Military Review

Russia began developing reusable rocket

175
Russia is starting to develop a reusable middle class rocket. It will be the answer to the Falcon 9 media created by Ilon Mask.


The unification with the one-time “Union-5” will allow launching a future domestic rocket from Baikonur, Vostochny, as well as from a floating space center in the Pacific Ocean - under the Sea Launch program. The RSC Energia and the Progress Rocket and Space Center will be engaged in the development of the novelty. According to experts, the creation of a reusable carrier is important for maintaining Russia's position in the launch services market.

Russia began developing reusable rocket


Development of a rocket with a reusable first stage will go simultaneously with the creation of its one-time version. The sketch design of the “conventional” “Union-5” was completed at the end of November. In the coming days, documentation will be submitted to Roskosmos. The middle class carrier is created to replace the Zenith missiles, which were previously produced by Russia and Ukraine together.

The development of the Soyuz-5 with a reusable first stage will be led by specialists from RSC Energia and the Progress rocket and space center.

It is assumed that the rocket will make a self-landing - like the Falcon 9 of the US corporation SpaceX. However, other options will be calculated, for example the use of parachutes. It is planned to maximally unify the carrier with the basic one-time version for launching both modifications from the same launch complexes, Izvestiya reports.
Photos used:
http://www.globallookpress.com/
175 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. 210ox
    210ox 8 December 2017 12: 19 New
    +6
    I don’t know whether to rejoice or to grieve .. Can it be easier and faster to eliminate our schools?
    1. Same lech
      Same lech 8 December 2017 12: 23 New
      +6
      I don’t know whether to rejoice or to grieve .. Can it be easier and faster to eliminate our schools?
      We need to deal with Frigate ... what happened to him ... and then they swung a reusable rocket ... you can’t tear your navel ... where to get money for new developments ... it's very expensive.
      And then we cry why there is not enough money in the budget ...
      there is no return on projects and what’s new to do ... it’s not all businesslike ... to squander money anywhere. what
      1. maxim947
        maxim947 8 December 2017 12: 40 New
        11
        Those. let's stop everything until we deal with Frigate?
        I would very much like the Soyuz-5 project to be implemented within an acceptable time frame. With a sea launch, this is a very promising topic, but today we’re treading water, the coastal infrastructure is not being created, we pay a lot of money for rent to Merikos, it should not be so. And personally, my opinion is that it is necessary to set ambitious goals, the only way to move forward. But the trouble with finances, how Roscosmos will pull everything, is not clear. Limited funding leads to delays and, as a result, slows down the rhythm of work
        1. Same lech
          Same lech 8 December 2017 12: 43 New
          +2
          Those. let's stop everything until we deal with Frigate?

          In the Air Force they do this in case of unclear accidents of aircraft ... they joke appropriate planes and helicopters prohibit flights until the causes of the accident are clarified.
          Are you ready to lay out several billion dollars each time for an accident ... the price is too expensive.
          1. maxim947
            maxim947 8 December 2017 12: 55 New
            +5
            As you yourself have indicated, the planes are appropriate, but it is not the industry that needs to be stopped.
            By the way, we also have developments of reusable products - Baikal, developer Khrunichev
            1. Romario_Argo
              Romario_Argo 8 December 2017 13: 15 New
              +6
              another JSC “GRTS Makeeva" is developing a reusable rocket carrier "Corona"
              1. Monos
                Monos 8 December 2017 13: 32 New
                11
                According to experts, the creation of a reusable carrier is important to maintain Russia's position in the launch services market.

                In these "positions", the rear-guard battles are already underway. Before 2013, Russia had 50% of the launch market, now - 20%. Sculpting a rocket is, of course, good, but it would be more efficient to clean the rocket industry from young and fervent destroyers.
              2. Korolev
                Korolev 9 December 2017 16: 34 New
                +1
                They say that the crown was closed back in 2013 due to lack of funding
        2. The comment was deleted.
      2. ALEX_SHTURMAN
        ALEX_SHTURMAN 8 December 2017 15: 34 New
        +2
        Where did the money say: The salary of some bureaucrats, such as muDko for example, is given to the same rocket engineers!
        1. AUL
          AUL 8 December 2017 17: 23 New
          +3
          There is no money for Barguzin, but they find it for this heresy! I do not understand those who prioritize development. Harm or what?
          1. maxim947
            maxim947 8 December 2017 19: 28 New
            +4
            Why the hell did this barguzin surrender to you? missiles or something? Now, when everyone has a phone and, accordingly, the camera, this train will still not be left unnoticed, the pictures will merge so that even draw a route. So he will not be secretive.
            1. Korolev
              Korolev 9 December 2017 16: 34 New
              0
              why then have so much resources been invested in it?
              1. maxim947
                maxim947 9 December 2017 18: 46 New
                0
                How much is this?
                1. Korolev
                  Korolev 9 December 2017 23: 07 New
                  0
                  is it free and you are not a taxpayer? Let it be 100 rubles. Are you few?
    2. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 8 December 2017 12: 24 New
      +5
      As if without eliminating our stocks, a reusable rocket will be able to fire. They just finally realized that Falcon-9 is a real threat.
    3. Finches
      Finches 8 December 2017 12: 25 New
      15
      Fuck is not needed - Buran go from Gorky Park, take out - here you have a reusable rocket! Again, some kind of clown, like Chubais got out ...
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 8 December 2017 12: 33 New
        0
        Buran is an analogue of the Shuttle, however did not take off.
        1. Finches
          Finches 8 December 2017 12: 37 New
          12
          Buran - took off in fully automatic mode and sat down, in full automatic mode - without a single person on board! The Americans could not repeat this - their Shuttles landed only with the help of astronauts! hi
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 8 December 2017 12: 43 New
            +7
            And how did this help Buran?
            And about repeating, they have long had the X-37 mini-shuttle flying in full autopilot.
            1. Finches
              Finches 8 December 2017 12: 47 New
              18
              Nehren they really did not fly! It was 1986 the USSR collapsed, it was not until the Buran! But the technology that was developed for Buran America was never able to repeat ... The Shuttle project burst like a soap bubble! These are all historical milestones - our Yuri Gagarin peed before flying on a bus wheel, and Alan Sheppard pissed them on a spacesuit and flew pissed, though they only spent 6 seconds in space ... They’d better take off their "heroic" successes in Hollywood - it will be cheaper and this jerk is the same trickster ...laughing
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 8 December 2017 12: 48 New
                +6
                How many times the Shuttle flew, and how many Buran. That's all
                1. Finches
                  Finches 8 December 2017 12: 53 New
                  +6
                  So what? We then had and have missiles that flew and fly - and the Shuttle, where? In the trash! And the United States still has nothing but the tricks of this dive ... Who took von Braun's rocket and dopped a little, and, as he could, with a file .... That's a fact! Therefore, I say - why come up with what has already been invented!
                  1. Blackmokona
                    Blackmokona 8 December 2017 13: 01 New
                    +8
                    Someone did not hear anything about Delta-4 and Pegasus. Google and hang out
                    1. oops
                      oops 8 December 2017 13: 24 New
                      +4
                      Deltas are ABSOLUTELY not suitable for commercial launches - it is extremely expensive. Google and enlighten!
                      1. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 8 December 2017 13: 29 New
                        +4
                        However, Delta-4 Heavy is the most powerful operating LV in the world, and what is expensive. The USA can not afford it.
                      2. Nasrat
                        Nasrat 8 December 2017 13: 40 New
                        +5
                        Delta-4 is really not a commercial project, although it prevented it from collecting orders - the collapse of the USSR - Russian ships began to be transported for a penny, so to speak ... However, Delta-4 with additional tanks (Heavy) is an orbit of almost 100 tons - which is comparable with Saturn 5 (those that "did not fly" to the moon). Pay attention to the dimensions of the loaded cargo on Delta-4 ..... What do we have now under 100 tons of cast into orbit ???? Now we don’t have to throw anything, if it weren’t for the military and the ISS ... And if there hadn’t been the ISS, the manned space program would have been abandoned long ago ... hi
                        In the lighter segment, they now have SpaceX with Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy- missiles, for example ...
                  2. Nasrat
                    Nasrat 8 December 2017 13: 15 New
                    +8
                    Sorry, of course, I understand patriotism is not bad, but to say that the USA has “nothing” in the space field is stupid .. hi
                    1. Finches
                      Finches 8 December 2017 13: 17 New
                      +6
                      There is - an asshole Shepard and a blockbuster shot about a landing on the moon laughing ! Everything else they have collective creativity!
                      1. Nasrat
                        Nasrat 8 December 2017 13: 19 New
                        +9
                        Again, stupidity ... You should know your opponent better .. He is much more dangerous than your idea of ​​him ...
                    2. Blackmokona
                      Blackmokona 8 December 2017 13: 21 New
                      +6
                      Oh, this stupid paradigm for many.
                      "The USA totally sucks that the coolest USSR defeated"
                      Mutually exclusive paragraphs in all its tin.
                    3. Kent0001
                      Kent0001 8 December 2017 13: 36 New
                      +3
                      All that they have, as a rule, is VERY expensive, which is why projects are being closed. The shuttle is very expensive and it was originally a military program, because for this reason there was unlimited funding there. But the shuttle was not originally designed with a large margin of safety, so they all landed, there the glider has big problems.
                      1. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 8 December 2017 13: 39 New
                        10
                        They have very high salaries, they can offer engineers at space enterprises 10 thousand rubles each, and their prices are mildly different.
          2. Golovan Jack
            Golovan Jack 8 December 2017 12: 59 New
            10
            Quote: Finches
            Buran - took off in fully automatic mode and sat in full automatic mode

            Buran in orbit that brought, do not remind?
            1. Finches
              Finches 8 December 2017 13: 01 New
              +2
              Energy - Buran. And Ukrainians for its transportation lured Mriya!
              1. Golovan Jack
                Golovan Jack 8 December 2017 22: 45 New
                10
                Quote: Finches
                Energy - Buran

                Energy, if sclerosis does not change me, was not "returned". More precisely, there were some ideas about the blocks of the first stage, but things didn’t come to implementation there.
                Actually, I asked a question repeat
              2. Vadim237
                Vadim237 9 December 2017 02: 17 New
                +2
                There was an Energy - Hurricane project with a fully returnable missile, if it were made in metal, such an arrangement would be effective from an economic point of view but alas, to create all this, again from scratch, you need 900 billion rubles.
                1. Korolev
                  Korolev 9 December 2017 16: 38 New
                  0
                  Create from scratch alone modern Russia such a project will not pull. And not only in finance. Here at least a disproportionately simple Angara could bring to mind.
                  1. Vadim237
                    Vadim237 9 December 2017 17: 47 New
                    +2
                    Why not pull, pull - the engines have drawings left, we need to re-equip the production base, and this is difficult and expensive for our officials.
                    1. Korolev
                      Korolev 10 December 2017 00: 31 New
                      +1
                      Hydrogen-oxygen engines of the RD-0120 level are no more.
                      Well, let's say. You have created a fuel tank with a diameter of 8 meters. How and by what are you going to deliver it to the cosmodrome? And what if not a secret? And with what will you re-equip the production base in order to produce such steps? And how to design, on culmins? Or in the Russian Federation already have analogues of Catia level software? The Energy-Buran program was created by 1200000 (one million two hundred thousand) highly qualified engineers. Are you sure that in modern Russia at least 10% of this amount will be typed?
                      Everything is simple with you until it gets to the point .. To the great regret. In fact, the Proton launch vehicle has already lost the market for commercial launches.
                  2. UAZ 452
                    UAZ 452 9 December 2017 19: 20 New
                    0
                    Just because nobody wants to bring anything to mind, everyone is enthusiastically ready to engage in a new project. And then, after about a dozen years, he will also be quietly covered, and will be engaged in the next. The process of turning budgetary billions into beautiful reports has long been mastered to perfection, very profitable (for all participants except the state itself) and not burdensome. The main thing is to close the project to the stage of mass production, so as not to be responsible for non-flying missiles, non-working satellites. However, the storekeeper will still be to blame.
              3. region58
                region58 10 December 2017 05: 02 New
                0
                Quote: Finches
                And Ukrainians for its transportation lured Mriya!

                Mriyu was seduced by the USSR. Or rather, Antonov Design Bureau. It was founded as a research and development bureau at the Novosibirsk Aircraft Plant under the direction of Oleg Antonov, since 1952 in Kiev.
        2. forester
          forester 8 December 2017 12: 54 New
          +4
          Quote: BlackMokona
          Buran is an analogue of the Shuttle, however did not take off.

          Yah?! It’s not at all an analogue - Buran is a reusable spacecraft that can fly into space automatically (unmanned aerial vehicle!), Put loads into orbit and destroy satellites in the future, which was demonstrated to the whole world - the shuttle couldn’t do this, mattresses only In the 21st century, they were able to create such an apparatus, only much smaller and capable of nothing but flight.
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 8 December 2017 13: 22 New
            +5
            The shuttle took out cargo, made flights many times, carried out repairs, took satellites from orbit, all of which was demonstrated. Only a fully automatic landing has not been demonstrated, and that’s it.
          2. Viktor.12.71
            Viktor.12.71 8 December 2017 13: 25 New
            +3
            Quote: forester
            in the 21st century, they were able to create such an apparatus, only of a much smaller size and capable of nothing but flight.

            X-37 is an experimental device. Based on it, drone drones will be built. Americans take a different path, the miniaturization of weapons and fillings, that is, their devices will accommodate more modern fillings and weapons with a small mass. It's like David vs. Goliath, small and deadly. The United States is silently engaged in the militarism of outer space. China woke up recently and just started to do its own thing.
        3. NEXUS
          NEXUS 8 December 2017 15: 41 New
          +3
          Quote: BlackMokona
          Buran is an analogue of the Shuttle, however did not take off.

          What a fright? These are generally two different aircraft from the word. Buran is an unmanned aircraft, the layout is different, and the tasks were completely different, namely, Buran was developed as a kind of space bomber. The shuttle is a manned aircraft, and nothing more.
          It’s the same as comparing Armata with a Mercedes minibus.
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 8 December 2017 16: 34 New
            +3
            Hey Buran manned, he has an LSS and more. And our astronauts said in an interview that they would steer themselves without an autopilot. Just the first launch was unmanned, because the test.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 8 December 2017 16: 37 New
              +3
              Quote: BlackMokona
              Hey Buran manned, he has an LSS and more. And our astronauts said in an interview that they would steer themselves without an autopilot. Just the first launch was unmanned, because the test.

              Yeah ... and they also said that Buran will be serial ... do you believe everything that they say on TV? I’m telling you about a completely different concept of application, and why our Buran and their Shuttle were created at all ... absolutely two different aircraft.
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 8 December 2017 16: 47 New
                +1
                Then I will tell you a secret in the Chatelet was a complete autopilot.
                http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.
                gov / 19900015844.pdf
                “So. As follows from the aforementioned Space Shuttle Avionics System document, the Shuttle’s full automatic landing was available right up to the touch of the runway (page 25). Moreover, it was tested in the Shuttle’s first flights: for example, in the STS-3 mission (1982). ) "
    4. Chertt
      Chertt 8 December 2017 12: 30 New
      +2
      In any case, reusable spacecraft, this is the only way to develop the space industry. Work in this area has begun long ago. I think they never stopped completely. If you reach the test level, very good
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 8 December 2017 12: 34 New
        +1
        Re-read the article, only in November the excursion level of a one-time modification passed.
        1. Chertt
          Chertt 8 December 2017 12: 44 New
          +1
          Quote: BlackMokona
          Re-read the article, only in November the excursion level of a one-time modification passed.

          You are confusing the terms of different industries. Rosskosmos “excursion level” means that the scientific and technical content of the project is in a high degree of readiness
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 8 December 2017 12: 47 New
            +1
            This is still very far from the test level.
            1. slipped
              slipped 8 December 2017 14: 22 New
              0
              After the conceptual design - the release of CD, five years are given for development and testing
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 8 December 2017 14: 43 New
                0
                Given that Soyuz-5 is Zenith without Ukrainian details. That is 5 years old, they are still lazy not weak
                1. slipped
                  slipped 9 December 2017 03: 08 New
                  0
                  This is not Zenith, there are engines and tanks and SU other
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 9 December 2017 02: 19 New
        +2
        Single-stage aerospace aircraft - this is the future of astronautics
    5. Krabik
      Krabik 8 December 2017 15: 12 New
      +9
      The USSR used to chase the USA, and now Roscosmos didn’t even fester for NASA, but cloned his ideas behind the office of Ilon Mask.

      In my opinion this is a shame ...
      1. VladimirNET
        VladimirNET 9 December 2017 00: 38 New
        0
        > and now Roscosmos doesn’t even fester for NASA,
        > and behind the office of Ilona Mask

        And why money in vain in this thread - vbuhivat ???
        Looked at our IT at them ...
        If (Mask) didn’t succeed: then they would not have spent a dime (on this).

        PS. And with a real assessment, on the contrary - we do not need to chase their "thin cigar", we have our own backlog. Apparently they decided to play it safe, and nothing more.
  2. MoJloT
    MoJloT 8 December 2017 12: 20 New
    +4
    In the aerospace industry, it’s time to put things in order manually, or in a couple of years in the light of our successes and sanctions, we will sit without contracts, the RF alone will not pull this industry. This can be judged even by the fact that in the best of times, when 50% of all world launches were carried out by Russia, there was not enough money (now 15-20%).
    1. 210ox
      210ox 8 December 2017 12: 25 New
      +6
      What is the manual mode?! All our problems are in the state socio-political system .. And the capitalists will not go to the elimination of capitalism.
      Quote: MoJloT
      In the aerospace industry, it’s time to put things in order manually, or in a couple of years in the light of our successes and sanctions, we will sit without contracts, the RF alone will not pull this industry. This can be judged even by the fact that in the best of times, when 50% of all world launches were carried out by Russia, there was not enough money (now 15-20%).
      1. MoJloT
        MoJloT 8 December 2017 12: 32 New
        +3
        About the same as VV demonstrated when a rocket was sorted out overnight. Capitalism is designed to earn money, so in the aerospace industry we have not capitalism, but tribal relations.
  3. sq
    sq 8 December 2017 12: 20 New
    0
    Everything is correct. Technologies allow, the economy does not mind - reusable spacecraft starting from the ground will be. Maybe not as fast as we would like.
    1. Krabik
      Krabik 8 December 2017 15: 15 New
      0
      Shuttle - Buran.

      Reusable start.

      China.

      As if there were no ideas, let's, as the Chinese steal strangers and make worse ...
  4. hrych
    hrych 8 December 2017 12: 21 New
    +2
    All this in the framework of self-sustaining preparations for landing on the moon. The race has begun and Kubrick will no longer ride laughing
    1. Krabik
      Krabik 8 December 2017 15: 17 New
      +1
      There will be no landing, in the first, the entire moon has already been trampled, and in the second, Korolev has not yet been raised from the dead.

      They will again vote, as with Mars and forget.

      And the theft of other people's ideas will not bring us neither development, nor money, nor glory.
  5. HUMANOID
    HUMANOID 8 December 2017 12: 23 New
    +9
    Reminds an old Soviet joke
    - "Our astronauts are called to the Central Committee and they say," The Americans flew to the moon, we also don’t have to hit the mud in the face, so you fly in the sun. The answer is yes, you are there, 6000 degrees. Are you, us? " hold for idiots? fly at night ...
  6. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 8 December 2017 12: 26 New
    18
    It took three years to make fun of Mask in order to begin the same development. smile
    1. prodi
      prodi 8 December 2017 12: 57 New
      0
      over the Mask - it is necessary. As for reusability, these are subtleties of national economies
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 8 December 2017 13: 05 New
        0
        Oh, that Maskophobia
    2. zivXP
      zivXP 8 December 2017 13: 13 New
      0
      Developments over the returning first stage have been going on for a long time. The economic component prevailed.
    3. oops
      oops 8 December 2017 13: 14 New
      +4
      Musk is still a laughing stock, and he will remain, and the Russian initiative is explained by the stupid need of officials to anonymize the Americans.
      1. Krabik
        Krabik 8 December 2017 15: 22 New
        +4
        Musk is a real American hero, and we have the heroes Makarevich and Prokhorov.

        As they say, the more crap Russians and their homeland, the more the government will allocate money for pokatushek on a yacht;)
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 9 December 2017 02: 22 New
        +4
        "Mask is still a laughing stock" - Who does this?
    4. slipped
      slipped 8 December 2017 14: 24 New
      0
      Nobody starts the same development. In Russia, work has been ongoing on reusable systems for a long time, the question is their economic feasibility. That is precisely what he will be considered.
    5. Finches
      Finches 8 December 2017 14: 38 New
      +2
      Is Israel already flying somewhere? laughing You are not in the VO above us, scythes, make fun, and go trenches dig around Irusalim .... If GDP does not fit in for you, there will be an ass .... However, God forbid, you should somehow negotiate with the Palestinians, but do not prove to everyone that you feed on the wall above everyone else! hi
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 8 December 2017 21: 56 New
        +2
        Israel has been a developer of communications satellites and intelligence for 30 years.
        We launched several rockets into space ourselves from our territory since 1988 on our
        3-stage rocket Shavit (8 successful launches, 2 accidents).
        At 260 km, 350 kg satellites were launched into orbit.
        The new rocket for 700 km orbit will be displayed payload of up to 800 kg
        We are just learning hi
        1. Finches
          Finches 8 December 2017 22: 20 New
          0
          All mankind should not stand still - but it is engaged in confrontation ... That's what is bad!
    6. spirit
      spirit 8 December 2017 16: 24 New
      +7
      Aha
      Stage 1: Musk the clown is fantastic, utopia, our leading engineers say this is complete nonsense
      Stage 2: yes her. it is unprofitable, but without state support it is a complete zero
      Stage 3: Making a rocket like a Mask laughing drinks
      1. Servisinzhener
        Servisinzhener 8 December 2017 21: 54 New
        +1
        And still we are mistaken because Musk makes his rocket for American tasks in the context of their economy, and a direct transfer to our country can give a dubious result.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 9 December 2017 00: 43 New
          +4
          Musk makes rockets for a universal task: launching into orbit commercial satellites made in any country. And that makes money. Its launch is cheaper than all its competitors (both American and any foreign).
          And reusable first stages reduce the cost of launch by one third.
    7. zoolu350
      zoolu350 9 December 2017 09: 04 New
      0
      So the oligarchy of the Russian Federation stupidly merged the Soviet developments of NASA and the Chinese, and he is not able to generate new ideas (except ideas for how to further rob the people). There were wonderful projects: Spiral, Dawn, Energy - Hurricane, Baikal, MAKS. Everything in the toilet. Now they suddenly woke up and intend to arrange a race for a mattress swindler. The syndrome of the monkey in the oligarchy of the Russian Federation is more pronounced than that of the elders from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, they at least had the mind not to completely copy the concept of the wretched mattress “Shuttle”.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 9 December 2017 13: 37 New
        +2
        What does the oligarch have to do with it and how are they related to space - and the crooks do not build rockets and space trucks, they create Rusnano and just start pumping money from the budget - for colorful opportunities and huge profits, but the result is zero.
  7. Chever
    Chever 8 December 2017 12: 29 New
    +1
    It is high time. Good luck to the designers
  8. solzh
    solzh 8 December 2017 12: 29 New
    +1
    But Buran, he does not apply to reusable missiles? If it belongs to this class of missiles, then why reinvent the wheel? Who is in the topic, please explain to me, I am zero in this topic.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 8 December 2017 12: 36 New
      +4
      Buran is a spacecraft, and the Vulcan launch vehicle that displayed Buran was not reusable. Here is the development of reusable launch vehicles.
    2. Lycan
      Lycan 8 December 2017 12: 44 New
      +4
      Energia-Buran - "the space program of the Soviet reusable transport space system (MTKS)". A bit not for that, and more expensive than just putting a satellite into orbit.
    3. zoolu350
      zoolu350 9 December 2017 09: 18 New
      +1
      Buran is a spacecraft, but the launch vehicle Energia was partially reusable (basic version) and fully reusable Energy - Hurricane. While there are 4 ways to save stage 1 accelerators: parachute (Shuttle and the basic version of Energy), winged (Energy - Hurricane and Baikal), landing (Falcon-9), use of the accelerator aircraft (MAKS) and Senger). The main minus of reusable systems is a sharp drop in the mass of the output cargo on the TO.
  9. Serzh_R
    Serzh_R 8 December 2017 12: 35 New
    0
    Russia is starting to develop a reusable middle class rocket. It will be the answer to the Falcon 9 media created by Ilon Mask.


    Development is good, but with jambs under 3.0 billion you need to finish.
    Musk probably "shared" software and technology winked .
    1. Krabik
      Krabik 8 December 2017 15: 25 New
      0
      Musk, of course, share both software and technologies, but hardly anyone can use them with us.

      Need brains ...
  10. Sergey53
    Sergey53 8 December 2017 12: 35 New
    +2
    All is well of course that after the Americans began the development of a reusable rocket. But why not doing it yourself without looking at the USA? Looking forward to when they have something new coming up?
  11. groks
    groks 8 December 2017 12: 46 New
    +1
    Maybe just the election crap? What can be reused there? How much will the output mass fall?
  12. Servisinzhener
    Servisinzhener 8 December 2017 12: 48 New
    +4
    Maybe before we make a new rocket, we’ll get from the old ones to fly. And then again we make salutes of several billion apiece. Yes, and why make another mid-range missile, fully repeating the existing characteristics. There is a launch vehicle for every taste Proton, Angara, Union. To develop the same thing, if only to develop. No need to make a space iPhone out of a rocket, with a new model every six months and minimal cosmetic changes, but for gigantic money. If you really want to make a reusable system, then complete the MRU Baikal project for the Angara launch vehicle. Oh, I completely forgot that he has a fatal flaw; it was not designed by specialists of RSC Energia and the Progress rocket and space center. A real advance would be the creation of a line of rockets in which the most powerful version could be used for flying to Mars in 1 or 2 launches.
  13. rocket757
    rocket757 8 December 2017 12: 57 New
    +5
    The Union could afford, something not very necessary, to do in return!
    For now and if we want to restore the space industry, it is necessary to calmly and thoroughly eliminate the joint and TEACH, TEACH. PREPARE staff!
    Empty announcements, and then the same excuses ... well, why? There will be something to surprise the people, then the world please!
    In short, the same rake!
  14. oops
    oops 8 December 2017 13: 06 New
    +2
    You can make a multi-rocket out of an ordinary rocket with minimal modifications: attach four "legs" and change the software. This is exactly what Musk “proved” with his Falcon 9. The cost-effectiveness of reusability is by no means obvious. Mask does not have words of faith, for it is only capable of producing advertising hype. Almost ALL of his space endeavors ended in a deafening failure: he did not make a new powerful oxygen-kerosene engine, he did not make a new heavy rocket, he did not and will not make a new methane-oxygen engine - he is incapable. The low cost of its commercial snacks is provided by expensive government orders.
    1. Ronald Reagan
      Ronald Reagan 8 December 2017 13: 22 New
      +4
      In what way, then, did the “clown” Musk destroy the competitor in the person of Russia in a couple of three years? Not looking for excuses.
      1. oops
        oops 8 December 2017 13: 34 New
        +2
        No matter how much you explain, it's useless. All the same, the same thing as a barrel organ will be repeated.
        1. Ronald Reagan
          Ronald Reagan 8 December 2017 13: 46 New
          +4
          It is better to admit that you are trying to find a speck in the eye of others, when the second log came out in the second. This is ridiculous. Do not be humbled. lol
    2. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 8 December 2017 13: 24 New
      +6
      Therefore, Falcon-9 is the most massive launch vehicle this year, which has already completed 16 flights, and three more are planned. winked Complete and deafening failure! wassat
    3. Alexander KAM
      Alexander KAM 8 December 2017 16: 28 New
      +1
      Nonsense, however. Complete nonsense.
    4. Vadim237
      Vadim237 9 December 2017 02: 29 New
      +1
      "The new methane-oxygen engine did not." And this engine which passes fire tests probably from another dimension. A heavy rocket will fly in early 2018.
  15. JonnyT
    JonnyT 8 December 2017 13: 20 New
    +1
    All this is another hoax.
    The Americans themselves admitted that the preparation for the start of the already used stage in financial costs is comparable to buying a new one! Add here a sharp decrease in reliability.
    Moreover, the materials that are currently available are not sufficiently durable for reusable pH!
    Well of course you can’t rule out a breakthrough in materials science
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 8 December 2017 13: 35 New
      +6
      In fact, SpaceX said it was significantly less than 50% of the new price.
      SpaceX speaks of more than 50% savings for the company itself compared to building a new rocket.

      https://naked-science.ru/article/hi-tech/eksperty
      -ozvuchili-stoimost-spacex

      And insurers assess the risks of a used one and a new one in the same way, but here a long time to look for the source in English.
  16. ilya_oz
    ilya_oz 8 December 2017 13: 21 New
    +6
    Well, how can you not swear after this? First, we scolded Max for his rocket and said that it would not fly, that it did not make sense, but now they would catch up.
  17. Finches
    Finches 8 December 2017 13: 22 New
    +1
    Nasrat,
    I am sure that you will do it better than me ... but I will remain with my stupidities! And yes, the United States, I personally do not oppose it, and Russia does not oppose what you come up with - I just relate to the Anglo-Saxons a bit in my own way! Although in America there are probably 20 percent pure Anglo-Saxons ...hi
  18. ZVS
    ZVS 8 December 2017 13: 22 New
    +5
    What is surprising in this publication is not that they began the development of the rocket, but that it "will be the answer" to the Falcon 9 created by Mask. Why does Russia live in a mode of calls and answers? ))) Why can not Russia exist in logic mode? Or logic does not cause patriotic sentiments among the population, so "challenges and answers" are necessary? When the country's leadership understands a simple thing, that logic is a more patriotic slogan than "challenges and answers."
  19. K-50
    K-50 8 December 2017 13: 35 New
    +2
    As already written before. Until engines that allow a single-stage output of the payload into orbit are invented, all talk of reusable rockets is bullshit and drank dough.
    All the same, they must be disassembled to the screw and a technical examination is carried out for serviceability, which is obviously not cheaper than just assembling a new missile from NEW and potentially SAFE parts. So that Musk doesn’t invent it, it’s all a hoax and a juggling of facts, wishful thinking and trailing him to step on the same feces.
    There was a proverb when he went hiking in the woods: they don’t go to the toilet in the footsteps of others, you can “explode”.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 8 December 2017 13: 53 New
      +7
      Musk launched more missiles in 2017 than Roscosmos. And without a single accident.
      That says it all.
      1. K-50
        K-50 8 December 2017 13: 54 New
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Musk launched more missiles in 2017 than Roscosmos. And without a single accident.
        That says it all.

        And where does the multiplicity and safety of space flights? what
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 8 December 2017 14: 04 New
          0
          No accidents mean safety, all Falcon-9 rockets, three of them have flown before.
        2. Vadim237
          Vadim237 9 December 2017 02: 35 New
          +1
          Flaw detection can be performed without disassembling the engine - there are stands and equipment for this.
      2. Finches
        Finches 8 December 2017 15: 07 New
        +1
        I launched ten firecrackers - no one died and nothing was destroyed .... laughing
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 8 December 2017 16: 36 New
          0
          Firecrackers carrying capacity with our heavy protons.
    2. Topgun
      Topgun 9 December 2017 10: 50 New
      +3
      Well, why disassemble all the rockets to the cog when there is mathematics, what is it?
      look, there are civilian planes that are not simpler than the LV, but they are not dismantled after each flight, and why? but because at the tests and at the stands they have worked out math (statistics) and know ahead of time when and what needs to be changed, and here Musk is now doing this - he is working on statistics, the further the easier it will be to service missiles, but it will be much more difficult for competitors now because when Mask has already accumulated statistics, competitors will not have where to get it from - because for this you need flights, and Mask took everything, they will have to fly at a loss for years to get these statistics - for years, because humanity does not fly so often into space. ..
  20. Blackmokona
    Blackmokona 8 December 2017 13: 44 New
    0
    Quote: Nasr
    Delta-4 is really not a commercial project, although it prevented it from collecting orders - the collapse of the USSR - Russian ships began to be transported for a penny, so to speak ... However, Delta-4 with additional tanks (Heavy) is an orbit of almost 100 tons - which is comparable with Saturn 5 (those that "did not fly" to the moon). Pay attention to the dimensions of the loaded cargo on Delta-4 ..... What do we have now under 100 tons of cast into orbit ???? Now we don’t have to throw anything if it weren’t for the military and the ISS ... But if there hadn’t been the ISS, the manned cosmonautics would have been abandoned long ago
    In the lighter segment, they now have SpaceX with Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy- missiles, for example ...

    Re-check the data, Delta-4 does not carry so much.
    Payload to LEO 28,790 kg (63,470 lb)
  21. bald
    bald 8 December 2017 13: 51 New
    +3
    On the launch market, we already screwed up and it is useless to prove to those states that trusted us their asshole in our explanations.
  22. prior
    prior 8 December 2017 13: 55 New
    +5
    Roscosmos only to cut budget money ...
    It wasn’t a matter of a woman’s (rocket), but Mudko was sitting in his office ...
  23. The comment was deleted.
  24. cedar
    cedar 8 December 2017 14: 00 New
    +4
    Quote: Finches
    and Alan Sheppard pissed them in a spacesuit and flew pissed, though he had only been in space for 6 seconds ...


    Shepard was not in space, because his "Mercury" did not reach the first cosmic speed.
    He was not on the moon. One word is a star-flyer. And with it, all of NASA is a bunch of screwed-up star astronauts.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 9 December 2017 02: 38 New
      +1
      “And with it, and all of NASA - a bunch of screwed-up astronauts” What exactly they screwed up - all the discoveries and outstanding missions are just behind them.
  25. slipped
    slipped 8 December 2017 14: 33 New
    +2
    One d ... b wrote an article in the news chasing the fried, others, without understanding, comment.

    Briefly, the meaning of the article:

    "- In the near future, on an initiative basis, issues of reusable use of the first stage as the most expensive part of the carrier will be considered, based on the results, decisions will be made to continue work."

    Continuation of work on reusable systems. which are being conducted since the USSR. And no one says that it will be "like a Mask." On the contrary, the conversation tends to parachute rescue systems, with a helicopter pickup stage. Everything else is the insinuations of journalists.
    1. Topgun
      Topgun 9 December 2017 11: 01 New
      0
      and how do you imagine a helicopter intercept? (I’m already silent that the rocket itself will be heavier if it is designed for parachutes than if its legs were simply bolted to it) so how is it?
      I can’t imagine it - the parachute is not small (rather 3 domes), how can a helicopter pick up if these same parachute domes interfere? you think, they open on a huge area ...
      the only true scheme is because they made the spacecraft, an airplane landing is much worse because the wings, the chassis + the rocket itself, designed for transverse overloads, will be very heavy ...
      1. Topgun
        Topgun 9 December 2017 22: 39 New
        0
        Quote: Topgun
        the only true scheme

        (in my opinion)
        or something like "Spiral"
        again IMHO
      2. slipped
        slipped 9 December 2017 23: 06 New
        0
        yes, something like that) http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/249/2495802.html
        1. Topgun
          Topgun 10 December 2017 11: 29 New
          0
          and? How does a helicopter catch a step? mechanism?
          I am silent about how he will plant her - also hemorrhagic (he remembers all) there is none of this ...
          PS: this has repeatedly become the subject of discussion at relevant forums, they even suggested training paratroopers who with a hook in their hands on parachutes would land in the air on a falling stage :))))))
          1. slipped
            slipped 10 December 2017 13: 06 New
            0
            The technology for picking up cargo returned from outer space was previously worked out and was successfully used to catch satellite reconnaissance satellite. A step descending on a multi-dome system is technologically captured in a similar way, only the helicopter is used by the Mi-26, and not the Mi-8. As an example of the capabilities of this helicopter, I can give you this photo
      3. prosto_rgb
        prosto_rgb 10 December 2017 02: 49 New
        0
        you need to catch a trampoline
        not for nothing that Rogozin spoke about him
        1. slipped
          slipped 10 December 2017 13: 08 New
          0
          "and I also eat it," huh?
          1. prosto_rgb
            prosto_rgb 10 December 2017 18: 42 New
            0
            good
            quite right
  26. senima56
    senima56 8 December 2017 14: 52 New
    0
    Or maybe, to begin with, “Frigate”, finally, we figure it out?
  27. demo
    demo 8 December 2017 15: 15 New
    +2
    Something lately offers are being poured, as "from a cornucopia."
    Sawers and masters felt (or who whispered to them who needed) that money started up in a small egg.
    And give answers to Elon in the Mask to spank.
    Are we a country? Do we have a thoughtful action plan? Why the hell are these shy things for us?
    Especially under the guise of an answer.
    Sheer stupidity.
    What. Since the president announced his intention to go to the polls, it means that it is necessary to stake out under the guise of money?
    1. Servisinzhener
      Servisinzhener 8 December 2017 22: 47 New
      0
      I agree. Blind copying of their concept leads to a dead end. Because they made their rocket according to their tasks. And before you copy, you need to calculate the launch cost, otherwise it may turn out that they are reusable more expensive than our one-time. And in general, are there any advantages of a reusable rocket, taking into account the double-check and defect of the nodes. Or it may turn out that their approach is dead end. And then what?
      1. Korolev
        Korolev 10 December 2017 11: 57 New
        +1
        At the moment, their dead end approach has bitten off most of the pie on the Proton commercial launch market. Apparently it’s not as dead end as many would like to think.
  28. acetophenon
    acetophenon 8 December 2017 15: 34 New
    +4
    With our current accident, a one-time accident is just that. On reusable, which do not take off even once, even go broke.
  29. Grandfather Eugene
    Grandfather Eugene 8 December 2017 15: 37 New
    +1
    Blackmokona,.
    The average for Russia is 36, yeah. Previously, doctors and teachers lived the poorest of all now engineers with designers at state-owned enterprises.
  30. Grandfather Eugene
    Grandfather Eugene 8 December 2017 16: 22 New
    +3
    Quote: Oops
    You can make a multi-rocket out of an ordinary rocket with minimal modifications: attach four "legs" and change the software. This is exactly what Musk “proved” with his Falcon 9. The cost-effectiveness of reusability is by no means obvious. Mask does not have words of faith, for it is only capable of producing advertising hype. Almost ALL of his space endeavors ended in a deafening failure: he did not make a new powerful oxygen-kerosene engine, he did not make a new heavy rocket, he did not and will not make a new methane-oxygen engine - he is incapable. The low cost of its commercial snacks is provided by expensive government orders.



    Just attach four legs you can rocket on the playground from plywood. The point is the wear resistance of materials and the load on the entire structure of the rocket. If the rocket needs to be reusable, then there is a problem with fuel volumes that increase the weight and pressure on the entire structure, hardening the structure gives a weight increase problem in which you have to increase fuel reserves to start, and so on in a circle because the engines there are modified from NASA’s moon exploration gift and anyhow, which are not suitable for such a task, because it is necessary to land successfully. Falcon is not a standard rocket and work has been done quite a bit. Falcon’s success is mainly in the fact that Musk is in favor with people from the highest echelons of the US government and he was transferred to NASA's great achievements, otherwise Musk would now be in the same place as any other country of the 3rd world in space exploration and the first subsidized orders were from NASA. In fact, SpaceX is NASA's unspoken daughter. And statistics in 45% of commercial launches at the Mask company in 2017 versus 15% of Roscosmos indicate that you have a wrong idea about the situation. in 2013, Roscosmos had a 60% share of commercial launches, which is why such a stir.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 8 December 2017 16: 42 New
      +3
      Now orders are cheaper than competitors, called subsidized?
      The $ 1,6 billion contract with SpaceX was for 12 missions of the Dragon spaceship launched into orbit by the Falcon 9 rocket. The $ 1,9 billion contract with Orbital Sciences Corporation was designed for 8 missions the ship Cygnus, which will launch the Antares launch vehicle [5].

      Despite the fact that the Dragon drags more up, and can lower down in comparison with Signus.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 8 December 2017 22: 04 New
      +4
      "Falcon’s success lies mainly in the fact that Musk is in favor with people from the highest echelons of the US government and the great achievements of NASA were transferred to him."

      Nothing was given to him. NASA has long relied on the Boeing Lockheed alliance and cooperated only with them. And the Pentagon too. The success of the Mask is that he lured the best engineers of all US aerospace firms to himself. And only numerous successful accident-free launches by Falcons of commercial satellites from private owners forced NASA and the Pentagon to work with Mask.
    3. Servisinzhener
      Servisinzhener 8 December 2017 22: 59 New
      +1
      Moreover, the achievements were transferred to people who did them, or worked with them.
  31. Alexander KAM
    Alexander KAM 8 December 2017 16: 27 New
    +6
    Good in thought comes afterward.
    But as Musk was criticized about 10 years ago, arguing about the futility of reusing rocket stages.
  32. Oberst_71
    Oberst_71 8 December 2017 16: 49 New
    +4
    I am afraid of the very word Russia began ...... Russia began developing a rocket train and finished the day before yesterday.
    In 2010, in the Higher Defense Ministry, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation plans to purchase at least 2016 PAK FA (T-50) at the first stage (starting in 50), which should be 2,5-3 times cheaper than foreign analogues.
    "Russia has been given the technology for the production of night-vision devices for armored vehicles. A corresponding contract was signed by Rosoboronexport and the French company Thales. Now devices for T-90 tanks will be produced at the Optical and Mechanical Plant in Vologda2 Also in 2010. So by 2017, our tanks with super tanks night vision devices I hope!
    “The cruisers Admiral Nakhimov, Admiral Lazarev and Admiral Ushakov will be modernized and returned to the Russian Navy within 10 years.” VO wrote this in 2010. 3 !! cruisers.
    And here’s the hit “Russia is again talking about replenishing the Black Sea Fleet with new ships. This time, sources at the main headquarters of the Russian Navy reported that 2020 new ships and submarines should appear on the Black Sea Fleet by 18. According to the source, this is in the Russian state program weapons for 2011-2020, in particular, six new frigates of project 22350, six diesel submarines of the Lada class and two large amphibious ships of project 11711. We recall that last week Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov after a meeting with Ukrainian colleague Mikhail Yezhel said: “In the near future we plan to sign an agreement on the replacement of equipment and weapons of the Black Sea Fleet.” - November 2017

    And so it can be infinite. Understood Crisis, oil, etc. But why the heck to write. Do-write
  33. Oberst_71
    Oberst_71 8 December 2017 17: 02 New
    +1
    And here is March 2011 IN "According to the armament program for 2011–2020, the Russian Navy will receive frigates of project 22350. In total, 10 frigates of this project are planned to be built during this period.
    These are the first domestic large ships created in the post-Soviet era. Currently, two frigates of project 22350 are being built in St. Petersburg - “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov” (laid down in 2006, launched in 2010, will be commissioned this year according to plan), they plan to transfer it to the Baltic Fleet; in 2009, the frigate "Admiral of the Fleet of Kasatonov" was laid down; its commissioning is scheduled for 2012. "
    True, our sworn to take the same is not far behind:
    “The Ukrainian Navy will receive four new Corvette class ships by 2021. This was reported by ITAR-TASS, the Minister of Defense of Ukraine Mykhailo Yezhel. According to the Minister of Defense, the total funding for the shipbuilding program will amount to 16,22 billion hryvnias (2,04 , 2016 billion dollars). According to the plans of Kiev, the head corvette of the series will be built in XNUMX at the Nikolaev Black Sea Shipbuilding Plant. "
  34. Old26
    Old26 8 December 2017 21: 55 New
    +3
    Quote: AUL
    There is no money for Barguzin, but they find it for this heresy! I do not understand those who prioritize development. Harm or what?

    The program "Soyuz-5" EMNIP in the program of space development. The variant with the landing first stage is not going to be done right away. And how many slops were poured onto the Mask with its return first stage. And then silence. It turns out this is not the worst and quite promising ...

    Quote: NEXUS
    What a fright? These are generally two different aircraft from the word. Buran is an unmanned aircraft, the layout is different, and the tasks were completely different, namely, Buran was developed as a kind of space bomber. The shuttle is a manned aircraft, and nothing more.

    Andrew! Do not invent. Buran was originally designed as a reusable transport ship. The crew is about the same as that of the Shuttle, that is, 7 people. And the Union didn’t fall apart just like the Americans would have 4-5 ships (I hope you don’t ask me for their numbers and payload serial numbers?). If it was designed as an automatic space bomber, what for in the CPC was organized by a group that received the informal name "Wolf Pack". A huge training complex for Peace and Buran was preparing for construction. In the mid-80s, the cost of the training complex was about 4 billion rubles (the previous Belladon complex exercise machine for working with the Unions and the Salute cost EMNIP 19 million rubles)
    No one excludes that in the future, the same “Buran” could become the basis for orbital bombers) but initially it was still designed and built like a truck

    Quote: NEXUS
    Yeah ... and they also said that Buran will be serial ... do you believe everything that they say on TV? I’m telling you about a completely different concept of application, and why our Buran and their Shuttle were created at all ... absolutely two different aircraft.

    Andrei, I understand Friday as a wheeler. But do not be holier than the pope himself. 5 ships were laid on the slipways of the Tushino plant. As for the similarity and dissimilarity of the Shuttle and the Buran, the original version of the Buran was an exact aerodynamic copy of the Shuttle. It’s the same tank as the shuttle, but instead of two solid fuel side boosters there were 4 liquid ones, because bringing the solid fuel boosters to mind would throw the Energy-Buran program back for another 10 years. And only in its third reincarnation did the Buran take on the form which we know

    Quote: solzh
    But Buran, he does not apply to reusable missiles? If it belongs to this class of missiles, then why reinvent the wheel? Who is in the topic, please explain to me, I am zero in this topic.

    There are no completely reusable missiles even now. Buran is a reusable space transport system, although it could not be called reusable either. The central block was not saved. Lateral perspectives (EMNIP for 10 flights) should have been rescued. The Shuttle has the same thing - a partially reusable system. Reusable sidewalls and the orbital ship, hanging tank - no

    Quote: cedar
    Shepard was not in space, because his "Mercury" did not reach the first cosmic speed.

    What phenomenal knowledge you have, however. For some reason, the intersection of the Karman line, that is, an altitude of 100 km, rather than reaching the first cosmic velocity, is considered space throughout the world and in the USSR (Russia). And Shepard climbed 1 km. And the flight is considered space, but not orbital, but suborbital. In the same way, the flight of our SOYUZ-184/18 was suborbital. The descent vehicle reached a height of 1 km. And it was considered a space suborbital. The international organization registered as suborbital flights flights of three American pilots on an X-192 rocket aircraft. For they rose to a height of 15-103 km ... so there is no need for the first cosmic velocity

    Quote: Finches
    Is Israel already flying somewhere?

    The astronaut they had. He died in the accident of the shuttle Columbia. Israel itself did not start anyone. Now only three countries can launch astronauts / astronauts - Russia, USA, China
  35. Anchonsha
    Anchonsha 8 December 2017 22: 47 New
    +1
    One must think that it will be right to start developing reusable missiles. The process of creating reliable reusable missiles will take a decade. All the same, Musk has already created such a rocket, but we have not even taken up with it yet. It’s bad that our private individuals don’t do space exploration, and the bastards instead take the loot over the hill
  36. Normal ok
    Normal ok 8 December 2017 23: 55 New
    +3
    In Russia start development reusable middle class rockets. It will be the answer to the carrier Falcon 9 created by Elon Musk.

    Keywords: "begins development"! When it is completed, then the Mask will already "Falcon 109" will fly.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 9 December 2017 02: 46 New
      +3
      When it is completed at the Mask, the reusable rocket, with 550 tons of payload, will appear for the ITS interplanetary transport system - engines and fuel tanks have already been created for it.
  37. VladimirNET
    VladimirNET 9 December 2017 00: 47 New
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    It took three years to make fun of Mask in order to begin the same development. smile

    Over Mask - because of this they made fun of:

    Pasta Monster Ilona Mask
    17.05.2016
    http://politikus.ru/articles/76562-makaronnyy-mon
    str-ilona-maska.html

    If it seems to you that it's just a banter, here are the confirmations:
    {
    1. About the size of the Falcon-9 rocket
    (width 3.7 meters and length 70 meters)
    can be read here:
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9

    2. For comparison - the first step at "Proton-M"
    (diameter 7.4 meters)
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Протон_(ракета-носи
    tel)

    3. About Falcon-9 Return Steps:
    (next launch May 26)
    http://www.interfax.ru/world/508756

    4. There were three successful landing steps for the Falcon,
    (in the article above - all steps are damaged)
    http://hi-news.ru/space/foto-takimi-tempami-space
    x-pridetsya-postroit-novyj-angar-dlya-mnogorazovy
    x-raket.html
    }
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 9 December 2017 02: 46 New
      +1
      From these statues, it originally carried ravings.
    2. Topgun
      Topgun 9 December 2017 11: 16 New
      0
      Musk cannot make the Falcon wider - he carries it with ordinary trucks along America’s highways if it doesn’t climb wider under bridges ... This width is very cheap - you don’t need special trains, clear roads, etc., they loaded it into a truck and drove 100 miles across America in hour...
    3. Korolev
      Korolev 10 December 2017 12: 01 New
      0
      Quote: VladimirNET
      2. For comparison - the first step at "Proton-M"
      (diameter 7.4 meters)

      first stage diameter - 4.1m
      And it is impossible to do more of it because of the limitations of the railway dimensions. That is why on the same Proton I had to do a tricky scheme with side blocks with fuel.
  38. UAZ 452
    UAZ 452 9 December 2017 08: 45 New
    0
    Our economy is built in such a way that everyone loves to develop something new, unique, to conduct research and development, because budget money is generously (well, relatively generous) now, and in return for a certain moment, it’s enough to provide beautiful presentations, bravura reports about "mastering".
    It is a completely different matter when you need to present the result of this activity, a product ready for production. This is where it turns out that the “uniqueness” of the development lies in the fact that Western analogues in terms of performance characteristics can only be found in museums for a long time, or the cost of a product in production is comparable to the entire defense budget of the country.
    And the winners are completely sad when the bad uncles force them to engage in mass production. The margin here is much less than during development, but you have to deal with boring things, such as cost reduction, quality control, and we are traditionally responsible for no production culture.
    But development costs can be justified only with a sufficiently large series. No other way. And since the times of the USSR (and probably from earlier ones, let’s recall Leskov and his Lefthander), everyone prefers to deal with “unique” projects, read - one-time projects. Hence, if not all, then a very considerable part of the problems of our economy.
  39. UAZ 452
    UAZ 452 9 December 2017 09: 05 New
    +1
    When they talk about the need to preserve the rocket stages (first of all, first), this thesis is argued by the high cost of the engine. But why, then, is the engine and the entire stage always automatically identified? Why plant a stage, leaving a considerable reserve of fuel in it after being separated from the rest of the rocket, inevitably sacrificing the weight of the payload being removed, if parachutes, soft-landing systems of a reactive type (as when landing equipment) and such monstrous airbags (external - as when landing) can be combined rover, internal - filling the space between the engines and the rocket casing, or a combination), as well as damping structural elements of the stage body.
    Along with simplifying the design of the housing, as well as introducing a standard “docking” engine assembly and stage housing, it was a little more difficult to put the engine into the new housing than fastening a seat belt, all this will give a better economic effect than looking futuristic, but extremely difficult ( read - expensive) the achieved balancing act of the landing stage of the Falcon.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 9 December 2017 10: 39 New
      +2
      There are problems with the parachute, one of them is the accuracy of the landing, it can be significant over the area, in this case you will have to significantly shift all the air corridors for aviation in the area of ​​landing the stage, if this method were effective and simple - Mask would use it in the design rockets.
      1. UAZ 452
        UAZ 452 9 December 2017 12: 18 New
        0
        What you write is reasonable. But we and Musk have different situations due to geography - from Cape Canaveral, missiles take off over the sea, and from Baikonur and other sites above land. On the one hand, the water surface provides less impact force upon landing / splashdown, on the other hand it adds the requirement for buoyancy of a step. And the density of overhead lines, the intensity of their use over the Caribbean and Kazakhstan are somewhat different.
        The trajectory of the first-stage parachute landing is not predicted much worse than the trajectory of its fall without a parachute. And considering that it will be parachuting at a much lower speed, and besides carrying a radio beacon, I don’t see any problems for planes and helicopters to circle around it, taking pictures as a keepsake, as is now happening with landing of descent vehicles. That is, safety will not be less, but greater than in the case of an uncontrolled fall of the stage.
        But all this is particular. Basically, I wanted to say one thing - it makes no sense to go in cycles at the whole stage, if we are initially talking about the safety of a particular engine. It is necessary to deal with its salvation, perceiving the structural elements of the stage, as another damper that keeps rocket engines from damage.
        1. Korolev
          Korolev 10 December 2017 12: 08 New
          +1
          First, the parachute system weighs a lot.
          For example, the BMD-3 weighs 13 tons. The weight of the PBS-950 parachute system for its landing is 1500 kg. This is more than 10% of the mass of BMD itself.
          Secondly, with parachute rescue, the task of directly touching the ground remains unsolved. A rocket is not a tank, it is tender and cannot blink haphazardly, and parachutes are just that uncontrollable thing. The earth is not perfectly flat; there are ravines and trees on it and anything else. You can’t put a step upright on a parachute, and horizontally any surface roughness and step will simply break. What is the likelihood that the stage in this situation, even with a successful landing, will remain intact?
    2. Topgun
      Topgun 9 December 2017 11: 32 New
      +1
      it’s more difficult for me just what you described, the docking unit that would separate the engines there still parachutes or some other xs system - these extra nodes will also affect the reliability of the rocket, but how do the legs' reliability depend? :)) no way :))
      yes, it’s difficult to land such a bandura for the first time, but after landing the other landings only 1n, it’s no more difficult to install “tanks” on your computer - just loading the working landing algorithm into the rocket’s control system ...
      Yes, and notice how beautifully they did it, the rocket does not freeze near the ground, does not make any unnecessary movements, the engine thrust at that moment (the rocket already has almost no fuel and is light) is enough to lift the rocket up, that is, they worked out the engine so clearly that the speed is extinguished exactly at the moment of touching the legs and the rocket does not freeze and does not begin to gain altitude - a perspective to specialists from spaceX ...
      1. UAZ 452
        UAZ 452 9 December 2017 12: 31 New
        0
        You yourself write - "beautifully done, clearly worked, rInspect to specialists." If we have specialists, to repeat all this, debug, implement - great! But something is doubtful - disposable products fly anywhere, but not where they need to, but here is a reusable system, the requirements for which are much higher, the need to lower the rocket to a small heel (if you repeat the Falcon in one).
        In comparison, what I described is much simpler solutions. And no one bothers to make them redundant - the reactive landing system will not work, the “pillow” will work, for example. And again - let the experts consider the particular implementation. I’m just not sure that due to the inertia of thinking, they really thought about the option of saving the engine, not paying attention to the other elements of the stage, which are mostly a metal pipe (I exaggerate, of course, but the engine is more complicated and expensive by any means).
        In addition, the salvation of the entire stage is fundamentally a much more difficult task than one engine - more mass, volume, surface, windage, deformability. It’s easier to re-melt the casing, and click the engine into a new one.
        And the issue of engine failure after landing is simpler than the whole stage. I would generally install acceleration sensors in it (if they are not there), and after a test cycle (crash tests) to determine the structural strength, I would simply put it on a new rocket without any deep checks, if overloads upon landing, according to accelerometers, did not exceed the established allowable.
      2. UAZ 452
        UAZ 452 9 December 2017 12: 39 New
        0
        it’s more difficult for me just what you described, the docking unit that would separate the engines there still parachutes or some other xs system - these extra nodes will also affect the reliability of the rocket, but how do the legs' reliability depend? :)) no way :))

        Feet are something that catches your eye, but also consider the hull design that resists deformations when landing, maneuvering systems, and much more. If this is simpler than parachutes inflated around the engine airbags - a larger analogue of conventional automobiles, then let it be. That which looks simple, is far from always (rather - never) is not simple in execution.
        A landing gear will not affect the reliability of the rocket during launch in any way. And if we cannot make it so that parachutes and pillows do not open ahead of time, then it is better for us not to pretend that we can still make rockets.
        The increase in weight of a stage due to landing systems will be in any way less than the weight of those 10-15% of fuel that Falcon leaves for landing after separation from the rest of the rocket.
        1. Topgun
          Topgun 9 December 2017 16: 32 New
          0
          the reliability of the launch vehicle will be affected by the undocking unit of the engine block with the rest of the rocket, there are no room pressures and temperature in the pipelines - the knot itself will be that engineering task + it should be fixed securely - vibration + it’s not just the pipelines but the case in general rockets to the body of the propulsion block must be fixed securely ...
          In general, I saw such a project, either the European Space Agency or the Airbus, but they didn’t go beyond the pictures or I’m not in the know.
        2. Topgun
          Topgun 9 December 2017 16: 41 New
          0
          and yes, I almost forgot - the parachute landing is not at all soft ...
          and at the expense of the pillows that open at the time of landing, ask drivers who had a chance to feel this moment ...
          in general, you propose to the place of one simple (in comparison with other methods) engineering solution a whole bunch of all sorts of tricky twists if only not like Mask ...
          1. UAZ 452
            UAZ 452 9 December 2017 19: 10 New
            0
            and yes, I almost forgot - the parachute landing is not at all soft ...


            I know. Therefore, he talked about a set of solutions. And there is nothing particularly new in this - if you saw the release of heavy equipment, then there is also a combination of parachutes and a jet system.

            and at the expense of the pillows that open at the time of landing, ask drivers who had a chance to feel this moment ...


            Well, if people survive, and then they can describe this not the most pleasant (but not the last!) Moment in their life, then the technique will most likely survive.
            in general, you propose to the place of one simple (in comparison with other methods) engineering solution a whole bunch of all sorts of tricky twists if only not like Mask ...

            This is simple only on video. And this simplicity is achieved with so many "tricky twists" that we will only list the required technologies and engineering solutions for a very long time. And I strongly doubt that Musk, who was born yesterday, didn’t think of patenting Falcon’s know-how. So "like the Mask" in any case does not work. And to develop something similar, at the same technical level ... Wangyu: the billions allocated for this will be mastered, but the result will be only in the form of beautiful pictures. The maximum is a rocket whose reusability will be absolutely impossible to verify due to 100% accident rate at the first launch. Moreover, the more technically complicated the design, the more inevitable such a scenario. By and large, we also have not mastered car airbags, as far as I know.
          2. slipped
            slipped 9 December 2017 23: 22 New
            0
            Parachutes and helicopter pickup are much simpler and solid pluses. It remains only to make sure that it is cheaper.
            1. Topgun
              Topgun 10 December 2017 11: 35 New
              0
              how exactly the helicopter will grab the stage - this point is of interest - an engineering solution ...
              I will not say anything about whether a controlled flight over parachutes is possible at all ...
              1. slipped
                slipped 10 December 2017 13: 14 New
                0
                in google banned? )))))
                1. Topgun
                  Topgun 10 December 2017 15: 28 New
                  0
                  how does a hook for a grip in the air above parachutes? is he from the anaptanium?
                  1. slipped
                    slipped 10 December 2017 21: 35 New
                    0
                    What is anaptarium? there is a conventional rotor system with autorotation
  40. Vasilenko Vladimir
    Vasilenko Vladimir 9 December 2017 14: 08 New
    0
    Russia is starting to develop a reusable middle class rocket. It will be the answer to the Falcon 9 media created by Ilon Mask.

    the chicken in the nest ...
    what kind of manner to yell in advance, well done started developing, why ring the whole world
  41. Old26
    Old26 9 December 2017 14: 29 New
    +1
    Quote: Vadim237
    There was an Energy - Hurricane project with a fully returnable missile, if it were made in metal, such an arrangement would be effective from an economic point of view but alas, to create all this, again from scratch, you need 900 billion rubles.

    It was a paper project. As well, and the "Volcano". The only project that reached metal, besides Energy, was the Energy-M or Neutron project. The overall weight model of this carrier was even taken out for fitting to the stand-start
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 9 December 2017 17: 57 New
      +1
      Now it’s easier to do this, because modern CAD programs, new materials and equipment have appeared, but the bureaucrats from Roscosmos decided to follow the catch-up route - the creation of conventional rockets, apparently because in a fully reusable system, it will not be possible to make sabotages - to get insurance and replace components, continue to squander and appropriate state funds.
      1. slipped
        slipped 9 December 2017 23: 18 New
        0
        I invented it myself and missed it). Research on the re-salvation of the first stage of a promising launch vehicle is an ALAC initiative. At my own expense.
  42. datura23
    datura23 9 December 2017 21: 18 New
    0
    with mathematics in Roscosmos it was never worse
  43. Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 10 December 2017 02: 58 New
    +2
    It is assumed that the rocket will make an independent landing - like the Falcon 9 of the American SpaceX corporation.

    Vertical, or what? So it will have to be taken out of the site somewhere in the current areas of the fall. If the launch is from the east, then will it fly into the ocean when launched with a small inclination? Then it will be necessary to make a barge. And in winter, most of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk freezes. When it does not freeze, it can storm there. If the new rocket will have the first stage in the form of several sidewalls (as usual), and they will be planted, then it will be necessary to have several sites (which is not a problem), or several barges (which is a problem). And the winged gliding planes with an airplane landing could themselves return to Baikonur or Vostochny, or to the airfield of the plant that will do the maintenance, and sit on the landing strip in turn (but at a pace). It is interesting that they could be distilled from the factory, which has an airdrome, to Baikonur, on their own! Lightly refuel and start the engines to a small fraction of their power - at the same time and test whether they work. This is also important because in this case it does not matter for transportation what diameter this step is.
  44. Old26
    Old26 10 December 2017 11: 29 New
    0
    Quote: Falcon5555
    If the launch is from the east, then will it fly into the ocean when launched with a small inclination? .

    If you do not go into the very topic of reusability - the zone of fall of worked steps when starting at angles of about 50 degrees - in Yakutia, less - somewhere closer to the coast of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk (you need to look for these patterns)

    Quote: Falcon5555
    If the new rocket will have the first stage in the form of several sidewalls (as usual), and they will be planted, then it will be necessary to have several sites (which is not a problem), or several barges (which is a problem). .

    If this step will be done within the framework of the Phoenix program, that is, Soyuz-5 carrier, then a pencil is planned for launching cargoes up to 9 tons of EMNIP, i.e. without side blocks, and for heavier loads (up to 26 tons) - 2 side blocks

    Quote: Falcon5555
    And the winged gliding planes with an airplane landing could themselves return to Baikonur or Vostochny, or to the airfield of the plant that will do the maintenance, and sit on the landing strip in turn (but at a pace) ..

    The biggest plus of the Baikal program was that the detached sides had to get to the airport of the same Baikonur on their own. The biggest minus is that they came at the same time and had problems with control before landing. The fuel supply was minimal and they could not approach the strip "in turn." They approached at the same time.

    Quote: Falcon5555
    It is interesting that they could be distilled from the factory, which has an airdrome, to Baikonur, on their own! Lightly refuel and start the engines to a small fraction of their power - at the same time and test whether they work. This is also important because in this case it does not matter for transportation what diameter this step is.

    The Baikal system had an extremely small engine for flight in the atmosphere. He could still hold the step in the air and move it in the direction of the airfield, but he could not physically start them on the airfield. And the amount of fuel was limited. He simply could not start on a marching rocket engine, since they could not be launched at a fraction of the power. Throttling within such limits on these engines is not provided. Now imagine that you pour even 20 tons of fuel into this winged step with a mass of 50 tons. And the engine thrust at ground level is almost 200 tons. Where will this device fly?
    1. Falcon5555
      Falcon5555 10 December 2017 18: 02 New
      0
      The biggest minus is that they came at the same time and had problems with control before landing. The fuel supply was minimal and they could not approach the strip "in turn." ... Throttling within such limits on these engines is not provided. ... And the engine thrust at ground level is almost 200 tons. Where will this device fly?
      Where it is necessary, there it will fly away. laughing It will quickly accelerate to takeoff speed, take off from the ground, accelerate a little more, then you can turn off the dvigl - let it plan, or fly on the little one that you talked about (and I doubt that it is needed). If in this nuance, and in everything previous - simultaneity, etc. - and there are problems (well, of course, there are), of this kind, about which they say that "those who do not want to work talk about problems, and those who want - work and solve them."
  45. Old26
    Old26 10 December 2017 21: 39 New
    0
    Quote: Falcon5555
    Where it is necessary, there it will fly away. laughing It will quickly accelerate to take-off speed, take off from the ground, accelerate a little more, then you can turn off the dvigl - let it plan, or fly on the little one that you talked about (and I doubt that it is needed). If in this nuance, and in everything previous - simultaneity, etc. - and there are problems (well, of course, there are), of this kind, of which they say that "those who do not want to work - talk about problems, and those who want - work and solve them."

    For that, if they wanted to solve the problem of Baikal or not, I can’t say. But most likely, in addition to the officially announced reasons, there may have been another one, which even now can be classified as
    As for the use for landing from an aerodrome, landing on an aerodrome of a cosmodrome using a marching engine - sorry, but this is fantastic.
    I can not imagine how you can imagine the following picture. On the strip is a winged side block on a fairly light chassis. An empty block is about 20 tons. How much fuel will be poured into it - I do not know. Even if not 50 tons, but 20. The ignition command is given, and then what? Whether the unit is on the brakes or not - no difference.
    In a couple of seconds, the engine will develop traction of almost 200 tons. Even if the engine will be throttled by about 10%. Thrust means, roughly 180 tons.
    This side block "will carry" from the strip. The thrust is more than 4 times the starting weight - it will be at the end of the strip in seconds. Even if it takes off, the engine will work until the completion of fuel production, because the engine is not repeatedly turned on. What speed this block will pick up and where it will take away is unknown. In principle, the Baikal block was supposed to return to Baikonur, but nobody knows how it would be in a real situation. A block after all NEVER FLY
    1. Falcon5555
      Falcon5555 10 December 2017 22: 21 New
      0
      In a couple of seconds, the engine will develop traction of almost 200 tons. Even if the engine will be throttled by about 10%. Thrust means, roughly 180 tons.
      This side block "will carry" from the strip.
      First, why not solve the throttle problem so that it starts at about zero thrust? Note: for a vertical landing "on the stream" it will still have to be solved, and much more finely - with very fine adjustment in thrust and direction. Secondly, 4g acceleration is not the end of the world. After gaining speed, the block will be controlled by aerodynamic planes, like an airplane before take-off or after touching, and will not “blow” it anywhere, especially if you solve the problem with throttling. Thirdly, why not establish multiple inclusion, and not lament that it does not exist.
  46. lieutenant colonel
    lieutenant colonel 15 December 2017 12: 36 New
    +1
    My opinion))) purely.
    The Americans abandoned the shuttles. Why are we? There was no money? It is necessary to continue, but at a different qualitative level
    Reusable steps are cheap, but only for light missiles, and for the medium and heavy class are already unsafe - a microcrack - and a cord
    The creation of a rocket plan (the next step after the Buran and shuttles) will be much more promising.
  47. loaln
    loaln 15 December 2017 13: 31 New
    0
    It is alarming that such messages went jamb. Moreover, the race with the messages - it didn’t fly there, it was closed, it was canceled.
    Currently, information about events is perceived, but not about intentions. The first speaks of power, the second - of helplessness.
    So, first do, use, and then report. Modestly. But the effect will be needed and encouraging.