Military Review

Russia is developing a super-heavy rocket

236
Shortly before the Ilona Mask Falcon Heavy rocket soared into the sky, Vladimir Putin signed a decree according to which Roskosmos had the opportunity to develop a rocket known as “Super-heavy”, which the Russian space agency had been waiting for years. InoTV Post publication Popular Mechanics.




«News The signing by the Russian president of the decree on the development of a rocket in the super-heavy class, which will be based at the Vostochny cosmodrome, was published on Friday without much fanfare. According to Roscosmos, Energia will become the main developer of the rocket. At the same time, one of the key contractors of the project will be the Progress rocket and space center, based in Samara, where Soyuz missiles are manufactured, ”the material says.

The signing of the decree on the development of its own super-heavy launch vehicle on the eve of the launch of Falcon is most likely a coincidence. However, “this underscores the desire of Russia to catch up with other countries in the emerging space race.”

“This bold and expensive step of Putin is not the most successful period for the Russian space program with an endless series of failures, with many years of project delays and corruption scandals that show signs of incapacity in the country's space industry,” the author notes.

To date, all efforts to rectify the situation have yielded mixed results. And, as suggested by the publication, "the construction of its own super-heavy booster rocket is a controversial way to solve the problem."

Despite the fact that a high-class, expensive project would revive the problematic industry, "there are no guarantees that it will be completed successfully, even taking into account Russia's extensive experience in space exploration," the article says.

According to representatives of Roskosmos, if everything goes according to plan, the super-heavy rocket will be created by the year 2028.

It is reported that this rocket will be capable of delivering "90 tons of cargo to Earth orbit and at least 20 tons to lunar orbit."

The author asks the question: “What will Russia do with such a monster?”. In his opinion, “the rocket will be too big to perform commercial or military functions, so without an ambitious and expensive human flight into space, it can share the fate of its Soviet predecessors.”

Currently, Russian engineers are designing the lunar base, and international cooperation can help distribute the costs among different partners. "However, in the current political environment it is difficult to say something for sure," concludes the publication.
Photos used:
http://www.globallookpress.com
236 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 12 February 2018 10: 39
    +13
    "This underlines Russia's desire to catch up with other countries in the emerging space race."
    You will overtake unconditionally at first. One take-off of a heavy falcon is only the first application for leadership, but not a victory
    1. Thrall
      Thrall 12 February 2018 10: 41
      +5
      Falcon Heavy will be one and a half times weaker
      1. Professor
        Professor 12 February 2018 10: 48
        +35
        Quote: Thrall
        Falcon Heavy one and a half times weaker will

        No willbut it does. And not to 2028, but already flies. Moreover, for a ridiculous $ 90 million with the cost of the entire program only $ 500 million. Well, hangar with $ 7 billion spent on it. No.
        1. Muvka
          Muvka 12 February 2018 10: 54
          +16
          Already 90? Recently, 100 was. And why then Nasa refused to use such a cheap rocket? Fools, probably?
          1. Professor
            Professor 12 February 2018 10: 57
            +9
            Quote: Muvka
            Already 90? Recently, 100 was. And why then Nasa refused to use such a cheap rocket? Fools, probably?

            Refused? Discard the link pliz.
            1. Solomon Kane
              Solomon Kane 12 February 2018 11: 02
              +19
              Well to star - not toss bags!
              We are waiting for space launches of Israeli rockets, maybe 400 tons wink
              1. assa67
                assa67 12 February 2018 14: 16
                +10
                Kostya, welcome hi .... well, they love God-chosen gloating, such a nature ... they hope that mattresses, like Moses, will lead them to Mars (for ridiculous 90 million) laughing
                1. Solomon Kane
                  Solomon Kane 12 February 2018 14: 36
                  +5
                  Andrew! hi My regards.
                  ..well they love the chosen ones to gloat ..

                  ... still in the wrong hands the "organ" is always thicker .... wink
                  1. assa67
                    assa67 12 February 2018 16: 31
                    +4
                    that's right yes .
            2. Muvka
              Muvka 12 February 2018 11: 04
              +2
              http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/372994-spac
              ex-could-save-nasa-and-the-future-of-space-explor
              ation

              Here's more:
              https://uk.news.yahoo.com/did-nasa-pass-spacex-of
              fer-044148992.html
              1. iwind
                iwind 12 February 2018 11: 25
                +5
                Quote: Muvka
                http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/372994-spac
                ex-could-save-nasa-and-the-future-of-space-explor
                ation

                Here's more:
                https://uk.news.yahoo.com/did-nasa-pass-spacex-of
                fer-044148992.html

                Well, maybe because this was not?
                even in your link
                "We reached out to SpaceX as well as NASA and the Air Force for comment, and NASA spokeswoman Tabatha Thompson replied via email:“NASA did not officially ask for payload space on the inaugural flight of Falcon Heavy, nor did SpaceX solicit for a payload. ”"

                No one asked.
                There were only talkthat for a test launch for free are ready to start something for free.

                Questions are already emerging as Nasa has already spent 20 billion on SLS and it is not flying yet.
                1. Muvka
                  Muvka 12 February 2018 12: 22
                  +1
                  Those. the rocket is 10 times cheaper, but they don’t want to use it. As for me, this is strange. Read the news in full.
                  1. iwind
                    iwind 12 February 2018 12: 41
                    +2
                    Quote: Muvka
                    Those. the rocket is 10 times cheaper, but they don’t want to use it. As for me, this is strange. Read the news in full.

                    I read.
                    And they never wanted to.
                    Since they have their own Boeing, SLS and a lot of money was spent on it.
                    they generally FH strongly stepped on the tail. Since if FH confirms its PN, Boeing with Nasa will have problems and unpleasant questions. Not so much if SLS flies (without emergency), but the question of the amounts that have already been spent is tens of billion dollars to sound and what to do next SLS with a launch price of between 500-1 billion ....
                    1. Muvka
                      Muvka 12 February 2018 12: 48
                      +1
                      But why do not they want to use a cheaper rocket? I would understand if it were 1,5 times cheaper. But at 10, Karl! 10 times!
                      1. Professor
                        Professor 12 February 2018 13: 18
                        +1
                        Quote: Muvka
                        But why do not they want to use a cheaper rocket? I would understand if it were 1,5 times cheaper. But at 10, Karl! 10 times!

                        Not cheaper, but free. fellow
                        But the space agency viewed commercial development of this rocket as "competition"and refused their offer.

                        However, the space agency viewed the commercial development of this rocket as “the competition”And rejected their offer.
                      2. iwind
                        iwind 12 February 2018 13: 24
                        +2
                        Quote: Muvka
                        But why do not they want to use a cheaper rocket? I would understand if it were 1,5 times cheaper. But at 10, Karl! 10 times!

                        MONEY. and MONEY again.
                        Here for a second. Nasa and Boeing say so, we have already spent dozens of billion dollars here, but the other one will not launch a rocket, which is cheaper.
                        Do you have an afterword? I can now say that Nasa will by all means refuse FH for them, it’s “face loss”
                        A compromise will be possible. Supply on FH the rest on SLS is about the moon.

                        ps for some reason you think Spacex in the United States is very fond of.
                        There they have many times more enemies than anywhere else. He took the feeder from ULA with launches of 164 to 400 million per launch.
                        The same contracts with Spacex and others (ULA, etc.) spacex get 50% less somewhere
                    2. Simargl
                      Simargl 12 February 2018 17: 43
                      +1
                      Quote: iwind
                      There they have many times more enemies than anywhere else. He took the feeder from ULA with launches of 164 to 400 million per launch.
                      So SpesikX was created to curb the appetites of ULA. No?
              2. Professor
                Professor 12 February 2018 13: 15
                +4
                Quote: Muvka
                http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/372994-spac
                ex-could-save-nasa-and-the-future-of-space-explor
                ation

                Thanks for the link. good
                NASA has spent more than $ 15 billion to try and develop their own heavy lift rocket, the Space Launch System (SLS), with a first flight planned in roughly two years - assuming all goes according to plan.
                NASA spent over $ 15 billion to develop its heavy rocket ...

                Once operational, SLS will cost NASA over $ 1 billion per launch.
                The cost of each launch of which will be about $ 1 billion.

                SpaceX offered NASA the opportunity to get a free ride on this first launch. But the space agency viewed commercial development of this rocket as "competition" and refused their offer. Instead, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk put his own Tesla Roadster onboard, turning the event into a brilliant cross-marketing event.
                SpaceX offered NASA a free launch with the first launch of Falcon Heavy. However, the space agency viewed the commercial development of this rocket as “the competition”And rejected their offer. Instead, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk sent his own Tesla roadster into space, turning it into a brilliant cross-marketing event.

                Need more comments?
                1. Muvka
                  Muvka 12 February 2018 13: 23
                  +1
                  Well, let's see and see.
                2. Negro
                  Negro 12 February 2018 22: 42
                  0
                  Quote: Professor
                  NASA spent over $ 15 billion to develop its heavy rocket ...

                  As I understand it, this is only for SLS. Before her was the Constellation and Ares 5 of a similar design.
            3. astepanov
              astepanov 13 February 2018 18: 12
              0
              NASA continues to develop the SLS rocket with characteristics close to Falcon Heavy. At the same time, the first launch of SLS is scheduled for 2019. By 2016, $ 35 million has been spent. The cost of one launch is about 500 million dollars. Why, having a wonderful Falcon, continue to make this terribly expensive car? And with the fact that all Musk's ventures are bullshit. And electric cars, his bullshit (120 thousand dollars for a crappy car that will never pay off for it), and vacuum transport - bullshit, about which they are now keeping quiet and are slowly turning it off. Only Mr. Gref and the “doctor” Rogozin can buy this. And by the way, bought it.
          2. Burbon
            Burbon 12 February 2018 10: 58
            0
            Quote: Muvka
            And why then Nasa refused to use such a cheap rocket?

            time will tell
          3. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 12 February 2018 11: 29
            +5
            Not NASA, but the Pentagon.
            Because they do not want to leave their native Boeing Lockheed without work. Those too
            doing heavy. And the Falcon-9 military did not want to take, but lost the court
            about the "protection" of Boeing.
            They will also be forced to use Falcon Heavy through the courts.
            Tender, price comparison - competition.
            1. Sanichsan
              Sanichsan 12 February 2018 17: 45
              +1
              Quote: voyaka uh
              They will also be forced to use Falcon Heavy through the courts.

              Well, after the fiasco falcon with a military satellite .. you did not forget the ending of this story wink can and otmazatsya.
              1. prosto_rgb
                prosto_rgb 12 February 2018 21: 04
                +2
                Quote: SanichSan
                Well, after the fiasco falcon with a military satellite .. you did not forget the ending of this story

                What a fiasco, if not difficult?
                1. Sanichsan
                  Sanichsan 13 February 2018 14: 08
                  0
                  military satellite banged ..
                  so in the Pacific Ocean not only Russian but also American satellite constellation wink
                  1. prosto_rgb
                    prosto_rgb 13 February 2018 22: 49
                    0
                    for some reason, the U.S. Air Force in charge of the satellites do not agree with your view
                  2. thinking
                    thinking 14 February 2018 09: 13
                    0
                    Quote: SanichSan
                    military satellite banged ..

                    Less attention should be paid to stupid headlines. It’s better to read the articles carefully.
                    Separators for the satellite were not made by Musk, but by the same company that built the satellite itself.
                    Falcon put the satellite into an intermediate orbit. Further, the satellite was supposed to separate from the falcon and enter the working orbit, but could not separate and, together with the falcon, crashed into the ocean.
                    Who did the detachment is to blame.
                    1. Sanichsan
                      Sanichsan 14 February 2018 16: 05
                      0
                      Quote: thinking
                      Separators for the satellite were not made by Musk, but by the same company that built the satellite itself.

                      and what kind of company?
                      Quote: thinking
                      Less attention should be paid to stupid headlines.

                      fully support! so let's separate the flies from the cutlets. not spaceX, but NASA, not Matsk, but NASA engineers. Well, we won’t put Mnager’s PR on a par with specialists laughing
                      so what kind of company satellite banged? wink
                      1. thinking
                        thinking 15 February 2018 15: 04
                        0
                        Quote: SanichSan
                        Quote: thinking
                        Separators for the satellite were not made by Musk, but by the same company that built the satellite itself.

                        and what kind of company?

                        https://hightech.fm/2018/01/09/spacex_lost_zuma
                        The Verge believes that SpaceX’s statement is contrary to reports in WSJ and other media. If there really was no malfunction in the rocket’s work, then it had to complete the whole range of tasks, including launching, separating the rocket stages and launching the satellite into the established orbit. The publication notes that SpaceX usually uses its own payload separation system to put into orbit. But according to some reports, Northrop Grumman equipment was involved in this mission.

                        Here is a little more detailed:
                        https://lenta.ru/news/2018/01/09/zuma/
                        SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket is most likely not involved in the possible loss of Zuma's secret U.S. spacecraft. The most likely culprit in a failed payload launch may be Northrop Grumman.

                        Phil Larsen, who previously worked for the SpaceX press service and also served as senior space and innovation adviser to the 2009th US President Barack Obama in 2014-44, noted that the publication of The Wall Street Journal “does not contain a key fact” according to which the payload adapter (with its help, the payload is separated from the rocket) for Zuma made Northrop Grumman.

                        - philliplarson (@philliplarson) January 09, 2018, 04:07
                        The expert refers to the Wired publication, which said that Northrop Grumman was responsible for the layout of the Zuma payload on the rocket.

                        - philliplarson (@philliplarson) January 09, 2018, 04:10
                        ArsTechnica, on the other hand, notes that the fairing for Zuma was also supplied by Northrop Grumman.

                        So: payload adapter (separation smile ), the satellite itself and the head fairing were manufactured by Northrop Grumman. She was also responsible for the layout of the Zuma payload on the rocket.
                        Northrop Grumman, the maker of Zuma and the payload adapter, declined to comment, citing mission secrecy.

                        SpaceX reported that the launch of the Falcon 9 went as normal ...

                        So what kind of company satellite banged?
        2. Engineer
          Engineer 12 February 2018 10: 55
          +8
          we are not poor America, we have big money for space, so no one will remember the pennies spent on the Angara when they built a new cosmodrome for an extra heavy moon rocket for the only launch of a new rocket.
        3. askort154
          askort154 12 February 2018 10: 58
          +12
          Professor.... Moreover, for a ridiculous $ 90 million with the cost of the entire program at only $ 500 million. Well, Angara with $ 7 billion spent on it.

          "Professor" - your position should oblige you not to be faked on advertising. But since when did the rocket program for space exploration become ten times cheaper than aircraft building programs ?! stop
        4. shans2
          shans2 12 February 2018 10: 59
          +3
          if there was, then the load was made at least half of the nominal, 30+ tons)) but 1.5 tons was dragged just a model ....
          1. thinking
            thinking 15 February 2018 17: 57
            0
            When a new transport aircraft makes its very first flight, is it really loaded in full?
            This is the first flight of the rocket and it is likely that it could explode even at launch. Question: why then load it to maximum and fill full tanks with fuel? So that in an explosion, the destruction of the launch pad would be more?
        5. tomket
          tomket 12 February 2018 10: 59
          +2
          Quote: Professor
          It will not, but it does. And not to 2028, but already flies.

          Flag in his hands.
          Quote: Professor
          And not to 2028, but already flies

          Well, out of payloads, he only has auto debris in assets.
          Quote: Professor
          And for a ridiculous $ 90 million with the cost of the entire program only $ 500 million

          And then who thinks how. Maybe funny 90 mill, and maybe much more ....
        6. Hagalaz
          Hagalaz 12 February 2018 11: 10
          +4
          Quote: Professor
          Quote: Thrall
          Falcon Heavy one and a half times weaker will

          No willbut it does.

          Learn the etymology of expressions in Russian vernacular or don’t distort. I don’t know which of the two is more appropriate for the situation.
          1. meGrail
            meGrail 13 February 2018 02: 04
            0
            I am sure that the author, like most, understands, but wanted to scam.
            And he did it!
        7. Safevi
          Safevi 12 February 2018 11: 37
          +11
          What is surprising, if we are talking about an American rocket that ALREADY flies, then they write, “cut the dough”, “worthless rocket”, and even “fake”, “computer graphics”. "PR", "do not believe the Mask"laughing , and if they write about a Russian missile that CAN fly, or maybe it will not, but if it does, then it is not known when, then right away - a “bold step”. It’s not far from the terminology of the beginning of the 50s - “bourgeois pseudoscience”. laughing
          1. Hagalaz
            Hagalaz 12 February 2018 12: 21
            +1
            Do not talk nonsense. About cut dough and unsuccessful launches in Roscosmos, it was also said quite a bit, here in the comments as well.
          2. KaPToC
            KaPToC 12 February 2018 21: 34
            +2
            Quote: sefevi
            What is surprising, if we are talking about an American rocket that ALREADY flies

            An "empty" rocket "flies" without a payload - this is not flying.
        8. NEXUS
          NEXUS 12 February 2018 11: 57
          +6
          Quote: Professor
          Preved Angara with $ 7 billion spent on it

          Why compare it with the Angara, for which the cost of throwing weight is still high. Let's compare it with Proton, which neither mattresses nor Europeans exceeded by this indicator.
          1. Negro
            Negro 12 February 2018 22: 45
            +2
            Quote: NEXUS
            Let's compare with Proton, which neither mattresses nor Europeans exceeded in this indicator.

            Let's compare.
            Cost of commercial launch of Proton, cost of Heavy. Proton's cast weight, Heavy's cast weight.

            Oh yes. Proton is not on the market right now.
        9. astepanov
          astepanov 12 February 2018 11: 59
          +3
          90 million is a digital signage voiced by Musk, and what really nobody knows there. In general, the cost of a start depends crucially on the frequency of these starts. It is not for nothing that all leaders seek to get as many commercial launches as possible: it is not a matter of profit, but of minimizing losses. Say, if there is no second start, then the cost of launching the Falcon Heavy will be just $ 500 million - not counting the car.
          1. Dreamboat
            Dreamboat 12 February 2018 12: 59
            +2
            Maybe 90 million, if NASA actually collected the Ilona rockets, the launches are from the U.S. Air Force cosmodrome, the development of missiles is based on the documentation that was also taken out of the former USSR in the 90s, and the crowd provides free public relations for the mattresses. And if you really do everything yourself and calculate it, then Roscosmos will be much more economical.
            1. thinking
              thinking 14 February 2018 09: 48
              0
              Quote: Dreamboat
              missile development is on the basis of including documentation exported from the former USSR in the 90s

              Enough to repeat silly tales about the great benefits of exported documentation.
              Here is an example of how “good” this documentation helps: https: //ruxpert.ru/%D0%A0%D0%94-180
              In September 2003, all documents required to create the RD-180 engine were delivered to RD AMROSS and Pratt & Whitney. The deliveries included over 100000 documents that provided the data required to receive the engine. This data contains technical drawings, design specifications, design documentation and certification of production documentation, in addition to data materials, test data and tooling documentation. [five]

              Everything is there, down to the smallest screw, only it doesn’t really help the Americans.
          2. prosto_rgb
            prosto_rgb 12 February 2018 21: 24
            0
            Quote: astepanov
            Say, if there is no second start, then the cost of launching the Falcon Heavy will be just $ 500 million - not counting the car.

            600
          3. Negro
            Negro 12 February 2018 22: 47
            0
            Quote: astepanov
            Say, if there is no second start, then the cost of launching the Falcon Heavy will be just $ 500 million - not counting the car.

            Musk clearly said that all subsequent launches will be based on Block 5. That is, a new rocket.
        10. slontusid
          slontusid 12 February 2018 12: 16
          +13
          Quote: Professor
          It will not, but it does. And not to 2028, but already flies.

          Are you talking about hastily cobbled together from the fact that it was Falcon Heavy which sent a red roadster weighing 600 kg somewhere to the side of the asteroid belt (this is if you were not too lazy to throw out batteries and 1200kg if you were too lazy)?
          ----
          November 1, 1962 from the Baikonur Cosmodrome with the help of a 4-stage medium-range launch vehicle Lightning (in fact, an ancient version of the Union with an additional step)
          Mars-1 was launched - the first spacecraft in history to launch on the flight path to Mars.
          Moreover, unlike the Roadster launched in 2018 on the "superheavy" LV Mask, the "Mars-1", launched 56 years (!!!) before that, actually flew close to Mars, and not just somewhere towards the orbit of Mars.
          That is, the widely advertised and enthusiastically greeted by the townsfolk launch of the "superheavy" Mask rocket in 2018 could not even repeat the achievement of the average Soviet rocket of 1962.
          ----------
          Naturally, at the moment, the roadster flew a little further than the orbit of the moon, and will cross the orbit of Mars in July 2018.
          --------
          Disclaimer - the fact that I criticize some of the antics of the Mask does not mean that I am a fan of Roskosmos.
          Roskosmos - a bunch of thieves, bureaucrats and opportunists opportunists.
          1. thinking
            thinking 15 February 2018 15: 16
            0
            Quote: slontusid
            That is, the widely advertised and enthusiastically greeted by the townsfolk launch of the "superheavy" Mask rocket in 2018 could not even repeat the achievement of the average Soviet rocket of 1962.

            This is the very first launch of a completely new rocket - does this tell you anything? The task of this launch was to check all the rocket systems, and not the achievement of Mars!
        11. Alexsasha77
          Alexsasha77 12 February 2018 12: 18
          +2
          well yes there is. throwing into orbit the body of the Tesla is not yet overweight. they just showed us another commercial.
          1. thinking
            thinking 14 February 2018 10: 30
            0
            Quote: Alexsasha77
            well yes there is. throwing into orbit the body of the Tesla is not yet overweight. they just showed us another commercial.

            Read and giggled
            Wikipedia:
            BelAZ-75710 is the world's largest dump truck with a carrying capacity of 450 tons.

            They made this truck and on the first trip threw some passenger car into it, for example, a Cossack. “Comedians” will immediately appear and shout: “This is not the biggest dump truck in the world, this is another commercial” wassat
        12. Dead duck
          Dead duck 12 February 2018 12: 31
          +3
          Quote: Professor
          And for a ridiculous $ 90 million with the cost of the entire program only $ 500 million

          90 is provided that all modules sit back and are reused.
          while the payload mass will be reduced by thirty percent. request
          Yes, and the concept of "dumping" was not invented today, like other cunning "feints with ears" as if there was nothing.
      2. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 12 February 2018 10: 50
        0
        Here is the situation that Musk promises a fully reusable BFR even more load-bearing in a shorter time
        1. Yuyuka
          Yuyuka 12 February 2018 11: 09
          +3
          Quote: BlackMokona
          Here is the situation that Musk promises a fully reusable BFR even more load-bearing in a shorter time


          to promise does not mean to marry (s) request
          upon closer inspection, there is nothing special there so far except “reusability” and good PR. Do not exaggerate or downplay this event ... Without fanaticism, as my teacher said. There is a routine race - someone is pushing forward, and someone ...
          "we slowly go down the hill and ... the whole herd ..."
          All in good time. hi
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 12 February 2018 11: 32
            +6
            "to promise does not mean to marry (s)" ////

            All that Musk has promised so far is done.
            In 2017, he successfully launched into space more rockets than states.
            More than Russia and China.
            1. slipped
              slipped 12 February 2018 12: 10
              0
              Russia launched 2017 rocket launchers in 20.
              1. Negro
                Negro 12 February 2018 22: 48
                +1
                Quote: slipped
                Russia launched 2017 rocket launchers in 20.

                Did Guyanese count again?
                1. slipped
                  slipped 13 February 2018 02: 19
                  0
                  Of course, they are triggered by our calculation.
            2. slontusid
              slontusid 12 February 2018 12: 30
              +6
              Quote: voyaka uh
              All that Musk has promised so far is done.

              1. Manned ship - NO
              2. An extra-heavy rocket that launches not a roadster weighing a ton somewhere in the direction of the asteroids, which was easily done by the Soviet middle-class rocket in 1962, but at least 40 tons (forgive the promised mythical 64 tons) - NO
              -------
              I like the Falcon 9 (in the RIGHT DISPOSABLE OPTION)
              both according to the concept (tandem scheme, the same simple cheap and, accordingly, reliable engines at all levels, etc.), and, judging by the statistics of launches, performance.
              But I fiercely despise Mask’s ochlocratic manipulation strategy,
              when, considering the general public a dumb cattle
              with memory a little longer than fish
              with the aim of constant coverage in the information space of his activities,
              creates hype by throwing crazy ideas, such as the mythical "reusability", hyper-loops, manned flyby of the moon in 2018 and landing on Mars in 2024.
              -------------
              Disclaimer - the fact that I criticize some of the antics of the Mask does not mean that I am a fan of Roskosmos.
              Roskosmos - a bunch of thieves, bureaucrats and opportunists opportunists.
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 12 February 2018 13: 21
                +3
                We have already discussed these issues.
                That Falcon-9, that Falcon-Heavy - reusable.
                This is their main market advantage. It is a pity that you do not understand this.
                Launches are relatively cheap.
                Falcon Heavy (again on second-hand steps) will fly with commercial cargo this year.
                ... what am I trying? Do you know English?
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_an
                d_Falcon_Heavy_launches
                See 2018 onwards.
                1. Aqr009
                  Aqr009 12 February 2018 13: 40
                  +8
                  Reusability of Falcons is rather arbitrary. These are bench tests for operating time of the scheme of return of steps, no more. The fact that on the way they throw some satellites into orbit does not make them commercially viable. Each reuse of steps reduces the payload weight and dramatically increases the risk of failure, which negates the main market advantage.
                  As for the cheapness of launches, I would like to look through black bookkeeping wink
                  1. voyaka uh
                    voyaka uh 12 February 2018 13: 58
                    +2
                    Wrong. Falcon-9 with step return is a standard commercial product.
                    Used steps have already been reused with load (satellites)
                    same weight.
                    Moreover, Space X is convinced that used steps are MORE reliable than new ones.
                    (since they have already been verified "in action").
                    The Faklon Heavy flew (and will fly) on second-hand steps from Falcon-9.
                    1. Aqr009
                      Aqr009 12 February 2018 14: 20
                      +1
                      I agree with you that Heavy will fly on the used steps from Falcon-9. It’s pretty witty to slightly increase the total load capacity by increasing the number of blocks with artificially lowered load capacity of each individual, due to their reuse good It turns out even some fat.
                      Still, I don’t really want to admire Falcon, this is a passing project. The main goal of the Mask is BFR (MCT / ITS) on 42 methane Raptors! A kind of Noah's Ark of the 21st century. That’s what I would look at!
                      1. voyaka uh
                        voyaka uh 12 February 2018 18: 02
                        +2
                        The mask was asked recently about an old Soviet project.
                        "superheavy" on 30 engines. Which exploded 4 times and was closed.
                        He said: “the concept of a lot of engines is true, but the avionics failed the Russians” [synchronized launch of engines]. As you understand, Musk himself is not a rocket engineer, but a production organizer.
                        He tells reporters what his engineers tell him.
                        And he assembled the best engineers that are.
                        On Falcon-9 - 9 engines. Even if 2 do not start, the remaining 7 are enough to bring the cargo into a given orbit.
                        Falcon Heavy is also designed. Even with a failure of 6 out of 27 engines, it successfully displays the load into orbit
                      2. Negro
                        Negro 12 February 2018 22: 53
                        +2
                        Quote: voyaka uh
                        On Falcon-9 - 9 engines. Even if 2 do not start, the remaining 7 are enough to bring the cargo into a given orbit.

                        They wrote nonsense. Everyone should start, otherwise he won’t leave the table.

                        But after MaxQ, when the rocket is already lighter, turning off 1-2 engines is permissible.
                    2. prosto_rgb
                      prosto_rgb 12 February 2018 22: 47
                      0
                      Quote: voyaka uh
                      Moreover, Space X is convinced that used steps are MORE reliable than new ones.

                      Interestingly, not only SpaceX, but also insurance companies are sure of this.
                    3. Negro
                      Negro 12 February 2018 22: 49
                      0
                      Quote: voyaka uh
                      The Faklon Heavy flew (and will fly) on second-hand steps from Falcon-9.

                      No. Starts of the NSR and Arabsat promise to block 5, it will have to be done again, since there are no old ones yet.
                  2. Simargl
                    Simargl 12 February 2018 17: 50
                    +1
                    Quote: Aqr009
                    These are bench tests for operating time of the scheme of return of steps, no more.
                    Rather, landing algorithms in the presence of the atmosphere.
                    And this is a sight on Mars.
                    And other planets.
                  3. thinking
                    thinking 14 February 2018 11: 32
                    0
                    Quote: Aqr009
                    Reusability of Falcons is rather arbitrary.

                    Yes, this is true as long as Musk fulfills the reusability of the first stage of Falcon.
                    Quote: Aqr009
                    Each reuse of steps reduces the payload weight and dramatically increases the risk of failure, which negates the main market advantage.

                    And here you are inaccurate. Rare launches come at maximum load, and in case of underloading on the payload, you can take an additional amount of fuel to return the first stage - the load in orbit, the first stage on the ground, this is beneficial, however.
                    The increased risk of failure to restart is true, but not all. Do not forget that while flight tests of reusable stages are in progress and it is too early to draw final conclusions about reliability - chicks are considered in the fall smile
                    PS Recently, a reusable passenger plane fell and exploded, and it happens.
                2. slontusid
                  slontusid 12 February 2018 14: 10
                  +7
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  That Falcon-9, that Falcon-Heavy - reusable.
                  This is their main market advantage. It is a pity that you do not understand this.

                  Again you squeeze this baby talk here ..
                  Even the authors who are interested in this “reusable” hype have neither the audacity nor the stupidity to declare a reusable Falcon rocket, only the “reusable” first stage ...
                  although the word "reusable" is, to put it mildly, doubtful to apply to the 1st stage.
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  We have already discussed these issues.

                  You are an amateur in space technology, I tried to enlighten you a little - but apparently it's useless ..
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  Falcon Heavy (again on second-hand steps) will fly with commercial cargo this year.

                  Are you talking about ArabSat 6A?
                  And so:
                  1. This promise to launch it on FH has been hanging on websites since at least 2015.
                  and constantly put off. More than likely - it will be delayed this time too.
                  2. Its mass is 5800 kg. His twin brother was already running, and with an additional load - since it was too light.
                  Badr-7 (Arabsat-6B) was launched successfully in tandem with GSat-15 on 10 November 2015 from the Spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana, atop an Ariane 5 launcher.
                  The launch of ArabSat 6A with a Falcon Heavy rocket is planned for April 2018. [10]
                  3. It is too light even for Arian-5 and Falcon 9 may well be launched judging by the aggressively advertised PN on GPO for it at 8.3 tons.

                  so why use the type BREAKTHROUGH !! type SUPER HEAVY !! a FH rocket to launch a satellite that is too light for both ancient Arian 5 and F9?
                  1. slontusid
                    slontusid 12 February 2018 14: 25
                    +1
                    same story with ViaSat-3
                    The first ViaSat-3 is due to be launched by Arianespace in 2019 and there is a contract for a Falcon Heavy launch for another ViaSat-3 class satellite around 2020

                    so why use the type BREAKTHROUGH !! type SUPER HEAVY !! FH rocket to launch a satellite that can be launched both on the ancient and super-reliable Arian-5, and on F9?
                    1. Blackmokona
                      Blackmokona 12 February 2018 14: 31
                      0
                      When the contract was signed, the F-9 could not drag so much, and Arian is several times more expensive than the FH
                    2. assa67
                      assa67 12 February 2018 14: 52
                      +4
                      Leonid, I’m greeting ... but why is there such a fuss about the "superheavy" rocket? ... to develop the Moon or Mars ... by that time we will catch up, hurt enough for this ... I think all this PR action for in order to drag us into the space race again, Musk works closely with the Pentagon, and all his attempts are connected with this
                      1. axxmanm
                        axxmanm 12 February 2018 16: 26
                        +2
                        Quote: assa67
                        ..and why is there so much hype around the "superheavy" rocket? ... to explore the Moon or Mars ...... it seems to me all this PR action in order to draw us back into the space race

                        .. a competently conducted space race will only help Russia become a technological power - there is no need to be afraid of it ..
                  2. voyaka uh
                    voyaka uh 12 February 2018 18: 12
                    +3
                    "You are an amateur in space technology, I tried to enlighten you a little" ////

                    I am an amateur in space technology. And I’m not ashamed to admit.
                    Elon Musk before 2002 also had no idea how a space rocket did.
                    Natural amateur. But the best professionals work for him today.
                    And I am sure he would take you with your deep knowledge with pleasure.

                    "Even the authors interested in this" reusable "hype do not have the arrogance" ///

                    I also noticed that Maskovtsev’s arrogance and rudeness is much less than that of their critics. smile
                    Falcon returns the 1st step. The head fairing (1.5 million dollars) will be returned (already tested). And they also plan to return the 2nd stage.
                    1. meGrail
                      meGrail 13 February 2018 02: 15
                      +1
                      Even when they return the 3rd stage, such “critics” will bark that the thermal protection that burns down does not return, which means that the missile cannot be considered reusable. And at least 10 times they are told that the cost of 1 stage is 80% of the cost of launching, they will all miss the ears
          2. thinking
            thinking 15 February 2018 15: 30
            0
            Quote: Yuyuka
            upon closer examination, there is nothing special there, except for "reusability"

            Someone for the first time in the world launched an artificial satellite of the Earth, the first astronaut in orbit. Once a man in a spacesuit first went into outer space, etc. These are historical milestones of astronautics. Now, even in the work of an astronaut outside the ISS, they no longer see anything special.
            But when Musk for the first time in the world successfully returned the first step to Earth, and then reused it, then this is the same historical milestone in the history of astronautics as the first launch of the shuttle.
            Fanaticism manifests itself in various forms, including in diminishing the importance of important historical events. So, let's really look at things, without fanaticism.
            1. Yuyuka
              Yuyuka 16 February 2018 14: 24
              0
              But when Musk for the first time in the world successfully returned the first step to Earth, and then reused it, then this is the same historical milestone in the history of astronautics as the first launch of the shuttle.

              Not like that. The shuttle is a historic milestone - like the flight of the first satellite, the first astronaut, the first orbital station. And here we are dealing with "reusability" and "cheapening" of flights, that is, routine work to improve existing technological processes. In Soviet times, we had a very developed rationalization movement and invention. Patents granted by the sea! So Musk is more a rationalizer than an inventor. Till. But he has a chance to make a historic breakthrough. That's all hi

              Fanaticism manifests itself in various forms, including in diminishing the importance of important historical events. So, let's really look at things, without fanaticism.

              belay look... wassat
              1. thinking
                thinking 17 February 2018 12: 27
                0
                Quote: Yuyuka
                And here we are dealing with "reusability" and "cheapening" of flights, that is, routine work to improve existing technological processes.

                The shuttle can be easily brought under such reasoning - it was also created with the aim of achieving "reusability" and "cheaper" flights, that is, routine work to improve existing technical processes. smile
                1. Yuyuka
                  Yuyuka 17 February 2018 18: 37
                  0
                  Quote: thinking
                  Quote: Yuyuka
                  And here we are dealing with "reusability" and "cheapening" of flights, that is, routine work to improve existing technological processes.

                  The shuttle can be easily brought under such reasoning - it was also created with the aim of achieving "reusability" and "cheaper" flights, that is, routine work to improve existing technical processes. smile


                  waited ... winked yes of course you can! there’s a Kalashnikov assault rifle - the same bow and arrow! when an application for copyright for an invention is filed there is such an expression - “different from the ones that exist ...” So, the “invention” type was often used to obtain a patent - instead of a lever, a spring was rolled. Which was very surprising, but allowed to get copyright lol Therefore, you can argue for a long time and wonder - what's new drinks and what a breakthroughdrinks only then the head will hurt in the morning wassat
    2. Spartanez300
      Spartanez300 12 February 2018 10: 46
      +2
      If the space agency had been waiting for years for the opportunity to develop a rocket, really there were no preliminary developments for the same "Hangar" which also had an option in a superheavy class, and now it takes 10 years to create it, well, in general, as usual in Russia. request
      1. KaPToC
        KaPToC 12 February 2018 21: 46
        +1
        Quote: Spartanez300
        there really were no preliminary developments for the same "hangar" which also had an option in a super-heavy class, and now as many as 10 years to create

        But now it is not needed - an extra-heavy rocket, it will be needed .... tadam ... in ten years.
    3. donavi49
      donavi49 12 February 2018 10: 57
      +2
      But there are trends.

      Just milestones this year - a bunch of conclusions 9ki with a commercial load.
      Starliner’s withdrawal in an unmanned version (and if everything goes smoothly, in November, according to the 1 plan, the crew of 4 people on the ISS).
      The conclusion of the new Dragon in an unmanned version. He and Starliner compete fiercely on the topic of the first flight and the first people not in the Unions brought to the ISS.
      The launch of a new commercial player in the space industry - SpiceOne with its rocket.
      The withdrawal of the first lunar landing probe created outside government programs (with the money of private investors and Google) on a private rocket from RocketLab - Electron from the cosmodrome in New Zealand.

      If we talk about superheavy:
      SLS - the first flight of EM-1 in 2019 year, the moon, the cost of the first 5 launches more than 500 million dollars each, then they promise to reduce the cost by 7-10%. But this is precisely the rocket that is being built for the US Budget with the aim of MAKE GREAT AGAIN.

      In the 50 category, in the 20 year, BlueOrigin will come out with their NewGlen. They already have contracts for the 21-23 years to launch heavy satellites.
      1. KVU-NSVD
        KVU-NSVD 12 February 2018 11: 06
        +5
        But there are trends
        So yes, there are TRENDS, we would have their PR, and we would have a tendency in excess. Not everything is going smoothly, but work is ongoing and there is no need to talk about lagging deep into the abyss. Although the ongoing redistribution of the market towards private launches is evident.
        1. donavi49
          donavi49 12 February 2018 11: 29
          +4
          There are more statistics.
          2013 year - Roscosmos actually graduated from the space withdrawal monopolist (40% of world launches, lowest prices, unique offers). Musk took his first steps with 2 payload rockets.

          2017 year - the share of Roscosmos in world launches is reduced to 20%, Musk launches virtually as many rockets as Roscosmos (technically 18 from 18 from Mask and 17 from 18 from Roscosmos, and together with Kuru 19 from 20).
        2. Mestny
          Mestny 12 February 2018 11: 42
          +1
          PR will not help us.
          It’s interesting, for example, in the United States, when a press reported about the beginning of the development of something new, a crowd of juvenile trolls also cried out with shouts of “nothing will work out” and “all stole”?
      2. Mussasi
        Mussasi 12 February 2018 11: 11
        +2
        It would be better if I signed a decree on the dissolution of the entire leadership of Roscosmos, not seriously, what kind of another cut !? request
      3. Negro
        Negro 12 February 2018 22: 55
        0
        Quote: donavi49
        But this is precisely the rocket that is being built for the money of the US Budget with the aim of MAKE GREAT AGAIN.

        MAGA out of place. SLS - Senate Launch System. 2010, EMNIP, year.
    4. GAF
      GAF 12 February 2018 17: 03
      0
      Quote: KVU-NSVD
      You will overtake unconditionally at first. One take-off of a heavy falcon is only the first application for leadership, but not a victory

      So many engines for lifting one passenger car with a driver - a mannequin. Does not pull on the super heavy in any way. There was no sand or something, then there would have been another conversation.
      1. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
        Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 12 February 2018 21: 27
        0
        it was the a5 hangar that dragged a 2-ton mock-up in the first launch
      2. thinking
        thinking 14 February 2018 13: 08
        0
        Quote: GAF
        There was no sand or something, then there would have been another conversation.

        The flight design tests of the rocket have just begun, and immediately give records to you. You must be more modest smile
  2. Solomon Kane
    Solomon Kane 12 February 2018 10: 39
    +11
    Sense to come up with a wheel?
    The RN Energy project, with a loading capacity of 10 to 200 tons, 3- and 4-fold duplication of important systems and the possibility of a controlled flight in case of failure of one of the engines on any part of the trajectory.
    Well, what to invent? Flying off in 1988 on a perfectly run-in project.
    Or again they’ll cut a few “yards” from the budget, launch “Energy”, and say: “We created” ..... fool
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 12 February 2018 10: 45
      +3
      Not. A rocket cost 150 million rubles then - that is, 200 + million dollars today (and taking into account hidden costs, new cooperation, etc. - it will be closer to 300).

      Mask 90 million heavy launch.

      Plus, energy was made at the technological level of 80's, with cooperation at the level of 80's. In fact, you have to make a new rocket.
      1. KVU-NSVD
        KVU-NSVD 12 February 2018 10: 52
        +16
        Mask 90 million heavy launch.
        Do not unconditionally believe the Mask. First of all, he is a businessman and pushes the goods without saying all the calculations at a cost. Secondly, in the tradition of American developments, initially a relatively low price is called, and then, as the process progresses, it grows substantially. There are enough examples ...
        1. donavi49
          donavi49 12 February 2018 11: 06
          +5
          Look, I will not give the very list with an advanced phrase. You are here.

          Heavy just flew. Next year will show whether it is needed or not commercially.
          9ka - very busy, places sold out before the 21 year. Moreover, the vast majority of conclusions are direct private traders (SES - for example, the traditional contractor of Roscosmos, rolled off to Mask after signing contracts until 23, inclusive, Hisdesat, Iridium, Telkom, Telesat, ArabSat, etc.). Either Musk starts 9 at a loss (but making 18-20 starts a year at a loss - that’s it) - or the catalog cost of starting is true.
          1. KVU-NSVD
            KVU-NSVD 12 February 2018 11: 20
            +7
            Or Musk starts up 9k at a loss (but making 18-20 starts per year at a loss - this is) - or the catalog cost of starting is true.
            The whole "commercial" success of the Mask has a solid foundation of state support + skillful PR
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 12 February 2018 11: 39
              +3
              "has a solid foundation of state support" ///

              No. Government support - only launches for NASA. And this is a minuscule
              compared to commercial startups that pay in cash
              satellite service providers.
            2. meGrail
              meGrail 13 February 2018 02: 22
              0
              And in general, his rockets fly - like Saturn - to the nearest sea! And everyone is shown shots from Hollywood that everything went well!
            3. thinking
              thinking 14 February 2018 13: 34
              0
              Quote: KVU-NSVD
              The whole "commercial" success of the Mask has a solid foundation of state support + skillful PR

              State support does not live there a little.
              ULA receives almost a billion dollars every year, just to not lose technology.
              Musk, of course, also wants it that way, but so far he hasn’t been given such a freebie.
              "How SpaceX brought down rocket launch prices"
              https://geektimes.ru/post/290153/
              The government pays ULA a fixed amount, regardless of which rocket was used at launch - whether it be Atlas V, Delta IV, or Delta IV Heavy. In addition, there is an EELV Launch Capability (ELC) contract, under which the ULA receives $ 860 million annually to provide access to space, even if there were no launches. The ULA also received a total of $ 5 billion in other expenses related to equipment for the production of missiles.
        2. Solomon Kane
          Solomon Kane 12 February 2018 11: 07
          +7
          I agree, and tomorrow Mask will declare that he launched the satellite for $ 1, his money - as much as he wants, so much is announced .... recourse
        3. Yuyuka
          Yuyuka 12 February 2018 11: 11
          +2
          Quote: KVU-NSVD
          Mask 90 million heavy launch.
          Do not unconditionally believe the Mask. First of all, he is a businessman and pushes the goods without saying all the calculations at a cost. Secondly, in the tradition of American developments, initially a relatively low price is called, and then, as the process progresses, it grows substantially. There are enough examples ...


          good thank God you can’t write - they already said wassat drinks
          1. KVU-NSVD
            KVU-NSVD 12 February 2018 11: 17
            +4
            thank God you can’t write - they already said
            Always happy to help... laughing And for drinks sort of too early .. Although ... laughing
            1. Yuyuka
              Yuyuka 12 February 2018 12: 00
              +1
              Quote: KVU-NSVD
              thank God you can’t write - they already said
              Always happy to help... laughing And for drinks sort of too early .. Although ... laughing


              early is never too late! winked Yes, and we are ... symbolically ... bit by bit ... fellow
        4. Berber
          Berber 12 February 2018 11: 32
          +2
          Musk in the "dupe". He needs good PR to receive further funding. Moreover, most likely it is a showcase, and there is still a bunch of "worthy" officials helping to cut. So, I won’t be surprised that the news is with a shower. But to us that, let them saw further, is not our budget.
          1. donavi49
            donavi49 12 February 2018 11: 39
            +3
            All normal people are sawing on SLS - there they allocated 35 billion. The Mask doesn’t have as much money at all as it is possible to steal unnoticed with SLS laughing . Especially SLS national project in concept MAKE GREAT AGAIN and if there is not enough money, they will add how much is needed.
            1. Berber
              Berber 12 February 2018 11: 53
              +2
              I say - too beautiful picture with the launch turned out. Also the roadster advertised. And he made a bunch of promises for new missiles. It smacks of fraud.
              1. Yuyuka
                Yuyuka 12 February 2018 12: 04
                0
                Quote: BerBer
                I say - too beautiful picture with the launch turned out. Also the roadster advertised. And he made a bunch of promises for new missiles. It smacks of fraud.


                Fraud ... no such word in business! wassat
                1. meGrail
                  meGrail 13 February 2018 02: 24
                  +1
                  Gentlemen, such a nice company for sawing in the USA has gathered! Maybe you’ll do an article, we all read it with interest, well, there, with sources and links ...
              2. donavi49
                donavi49 12 February 2018 12: 26
                +4
                SLS is the land of Boeing and YULA. Not related to the Mask. Compared with the dough going there - the whole project is a crumb mask not worthy of attention.

                In the USA, they are now building 4 new heavy and superheavy rockets at the same time if that.

                The first SLS flight next year. Immediately to fly around the moon.
                1. Berber
                  Berber 12 February 2018 16: 31
                  0
                  Thank you, I didn’t. But Musk is trending.
              3. Negro
                Negro 12 February 2018 22: 59
                0
                Quote: BerBer
                It smacks of fraud.

                He asked you to send him money?
                1. Berber
                  Berber 13 February 2018 08: 34
                  0
                  Ok, give your harmonious definition. All according to the rules of magicians, in the likeness: "and then the handles, here they are"
        5. alstr
          alstr 12 February 2018 11: 59
          +2
          This is how to calculate the cost. If you include all of everything (boarding houses, salaries of all staff, etc., etc.), you get the number of w-go. But if you leave only the materials and do not even take into account the salary of the workers who assembled the rocket, then you get the small cost of the way.

          We just have a different approach to calculating overhead costs. We have invoices less than 100% are rare, but they have the opposite.

          Threat about 500 million for development. He talked about his investments. they forget that he has already signed several launch contracts, i.e. he could use that money too.
      2. mole
        mole 12 February 2018 11: 32
        0
        Quote: donavi49
        Plus, energy was made at the technological level of 80's, with cooperation at the level of 80's. In fact, you have to make a new rocket.

        Something tells me that the very documenting of this cooperation in the 80s weighed in paper (packs of paper) by an order of magnitude less than the current one.
      3. prosto_rgb
        prosto_rgb 12 February 2018 22: 55
        0
        Quote: donavi49
        Not. A rocket cost 150 million rubles then - that is, 200 + million dollars today (and taking into account hidden costs, new cooperation, etc. - it will be closer to 300).

        about $ 500 million for today's money
        generally not surprising
        comparable start-up costs expected from SLS
    2. prosto_rgb
      prosto_rgb 12 February 2018 22: 54
      0
      Quote: Solomon Kane
      the possibility of controlled flight in case of failure of one of the engines on any part of the trajectory.

      the same is on Falcon 9, which is typical, demonstrated in practice in one of the launches
  3. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 12 February 2018 10: 39
    +4
    And you say no money. Appeared, therefore. Space is the same engine of new technologies as the military industry.
    1. Professor
      Professor 12 February 2018 11: 01
      +4
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      And you say no money. Appeared, therefore. Space is the same engine of new technologies as the military industry.

      Quite the opposite. The military-industrial complex today is a brake on progress, and Musk was able to make his project based on technologies available on the "citizen". Therefore, it turned out cheaply for him. By the way, the famous military quality today is inferior to civilian. Laugh together over Mil Standard?
    2. Simargl
      Simargl 12 February 2018 18: 01
      0
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Space is the same engine of new technologies as the military industry.
      The engine of new technologies is the automotive industry.
      All the rest are quite conservative.
      1. thinking
        thinking 15 February 2018 01: 33
        0
        Quote: Simargl
        The engine of new technologies is the automotive industry.
        All the rest are quite conservative.

        There are many facts that refute this statement, but I will limit myself to two.
        1. In Russia, created an engine for an aerospace plane
        https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20151005/1297159118
        .html
        The combined air-rocket engine with a ramjet pulsating combustion chamber, a prechamber and an air launch system was created to enable the propulsion system to operate both in the atmosphere and in outer space. A promising aircraft with such an engine can deliver cargo to orbital stations with greater benefit, the agency’s interlocutor noted.
        "The problem of creating a combined power plant for the aircraft to transfer the engine from air to rocket in space during flight in the atmosphere has been solved. The engine includes a power plant operating on two circuits (modes) - air and rocket," explained the representative of the Academy in during the exhibition "Innovation Day of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation - 2015".

        2. Engines for hypersonic missiles of the future are being created https://rg.ru/2018/01/18/levochkin-vozmozhnost-so
        zdaniia-detonacionnogo-dvigatelia-podtverdilas.ht
        ml
        In the process of theoretical and experimental studies, the possibility of creating a detonation rocket engine on such components was confirmed. Based on the obtained data, we developed, manufactured and successfully tested a detonation model chamber with a draft of 2 tons and a pressure in the combustion chamber of about 40 atm.
        1. Simargl
          Simargl 21 February 2018 20: 41
          0
          Quote: thinking
          There are many facts that refute this statement, but I will limit myself to two.
          So what? These engines will be introduced for at least another 30 years. Even if you need it right yesterday.
  4. figwam
    figwam 12 February 2018 10: 40
    +3
    They just drag us into the space race.
    1. Romario_Argo
      Romario_Argo 12 February 2018 10: 46
      +1
      This is a project for a new orbital station, with a new architecture of massive 11 modules of meter diameter and up to 30 meters in length. with the prospect of building from such modules, a heavy interplanetary ship. respectively with nuclear power plants
  5. Meliodous
    Meliodous 12 February 2018 10: 40
    +5
    Ummm, but there is a hangar. There is modularity from ultralight to superheavy.
    Or is it still zilch and everything needs to be done anew?
    1. Ivan Tarava
      Ivan Tarava 12 February 2018 13: 24
      +1
      Unfortunately, the layouts do not fly.
    2. Pan_hrabio
      Pan_hrabio 12 February 2018 13: 26
      +1
      Yes, this is a long-suffering and long-term zilch. Nothing remains of its modularity.

      https://zelenyikot.livejournal.com/116801.html
    3. zoolu350
      zoolu350 13 February 2018 05: 01
      0
      The Angara launch vehicle is a step backward compared to the Zenith launch vehicle. You cannot make a normal supertension based on it. Since the oligarchy of the Russian Federation is not able to reproduce 5% of the mass technology to OO, the RF oligarchy is not able to reproduce it, then it will most likely be 5tiZenith with a maximum mass of OO of just over 3%.
  6. Sofa expert
    Sofa expert 12 February 2018 10: 40
    0
    Why come up with something that does not fly? Or fly in the distant future? Yesterday it was necessary to begin construction of interplanetary spacecraft in orbit ..
    1. Thrall
      Thrall 12 February 2018 10: 42
      +4
      Quote: Sofa Expert
      Why come up with something that does not fly? Or fly in the distant future?

      Thinking is generally bad. And some are not given smile
      1. Yuyuka
        Yuyuka 12 February 2018 11: 17
        +1
        Quote: Thrall
        Quote: Sofa Expert
        Why come up with something that does not fly? Or fly in the distant future?

        Thinking is generally bad. And some are not given smile


        “Why invent something that won't fly?” Or fly in the distant future? Leonardo, can you hear me ??

    2. Burbon
      Burbon 12 February 2018 11: 00
      +1
      Quote: Sofa Expert
      Yesterday it was necessary to begin construction of interplanetary spacecraft in orbit ..

      Duc death star is in the hangar and waiting for a command to launch .... into distant orbit .... did not know?
  7. Victor_B
    Victor_B 12 February 2018 10: 42
    0
    Somewhere it slipped that the start of Energia on Baikonur was not looted and could be restored.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 12 February 2018 10: 51
      0
      But the production a long time ago.
  8. weksha50
    weksha50 12 February 2018 10: 51
    +3
    "“What will Russia do with such a monster?”"....

    So I myself have this question in my head ....
    Throwing huge amounts of money to the wind is not from a great mind and masterfulness, but purely for the sake of showing off, for the sake of incomprehensible prestige ...
    The prestige in space would be strengthened sooner if new developments were launched into space successfully, without overlays, accidents and disasters ... hi
    1. Aqr009
      Aqr009 12 February 2018 14: 42
      +2
      The author asks: "What will Russia do with such a monster?" According to him, “the missile will be too large to carry out commercial or military functions

      What kind of "author" is this mysterious, who heard the ringing ... This rocket will not be a monster, but quite a harmonious reincarnation of the handsome "Zenith". According to calculations, in a package of 7 blocks, it will lift not 90, as it is written, but 115 tons, in a single version about 17 tons.
      So, that this is a rather universal and very practical launch vehicle should succeed, but the practicality of SLS still needs to be substantiated.
      1. Simargl
        Simargl 12 February 2018 18: 08
        +1
        Quote: Aqr009
        This rocket will not be a monster, but quite a harmonious reincarnation of the handsome "Zenith"
        Is it a diversification of the Angara? The same modularity, but "meaner" in terms of load capacity.
        Quote: Aqr009
        According to calculations, in a package of 7 blocks, it will raise not 90, as it is written, but 115
        7x17 = 119 ... no, 115 will not be there. 90-100 - more real.
        Quote: Aqr009
        in a single version of about 17 tons
        So this is Soyuz-5. No?
        1. Negro
          Negro 12 February 2018 23: 01
          0
          Quote: Simargl
          So this is Soyuz-5. No?

          It is he.
        2. Aqr009
          Aqr009 12 February 2018 23: 40
          0
          7x17 = 119 ... no, 115 will not be there. 90-100 - more real.

          In this configuration, the 2nd stage is oxygen-hydrogen. Therefore, the tandem will be more pulling.
          So this is Soyuz-5. No?

          Yes, more precisely Phoenix-Sunkar-Soyuz-5. Not to be confused with Soyuz-5.1
          1. slipped
            slipped 13 February 2018 02: 32
            +1
            in a couple of days there will be protection by SCC
  9. BABA SHURA
    BABA SHURA 12 February 2018 10: 57
    +2
    Again gasoline will rise in price ..
    1. Bronevick
      Bronevick 12 February 2018 13: 26
      +2
      If only gasoline.
  10. kaschey
    kaschey 12 February 2018 11: 00
    0
    "A super-heavy rocket is being developed in Russia"
    I would specify the "heaviest."
    1. Sam_gosling
      Sam_gosling 12 February 2018 11: 24
      0
      Except for the budget
    2. alexhol
      alexhol 12 February 2018 11: 40
      -1
      For the budget, it will be "super heavy." I watched in the morning the news about RBC technologies: unmanned trucks, taxi quadrocopters and all the other stuff of startupers from all countries. It seems that the train of technological progress is passing us. We are like those residents of a provincial town from the Soviet film "Nameless Star".
  11. Lexus
    Lexus 12 February 2018 11: 08
    +3
    Well, the “flea” (Mask) again bit, and ours “scratched, scratched”, dibs sawed, paving slabs in Moscow will once again shift and calm down. Almost 20 years ago, an epic with superheavy pH. And the name was changed, and the developer, and "things are there."
    1. Simargl
      Simargl 12 February 2018 18: 09
      +1
      Quote: lexus
      Almost 20 years ago, an epic with superheavy pH. And the name was changed, and the developer, and "things are there."
      Yeah. Now you need a landing.
  12. Falcond
    Falcond 12 February 2018 11: 14
    0
    Those. in fact, 10-15 years backward ...
    1. Sam_gosling
      Sam_gosling 12 February 2018 11: 26
      0
      Yes, if you consider that the idea of ​​a heavy hawk was implemented from the age of 9 by private traders with a maximum staff of 5 souls. Our then with the OKB where dozens of thousands work faster, of course they will (no).
  13. Falcond
    Falcond 12 February 2018 11: 23
    +1
    Superheavy - in the sense it will be difficult to create
  14. K-50
    K-50 12 February 2018 11: 29
    0
    It is not even a matter of whether it is possible / not possible to create. We can do anything, if the leadership had a desire. But why create it? Will there be load on it or not, demand for launches? Or will you have to collect "clusters" of several tens / hundreds of satellites to justify the manufacture and launch of such a device?
    1. Reader 2013
      Reader 2013 12 February 2018 13: 26
      0
      We also have no suckers working, they will launch the UAZ Patriot, but rather the “Loaf” for its 80th anniversary
      1. Simargl
        Simargl 12 February 2018 18: 11
        +1
        Quote: Reader 2013
        UAZ Patriot will be launched, but better, “Loaf” for its 80th anniversary
        And better - T-34 ... or IS-3 ... or ...
  15. Wedmak
    Wedmak 12 February 2018 11: 32
    0
    “What will Russia do with such a monster?”

    They gave you a clear hint ...
    Currently, Russian engineers are designing a lunar base
  16. Falcond
    Falcond 12 February 2018 11: 36
    +1
    I’m thinking ... if the states finally made a heavy rocket and launched Tesla into the space bridge .... then what were they supposedly flying to the moon 40 years ago ????
    1. slontusid
      slontusid 12 February 2018 14: 29
      +2
      Well - they launched from 500 to 1300 kg (this is the weight of the Tesla roadster according to various estimates) and called ...
      what will happen when they launch 6000 kg? super heavy? and if 11000 kg? super super super heavy?
      1. thinking
        thinking 15 February 2018 01: 58
        0
        But what, the truck that goes empty, ceases to be a truck, and in this case it must be called a passenger car (he only carries one driver)? wassat
    2. Scalpel
      Scalpel 12 February 2018 15: 38
      0
      On Saturn 5. But then a lot more people worked on its creation and it cost accordingly. Musk does everything in the spirit of the times, using modern technology. For example, they used to build supercomputers, now they are building data centers and computing clusters from relatively cheap servers that successfully solve their problems.
    3. Simargl
      Simargl 12 February 2018 18: 19
      +1
      Quote: FalconD
      then what were they supposedly flying to the moon 40 years ago ????
      On the rocket. Saturn 5 is called.
      Spaceics employs over 5000 people, and the Apollo program employs over 25000 people. One of the most resource-intensive areas is the calculation of parameters and designs: the beginning of the era of at least some computers, while now I drew the design, assembled virtually, and even more or less voltage can be seen.
      The simplest, closest example is IL-76: read how it was modernized (digitally).
  17. iwind
    iwind 12 February 2018 11: 37
    +1
    No, that would worry about the fact that there will only be luck in 2028.
    So many years of work on the Angara into the void. Without it, participation in the exploration of the Moon, etc. doubtful. but there is no reasoning that spaecx has a different missile. “Well, I don’t have a cow, but I have a neighbor, but I don’t get enough milk.” But they don’t have to worry about the USA and they still have SLS from 2019.
  18. Old26
    Old26 12 February 2018 11: 58
    +3
    Quote: Spartanez300
    If the space agency had been waiting for years for the opportunity to develop a rocket, really there were no preliminary developments for the same "Hangar" which also had an option in a superheavy class, and now it takes 10 years to create it, well, in general, as usual in Russia. request

    Kamrad! Well, for starters, you can only trust the NI or RM edition with a very big stretch. What does it mean waiting for an opportunity? At one time, the EMNIP was won by the Rus-M rocket, which had only three modifications, but at the same time the light one exceeded the Angara A-5 in carrying capacity, and the average one exceeded Angara A-7. But when undercover games come into play, things go awry. Including becoming at the helm of Roscosmos, Mr. Popovkin began to push precisely the "Angara". The project "Rus-M" was closed because “Already spent a lot on“ Angara ”, it is necessary to bring it up, and not spend another billions on“ Rus. ”About 5-7 years ago, a figure flashed that about“ Angara ”had already spent about 160 billion rubles.
    Roscosmos repeatedly held contests ("independent") that sometimes won other missiles, but continued to push with persistence to the "Angara".

    It has now become clear that even the "superheavy" "Hangar A-7" ​​will not be able to put more than 35-41 tons of cargo into low Earth orbit. In addition, if you build a table for the "Hangar A-5" on the same "East", then the "Hangar A-7" ​​cannot be launched from it. need another table.
    And the competitive products were: Amur-5 "," Yenisei-5 "," Energy-5 ". Moreover, the same" Energy-5 "could output low from 80 to 105 tons depending on the modification," Amur-5 "and Yenisei-5 "- 125 tons. The current, which will be developed - as much as 90 tons (to the moon - 20 tons, against 49-65 tons at" Amur-5 ").
    The point of creating a missile with obviously worse performance, when the same competitors - the Americans create SLS with the launch into orbit from 105 to 130 tons? In general, some incomprehensible article in this magazine

    Quote: Solomon Kane
    Sense to come up with a wheel?
    The RN Energy project, with a loading capacity of 10 to 200 tons, 3- and 4-fold duplication of important systems and the possibility of a controlled flight in case of failure of one of the engines on any part of the trajectory.
    Well, what to invent? Flying off in 1988 on a perfectly run-in project.
    Or again they’ll cut a few “yards” from the budget, launch “Energy”, and say: “We created” ..... fool

    "Energy" was made by the USSR. In particular, the sidewalls - Yuzhmash (Dnepropetrovsk), Repeat "Energy" / "Volcano" in their original form will not work. And why, when the same designs of “Yenisei-5” and “Amur-5” from Energy now fully satisfy their characteristics

    Quote: Meliodous
    Ummm, but there is a hangar. There is modularity from ultralight to superheavy.
    Or is it still zilch and everything needs to be done anew?

    Super heavy there and does not smell. Of the options for Angara-1.1, Angara -1.2, Angara A-3, Angara A-4, Angara A-5, Angara A-7, only Angara 1.2 and Angara A-5 remained. The rest were all closed. Yes, and the A-7 can hardly be called superheavy with its 40 tons of carrying capacity
    1. Tektor
      Tektor 12 February 2018 12: 26
      0
      The point of creating a missile with obviously worse performance, when the same competitors - the Americans create SLS with the launch into orbit from 105 to 130 tons?
      Price: the point in price competitiveness with other pH. This is a moment of principle! We will make the cheapest pH.
  19. loginovich
    loginovich 12 February 2018 12: 04
    +1
    “The news of the signing by the President of Russia of a decree on the development of a super-heavy rocket, which will be based on the Vostochny Cosmodrome, was published on Friday without much fanfare.
    "Modesty" is the darkest guarantee of success. Modesty lasted for three days.

  20. Old26
    Old26 12 February 2018 12: 36
    0
    Quote: Tektor
    The point of creating a missile with obviously worse performance, when the same competitors - the Americans create SLS with the launch into orbit from 105 to 130 tons?
    Price: the point in price competitiveness with other pH. This is a moment of principle! We will make the cheapest pH.

    Probably do it. But if you need to bring, for example, to a lunar orbit, a complex that will pull 45 tons, what do you prefer: three cheaper Russian carriers or a more expensive American one. Given that the heavy ones are unlikely to be much cheaper here than ours? And if such goods are twice as large, for example 90 tons? 5 of ours against 2 of their carriers. Cheap is not always good. For bulk cargo - yes, but when it comes to tens of tons into the orbit of the moon or hundreds of tons in the orbit of the Earth - it’s not a fact that the customer will choose the rocket that is cheaper and which may need more
    1. axxmanm
      axxmanm 13 February 2018 11: 59
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      if you need to put, for example, into a lunar orbit a complex that will pull 45 tons, what do you prefer: three cheaper Russian carriers or a more expensive American one.

      even a second grader will answer correctly -
      if three cheap missiles in total will be cheaper than 1 expensive one when performing the same task, then they are better.
    2. axxmanm
      axxmanm 13 February 2018 12: 08
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      but when it comes to tens of tons in the orbit of the moon or hundreds of tons in the orbit of the earth

      first you need to clearly identify these tasks, begin to carry them out (financing, design, etc.) and only then start designing carriers - and most likely for any task (including the creation of a permanent inhabited base-colony on the moon), a LV of 25-30 is enough tons, made according to the scheme providing its low cost. high reliability, the ability to quickly prepare the launch complex for the next launch.
      Such a dimension (along with an 8-ton carrier rocket supplementing it unified by the launch complex, engines and fuel) will completely cope with the whole spectrum of commercial and military loads.
      1. axxmanm
        axxmanm 13 February 2018 12: 13
        +1
        Massive, most simple, reliable, inexpensive line-up (at the first stage in 2 types) of monoblock missiles with a unified launch complex
        1. with a loading capacity of 6-8 tons - for launching manned unions and other payloads in this dimension.
        2. with a loading capacity of 25-30 tons for successful competition in launches of heavy satellites at the GPO and GSO, for launches of heavy complexes at the IEO and for launches to the moon and deep space.
        Fuel - methane (simple and inexpensive open-circuit engines with a decent specific impulse) are the same for both the first and second stages, but with different nozzles (thanks to Mask, where's the good fellow)
        monoblock construction. (without any idiotic bundles of firewood that destroyed the hangar)
        The term of development with fire tests of engines shall be determined no more than 3 years ..
        ... otherwise again - Khoja Ishak Emir.
  21. Zomanus
    Zomanus 12 February 2018 12: 42
    0
    It is possible to launch rocket platforms into orbit of the Earth.
  22. Bypassed
    Bypassed 12 February 2018 12: 42
    0
    All is more wonderful and wonderful:
    Roscosmos proposed launching a Russian lunar multifunctional module on an American rocket. This statement was made at a meeting of the multilateral coordinating council for the development of the international lunar station DSG (Deep Space Gateway) in Tokyo (Japan), Popular Mechanics writes.
    Before meeting in Tokyo, the head of Roscosmos Igor Komarov held a meeting in Russia with experts on manned space exploration. In RSC Energia, it was proposed to create a multi-purpose module for DSG, capable of simultaneously performing the functions of a laboratory, residential and lock blocks. Previously, the development of such a product was not included in the design of the lunar station.
    The cost of the module is estimated at more than $ 706 million, it is planned to launch it to the moon using the American superheavy rocket SLS (Space Launch System). It also considers the possibility of sending the module to the Earth satellite during two launches of Russian heavy missiles.
    All the same, how - flying a trailer or yourself?
  23. betta
    betta 12 February 2018 12: 56
    0
    Sorry, but does anyone know that our science and industry will be able to create a high-tech apparatus weighing several tens of tons? This is because there is a limit on weight (average weight of all spacecraft created per year) by which a country is able to create such a volume per year? I suspect that I cannot. We need to connect too many institutes and enterprises, neither for money nor for development we can issue.
    1. thinking
      thinking 15 February 2018 03: 41
      0
      Quote: betta
      Sorry, but does anyone know that our science and industry will be able to create a high-tech apparatus weighing several tens of tons?

      You lose sight of one interesting point - when developing space technology, there is a very strict limit on the weight of created technology. This creates serious problems in its creation (which you are hinting at). For example, multiple duplication of critical nodes cannot be used to provide the required reliability. If you remove the restrictions on weight, it will only simplify and accelerate the creation of new space technology.
      1. betta
        betta 15 February 2018 09: 37
        0
        I meant something else. Scientific developments are embodied in the material, and this is weight. For example, the United States can create 100 tons, we have 10 tons, respectively, and the question is if we are able to make only this amount, then the country is not able to create an apparatus for example 50 tons. Rather, he can, but for this it is necessary to stop engaging in other developments and spending at the same time 5 times the conditional term (for example, for 5 years the whole country will make only one satellite, abandoning everything else). How many closed institutions? In addition to the 50-tone satellite, the country needs others, but who needs to develop (and do)?
        1. thinking
          thinking 18 February 2018 10: 14
          0
          Quote: betta
          I meant something else. Scientific developments are embodied in the material, and this is weight.

          I do not want to compare the scientific, technological production capabilities of creating spacecraft in the United States and Russia, but I can express my opinion on your issues.
          Suppose in Russia there is an opportunity to create space technology only 10 tons per year, and it is necessary to create a space platform with equipment for 30 tons (according to the old strict requirements for weight) with the possibility of putting 100 tons into orbit. That is, there are specialists of the highest level to create only 10 tons per year. In our case, the weight restrictions have been lifted, the creation of equipment has become easier and more companies can be connected to the development and production.
          A large margin in the displayed weight will allow even equipment created by students to be placed on board the apparatus, which will make it possible to prepare the required number of specialists as soon as possible. The main thing here is to start and this bottleneck can be removed. Something like that.
      2. thinking
        thinking 15 February 2018 15: 55
        0
        Quote: thinking
        If you remove the restrictions on weight, it will only simplify and accelerate the creation of new space technology.


        I decided to add a specific example. Compare the equal capabilities of a desktop computer and a laptop. A laptop is more expensive and less reliable.
  24. slontusid
    slontusid 12 February 2018 12: 59
    +4
    At this political stage (while compradors are still in the power of the Russian Federation) the development of a superheavy rocket is not just unnecessary, but harmful — it is just one more reason to steal and withdraw loot abroad, and to create a benevolent picture of the “revival of greatness” for the townsfolk.
    Since compradors, by definition, are also ohlocrates,
    then seeing in action the masked ochlocratic manipulation strategy,
    which, considering the general public a dumb cattle
    with memory a little longer than fish
    with the aim of constant coverage in the information space of their activities,
    creates hype by throwing crazy ideas, such as the mythical "reusability", hyper-loops, manned overflights of the moon in 2018 and landing on Mars in 2024,
    they (compradors of the Russian Federation, imagining themselves to be cool manipulators)
    They want to repeat the same thing with the budget and the population of the Russian Federation - they make long-term promises and rub their hands in anticipation of profits from the cut and short-term (and longer, no need) PR effect.
    1. axxmanm
      axxmanm 12 February 2018 16: 41
      +1
      Quote: slontusid
      the development of a superheavy rocket is not just not necessary, but harmful - it is just another reason to steal and withdraw loot abroad

      I agree about the super-heavy ..
      And what you need?
      Massive, extremely simple, reliable, inexpensive line-up (at the first stage in 2 types) of monoblock missiles with a unified launch complex
      with a loading capacity of 8 tons - for launching manned alliances and other payloads in this dimension.
      with a loading capacity of 28 tons for successful competition in launches of heavy satellites at the GPO and GSO, for launches of heavy complexes at the IEO and for launches to the moon and deep space.
      fuel - methane (simple and inexpensive open-circuit engines with a decent specific impulse) are the same for both the first and second stages but with different nozzles (thanks to Mask, where the fellow is doing well)
      monoblock construction. (without any idiotic bundles of firewood that destroyed the hangar)
      The term of development with fire tests of engines shall be determined no more than 3 years ..
      otherwise again - Khoja Ishak Emir.
      1. Simargl
        Simargl 12 February 2018 18: 28
        +1
        Quote: axxmanm
        with a loading capacity of 8 tons - for launching manned alliances and other payloads in this dimension.
        Forget about 8 tons in 5 years like a bad dream!
        If not fly Федерация - we will hang out in low Earth orbit, creating competition first to the Chinese, then to the Indians, then to the Japanese (etc.)!

        Quote: axxmanm
        with a loading capacity of 28 tons for successful competition in launches of heavy satellites at GPO and GSO, for launches of heavy complexes at DOE and for launches to the moon and deep space.
        Is it trolling? From 28 tons on the DOE there will be 5-7 tons to the moon. Kittens ride?
        1. axxmanm
          axxmanm 13 February 2018 11: 48
          +1
          Quote: Simargl
          If the Federation does not fly, we will hang out in low Earth orbit, creating competition first to the Chinese, then to the Indians, then to the Japanese (etc.)!

          "Federation" (PTK NP) - utter stupidity imposed by politicians who forced designers to conceptually copy American (and still not able to fly up) absurd barrels (artificially inflated, in response to - "why are they better than the union?" Joyfully reply: 6-7 people accommodate - not in vain we spend taxpayer money !!!).
          That is, the same rake when the Kremlin elders forced to copy the shuttle.
          In view of the fact that the KK Federation is the fruit of a political order,
          he is very unsuccessful in layout and concept,
          and here it is necessary to rejoice in delays in its implementation
          and hope that it will never be created.
          1. axxmanm
            axxmanm 13 February 2018 11: 51
            +1
            Quote: axxmanm
            In view of the fact that the KK Federation is the fruit of a political order,
            he is very unsuccessful in layout and concept,
            and here it is necessary to rejoice in delays in its implementation
            and hope that it will never be created.

            For flights to the moon and into orbit of the earth,
            it is quite enough Unions, or a new ship repeating at a new technical level its concept.
            Although I believe there’s nothing to do in orbit
            - you must fly immediately to the moon and make a permanent base there.
            As soon as the power of compradors and prostitutes changes,
            Russia will become the undisputed leader in space exploration, which will pull the development of our entire country as a great technological power, and not a shameful raw material colony.
          2. Simargl
            Simargl 13 February 2018 14: 29
            0
            Quote: axxmanm
            Federation "(PTK NP) - utter stupidity imposed by politicians who forced designers to conceptually copy American (and still unable to take off) absurd barrels
            To get started, take the trouble to offer a cheaper and / or advanced option.
            Do not offer an option with an orbital glider, as wings of any shape - the design is very critical for landing on Earth and absolutely useless when landing on the moon, for which the Federation is created. Landing by planning itself does not give any advantage with a sufficiently accurate hit by a brake impulse.
            Quote: axxmanm
            (artificially inflated, so that in response to ““ are they better than a union? ”it’s joyful to answer: 6-7 people can accommodate - it’s not for nothing that we spend taxpayer money !!!)
            What is this for? The Union is already close in anthropometry! It so happened that people not only grew up, but now scientists are flying more and more into space, who can be both taller and thicker. For example, the VAZ-2101 is not as convenient for me as the Grant, for example, although I am not a giant.
            Well, the number of people (and / or associated cargo) is no minus!
            Quote: axxmanm
            That is, the same rake when the Kremlin elders forced to copy the shuttle.
            I don’t know who made what there, and after the only launch of Buran our sworn friends completed Endeavor and that’s all. The meaning in such a barge was lost.
            Why did they replace the Challenger with a shuttle (Endeavor), but they didn’t replace Colombia, and they decided to close the program, although they were bought by professionals on Earth (I hung out in orbit for 2 weeks, but no one bothered to order an inspection of the casing !!! Whether such professionals , or specifically knocked out).
            Quote: axxmanm
            In view of the fact that the KK Federation is the fruit of a political order,
            he is very unsuccessful in layout and concept
            Let me ask, what fright do these things have in common with?
            Well, yours
            Quote: axxmanm
            and here we must rejoice in the delays in its implementation and hope that it will never be created.
            They do not give the right to doubt that you are against the technical movement forward, even if not in your direction.
            For example, I am for an air launch on a dynamic lunge (or slide), but I adequately respond to the construction of conventional cosmodromes.
            Quote: axxmanm
            it is quite enough Unions, or a new ship repeating at a new technical level its concept.
            You contradict yourself: the Federation is a new CC, partially repeating the concept of the Union, but with an added set of functions and a seriously redesigned internal volume. By the way, they wanted to remake the Union at the very beginning, but did not dare. And now he just needs a replacement due to obsolescence (not electronics, of course: it's new every time).
            Quote: axxmanm
            Although I believe that there is nothing to do in orbit - you need to fly immediately to the moon and make a permanent base there.
            And nobody argues with that!
            1. axxmanm
              axxmanm 14 February 2018 00: 40
              +1
              Quote: Simargl
              Quote: axxmanm
              Although I believe that there is nothing to do in orbit - you need to fly immediately to the moon and make a permanent base there.
              ---------------------------------
              And nobody argues with that!

              Well, finally we have found at least one point of agreement :)
              down with the ISS !!!
              you give a colony base on the moon !!!
  25. ultra
    ultra 12 February 2018 13: 01
    0
    Quote: Professor
    but already flies

    I think that there will be problems with reliability. Too many engines are at the first stage.
    1. Pan_hrabio
      Pan_hrabio 12 February 2018 13: 38
      0
      Quote: ultra
      I think that there will be problems with reliability. Too many engines are at the first stage.


      Wait and see. Since the days of the Soviet N-1, the capabilities of electronics have grown many times, and this is exactly what is important when controlling so many engines. Plus on the Falcons there are, though not record-breaking in terms of parameters, but reliable engines, which, alas, cannot be said about the N-1 engines at the time of launch.
      1. Simargl
        Simargl 12 February 2018 18: 30
        0
        Quote: noviczok
        Plus on the Falcons are, though not record-breaking in terms of parameters, but reliable engines
        What are the record parameters? The specific impulse is as if it were deformed. Only the F-1 is worse
        1. Pan_hrabio
          Pan_hrabio 12 February 2018 19: 20
          0
          So I also meant it. The specific impulse and thrust to hell, but cheap and reliable.
          1. KaPToC
            KaPToC 12 February 2018 22: 41
            +2
            Quote: noviczok
            So I also meant it. The specific impulse and thrust to hell, but cheap and reliable.

            This does not happen, in fact, the higher the specific impulse and thrust, the cheaper the output of a unit of weight into orbit.
            1. Pan_hrabio
              Pan_hrabio 12 February 2018 23: 36
              +1
              I am not inclined to simplify this way. In a spherical vacuum, ceteris paribus yes. But in real life you need to look comprehensively, engine perfection is only one of the parameters. The more technologically advanced the engine, the more expensive its development, refinement and production. Therefore, in terms of price / result, it is quite advantageous to use, if not record-breaking, but relatively cheap, simple and reliable engines that can be quickly stamped in the right quantities.

              There is no point in talking about Merlin on the Falcons - a banal example of this approach. But as an option RD-107/108. Today’s archaic engine, but its reliability overlaps not outstanding parameters.
              1. KaPToC
                KaPToC 12 February 2018 23: 46
                +1
                Quote: noviczok
                The more technologically advanced the engine, the more expensive its development, refinement and production.

                All the more, the weight of the payload will be the weight of the rocket and, accordingly, the lower the cost of putting a mass unit into orbit.
                1. thinking
                  thinking 15 February 2018 04: 39
                  0
                  Quote: KaPToC
                  All the more, the weight of the payload will be the weight of the rocket and, accordingly, the lower the cost of putting a mass unit into orbit.

                  It seems that you gave a quote noviczok, but did not understand what he wrote. In each case, a reasonable compromise is needed between simplicity and cheapness on the one hand and technical excellence on the other.
  26. Muvka
    Muvka 12 February 2018 13: 26
    0
    Quote: Professor
    Quote: Muvka
    But why do not they want to use a cheaper rocket? I would understand if it were 1,5 times cheaper. But at 10, Karl! 10 times!

    Not cheaper, but free. fellow
    But the space agency viewed commercial development of this rocket as "competition"and refused their offer.

    However, the space agency viewed the commercial development of this rocket as “the competition”And rejected their offer.

    Those. just because of competition, NASA does not want to use a rocket, the launch of which costs, as you write, 11 times cheaper, right? As I understand it, they have nowhere to put money. I repeat, I would understand if the price difference was 1,5 well 2 times. But 11! It just seems to me that not stupid people work at NASA. That's all.
  27. Ivan Tarava
    Ivan Tarava 12 February 2018 13: 32
    +1
    Race for space.
  28. Lynx33
    Lynx33 12 February 2018 13: 37
    +2
    I am simply amazed at the naivety of local commentators. You start comparing prices and terms for an unresponsive merchant who works on the principle of "I blinded him from what was, and then what was, then launched" and a clumsy state structure that is obliged to comply with countless normative documents and everyone confirm with lengthy tests, and therefore the prices and terms are tens of times higher. Allow our defense industry and the space industry to fail to comply with GOSTs, and prices will be an order of magnitude lower and deadlines, but no one will give a guarantee for the result.
  29. Mentat
    Mentat 12 February 2018 14: 15
    +2
    Quote: Professor
    Quote: Thrall
    Falcon Heavy one and a half times weaker will

    No willbut it does. And not to 2028, but already flies. Moreover, for a ridiculous $ 90 million with the cost of the entire program only $ 500 million. Well, hangar with $ 7 billion spent on it. No.

    Tell these tales elsewhere.
    1. Due to tax exemptions and direct subsidies, Mask companies receive billions in infusions.
    2. Musk received ready-made engine drawings from NASA, what is the sum of 500 millions then, if there were no development costs for the engines?

    PS How are the "highly qualified Israeli engineers" from your enchanting statement about the assembly of batteries in Tesla's factories? Are finger-inserted batteries in the holders highly qualified?
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 12 February 2018 20: 21
      0
      Making engines, testing and putting them into series is much more expensive than calculating and designing them.
    2. Professor
      Professor 12 February 2018 20: 31
      +2
      Quote: Mentat
      1. Due to tax exemptions and direct subsidies, Mask companies receive billions in infusions.

      Tax breaks are not financing. And about the "direct subsidies" I would like to hear more. It is especially interesting to hear how the Falcon Heavy project and the "billions of infusions" were subsidized.

      Quote: Mentat
      2. Musk received ready-made engine drawings from NASA, what is the sum of 500 millions then, if there were no development costs for the engines?

      Well? Religion forbids you to use "ready-made engine drawings" on the Hangar and not spend $ 7 billion (SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS, Carl) or NASA itself not to let $ 15 billion go?

      Quote: Mentat
      PS How are the "highly qualified Israeli engineers" from your enchanting statement about the assembly of batteries in Tesla's factories? Are finger-inserted batteries in the holders highly qualified?

      Our engineers do not "insert" finger batteries into batteries, but automatically solder the contacts to each of these batteries. More or less like this:

      There are enough qualifications. Orders are pouring in. The stock price is confidently creeping up. good
  30. tezey
    tezey 12 February 2018 14: 53
    +2
    The superheavy rocket-heading of the article is being developed in Russia. Developing and signing a decree by the president on the development of a rocket are completely different things. What will we launch with a superheavy rocket? Maybe the president will sign a decree on creating a load for the rocket. By the way, how are things with the Federation ship. I would like to know what does not suit the superheavy rocket Energia, or with it as with Saturn-5, where all the design and technical documentation disappeared. I must admit that, to our great regret, there simply is no sane space program in our country, and without this it is not clear why the creation of a superheavy class rocket is necessary. If I am mistaken and such a program exists, please correct me.
    1. Simargl
      Simargl 12 February 2018 18: 46
      0
      Quote: Theseus
      I would like to know what the superheavy rocket Energia is not happy with, or with it as with Saturn-5, where all the design and technical documentation disappeared.
      Energy, does not suit, it is evident that the documentation is paper, there is no cooperation. And probably because it does not scale well ....
      It is the same with Saturn: for its time too powerful and expensive.
      Quote: Theseus
      I must admit that, to our great regret, there simply is no sane space program in our country, and without this it is not clear why the creation of a superheavy class rocket is necessary.
      Most likely, there are no programs (I hope this is not so). But why do this - in Roskosmos they clearly understand this: the battle is already beginning for the development of the resources of the under-planet ... and then Mars ... and then not Mars ...
      1. slipped
        slipped 13 February 2018 02: 40
        0
        Not this way. There is a federal space program. Here are her main points https://www.roscosmos.ru/22347/
        1. Simargl
          Simargl 13 February 2018 05: 29
          0
          Deployment to the necessary composition and ensuring continuous and stable control by the Russian orbital groupings of automatic and manned spacecraft in near-Earth orbits, as well as objects on the flight paths to the Moon and Mars;
          creation of at least 5 spacecraft for conducting in-depth studies of the Moon from a lunar orbit and on its surface with automatic spacecraft, as well as for delivering lunar soil samples to the Earth;
          Fulfillment of international obligations under the COSPAS-SARSAT International Search and Rescue Satellite System and participation in at least 2 missions as part of international cooperation on the exploration of Mars, Venus, Mercury and the Sun, in the flight of automatic spacecraft to planets and bodies of the earth group , delivery of soil from Phobos;
          the creation at the Vostochny cosmodrome of a heavy-class space rocket complex for launching automatic spacecraft, as well as the deployment of work related to a heavy-class launch vehicle for launching heavy automatic spacecraft, manned spacecraft and orbital modules on the flight path to the Moon, overflight of the Moon and lunar orbits;
          It does not contradict the statement.
          Moreover, this is only until the age of 25 ...
          As soon as they drill the moon and find hundreds of oil - even penguins will rush there!
          1. slipped
            slipped 13 February 2018 23: 06
            0
            What do you have with the statements? You asked about the program, I can decrypt it for you, if it doesn’t reach:

            “Deployment to the required composition and ensuring continuous and stable control by the Russian orbital groups of automatic and manned spacecraft in near-Earth orbits, as well as objects on the flight paths to the Moon and Mars” are the Canopuses, Meteors and other Earth remote sensing satellites launched now in series, as well as launches AMC to the Moon and Mars starting in 2019, the production of which goes to the Lavochkin NPO.

            "the creation of at least 5 spacecraft for conducting in-depth studies of the Moon from a lunar orbit and on its surface with automatic spacecraft, as well as for delivering samples of lunar soil to the Earth;" - AMC Luna-25 - 28 series (the latter consists of two devices).

            "Fulfillment of international obligations under the COSPAS-SARSAT International Search and Rescue Satellite System and participation in at least 2 missions as part of international cooperation on the exploration of Mars, Venus, Mercury and the Sun, in the flight of automatic spacecraft to planets and bodies of the earth groups, delivery of soil from Phobos "- the instruments of this search and rescue complex are installed on the spacecraft as an additional payload. Participation in the joint programs "Exomars 2016-2020", "Venus-D", "Beppi-Colombo" and "Interheliosonde", "Boomerang".

            "the creation of a heavy-class space rocket complex at the Vostochny cosmodrome for the launch of automatic spacecraft, as well as the deployment of work related to a heavy-class launch vehicle for launching heavy automatic spacecraft, manned spacecraft and orbital modules on the flight path to the Moon, the moon’s flight and lunar orbits; " -
            The complex is being created as part of the second and third phases of the construction of the Vostochny spaceport.

            In addition, until 2025, it is planned to participate in the international project of the near-moon station, to create the infrastructure for controlling the planetary automata in the teleoperator control mode.
  31. Archivist Vasya
    Archivist Vasya 12 February 2018 15: 04
    +1
    It would be better to begin with to understand what is now and bring to mind, than to do what then flies 1-2 times to the museum. If at all flies.
  32. Herman 4223
    Herman 4223 12 February 2018 15: 25
    +1
    But how about creating a cheap commercial rocket that would compete with the Falcon nine? Maybe first go from the smallest to the biggest.
    1. axxmanm
      axxmanm 12 February 2018 16: 50
      +3
      Quote: Herman 4223
      But how about creating a cheap commercial rocket that would compete with the Falcon nine? Maybe first go from the smallest to the biggest.

      Absolutely right!!!
      Massive, extremely simple, reliable, inexpensive line-up (at the first stage in 2 types) of monoblock missiles with a unified launch complex
      with a loading capacity of 8 tons - for launching manned alliances and other payloads in this dimension.
      with a loading capacity of 28 tons for successful competition in launches of heavy satellites at the GPO and GSO, for launches of heavy complexes at the IEO and for launches to the moon and deep space.
      fuel - methane (simple and inexpensive open-circuit engines with a decent specific impulse) are the same for both the first and second stages but with different nozzles (thanks to Mask, where the fellow is doing well)
      monoblock construction. (without any idiotic bundles of firewood that destroyed the hangar)
      The term of development with fire tests of engines shall be determined no more than 3 years ..
      otherwise again - Khoja Ishak Emir.
      1. Herman 4223
        Herman 4223 12 February 2018 18: 52
        0
        Yes, you do not need eight tons, the union raises three tons and that’s enough for a lot, you need to do something with the same lifting force but more economical.
        1. Simargl
          Simargl 22 February 2018 04: 32
          0
          Quote: Herman 4223
          Yes, do not need eight tons, the union raises three tons and this is enough for a lot
          Union drags 8,5 tons and it long not enough: his destiny is near space.
          And 3 t is nothing at all: to roll kittens with small dogs.
          And it is still not clear why, instead of Progress, they did not come up with what is better. The dragon takes on board a third more, and even returns, for example.
      2. Starley.ura
        Starley.ura 13 February 2018 20: 26
        0
        Read Tsiolkovsky’s freak then we’ll talk about knitters, and when you look at least a simplified design and the principle of a rocket engine, we’ll be able to talk about a decent specific impulse of straight-line engines, and why methane and not hydrogen? You garbage from advertising booklets mask give as true. You better read smart books, for example, Glushko, Koroleva or modern periodicals. It’s just that the combustion of the oxygen – methane and oxygen – hydrogen mixture strongly depends on the temperature of the fuel itself, hence the instability of the operation of the heat pump and the engine itself at the optimum fuel-oxidizer ratios (the ratios will change with temperature), hence the bias towards non-optimal but stable, hence the loss of efficiency and momentum. Our energy has achieved a stepwise change in the ratio, but it partially solved the problem and the oxygen-kerosene engine efficiency could not be achieved (I’m silent about a pair of heptyl nitrous oxide, there is the highest efficiency and simplicity, but the poisonous ones are just horrible). And you want to tell me that the Americans invented the superthermos tank and TNA. Anyway, cryobags are very stressful.
  33. Mentat
    Mentat 12 February 2018 19: 07
    +1
    Quote: Theseus
    The superheavy rocket-heading of the article is being developed in Russia. Developing and signing a decree by the president on the development of a rocket are completely different things. What will we launch with a superheavy rocket? Maybe the president will sign a decree on creating a load for the rocket.

    For various events in the world, we can seriously assume that repeated positive signals are coming from the team of thermonuclear developers. Russia is one of the main developers and recipient of technology.
    A working fusion means a bifurcation point in the technological development of our civilization. Many processes and technologies will become available. The moon will turn into a completely reachable object, and there are many interesting things. Such rocket carrying capacity is needed for building a base, for example.
  34. da Vinci
    da Vinci 12 February 2018 19: 34
    0
    I would like everything to work out, but experience after 1991 does not add optimism. request
  35. da Vinci
    da Vinci 12 February 2018 19: 36
    +1
    As for me, there should be an answer to the main question: what will we carry? Therefore, already now there should be a development of the payload for the carrier, and it should be ready no later than a year after the launch of the LV into production. wink
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 12 February 2018 20: 23
      0
      Lunar and Martian modules - for future bases and colonies.
      1. da Vinci
        da Vinci 12 February 2018 21: 36
        +1
        Odobrymts! good But only the real deal, not the Rogozinsky floodlights! tongue
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 12 February 2018 22: 11
          +1
          But the FIG knows that the day after tomorrow will be with Roscosmos, today's leadership of the grandmother will take, promise to scribble, and the next leadership will cancel everything - they say it turns out to be too expensive.
          1. da Vinci
            da Vinci 12 February 2018 22: 47
            +2
            Nothing! Elections will be held and promises will end! People like the joint venture were not afraid of either voluntarists or demagogues, but they did (and DID) their (and OUR) business, which we remember and are proud of! good soldier Unfortunately the "affairs" of Chubai fool ROGozin will also be remembered! negative
    2. Starley.ura
      Starley.ura 13 February 2018 20: 40
      0
      Yes, at least because today there is no carrier capable of outputting an object capable of protecting even from such an object as the Chelyabinsk meteorite. If this blank had fallen on Chelyabinsk along a steeper trajectory, it would have hardly seemed to anyone. Colonies, colonies, we must first of all think about the fact that tomorrow a new cycle of the appearance of life on earth, or in a more optimistic scenario for its revival (but most likely without us) can begin.
  36. troall
    troall 12 February 2018 20: 33
    0
    People, come to your senses !! My opinion: Russia will always be in ... if there is ONE inventing its own bicycle. It is expensive and unproductive. Expensive, because it is really expensive, and unproductive, because it is regulated by the state. And everyone knows this - a huge bureaucratic brake. In addition, the money allocated for a good cause is absorbed into the pockets of others.
    In my NECESSARY:
    1. transfer the "rails" of the state to a unipolar world. In order for some country not to have 'distortions' in
    militarily:
    2. Strengthen international institutions (UN, Security Council, etc.). Remember Hitler: as soon as he is overgrown, all countries
    rallied and smeared him.
    3. after the implementation of paragraphs 2 and 1, all countries take together for space exploration and other advanced
    Technologies.
    Then the development of everything will rush up exponentially.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 12 February 2018 22: 14
      +1
      In the USA, astronautics has always developed normally - now even more so, but our cosmonautics has a really bureaucratic brake, with a corruption drive - we are 15 years behind the United States.
    2. KaPToC
      KaPToC 12 February 2018 23: 11
      +2
      Quote: troall
      1. transfer the "rails" of the state to a unipolar world. In order for some country not to have 'distortions' in
      militarily:

      Heh, and where will this pole of the unipolar world be?
      Quote: troall
      2. Strengthen international institutions (UN, Security Council, etc.). Remember Hitler: as soon as he is overgrown, all countries
      rallied and smeared him.

      The USSR rallied and spread, and the rest helped to the best of their laziness.
    3. zoolu350
      zoolu350 13 February 2018 05: 18
      +1
      Quote: troall
      People, come to your senses !! My opinion: Russia will always be in ... if there is ONE inventing its own bicycle. It is expensive and unproductive. Expensive, because it is really expensive, and unproductive, because it is regulated by the state. And everyone knows this - a huge bureaucratic brake. In addition, the money allocated for a good cause is absorbed into the pockets of others.
      In my NECESSARY:
      1. transfer the "rails" of the state to a unipolar world. In order for some country not to have 'distortions' in
      militarily:
      2. Strengthen international institutions (UN, Security Council, etc.). Remember Hitler: as soon as he is overgrown, all countries
      rallied and smeared him.
      3. after the implementation of paragraphs 2 and 1, all countries take together for space exploration and other advanced
      Technologies.
      Then the development of everything will rush up exponentially.

      No, according to your chosen concept, Russia will bend completely and forever. Hitler and the EU No. 1 created by him were defeated by only one country - the USSR. The rest, at first, participated in the creation of the European Union No. 1, and then arrived only to the nishtyak division.
    4. Starley.ura
      Starley.ura 13 February 2018 21: 16
      0
      By and large, those who rule America have a deep fuck and space exploration and the prosperity of the entire population of the earth, when no one confronts them they get only Haiti, Somalia, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. And so for information (maybe you didn’t live then, but non-current history textbooks are silent about this) the UN and the Security Council more or less worked only when the USSR could, if anything, give amers in the face (then the colonial empires collapsed, and apartheids (including including in the USA) they bent, they began to take care of human rights, the technological breakthrough in science and technology was simply enormous (example: at the beginning of WWII the energy of steam and coal, and already in the late 50s nuclear energy, piston biplanes - a man in space). space 80s of the last century, amers have a rocket flying to the moon, we have energy (neher could deliver a returnable lunar module) project spiral (from an air launch from mriy cheaply launched satellites and delivered astronauts to an orbital station, so the spent ones were taken from orbit ) almost 80% finished. Against the background of those achievements, the mask and Roscosmos look more than pale.
    5. thinking
      thinking 15 February 2018 13: 29
      0
      Quote: troall
      unproductive because it is regulated by the state. And everyone knows this - a huge bureaucratic brake.

      Dear troll, nevertheless decided to answer.
      I once came across an article "Perestroika: plans, results and defeats, lessons." Posted on 01.06.2005/XNUMX/XNUMX by Egor Ligachev.
      https://forum-msk.org/material/society/384.html
      In accordance with the new version of the CPSU Program adopted at the 27th Congress of the CPSU, the main milestones of the country's economic and social development for 15 years until 2000 were also defined at the party congress. For 15 years, it was necessary to build the country's economy, equal to the economy created over all previous years of Soviet power. With the calculation of production mainly of the highest quality category.

      A little reference: during the Second World War, the gross domestic product in the USSR decreased by 24%, and in the United States during the Second World War, on the territory of which not a single shell fell, industrial production increased by 50%, and agricultural products - by 41 %
      We also take into account that in 1972, the USSR already accounted for 20% of all world industrial production.
      So, we have a superpower (the 2nd economy of the planet), which is going to very steeply develop its economy on the basis of state planning and management.
      The naive question is - how did America look at such plans and what could it oppose to them? Maybe another war?
      The logical question is how did the country's development plans for the year 2000 come to life?
      American economists P. Redway and D. Glinsky in their book “The Tragedy of Russian Reforms” cite statistics:
      During the Second World War, gross domestic product in the USSR decreased by 24%, during the Great Depression in the USA, GDP decreased by 30,5%, from 1992 to 1998. GDP in Russia decreased by 47%, and industrial production decreased by 56% [5] '

      [5] See: Reddaway P., Ginski D. The Tragedy of Russia Reforms: Market Bolshevism against Democraty. Washington, DC: US ​​Inst, of Peace Press, 2001, p. 249.
      Don't you find this very similar to the outcome of the war?
      Maybe now someone continues to force our "bureaucratic brakes"?
      Here is a curious comparison of the advantages of the capitalist market over state planning.

      Quote: troall
      transfer the 'rails' of the state to a unipolar world. In order for some country to not have "distortions" in military terms:

      We have already passed the unipolar world led by America, that's enough.
  37. Sergey Averchenkov
    Sergey Averchenkov 12 February 2018 21: 27
    +1
    Quote: Professor
    Quote: Thrall
    Falcon Heavy one and a half times weaker will

    No willbut it does. And not to 2028, but already flies. Moreover, for a ridiculous $ 90 million with the cost of the entire program only $ 500 million. Well, hangar with $ 7 billion spent on it. No.

    Let's get the truth. What engines does it fly on? Probably from the lunar program of the USA? Did they just give him a patent? What cosmodrome is it taking off from? Probably from Cape Canaveral? Musk paid for all this? He built it all himself? Go to hell, not one private trader had money and was not standing nearby. Musk simply uses and does not pay, I don’t know why the United States needs this promotion Mask ... there is probably some benefit ...
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 12 February 2018 22: 36
      +2
      The creation of the space company was his own initiative - he and his associates wanted to send a greenhouse to Mars, for this they needed a rocket, they thought they would buy ICBMs in Russia - we didn’t sell it and they decided to create a rocket themselves and created - Falcon 1, the first flight took place in 2006 , in the same year, the company won the NASA competition - NASA's infusions into the Mask company were scanty from 2006 to 2018 - $ 5,5 billion.
    2. Professor
      Professor 13 February 2018 19: 48
      0
      Quote: Sergey Averchenkov
      Let's get the truth. What engines does it fly on? Probably from the lunar program of the USA? Did they just give him a patent?

      Lunar program patent? You are joking. The validity of any patent is a maximum of 25 years.

      Quote: Sergey Averchenkov
      What cosmodrome is it taking off from? Probably from Cape Canaveral? Musk paid for all this?

      Want to say that every private jet takes off from its own private airfield? And when a private trader transports cargo to the state, does the private trader pay the state to build an airfield? So which Musk should build his spaceport (which he is building by the way)? I don’t know whether he pays rent for using the spaceport during commercial launches, but I think that the bourgeois do nothing for free.

      Quote: Sergey Averchenkov
      Go to hell, not one private trader had money and was not standing nearby. Musk simply uses and does not pay, I don’t know why the United States needs this promotion Mask ... there is probably some benefit ...

      1. Most of the money in his project also pays non-state.
      2. The benefit to the United States is obvious. Accessible space and independence from Russia.
      1. prosto_rgb
        prosto_rgb 13 February 2018 22: 54
        0
        Quote: Professor
        I don’t know whether he pays rent for using the spaceport during commercial launches, but I think that the bourgeois do nothing for free.

        Yes, launchers are rented without launch separation.
  38. Igor Ryklin
    Igor Ryklin 12 February 2018 21: 30
    +4
    It seems to me it’s time to put Mudko on “Cosmos” and throw Rogozin to sports! Because everything is already
    confused and confused Putin himself. For some reason, he signed a decree on the creation of "superheavy"
    rockets with a lift of as much as 90tn. Half a century ago, Saturn-5 raised 140tn, thirty years ago
    our "Energy" raised 100tn. On the next page, by reference, I read an article about plans
    the men from Roskosmosmos - there’s an abundance of all kinds of missiles and launch dates.
    that everyone is standing in line at the treasury for money to cut. But no one tells where to fly and
    what will these "projectile missiles" fly for. And this at a time when they cannot determine which
    dynats of spaceports, trying to launch 19 satellites with Baikonur addresses from Vostochny
    in flight mission.
    1. thinking
      thinking 15 February 2018 13: 37
      0
      Quote: Igor Ryklin
      But no one tells where to fly and
      what will these "projectile missiles" fly for.

      Dear Igor, have you heard anything about plans to build an international near-moon station and the subsequent exploration of the moon?
  39. trol
    trol 12 February 2018 22: 02
    0
    If ours tested a new rocket engine, it’s quite logical to start developing an extra-heavy rocket ...
  40. Mentat
    Mentat 12 February 2018 22: 15
    +2
    Quote: Professor
    Well? Does religion forbid you to use “ready-made engine drawings” on the Angara and not to spend $ 7 billion (SEV BILLION DOLLARS, Carl) or NASA itself not to let $ 15 billion go into the air?

    Nobody forbids, because all of our developments are carried out on state. level. In the case of Mask companies, you say that there is something designed for ridiculous money. You well understand that this is nonsense, especially in the United States. Musk received ready-made drawings of what has already been developed, and not for 500 millions. Mask companies are just a shortcut. And Musk himself is a showman who sits on a percentage of the capitalization of companies.
    Regarding subsidies, I have already written several times, the last time with links.
    Gigantic tax breaks are another form of subsidy. You also understand this very well, but go here to promote this show.
    1. Professor
      Professor 13 February 2018 08: 16
      +2
      Quote: Mentat
      Nobody forbids, because all of our developments are carried out on state. level. In the case of Mask companies, you say that there is something designed for ridiculous money. You well understand that this is nonsense, especially in the United States. Musk received ready-made drawings of what has already been developed, and not for 500 millions. Mask companies are just a shortcut. And Musk himself is a showman who sits on a percentage of the capitalization of companies.

      Yes Yes. Showman, and launch it is Hollywood. 18 launches (all successful) in 2017 are fake, and clients are clowns.

      Quote: Mentat
      Regarding subsidies, I have already written several times, the last time with links.

      “Regarding subsidies,” I also have numbers and how many people were given, but billions there do not smell.

      Quote: Mentat
      Gigantic tax breaks are another form of subsidy. You also understand this very well, but go here to promote this show.

      Tax breaks are not financing. And not once. Nevertheless, even the complete absence of taxes will not increase the budget significantly.

      PS
      Will there be more questions about ribo and Tesla? wink
      1. Starley.ura
        Starley.ura 13 February 2018 22: 48
        0
        You forgot about his super battery and the solar battery for all the sugar. Musk is a hired actor for razvodilov on the stock exchange, a loud, steamed victory - a rise in stock prices, a loud, steamed failure - a fall. And consider everything with dates known for a certain circle of people. I know what rocket science is, but financiers are not. First of all, materials and technologies, Mask himself could not create them, buy too. Only one special alloy takes years of work of laboratories and institutes, and there are thousands of them, add ceramics, composites, plastics, plus technologies for their preparation and processing, plus raw materials that are not sold on the free market, Musk even with all his super-talented engineers during this time I wouldn’t even have made nozzles for rocket engines for billions of $, and even more so for a rocket, and even more so for 500 $. And if we take even the secrecy of all these developments, it becomes clear that the scenery (very expensive) for the circus scammers called Ilona Mask is supplied by the US state, it remains to understand why.
        1. Professor
          Professor 14 February 2018 09: 52
          +1
          Quote: Starley.ura
          You forgot about his super battery and the solar battery for all the sugar. Musk is a hired actor for razvodilov on the stock exchange, a loud, steamed victory - a rise in stock prices, a loud, steamed failure - a fall. And consider everything with dates known for a certain circle of people. I know what rocket science is, but financiers are not. First of all, materials and technologies, Mask himself could not create them, buy too. Only one special alloy takes years of work of laboratories and institutes, and there are thousands of them, add ceramics, composites, plastics, plus technologies for their preparation and processing, plus raw materials that are not sold on the free market, Musk even with all his super-talented engineers during this time I wouldn’t even have made nozzles for rocket engines for billions of $, and even more so for a rocket, and even more so for 500 $. And if we take even the secrecy of all these developments, it becomes clear that the scenery (very expensive) for the circus scammers called Ilona Mask is supplied by the US state, it remains to understand why.

          Great comment. That's exactly what they say in Roskosmos. They live in 1960's when everything for space was created from scratch. Today, not only Musk, but also its competitors do not create unique alloys and exotic materials, but buy them on the market. This is what Blue Origin does for example, and Ectron generally printed its engine on a commercial printer. Preved to Roscosmos. hi

  41. slipped
    slipped 13 February 2018 02: 26
    +1
    Quote: donavi49
    There are more statistics.
    2013 year - Roscosmos actually graduated from the space withdrawal monopolist (40% of world launches, lowest prices, unique offers). Musk took his first steps with 2 payload rockets.

    2017 year - the share of Roscosmos in world launches is reduced to 20%, Musk launches virtually as many rockets as Roscosmos (technically 18 from 18 from Mask and 17 from 18 from Roscosmos, and together with Kuru 19 from 20).


    During these three years, Russia closed the market for western electronic equipment for space, and part of the missiles, jointly manufactured with Ukraine, simply stopped flying. It takes time to get out of this situation.
  42. Starley.ura
    Starley.ura 13 February 2018 19: 02
    0
    voyaka uh,
    You either don’t know how the rocket engine works and what TNA is, or you write an intentional fake, engine failure is its explosion, and how can something bring something out after the explosion of 6 engines?
    1. thinking
      thinking 15 February 2018 13: 52
      0
      Quote: Starley.ura
      engine failure - it’s his explosion, and how can something bring something out after the explosion of 6 engines?

      I would like to clarify a little - the failure of the engine does not always mean its explosion.
      Here are some facts about the engines NK-33 (11D111) and NK-43 (11D112) http://lpre.de/sntk/NK-33/tests.htm
      The high reliability of the engines was confirmed by the large positive statistics obtained during bench testing - 221 by testing 76 engines in a wide range (significantly exceeding the requirements of the technical specifications) of changes in external and internal factors.
      The reliability of multiple starts was confirmed on 24 engines with a repeat rate of starts up to 10 on one engine. At the same time, the parameters of the start-up process during repeated starts were kept stable and did not depend on the number of starts.

      To confirm the reliability, a complex of highly effective measuring and diagnostic tools for the analysis of fast-moving dynamic processes was developed and put into practice. The methods of detailed mathematical and hydrodynamic modeling of non-stationary modes of engine operation were applied, as well as methods of artificial physical reproduction during bench tests of various alleged (even unlikely) engine failures.

      For example, tests were carried out with throwing large portions of metal chips, fasteners (screws, nuts), large pieces of rough wiping cloth (60x60 cm in size) at the entrance to the oxygen pump of a working engine, etc. All this did not lead to accidental outcomes. Even a sharp, shock cutting (“guillotine”) with the help of a special device for the fuel inlet pipe with a running engine did not lead to an explosion and fire, but caused a gradual cessation of the working process while maintaining the engine’s operability during subsequent starts.

      In 1976, instead of 33 s, required by the terms of reference, one of the engines of the first stage NK-140 worked at a stand of 14.000 s.
      I especially liked the 4th paragraph.
  43. Mentat
    Mentat 15 February 2018 14: 53
    0
    Quote: Professor
    Preved to Roscosmos.

    Preved to the near-minded people who for some reason decided that PR is a superweapon.
    But the thing is double-edged. When it is revealed that this is a hoax, the "superweapon" hits those who gave birth to it.
    In an attempt to purge himself and imagine Mask as a superman, and his company an incredible technological miracle, only a charge builds up, which then shoots with the phrase "And the king is naked!".
    This phrase, as in an instructive story, will be uttered by the very schoolboy whom you, foreign PR specialists, consider a dumb gray hamster, incapable of curiosity, initiative and manifestation of mind, on whom this stream of muddy half-light is aimed.
    Sensible people are well aware that this is a new round of ideological war, and the goals with which you are so persistently promoting this Western project.
  44. Sanichsan
    Sanichsan 16 February 2018 15: 12
    0
    thinking,
    forced to agree.
    "found a spoon, but" (c)
    laughing
  45. Tishka
    Tishka 20 February 2018 00: 46
    0
    Another "Angara", how much money has already spent, and things are there now! And what did “Energia” not please, “Buran” put into orbit, or they don’t give money for its development, but from scratch, you can richly pocket your pocket! Or Mr. Rogozin, will buy a trampoline for our space?