Military Review

The United States in a year will destroy Russia's monopoly on manned space flights

167
The United States will lose its dependence on Russia in a manned space program from next year, according to the presentation of Anna Kudryavtseva, director of the Roscosmos commercial projects development department.


The United States in a year will destroy Russia's monopoly on manned space flights


After the closure of the Space Shuttle project in 2011, the United States lost independent access to space. American astronaut flights to the International Space Station have since been carried out only on Russian Soyuz spacecraft. Before 2016, the transportation of the American segment of the station was carried out mainly by domestic Progress ships.

Today, only Russia has a complete set of proven technologies for manned flights and the operation of orbital objects. In 2019, the United States will commission its ships and secure independence from Russia
- said Kudryavtseva

Currently, for manned launches, Russia has the Soyuz-FG and Soyuz-2.1a rockets, the Soyuz MS manned spacecraft, the Progress MS cargo and the ISS Russian segment, while the US has only Dragon and Cygnus cargo ships .

According to the report, the United States from 2006 develop the manned spacecraft CST 100, Dragon-2, Orion, the supply ship DreamChaser and work on the look of the lunar station and lunar base. In Russia, for the future, there are only projects of the Soyuz-5 rocket and the Federation ship.
Photos used:
https://www.roscosmos.ru/
167 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 17 May 2018 13: 52
    +11
    What is needed is what we will do. Chase, we will not follow anyone ...
    1. Nevsky_ZU
      Nevsky_ZU 17 May 2018 13: 53
      +4
      In Russia, for the future, there are only projects of the Soyuz-5 rocket and the Federation ship.

      And what about Rogozin ?! request
      1. Sergey39
        Sergey39 17 May 2018 13: 58
        +14
        Rogozin creates a new holding "Trampoline"
        1. For example
          For example 17 May 2018 14: 16
          +31
          Why did Rogozin not please you? Judge by business. It was with him that many systems were created by which you trump.
          You, that Rogozin, that any other .... Just to whine and sob. love
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 17 May 2018 14: 29
            +8
            Quote: For example
            Judge by business. It was with him that many systems were created by which you trump.

            For example, not a budget waste of money, but simply theft during the construction of the East in the amount of 20% of the total cost of construction.
            1. HMR333
              HMR333 17 May 2018 16: 08
              +7
              firstly it was not he who stole and he stated that he had stolen and carried out solicitation and trials! now if they had stolen and everything was quiet then they would have been indignant!
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 17 May 2018 17: 00
                +2
                Quote: HMR333
                firstly it was not he who stole

                He oversaw the issue of building the East. And to declare after being responsible for the construction of the state object a lot of intelligence is not necessary.
          2. Tiksi-3
            Tiksi-3 17 May 2018 14: 31
            +4
            Quote: For example
            It was with him that many systems were created by which you trump.

            with him ?? laughing ... it is with him, and not thanks to him wink
          3. tap
            tap 17 May 2018 14: 38
            +7
            "With him." It would not be him, would be different. Rogozin is not Korolev.
          4. Cannonball
            Cannonball 18 May 2018 20: 56
            +1
            Rogozin did not do a damn thing. Only interfered with doing.
        2. zemnoyd
          zemnoyd 17 May 2018 14: 48
          +2
          On the right hand from the President
      2. Yrec
        Yrec 17 May 2018 14: 19
        +3
        Rogizin is no longer in business. But when the mattresses are filmed manned ships, then we will discuss.
        1. G A_2
          G A_2 18 May 2018 06: 15
          0
          Quote: Yrec
          Rogizin is no longer in business. But when the mattresses are filmed manned ships, then we will discuss.

          Yes, they will be sawed. Discuss feel free
          1. YELLOWSTONE
            YELLOWSTONE 18 May 2018 07: 14
            0
            since the end of next year and not quite, they forgot that the ships still need to take off on something
          2. Cannonball
            Cannonball 18 May 2018 20: 57
            +1
            I’m already tortured to wait, but they promise and saw everything.
      3. NEXUS
        NEXUS 17 May 2018 14: 28
        +1
        Quote: Nevsky_ZU
        And what about Rogozin ?!

        Rogozin is no longer in this position.
        1. Tiksi-3
          Tiksi-3 17 May 2018 14: 32
          +3
          Quote: NEXUS
          Rogozin is no longer in this position.

          and it is encouraging
        2. Igor V
          Igor V 17 May 2018 15: 53
          +1
          Quote: NEXUS
          Quote: Nevsky_ZU
          And what about Rogozin ?!

          Rogozin is no longer in this position.

          However, yesterday on television, at a meeting with the military, Rogozin sat on the right hand with the president. Apparently, surrounded by the latter, not everyone is still reading VO! request
      4. Oleg14774
        Oleg14774 17 May 2018 14: 32
        +6
        Quote: Nevsky_ZU
        In Russia, for the future, there are only projects of the Soyuz-5 rocket and the Federation ship.

        And what about Rogozin ?! request

        Rogozin is not serious! Balabol!
    2. Hire
      Hire 17 May 2018 13: 56
      +13
      And what, should we be terrified of this? Let them fly. In addition to delivery vehicles, management experience is also needed. And experience usually comes with accidents ...
      1. bouncyhunter
        bouncyhunter 17 May 2018 14: 14
        +5
        Quote: Hire
        And what, should we be terrified of this?

        Worse: you have to start tearing your hair yourself you know in what places. wink lol
        Quote: Hire
        And experience usually comes with accidents ...

        I do not want to croak - mattresses have accident experience.
        1. Hire
          Hire 17 May 2018 14: 58
          +10
          Quote: bouncyhunter
          I do not want to croak - mattresses have accident experience.

          I wonder what our librarians will say about this? To us, they all buzzed their ears, saying that we don’t have to do anything, we must cooperate with the West. Like, they will sell us everything. Something the Americans do not want to cooperate with us in the field of manned flights. The ship themselves are in charge.
          1. bouncyhunter
            bouncyhunter 17 May 2018 15: 01
            +6
            Quote: Hire
            what will our librarians say on this subject?

            What is there to guess? What they are commanded is what they will yell at. yes
      2. Labrador
        Labrador 17 May 2018 22: 30
        +2
        And I'm talking about that - first do it, and then do opportunistic lunges.
        Maybe they’ll finally reach the moon lol
      3. Cannonball
        Cannonball 18 May 2018 20: 59
        +2
        Correctly! The first accident ... and again several years of oblivion for the American manned program. As it has already happened repeatedly.
    3. Sergey39
      Sergey39 17 May 2018 13: 56
      +4
      In general, we did not declare a monopoly. They themselves successfully create problems for themselves, and then overcome them.
    4. MPN
      MPN 17 May 2018 13: 58
      +19
      In the future, there are only projects of the Soyuz-5 rocket and the Federation ship.
      Why is it “only”, what kind of regrets, it is necessary to have 100 projects for cutting and not to fly ?.
      Let them fly their own manned ones ... for manned (by our standards) successful launches, a bunch (I don’t know the exact quantity) needs to be carried out before the manned ones are allowed, and judging by the shuttles they said the manned, then manned ... , and the result with the shuttles we saw ...
      1. andranick
        andranick 17 May 2018 14: 05
        +2
        Quote: MPN
        you need to have 100 projects to cut and not fly

        Unfortunately, this is happening.
    5. Vadim237
      Vadim237 17 May 2018 14: 04
      0
      Here is another - the problem is to catch up.
    6. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z 17 May 2018 14: 57
      0
      Today, only Russia has a complete set of proven technologies for manned flights and the operation of orbital objects. In 2019, the United States will commission its ships and secure independence from Russia
      - said Kudryavtseva

      says a presentation by Anna Kudryavtseva, director of the department for the development of commercial projects at Roskosmos.

      It broadcasts right as the next representative of the US State Department! And who is interested in getting a salary and salary, and for what ?!
  2. Dam
    Dam 17 May 2018 13: 53
    +3
    While the chicken is in the nest, and where is the testicle? Has anyone already flown to the moon? Oh yes ! Dunno of course
    1. andranick
      andranick 17 May 2018 13: 56
      +7
      I somehow had no doubt that let the thread touch on the theme of amers’ flights to the moon! :))))
      1. Hole puncher
        Hole puncher 17 May 2018 14: 20
        +5
        Quote: andranick
        I somehow had no doubt that let the thread touch on the theme of amers’ flights to the moon! :))))

        So it’s full of clever people who don’t believe in the Americans landing on the moon, they don’t care that the USSR received telemetry from every Apollo and therefore it never occurred to anyone to dispute this fact.
        1. Oleg14774
          Oleg14774 17 May 2018 14: 39
          +10
          Quote: Puncher
          Quote: andranick
          I somehow had no doubt that let the thread touch on the theme of amers’ flights to the moon! :))))

          So it’s full of clever people who don’t believe in the Americans landing on the moon, they don’t care that the USSR received telemetry from every Apollo and therefore it never occurred to anyone to dispute this fact.

          Learn astronomy! There are physical laws that prevent you from flying to the moon. And telemetry does not mean that people were there. There could be a record controlled from the ground or even just working in an automatic mode. They walked briskly after 10 days in space.
          1. Imobile
            Imobile 17 May 2018 14: 45
            +6
            And another 90% of those who do not believe in the flight of Americans to the moon believe that the earth is flat
            1. figwam
              figwam 17 May 2018 15: 05
              +1
              Quote: Imobile
              And another 90% of those who do not believe in the flight of Americans to the moon believe that the earth is flat

              To do this, you need to at least once see the real image of our planet, but they are not there. And for some reason, the American engineer who created his rocket to shoot the earth is not given permission to fly the rocket.
              1. G A_2
                G A_2 18 May 2018 06: 20
                +1
                Quote: figvam
                Quote: Imobile
                And another 90% of those who do not believe in the flight of Americans to the moon believe that the earth is flat

                To do this, you need to at least once see the real image of our planet, but they are not there. And for some reason, the American engineer who created his rocket to shoot the earth is not given permission to fly the rocket.

                And here’s the planer in person laughing Welcome hi laughing
              2. Cannonball
                Cannonball 18 May 2018 21: 06
                +1
                And then what?

            2. not main
              not main 17 May 2018 22: 27
              0
              Quote: Imobile
              And another 90% of those who do not believe in the flight of Americans to the moon believe that the earth is flat

              Is not it so? And does not stand on three pillars? But what about then?
            3. Servisinzhener
              Servisinzhener 18 May 2018 11: 27
              0
              Received their knowledge from pseudoscientific films on RenTV or TV3. Although, as far as I remember, 1,2 channels in the middle of the two thousandth dabbled in such films.
          2. andranick
            andranick 17 May 2018 14: 45
            +6
            Quote: Oleg147741
            Learn astronomy! There are physical laws that prevent you from flying to the moon
            Of course, what flights from a flat Earth!
          3. Hole puncher
            Hole puncher 17 May 2018 17: 10
            +1
            Quote: Oleg147741
            There are physical laws that prevent you from flying to the moon.

            Please list, otherwise apparently P.P. Korolev did not know sending them lunar stations ...
          4. Signore Tomato
            Signore Tomato 18 May 2018 07: 28
            +2
            Quote: Oleg147741
            There are physical laws that prevent you from flying to the moon.


            That is, automatic ships can fly to the Moon and back, but you can’t fly with people? And Soviet automatic ships, too, did not get the soil from the Moon?

            Another question is that the Americans most likely did NOT fly to the moon.
          5. Cannonball
            Cannonball 18 May 2018 21: 02
            0
            Profound scientific conclusion. Neighing laughing
        2. Dam
          Dam 17 May 2018 17: 27
          +4
          Yes, for me, let a little lunar soil be provided for research. And then there’s some kind of trouble, they were there declaring a whole crew of 400 kg, and all the research in the world of lunar soil from the unfortunate 30 grams of our automatic probe. And I’ll give you telemetry to you, download
          1. Cannonball
            Cannonball 18 May 2018 21: 10
            0
            Russian scientists have proven that American cosmonauts were actually on the moon. This conclusion was reached by physicists from the Novosibirsk branch of the RAS “Science in Siberia” based on an analysis that proved the presence of astronauts on the Earth’s satellite. For analysis, scientists took samples of rocks that were supposedly brought by American astronauts from the moon, with those that were later extracted in the USSR.
            For greater reliability of the analysis, scientists used a synchrotron radiation device with which they compared the lunar soil in both samples. The soil of the moon in both cases was identical, which is evidence that the Americans were still on the moon.
  3. Mih1974
    Mih1974 17 May 2018 13: 53
    +3
    But I’m even interested - how many Americans will kill their astronauts on their Mr., that would again bow to us? :) tongue
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 17 May 2018 14: 02
      +5
      Do not worry - they will not lose anyone.
      1. Mih1974
        Mih1974 17 May 2018 14: 05
        +6
        YES, yes, I’ve been living for a long time and heard about shuttles that have “no analogues in the World”. ))) tongue
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 17 May 2018 14: 07
          +1
          And what, two accidents - for 30 years of operation.
          1. Mih1974
            Mih1974 17 May 2018 14: 08
            +5
            Well, how can I tell you - to kill TWO of FIVE devices in Kroshevo is the world accident record for a "vehicle", by the way - unsurpassed so far. tongue
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 17 May 2018 14: 15
              +2
              Now we need to think about our cosmonauts - who will fly to the new Federation, given how everything in the space industry is “good” - as if the Americans did not break the record.
      2. Oleg14774
        Oleg14774 17 May 2018 14: 37
        +3
        Quote: Vadim237
        Do not worry - they will not lose anyone.

        Thanks, reassured! And to be honest, I’m on the drum. And at the expense of such confidence, I would not be in a hurry, if only out of respect for the life of the Amerov astronauts. They are also people and they have families.
  4. bk316
    bk316 17 May 2018 14: 00
    +5
    In general, this is of course a shame - the country that claimed victory in the lunar and in general in the space race does not have its own means of delivery of astronauts into orbit. There are a lot of questions about Naglosak civilization in general ....
    That is why they must make a ship.
    1. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 17 May 2018 14: 08
      +1
      Quote: bk316
      There are a lot of questions about Naglosak civilization in general ....

      What questions do you have, for example?
      1. bk316
        bk316 17 May 2018 14: 16
        +9
        What questions do you have, for example?

        1. Is this civilization the most scientific and technical on Earth at the moment?
        2. How much do you need to share the statements about any successes arrogant Saxons?
        3. If the victory in the space race was how it happened that they pay money to the tyrant and the enemy for the delivery of their astronauts into orbit?
        4. Where does the trend of development of their civilization lead in general? Production in China, which we cannot do ourselves, we will buy for green papers, we will feed our own with fairy tales of greatness. It doesn’t last long ...
        1. Hole puncher
          Hole puncher 17 May 2018 17: 15
          +4
          Quote: bk316
          Is this civilization the most scientific and technical on Earth at the moment?

          A civilization studying Mars, the Moon, Venus, Mercury, Ceres, Jupiter, Neptune, Pluto, Uranus, which went beyond the limits of the solar system is the most developed in technical terms than the "civilization" studying Mars at the bottom of the oceans
          1. bk316
            bk316 18 May 2018 10: 39
            +3
            Civilization studying Mars, the Moon, Venus, Mercury, Ceres, Jupiter, Neptune, Pluto, Uranus,

            The fact is that:
            - the study of Mars, the Moon, Venus and Mercury was not an achievement of their civilization.
            - it is the absence of a rocket for manned flights that suggests that the study of these objects is not a measure of the country's scientific and technological development
          2. Cannonball
            Cannonball 18 May 2018 21: 16
            0
            In the study of the planets of the solar system, not only Americans were noted, but also representatives of Europe, India, China and, of course, the USSR / Russia.
            Let it be known to you that many American and European interplanetary stations also have Russian devices. And the same European AMS went to space on Russian rocket launchers.
    2. farcop
      farcop 17 May 2018 14: 19
      +1
      Quote: bk316
      In general, this is of course a disgrace - the country that claimed victory in the lunar and generally in the space race did not have its own means of delivering astronauts to orbit.
      Viewers, they made a colossal mistake, they trusted the promises of Russia that for a fee, it would be possible to use equipment from Russia. They were naive and did not think that a trampoline and the incapable would go, etc. But here they are corrected.
    3. prosto_rgb
      prosto_rgb 18 May 2018 00: 10
      0
      Quote: bk316
      In general, this is of course a shame.

      It is just a business.
      Satellites and electronics bring a lot more money
      The entire global market launches $ 5 billion a year.
      The provision of satellite services is about $ 200 billion, of which about $ 90 billion is a market in the United States.
      1. Cannonball
        Cannonball 18 May 2018 21: 19
        0
        Sometimes loss of prestige costs more than money.
  5. Valerevich
    Valerevich 17 May 2018 14: 03
    +2
    Will they be able to? Well, the flag in their hands, on the edge of the movie about super astronaut-mattresses will be removed.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 17 May 2018 14: 08
      +1
      Kina will not be - there will be flights online.
      1. Filxnumx
        Filxnumx 17 May 2018 21: 07
        +1
        But these are pipes! Not for that in Matrasia Hollywood built that he stood idle idle. Reread the training manual!
        1. G A_2
          G A_2 18 May 2018 06: 26
          0
          Quote: Fil743
          But these are pipes! Not for that in Matrasia Hollywood built that he stood idle idle. Reread the training manual!

          Hollywood is not idle. Your children watch their cartoons. Therefore, you need to re-read the manual
  6. net0103net
    net0103net 17 May 2018 14: 03
    +1
    yes ... money does its job. Who has a lot of them is the business man. Nothing can be done against this in a consumer society.
  7. HAM
    HAM 17 May 2018 14: 07
    +1
    And are the engines ready? Or is there hope for the RD-180? And we sold instead of "trampolines", gave us the most important thing, time, now we need to move in. BUSINESS, however ...
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 17 May 2018 14: 16
      0
      Engines already make some ice.
      1. Cannonball
        Cannonball 18 May 2018 21: 20
        0
        And how many years will they still be doing?
    2. donavi49
      donavi49 17 May 2018 17: 34
      +2
      Mask his Dragon - launches on his Block5, there everything is his own.
      Boeing its Starliner - while it will launch on Atlas, 5 will be the first unmanned in the ISS in August and the first manned (they are optimists therefore 2018 is December, but the decision will be made based on the results of the August mission). Then (20 +) they will run it on Volcano - which has innovative methane engines BE-4 (after which Rogozin will already be in the queue).
    3. prosto_rgb
      prosto_rgb 18 May 2018 00: 19
      +1
      Quote: HAM
      Or hope for the RD-180?

      learn mat.chast!
      Nobody sends astronauts to the RD-180.
      Sent to RD-107/108, which have been in the series since 1957.
  8. PSN10
    PSN10 17 May 2018 14: 09
    +3
    I also had one like that ... I put him on a barrel of gunpowder. Let him fly! (S).
  9. Abram
    Abram 17 May 2018 14: 09
    +5
    disappears the last argument of the cheers-patriots "and who carries the Americans to the ISS ?! and ?!" smile the further, except the mat will be covered, it is not clear
    1. Cannonball
      Cannonball 18 May 2018 21: 23
      0
      When the Americans finally come to their own manned spacecraft, the old ISS will already be preparing for her last voyage - to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.
      A good dinner spoon, you know.
  10. steelmaker
    steelmaker 17 May 2018 14: 10
    0
    No need to wait when they can. We must now sever all relations in space with the United States, for their sanctions! We will live without them, it is they without us in any way!
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 17 May 2018 14: 19
      0
      As if the opposite effect, as with “Trampolines”, would not work.
    2. prosto_rgb
      prosto_rgb 18 May 2018 00: 24
      +1
      Quote: steel maker
      No need to wait when they can. We must now sever all relations in space with the United States, for their sanctions! We will live without them, it is they without us in any way!

      good joke
  11. Amateur
    Amateur 17 May 2018 14: 21
    +2
    "In 2019, the United States will commission its ships and secure their independence from Russia," Kudryavtseva said. And why is she worried about amers? Maybe it’s already worth considering that Roscosmos would repeat the fate of Spetsstroy on Vostochny, i.e. to disperse? Or will we wait until, under the “wise” leadership of D. Rogozin, they still break something / detonate / plunder?
    1. GRIGORIY76
      GRIGORIY76 17 May 2018 14: 30
      +1
      She’s not worried about the states. This is the speaker’s normal move to show the risks of the future and the challenges of the present in order to call for action.
      1. Cannonball
        Cannonball 18 May 2018 21: 26
        0
        And whether to call horseradish? Properly plan, on time and in abundance, finance and do not stop scientists and engineers from doing their job.
        This is for different managers to be able to work well in the language, and for scientists and engineers to work well enough with the head.
  12. egor1712
    egor1712 17 May 2018 14: 23
    +2
    From the beginning I didn’t even understand who gave these comments. After reading it, I was surprised that Anna Kudryavtseva, Director of the Department for the Development of Commercial Projects at Roskosmos, said; "In Russia for the future there are only projects of the Soyuz-5 rocket and the Federation ship. "What is this only. Either the person is not competent or the article is a provocation against Roscosmos.
    1. prosto_rgb
      prosto_rgb 18 May 2018 00: 26
      0
      Quote: egor1712
      What is this only.

      and that means that only.
  13. Dormidont
    Dormidont 17 May 2018 14: 27
    0
    And before Hollywood can not?
  14. slipped
    slipped 17 May 2018 14: 35
    +2
    Very strange article. request The presentation by Kudryavtseva was not about that, but about the possibilities of using the ISS on commercial terms and about the peculiarities of implementing commercial projects and programs in the field of manned space exploration.

    The prospect of developments on a manned topic includes the launch of the first Soyuz-GVK, the Nauka module, in the summer of next year, the Prichal module in December, and then after 2020, NEM-1, Soyuz-5, PTK NP - until the year 2025.
    1. prosto_rgb
      prosto_rgb 18 May 2018 00: 28
      0
      Quote: slipped
      module "Science",

      Is it the one that has been in stock for 20 years, or is it a new one?
      1. slipped
        slipped 18 May 2018 01: 45
        +2
        They made a new, improved one, from the old "which was in the warehouse", and it is now called the MLM-U - 29 racks with scientific equipment, another toilet and a cabin for the third member of the Russian crew.
        1. Cannonball
          Cannonball 18 May 2018 21: 28
          0
          Well, the “new” one is not, but the “advanced” one is for sure, yes.
        2. prosto_rgb
          prosto_rgb 20 May 2018 00: 33
          0
          Quote: slipped
          They made a new, improved one, from the old "which was in the warehouse", and it is now called the MLM-U - 29 racks with scientific equipment, another toilet and a cabin for the third member of the Russian crew.

          thank you
      2. Cannonball
        Cannonball 18 May 2018 21: 27
        0
        Not "in stock", but in assembly shops. And it doesn’t lie, but they do it.
        1. prosto_rgb
          prosto_rgb 20 May 2018 00: 43
          0
          make it so fast that the assembly shops have moved into the category of warehouse
          1. Cannonball
            Cannonball 20 May 2018 12: 31
            0
            Have you seen to scratch your tongue like that?
            1. prosto_rgb
              prosto_rgb 20 May 2018 19: 03
              0
              you understand that this is speculative
              if you assemble 1995 module from 2018 to 1, then for this module the assembly workshop will become essentially a warehouse
              but
              of course, for functional purpose it’s not a warehouse yet
              generally pichnuyu that it still has not been put into orbit
              1. Cannonball
                Cannonball 20 May 2018 20: 13
                0
                This time was required not for assembly, but for the development, manufacture and assembly of FGB-2, the development of the MLM, the completion of the housing and systems of the FGB-2 according to the MLM project, the retrofitting of the MLM at RSC Energia with tests and identification of problems with the cleanliness of the fuel system, cleaning and replacing the fuel system at the manufacturer, cleaning the fuel tanks and replacing the elements with guaranteed dates. Now work is underway to modernize the module for the MLM-U project.
  15. Loess
    Loess 17 May 2018 14: 44
    +1
    And yet I don’t understand ... We both flew into space from the 61 year and fly, and they flew right up to the Moon, and now ... Shuttles were, again, "reusable", they were very proud of them, but it turned out that disposable ships are cheaper and more reliable ...
    1. Klaus
      Klaus 17 May 2018 20: 40
      0
      The Space Shuttle program, like Energy Buran, was far ahead of its time. Figuratively speaking, where a horse with a cart passes cheaply and angrily, a modern car will be expensive and difficult to toil.
      However, as usual, there is one caveat.
      In the United States, all Shuttle documentation, designs, and technologies are carefully stored and developed. An example is the X-37.
      Well, what we have, I hope everyone knows ...
      1. Loess
        Loess 17 May 2018 21: 38
        +2
        And the documentation for the "lunar" rocket has been carefully and reliably lost?
        1. prosto_rgb
          prosto_rgb 18 May 2018 00: 35
          0
          Quote: Less
          And the documentation for the "lunar" rocket has been carefully and reliably lost?

          as on "Energy"
          rockets were too expensive
      2. Cannonball
        Cannonball 18 May 2018 21: 30
        0
        We also have documentation. Even the sixties lies in the archive.
  16. Lerych
    Lerych 17 May 2018 15: 00
    +1
    I do not understand what MONOPOLY? The Chinese are flying, Indians, French, Japanese ... Everyone who is not lazy. Have we pulled the grid over the Earth? Well, yes, it’s Russia that has overwhelmed the Sshava manned program. In the 90s, they decided that the Russians were under their heels, and they would ride like on a Russian troika. Our sleds have already counted for their own.
    1. prosto_rgb
      prosto_rgb 18 May 2018 00: 37
      +1
      Quote: Lerych
      The Chinese are flying, the Indians, the French, the Japanese.

      it's loads and satellites
      Cosmonauts launches only in Russia and China.
  17. JonnyT
    JonnyT 17 May 2018 16: 04
    0
    Houston will again face problems in the form of a cloud of astronaut excrement in the cockpit and oxygen cylinders a la diver
  18. HMR333
    HMR333 17 May 2018 16: 05
    +1
    we have heard this more than once! and Russian engines will still be cheaper many times the same even if they create their own and since they are greedy it will be advisable to buy Russian cheap and reliable!
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 17 May 2018 16: 18
      0
      There are many of them: RS 25, RS 68, BE 4, Merlin 1D, Raptor, reusable turbojet engines.
  19. Vard
    Vard 17 May 2018 17: 13
    +1
    A flag in their hands and a drum around their neck ... manned flights aren’t a vehicle to fly into space ... here we need a technical approach ... so I think they’ll still sit on our neck ..
    1. Klaus
      Klaus 17 May 2018 20: 46
      0
      Let me remind you that manned flights on reusable aerospace heavy gliders were performed by Americans ONLY. And this task is much more complicated, especially the moment of descent from orbit and manned descent. Our Buran only flew automatically.
      1. Vard
        Vard 17 May 2018 20: 58
        0
        I don’t dispute ... But how did it end ... two shuttles were covered with a copper basin ... Which actually led to the closure of the program ... A manned flight with a hundred percent guarantee is ... well, I see ...
      2. Cannonball
        Cannonball 18 May 2018 21: 35
        0
        But he did more than the shuttles could do - he landed in automatic mode. This is "space" in the field of telecontrol and automation technology. Consider - the prototype of "artificial intelligence."
  20. Peaceful Atom
    Peaceful Atom 17 May 2018 17: 19
    +1
    Very interesting statement! By the way, what was Roskosmos doing at that time - scattered by Progress? And now they state! Space Office "Horns and Hooves" - "Antennas and Brackets" .....
  21. Dean
    Dean 17 May 2018 18: 19
    +1
    Well, Russia ... space is also prosra ...
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 17 May 2018 18: 25
      +1
      That seems to be so.
      1. Filxnumx
        Filxnumx 17 May 2018 21: 26
        +1
        When all Soviet equipment flies off and Russian does not take off then talk about "prosra ...". And so, due to the absence of the fact of the event, the composition of this event is also absent.
  22. beer-youk
    beer-youk 17 May 2018 18: 38
    +1
    According to their laws, if the goods correspond to the declared merits by 20%, then if you discover their inconsistency by 79%, you can not make a claim! They, of course, well done, that announced the beginning of the project, but did not indicate the end. Competently say whatever, but who will do it ??? The Chinese and Indians scatter, and add 2 to 2 to make 4
  23. The comment was deleted.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 17 May 2018 20: 55
      0
      The Vostochny Cosmodrome should have been called the Unnecessary Cosmodrome; this year nothing will fly from it.
      1. slipped
        slipped 17 May 2018 23: 27
        +1
        This year, two more launches are planned from it. The next is six.
      2. aristok
        aristok 18 May 2018 00: 25
        +1
        Quote: Vadim237
        The Vostochny Cosmodrome should have been called the Unnecessary Cosmodrome; this year nothing will fly from it.

        What does the eastern spaceport have to do with it?
        such a ridiculous attempt to shift the focus of the discussion :)
        All the nasa propagandists on this forum only emphasize the backwardness of this bureaucratic machine and expose the old deceptions (lunar scam), scams (such as the independent PR Space X) and stupid waste ("reusable" "cheap and effective" shuttles)
  24. The comment was deleted.
  25. aristok
    aristok 18 May 2018 00: 17
    +1
    for 7 years already they have been saying that they’re about to .. soon, soon, in a year or two., we will destroy the Russian monopoly on manned launches ...
    For example -
    The story of the "braking" of the Boeing Starliner:
    In 2010, it was assumed that the CST-100 could be commissioned in 2014.
    In August 2011, Boeing announced that the CST-100 will first go into space in 2015, both in unmanned and manned versions. In total, three CST-2015 flights were planned for 100 (the first unmanned; the second — test the crew rescue system; the third — manned docking with the ISS).
    In May 2014, the first unmanned test launch of the CST-100 in January 2017 was announced. In mid-2017, the first orbital flight of a manned spacecraft with two astronauts was planned.
    In August 2016, the assembly of the ship began.
    At the end of 2016, the date of the first launch of the CST-100 was again postponed to December 2018.
    .
    And this deadline will not be fulfilled .. a shameful barrel from a Boeing in 2018 will not fly.
    1. aristok
      aristok 18 May 2018 00: 32
      +1
      Especially indicative, in this sense, is the opupaea with KK Orion.
      2006, August 22 - NASA announced that the new manned spacecraft will be named after one of the brightest and most famous constellations - Orion.
      The first launch was carried out (unmanned by itself) in 2014,
      Returned like the Unions
      as it should be charred (in contrast to the shiny capsules of jamini and apollo).
      And everything died out ..
      The manned launch was postponed until 2023 !!!
      (moreover, the date was postponed so often that the Russian wiki still has the date 2019 - the editors hesitated to fix it and scored it)

      9 (!!!) years to restart the capsule, which is essentially the same
      from the notorious Apollo .. and even easier to ensure safety, due to the lack of a completely insane pure oxygen atmosphere.
      Apparently, a jamb that still cannot be corrected got out in the year 14. (This is in contrast to the "legendary" and "great" Apollo engineers who, after a monstrous fire, Apollon-1 with the death of 3 astronauts, immediately rolled out, such as workers, apparatuses .).
  26. Old26
    Old26 18 May 2018 11: 01
    +1
    Quote: YELLOWSTONE
    since the end of next year and not quite, they forgot that the ships still need to take off on something

    And what, nothing? you don’t just have to talk about the fact that they also have no rocket engines. The maximum that they have per year is about 20-25% of launches using RD engines. All the remaining 80% are in their own, American ...

    Quote: Hire
    And what, should we be terrified of this? Let them fly. In addition to delivery vehicles, management experience is also needed. And experience usually comes with accidents ...

    We had a lot of accidents for this reason? Or the same Americans? So, do they have experience in managing a station that was launched a quarter of a century ago and already goes beyond the limits of the Solar system, but do not have control of ships in orbit? Did the Control Center control the 135th Shuttle flights? Do not invent what is not

    Quote: Starover_Z
    It broadcasts right as the next representative of the US State Department! And who is interested in getting a salary and salary, and for what ?!

    if the opinion of the representative of Roscosmos does not coincide with your highly trained opinion, then does she get a salary in the State Department? Or maybe she knows a better topic than you ??? And speaks of the realities of our cosmonautics today?

    Quote: Oleg147741
    Learn astronomy! There are physical laws that prevent you from flying to the moon.

    And what kind of laws are these? I guess you tell me about Van Allen belts right now. The statistics show that astronauts will receive a radiation dose when passing this belt, comparable to several hours of arrival in outer space or several weeks at an orbital station in orbit of the earth


    Quote: non-primary
    Is not it so? And does not stand on three pillars? But what about then?

    On turtles stands, dear, on turtles, and not on whales ... laughing
    1. Servisinzhener
      Servisinzhener 18 May 2018 12: 00
      0
      Something they remind me of "bridge experts" from Ukraine, or competence. Or the result of their forecasts wink
  27. Servisinzhener
    Servisinzhener 18 May 2018 11: 56
    +1
    I wouldn’t have fun like some patriots cheeky cheers. Do not underestimate the capabilities of the United States and become like galloping "Sumerians" - patriots from a neighboring country. And then in a year or two, we can start to tear and burn farts from the success of the American space program. Yes, so that the shock wave will bypass the ground several times. Now in the United States there are already a lot of conditionally private space rocket projects, cargo and manned ships. Which will allow them to perform all the necessary tasks. Our Roskosmos so far can only boast of success in the study of the Pacific Ocean. Depth of immersion, quantity and cost of devices.
    The news mentions our response, the Federation manned spacecraft and the Soyuz-5 rocket. If I have no doubts about the need for a long-suffering new comic ship, then there is Soyuz-5 in the development. And very large. Because Soyuz-5 in different versions is completely comparable to the Angara missile. The very one that was tortured for a long time and which was supposed to replace the "zoo" of our launch vehicles. And what do we see now? They began to make another exactly the same rocket. What is the need for it? Or is it done by the right guys who have connections where necessary and they decided to push their project ?. Well, and how with this approach we can talk about efficiency.
    1. aristok
      aristok 18 May 2018 12: 19
      0
      Quote: Servisinzhener
      Federation manned ship and Soyuz-5 rocket. If I have no doubts about the need for a long-suffering new comic ship

      And why is this long-suffering federation needed?
      The Soyuz spacecraft fully copes with the tasks of delivering it to the Earth’s orbit, and with a little refinement, to the Moon’s orbit (for which it was originally created, since the Queen knew that there was nothing for the astronauts to do in Earth’s orbit)
      1. Servisinzhener
        Servisinzhener 18 May 2018 13: 05
        0
        It gives more opportunities due to its larger size.
        Crew up to 6 people, not 3. A large mass of delivered and laden cargo.
        1. aristok
          aristok 18 May 2018 13: 37
          0
          Quote: Servisinzhener
          It gives more opportunities due to its larger size.
          Crew up to 6 people, not 3. A large mass of delivered and laden cargo.

          made fun of ..
          why launch 6 people at once?
          and even let's say there was such a need -
          then the launch of the federation will be cheaper than 2 x unions in your opinion?
          .....
          not to mention the fact that now only 4 people are going to launch in the Federation of PTK NP
          1. slipped
            slipped 18 May 2018 14: 18
            +1
            Yes, most likely cheaper, or rather comparable to the launch of one "Union MS". The missile is now being optimized for Sea Launch - its cost should not exceed the cost of launching Soyuz-2.1b. And VA at PTK NP is reusable.
            1. aristok
              aristok 18 May 2018 14: 41
              +1
              Quote: slipped
              Yes, most likely cheaper, or rather comparable to the launch of one "Union MS".

              what a touching naivety :)
              Quote: slipped
              The missile is now being optimized for Sea Launch - its cost should not exceed the cost of launching Soyuz-2.1b.


              Are you talking about that?
              Federation will be launched from the sea launch?
              what kind of hallucinogens do this?
              Quote: slipped
              And VA at PTK NP is reusable.

              What is the term such a VA? the established term CA is used everywhere.
              well, besides trying to use it for SA in the TCS.
              but, like TCS itself, the term VA turned out to be unsuccessful and meaningless, since the term CA was stupidly duplicated by everyone.
              So if you please, do not vomit and confuse people.
              And the very idea of ​​calling the SA federation reusable is a stupid PR campaign for the sake of fashion.
              only naive simpletons can believe in this.
              1. Servisinzhener
                Servisinzhener 18 May 2018 15: 30
                0
                It began to be designed reusable even before it became a fashionable trend.
                1. YELLOWSTONE
                  YELLOWSTONE 18 May 2018 21: 31
                  0
                  and the pH to it?
                  the service module is not reusable, but the descent vehicle is reusable on the spacecraft Soyuz, in addition on the Soyuz there is a gateway for going into outer space or docking with a failed orbital station.
                  1. Servisinzhener
                    Servisinzhener 18 May 2018 21: 51
                    0
                    The pH was to become a hangar. Perhaps previously closed Rus-M. Maybe the Union’s theoretically descent vehicle is reusable, but as far as I know, they make a new one for each launch. I think there will be no problems in creating the same gateway to the new ship.
                    1. YELLOWSTONE
                      YELLOWSTONE 18 May 2018 21: 56
                      +1
                      in terms of multiplicity laughing
                      from the new there is only thermal protection
                      1. slipped
                        slipped 18 May 2018 23: 35
                        +1
                        SA KK Soyuz is not reusable. Part of the control system is reused. Previously, a docking unit was brought to the Shuttle, which was also reused.
            2. YELLOWSTONE
              YELLOWSTONE 19 May 2018 00: 03
              0
              Quote: slipped
              SA KK Soyuz is not reusable. Part of the control system is reused. Previously, a docking unit was brought to the Shuttle, which was also reused.

              because it does not burn with the SA? lol
              was it worth driving the entire shuttle for the sake of the docking station?
          2. Klaus
            Klaus 18 May 2018 19: 39
            0
            Such considerations evoke an anecdote from the Armenian radio: “Can Zaporozhets reach a speed of 100 km / h? - Maybe if you lower it from Mount Ararat! ...” In the same way, can the Union with the crew reach the moon? - Maybe if the astronauts are ready for 3-4 days there and spend the same amount back in the comfortable conditions of the Union.
            However, they say 10 people get into Zaporozhets, and he still rides at the same time ...
            1. Klaus
              Klaus 18 May 2018 19: 47
              0
              And if, as they want to make a base in the polar regions, the journey will be even longer, due to maneuver in orbit
            2. Servisinzhener
              Servisinzhener 18 May 2018 20: 58
              0
              By the way, as far as I understand, a moon flyby is possible now. The same means as in the Probe program (Proton rocket and Soyuz ship).
              1. YELLOWSTONE
                YELLOWSTONE 18 May 2018 21: 33
                +1
                by the same means it was possible to sit there and only protons needed two
            3. aristok
              aristok 18 May 2018 21: 03
              +1
              Quote: Klaus
              Maybe if the astronauts are ready for 3-4 days there and spend as much back in the comfortable conditions of the Union.

              Yes, what are you?
              Do you know that the conditions in the Union are no less comfortable than in the wretched monkey of the federation?
              and certainly certainly more comfortable than that of the notorious Apollo, at the expense of more space and a toilet?
              you can see right away that you are terribly far from space subjects ...
              even if for some reason (and there are none yet) and it would be necessary to make a new QC, then it would be more correct to do it according to the concept of the Union - with a separate BO.
              But due to new technologies and materials it would have turned out easier - 5 tons would have been kept within.
              1. Servisinzhener
                Servisinzhener 18 May 2018 21: 16
                0
                Let me curiosity, but how close are you to the space theme?
                1. slipped
                  slipped 18 May 2018 23: 40
                  +2
                  He is far))). Yesterday, I looked into the Soyuz SA - 6,5 cubic meters of space for three healthy men is very small. From the lodgments you can get up only one at a time. BO certainly brightens up the situation - if two get out there, then one in the SA is, in principle, not bad, but two in the BO will have to hang sideways.
                  1. YELLOWSTONE
                    YELLOWSTONE 19 May 2018 00: 24
                    +1
                    Quote: slipped
                    but two in the BO will have to hang sideways.

                    do normal people go to the toilet in two?
                    the abnormal ones didn’t do it in gemini or in apollo two-three in a row wassat
                  2. aristok
                    aristok 19 May 2018 12: 31
                    0
                    Quote: slipped
                    He is far))). Yesterday, I looked into the Soyuz SA - 6,5 cubic meters of space for three healthy men is very small. From the lodgments you can get up only one at a time. BO certainly brightens up the situation - if two get out there, then one in the SA is, in principle, not bad, but two in the BO will have to hang sideways.

                    It's nice to see how you flogged yourself ..
                    Firstly, 8,5 cubic meters (and not 6,5 as you lied) of the volume of KK Soyuz for “three healthy men” is MUCH better than 9.3 cubes of federation for “6 healthy men" ..
                    And already 1 toilet for three is much better than 1 toilet for six.
                    .
                    Write more !!!
                    The more you write, the clearer the readers see the intellectual impotence of the propagandists of bureaucratic sawn monsters - at least nasa, at least of the Russian cosmos ..
                    1. Servisinzhener
                      Servisinzhener 19 May 2018 13: 08
                      0
                      Be that as it may, at the moment all the projects of promising spacecraft have approximately the same characteristics both in terms of crew size and volume.
                      1. aristok
                        aristok 19 May 2018 13: 19
                        0
                        Quote: Servisinzhener
                        Be that as it may, at the moment all the projects of promising spacecraft have approximately the same characteristics both in terms of crew size and volume.

                        explain - what did you mean by that phrase?
                        the fact that everyone went crazy, abandoning the time-tested concept of KK Soyuz?
                        or vice versa, divine insight at the same time descended on everyone (is this one of the few explanations for abandoning the time-tested concept of the Soyuz spacecraft)?
                    2. Cannonball
                      Cannonball 19 May 2018 14: 41
                      +1
                      Quote: aristok
                      First 8,5 cubes (not 6,5 as you lied)

                      This is the volume of empty "barrels", without instruments and assemblies, without lodgements, without parachutes, without internal supplies. And with them there. Very closely.
                      1. Servisinzhener
                        Servisinzhener 21 May 2018 11: 17
                        +1
                        Roughly speaking, it turns out places + - like in a passenger car. It’s not super spacious, and there are some features of co-location, but it’s also not a direct nightmare.
            4. YELLOWSTONE
              YELLOWSTONE 18 May 2018 21: 32
              +1
              the radio does not know that the Union was made for flights to the Moon, and comfort there is much better than the Apollo
            5. Cannonball
              Cannonball 18 May 2018 21: 48
              +1
              Your banter is out of place. In the sixties in the USSR they were really going to launch on the moon on the co-shaped spacecraft. In an unmanned version, they flew like "Probes". From the "Unions" they differed in the absence! household compartment.
  28. slipped
    slipped 18 May 2018 14: 59
    +1
    Quote: aristok
    Quote: slipped
    Yes, most likely cheaper, or rather comparable to the launch of one "Union MS".

    what a touching naivety :)


    This is not naivety, it is so conceived.

    Quote: aristok
    Quote: slipped
    The missile is now being optimized for Sea Launch - its cost should not exceed the cost of launching Soyuz-2.1b.


    Are you talking about that?
    Federation will be launched from the sea launch?
    what kind of hallucinogens do this?


    About the Soyuz-5 rocket. Which will be launched from the Sea Launch. Another Soyuz-5 is not and is not planned. There is an order from the industry leadership - to submit proposals to the RSC to optimize the cost of the rocket, they are presented; on their basis, changes will be made to the EP on the rocket.

    Quote: aristok
    Quote: slipped
    And VA at PTK NP is reusable.

    What is the term such a VA? the established term CA is used everywhere.
    well, besides trying to use it for SA in the TCS.
    but, like TCS itself, the term VA turned out to be unsuccessful and meaningless, since the term CA was stupidly duplicated by everyone.
    So if you please, do not vomit and confuse people.
    And the very idea of ​​calling the SA federation reusable is a stupid PR campaign for the sake of fashion.
    only naive simpletons can believe in this.


    VA is a returned device, quite autonomous in terms of control system and coolant from the Service Module. It is reusable - up to 10 flights. This is what distinguishes it from the disposable SA - the Soyuz spacecraft descent vehicle, in which some of the systems are located in the PAO - instrument-and-assembly compartment.
    1. aristok
      aristok 18 May 2018 15: 55
      0
      Quote: slipped
      About the Soyuz-5 rocket. Which will be launched from the Sea Launch.

      I ask again, since the first time you do not understand - what does the federation have to do with it?
      1. slipped
        slipped 18 May 2018 23: 32
        0
        I answer again, and with Baiterek and possibly from Vostochny and Sea Launch, one type of Soyuz-5 carrier will be launched. With “Baiterek” with “Federation” in three test flights of this ship. In all three cases, the same VA will be used.
        1. aristok
          aristok 19 May 2018 00: 25
          0
          Quote: slipped
          I answer again, and with Baiterek and possibly from Vostochny and Sea Launch, one type of Soyuz-5 carrier will be launched. With “Baiterek” with “Federation” in three test flights of this ship. In all three cases, the same VA will be used.

          What kind of jumping to the side? You will not be able to stupidly chat your shoals ..
          For the third time I ask - what is the connection between your thesis “the federation will be cheaper than KK Soyuz” and the mention of “Sea Launch” as an argument in favor of this ...
          1. slipped
            slipped 19 May 2018 11: 04
            0
            Not a reader? both will have one rocket. If you still do not understand, then I'm not to blame.)))
          2. slipped
            slipped 19 May 2018 11: 39
            0
            And I understand - you do not know the price tags. The cost of Soyuz-5 LV from Sea Launch is planned below $ 50 million for an international customer. Why such a price - there is a link at the bottom of the topic. The cost of launching Soyuz-FG now, and in the future Soyuz-2.1a with the Soyuz-MS spacecraft from Baikonur, will be somewhere the same ie about 50-60 million if in dollars. The cost of launching the Federation on a Soyuz-5 rocket from Baiterek IC to Baikonur under the LCI will be higher than this cost, since the development cost is included in the launch cost, but as a result, serial launches are comparable or even cheaper when the rocket and the ship will collect launch statistics.
            1. aristok
              aristok 19 May 2018 12: 16
              0
              Quote: slipped
              And I understand - you do not know the price tags. The cost of the Soyuz-5 launch vehicle from Sea Launch is planned below $ 50 million for an international customer

              Are you very arrogant or very braked?
              for the fourth time I ask - what is the connection between your thesis “the federation will be cheaper than KK Soyuz” and the mention of “Sea Launch” as an argument in favor of this ...
              1. slipped
                slipped 19 May 2018 13: 32
                0
                it’s not my fault that it doesn’t reach you, I say again - the cost of the carrier. You're not Russian? Do not understand? The Soyuz-5 rocket will be the same at the Sea Launch and at the Baiterek. Given the course of a small specificity in the UK.
                1. aristok
                  aristok 19 May 2018 13: 49
                  0
                  Quote: slipped
                  it’s not my fault that it doesn’t reach you, I say again - the cost of the carrier. You're not Russian? Do not understand? The Soyuz-5 rocket will be the same at the Sea Launch and at the Baiterek. Given the course of a small specificity in the UK.

                  For the fifth time I ask - what is the connection between your thesis “the federation will be cheaper than KK Soyuz” and the mention of “Sea Launch” as an argument in favor of this.?
                  My thesis was - the cost of launching 6 people (if suddenly such a strange need happens) by 2 unions will be cheaper than launching by one federation.
                  Your objection was: no, it will be cheaper than the federation, since c5 will be launched from the sea launch.
                  It is easier and more correct for you to admit that you blurted it out without thinking what to push against and carry illogical incoherent nonsense.
        2. Cannonball
          Cannonball 19 May 2018 08: 47
          0
          There is no such Baiterek cosmodrome, there is a Baikonur.
          1. slipped
            slipped 19 May 2018 11: 06
            0
            Yah? ))) "Baiterek" - the name of the project for remodeling SK Zenit with the launch of Soyuz-5 by the Kazakhs. So he appears in all documents signed with them. At the end of the year, they should allocate money for construction when the RCs at the RSC will be ready for RKK.
            1. Cannonball
              Cannonball 19 May 2018 14: 30
              0
              You do not confuse the program with the spaceport. This is the first. And secondly, for Baiterek, the launch vehicle of the Sunkar version will be used.
  29. Cannonball
    Cannonball 18 May 2018 20: 54
    0
    A note about nothing. Minus.
    1. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE 18 May 2018 21: 49
      0
      for the title and there’s nothing about the American lunar program yes
      can after a half actually
  30. Cannonball
    Cannonball 18 May 2018 21: 53
    0
    Quote: slipped
    Which will be launched from the Sea Launch. Another Soyuz-5 is not and is not planned.

    What are you saying? For your information, Soyuz-5 is planned to be launched from Baikonur and from Vostochny, and Sea Launch is considered as one of the possible options.
    1. slipped
      slipped 18 May 2018 23: 52
      0
      Of course, https://ria.ru/science/20180508/1520108559.html

      Quote: "... After this, the enterprises of the rocket and space industry reported that on behalf of Roskosmos they would reduce the cost of manufacturing the launch rocket, and together with the S7 group they began developing a commercially attractive version of the rocket that could receive reusable technologies."
      1. Cannonball
        Cannonball 19 May 2018 14: 31
        0
        Blah blah blah. I already heard it somewhere. "Angara", ay!
  31. slipped
    slipped 19 May 2018 13: 27
    0
    Quote: aristok

    Quote: slipped


    He is far))). Yesterday, I looked into the Soyuz SA - 6,5 cubic meters of space for three healthy men is very small. From the lodgments you can get up only one at a time. BO certainly brightens up the situation - if two get out there, then one in the SA is, in principle, not bad, but two in the BO will have to hang sideways.


    It's nice to see how you flogged yourself ..


    Yes? ))))

    Quote: aristok

    Firstly, 8,5 cubic meters (and not 6,5 as you lied) of the volume of KK Soyuz for “three healthy men” is MUCH better than 9.3 cubes of federation for “6 healthy men" ..


    Do not read what I write? The residential volume of the Union is 6,5 cubic meters. In the pressurized enclosure, the Union has 10,5 cubic meters. The difference is equipment, interior and cargo. In the "Federation" - more and 4 people crew.

    Quote: aristok

    And already 1 toilet for three is much better than 1 toilet for six.


    the toilet is the same, there is a place for a bathroom

    Quote: aristok
    .
    Write more !!!
    The more you write, the clearer the readers see the intellectual impotence of the propagandists of bureaucratic sawn monsters - at least nasa, at least of the Russian cosmos ..


    is everything okay with your head? "Union MS" and "Federation" ships for different programs.
    1. aristok
      aristok 19 May 2018 13: 58
      0
      Quote: slipped
      In the "Federation" - more

      Again a jump to the side of the propagandist of bureaucrats :)
      The numbers must be written, not the powerless stupid "more."
      Do not consider the volume of spacecraft (at least past, at least future, at least clean, at least in airtight volume) in KK Soyuz it is the most per person.
      .
      Write more !!!
      The more you write, the clearer the readers can see the intellectual impotence of propagandists of bureaucratic sawn monsters - at least nasa, even at least a rocosmos.
    2. aristok
      aristok 19 May 2018 14: 01
      0
      Quote: slipped
      is everything okay with your head? "Union MS" and "Federation" ships for different programs.

      Well yes - KK Soyuz for flights into space (even into the orbit of the earth, even into the orbit of the moon), the project pfederation - for cutting and theft.