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

The emergence of private commercial companies has already had a significant impact on the rocket and space industry. At present, such organizations attract attention and investment, and in addition, demonstrate competition with recognized market leaders. This situation can not fail to attract the attention of specialists, the public and the press. Quite expectedly there are attempts to analyze current events and forecasts of further developments.


November 13, the American popular science publication Ars Technica, published another material on the state of the global space industry, as well as on the relationships of its various representatives. Eric Berger, editor of the space department, presented an article entitled “Russia has a flaw” —— “Russia has plans to compete with SpaceX — but there are also weak points.” As the name suggests, the author of the article reviewed the activities of the Russian space industry and the American company SpaceX, and also made conclusions about the impact of their work on each other.

In the subtitle of his article, E. Berger made a curious thesis. He believes that the success of the latest Russian plans directly depends on the state of affairs in the new projects of SpaceX. In the article itself, the author revealed this thesis in more detail.

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


Author Ars Technica begins his article with a reminder of the events of the recent past. Back in 2013, as he writes, the honored space fleet of Russia retained almost half of the launch market in the interests of commercial customers. However, then new players appeared on the market - first of all, the private American company SpaceX. The activity of new competitors has led to the fact that Russia has lost its dominant position in the rocket and space market.

In the current 2017 year, by the time the article appeared, the Russian rocket and space industry carried out 17 launch vehicle launches with various payloads into orbit. At the same time, only a third of the launches were carried out on a commercial basis - not in the interests of the Russian state structures and not within the framework of ensuring the activities of the International Space Station.

In the same period, SpaceX completed 16 launches. The overwhelming majority of them - 11 launches - were carried out in order to put commercial cargo into orbit. The management of a private company believes that in 2018, this difference in launch structure will only increase. To obtain such results, it is planned to increase the number of launches of Falcon 9 launch vehicles.

As E. Berger points out, the Russian industry understands its far from outstanding figures, and therefore takes action. The Russian rocket and space corporation, Energia, is accelerating the development of a promising middle-class launch vehicle. This project was named Soyuz-5. In the future, such a rocket could replace the carriers of the Soyuz family used to deliver astronauts to the ISS. In addition, it can compete with SpaceX's missiles.

E. Berger cites the words of Russian journalist Anatoly Zak, who specializes in space issues. He claims that Russian officials have high hopes for the new project. In addition, the Kremlin regards the new launch vehicle Soyuz-5 as a domestic challenge to the existing challenges in the form of foreign developments. It is considered as a new means of fighting for commercial orders, which makes this promising project more than relevant.

Too small and too late?

A. Zak believes that the Russian rocket and space industry managed to get noticeable successes in the framework of the Soyuz-5 project. Preliminary design work on this rocket should be completed in 2017 year. Thus, with the successful implementation of all plans, Energia will be able to bring a new carrier to the market by the end of 2021. The author mentions that, according to known data, the Soyuz-5 launch vehicle will be built according to a three-step scheme and will receive RD-171 liquid engines using kerosene. For comparison, Merlin engines used on Falcon 9 rockets also work on kerosene.

E. Berger points out that the Russian press seems to lack understanding of an important fact. It lies in the fact that in the coming years, SpaceX is not going to stop there, and by 2021 it plans to get new results. To understand the possible development of events, he proposes to consider the results of the activities of the American company in recent years.

So, four years ago, the American company built the first version of the Falcon 9 carrier. This rocket could be used only once and brought to low earth orbit 10,5 t cargo. Next year, according to existing plans, the fifth modification of the Falcon 9 rocket will fly. It will be optimized for reusable use. In addition, it is assumed that this carrier will be able to put 23 t into low Earth orbit.

The American author believes that the new rocket from SpaceX will be able to show some success, and in favor of this assumption, he believes, says the company's previous activities. In addition, the emergence of a new version of the Falcon 9 will have a definite impact on the market in general and on the Russian carrier Soyuz-5 in particular.

A promising Russian rocket debuts internationally in 2021 year. E. Berger believes that in this case, Soyuz-5 will not be able to compete with the newest Falcon 9. The launch of the American rocket will have to cost 60 million dollars, and besides, by the beginning of the next decade it will have a certain history starts. The acceleration of the pre-launch preparation process expected by the author will further enhance the potential of the Falcon 9 carrier. As a result, by the year 2021, SpaceX, unlike the Russian space industry, will be able to launch commercial launches within the shortest possible time after receiving an order, as well as at the expected price of 60 million dollars.

***

The article by Ars Technica “Russia has a plan to compete with SpaceX — but it has a flaw” on the current plans of Russian and American specialists is of some interest, although from a certain point of view it looks very predictable. It is hardly worth recalling that in recent years, new specific “traditions” have been formed around the rocket and space industry. Thus, for some time it has been considered right to admire the success or even the plans of individual private companies, but at the same time mercilessly criticize the “old” market leaders. All this to a certain extent provokes controversy and leads to well-known results.

Given these "customs", in the article Ars Technica, you can find some weaknesses. Part of the proposed theses makes us recall the notorious double standards and other not the most honest techniques. As a result, the article, despite the interesting topic and a number of curious theses, cannot be considered fully objective.

The article begins with a comparison of the number of launches and the structure of the order book of competing organizations. In this case, the author does not take into account some features of the executed launches. For example, SpaceX, when compared with Russian organizations of the rocket and space industry, clearly gains only in the field of launching of middle-class missiles. In the category of heavy launch vehicles - despite many years of promises - she has nothing to offer yet. Russia, in turn, has at its disposal effective and inexpensive means of removing the load of this class.

Also, there are questions to the process of comparing the promising Russian launch vehicle "Soyuz-5" and the expected new modification of the American Falcon 9. So, assessing the future of the two projects, Eric Berger shows a clear condescension to the rocket, created in the United States. The carrier that does not exist and is not in use is evaluated by the declared characteristics, which gives the most optimistic picture.

It is quite expected that the Soyuz-5 rocket, which is also at the design stage, clearly loses in this comparison to a foreign competitor. Moreover, as indicated by the American author, the Russian development will be inferior to foreign immediately, at the time of its appearance.

It is curious that the author of Ars Technica cites the reputation of the company SpaceX as an argument in favor of the successful completion of work on the new rocket of the Falcon 9 family. He argues that the company's previous activities and successes point to the possibility of successful completion of the work. The Russian project, however, he refuses such advantages. It is already known that the new carrier “Soyuz-5” should be based on the worked-out components and technologies of previous projects that have been repeatedly tested by practice. However, E. Berger does not take this fact into account when evaluating the prospects for a rocket.

It is hardly necessary to argue with the fact that SpaceX really demonstrates serious success and significantly affects the market for commercial launches. However, noting the successes of a young firm, one should remain within reasonable limits and not try to praise one organization at the expense of incorrect criticism of others. Comparison with the use of not the most honest methods can negatively affect the reputation of the author, as well as praised projects. Hardly missiles of the Falcon 9 family - and so deserving of their fame - need such an advertisement.


The article “Russia has a plan to compete with SpaceX — but it has a flaw”:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/russian-rocket-to-compete-with-spacex-racing-to-launch-pad-in-2021/
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

78 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. inkass_98 20 November 2017 07: 08 New
    • 11
    • 0
    +11
    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.
    1. Orel 20 November 2017 07: 27 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      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.
      1. SPACE 20 November 2017 12: 18 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Orel
        Time will tell.

        Of course, it has already shown Apollo and shuttles)))
        Z.Y. This whole epic with the Falcons and the “suddenly” appeared company Spice X))), I think it originates from the complete failure of NASA of its main space programs, Apollo ended in nothing, the Shuttle program also ended ingloriously, and not least for economic reasons, yes and too expensive and complicated to make toys, such as super-advanced hydrogen atoms))). But NASA can’t openly admit its mistakes and finally begin to do real things, proud of how outstanding they are, to go down from hydrogen to kerosene))) but something needs to be done. It was in the absence of reasonable alternatives that they temporarily surrendered the niche of Russia with their primitive RD-180, and gave political go-ahead and technical documentation, supposedly to the independent small shop Ilon Mask, to use the cheapest-slop-primitive falcons))), and not to stain their authority with any trifle .
        1. Vlad.by 20 November 2017 23: 32 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          That's cool about the "primitive" RD-180!
          Impressed!
    2. venik 20 November 2017 09: 38 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      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.

      ==============
      In-in !!! And not just, “similar to creating a new (carrier)”, and sometimes more expensive (as it was with the “shuttles”) ..... No wonder the Americans make their new “shuttle” much more compact and significantly easier Columbia! Otherwise, a "complete defect" gobble up all profit from "reusable" ......
      1. Vlad.by 20 November 2017 23: 34 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Are you a descendant of Spiral? So the Americans don’t do it. They stole it and simply reproduce it. Almost unchanged.
    3. Nikolaevich I 20 November 2017 10: 16 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      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? fellow 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,
      that’s for sure ... it only remains: “wave your hand, spit on Space and grind! And trade potatoes ... if they allow ... When designing reusable spacecraft, it is imperative to integrate a self-diagnosis system in various modes with the function to turn off emergency units and intelligent conversion operating modes of reserve units. It is not necessary to return devices using rocket engines and leave fuel for this. You can "think up" something else! At least use the methods of controlled planning with air erehvatom sea ... "finish" ... etc.
    4. voyaka uh 20 November 2017 10: 50 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      "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.
    5. Topgun 20 November 2017 22: 49 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      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 ...
    6. Vlad.by 20 November 2017 23: 29 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      The cheapest option to return the first stage, in my opinion - landing on an airplane. Of the additional equipment of the first stage - small light wings, possibly carbon fiber, the technology worked out (the same MC21), final landing gear and landing control system, also worked out on Buran. Now it can be much more compact and lighter than on the Buran. The first stage, after the development of fuel is relatively light, has sufficient speed and energy to plan in the desired area and sit on the allocated lane. God knows what task, they solved it and more difficult. In any case, it is not necessary to drag fuel upwards for 40 km for vertical landing, the "reclining legs-paws" are much heavier than the chassis, the control system on the Falcon, on the planning stage, is similar in terms of weight and size characteristics. Wings are much lighter than fuel, making them retractable or folding, I think not necessarily, a speed of the order of three to five Machs a step with wings reaches a decent height, I think above 20 km, in a rarefied atmosphere. Serious heat loads will not be yet. Then the speed drops to zero and further planning down. There is no need to build an aerodrome - it is not alone in the area of ​​the cosmodrome. In fact, the first stage becomes a cruise missile, which must be brought to the point and put on the strip 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.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  2. MadCat 20 November 2017 08: 01 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    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?
  3. Cherry Nine 20 November 2017 08: 12 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    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 Guiana sold by Europeans, two Protons under old contracts, 1 Eurocat, apparently the last, 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.
    1. avt
      avt 20 November 2017 10: 51 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      Transfusion from empty to empty.

      what 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!

      bully However, NOBODY has yet painted the main reason for Mask’s successes, namely, he hasn’t answered the simple question - Who exactly and how distributes quotas for commercial launches In the really small, “market” of these services. That’s why almost EVERYTHING, “experts” draw in their wet dreams are like the hell of a city bazaar, where carriers are traded like seeds with the invocation of buyers flandering between the rows and who wins the cheapest. bully
      1. Blackmokona 20 November 2017 11: 54 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        If someone had distributed, we would surely not have launched the American satellite into orbit this year.
        1. avt
          avt 20 November 2017 13: 33 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          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.
    2. Bad_gr 21 November 2017 19: 35 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      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?
      1. Cherry Nine 21 November 2017 21: 05 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        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.
        1. Bad_gr 22 November 2017 00: 14 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Everything except RD-171 and the control system

          as well as upper stages DM-SL and DM-SLB (manufacturer of 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.
  4. The comment was deleted.
    1. avt
      avt 20 November 2017 11: 20 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      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.

      bully 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. bully And the order goes to him from NASA. So we have NO DIFFERENCE with the state-owned company!
      1. Azkii339 20 November 2017 11: 24 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Nevertheless, they have a link that is vitally interested in the success of launches.
      2. Blackmokona 20 November 2017 11: 55 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Which went to launches that cost 2-3 times cheaper than ULA paid before
      3. Pan_hrabio 20 November 2017 13: 49 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        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
        1. Vadim237 20 November 2017 19: 55 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          We look forward to Falcon Heavy rocket launches and the first flight of an ultra-heavy Martian rocket
          1. Vlad.by 20 November 2017 23: 42 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            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.
  5. The Siberian barber 20 November 2017 11: 41 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    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
  6. andrej-shironov 20 November 2017 13: 10 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Well yes! Now you have to strain the forces of the whole country in order to compete with a regular commercial company! Where is the vaunted local superiority of private business over the state? Where are our Ilona Masks? Prokhorov couldn’t even make a ё-mobile! A disgrace to the authorities!
    1. Vlad.by 20 November 2017 23: 44 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      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 ...
      1. andrej-shironov 21 November 2017 08: 19 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        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?
        1. Vlad.by 21 November 2017 09: 17 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I didn’t understand. Are you for ours, or for communists? :-)
          Do we need a private space business in order to overcome the Mask, or do with what we have? You already decide
          1. andrej-shironov 21 November 2017 15: 10 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            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.
            1. Vlad.by 22 November 2017 13: 59 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              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.
              1. andrej-shironov 22 November 2017 14: 54 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                If you write to me what do you think my uncertainty is, then I will answer you.
  7. arkadiyssk 20 November 2017 15: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    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.
  8. komvap 20 November 2017 16: 49 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    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 ...
    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).

    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 in the second stage
    - unification - “harasho adnako”
    "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 - 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.

    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.
    1. Blackmokona 20 November 2017 18: 54 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Did you miss the launches of BU Falcons?
      1. komvap 20 November 2017 19: 09 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: BlackMokona
        Did you miss the launches of BU Falcons?

        What are other BU falcons?
        Even the authors who are interested in this "reusable" hype have neither the audacity nor the stupidity to declare about the BU Falcons, only about the BU of the first stage ...
        1. Vadim237 20 November 2017 20: 02 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Like it or not, but NASA is doing much better in all areas of space exploration than our Roskosmos.
          1. komvap 20 November 2017 20: 58 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            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.
            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).
            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.

            Or "Chukchi is not a reader, Chukchi is a writer" (c)?
            1. komvap 20 November 2017 21: 04 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Vadim237, what do you think of the Nasa LV, which are better (cheaper and more reliable) LV Soyuz and Proton?
              1. komvap 20 November 2017 21: 57 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                moreover, I draw attention to that, Proton and the Union, the launch vehicles were created in the 1960s (after undergoing unprincipled modernization)
                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.
              2. Cherry Nine 20 November 2017 22: 31 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                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).
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. komvap 20 November 2017 23: 50 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Delta-2 is not a nasa rocket, but a ULA.
                  So nasa has neither LV nor manned spacecraft (and my question was about nasa).
                  Next:
                  Firstly: the accident rate you described is 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 PN of 23 tons and a Delta-2 with a PN of 5 tons. And at the same time they have the same cost.
                  What simple-minded readers is this intended for?
                  1. komvap 20 November 2017 23: 52 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    and do not forget that one of the main problems of launching spacecraft from Russian cosmodromes is the geographic latitude, which leads to a strong decrease in GV, especially at GSO.
                    ..not to mention American bans for political reasons launching many spacecraft from Russia.
                  2. Cherry Nine 21 November 2017 21: 19 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    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.
                3. Vlad.by 21 November 2017 09: 23 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  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.
              3. Vadim237 21 November 2017 21: 04 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Moreover, there are reliable rocket launchers, I’m talking about the general situation, how many NASA and Roscosmos have successful projects and missions - NASA has dozens of them, Roskosmos has one - ruined Phobos soil, and there are a lot of closed projects: Rus M, Clipper, Baikal, MAKS, Air Launch and etc., so far as our "everything" in this area is the creation of the DDR and the NRE.
            2. komvap 20 November 2017 21: 14 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              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?
          2. Setrac 21 November 2017 21: 30 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            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).
            1. Cherry Nine 21 November 2017 22: 04 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Setrac
              ours is nuclear

              https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA
              1. Setrac 21 November 2017 22: 42 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA

                Unfortunately, this project has long been poher.
        2. Topgun 20 November 2017 22: 50 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          the first stage in this case is 70-80% pH ...
          1. komvap 21 November 2017 00: 00 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            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?
            1. Topgun 22 November 2017 12: 28 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              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?
    2. Pan_hrabio 20 November 2017 22: 49 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      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.
      1. komvap 20 November 2017 23: 20 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        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).
        1. Pan_hrabio 20 November 2017 23: 57 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          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.
          1. komvap 21 November 2017 01: 34 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            the level of nas is even worse than Roskosmos - there are no launch vehicles or manned spacecraft
            1. Pan_hrabio 21 November 2017 02: 04 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              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.

              1. komvap 21 November 2017 02: 52 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                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.
                1. Pan_hrabio 21 November 2017 03: 07 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  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.
                  1. komvap 21 November 2017 03: 31 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    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 ..
                  2. komvap 21 November 2017 03: 44 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    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.
                    1. komvap 21 November 2017 03: 52 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      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.
                      1. komvap 21 November 2017 03: 57 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        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].
                      2. komvap 21 November 2017 04: 03 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        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.
                      3. komvap 21 November 2017 04: 24 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        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 is still not going to pass, and the year they will be transferred again. Already "deeply" in 2020 promise.
                      4. komvap 21 November 2017 04: 38 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        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 a lot of changes in the design have to be made. And this despite the fact that the entrance to the atmosphere of Orion was 8,9 km / s lower than the declared Apollo 11.2 km / s.
                        But the difference between the announced dates, the unmanned launch of Apollo 9 on November 1967, 4, and the Apollo 11 launch manned on October 1968, 7, is less than a year !!
                        Hehe, and again comical historical "phenomenon of the old masters"
                      5. Cherry Nine 21 November 2017 21: 31 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        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.
      2. Setrac 21 November 2017 21: 42 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        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.
  9. Jackking 20 November 2017 21: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    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"
  10. andrey682006 20 November 2017 21: 57 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Starting with 10,5 tons of payload in five years, reach 23 tons, and even with a reusable rocket? wassat
    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 ...
    1. Cherry Nine 20 November 2017 22: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: andrey682006
      commercial launches are carried out at prices below cost

      Who do you work in SpaceX, that you know their cost?
    2. komvap 20 November 2017 22: 37 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      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.
      This is apparently the space x PR agents, they make a tricky extrapolation based on a 6761 kg payload per GPO launched (naturally in the correct one-time version) by Falcon 9. Although even here strangeness is stated (and aggressively advertised) 8300 kg per GPO (in a one-time version), but 6761 actually started, and more recently, only this happened - July 5, 2017.
      1. komvap 20 November 2017 22: 48 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        As for the “reusable” option, it’s not clear at all - they claim 5500 kg for GPO, but at the same time (that is, you cannot write off the old, low-power version) on March 16, 2017 to launch the EchoStar 23 weighing 5600 kg, a “monstrously expensive. Old-fashioned” was used Disposable rocket version.
        Because of 100 kg (less than 2 percent) of payload, did you have to abandon such an "economical" "reusable" miracle stage?
      2. Cherry Nine 21 November 2017 21: 27 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        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.
  11. Falcon5555 21 November 2017 00: 28 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    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. laughing
    1. Topgun 22 November 2017 12: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      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 ...
  12. Pupkin Vasya 1 March 2019 21: 24 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Falcon5555
    Unless he invents the pepelats and gravitsapu.


    Tyuyuyuyuyu ... "INVENT" ... buy, steal will be more accurate.