Military Review

Roscosmos announced the development of an oxygen-methane rocket engine

134
Voronezh Design Bureau of Chemical Automation (KBKhA, part of the integrated structure of NPO Energomash, ROSKOSMOS) completed the development of a technical proposal and draft design for an experimental model of an oxygen-methane rocket engine with a 85 ton load. Also, the company began work on the preparation of pilot production for the manufacture of components and assemblies of the new engine. reported on Online "Roscosmos"


Roscosmos announced the development of an oxygen-methane rocket engine


The development is carried out in order to create and develop the technology of using methane as a component of fuel in promising liquid rocket engines (LRE). Among other tasks solved in the framework of this project is the creation of a prototype of an engine emergency protection system and the development of advanced design methods based on modern digital technologies. In addition, KBKhA specialists are working on the issues of optimizing the parameters of promising "methane" LRE with the requirements to minimize the cost of production and operation.

Also, at the first stage of the work, an experimental oxygen-methane engine was tested with a 40 ton-ton. To date, KBXA specialists have completed disassembly and fault detection of this engine and analysis of test results. The information obtained will be used in further work on the engine 85 tons.

The KBXA stated that the next stage envisages the release of design documentation for the engine with 85 tons, as well as the continuation of the preparation of production and the production of power plants for testing individual engine systems.

Methane (natural gas) is considered as one of the promising types of fuel for rocket technology. Methane has a wide resource base and low cost compared to kerosene. Both in terms of density and efficiency, natural gas is located between kerosene and hydrogen. The specific impulse of the engine on methane is high, but this advantage is leveled by the fact that natural gas has a lower density, so the total is a slight energy advantage. However, from a structural point of view, methane is attractive. Due to its qualities, methane fuel is more acceptable for use in engines of reusable spacecraft.
- noted in KBKHA
Photos used:
https://www.roscosmos.ru/
134 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Barshchik-M
    Barshchik-M 14 November 2017 19: 00 New
    12
    I knew that our Kulibins are cunning for cheap and high-quality developments! Not so bad ..

    Cosmos our men, was and will be!
    1. Dimontius
      Dimontius 14 November 2017 19: 03 New
      +3
      Was this an offer to Ilon Max? some kind of frail presentation.
      1. SRC P-15
        SRC P-15 14 November 2017 19: 05 New
        +3
        It seems that recently there was an article on VO on the topic that the Americans create a methane engine. Did we follow in their footsteps or did the USA adopt our experience?
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 14 November 2017 19: 13 New
          +4
          Created for a long time. Falcons-9 Mask (Merlin engines)
          flies on methane.
          1. SPACE
            SPACE 14 November 2017 19: 21 New
            23
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Created for a long time. Falcons-9 Mask (Merlin engines)
            flies on methane.

            The Merlin rocket engine is an antediluvian open-cycle kerosene engine. But the new SpaceX engine being developed is a Methane Raptor.
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 14 November 2017 19: 27 New
              +9
              Yes, I mixed up. Merlin is kerosene. Thanks for the correction. good
              1. SRC P-15
                SRC P-15 14 November 2017 19: 31 New
                +9
                Quote: voyaka uh
                Yes, I mixed up. Merlin is kerosene. Thanks for the correction

                And I wanted to put a plus for you, but decided to google first and found that you were wrong. But he did not refute you, because they had already done it without me. But for this comment you plus - I love people who know how to admit their mistakes! hi
              2. Barshchik-M
                Barshchik-M 14 November 2017 20: 27 New
                +7
                Quote: voyaka uh
                Yes, I mixed up. Merlin is kerosene. Thanks for the correction. good

                Often you are comrades from Israel, "confused", against Russia .. hehe bully It has been alarming straight for a long time ..
          2. Locksmith
            Locksmith 14 November 2017 19: 22 New
            10
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Created for a long time. Falcons-9 Mask (Merlin engines)
            flies on methane.

            What a fright? all its kerosene ... laughing
          3. Orel
            Orel 14 November 2017 19: 24 New
            +9
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Created for a long time. Falcons-9 Mask (Merlin engines)
            flies on methane.


            Here you are mistaken. Merlin on oxygen and kerosene RP-1. SpaceX is only developing a new oxygen-methane engine - a raptor. If they can do what they intended, then the engine will be good, with a full-flow closed cycle, complete gasification of the fuel components. The specific impulse will be greater, the engine life and reliability are higher.
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 14 November 2017 20: 11 New
              +4
              The raptor is already undergoing fire tests.
              1. maxim947
                maxim947 14 November 2017 20: 57 New
                +5
                Methane is a plus in specific impulse, minus it is cryogenic fuel + very explosive and storage problems because it evaporates and as a result, the percentage of carbon dioxide increases and when a certain percentage is exceeded, methane becomes non-conditioned. But undoubtedly a promising topic
              2. Tatar 174
                Tatar 174 14 November 2017 21: 10 New
                +3
                Quote: Vadim237
                The raptor is already undergoing fire tests.

                A gas burner or an autogen ... Somewhere I read about the development of a quantum engine in Russia, this will be something completely new.
                1. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 14 November 2017 21: 45 New
                  +7
                  "I read somewhere about the development of a quantum engine in Russia." Probably with Petrik, with associates, they are not only engaged in the curvature of space - for now.
                  1. Tatar 174
                    Tatar 174 15 November 2017 06: 37 New
                    +1
                    Petrik - not Petrik, what's the difference, Vadim. One hundred years ago, many things that we now have gotten used to and have not even dreamed of as ordinary. So now also, something new is being born, and here you are immediately raising the idea to the category of bullshit and start to ironic. And what do you think, after another 50 years, oxygen - kerosene will fly on a pair? Steam traction or horse-drawn transport, damn it ... Today a new fuel vapor has appeared, and tomorrow what will happen, and the day after tomorrow? The length of your nose, gentlemen of skeptics, the world is not limited.
                    1. Vadim237
                      Vadim237 15 November 2017 09: 09 New
                      +1
                      I hope that in 50 years - in 2068, spacecraft will fly on thermonuclear rocket engines, and thermonuclear energy will become widespread in the world. Interplanetary flights would now become commonplace if NASA's budget remained at 4,5% of US GDP since the early 70s.
                      1. Orel
                        Orel 15 November 2017 18: 52 New
                        0
                        Quote: Vadim237
                        thermonuclear energy will spread worldwide.


                        God forbid at least energy, but the thermonuclear engine is still very far away. ITER has not even been completed. And DEMO (Thermonuclear Power Station) is planned to continue in the 40s of the 21st century. Yes, and plans are always delayed, especially so distant.
              3. Alexander Abdrakhmanov
                Alexander Abdrakhmanov 15 November 2017 10: 40 New
                0
                Testing does not mean that they will fly soon. We still show clear photos for the enemy, this is a good find for a spy. If I took a photo - all of America and the NATO bloc - I wondered what kind of subject in the photo.
          4. Hammerlock
            Hammerlock 15 November 2017 04: 31 New
            +1
            yes they fly shitty, don’t pop your pace where you don’t need to
      2. Dead duck
        Dead duck 14 November 2017 21: 51 New
        +9
        Quote: Dimontius
        Was this an offer to Ilon Max? some kind of frail presentation.

        Musk lost almost 2 lard in a year (by car) and will lose about the same amount next year ... if not more.
    2. Orel
      Orel 14 November 2017 19: 12 New
      14
      Quote: Bathhouse attendant-M
      I knew that our Kulibins are cunning for cheap and high-quality developments! Not so bad ..


      Quote: SRC P-15
      It seems that there has recently been an article on VO on this subject that the Americans create a methane engine. Did we follow in their footsteps or did the USA adopt our experience?


      If my memory serves me right, then first Mask and Bezos’s developments on oxygen-methane engines were blamed, saying that it was unpromising, ineffective, it’s easier on kerosene ... And then they started to “change shoes” again. Hence all the problems. We do not recognize the advantages of competitors, we throw caps over it. The first path to defeat is underestimation, and the second is excessive self-confidence. To change something in space, you must first recognize that we are in full ... Everyone knows where shorter. We must realize our place in the current segment of cosmic history, and not evaluate ourselves according to the merits of past generations, to which the current Roscosmos has an extremely distant relationship.
      1. SPACE
        SPACE 14 November 2017 20: 03 New
        10
        Quote: Orel
        If my memory serves me right, then first Mask and Bezos developments on oxygen-methane engines were blamed, saying that it was unpromising, ineffective, it’s easier on kerosene

        And what? Has something changed in this matter? It is not enough to make an engine, for it it is still necessary to create a supporting body, cylinders, with an increase in the dry weight of the carrier, it needs more fuel to return the stage, in short complexity, fire safety ... in general, let them do it ... we'll see)))
        Quote: Orel
        And then they started to "change shoes" again. Hence all the problems. We do not recognize the advantages of competitors, we throw caps over it. The first path to defeat is underestimation, and the second is excessive self-confidence. To change something in space, you must first recognize

        Yes, I do not care about all these lyrical nuances, in order to change something, you need to have your own brains, and not Elon Mask.
        1. Orel
          Orel 14 November 2017 20: 22 New
          +2
          Quote: SPACE
          Yes, I do not care about all these lyrical nuances, in order to change something, you need to have your own brains, and not Elon Mask.


          A person who does not understand where he is will never come where he needs to. Therefore, you need to know and understand your place. Past merits do not provide any place in the modern space race.

          Quote: SPACE
          And what? Has something changed in this matter? It is not enough to make an engine, for it it is still necessary to create a supporting body, cylinders, with an increase in the dry weight of the carrier, it needs more fuel to return the stage, in short complexity, fire safety ... in general, let them do it ... we'll see)))


          No, nothing has changed. The lag on the part of reusable ships, orbital telescopes, AMS, superheavy missiles, engines with promising fuel vapors remains. Only the NRE itself and amuse, but with it all oh how tight and slow it goes. For many years, the project has been underway or they say that it is "underway". Doubts are that they will bring to the end big.
          1. SPACE
            SPACE 14 November 2017 21: 25 New
            11
            Quote: Orel
            A person who does not understand where he is will never come where he needs to. Therefore, you need to know and understand your place.

            Yes, yes, you just don’t know where you are; you are Elon Musk, the media has completely broken the gyroscope in your brain, it’s time to wake up.
            Quote: Orel
            Past merits do not provide any place in the modern space race.

            Isn't past merit important? The presence of merit is a sign of evolution; a monkey cannot get off a tree and come up with a nuclear reactor. Well, play catch-ups and show-offs, and people are busy with real and necessary things.
            Quote: Orel
            No, nothing has changed. The lag on the part of reusable ships, orbital telescopes, AMS, superheavy missiles, engines with promising fuel vapors remains. Only the NRE itself and amuse, but with it all oh how tight and slow it goes. For many years, the project has been underway or they say that it is "underway". Doubts are that they will bring to the end big.

            It’s Russia that it buys engines for Americans from the Americans, it’s transporting the United States to the orbit of foreign astronauts))) this is the USA with 50% of the world market share in uranium enrichment, this is the United States launched the world's first industrial nuclear reactor using fast neurons that can run on uranium waste. ISS and that actually Russian development. Regarding orbital telescopes, read in more detail what the VLBI telescope is and who, from the time of Galileo, has made a world revolution in the field of space observation, by the way, this practical task was solved in order to observe the Soviet automatic lunar stations, also walk Radioastron ...
            Z.Y. Soviet science, even 50 years ago, mathematically calculated all these fuel vapors of yours, and not only that, Soviet scientists have long passed the path that the Americans have just entered, having wandered into the dead ends of space science with their failed projects of shuttles and apolons, which is why they have no nefig.
            So for someone it’s only a prospect, but for someone it’s already passed the stage ...
            1. NordOst16
              NordOst16 14 November 2017 22: 26 New
              +2
              Yes you are a dreamer. We have an advantage only in a taxiway with a pair of kerosene-oxygen and, but here I could be wrong, heptyl-amyl, but the Americans overtook a pair of hydrogen-oxygen. And about the fact that Soviet scientists calculated something there - the Sayano-Shushinskaya hydroelectric power station was also calculated there on nuclear power, but only the first was not implemented, and the second was later corrected. As for the industrial one with fast neutrons, the frogmen managed to build a super phoenix with 3000MW thermal before us. Yes, and the development in space (as well as everywhere, by the way) implies the availability of production technologies for modern electronics, with which we have huge problems.
              1. SPACE
                SPACE 14 November 2017 23: 38 New
                +9
                Quote: NordOst16
                Yes you are a dreamer

                What from the fact that I brought a lie? Or are you a talker?
                Regarding what you wrote, tell me where did the American hydrogen workers find wide application? Well, they do not fly on them. About nuclear trains it is inaudible, but I think it is a senseless undertaking, I heard about satellites with a nuclear installation. By the way, the Sayano Shushenskaya hydroelectric station works, but why did you drag it to it? And what is there for the Frogs now? What is really bad with electronics in space problems? progresses and unions can not fly? Glonass embarrassing? Coconut does not grow)))
                Tell me what is the point of all your comment? Do you want to prove something to someone? What is America next? or that Russia is so bad because everyone there is so "smart" like you?
                1. NordOst16
                  NordOst16 15 November 2017 00: 52 New
                  +3
                  Well, starting with your mention that the ISS is a Russian development (although even the name to put it mildly hints that this is not so).
                  You mentioned the uranium enrichment market for something, even if the topic is, like, space, then I will give an example: launch services make up only 2% of the entire “space” market and the Russian Federation is not a monopoly on launches. The rest is ground-based infrastructure, satellite production, and so on. I haven’t heard something that the Russian Federation is a leader in the production of satellite components.
                  What is there at the paddling pool? - Approximately the same as with RD 0120 - they shut down, though in our case due to the fact that we are technically unable to produce this taxiway, and the French shut down the reactor for purely political reasons.
                  Unions and Progress can fly, but the latter have become something of an emergency, Glonass is caught, but the satellites themselves have a shorter life span, are heavily dependent on imported components and give a large error in determining the position.
                  As for American hydrogen workers - the same RL10, which has been used for a long time and is considered very reliable and is the leader in specific impulse among chemical RDs. Or RS68 - cheap and efficient.
                  I wrote a comment to the fact that I completely agree with the person above about the fact that we have to admit in which ass astronautics are with us. And after you have decided on the problems, begin to solve them.
                  1. SPACE
                    SPACE 15 November 2017 05: 55 New
                    +4
                    Quote: NordOst16
                    Well, starting with your mention that the ISS is a Russian development (although even the name to put it mildly hints that this is not so).

                    Only Russia has experience in operating long-term space stations, the ISS itself, and began with the central unit designed and launched by Russia ...
                    Quote: NordOst16
                    You mentioned the uranium enrichment market for something, even if the topic is, like, space, then I will give an example: launch services make up only 2% of the entire “space” market and the Russian Federation is not a monopoly on launches. The rest is ground-based infrastructure, satellite production, and so on. I haven’t heard something that the Russian Federation is a leader in the production of satellite components.

                    Yeah, for money from the ceiling, and for launches?))) For piloted in general, 100% also with satellites, in any case, their needs are fully realized.
                    Quote: NordOst16
                    As for American hydrogen workers - the same RL10, which has been used for a long time and is considered very reliable and is the leader in specific impulse among chemical RDs. Or RS68 - cheap and efficient.

                    And how many did they fly?))) They themselves do not know what they want, methane, hydrogen in dreams, but in real life they fly on 180 RD)))
                    Quote: NordOst16
                    I wrote a comment to the fact that I completely agree with the person above about the fact that we have to admit in which ass astronautics are with us.

                    You and your colleague, unfortunately, give absolutely idiotic arguments, using unfinished or underutilized American developments or commercial calculations from a temporary action to launch the Iridiums with a rocket with the most sloppy engines as a basis, while calling it something advanced to be equaled. But in fact, once again, for those especially gifted with the highest degree of stupidity, with all the variety of hotel wishes and plans, the Americans are buying Russian engines and places in the Unions, so the Frogs generally acquire alliance missiles. Well, and who is here in Jo? So do not give wishful thinking, your time has not come yet, wait here when the Americans catch up, then we'll talk ...
              2. xtur
                xtur 15 November 2017 08: 28 New
                +3
                > As for the industrial one with fast neutrons, the frogmen managed to build a super phoenix with 3000MW thermal before us.

                just to ... say something? Where is the reproduction of fuel in the paddling pools, and this is precisely the point of BN reactors.
                1. NordOst16
                  NordOst16 15 November 2017 11: 33 New
                  +1
                  And where is BN800 fuel reproduction ???)))
                  1. xtur
                    xtur 15 November 2017 14: 58 New
                    +1
                    > And where is BN800 fuel reproduction ???)))

                    and you don’t know why they are being built? Well, what can I say then ...
                    Enlighten or something
                    1. NordOst16
                      NordOst16 16 November 2017 00: 13 New
                      0
                      BN800 - do not build. It has already been built, then they conjure with the BN1200. But there are problems with the economy (and it’s time to go over 1,5 GW) because it turns out to be 10% more expensive compared to the 2006 NPP project. This is no longer an option because a fuel shortage is not expected in the near future, so its bonus in the form the operating time of fuel will not interest anyone. The VVER-TOI NPP project with the best economy has already been released.
                      Do not forget that BN800 sits on uranium oxide fuel. It’s not that they didn’t transfer it to nitride, but they still didn’t fully load AZS MOX with fuel. Fuel processing lines for BN reactors have not yet been built, and even more have not decided on the processing technology. At the same time, one should not forget that the construction of a nuclear power plant is a long process and involves friction with environmentalists and, in general, with citizens of the country. For nuclear energy is not reliable in their eyes. Well, these are not the problems of the BN itself, but in the whole nuclear industry.
            2. Settlement Oparyshev
              Settlement Oparyshev 14 November 2017 23: 24 New
              +3
              Add the emitter of Bogomolov. The emitter was allowed to be made American, but ours was not allowed. This is a complete scribe.
            3. Orel
              Orel 15 November 2017 19: 03 New
              +1
              Quote: SPACE
              Isn't past merit important?


              No. It’s like screaming that my past victories will now fight and defend for me. Do you really believe that ??? This is just a story.

              Quote: SPACE
              Yes, yes, you just don’t know where you are; you are Elon Musk, the media has completely broken the gyroscope in your brain, it’s time to wake up.


              Oh well. I am ready to wake up. You just list the achievements of Russia in space over the past 30 years in practice. Since 1991 Let's. I have all the attention, and then compare with what others were doing in space at that time. Do not be surprised if you keep silent.

              Quote: SPACE
              This is Russia’s buying engines for rockets from the Americans, it’s carrying the United States into orbit of other astronauts)))


              Hundreds of times have already been discussed. How many ships are currently being piloted in the US are being developed - 5. Of these, 2 are tourist ones. Everything is already in the iron. How many in Russia - 1. Only on paper. God grant this year they will start collecting something.

              Quote: SPACE
              it is the United States that owns 50% of the world uranium enrichment market; it is the United States that launched the world's first industrial fast neuron nuclear reactor that can run on uranium waste. ISS and that actually Russian development. Regarding orbital telescopes, read in more detail what the VLBI telescope is and who, from the time of Galileo, has made a world revolution in the field of space observation, by the way, this practical task was solved in order to observe the Soviet automatic lunar stations, also walk Radioastron ...
              Z.Y. Soviet science, even 50 years ago, mathematically calculated all these fuel vapors of yours, and not only that, Soviet scientists have long passed the path that the Americans have just entered, having wandered into the dead ends of space science with their failed projects of shuttles and apolons, which is why they have no nefig.


              I was waiting for you to start remembering the past. I am not talking about that. We are still not for long - a space trucker, and not a researcher, inventor and space explorer. This is our level now - space kamaz. You just have to admit it and work to fix it, and not boast about past achievements and scold that the United States is flying in the Unions. Do you think if we refused them they would be sitting on Earth ??? The shuttle would have flown so far.
          2. Mestny
            Mestny 15 November 2017 01: 49 New
            0
            It’s all the same good that nobody decides and doesn’t develop anything here, unlike real experts.
            "Here" only comment. And good.
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 15 November 2017 22: 03 New
              +1
              For that, there are those who produce and supply components to enterprises.
          3. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 15 November 2017 23: 20 New
            0
            Quote: Orel
            A person who does not understand where he is will never come where he needs to.

            Very controversial statement.
            A man got lost in the forest, he does not know where he is, and then he accidentally finds a way
      2. slipped
        slipped 14 November 2017 20: 31 New
        +2
        Here a few weeks ago, I put a photo of the engine on burning and even what kind of medium it might be on methane I wrote ....))), but they all measure by space.
      3. Vlad.by
        Vlad.by 14 November 2017 23: 47 New
        +8
        Well, firstly, the KZHA has been engaged in the oxygen-methane engine for more than 10 years, and already they have more than any experience with it than in a puddle.
        Secondly, the 40-ton truck has already been tested and many cones have already been filled and they know where to lay the cotton wool, that they were no more.
        And thirdly, we have more experience in the construction of such engines. Which didn’t just "fly to the moon", but you can touch it live.
      4. xtur
        xtur 15 November 2017 08: 23 New
        0
        > Hence all the problems. We do not recognize the advantages of competitors; we throw caps over

        so the fact of the matter is that, apparently, the question is completely ambiguous, and much more like a banal cut. The development of unnecessary equipment is also a cut.
    3. Reader 2013
      Reader 2013 14 November 2017 19: 15 New
      +5
      This is the attendant m, How tired of you with your endless, miserable dullness
      1. 79807420129
        79807420129 14 November 2017 19: 32 New
        17
        Quote: 2013 Reader
        This is the attendant m, How tired of you with your endless, miserable dullness

        And you don’t be rude, dear man, if the attendant is wrong, break it with arguments and facts, not rudeness, just like Orel does it. I understand that endless slogans and waved saber are boring. yes
        1. Barshchik-M
          Barshchik-M 14 November 2017 20: 33 New
          +3
          Quote: 79807420129
          Quote: 2013 Reader
          This is the attendant m, How tired of you with your endless, miserable dullness

          And you don’t be rude, dear man, if the attendant is wrong, break it with arguments and facts, not rudeness, just like Orel does it. I understand that endless slogans and waved saber are boring. yes

          Thanks Vlad for the support ..! I never claimed to be an expert and analyst, but I still have the right to my opinion .. If I’m wrong, then I apologize .. But usually I don’t climb if a serious conversation starts with specialists .. hi
      2. Krabik
        Krabik 14 November 2017 19: 36 New
        +3
        He is a 80-gauge troll, just not everyone understands this;)
        1. Barshchik-M
          Barshchik-M 14 November 2017 20: 49 New
          +3
          Quote: Krabik
          He is a 80-gauge troll, just not everyone understands this;)

          Stop barking a crab, at least one serious koment wrote ..
          I'm tired of you already wassat , it’s better to read the men, they’re writing seriously .. It’s interesting to read their arguments! I love such topics, although I don’t understand everything .. hi
          1. Krabik
            Krabik 15 November 2017 05: 37 New
            0
            Well I’ll write a serious comment.

            Hurray, our scientists and engineers have made a prototype of an excellent engine.
            This is not just a poison heptyl engine, but methane which is convenient to store, it is cheap and safe.

            I knew that our scientists would show Kuskin’s mother to these goats over the hill.

            Glory to Russia - glory to the heroes!
            1. SOF
              SOF 15 November 2017 06: 51 New
              +5
              Quote: Krabik
              Ok, I’ll write a serious comment

              ... failed ... Try again ...
    4. Vadim237
      Vadim237 14 November 2017 19: 33 New
      +2
      It would be better if our kulibins accelerated the development of nuclear propulsion systems, ion engines with nuclear power. And they began to work on a thermonuclear rocket engine. All for the future.
      1. poquello
        poquello 14 November 2017 21: 51 New
        +4
        Quote: Vadim237
        It would be better if our kulibins accelerated the development of nuclear propulsion systems, ion engines with nuclear power. And they began to work on a thermonuclear rocket engine. All for the future.

        I wonder what are the success of growing legumes in zero gravity
    5. RASKAT
      RASKAT 14 November 2017 19: 51 New
      +2
      Well, here we will encounter many difficulties, the first is that LNG will be in the rocket under great pressure, that is, more pressure-resistant tanks will be needed, and therefore they will be thicker and heavier. Secondly, will there be enough traction and can such engines compete in traction with the Kerosene and Hydrogen engines? As far as I know, the greatest thrust is given by hydrogen.
      It seems to me that this missile can and will be profitable, but only with the withdrawal of small loads, it is unlikely that it will pull large ones.
      Could it be much easier to build hydrogen-producing stations near spaceports? Or next to some hydroelectric power station not far from the cosmodrome and the cost of hydrogen production will drop significantly? request
      Need to think. recourse
      1. AID.S
        AID.S 14 November 2017 20: 32 New
        +5
        Quote: RASKAT
        LNG will be under high pressure in the rocket, that is, more pressure-resistant tanks will be needed,

        What is the pressure of liquefied methane at minus 160? No more than the already used liquid oxygen at minus 183 degrees. So there are no special problems with tanks at all.
        1. Orel
          Orel 14 November 2017 20: 37 New
          +3
          Quote: AID.S
          What is the pressure of liquefied methane at minus 160? No more than the already used liquid oxygen at minus 183 degrees.


          Especially when Delta-4 generally flies on a pair of hydrogen-oxygen. There are no problems with tanks, except that they are larger in size, and everything is about the same in weight. The temperature of liquid hydrogen in this case is generally minus 253 degrees.
          1. maxim947
            maxim947 14 November 2017 22: 00 New
            +2
            No one is under pressure, in the "pillow" something is in the region of 7 kg in the operating mode, or even lower
        2. Settlement Oparyshev
          Settlement Oparyshev 14 November 2017 23: 27 New
          0
          I suppose that there is no TNA on this engine. Fuel is supplied by self-displacement.
          1. maxim947
            maxim947 15 November 2017 00: 07 New
            0
            TNA is, methane engines are based on hydrogen
      2. Lycan
        Lycan 14 November 2017 20: 59 New
        +1
        It seems that producing hydrogen is generally a little problematic. Stupidly, the electrolysis of water, followed by freezing to overflow. Well, or steam conversion (from methane or light petroleum fractions).
        Another thing is to make a system of completely controlled and safe control of such an engine. (it would be all this - would not make plans for methane-oxygen)
        1. maxim947
          maxim947 14 November 2017 22: 05 New
          +2
          Hydrogen is obtained either by a chemical reaction (there is a problem with soot) or by electrolysis. We use the electrolysis method, this is the separation of hydrogen and the subsequent multi-stage waiting, hydrogen is very pure, this method is extremely energy-consuming, but environmentally friendly. To date, the best UI in rocket fuel, but due to the attendant difficulties of its application, the emphasis was placed on kerosene, and rightly so. But as the future speaks of hydrogen, the more so as technology does not stand still.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Lycan
            Lycan 15 November 2017 10: 02 New
            +1
            Quote: maxim947
            We use the electrolysis method, this is the separation of hydrogen and the subsequent multi-stage waiting, hydrogen is very pure, this method is extremely energy-consuming, but environmentally friendly

            Well, how much does this product need to test + launch directly the rocket? There are not millions of tons. One small plant (even a workshop) at the current pace of launches can more than cover hydrogen. fuel production. Another thing - if the pace grows, say, three or four, well, or the army rocket science will switch to hydrogen. fuel - then you will need to open a plant.
            And about energy costs - what prevents us (or rather, the Ministry of Energy, Moscow Region and Roskosmos) from thinking about renewable alternative sources. energy? In Russia, there are a lot of territories with different environmental properties in order to "milk" energy from these properties.
        2. Settlement Oparyshev
          Settlement Oparyshev 14 November 2017 23: 29 New
          0
          Hydrogen is expensive. Tanks need a special design, cellular. With methane is much simpler.
          1. maxim947
            maxim947 15 November 2017 00: 08 New
            0
            On kerosene is even easier, it's all about UI
        3. Vlad.by
          Vlad.by 15 November 2017 00: 00 New
          +3
          What time! But ours don’t know, for example, how to get hydrogen on a submarine! For many years now VNU has been trying to stir up tanning salons on the basis of reforming. But it turns out you take water, chik-chirik - and then you have a pair of hydrogen / oxygen.
          Where have you been before ??? !!!
    6. smart ass
      smart ass 14 November 2017 21: 47 New
      +1
      Brilliant comment
    7. Grandfather Luka
      Grandfather Luka 15 November 2017 07: 32 New
      0
      Men on the field, hanging out in bast shoes. lol
  2. Dembel77
    Dembel77 14 November 2017 19: 07 New
    +1
    The Voronezh Chemical Engineering Design Bureau (KBHA, part of the integrated structure of NPO Energomash, ROSKOSMOS) completed the development of a technical proposal and a draft design for a prototype of an oxygen-methane rocket engine with a thrust of 85 tons.
    Well, probably, the future engine will still be more powerful?
    Space Shuttle Accelerator - Thrust - over 1300 tf.
    RD-170 - Thrust - over 800 tf.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 14 November 2017 19: 27 New
      +2
      Shuttle with thrust of 1300 tons - TTRD.
      1. Dembel77
        Dembel77 14 November 2017 19: 31 New
        +2
        I agree with the Shuttle, but the most powerful rocket engine ever created on liquid fuel components is the RD-170 800 tf with a tail.
    2. slipped
      slipped 14 November 2017 20: 33 New
      0
      Yes. So far, these are just tests.
      1. Settlement Oparyshev
        Settlement Oparyshev 14 November 2017 23: 30 New
        0
        This is one nozzle. As a result, the taxiway will be a lot of nozzle.
  3. Shadow of darkness
    Shadow of darkness 14 November 2017 19: 11 New
    0
    Engine and fuel that reduce the ratio of payload to rocket weight ??? Did someone decide to warm their hands? It was already and the result was not impressive then! fool
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 14 November 2017 19: 29 New
      +1
      These engines will be needed for flights in orbit.
    2. Jurkovs
      Jurkovs 15 November 2017 08: 40 New
      0
      Quote: Shadow of Darkness
      Engine and fuel that reduce the ratio of payload to rocket weight ???

      The specific thrust increases, the mass of the rocket grows. These multidirectional factors result in 5% of the output load.
      1. Shadow of darkness
        Shadow of darkness 15 November 2017 13: 55 New
        0
        Quote: Jurkovs
        Quote: Shadow of Darkness
        Engine and fuel that reduce the ratio of payload to rocket weight ???

        The specific thrust increases, the mass of the rocket grows. These multidirectional factors result in 5% of the output load.

        Due to what? The gas density is lower, the energy value is lower, the specific impulse is correspondingly lower at the corresponding flow rate per unit of time! And if you increase the flow rate, then even without the technical nuances of the engine we get an increase in weight with equivalent values ​​of traction and operating time.
        1. Jurkovs
          Jurkovs 16 November 2017 06: 30 New
          0
          You are seriously mistaken in the value of specific thrust. Googling yourself weak?
          1. Shadow of darkness
            Shadow of darkness 16 November 2017 11: 29 New
            0
            Quote: Jurkovs
            You are seriously mistaken in the value of specific thrust. Googling yourself weak?

            Amen!
            PS I still remember the theory of jet engines. And I remember how there were attempts to make methane RDs back in the 80s. I have also seen reports listing strengths and weaknesses, but naturally I will now trust Google more than technical reports. The main thing is that denyuzhka dripped and you can prove now that the oars are the most effective means of transportation!
            1. Jurkovs
              Jurkovs 18 November 2017 08: 49 New
              0
              However, you got me.
              IA can only be compared on engines similar in parameters. For example, the Cosmonautics News forum made the calculation of different fuel pairs with the following parameters.
              At a pressure in KS - 60 atm., And at the nozzle exit 0,4 atm.
              The UI of the kerodin-kerosene pair is 327,23 sec.
              The UI of the oxygen-methane pair is 372,81 seconds.
              In addition, with a methane density of about half that of kerosene, the volume of the tanks, from different ratios of components, is only 1,5 times larger. This difference is leveled by methane, resulting in a 5% difference in payload. It is also known from Kirillin’s speech that the outline design of the Union-5.1 with combined tank bottoms further increases this percentage, unfortunately Kirillin did not name a specific figure. All this is on the Internet, why argue.
        2. Orel
          Orel 16 November 2017 09: 54 New
          0
          Quote: Shadow of Darkness
          Due to what? The gas density is lower, the energy value is lower, the specific impulse is correspondingly lower at the corresponding flow rate per unit of time! And if you increase the flow rate, then even without the technical nuances of the engine we get an increase in weight with equivalent values ​​of traction and operating time.


          In specific impulse and payload there is practically no gain, insignificantly. The benefits of methane are different. It is easier and cheaper to receive and engines on such a pair are much more suitable for reusable use than on the same kerosene. There is no soot, more stable operation, the requirements for structural materials and their "fatigue" are not so stringent. Methane oxygen is an ideal engine for reusable, returnable rockets. And in the future, space flights to Mars is also a way to produce fuel right on the spot. All the same, methane is much easier to produce on Mars than kerosene, and even special - rocket.
          1. Shadow of darkness
            Shadow of darkness 16 November 2017 12: 00 New
            0
            In specific impulse and payload there is practically no gain, insignificantly.

            Not at all, solid minuses.
            The benefits of methane are different. It is easier and cheaper to receive and engines on such a pair are much more suitable for reusable use than on the same kerosene.

            I can not say anything. I did not compare the design documentation. May be.
            Soot no

            Carbon is present in the methane molecule, but there is less carbon than in kerosene. The deposition of carbon (soot) depends on the quality of combustion, so here kerosene, yes, is more minus, here we must add the presence of sulfur in kerosene, which makes its use non-ecological.
            more stable operation, requirements for structural materials and their "fatigue" are not so stringent.

            In order to judge this, one must have a real idea of ​​the design documentation with his nose, and not with words. No one has yet canceled effective managers. I can’t boast of such things, and from my knowledge there are many nuances, both for and against.
            All the same, methane is much easier to produce on Mars than kerosene, and even special - rocket.

            Strange, in my memory hydrogen and oxygen from water were going to be produced, hence the intensified search for water. Perhaps you can get methane on Mars, and even clean it to the desired consistency, but how are you going to get oxygen there?
            PS It’s bad that now science was started to be moved not by researchers, but by managers.
            1. Shadow of darkness
              Shadow of darkness 16 November 2017 12: 20 New
              0
              Sorry!
              In order to judge this you must have BEFORE your nose

              Playful T9 pens repeat
            2. Orel
              Orel 16 November 2017 12: 38 New
              +1
              Quote: Shadow of Darkness
              In order to judge this, one must have a real idea of ​​the design documentation with his nose, and not with words. No one has yet canceled effective managers. I can’t boast of such things, and from my knowledge there are many nuances, both for and against.


              Here is what the chief designer of NPO Energomash Vladimir Chvanov thinks about methane:

              - The specific impulse of the engine for LNG is high, but this advantage is leveled by the fact that methane fuel has a lower density, so the total is a slight energy advantage. From a structural point of view, methane is attractive. To free up the cavities of the engine, you only need to go through a cycle of evaporation - that is, the engine is easier to get rid of residual products. Due to this, methane fuel is more acceptable from the point of view of creating a reusable engine and a reusable aircraft.
            3. Orel
              Orel 16 November 2017 12: 47 New
              0
              Quote: Shadow of Darkness
              Strange, in my memory hydrogen and oxygen from water were going to be produced, hence the intensified search for water. Perhaps you can get methane on Mars, and even clean it to the desired consistency, but how are you going to get oxygen there?


              The oxidizing agent and fuel can be obtained through the Sabatier reaction and electrolysis of water. It is clear that all this requires industrial equipment, but you must admit that producing kerosene in this regard is much more difficult anyway.
              1. Shadow of darkness
                Shadow of darkness 16 November 2017 14: 45 New
                0
                but you must admit that producing kerosene in this regard is much more difficult anyway.

                Undoubtedly!
                Here is what the chief designer of NPO Energomash Vladimir Chvanov thinks about methane:

                Dark is something the chief designer. The energy value of methane is almost 10% lower than that of kerosene, which means that it is necessary to burn more fuel per unit of pulse produced.
                you only need to go through the evaporation cycle - that is, the engine is more easily freed from product residues

                As I recall, fuel and an oxidizing agent are used to cool the engine, so even though starting on methane will be better, including in zero gravity, it will have to be operated at lower temperatures and pressures in the operating mode. And this, in turn, leads to an increase in the mass of the engine with respect to the specific impulse it produces. Given the increase in engine mass and the growth of necessary fuel ... that then there will remain on the payload, respectively, the cost per kilogram put into orbit. In general, I don’t know ... Engines were not my main focus, therefore I know as much as it was necessary in studies and subsequent activities, plus the fascination with outer space and the lugging of any information related to it. hi
                1. Orel
                  Orel 16 November 2017 18: 12 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Shadow of Darkness
                  . Given the increase in engine mass and the growth of necessary fuel ... that then there will remain on the payload, respectively, the cost per kilogram put into orbit.


                  I think that you are right in that there isn’t much difference with kerosene from the point of view of the payload, but methane has advantages regarding reusability. Due to this, the cost of the output payload will be compensated. All the same, the ability to re-send the engine is a serious cheapening. The engine of any road is very expensive and when it is simply thrown away, this is a serious waste. This will gradually go away. Mask has the best chance. The company has run in the return and service technology of steps on oxygen-kerosene engines, and when they have an LNG raptor, they will make a big leap right away, although they are developing rapidly now. They modified the same Merlin so that there both thrust and specific impulse seriously increased in comparison with the first versions. SpaceX has some kind of German engine running, who forgot. Von Braun's successor is apparently.

                  Thank you for the discussion. It's nice to talk to a smart person and argue too hi
  4. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 14 November 2017 19: 11 New
    0
    Quote: Dembel 77
    The Voronezh Chemical Engineering Design Bureau (KBHA, part of the integrated structure of NPO Energomash, ROSKOSMOS) completed the development of a technical proposal and a draft design for a prototype of an oxygen-methane rocket engine with a thrust of 85 tons.
    Well, probably, the future engine will still be more powerful?
    Space Shuttle Accelerator - Thrust - over 1300 tf.
    RD-170 - Thrust - over 800 tf.

    These engines are most likely for the third stage and maneuvers in orbit ...
    1. slipped
      slipped 14 November 2017 20: 27 New
      +1
      No, these are experimental engines, it’s written in the news about it.
      1. poquello
        poquello 14 November 2017 21: 55 New
        +1
        Quote: slipped
        No, these are experimental engines, it’s written in the news about it.

        in, just in case, they decided to make sure that fanatics do not mask
  5. Simon
    Simon 14 November 2017 19: 33 New
    +1
    Interesting engine! The first time I hear about such a development! A draft of 85 tons is good power, and also environmentally friendly. good
  6. Simon
    Simon 14 November 2017 19: 35 New
    0
    Quote: Shadow of Darkness
    Engine and fuel that reduce the ratio of payload to rocket weight ??? Did someone decide to warm their hands? It was already and the result was not impressive then! fool

    Apparently checked and processed. The main thing is environmentally friendly. wink
  7. Awaz
    Awaz 14 November 2017 20: 15 New
    +2
    Observing recent trends in recent years, I come to the conclusion that everything in Russian science is bad in space and in aircraft. Our developers are constantly being led for not always reasonable but often dead-end ideas from the Americans. Maybe it's time to try for a long time using the experience of the USSR to invent something radically new? And do not shame here with this kind of presentation ...
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 14 November 2017 20: 31 New
      +1
      We have a more promising development: DDR, NREU ion, plasma engines.
      1. Awaz
        Awaz 14 November 2017 20: 54 New
        0
        Do you yourself believe that?
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 14 November 2017 21: 49 New
          +3
          I do not just believe, but I make details to order.
          1. Awaz
            Awaz 15 November 2017 06: 14 New
            0
            This is certainly good, but it seems to me that it is really unlikely that it will ever work in the hardware.
    2. slipped
      slipped 14 November 2017 20: 36 New
      +4
      While you are disgraced here, this is not a presentation. This is just a statement of fact. The fact that technologies for new LNG engines continue to develop and when they become in demand will be used. For example, in Soyuz-7.)
  8. Eurodav
    Eurodav 14 November 2017 20: 39 New
    10
    Quote: 2013 Reader
    This is the attendant m, How tired of you with your endless, miserable dullness

    Dear, since March 4, 2017 you wrote 19 comments, hence the question - when did you get tired of Banisher M (whoever he was before)? His "wretched stupidity," as you put it, is nothing compared to your disgusting disgusting ...
    Here is an example, I think colleagues will remember and appreciate ...
    Article:
    "Monument to the Hero of Russia Prokhorenko unveiled in Italy"
    And this is your vyser:
    "... Interestingly, he chose a job for himself, studied for it, died at work for money in a troubled country, it is unclear why, and why there isn’t such a stir when a driver crashes or a miner falls asleep ..."
    So learn from Mikhan, at least with a slogan and a saber to love your homeland ...
    1. Barshchik-M
      Barshchik-M 14 November 2017 21: 26 New
      +2
      Thanks Eurodav, from the bottom of my heart .. hi I write as I always understand, even if I’m not right ...
      It’s too late to educate me, men .. If I get too much, they just banyat me and EVERYTHING!
      PS And such balloons as a crab, etc. ... I drenched and will drench on the site and the main thing in life! While my heart is beating ..
      1. Settlement Oparyshev
        Settlement Oparyshev 14 November 2017 23: 33 New
        +2
        The less you pay attention to scum, the faster they will fade. Success brother.
  9. Sergei75
    Sergei75 14 November 2017 20: 43 New
    +1
    At methane, the heat capacity is small, and in a rocket, at the moment, fuel is not the main indicator of the cost of flights.
    As a scientific experiment - perhaps as a replacement - I think garbage.
    1. Settlement Oparyshev
      Settlement Oparyshev 14 November 2017 23: 35 New
      0
      We decided to strike back for safety. The health of starting calculations is taken into account.
    2. Jurkovs
      Jurkovs 15 November 2017 08: 46 New
      +1
      Quote: Sergei75
      Methane has a small heat capacity

      Where did the firewood come from? The highest heat capacity of hydrogen, the second largest heat capacity of methane - four hydrogen atoms per carbon atom. For all higher hydrocarbons, this ratio is worse.
      1. Sergei75
        Sergei75 15 November 2017 11: 44 New
        0
        Well, in some respects they are right, but propane with butane is better, though methane is cheaper.

        liva, mass characteristic: Highest calorific value
        kJ / kg kcal / kg BTU / lb, Btu / lb
        Acetone, Acetone 29 000 6
        Gasoline, Gasoline, Petrol 47 300 11 250 20 400
        Butane, Butane C4H10 49 500 11 800 20 900
        Hydrogen, Hydrogen 141 800 33 800 61 000
        Gasoil, Gas oil 38 000 9 050 16 400
        Glycerin, Glycerin 19 000 4 550 8 150
        Tar, Bitumen, Tar 36 000 8 600 15 450
        Diesel, diesel, Diesel 44 800 10 700 19 300
        Dry tree, Wood (dry) 14 400 - 17 400 3 450 - 4 150 6 200 - 7 500
        Kerosene, Kerosene 35,000 8,350 15
        Coke, Coke 28 000 - 31 000 6 650-7 400 12 000 - 13 500
        Fuel oil, Heavy fuel oil 41 200 9 800 17 700
        Methane, Methane 55 550 13 250 23 900
        Gunpowder, Gun powder 4 000 950
        Propane, Propane 50 350 12 000 21 650
        Vegetable Oils, Oils vegetable 39 - 000 48,000 - 9 300 - 11
        Ski, Turpentine 44 000 10
        Alcohol, Alcohol, 96%, Ethanol 30 000 7
        Crude oil, Petroleum 43 000 10
        Peat, Peat 13 800 - 20 500 3 300 - 4 900 5 500 - 8 800
        Anthracite coal, Anthracite 32 500 - 34 000 7 750-8 100 14 000 - 14 500
        Bituminous coal (fat), Bituminous coal 17 000 - 23 250 4 050-5 500 7 300 - 10 000
        Charcoal Charcoal 29 600 7 050 12 800
        Coal, Coal 15 000 - 27 000 3 550-6 450 8 000 - 14 000
        Brown coal, lignite, Lignite 16 300 3 900 7 000
        Semi-anthracite coal, Semi anthracite 26 700 - 32 500 6 350 - 7 750 11 500 - 14 000
        Ether, Ether 43 000 10 250 18 500
        Gases, volumetric characteristic: kJ / m3 kcal / m3 BTU / ft3, Btu / ft3
        Acetylene, Acetylene 56 000
        Butane, Butane C4H10 133 000 31
        Hydrogen, Hydrogen 13 000 3 100 170
        Methane, Methane CH4 39 800 9 500 520
        Natural gas 35 000- 43 000 8 350-10 250 455 - 560
        Propane, Propane C3H8 101 000 24 100 1 310
        1. Jurkovs
          Jurkovs 16 November 2017 08: 45 New
          0
          Quote: Sergei75
          but propane with butane is better

          Not one characteristic is evaluated, but a whole complex. One of the main advantages of hydrogen and methane is the absence of coking fuel paths.
  10. PPD
    PPD 14 November 2017 21: 20 New
    0
    Great, of course!
    But why? Can I start from an orbital station?
    With your own, not international !!
  11. Gml
    Gml 14 November 2017 21: 36 New
    0
    Something smelled of the laser.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 14 November 2017 21: 51 New
      +1
      He’s probably burning you.
      1. Gml
        Gml 14 November 2017 22: 01 New
        0
        He’s probably burning you.
        No, I have here a full range of protection for the local sofa wars: smoke, dust, mirror, etc. on your laser defense list.
  12. Old26
    Old26 14 November 2017 21: 37 New
    +5
    Quote: Simon
    Interesting engine! The first time I hear about such a development! A draft of 85 tons is good power, and also environmentally friendly. good

    Last month, Americans tested the BE-4 methane engine. Which will be installed on promising media and is possible to replace the RD-180 with Atlas-5. Engine thrust BE-4 - TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY-FIVE tons What in SIX times more than we have already experienced and THREE more than just planning to create. But thank God that at least we began to closely deal with them. And for the last 15 years it has only been heard that it is necessary, necessary, we will
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 14 November 2017 21: 52 New
      +1
      Yes, don’t worry, we’ll listen to this for another 15 years.
    2. Settlement Oparyshev
      Settlement Oparyshev 14 November 2017 23: 37 New
      0
      Apparently in America they saw less and live on one salary.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 15 November 2017 09: 11 New
        +2
        There are plenty of space enthusiasts.
    3. Vlad.by
      Vlad.by 15 November 2017 00: 08 New
      +1
      Were these “successful" BE-4 tests before the first explosion or after the second?
      1. slipped
        slipped 15 November 2017 03: 23 New
        +1
        You ask him how many seconds it burned.
    4. Jurkovs
      Jurkovs 15 November 2017 08: 48 New
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      and it is possible to replace the RD-180 with Atlas-5

      None is possible. New engines, new tanks, new power calculation, new launch infrastructure - this is a new rocket.
  13. da Vinci
    da Vinci 14 November 2017 22: 58 New
    0
    "Roscosmos will create a methane rocket engine
    Financing of the project is provided for by the new Federal Space Program for 2016–2025 "news dated January 14, 2016 recourse
  14. Old26
    Old26 14 November 2017 23: 47 New
    0
    Quote: da Vinci
    "Roscosmos will create a methane rocket engine
    Financing of the project is provided for by the new Federal Space Program for 2016–2025 "news dated January 14, 2016 recourse

    Once financing was stopped when they were going to build an engine in the framework of the Volga project
  15. Old26
    Old26 15 November 2017 00: 04 New
    0
    Quote: slipped
    For example, in Soyuz-7.

    What kind of beast is this?
    1. slipped
      slipped 15 November 2017 03: 06 New
      0
      Former 5.1)
    2. Jurkovs
      Jurkovs 15 November 2017 08: 53 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      What kind of beast is this?

      So now they call the methane base for creating superheavy in various forums. The methane base was considered on a par with the RD-170 engine, after the latter had won and the Terms of Reference had already been issued, the methane Soyuz-7 was purely speculative.
  16. Fkjydjckfrgh
    Fkjydjckfrgh 15 November 2017 06: 25 New
    +2
    Methane has a wide raw material base and low cost compared to kerosene.
    Well, at the price of methane production and the price of distillation of kerosene - maybe. But the cost of transporting and storing methane (sealed containers, coolers, thermal insulation) will “devour” this difference, or even change sign.
    1. Jurkovs
      Jurkovs 15 November 2017 08: 55 New
      0
      The cost of fuel in the total cost of launching a rocket is about 2%.
      1. Jurkovs
        Jurkovs 18 November 2017 08: 55 New
        0
        Wrong. I looked at the sources again. The cost of fuel in the total cost of launching a rocket is 0.2-0.3%.
  17. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 15 November 2017 08: 29 New
    +4
    The development is carried out in order to create and develop a technology for using methane as a component of fuel in advanced liquid-propellant rocket engines (LRE).

    What are the promising rocket engines? Again nonsense on ROSKOSMOSovsky. When the Angara soap bubble burst, it immediately became clear to everyone that Russia did not receive a cheap heavy carrier, and did not receive a superheavy carrier at all. They began to think how to get out of this. Two directions arose: some said that the new carrier should be done only on the latest technologies, including the methane engine, while others said that the Energy backlog should be used to the maximum to accelerate the creation of the carrier and reduce its cost. The second won. Today, the concept of super-tension consisting of modules based on Soyuz-5 has been adopted. Soyuz-5 is a deep modernization of the Zenith using the RD-170MV kerosene engine, old equipment from Proton in the size of 4,1 m, the Zenit control system, the modernized launch of the Zenith and so on. The terms of reference have already been formed, the money has been allocated and work has begun. It is assumed that this modular carrier will serve Russia for at least 100 years. The country simply can’t stand another such medium, nor money will be enough for any personnel. And now the question. Why is the development of a methane engine going on? What media will it be used on? And when will Roskosmos stop sawing money on secondary projects?
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 15 November 2017 09: 14 New
      +1
      Until this corporation is dissolved, there will be no sense in our space program.
      1. Lycan
        Lycan 15 November 2017 10: 26 New
        0
        And if they dissolve - will the sense immediately appear? lol
        Who will bring the modules, assemble, patent the launch?
        - VKS? - to them and without civilian rocket science affairs throat.
        - some private trader (Russian "Elon Mask")? - funny, chesslovo. We still haven’t "grown" such a culture. And "grow" on strategic. enterprise - it’s the same as giving dynamite to children with matches.
        - switch to the services of foreign agencies? = surrender all your positions.
        - create a "new company"? From whom? Who will be in control? - the same ones left after Roskosmos? Or young animals without experience within an unstable budget, tight deadlines. - Again, a dead end.
        ... options?
        1. Jurkovs
          Jurkovs 16 November 2017 08: 52 New
          0
          Quote: Lycan
          Who will bring the modules, assemble, patent the launch?

          All this is done by TsENKi and Roscosmos have nothing to do with it. The task of Roscosmos is only strategic planning, with which it just can not cope.
          1. Lycan
            Lycan 16 November 2017 17: 18 New
            0
            Quote: Jurkovs
            All this is done by TsENKi and Roscosmos have nothing to do with it. The task of Roscosmos is only strategic planning

            Guilty, I agree. But:
            "Roscosmos originates in the Ministry of General Engineering of the USSR and is its successor, as well as the Federal Space Agency Roscosmos, the Russian Space Agency, the Russian Space Agency under the Government of the Russian Federation, and the Russian Aerospace Agency. It includes enterprises and scientific organizations created back in the Soviet era."
            (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81
            %D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81)
            Therefore, it is a structure like a ministry. Heaps of enterprises are included. And PRICES is a "federal state unitary enterprise." One of.
            Dissolving the "ministry" is an irresponsible affair. You can reform / juggle with departments / and change the executor. directors. But do not eliminate the entire system. Where did such radical and immature thoughts come from? The United States did not directly destroy the USSR. A person was selected (maybe a group with a prominent leader) who "headed" the Communist Party and the whole country ... well, and then he led it to where we have been getting for the third decade.
            1. Jurkovs
              Jurkovs 16 November 2017 18: 42 New
              0
              I do not agree. Today, Roscosmos does not play the role of the ministry. All rocket and space corporations are independent economic entities whose controlling stakes are owned by the state through Russian Technologies. Roscosmos is the coordinator of space policy and the main customer of rocket and space technology. That is, the manager of state money in this area. Many corporations carry out part of their activities in addition to Roskosmos. Energomash sells the RD-180 in the United States, Progress fulfilled the French order for the carrier for the Kuru, TsiH designed the second stage for South Korea, and so on.
              1. Lycan
                Lycan 17 November 2017 10: 22 New
                0
                Quote: Jurkovs
                Roscosmos is the coordinator of space policy and the main customer of rocket and space technology. That is, the manager of state money in this area.

                That is precisely what ministerial functions are.
                And here is an additional confirmation:
                "" Roskosmos " ensures the implementation of state policy in the field of space activities and its legal regulation, and also places orders for the development, production and supply of space technology and space infrastructure facilities. "(http://engine.space/about/partners/roskosmos/)
                What is not the ministry for you? Just in the form of an industry state corporation. And no Energomash (and no other venture of near-space activities of the states. Significance, with all due respect to them) without the consent of Roscosmos has no right to sell products to anyone.
  18. Old26
    Old26 15 November 2017 09: 56 New
    +5
    Quote: SPACE
    Only Russia has experience in operating long-term space stations, the ISS itself, and began with the central unit designed and launched by Russia ...

    America also has a similar experience, although not as long-term as ours. At a certain stage, they left the orbital stations in favor of the shuttles. And so the Skylab station flew. There were three expeditions in a row, and the duration of the third expedition we reached already at the station "Salyut-3" EMNIP

    Yes, the ISS began precisely with the block, designed, built and launched by us. But what is characteristic, built on American money and legally owned by the United States. But they do not focus their attention on this yet.

    Quote: SPACE

    Quote: NordOst16
    As for American hydrogen workers - the same RL10, which has been used for a long time and is considered very reliable and is the leader in specific impulse among chemical RDs. Or RS68 - cheap and efficient.

    And how many did they fly?))) They themselves do not know what they want, methane, hydrogen in dreams, but in real life they fly on 180 RD)))

    They know what they want. And about how many of their oxygen-hydrogen engines have flown up - I must say, there are very few compared with ours. They flew off twice with us, two engines were used on Energia - they have even less. Only 279 times flew off (279 engines used) RL-10 engine and only 44 times RS-68 (62 engines used).

    As for the fact that they are flying in real life on the RD-180. Sorry, but taking such a resounding nickname SPACE one could have a little more knowledge, and not write nonsense that in real life they fly exclusively on the RD-180 and without it they have a pipe business. Since the start of operation of this engine by the Americans, and this 2002 to November 15, 2017, the Americans spent 73 Atlas missile launches with RD-180 engine. In total, during this period, the Americans launched 301 media. Sorry, but 73 from 301 is 24,25%i.e. less ONE FIVE STARTINGS. Therefore, to say that they fly really on the RD-180 - STUPIDITY

    Quote: Vlad.by
    Well, firstly, the KZHA has been engaged in the oxygen-methane engine for more than 10 years, and already they have more than any experience with it than in a puddle.
    Secondly, the 40-ton truck has already been tested and many cones have already been filled and they know where to lay the cotton wool, that they were no more.
    And thirdly, we have more experience in the construction of such engines. Which didn’t just "fly to the moon", but you can touch it live.

    Started work on the current RD-0162 - 1997. The Americans started later. But the result, alas, is "not warm." After 20 years, we tested the engine with a thrust of 42,5 tons. The next stage is a draft of 80 tons - 2019. Engine thrust of 203,9 tons - 2025. The Americans have already tested the engine at 245 tons. It turns out that it has been doing for 20 years, and only 40 tons of thrust have been achieved. Those “heaps” started later, but the result that we plan for 2025 came already in 2017

    Quote: Jurkovs
    Quote: Old26
    and it is possible to replace the RD-180 with Atlas-5

    None is possible. New engines, new tanks, new power calculation, new launch infrastructure - this is a new rocket.

    Which will be called "Atlas-6" laughing

    Quote: Jurkovs
    Quote: Old26
    What kind of beast is this?

    So now they call the methane base for creating superheavy in various forums. The methane base was considered on a par with the RD-170 engine, after the latter had won and the Terms of Reference had already been issued, the methane Soyuz-7 was purely speculative.

    Thank. I somehow missed it.
    1. slipped
      slipped 15 November 2017 14: 23 New
      0
      And why the fuck now, until 2028, the goat button accordion? Those. 200 ton LNG engine? Soyuz-2 and Soyuz-5 - kerosene, Angara kerosene, kerosene is also planned at STK. An LNG carrier may only appear in the third decade.
    2. SPACE
      SPACE 15 November 2017 19: 36 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      They know what they want.

      Yes?
      Consider ...
      Quote: Old26
      A total of 279 times flew off (279 engines used) RL-10 engine and a total of 44 times RS-68 (used 62 engines).

      Quote: Old26
      and this is 2002 year on November 15 2017 Americans conducted 73 launch of Atlas rockets with the RD-180 engine. In total, during this period, the Americans launched 301

      So: Having such “outstanding engines”, they nonetheless fly on RD-180 (and in my opinion the only normal engine in many criteria from the entire line launched by them. And by the way, I did not say that they fly exclusively on RD-180), with this they are making new methane hard and dropped to the use of "toy" antediluvian kerosene engines on falcons, this is progress)))
      Z.Y. This is an indicator of hydrogen for you and them, but for the entire time of launches, the lion's share of the work to put the payload into space was done precisely by kerosene shovel engines.
      1. Orel
        Orel 16 November 2017 10: 11 New
        0
        Quote: SPACE
        So: Having such “outstanding engines”, they nevertheless fly on the RD-180 (and in my opinion the only normal engine in many criteria from the entire line launched by them. And by the way, I did not say that they fly exclusively on the RD-180)


        If it’s cheaper to buy, then why not. Soon they will stop buying because of politics. I hope you will be satisfied. Decisions have already been made and national developments accelerated. Only to whom we will sell our engines will need to understand.

        Quote: SPACE
        at the same time they are making new methane


        They do. And it is right. Progress does not stand still. Methane is ideal for reusable rockets from any perspective. Moreover, even the high cost of the engine due to reusability will make it a good competitor to kerosene, but cheap.

        Quote: SPACE
        and went down to the use of "toy" antediluvian kerosene engines on falcons, this is progress)))


        Do not confuse "personal coat with state." For a private company such achievements are a huge success. We have such companies that are not nearly visible. And Musk is not alone. There is a whole line of promising companies with management and good financial capabilities. If that happens, then in 20 years the entire Roscosmos and our entire space industry will be compared with only one company, and not in their favor. And now, for the launches of the Masks, Roscosmos creates the whole competition - one. A cause for serious concern. This 4th technological mode is already being formed - space is becoming available for companies, but we stayed in the 60s, when only the state, in the person of the military, mainly uses space. There are a lot of problems and to solve them you need to understand them, and not run around with a portrait of Leonov and Gagarin and the RD-180 engine scheme, which is also done with American money and the rights to it belong to them.
    3. Jurkovs
      Jurkovs 16 November 2017 08: 58 New
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      Started work on the current RD-0162 - 1997.

      And something those tests showed that the Americans still do not know. No wonder the KBHA is working out a plate engine for methane.
  19. Engineer
    Engineer 15 November 2017 12: 26 New
    +2
    It is scary to think that students of the Polytechnic at KBHA with a salary of 12 tons were designed. Engine building veterans have long been gone, the last of the Mohicans quit after offensive statements addressed to them by Rogozin. And Roscosmos, for testing, will ask for several billion budget money, so that it will be enough for New Year's corporate parties with girls. Only one astronomical object can be compared with Roscosmos in terms of absorption capacity - a black hole.
  20. Old26
    Old26 15 November 2017 20: 59 New
    +2
    Quote: SPACE
    So: Having such “outstanding engines”, they nevertheless fly on the RD-180 (and in my opinion the only normal engine by many criteria from the entire line launched by them. And by the way, I did not say that they fly exclusively on the RD-180

    Of course they didn’t write. You wrote - and in real life they fly on RD 180

    Quote: SPACE
    at the same time, they are intensely making new methane engines and have lowered to using "toy" antediluvian kerosene engines on falcons, this is progress)))

    And besides Marilyn, do you know any other American engines? And besides this methane? It's not about that. what kind of kerosene they do or don’t do. We are talking about the fact that methane is being tested in the format suitable for installation on a carrier with a thrust of 200 tons. After 20 years of work, you have reached the level of 42 tons. At the same time, the production of oxygen-hydrogen is completely cheaper. We fly exclusively on kerosene.

    Quote: SPACE
    but for all the time of launches, the lion's share of the work to put the payload into space was done precisely by kerosene shovel engines.

    Who? With us or with them? Something you start to rearrange the arrows. If we are talking about the Americans and their RD-180 engines, then this is by no means the lion's share. But only FOURTH.