Military Review

In the United States successfully tested the Dream Chaser shuttle

143
The American Shuttle Dream Chaser made its first successful landing, reports RIA News message to Sierra Nevada Corporation.


In the United States successfully tested the Dream Chaser shuttle


Space shuttle landed at Edwards Air Force Base in California. The current descent was the second for the American apparatus. In the 2013, the landing gear failed during the planning test, the flight prototype was damaged.

“The compact shuttle was created on the basis of the American HL-20 orbital aircraft, which, in turn, was modeled on the Soviet BOR-4 unmanned rocket plane,” according to an article on NASA.



It is assumed that the "space taxi" will deliver to the near-earth orbit "cargo and crews of up to seven people."

The first flight to the ISS is scheduled for 2020 year.
Photos used:
NASA, SierraNevCorp
143 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. starogil
    starogil 13 November 2017 09: 30 New
    20
    Soon we will not need a cab, but here also prototypes, it turns out, haggled ....
    1. maxim947
      maxim947 13 November 2017 09: 38 New
      14
      Cool thing, plus they still have the X-37B flying, and quite successfully.
      1. xetai9977
        xetai9977 13 November 2017 10: 23 New
        16
        Probably they made conclusions from the operation of the Shuttles, took into account shortcomings and again with the new technologies reanimated the project. Great and promising technique! Well done Americans! They are already engaged in space technologies by a number of companies and, on the whole, are quite successful. And as for those who are stamping out unfriendly comments here, envy silently. Do not blame space technology. In the end, it will serve the interests of all earthlings.
        1. maxim947
          maxim947 13 November 2017 10: 25 New
          21
          In the end, it will serve the interests of all earthlings.
          Well, with all the earthlings, you are bent. They are only interested in the interests of "exceptional" earthlings))
          1. IL-18
            IL-18 13 November 2017 10: 39 New
            +6
            I agree with the commentators, but wait until 2020, and then we'll see. With Space X, questions arise, but here everything is more complicated.
            1. venik
              venik 13 November 2017 13: 24 New
              +3
              Quote: IL-18
              With Space X, questions arise, but here everything is more complicated.

              =======
              Here, just with Space-X there are no problems at all - this is a purely financial project with the goal of “shifting” part of the “space” expenses to PRIVATE investors (and not just American ones !!!). Everything is extremely simple: You announce a "project" promising colossal profits (and even a "monopoly position on the market" (for example, commercial launches), then an IPO ("Initial Public Offering" ie placement of issued shares of a new issue) on the largest "stock exchanges" (with mandatory advertising about "colossal future prospects"! ), thus attracting "additional funding" ... And quietly doing much more real "projects" (including and on the orders of the Pentagon), slowly "pushing" the "reusable" project into a "dusty corner" ......... Isn't that why Musk became Trump's “adviser” ???
          2. Kent0001
            Kent0001 13 November 2017 12: 16 New
            +4
            Yes, of course, but if we can drive the headstock over the hill, then their engineers are not to blame. We had a "Lapot" it was, and now they have their "Lapot" and it flies. We are almost out of reach on almost all fronts (unfortunately), but once we were equal. By the way, this gizmo is just a gift for the military, but how do they drag it into orbit?
            1. Young_Communist
              Young_Communist 13 November 2017 17: 44 New
              +7
              Quote: Kent0001
              We had a "Lapot" it was, and now they have their "Lapot" and it flies. We’re not even enough on almost all fronts (unfortunately), but once we were equal

              When Putin came to power, Russia was positioned as Space superpower. For 15 years of lifting from her knees, she turned into Resource Super Power. I hope not to see how Putin announces our transformation into Hunting and Collective Super Power.
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 13 November 2017 17: 55 New
                +7
                When Putin came to power, Russia positioned itself as a Space Superpower.

                Do not lie ... He was elected in the 2000 year, just at the time that we were no longer a space power, developing the USSR’s remaining resource. Nor were we a military power. We generally observed the complete collapse of the country. "Thank you" to Boriska the drunk and the traitor Gorbachev.
                For 15 years of rising from her knees, she has become a Resource superpower.

                Lying again. You first looked at the list of high-tech goods exported now.
                1. prosto_rgb
                  prosto_rgb 14 November 2017 02: 24 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Wedmak
                  Gorbachev the traitor.

                  At which they launched the MIR station completed and launched the Buran
                  Continued to deploy GLONASS
                  In power was 5 years
                  Quote: Wedmak
                  "Thank you" Boriske-drunk and

                  at which the Angara began to do :)
                  and in power which was xnumx years
                  and at which oil was about $ 20 per barrel
                  http://www.waronline.org/fora/index.php?attachmen
                  ts / neft-jpg.19014 /

                  And let’s help Dasha, a traveler, find someone who has been in power since 2000 and everything prevents him from Yeltsin and Gorbachev in space exploration.
                  1. Wedmak
                    Wedmak 14 November 2017 06: 58 New
                    +2
                    In power was 5 years

                    Yes, super at all, I'm just amazed how you pull the owl on the globe. The base unit of the WORLD was launched in 1986, then during 10 years the others raised it. But Gorbachev began to rule the USSR only in 1990, successfully merging domestic politics to please foreign ones. And his attempt to reform the USSR ended in the collapse of the country. So the WORLD was launched rather contrary to than thanks to this leader. And given the pace that GLONASS was unfolding, this was supposed to continue until the carrot's plot. Buran launched and immediately turned off. One flight. Is this also an achievement of Gorbachev?
                    and in power which was xnumx years

                    Come on? Hangar? It would have been nothing that parts of the Angara were tested in 2007, and before that, from 1994 of the year there were only variants of the new LV. And the Hangar 1.2 flew only in 2014. True, there were launches in South Korea with the first stage in 2009, 2009 and 2013, but still, somehow it does not coincide with the rule of Yeltsin.
                    was about 20 $ per barrel

                    Before the artificial collapse of oil prices in 2008, it was under 130 $. And she began to grow with 2002. Oops .. Where is Yeltsin?

                    You should at least before looking at the numbers look. It is useful. Gorbachev and Yeltsin do not interfere; they are responsible for the collapse of the entire Russian economy. For breaking ties between the countries of the former USSR. And the sale of the interests of our state for the vague promises of the United States. "Peace, friendship, chewing gum" did not work.
                    1. Mikhail Zubkov
                      Mikhail Zubkov 14 November 2017 08: 35 New
                      0
                      Gorbachev became Secretary General of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1985. Why did you terminate his term - since 1990? He just did misfortunes in those 5 years - from 1985 to 1990. He launched “perestroika and glasnost”, “the fight against drunkenness and alcoholism” just in those years. You, apparently, are young and the “education” fell under you with Yeltsin, along with chewing gum. 25 years ago, in 1992, Gorbachev handed over power and the USSR flag to the Kremlin’s EBN, and Putin has been responsible for the Yeltsin Kremlin since 2000. But he is now rebuilding it, either backward or forward, for history for the travel industry, that is, for green money to the cashier of the operators. And another big, big question is whether these operators will be unfastened into our space - or they decide to give to their space. As Gorbachev, in essence and result, did. For the state, however, it is insulting and alarming!
                      1. Wedmak
                        Wedmak 14 November 2017 08: 47 New
                        +1
                        Having received the general secretary in 1985, Horabchev just started to turn back, but after receiving the presidency in 1990 he made a control shot. From here I "skostil" terms. In fact, before the collapse of the USSR, everything, including in the space sphere, went according to plan, according to plan. I remember very well how people voted to preserve the USSR. But some decided otherwise. From that moment, things went awry.
                        Putin, having accepted power, struggled for several years with the country's fall into the abyss. It was possible to rectify the situation only by the 2010 year and then not completely. Only starting with 2015 did you see at least some growth, at least some positive progress. But then sanctions came, imposing strategic enterprises on all sides, preventing them from working normally. What space, when the economy puts a stick in the wheel? And yet, something is being done, developed and produced.
                    2. prosto_rgb
                      prosto_rgb 15 November 2017 00: 59 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Wedmak
                      And Gorbachev began to rule the USSR only in 1990,

                      I have no more questions.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. x.andvlad
          x.andvlad 13 November 2017 11: 34 New
          0
          Quote: xetai9977
          Do not blame space technology.

          You got out anyway: you should not blame the Americans, because they are "well done"
          Yes, they are “good”, “good” when they sleep with their teeth against the wall. yes
        4. venik
          venik 13 November 2017 13: 01 New
          +6
          Quote: xetai9977
          Probably they made conclusions from the operation of the Shuttles, took into account shortcomings and again with the new technologies reanimated the project.

          ===========
          Yeah !!! One can immediately conclude from the “commentary”: the “ardent“ Americanophile, ”who does not bother himself with the“ study of the materiel ”!”
          Personally, with a "fair share of skepticism" I belong to "reusable systems." The reason is this: ALL of these systems are FIRST glance only seem more economical than "one-time"! The reason is that after EVERY (!!) flight you have to make "COMPLETE DETECTION"systems !!! In other words - to disassemble what is called" to the screw "to carry out the" defect "of ALL components, assemblies, and structural elements, replace ALL that has become unsuitable or" doubtful ", then reassemble, test and only then -" by the second round "!!! The result -" shuttles "like" Columbia "had practically no NO"commercial" value !!! "Reputational" - certainly! “Scientific” and “Military” - YES !! A "commercial - sought to" 0 "!! That is why, and not because of accidents," the project and "covered" !!! (The cost of the cargo put into orbit was almost several times higher than the indicators of the same Delt, Arianov and Soyuz !!!!
          Now about the "Dream Chaser" - judging by the photo - this is a greatly reduced version of the "shuttle" with limited (compared with the "Columbia" capabilities - "carrying capacity" + the lack of a marching engine, etc.). The downsizing is understandable - they will probably try to "squeeze" it under the fairing of promising Amer "superheavy" missiles (which will significantly reduce thermal loads (during take-off)), and a simpler design will simplify, reduce the cost and speed up the "defect!). Maybe it’s enough" economical "machine, comparable or even superior to" disposable "ships .... As I understand it, the" Federation "is designed based on the same criteria!
          Well, about the "reusable steps" Ilona Mask, it's pure financial scam with the goal of transferring (partially) the "burden" of financing American space programs (including military) from the state budget - "onto the shoulders" of private investors (including and foreign !!!). I can "justify"!
          1. nmaxxen
            nmaxxen 13 November 2017 15: 09 New
            +3
            Quote: venik
            Personally, with a "fair share of skepticism" I belong to "reusable systems." The reason is this: ALL of these systems - only at the FIRST glance, they seem more economical than “disposable” ones!

            you are absolutely right. space "reusability" wretched scam.
            But about:
            Quote: venik
            "Dream Chaser" - judging by the photo - this is a greatly reduced version of the "shuttle" with limited capabilities - "payload" + the lack of a marching engine, etc. .. ... It may turn out to be quite an "economical" machine, comparable or even superior to "disposable" "ships .... As I understand it," Federation "is designed based on the same criteria!

            praised the ideological fathers "reusable bast shoe chasing a dream":
            It will not work out an “economical machine”, let alone surpassing disposable spacecraft, and all the more ideal Union in layout, only in wet dreams.
            KK Federation is also very unsuccessful in layout and concept, here we must rejoice about the delays in its implementation and hope that it will never be created.
            Perhaps the power of compradors and prostitutes will change and we will have a second Korolev who will make Russia the undisputed leader in space exploration, which will drag along the development of our entire country.
            1. venik
              venik 13 November 2017 19: 04 New
              +1
              Quote: nmaxxen
              praised the ideological fathers "reusable bast shoe chasing a dream":

              ========
              That’s why he used the “cautious” expressions “maybe” and “comparable” ... Still, material science and instrument engineering are not “in place” ....
              And as for the "Federation" - it’s such a primitive "barrel" that its "defect" can be quite simple and cheap .... Although ... Well, 2-3 times it can still be "driven" into space with the crew, and further .. - it is better to use as a "truck" - with each new flight - the risk of an accident will increase exponentially ......
              In short, "count and count" is necessary here!
              1. nmaxxen
                nmaxxen 13 November 2017 23: 45 New
                +1
                “Federation” is an utter nonsense imposed by politicians who forced designers to conceptually copy American absurd barrels (artificially inflated so that in response to - why are they better than a union? Joyfully answer: 6-7 people fit - we are not wasting taxpayer money for nothing !!!).
                That is, the same rake when the Kremlin elders were forced to copy the shuttle.
                For flights to the moon and into orbit (although I believe that there is nothing to do in orbit - you need to fly directly to the moon and make a permanent base there), there are enough Unions (or a new ship repeating its concept at a new technical level)
                1. Victor Dubovitsky
                  Victor Dubovitsky 14 November 2017 02: 06 New
                  +1
                  Quote: nmaxxen
                  “Federation” is an utter nonsense imposed by politicians who forced designers to conceptually copy American absurd barrels (artificially inflated so that in response to - why are they better than a union? Joyfully answer: 6-7 people fit - we are not wasting taxpayer money for nothing !!!).
                  That is, the same rake when the Kremlin elders were forced to copy the shuttle.
                  For flights to the moon and into orbit (although I believe that there is nothing to do in orbit - you need to fly directly to the moon and make a permanent base there), there are enough Unions (or a new ship repeating its concept at a new technical level)

                  Well, you scorcher! Go to Alpha Centauri why not fly? What a budget savings. You have not been to the orbit of the moon. Fly and then tell me.
                  1. nmaxxen
                    nmaxxen 15 November 2017 20: 25 New
                    0
                    Quote: Victor Dubovitsky
                    Well, you scorcher! Go to Alpha Centauri why not fly? What a budget savings. You have not been to the orbit of the moon. Fly and then tell me.

                    Something did not understand your indignation ...
                    Do you think that spinning for years in orbit is more beneficial and much cheaper than the base on the moon.?
                    Or do you think that a base on the moon is impossible in our time, despite the 6 + 1/2 declared expeditions to the moon 50 years ago?
                    Or are you offended by the ever-memorable Kremlin elders and the Andropysh Trotskyites who manipulate them?
                    Or do you warm your hands on a drink, wretched and meaningless (since the "Union" is better, cheaper and more reliable), "federation".?
                    1. Victor Dubovitsky
                      Victor Dubovitsky 15 November 2017 23: 14 New
                      0
                      Quote: nmaxxen
                      Quote: Victor Dubovitsky
                      Well, you scorcher! Go to Alpha Centauri why not fly? What a budget savings. You have not been to the orbit of the moon. Fly and then tell me.

                      Something did not understand your indignation ...
                      Do you think that spinning for years in orbit is more beneficial and much cheaper than the base on the moon.?
                      Or do you think that a base on the moon is impossible in our time, despite the 6 + 1/2 declared expeditions to the moon 50 years ago?
                      Or are you offended by the ever-memorable Kremlin elders and the Andropysh Trotskyites who manipulate them?
                      Or do you warm your hands on a drink, wretched and meaningless (since the "Union" is better, cheaper and more reliable), "federation".?

                      Then why strive to the moon, if you can’t understand that the difficulties arising from this exceed our capabilities. Raise a station carrying a hundred tons to such a distance. Here you can’t help with an attack on a cart. Who will deploy the hostel on the surface of the moon? Maybe we’ll shoot you there? Do not write nonsense, you are not a kindergartner. Or I'm wrong? Perhaps the Americans WERE on the moon. But why did it stop flying? Was everything ready?
                      1. nmaxxen
                        nmaxxen 16 November 2017 00: 57 New
                        0
                        Quote: Victor Dubovitsky
                        Then why strive to the moon, if you can’t understand that the difficulties arising from this exceed our capabilities. Raise a station carrying a hundred tons to such a distance. Here you can’t help with an attack on a cart. Who will deploy the hostel on the surface of the moon? Maybe we’ll shoot you there? Do not write nonsense, you are not a kindergartner. Or I'm wrong? Perhaps the Americans WERE on the moon. But why did it stop flying? Was everything ready?

                        There were NO Americans on the moon.
                        this is clear to anyone who at least a little thoughtfully studied the "events" they claimed.
                        And precisely because of this lie, sabotage of space exploration began
                        space.
                        And those who do not see the consequences of this deliberate sabotage are fools.
                        Aggressive rash stupid write just you.
                        And you pour water on the mill of American scammers and their lackeys nasa propagandists who would hide the deception constantly, until absurd tantrums carry out the idea that in no case you need to fly to the moon and as a disguise (so as not to pass for obscurantists) delusional projections push everywhere flight to Mars, hoping for the formula "Hodge Ishak Emir"
          2. Mikhail Zubkov
            Mikhail Zubkov 14 November 2017 09: 02 New
            0
            According to the algorithms of the Shuttle, Buran, Space-X and this "shoe" of NASA, which in principle repeats our "stormy" searches, one can and should argue, but without specific tasks for the equipment and its cost in the series and operation, the disputes have no main arguments. The Buran was created initially for military purposes - they were removed by Gorbachev, which immediately made the whole project unacceptably expensive - either they considered it that way, or the Americans proved it to Gorbachev. In short, they were not allowed to go to the series, but everything that was worked out was almost thrown out. For the state it is insulting and disturbing.
        5. Victor Dubovitsky
          Victor Dubovitsky 15 November 2017 23: 52 New
          0
          Quote: xetai9977
          Probably they made conclusions from the operation of the Shuttles, took into account shortcomings and again with the new technologies reanimated the project. Great and promising technique! Well done Americans! They are already engaged in space technologies by a number of companies and, on the whole, are quite successful. And as for those who are stamping out unfriendly comments here, envy silently. Do not blame space technology. In the end, it will serve the interests of all earthlings.

          Well, in the interests of yours, your country, they certainly do not work. Moreover, of course, to the detriment.
      2. NEXUS
        NEXUS 13 November 2017 15: 42 New
        +3
        Quote: maxim947
        Cool thing, plus they still have the X-37B flying, and quite successfully.

        And if they start doing them in series, then the mattresses will receive strategic bombers in the near space.
        But for now, the horse did not lie in this direction, okromy Buran ...
        1. Young_Communist
          Young_Communist 13 November 2017 17: 48 New
          +4
          Quote: NEXUS
          But for now, the horse did not lie in this direction, okromy Buran ...

          Does Buran fly? Can I load a couple of bombs tomorrow and bomb the Pentagon?



          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 13 November 2017 18: 31 New
            +2
            There is no more Buran, the only flight instance in place with the Energia rocket - the roof of the hangar on Baikonur crushed the roof in 2002. The only direction that needs to be developed is single-stage aerospace aircraft.
          2. NEXUS
            NEXUS 14 November 2017 02: 17 New
            +3
            Quote: Young_Communist
            Does Buran fly? Can I load a couple of bombs tomorrow and bomb the Pentagon?

            Dear, can you read thoughtfully? Where did I write that Buran flies? I wrote in black in Russian that ..
            Quote: NEXUS
            But for now, the horse did not lie in this direction, okromy Buran ...

            Where in this sentence is there even a word that Buran is flying?
        2. venik
          venik 13 November 2017 19: 07 New
          +1
          Quote: NEXUS
          And if they start doing them in series, then the mattresses will receive strategic bombers in the near space.

          =========
          And what, from the "non-returnable" devices, there is no way to "assemble" such a grouping does not work??? And WHAT ultimately cheaper?????
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 14 November 2017 02: 20 New
            +3
            Quote: venik
            And what, from the "non-returnable" devices, such a grouping "to collect" - does not work ??? AND WHAT is ultimately cheaper ?????

            I’m talking about space strategic aviation, which will not be within the reach of our defense means. And what about disposable satellites?
            Such a strategist bombed, sat down on the airfield, booted up and flew off again ... and to rivet disposable spacecraft (nifiga are not cheap), for one-time operations, will you have enough budget?
        3. Victor Dubovitsky
          Victor Dubovitsky 16 November 2017 00: 02 New
          0
          Quote: NEXUS
          Quote: maxim947
          Cool thing, plus they still have the X-37B flying, and quite successfully.

          And if they start doing them in series, then the mattresses will receive strategic bombers in the near space.
          But for now, the horse did not lie in this direction, okromy Buran ...

          You overestimate. As scouts, a good thing. But as carriers of weapons, of course not. Count yourself. The period of revolution around the Earth is about an hour and a half, depending on the height of the orbit. The inclination of the orbit, of course, will not allow us to inspect (fly) over our territory anywhere. Changing moods is a nightmare in fuel consumption. This canned food does not have such a reserve. If suddenly, it will be decided to attack something, then this can be done if not at THIS round, then at the next. And this is an hour and a half waiting. Start from the Earth and flight time of the strategist - 20 minutes - 40 minutes. Trying to use this piece of iron for missile defense- difficulties are added in determining the target, aiming and accurately hitting the target that has gained supersonic. Or even hypersound. After all, one must somehow extinguish the first cosmic velocity in order to enter and not burn out. Catch up and get in. Fantasy. Ground carriers can do their job FASTER than hanging in space and a little controlled piece of iron.
          Further. Are you not afraid that the drone hanging there, armed with a nuclear clapper, can be redirected to the owner himself? Will you give a guarantee that this is not possible?
    2. Muvka
      Muvka 13 November 2017 09: 41 New
      +7
      There were already shuttles. They covered up. Well fly on this, they will kill about a dozen cosmonauts and again cover.
      1. Jedi
        Jedi 13 November 2017 09: 47 New
        +7
        hi
        Quote: Muvka
        Well fly on this, they’ll kill about a dozen cosmonauts and cover again.

        But this is not necessary - let their astronauts ruin. wink
        1. Muvka
          Muvka 13 November 2017 09: 52 New
          +6
          Quote: Jedi
          hi
          Quote: Muvka
          Well fly on this, they’ll kill about a dozen cosmonauts and cover again.

          But this is not necessary - let their astronauts ruin. wink

          Well, ours will not go there. They will fly on time-tested low-cost Unions.
          1. Jedi
            Jedi 13 November 2017 10: 01 New
            +6
            And they’ll do it right. And the Americans, you see, "zapadlo" in terms of space flights depend on the "main enemy of American democracy."
        2. Going
          Going 13 November 2017 09: 54 New
          11
          Hi Maxim, everything is still very raw and it is too early to make forecasts, but nobody needs to be ruined.
          1. Jedi
            Jedi 13 November 2017 10: 03 New
            +7
            Victor, good day! I agree, it’s too early to share the skin of a dead bear. For some reason, it's a shame from this phrase:
            The compact shuttle is based on the American HL-20 orbital plane, which, in turn, was modeled after the Soviet unmanned rocket plane BOR-4
            1. Going
              Going 13 November 2017 10: 10 New
              +8
              Oh, how much of this you can raise and regret that we are not, starting with the radio, etc ..
              1. Jedi
                Jedi 13 November 2017 10: 14 New
                +7
                As the character of N. Karachentsova in "White Roses" said: "Dad, don’t make me sad!" wink
                1. Going
                  Going 13 November 2017 10: 21 New
                  +8
                  Yes, a good film, but yesterday I couldn’t watch it ... here we can fall behind very much too.
                  1. Jedi
                    Jedi 13 November 2017 10: 23 New
                    +6
                    I hope that now there is no such massive "drain" of technologies as under Mechen and EBN.
                    1. Going
                      Going 13 November 2017 11: 35 New
                      +9
                      Yes, then they sold everything that is possible, for a long time it will still be us.
    3. Wedmak
      Wedmak 13 November 2017 09: 45 New
      +4
      Not everything is so bad ... It took a lot of time for the Americans to copy the BOR-4 of the 70's. And he only sat down with them. While ours was in orbit, and even maneuvered during the descent.
      1. Nasrat
        Nasrat 13 November 2017 09: 54 New
        14
        Before BOR-4 went into orbit and maneuvered during the descent, there were flights of BOR-2 and BOR-3, it is possible that the Americans are testing the same sequence ... ours, for example, do not experience this ... it might be better to observe, learn (always there is something), and not to gnash your teeth from the own greatness of the 70s - where is it now, then greatness?
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 13 November 2017 10: 08 New
          +2
          where is it now, that greatness?

          Nevertheless ... We have it было in the 70's. Then everything collapsed, the program was closed, and now apparently there is no money for these developments with an unknown result.
          1. Nasrat
            Nasrat 13 November 2017 10: 13 New
            +2
            That's just the point - everything was and passed ... (here went mat) .. And if not us, then someone will definitely take our place. I feel that in the future we will not see our new victories in space (in the economy) ...
        2. Maz
          Maz 13 November 2017 10: 17 New
          +3
          I read and think about the orbital armored train that has been standing in some sort of state security tunnel since the 70s. And the Americans Only began to build it.
          1. Nasrat
            Nasrat 13 November 2017 10: 20 New
            +2
            Quote: Maz
            ..about an orbital armored train that has been standing in some sort of state security tunnel since the 70s.



            Then I read for days that in the early 90s, in the northern fleet, hangars with canned Yak-41 (2 sides) were brewed. It seems like everything is in working condition .. I really don’t know whether to believe or fake (which is most likely) .. But it was nice to read .. the very thought of the working samples is pleasant
        3. venik
          venik 13 November 2017 19: 10 New
          +1
          Quote: Nasr
          maybe it’s better to watch, learn (there is always something), and not gnash your teeth from the own greatness of the 70s - where is it now, then greatness?

          ==========
          Or maybe it’s better to learn wisdom - analyze your own and others' mistakes and move YOUR own way ????
    4. Esoteric
      Esoteric 13 November 2017 09: 49 New
      +3
      Quote: starogil
      Soon we will not need a cab

      laughing We plowed ... laughing
      Attach the wheels to the sofa, shafts and harness the trotter ... Maybe you'll need ... lol
      1. starogil
        starogil 13 November 2017 09: 54 New
        +2
        So far, you bit a bit. But-But, let's go ....
    5. Chertkov Oleg
      Chertkov Oleg 13 November 2017 09: 56 New
      10
      Humpbacked or ebn tried.
      , was modeled after the Soviet unmanned rocket-plane BOR-4 ”,

      1. avt
        avt 13 November 2017 10: 05 New
        +1
        Quote: Oleg Chertkov
        Humpbacked or ebn tried.

        EBN. With him, they launched on Lightning, such as commercial pokatushki on a ballistic trajectory joint to do. Well, here is the result .... request They already rolled out the carrier from the hangar, it was already double-fuselage on the site and ... also similar to the development of Lightning. If memory serves, then practically at the same time the USs of the garish fleet in Zhukovsky Tu-144 and checked a series of test flights according to YOUR program, so wait for something else .... hypersonic.
        1. Chertkov Oleg
          Chertkov Oleg 13 November 2017 10: 21 New
          0
          Great article about the history of Hogs
          http://www.buran.ru/htm/bors.htm
        2. Kent0001
          Kent0001 13 November 2017 14: 00 New
          +1
          Hare, not funny anymore. There is no EBN since 2000.
          1. venik
            venik 13 November 2017 19: 13 New
            +1
            Quote: Kent0001
            Hare, not funny anymore. There is no EBN since 2000.

            =========
            He is not there! But the "case" of his "still lives" (albeit "barely") and the consequences are still "popping up" !!!
    6. Buffet
      Buffet 13 November 2017 10: 01 New
      +8
      Do you say trampolines? Well ... Where are you there?
      1. Nasrat
        Nasrat 13 November 2017 10: 08 New
        11
        Quote: SHVEDsky_stol
        Where are you there?


        The patriots, approaching the checkout counter in the store - abusively curse their poverty, and approaching the ballot box - they are not overjoyed by the current government. laughing
        1. Mestny
          Mestny 13 November 2017 10: 26 New
          -1
          Oh, the strangers pulled themselves up.
          But who needs this patriotism. What do you love here, why cheer? There are radiant places where everything is much better. Ayda destroy everything again.
  2. Sands Careers General
    Sands Careers General 13 November 2017 09: 37 New
    +6
    Some kind of nonshuttle.
    Let's see what they launch there, and then there are several managed flight programs, but in fact there is nothing.
    1. Mikhail m
      Mikhail m 13 November 2017 09: 45 New
      +5
      Quote: Sands Career General
      Some kind of nonshuttle.

      However, 7 people will pull. Well done engineers.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 13 November 2017 09: 54 New
        +3
        I don’t even know where they are going to place 7 people there. In this oversight. And it is curious how crew rescue schemes are implemented - all of a sudden, if that. Or like in the shuttles - "they have 100% reliable"?
        1. Mikhail m
          Mikhail m 13 November 2017 14: 36 New
          +3
          Length: 9 m, wingspan: 7 m, sealed volume: 16 m³. The term of active existence. up to 210 days.
          In 16 cubes there is enough space for 7 people, I suppose. In the "Unions" the lander 3,5 cubic meters and a household compartment of 5 cubes for three.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 14 November 2017 09: 01 New
            0
            tight volume: 16 m³

            Sealed volume, this does not mean residential volume. What about appliances? What about the load? All this is also in a sealed volume.
            Have you ever seen HOW these three lie in 3.5 cubes? And this despite the fact that there is an individual adjustment of lodges and spacesuits. And a bunch of equipment in front of the nose. And a load hangs overhead, free space only so that a toy announcing the onset of zero gravity is hung. But is the household compartment not used for cargo?
            1. Mikhail m
              Mikhail m 15 November 2017 11: 18 New
              +1
              When I was in Tura-Tame, I saw him. I never envied these guys.
        2. venik
          venik 13 November 2017 19: 15 New
          +1
          Quote: Wedmak
          I don’t even know where they are going to place 7 people there.

          ========
          And they’ll put it in a “stack”! Ah, what! "In cramped conditions, but not in insult" ...... Out of the "Constipation" "eared" was a matter of 9 (nine !!!) the snout fit! (Moreover - this is NOT a JOKE, NOT a WIN and NOT HEARING !!) I myself sat in the front seat, and on my knees - two more fit .... When they "unloaded" - the whole faculty ran to "gawk and neigh" !!! By the way, they themselves couldn’t “unload” - the laughter “pulled out” one at a time ..... But - bet - won!!! Oh and "kicked" .......
          And here you are, my dear, about some kind of “shuttle” ... Yes, our students are “betting” (a box of vodka), they’ll climb in there with the whole “stream” !!
          1. Mikhail m
            Mikhail m 15 November 2017 11: 25 New
            +1
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNwjWvAODl8
            14 people get into Constipation.
      2. Sands Careers General
        Sands Careers General 13 November 2017 10: 38 New
        +5
        You can declare anything you want, that 48 people can be sent to Mars. Let's see when seven people fly, at least to the ISS, and then we'll see.
        Dyna-Sor also did, as a result, the program was closed, throwing a ton of money into the wind.
    2. Wedmak
      Wedmak 13 November 2017 09: 47 New
      +1
      Some kind of nonshuttle.

      It’s a copy of the shuttle from the Spiral project. For a long time they did it ...
  3. Großer feldherr
    Großer feldherr 13 November 2017 09: 37 New
    +5
    Shaw, again?
    One failed shuttle program was not enough and wanted to cut even more budget dough ??
    1. Lycan
      Lycan 13 November 2017 09: 56 New
      +3
      Yeah!
      To be able to raise the powdered the old as "breakthrough new"while mercilessly cutting the budget - this is necessary u m e!
      PS: Cut - with a cut, but sensible scientists and inventors are cultivated in places in this "feed". This, so to speak, is a bunch of compost, where pumpkin can grow from a carelessly thrown seed.
      1. ghby
        ghby 13 November 2017 11: 07 New
        0
        Quote: Lycan
        PS: Cut - with a cut, but sensible scientists and inventors are cultivated in places in this "feed". This, so to speak, is a bunch of compost, where pumpkin can grow from a carelessly thrown seed.

        They haven’t grown anything for a long time, everything sensible is acquired ready-made from outside, including from the Russian Federation.
        1. Lycan
          Lycan 13 November 2017 13: 00 New
          0
          Who knows - how they have it "in the depths". I would still continue to finance "interest circles" in their place - some Gates, Jobs, Hayflick, Creek with Watson may well appear ...
  4. Mik13
    Mik13 13 November 2017 09: 38 New
    17
    Interestingly, this cheerful flock of screams about trampolines and the Mask, which energetically jumped in the comments about an exploding rocket engine among Americans, will follow this article! Or is this news for patriotic horse racing "Rogozin-style" - not format?
    1. Nasrat
      Nasrat 13 November 2017 09: 43 New
      +8
      Of course it will run, moreover - they will predict the very appearance of such a shuttle !!!
      1. Mestny
        Mestny 13 November 2017 10: 29 New
        +2
        Well, as you can, it’s the radiant USA. They, as all fighters for the truth know, have everything only the best. Rather, a crowd will come running with a howl about how everything is once again bad with us.
        These citizens, for whatever reason, are organizing mass tantrums, and here is such an occasion.
        1. Nasrat
          Nasrat 13 November 2017 10: 31 New
          +2
          Calm down and envy silently! bully
          1. Mestny
            Mestny 13 November 2017 10: 47 New
            +5
            I repeat once again - no one encroaches on your beliefs that everything is fine with them and that everything is bad with us.
            We simply state the fact - there are too many of you, the patriots of the USA, here. And this is not good.
            1. Nasrat
              Nasrat 13 November 2017 10: 53 New
              +4
              An increase in the number of people dissatisfied with the situation in the country, states the fact - not everything is in order in the country !!!! wink Understand cause-effect relationships ..
              If your life has improved (recently), then you are clearly not from the people and then it is clear that you are cynically supporting the current government ... belay
              1. Mestny
                Mestny 13 November 2017 11: 14 New
                +3
                Wrestler? I thought so.
                I inform you specifically - my life has worsened (recently), and I'm from the people.
                But.
                Even if this very life worsens even more, I will still support my homeland and country than I can. All this exists regardless of the current government or the availability of an oiphone.
                Do you understand this?
                1. Nasrat
                  Nasrat 13 November 2017 11: 25 New
                  +5
                  I state that you can love your homeland, while criticizing the authorities ... but you don’t know (if only at the time you earned hard-earned money ..) And what about the natural wealth of your homeland - they shared without you? Yes, there, at the top, they divided their entire homeland ... without you ... Wait for dividends ... bully
                  I don’t fight the regime, I despise it ... laughing
                  1. Mestny
                    Mestny 13 November 2017 11: 35 New
                    +2
                    The very fact of your agreement with the definition of "regime" as applied to our country perfectly characterizes you.
                    It will not work just to love the motherland and "despise the regime." This hatred of yours implies a change of "regime" (for the good of the homeland, of course). As a result of the actions of such successors, or rather, the actions of their leaders and inspirers, there is no stone unturned from the homeland.
                    And people like you then in the ruins exclaim in surprise - "How so? We were for all the good against all the bad?"
                    This is not what I came up with, this is not the philistine fear of change. This is history.
                    There are simply no exceptions. In the best case, then on the wreckage of the homeland, whenever a new homeland appears, and even then, it is far from always. And those further ones, if they are born of course, will curse us for the fact that at one time we "all asked ... whether".
                    1. Nasrat
                      Nasrat 13 November 2017 11: 37 New
                      +5
                      This is what you tell in the Yeltsin Center ... who, with fanfare, built and opened - the current regime covered by you !!! wassat This is the very regime that imposes on us the heroes of Mannerheim, Kolchak (and others), Nicolas-2 ... while real heroes cannot afford a comfortable old age (the neighbor was buried for days - the WWII veteran was dying in poverty) ..
    2. Muvka
      Muvka 13 November 2017 09: 43 New
      11
      What is unusual about this news? Shuttle 2.0. Recall how the first version ended? That's how they will fly on it, then we'll talk. A test every four years, with a performance of 50% does not mean anything. And it is better to be a cheerful herd than a herd of whiners who are constantly not happy with something, and who constantly complain about something.
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 13 November 2017 09: 52 New
        11
        Quote: Muvka
        Recall how the first version ended?

        2 accidents for 135 starts. Normal result.
        Already that
        The compact shuttle is based on the American orbital plane HL-20, which, in turn, was arranged modeled on the Soviet unmanned rocket plane BOR-4
        speaks about the prospects of such a project. Agree that if we were now discussing another test flight of the BOR, then all the blackeners would jump and sing differently))).
        1. Muvka
          Muvka 13 November 2017 09: 56 New
          +2
          I'm talking about the cost.
          1. Akuzenka
            Akuzenka 13 November 2017 10: 18 New
            +1
            Amer cost on the drum, they print money, not earn.
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 13 November 2017 11: 36 New
              +1
              Quote: AKuzenka
              Amer cost on the drum, they print money, not earn.

              But they do not print iron, aluminum, titanium.
          2. Thunderbolt
            Thunderbolt 13 November 2017 10: 20 New
            +1
            Quote: Muvka
            I'm talking about the cost.

            I think that it is not so critical for NASA if it pulls simultaneously 3 test programs for the delivery of cargo to the ISS.
        2. Wedmak
          Wedmak 13 November 2017 10: 06 New
          +1
          what if we were now discussing another test flight of BOR

          Rather, the flight schedule ... if it didn’t work out that way, and a decision would be made about the series. For almost 30 years, progress would have been significant.
          Whether it is promising or not, time will still show, for until the Americans even launched it into orbit. Here it is worth recalling the X-37B, with unknown goals dangling in orbit for years. And why do two programs work: X-37B and this copy of BOR?
      2. Sergei75
        Sergei75 13 November 2017 11: 07 New
        0
        normally they will fly, first launch from launch vehicles, and then from aircraft platforms.
    3. Wedmak
      Wedmak 13 November 2017 09: 48 New
      +4
      Why jump? They themselves admitted (NASA) that they copied the ship with BOR-4. Let me remind you that the BOR-4 was tested, flew into orbit, maneuvered upon entering the atmosphere in the 70's of the last century. And where is the progress?
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 13 November 2017 10: 28 New
        +2
        It’s too early to talk about progress, but if their shuttle goes into series, then this will be the practical implementation of an orbital aircraft. Such “equipment” also has military prospects, by the way ...
        1. Großer feldherr
          Großer feldherr 13 November 2017 10: 40 New
          +1
          Any artificial object in orbit has "military prospects", nothing new and surprising.
    4. Sige
      Sige 13 November 2017 09: 50 New
      +4
      Don’t worry so much, we are sincerely happy for your hail. We had no idea that your owners would always buy alliances.
      All-human cooperation in space still did not work, and the Mkss are the same meaningless projects as the shuttles.
      And trampolines, as you put it, will be useful to Russophobes for the following Maidan.
    5. 79807420129
      79807420129 13 November 2017 09: 50 New
      +6
      Quote: Mik13
      Interestingly, this cheerful flock of screams about trampolines and the Mask, which energetically jumped in the comments about an exploding rocket engine among Americans, will follow this article! Or is this news for patriotic horse racing "Rogozin-style" - not format?

      Run over of course don't worry wink who will tell fortunes about trampolines, someone will admire on the contrary, the smart thing will be silent and will continue to watch, but the herd will begin to irony over one or the other. Ironize further. hi
      1. Mestny
        Mestny 13 November 2017 10: 32 New
        0
        That is, irony in this case is prohibited?
        Ok, what to do? Well, if everything is so bad, of course we have it, but is it so good for them?
        I ask without irony.
        1. 79807420129
          79807420129 13 November 2017 12: 37 New
          +5
          Quote: Mestny
          I ask without irony.

          A colleague, I’m also a fan of pironization, but I’m never members of the forum, it doesn’t matter who they believe in, prefer or adore, I will not name any animals as a herd. yes And so many people, so many opinions. Someone likes trampolines, some shuttles, some swing. hi
  5. Livonetc
    Livonetc 13 November 2017 09: 43 New
    +5
    Quote: Großer Feldherr
    Shaw, again?
    One failed shuttle program was not enough and wanted to cut even more budget dough ??

    The shuttle was a failure due to the high cost of the program.
    Actually, like Buran.
    If this shuttle is more economical than other launch methods, then the prospect will be
    1. family
      family tree 13 November 2017 10: 17 New
      +2
      Quote: Livonetc
      If this shuttle is more economical than other launch methods, then the prospect will be

      It will not be more economical, purely because of reusable. SchA, for all firms, the trend is to make disposable, and so as not to repair, the horse price tag on the nodes, because sometimes figs change parts, inextricable connection wassat
    2. Großer feldherr
      Großer feldherr 13 November 2017 10: 30 New
      +2
      It cannot be more economical because of the concept itself.
      The space shuttle was forced to throw an extra 70 tons into orbit with the same payload as the proton, which increased the cost of the load by about 6 times without any advantages.
  6. Pacifist
    Pacifist 13 November 2017 09: 43 New
    13
    There are no words. Almost complete copy of the shuttle for the work "Spiral". When will Roskosmos stop crap?!. Where is the "Federation"? Where is the "MAX"?
    We have all these developments. Why the hell is nothing implemented? Humanly insulting, our ancestors put so much effort into the leadership of the country in space, and the bureaucrats all went through ... if.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 13 November 2017 09: 59 New
      +1
      and all bureaucrats are just ...

      And they are going to implement a program of flights to Mars. I don’t even know, the idea is certainly a good and promising one, but only without a serial heavy rocket and its own orbital station it will all be catch-ups of American rovers.
      1. Akuzenka
        Akuzenka 13 November 2017 10: 21 New
        +3
        How do you not understand? The bureaucrats did not "piss off." This is a targeted policy to destroy our space program. Really for so many years before you did not get it? The facts of the sea, screams that we are the first - the sea, the result is negative. Even this is enough for this conclusion.
    2. Setrac
      Setrac 13 November 2017 11: 38 New
      0
      Quote: Pacifist
      When will Roskosmos stop crap?!.

      And you go, teach them how to work, he’s awkward.
    3. demos1111
      demos1111 13 November 2017 15: 09 New
      +1
      If you look, everyone in Rosskosmos is doing it right, of course within the budget. How was it not to build an eastern, seeing all the ex-brothers?
      They’ll finish the east with a hangar, finish the federation, and take on multiple launches.
      The concept of boron is relevant only for military purposes.
  7. andrewkor
    andrewkor 13 November 2017 09: 44 New
    +2
    From what carrier did they launch it? It’s still a long way to real flights to Space, I think. And the device is interesting. Due to its similarity with Bohr, I think that is not surprising; the devices used in such extreme conditions as flights to the Cosmos must meet very strict requirements, which in itself limits the options for their designs. There are a lot of examples of similarity of equipment from different countries if we discard direct industrial espionage.
  8. True
    True 13 November 2017 09: 45 New
    +2
    How's the Rogozin trampoline? Clowns!
    1. Muvka
      Muvka 13 November 2017 09: 49 New
      +2
      As usual, only they deliver the crews to the ISS. And they are doing it successfully. To your regret.
  9. Esoteric
    Esoteric 13 November 2017 09: 55 New
    0
    I just have one small question: "Hard cosmic radiation does not affect the multiple repetition of the take-off-landing cycle?" belay what
    Space is radioactive. Shelter from radiation is simply impossible. Imagine that you are standing in the midst of a sandstorm, and a whirlpool of small pebbles that hurt your skin is constantly circling around you. This is what cosmic radiation looks like. And this radiation causes considerable harm. But the problem is that, unlike pebbles and pieces of earth, ionizing radiation does not bounce off human flesh. It passes through it like a cannonball pierces through a building. And this radiation causes considerable harm.
    1. Großer feldherr
      Großer feldherr 13 November 2017 11: 05 New
      +2
      There is no cosmos, all these charlatans, under the guise of scientists, invented to fool people, in fact, the Earth is flat, and nobody can overcome the firmament of heaven, except God. [this is a joke, if that ...]
      I’ll tell you a little secret, but in this world almost everything is radioactive.
      We are constantly in the midst of radiation background, and norms, no "considerable harm" and even discomfort.
      In many places, people from birth are forced to live with beyond the Earth, the radioactive background of which exceeds the cosmic ... they live poorly, but they live. And here is just iron.
    2. Warrior-80
      Warrior-80 13 November 2017 14: 43 New
      0
      The earth’s magnetic field protects from the solar wind and radiation, from the side of the sun about 50 thousand km, from the opposite side, since there the pressure of the solar wind on the magnetosphere is less, the protective field is much larger, even goes beyond the moon
  10. Cat Marquis
    Cat Marquis 13 November 2017 10: 01 New
    +1
    Hey! Where is this "trampoline" tovarisch? What is not witty about the "trampolines"?
    1. Mestny
      Mestny 13 November 2017 10: 38 New
      0
      And what, 7 Americans have already landed on the ISS? recourse
      Is it time for us to start crying and crawling into the cemetery of history?
      1. Cat Marquis
        Cat Marquis 13 November 2017 10: 41 New
        +3
        We haven’t "not landed," ... we have an RD-180 .... Or is it already not "like us" like "Spiral" and much more? That's what is written here, for example, about the "famous" RD-180 which is "our fse" for ....... (it is clear to whom): https://m-kalashnikov.livejournal.com/3290279.htm
        l ".... It should be noted that this contract then came back to a great deal for 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 it could not manufacture the RD-180 for their own purposes, and should purchase it from the American company Pratt & Whitney.
        Now all the key elements of the RD-180 are protected by US patents! Well, offhand, so as not to be unfounded: US Patent 6244041, US Patent 6226980, USPatent 6442931. Moreover, although the "base" of the engine is taken from the Soviet RD-170, all the subtle control mechanics and automation: pumps, valves, control circuits - this is all - American, real American developments owned by Lockheed and Martin.
        And therefore, when Russia needed exactly such an engine as the RD-180 for the Rus-M missiles, it was necessary to start developing the full Russian analogue, the RD-180V, in which American patents and American developments would not be used. This problem could not be solved: by that time there were still specialists in engine production in Russia, but there were no specialists left to develop them.
        As a result, to put on the Angara is not a “half”, but a “quarter” RD-191 engine. ... "
        Well, "- The Americans were sold all the test results of a flying laboratory on the subject of" Cold. "And the last test (in 1998) was funded by the United States. In return, they got access to all the invaluable research materials. As a result, in 2001, miraculously , without any research potential, in the USA three experimental prototypes of the X-41 hypersonic apparatus were built at once. "...
        1. Mestny
          Mestny 13 November 2017 10: 55 New
          0
          What does the RD-180 have to do with it? On the new shuttle, what - is it installed?
          However, I am not talking about that.
          For me personally, any invention, wherever it is made, is still a step forward for everyone. Someone will do it - the rest will at least be convinced that this can be done, because sometimes, in the implementation of large projects, a significant part is made up of doubts about its effectiveness, or the possibility of implementing it.
          We will see. Bring to regular use - it means it turned out, and this can and should be done.
          But, it may not work out - it may turn out to be expensive, or unreliable.
          We will see. So far, here's a test flight in the atmosphere with landing.
          1. Cat Marquis
            Cat Marquis 13 November 2017 10: 59 New
            +1
            What does the RD-180 have to do with it? .

            Well, you're talking about the landing on the ISS ....
            1. Mestny
              Mestny 13 November 2017 11: 18 New
              -1
              No, I'm talking about the fact that the project is already in the stage of practical use, and not experimental flights in the atmosphere.
              1. Cat Marquis
                Cat Marquis 13 November 2017 11: 40 New
                +4
                And I'm talking about the fact that they sold everything that is possible and now ....: "A car in the name of my wife, a cottage in my name ... You don’t have anything! You are a wimp! ("Watch out for the car")
        2. AlexanderVP
          AlexanderVP 13 November 2017 11: 36 New
          0
          Quote: Marquis Cat
          Now all the key elements of the RD-180 are protected by patents, US owned! Well, offhand, so as not to be unfounded: US Patent 6244041, US Patent 6226980, USPatent 6442931. Moreover, although the “basic basis" of the engine was taken from the Soviet RD-170, all the subtle control mechanics and automation: pumps, valves, control circuits - these are all American, real American developments, owned by Lockheed and Martin.


          We have three statements, two of which are false.
          Firstly, the fact that a patent is registered in the USA does not mean that it belongs to the USA. IMHO, this is such an obvious thing that it does not need to be reminded that the patent belongs to the patent holder, and not to the country of registration of the patent. For the same invention, the author can obtain patents in all countries in order to secure copyright and legal protection. So that, this is lie number 1.
          Secondly, it is sometimes necessary to check the sources, no matter how authoritative they seem to you or no matter how convenient they fit into your picture of the world. So, I specifically looked at all three of these patents. All three belong to Energomash, all three indicate Russian engineers as authors. Do not believe, see:
          https://www.google.com/patents/US6442931
          https://www.google.com/patents/US6244041
          https://www.google.com/patents/US6226980
          It lie number 2.

          The only truth is that the RD-180 is legally owned by P&W. Yes, legally this is not a Russian engine.
          1. Cat Marquis
            Cat Marquis 13 November 2017 12: 11 New
            +2
            Checked. I agree - the owner of the patents is “Russian” ОАО ...... ". BUT .." from the change of terms, the amount has not changed "-RD-180 is not ours legally.
            1. AlexanderVP
              AlexanderVP 13 November 2017 12: 16 New
              +2
              Quote: Marquis Cat
              Checked. I agree - the owner of the patents is “Russian” ОАО ...... ". BUT .." from the change of terms, the amount has not changed "-RD-180 is not ours legally.

              The devil is hiding in the little things, huh? :)
              As the saying goes: "Once lied, who will believe you?"
              1. Cat Marquis
                Cat Marquis 13 November 2017 12: 54 New
                +1
                Well, yes ... Are you talking about the "May decrees" or the "promises" of EDRO? Judging by them, they believe, even as they believe .... although "slander" ... wink
                1. AlexanderVP
                  AlexanderVP 13 November 2017 13: 33 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Marquis Cat
                  Well, yes ... Are you talking about the "May decrees" or the "promises" of EDRO? Judging by them, they believe, even as they believe .... although "slander" ... wink

                  And I have not believed these "gentlemen" for a long time.
  11. Technologist
    Technologist 13 November 2017 10: 03 New
    +1
    Somehow ... at one time, she traded drawings ...
  12. san4es
    san4es 13 November 2017 10: 12 New
    +4
    'Dream Chaser' - A Cool Dive bully
  13. The comment was deleted.
  14. rudolff
    rudolff 13 November 2017 10: 25 New
    +2
    We have also been running around for ten years with the idea of ​​a compact reusable shuttle Clipper, we carried everything on exhibitions. And he died quietly at the stage of research.
    The idea is generally not bad. The shuttle (Buran) ruined the complexity and cost of the project. Cost has grown out of the cyclopean ambitions of the creators. Here you have a crew of up to 11 people, and 30 tons of cargo per NOZO, and a cargo compartment the size of a railway carriage, and your own engines, and a two-story residential compartment. Take away all this unnecessary and the output will turn out to be quite a normal workhorse.
    1. Mestny
      Mestny 13 November 2017 10: 57 New
      0
      Especially. that the technology for the production of materials, electronics, and much more has changed a lot since the 80s. That is, there is a chance in such a truncated version.
  15. Sergei75
    Sergei75 13 November 2017 11: 03 New
    +6
    Well, at least someone uses the achievements of the USSR, because we do not need them.
  16. mlad
    mlad 13 November 2017 11: 08 New
    +1
    If we trace the Russian space program, then we see complete underfunding. Because of this, nothing good was done except for the expensive hangars, and those crumbs that were allocated went nowhere, very surprised by this mess, and most importantly, offensively.
  17. Old26
    Old26 13 November 2017 11: 14 New
    +2
    Quote: starogil
    Soon we will not need a cab, but here also prototypes, it turns out, haggled ....

    Not necessarily that traded. The Americans had a long-term program in the 60s. A number of samples were tested. In the Armament section of the Cosmos subsection, these articles can be read.

    Quote: Muvka
    There were already shuttles. They covered up. Well fly on this, they will kill about a dozen cosmonauts and again cover.

    Iron excuse in the complete absence of similar developments, ready for operation with us. The staff of Orion, Dragon, Signus, Dream Chaser and one more, EMNIP CST-100 (which name - I do not remember), but what about us? The unrealized so far "Federation" postponed to 2023?

    Quote: Muvka
    Quote: Jedi
    hi
    Quote: Muvka
    Well fly on this, they’ll kill about a dozen cosmonauts and cover again.

    But this is not necessary - let their astronauts ruin. wink

    Well, ours will not go there. They will fly on time-tested low-cost Unions.

    Yeah. On the proven "Union", And how many more will you fly on this design? There is one more option. Take even more inexpensive and 100% reliable in manned flights "Vostok". 6 manned flights - 6 100% guaranteed operation? Even the SPK itself spoke of the "Unions" as intermediate ships that were supposed to fly somewhere before the beginning of the 80s, and then should be replaced by new ones. And we all nod to them: inexpensive, reliable. Inexpensive - yes, reliable - yes. But outdated. Now there are completely different requirements for the ship, in particular in terms of carrying capacity (cargo) and the number of astronauts

    Quote: Wedmak
    Not everything is so bad ... It took a lot of time for the Americans to copy the BOR-4 of the 70's. And he only sat down with them. While ours was in orbit, and even maneuvered during the descent.

    Work on this project began directly in 2010, although the EP was introduced in 2004. In the 90s, work was underway on the HL-20. But then the shuttles still flew and there was no need to speed up this program. Sierra Nevada Corporation simply reverted to tried and tested prototypes of the 90s

    Quote: Wedmak
    Why jump? They themselves admitted (NASA) that they copied the ship with BOR-4. Let me remind you that the BOR-4 was tested, flew into orbit, maneuvered upon entering the atmosphere in the 70's of the last century. And where is the progress?

    Not copied, but arranged according to the BOR-4 model. And this, sorry, two big differences. Outwardly they are similar, but if you look at the details, the differences are also visible. In the same way, it can be said that the TU-144 is modeled on the Concord or vice versa. That the Buran in its first incarnation is modeled after the Shuttle, that the Chinese carrier CZ-2 is modeled after the Union. Patterned, not copied

    Quote: andrewkor
    From what carrier did they launch it? It’s still a long way to real flights to Space, I think. And the device is interesting. Due to its similarity with Bohr, I think that is not surprising; the devices used in such extreme conditions as flights to the Cosmos must meet very strict requirements, which in itself limits the options for their designs. There are a lot of examples of similarity of equipment from different countries if we discard direct industrial espionage.

    Now there was an atmospheric test, like on our first BOR rocket planes. In the future, from carriers with a carrying capacity of 10 to 14 tons. What it will be - Atlas, Delta or what else - is not yet known exactly. Atlas is planned, but this is one of the options. Can lift and "Falcon" and other suitable media. As for the flight into space, 2020 was announced. Is it far or close after the second pilot flight?

    Quote: Technologist
    Somehow ... at one time, she traded drawings ...

    Maybe she didn’t. The same purpose ships are usually very similar to each other.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 13 November 2017 11: 43 New
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      Yeah. On the proven "Union", And how many more will you fly on this design?

      "Unions" - this is the limit of the development of cosmonautics on chemical fuel. To achieve more, engines are required on principles other than chemical combustion.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 13 November 2017 11: 56 New
        +2
        Cosmonautics, relative to other areas of technology, is still “in diapers.”
        Only 60 years of development. One "hour" of human history.
        What you wrote about the Unions, as if at the dawn of the automotive industry they said:
        "Ford-T - the limit of development of cars with a gasoline engine."
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 13 November 2017 12: 04 New
          +1
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Cosmonautics, relative to other areas of technology, is still “in diapers”

          Maybe astronautics and in diapers, and chemical rockets - to the limit.
          Quote: voyaka uh
          "Ford-T - the limit of development of cars with a gasoline engine."

          What about the Ford Focus? But internal combustion engines and rocket engines are almost the same age.
    2. nmaxxen
      nmaxxen 13 November 2017 14: 08 New
      0
      Quote: old26
      Inexpensive - yes, reliable - yes. But outdated. Now there are completely different requirements for the ship, in particular in terms of carrying capacity (cargo) and the number of astronauts


      In particular???
      Do not make me laugh! This is the only thing you call from branch to branch as the "obsolescence" of the Unions.
      Wanting to create (from propaganda reasons) among the readers, who are not very detailed in space technology, that there are many still some "completely different requirements for the ship."

      Uncover this GREAT SECRET !!
      What other "completely different requirements" that the American quartet of projected manned spacecraft meets and the spacecraft UNION does not?

      As for the number of crews, it’s cheaper and more reliable to launch 6 people with a tested Union in 2 starts than with a new craft.
  18. AlexanderVP
    AlexanderVP 13 November 2017 11: 43 New
    +1
    Uh, what is the joy of the "patriots" then? From BOR there is only a layout, all the main stuffing (engines, electronics, mechanics, software, etc.) is Amersky. At one time, Soviet engineers took the layout of Amer shuttles for Buran, which saved themselves a couple of years of development, purge and refinement of the airframe.
  19. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 13 November 2017 12: 10 New
    +2
    One of the features of the Spiral apparatus was folding wings, which were upright at start-up and pre-atmospheric flight, and before returning to Earth they assumed a horizontal position and the apparatus turned into an airplane with a deltoid wing.
    Work began in 1967 at a special branch of MiG ■ in Dubna, Moscow Region. Epos experimental devices were built. These were 1/2 and 1/3 magnitude models and were intended: 105.11 - for subsonic atmospheric research, 105.12 - for supersonic research, 105.13 - for hypersonic research.

    Technical characteristics of Bor-4 (aka Lapot):
    The purpose of the spacecraft (Bor-4) is the study of heat-shielding coatings and the development of technology for the return of the spacecraft of the aircraft circuit to the Earth's surface. The scheme is aircraft, with a low location of the delta wing and a small vertical stabilizer.

    length: 2,86 m
    width: 2,28 m
    weight: 1074 kg
    dry weight: 795 kg
    launch site: Kapustin Yar, launch complex 107
    landing: with a parachute on the water

    In the upper part of the Bor-4, after the splashdown, a conical bearing balloon with a blinking light was inflated. He increased the buoyancy of the device and brought out the search engine antennas. For many years, intelligence sources in the United States believed that the manned version of this device could weigh 15 tons, 4-5 times more in size and would be launched in the mid-1980s with the Zenit LV. But in the USSR, instead, the Space Shuttle program was completely repeated.
    All flights of the Bor-4 vehicles were carried out under the official legend Investigation of the upper layers of the atmosphere and near space.



    FLIGHTS BY THE BOR-4 PROGRAM

    COSMOS-1374

    Registration number: 13257 / 1982-054A
    Launch date and time: June 3, 1982; 21:36 UTC
    Date and time of landing: June 3, 1982; 23:19 UTC
    Parameters of the orbit: 167 x 222 km x 88,1 min. x 50,6

    This was the first flight of an orbital plane. The launch was made from the Kapustin Yar Cosmodrome. For technical support of the Cosmos-1374 flight, research ships Cosmonaut Viktor Patsaev and Cosmonaut Georgy Dobrovolsky, who under normal conditions provided communication with Salyut station, were involved. After completing one revolution, the spacecraft splashed down in the Indian Ocean. The spacecraft performed a maneuver of descent with a length of about 600 km. Water flooding was carried out by parachute 560 km south of the Cocos Islands. In the proposed area of ​​splashdown there were 7 ships of the Soviet Navy, which provided a meeting and evacuation of the apparatus. When carrying out work on the evacuation of the apparatus by Soviet ships, they were watched by the Australian Air Force reconnaissance aircraft Orion, whose crew photographed the spaceship and work with it. Studies of photographs showed that in the bow of the spacecraft there are small portholes, like on a manned vehicle, and the heat-protective coating of the nose coca, like on the American shuttle, consists of small pieces.


    COSMOS-1445

    Registration number: 13883/1983 017A
    Launch date and time: March 15, 1983; 22:33 UTC
    Date and time of landing: March 16, 1983; 00:25 UTC
    Parameters of the orbit: 176 x 217 km x 88,3 min. x 50,7

    The flight is similar to that completed a year earlier than the flight of Cosmos-1374. For technical support of the flight, research ships Cosmonaut Vladislav Volkov and Cosmonaut Pavel Belyaev were involved. The device was splashed in the Indian Ocean 556 km south of the Cocos Islands and was successfully picked up by Soviet ships on duty in the area. As in the previous flight, Australian reconnaissance aircraft obtained detailed images of the spacecraft and its evacuation operations.


    COSMOS-1517

    Registration number: 14585 / 1983-125A
    Launch date and time: December 27, 1983; 10:04 UTC
    Date and time of landing: December 27, 1983; 11:46 UTC
    Parameters of the orbit: 180 x 221 km x 88,8 min. x 50,6

    This flight was similar to the previous ones (Cosmos-1374 and Cosmos-1445). But unlike previous flights, in order to avoid surveillance by Western intelligence, the landing site has changed. Thus, it was possible to establish only the fact that the research ships transmitted messages about the issuance of a brake impulse over the North Atlantic. After that, the device made a splashdown in the Black Sea.

    COSMOS-1614

    Registration number: 15442/1984 126A
    Launch date and time: December 19, 1984; 04:04 UTC
    Date and time of landing: December 19, 1984; 05:26 UTC
    Parameters of the orbit: 173 x 223 km x 88,5 min. x 50,7

    The last space flight under the program (Bor-4), launched by the spacecraft (Cosmos-1374). Waterlogging as in (Cosmos-1517) was carried out in the Black Sea after one turn.
  20. nmaxxen
    nmaxxen 13 November 2017 14: 19 New
    +1
    Well, who is the "news" writes? And who is letting articles in this form come here.

    The purpose of the "news" is to create for some readers for purely fraudulent propaganda purposes, that there is a powerful movement:
    America’s spaceships plow the expanses of the universe !!! Union to rest !!!
    Actually it was just a dump from a helicopter.
    On November 2, 2017, a second planning and landing test was performed. The flight prototype was dropped from a helicopter to test planning and landing on the strip of Edwards Air Force Base.
    Breakthrough??!! no matter how much .... We look at the test history.
    On October 26, 2013, a flight prototype was dropped from a helicopter from a height of 3,8 kilometers to test planning and landing on the Edwards Air Force Base. However, when landing, the left landing gear did not come out, and the device was damaged.
    That is, it took more than 4 years to fix the problem with the non-release of the chassis !!!
    at this pace, on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in the United States, this “type of reusable” miracle can be launched.
    1. nmaxxen
      nmaxxen 13 November 2017 14: 28 New
      0
      To prevent the impressionable public from fainting, a part with landing on one rack is cut out.
      Now imagine what happened to the light and flimsy "reusable" design from such a landing? The cost of one repair will not be much less than the production of a new one.
      And for reasons of reliability for the crew, they could have generally declared unfit for restoration.
      'Dream Chaser' Landing Gear Fails To Deploy On Test | Video

  21. Old26
    Old26 13 November 2017 23: 10 New
    0
    Quote: Setrac
    Quote: Old26
    Yeah. On the proven "Union", And how many more will you fly on this design?

    "Unions" - this is the limit of the development of cosmonautics on chemical fuel. To achieve more, engines are required on principles other than chemical combustion.

    I'm not even talking about carriers, comrades, but about ships. The development of the 60s was excellent in the 60-70s. By the mid-80s, it became clear that a replacement was needed. No wonder the very same "Dawn" was developed, not to mention reusable options. Now the ship is capable of lifting a maximum of 3 people and a couple of hundred kilograms of cargo - this is not what is needed. A new ship with a crew of 6-7 people is much more efficient than the triple Soyuz

    Quote: nmaxxen
    In particular???
    Do not make me laugh! This is the only thing you call from branch to branch as the "obsolescence" of the Unions.
    Wanting to create (from propaganda reasons) among the readers, who are not very detailed in space technology, that there are many still some "completely different requirements for the ship."

    Uncover this GREAT SECRET !!
    What other "completely different requirements" that the American quartet of projected manned spacecraft meets and the spacecraft UNION does not?

    As for the number of crews, it’s cheaper and more reliable to launch 6 people with a tested Union in 2 starts than with a new craft.

    In particular?
    1. Low payload. Maximum crew of 3 people plus a couple of hundred kilograms of cargo. The concept of a flight of 2-3 people no longer meets current requirements. Such ships are the lot of countries making their first steps in space exploration. And even that, the same Chinese have already switched to a transporter with a loading capacity of about 6-7 tons, against 2,5 for us and them.
    2. A hatch with such transverse dimensions no longer corresponds to the nature of the cargo.
    I will not talk about the ergonomics of the cabin, about the convenience of being in a ship with a crew of 6-7 people.
    Is it enough?

    Is it cheaper and more reliable to launch with two ships? More reliable - yes, maybe. Cheaper - UNIVERSAL NO.
    It will be required instead of one ship
    1. At least two ships
    2. At least two media
    3. The amount of fuel for launch vehicles is also greater. In order to lift 6 people or 7 tons of cargo at a time (I take our numbers), 470 tons of fuel and one ship and one carrier will be needed
    When using Unions you will need
    • For manned flight
    = 2 ships
    = 2 carriers
    = 2 x 270 tons of fuel, i.e. 540 tons of fuel

    • For unmanned flight (cargo delivery)
    = 3 ships
    = 3 carriers
    = 3 x 270 tons of fuel, i.e. 810 tons of fuel

    And after that, say what to let on the "Unions" CHEAPER ??? Well, well

    Quote: DimerVladimer
    One of the features of the Spiral apparatus was folding wings, which were upright at start-up and pre-atmospheric flight, and before returning to Earth they assumed a horizontal position and the apparatus turned into an airplane with a deltoid wing.
    Work began in 1967 at a special branch of MiG ■ in Dubna, Moscow Region. Epos experimental devices were built. These were 1/2 and 1/3 magnitude models and were intended: 105.11 - for subsonic atmospheric research, 105.12 - for supersonic research, 105.13 - for hypersonic research ..

    Comrad. You are absolutely right in writing about folding wings. Only now they did not become horizontal. There was still some V (I don’t remember exactly, but it seems 12 degrees). And further. Models 105.12 and 105.13 were only planned. The program was closed at step 105.11. And there were really 4 BOR-4 orbital launches. Suborbital - there were rumors that there were also 2 or 3
  22. Victor Dubovitsky
    Victor Dubovitsky 14 November 2017 02: 01 New
    +1
    The author was modest about something and did not write that the test descent was carried out not from space, but from a height rather large — it was dropped from a helicopter. So to beat the timpani is somewhat early. Landing loads here were quite childish.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 14 November 2017 11: 30 New
      +1
      They still have everything ahead - two years of testing.
      1. Victor Dubovitsky
        Victor Dubovitsky 14 November 2017 12: 19 New
        0
        Quote: Vadim237
        They still have everything ahead - two years of testing.

        For two years of EXPECTING success, so many joyful mankurts will make a career!