Ars Technica: Russia has plans to compete with SpaceX - however there are weak points

Comments

[inkass_98]

I still do not believe in reusable launchers, too many have to be checked and changed during landing, which at a price is almost the same as creating a new carrier. I will not say anything about the accident, since this is a common place, no one is safe and everyone went through it. And the preservation of a certain amount of fuel for landing a reusable carrier entails a decrease in the output payload.
At this stage, the reusable pH system has more than pluses.

[Orel]

Quote: inkass_98

I do not believe yet in reusable launchers, too many have to be checked and changed during landing, which at a price is almost the same as creating a new carrier.

Time will tell.

[SPACE]

Quote: Orel

Time will tell.

Of course, it has already shown Apollo and shuttles)))
P.S. This whole epic with Falcons and the "suddenly" appeared company Spice X))), I believe, originates from the complete failure of NASA of its main space programs, Apollo ended in nothing, the Shuttle program also ended ingloriously, not least for economic reasons, and the toys, like the super-advanced hydrogen rockets, turned out to be too expensive and complicated))). But NASA cannot openly admit its mistakes and finally start doing real work, proud, as they are outstanding, to stoop from hydrogen rockets to kerosene stoves))) but something must be done. So, for lack of reasonable alternatives, they temporarily gave the niche to Russia with their primitive RD-180, and gave political approval and technical documentation, supposedly to an independent small shop Elon Musk to use the cheapest-sucks-primitive Falcons))), and not to tarnish their authority with all sorts of trifles.

[Vlad.by]

That's cool about the "primitive" RD-180!
Impressed!

[venik]

Quote: inkass_98

I do not believe yet in reusable launchers, too many have to be checked and changed during landing, which at a price is almost the same as creating a new carrier.

==============
Exactly!!! And not just "similar to creating a new (carrier)", but sometimes even more expensive (as it was with the "shuttles")..... Not in vain Americans their new "shuttle" is being made much more more compact and significantly easier Columbia! Otherwise, a "complete defect" gobble up all profit from "reusable" ......

[Vlad.by]

Are you a descendant of Spiral? So the Americans don’t do it. They stole it and simply reproduce it. Almost unchanged.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: inkass_98

At this stage, the reusable pH system has more than pluses.

"Everything passes, everything changes ..." Wright flew on the "son" of the Lilienthal gliders ... the first rocket engines riveted from a blowtorch ... but what is happening now? To reason like this:

Quote: inkass_98

I still don’t believe in reusable launchers, too many have to be checked and changed during landing,

then exactly... all that remains is: "give up, spit on Space and grind it up! And sell potatoes... if they allow... When designing reusable spacecraft, it is imperative to integrate a self-diagnostic system in various modes with the function of disabling emergency units and intelligently converting the operating modes of reserve units. Returning the devices using rocket engines and leaving fuel for this is not necessary. You can "think up" something else! At least use the methods of controlled planning with air interception... sea "finish"... etc.

[voyaka uh]

"too much they have to check and change when landing, which is at a price
almost the same as creating a new media "////

Not even close. 1st stage - this is 75-80% of the cost of the entire rocket.
Inspections will not pull and a 100th share of its value. Also by
the results of more than 20 returns of the first stage are conclusions and changes
in its design: changed "legs" made stiffeners.
Space X plans to restart the used stage
during the day after her return and use it up to 5 times.

[Topgun]

A modern airliner will be more complicated, and during the tests it will also be sorted out after each flight + build additional models that stand on the stand all their lives undergoing “shaking” as a result, statistics are generated and people can already know in advance what part needs to be replaced so that it doesn’t fail in the next flight (UTB everything is invisible to ordinary people but there is a lot of work so that it then flies constantly and is easily serviced).
So it will be here, they are now generating statistics, simply because the launches are very rare (relative to test flights on airplanes), statistics will be generated for a long time, but in the end they will receive a rocket whose service for a repeated flight will resemble the service of a modern airliner ...
Competitors will also have to go this way - but it will be long and shorter than SpaceX it will not - rather, even longer, because launches to generate statistics will have to be nibbled in the competition, the only chance of failure and disaster, now SpaceX is in the hands of ...

[Vlad.by]

The cheapest option for returning the first stage, in my opinion, is an airplane landing. Of the additional equipment for the first stage - small light wings, possibly carbon fiber, the technology has been tested (the same MS21), retractable landing gear and a landing control system, also tested on Buran. Now it can be much more compact and lighter than on Buran. The first stage, after running out of fuel, is relatively light, has sufficient speed and energy reserves to glide to the desired area and land on a dedicated runway. Not a big deal, more difficult ones have been solved. In any case, there is no need to drag fuel up 40 km for a vertical landing, the "folding legs-paws" are much heavier than the chassis, the control system on both the Falcon and the gliding stage are similar in terms of weight and size characteristics. Wings are much lighter than fuel, I don't think it's necessary to make them retractable or folding, the speed of about three to five Machs is reached by the stage with wings at a decent altitude, I think above 20 km, in a rarefied atmosphere. There won't be any serious thermal loads yet. Then the speed drops to zero and then glides downwards. There's no need to build an airfield - there are more than one in the area of ​​the cosmodrome. In fact, the first stage becomes a cruise missile, which must be brought to a point and landed on the runway at the last stage.
It seems to me, from the point of view of weight return, such a scheme for returning the first stage is preferable to vertical landing using jet thrust.
Although, there are suspicions that the strength characteristics of the stage will have to be reviewed. But, you can consider the use of a durable carbon-fiber carrier frame with wings in a single whole. The issue of design calculation.

[MadCat]

Too Roscosmos relaxed. The officials directly believed that the rest had nothing but trampolines, and here is the result ...

As E. Berger points out, Russian industry understands its far from outstanding indicators, and therefore takes measures. Energy Rocket and Space Corporation of Russia is accelerating the development of a promising middle-class launch vehicle. This project received the name Soyuz-5.

what had to be done yesterday was only in the distant plans. The question is different, but is the company at the moment able to develop anything at all?

[Cherry Nine]

Again illiterate retelling of an empty article. Transfusion from empty to empty.

In the category of heavy launch vehicles - despite many years of promise - she has nothing to offer so far.

A heavy launch vehicle is 20 tons at the IEO. 9FT is a heavy launch vehicle. Of the launches this year, only one, it seems, - formosat - could be launched by a middle-class missile (alliance 2, for example)

the new Soyuz-5 carrier should be based on proven components and technologies from previous projects that have been repeatedly tested by practice. However, E. Berger does not take this fact into account when evaluating the prospects of a rocket.

Correctly does not take into account. Soyuz-5 is, roughly, Zenith, made at another enterprise in another country by another company. Statistics will have to be developed again.

rocket and space industry carried out 17 launches

Again, Guiana counted?

However, only a third of the launches were carried out on a commercial basis.

Two Guianas, which were sold by the Europeans, two Protons under old contracts, 1 Eurocat, apparently the last one, the sixth what?

the success of the latest Russian plans directly depends on the state of affairs in the new projects of SpaceX

Old projects are more than enough.

[avt]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Transfusion from empty to empty.

Cyril, of course, is trying to fill the site with all kinds of materials and sometimes even very, more than successfully. However, in this particular case, this is real.

Quote: Cherry Nine

retelling of an empty article.

Torn apart like other touching salivations in ecstasy about the Mask in the comments with smearing on the cheeks and wishing someone

Quote: Nikolaevich I

You can "come up" and more!

However, NO ONE has yet described the main reason for Musk's "success", namely, no one has answered a simple question - Who specifically and how distributes quotas for commercial launches on the really sleazy "market" of these services. For some reason, almost ALL "experts" draw in their wet dreams a kind of city bazaar, where carriers are traded like seeds, calling out to buyers strolling between the rows, and the winner is the one who is cheaper.

[Blackmokona]

If someone had distributed, we would surely not have launched the American satellite into orbit this year.

[avt]

Quote: BlackMokona

If someone had distributed, we would surely not have launched the American satellite into orbit this year.

This is the type of response to

Quote: avt

- Who specifically and how distributes quotas for commercial launches

Well, this is not an answer, but a diagnosis.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Soyuz-5 is, roughly, Zenith, made at another enterprise in another country by another company.

And can you give more details on what was made of Zenit at non-Russian enterprises?
From the information that came across to me, in Ukraine only tanks were made for this missile.
Or I'm wrong?

[Cherry Nine]

Everything except RD-171 and the control system.
http://www.interfax.ru/business/579951
Regardless of whether it is a lot of “all but” a little, Soyuz-5 not Zenith in terms of launch statistics.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Everything except RD-171 and the control system

as well as the DM-SL and DM-SLB booster blocks (manufactured by RSC Energia).
Total 70% of the rocket.

Quote: Cherry Nine

Regardless of whether it is a lot of “everything except” or a little, Soyuz-5 is not a Zenith in terms of launch statistics.

I don’t argue here.

[avt]

Quote: Azkii339

Space X has launch contracts - it’s a matter of company life, as it is private, and in Russia, contracts - I drank the opportunity, because our companies do not care for failure - they are state-owned, there will always be money, there will always be something to cut.

To the captain, mana. And how much money did the specific states blow from their own budget of these very United States of America? It’s quite a budget $. Let me guess - well, this is not federal money from the USA budget. And the order comes from their NASA. So we have NO difference with the state company!

[Azkii339]

Nevertheless, they have a link that is vitally interested in the success of launches.

[Blackmokona]

Which went to launches that cost 2-3 times cheaper than ULA paid before

[Pan_hrabio]

And how much concrete budget money the states poured into SpaceX you, of course, did not consider it necessary to indicate. As many as 20 (twenty) million. The remaining 5,5 billion went through contracts, which, as we see, SpaceX fully fulfills.

http://e-notabene.ru/ik/article_20451.html

And even if these billions are budgetary, the efficiency of their use is impressive: SpaceX already occupies half of the market for commercial launches.



https://hightech.fm/2017/07/17/spacex-dominate

[Vadim237]

We are looking forward to the launch of the Falcon Heavy rocket and the first flight of the super-heavy Mars rocket

[Vlad.by]

Here really! Oh, how it will fly, the first time, and immediately to the moon, but what about the moon, take it higher - to Mars.

[The Siberian barber]

Our problems are not in the scientific and technological potential of the industry, but in the heads and degree of greed of those who rule this industry. As, however, in other areas

[andrej-shironov]

Well, yes! Now we have to strain the entire country to compete with an ordinary commercial firm! Where is the vaunted local superiority of private business over state business? Where are our Elon Musks? Prokhorov couldn't even make an ё-mobile! A disgrace to the authorities!

[Vlad.by]

And you, excuse me, are very tense? Namely, to overcome the mask? Just the same, the whole country, tensed, does not sow, does not plow, only thinks about the Mask ...

[andrej-shironov]

Judging by the articles on VO yes! And without a smile, I’ll say: capitalism, because of its essence, cannot pull long-term programs, because oligarchs are interested in profit here and now. Only the state is able to carry out ambitious projects. There is something to object to this fact?

[Vlad.by]

So I didn't understand, are you for ours or for the communists? :-)
Do we need a private space business in order to overcome the Mask, or do with what we have? You already decide

[andrej-shironov]

But can I just be for a just power, it does not matter if it is capitalist or socialist. Just honestly, I'm afraid that capitalism, by virtue of its essence, cannot be fair.

[Vlad.by]

You can of course, though, the concept of fair power is from the field of philosophy and geography. From whose point of view and at what angle. My question was about your uncertain position on the question.

[andrej-shironov]

If you write to me what do you think my uncertainty is, then I will answer you.

[arkadiyssk]

That's how I doubt that the three-stage Soyuz-5 will be equal in efficiency to the 2-stage F9. The dimensions and weights of the missiles are practically the same.

[komvap]

current state of the global space industry on the launch vehicle.
1. Russia
Soviet legacy - still works wonderfully well.
potentially and according to my (like many others) Wishlist leader.
But ...
Roscosmos of the comprador RF - embezzlement, theft, sloppiness, sabotage (for non-believers, a similar example is the systematic destruction of the aircraft manufacturing industry in the RF).

2. America
SpaceX
disposable Falcon 9 - a good rocket both conceptually and in execution,
but nothing fundamentally new
except for the use of large quantities (9 pieces)
simple reliable low-cost engines in the first stage
and the same engine, but with a high-altitude nozzle on the second stage
- unification - "okay, but"
"reusable" - PR hype scam,
designed for ordinary people with their everyday experience (how is it? cars and planes reusable? and missiles disposable? Oh, but the guru and genius who fixed it !!!)


NASA is a bureaucratic rotten swamp from which nothing comes out in this area except for putrid bubbles of long-term (so that no one interferes with slurping in the mud) and at the same time constantly postponed projects - a worthy competitor for Roscosmos.

3. Europe

they have guiana at the equator - that's enough.
Well, Arian 5 is very reliable, albeit very expensive. That's who should be afraid of cheap and reliable pH.

[Blackmokona]

Did you miss the launches of BU Falcons?

[komvap]

Quote: BlackMokona

Did you miss the launches of BU Falcons?

What are other BU falcons?
Even the authors of this "reusable" hype have neither the audacity nor the stupidity to declare used Falcons, only used first stages...

[Vadim237]

Like it or not, but NASA is doing much better in all areas of space exploration than our Roskosmos.

[komvap]

Quote: Vadim237

Like it or not, but NASA is doing much better in all areas of space exploration than our Roskosmos.

Have you ever read what I'm writing?
Actually, I’m really scolding Roskosmos, and accordingly, how do you understand your “Do not twist and do not twist”?

Quote: komvap

current state of the global space industry on the launch vehicle.
Roscosmos of the comprador RF - embezzlement, theft, sloppiness, sabotage (for non-believers, a similar example is the systematic destruction of the aircraft manufacturing industry in the RF).
NASA is a bureaucratic rotten swamp from which nothing comes out in this area except for putrid bubbles of long-term (so that no one interferes with slurping in the mud) and at the same time constantly postponed projects - a worthy competitor for Roscosmos.

Or "Chukchi is not a reader, Chukchi is a writer" (c)?

[komvap]

Vadim237, what do you think of the Nasa LV, which are better (cheaper and more reliable) LV Soyuz and Proton?

[komvap]

Moreover, I would like to draw attention to the fact that Proton and Soyuz launch vehicles were created in the 1960s (subsequently undergoing minor modernizations)
If it were not for the undercover political upheaval that occurred in the late 60s, after which the party elite began to spread rot (by setting the wrong tasks and intervening in the development concept) of the Soviet cosmonautics, it is hard to imagine even what its achievements would be at least in the early 90s.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: komvap

which are better (cheaper and more reliable) LV Soyuz and Proton?

Proton, over the past 5 years - 3 complete, one partial accident, 33 launches (as of October 30), reliability 88%.
Nine, 2 accidents, 41 launches, 95%. The accident rate of Proton is 2,5 times higher. Launch prices are the same (for Proton - 60 million when buying at least 3, EMNIP, launches), taking into account insurance - for Proton it is much higher.
Soyuz-2.1b cost 50 million, 67 launches (all 2nd family), 5 accidents (3 of them partial), the last partial accident - 2015. Delta-2, 60 + million, 2 accidents, 155 launches, accident-free series - 20 years (neither full nor partial since January 1997).

[komvap]

Delta 2 is not a NASA rocket, but a ULA one.
So nasa has neither LV nor manned spacecraft (and my question was about nasa).
Next:
Firstly: the accidents you described occur due to (I will quote my top post):
".. Roskosmos comprador of the Russian Federation - drank theft, sloppiness, sabotage .."
Secondly: you are comparing a proton with a payload of 23 tons and a delta-2 with a payload of 5 tons. And they have the same cost.
What kind of simple-minded readers is this intended for?

[komvap]

and do not forget that one of the main problems of launching spacecraft from Russian spaceports is the geographic latitude, which leads to a strong decrease in payload, especially in geostationary orbit.
..not to mention American bans for political reasons launching many spacecraft from Russia.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: komvap

So nasa has neither LV nor manned spacecraft (and my question was about nasa).

You mean that NASA is not involved in launch vehicles, except for SLS? You're right. And what does it matter?

Quote: komvap

First: the accident you described is due to

Who cares?

Quote: komvap

you are comparing a proton with a payload of 23 tons and a delta-2 with a payload of 5 tons

I compare Proton with 9FT, and Delta with the Union of the latest versions. These are rockets of the same class. Did not you ask for analogues? In terms of cost, before the launch of the Union, Arianspace seems to cost $ 57 million.
This is partly ironic. Proton, and then Musk squeezed out of the market of middleweights. Heavy costs almost the same.

Quote: komvap

is geographic latitude

There is one. And who could care?

Quote: komvap

not to mention American bans for political reasons launching many spacecraft

As such, there was no ban, but the understanding of ITAR rules in 2014 changed somewhat, here you are right.

Quote: Vlad.by

And at the cost of withdrawing kg to DOE, weakly give calculations?

What for? If the cost is the same and the rocket class is the same, then the kg output is also the same.

Quote: Vlad.by

And then compare Delta and Proton with the Union as it is not comme il faut.

I compare Delta only with the Union. What to do, in the USA there remains one commercially available medium heavy, Antares does not fly to order. One - in the sense of one product.

[Vlad.by]

And at the cost of withdrawing kg to DOE, weakly give calculations? And then compare Delta and Proton with the Union as it is not comme il faut.

[Vadim237]

What does reliable launch vehicles have to do with it? I'm talking about the general situation, how many successful projects and missions NASA and Roscosmos have - NASA has dozens, Roscosmos has one - the ruined Phobos soil, and there are plenty of closed projects: Rus M, Clipper, Baikal, MAKS, Air Launch, etc. For now, our "everything" in this area is the creation of DRD and YARDU.

[komvap]

Vadim237,
the second question (though the answer to it is the same as the first):
what do you think nasa manned spacecraft that are better (cheaper and more reliable) spacecraft soyuz?

[Setrac]

Quote: Vadim237

Like it or not, but NASA is doing much better in all areas of space exploration than our Roskosmos.

This is an illusion. NASA has more money, so they are ahead of us in terms of numbers. And the one who is the first to finish his non-chemical engine is beaten, ours are nuclear, and Americans are ionic (unless of course I am mistaken about the ionic engine).

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Setrac

ours is nuclear

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA

[Setrac]

Quote: Cherry Nine

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA

Unfortunately, this project has long been poher.

[Topgun]

the first stage in this case is 70-80% pH ...

[komvap]

Was it Musk who sent you a financial breakdown on the launch cost (and this includes not only the cost of the components of the launch vehicle, which is the first step)?
... or is it all so to you so offhand?

[Topgun]

Did I write a launch price?
Can you read Russian?
Once again, I wrote that the first stage is 70-80% of the price of the ROCKER.
and about launch, so for a new rocket, too, you need to prepare everything, or does it fly off the factory hangar directly into space?

[Pan_hrabio]

Nasa - a bureaucratic rotten swamp from which nothing comes out in this area except putrid long-term putrefactive bubbles (so that no one bothers to slurp in the mud) and at the same time constantly shelving floodlights - a worthy competitor for Roskosmos.

I can’t pretend to say that NASA is an ideal organization. But even if you look at Wikipedia, we see among the planned events of this year:

China plans to launch Chang'e 5 on the moon.
The Japanese space agency plans to launch the SELENE-2 spacecraft on the moon.
NASA Space Agency Plans to Launch Naval Research Laboratory Spacecraft to Study Earth's Thermosphere
The launch of the BepiColombo spacecraft, intended for the study of Mercury, is planned.
Launch of the Russian automatic probe Luna-Glob, which is supposed to fly around the moon and select suitable sites for subsequent descent vehicles

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_год#Январь

Of course, Wikipedia is not an ideal source, but nevertheless - we see Russia in only one point. Further:

February 22 - At a NASA conference, astronomers reported that seven exoplanets the size of the Earth were discovered around the star TRAPPIST-1, three of which are in the habitable zone
June 6 Released information on the discovery in 2014 of the hottest exoplanet currently known. ... Announced the official opening of two new satellites S / 2016 J 1 and S / 2017 J 1 at Jupiter. Now their total number has reached 69
June 15 - China launches the Hard X-ray Modulation Telescope
September 4 - Astronomers have announced the discovery of a second candidate for black holes in the center of our Galaxy.
September 5 - Mars rover Curiosity discovered on Mars the presence of traces of boron, which is an important element for the existence of life
September 15 - Cassini-Huygens spacecraft, after studying Saturn for 13 years, was destroyed by immersion in the atmosphere of Saturn
October 5 - astronomers announced the discovery of the most distant comet C / 2017 K2, known to science today.
October 12 - the discovery of the ring system at the trans-Neptune object Haumea was announced.
October 16 - The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration collaborations announced that neutron star fusion was first detected using gravitational waves.
October 25 - The discovery of perhaps the first interstellar comet C / 2017 U1, known to science

From the planned events on the same page:

China plans to launch the Chang'e-5 spacecraft to the moon.
The first test flight of the American Falcon Heavy heavy carrier rocket.
The first manned flight of the Shuttle Dream Chaser is planned.
NASA's US space agency plans to launch the Naval Research Laboratory spacecraft to study the Earth’s thermosphere.
TESS Space Telescope Launch

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_год_в_науке

Are there many Russian achievements? I especially draw attention to the 13-year mission of Cassini-Huygens. This is exactly the example you mention

putrid bladders long-term

which definitely is not observed at Roskosmos. And if this goes further, I’m afraid that the Russian space industry will shrink to a strictly local one, serving its national interests, there will be no talk of any world leadership.

[komvap]

Quote: noviczok

... Are there many Russian achievements here? And if it goes further, I’m afraid that the Russian space industry will shrink to a purely local one, serving its national interests, there will be no talk of any world leadership.

one more "not a reader, but a writer" - read for the third time, how I sneeze on the Roscosmos:

Quote: komvap

the coscosm of the comprador rf - cuts, theft, sloppiness, sabotage (for unbelievers, a similar example is the systematic destruction of the aircraft building industry in rf).

[Pan_hrabio]

The essence of my comment is that you are equating NASA with the Roscosmos sneezing.

worthy competitor for Roskosmos

And given their real achievements in recent years, this is far from the case.

[komvap]

the level of nas is even worse than Roskosmos - there are no launch vehicles or manned spacecraft

[Pan_hrabio]

I agree only on one point - NASA currently does not really have manned spacecraft in operation. But there are Orion, Dragon V2, Starliner (CST-100) and Dream Chaser at different stages of readiness.

There’s nothing even to say about the absence of launch vehicles. Here are the latest statistics for 2017, which specifically list US missiles used.

[komvap]

how persistent you are in your ignorance - nasa, yula, Space X are different organizations and NASA has no LV, and all of them do not have spacecraft manned by spacecraft and when it will not be known since all of their projections were fixed many times and for many years.

[Pan_hrabio]

Ok, if you approach this formally, then these are different organizations, I agree with that. Then in my comments above instead of "NASA" you should read "US space industry." For me personally, it does not matter what and which company it belongs to, it’s all the same cooked in a common pot, and this common pot has real achievements and launch vehicles in particular.

Well, I don’t worry about their manned ships. Something will fire sooner or later, which cannot be said about the Federation.

[komvap]

So I wrote SEPARATELY about NASA and SEPARATELY about Space X in the post where you started to oppose me !!!
it’s the same thing that I’ll say that the elephant has a very short neck and a long trunk, and you’ll say nothing like that - the giraffe has a long neck and no trunk, then when you are told many times that the elephant is not a giraffe, do not hesitate to tell me - so what? think !! they both live in Africa and have devices for convenient eating vegetation ..

[komvap]

Quote: noviczok

Well, I don’t worry about their manned ships. Something will fire sooner or later, which cannot be said about the Federation.

But I’m not worried because KK UNION carries people into space for 44 years (since 1973) with absolute 100% reliability.
And because I know - a manned flight on American crafts will be delayed many more times.
current promises:
SpaceX Dragon 2 - June 2018
Boeing Starliner - August 2018.
I bet they will be rescheduled for the next multiple times.

And because I hope that the "federation", which is rotten both by name and concept by the idea of ​​politicians and advocates, will never fly away - the Union is both more reliable and cheaper.

[komvap]

Damn. how often they put off - it turns out Dagon 2 already !!! moved to August 2018, although in September 2017 they promised in June (as I wrote).
And the Boeing Starliner was postponed to November 2018.
And still, I’m ready to argue that they will again suffer.

[komvap]

Boeing Starliner "Braking" Story: (from Wiki)
In 2010, it was assumed that the CST-100 could be commissioned in 2014 [7].

In August 2011, Boeing announced that the CST-100 will first go into space in 2015, both in unmanned and manned versions. In total, three CST-2015 flights were planned for 100 (the first unmanned; the second — test the crew rescue system; the third — manned docking with the ISS) [8].

In May 2014, the first unmanned test launch of the CST-100 in January 2017 was announced. In mid-2017, the first orbital flight of a manned spacecraft with two astronauts was planned [9].

In August 2016, the assembly of the ship began [10].

At the end of 2016, the date of the first launch of the CST-100 was again postponed to December 2018 [11].

[komvap]

And these are ships that in principle do not perform any tasks inaccessible
for the old veteran KK Soyuz.
The only difference is 6 people in a capsule instead of 3 in a union.
But there are no such tasks for which it is necessary to send 6 people at once to the whole herd, in any case it is cheaper and more reliable to send 2 Unions than one dubious and expensive remake.

[komvap]

Literally today (American time)
clarification appeared on the timing of the launch of Orion:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/11/orion-spa
cecraft-calmer-seas-all-hands-review /
Over a decade in the making and several billion dollars later, Orion will finally get to fly on the first Space Launch System (SLS) mission. However, that launch won't take place until deep into 2020.
exactly what I predicted in the summer - not even a year will pass before it is postponed again. They are already promising "deep" in 2020.

[komvap]

It should be noted that Orion has already been launched and returned on December 5, 2014.
And, apparently, the consequences seen so horrified the designers that they postponed the manned flight right up to 2020.
Probably many changes to the design have to be made, and this despite the fact that the atmospheric entry of 8,9 km/s for Orion was lower than the declared 11.2 km/s for Apollo.
But the difference between the announced dates, the unmanned launch of Apollo 9 on November 1967, 4, and the manned launch of Apollo 11 on October 1968, 7, is less than a year!!
Hehe, and again comical historical "phenomenon of the old masters"

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: komvap

that will be transferred again.

It just means that it’s high time to drive people involved in NASA’s manned flights to the neck, and even judge for treason. A manned American ship has been flying for 7 years. The first dragon has all the life support systems.

[Setrac]

Quote: noviczok

June 15 - China launches the Hard X-ray Modulation Telescope

Russia has a telescope in orbit, just like the United States, here the Chinese are in the role of the laggards.

Quote: noviczok

February 22 - At a NASA conference, astronomers reported that seven exoplanets the size of the Earth were discovered around the star TRAPPIST-1, three of which are in the habitable zone

Modern astronomy is not yet mature enough to "see" exoplanets, they are found empirically, and then it turns out that the stars flicker for some other reason.

Quote: noviczok

there will be no talk of any world leadership.

And what are the indicators of world leadership? The first Russian launched the satellite, the first sent man into space - this is leadership, and in the achievements you have listed there is nothing new, the first.

[Jackking]

Full x. The cost of SpaceX today is at the level of Proton launch, so there is no struggle for today. And, by the way, it is worth remembering that ALL cosmonaut launches were carried out by Russia, and SpaceX could not even dock! And this supposedly supertechnological company was not able to repeat the auto-docking that the USSR has been conducting since the 60s. So it's time to take off your pink glasses and have less to advertise "super successful success"

[andrey682006]

Starting with 10,5 tons of payload in five years, reach 23 tons, and even with a reusable rocket?
Moreover, judging by the text, the rocket will be the same, but slightly modernized.
Or is it still new with a different engine, tanks? A new rocket in 5 years and for the same money ???
This ad is unbelievable. And then the author writes that 23t is not for a reusable rocket and not for 5 years

PS And in addition, the article does not say a word that commercial launches are carried out at prices below cost. The market - he is such a market .... Especially in the USA ... It will be necessary - they will still print ...

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: andrey682006

commercial launches are carried out at prices below cost

Who do you work in SpaceX, that you know their cost?

[komvap]

Quote: andrey682006

Starting with 10,5 tons of payload in five years, reach 23 tons, and even with a reusable rocket?

what other 23 tons?
There has not been a single launch with such a MON.
Moreover - from the Falcons PN published in the list of launches, there is not a single more than 9600 kg per DOE.
These are apparently Space X PR agents making a clever extrapolation based on the payload of 6761 kg per GPO launched (naturally in the correct disposable version) by Falcon 9. Although here too, the oddity is stated (and aggressively advertised) of 8300 kg per GPO (in the disposable version), but in reality 6761 were launched, and this only happened quite recently - on July 5, 2017.

[komvap]

As for the "reusable" version, it is completely unclear - they claim 5500 kg for the GPO, but at the same time, quite recently (that is, it cannot be attributed to the old, low-power version) on March 16, 2017, to launch the EchoStar 23 with a mass of 5600 kg, a "monstrously expensive, old-fashioned" disposable version of the rocket was used.
Because of 100 kg (less than 2 percent) of PN, we had to abandon such an "economical" "reusable" miracle stage?

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: komvap

what other 23 tons?
There has not been a single launch with such a MON.

Well, who is stopping you?
Take from your mother $ 90 million and order the Mask launch into space BMP-3, immediately remove the charlatan to clean water. And so, such pressures on IEOs are extremely rare.

[Falcon5555]

It is becoming more and more likely that commercial launches, except for Russian ones, will lose Roskosmos in the future.
PS: Unless he invents the pepelats and gravitsapu.

[Topgun]

Musk has not yet taken all the commercial launches, but it seems more than real.
In general, there will be no tragedy if Roskosmos does not have foreign contracts if the state pays enough attention to this issue ...
And of course, we missed opportunities for development at the expense of foreign money, losing only for our hard-earned money ...
It is impossible to forever use the backlog of ancestors ...

[Pupkin Vasya]

Quote: Falcon5555

Unless he invents the pepelats and gravitsapu.

Tyuyuyuyuyuyuyuyuyu ... "INVENTES" ... buys, steals will be more accurate.

[3danimal]

It's 2020 now, and the English-language article looks quite objective about SpaceX. Leadership in commercial launches is still behind them, they launched Falcon Heavy.
Roscosmos has promises and accusations from opponents.