Military Review

Mask failed to outdo the USSR superheavy missiles

245
The world of February 6 watched the launch of the super-heavy launch vehicle Falcon Heavy, which its creator Ilon Mask traditionally turned into a show. The launch showed not only the marketing talents of a businessman, but also the technical achievements of his company. However, it’s too early to talk about a “revolution” in the field of space - the SpaceX rockets are still inferior to some Soviet models.




The cosmic triumph of the American businessman Ilona Mask was blurred. With a thoroughly established PR campaign, the SpaceX chapter was summed up by the technician. The central booster super-heavy launch vehicle Falcon Heavy crashed while landing.

The unit ran out of fuel, and therefore only one of the three engines used during landing was launched. As a result, instead of landing on a floating platform Of Course I Still Love You in the Atlantic Ocean, the unit collapsed into the water at a speed of 480 kilometers per hour, and its fragments damaged the platform. In this case, two side accelerators successfully made a synchronous landing near the spaceport at Cape Canaveral in Florida.

Ilon Musk turned the rocket launch into a show

Of course, an unsuccessful landing of the block is a trifle compared to the very successful launch of an extra-heavy launch vehicle. Falcon Heavy made its first test flight on Tuesday at 23.45 Moscow time from the launch site at Cape Canaveral in Florida.

It is impossible not to pay tribute to the talents of Ilona Mask in the field of PR. As a cargo, he placed his personal electric Tesla Roadster with a mannequin in a SpaceX spacesuit (both the car and the spacesuit are also Mask’s brainchild) on the top stage of the Falcon Heavy. On Wednesday morning, Tesla had already left the orbit of the Earth and now, according to the plan, will begin to move to Mars in heliocentric orbit.

At the same time, Tesla plays David Bowie’s famous Space Oddity track in the Tesla cabin, which anyone can enjoy watching videos from the cab of a car plowing space. It goes without saying that the launch of the rocket itself was accompanied by online video broadcasting.

Mask managed to beat and the collapse of the central block, promising that if the cameras did not explode and managed to fix it, put a video on which, according to him, it would be fun to watch.

Naturally, the businessman managed to attract the attention of the whole world, not to mention the USA. US President Donald Trump congratulated Mask, saying: “This achievement, together with commercial and international partners, NASA continues to demonstrate the ingenuity of Americans at its best!”.

A revolutionary model of space production

Despite all this foppery, the main success of Mask is not at all marketing. After a successful launch, Falcon Heavy becomes the most powerful launch vehicle in the world currently in use. It is planned that the carrier will be able to deliver up to 63,8 t to a low reference orbit, up to 26,7 t to a geo-transfer orbit, up to 16,8 t to Mars and 3,5 t to Pluto.

At the same time, it surpasses its closest competitor Delta IV Heavy from Boeing, not only in payload, which it can put into a low reference orbit (twice), but also in cheapness. SpaceX claims that the launch of the launch vehicle costs 90 million dollars, while the flight of the Delta requires about 435 million, and the project cost of one launch of the NASA-developed super-heavy rocket system SLS (Space Launch System) of the space launches of dollars. As noted by Musk, the entire development of Falcon Heavy cost his company about 500 million dollars.

The complexity of the engineering problem that Mask managed to solve can be described as follows. At the start of the Falcon Heavy rocket 27 engines work right away - and this is a very large number. So many rockets need not only to create the appropriate thrust. If at start you use only one engine for each unit, then it will not be able to deliver the required power during further landing - the thrust will be too high, the rocket uses the required fuel almost instantly and will collapse. But the greater the number of engines, the more mathematically more likely a failure of one of them is - and such a failure will almost inevitably end in disaster. The design invented by Mask is extremely reminiscent of the Soviet H-1 rocket, which also had 30 engines on the first stage - and all four of its launches ended in accidents.

How did Mask successfully launch a rocket with so many engines? The fact is that he approached testing in a completely different way than his Soviet colleagues almost fifty years ago.

At first, these units were tested on the Falcon 9 rocket - this allowed us to obtain data on how the unit behaves during the flight. Then the blocks were connected in one package, and a control run was made on all 27 engines for 12 seconds. The Soviet engineers in their time did not do such tests, because they were in a great hurry. And just making sure that all the engines successfully work in conjunction, was launched Falcon Heavy. In other words, Musk conducted a sufficient number of preliminary tests before making the launch today.

The head of the Space Policy Institute, Ivan Moiseev, noted that "this is an undoubted success - the emergence of a new launch vehicle, which is twice the size of the most powerful existing one or three times the size of our Proton."



The project is still being worked out, having carried out several launches, said Moses, noting that in the future this will open up new opportunities. “When exploring the planets of the Solar System, you can send heavy vehicles, you can commercially launch two heavy satellites at a time. This is a step forward, ”said the source.
The launch of a super-heavy rocket is “an outstanding achievement for Ilon Mask and his company,” Andrei Ionin, corresponding member of the Tsiolkovsky Russian Academy of Cosmonautics, told the VIEW newspaper. Falcon Heavy - "really the most powerful rocket in the world right now," said the source.

Since humanity is moving to a new stage in the development of astronautics associated with the exploration of deep space, this launch can be called “the first serious step towards the implementation of projects related to the exploration of the Moon and Mars. You can’t underestimate him, ”stressed Ionin. He recalled that such programs would require a very serious increase in traffic. And Musk is not going to stop at Falcon Heavy, he has more powerful rockets in his plans.

“Mask, step by step, is implementing an absolutely new revolutionary model of space production,” the source said. He recalled that astronautics lives in the framework of those models that were laid in 50 – 60-ies in the USSR and the USA.

Musk changed all this, in particular, he completely revised the questions of how rockets should be done and how to talk about it. "These are his two major achievements",

- Explained the expert.

Do not exaggerate the value

Many have already rushed to announce the achievement of Mask "breakthrough." However, to exaggerate the significance of launching a super-heavy rocket SpaceX is still not worth it. “I would not use such loud words as the“ revolution ”in the field of space with regard to the launch of Falcon Heavy,” Moiseyev said.

If weighed on scales stories, it falls short of neither the first manned space flight, nor the landing of a man on the moon, agrees Yonin. “This event is one step lower, and it is very important in terms of the implementation of new programs for the development of deep space,” said the expert, expressing confidence that Musk will still have time to show everyone the historical event.

And it's not about the loss of the central overclocking unit. The fact that the central overclocking block crashed during landing didn’t matter, as this block is gaining more speed and it is more difficult to save it, said Ionin. “At the first start-up this is all the more nonsense. But even if he doesn’t save himself later, I don’t see anything terrible here either, ”he pointed out.

First, for now this is only the first test launch, and it’s still far from the start of regular rocket operation. Secondly, it is worth remembering that Musk didn’t meet his initial schedule. He promised to launch the first launch of Falcon Heavy in the summer of 2017, six months ago. In addition, we must not forget about the recent failure with the introduction into orbit of the secret American satellite Zuma. The satellite, launched with the help of the Falcon 9 rocket, which has been repeatedly tested, did not reach orbit, crashing when it fell into the ocean.

And this was not the first failure Mask. So, in 2013, the Dragon spacecraft lost control due to the blocking of the fuel valves. In 2015, another Dragon, which was supposed to deliver water and food to the ISS, after launch fell due to the explosion of a helium tank. The Falcon 9 rocket, along with the satellite it was supposed to deliver, exploded in 2016 right on the launch platform. Yes, and landing the first stage of the launch vehicle failed the company is not the first time. Also in 2017, the Dragon truck was unable to dock with the ISS the first time. Not to mention the regular timing of the various SpaceX projects.

The USSR launched much more powerful rockets

It is important to note that the Falcon Heavy is the most powerful rocket that exists at the moment, but not in history. The Soviet Union was actively engaged in the creation of a super-heavy launch vehicle in the 20th century. For example, there were projects such as H-1 and Energy.

The H-1 program in 1960-s suggested the possibility of placing a payload from 90 to 100 t to a low reference orbit, but was not successful. All four starts failed, the rocket exploded due to the unreliable engines. “And when the engines were brought, the project was“ voluntarily resolved ”,” said Moiseyev.

Ionin did not rule out that the project could still be completed. In his opinion, it “was not implemented largely because it lost its political relevance. Both the American and Russian lunar projects were political. And after the Americans landed on the moon, the political significance declined multiple times. Therefore, the H-1 project was closed, ”the expert explained.

But the next project "Energy" was quite successful, said Ionin. The super heavy rocket with a payload in 100 t flew twice: in 1987 and in 1988 year. An even heavier version, Vulkan, was developed, with a payload of up to 200 m. “But the project was closed because the Soviet Union was gone, and the rocket was expensive and was not needed in 90’s Russia’s scanty space program. Keeping everything on standby is an incredible effort, ”explained the source.
“With“ Energy ”it turned out that it was well developed, well done, engines are still used. But a lot of money was spent on this rocket, but they didn’t make payloads on it, they didn’t have enough money, ”Moiseyev said.

In Russia, a super-heavy rocket should be expected not earlier than the end of 2020's

In modern Russia, however, the situation with super-heavy rockets is still not so good, and here Musk, with his first launch of the Falcon Heavy, is certainly far ahead.

Russia declared that it would create a super-heavy rocket, it is necessary for the program for the development of deep space, said Ionin. According to him, the launch can tentatively take place at the end of 2020's.

Moses said that we are considering the creation of a super-heavy carrier by the year 2028. In the meantime, a few years has been given to the conceptual design, the “paperwork,” he explained.

However, while there are discussions, it is necessary, the expert pointed out. “So far no money has been allocated for it, only for one node - the Soyuz-5 rocket, and even that is in question. Some loads for the rocket are not visible, not designed, ”he stressed. In his opinion, the situation is similar to Energia - they are going to make a rocket, “and why it is needed, no one can really say.”

By the way, one of the variants of such a rocket received the designation "Energy-3В", and in it, respectively, uses the developments of the old Soviet project.
Author:
Originator:
https://vz.ru/world/2018/2/7/907115.html
245 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Cannonball
    Cannonball 10 February 2018 15: 22
    +5
    And what will be launched on super traction? Is there any payload for him? Now there is nothing to run. So - a soap bubble, and not an achievement. The same as the notorious "reusability" and "cheap" electric car.
    1. Mar.Tirah
      Mar.Tirah 10 February 2018 15: 24
      0
      I wanted to commit a scam of the century. It didn’t work. Unlike the average man in the space industry, not amateurs work. Only the Russian Protons: NASA refused the new rocket Ilona Mask.https: //tsargrad.tv/news/tolko-rossijskie-p
      rotony-v-nasa-otkazalis-ot-novoj-rakety-ilona-mas
      ka_110170
      1. Cannonball
        Cannonball 10 February 2018 15: 28
        +10
        NASA refused not to launch, but to use it in a test launch. The risk of losing the payload in case of failure is too great.
        1. The comment was deleted.
      2. nickname7
        nickname7 10 February 2018 18: 02
        +9
        The liberal public is just a holiday, they are happy. Space X, humiliated Roscosmos. Interestingly, these channels "rain", etc. mislead their adherents and humanitarians, proclaiming that reusability is to such an extent, a revolution that God forbid, the future has already arrived. You can at least watch Wikipedia. Falcon rocket mass 1.4 thousand tons. into a low orbit, in a one-time version displays 63.8 tons. and reusable 30 tons. And 30 tons, you can bring out another, one-time rocket, 2 times less and cheaper.
        Reusability is an option, if the client wants to pay twice as much, then the steps will return and they will still dance, but for the money. And who wants to save Falcon will deliver the goods in a one-time mode. There are no revolutions here. And misleading is not good.
        1. Hlavaty
          Hlavaty 10 February 2018 19: 08
          0
          Quote: nickname7
          And misleading is not good.

          I agree.
          But from the Russian side there is some incomprehension:
          “With Energy, it turned out that it was well worked out, beautifully made, the engines are still in use. ...
          Russia declared that it would create a super-heavy rocket, it is necessary for the program for the development of deep space, said Ionin. According to him, the launch can tentatively take place at the end of 2020's.

          If Energy has already been made, then why not use (develop) it? Why is it necessary to recreate a rocket? Sawing a budget?
          1. 113262a
            113262a 10 February 2018 19: 35
            +3
            Legs just pull on clothes! The whole Union worked for Energy, thousands of factories and institutes! Even the Lugansk Engineering Institute conducted the topic on composites and thermal insulation, in Chasov Yar and Severodonetsk they did! These are only those topics that I know and somehow participated! )) And now, only Russian enterprises and design bureaus, many drawings and technical processes have simply been lost. After all, most of them were on paper! Tracing-blues! Yes, and those mountains of equipment unique to the production of its parts, too, have not been preserved, stupidly in black metal 90s delivered!
          2. figwam
            figwam 10 February 2018 19: 50
            0
            But the lighting of the car and the mannequin bothers me. One camera shows that the interior is dark, and at the same time it’s very light on the other, how can this be? You can easily prove that all this was shot in a studio using chromakey.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 11 February 2018 12: 33
              +2
              Quote: figvam
              You can easily prove that all this was shot in a studio using chromakey.

              Stanley Kubrick
          3. Vadim237
            Vadim237 10 February 2018 19: 52
            0
            The price of the issue of bringing the Energy rocket back to life is some 600 billion rubles.
        2. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 11 February 2018 15: 51
          0
          Quote: nickname7
          in a one-time variant displays 63.8 tons

          63,8 tons is a calculated figure. In real life, such a load will not be output, there will not be enough strength. The load will be easier.

          But to higher orbits.
        3. karabas-barabas
          karabas-barabas 13 February 2018 20: 37
          +1
          The whole revolution of the Mask missile program is the cost of delivering goods into orbit, and not the load-bearing records. Reusability of steps just contributes to lower prices. Musk is generally handsome, makes the coolest and in some ways the best cars in the world (Tesla does not have time to satisfy demand and the annual growth is huge), showed Roscosmos and NAZA how to approach the matter, in addition, he is busy developing fully autonomous robot cars. It is better to take a closer look at how much of the budget is spent on Roscosmos and how efficiently and then it will not immediately become Mask.
      3. Vladimir 5
        Vladimir 5 12 February 2018 12: 30
        0
        Musk, this is a comprehensive breakthrough program, secretly funded by state money and full diverse support, like Silicon Valley and others. The performance is not bad, because it is not heavy with long-term parasitic layers. It is possible for us to create fresh structures without bureaucratic and corruption ballast.
        1. Conserp
          Conserp 12 February 2018 14: 36
          +1
          Quote: Vladimir 5
          Musk, this is a comprehensive breakthrough program

          Breakthrough where - to the budget trough?

          Vasilieva and Mavrodi - also breakthrough and with good performance?

          // Where are you getting from.
          1. karabas-barabas
            karabas-barabas 13 February 2018 20: 47
            +2
            Quote: Conserp
            Breakthrough where - to the budget trough?
            Vasilieva and Mavrodi - also breakthrough and with good performance?


            Of course, you must have talent in order to put the Mask on a par with Vasilyeva and Mavrodi! :))
            1. Conserp
              Conserp 14 February 2018 16: 27
              0
              You're right. Mask with accomplices:
              1) plunders an order of magnitude more
              2) never sits down
              1. karabas-barabas
                karabas-barabas 25 February 2018 14: 55
                0
                1.) You lie shamelessly, because you have no evidence.

                2.) Neither Vasilyeva nor Taburetkin were sitting, after the performance for the zombie hunter's consumers, this thief was transferred to a more bold post.)) Musk would have stolen at least a penny of the Amer’s budget would have received a term of 900 years, as they like ..
                3.) When Putin’s supporters and self-proclaimed patriots litter Mask, it’s undisguised envy and very dumb and bastard behavior.
                1. Conserp
                  Conserp 25 February 2018 23: 07
                  +2
                  You are simply extremely ignorant and illiterate.

                  You can continue to believe in the holy Mask and that $ 300 million launches are "cheap."

                  Pulling together “patriotism” and “Putin” is a typical reaction of a sectarian whose brain wedges from a clash of fantasies with hard reality.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. Conserp
                      Conserp 27 February 2018 00: 18
                      +1
                      Yes, it’s clear that there is nothing to argue - all that remains is to roll up tantrums and insult.
    2. andrej-shironov
      andrej-shironov 10 February 2018 15: 41
      0
      Early! To draw such conclusions early! Technologies do not stand still, as do the needs for the development of something. It’s just that liberal capitalism itself stamps only mundane consumers and not dreamers who are eager for stars.
      1. nickname7
        nickname7 10 February 2018 16: 56
        +3
        The technology of chemical rockets is already standing still, as it has reached its limit. Space exploration is necessary, but research is going on. An obsession with missiles and this PR of dubious reusability, makes it difficult to see that in addition to missiles, we also need spacecraft, observatories, rovers, etc. In the West, there is little public relations on devices, but they have this direction is widely developed, unlike the Russian Federation. The Russian missiles are already doing good, you have to send the lunar rover to the moon.
        1. andrej-shironov
          andrej-shironov 10 February 2018 19: 30
          +1
          smile How would you explain this to a young man, because judging by the comments you are young. So far, only chemical missiles can lift a load from the Earth’s surface into orbit. This is a technological limitation, if you do not suddenly notice. Of course, these technologies have come to the edge. no one argues with that. That's just about missiles in our country you are behind, we are systematically losing ground in this competency. And the lunar rover is not an end in itself; there have already been a lot of them.
        2. mikle1999
          mikle1999 10 February 2018 20: 23
          +2
          If you write on one sheet of paper the cost of a "dry" rocket and the cost of kerosene / oxygen, which are poured into it at startup, then you will immediately understand the interest in reusable use.
          1. Conserp
            Conserp 14 February 2018 16: 44
            0
            And if you write next to other expenses for each launch and calculation of the cost per kilogram of cargo, it suddenly turns out that such reusability is bullshit.

            The formula is very simple: the payload of the reusable option (%) minus the cost of launch costs other than a “dry” rocket (%). It turns out the margin of profitability.

            For example, the launch of the Union is $ 48 million, of which $ 18 million is a rocket. Those. other expenses - 62.5%
            Multiple launch (a la Mask) - 66% of the load.

            66 - 62.5 = 3.5%

            3.5% of the launch of the Union = $ 1.7 million.

            So: just to not be unprofitable a hypothetical reusable Union booster should cost (depreciation, recovery) only $ 1.7 million per launch. And this is the limit of economical reusability, even if the booster is magical and 100% free.

            Obviously, such a figure is not even a fantasy, but a fantasy.
    3. Vladimir 5
      Vladimir 5 10 February 2018 19: 33
      +1
      Musk launched his own expensive car, thereby clogging the common earth space for everyone. It is necessary, with the assistance of the UN and other organizations, to prohibit private and other persons from littering at least in the near-earth space, because when expanding access, individuals and not wait (for flying coffins with bodies and other )
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 11 February 2018 07: 40
        0
        He launched into a heliocentric orbit, next to the asteroid belt will rotate, one more asteroid, one less. But usually they just launch pieces of concrete, aluminum and so on (Mass-dimensional models) Into the near-Earth space, this was the case with two Hangars, Energy, Delta Heavy and so on. Therefore, it is he who monitors purity. And he does not leave garbage from his missiles, the first stage returns, and the second drowns. And not blond in orbit.
        1. Cannonball
          Cannonball 11 February 2018 12: 51
          0
          About the "Energy" of lies. Both launches had a normal payload.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 11 February 2018 15: 49
            0
            Quote: Cannonball
            Both launches had a normal payload.

            In both launches, it was powered by its engines.
            1. Cannonball
              Cannonball 11 February 2018 19: 20
              0
              Neighing. laughing
              Maybe tell me what happened there with their engines. And most importantly - where to go.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 11 February 2018 21: 04
                0
                Quote: Cannonball
                Maybe tell me what happened there with your engines

                The launch of the complex took place on May 15, 1987, with a delay of five hours [2]. Two stages of "Energy" worked out successfully. 460 seconds after the start, Skif-DM separated from the launch vehicle at an altitude of 110 kilometers. The process of turning the spacecraft after separation from the launch vehicle due to an error in switching the electrical circuit lasted longer than the calculated one. As a result, Skif-DM did not enter a given orbit and fell into the Pacific Ocean along a ballistic trajectory.

                From wiki
                Read carefully again.
                separated from the launch vehicle ... along a ballistic trajectory

                That is, Energy in this case was a booster, not a pH. The cargo was not separated in orbit, but only on a ballistic trajectory.
                After resetting the first stage (4 side blocks), the second continued to work until speed was reached slightly less orbital. Retrieval was carried out by engines “Buran” itself, this excluded contamination of the orbits by the debris of the spent rocket stages.
                1. Cannonball
                  Cannonball 12 February 2018 19: 58
                  0
                  Energy is not a booster, but a full-fledged booster. The launch vehicle is not required to deliver the launch vehicle into orbit. Even our “Proton”, when loading a payload into a low Earth orbit, displays it with a perigee below sea level, that is, the trajectory is not orbital, but suborbital. The spacecraft is brought into orbit either by the booster block or by the spacecraft engines.
                  In the case of Skif-DM, the output was to be carried out by the engines of the FSB Skif-DM.
    4. dSK
      dSK 10 February 2018 23: 58
      0
      The Falcon Heavy is becoming the most powerful launch vehicle in the world currently in use. It is planned that the carrier will be able to deliver up to 63,8 tons to a low reference orbit, up to 26,7 tons to a geo-transition orbit, up to 16,8 tons to Mars and 3,5 tons to Pluto.
    5. Photon
      Photon 11 February 2018 11: 09
      +1
      Honestly, I’m sick of hearing this tale of a white bull. We did not create (or shove) a heavy rocket, because there is no load for it. And we can’t create a lunar program because there is no heavy rocket
    6. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 11 February 2018 12: 32
      0
      Quote: Cannonball
      Nothing to run now

      Falcon 9 does not extend a number of complex orbits (including direct launch to GSO) and launches into deep space. This one can.
      1. Cannonball
        Cannonball 11 February 2018 12: 53
        +1
        "Proton" it can already 50 years.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 11 February 2018 13: 00
          0
          Quote: Cannonball
          "Proton" it can already 50 years.

          Proton with a frigate.
          Of the two stages, only hydrogen stages EELV used to do this.
          1. Cannonball
            Cannonball 11 February 2018 19: 23
            0
            Do not write nonsense. "Frigate" to "Proton" well, generally not by any side.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 11 February 2018 21: 06
              0
              Quote: Cannonball
              "Frigate" to "Proton" well, generally not by any side.

              You're right, typo.
              Breeze was meant.
              1. Cannonball
                Cannonball 12 February 2018 20: 01
                0
                Actually, there are already three “Breezes” - “Breeze-K”, “Breeze-KM” and “Breeze-M”. The first two are for Rokot, For Proton and Angara-A5 - only Breeze-M.
  2. andrej-shironov
    andrej-shironov 10 February 2018 15: 24
    +23
    Well, why are the authors happy? Modern Russia also failed to surpass Soviet missiles. Because the current government is not able to build its own. Only Rogozin distributes trampolines. Soon we ourselves will need trampolines. Mask at least something launches and promotes technology, unlike Roscosmos.
    1. Cannonball
      Cannonball 10 February 2018 15: 26
      +1
      And power has never built a rocket. Rockets are built by engineers and workers.
      Mask has money, Roskosmos does not. This is the reason.
      1. andrej-shironov
        andrej-shironov 10 February 2018 15: 38
        +16
        Come on! Again, is it not the power and Putin that Roskosmos has neither money nor competent specialists? Do we need such power? Everywhere you stick it is not responsible for anything! Well, just a feast of spirit! wink Schaub, I lived and got loot and didn’t answer for anything!
        1. SpaceCom
          SpaceCom 10 February 2018 17: 03
          +1
          Stop blaming the authorities for everything you see! Any successful company should be primarily focused on profit from the use created by her commercial product. And our space companies are just waiting for the next tranche from the authorities in order to carry out work on a specific contract, and then even though the grass does not grow! The tasks of power and the tasks of business are slightly different things. And you argue, as in "developed" socialism: the government should provide all with competent specialists, the purpose of existence and the meaning of life.
          1. Cannonball
            Cannonball 10 February 2018 17: 17
            +2
            Our firms sit without money. And without money, it is not possible to do anything. You can’t even buy printer paper. Missiles must first be done, tested. And only then they become a commercial product. And setting up production and testing costs a lot of money that billionaires have, but not at our firms.
            1. SpaceCom
              SpaceCom 10 February 2018 18: 16
              0
              Missiles must first be done, tested. And only then they become a commercial product.

              And then come up with what for they are generally needed ... In Russia, there are already at least two carriers that have far from exhausted their modernization resource. There is not enough load for them, and we are all trying to create new ones with vague tasks. So no money is enough! It would be better to modernize existing media, mainly with the aim of reducing their cost. At the same time remembering that money is earned mainly by spacecraft! Here on their creation and direct all efforts!
              1. Cannonball
                Cannonball 10 February 2018 19: 10
                0
                How much can you upgrade an old cart? Moreover, there is practically no resource left for modernization.
            2. andrej-shironov
              andrej-shironov 10 February 2018 19: 36
              0
              smile I here someone Turbris with foam at the mouth claimed that corporations decide everything! And they can launch even a cart into space! Of course, I doubted and doubt that this is so, for several reasons, but you see the same opinion wink
            3. Cormorants
              Cormorants 13 February 2018 11: 10
              0
              I agree that a lot of capital is concentrated in the hands of the oligarchs, they just need to show the right way to use them, that is, investments - but there are no fools to invest in unattractive projects.
              1. karabas-barabas
                karabas-barabas 13 February 2018 21: 01
                0
                And who made Russia unattractive for investment?
          2. andrej-shironov
            andrej-shironov 10 February 2018 19: 33
            +2
            Quote: SpaceCom
            Stop blaming the authorities for everything you see! Any successful company should be primarily focused on profit from the use created by her commercial product. And our space companies are just waiting for the next tranche from the authorities in order to carry out work on a specific contract, and then even though the grass does not grow! The tasks of power and the tasks of business are slightly different things. And you argue, as in "developed" socialism: the government should provide all with competent specialists, the purpose of existence and the meaning of life.

            smile Voooot! You yourself have flown to your passage! It is profit! No dream, no ideals, no curiosity, etc, only loot! I reason as a person worried about Russia and not about business and power. I did not want to give a damn about them with such an attitude to the motherland.
            1. karabas-barabas
              karabas-barabas 13 February 2018 21: 08
              0
              Quote: andrej-shironov
              It is profit! No dream, no ideals, no curiosity, etc, only loot!


              Salvage helps self-sustain projects and move progress. And where did you get the idea that engineers with excellent salaries do not have such motivation as a dream and curiosity in the design of rockets? Do you think the impoverished engineer has more motivation, or some ideals? Yes, take the same Mask, which has already made its second dream a reality, on the approach of the 3rd, unmanned vehicles.
              1. andrej-shironov
                andrej-shironov 14 February 2018 08: 54
                0
                I mean, a person for an idea works much more productively than a person for a salary! Nobody says that engineers have no dreams or curiosities, but if the principle of economic efficiency / expediency is at the forefront, there will not be much benefit from such a thing. Liberal capitalism has shown this clearly. You did not notice that even 50-60 years ago there were much more breakthroughs in scientific research and engineering design, because there were antipodes of the USSR and the USA, which made them compete and moved technology forward by leaps and bounds. And now, pseudo-technologies revolve only around cell phones, simply increasing their functionality. Exaggerated of course, but in general, I think you understand.
                1. karabas-barabas
                  karabas-barabas 25 February 2018 15: 12
                  0
                  Quote: andrej-shironov
                  but if the principle of economic efficiency / expediency is at the forefront, there will not be much benefit from such a thing.

                  Something is being developed for something. It is the task, the goal and, as a consequence, the correct approach to it, technology, education and qualification that promote progress. The idea of ​​the Mask is to reduce the cost of cargo delivery into space and is an end in itself that will promote other developments. Even if it’s not about commercial flights, like putting satellites into orbit, but about a mission to the moon, Mars. Without an economic component, such a project will be very difficult to promote. After all, the main sponsor of such an expensive mission will be the participating states, that is, their taxpayers. And if you take the side of the creators themselves, designers, engineers, programmers and other specialists, then they need such an atmosphere that they can concentrate on their work, so that they don’t have a headache on how to feed the family, or rather me west, where I will get 10 times more and so on. You are probably a Stalinist communist and you want to make engineers under Stalin force them to do their job under pain of death, but these times are forever gone.
                  1. Conserp
                    Conserp 25 February 2018 23: 10
                    +1
                    Quote: karabas-barabas
                    The idea of ​​the Mask is to reduce the cost of cargo delivery to space

                    Reduce the cost by bringing the launch cost to more than $ 300 million.

                    The sectarians from the Church of the Witnesses of the Mask are so interesting that the brain works. Rather, it does not work.
                    1. karabas-barabas
                      karabas-barabas 26 February 2018 21: 30
                      0
                      You have nothing left to do except to jerk and carry any nonsense. Mask 64 tons cheaper orbits than Roscosmos 20 tons, all figures are publicly available.
                      1. Conserp
                        Conserp 27 February 2018 00: 21
                        0
                        I have given the figures, the amount of NASA contracts is in the public domain.

                        You can lie and throw tantrums as much as you like, but this will not change a simple fact:
                        Roscosmos launches Protons for $ 65-80 million, and Musk Falcons for $ 160-320 million.
        2. Cannonball
          Cannonball 10 February 2018 17: 13
          +2
          It depends on which specialists. There are missiles, but they are kept on a starvation diet. Hence the result.
      2. tol100v
        tol100v 10 February 2018 17: 32
        +1
        Quote: Cannonball
        And power has never built a rocket. Rockets are built by engineers and workers.

        Build and more like Build! Yes, and now builds! For me it’s better to have 1000 “Caliber” and a couple of hundred “Zircons” than one - two to the Moon and Mars !!! Let them wait! (Moon and Mars), it will be better and more reliable! And with the convertibles, let them do Masks, with great involvement of the Show (Bernard)!
        1. Cannonball
          Cannonball 10 February 2018 19: 12
          0
          Better still, 10000 copies and 100000 batons.
          The authorities cannot build anything a priori.
        2. linkor11
          linkor11 10 February 2018 22: 42
          +2
          tol100v - In how red-brown aggressiveness has surged in you. Yes, with people like you the nuclear missile Apocalypse will not happen today or tomorrow.
          1. forty-eighth
            forty-eighth 11 February 2018 05: 18
            +2
            Apparently, this hatred of humanity has developed against the backdrop of multiple childhood mental injuries. Do not make people sick, otherwise hysteria will begin
        3. karabas-barabas
          karabas-barabas 13 February 2018 21: 11
          +1
          Of course, why Russia needs its electric cars, its televisions, mobile phones, machine tools and a bunch of other things, when it’s better to burn to hell in a nuclear inferno!
      3. karabas-barabas
        karabas-barabas 13 February 2018 20: 59
        0
        Quote: Cannonball
        Mask has money, Roskosmos does not.


        It turns out that Roskosmos has no money !!! ?? In my opinion there are all sorts of state subsidies more than an order of magnitude. annually than the state of the mask. Yes, take, shake the top ten most important and responsible, for the presence of real estate, accounts, stocks and parades, and look at the rocket enough.
        1. Cannonball
          Cannonball 13 February 2018 22: 44
          +1
          Facts in the studio, or your mouth shut.
          By the way, your Musk on Tesla for 2014-2016 at 1,955 billion dollars in net loss of earnings. The genius of management, damn it. laughing
          And the machine turned out to be very mediocre - a ё-mobile in the US style.
          1. karabas-barabas
            karabas-barabas 25 February 2018 15: 26
            0
            Quote: Cannonball
            2014-2016 at $ 1,955 billion in net losses

            Quote: Cannonball
            2014-2016 at $ 1,955 billion in net losses


            And who cares besides you ?? Maybe shareholders, investors ??? Maybe he does not pay salaries, but if, then beggarly, like Putin's oligarchs? Tesla's sales are growing so that they can’t cope with the products, the price of Tesla is like that of the C-Class. Tesla cache $ 3,4 billion, what are the losses ?? Yes, there were losses at the initial stage; raising a car concern is not Khukhra-Mukhra.

            Quote: Cannonball
            And the machine turned out to be very mediocre - a ё-mobile in the US style.


            Well, yes, of course, the ё-mobile in the United States!)) How much bile and envy. Apparently sales records due to the stupidity of those who buy this "direct" machine. Ask those who are in the subject and they will tell you that in terms of quality, processing and functionality, Tesla is at the very top. In addition, over 10 years of operation, for example, in the EU, where fuel is 1-1,5 € per liter, you can save many thousands of €, except for gasoline, also at the service, since no oil, no belts, nothing needs to be changed on it . Well, for those who like to quickly drive Tesla, a very cool device, with its 3,4s per 100km / h.
            1. Cannonball
              Cannonball 25 February 2018 19: 48
              +1
              That is, in addition to liberal crap, there is nothing technically competent to object. The drain is counted.
    2. Bouncer
      Bouncer 10 February 2018 15: 26
      +15
      Very well noticed
  3. groks
    groks 10 February 2018 15: 50
    +2
    Well, technically and financially, but for a private company - a step forward and a very good step. And do not compare with the USSR, it is not, and the Russian Federation is backing up in this.
    There are no problems, although ours seem to have gathered on the moon?
    1. tol100v
      tol100v 10 February 2018 17: 36
      0
      Quote: groks
      There are no problems, although ours seem to have gathered on the moon?

      And the SGA, supposedly returned?
      1. karabas-barabas
        karabas-barabas 13 February 2018 21: 18
        0
        What is SGA? USA? So they gathered on Mars and have been working in this direction for a long time.
        1. Cannonball
          Cannonball 13 February 2018 22: 45
          0
          A flag in his hands, a drum on his neck, a bugle ... well, they’ll find where to put it.
        2. Negro
          Negro 13 February 2018 23: 37
          0
          Quote: karabas-barabas
          What is SGA?

          Famous in certain circles, A. Wasserman calls it the United States of America
          1. karabas-barabas
            karabas-barabas 25 February 2018 15: 33
            0
            And, well, of course, once in certain circles, and even Wasserman ...
    2. nickname7
      nickname7 10 February 2018 18: 19
      +5
      If Musk built these missiles in the African savannah, it would have been a private company, but he used technology, engineers, and state capital. A more accurate expression would be that this American civilization built, which is without a doubt, high-tech and developed. They are so rich that with cuts and kickbacks, they achieve a result. But the Russian Federation, to achieve results, can with the concentration of resources and with the social system. Down with capitalism and on to Mars.
  4. Lexus
    Lexus 10 February 2018 16: 23
    +2
    Alas, it was not possible to overcome the extremely high accident rate at N-1. A lot of small taxiways in the first stage, of course, captivates with the ability to unify units and assemblies with smaller launchers, but it greatly complicates their management and synchronization of joint work.
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 10 February 2018 16: 59
      +2
      Quote: lexus
      but it greatly complicates their management and synchronization of collaboration.

      N-1 ruined the “backward conceit” of the country's leadership - they wouldn’t have chased after fairy tales, they would have brought the rocket to mind, and would have flown to the moon, and would have proved the falsity of storytellers. And so actually bought for cookies wassat Moreover, we had real operating time and connections, and much more experience in long flights at that time. Oh yes, and the toilets were also laughing
      1. vlad007
        vlad007 10 February 2018 22: 42
        0
        Quote: Rurikovich
        ... and would fly to the moon

        They flew more than once - Lunokhod1 and Lunokhod2 successfully worked there.
    2. tol100v
      tol100v 10 February 2018 17: 42
      +1
      Quote: lexus
      , but it greatly complicates their management and synchronization of collaboration.

      The laws of Thermo- and Hydrodynamics were in conception and did not succumb to slide rules! Thanks to Keldysh, the Queen and the Hundreds and Thousands of Engineers and Designers who created Our Nuclear Shield, from which everyone has diarrhea!
      1. Lexus
        Lexus 10 February 2018 21: 59
        0
        Thanks to Keldysh, the Queen and the Hundreds and Thousands of Engineers and Designers who created Our Nuclear Shield, from which everyone has diarrhea!

        I totally join you! hi
  5. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 10 February 2018 16: 25
    +4
    Neither in 2020, nor at a later time, will Russia create anything of the heavy carriers like those created by Musk. And they won’t create it later. Everything - the "train is gone" and forever. In Russia, the real space program is over, it remains only to "be proud" of the RD-180 ....
    1. tol100v
      tol100v 10 February 2018 17: 48
      +2
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      And they won’t create it later. Everything - the train is gone

      The train left? Can we transfer to another mode of transport?
    2. vlad007
      vlad007 10 February 2018 22: 50
      +2
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      Neither in 2020, nor at a later time, will they create anything of the heavy carriers of the kind created by Musk in Russia.

      Cosmonautics PILED IN RUSSIA !!! That's when Musk will bring at least one astronaut into orbit, you can talk about his achievements. Today the reality is this: NASA banned the Mask manned flights to Falcon 9 until the 2019 of the year - Mask rockets are the only ones in the World after AFTER landing the crew, everyone is refueling BEFORE - this, NASA recalls, is a gross violation of safety rules.
      The dragon is still a miracle, it does not have shunting engines and cannot dock to the ISS itself; it is docked with the ISS MANIPULATOR.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 10 February 2018 23: 18
        +1
        The manipulator is much easier to dock.
        1. vlad007
          vlad007 10 February 2018 23: 27
          +2
          Quote: Vadim237
          The manipulator is much easier to dock.

          "Easier" is not always more reliable. So what's the problem, why aren't they sending crews to the ISS on Dragon?
          Write reasonably; it’s not interesting to read general phrases.
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 11 February 2018 07: 47
            0
            NASA requires reliability many times higher than the Unions. Mask and Boeing engineers are trying hard to fulfill these excessive Wishlist. And so the first Dregon can now begin to carry astronauts, only his reliability does not fit into NASA's new standards.
            1. Cannonball
              Cannonball 11 February 2018 12: 55
              +1
              Dragon cannot carry astronauts. This is a cargo ship.
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 11 February 2018 10: 02
            +1
            At first there is no life support system - since it is just an unmanned truck.
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 11 February 2018 10: 59
              0
              But he has a system.
              "Environmental Control
              All aspects of the Cabin Environment can be controlled on Dragon. Air Circulation is provided by several fans and sensors provide atmosphere measurements. Internal Temperature and be adjusted between 10 and 46 degrees celsius. Internal Humidity and also be regulated within a range of 25-75% Relative Humidity. The Capsule is pressurized up to 14.9psi and the pressure can be actively controlled as well. "
              http://spaceflight101.com/spacecraft/dragon/#wj5D
              QUf39Vyxxfz7.99
          3. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 11 February 2018 12: 38
            0
            Quote: vlad007
            Write reasonably; it’s not interesting to read general phrases.

            NASA's security protocols, which have finally come off reality in recent times. Previously, they were not such bastards.

            It is believed that NASA bosses are either enchanting underpants or trampolines they still managed to bring them. They will continue to launch people into Unions (80M per ticket, it seems) until Roscosmos dies someone sooner or later.

            Quote: Vadim237
            and the first is not a life support system - since it is just an unmanned truck.


            Is.
            1. Town Hall
              Town Hall 11 February 2018 12: 46
              0
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              It is believed that NASA bosses are either enchanting underpants or trampolines they still managed to bring them. They will continue to launch people into Unions (80M per ticket, it seems) until Roscosmos dies someone sooner or later.



              This is part of the initial agreements on the ISS, simply. Otherwise, there was nothing for trampolines to do there if they had taken away


              Plus, this year and next year, the carriage is free. Thus, Roscosmos repays Energy debts to the Boeing for the Sea Platform. There they sued 240 evergreens of evergreen Energy .. they pay in such kind
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 11 February 2018 13: 03
                0
                Quote: Town Hall
                In this way, Roscosmos repays Energy debts to the Boeing for the Sea Platform. There they condemned 240 lyam of evergreen Energy .. they pay in such kind

                I know. It turns out that NASA is pulling with the certification of manned ships so that Boeing repulsed the money (since these tickets didn’t fall to Boeing himself). Scum.
                1. Town Hall
                  Town Hall 11 February 2018 13: 24
                  0
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  I know.




                  Otherwise, it was necessary to bankrupt. Roskosmos didn’t have that kind of money. And there the Energy RD-180 didn’t deliver yet. There wasn’t a moment for bankruptcy.


                  The scheme is more complicated there. At NASA, EMNIP, the direct contract with Roscosmos was for the delivery of astronauts initially. At NASA, the contract was with the Boeing (well, with the space concern where the Boeing is. I don’t remember the name, Mask rivals). And they agreed with Roskosmos
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 11 February 2018 13: 28
                    0
                    Quote: Town Hall
                    with a black sheep how to bask

                    This is not NASA's problem.
                    1. Town Hall
                      Town Hall 11 February 2018 13: 40
                      0
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      Quote: Town Hall
                      with a black sheep how to bask

                      This is not NASA's problem.



                      As far as I remember, in paying off this debt of 240, Roscosmos pledged to deliver 5 people to the ISS, which would cost 400 in other circumstances
  6. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 10 February 2018 16: 28
    +4
    Um what What was the point of creating a package of many low-power (relatively, of course) engines, if the "exclusive" nation has a simpler, even, as many claim to be successful, example with the "Saturn 5". And so they froze with the layouts of many engines, like the USSR at one time. So, we draw conclusions, the powerful American F-1 is a myth !!! laughing Even if you sing songs that the documentation has been lost (okay, loshars will swallow) and technology, too, the question is - why not use the Saturn-5 with Houston to copy the engine? After all, the 21st century is in the yard, with iPhones we walk. But all of a sudden the country refuses a powerful engine and switches to less powerful in conjunction with TTU (Space Shuttle program) request And, most importantly, what excuses - there is no need for such a powerful engine. laughing Yes, and indirectly the issue of toilets is suddenly solved - when the Americans wrote in diapers and pooped into plastic bags, they knew how to create superheavy rockets with powerful engines, and as soon as they made a toilet, which REALLY allows for multi-day flights, they suddenly began to fly on powder boosters coupled with adequate real engines. Some trouble with the logic ....
    So Musk, if he launched something into space, is more or less real, because at least all of his steps are “soaring” from cold fuel, as can be seen in the photo at the beginning of the article ... Unlike the “giant leaps of humanity” "in the form of a flying layout, where only the first step soars

    Homo sapiens will see the lies and draw conclusions that will be different from people who believe in the exclusivity of some over others hi
    PS Moral - Russians fly on what was created in the 60s, because it was real and worked yes Down to the toilets lol
    Personally, my opinion hi


    A simple question arises - why so ???
    1. tol100v
      tol100v 10 February 2018 17: 55
      +2
      Quote: Rurikovich
      . Some kind of trouble with logic ....

      Because LOGIC is not present there! And as if they were promoting their lunar miscarriages, the TRUTH will triumph anyway, and the face will hit the table with the force of a meteorite! You always have to pay for nonsense! Yes, and for the Olympics, probably answer!
    2. Topgun
      Topgun 10 February 2018 19: 46
      +2
      Dear EXPERD, why is the central red barrel not covered with hoarfrost when the shuttle launches?
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nXM3IzxVms
      there is hydrogen and oxygen ...
      well, so you do not strain, I will answer - THERMAL INSULATION.
      Saturn 5 has this on the 2nd and 3rd steps ...
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 10 February 2018 19: 56
        0
        Quote: Topgun
        Saturn 5 has this on the 2nd and 3rd steps.

        Suppose the first stage of Saturn flies back in the atmosphere (although according to NASA, 100 km is clearly no longer an atmosphere with accessible values ​​for the thermal characteristics of the stage body and the stability of insulation). But the second stage of the Mask rocket is actually flying in space - but there is no thermal insulation on it and she’s “hovering” at the start what
        1. Topgun
          Topgun 10 February 2018 20: 12
          +1
          it’s hard for me to judge how the Falcon “hover”, I didn’t look very much, but the photo above was taken from the side where the “communications” are connected (you see the rack that held the rocket — the lower third of the rocket) maybe these are the gas residues from the pipelines .. .
          perhaps there really is poor thermal insulation (I saw an article where they estimated the weight of the 2nd stage at the falcon and it turned out to be sooooo easy - records) because insulation is weight.
          I don’t know how the engineers decided there - without thermal insulation, you will lose fuel because gas will evaporate in the tanks and will be bleed off (rocket engines use liquid fuel), in short, when making a rocket, the engineers make compromises, I don’t know what compromises they made in SpaceX ...
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 10 February 2018 20: 27
            0
            Quote: Topgun
            it’s hard for me to judge how the Falcon “soars”; I didn’t really peer

            So look at the photo in the article wink

            Quote: Topgun
            perhaps these are gas residues from the pipelines.

            Here the keyword is "possible." If you talk like that, any "evidence" of the egg is not worth it .... yes
            Quote: Topgun
            I saw an article where they estimated the weight of the 2nd stage at the falcon and it turned out to be sooooo easy - records)

            But is faith easier to think? That there is no isolation ?? Or will we talk about the "race" over the Moon in the 69th year, thermal insulation of 2 and 3 steps on the "Saturn 5" and saving the Mask ??? wink
            Quote: Topgun
            I don’t know how the engineers decided there - without thermal insulation, you will lose fuel because gas will evaporate in the tanks and will be bleed off (rocket engines use liquid fuel), in short, when making a rocket, the engineers make compromises, I don’t know what compromises they made in SpaceX

            request
            ON Brains wink
            Question - attempts to prove a fairy tale have not yet been tortured lol hi
            1. Topgun
              Topgun 10 February 2018 21: 51
              +3
              I understand that explaining something to you is pointless, all the facts for you:
              Quote: Rurikovich
              any "evidence" eggs gone are not worth ....

              I won’t stop you from thinking that America, Nasa, Roscosmos and all the workers in the space industry in the USSR, including the Soviet cosmonauts, all LIE ...
              1. Rurikovich
                Rurikovich 10 February 2018 22: 00
                0
                Quote: Topgun
                I understand that explaining something to you is pointless, all the facts for you

                smile Just like you hi
                Quote: Topgun
                that America, Nasa, Roscosmos and all the workers in the space industry in the USSR, including the Soviet cosmonauts, all lie ...

                Well ... to each his own hi Having studied many of the pros and cons options at the moment, knowing the official point of view, I can draw certain conclusions for myself. and they are not in favor of the official point of view ...
                Excuse me hi
                PS
                U-tube ... "Astronauts and the Bible" wink smile
              2. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 11 February 2018 08: 12
                0
                Musk said that all consumables at startup, including fuel, cost 200 thousand dollars. With a startup cost of 62 million, fuel loss is an unimportant factor. Plus Musk cools the fuel very much. Once overdone so that it cooled the oxygen to a solid phase, and made a big broads on the launch pad.
        2. Cannonball
          Cannonball 11 February 2018 13: 00
          0
          First stage engines are shut off at an altitude of about 70 km.
          The second stage, in fact, a shortened copy of the first stage, using the same materials, production tools and technological processes, if that.
    3. Vadim237
      Vadim237 10 February 2018 19: 58
      +2
      The lunar epic was even for the USA - damn expensive pleasure, they spent a trillion dollars on it - with modern money Then they didn’t save anything - but now they are saving.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 10 February 2018 20: 49
        +1
        And then what was saved on the toilets? wink We were the poorest and didn’t save, but understood the importance of the idea and physiology of the body. wassat Petty some economists what
    4. vlad007
      vlad007 10 February 2018 23: 51
      +1
      Quote: Rurikovich
      In contrast to the "giant leaps of mankind" in the form of a flying layout, where only the first step soars

      On the Moon Apollo 11 and Apollo 14, 15 installed corner reflectors. They reflect a signal from Earth. And angular reflectors were also installed on our Lunokhods. What do you think?
      1. vlad007
        vlad007 11 February 2018 00: 03
        0
        Corner reflectors installed on the Apollo Moon 11,14,15
      2. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 11 February 2018 09: 02
        0
        Lord, like small children smile Do you really think that in the framework of the hoax, it would not occur to the Americans to deliver corner reflectors to the moon with automatic probes? Moreover, both the USA and the USSR quite successfully launched those to the moon at that time yes
        But if it’s interesting, it’s better to ask why, after the arrival of the Luna-16 capsule with lunar soil, the USSR immediately shared those regolith crumbs from the USA, and the United States did not want to share part of the soil from supposedly almost 400 kg brought by the Apollo "
        Read one of the opinions
        www.aonoprienko.ru/?p=36#more-36
        hi
        1. vlad007
          vlad007 11 February 2018 09: 57
          +2
          Quote: Rurikovich
          Read one of the opinions
          www.aonoprienko.ru/?p=36#more-36


          I read and previously read not only this article - the most authoritative source for me is the Green Cat Blog and publications on the GeekTimes website. My opinion - Authoritative people, for example, our cosmonauts of the old school on this topic do not speak out, and bloggers will write anything to get likes and subscriptions and advertise on their blogs. Loot drives and the Internet.
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 11 February 2018 10: 06
            0
            Quote: vlad007
            My opinion - Authoritative people, for example, our cosmonauts of the old school, do not speak out on this subject.

            Nuuu, astronauts are people of war wink repeat

            Quote: vlad007
            I read and previously read not only this article - the most authoritative source for me is the Green Cat Blog and publications on the GeekTimes website

            I indicated as one of the opinions request There are many opinions. How many people - so many opinions.
            F. Kuts "Is there anything to take from the Apollo heritage?"
            But many opinions are expressed not only by bloggers, but also physicists, engineers yes What, they also can not be trusted, as specialists ??
            Quote: vlad007
            Loot drives and the Internet.

            Loot always steers and everyone. But sometimes they rule the brains with interest and an attempt to get to the truth ... hi
            1. vlad007
              vlad007 11 February 2018 10: 15
              +2
              Quote: Rurikovich
              Nuuu, astronauts are people of war

              Interview A. Leonov
              1. Nulgorod
                Nulgorod 12 February 2018 18: 31
                0
                Leonov is not the only source, and his opinion is not an absolute truth. From the word "completely."
          2. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 11 February 2018 12: 41
            +1
            Quote: vlad007
            for me the Green Cat Blog and publications on the GeekTimes website

            Swim fine. Go to Smoliarm Smolyar, there are serious uncles. And it’s better at the NSF, of course, if you understand fascist.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 11 February 2018 13: 05
                0
                Quote: vlad007
                education you are not spoiled

                There is one. I did not think that you expect academic standards of discussion on this site as a whole and in the "opinions" section in particular.

                Next time I'll put emoticons.
  7. cedar
    cedar 10 February 2018 16: 50
    +2
    "...Naturally, businessman managed to attract the attention of the whole world, not to mention the United States. US President Donald Trump congratulated Musk, saying: "This achievement, together with NASA's commercial and international partners, continues to demonstrate Americans' ingenuity at its best!"

    Let the truck with bananas to Mars launch. This will certainly puzzle the whole world and attract the attention of all ...
    I have one question, who dates all this?
    1. tol100v
      tol100v 10 February 2018 17: 59
      +1
      Quote: cedar
      continues to demonstrate the ingenuity of Americans at its best!

      The ingenuity of the Americans in the “SHOES” of other countries, one should not be surprised at this: initially the Country of Criminals and Hypocrites!
    2. MadCat
      MadCat 10 February 2018 18: 01
      0
      Quote: cedar
      Let the truck with bananas to Mars launch. This will certainly puzzle the whole world and attract the attention of all ...
      I have one question, who dates all this?

      Putin is not otherwise, no one else! wassat
  8. askort154
    askort154 10 February 2018 16: 59
    +1
    I wonder what engine the Americans flew to the moon (if they flew). What is its maximum payload? Why aren’t they using it (or modification) and writing nothing about it?
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 10 February 2018 17: 08
      +4
      And they lost the documentation, and people died, which F-1 collected, and the factories demolished. In short, they can’t wassat Technology, panimash, galloped far ahead bully
    2. tol100v
      tol100v 10 February 2018 18: 01
      +1
      Quote: askort154
      and they don’t write anything about it?

      Nothing to write, all the documentation is lost!
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 10 February 2018 20: 03
        +3
        F1 now doesn’t have any sense whatsoever - heavy, expensive, outrageous fuel consumption - there is: RS 25, RS 68, Raptor, BE 4 - they will fly on them.
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 10 February 2018 20: 29
          +1
          Quote: Vadim237
          F1 now does not make any sense, heavy, expensive, outrageous fuel consumption

          So maybe guns do not make sense - there are railguns and missiles .... what request wink laughing
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 10 February 2018 23: 23
            +2
            Modern cannons - howitzers fire shells - rockets. In general, a comparison of rocket engines and guns is idiocy.
            1. Nulgorod
              Nulgorod 12 February 2018 18: 34
              0
              Idiocy: lose technical documentation on a rocket to a champion (technological record) and throw away the original films, which capture one of the greatest achievements of mankind. In general, so American laughing
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 12 February 2018 23: 31
                +1
                And who said that the documentation was lost - is in the archive.
                1. Nulgorod
                  Nulgorod 13 February 2018 07: 47
                  0
                  Only they can’t find her. The archive is very large: they can’t remember where they put it laughing
                  1. karabas-barabas
                    karabas-barabas 13 February 2018 21: 37
                    0
                    Quote: Nulgorod
                    Only they can’t find her.

                    Where did you get such nonsense? Now we are talking not about how to bring the maximum possible load at a time into orbit, but about how to make delivery as cheap as possible! This is the whole story with Musk and this rocket. Why would they build an ancient rocket again, which by no means rested?
                    1. Nulgorod
                      Nulgorod 13 February 2018 21: 43
                      +1
                      Yes, from NASA itself, and picked up. Stupidity is a contagious thing, and the witnesses of Elon Mask confirm this once again laughing
                      The story is different, but so similar laughing
  9. Varna
    Varna 10 February 2018 16: 59
    +2
    As far as one can understand, Musk uses the entire backlog, experience and specialists of the US space agency. It is not clear why this is for a space agency; probably the mask agency acts as a private pension business - shops for functionaries from the national space agency. If we proceed from this point of view, then the successes (both technical and stock quotes) of the mask become not only explainable, but logical. People who trade Mask shares cannot be blind; stocks are well-quoted due to the availability of information about the inevitability of its success.
    1. tol100v
      tol100v 10 February 2018 18: 07
      +1
      Quote: Varna
      As far as one can understand, Musk uses the whole reserve,

      Pentagon Finance and NASA! And everything looks like private enterprise. Here is just one question: How many secrets did he successfully Spy-Maskil from YUZHMASH in UKRAINE ?!
    2. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 11 February 2018 07: 51
      0
      I’ll tell you a secret, NASA didn’t make rockets before the Mask, they did and they are doing private shops. Boeing, Lockheed, Orbital, etc. Therefore, NASA could not transfer any specialists or any other serious assistance in engines and rockets. This is the property of private shops, to which the competitor has not surrendered.
    3. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 11 February 2018 12: 48
      0
      Quote: Varna
      Mask Stock People

      The mask has no shares, SpaceX did not go public.
      Quote: Varna
      It’s not clear why this is for the space agency.

      Then, that the super-heavy, which is done by the Boeing according to the traditional Costa + scheme (SLS, aka the Senate Launch System), has been done for 15 years, counting from Constellation, and costs $ 40G +
      Musk created a rocket comparable in capabilities for his money (sawn on state contracts, yes), and purely for the fan.
  10. Wildfox
    Wildfox 10 February 2018 17: 21
    +1
    I will not argue with the adherents “there was no Americans on the moon,” I recommend that photo analyzers look for information on rocket science and specifically the cooling of components, then it will become clear why the 2nd and 3rd steps do not “soar” from Saturn and soar from unions and Mask. It is not cold tanks that are overgrown with ice, but the result of the action of evaporation of compressed gases to reduce the external temperature.
    By the way, “Energy” cannot be reassembled again; all the know-how has been collected and destroyed by order of the supreme)) So not only Africans cannot repeat Saturn 5, but the Russian Federation cannot repeat Energy !!! I think the reason is one in order to avoid leakage.
    Here is not so much a question about the need for the withdrawal of heavy loads, but about the range of services offered. Musk covers the entire market for the delivery of goods into space, plus any "loyalty program" and discounts, and Roskosmos only light and medium satellites and still manned launches. By the way, one hundred tastes of Roscosmos lost half of its share in global launches? slid from 53% to 28%?
    Musk dumps and captures the market and this is not a show and all kinds of PR moves there !!! hi
    1. Ace Tambourine
      Ace Tambourine 10 February 2018 17: 42
      +1
      absolutely agree....
      Without going into clarifications, we weren’t, but Musk is not just stepping on his heels, but is already attached to our 5th point ....
      And catching up is always harder and more expensive ...
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 11 February 2018 12: 51
        +3
        Quote: Ace of Diamonds
        but already attached to our 5th point ....

        He tore it to the South African flag, sorry for the intimate details.



        1. Nulgorod
          Nulgorod 12 February 2018 18: 40
          0
          This is the result of an incredibly powerful marketing campaign and huge investments from the Pentagon. With such tools you can unwind anything, and bring at least dildos to world leaders winked
          1. Pingo
            Pingo 27 February 2018 02: 12
            0
            still wrecking by different sixes in the production of Protons and boosters for the Unions, the most valuable thing is still launched on Russian engines and manned only by the Unions (not counting the Chinese).
    2. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 10 February 2018 18: 02
      0
      Quote: WildFox
      I will not argue with the adherents “there was no Americans on the moon,” I recommend that photo analyzers look for information on rocket science and specifically the cooling of components, then it will become clear why the 2nd and 3rd steps do not “soar” from Saturn and soar from unions and Mask. It is not cold tanks that are overgrown with ice, but the result of the action of evaporation of compressed gases to reduce the external temperature.

      Maybe - as a "proof" of the genius of American designers laughing
      but as an alternative point of view proving the "power" of the C-5
      www.manonmoon.ru/articles/st21.htm
      wink hi
      Or do we, "adepts of the sect," believe only those who believe in great America?
    3. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 10 February 2018 18: 04
      +2
      Quote: WildFox
      By the way, the “Energy” cannot be reassembled; all the know-how has been collected and destroyed by order of the Supreme))

      From "Energy" there were at least REAL engines on which REALLY at least something flies into space soldier
      It turns out that the losers really have something, and the winners do nothing to prove their "superiority" wink
      1. Topgun
        Topgun 10 February 2018 19: 55
        0
        for starters, you would ask about the RD-0120 engine on Wikipedia
        according to your logic, no "Energy" existed because this engine cannot be made now ...
        PS: with a live general designer who created this unique engine, you need to spend billions of dollars (5-7) and years (5-10) of labor to recreate the technology - with live designers! With F1 the same story ...
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 10 February 2018 20: 38
          +2
          Quote: Topgun
          to begin with, they asked about the RD-0120 engine on Wikipedia

          This is the engine ... attention ... 2nd stage wink Therefore, your attempts to prove something are equal to zero. The 1st stage is important, as the most powerful one, creating an initial speed for putting mass into orbit! 2nd and 3rd steps only additionally increase the INITIAL impulse laughing The first step is important. And with the engines of it, the Americans, as it turns out now, force majeure.
          Quote: Topgun
          With F1 the same story ...

          This is where we have to start. lol If everything is fine with documentation, technology, and succession, then why does an exceptional nation have such problems ??? Al not a snout in the gun ??? wassat hi
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 10 February 2018 23: 49
            +1
            I wrote above why it will not be produced - F1 has kerosene fuel - liquid oxygen, specific impulse 265 seconds, working time 165 seconds with a weight of 9115 kilograms, thrust-weight ratio of 82,84 for comparison RS 25 liquid oxygen - hydrogen, specific impulse 363 seconds, working time 520 seconds with a mass of 3390 kilograms of thrust-weight ratio of 77,12.
            1. Nulgorod
              Nulgorod 12 February 2018 18: 37
              0
              Why produce something that (de facto) didn't work? wink
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 12 February 2018 23: 33
                0
                It all worked - as it should.
                1. Nulgorod
                  Nulgorod 13 February 2018 07: 48
                  0
                  laughing Googling preliminary test reports lol
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. Conserp
      Conserp 11 February 2018 16: 16
      +2
      Quote: WildFox
      Musk covers the entire market for the delivery of goods into space, plus any "loyalty program" and discounts

      It remains only to close our eyes to the fact that each “commercial” launch of the Mask is subsidized by the state for approximately $ 100 million.

      And Roskosmos brings Russia profit.
  11. Chichikov
    Chichikov 10 February 2018 17: 31
    +1
    Class! In one article, on the same day, one information is posted on the VO: "The American rocket has already hit Russia," in this, completely opposite, first!
  12. svp67
    svp67 10 February 2018 18: 03
    +2
    Mask managed to beat and the collapse of the central block, promising that if the cameras did not explode and managed to fix it, put a video on which, according to him, it would be fun to watch.
    It seems that the issue of losses does not interest the Mask, from the word AT ALL or is it just a game?
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 11 February 2018 07: 55
      0
      He just paid for the entire rocket along with the development. The price of such an advertising company is under a billion. But he could, like ordinary space agencies and companies, launch a metal ingot proudly called a mass-dimensional model and destroy the entire rocket.
      1. Conserp
        Conserp 11 February 2018 16: 17
        0
        Of course, "paid off" - the native American state will pay for everything.
  13. Anyone
    Anyone 10 February 2018 18: 07
    +4
    Quote: Mar. Tira
    I wanted to commit a scam of the century. It didn’t work. Unlike the average man in the space industry, not amateurs work

    Your post is an illustration for a joke:
    Summary of cheers-patriotic comments about the Ilona Mask rocket: The Rotting West, shuddering before the achievements of Russia, launched another PR bauble in impotent spite. What to take from them? There is no spirituality, that’s raging!
  14. viktor_ui
    viktor_ui 10 February 2018 18: 12
    +3
    It’s not sickly so swollen, stomps and sausages NON-ADEPTES ILONA MASK ... wassat wassat wassat
    Ukrainians are proud of the sea they dug ... and the USSR had rockets that were thicker and bigger ... And MASK, how do you like that? And the fact that this is not a complete package of a heavy rocket launcher is launched ... it’s so - crap.
    And why am I not having fun ???
    Adept Ilona Mask and his deeds fellow
  15. Vlad5307
    Vlad5307 10 February 2018 19: 30
    +2
    Quote: viktor_ui
    It’s not sickly so swollen, stomps and sausages NON-ADEPTES ILONA MASK ... wassat wassat wassat
    Ukrainians are proud of the sea they dug ... and the USSR had rockets that were thicker and bigger ... And MASK, how do you like that? And the fact that this is not a complete package of a heavy rocket launcher is launched ... it’s so - crap.
    And why am I not having fun ???
    Adept Ilona Mask and his deeds fellow

    Yes, here is the religious forum of Ilon Mask right - I believe, I do not believe in the genius of Mask. And the fact that only the launch itself turned out to be successful, but the announced launch goal is not m. achieved for technical reasons no one cares! It turned out an expensive bunch and nothing more. So you have to wait for the end of the entire missile program. And the Russian Federation is not up to heavy missiles - there is no commercial market for launching medium and light missiles. And fooling money into space, well, let the Masks do it for now. Counting chickens is still a long way off!
    1. karabas-barabas
      karabas-barabas 13 February 2018 21: 46
      0
      It is possible to believe not to believe in the church, but Musk said-did, and this can be seen and felt.
      1. Cannonball
        Cannonball 13 February 2018 22: 46
        0
        Where can I feel?
        1. karabas-barabas
          karabas-barabas 25 February 2018 15: 36
          0
          And where do unmanned cars experience? In California? Where do Tesla do? And where do they buy them? There are already a lot of them in Moscow. In the end, you can touch the rocket, well, at least see the slack before launch. Or is all this a hoax and computer graphics? Or maybe not Musk created it all?
          1. Cannonball
            Cannonball 25 February 2018 19: 50
            0
            I have not seen one. Although a native Muscovite.
            1. karabas-barabas
              karabas-barabas 26 February 2018 21: 59
              0
              In all of Russia there are only 920 electric vehicles, of which 177 are Tesla. In Germany alone, from January to October 2017, almost 3000 Tesla were registered. I don’t understand. What are you arguing with that the Tesla are going to grab now? This is a fact and you can’t even buy a used one at an adequate price. If you haven’t even seen Tesla live, then what to talk about with you. It is just people who previously use the Audi A6, A7, A8, BMW 5ka, 6ka, 7ka, MB E Class, C Class that take it.
              1. Cannonball
                Cannonball 27 February 2018 20: 05
                0
                We have several dozen electric vehicles at our company. And not one, Karl, Tesla!
                Regarding sales statistics in Russia:
                As of July 1, 2017, the total number of Tesla models sold in Russia amounted to 215 units.
                From January to September 2017, the Russian representative office of Tesla sold 46 electric cars !!!
                Grandiose success laughing
          2. Conserp
            Conserp 25 February 2018 23: 14
            +3
            In Moscow, and buy gold toilets.

            This does not make the golden toilet the pinnacle of progress.

            Tesla is just an electric car assembled on a rather outdated Taiwanese chassis and with standard Chinese batteries.

            "Mask created!" Sectarians are such sectarians.
            1. karabas-barabas
              karabas-barabas 26 February 2018 21: 48
              0
              The more you lie here and show your stupidity, the more visible your golimovy envy. Tell the grandmothers in the neighborhood better about the "Taiwanese chassis" and "Chinese batteries", they will definitely believe you until they check on the Internet!)) It is still unclear what the sectarianism has to do with it ?? This is more likely to apply to those who follow those who, apart from their language, cannot provide any concrete cases. Musk may have in his state all the conditions in order to realize anything.
              1. Conserp
                Conserp 27 February 2018 00: 23
                +1
                Taiwanese electric motors and Chinese batteries are hard facts that are easy to verify.

                Ek of you, a sectarian, something from the truth. And come on with a fart!
  16. Vadim237
    Vadim237 10 February 2018 19: 46
    +3
    "As Musk noted, the entire development of Falcon Heavy cost his company about $ 500 million." Our spend on the Angara 160 billion rubles at least - 2, 78 billion dollars, this is the issue of efficiency.
    1. Mestny
      Mestny 10 February 2018 22: 24
      0
      All of its development lifted a weight of 1.5 tons into orbit, although he tells everyone about 63.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 10 February 2018 23: 52
        +2
        And that - structurally, the missile is designed to raise 64 tons - but now the main thing is to debug the work of 27 engines.
    2. Nulgorod
      Nulgorod 12 February 2018 18: 42
      0
      The whole development: combine ready-made solutions and steam them at exorbitant prices. As it was with Tesla tongue
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 12 February 2018 23: 35
        0
        Ready-made on paper - alas, these are far from being solutions - they become decisions only when they are made in iron, tested and put into serial production.
        1. Nulgorod
          Nulgorod 13 February 2018 07: 50
          0
          Do you admit that the engines of the lunar module worked only on a piece of paper? love
      2. karabas-barabas
        karabas-barabas 13 February 2018 21: 52
        0
        Quote: Nulgorod
        combine ready-made solutions and steam them at exorbitant prices. As it was with Tesla

        Boil in a tri-horn! Brilliant, because the lineup for his Tesla is growing and the waiting period for a new Tesla is at least a year. You see Tesla's customers who rode German limousines before Tesla and, unlike Nulgorod, do not understand how they are bred, that their cars turn out to be combined from ready-made solutions, which the Muscovite impudently took advantage of!
        1. Cannonball
          Cannonball 13 February 2018 22: 48
          +1
          The abolition of tax breaks on the purchase of electric cars in Hong Kong brought Tesla sales to zero. The decision of the government came into force on April 1, 2017, and as a result, not a single new Tesla car was registered in Hong Kong that month.
          1. karabas-barabas
            karabas-barabas 25 February 2018 15: 44
            0
            In Germany, there are no concessions, orders are growing, they are growing everywhere, and there are some tax breaks against people who buy cars for $ 100000. The more you post all kinds of nonsense here, trying to somehow crap the Mask and his Tesla, the deeper you dig yourself.
            1. Cannonball
              Cannonball 25 February 2018 19: 56
              +1
              You are talking nonsense! Read at least the official Tesla profitability materials.
              Links to the financial statements of this company can be found on the Tesla page on Wik.
              1. karabas-barabas
                karabas-barabas 26 February 2018 22: 38
                0
                Well, yes, I looked, Stocks grew by 43%, turnover grew over the year by 50%. I understand we would now talk about some kind of Rover, who has a lot of competition and who the fuck didn’t give up to anyone. But Tesla is very popular, it was from the start of the limousine, and for so many reasons, the most important opportunity to overcome more than 400 km with mixed driving, this has been demonstrated more than once. The popularity of 100% x electric cars is growing, as are sales, and Tesla simply has no competitors.
                1. Conserp
                  Conserp 27 February 2018 00: 17
                  +1
                  Tesla's losses despite abundant government subsidies:

                  2013 - $ 74 million
                  2014 - $ 294 million
                  2015 - $ 889 million
                  2016 - $ 675 million
                  2017 - $ 1960 million

                  Well, a lying sectarian, can you tell me a fairy tale?
                2. Cannonball
                  Cannonball 27 February 2018 20: 10
                  +1
                  Funny, the company is growing, turnover is growing and losses are growing.
                  Electric cars in their current form are a dead end. And there is no smell of ecology here. Yes, the electric car has almost no harmful emissions, however, to obtain electricity for it, a huge amount of coal, oil, gas is burned. And the production of batteries for nature is generally complete at the seams.
        2. Nulgorod
          Nulgorod 14 February 2018 17: 21
          0
          Oh really? And then why is the company in debt, as in silk? And is production idle? Although ... yes! That is why the expectation of a year or more! laughing
          Quote: karabas-barabas
          and unlike Nulgorod, they don’t understand how they are bred, that their cars turn out to be combined from ready-made solutions, which Muscov used brazenly and shamelessly!

          Well, you just don’t understand this. I didn’t know that the batteries in Tesla are the same as in Chinese electropeds And bought from them? lol
          1. Korax71
            Korax71 20 February 2018 13: 40
            +1
            This is all because one should not believe comrade Karmanov.da and he bought batteries for his cars from Panasonic and here, attention !!!!! Made at his factory in Japan. So tell your vysers with Chinese batteries to others. Now Musk, together with Panasonic, is setting up production in the USA. It’s planning to launch at full capacity by the end of 20 years. You only look on the Internet for something that does not contradict your religion.
  17. dgonni
    dgonni 10 February 2018 19: 49
    0
    NEA, it's all a scam. Nothing will be there. Neither Mars nor the moon. No return steps. Purely cartoon;). 2016 the year of the story of a certain brow from Roskosmos :(, for the returning steps and prospects.
  18. Megamarcel
    Megamarcel 10 February 2018 20: 13
    +1
    The whole question is whether Russia will be by 2028. The crisis of power is becoming increasingly apparent. The country is increasingly slipping into stagnation similar to Brezhnev. And what happened after the era of stagnation, everyone remembers.
  19. akudr48
    akudr48 10 February 2018 20: 38
    +5
    Mask failed to outdo the USSR superheavy missiles

    Three authors tried, tried, and overdid it, they outdid themselves.

    In the title they wrote "failed", and in the text a wonderful phrase
    In modern Russia, however, the situation with super-heavy rockets is still not so good, and here Musk, with his first launch of the Falcon Heavy, is certainly far ahead.

    1. So "failed" or still succeeded, and this nasty Mask is "far ahead" of all of Russia, ay, authors, who among you is personally the author of this literary find?

    2. And how to explain this bend or deflection, what In modern Russia, however, the situation with superheavy missiles is not so good? That is, the situation is generally good, not as good as that of Mask, it turns out that way.

    3. If in this just a good situation (but not as good as that of Mask) for an extra-heavy rocket “so far no money has been allocated for it.” Authors, if this is just a good situation, then what will be bad?

    4. And finally, Musk didn’t rejoin with the USSR, at that far time the USSR was just a small child, like not with America, not with Saturn-5, his contemporary, Mask, of his parents. He squeezes the market from everyone in a row, from his own, even more so from strangers, Russia, China and Europe. And he does it.

    5. One should be sober, less talkative, more prepared and more critical in discussions on this subject. I remember and respect the achievements of the USSR in space and in general. But it’s high time to go to space already on their achievements, but they are not in Russia. But there is theft and incompetence of space scales in the space structures of Russia. But let the agents of the State Department write about this, they are afraid of the authors themselves, they pull the best from the words of specialists for their lying compote. Therefore, this incompetent trinity of clerks in a row and invents such fantastic comparisons, such as who is stronger, an elephant or a tank ...
    1. Antares
      Antares 10 February 2018 21: 57
      +4
      Quote: akudr48
      Three authors tried, tried, and overdid it, they outdid themselves.

      sometimes the authors are tasked to belittle the event, to assure the audience of the insignificance and even insolvency of the event. A sort of element of information warfare.
      PR Mask is still built at least on some sort of foundation. Moreover, the image of the oligarch with the dream of space, I did not notice something in the countries, the former. THE USSR. They are much richer than Mask (the Forbes list is teeming with them) but with a dream that they are ready to share with the average man, it’s very tight. Is it possible to envy that they have yachts with girls and caviar ... A larger yacht according to Freud.
      And space is unprofitable.
      In general, only for this the Mask can be respected. Let him make money dreaming of space, people want to believe in conquering space, and not in conquering girls on yachts ... Because conquering space is a feat of all mankind ... and not a fat individual with accessible females.
      So Mask at least respect. To authors of articles, advice. It is better to write an article about dreams in the USSR to pronounce than to prove with foam at the mouth that "The mask is bad, but the USSR has reached." And then it was destroyed and a completely different idea came to Russia.
      I imagine that these authors would write, be it the Russian representative ... Panegyrikov would write a mother do not worry ..
      I personally do not care whose representative (which country) in the framework of the species, we are one, and we have one planet.
      1. Nulgorod
        Nulgorod 12 February 2018 18: 44
        0
        Haha They became rich not because they shared, but because were selling dreams of naive fools. Ostap Bender succeeded. And Musk too. laughing
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 12 February 2018 23: 39
          0
          And the "naive fools" even saved on this - several tens of millions - this is about the guys launching their satellites on Falcon 9.
          1. Nulgorod
            Nulgorod 13 February 2018 07: 52
            0
            For this, some sickly forked so wink
  20. Mestny
    Mestny 10 February 2018 22: 22
    +1
    Quote: Monster_Fat
    Neither in 2020, nor at a later time, will Russia create anything of the heavy carriers like those created by Musk. And they won’t create it later. Everything - the "train is gone" and forever. In Russia, the real space program is over, it remains only to "be proud" of the RD-180 ....

    Throw a weight of about 1.5 tons (a car with a mannequin) into the first orbit that comes across, but at the same time tell everyone that this product lifts 63 tons ...
    Perhaps, Roscosmos will probably not create this.
    But minors do not understand this. They will moan about the real breakthrough of the Mask.
    Well, purely Papuans what - which shines brighter - and that's fine.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 11 February 2018 12: 56
      0
      Quote: Mestny
      into the first orbit

      Um ...
      1. Nulgorod
        Nulgorod 13 February 2018 21: 49
        +1
        Exactly, um. What an orbit, this machine is already approaching Jupiter! laughing
        1. Cannonball
          Cannonball 13 February 2018 22: 49
          0
          From Epsilon Eridan.
        2. Negro
          Negro 13 February 2018 23: 46
          0
          Quote: Nulgorod
          This car is already approaching Jupiter!

          She does not approach Jupiter. Elliptical orbit, aphelion 1,71 AE, perihelion 0,99 AE. The orbit of Mars is 1,666 and 1,381, respectively. That is, a machine in a heliocentric orbit flies slightly beyond the orbit of Mars in aphelion, then returns to the orbit of the Earth at perihelion.
          1. Nulgorod
            Nulgorod 14 February 2018 17: 24
            0
            There is an article on how it reached the orbit of Mars in 2.5 hours. Really how? request
  21. iouris
    iouris 10 February 2018 22: 45
    +3
    A mask is a screen or disguise. Behind the Mask are government agencies. The same can be said about almost all "brilliant managers." Such projects are beyond the power of private owners. It’s just that it’s not customary in the United States to advertise state participation in economic and technological projects, since this is communism. Therefore, the USSR became a great power because no TNC could compare with it in power, and the state did not need to hide from anti-communists.
  22. tigoda
    tigoda 10 February 2018 23: 10
    +4
    NEXT SHADOWY FAILURE USA !!! To the fanfare!
    I read about Falcon Heavy: started! brought Tesla Roadster (1140 kg + 100 kg mannequin) in the direction of Mars. They say it should put 65 kg into orbit of 000 km. BUT! Then 200 kg should fly to Mars. 13 times less !!! This is a disgrace! And what a delay!
    The Russian "Angara-A5" took off on December 23, 2014 - 3 years ago! Launched a payload model weighing 2 kg into geostationary orbit. In terms of an orbit of 000 km, the delivered cargo will be 200 kg with the planned 17 kg i.e. 000% 24 years earlier and 000% instead of 71% of the estimated. THIS IS A FULL FAILURE Mask !!! BUT! The most interesting layout, derived by the Angara, and now you can see through a telescope in orbit.
    Musk would also really like to show his Tesla in orbit with a telescope. Why didn’t you? So ... could not.
    Why say that the load flew towards Mars? And in order not to explain where she is. And it is at the bottom of the sea, because it could not accelerate to 8 km / s. The mask really wanted to show off, but failed. Why such a beautiful fairy tale about a red car? And in a beautiful fairy tale it is easier to believe.
    As for the “reusability”, these are the old rakes on which they “danced” back in the Space Shuttle project. A total of 4 reusable devices 2 died in disasters. I’ll say this about it: "reusable condom use is certainly more economical, but health is more expensive!".
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 10 February 2018 23: 54
      0
      Wheelbarrow fly live.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 10 February 2018 23: 57
      0
      This is a failure for us - and the whole world is delighted, this launch is another nail in the lid of the tomb of our cosmonautics, now we are the second in the space sphere - but this is not for long.
      1. Conserp
        Conserp 11 February 2018 00: 25
        +1
        Enthusiasm among the uneducated, illiterate and meager from the Witnesses Sect Ilon Mask.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 11 February 2018 10: 09
          +1
          Yes, you can see everything: uneducated, uneducated and poor-witted - and you are smart, but smart people, including Roscosmos, will not be able to make such a rocket for another 12-15 years, and even with financing - several hundred billion rubles.
          1. Conserp
            Conserp 11 February 2018 16: 18
            0
            "Like" - which one? Unprofitable?
      2. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 11 February 2018 15: 47
        0
        Quote: Vadim237
        now we are second in space

        How to count. Maybe the fourth (the USA, China, the EU), and maybe the tenth (according to the state of the space industry, both the Netherlands and Luxembourg are ahead, almost New Zealand already).
        1. Conserp
          Conserp 11 February 2018 19: 32
          +1
          To argue that the only power that has manned astronautics, the "second" or some other - can only be mentally ill.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 11 February 2018 19: 53
            0
            Unfortunately, the development of the second, new manned ship if it appears only after 8 years.
          2. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 11 February 2018 20: 51
            +3
            Quote: Conserp
            a manned spaceflight

            But she did not create. I inherited from the USSR.

            Actually, Roscosmos has not done anything in 27 years. Participation in the ISS, perhaps.
            1. Nulgorod
              Nulgorod 13 February 2018 21: 47
              +1
              Not entirely true, but in general ... To create great things, we need a work culture, as in the USSR, and not profit, as it is now. Profits can be made by selling air, the United States confirms this. And Elon Musk too.
  23. internal enemy
    internal enemy 10 February 2018 23: 42
    +1
    Comparison with the USSR is simply incorrect; there is no such country for a long time.
    1. iouris
      iouris 14 February 2018 22: 15
      0
      Quote: inner enemy
      there is no such country for a long time

      The USSR is while there is infrastructure that can destroy the United States. This infrastructure has a space component.
  24. Conserp
    Conserp 11 February 2018 00: 53
    +3
    I’m talking about the masked "reusability".

    Missiles scale almost perfectly, so we take a well-developed Union:
    - launch cost - $ 48 million
    - booster cost - $ 18 million
    - cost of the launch itself, not including the booster = 62% of the total cost of a one-time launch

    Falcon 9 - payload = 66% of the full reusable version.

    Thus, according to the displayed load:
    3 reusable starts = 2 one-time counterparts

    Now, at a cost, we solve the problem:

    3 * 62% + reusable booster (3x) = 2 * 100% one-time

    186% + reusable booster (3x) = 200% one-time

    Booster: return, troubleshooting, restoration and depreciation (1x) = ~ 5% one time launch

    Total: Just to pay off reusable step and all manipulations with it must be bypassed cheaper than 5% the cost of a one-time launch, or 13% of the cost of a one-time booster.

    As far as I know, only after-flight troubleshooting will cost more than this amount and takes six months.

    Even if you put more optimistic numbers (and Falcon Heavy numbers are less optimistic) - reusability is nothing more than a loss-making PR booth.

    That is why, under the tales of “cheap launches”, NASA pays Mask $ 300 + million per launch, paying for “cheap” commercial launches (such as “to compete with Roskosmos”), plus a few billion more subsidies from the government.

    But the citizens of the Witnesses Sect, Ilon Mask, are even pissing in the eye.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 11 February 2018 10: 30
      +1
      NASA does not pay him anything, their budget is limited to 19.5 billion. The mask was previously financially supported, and now it is essentially on its own wallet. "Unprofitable PR booth." - This expression is no more suitable for Roscosmos, since 2000 several trillion rubles have been spent on space from the budget, an absolutely incomprehensible development program - there are only two Cosmodromes as a result - an unfinished and non-flying rocket - the Angara and a ghostly hope for a payback . Recent accidents have led to an increase in insurance costs.
      1. Conserp
        Conserp 11 February 2018 15: 29
        +1
        Quote: Vadim237
        NASA doesn't pay him anything

        Why are you lying?

        NASA paid Mask $ 5.5 billion for 2015.

        If you stupidly divide it into all 48 launches of Falcon 9, you will already get $ 115 million per launch on average.

        But this is only NASA until 2015, and without direct and indirect subsidies, without what Darpa, the Air Force and the other Pentagon gave. After all, only the subsidies to the Mask for the same 2015, the state gave a total of $ 4.9 billion.
        Despite the fact that "commercial customers" pay $ 65 million.

        "Cosmodrome" - unfinished and rocket not a flyer - "Angara"

        Look, drool not drool.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 11 February 2018 15: 45
          0
          Quote: Conserp
          NASA paid Mask $ 5.5 billion for 2015.

          Sorry?
          1. Conserp
            Conserp 11 February 2018 16: 26
            +1
            I forgive you.

            As of 2015, NASA has contracted or pledged to issue the Mask with $ 5.5 billion dollars.

            How many billions NASA has given Mask since then, for already 2018, I am not aware. How many billions were given by Darpa, the Air Force, and so on - I also do not know, I was not interested. But they also gave money.
            1. prosto_rgb
              prosto_rgb 11 February 2018 21: 37
              +1
              Quote: Conserp
              As of 2015, NASA has contracted or pledged to issue the Mask with $ 5.5 billion dollars.

              And under what contracts do not tell me?
              Maybe he should have delivered some sort of cargo into orbit?
              Or was the contract for the appearance of Ilona Mask in the office of NASA?
              He came, he checked in at the entrance - he received $ 5.5 billion at the box office.
              1. Conserp
                Conserp 11 February 2018 22: 59
                0
                Quote: prosto_rgb
                Maybe he should have delivered some sort of cargo into orbit?

                Who cares? This is 5 times more than the declared "$ 65 million per launch," since even at the beginning of 2018, there were only 17 launches for NASA. And not all of the money was calculated.

                Here is such "The commercial success of a private firm that has lost its nose for inefficient public services."

                Musk is essentially an American citizen of Vasiliev. Only he will never sit down.
                1. prosto_rgb
                  prosto_rgb 11 February 2018 23: 03
                  0
                  Quote: Conserp
                  Who cares?

                  and the difference is huge
                  Roscosmos also carries Protons and Unions something to the ISS under contracts with NASA, is it also a citizen of Vasiliev?
                  1. Conserp
                    Conserp 12 February 2018 10: 03
                    0
                    Quote: prosto_rgb
                    Roscosmos also carries Protons and Unions something to the ISS under contracts with NASA, is it also a citizen of Vasiliev?

                    Is Roscosmos stealing from American taxpayers and lying about prices that are repeatedly overstated?

                    Man, are you healthy?
        2. Vadim237
          Vadim237 11 February 2018 15: 49
          0
          It was they who gave him 2015 - and what did they give last year? “Look, do not choke on your saliva” - And what am I choking on - a lot of money was spent on an empty place, one fig is not mine.
  25. Conserp
    Conserp 11 February 2018 01: 00
    +1
    Quote: WildFox
    Musk dumps and captures the market


    Something sparse, he captures the "market". For some reason, the customers are all American military contractors.

    Well, it’s clear that with subsidies of $ 4.9 billion + $ 5.5 billion from NASA (as of 2015), you can punch up from the heart.

    So, state subsidies and government contracts, forged "the great victories of private business over an inefficient state."
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 11 February 2018 08: 00
      +1
      Mask of 18 launches last year, only two military.
      1. Conserp
        Conserp 11 February 2018 15: 21
        +2
        From 18 launches for 2017:
        6 - directly paid in full by the US government (4 NASA, 2 military)
        6 - American military-industrial complex, feeding from the state
        2 - the Tsrushno-NATO offices
        4 - type commercial, but for some reason only American colonies are represented

        All launches, one way or another, in whole or in part, are paid by US taxpayers.

        Roscosmos, who is getting real profit, is already torn up. Laughing.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 11 February 2018 15: 44
          +1
          Quote: Conserp
          4 - type commercial, but for some reason only American colonies are represented

          The main colony seems to be Luxembourg. Nice place.
        2. Vadim237
          Vadim237 11 February 2018 15: 56
          0
          “Roscosmos, who is getting real profit, is already torn up all over. From laughter” - This profit is ten times less than what is spent on it from the budget every year.
          1. Conserp
            Conserp 12 February 2018 10: 13
            +1
            Why are you lying?

            From the budget they spend not on “Roskosmos”, but on space.

            Roskosmos itself brings billions of rubles of profit to the treasury - 9.5 billion for 2017, although it was counted on as much as 52 billion.
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 12 February 2018 23: 49
              0
              And how much did you spend on Roscosmos for 2017? We wanted 52, it turned out 9,5 - but a good failure according to plans.
              1. Conserp
                Conserp 13 February 2018 13: 49
                0
                And you personally, disproportionate insignificance, how many billions have earned for Russia?
  26. gladcu2
    gladcu2 11 February 2018 16: 39
    +1
    Ilon Mask, Ilona in the mask.

    This is a stupid actor who voices texts in most of which he does not understand at all.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 11 February 2018 19: 55
      0
      Understands - much better than you.
  27. cedar
    cedar 11 February 2018 17: 32
    +2
    Quote: svp67
    Mask managed to beat and the collapse of the central block, promising that if the cameras did not explode and managed to fix it, put a video on which, according to him, it would be fun to watch.
    It seems that the issue of losses does not interest the Mask, from the word AT ALL or Is it just a game?


    This is a “just” competitive war in which they are trying to destroy us, like a space power and Musk in this war, if not a fighter, then a bouncer. Given the fact that the United States has from the Russian Federation in the form of indemnity for losing in the ХV from 1 to 2 billion greens a day, the war is being fought against us for our money, and different Masks ... use it. Such is the price of the loss of sovereignty in Russia by Russia, the successor of the USSR, in 1991. Science and economics are reaping the bitter fruits of the Soviet Union’s surrender, space science and practical cosmonautics in particular ...
    See the root. To the stars only through the thorns of Russia's return of sovereignty.
  28. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 11 February 2018 18: 37
    0
    Quote: Conserp
    Total: TO SIMPLY PAY FOR, a reusable stage and all manipulations with it should cost less than 5% of the cost of a one-time launch, or 13% of the cost of a one-time booster.

    As far as I know, only after-flight troubleshooting will cost more than this amount and takes six months.

    1. It is necessary to add losses due to an accident when returning boosters, replacing components of boosters, expenses for the control system when returning, and so on.
    2. Interestingly did Musk use his own money to make a rocket-building plant, test benches, a launch complex, and so on, or use existing ones?
    3. The engineers and workers Mask did not beat any opite in rocket science and if he still beat where and how they got it?
    1. Conserp
      Conserp 11 February 2018 20: 05
      +1
      If you take the same Union and make a hypothetical reusable booster for it, then it should cost only $ 2 million per launch to simply equal the price of a one-time booster. Depreciation, restoration of the booster, additional expenses and so on - everything should meet the pathetic $ 2 million.

      How's that? Should a $ 25 million booster fly off 25 times and recover for only $ 1 million? It's bullshit.

      In reality, even a completely free reusable booster turns out to be unprofitable. And one cannot even dream of profitability.


      Where did Mask from rocket technology, personnel and stands perfectly and verifiably set out by one of our rocketeers (google - very fun reading):
      "Genius or fake: Dmitry Konanykhin about the" pasta monster "Ilona Mask"
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 11 February 2018 20: 56
      +2
      Quote: Kostadinov
      It’s necessary to add losses due to an accident when returning boosters,

      There were none. Initially, it was announced that specifically these 3 boosters would not fly again.
      Quote: Kostadinov
      Is it interesting that Musk made a rocket-building factory on his own money, test benches, a launch complex, and so on, or does he use existing ones?

      The starting complex is old (but the Space equipped it for themselves), the plant and its stands.
      Quote: Kostadinov
      The engineers and workers Mask did not beat any opite in rocket science and if he still beat where and how they got it?

      Missile engineers with experience, of course, but not many. Bought in the market. Basically, there are people of general civilian specialties - programmers, material scientists, electronic engineers, etc. Hired like everyone.
    3. prosto_rgb
      prosto_rgb 11 February 2018 21: 48
      0
      Quote: Kostadinov
      1. It is necessary to add losses due to an accident when returning boosters, replacing components of boosters, expenses for the control system when returning, and so on.

      all this is already included in the prime cost of the launch vehicle at the second launch
      Quote: Kostadinov
      2. Interestingly did Musk use his own money to make a rocket-building plant, test benches, a launch complex, and so on, or use existing ones?

      rocket production - yes, because it’s too expensive to procure on the side, as they planned right away
      stands: part of their own, part of the common NASA-v stands are leased if necessary
      the launch complex is leased from NASA from the very start of launches
      now building up their own spaceport in texas
      Quote: Kostadinov
      3. The engineers and workers Mask did not beat any opite in rocket science and if he still beat where and how they got it?

      key engineers had experience, before that they worked in various aerospace companies, and in the USA there are more than one. but there weren’t so many such people there initially, but nowadays
  29. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 11 February 2018 18: 54
    +2
    Quote: Vadim237
    I wrote above why it will not be produced - F1 has kerosene fuel - liquid oxygen, specific impulse 265 seconds, working time 165 seconds with a weight of 9115 kilograms, thrust-weight ratio of 82,84 for comparison RS 25 liquid oxygen - hydrogen, specific impulse 363 seconds, working time 520 seconds with a mass of 3390 kilograms of thrust-weight ratio of 77,12.

    1. Thrust F-1 three times more obtained. In other words, one F-1 will replace 3 RS 25.
    2. The specific impulse is good, but the fuel has f-1 kerosene, and RS 25 has liquid hydrogen. Liquid hydrogen is an expensive pleasure.
    3. There is no intelligible answer why they did not modernize the most powerful and reliable engine in the world?
    4. If the F-1 is so bad and cannot be used in the future, the Apollo program will turn into a very expensive propaganda show that did not lead to the development of rocketry.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 11 February 2018 20: 11
      0
      The same thing can be asked about our RD 270 - an analogue of F 1, our project is not going to get out of the box, and the United States decided to switch to hydrogen and then to liquefied gas. The time F 1 has passed, the time has come for the new engines of the DRD and YaRD
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 11 February 2018 21: 08
      0
      Quote: Kostadinov
      There is no intelligible answer why they did not modernize the most powerful and reliable engine in the world?

      He did not fit into the Shuttle program.
      Quote: Kostadinov
      If F-1 is so bad and it cannot be used in the future, Apollo turns into a very expensive propaganda show that did not lead to the development of rocketry.

      Maybe you just don’t cut into technology? If you had nothing in the lunar program apart from the 1st stage engine?
      1. Nulgorod
        Nulgorod 12 February 2018 18: 51
        0
        How bad are you in logic, if you do not understand that without the engine of the 1st stage there could not have been everything else? fool
  30. Indifferent
    Indifferent 12 February 2018 15: 13
    +3
    Attors, well, somebody! Explain the success of the Mask with the Company? I am an old school who was taught rocket science back in 1967. And I don’t understand. Where did Musk have a ballast weighing 60 tons on entoy rocket to test rocket dynamics? Not a word about him from a single pido ... (oh, specialist). And where did this ballast go then? There is no test run without ballast. Everyone squeals about a one and a half-ton electric car, which loads goods in warehouses, but a little more beautiful. and with a mannequin instead of the Mask itself and with the name "Tesla". (Poor Mikola, he was dishonored here as well). It turns out all the same as the Americans flew to the moon. They splashed fuel to the first step so that out of sight, out of their hearts, and URE, flew .... Where did they fly, why did they fly, neither Musk himself nor his accomplices know. Either the Tesla electric car intended to drive around Ceres. Or will it ever happen to fall on Mars someday after a couple of million years? As a child, I shot from the slingshot into the sky. JOKER FAR, and not serious preparation for flying to Mars. Oh, how disgusting! How stupid people are!
    1. Cannonball
      Cannonball 12 February 2018 20: 04
      +1
      Even the non-heavy “Angara” brought out 2 tons. And here is a clean bunch.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 12 February 2018 23: 54
      0
      Once again, the design of the rocket was structurally laid to raise 64 tons - but in the first launch the main thing was to check the operation of 27 engines, as well as to make a good and attractive advertisement, and he did it all.
  31. cedar
    cedar 12 February 2018 17: 18
    +2
    Quote: indifferent
    Attors, well, somebody! Explain the success of the Mask with the Company? I am an old school who was taught rocket science back in 1967. And I don’t understand. Where did Musk have a ballast weighing 60 tons on entoy rocket to test rocket dynamics? Not a word about him from a single pido ... (oh, specialist). And where did this ballast go then? There is no test run without ballast. Everyone squeals about a one and a half-ton electric car, which loads goods in warehouses, but a little more beautiful. and with a mannequin instead of the Mask itself and with the name "Tesla". (Poor Mikola, he was dishonored here as well). It turns out all the same as the Americans flew to the moon. They splashed fuel to the first step so that out of sight, out of their hearts, and URE, flew .... Where did they fly, why did they fly, neither Musk himself nor his accomplices know. Either the Tesla electric car intended to drive around Ceres. Or will it ever happen to fall on Mars someday after a couple of million years? As a child, I shot from the slingshot into the sky. JOKER FAR, and not serious preparation for flying to Mars. Oh, how disgusting! How stupid people are!


    Not stupefied. And they were thoroughly blunt, so that they would be painlessly removed.
    With the disappearance from the political map of the world of the USSR, the opposing US side should disappear. This is a dialectic. Moreover, it is burdened with overwhelming debt. There is nothing more to pawn. We observe the dismantling of this window of democracy and freedom in the form of space-based swindles, financial bubbles and the appearance of secret currencies. In these extremely deceitful conditions, Musk objectively cannot "give birth" to a real project, i.e. make the truth.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 13 February 2018 00: 12
      0
      We can’t do this already, for that they can constantly throw promises in the form of creating a new rocket - hundreds of billions of rubles are allocated for this, and then all projects are safely closed on various pretexts, it happened: with Clipper, Rus’s rocket, air launch, MAKS, Baikal, and others - our space can already be considered almost dead, in the future we will not be awakened by commercial launches, as well as manned flights for foreign astronauts to the ISS, on military contracts alone, design bureaus and production will not be extended - it will be necessary to reduce them, perhaps the RD market for foreign companies will remain, but the hope for it is illusory - here you go "Dull"
  32. cedar
    cedar 13 February 2018 05: 32
    +2
    Quote: Vadim237
    We can’t do this already, for that they can constantly throw promises in the form of creating a new rocket - hundreds of billions of rubles are allocated for this, and then all projects are safely closed on various pretexts, it happened: with Clipper, Rus’s rocket, air launch, MAKS, Baikal, and others - our space can already be considered almost dead, in the future we will not be awakened by commercial launches, as well as manned flights for foreign astronauts to the ISS, on military contracts alone, design bureaus and production will not be extended - it will be necessary to reduce them, perhaps the RD market for foreign companies will remain, but the hope for it is illusory - here you go "Dull"


    If we do not get out of the Western antisystem based on total deception and lies, and in the very near future, it will be so. BUT will be not only for Russia, but for the whole World. The brains of the Satanists, with their lunar flights and other spans, have dulled everyone on this planet without exception. With their global lies, they are preparing the coming of the Antichrist, if they have heard of such a thing. For this, they are stupid.
  33. Conserp
    Conserp 13 February 2018 13: 45
    0
    Quote: indifferent
    To what people have stupefied!


    ~ 65% of the US population is mentally retarded according to European clinical standards.

    This is me why American propaganda has become increasingly clumsy in recent years, and Hollywood film production has become dumber, and such Masks and Apple are holding the public for idiots (well, for whom else).
    1. bane's jacket
      bane's jacket 13 February 2018 13: 54
      +1
      Quote: Conserp
      Quote: indifferent
      To what people have stupefied!


      ~ 65% of the US population is mentally retarded according to European clinical standards.

      Long since America? Did you talk to 100 Americans and 65 turned out to be “dumb”? belay
      1. Conserp
        Conserp 13 February 2018 15: 56
        0
        These are statistics from the American education system.

        Percentage of graduates over the past two decades who are unable to pass the basic reading aptitude test, i.e. people with intelligence not higher than 10-11 years old at the age of majority.
        1. bane's jacket
          bane's jacket 13 February 2018 19: 52
          0
          Quote: Conserp
          These are statistics from the American education system.

          Percentage of graduates over the past two decades who are unable to pass the basic reading aptitude test, i.e. people with intelligence not higher than 10-11 years old at the age of majority.

          Maybe there is a link?
          1. Negro
            Negro 13 February 2018 23: 49
            0
            Quote: Conserp
            unable to pass the basic reading aptitude test, i.e. people with intelligence not higher than 10-11 years old at the age of majority.

            I don’t want to impose my opinion on you, but I know an online forum where the percentage of mentally retarded has long exceeded 90. And, by the way, a well-trained 11-year-old child can be very serious in the topic that he is interested in.

            Since the conversation has come. 1. Not everything is so bad in the USA. 2. Not so big and this trouble.
            PISA 2015 Reading
            1 Singapore 535
            2 Hong Kong 527
            3 Canada 527
            4 Finland 526
            5 Ireland 521
            6 Estonia 519
            7 South Korea 517
            8 Japan 516
            9 Norway 513
            10 New Zealand 509
            11 Germany 509
            ...
            24 United States 497
            ...
            26 Russia 495
            ...
            37 Israel 479
  34. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 13 February 2018 20: 33
    0
    And all you need to do is take three import-substituted Zenith and tie it in exactly such a package. And that’s all! After all, a finished rocket is better than Maskovsoy!

    But no! We will be drawing pictures for three years and - probably - this will be the end of it. Like nonsense about the moon and the Federation. Lavochkintsy still draw some Mercury and Jupiter stations on the site. Which Jupiter? Aw! They have forgotten how to remove the device from orbit. They have not been able to launch science since 2013. Instead of Angara there was a loud bunch and now they are hiding it from the public. Missiles are falling. Satellites are falling apart. One chatter.
  35. Sergey_I
    Sergey_I 20 February 2018 13: 58
    0
    Private trader has not surpassed (yet) a superpower? Well, then ...
  36. Sergey_I
    Sergey_I 20 February 2018 14: 16
    0
    Quote: Cannonball
    And what will be launched on super traction? Is there any payload for him? Now there is nothing to run.

    And on what will the first Russian module be launched to the American near-moon DSG station?
    Speak, on the American rocket SLS? And so, the Russian super-heavy will not be ready yet? Is this better, apparently?