give it a try. You will be pleasantly surprised. A missile with a range of about 9,8 thousand km is required from Siberia to the western coast of the United States, and approximately 10,5 to Washington (from Siberia). From the European chat of Russia to Washington - about 8000 km, to Frisco - about 10

    If Americans are considered to be what Zadornov thinks they are, that is, stupid - yes, they can then deploy missile defense in Ukraine. Even near Kharkov, so that the Russians get this base with their MLRS
    And fundamentally new engines, which ones? Nuclear?

    Quote: Dzafdet
    Shelf life is less: 10 years of solid propellant rocket engines and 30 rocket engines

    Extreme “Poplars” were put into service by the EMNIP in the year 1996-1998. At least in service for 20 years
    1. ism_ek
      ism_ek 10 November 2017 08: 48
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Do not smack nonsense. She is in pain. The Perm plant could produce solid propellant rocket motors with a diameter of up to 3 meters and a stage weight of up to 75 tons. What do you call the lack of technology?

      The factory in Votkinsk is located - this is Udmurtia. Fuel is made in Biysk.
      Quote: Old26
      From Siberia to the west coast of the United States, a missile with a range of about 9,8 thousand km is needed,
      Yars needs roads to disguise. And there are roads in Siberia only in the South, and shooting goes through the North Pole. The range of 9,8 t. Km is the limit, there will not be enough energy for “flat paths”, “stratospheric U-turns” and other “chips”.


      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 13 November 2017 17: 00
        +1
        Quote: ism_ek
        Quote: Old26
        Do not smack nonsense. She is in pain. The Perm plant could produce solid propellant rocket motors with a diameter of up to 3 meters and a stage weight of up to 75 tons. What do you call the lack of technology?

        The factory in Votkinsk is located - this is Udmurtia. Fuel is made in Biysk.
        Quote: Old26
        From Siberia to the west coast of the United States, a missile with a range of about 9,8 thousand km is needed,
        Yars needs roads to disguise. And there are roads in Siberia only in the South, and shooting goes through the North Pole. The range of 9,8 t. Km is the limit, there will not be enough energy for “flat paths”, “stratospheric U-turns” and other “chips”.



        A good example of the backlog of the USSR / RF on solid propellant rocket engines.
        Similarly, there is a lag on Mace / Trident II
  15. Alex968m
    Alex968m 10 November 2017 00: 25
    0
    Why is the promising BZHKK “Barguzin” not mentioned?
    And the minuses of the "Mace" relative to the "outdated" Sineva liquid fuel are obvious: a significantly shorter range and half the payload. So I consider the transition to the “Mace" as a downgrade.
    Just solid rockets are stupidly cheaper and require less skill in maintenance. For all the objective performance characteristics, except perhaps the starting acceleration, they lose by liquid.
    1. ism_ek
      ism_ek 10 November 2017 10: 36
      0
      Quote: Alex968m
      Why is the promising BZHKK “Barguzin” not mentioned?

      This is the same Poplar, only on the railway platform. Knowing the mess that is going on with our half-privatized railway economy is a hopeless thing.
  16. Old26
    Old26 10 November 2017 10: 33
    0
    Quote: ism_ek
    The factory in Votkinsk is located - this is Udmurtia. Fuel is made in Biysk.

    And in Perm there is nothing like that?

    Quote: ism_ek
    Yars needs roads to disguise. And there are roads in Siberia only in the South, and shooting goes through the North Pole. The range of 9,8 t. Km is the limit, there will not be enough energy for “flat paths”, “stratospheric U-turns” and other “chips”.

    With great need, “Yars” do not need to go beyond the boundaries of the PDP. And where did you get that 9800 km limit for the "Yars"?
  17. Earnest
    Earnest 10 November 2017 14: 14
    0
    Quote: PPK
    Quote: DimerVladimer
    Where are these figures from?

    the shelf life of heptyl is about 3x years. Then it starts to oxidize and you need to change it.
    I also recommend reading about the K-219 submarine accident.

    Heptyl is changed every three years, but solid fuel is changed only with the entire rocket ...
    1. ism_ek
      ism_ek 10 November 2017 14: 43
      0
      Quote: Earnest
      Heptyl is changed every three years, but solid fuel is changed only with the entire rocket ...

      The Americans have been on the alert for 50 years now.
      1. KCA
        KCA 11 November 2017 12: 34
        0
        This is how they manage the launch of IBM / 360 Minutemans of the same years, which raises doubts about the combat readiness of this system.
      2. Sergei75
        Sergei75 12 November 2017 00: 25
        0
        Well, this does not mean that they put it as it was, it’s worth it, it’s probably modernized (control, navigation), and most likely the name of the base model is, and if you put them next to it, the first and last, then the differences, I think, will be on the face.
    2. Andrey NM
      Andrey NM 10 November 2017 18: 39
      +2
      Quote: PPK
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Where are these figures from?

      the shelf life of heptyl is about 3x years. Then it starts to oxidize and you need to change it.
      I also recommend reading about the K-219 submarine accident.

      Heptyl is changed every three years, but solid fuel is changed only with the entire rocket ...

      But who gave such nonsense about 3 years? How will heptyl in sealed tanks oxidize?
    3. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 10 May 2018 13: 39
      0
      Quote: Earnest
      Heptyl is changed every three years, but solid fuel is changed only with the entire rocket ...


      Why do you constantly quote this archaism? From the 60s?
      The issues of amputated refueling on SLBMs have long been resolved: on combat duty (in a boat) 10 years + in the arsenal of 10 years.
      Total 20 years. Yes, and 30 years is not the limit, but corrosion of the SLBM structure during operation at high temperature and 100% humidity provides for a 10 + 10 year time limit for combat duty / storage.
  18. Old26
    Old26 11 November 2017 18: 07
    0
    Quote: Alex968m
    And the minuses of the "Mace" relative to the "outdated" Sineva liquid fuel are obvious: a significantly shorter range and half the payload.

    Two questions.
    1. Significantly shorter range - this is how much
    2. And where did you get the idea that when reduced to the same parameters, the cast weight is twice as large at the “Sineva”

    Quote: ism_ek
    Quote: Alex968m
    Why is the promising BZHKK “Barguzin” not mentioned?


    This is the same Poplar, only on the railway platform. Knowing the mess that is going on with our half-privatized railway economy is a hopeless thing.

    And the "poplar" (which has already been almost completely disarmed) will fit on the railway platform
  19. Sergei75
    Sergei75 12 November 2017 00: 21
    0
    It’s interesting, but the aging submarines, can’t they be used as floating launching pads - stationary and mobile?
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 12 November 2017 14: 11
      0
      So it happens in practice. Almost all Russian nuclear submarines stand year round
      at the pier. But they can shoot from the pier.
      1. Town Hall
        Town Hall 12 November 2017 14: 27
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh
        So it happens in practice. Almost all Russian nuclear submarines stand year round
        at the pier. But they can shoot from the pier.


        It’s cheaper and safer to replace their missiles with ground-based mines, and then several tomahawks will make such a good 1/3 of the Russian strategic nuclear forces if something happens.


        Build a nuclear submarine for billions of dollars to shoot from them from piers - money down the drain
        1. DimerVladimer
          DimerVladimer 10 May 2018 13: 46
          +1
          Quote: Town Hall
          It’s cheaper and safer to replace their missiles with ground-based mines, and then several tomahawks will make such a good 1/3 of the Russian strategic nuclear forces if something happens.
          Build a nuclear submarine for billions of dollars to shoot from them from piers - money down the drain


          Just like that, a sudden strike of the Kyrgyz Republic will not follow - this is preceded by escalation of the situation and raising the level of military readiness.
          When the situation requires - strategists of the submarine, to dissolve in the vast oceans and make the relatively quiet existence of the adversary, very conditional - as it was in the 60s 70s - 80s.
          The very existence of strategic nuclear submarines is a very constraining factor.
  20. Old26
    Old26 12 November 2017 13: 00
    0
    Quote: Sergei75
    It’s interesting, but the aging submarines, can’t they be used as floating launching pads - stationary and mobile?

    What for? What will give the use of an obsolete submarine as a platform to launch SLBMs? All the same, the missiles will be included in the standings. And the point is to maintain the decommissioned boat in combat readiness, especially if it is not a hospital, but a mobile system, then put the crew there. What for?
  21. JETFLAG
    JETFLAG 13 November 2017 08: 22
    0
    Regarding - heavier than the western ...
    The Malyshevskoye field (beryllium) supervised by a former GRU officer will help make our missiles much easier.
    1. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 13 November 2017 17: 06
      0
      Quote: JETFLAG
      Regarding - heavier than the western ...
      The Malyshevskoye field (beryllium) supervised by a former GRU officer will help make our missiles much easier.


      Well, well - let's say we have beryllium hydride, one is not enough to increase the efficiency of solid fuels - there are still a lot of nuances in chemistry.
      How will this help us “wind” the lighter solid rocket motors? How will this facilitate the instrument compartments?
  22. Old26
    Old26 13 November 2017 10: 22
    0
    Quote: JETFLAG
    Regarding - heavier than the western ...
    The Malyshevskoye field (beryllium) supervised by a former GRU officer will help make our missiles much easier.

    beryllium rockets? Are the mechanical properties of beryllium suitable for this? And how much will such a rocket cost?
  23. Old26
    Old26 13 November 2017 21: 00
    0
    Quote: Bratkov Oleg
    Really can not do it! They first sent the astronaut into space 9 years later than Gagarin, but they laughed in the most shameless manner that they also managed to fly to the moon. First of all, Americans are liars and liars, they have such a nature, and their aircraft carriers are unsinkable, but they can only fight against politically isolated third world countries. Under this and their aircraft carriers are imprisoned.

    I don’t know what about the Americans, but here’s what you BRESET in the most unscrupulous way - that’s clear. Especially saying that, the Americans sent their astronaut into space already in 1970
  24. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 20 September 2018 11: 30
    0
    Quote: maxim947
    Criticizing - suggest where the bloopers are? Everything is written on the case

    The first blunder about the cost of production of rocket engines and solid propellant rocket engines. The production of solid propellant rocket motors is 3-5 times more expensive and very complicated. This Solomon himself admitted. It is also not easy to store the solid propellant rocket, this is the second blunder. Third, the solid propellant rocket engine over time has a degradation of the fuel and its cracking occurs. LRE can be stored for decades ... 102 mace riveted the mace, and took into service only this year. ... At the last launch, three missiles flew normally, and the fourth - over the hill ...
  25. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 9 January 2019 18: 52
    0
    Quote: PPK
    Quote: DimerVladimer
    Where are these figures from?

    the shelf life of heptyl is about 3x years. Then it starts to oxidize and you need to change it.
    I also recommend reading about the K-219 submarine accident.



    How many times to write: R-219 rockets were on K-27. Now and have long been used R-29. All problems were resolved and there were no accidents with them. In defiance of the author of the article: SLBM with liquid propellant rocket engine costs $ 10 million, and with solid propellant rocket engine - $ 50 million ... Production and operation of solid propellant rocket engines is a very expensive pleasure ..
  26. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 9 January 2019 19: 02
    0
    Quote: Lem
    Quote: DimerVladimer
    No idea how many years behind

    The question was not about this, but about the shelf life. And the shelf life is 2-3g. more, by and large, is not so important for the 40-45 year old Minutemen, who should have been completely replaced three times during this period (the release was discontinued in 78), which, in fact, was not, despite various propaganda modernization. I, myself, can hardly imagine how it is possible to replace TT without replacing the entire stage. And if we take into account that the United States released the last nuclear G / H in 1992, and yagch have their own storage periods, then the picture turns out to be funny .....



    It all depends on the type of charge: if it is plug-in, then it is simply taken out, and if it is firmly attached to the body, then it is washed out. Then degreasing and new filling with flaw detection ...