Layout of the "Federation" is tested in wind tunnels

The model of the Russian manned spacecraft "Federation" is undergoing a series of tests in the wind tunnels of the Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute (TsAGI). Zhukovsky transmits TASS message source in the DIC.

The model of the ship was delivered to the institute to perform a series of tests in wind tunnels, experiments are currently underway. It is planned to test the model in supersonic and hypersonic flow,

told the source to the agency.

According to him, “the distribution of pressure and heat on the surface of the ship will be studied during movement in the atmosphere, an air flow around the model will be constructed, and so on.”

It is noted that “in contrast to Soyuz, the Federation will be installed on the launch vehicle in the open form — the surface of the ship’s nose will perform the function of the head fairing.”

The source said that TsAGI also plans to “investigate the behavior and controllability of the ship in the air when the main unit is fired from a rocket in the event of an accident at the start or during launch”.

The task of the rescue system is to lead the head unit with the ship away from the emergency rocket, after which the capsule with the astronauts will land in a safe place.

The system, installed on the Soyuz, “consists of a rocket engine rod docked at the end of the head fairing and lattice stabilizers folded on the sides of the fairing (they make the separable unit aerodynamically stable),” explains the publication.

The “Federation” emergency rescue missile unit, like the Soyuz, “will have a barbell, but with two engines (the control engine is taken out separately at the end of the barbell), it will be docked directly to the bow of the ship,” the article says. The engines are separated, since there will be no stabilizers on the new ship - the control engine will ensure sustained emergency flight in the atmosphere.

Help agency: "Spacecraft" Federation "developed by RSC Energia is designed to deliver people and cargo to near-earth orbit, as well as to the Moon, the crew will be up to four people. In the autonomous flight mode, the ship will be able to stay up to 30 days, and within the orbital station - up to a year. It is planned to use the Soyuz-5 launch vehicle to bring the Federation into orbit.

Comments

[Vitaly Anisimov]

FEDERATION! What name..
Suppose we are in blockade and sanctions, but nevertheless we are striving into outer space for EVERYONE!

[Logall]

“The Empire strikes back!” And the “Federation” is a veiled choice, for all kinds of Tolerasts ...
Let the Americans know that we fly into space without them, but they cannot do without us! That’s all their leadership ...
Of course, I "fussed", but why not, if everything is normal ...

[Pirogov]

Quote: Logall

Let the Americans know that we fly into space without them, but they cannot do without us!

Why do the Americans fly themselves, though one way ........)

[Logall]

I mean, without our RD they can only dream about space. We don’t have ours yet ... But we only deliver people there:
Until July 2011, astronauts and astronauts were delivered to the ISS both on Russian Soyuz spacecraft and on American shuttles. But after the closure of the Space Shuttle program, the Russian Unions remained the only means of delivering the crew to the international space station.

[bouncyhunter]

And mind you, Sasha: no sanctions and does not smell from either the American or the Russian side.

[Logall]

Yeah, ours only threatened, but ... Or maybe that's right? After all, creating RD for them, we get money for our OUR space industry!

[bouncyhunter]

And there is . The mattresses, too, how many times threatened to abandon the taxiway ...

[cniza]

Good day to all! We need to remember what they would do to us if we bought engines from them.

[bouncyhunter]

Victor, hi! Do you think they would leave us without engines?

[cniza]

If they could, they would wipe Russia off the face of the earth without hesitation and continue to work in this direction, looking for ways and means.

[Hire]

Pasha, hello

The system installed on the Soyuz “consists of a rocket engine rod docked at the end of the head fairing and lattice stabilizers folded along the sides of the fairing

It was always curious: what kind of pin sticks out at the end of the "Union". Now my darling has calmed down.

[Arikkhab]

If it were so. In fact, RD engines are used in one of the 5 (five) American launch vehicles. So the ban on the sale of taxiways will not have a noticeable effect on the number of American launches, but Russian enterprises will be left without work. Or does someone seriously think that the Americans, having today several strong companies - manufacturers of aircraft engines, are not able to create a rocket engine?

[Cannonball]

As practice shows, such as the RD-180, is not able to.
As for Russian enterprises, they can be reoriented to other types of engines, or use these engines in new domestic missiles. The issue is completely resolved.

[Pete mitchell]

Quote: bouncyhunter

sanctions and does not smell from either the American or the Russian side.

Holo hunter the case when grandmothers decide everything, by mutual agreement

[Pan_hrabio]

2017 launches:



A total of 30 launches of American missiles. Of these, only Atlases and Antares use Russian engines (and only at the first stage), these missiles account for 7 out of 30 launches. only 23% of launches in 2017 depended on Russian engines. it

without our taxiways they can only dream about space.

?

The states ALREADY HAVE the most powerful launch vehicles used today, the first PILED flights Crew Dragon and CST-100 Starliner will take place in spring a year later, automatic reusable shuttles hang in orbit regularly (including now), not to mention the fact that the lion’s A portion of our current knowledge of the solar system is NASA's merit.

I could not resist. I am for being proud of Russia's achievements in space, but let's be objective!

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Список_космических_
запусков_в_2017_году#%D0%9F%D0%BE_%D1%81%D1%82%D1
%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BC

[Logall]

And people into space on which of the carriers do they send? Do not send at all!

[onix757]

Soon, this argument will not be.

[YELLOWSTONE]

how soon what will they fly on and how many times?

[Vadim237]

In 2 - 3 years they will fly to: Dragon V2, Orion, CST-100, "Dream Chaser".

[YELLOWSTONE]

it’s “in” and not “on”, there’s a difference

[Vadim237]

As if they had no missiles: Delta IV, SLS, Falcon 9 Block 5, Atlas V, Vulcan.

[YELLOWSTONE]

and which of them are ready, and on which of the people did people fly?

[Vadim237]

Three rockets fly, two at the end of next year fly.

[axxmanm]

Quote: Vadim237

In 2 - 3 years they will fly to: Dragon V2, Orion, CST-100, "Dream Chaser".

ridiculed the propagandist :)
The same thing was said 5 years ago !!!

[Vadim237]

Who spoke 5 years ago?

[YELLOWSTONE]

on one of these three you can’t start, on the second it will be too risky, on the third the Russian engine and also not yet
that is, not one is yet

[Vadim237]

“Too risky” - And what’s risky for these three missiles already has dozens of accident-free launches, especially since manned ships have an emergency rescue system.

[YELLOWSTONE]

too many engines, the reliability of each of which was laid on the presence of only one
the shuttle also flew dozens of times until it pecked twice

[Vadim237]

Shuttle boosters and thermal protection pecked at the Shuttle. New missiles will not have such problems.

[YELLOWSTONE]

how do you know what other problems there might be?

[donavi49]

July 2018 of the year - Atlas and Starliner in unmanned mode. Flight to the ISS. If everything is super - then the plan in 2018 to deliver the first crew in force. If not super - then 2019. In general, after the flight, the commission will decide whether it is possible to send the first crew or not. So far, the official Boeing schedule is July2018 demo and December 2018 first crew, here it is.


Musk - he has a summer demo flight to the ISS without a crew. 2019 - the first manned.

Bezos (NewGlenn and New Shepard) - Now actively completing New Shepard4. It will be the ship with the first manned sub-orbital flight from BlueOrigin. According to the results - further developments will go. The former 2020 schedule is certification for tourist orbital flights (that is, it already starts in full profile with people).

Next is the Congressional cash cow and the only real vehicle for long-distance manned flights. Orion and SLS. Fantastic cost (500mln launch of SLS + Orion despite reusability also for 100). But they do it.


If anything - they also boasted before, without Progress, they will die of hunger. Now Progress is an auxiliary and secondary ship with 3 missions per year. Musk and Orbital + the Japanese heavyweight (2 progress at once) Kounotori drags the bulk.

[slipped]

What a "helper" ?! )))) This is the only refueling station. At the lowest cost of cargo delivery compared to other ships, it brings 2,5 tons of cargo to the station.

[Vadim237]

A competitor has been flying to the ISS since 2012, the biggest load was 3136 kilograms - Dragon.

[YELLOWSTONE]

the question was on what and not what
SLS is untested and unprepared even,

[Vkd dvk]

Quote: donavi49

July 2018 of the year - Atlas and Starliner in unmanned mode. Flight to the ISS. If everything is super - then the plan in 2018 to deliver the first crew in force. If not super - then 2019. In general, after the flight, the commission will decide whether it is possible to send the first crew or not. So far, the official Boeing schedule is July2018 demo and December 2018 first crew, here it is.


Musk - he has a summer demo flight to the ISS without a crew. 2019 - the first manned.

Bezos (NewGlenn and New Shepard) - Now actively completing New Shepard4. It will be the ship with the first manned sub-orbital flight from BlueOrigin. According to the results - further developments will go. The former 2020 schedule is certification for tourist orbital flights (that is, it already starts in full profile with people).

Next is the Congressional cash cow and the only real vehicle for long-distance manned flights. Orion and SLS. Fantastic cost (500mln launch of SLS + Orion despite reusability also for 100). But they do it.


If anything - they also boasted before, without Progress, they will die of hunger. Now Progress is an auxiliary and secondary ship with 3 missions per year. Musk and Orbital + the Japanese heavyweight (2 progress at once) Kounotori drags the bulk.

The plans are huge. You have been disfigured by socialist existence. Believe the plans for more realities. But RESULT is evaluated, not PROMISES.

[Vadim237]

In the USA with space, the results are obvious - but for now, we have plans for a 10-year period.

[Pan_hrabio]

And how long will it last? Another year and a half! The states pragmatically completed the shuttle program and moved on, giving the role of a carrier to the ISS of Russia. Now, several new generation American manned ships at once have a high degree of readiness, at least two rocket engines to replace the taxiway will also be ready in the foreseeable future. They have enough of their ready and close to ready launch vehicles.

Russia's monopoly on transportation will end. And the ISS is not eternal. Is it just what remains of Russian space, if this is taken away? Military launches to your needs and ... almost everything.

Russia has little to offer on the space market, as missile launches its small share, from where Russia is successfully squeezed out, and Russia practically does not provide more complex and expensive services.





Russia’s scientific achievements in space also need to be searched, Germany and Italy individually publish more scientific papers on the ISS than Russia (at the same time, these countries do not have significant space programs!).

You can be proud of the Russian monopoly on manned flights as much as you like now, but that will change very soon. What then?

[YELLOWSTONE]

in which ships, and most importantly, what exactly will the astronauts fly on?
about the ISS, this is generally a Russian development, in its entirety. Dawn module (in which everything) for NASA was made and displayed by Roscosmos.

[Pan_hrabio]

in which ships, and most importantly, what exactly will the astronauts fly on?

Read my previous comment or something.

about the ISS, this is generally a Russian development, in its entirety.

You have no evidence of this high-profile statement, of course.

Dawn module (in which everything) for NASA was made and displayed by Roscosmos.

Development by order of the USA, their own property. One of the orders that probably allowed Russian space not to die in the nineties. Was the first module of the ISS, but today it is a fuel storage and storage, other functions are transferred to newer modules.

[YELLOWSTONE]

I read it and asked a question
themselves wrote about Dawn below the proof,
unbelievable but only because of this order the American segment of the ISS took place, because it is not a warehouse but a hardware and the rest of the light American modules are just numbers into which all communications are connected from there.

[Pan_hrabio]

As I wrote in the previous commentary, the closest to the finish line are the Crew Dragon and CST-100 Starliner, which will probably fly on the Atlas and Falcon, respectively.

As I wrote, the Dawn module (which you persistently call Dawn) was the foundation of the station at the very beginning. There was. And I do not see the point in the same Wikipedia that he is the basis of the station now. And my eyes say clearly that the American segment dominates today. Maybe convince me of the opposite by reverse facts?

[Cannonball]

You confused Dawn with Zorya. Dawn is a Russian property.

[Pan_hrabio]

You are right, although my mistake is not surprising: both Dawn and Dawn are translated by Dawn.

[YELLOWSTONE]

Atlas is a Russian engine, the Falcon 9 is too stirrups for manned launches.

[Vkd dvk]

Quote: noviczok

in which ships, and most importantly, what exactly will the astronauts fly on?

Read my previous comment or something.

about the ISS, this is generally a Russian development, in its entirety.

You have no evidence of this high-profile statement, of course.

Dawn module (in which everything) for NASA was made and displayed by Roscosmos.

Development by order of the USA, their own property. One of the orders that probably allowed Russian space not to die in the nineties. Was the first module of the ISS, but today it is a fuel storage and storage, other functions are transferred to newer modules.

Russian modules are the basis. Only with their help it is possible to control the station, without them, neither raise nor rotate it. To consider rails and solar panels as equivalent components is naive or stupid. The composition, complexity and cost of the elements of the station depended not on experience, knowledge, and technological capabilities, but on the dough. Of course, Russia could not participate in this plan on an equal footing. The contribution of Americans to the project as a developer is by no means equal, but much lower. Joint participation allowed us to create this masterpiece. Without us, they would have got a second Skylab, flying a year and taking three expeditions.

[Cannonball]

No, the ISS is an international development.
The Dawn module has nothing to do with NASA. It was built by order of Roscosmos. And the American shuttle Atlantis put it into orbit.
And for NASA, the Dawn module was made.

[YELLOWSTONE]

Russian design with an international label
For NASA, the "Dawn" was made because the Americans did not have the technologies that are in it, and it was displayed by Proton, because the shuttle would not have pulled it.

[Cannonball]

You just do not tell me about the "Dawn". I myself took part in its creation.

[YELLOWSTONE]

as whom?
Am I somehow wrong about her?

[Cannonball]

As one of the designers.
The Americans had a good experience with the construction of Skylab, though from the time of its launch, almost a quarter of a century has passed before the construction of the ISS

[YELLOWSTONE]

Americans didn’t have any long-term habitability, for example, therefore, they made the Zarya in Russia

[Cannonball]

Three long expeditions lasting 28, 59 and 84 days worked at Skylab. For 73-74 years, these were record-breaking flights in duration. In addition, Skylab was bigger than our Salutes.

[YELLOWSTONE]

Are you really one of the Dawn designers, and don’t know how it was on Skylab?

[Cannonball]

It was normal on Skylab. Another thing is that twenty years have passed since the 74th year.

[YELLOWSTONE]

there was nothing normal except the size on the Skylab, only because of it they kept so much under the umbrella
in spacelab and shuttles a few years later autonomy did not exceed two weeks

[Cannonball]

As you know, trucks did not fly to Skylab, that is, all stocks were withdrawn along with the station. Nevertheless, the station itself flew in space until 1979, i.e. 6 years.
For comparison, Soviet orbital stations - peers of Skylab, had a much smaller resource:
Salyut-3 - 7 months;
Salyut-4 - 2 years;
Salyut-5 - 1 year;
"Salute-6" - 4 and a half years.
And you say "nothing is normal."

[YELLOWSTONE]

something was delivered with Apollo, it fell this year, they flew there for less than a year and the longest expedition is 84 days
in the USSR the longest expedition was 450+ days
there even water was not regenerated

[Cannonball]

You won’t bring much with Apollon, it’s still not a cargo ship, besides, it’s not very large - the internal volume is only half the “Union” one. Therefore, all reserves and fuel were put into orbit together with the station. Yes, the manned program, as it happened, lasted about a year, but in unmanned mode it flew for another five years - waiting for the start of the Shuttle flights. I did not wait and in the 79th year I left orbit.
The longest flight in 437 days was carried out by Valery Polyakov in the years 94-95, when the USSR was already gone.
Summing up, we can say: the Americans had experience in operating a manned orbital station, had experience in long-term (up to 84 days) space flights. However, by the 90s, NASA had no astronauts who had a similar experience.

[YELLOWSTONE]

not everything, there was still a pumping from the service compartment
in unmanned mode, nothing was spent
it is not long yet, however the spacelab in the shuttle had less autonomy because it was smaller but with more astronauts

[axxmanm]

Quote: YELLOWSTONE

in which ships, and most importantly, what exactly will the astronauts fly on?

And more importantly - what will fly? again in diapers, like on the mythical Apollon? :)

[YELLOWSTONE]

they forgot about it by the way again

[Evgeny Goncharov]

> it is generally Russian development

nee Freedom, yeah.

[YELLOWSTONE]

an empty can of Italian production, like all other American modules, yeah

[Evgeny Goncharov]

So, I missed something. So this is not a Russian development?

[YELLOWSTONE]

Russian development of Dawn, in which all the supporting equipment of the American module is concentrated they were also taken out by Proton, because the shuttle would not have sung
non-Russian - CanadArm

[Vadim237]

"What then?" Russia will launch its military and civilian satellites - one research mission per year, and will also sell equipment and rocket engines abroad.

[Pan_hrabio]

Not a lot of Gagarin’s country, do not you think?

[Vadim237]

Well, what can you do if oil rises to $ 140 per barrel, maybe a couple more trillions of rubles will be allocated for space - for interplanetary manned flights, only this can happen after the 30th year.

[Vkd dvk]

Quote: noviczok

Not a lot of Gagarin’s country, do not you think?

Aesop's Fable:
The fox boasted that she had a lot of foxes, to which the lioness replied, I have one, but then he is a lion.

[slipped]

The Federation ship will be ready for flight only after the creation of the Soyuz-5 launch vehicle. Today it is the year 2021. The first launch of the ship - in the year 2022. Unmanned launch, from the Baikonur Cosmodrome, autonomous flight. On board as an experiment will be the anthropomorphic robot Fedor. A specific work program is provided for him.

In the year 2024, the ship, as part of flight design tests, will dock to the ISS.

The launch of the ship around the moon is planned in 2027 at the STK of the first stage from the Vostochny spaceport.

[Vadim237]

Let's be more optimistic - add at least 4 years to each date announced by Roscosmos.

[slipped]

We will not - the terms are rather rigidly prescribed. Design documentation for valves for the Union-5 is already being issued. EP on the CRC will be ready by October. PTK NP was designed and its production began.

[Cannonball]

For Mask and other American "space geniuses" this applies no less.

[True]

Quote: Logall

And people into space on which of the carriers do they send? Do not send at all!

And what about external debt? External debt seen them?

[Arikkhab]

If it were so. In fact, RD engines are used in one of the 5 (five) American launch vehicles. So the ban on the sale of taxiways will not have a noticeable effect on the number of American launches, but Russian enterprises will be left without work. Or does someone seriously think that the Americans, having today several strong companies - manufacturers of aircraft engines, are not able to create a rocket engine?

[YELLOWSTONE]

will not leave, you can sell to other countries
the impact will be both on the price of these launches and on possible types of cargo

[Wendigo]

Quote: Logall

Let the Americans know that we fly into space without them

Yeah, the open spaces of the wind tunnel conquered .. amers already this year the mask will drive its driver to the ISS, at least 7 more ships are in the gland (or maybe more) and then the prototype rolled along the aero tube and the eggs quickly swelled with pride from pride)))

[Logall]

Quote: Wendigo

uryakalok immediately swollen eggs with pride)))

Why not fool it? Unions fly ... Another project is moving ... With a difference in funding, it’s a miracle that something new is invented! But the amers still need to fly ... Yes, and the difference in price per kilogram of payload has always been on our side. We'll wait and see ... Well, for now - URA!

[Wendigo]

Quote: Logall

Another project is moving ...

This project is already 100 years old at lunch, and we only crawled to the layout.
And how many of these projects before the federation were, you remember? So I don’t .. my knowledge in mathematics is probably not enough to count ... I do not share your optimism.
And cheaper than all displays cargo Musk.

[slipped]

The production of the first documentation and the first iron for the PTK NP project began in 2010. In 2011 and 2013, the first models for ergonomic testing were ready. Since 2016, the production of various elements of the ship and the release of design documentation began. In 2018 and 2019, purges in TsAGI and parachute mockups of VAs are coming. In 2020, the assembly of the flight product will begin. In 2021, it should be assembled and its ground tests will begin. In 2022, the launch into space.

[Wendigo]

I’m generally talking about the efforts of Roscosmos to create a new ship.
What did we have before the federation, do not remind? Russia seems to be right? And to Russia? Google themselves or tell me? I know that the concept of ships changed almost every time, but it was clearly not from a good life.
I do not gloat, I just do not believe.

[slipped]

This is not a matter of faith. Further work in Russia was not carried out by the ROC if this is telling you something. The level of tasks was changing, and the concept was changing. From a wholly orbiting ship for tourists (Clipper theme) to a ship for the moon (PTK NP). Now there is already the release of iron. This is precisely what the article says.

[Vkd dvk]

Quote: Wendigo

...
And cheaper than all displays cargo Musk.

Only full can say that ....... Musk is in the grip of debt. NASA is flying ropes from it. And the PRICE of his services is the same as IT IS GIVEN TO. Compare prices for NASA and for other, better non-US customers.

[Wendigo]

Musk owes Tesla. SpaceX is very profitable.
You in your blind urapatriotizm completely scored on the mat part I will look.

[Vkd dvk]

Quote: Wendigo

Musk owes Tesla. SpaceX is very profitable.
You in your blind urapatriotizm completely scored on the mat part I will look.

https://habrahabr.ru/post/293626/
This info cannot be considered obsolete. Musk does not change his strategy and behaves exactly the same.

[Pan_hrabio]

Yeah, yeah ... $ 70 million for the poisonous and rather emergency Proton versus $ 62 million for the reusable Falcon 9 is already called cheaper?

[slipped]

From 2019, the flight at Proton-Medium will begin. There is a price tag - less than $ 50 million. Three major contracts have already been concluded for serial launches.

[Pan_hrabio]

Well, wait and see. Like it or not, the latest accidents and interruptions in Proton launches will increase the cost of insurance and scare away customers.

[slipped]

Which customers? )))) At Proton-M, contracts were previously concluded - they are all being implemented, i.e. rockets have already been ordered for them - this is about 15 launches, and there will be little new contracts for it, since the rocket will be produced only until 2023 in small batches. At Proton-Medium, at least 12 launches have already been planned since 2020. On the Angara-1.2 launch vehicle, contracts have also been concluded. The last accident at Proton was a long time ago. After that, there were 13 successful launches.

[Vadim237]

One Proton will “collapse” and all subsequent contracts can “scatter”.

[slipped]

But if yes, if only mushrooms would grow in your mouth. Proton flies and not bad.

[Vkd dvk]

Quote: Vadim237

One Proton will “collapse” and all subsequent contracts can “scatter”.

And who prevents to escape in such conditions from falcons, or others?

[Cannonball]

I doubt very much that in the 19th year this modification will fly into space.

[Cannonball]

The “Proton-M” has a reliability factor of 0, 961538, the Falcon 9 has a factor of 0, 96226. What is the conclusion about the supposedly “sufficient accident” of “Proton-M”?

[Pan_hrabio]

The fact that the percentage of fully successful Proton-M launches is about 90%.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Список_пусков_ракет
-carriers_ "Proton-M" _ (8K82KM)

[Cannonball]

Firstly, this list is not complete. April 19, 2018 was another successful launch.
Secondly, not several Proton-Ms, but accelerating blocks are to blame for several emergency launches. The statistics of successful Proton-M launches do not take these accidents into account. Therefore, the percentage of successful launches of the Proton-M LV is 96%, as I wrote. And 90% is taking into account accidents of upper stages, which are independent products.

[YELLOWSTONE]

I don’t know what’s swollen there, Soyuz spacecraft has been flying to the ISS for a long time, and astronauts are only passengers on it.

[Wendigo]

Quote: YELLOWSTONE

The Soyuz spacecraft has been flying to the ISS for a long time, and astronauts are only passengers on it.

For this, we say thanks to the USSR. But I'm afraid I don’t have to thank anyone for the federation ...

[slipped]

Soyuz-MS flying now to the ISS has nothing to do with the USSR. Is that the design of the compartments.

[siberalt]

What shall we do on the moon? Dig trenches or grow apples in spite of the Poles?

[Logall]

Minerals, rare earth metals, etc. etc. to mine ... And to do this in the future, you need to lay in the present!

[Lycan]

There is such a thing as Helium-3. It is not known how much it is there on the moon, but it is encouraging.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Lycan

It is not known how many there are on his moon

Exactly, it is unknown, and how to use it is almost the same. There is not even an experimental reactor. The moon is useless in every sense.

[Logall]

Quote: Puncher

The moon is useless in every sense.

About electric current, too, they said so at first! And now nothing can do without it ...
And the Moon is not a goal, but only an intermediate stage.

[Vadim237]

“It is not known, and how to use it is almost the same” - In thermonuclear reactors, like fuel, in MRI as cooling of magnets, in superconductors.

[Vkd dvk]

Very few need to have brains to figure out how much you need to spend on flight development. TAM ore enrichment, in vacuum, and other obscene conditions, and the return of at least a ton of Helium-3 to Earth. The most modern can serve as a reference price. Using super refillable.
Do the calculations. And after that come with a report.

[Vadim237]

At the moment, we need a reactor that will feed the lunar enrichment autonomous stations for the extraction of Helium 3, round-trip delivery systems Mask reusable rockets - the price is only in fuel and maintenance, which will be needed once a year - for automatic stations. With the help of these stations it will be possible to explore and mine rare-earth metals, of which there are on the Moon, the same is not enough. I think that by the 40th year they will reach this point.

[Cannonball]

Mask rockets have never flown to the moon. Therefore, their use for round-trip delivery is highly doubtful.
Yes, the rockets themselves do not fly to the moon and, moreover, do not return from there. So Musk is not a great helper here.

[Vadim237]

You know how to read - "By the 40th year."

[Cannonball]

This is purely like in a joke about Khoja Nasreddin, donkey and emir.

Nasruddin says that he once argued with the emir of Bukhara that he would teach his donkey theology in such a way that the donkey would know him no worse than the emir himself. It takes a purse of gold and twenty years of time. If he does not fulfill the conditions of the dispute - a head from his shoulders. Nasruddin is not afraid of imminent execution: “After all, in twenty years,” he says, “one of the three of us will surely die - either the emir, or the donkey, or me. And then go figure it out who knew theology better! ”

[Vadim237]

Of course they die - cancer is a terrible thing.

[Lycan]

I think that we will interrupt without rapport, but here (http://starmission.ru/secondary_planets/earth_mo
on / moon / 146.html) you can find interesting numbers. Especially take a look at the PS about Jupiter.

[Alex20042004]

Were the mattresses on the moon?
Where is their lunar soil? Did you spin?

[Wendigo]

Quote: Alex20042004

Where is their lunar soil?

At the Johnson Science Center (where he has always been)

[YELLOWSTONE]

checked for the presence of Helium-3?
have you tried to plant potatoes on it like Matt Damon?

[Infinity]

Just Helium-3 was first discovered in American images of lunar soil.

[YELLOWSTONE]

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Гелий-3
in 1939 samples of lunar soil were still on the moon

[svp67]

Quote: MIKHAN

FEDERATION! What name..

Consonant with the "Union" .SSSR, this is the UNION, RF - FEDERATION. If the dream of a certain part of the population is fulfilled, then their development is possible - EMPIRE.

[slipped]

The name "Union" has nothing to do with the name of the state - the Soviet Union did not. This is already someone who wanted - he thought up.

[Golovan Jack]

Quote: slipped

The name "Union" has nothing to do with the name of the state - the Soviet Union did not. This is already someone who wanted - he thought up

In ... the truth-teller was drawn ...
And what then did it "relate" to?
PS: And the names East and Sunrise - they too, that ... accidentally happened?

[slipped]

Not a "truth-teller", but simply cutting the topic, and not doing crap like some here. The name "Union" was this ship.



and here it paid off - the ship consisted of 7K, 9K, 11K ships connected to each other. A kind of union of ships. As a result, 7K and 11K remained from him - those that you know under the names "Union" and "Progress". By the way, 7K in the project was called "North", but after it received the BO the name changed.

[Golovan Jack]

Quote: slipped

A kind of union of ships

And Komarov was also launched on the "union of ships"?
I love altistorikov, cheerful people

[slipped]

DB, Komarov flew on the "Union" - 7K-OK. This is an orbital ship, consisting of a lightweight 7K and BO. Read books on the topic.

[Golovan Jack]

Quote: slipped

Komarov flew at the Soyuz - 7K-OK

Clear. Another fan to pull an owl

Quote: slipped

Books on the subject read something

Pamper the links ... connoisseur

[slipped]

Links? ))) Search for yourself, here’s the normative document for you to search for: Decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR on the development of the Soyuz space-rocket complex for a manned moon overtake of April 16, 1962.

[Golovan Jack]

Quote: slipped

Decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR on the development of the Soyuz rocket-space complex for a manned flyby of the Moon of April 16, 1962

Found it on Wick Ma-ok-tsa.
You see, a miracle: I didn’t inappropriately request references. According to what a person refers to, it is easy to determine - this is really special, or so, bullshit.
And you began to sculpt excuses ...
Sound your diagnosis, or understood already?
PS:

Quote: slipped

And do not fuck in space

Sail further, fish ... talk about the ships plowing the Bolshoi Theater.
There are a lot of people like you, recently divorced, so have fun with them.

[slipped]

Who about what, and lousy about the bath. )))) If not in the subject then say that you are a doctor. )))) And you can’t talk about space issues.

[slipped]

You read the decree, and then merged after all. ))))

[True]

Quote: MIKHAN

Suppose we are in blockade and sanctions, but nevertheless we are striving into outer space for EVERYONE!

Yeah, our missile torpedoes are the most respected!

[Mountain shooter]

Well, with god! Dogs bark, and the caravan goes on. There will be a new ship and a new heavy carrier. And its own Electronics, and its software, and much, much more.

[Tarasve]

The main thing is that work is underway, materials and configuration are being determined. Not like 15-20 years ago. All that is not done, all for the better.

[UAZ 452]

The news is good. Although, a comparison of the degree of readiness of American ships of new generations and the "Federation" does not give rise to the bravura delights of previous commentators. The maximum is for cautious optimism that we have a chance not to be left behind forever.

[slipped]

No one needs a ship without a rocket. The degree of elaboration of the "Federation" is sufficient today.

[onix757]

They will be sawn for another five years, and then it turns out that they saw something wrong and that for a collapsed space industry this is an impossible task. But money managers.

[askort154]

onix757 ....They will be sawn for another five years, and then it turns out that they saw something wrong and that for a collapsed space industry this is an impossible task. But money managers.

It’s better to cry to your wife’s waistcoat. Although not every woman will fall for a peasant whiner.

[Vadim237]

Into the apparatus in the photograph to the article, suffered the same fate.

[Tsoy]

Quote: Vadim237

Into the apparatus in the photograph to the article, suffered the same fate.

And I thought it showed ... What is the point of using the photo of Clipper in the article about the Federation? Unclear...

[san4es]

The Federation will be a manned transport ship with a crew of up to 4 people, which will be able to deliver to orbital stations and return up to 500 kg of cargo from them. The length of the ship is 6,1 m, the diameter of the returned vehicle is 4,5 meters. According to the idea of ​​the developers, the Federation will become a ship for flying to the moon, where it can deliver up to 100 kg of cargo. More details about the future view of the ship can be found in the next video. The first unmanned flight of the device is planned for 2021, and the manned - for 2024.

[Vitaly Anisimov]

We Russian have something to be proud of for many generations of humanity on planet Earth! And we still show ourselves in this direction .. We would not interfere with everything!

[Oleg Kozlov]

We already have so many projects ..., just a lot. And the Chinese will probably do everything again ... A sort of Russian products made by the Chinese in China ...

[gridasov]

Experiments on large-scale small models can never be identical to the actual flight conditions in an elastic medium, which itself is in a variable state. Therefore, to identify such processes, mathematical models are needed on fundamentally new principles of analysis of high potential processes and with an order of more input data. This means that such factors as pressure and temperature must be translated into the parameters of the derivative of magnetic force flows. Then everything can be reduced to an analysis of the fundamental parameters of quantitative dimension, vector, and momentum. But this is a transition to analysis on functions of a constant value of a number, and not equations and empirical formulas and constants., Think gentlemen, think!

[Avis-bis]

What kind of genetic trash picked a picture for the article?

[Hog]

News about the Federation, but what does the Clipper image have to do with it?

[Vadim237]

Probably as a prophecy that the “Federation” will be closed in the middle of the work - the new leadership of the Russian Space Agency.

[Jurkovs]

And where does the decently forgotten Clipper here in the photo.

[Cannonball]

Quote: noviczok

a year later, in spring, the first PILED flights of the Crew Dragon and CST-100 Starliner will take place, automatic reusable shuttles hang in orbit regularly (including now) for years

We heard this a year ago, and two years ago, and five years ago.
No Americans have manned ships yet. This is a fact.
As for “hanging in orbit for years,” most spacecraft, even African ones, can boast of this now.

[Pan_hrabio]

We heard this a year ago, and two years ago, and five years ago.
No Americans have manned ships yet. This is a fact.

I don’t argue here.

As for “hanging in orbit for years,” most spacecraft, even African ones, can boast of this now.

But few of these devices are reusable shuttles returning to Earth.

[Cannonball]

But is it necessary to return to Earth that has already worked out its program?
Many years of work in orbit, the spacecraft does not do better, and its electronics are noticeably degrading. It is easier and more reliable to make a new spacecraft than to return, and then try to reanimate the old one.

[Cannonball]

noviczok, so you can translate "Dawn" and like Sunrise. However, the "Dawn" can also be translated.

[Pan_hrabio]

I agree, here from the very beginning there was a mess in the topic of conversation.

[Old26]

Quote: Logall

I mean, without our RD they can only dream about space. No one yet ...

Of the 45 missiles that will be launched this year, there will be only 5 Atlases with RD-180 engines and 2 Antares with RD-181 engines. Interesting. But on the remaining 38 carriers whose engines are there? Or are there no engines at all ???

Quote: Logall

But after the closure of the Space Shuttle program, the Russian Unions remained the only means of delivering the crew to the international space station.

Yes, still remain. But it all ends sometime. And from 2019-2020 they will no longer need our services for delivering people into orbit. And this money went to finance the creation of a certain number of Unions and Progresses. Not all of course. But about 3-4 of each type. This source will run out and how many will we launch the Unions per year? Or others to carry to the station, tourists, for example. Because everything will be in the shipping cost. If it will be cheaper for the United States, those wishing to fly to the Unions will decrease. especially among ISS participants

Quote: YELLOWSTONE

how soon what will they fly on and how many times?

= In August, the first unmanned flight of Dragon V2. Docking with the ISS. 30 day mission.
The second, already manned flight - in December 2018 with 2 astronauts ..

= Starliner CST-100. The first unmanned flight to the ISS in August 2018. the first manned in November 2018, regular since spring 2019
= Dream Chaser. Unmanned in 2018. 3 flights are planned. Manned by the ISS since 2020
= Orion. Manned since 2023.
= The cargo "Swan", superior in carrying capacity to our "Progress", has already flown 9 times.

And by the way, editors. Change the photo of the ship at the beginning of the article. This is not a Federation, but a Clipper. Federation has a different look

[slipped]

Quote: Old26

Quote: Logall

But after the closure of the Space Shuttle program, the Russian Unions remained the only means of delivering the crew to the international space station.

Yes, still remain. But it all ends sometime. And from 2019-2020 they will no longer need our services for delivering people into orbit. And this money went to finance the creation of a certain number of Unions and Progresses. Not all of course. But about 3-4 of each type. This source will run out and how many will we launch the Unions per year? Or others to carry to the station, tourists, for example. Because everything will be in the shipping cost. If it will be cheaper for the United States, those wishing to fly to the Unions will decrease. especially among ISS participants

Well, you yourself said about the tourists. )))) Now their group is whole in line. And none of them wants to fly on raw US ships.

Quote: Old26

And by the way, editors. Change the photo of the ship at the beginning of the article. This is not a Federation, but a Clipper. Federation has a different look

The model from A. Zak is also different from the RKK-shny option. Rather, this photo is closer

[YELLOWSTONE]

there was nothing but on what

[slipped]

Quote: Vadim237

A competitor has been flying to the ISS since 2012, the biggest load was 3136 kilograms - Dragon.

“Progress-CO1” and “Progress-CO2” in general, the modules “Pirs” and “Search” were brought to the station. Next in line is Progress-UM in 2019, the Berth will bring, which is heavier. As for the SCC with a large pressurized compartment - its assembly is possible. will begin in the year 2021.

[Cannonball]

Vadim237But has SLS already flown? Not. So there is no rocket yet.

[YELLOWSTONE]

well, they drew it ... they haven’t even done it yet

[Vadim237]

This is our Union 5 drawn - and the SLS is already in full swing.

[YELLOWSTONE]

in full swing they fly on the previous Union

[Cannonball]

So far, the assembly of SLS is not mentioned anywhere - the maximum is that the production of individual parts, assemblies and assemblies has begun.

[Cannonball]

Vadim237, European ATV brought in 7600 kg each, and Japanese HTV - 6200 kg each. Dragon is seriously inferior to them. In addition, the "Progress" flew almost 10 times more often than the American - 159 launches against 16.

[Vadim237]

Yes, nevermind who, what delivers to the ISS - in the future, Roscosmos expects severe optimization of 50 percent.

[Cannonball]

Well, just nevermind, why let the bubbles go. Progresses fly, well, let them fly. And let Roskosmos understand itself. There are enough parasites, let them optimize.

[YELLOWSTONE]

washed down with the Chinese and Indians still at the station and let NASA optimize again

[Vadim237]

"Russia will become the undisputed leader in space exploration" - Pechalka will not. Space for government and the economy is not a priority.

[axxmanm]

Quote: Vadim237

"Russia will become the undisputed leader in space exploration" - Pechalka will not. Space for government and the economy is not a priority.

Chukchi is not a reader, Chukchi is a writer .. (c)
Well, I wrote before this:

Quote: axxmanm

As soon as the power of compradors and prostitutes changes,
Russia will become the undisputed leader in space exploration

... and the government you mentioned is not one of the guises of power?

[Vadim237]

Under any government, the Russian space industry will hang on the neck of the state and bear the economic burden.

[Golovan Jack]

Quote: Vadim237

Russia's space industry will hang on the neck of the state

She hangs everywhere on this "neck". And in the USA, too. Musk is just a showcase

[YELLOWSTONE]

moreover a pretty curve, the foot can be parachuted into the water

[Vadim237]

"The step can be parachuted into the water." They refused the parachute landing scheme, in view of the great complexity.

[YELLOWSTONE]

Quote: Vadim237

They refused the parachute landing scheme, in view of the great complexity.

it's already quite ...

[Vadim237]

And this is true, plus one will have to limit the movement of aircraft over a large area and therefore returning the first stage using rocket engines is effective from a financial and organizational point of view.

[YELLOWSTONE]

Quote: YELLOWSTONE

it's already ... fool

Yes this is true ...

[Cannonball]

That's right, all the steps must be burned in the atmosphere! Simple, cheap and environmentally friendly.

[Vadim237]

This showcase earns not a little money in space.

[Golovan Jack]

Quote: Vadim237

This showcase earns not a little money in space

Vadim, I’ll tell you more - this showcase nothing at all manages to make money
Works as a showcase. He gets paid for it. Envy

[YELLOWSTONE]

they don’t envy kumitrams, they create them (or find them)

[Golovan Jack]

Quote: YELLOWSTONE

they don’t envy kumitrams, they create them (or find them)

Well, for whom and cow bride Musk - idol

[Vadim237]

Dude and his companies really do: rockets, engines, cars and make money on it, attracting sponsors.

[Golovan Jack]

Quote: Vadim237

rockets, engines, cars

Cars, as far as I know, are in flight, Other is a showcase. Behind the Mask state, Vadim.
And, yes - you still forgot SolarCity for some reason

[Vadim237]

And that - as an example, Boeing has 2 billion losses over the past year - but this does not prevent him from further producing and developing airplanes.

[Cannonball]

Why is the Federation worse than the Mask and Boeing barrels?
Why is the Federation worse than the Union?
What do you care about taxpayer money? Personally, you don’t get anything from them.
In orbit, affairs will last for several dozen generations of cosmonauts / astronauts. And on the moon, in addition to the next flag stick, there is no use for a manned flight. All that can be obtained from the insanely expensive and unsafe manned flight to the moon, you can get much cheaper and not dangerous to human life and health automatic interplanetary stations.

[zoolu350]

Everything is true, except that the spacecraft Federation is not a cast from the mattress spacecraft Orion, but the redesigned Soviet spacecraft Zarya. That is, 30 years ago in the USSR they began to create the Zenit launch vehicle system - the Zarya spacecraft, but under the authority of the Russian oligarchy this direction was merged, starting to create all sorts of the Angara spacecraft and the Clipper spacecraft, but then (when a glimmer of consciousness arose) returned to the original version.

[Igor Levertov]

Our "Buran", if you do not know, is not a copy of Amer. shuttle. Our project "Buran" - "Energy" is the answer of Amer. the Space Shuttle program, it differed fundamentally from it and surpassed it in most indicators. I will give some comparative characteristics of the projects:
1. Being in orbit = 30 days, Amer "shuttle" = 15 days.
2. Cargo on board = 30 tons, Amer. "shuttle" = 24 tons.
3. Preparation for launch at the cosmodrome = 15 days, Amer. "shuttle" = month.
4. Crew = 10 people., Amer. "shuttle" = 7 people
5. The Space Shuttle complex was used to put only shuttles into orbit, except
other things, they didn’t have the opportunity to land several times, as the shuttles landed
with the engines off.
The Soviet system "Buran" - "Energy" was created universal, and superheavy rocket-
The carrier "Energy" allowed to put into orbit any ships and cargo weighing up to 100 tons, and
"Buran" in contrast to Amer. "shuttle" could use its own control engines in
automatic descent and landing time, which was successfully demonstrated in
test flight time November 15, 1988
And this is the main, fundamental difference between our system and the American one!
6. After the first flight of the Buran, only 8 heat-shielding tiles were lost.
After the first flight of Amer. The shuttle lost more than 100 heat-shielding elements.
As they say, you will feel the difference and compare the quality of technology.

CONCLUSION: the Soviet project "Buran" - "Energy", as a worthy response to the American, has become
technological breakthrough of the Soviet Union in space exploration. And if not
the betrayal of two people known to all, the fate of the Russian program of development
outer space would be completely different.
So you, I believe, are deeply mistaken, considering our "shuttle" a copy of the American!

[Arikkhab]

There is only one “but” - the Soviet system “Buran” - “Energy” flew then when the shuttles were already “out”, naturally the experience was gained by the Americans and taken into account by Soviet designers, plus the system “Buran” - “Energy” made the only flight it’s impossible to really appreciate the benefits

[Cannonball]

Hrenase yourself "at the end" ...
The first orbital flight took place in the 81st year. Space Shuttle shut down after 30! years old.
“Buran” flew once in the 88th, i.e. only 7 years after the start of operation of the shuttles. Where from here "at the end"? Almost at the very beginning was the Space Shuttle program.

Columbia to flight “Burana” made 7 flights out of 28.
Challenger by this time had already flown its own, having made 9 flights. In the 10th he died.
Atlantis - 2 out of 33.
Endeavor - 0 of 25.

[Igor Levertov]

Just don’t forget to mention that even before this Buran flight, pilot-cosmonaut Igor Volk made 5 taxiings and 13 flights on a special copy of the Buran spacecraft and was to become the crew commander of the first manned space flight Buran. So the experience was solid and experience. This is the first. And secondly, do not forget about the colossal experience of the Soviet Union in space exploration using flights at the Salyut series orbiting space stations, and later at the Mir station. No country in the world has such experience so far !. So, if it were not for the betrayal of the two people known to all of us, the big question is what would be our experience in space exploration now, and, I think, this childish, in comparison with the "Buran", babble called the "Federation" does not would be needed, but there would be an improved Buran, I am 100% sure of this. And so, we have what we have, unfortunately. By the way, the American Space Shuttle project turned out to be very unreliable, as evidenced by a number of disasters with human casualties.

[YELLOWSTONE]

Quote: ArikKhab

it’s impossible to really appreciate the benefits

they are trying to evaluate at the beginning of development

[Filxnumx]

And why on the Clipper screensaver, if the article is about the Federation?

[Alex20042004]

Quote: Wendigo

Johnson Science Center

So, for information:

And in recent years, the Americans’s lunar soil (more precisely, what they pass off as lunar soil) has begun to disappear altogether. In the summer of 2002, a huge number of samples of lunar matter - a safe weighing almost 3 centners - disappeared from the storerooms of the NASA them. Johnson in Houston. Have you ever tried to steal a 300 kg safe from the space center? And do not try: too hard and dangerous work. But the thieves, on the trail of which the police marveled marvelously quickly, succeeded easily. Tiffany Fowler and Ted Roberts, who worked in the building during the missing period, were arrested by special agents from the FBI and NASA in a Florida state restaurant. Subsequently, the third accomplice, She Saur, and then the fourth participant in the crime, Gordon Mac Water, who facilitated the transport of stolen goods, were taken into custody in Houston. Thieves intended to sell invaluable evidence of NASA's lunar mission at a price of $ 1000-5000 per gram through the site of the Mineralogical Club in Antwerp (Holland). The cost of stolen, according to information from overseas, amounted to more than $ 1 million.

A few years later - a new misfortune. In the United States, in the Virginia Beach area, two small sealed plastic disk-shaped boxes with samples of meteorite and lunar matter were stolen from an automobile by unknown intruders, judging by the markings on them. Samples of this kind, Space reports, are being handed over to NASA by special instructors "for training purposes." Before receiving such samples, teachers undergo a special briefing during which they are trained to properly handle this national property of the United States. And the “national treasure”, it turns out, is so simple to steal ... Although this does not seem to be a theft, but to pretend to steal in order to get rid of evidence: there is no soil - there are no “uncomfortable" questions.

Read more: http://www.km.ru/front-projects/amerikanzi-nikogd
a-ne-letali-na-lunu / pochemu-nasa-pryachet-lunnyi-
grunt-ot-all-mira

[Igor Levertov]

And in general, were the Americans on the moon? This has been a big question lately.

[Old26]

Quote: slipped

From 2019, the flight at Proton-Medium will begin. There is a price tag - less than $ 50 million. Three major contracts have already been concluded for serial launches.

This is of course not bad, but in comparison with the Proton-M, the load-carrying characteristics are not particularly encouraging. Although possible and sufficient.

Quote: slipped

Which customers? )))) At Proton-M, contracts were previously concluded - they are all being implemented, i.e. rockets have already been ordered for them - this is about 15 launches, and there will be little new contracts for it, since the rocket will be produced only until 2023 in small batches. At Proton-Medium, at least 12 launches have already been planned since 2020. On the Angara-1.2 launch vehicle, contracts have also been concluded. The last accident at Proton was a long time ago. After that, there were 13 successful launches.

Do not count it as nitpicking, although after the emergency launch of Proton on May 16, 2015, there were 13 launches, and one of them was regarded as rather partially successful on June 9, 2016 with the Intelsat 31 (DLA 2) satellite.

If at least 12 contracts have been concluded at Medium, as you write, then this is certainly good. Although, to be honest, "vague doubts" torment, a Dozen contracts for a rocket that has never flown before ...
About the "hangars." I heard of three possible launches in 2020 and later.

Quote: slipped

Well, you yourself said about the tourists. )))) Now their group is whole in line. And none of them wants to fly on raw US ships.

But in general, how do Americans relate to tourists now? With their first, it seems Tito had problems, did not let him into the US segment.
As for the dampness of American ships. Yes, of course, until at least several times they fly off, there is no need to talk about completion. But then the ruble / dollar will come into play. It will be cheaper for the Americans (given the fact that several different ships, respectively, competition in prices) will fly to the Americans. Agree. If we take 73 million, and the Americans will offer at least 50 - whose ship will they choose?

Quote: slipped

The model from A. Zak is also different from the RKK-shny option. Rather, this photo is closer

I know. it’s just that his drawing was at hand, and even the difference from the one you’ve quoted still shows that in the photo in the article he’s not, but “Clipper”

[Igor Levertov]

This ship reminds me of the apparatus from the movie "Kin-Dza-Dza." It’s a pity that they abandoned the project of the reduced “Buran” - the ingenious, outstanding, and still unsurpassed invention of Soviet scientists and specialists. The Buran spacecraft, which completed its first and only unmanned automatic flight on November 1, 1988, had the opportunity to land, like an airplane, on a specially prepared runway. Obviously there was not enough money for this particular project, and settled on a cheaper option with the "Federation". And our money, including for space programs, bye-bye: in the Forbes magazine. Here is the result of the so-called liberal reforms of the judiciary of Russia in the 90s.

[pafegosoff]

I don’t understand one thing. In fact - “Zenith”, but with Russian naphthyl engines and with the possibility of block layout. Why is the name - "Union?" Again, to circumvent bureaucrats, like Tupolev with the Tu-22M, which is absolutely not what the Tu-22 was. By the way, the dimensions of the Federation and Soyuz-5, as well as the Angara blocks, correspond to the dimensions of the Ruslan cargo compartment. I read that S-7, which bought the Sea Launch, agrees to buy fifty Soyuz-5s but at $ 20 million each.

[Cannonball]

Zenit will still be smaller - 3,9 m in diameter, against 4,1 m in Soyuz-5.

[NETZAH NETZAH_2]

Is this something like a Clipper project?

[Cannonball]

Vadim237What is expressed by "results on the face"?

[Vadim237]

"Results on the face" - In the gland.

[YELLOWSTONE]

by 2040?

[Cannonball]

Hde? Announce the entire list, please.

[Vadim237]

What to disclose it - they build an extra-heavy rocket - they build it, they are testing manned ships. The USA already has everything in hardware, and in Russia - only in sketches.

[Cannonball]

A superheavy rocket is not yet being built, only individual units and assemblies are being made.
They are testing mock-ups and stand-by vehicles, not manned ships.
The Federation also follows this path. There is no reason to rush with it because of the unavailability of the launch vehicle.
In Russia, much has already left the stage of conceptual design and something has also already been done "in iron", even if this is "iron" and not in the final version.

[slipped]

Quote: Old26

Quote: slipped

From 2019, the flight at Proton-Medium will begin. There is a price tag - less than $ 50 million. Three major contracts have already been concluded for serial launches.

This is of course not bad, but in comparison with the Proton-M, the load-carrying characteristics are not particularly encouraging. Although possible and sufficient.

The media is optimized for specific tasks. More precisely, it is such an ersatz from Proton-M before the appearance of Soyuz-5. For him, there will be one launcher at Baikonur.

Quote: Old26

Quote: slipped

Which customers? )))) At Proton-M, contracts were previously concluded - they are all being implemented, i.e. rockets have already been ordered for them - this is about 15 launches, and there will be little new contracts for it, since the rocket will be produced only until 2023 in small batches. At Proton-Medium, at least 12 launches have already been planned since 2020. On the Angara-1.2 launch vehicle, contracts have also been concluded. The last accident at Proton was a long time ago. After that, there were 13 successful launches.

Do not count it as nitpicking, although after the emergency launch of Proton on May 16, 2015, there were 13 launches, and one of them was regarded as rather partially successful on June 9, 2016 with the Intelsat 31 (DLA 2) satellite.

Why would this be ?! Quote: “the Intelsat 31 satellite was successfully launched into a supersynchronous orbit of 3428x64964 km with an inclination of 29.53 ° with an error of only 1,1 m / s without loss of satellite orbital resource." Where is he "partially successful"? An anomaly in the operation of the remote control did not affect the final result. After checking the engines and installing them on media, this anomaly did not recur.

Quote: Old26

If at least 12 contracts have been concluded at Medium, as you write, then this is certainly good. Although, to be honest, "vague doubts" torment, a Dozen contracts for a rocket that has never flown before ...

There are two contracts. One with the British for one launch of two devices with the possibility of further subsequent launches. Another with VanWeb on 11 launches.

Quote: Old26

About the "hangars." I heard of three possible launches in 2020 and later.

Angara -1.2 flies with the Koreans in 2020. Before that there will be a launch with the Messengers.

Quote: Old26

Quote: slipped

Well, you yourself said about the tourists. )))) Now their group is whole in line. And none of them wants to fly on raw US ships.

But in general, how do Americans relate to tourists now? With their first, it seems Tito had problems, did not let him into the US segment.
As for the dampness of American ships. Yes, of course, until at least several times they fly off, there is no need to talk about completion. But then the ruble / dollar will come into play. It will be cheaper for the Americans (given the fact that several different ships, respectively, competition in prices) will fly to the Americans. Agree. If we take 73 million, and the Americans will offer at least 50 - whose ship will they choose?

The extreme tourist flew for 30 million. The fact that we sell Boeing seats for 73 million, well, for good reason.

[Cannonball]

Quote: slipped

The media is optimized for specific tasks. More precisely, it is such an ersatz from Proton-M before the appearance of Soyuz-5.

There is no carrier yet and it is unclear whether. He has nothing to do with Soyuz-5.

Angara -1.2 flies with the Koreans in 2020. Before that there will be a launch with the Messengers.

On the light “Hangar” there are also more questions than allegations. The military slows down its production.

[slipped]

There are already signed contracts for both carriers. There are two light hangars ordered for production.

[Cannonball]

You don’t just need to tell me about the Protons and the Angara. I know what is really being done, and what - only promises in words.

[slipped]

There are terms of contracts which to break off are more expensive for yourself, and now you have nowhere to go.

[Cannonball]

Yes, do not care for these terms. The company has already been destroyed, thanks to the "successful managers." Who will make these missiles if people are massively reduced, equipment is taken out somewhere, workshops are going to be broken, and the territory sold?
Nothing is being done for the 2-stage “Proton” now. With a light "Hangar" - complete misunderstandings. VP stupidly ignores her, so the work is not particularly moving.

[slipped]

Quote: Cannonball

Yes, do not care for these terms.

Who cares for you personally or for the Koreans?), And the British were misled just now, and they believed such naive people? Doesn’t fit somehow, don’t you?

Quote: Cannonball

The company has already been destroyed, thanks to the "successful managers." Who will make these missiles if people are massively reduced, equipment is taken out somewhere, workshops are going to be broken, and the territory sold?

Omsk will make them. They are not going to sell the entire territory in Khimki, what are you inventing? Debts must be repaid once they have been taken.

Quote: Cannonball

Nothing is being done for the 2-stage “Proton” now. With a light "Hangar" - complete misunderstandings. VP stupidly ignores her, so the work is not particularly moving.

And I have other information). In any case, AMs have already been tested, and URMs are brought to TsiH.

[Cannonball]

I don’t care. I’m just doing them, which’s why I say what really is.
Omsk is engaged in garbage, not rockets. It would be better if they did not give them the "Angara". Solid marriage is driven.
We have nothing to do with Khimki. They want to sell the territory in Moscow, at Fili.
Debts arose due to the fact that the "dead" Omsk and Voronezh were imposed on Filyam. They were then reanimated for our money, and their debts were hung on Fili. So you need to be aware of what to reproach with debts.
I don’t know where you get your “information” from, listen to me better - I come across this information every day at work. Work on the light "hangar" today are in a frozen state. Much has been done on it, but now the work is almost not moving. URM-1 really brought, but they are designed for a heavy "hangar".

[slipped]

Quote: Cannonball

I don’t care. I’m just doing them, which’s why I say what really is.
Omsk is engaged in garbage, not rockets. It would be better if they did not give them the "Angara". Solid marriage is driven.

Well, they need to learn first. That's why there is QiH to check.

Quote: Cannonball

We have nothing to do with Khimki. They want to sell the territory in Moscow, at Fili.
Debts arose due to the fact that the "dead" Omsk and Voronezh were imposed on Filyam. They were then reanimated for our money, and their debts were hung on Fili. So you need to be aware of what to reproach with debts.

Yes, I meant it, and I don’t reproach, I say that the enterprise is now one, and you have to pay debts

Quote: Cannonball

I don’t know where you get your “information” from, listen to me better - I come across this information every day at work. Work on the light "hangar" today are in a frozen state. Much has been done on it, but now the work is almost not moving. URM-1 really brought, but they are designed for a heavy "hangar".

Well, that you do not know). Yes, I know, they brought for a second car. On easy - there are two more years before the execution of contracts. While the military will temporarily use the Unions instead of Rokot, a pair of carriers was ordered, and then light.

[Cannonball]

“Roar” has not yet flown its own. In addition, the issue of extending their operation in the Rokot-2 variant with a new SU is being worked out.

[Old26]

Quote: slipped

For him, there will be one launcher at Baikonur.

I didn’t quite catch your thought. EMNIP 24th launcher at 81 sites was modernized under it. That is, she will be left alone?

Quote: slipped

Why would this be ?! Quote: “the Intelsat 31 satellite was successfully launched into a supersynchronous orbit of 3428x64964 km with an inclination of 29.53 ° with an error of only 1,1 m / s without loss of satellite orbital resource." Where is he "partially successful"? An anomaly in the operation of the remote control did not affect the final result. After checking the engines and installing them on media, this anomaly did not recur.

Thank! So the information from the resource from where I took this data is erroneous. I'll keep it on mind

Quote: axxmanm

There are two contracts. One with the British for one launch of two devices with the possibility of further subsequent launches. Another with VanWeb on 11 launches.

And this issue was clarified, as with the "Hangar"

[slipped]

Quote: Old26

Quote: slipped

For him, there will be one launcher at Baikonur.

I didn’t quite catch your thought. EMNIP 24th launcher at 81 sites was modernized under it. That is, she will be left alone?

Here is information about this http://tass.ru/kosmos/5047959 and here http://militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=47
6617

[Vkd dvk]

Vadim237,

Quote: Vadim237

In the USA with space, the results are obvious - but for now, we have plans for a 10-year period.

Results are what drive progress. I don’t think that they will wait until the Americans catch up with us.

[Vkd dvk]

Quote: Wendigo

Musk owes Tesla. SpaceX is very profitable.
You in your blind urapatriotizm completely scored on the mat part I will look.

The strategy of the Mask is to work WITHOUT PROFIT. Thus, he deceives not only Tesla pre-customers, but also the state, not paying taxes. He transfers any loot into ownership, developing new construction and production. Increasing the price of their treasures and the value of stocks. He is getting richer, and those robbed of them are waiting for the execution of the order for three years. There is no profit, and he has a "moral right" to ask for subsidies, tax rebates, and promising more and more golden mountains. Not a single promise has been brought to an end. You can’t create new missiles by returning departing stages. 50 flew off, 23 were returned, reuse of OLD, already morally ruined blocks 2, 3, 4 - only 5 times. New super-stunning promises - 10 starts of block 5 are already almost forgotten, jammed, lowered on the brakes. Ahead, new- Heavy, Heavyweight, Mars. This is what a card sharpie does, constantly raising bids and changing his promises. His Dragon has never flown with people, but tickets to Mars are already on sale.

[Vadim237]

The mask is now financed by 20 percent, the rest is the money of the company and numerous investors Everything will be fine with Tesla, in 2000 the company was worth nothing, and now it costs 60 billion and the company's problems are related only to the production of batteries. "New super-stunning promises - 10 starts of block 5 are already virtually forgotten." This rocket has not flown yet - and you have already forgotten. All these launches of 2,3,4 rocket modifications - are profitable and at the same time are a tool for further modernization of the Falcon 9 rocket - the rocket becomes more advanced, simpler and cheaper, the guys will not go around and develop other directions, superheavy rockets, interplanetary transport systems - you don’t need to worry about them; everything will be fine. “That’s how a carte-cheater comes in” - Roscosmos, with the hangar a project into which 130 billion rubles were uploaded - the output was a non-flying rocket. Now he has embarked on a new cut in budget funds - Soyuz 5 and the Federation ship, the scheme has already been debugged, stretching the deadlines and allocating additional funds for improvements, and then changing the leadership and closing the project, this was the case with the Rus rocket, air launch, Clipper, MAKS, Baikal.

[slipped]

Quote: Vadim237

Roscosmos, with the Angara project into which 130 billion rubles were uploaded - the output was a non-flying rocket.

Lies again. URM-1 in various modifications, flew 9 times already. everything is successful. URM-2 - 2 times - according to the results there are questions. Testing and refinement of the product. Breeze-M flies as a part of the Proton launch vehicle.

The hangar now belongs to the Ministry of Defense, it paid money for it, and it will use it when it tests. And the start of the Angara is in Plesetsk, a military spaceport.
The launch dates of the Angara launch vehicle from Roscosmos were repeatedly called in the media by both management and the manufacturer - this is the Vostochny spaceport and the year 2021.

Quote: Vadim237

Now he has embarked on a new cut in budget funds - Soyuz 5 and the Federation ship, the scheme has already been debugged, stretching the deadlines and allocating additional funds for improvements, and then changing the leadership and closing the project, this was the case with the Rus rocket, air launch, Clipper, MAKS, Baikal.

How do you like to lie, well, just writing from this probably. The terms for Soyuz-5 and the Federation ship were announced above. There was no “Rus” rocket, there was an OCD on the topic “Rus,” “Clipper” - the same thing, “Air Launch” was commercial and did not have enough money, “Baikal” - the initiative development of the plant - will be used in further work on the URM, MAKS - was closed as a result of the destruction of cooperation during the collapse of the USSR.

[Vadim237]

Baikal - the initiative development of the plant - will be used in further work on the URM. "It won’t be shut down completely. And we have a lot of time for it to be voiced and voiced, everything that is voiced is torn 100%. True eyes will always be cut. The future of Russian space: the sale of rocket engines , the withdrawal of its own military and civilian satellites, the manufacture of equipment for foreign customers and the prospect of development in dense fog.

[Golovan Jack]

Quote: Vadim237

and development perspective in dense fog

Vadim, you know so much
Where, interesting?

[Vadim237]

There are many friends working in the field of space systems and collaborating with my production - their mood is not encouraging.

[Vkd dvk]

Quote: Golovan Jack

Quote: Vadim237

and development perspective in dense fog

Vadim, you know so much
Where, interesting?

He reads American magazines on the Internet. The shit is full of his posts, unusually. Do not be jealous of such, and soap the neck.

[Cannonball]

I did not hear that this project was closed. In January 18th, work on it was resumed, as the media write.

[slipped]

[quote = Vadim237] "Baikal" - the initiative development of the plant - will be used in further work on the URM. "It will not be - it was closed completely. And we have a lot of time for it to be voiced and voiced, everything voiced breaks 100%. [quote]

Did you know the timing for Baikal !? Well cool, Th, the designers themselves did not know, but you knew.

[quote = Vadim237] True eyes will always be cut. The future of the Russian space: the sale of rocket engines, the launch of its own military and civilian satellites, the manufacture of equipment for foreign customers and the prospect of development in dense fog. [/ Quote]

Nastradamus is resting. People working on the program for preparing flights to the moon in the RKK dropped their hands))). But there is still at least ten years of work ahead.

[Vadim237]

Given the curtailment of funding for pallets to the moon, you can forget, just for the next 10 years. There are no missiles or ships or elements of the lunar stations.

[slipped]

And who in the world has it now? ))) About financing he came up with?

[Vkd dvk]

Quote: Vadim237

The mask is now financed by 20 percent, the rest is the money of the company and numerous investors Everything will be fine with Tesla, in 2000 the company was worth nothing, and now it costs 60 billion and the company's problems are related only to the production of batteries. "New super-stunning promises - 10 starts of block 5 are already virtually forgotten." This rocket has not flown yet - and you have already forgotten. All these launches of 2,3,4 rocket modifications - are profitable and at the same time are a tool for further modernization of the Falcon 9 rocket - the rocket becomes more advanced, simpler and cheaper, the guys will not go around and develop other directions, superheavy rockets, interplanetary transport systems - you don’t need to worry about them; everything will be fine. “That’s how a carte-cheater comes in” - Roscosmos, with the hangar a project into which 130 billion rubles were uploaded - the output was a non-flying rocket. Now he has embarked on a new cut in budget funds - Soyuz 5 and the Federation ship, the scheme has already been debugged, stretching the deadlines and allocating additional funds for improvements, and then changing the leadership and closing the project, this was the case with the Rus rocket, air launch, Clipper, MAKS, Baikal.

https://news.drom.ru/Tesla-58702.html
http://maxpark.com/community/4109/content/6199622
http://politus.ru/economy/2413-kompaniya-ilona-ma
ska-tesla-motors-popala-v-spisok-s-musornym-reyti
ngom.html
https://ru.insider.pro/infographics/2017-05-25/is
toriya-ilona-maska-istoriya-neudach /
Queue up nearly half a million afflicted electric cars, receiving loot for promises. Mask's strategy is to work without profit, throwing everything at new construction, increasing the debts and the price of their enterprises. No profit, does not pay taxes. Working in debt is blackmail, squeezing out subsidies, speculating on the idiocy of both buyers and congressmen. lobbying his activities. Green energy. Nonsense, leading to a dead end traditional.

https://bezgin.su/articles/140-jenergetika/55857-
solnechnye-jel-fy-kalifornii-chast-1

Look on the Internet for information on the multiple uses of Falcon block 5. Almost disappeared. But heavy crap, Mars, and the "multiple" Dragon are exaggerated.

[Vadim237]

"Look on the Internet for information on the multiple uses of falcon block 5". Once again, for those who are blind, this rocket has never flown.

[Vkd dvk]

Quote: Vadim237

"Look on the Internet for information on the multiple uses of falcon block 5". Once again, for those who are blind, this rocket has never flown.

They were surprised. The loot mastered on this block is already history. Show the shaft of information, plans of the bulk, from FUTURE launches. Already stalled. Quietly so. the brakes went. But then a fire flared up from rovers, and lists of expeditions to this red planet. Under the promises from which they are tired, they do not give loot. We need new and ever more grandiose ones. What began to write about his supernova Tesla Y! Just the world is turning upside down. Crowds, knocking each other and stomping to death, run for pre-orders. But there are already losses of a billion. And the fall of shares by 3,5 billion.

[YELLOWSTONE]

another just launched, again on the RD-180

[Cannonball]

Vadim237, because of the shuttle thermal protection two shuttles with crews were lost.

[Vadim237]

Challenger died due to stiff rubber seal in turbojet engine

[Cannonball]

This version was accepted as the main, but the exact cause of the accident did not seem to be revealed.
In July 1986, a crew death report from Johnson Space Center Director, Doctor of Space and Biological Sciences, former astronaut Joseph P. Kerwin read: "the cause of death of the Challenger astronauts cannot be positively determined."
Everything else is pure cover for someone’s asses.

[Vadim237]

But the fact remains - rubber o-rings, plus the criminal is not the foresight of the management team, as well as the initial design errors.

[Cannonball]

I have some experience working in similar commissions. So the "kitchen" of the appearance of the "final conclusions of the commission" is well known.

[Vkd dvk]

Quote: Cannonball

I have some experience working in similar commissions. So the "kitchen" of the appearance of the "final conclusions of the commission" is well known.

One such commission, in which I happened to be justifying a bribe taker, agreed on intergranular corrosion, which disabled a piece of iron that almost served ..... To admit that there was a technological violation in the manufacture was not solid, shameful, and fraught. Academic institutes, conclusions and conclusions, microsections, photos from electron microscopes. No need to flaunt proximity and involvement. Grandfather Krylov ....... Many such gatherings serve as a screen for truth.

[YELLOWSTONE]

NASA has long insisted that the astronauts died in the explosion, although in fact when the cabin separated from the shuttle hit the water, it was done in order to hush the lack of a rescue system
with the second shuttle, it also turned out that they knew what would end and did not try to save the astronauts.

[Vkd dvk]

Cannonball,

Quote: Cannonball

As you know, trucks did not fly to Skylab, that is, all stocks were withdrawn along with the station. Nevertheless, the station itself flew in space until 1979, i.e. 6 years.
For comparison, Soviet orbital stations - peers of Skylab, had a much smaller resource:
Salyut-3 - 7 months;
Salyut-4 - 2 years;
Salyut-5 - 1 year;
"Salute-6" - 4 and a half years.
And you say "nothing is normal."

Flying in canned mode is, of course, an achievement. Three expeditions. Point.

[Cannonball]

"Iron" on the drum in what mode it flies. The main thing is the duration of the flight. Point.

[YELLOWSTONE]

the gland that must function to provide people - no,

[Vkd dvk]

Quote: Cannonball

"Iron" on the drum in what mode it flies. The main thing is the duration of the flight. Point.

If you are going to sign up in the Guinness Book, then for this it’s absolutely the same what you do — eat at a speed, or fart at a duration. The one-year flight duration of uninhabited iron, which does nothing useful in the machine, is not a record, but mismanagement and the possibility of creating an emergency situation. Now, if, after 6 years, the crew had been sent, something had been corrected and included in the work, then we could talk about expediency. Voyager, fifty years flying and sending signals and images - yes !. https://kiri2ll.livejournal.com/167353.html
Not the ability to remove it from orbit - is this a feat?

[Cannonball]

If you have a head just to have it, then why so "shine" with intelligence?
Clever, not understanding what is at stake, it is possible with an empty head.
For those “who are in the tank” I specifically explain - in technology, including space technology, one of the most important operational characteristics is its resource, that is, a guaranteed ability to maintain its performance and technical characteristics for a long time. Therefore, the difference for the "iron", it is inhabited or flies in unmanned mode, especially not. What matters here is not the fact of habitability, but resistance to the conditions of space flight - temperature extremes, cosmic radiation, degradation of materials, etc.
The 6 year flight for the late 70s was a huge achievement.
By the way, your “Voyagers” at the time of the Skylab’s descent didn’t work in space for two more years ...
Our “Salutes” had a very small resource, the “Unions” “baked like pies”, and therefore condensed the manned program.
And the "Skylab" resource was very decent, they even planned to exploit it with the shuttles, but the shuttles were too late. And the limited manned operation of Skylab was compelled and consisted not in the capabilities of the station itself, but in the absence of manned ships to deliver crews to it.

[Vkd dvk]

Quote: Cannonball

If you have a head just to have it, then why so "shine" with intelligence?
Clever, not understanding what is at stake, it is possible with an empty head.
For those “who are in the tank” I specifically explain - in technology, including space technology, one of the most important operational characteristics is its resource, that is, a guaranteed ability to maintain its performance and technical characteristics for a long time. Therefore, the difference for the "iron", it is inhabited or flies in unmanned mode, especially not. What matters here is not the fact of habitability, but resistance to the conditions of space flight - temperature extremes, cosmic radiation, degradation of materials, etc.
The 6 year flight for the late 70s was a huge achievement.
By the way, your “Voyagers” at the time of the Skylab’s descent didn’t work in space for two more years ...
Our “Salutes” had a very small resource, the “Unions” “baked like pies”, and therefore condensed the manned program.
And the "Skylab" resource was very decent, they even planned to exploit it with the shuttles, but the shuttles were too late. And the limited manned operation of Skylab was compelled and consisted not in the capabilities of the station itself, but in the absence of manned ships to deliver crews to it.

Right Guaranteed resource. Do not say, but WHAT IS IT? Not that they couldn’t put into orbit, apparently, the seals on the warranties were of the wrong caliber. All expeditions are attempts to restore this engine. I am mistaken, the engine has an engine. A wagon is more accurate. The absence of an engine and a carrier capable of moving it to a safe place and controlling the descent served as a guarantee, which nevertheless led him to an uncontrollable fall.
What the hell is talking about the reliability of the pilot's seat, and the lights on the control panel, if the main thing fell apart immediately and finally. Fried and energetically impotent barrel. There is not only an honorary pentagon on it. Of course, an example of reliability.
Reliability is important not only of some elements, but in the complex. Graduate.

There are no complaints about buttons.

[Cannonball]

No, not that. We are talking about the reliability of the entire complex, which is taken into account by the least reliable element. When developing a product, the requirements for a guaranteed resource are always set. For individual parts and assemblies, it can be greater than that established in the statement of work, less than that established in the statement of work, the resource is unacceptable.

[Vkd dvk]

Quote: Cannonball

And the limited manned operation of the Skylab was compelled and consisted not in the capabilities of the station itself, but in the absence of manned ships to deliver crews to it.

And this is the most amazing of all this story. Lack of ships. Only a schoolboy does this, burying a notebook with a deuce in a snowdrift. And it is pleasing to the examiners who have successfully guessed the correct answer in the exam. Proud of other people's "achievements."

[Vadim237]

And there is something to be proud of for others - "The USA has successfully tested a nuclear reactor for the exploration of the Moon and Mars"
NASA and the Los Alamos National Laboratory (engaged in nuclear technology) have successfully tested the Kilopower compact nuclear reactor, designed for lunar and Martian manned missions.
The reactor was tested from November 2017 to March 2018 in the desert of Nevada. According to NASA representatives at a press conference, during the tests, the performance indicators of the reactor exceeded expected
Kilopower uses uranium-235 as fuel, in addition to the reactor itself, the installation includes a Stirling engine and an alternator. The technology allows you to continuously produce up to 10 kilowatts of energy for ten years.

[Vkd dvk]

Quote: Vadim237

And there is something to be proud of for others - "The USA has successfully tested a nuclear reactor for the exploration of the Moon and Mars"
NASA and the Los Alamos National Laboratory (engaged in nuclear technology) have successfully tested the Kilopower compact nuclear reactor, designed for lunar and Martian manned missions.
The reactor was tested from November 2017 to March 2018 in the desert of Nevada. According to NASA representatives at a press conference, during the tests, the performance indicators of the reactor exceeded expected
Kilopower uses uranium-235 as fuel, in addition to the reactor itself, the installation includes a Stirling engine and an alternator. The technology allows you to continuously produce up to 10 kilowatts of energy for ten years.

Take an interest in the efficiency of the system, weight and dimensions. Something tells me that this iron cannot be torn off by modern, even very advertised Maskov super-pulls from Mother Earth. And this is in terrestrial conditions. In a vacuum, you need to add a radiator. The dimensions of the device will grow to the size of Big Ben. And even with extensions. The USSR made such. Less power, of course. But the trouble was with them, above the roof.

[Vadim237]

A 1 kilowatt reactor will weigh 300 kilograms - 10 kilowatts 2000 - 3000 kilograms - so all of its missiles will be pulled.

[Cannonball]

Yeah, and the cooling system is another 30-50 tons.

[Vadim237]

Here is more about the reactor https://geektimes.com/post/289221/

[Vkd dvk]

Quote: Vadim237

https://geektimes.com/post/289221/

The conceptual look of Kilopower, from left to right - cooler radiators, 2 Stirling generator assemblies, radiation protection and heat pipes, a beryllium oxide reactor reflector (inside the reactor).

The presence of heat pipes killed on the spot. This means that this iron does not fly and cannot fly. Heat pipes are such a thing that works only in gravity. By the way, on Earth it works in a very limited position in space. For example, vertically and horizontally fixed will not work. The best position is 45 degrees.
The second one. If the radiators are made open, like solar panels, then the efficiency will double. Again, about the vacuum. I tried to find the difference in the principle of working with RTGs, I did not find it. If some elements are improved there without affecting the principle (the article strongly emphasizes the analogies with the RTGs), then the efficiency will be no more than 5%. I admit-8%.

[Cannonball]

Rather, when desires are ahead of opportunities.
I am proud of the achievements of mankind, whoever they are. I am proud of Gagarin and Leonov, but at the same time, I am proud of the Americans who flew to the moon. I am proud of our "lunar" as well as Voyagers, Pioneers, Cassini ... I am proud of our "Protons" and "Unions", but I am also proud of the American "Saturn-5" and the European "Arian-6".
But the schoolchildren are just proud of "their" other people's achievements, not seeing beyond their own nose

[Vadim237]

"And in the absence of manned ships to deliver crews to it." As it was not ships and Apollo, 1975 Union - Apollo.

[Vkd dvk]

Quote: Vadim237

"And in the absence of manned ships to deliver crews to it." As it was not ships and Apollo, 1975 Union - Apollo.

So these taxis are made exclusively for a specific task. And if it was found for an INTERNATIONAL project, this does not mean at all that they will find it for the restoration of a rotten laboratory. How much you need to break in there to make sure that it is useless. Three flights isn't enough?

[Cannonball]

So he just became the last “Apollo”, specially made for the EPAS program and seriously different from its previous counterparts. On it, the Apollo program was finally closed. The next manned flight was made by Columbia on April 12, 1981 under the STS-1 program.

[YELLOWSTONE]

Well, why didn’t they make one or two more for Skylab?

[Cannonball]

Skylab was made on the basis of the upper stage of the Saturn-1B rocket. Production of the Saturns was discontinued, so there was nothing to do with the new Skylab.

[YELLOWSTONE]

Apollo for flights to Skylab

[Cannonball]

The Apollo program was also closed.

[YELLOWSTONE]

this is referring to Soyuz-Apollo, awkward excuses, Skylab was closed, made it on the basis of the upper stage from another launch vehicle

[Vkd dvk]

Quote: YELLOWSTONE

Well, why didn’t they make one or two more for Skylab?

And on what they would deduce them? Saturn 5 is forgotten - abandoned. The documentation, equipment, and other things that are necessary for the production are lost.

[YELLOWSTONE]

museums are not only replicas, in general it was about Apollo

Quote: Cannonball

So he just became the last "Apollo" specially made for the EPAS program

[Vkd dvk]

Quote: YELLOWSTONE

museums are not only replicas, in general it was about Apollo

Quote: Cannonball

So he just became the last "Apollo" specially made for the EPAS program

Do you think that the iron, standing in museums, can restore the drawings of this complex product?
You are VERY badly mistaken.
Drawings are not just a drawing. There are many technical requirements, links to the use of materials, technical requirements for inspections, tests, control, and even the devil knows something else. Where can I find technological documents? They, after all, are no less substantial. And where to find documents for equipment, test stands, the launch complex, in the end, where to find those materials that have been discontinued due to the termination of the program? You. you probably don’t know that in the USA there was an incredible rush to distill the USSR, thousands of large, small and very small firms were connected to implement the program. They ended their lives in a multitude, sold equipment, equipment, and fired employees engaged in this work.
Museums are clearly not enough, dear. Here, in the USSR, everything was microfilmed, the equipment was preserved and preserved, despite the costs (the state did not allow it), and if the USSR did not collapse, it would be much easier for us to restore energy than Saturn-5 for the USA.

[YELLOWSTONE]

in the USA you can find any piece of paper for the XNUMXth century, if even so nobody forbids to put new and even better materials, test complexes are still used
they didn’t take out the second Skylab and stopped flying to the moon because because of the F-1 on Saturn-5 it could have ended in disaster at any moment, so they were put into the museum and now they use imported RD-180

[Cannonball]

YELLOWSTONE, if not scrap, look at Wikipedia about the Apollo program, everything is written there - what, where and when.

[YELLOWSTONE]

there in Russian it is written with an error, at that stage Apollo not Skylab was launched

[Cannonball]

Where is the mistake and what? You already decide to start about what you yourself are talking about - "Apollo", "Saturn" or "Skylab." And then the confusion and nonsense in the posts you get some kind.

[YELLOWSTONE]

Quote: Cannonball

So he just became the last "Apollo" specially made for the EPAS program

Quote: YELLOWSTONE

Well, why for Skyleb haven't made another one or two?

you get confusion, but the error is here

Quote: Cannonball

Skylab was made on the basis of the upper stage of the Saturn-1B rocket.

[Cannonball]

I repeat once again, after the closure of the Lunar Program, NASA had three Apollo ships left, designed as Apollo-18, -19, 20. They were given under the Skylab program.
In the year 72, the Soyuz – Apollo program was approved, under which another modified Apollo ship was made. All these 4 Apollo were displayed on Saturn 1B.
The Skylab was made on the basis of the upper Saturn-1B stage and was put into orbit by the last of the Saturn-5s that flew.

Where and what is the mistake?

The lunar program was closed, so the need for the manufacture of new Saturnakh-5 and Apollo disappeared, and their production was discontinued. The last of the built Apollo ships flew to Skylab, and the only Apollo with androgynous docking station was separately manufactured for the EPAS.
From 1975 to 1981, NASA did not have manned spacecraft, nor did it have a launch vehicle capable of launching the hypothetical Skylab-2 into orbit. Therefore, after 1974, the Skylab flew in unmanned mode, waiting for the launch of the Space Shuttle capable of delivering a new crew to the Skylab ... but did not wait - the station left orbit in the 79th, and the first shuttle flew into space only in the 81st.

[YELLOWSTONE]

this stage was called S-IVB, it’s the upper third stage from Saturn-5, which changed it (converted into a residential one) and brought it out,
after developing it for Satrun 5, it also began to be used on Saturn 1 as a second replacing the previous
if with this especially valuable and rare Skylab in orbit after 3 expeditions everything would be fine, they will specially made The 4th for the Soyuz-Apollo EPAS, just as they would have specially made and brought to it the 5th and 6th Apollo, but at least they would have flown to her in Gemini on the Titan-2 ICBM,
these Apollo were actually reserve ships for salvation from near-Earth orbit

[Cannonball]

However, the S-IVB stage first flew as the 2nd stage of the Saturn IB (200th series, flying from 1966 to 1975), and only then as the 3rd stage of the Saturn-V (500th series, flights from 1967 to 1972).
Skylab redesigned the S-IVB-212 stage (from Saturn IB). The last rung of the 500th series .S-IVB-515 (Saturn V) was redone as a backup for Skylab, but it didn’t fly anywhere, becoming an exhibit at the National Aeronautics and Astronautics Museum in Washington.

If everything was bad with Skylab, they would not have pulled it before the shuttles appeared, but would have flooded it after the last expedition. After all, maintaining Skylab in orbit for so many years NASA flew a penny, and there was no point in maintaining a dead station.
There was no point in making new Apollos either, as the production of the Saturns was discontinued and there was simply nothing to let them go on. In addition, the Skulab and Apollo-Soyuz programs are different programs that had different funding items, and the first did not provide for the construction of new Apollo.
And the Gemini program exhausted itself back in 1966, although there were projects to continue it, but all of them were rejected by NASA due to the high cost of space manned programs.

[YELLOWSTONE]

the point was to first test it with a smaller payload, these series are interchangeable, its Saturn-5 deduced for which it was made, on which the S-IV without a “B” never existed
to Skylab, did trucks fly to maintain its orbit? expensive is when everything was fine with her, she was hanging out in orbit, she simply could not be controlled in any way, the production of Saturn was apparently stopped as unnecessary, to carry an even more expensive shuttle to lift the module, to take it out and attach it to Skylab is even more nonsense and high cost
There were a lot of titanium-2 in the mines, you could either fly on it and launch them to raise the orbit, advanced American thought did not have devices for automatic docking, launch any one Negro in the Mercury so that he would do it manually mode

[Cannonball]

I even brought you the number of this step. This number is not "Saturn 5". Why write nonsense?

[YELLOWSTONE]

they wrote to you twice (if not more) that she flew on Satrun-5 (and was developed for him)
about lifting the Skylab’s orbit (or controlled flooding) with at least Titan-2 with any numbers, it’s clear that there’s nothing to write

[Engineer]

On the picture is Clipper, not Federation

[Cannonball]

YELLOWSTONEgoogle the internet if you're interested

[Cannonball]

YELLOWSTONEDo you deliberately stupid or troll hunting?

[YELLOWSTONE]

hunting for others to think and not just google

[Vkd dvk]

Quote: YELLOWSTONE

in the USA you can find any piece of paper for the XNUMXth century, if even so nobody forbids to put new and even better materials, test complexes are still used
they didn’t take out the second Skylab and stopped flying to the moon because because of the F-1 on Saturn-5 it could have ended in disaster at any moment, so they were put into the museum and now they use imported RD-180

Literature is probably possible. Fiction is probably possible. But the technical documentation, of course, no. This was microfilmed in the USSR, and could, if not secret, be sent to anyone, you just need to fill out an application through your ministry. In the conditions of COMPETITION handwritings were destroyed at the end of the working day. Hundreds and thousands of firms that completed the order on the lunar program, shoved the ballast, which has become unnecessary. I suggest you try to get something, you are closer there. And report the results.

For reference, I inform you that the weight of the technical documentation in one copy on the SU-27 is exactly the same as the weight of the aircraft itself. The Americans are also the same. So, think and only after that ....

[YELLOWSTONE]

if you think about it, they also patented, even without competition

[Vkd dvk]

Quote: YELLOWSTONE

if you think about it, they also patented, even without competition

I do not understand. What does patenting have to do with preserving documentation.

[YELLOWSTONE]

the most direct

[Cannonball]

Immediately obvious - iksperd

[YELLOWSTONE]

in the United States, any device is patented (all the more so commercially important) and technology is absorbed in it. I look forward to continuing from one of the designers of "Dawn" (which was already called a warehouse) topics like Skylab "with whom everything was fine" and on which they even carried water, while waiting for the shuttles, they were allowed to drown uncontrollably instead of raising its orbit with any small launch vehicle (Atlas , Delta, Centaurus, etc.)

[Cannonball]

Crap no need to write!
Firstly, in the USA there is no direct obligation to patent anything. This business is purely voluntary, and at the stage of filing a patent application - quite hemorrhoids and costly.
Secondly, it is extremely difficult, if at all possible, to reproduce exactly such complex technical products as space rockets and orbital stations, therefore, a patent for this product gives practically nothing but formal moral satisfaction.
Thirdly, knowledge of a specific technology is still not enough. Appropriate equipment and materials, trained personnel, full funding, and a buyer willing to pay for goods manufactured using this technology are needed.
In other words, only their creators, or the manufacturers associated with them, who make their products under license, under vigilant copyright supervision, can reproduce rockets and spacecraft. And he has a patent that protects copyrights from themselves, seemingly without special need.
"Dawn" is really used as a warehouse. However, this warehouse is capable of providing itself with electricity and has its own engine, which no American, European or Japanese module can and does not have. Zarya is a full-fledged, self-sufficient spacecraft. All other ISS modules, with the exception of Zvezda, are simply expensive barrels.
Three manned expeditions flew on Skylab. There were no more flights, manned or cargo "to deliver water" to this station. Because there was nothing to do them on.
Well, the pearl about raising the Skylab orbit “any small launch vehicle (Atlas, Delta, Centaurus, etc.)” speaks only about your low understanding of the issue under consideration. Chop on your nose - no rockets - small, large, super heavy, are not designed to lift the orbit of already flying spacecraft. Moreover, they do not fly in orbits at all. Their task is only to bring the spacecraft to orbit and no more. Everything else is not their concern. Raising orbits is not done by rockets, but by special overclocking modules - interorbital tugs. And there are a lot of them in the USA.

[YELLOWSTONE]

it still gives the payment from patents, for example, a very large one, equipment, materials, and this is technology, staff training should only grow on this, what else will you get there along with finances? they even confused licenses with patents, competitors can “reproduce” them and then patent them as they did with the Rolls-Royce Lift System,
really don't have to write it, So the Russian "Dawn" as it was hardware for the entire American segment, so it remained, and did not become a warehouse.
A centaur (about it already) and Agen in that scheme, for example, what were the tugs not?

[Cannonball]

In short, the drain is counted. You seem to be generally zero in the subject. Then there’s nothing more to talk about.

[YELLOWSTONE]

about the "magnificent" Skylab from one of the developers of the "warehouse" was especially funny.

[Vkd dvk]

Quote: YELLOWSTONE

the most direct

Yes, you imagine what is the "TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION"? And what is the difference between a piece of paper, with the name Patent, in which NO FUCK is written, what and how SPECIFICALLY ..... and the drawing, which is an exhaustive and sufficient document for production?
The claims are written just vaguely and in order to cover the PRINCIPLES, but not the specifics.
To write, what you wrote there is to be a complete idiot and not imagine that the most detailed and understandable patent costs two or two formal terms and is created next to the same, DIFFERENT THAT ..... The price is understandable and a specific description, two pennies on the bathing day.

[YELLOWSTONE]

you don’t seem to imagine that this patent is not just a leaflet, not only inventions are patented, but also technologies and devices, for example

[Vkd dvk]

Quote: YELLOWSTONE

you don’t seem to imagine that this patent is not just a leaflet, not only inventions are patented, but also technologies and devices, for example

A quarter-century work experience as a designer allows us to say that you yourself have never seen or created anything worthy. Show at least one that can take and make at least a horseshoe from a patent. Find something, scan or put a screenshot here. After speak.

http://patents.su/patents/sivchikov

If you have enough brains, make a thing out of it. Without CD and TD.

[YELLOWSTONE]

if they are enough, then patents often occupy more than one folder, and in each line there are links to other patents with clarifications on the nature of their use

[Cannonball]

I am in prostration from this intellect.

[YELLOWSTONE]

maybe you just need to see how they look

[Cannonball]

People are not in the subject, and therefore puffed up to look smarter than it really is. To argue with designers with more than a quarter of a century of experience can either the chief designer, or, or the troll.
This is clearly not the main designer.

[YELLOWSTONE]

here above one is probably not the main one about the warehouse about his NASA module of the Russian production "Dawn" for NASA repeated and tried to insist.
which ordered it in the Russian Federation because there was nothing similar on the Skylab itself (which was the warehouse).