Military Review

In the United States conducted a successful fire test missiles Falcon Heavy

105
The US company SpaceX conducted on Wednesday a successful fire test of the newest carrier rocket Falcon Heavy, transmits RIA News.




The first static fire test Falcon Heavy is completed, one more step closer to the test flight, the company said in a message posted on Twitter.

SpaceX also posted 22 second video, which is visible vertically standing on the launch pad. After starting the engine, the launch pad is enveloped in clouds of white steam.

Earlier it was reported that "during the test, for the first time, all 27 rocket first-stage engines will operate simultaneously for 15 seconds."

It is expected that the first test launch of the Falcon Heavy launch vehicle, which the company is building for future manned flights and flights to the Moon and Mars, may take place at the end of January.

Traditionally, SpaceX conducts a fire test several days before launch. However, the date of the possible first flight has not yet been announced.
Photos used:
http://www.globallookpress.com
105 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. 210ox
    210ox 25 January 2018 15: 04 New
    +6
    And what about us? What news from the design bureau and from Roskosmos? No comment?
    1. Muvka
      Muvka 25 January 2018 15: 06 New
      22
      But what, does Roskosmos need to respond to each event in the world with a new development, or what? I did not understand your comment. Although what to take from you. Are you sure that most of our rockets that deliver astronauts to the ISS are falling.
      1. 210ox
        210ox 25 January 2018 15: 16 New
        17
        I’m sure of only one thing. That astronautics in our country becomes a suitcase without a handle. However, this applies to many branches of science and industry. Unfortunately.
        Quote: Muvka
        But what, does Roskosmos need to respond to each event in the world with a new development, or what? I did not understand your comment. Although what to take from you. Are you sure that most of our rockets that deliver astronauts to the ISS are falling.
        1. Muvka
          Muvka 25 January 2018 15: 31 New
          +8
          Are you aware that this rocket was supposed to fly back in 2013?
          1. prosto_rgb
            prosto_rgb 25 January 2018 19: 13 New
            +1
            Quote: Muvka
            Are you aware that this rocket was supposed to fly back in 2013?

            should
            but the heavy model of 2013 is somewhat (3 times) different from the presented sample in terms of load capacity
      2. Topotun
        Topotun 25 January 2018 16: 11 New
        +3
        And by and large - but do we need it NOW? Manned flight to Mars ... And to hell? It’s easier and more correct to send another automatic station.
        1. Zoldat_A
          Zoldat_A 25 January 2018 16: 24 New
          +8
          Quote: Topotun
          And by and large - but do we need it NOW? Manned flight to Mars ... And to hell? It’s easier and more correct to send another automatic station. ( good - Zoldat_A)

          I put him on a barrel of gunpowder - let him fly ...
          Priorities cost us too much. Remember at least our lunar program - there was nothing but stupid competition. Look, the Chinese know - "let the Russians and the Americans gnaw at the bit, find out who is the first. And we first get the best to slam ..." Especially when it comes to SpaceX. They already had one such enthusiast - Howard Hughes. So that one was really sick with heaven and sick with airplanes. And this Ilon - stupidly cuts loot on PR .... He phoned, promised, he collected money ... Let them fly, let them cones fill up. And we'll see when the time comes, where to lay straws ....
          It is completely unknown how the Martians will meet the Americans there ... lol And then something they quickly turned off their lunar program, in a firefighter (if they flew at all, which I personally doubt very much - they built Atlases that could fly to the Moon, and now our engines suddenly bought and lost the secret knowledge of their ancestors )
          1. Korax71
            Korax71 26 January 2018 01: 01 New
            +3
            You yourself are not tired. The engines they sold along with all the technical documentation on them. If it would be economically profitable to produce them at home, then production would have been started long ago. That's something, and they know how to calculate and calculate the benefits better than the mysterious Russian soul. It’s not worthwhile to think that scholars live only by the border of our great and mighty Motherland. yes
        2. ALEX_SHTURMAN
          ALEX_SHTURMAN 25 January 2018 16: 46 New
          +5
          Most likely, the next station should be drowned in the ocean, and the grandmas should be divided .. Russia now does not have a single automatic station outside the Earth’s orbit. Now it is not necessary only because there are simply no such people as Korolev, Glushko, and the allocated money would be plundered ..
        3. True
          True 26 January 2018 09: 38 New
          +1
          Quote: Topotun
          And by and large - but do we need it NOW? Manned flight to Mars ... And to hell? It’s easier and more correct to send another automatic station.

          Yeah, tapa phobos, right?
      3. Kent0001
        Kent0001 25 January 2018 16: 23 New
        +2
        Not. With astronauts just fly. While flying. But a lot of things are falling.
    2. Antidote
      Antidote 25 January 2018 15: 08 New
      +2
      We have the Crown, Federation and Lunar Base! Yes, and you can still put the hangar in a circle.
      1. Kent0001
        Kent0001 25 January 2018 16: 24 New
        +1
        Cut the dough not to resettle.
    3. newcomer
      newcomer 25 January 2018 15: 11 New
      +9
      and we have three “A5 hangars“ in the assembly. the first of which will be transferred to the MO this year. Dmitry, welcome.
      1. 210ox
        210ox 25 January 2018 15: 22 New
        +6
        Garik hi Yes, God forbid, that everything would be successful. By the way, when did Angara be developed and when were the first launches planned? Until the beginning of the 90s, I constantly wrote out TMs. Even then, plans for this missile were in print. including those returned on an airplane stage. Okay, for nine years the EBN drank everything but then for 17 years what interfered? Faberge?
        Quote: newbie
        and we have three “A5 hangars“ in the assembly. the first of which will be transferred to the MO this year. Dmitry, welcome.
        1. Genry
          Genry 25 January 2018 15: 30 New
          +2
          Quote: 210ox
          Okay, for nine years the EBN drank everything, but after 17 years what was in the way? Faberge?

          After drinking, it was necessary to close debts ...
        2. newcomer
          newcomer 25 January 2018 15: 30 New
          +1
          Dim, yes, we lost a lot in the 90s. restore, as you know more difficult, much more difficult. la and much more that we have on the missile side, in the assembly and "Protons" and "Angara1.2" and "Rokot" .... if interested, look at the military-industrial complex. the name of the interview with the director general of the Khrunichev Center.
          1. 210ox
            210ox 25 January 2018 15: 51 New
            +8
            Here, you understand, you don’t believe the officials anymore. Yes, I had a fellow student who worked at the Khrunichev Center the year before last, quit there. I didn’t get my salary for a rented apartment. I went home to Lipetsk.
            Quote: newbie
            Dim, yes, we lost a lot in the 90s. restore, as you know more difficult, much more difficult. la and much more that we have on the missile side, in the assembly and "Protons" and "Angara1.2" and "Rokot" .... if interested, look at the military-industrial complex. the name of the interview with the director general of the Khrunichev Center.
            1. newcomer
              newcomer 25 January 2018 16: 06 New
              0
              Well in this case, what can I say? this is how frames are lost. maybe this is due to some stagnation that has been observed over the past year, two, plus the failures of Proton. We can only hope that all these optimizations and corporatization will somehow solve the problem of providing workers.
            2. Orionvit
              Orionvit 25 January 2018 18: 53 New
              +1
              Quote: 210ox
              Here you understand you do not believe officials

              And you believe American officials unconditionally. That's when they fly, and not in the process of planned trials, with astronauts on board, and then you will shout “gop.” But it's too early. Moreover, we all perfectly know the Western habit, to PR everything, which then turns out to be zilch.
              1. Korax71
                Korax71 26 January 2018 01: 08 New
                +1
                Well then, for the sake of fairness, it should be noted, but do you believe our serious officials unconditionally? So our troops, judging by their statements, re-equip 150 percent. Te de 14 and t50 how many times they went right? And so on TV every year whether they enter the army. and life is getting better every day, life is becoming more fun laughing
                1. Orionvit
                  Orionvit 26 January 2018 08: 32 New
                  0
                  Quote: Korax71
                  Well then, for the sake of fairness, it should be noted, but you believe our serious officials unconditionally

                  I see the facts, namely, that Russia is now the only country in the world that flies into space and carries others. (It’s not casting iron into orbit, but seriously, as expected, with the astronauts.) Well, China is still episodic. But the "vaunted" Americans do not. I repeat, when they fly, then you will sing praises.
                  according to their statements, the rearmament of 150 percent.
                  Why didn’t you write 300 percent, or already write 1000. We’ve gathered to troll, then let’s “as an adult”, do not be shy, otherwise you won’t get a salary.
        3. dSK
          dSK 25 January 2018 15: 33 New
          0
          Hello Dmitry!
          Quote: 210ox
          God forbid that everything goes well
          "First in 40 years The Russian lunar mission will be launched into space in 2019. About plans to launch the device Luna 25 told at the Space Research Institute (IKI) RAS. The spacecraft is created to study the chemical composition of the regolith of the polar regions of the Earth’s satellite. He must find out the presence (or absence) and concentration of water ice and other volatile compounds of space origin, explained in the IKI. Moonwalker will be equipped with special apparatuses that will study processes in a dusty plasma polar exosphere of the moon. (Channel "Tsargrad" 12:09, 25.01.18/XNUMX/XNUMX) hi
        4. viktor_ui
          viktor_ui 25 January 2018 17: 01 New
          +4
          I have a book in the country, since the days of school it has become. 1979 edition ... so there BAIKAL and ANGARA have already been described and schematized ... MIRACLES. In about five years, CLIPPER will be pushed for the know-how of the 21st century. SAD.
          1. True
            True 26 January 2018 09: 45 New
            +2
            Quote: viktor_ui
            I have a book in the country, since the days of school it has become. 1979 edition ... so there BAIKAL and ANGARA have already been described and schematized ... MIRACLES. In about five years, CLIPPER will be pushed for the know-how of the 21st century. SAD.

            Like the LATEST wassat Tu160.
    4. Genry
      Genry 25 January 2018 15: 23 New
      +6
      Quote: 210ox
      And what about us? What news from the design bureau and from Roskosmos? No comment?

      And when the epic with Falcon Heavy is already over. And then from 2011 they promise to launch it and be afraid of everything.
      After all, it is assembled from steps that have already flown away, with possible hidden damage and engines that have already survived the on-off shock several times. And there are as many as 27 engines, and their history shows a tendency to explode. This is not just one or two of 27 being cut off on take-off - it will blow the whole rocket to hell.
      They are afraid, very uncertain, so much fuss and money spent ...
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 25 January 2018 17: 12 New
        +3
        "there are already several possible hidden damages and engines
        times survived the on-off shock "///

        The first steps of Space-X flew repeatedly 1 times already. With commercial satellites.
        Everything is successful. Engines must withstand up to 10 cycles.
        1. Genry
          Genry 25 January 2018 17: 30 New
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Engines must withstand up to 10 cycles.

          I think you understand that mean averages are given. Some lucky one can and can withstand 100 inclusions. But this does not deny the presence of an unlucky man who has already run out of safety or is knocking harder than others.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 25 January 2018 19: 02 New
            +4
            A high-quality engine model (high-quality materials and assembly)
            there are no lucky and unlucky people. All engines must withstand the same
            (approximately) number of inclusions.
            1. Genry
              Genry 26 January 2018 16: 18 New
              0
              There are no strict rules in nature. Even people, with modern medicine, live from zero years - up to a hundred or more. Although in general they talk about average duration.
    5. vadim dok
      vadim dok 25 January 2018 15: 58 New
      +2
      Roscosmos asks the United States to allow the launch of a new lunar module using an American heavy rocket (Boeing).
      1. Vlad.by
        Vlad.by 25 January 2018 16: 53 New
        0
        So no one canceled legal intelligence. With permission, you will have to give some parameters of the unit.
        1. Maki Avellevich
          Maki Avellevich 25 January 2018 19: 44 New
          +2
          Quote: Vlad.by
          So no one canceled legal intelligence. With permission, you will have to give some parameters of the unit.


          Well, yes, the diameter of American rembolts on a Boeing has long been wanted to know
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 25 January 2018 18: 15 New
        0
        Quote: vadim dok
        Roscosmos asks the United States to allow the launch of a new lunar module using an American heavy rocket (Boeing).

        The United States asks Russia to launch their astronauts into space.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 25 January 2018 19: 52 New
          +1
          Ours have already asked for places in their Orions.
          08: 51, 25 September 2017
          Roscosmos began negotiations with NASA about space for astronauts on the American Orion
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 26 January 2018 16: 36 New
            0
            Quote: BlackMokona
            Roscosmos began negotiations with NASA about space for astronauts on the American Orion

            There is an old Russian proverb about Orions:
            -Chicken in the nest and the egg in ....
            They have not tested their passenger modules yet.
        2. Korax71
          Korax71 26 January 2018 01: 12 New
          0
          Roskommos asks to deliver US cargo to the ISS on their dragons laughing I think, no matter how much they change, but the length will still be the same
    6. KaPToC
      KaPToC 25 January 2018 17: 01 New
      +1
      Quote: 210ox
      And what about us? What news from the design bureau and from Roskosmos? No comment?

      There are protons, there is a hangar, what do you miss? Just to fart?
    7. Sam_gosling
      Sam_gosling 25 January 2018 17: 06 New
      +7

      And here we have this.
      1. KaPToC
        KaPToC 25 January 2018 18: 03 New
        +1
        Quote: Sam_gosling
        And here we have this.

        The fact that there you do not care about anyone, what protons and the hangar do not suit you?
        1. Sam_gosling
          Sam_gosling 26 January 2018 09: 50 New
          +1
          Duc, I'm not a Roskosmos. Proton is a different class, but the hangar does not fly yet. Watakuot.
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 26 January 2018 16: 44 New
            0
            Quote: Sam_gosling
            and the hangar is not flying yet.

            come on.
          2. KaPToC
            KaPToC 26 January 2018 20: 12 New
            0
            Quote: Sam_gosling
            Proton another class

            Proton is also a heavy rocket.
            Quote: Sam_gosling
            and the hangar is not flying yet. Watakuot.

            So Falcon Yeavy does not fly yet! Watakot
            Unlike hangars.
    8. slipped
      slipped 26 January 2018 03: 32 New
      0
      And we have tested the test bench URM-1 of the Angara launch vehicle. Preparing for launch this year.
  2. Gray brother
    Gray brother 25 January 2018 15: 15 New
    0
    Why do they heat the whole "sausage"? They have no stands for burning or what?
    1. prosto_rgb
      prosto_rgb 25 January 2018 19: 21 New
      0
      Quote: Gray Brother
      Why do they heat the whole "sausage"? They have no stands for burning or what?

      There are stands only for a single Falcon 9, and the first 3 steps can not be interposed at the same time.
      Because so.
  3. JonnyT
    JonnyT 25 January 2018 15: 31 New
    0
    White steam, as it were, hints that the test was steam and not fire.
    As they say, wait and see. Americans are great masters of fraud
    1. Topgun
      Topgun 25 January 2018 16: 50 New
      +7
      horror what in the head ...
      during combustion (suddenly) WATER is released, a huge amount of water + there is also poured water on the walls of the channels through which the flame goes and most of that water evaporates ...
      1. viktor_ui
        viktor_ui 25 January 2018 17: 05 New
        +1
        No, it’s Bob Marley’s joint that’s smoking ... that's why it’s hovering ... and soars in its head - soars, for the earth is PLANE. drinks
    2. prosto_rgb
      prosto_rgb 25 January 2018 19: 23 New
      +1
      there under the launch pad the engine is hidden
      info 100%
  4. rruvim
    rruvim 25 January 2018 15: 44 New
    +6
    Mask is still well done! "Shook" even our Russian youth. My son in Baumanka to study, says that after the successes (failures) of the Mask, the entire academic swamp stirred ...
    1. thinker
      thinker 25 January 2018 16: 27 New
      +2
      On youth slang - cool and test payload of the planned launch.
      Musk will send his cherry Tesla Roadster into space. Yes, Elon Musk will send a car into space, because he can do it. When he first talked about it, everyone took it as a joke, but later he confirmed his intentions.
    2. dzvero
      dzvero 25 January 2018 16: 44 New
      +1
      And this is undoubted benefit from the Mask.
      SpaceX itself is nothing more than the privatization of NASA developments. There is nothing of Boeing and Lokhkid in their missiles. It's like if you have some kind of Mavrodi-Petrik-Skolkovsky registering a space desk and Suddenly he has ready-made designs, and the development staff, and full access to infrastructure, and state grants plus a full set of promising designs ... Managers of your Roskosmos can only envy gritting his teeth.
      1. prosto_rgb
        prosto_rgb 25 January 2018 19: 38 New
        +1
        Quote: dzvero
        SpaceX itself is nothing more than the privatization of NASA developments

        no.
        Quote: dzvero
        and Suddenly he has finished constructions,

        he did not have ready-made designs. study the topic.
        Quote: dzvero
        and development staff

        developers hired in the market. someone came, someone continues to work in other rocket and space enterprises in the USA
        Quote: dzvero
        and full access to infrastructure,

        again no.
        first they smoked bamboo or sucked a paw at an abandoned military base 600km east of the US coast.
        allowed later, but not for free, but leased
        Quote: dzvero
        and government grants

        not grants, but a solid contract for the delivery of goods
        and these are very different things.
        Under the same contracts, Roskosmos carries cargo and cosmonauts to the ISS.
        Quote: dzvero
        plus a full set of promising designs.

        only this complete set of promising is constantly changing
        at least haveik, who wanted to make the current version by 2013

        Here, by the way, is a very informative and detailed film with what and how SpaceX started:
        oddly enough even without politics and propaganda
  5. Kelwin
    Kelwin 25 January 2018 15: 55 New
    +1
    Why do we need a manned flight to Mars, is unclear. Whatever is flying, Musk or we or all together, why? Well, hold the flag, let's see how it all ends.
    1. rruvim
      rruvim 25 January 2018 15: 59 New
      +2
      The mask is masked by a flight to Mars. In general, his company has recently launched US military satellites. The superheavy rocket will come in handy ...
      1. Kelwin
        Kelwin 25 January 2018 16: 02 New
        +1
        The railgun as a payload fits well ...
        1. rruvim
          rruvim 25 January 2018 16: 07 New
          0
          And what about the railgun? If the amers didn’t get a gun, then the Chinese are equipping their new aircraft carrier with an electromagnetic catapult.
          1. Kelwin
            Kelwin 25 January 2018 16: 12 New
            +1
            But it certainly didn’t work out ... In the atmosphere, it’s not effective, but in a vacuum, plus gravity ... They said that they were curtailing the program, but saying it didn’t mean doing it ...
            1. rruvim
              rruvim 25 January 2018 16: 25 New
              +1
              I’m talking about the fact that Mask’s office made more than 40 successful launches, which cannot be said about ROSKOSMOS.
              1. Kelwin
                Kelwin 25 January 2018 19: 40 New
                +1
                The success of the Mask is evident, what is there to argue about, what is, that is ...
            2. Vlad.by
              Vlad.by 25 January 2018 16: 57 New
              0
              Excuse me, but will the railgun be as an acceleration unit or weapon? Nobody canceled Newton’s third law ...
              1. Kelwin
                Kelwin 25 January 2018 19: 38 New
                +1
                I’m not sure I correctly understood the background of the question) What is wrong with the third law if there are weapons? Here is the energy supply, yes, the question is, but suddenly it was somehow solved, supercapacitors or a natural reactor in general - who and how controls what they actually brought out? It’s tempting, uranium scrap from orbit, the launch cannot be detected, the flight time is minimal, interception is problematic. But this is me, in the order of delirium) Just because flying to Mars is even greater delirium winked
          2. ZVO
            ZVO 25 January 2018 16: 28 New
            +1
            Quote: rruvim
            And what about the railgun? If the amers didn’t get a gun, then the Chinese are equipping their new aircraft carrier with an electromagnetic catapult.


            They got a gun ...
            The firing rate required for a surface ship did not work ...
            For space, it will be enough ...
            1. rruvim
              rruvim 25 January 2018 17: 52 New
              0
              But is there any energy on the destroyer, but in space? After all, you won’t bring a gas turbine installation into space with fuel and maintenance personnel sad
            2. Vlad.by
              Vlad.by 31 January 2018 00: 15 New
              0
              Then explain what and where it will fly in space when the railgun is "shot". The conservation law, no matter what, assumes, in the absence of friction forces holding the platform in place (which is true in a vacuum in orbit), that a projectile flying away from the platform acts on the platform with the same impulse, but in the opposite direction.
              After each rail shot, will we correct the orbit? And this, with dubious accuracy, is a spit - a shell of small mass, disturbances from gravity, mass, the slightest impact and ... miss by meters, if not kilometers. Effective will be shooting only at directly close objects, and even moving at a relatively low speed. Otherwise, how to induce a railgun with a decent mass, and, accordingly, inertia, and even with a lead, even considering space mechanics?
              Empty is an occupation railgun. What is in the atmosphere, what is in a vacuum.
    2. donavi49
      donavi49 25 January 2018 16: 34 New
      +5
      At the current stage - in general, there is little sense in manned, well, except for the scientific program in space, which can be carried out in orbit (in this case, the ISS). And then, in recent times, there has been increasing doubt about the efficiency of the permanent station - or rather, loading it with useful scientific work, according to the invested funds.

      Automatic stations, on the contrary, show phenomenal results. The same Cassini-Hugens. Or New Horizons. Or a mission to the Comet. Or Juneau. Yes, and the Martian rovers.

      None of the current tasks provides an economically viable long-term manned mission. Scientific work can continue to be entrusted to automatic stations, pouring more money into it - hence creating either more complex stations or more stations.
  6. Azazelo
    Azazelo 25 January 2018 16: 12 New
    +2
    Mmmm, right now, the Mask fans will scream with joy and will begin to vilify Roskosmos again.
    1. rruvim
      rruvim 25 January 2018 16: 30 New
      +9
      And what not to blaspheme it ... If the Khrunichev plant, still finely, asks for 30 billion, so as not to fall into bankruptcy. And all these billion, these are percentages to commercial banks. It's funny, after all. The city-forming enterprise asks the state for money to cover commercial debts. And the money is ridiculous! How much did the Zenit Arena cost in St. Petersburg? AND?
    2. Ace Tambourine
      Ace Tambourine 25 January 2018 16: 39 New
      +9
      Whatever it was, but I have white envy for the Mask .. After all, does the little devil!
      And so that the evil spirits do not say, his pencils fly and sit down without any trampolines on their engines ..
      And the sensors, it seems, set it right, and the software, depending on the launch point, changes on time ...
      And blah blah is present for everyone, but blah blah is far from flying away ... and he’s flying ...
      In general, greetings to Vostochny and Angara ... our grandchildren will be able to be proud of them, we will not survive ...
      1. prosto_rgb
        prosto_rgb 25 January 2018 19: 57 New
        +1
        Quote: Ace of Diamonds
        sit down without any trampolines on their engines ..

        and he’s also going to do a trampoline, though for catching fairings
  7. rruvim
    rruvim 25 January 2018 16: 39 New
    +7
    I admire Mask! He makes presentations of the lunar base and mission to Mars. He REALLY launches rockets into space. My children "follow" his projects, and read his "crazy" plans. It's a shame that the country that raised Korolev, Gagarin, the talented organizer Beria, etc. unable to reveal people like Musk now. Some officials from Roskosmos ... Dull and incompetent. In addition to "sawing" the dough ...
    1. Ace Tambourine
      Ace Tambourine 25 January 2018 16: 53 New
      0
      Unfortunately, this country nurtured Vlasov, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Chubais ... to bear their numbers ..
      1. rruvim
        rruvim 25 January 2018 16: 55 New
        +3
        About Vlasov is not necessary! And the rest was brought up by a shtetl synagogue ...
        1. Ace Tambourine
          Ace Tambourine 25 January 2018 17: 03 New
          0
          I beg your pardon.
          But who then raised Vlasov, pro-Western liberoids, school, parents, the system, or was there a foulbrood from the beginning?
          1. rruvim
            rruvim 25 January 2018 17: 54 New
            +1
            He wore glasses. Round. I read a lot to see ...
      2. Vlad.by
        Vlad.by 31 January 2018 00: 20 New
        0
        What kind of cohort do you consider yourself? This country...
        Well, well ... you can see who is closer.
    2. KaPToC
      KaPToC 25 January 2018 17: 09 New
      0
      Quote: rruvim
      My children "follow" his projects, and read his "crazy" plans. It's a shame that the country that raised Korolev, Gagarin

      The time of pioneers in rocket science has long passed.
      1. rruvim
        rruvim 25 January 2018 17: 42 New
        +1
        Maybe the pioneers have passed, but there are no adventurers. And Musk is an ordinary adventurer, and he succeeds. What did Yakovlev say in The Irony of Fate?
    3. garius
      garius 25 January 2018 22: 50 New
      +1
      Handsomely? Yes! children piss with boiling water ... But explain to your children, Musk PR manager no more. If you think that the United States, represented by NASA, had no space technology before Mask, then you are deeply mistaken. Musk now works on Nasov’s technologies, but on a commercial basis.
      1. rruvim
        rruvim 25 January 2018 23: 02 New
        +1
        Yes, all of humanity is working on old technologies! The Nazis have come up with a jet engine. And someone has a vigorous bomb. Only someone competently uses these technologies, and someone only “relays”, like our Team Leader. WARHAMMER40K has an idea: "everything that is not SSK (standard template designs) is blasphemous!" Although in this imaginary world and in the Superlight, whole planets fly and terraform. Mask would be a heretic.
        1. Korax71
          Korax71 26 January 2018 01: 24 New
          0
          Nooooo. Either special, close to w ......, sorry, to the golden throne of the emperor, well, or one of the supreme technomagos of Mars.
  8. Old26
    Old26 25 January 2018 16: 56 New
    +2
    Quote: 210ox
    Garik hi God forbid that everything would be successful. By the way, when did Angara develop and when were the first launches planned? Until the beginning of the 90s, I constantly wrote out TMs. Even then, plans for this missile were in print. Including those returning by plane. Okay, for nine years, the EBN drank everything, but then what prevented it for 17 years? Faberge?

    Quote: Genry
    Quote: 210ox
    And what about us? What news from the design bureau and from Roskosmos? No comment?

    And when the epic with Falcon Heavy is already over. And then from 2011 they promise to launch it and be afraid of everything.
    After all, it is assembled from steps that have already flown away, with possible hidden damage and engines that have already survived the on-off shock several times. And there are as many as 27 engines, and their history shows a tendency to explode. This is not just one or two of 27 being cut off on take-off - it will blow the whole rocket to hell.
    They are afraid, very uncertain, so much fuss and money spent ...

    Wonderful things are your Lord. One read about Anagar in the early 90s, the second believes that since 2011 Falcon 9 Heavy was supposed to fly? Guys! Are you out of parallel reality by accident?

    Kamrad 210okv
    The competition for the creation of the "Angara" was announced in August 1992. The EMNIP competition ended in 1995. In 1997, Khrunitsev proposed a completely different (current) scheme. Returned by the airplane stage, that is, Baikal was shown at an exhibition in Moscow in 2001. So for a dozen and a half dozen years, correct your memories. . Landing on an airplane stage in the 80s was planned, but by no means for the Angara, but for one of the Energy options. But in the early 90s, these publications were still "griffon"

    Comrade Genry
    You ask when the epic with Falcon Heavy ends ??? I think the numbers are January 30, well, a maximum at the beginning of February. No one has promised to launch it since 2011. The concept was adopted in 2004, and at a press conference in Washington in 2011, the people were presented with a diagram of this missile. Initial launch plans for 2013. Delay of 5 years compared with decades of delay in the "Hangar" - minuscule

    To be afraid? Why's that? Of course, there were problems with the steps, no one argues. But about the fact that the "Heavy" will be assembled from the already departed steps - you are deeply mistaken. Maybe it will be so later, but not at the first launches.

    And there are as many as 27 engines, and their history shows a tendency to explode. This is not just one or two of 27 being cut off on take-off - it will blow the whole rocket to hell.

    Unlike our N-1, a completely different scheme is involved here. I also work 27 engines, but in blocks of 9. And they have already had such tests, many times. Of 47 launches, only 1 was unsuccessful and one partially successful (disruption in the operation of the 2-stage engines). so that bundles of 9 engines they have already flown at least accidentally 46 times. Why should these ligaments explode now?
    1. rruvim
      rruvim 25 January 2018 17: 08 New
      +3
      Well, this means that SpaceX is experimenting, and not afraid to grind this “bunch”. Mask has a bunch of competent and motivated engineers. Many from Russia. Why does not our 16th power create something like this, or put things in order in Roscosmos, in this swamp?
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 25 January 2018 18: 59 New
      +2
      "will be assembled from already flying off steps - you are deeply mistaken" ///

      However, this is so. Two of the 3 blocks are exactly second-hand steps.
      1. prosto_rgb
        prosto_rgb 25 January 2018 20: 15 New
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh
        However, this is so. Two of the 3 blocks are exactly second-hand steps.

        quite right
        Quote: prosto_rgb
        These “sidewalls” flew at the launch of the Thaicom 8 telecommunications satellite and at the launch of a cargo ship to the ISS.
    3. prosto_rgb
      prosto_rgb 25 January 2018 20: 14 New
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      Initial launch plans for 2013.

      In 2013, there was supposed to be a heavyweight payload slightly larger than the current Falcon 9FT.
      So, in essence, the tasks (starts) that SpaceX wanted to take out with the 2013 heavy-duty vehicle are carrying the Falcon 9FT.
      But if you write about this, then in general there will be a full-blown "zrada" and "chesole genotby"
      Quote: Old26
      But about the fact that the "Heavy" will be assembled from the already departed steps - you are deeply mistaken.

      It will not be, but already assembled.
      In March 2017, it was announced that at the first launch of the launch vehicle, the first 2 stages of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle, returned after previous launches, will be reused as side boosters.
      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy
      These “sidewalls” flew at the launch of the Thaicom 8 telecommunications satellite and at the launch of a cargo ship to the ISS.
      The middle part of the first stage had not previously flown into space, it differs from the side and is specially reinforced to withstand increased aerodynamic effects and the influence of the payload during the flight.
  9. Dormidont
    Dormidont 25 January 2018 18: 43 New
    +1
    In Hollywood, a worthy change has grown for Stanley Kubrick
  10. Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 25 January 2018 19: 33 New
    0
    27 engines on one rocket? If the probability of a fire or explosion of one is for example 1%, then the probability of a disaster is 1/3 (approximately). Pure math.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 25 January 2018 19: 57 New
      0
      It can lose up to three engines and successfully complete the mission, so four need to bang.
      1. prosto_rgb
        prosto_rgb 25 January 2018 20: 20 New
        0
        Quote: BlackMokona
        It can lose up to three engines and successfully complete the mission, so four need to bang.

        more precisely, 1 on each of the accelerators
      2. Falcon5555
        Falcon5555 25 January 2018 23: 12 New
        0
        I wrote: fire or explosion, not shutdown.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 25 January 2018 23: 30 New
          0
          Open circuit engines, the explosion will be small, plus octave protection
  11. APASUS
    APASUS 25 January 2018 19: 35 New
    0
    Earlier it was reported that "during the test, for the first time, all 27 rocket first-stage engines will operate simultaneously for 15 seconds."

    On the published video, the engines worked for 6 s and then their exact number is unknown. Again, the victory of the Mask?
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 25 January 2018 19: 58 New
      0
      The media did not make any statements, and 15 and 12, most likely as usual
  12. Old26
    Old26 25 January 2018 19: 46 New
    0
    Quote: Falcon5555
    27 engines on one rocket? If the probability of a fire or explosion of one is for example 1%, then the probability of a disaster is 1/3 (approximately). Pure math.

    In 47 flights, how many explosions were there? Why should they jerk now, besides with a probability of 30%
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 25 January 2018 20: 01 New
      +1
      For all starts only one engine failed once, but the Dragon still entered the calculated orbit.
      There was one explosion due to poor-quality cylinder fastening, despite a 10-fold safety factor, it broke at 60% load, and the explosion was due to experiments with refueling on the launch pad.
    2. Falcon5555
      Falcon5555 25 January 2018 23: 16 New
      0
      Are you asking me? And to find out and count yourself? And report back.
  13. Vlad5307
    Vlad5307 25 January 2018 20: 52 New
    0
    Quote: BlackMokona
    For all starts only one engine failed once, but the Dragon still entered the calculated orbit.
    There was one explosion due to poor-quality cylinder fastening, despite a 10-fold safety factor, it broke at 60% load, and the explosion was due to experiments with refueling on the launch pad.

    This is still a PR campaign for a new project - they count chickens in the fall. And the jugger that we have, that they have the same. Let's see how long this scheme will be practiced and how economically profitable it will ultimately be. And yes, in fanfare everyone loves to blow.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 25 January 2018 21: 34 New
      0
      47 launches already, how much longer to wait?
  14. rruvim
    rruvim 25 January 2018 21: 59 New
    +3
    I am familiar with one programmer. He graduated from Mehmat Moscow State University. He worked for the “Shopkeeper”, then in Korolyov. Mask now. He says that the collective atmosphere is like a sect. Everything is like one family. Rejoice, cry, dance ... I reminded him: "But what about your former work in Roscosmos?" Answer: "boredom, intrigue and bastards ..." That's all!
  15. Old26
    Old26 26 January 2018 10: 07 New
    0
    Quote: Falcon5555
    Are you asking me? And to find out and count yourself? And report back.

    If your post concerns mine, then I will say right away. There is no question of any probability of an explosion of 1%. The reliability of the designs of such a technique of order THREE NINES. Well, the likelihood that out of 27 engines more than 9 will fail, which will not make it possible to bring the load into orbit is equal to offhand (as far as I remember probability theory) the order 1 in 10 minus seventh degree or 1 in 10 minus the fifth percent. That is approximately one hundred thousandth of a percent. But not 1/3
    1. Falcon5555
      Falcon5555 26 January 2018 14: 56 New
      +2
      more than 9 will fail

      I mean the explosion or fire of the engine (or its fuel equipment), after which the whole rocket will make a big fart. Your score of three nines is good, but it is hard to believe. Why, then, is the typical probability of catastrophes for all missiles of the order of a few percent. Given that there are usually several engines in rockets, I would suggest that a more realistic estimate is about 1 percent. If these engines are not special, then it’s hard to believe that they only turn off, but never explode. That is, of the order of one percent there should be a probability of fire or explosion.
    2. Genry
      Genry 26 January 2018 15: 48 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      There is no question of any probability of an explosion of 1%. The reliability of the designs of this technique is of the order of THREE NINES.

      If you calculate the probability of an accident (one tenth of a percent) from your "three nines" of reliability and multiply by the number of engines 27x0.1 = 2.7%. And this is only for engines. And if you add the accident rate of all rocket blocks - it will be: "Mom, ... how does it even work .. !!!"
  16. Old26
    Old26 26 January 2018 22: 21 New
    0
    Quote: Sam_gosling
    Duc, I'm not a Roskosmos. Proton is a different class, but the hangar does not fly yet. Watakuot.

    There were two starts. One - Angara-1.2PP, the second - Angara-A5

    Quote: Falcon5555
    Your three-nine score is good, but hard to believe

    And with a lesser likelihood, hardly anyone launches into space