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

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.

Comments

[210ox]

And what about us? What news from the design bureau and from Roskosmos? No comment?

[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.

[210ox]

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.

[Muvka]

Are you aware that this rocket was supposed to fly back in 2013?

[prosto_rgb]

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

[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.

[Zoldat_A]

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. ( - 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 ... 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 )

[Korax71]

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.

[ALEX_SHTURMAN]

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 ..

[True]

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?

[Kent0001]

Not. With astronauts just fly. While flying. But a lot of things are falling.

[Antidote]

We have the Crown, Federation and Lunar Base! Yes, and you can still put the hangar in a circle.

[Kent0001]

Cut the dough not to resettle.

[newcomer]

and we have three “A5 hangars“ in the assembly. the first of which will be transferred to the MO this year. Dmitry, welcome.

[210ox]

Garik 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.

[Genry]

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 ...

[newcomer]

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.

[210ox]

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.

[newcomer]

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.

[Orionvit]

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.

[Korax71]

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

[Orionvit]

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.

[dSK]

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)

[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.

[True]

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 Tu160.

[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 ...

[voyaka uh]

"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.

[Genry]

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.

[voyaka uh]

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.

[Genry]

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.

[vadim dok]

Roscosmos asks the United States to allow the launch of a new lunar module using an American heavy rocket (Boeing).

[Vlad.by]

So no one canceled legal intelligence. With permission, you will have to give some parameters of the unit.

[Maki Avellevich]

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

[saturn.mmm]

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.

[Blackmokona]

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

[saturn.mmm]

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.

[Korax71]

Roskommos asks to deliver US cargo to the ISS on their dragons I think, no matter how much they change, but the length will still be the same

[KaPToC]

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?

[Sam_gosling]

And here we have this.

[KaPToC]

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?

[Sam_gosling]

Duc, I'm not a Roskosmos. Proton is a different class, but the hangar does not fly yet. Watakuot.

[saturn.mmm]

Quote: Sam_gosling

and the hangar is not flying yet.

come on.

[KaPToC]

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.

[slipped]

And we have tested the test bench URM-1 of the Angara launch vehicle. Preparing for launch this year.

[Gray brother]

Why do they heat the whole "sausage"? They have no stands for burning or what?

[prosto_rgb]

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.

[JonnyT]

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

[Topgun]

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 ...

[viktor_ui]

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.

[prosto_rgb]

there under the launch pad the engine is hidden
info 100%

[rruvim]

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 ...

[thinker]

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.

[dzvero]

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.

[prosto_rgb]

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

[Kelwin]

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.

[rruvim]

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 ...

[Kelwin]

The railgun as a payload fits well ...

[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.

[Kelwin]

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 ...

[rruvim]

I’m talking about the fact that Mask’s office made more than 40 successful launches, which cannot be said about ROSKOSMOS.

[Kelwin]

The success of the Mask is evident, what is there to argue about, what is, that is ...

[Vlad.by]

Excuse me, but will the railgun be as an acceleration unit or weapon? Nobody canceled Newton’s third law ...

[Kelwin]

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

[ZVO]

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 ...

[rruvim]

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

[Vlad.by]

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.

[donavi49]

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.

[Azazelo]

Mmmm, right now, the Mask fans will scream with joy and will begin to vilify Roskosmos again.

[rruvim]

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?

[Ace Tambourine]

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 ...

[prosto_rgb]

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

[rruvim]

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 ...

[Ace Tambourine]

Unfortunately, this country nurtured Vlasov, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Chubais ... to bear their numbers ..

[rruvim]

About Vlasov is not necessary! And the rest was brought up by a shtetl synagogue ...

[Ace Tambourine]

I beg your pardon.
But who then raised Vlasov, pro-Western liberoids, school, parents, the system, or was there a foulbrood from the beginning?

[rruvim]

He wore glasses. Round. I read a lot to see ...

[Vlad.by]

What kind of cohort do you consider yourself? This country...
Well, well ... you can see who is closer.

[KaPToC]

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.

[rruvim]

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?

[Garius]

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.

[rruvim]

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.

[Korax71]

Nooooo. Either special, close to w ......, sorry, to the golden throne of the emperor, well, or one of the supreme technomagos of Mars.

[Old26]

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?

[rruvim]

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?

[voyaka uh]

"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.

[prosto_rgb]

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.

[prosto_rgb]

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.

[Dormidont]

In Hollywood, a worthy change has grown for Stanley Kubrick

[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.

[Blackmokona]

It can lose up to three engines and successfully complete the mission, so four need to bang.

[prosto_rgb]

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

[Falcon5555]

I wrote: fire or explosion, not shutdown.

[Blackmokona]

Open circuit engines, the explosion will be small, plus octave protection

[APASUS]

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?

[Blackmokona]

The media did not make any statements, and 15 and 12, most likely as usual

[Old26]

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%

[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.

[Falcon5555]

Are you asking me? And to find out and count yourself? And report back.

[Vlad5307]

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.

[Blackmokona]

47 launches already, how much longer to wait?

[rruvim]

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!

[Old26]

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

[Falcon5555]

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.

[Genry]

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 .. !!!"

[Old26]

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