New breakthrough: Russia will catch up with the Soviet "Buran"

In Russia, they seriously expect to compete in the near future with Ilona Mask and his private space company Space X on the market of cheap space launches. Roskosmos and the United Aircraft Building Corporation (UAC) will press the American competitors by implementing a national program to create a reusable ultra-light class rocket and space system. According to Boris Satovsky, who is the head of the FPI project team - the Advanced Research Foundation, an advance design of the rocket block being returned to earth is ready. Tests of the first reusable Russian-made space rocket are scheduled for 2022 year.

Satovsky notes that it is planned to launch new returning missiles from mobile complexes. The scheme of the planned system involves the separation of the first stage of the launch vehicle at an altitude of approximately 59-66 kilometers and its subsequent return to the launch area with a landing on an ordinary runway, RIA reports News. In the basic design of the return unit, it is planned to use a pivoting rectangular wing of large span, as well as the classic tail. According to the scientist, during the return flight to the launch site, it is planned to use serial turbojet engines that have undergone a corresponding modification. According to Boris Satovsky, such a system is designed for outputting a payload of up to 600 kilograms to a sun-synchronous orbit. According to the preliminary calculations already made, the output price should be less in 1,5-2 than ordinary rockets of the same class. In this case, each of the returned controlled blocks is designed to perform 50 flights without carrying out the replacement of the main engines.

Landing the first stage of the Falcon-9 rocket

For the first time that Russia intends to resume work on the creation of a reusable launch vehicle became known in January 2018. At the same time, RBC notes that our country will be able to earn on it no earlier than ten years from now. On January 9, Alexey Varachko, the general director of the Khrunichev Center, announced that the center, in cooperation with the Myasishchev Design Bureau and Roscosmos, has resumed work on the Angara-1.2 reusable launch vehicle project. It is planned that this carrier rocket will receive folding wings, which will be opened after the cargo is put into orbit, after which it will be able to land at the airfield. At the same time, the option is also being studied of the first stage of a rocket returned by means of its own engines, as it is now implemented in the Falcon-9 rocket produced by the American company SpaceX, and the option of landing the first stage on a parachute is also considered.

Representatives of "Roskosmos" said then that the plans of the designers of the Khrunichev Center to develop on the basis of the existing scientific and technical reserve of the Russian reusable launch vehicle - this is a logical step in the development of the industry, stressing that this experience exists in our country. Indeed, for the Khrunichev Center this is the third attempt to develop a reusable rocket. But this time, the Center decided to start designing a reusable stage for lightweight rockets. It is worth noting that even in 2000-ies the Khrunichev Center, which worked in collaboration with the NPO Molniya, was engaged in the creation of the reusable Baikal accelerator for the first stage of the Angara heavy rocket. Then it was planned that the first stage of the rocket, initially equipped with a swivel wing, after separation would return back to the airfield. The layout of “Baikal” was even demonstrated at the French air show in Le Bourget in 2001, however, this promising project has not been developed. In the future, work on the creation of a winged unit for the Angara rocket was carried out in 2011-13 in the framework of the implementation of the MRKS project - a reusable space-rocket system. However, at that time, the scientific and technical council of Roscosmos came to the conclusion that the cost of launching a kilogram of cargo using IDGC into Earth’s orbit would be higher than with a standard one-time flight of an ordinary rocket.

At the same time, experts say that the success of the SpaceX company Ilona Mask is the impetus for the resumption of work in this area. His company successfully operates the Falcon-9 rocket's first-stage return technology (the most expensive part of it). So in 2017, a private American company performed 17 launches of the Falcon-9 booster rocket: in 13 cases, the first stage of the rocket was successfully planted using its own engine, in three cases due to the characteristics of the space mission (for example, the need to deliver heavy satellite to the geostationary orbit of the Earth) the return of the first stage of the rocket back to Earth was not planned. In another case, the rocket planned villages in the ocean. Usually, the returning first stage lands on a sea platform or on Cape Canaveral.

The returned first stage is necessary for Russia first of all on economic indicators. The calculations show that using reusable rockets can reduce the cost of space launches. According to Alexander Zheleznyakov, a member of the Tsiolkovsky Russian Academy of Cosmonautics, reducing the launch price will allow Russia to “tear off part of the pie” from the market for commercial space launches or at least not to fly out of this market. Therefore, the decision to develop a reusable launch vehicle in Russia is absolutely justified, while the Khrunichev Center already has some groundwork in this area, Alexander Zheleznyakov stressed.

The fact that Russian reusable missiles should land on an airplane was discussed in April 2018 by the Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian government Dmitry Rogozin. “We are not able, like Ilon Mask, to return the Russian rocket - they will start from the Canaveral Cosmodrome and drive the sea platform to the point where the first stage of the rocket should land. The control wheels are at the top, and she sits on the engine, ”said a senior Russian official. “Where should we plant it, in Yakutia? This is physically impossible due to existing geographical features. If we plan to switch to using returnable stages, then it should change from vertical to horizontal flight on the engine and wings, which will have to open, return to the nearest airfield, like an airplane, and here the project is combined with aviation", - said Dmitry Rogozin. Most likely, the personal opinion of this person, who after the completion of the formation of the new cabinet of ministers was appointed head of Roscosmos, will now be even more important for the project to create a Russian reusable rocket.

In fact, while working on a reusable rocket, Russia may be catching up with the Soviet Buran return space shuttle and its more modern and simple reincarnation - the reusable Baikal rocket accelerator, which appeared at several exhibitions at the beginning of the 2000-s. These returned ships, like the famous American shuttles, were the fruit of the hard work of representatives of the space industry and the aviation industry. Becoming a full-fledged returnable spacecraft, which was due to their huge cost.

At the same time, returnable launch vehicles did not develop on Earth for a long time, as it was thought to be economically inexpedient. And there was no such expediency due to the absence of a large cargo flow into space. In the 21st century, everything is changing, this freight traffic has appeared and can grow dramatically over time, Andrei Ionin, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Cosmonautics, said in an interview with the Free Press. According to Ionin, the emergence of large volumes of cargo traffic will be directly related to the deployment of an Internet distribution system in space. It is about the OneWeb project and the Mask-Starlink project similar to it. The planned constellation of satellites is estimated at a thousand units. Given that at the present time, all of humanity uses only about 1,3 thousands of operating satellites. That is, the implementation of only such projects could lead to a doubling of the space group.

Andrei Ionin believes that such projects with the deployment of the global space Internet will necessarily be implemented, because without such a system, the implementation of numerous projects of the "digital economy" on Earth is not possible. According to him, the time has come, these systems will indeed be created and will provide the necessary cargo traffic, which is why Ilon Musk took up the development of reusable rockets, having succeeded in this matter. Here you can draw a rather illustrative analogy with smartphones that have conquered the world. If Steven Jobs had introduced his first “iPhone” not in 2007 year, but two years earlier, he probably would have been needed by very few people, because at that time there were simply no 3G networks that could provide a good level of communication in the internet. Technology is needed not by itself in isolation from everything, but only when it is in demand. In this regard, it can be noted that the time of reusable rockets really has come.

The fact that the time for such launch vehicles has come is evidenced by the fact that the first privately owned space company, S7 Space, appeared in the Russian Federation, which at one time bought the Sea Launch project. They are working on replacing the old and rather expensive Zenith rocket and, as requirements for Roskosmos for the new rocket, they have designated the first stage being returned, notes Andrei Ionin.

In an interview with the Vedomosti newspaper, the general director of the first private space company in our country, Sergei Sopov, said that S7 Space has ambitious plans, including not only the re-launch of the Sea Launch project, but also much more ambitious tasks. The company also expects to launch ground-based launches, build and launch its own rocket engine manufacturing plant in order to create a reusable modification of the promising domestic launch vehicle Soyuz-5, and also proposes that the Russian government should not drown its ISS segment after 2024, and creating the first orbital spaceport.

Obviously, space launches will be required more and more with time, and reusable rockets will be able to help with their implementation. Ilon Mask has already solved this problem, paving the way. Now it is the turn of Russia and our companies and research centers to engage in competition in this, of course, an important field of space exploration.

Information sources:
https://www.rbc.ru/politics/10/01/2018/5a54f9e19a7947a6befe1eae
http://svpressa.ru/economy/article/201861
https://ria.ru/science/20180604/1521978476.html
https://www.vedomosti.ru/business/characters/2018/06/18/773120-mnogorazovaya-raketa

Comments

[Vard]

Only Russia has the possibility of manned space flights ... And in the foreseeable future, there are hardly any competitors ...

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Vard

Only Russia has the possibility of manned space flights ...

Extremely pathetic. Have you come up with yourself or sent by mail? They forgot about China or bashfully kept silent because it does not fit into your axiom?

[Vard]

China itself ... And only we all carry ... This is understandable ...

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Vard

China itself ...

Do you think this excludes the very fact of manned space flights? You just customize it to fit your concept.

[Bratkov Oleg]

The United States will fly by itself, there is no doubt.
However, 57 years after the flight of Yuri Gagarin, the most super-duper country of developed democracy, is still not able to independently launch its astronauts into orbit.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Vard

And only we carry

NASA, along the way, has done more for the Russian cosmonautics than Roscosmos.
At the moment, there are two things that only Russian spacecraft do: the delivery of people to the ISS and the rise of its orbit (the ISS decreases all the time due to inhibition of the remnants of the atmosphere, if it is not “customized” from time to time, it will be oh).
Acceleration of the station is in the May Signature work program.
Manned flights are scheduled for the 4th quarter, however, they have already been postponed many times.
Well, that's all.

[Cannonball]

And what has NASA done for the Russian space program?

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Cannonball

What has NASA done for the Russian space program?

In relation to the topic under discussion, the Shuttle closed, giving the astronauts on the way. This turned out to be a mistake not only in the sense of geopolitics, but also technically - the Soyuz FG / KK Soyuz complex is, it seems, the only part of the Soviet cosmonautics that effective managers have not yet ditched. How much this luck will last - no one will say.

[Cannonball]

Shuttle Shuttle didn’t help our cosmonautics much. The "Unions" on the ISS and with the Shuttle flew, and without it. And the money for the seats in the “Soyuz” that the Americans take is not that big, you won’t do much for them.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Cannonball

Shuttle Shuttle didn’t help our cosmonautics much.

The meaning of the post was that the Americans, having closed their manned space program, made Russia the only country that ...

[Cannonball]

Only our cosmonautics from this is somehow neither hot nor cold.

[Cherry Nine]

The space program, of course, is in parallel, but at least Vard is satisfied.

[Cannonball]

The Americans did not close their manned program. Just one program has ended, and a new one has not yet begun for technical reasons. We also had such a break in the mid-60s, when the “Vostoks” with the “Sunrises” were abandoned, but the “Unions” were not there.

[Cherry Nine]

Empty.
The Americans could not pause, as with the Unions in the 60s, since there was the ISS. They had to either leave the Shuttles, or urgently restore Apollo, or make a new ship, or give orders to foreigners. It was decided that we were doing the ship slowly, but for now there were Unions. At that time it seemed reasonable, an order of magnitude cheaper, but over time, nuances appeared.

[Cannonball]

Restoring the Apollo program is absolutely not realistic. The States hoped for a quick construction of new rockets and spaceships, but the pause was delayed. But they are not used to it. They had a break from 1975 to 1981 - a little less than six years. Now the pause has dragged on. Almost seven years without their own manned ships.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Cannonball

Restoring Apollo is absolutely not realistic

I didn’t mean literally Apollo. It meant all the same that, get to the ISS, but now.

[Simargl]

Quote: Cannonball

And what has NASA done for the Russian space program?

Closing the Shuttle, they raked two of the three seats on the Unions. At the same time they pay at zero - not to earn.
But that’s ok - because of our doctrine “it works and it’s okay”, promising programs stalled and only itched when it became clear that we were behind again.
Doesn't it bother you that we catch up all the time?

[Cannonball]

It bothers me that industries do not allow normal development. Instead of evolutionary growth - destructive "reform" leaps about which China has already passed us. In the form in which Russian cosmonautics exists, it is a priori incapable of earning profitable money — it is not possible to recoup itself. She, as an army, cannot be commercial. Only individual, well-developed programs can be commercial, but this is not enough for the bureaucrats of Roscosmos, they want to earn money as oil sheikhs by doing practically nothing for this. And cosmonautics needs three things for existence and development, as well as the army already mentioned - money, money, and again money.

[Simargl]

Quote: Cannonball

but this is not enough for the bureaucrats of Roscosmos, they want to earn as oil sheikhs by doing practically nothing for this.

The prerogative of defective managers.
I, just about that.

[Igor V]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Quote: Vard

And only we carry

NASA, along the way, has done more for the Russian cosmonautics than Roscosmos.
At the moment, there are two things that only Russian spacecraft do: the delivery of people to the ISS and the rise of its orbit (the ISS decreases all the time due to inhibition of the remnants of the atmosphere, if it is not “customized” from time to time, it will be oh).
Acceleration of the station is in the May Signature work program.
Manned flights are scheduled for the 4th quarter, however, they have already been postponed many times.
Well, that's all.

Yes, you are right, in general, everything that is done or developed in the USSR and Russia on the ISS. The architecture of the compressor station, docking nodes and locks, an air regeneration system, a sewage system, energy distributors, etc., etc. Even the food warmer table was pulled from the Russian sector to the American one. Find and read about the epic of Boeing creating the ISS domestic compartment. Spent $ 5, as a result, the compartment costs as a simulator.
By the way, if you think that a manned ship differs from a cargo one in the same way as a passenger car does from a cargo one, then you are greatly mistaken.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Igor V

a manned ship differs from a cargo one in the same way as a passenger car from a cargo one

The manned ship is different from the cargo
1. Life support system (the 1st dragon has it).
2. Possibility of return (the freight has it optionally, the signature does not, the dragon has it).
3. Certification. Then NASA turned from a performer into a controller, as a result of which it stretches the certification for years, doing everything to more reliably cover its zhzhzhzhzh. If the Shuttle were certified as current ships, it would never have flown (but 14 people would probably not have been killed).

[Halkalak]

You still tell that rd180 is Russian and if you want, you will not sell it to the Americans, but to the Chinese

[Monos]

Yes, what are you! Everyone knows that RD-180 is Israeli.

[Halkalak]

And he is American

[Cannonball]

After the purchase - American

[Cossack 471]

Congratulations . citizen. lie!

[Cannonball]

That you have nothing of your own, everything bought

[Simargl]

Quote: Cannonball

After the purchase - American

Shopping what? It is wholly owned by the USA. Collect - yes, with us. Use no one except the owner and with his permission can not.
Whose is he?

[Cannonball]

Quote: Simargl

Whose is he?

Here the situation is quite similar to the one that happened with the FGB Zarya. She was also created under the American contract. It is de facto Russian and is part of the ISS Russian segment, but de jure - the American module.
But I am not aware of the transfer of patents and technical documentation on the module to the American side.
As for the RD-180, it is Russian by birth and, I think, so far it is in the Energomash workshops, de facto also Russian.

[Bratkov Oleg]

Russian engine is 100 percent. Only in Russia there is no fuel for it, because Russia makes the RD-180 exclusively for the Americans. This is just a modification to American fuel, and other needs. China will never buy this, but if it wants to - they will adapt this engine specifically for it, and call it what you like, RD-175, for example, or 178 ...
How easy it is for Russia to create and adapt motors! And they are cheaper, more economical than American because they are made at a higher level, are more knowledge-intensive, and therefore technologically advanced in production, and cheap. Without a doubt, the United States will make its own to be independent.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Igor V

Yes, you are right, in general, everything that is done or developed in the USSR and Russia on the ISS. The architecture of the compressor station, docking nodes and locks, an air regeneration system, a sewage system, energy distributors, etc., etc. Even the food warmer table was pulled from the Russian sector to the American

There is another opinion

- I was surprised to read on the Roskosmos website that we are leaders in space life support systems. I don’t understand what kind of advisers and consultants this information appeared from, but in reality it’s precisely in life support systems that we have the greatest failure and lag. For example, our foreign partners created and tested a closed water circuit, incorporating a number of regeneration systems into it. And since 2009, practically no water has been delivered into orbit, receiving it from the atmosphere of the station and urine (urine). This water is used for various purposes - both for drinking, and for sanitary and hygienic needs, and for an oxygen generator. But that is not all. Partners also use carbon dioxide and hydrogen to produce water, which in the Russian segment are simply thrown into space as waste. Yes, this is a truly unique system. It has been tested and finalized for a decade. And what is important to emphasize: without such a contour, it is impossible to create at the initial stage neither a lunar, nor a Martian base. Yes, and a long flight to Mars will not succeed ...

In the past 15-20 years, we have lost all our experience in creating such systems. We do not have such a circuit. At Mir there were similar systems, including the recovery of water from urine. Some systems were interconnected. But our ISS partners created the circuit as a closed hydrological cycle.

G.I. Scavenger, hero of Russia, astronaut.
http://www.trud.ru/article/14-06-2018/1363481_na_
mne_postavili_krest_postle_pjatogo_poleta.html

[Simargl]

Quote: Cherry Nine

There is another opinion
...
G.I. Scavenger, hero of Russia, astronaut.

Because (in particular) he was biting with Roscosmos - a bunch effective managers.

[maratkoRuEkb]

I read somewhere that the water from their regeneration system is disgusting to the taste. It seems that there is water, but they still prefer to drink imported water.

[freddyk]

Quote: Vard

China itself ... And only we all carry ... This is understandable ...

And only we all "carry" (face on the asphalt) I realized this in this context)).

[Lena363]

Is everyone at the space station? Only this is a penny in comparison with the delivery of goods in the form of satellites by orders of other countries. And here, Russia has already lagged behind the United States and China.

[Cynic]

China?
Or maybe honestly say USSR_2.0?
Indeed, in ABSOLUTE our copy is in their way ?!
Can you name something without analogues of the USSR? (It is the USSR, and not Russia? I’m very much agitating ...)
Scary and bitter.

[aries2200]

China is a branch of Roskosmos.

[Bar1]

Well, since the new military equipment has already ended, the journalists need to describe any suitable Magarych, that’s it will be planned sometime in the distant future.
We also have a fund of promising developments? Few of us and nanotechnology, another Torichel emptiness. When it appears, some sort of American analogue of organizations, then a 100% withdrawal of dough. What did this fund do specifically?

[Normal ok]

Quote: Bar1

We also have a fund of promising developments?

Chubais nervously smokes on the sidelines.

[Halkalak]

You can, of course, dream as much as you like, but ... life is very different from the stories on this site. In fact, not everything is clean with a snowstorm. Most likely he didn’t fly anywhere and didn’t land, everything was shot on an animated film

[Cannonball]

Yeah, there is no Israel either, but all the pest doctors came up with. :)

[Halkalak]

Rather, the Soviet Union is also not

[Cannonball]

Well, the USSR is not for a completely different reason.

[Halkalak]

are we discussing the reason?

[Cannonball]

What you discuss is still unknown to science.

[Halkalak]

But what you discuss is known to science, and I even know what this science is called

[Cannonball]

Not a science, but a technical industry. And it is called space rocket. But this occupation is still unknown to you in your Palestinians. Here is to grind the tongue, but you put the dust in your eyes master.

[Svarog51]

Well, I don’t know if the Buran flew, whether the Americans were on the Moon, I don’t know either. But our students pepelats definitely launched. So far within the same galaxy.

Here on vacation, they will finish the gravitsapu anywhere.

[pvv113]

And what are the tickets for this ship?
Hello, Sergey!

[Svarog51]

Hello Volodya While they ride themselves. According to rumors fly to Venus to the girls. Ivanovo no longer has the status of the City of Brides.

[novel66]

Serge You are nuts? girls and venus - in total make up the KVD!

[Svarog51]

Roma They use local OZK. The mustache is thought out.

[pvv113]

Quote: Svarog51

According to rumors fly to Venus to girls

It’s clear that the break-in process is underway.

[Svarog51]

Yeah, it’s going all out. Maybe on the day of Aviation ride. We need to ask.

[pvv113]

Write me down, and if you're lucky

[Cannonball]

He flew, were, and even launched a gravitsapu.

[Svarog51]

He flew, were, and even launched a gravitsapu.

So far, only in test mode, no further than the Orion Belt.

[Cannonball]

What to joke on empty, read better about the spacecraft "Jubilee".

[Svarog51]

I read it. Are you talking about students participating in its creation?
Z.Y. I just didn’t want to “hook you”, answered your opponent. Actually, I uploaded the video, because this university itself was finishing. True, it has been a long time.

[Cannonball]

As far as the media wrote, the specialists of the Scientific Research Institute of the CS are related to the creation of the “gravity caps”.

[Svarog51]

It may well be. There, the research institute works on assignment, and here students out of curiosity have fun, on a voluntary basis.

[Monos]

Quote: Halkalak

life is very different from the stories on this site

I don’t know what kind of life you have there, but since you have learned to write, stop watching cartoons and move on to adult films. I don’t know ... well, for starters, see Star Wars. And then you’ll think that Carlson lives in your attic.

[cradle]

Sick! March to the ward!

[viktor_ui]

Yeah, here it’s not childish for you Learn the materiel and pathos to decrease, and the blinkers will climb from one eye to another. Do not be offended, but where do you get out of.

[Bratkov Oleg]

Even the USSR refused superiority over the USA, at the political level they accepted the American lie that the Americans were on the moon, although they generally launched their astronaut for the first time 10 years after Gagarin ... Now China has begun its lunar program, not stupidly An inappropriate exploration of Mars, and according to Soviet ideas, first the Moon, and only then deep space.
Here are the first color photographs of the moon, not American political propaganda, but the first, real, color photographs of the moon: http://www.cnsa.gov.cn/n6758823/index.html
China and Roscosmos will smear shit, like Americans, and show that Russian astronautics shit, could not distinguish American lies from the truth. And well done!

[Fungus]

No rocket needed. It is necessary to create a snow-like spaceship. The future is in space.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Fungus

It is necessary to create a snow-like spaceship.

We need a hybrid rocket engine, and what it will look like QC does not matter. As far as it is known, only the British company Reaction Engines is engaged in the creation of such an engine and judging by the fact that relatively recently the three largest companies Boeing, RR and BAE Systems have invested about 40 million US dollars in it, things are going well and by 2021 they will give out the engine for tests. And then ...

[Fungus]

As if in the United States do not care. You need to do it yourself. I think everything will work out.

[Romario_Argo]

the future is with reusable space systems,

with the transition to the reusable ship

[Arikkhab]

The future is in the use of new technologies (in the order of delirium - an anti-gravity engine), and chemical-fuel rockets are close to the highest point of their progress. "Reusability" allows you to (slightly) reduce costs and no more

[Cannonball]

The future is different - tomorrow, in a week, in a month, in a year ... in the next millennium ...

[Halkalak]

You are right, but today there are no new ideas, stagnation, as in internal combustion engines, batteries, etc.

[Cannonball]

With us or globally?

[Halkalak]

We have worldwide

[Cannonball]

What about another world?

[Halkalak]

Are you talking about the Russian Federation?

[Cannonball]

No, about you personally and your little world, naturally. Trolls live in another world.

[cradle]

if in Israel stagnation with batteries does not mean that all over the world. Already invented batteries with a 50-year battery life.

[EwgenyZ]

Quote: Fungus

It is necessary to create a snow-like spaceship

Do not need a "snow-like" ship, at one time Lozino-Lozinsky was sharply against the creation of the "Buran". However, the Central Committee decided to measure up with the Americans and, instead of bringing the “Spiral” system to mind, they decided to build a “Buran”. Although without Lozino-Lozinsky there would have been no Buran. The genius of this designer is 40 years ahead of our "likely partners". And now the balcony is bitter! Who are you going to compete with !? With space adventurer !!!

[dSK]

Quote: EwgenyZ

decided to build a "Buran"

laying the construction of immediately a dozen copies, with a carrying capacity of 30 tons, without such a “useful” load. As a result, one “idle” flight, the remaining ten for “sale” and metal.

Roscosmos and the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) are going to squeeze American competitors through the implementation of the domestic program to create a space rocket system ultralight class reusable.

Payload 3 - 5 tons.

[Cannonball]

Tales do not need to be told. They laid only five cars. And the payload was for him. Take at least the "37th series" modules.

[prosto_rgb]

Quote: Cannonball

And the payload was for him. Take at least the "37th series" modules.

And you can learn more about the "modules" of the 37th series "".
Where to read, or see, or you can write something yourself.
So in nete there is anyway that such a request and this clearly does not apply to space or the space program of the USSR

[Cannonball]

"Cosmonautics News" No. 23-24 for 1998
Article by V. Mokhov "Module for" Buran ".



November 15, 1988 the first and only flight of the domestic 11F35 Buran reusable ship took place. In its "belly" - the cargo compartment, a 37KB N37070 module was installed, or, as it was officially called, the Unit for Additional Devices (BJP). This module has long remained an unknown page in the history of the creation of the first Soviet reusable ship.

The prototype of the 37KB module was the 37K series modules. In accordance with the decision N1 of February 11, 1981 of the joint Scientific and Technical Council of the Ministry of General Engineering, the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the Ministry of Defense of the USSR, into the orbital complexes 27K (station "Salyut-7") and 27KS (station "Mir") it was planned to include five target modules of the 37K series, displayed as part of the Heavy modular ship (TKM, product 11F72M). At the same time, the composition of the payload for the Buran was being determined. According to experts of RSC Energia (the parent company under the Buran program), a pressurized module was required to accommodate the ship’s flight design test equipment. Using the reserve for 37K modules was quite logical.
In this regard, on April 19, 1982, an order was issued by the General Director of NPO Energia N135 "On the creation of a block of additional devices (product 37KB) and payload for working out the product 11F35". According to the technical task, the 37KB module was planned to be used repeatedly as a prototype of future payloads for the Buran. The development of design documentation was entrusted to Design Bureau Salyut, the manufacture of flight samples and testing of experimental products to the plant named after M.V. Khrunicheva.
In 37KB the following additional systems, devices and units were located:

airborne measurement system;
Burana emergency power system (48 batteries);
37KB module autonomous power supply system (12 rechargeable batteries);
thermal management system;
fire detection and extinguishing system;
gas supply system;
interior lighting system.
The 37KB module also housed a number of auxiliary devices for the onboard complex control system (SMSC) necessary for its operation.



The 37KB design consisted of a pressurized compartment with a diameter of 4.1 m and ring spacers that were attached to the frames on both sides. The total length of the module was 5.1 m with a mass of 7150 kg and a volume of 37 m3. On the spacers, 37KB attachment points were installed in the payload compartment. The equipment was located both inside the pressurized compartment and outside. The 37KB was connected to the orbital ship via electrical interfaces through four boards.

To control the operation of the equipment in emergency situations, it was envisaged that the crew would visit the module.
In total, two flight modules and six bench modules for various tests were manufactured. In February 1986, the first 37KB N37070 was sent to the Baikonur Cosmodrome to prepare for the 1K1 flight (the first flight of the 1K ship). His tests were carried out in MIK 132-B, where the Salyut, Mir, and the Quantum module were usually prepared. After the completion of autonomous tests, the 37KB module was transferred to the new MIK-OK facility 254, where it was already tested as part of the Buran. It is worth noting that the cycle of preparation of “Buran” for the first flight lasted for two and a half years.



The 37KB flight of the Buran on November 15, 1988 was completely successful. The module was removed from the cargo compartment, and its in-flight maintenance began. Meanwhile, in 1987, the second 37KB N37071 module was manufactured. In September of the same year, it was transferred to NPO Energia for complex tests together with the electrical analogue of Buran. It was also planned to manufacture the third 37KB N37072 flight module for the 3K ship. In any case, in early 1988, an order was prepared in the Ministry of General Education to create it, which, however, was never signed.

After the completion of the first two flight tests of the Buran OK, it was planned to certify the modules for repeated flights and to equip them with scientific equipment (they should have received the designations 37KB N37270 and N37271).
The flight plans of the 37KB modules were closely related to the Buran test program and changed several times. As of the beginning of 1989, the plan was as follows:

IV quarter of 1991 - flight 2K1 (second ship, first flight) lasting 1-2 days with the 37KB module N37071;
I-II quarters of 1992 - 2K2 flight lasting 7-8 days with a 37KB N37271 module;
1993 - 1K2 flight lasting 15-20 days with a 37KB N37270 module.

All four Buran flights were supposed to be unmanned. In the flight of the 2K2 spacecraft, it was planned to work out automatic rendezvous and docking with the Mir orbital complex. Starting from the fifth flight, a third 3K orbital ship was to be used, equipped with a life support system and two ejected seats. Flights from the fifth to the eighth were also considered test flights, because the crew had to consist of only two astronauts. They were scheduled for 1994-95. For these missions, it was planned to manufacture research modules following the example of the American Spacelab and Spacehab. To this end, Salyut Design Bureau proposed that the second 37KB N37271 module and the spare (third) 37KB N37072 module be converted to 37KBI N1 and 37KBI N2, respectively. It was preliminarily planned to manufacture a 37KBIE experimental module for the first manned flight of the Buran-3K OK in 1994. During the Buran flights from the fifth to the eighth, the 27KBIE, 37KBI N37 and N1 modules were to be delivered sequentially, which were docked using the ship’s remote manipulator to the side docking unit of the Crystal module. The 2KBI modules would be both research apparatuses on which the scientific equipment stood, and sealed logistics modules. They also had to return to Earth at the Buran OK during their next flights to the station.
At the same time, NPO Energia proposed its own version of the so-called Laboratory compartment, and the Ministry of Defense for military flights Buran also provided its own version of the module, which had the designation 17F32 NPG (inseparable payload). Unfortunately, the author does not know who was to develop 17F32 and on what basis to create.
However, already at the end of 1989, plans for creating modules for Buran completely changed. On October 5, 1989, the Scientific and Technical Council of the General Commissar and the USSR Academy of Sciences on the Mir-2 perspective orbital station was held. The Council recognized the need to stop work on topics 14F70 Zarya (manned reusable ship), 37KBI, 37KBIE and, as part of the implementation of the Mir-2 theme, to ensure the creation of a modernized 17KS N128 block, to develop a modernized cargo ship based on the existing backlog, taking into account the transition to 11K77 Zenit-2 launch vehicle. The final work on the 37KB series modules was curtailed in May 1993 after the official closure of the Buran program.

[EwgenyZ]

Quote from dsk

laying the construction of immediately a dozen copies,

Buran, although an outstanding, but unpromising product, is expensive and cumbersome (although Energy could have worked). When Lozinsky was tasked with creating the Buran, he tried in every possible way to dissuade the leadership. And the links to the Shuttles retorted that the Americans were building good targets. If we had relied on Spiral, we would most likely have now had a spacecraft capable of taking off from a simple airfield.

[arkadiyssk]

But Buran was not a show? NU could not repeat the Shuttle. The Americans had the Shuttle and the ship and the main engines at once, and they only lost 2 boosters and a canister of fuel at launch. And the USSR was unable to create compact engines that would fit into Buran, and therefore there was just a glider similar to the Shuttle and a huge full-fledged rocket that was simply thrown after launch. As a result, a golden boat came out, the country could not pull.

[Halkalak]

Why did they build at all? The failure of the project should have been clarified at the stage of the sketch

[Cannonball]

Yeah, at first the Americans made a "failed project", then - our engineers. But smart comrades from the shores of the Jordan were much more frugal ...

[Halkalak]

Did you want to say something? to refute or insult me ​​somehow?

[Cannonball]

And what is the point of refuting nonsense?

[Halkalak]

So don't carry it

[Cannonball]

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, banter for delirium.

[Cannonball]

a) The Shuttle and the Buran have completely different withdrawal schemes.
b) There was no "Energy" in America.
c) "Energy" - a one-time rocket that is "thrown out" in any situation.
d) The Buran was able to land in fully automatic mode; the Shuttles never landed in this mode.

[Totah155]

Buran raised at least one astronaut?
But of course he is better than the shuttle.

[Cannonball]

The fact that the Buran program was closed was not guilty of the Buran. As there were no promised one hundred flights to the shuttle.
Well, the "Buran" returned to Earth in good condition. And there are no victims on his account.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Cannonball

c) "Energy" - a one-time rocket that is "thrown out" in any situation.

Not quite. There was talk about the landing of the sidewalls by parachute, but it didn’t get to the point.

[Cannonball]

The charm of "Energy" is its ability to put into orbit almost any payload of the corresponding mass. Shuttle except itself and limited payload in the cargo compartment.

[Simargl]

Quote: Cannonball

Shuttle except itself and limited payload in the cargo compartment.

Do not worry: conclusions are drawn, sawing SLS based on Shuttle units.

[Cannonball]

And what kind of shuttle with SLS should I worry about? I am more concerned about our own developments.

[Simargl]

Quote: Cannonball

I am more concerned about our own developments.

Well, what am I talking about? It seems that behind a puddle they draw conclusions, but we don’t know how.
It turns out that there are effective managers, and we have effective managers.
Take the same Proton: the rocket is very good, but you had to start scratching yourself about its replacement, at the latest, as soon as you started talking about "green" technologies not only in astronautics) and "clean" launches in particular.
How many classes of rockets do we need? 4?
We’ll spit on the ultralight and give technology to private owners - let them frolic.
And Roscosmos needs to focus on two types of scalable LVs, both of which must be certified for manned flights.

[Simargl]

Quote: Cannonball

d) The Buran was able to land in fully automatic mode; the Shuttles never landed in this mode.

I’ll tell you a terrible secret: from manual operations in the Shuttle - the release of the chassis.

[Cannonball]

You still forgot about the parachute. But the fact remains - without human intervention, he never sat down. This problem was solved already on the X-37V.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Cannonball

This problem was solved

In the 70s this was not considered a problem at all: years of accident-free flights euthanized vigilance. Interestingly, after the 86th, they did not remake the Shuttle into a drone, even a new one, Endeavor. And it’s not that they wanted it, but they didn’t force it, but simply did not.

[Simargl]

Quote: Cannonball

You still forgot about the parachute.

Well, the parachute then opens when it hits the Earth (it would seem - a joke, but here - the technology )

[Cannonball]

And the astronauts themselves were against a fully automatic landing - they wanted to steer.

[Simargl]

The whole crew?
Interestingly, at what stage of the flight can a person do this?

[Cannonball]

The commander took control at an altitude of less than 15 kilometers, when the shuttle speed was already becoming subsonic. This was usually done before the final turn to the runway.

[Simargl]

Quote: Cannonball

Commander took control

Almost all civilian vessels are now in fully automatic control, rather than a pilot, but an operator, at the helm.
And the Shuttle is cutting edge.

[AUL]

As usual - a great breakthrough! You read the article - all are just Wishlist. Mr. Yuferev, you would be more modest!

[Hole puncher]

Do not shoot the pianist ... He painted everything correctly by collecting data from different sources, that everything will naturally end in zilch the author is not responsible

[Cannonball]

But denyuzhku for collected and laid out will receive. Information - zilch, denyuzhka real. Forever air trading!

[Fox]

recalled an article by Bender’s robot thrown out by guards from the RC:
-I will build my own park, with blackjack and whores! ... a .. to hell with the park ...

[Gardamir]

Russia will catch up with the Soviet "Buran"

Another opportunity to cut it!

[Golovan Jack]

Quote: Gardamir

Russia will catch up with the Soviet "Buran"

Another opportunity to cut it!

This is the case when there is no thought at all, and write something very hotstsa.
Purely out of habit.
Wheel. Fifth

[spektr9]

So already sawing

[freddyk]

Garadamir, although I share similar views with you, you cannot be such a pessimist :-) Sometimes you remind me of a mechanic from the movie “The Secret of the Third Planet” :-) “This will not end in good” (c) :-)

[Gardamir]

but you can’t be such a pessimist

You are certainly right. But for now, there are not enough reasons for optimism. What is the matter with Vostochny? They sawed and forgot. Whose Crimea? The exact answer to this question will give Gref.

[Moore]

In fact, while working on a reusable rocket, Russia will probably catch up with the Soviet returning space shuttle Buran

The remains of a more advanced civilization:

[Hole puncher]

This is just sad ...

[Aleksandro]

That Buran was essentially a copy of the Space Shuttle, even at that time, celebrated by many, the great time when we were "first in space", in a number of projects they were "catching up." Probably because these projects were stupid

[Photon]

He was not a copy. Buran was a burden for Energy. And Energy could bring not only Buran. The shuttles had engines on the shuttles themselves. And accordingly, they could only remove the load from their cargo compartment

[Hog]

The expert from the Kalash series is a copy of the StG-44.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: AleksSandro

even at that time, celebrated by many, the great time when we were "first in space", in a number of projects they were "catching up."

If you look at the books of the participants in the events, you can see that already in the 63rd championship was causing concern, and in the 67th the question was removed. The Moon Field were areas where the USSR was ahead of the long time (DOS), but it was the area, and not the whole.

[Cannonball]

And what happened in the 67th? The Americans landed on the moon only in the 69th. Then the "moon race" ended.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Cannonball

And what happened in the 67th?

Apollo 4, the first launch of Saturn V.

Quote: Cannonball

The Americans landed on the moon only in the 69th

More importantly, 2 H-1 crashes.

It must be admitted that now we are leading only formally, but in essence we are already behind: 120 satellite launches in America and 20 - with us. The USA is constantly preparing and testing more and more new equipment, is continuously receiving a powerful stream of information from space, and we are only "pulsating" so far; the breaks between flights are too long. The fact that we are behind the United States in space, the world will be able to see in 1963, but it is almost impossible to convince our leaders of this.

Kamanin, February 6, 62 years.

On Saturday, November 20, Marshal Grechko held a meeting of the Military Technical Council of the Moscow Region. In addition to Grechko and Zakharov, all the commanders-in-chief of the branches of the Armed Forces, the chairmen of the NTK and more than 10 general staff were present. General Karas made a bad report and confusedly answered questions, co-rapporteurs - Generals Mishuk (Air Force) and Legasov (Air Defense) - performed well. The debates were made by: Alekseev, Kharlamov, Kostin, Seregin and I. All speakers, except Mishuk and me, spoke out against the unification of space research on the basis of the Air Force. Marshal Grechko supported the majority opinion. Everyone agrees that we are behind the United States, but everyone blames America for this backlog (more developed industry, electronics, etc.). Some saw the reasons for our lag in the poor work of the Academy of Sciences and Industry. Not a single general dared to tell the truth about the mistakes and poor organization of work inside the Ministry of Defense.

There, November 22, 65.

On Saturday, December 10th, I was at the Department of Defense watching the Apollo movie. Present: Grechko, Zakharov, Shtemenko, Ivashutin, Vershinin, Rudenko and a dozen more generals. The film was prepared by the GRU (Main Intelligence Agency - Ed.) Of the General Staff and our Institute of Aviation and Space Medicine and gives a complete picture of the grandiose work of the United States in space. ... Of particular note is the thoroughness and planning of the preparation of missiles and ships for launch, the enormous amount of testing and the availability of a large arsenal of training equipment for training astronauts. After watching this film, people who know the difficulties of fulfilling our space program can get a clearer picture of our lagging behind the United States and the illusory hopes of restoring the USSR’s leadership in space exploration.

Ibid., December 12, 66.

On November 9 and 10, the Americans won two major new victories in space: the first launch of the Saturn-5 rocket with the Apollo spacecraft and the soft landing on the moon of the Surveyor-6 spacecraft. A particularly impressive event is the launch of Saturn-5, which launched a cargo weighing 140 tons into the near-earth orbit (the total weight of the third stage of the Apollo rocket and the spacecraft). This is seven times the weight lifted into space by our UR-500K rocket, and 50-60 tons more than the cargo that should be lifted next year by our most powerful N-1 carrier.

The flight of Saturn 5 put an end to our superiority to the United States in missile power. Now America has every opportunity to be a leading space power. Only major failures in mastering the operation of Saturn 5 and Apollo (which is unlikely) could delay America's victorious march in space and equalize our chances of superiority in flying to the moon. We must directly admit that now the Americans have every reason to hope that they will be the first to land on the moon and other planets. We have lost the leading role in space research and in the coming years we will witness our further lag. For 7–8 years, the Soviet Union was a leading space power, two or three years ago the United States came close to us and began to overtake us in some ways (in particular, on manned flights), and now they have surged ahead. The main reasons for our failures are well known:

1. Poor organization of work (Ustinov, Smirnov, Pashkov, Malinovsky, Grechko).

2. Errors of the chief designers (Korolev, Mishin) when creating the Soyuz spacecraft and N-1 carrier, as well as their lack of discipline in the execution of government decisions.

3. Insufficient coordination of efforts of various design bureaus, departments and institutes with limited funds allocated for space research (the United States spends several times more money on space exploration than the USSR).

There, November 13, 67.

Comparison of the state of work under the lunar program “with us and with them” by the beginning of 1964 shows our at least two-year lag in the project as a whole. As for engines, the oxygen-kerosene thrust of about 600 tf and powerful oxygen-hydrogen rocket engines were not developed at this time at all.

Information that came to us through open channels during 1964 showed that work on the lunar program does not prevent the Americans from creating combat missiles. More detailed information was delivered by our foreign intelligence. The scope of work on the construction of new assembly shops for Saturn 5 and Apollo, test facilities, launch complexes at Cape Canaveral (later the Kennedy Center), launch and flight control centers made a strong impression on us.

Chertok

Following the first lunar expedition, America sent six more! Only one of the seven lunar expeditions was unsuccessful. The Apollo 13 expedition, as a result of the accident on the Earth-Moon route, was forced to abandon the moon landing and return to Earth. This emergency flight aroused our engineering admiration to a greater extent than the successful moon landings. Formally, it was a failure. But she demonstrated reserves of reliability and safety, which our project did not possess at that time.

Ibid.

Such a gloomy conversation took place in 1967 with Raikov, who was blackened with fatigue, whom I tormented with questions to find out the effectiveness of the CORD system. If we determine the readiness of the lunar carrier only for the development of propulsion systems, then by this indicator by 1968 N1 was five years behind Saturn-5

Ibid.

[Cannonball]

Saturn V itself is only a tool to achieve the main goal - flying to the moon. There was no goal, no Saturna. If it weren’t for the Moon, then Saturn V would not have been needed for anyone, and the USSR in astronautics still held the lead in most positions for a long time.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Cannonball

If it weren’t for the Moon, then Saturn V would not be needed for anyone,

Do you want to talk about the development of astronautics in an alternative world?

Quote: Cannonball

The USSR in astronautics still held leadership in most positions for a long time

Is this also from an alternative universe, or from ours? If the latter, would it not be difficult to list the “majority of positions” in the 70s?

[Cannonball]

Why in the alternative? How many launches did the fifth Saturn have and what was the purpose of these launches? And finally - why the Saturn program was closed, if it was so necessary.

Regarding the positions. The conversation seemed to be about the 67th year, and not about the 70s. Well, okay, I’m not in scrap to write where the USSR and the USA were the first. Initially, the period from 67 to 69 years.

1967 - the death of Apollo 1 (USA)
1967 - Lunar Orbiter-3 in orbit of the moon (USA)
1967 - flight Cosmos-154 (Soyuz 7K-L1) (USSR)
1967 - soft landing on the moon Surveyor 3 (USA)
1967 - the first flight of the Soyuz spacecraft, the death of Soyuz-1 (USSR)
1967 - Lunar Orbiter-4 in orbit of the moon (USA)
1967 - moon landing Surveyor 4, lost connection (USA)
1967 - Lunar Orbiter-5 in orbit of the moon (USA)
1967 - soft landing on the moon Surveyor 5 (USA)
1967 - descent in the atmosphere of Venus AMS "Venus-4" (USSR)
1967 - Span of Venus Mariner 5 (USA)
1967 - the first automatic docking "Cosmos-186" - "Cosmos-188" (USSR)
1967 - the first flight of the Saturn V unmanned Apollo 4 (USA)
1967 - soft landing on the moon Surveyor-6 (USA)
1967 - the death of the X-15 (USA)
1967 - Pioneer 8 in heliocentric orbit (USA)
1968 - soft landing on the moon Surveyor-7 (USA)
1968 - flight of Apollo 4 with the lunar module (USA)
1968 - Zond-4 (Soyuz 7K-L1) circled the moon (USSR)
1968 - flight of the Saturn V unmanned Apollo 6 (USA)
1968 - "Moon-14" in the orbit of the moon (CCCP)
1968 - automatic docking "Cosmos-212" - "Cosmos-213" (USSR)
1968 - Zond-5 (Soyuz 7K-L1) circled the moon (USSR)
1968 - manned flight Apollo 7 (USA)
1968 - unmanned flight "Soyuz-2" (USSR)
1968 - manned flight Soyuz-3 (USSR)
1968 - Pioneer 9 in heliocentric orbit (USA)
1968 - Zond-6 (Soyuz 7K-L1) circled the moon (USSR)
1968 - flight of the heavy satellite "Proton-4" (USSR)
1968 - manned flight Apollo 8 flyby of the Moon (USA)
1969 - docking of manned spacecraft Soyuz-4 - Soyuz-5 (USSR)
1969 - manned flight Apollo 9 flyby of the Moon (USA)
1969 - descent in the atmosphere of Venus AMS "Venus-5" (USSR)
1969 - descent in the atmosphere of Venus AMS "Venus-6" (USSR)
1969 - manned flight Apollo 10 flyby of the Moon (USA)
1969 - accident N-1 (USSR)
1969 - manned flight Apollo 11 moon landing (USA)
1969 - "Moon-15" hard landing on the moon (USSR)
1969 - Span of Mars Mariner 6 (USA)
1969 - Span of Mars Mariner 7 (USA)
1969 - "Probe-7" circled the moon and returned to Earth (USSR)
1969 - group flight Soyuz-6, Soyuz-7, Soyuz-8 (USSR)
1969 - manned flight Apollo 12 moon landing (USA)

[Cannonball]

Now 70s

1970 - manned flight Apollo 13 flyby of the Moon (USA)
1970 - "Soyuz-9" flight 18 days (USSR)
1970 - "Moon-16" soil sampling of the Moon (USSR)
1970 - "Probe-8" circled the moon and returned to Earth (USSR)
1970 - landing on the moon AMC "Luna-17". Lunokhod-1 (USSR)
1970 - the first soft landing on Venus AWS "Venus-7" (USSR)
1971 - manned flight Apollo 14 moon landing (USA)
1971 - launch into orbit of the DOS "Salyut-1" (USSR)
1971 - docking Salyut-1 - Soyuz-10 (USSR)
1971 - Salyut-1 expedition - Soyuz-11 flight for 24 days (USSR)
1971 - accident N-1 (USSR)
1971 - manned flight Apollo 15 moon landing (USA)
1971 - "Moon-18" in the orbit of the moon (USSR)
1971 - "Moon-19" in the orbit of the moon (USSR)
1971 - Mariner 9 launch into orbit of Mars (USA)
1971 - "Mars-2" launch into orbit of Mars, hard landing on Mars (USSR)
1971 - "Mars-3" launch into orbit of Mars, soft landing on Mars (USSR)
1972 - "Moon-20" soil sampling of the Moon (USSR)
1972 - manned flight Apollo 16 moon landing (USA)
1972 - Pioneer-10 crossed the orbit of Mars, entered the asteroid belt (USA)
1972 - "Venus-8" soft landing on Venus (USSR)
1972 - accident N-1 (USSR)
1972 - manned flight Apollo 17 moon landing (USA)
1973 - landing on the moon AMC "Luna-21". Lunokhod-2 (USSR)
1973 - launch of the Salyut-2 (Almaz) OPS into orbit (USSR)
1973 - launch into orbit of DOS Skylab (USA)
1973 - The first expedition to Skylab. 28 days (USA)
1973 - The second expedition to Skylab. 59 days (USA)
1973 - flight of the Soyuz-12 (USSR)
1973 - Pioneer 10 flies over Jupiter (USA)
1973-74 - third expedition to Skylab. 84 days (USA)
1973 - flight of the Soyuz-13 (USSR)
1974 - Mariner 10 flies through Venus (USA)
1974 - "Mars-4" made the flight of Mars (USSR)
1974 - "Mars-5" was launched into the orbit of Mars (USSR)
1974 - "Mars-7" made the flight of Mars (USSR)
1974 - "Mars-6" made the flight of Mars (USSR)
1974 - Mariner 10 flies over Mercury (USA)
1974 - "Moon-22" was launched into the orbit of the moon (USSR)
1974 - launch of the Salyut-3 (Almaz) OPS into orbit (USSR)
1974 - expedition "Salyut-3" - "Soyuz-14", 16 days (USSR)
1974 - flight of the Soyuz-15 (USSR)
1974 - "Moon-23" landing on the moon (USSR)
1974 - flight of the Soyuz-16 (USSR)
1974 - Pioneer 11 flies over Jupiter (USA)
1974 - launch into orbit of the DOS "Salyut-4" (USSR)
1975 - the first expedition "Salyut-4" - "Soyuz-17", 30 days (USSR)
1975 - Mariner 10 made the third flight of Mercury (USA)
1975 - the second expedition "Salyut-4" - "Soyuz-18", 63 days (USSR)
1975 - "Union" - Apollo (USSR, USA)
1975 - Viking Orbiter 1, Viking Lander 1 (USA)
1975 - Viking Orbiter 2, Viking Lander 2 (USA)
1975 - "Venus-9" orbiting Venus, soft landing, photo (USSR)
1975 - "Venus-10" orbiting Venus, soft landing, photo (USSR)
1975 - Pioneer 11 span of Saturn (USA)

As you can see, there is no clear leadership on either side

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Cannonball

As you can see, there is no clear leadership on either side

Why did you rewrite the list of launches?

You wanted to designate the "cosmonautics position" and tell in which of them the USSR was the leader. According to your list - only stations on Venus. According to Chertok - first of all, a series of Salutes.

Quote: Cannonball

And finally - why the Saturn program was closed, if it was so necessary.

The lunar program was, in large part, writing sporting event. However, in the 60s, both sides measured it pussy "leadership".

[Cannonball]

I laid out only the main events of those years, showing that both countries went "head to head", somewhere having an advantage, somewhere inferior. There was no obvious leader, and most of the lag in certain areas was either quickly eliminated or offset by success in others.
In the early 70s, we began to focus on manned stations, lunar, Martian and Venusian AMSs, among Americans after the lunar program, and Skylab - on deep space exploration using AMS. Well, there and there - the military and "national" space.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Cannonball

showing that both countries went "head to head",

Quote: Cannonball

1972 - accident N-1 (USSR)
1972 - manned flight Apollo 17 moon landing (USA)

It’s not worth it to clog a copy-paste place.
At first glance, very rude, space is:
Commercial (national) satellites.
Military satellites.
Scientific research.
Deep space.
Manned flights, including orbital stations.
Carriers.

You can make some other list of directions and tell you what it was like with leadership, if you are in the subject, of course.

[ruslann004]

It has long been proven that they were not on the moon, there are still others who believe in this nonsense.
One question: where is the technical documentation for the Apollo program? The answer of the Americans: lost.
Stop carrying nonsense about the landing of mattress covers on the moon!

[Simargl]

Quote: ruslann004

It has long been proven that they were not on the moon, there are still others who believe in this nonsense.

Who has proven this?
As I don’t look at this evidence, in 99% of cases - blizzard designed for shkolotu without knowledge and the ability to think soberly.
Practically all proof of sectarians Lunar conspiracy - nonsense flogged by an ignoramus.
If you want to expose yourself as such - challenge!

[ruslann004]

It has long been proven that they were not on the moon, there are still others who believe in this nonsense.
One question: where is the technical documentation for the Apollo program? The answer of the Americans: lost.

[Halkalak]

It never flew, it's a full-size layout

[Cannonball]

That "this" did not fly?
Express your thoughts more clearly, otherwise my coffee grounds are running out.

[Halkalak]

Type again, re-read again

[Servisinzhener]

Before developing another rocket, you need to calculate what and how much it will be launched into space. And how much is more profitable compared to existing disposable launch vehicles. Without blind copying, coming from the desire that it was like theirs. So that later it doesn’t turn out that everything is wrong and cheap in a reusable step. And the Mask does not include something in the delivery price of the cargo and is paid separately. Or dates in a cunning way. Thus, reducing the cost of launch.

[Kent0001]

Blah blah blah (will, let's do, fly, instead of: eat, done, fly). Rogozin to help you.

[Cannonball]

Well, how much can people hang noodles on their ears? Khrunichev’s center was almost killed already, in a state of agony, you won’t compete with anyone in creating anything.

[Antivirus2k]

Who is older, he remembers quite a few "space programs" about which they drummed from the screens of the Yeltsin-Putin propaganda-TV. For example, I remember Clipper. Oh, that just did not talk about him ... And that it is almost a "Buran", only small and cheap. And that space tourists will fly on it, like on a bus, and that he is about to enter the series. Ask what happened to him today. And, yes, I also remember that Russia will build a space station on the moon and will extract minerals there. By the way, I recall that even the foreign media bought themselves and got a little scared of these nonsense, they began to write, they say, "why did you decide that these minerals are yours?" But they didn’t take into account that nothing goes further than chatter in the modern Russian government. What cosmos? Pump oil further and raise your retirement age - this is your colony and 76% agree. But, in general, I sometimes have the impression that our people have a memory like a fish - for 10 minutes.

[Best wishes]

Dreams Dreams, where your sweetness is gone Dreams remained disgusting. Look at the face of this Rogonozin, he only needs to build toilets in the dachas .....

[Felix99]

Is this just phenological data? Is there any scientific justification for this? Of course, there are prettier personalities, only when you do it, you don’t need to trade in the face. We have all the people from the peasants, but from the plow.

[Snail N9]

Not true. Fish remember longer. I’m feeding fish in a pond (not for fishing, but just like that) for carps, so if I appear near a pond, they’ll swim .... Well, actually about the “fish”, Deripaska knows best ... .

[Royalist]

In principle, this is real, but for this we need two components: the will and adequate financing.

[reedcat]

I agree. And most of the writers here jumped in to paint, move political slogans and sprinkle with caustic remarks and pasting pictures. On the topic - I personally am an optimist. In this decade, there are a lot of events and achievements that give rise to optimism. Pessimists and critics are also a reality. And I agree with them in some ways. But you don’t have to press it intrusively with your pessimism. Try not to criticize but offer a good idea.

[Cannonball]

I'm realist. And I’m saying now the situation in the Russian cosmonautics is complete “F ...” with a capital “F”.

[Royalist]

Quote: freddyk

Garadamir, although I share similar views with you, you cannot be such a pessimist :-) Sometimes you remind me of a mechanic from the movie “The Secret of the Third Planet” :-) “This will not end in good” (c) :-)

The cartoon is funny. Remember: "the talker is different in mind and quick wits."

[Royalist]

Quote: AleksSandro

That Buran was essentially a copy of the Space Shuttle, even at that time, celebrated by many, the great time when we were "first in space", in a number of projects they were "catching up." Probably because these projects were stupid

About it were publications, it seems in Science and Life?

[Arikkhab]

“SpaceX Ilona Mask successfully operates the Falcon-9 return rocket first stage technology (its most expensive part). So in 2017 a private American company completed 17 Falcon-9 launch rocket launches: in 13 cases, the first rocket stage was successfully planted by using her own engine "

"Success"?
And how many of the returned first stages were reused (especially more than 1 time?) - this is the main feature of the "program"?
In the meantime, the cost of launching 1 kg of cargo by the Mask system is not more profitable than launching on the Russian "old" Unions and Protons, especially in high orbits ("in three cases, because of the need to deliver a heavy satellite to the Earth's geostationary orbit, returning the first stage of the rocket back to Land was not planned ")

[voyaka uh]

A heavy rocket (to Mars) was launched using used steps.
And a few more launches of satellites were on b / y steps.
Those. two dozen steps flew twice. Three times - not a single one yet.
Musk begins to launch his new Block5. Planned there
10 starts of used steps without engine prevention. Further prevention.
and the next 10 starts.
Block5 will allow dumping of up to 20 million per launch without loss. 3-4 times
cheaper than Russian missiles.

[kuznec]

Aleksey, you forget (IMHO, on purpose) that the US Government gave Mask all the technologies, specialists, and supplies his office with finances through controlled banks. In fact, if you throw "Tesla" out of circulation, then the Mask office is a state. office. And with all these pretzels, it is unprofitable. Those. cheaper start-up costs at the moment - a financial scam, but not a technological breakthrough.

[voyaka uh]

Everything is wrong.
Government and NASA Mask does not help.
And it helps, on the contrary, to its competitor: the Boeing Lockheed alliance. Mask has a bad relationship with Trump. Musk in court, with a fight, won the right to launch military satellites. Prior to that, they were only allowed to launch the Alliance.
Space-X is a strictly private company, owned by
only Alon Mask. Without partners and without even a share of state participation.
Space-X began to make a profit in 2017. Do not confuse with automotive Tesla.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: voyaka uh

Space-X started making profits in 2017

They do not publish reports.

Quote: voyaka uh

belongs
only Alon Mask.

NYA there are several investors.

Quote: voyaka uh

Government and NASA Mask does not help.
And it helps, on the contrary, to its competitor: the Boeing Lockheed alliance. Mask has a bad relationship with Trump.

All in one pile. Trump, the government, NASA. In the states, the vertical is so-so, some are against Space, and some are for. But if you look for who is more lured, then this is yule, of course.

Quote: kuznec

jus government gave Mask all the technology

NASA patents are open except for ITAR restrictions.

Quote: kuznec

experts

Did you have them in sharashka or what?

Quote: kuznec

supplies his office with finances through controlled banks.

Which bank is controlled by the American government?

Quote: kuznec

with all these pretzels, it is unprofitable

Wow, the chief accountant of spaces goes to this forum.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: ArikKhab

so far, the cost of launching 1 kg of cargo by the Mask system is not more profitable than launching on the Russian "old" Unions and Protons

What is it for you? You are so outraged as if you are a shareholder of ULA, whose existence the Mask business brings terrible losses. SpaceX’s existence doesn’t interfere with Roskosmos, since it’s a state-owned company and if it isn’t completely ruined by “effective managers”, then no matter how much Musk takes (at least a hundred dollars) for launch, it will exist and launch rockets

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Puncher

You are so indignant as if you are a shareholder of ULA, whose existence the Mask business causes terrible losses

Ula, at least for now, is a solid plus. Atlas and DeltaHavi launches are now at maximum volumes. Yes, and the state contractor arrived in time for Vulcan.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Ula, at least for now, is a solid plus. Atlas and DeltaHavi launches are now at maximum volumes.

Still, having invested at the minimum, buying for our kopecks our RDs should be charged at 200-400 million per launch from the Pentagon and NASA. Moreover, to receive the full price for the launch that was not carried out due to the fault of the customer .... But only the freebie will end soon, the Pentagon is signing new contracts with SpaceX, and NASA is moving there too.

Quote: Cherry Nine

Yes, and the state contractor arrived in time for Vulcan.

Well, the fate of this launch vehicle is far from cloudless, it saves them that money has already been poured into it, but history knows cases when such losses were cut at an early stage ...

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Puncher

Still, having invested at the minimum, buying for our kopecks our RDs should be charged at 200-400 million per launch from the Pentagon and NASA.

This, of course, is nice, but it's not so rosy. Saved in the first step, but the second is expensive. Mask really he did a lot to reduce the cost of launches, which officials and the military simply didn’t think of.

Quote: Puncher

from only a freebie soon to end, the Pentagon is signing new contracts with SpaceX, and NASA is moving there too.

Not quite. So far, DOD displays space-satellite satellites of JMS, which can be dispensed with if suddenly. More serious things are being deduced by ULA. After Ariana’s recent misfire, Atlas is the most reliable of its class of flying missiles.
The successes of Spaceics are enormous, but in terms of bureaucracy they are not at all so total.

Quote: Puncher

Well, the fate of this launch vehicle is far from cloudless,

What is the difference, the money is official, unlike SpaceX.

Quote: Puncher

that money has already been entered into it unnecessarily, but history knows cases when such losses were cut at an early stage ...

Tell it about CLS. Which does, by the way, guess who.

[Oleg Tolstoy]

Quote: AleksSandro

That Buran was essentially a copy of the Space Shuttle, even at that time, celebrated by many, the great time when we were "first in space", in a number of projects they were "catching up." Probably because these projects were stupid

And what did he never see?
https://topwar.ru/37901-buran-i-shattl-takie-razn
ye-bliznecy.html

Devices with a fundamentally different architecture, and the similarity of appearance, due to the identity of the tasks and conditions of use!

"... the projects were stupid" (c) .. Any war, in fact - a stupid occupation .. Right now there’s a lot where they shoot. Fool !?

[Siberia 9444]

All this is good of course, but first let them put things in order! And usually rockets in the best case fly to the ocean. And with the Angara everyone forgot

[Natalia777]

In fact, it’s high time to develop a flying anti-gravity saucer. How much can you fight against gravity?

[voyaka uh]

"they will start from the Canaveral Cosmodrome and drive the offshore platform to the point
in which the first stage of the rocket "///

Exactly the opposite: the rocket is “customized” for landing at the point where the sea anchors
platform. The rocket also lands on land without problems.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: voyaka uh

anchored sea
platform.

Is she anchored?

[voyaka uh]

It’s hard for me to imagine that she is swimming at the moment
landing on it from outer space of the first stage.
That would be a marvelous achievement!

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: voyaka uh

It’s hard for me to imagine that she is swimming at the moment

According to the records, the distinct impression is that she is moving. I will take an interest in this subject.

[Blackmokona]

She actively floats at the time of landing, maneuvering with engines in order to help the rocket and compensate for pitching.

[Old26]

Quote: Vard

Only Russia has the possibility of manned space flights ... And in the foreseeable future, there are hardly any competitors ...

Paphostically, but stupid and not true. I won’t even remember the Americans. And what, the Chinese do not take their teicunauts into space? I didn’t know ...

Quote: Cherry Nine

Quote: Vard

And only we carry

NASA, along the way, has done more for the Russian cosmonautics than Roscosmos.
At the moment, there are two things that only Russian spacecraft do: the delivery of people to the ISS and the rise of its orbit (the ISS decreases all the time due to inhibition of the remnants of the atmosphere, if it is not “customized” from time to time, it will be oh).
Acceleration of the station is in the May Signature work program.
Manned flights are scheduled for the 4th quarter, however, they have already been postponed many times.
Well, that's all.

If you can agree with the first position, delivery by the astronaut, but about the rise - no. As far as it is known, during the last couple of flights of American trucks to the ISS they raised their orbit ...

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Old26

during the last couple of flights of American trucks to the ISS they raised their orbit ...

As far as I am informed, it was precisely by the last sign and precisely in the future tense. Dragon has not done this yet. I do not know about the results with Signus yet.
Actually, the post was that bunnies work. Apparently, someone translated them about the trampoline.

[nikvic46]

Surely Elon Musk did not receive this project exclusively. And probably there was a competition with other projects.
spaceships excite the minds of scientists and designers for a long time. The launch of the Alekseev rocket ended in failure. And the project was closed. We followed in the footsteps of the American Shuttle. They spent a lot of money, although many experts claimed that this project has no future. I am sure that the future belongs to reusable ships. Then do not take it seriously. In my youth I imagined this a ship with a stage that is destined to land, with four engines that balance the stage of landing. Now I think that in the development of space we need fresh innovations. As the famous hero Sharapov said, that from a long observation the eyes are “blurred”

[voyaka uh]

Musk did not receive any projects from anyone.
He invested his personal millions, took a chance, hired young
ambitious engineers and made Falcon. He was on the verge
bankruptcy, when the Falcon finally began, the first
commercial launches.
It just bursts with envy and anger when they say
about Ilon Mask. He breathed new life into space exploration.
And everyone stirred. Modern Korolev.

[Cannonball]

Musk received major contracts from the government, and due to this, it is flourishing.

[voyaka uh]

Musk thrives on intense startup
commercial communications satellites. He is paid in cash and
The world's largest satellite providers are ordering ahead:
Iridium Communications, EchoStar, SES, intelsat and others
NASA and military launches account for less than 10% of total launches.

[ghby]

Quote: voyaka uh

He is paid in cash and
The world's largest satellite providers are ordering ahead:
Iridium Communications, EchoStar, SES, intelsat and others

USA - Nal in the turnover of large companies, gee-gee-gee-gee. why don’t they pay with diamonds?

[voyaka uh]

Nal - meaning "not on credit."
But not suitcases with dollars, of course.

[Cannonball]

If not for prepayment, then there was no prosperity from the intensity of launches. Nobody would give the Mask money. And after government contracts and a series of successful launches - please.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Cannonball

Musk received major contracts from the government

And what, in fact, does the government still have to do with these contracts? It’s still necessary to launch supply missions. Boeing? Progress?
Let me remind you that there are 2 companies working under the CRS program, Spaceix and OrbitalATK (now it is part of Northrop Grumman). The second - adults, serious people - get more in one launch than Musk, and they collected a rocket from what they found in the trash. Analogue of the Union, cheap and cheerful. Thought, probably, to weld well.
SpaceX, Sharashkin’s office of some dumbass from the Internet, working under the same contract, did what she did. That is the difference.

[Cannonball]

But the government doesn’t give us large contracts, on the contrary, they want "for a penny a canary that sings barefoot."

[Cannonball]

Contracts are real money for which you can develop from a start-up company into a solid enterprise, already in some ways able to compete with global leaders in rocket science and astronautics. And without money, she would have remained a startup company.

[nikvic46]

Quote: voyaka uh

Musk did not receive any projects from anyone.
He invested his personal millions, took a chance, hired young
ambitious engineers and made Falcon. He was on the verge
bankruptcy, when the Falcon finally began, the first
commercial launches.
It just bursts with envy and anger when they say
about Ilon Mask. He breathed new life into space exploration.
And everyone stirred. Modern Korolev.

I’m not saying that Musk received projects from anyone, but it’s just customary to consider
several projects, and Musk won. No one belittles his merits.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: voyaka uh

He breathed new life into space exploration.

This is yes.

Quote: voyaka uh

He was on the verge
bankruptcy, when the Falcon finally began, the first
commercial launches.

A little clarification. Here we are talking about Falcon-1. With the ninth, there was already CRS and everything was calmer.

[-Pollux]

Quote: voyaka uh

It just bursts with envy and anger when they say

Yes, all poop on the Mask. It was simply publicized, it does nothing of the kind, doesn’t move the astronautics forward, just as NASA and Roscosmos do not move it, just like China and Japan - none of them move astronautics forward. They stomp on the spot without even reaching the level set back during the Cold War of the USSR and the USA.

[voyaka uh]

Well, here you are in this company. Falcons fly and land accurately, like a Swiss watch, and people choke on envy.

[-Pollux]

Quote: voyaka uh

Well, here you are in this company.

You see a respected companion

Quote: voyaka uh

Falcons fly and land accurately, like a Swiss watch, and people choke on envy.

All these "masks" "NASA" "Roskosmosy" investing in any garbage like heavy and medium-sized rockets tear them from real projects with nuclear power plants capable of reaching other planets and returning without any steps and pathological
mass saving.
For fifty years, you just think about the amount of wasted time, nothing has been done. Musk is a good entrepreneur, but he is not a pioneer and there is no point in admiring them, because there is nothing to admire.

[ghby]

Quote: Pollux

All these "masks" "NASA" "Roskosmosy" investing in any garbage like heavy and medium-sized rockets tear them from real projects with nuclear power plants capable of reaching other planets and returning without any steps and pathological mass saving.

We have all the buzz with atomic engines, and competitors have not yet started :)
Well, they didn’t start, they tried to ban their operation in space :)

[-Pollux]

Quote: ghby

We have all the buzz with atomic engines, and competitors have not yet started :)

I note that Russia has ready-made prototypes on hand and no one is enthusiastic, but enthusiasts, where are you, it’s not worth it to admire the achievements of the Russians? Moreover, Mask began to be admired when he had not done anything yet, only the first article in the press wrote about his intentions.

[voyaka uh]

"tear them away from real projects with nuclear power plants
capable of reaching other planets and returning without any steps "///

AND? This is what is now called "real projects" ....
This sucks last century.
And you have to do it right away: a quantum-photon traction antigravity vehicle.
But Musk is distracting ...

[-Pollux]

Quote: voyaka uh

But Musk is distracting ...

Any sane person understands that on chemical missiles we will not fly beyond the orbit.

Quote: voyaka uh

AND? This is what is now called "real projects" ....

Nuclear engines are a reality, you do not know?

[Cannonball]

And where are they, atomic engines?

[-Pollux]

Quote: Cannonball

And where are they, atomic engines?

Google-google, this is not classified information.

[Cannonball]

It’s also written on the fence, but in reality it’s nevermind.

[-Pollux]

Quote: Cannonball

It’s also written on the fence, but in reality it’s nevermind.

Everyone chooses his literature in proportion to his intellect.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Cannonball

And where are they, atomic engines?

In the archive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA

[Cannonball]

You do not palm off on me old projects. I’m talking about real-life TODAY atomic engines for spacecraft. There are none.
Although before there were nuclear installations, even flying into space - "Buk", "Topaz".

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Cannonball

Although before there were nuclear installations, even flying into space - Buk, Topaz

With what joy the Buk and Topaz steel reactors engines? Did they create traction?

[ilik54]

All this is not only yesterday, but the day before yesterday. Now, with the availability of new technologies, a different path should be taken in the field of space logistics and communication.
In this matter, it is necessary to radically change the conceptual constructive and compositional basis of a rocket with several stages. It is necessary to create an air launch platform (VSP) with a nuclear power plant (YaSU) - it can be a torus in the form of a torus, equipped with several turbojet engines, which will lift up to 60-100 km an orbital module-missile (OMR), it will be located inside the torus, and will start from this height without any steps. As an option, the VSP can be made like a torpedo-airship with saturation with hot air, which will be created by YaSU. Naturally, the VSP will meet OMR at an altitude of 60-100 km to return to the ground. VSP will be reusable, which will become much cheaper than disposable steps. VSP can be used, and as a combat air complex with the ability to watch on the borders of our "partners".

[nikvic46]

With the installation of YaSU we will break so much firewood. In case of an accident, will you go to clean the area? So half of Russia requires a good cleaning.

[ilik54]

And you do not make accidents. That hands grow from the wrong place, or is everything wrong with the head? Nuclear plants have not stopped building due to several accidents. And technologies are being improved, they cannot be stopped, which was a fairy tale yesterday - today is reality. Could we chat with you like this 10 years ago?
By the way, such projects and ideas already exist not only in thoughts and on paper, there are already real developments of such a system, however, so far, in the form of experimental samples, you can take an interest in the network, I already saw something similar.
In general, I believe that in a quarter of a century we will move by teleportation, have excellent health and immortality, and the issues of energy, nutrition, and what to wear on ourselves will be completely removed from the agenda. Humanity will not fly into space in such an ancient way, but will move throughout the Universe without any restrictions in time and space, everything goes to that.

[Snail N9]

Smoke the topic: "nuclear explosions in space" and "radiation belts formed after nuclear explosions in space" ... Nuclear engines ..... Then at the end of 2017, Russia tested, somewhere in its center or in Kazakhstan, nuclear weapons for a cruise missile, so a trail of isotopes reached Europe, where the universal howl rose ... If everything was so simple ....

[-Pollux]

Quote: Snail N9

the universal howl rose ...

Skripaley travanuli ... probably. He too howled. Are you sure that it has a foundation?

Quote: Snail N9

a train of isotopes reached Europe

You are aware that at one time thousands of nuclear explosions were carried out and no one noticed anything.

Quote: Snail N9

Smoke topic

so smoke the topic ...

[Oleg Tolstoy]

Quote: Cannonball

Well, how much can people hang noodles on their ears? Khrunichev’s center was almost killed already, in a state of agony, you won’t compete with anyone in creating anything.

Not killed, but optimized!

[Cannonball]

At what - in bulk.

[Photon]

Pancake! Well, you must have a conscience! Catch up with Buran !!! This is 600kg against 100t. And then only in dreams. Where are the real results? Who runs the space? Journalist, effective manager, and other accountants. And under peripheral capitalism it cannot be otherwise. What has our state achieved since the collapse of the USSR? Created 107 dollar billionaires! Hooray!!!

[Sergey ippon]

Without the USSR, nothing will work out, they will all steal and even not get a reprimand, but will go to the next increase.

[Forest]

Our astronauts are already preparing to fly in American ships, what is the competition with the USA? We have lost the space industry forever.

[Robert Korsunsky]

With this oligarchy, we will have nothing but projections! They can only steal people!

[Curious]

The author has shouldered the functions of a "visionary."
The trend is gaining momentum and growing, under the loud drumming of drums and the piercing sounds of horns, to advertise future achievements. Mulla Nasruddin with her focus on learning to teach donkeys to talk nervously smokes in Bukhara.
Whatever the day, plans are announced one grander than the other. “On the dusty paths of distant planets ....” One gets the impression that the thunder of the timpani and the cries of panfare are designed to drown out the creak of hacksaws.

[Hole puncher]

Well, why not, that's just no one even tries to discuss the concept of pH, it all comes down to how to perceive it as convulsions or convulsions

[Cannonball]

The concept of the launch vehicle is discussed exclusively by a group of experts with the admission.

[GEV67]

As always, at first everything was destroyed, and then they begin to collect in crumbs. Before you speak, you need to do and show. In the USSR, at first they did it, then they told ito not everything and not everyone. And so this is an ordinary tryndage and another dough cut.

[Cynic]

Everything is back to square one ...

[Strelets1]

Essentially the article.
In order for today's Russia to catch up with the Soviet "Buran", it is necessary to create launch vehicles similar to the characteristics of the Soviet LV of the superheavy class "Energy" i.e. the very SRK STK which is currently not even in the Federal Space Program of Russia for the period 2016-2025. He is mentioned in the RF Law "On Space Activities", but somewhere beyond the bounds of 2030 and later.
And a comparison of a complex of ultralight launch vehicles with a returnable first stage, launched from mobile launchers and designed to "launch payloads weighing up to 600 kilograms into a sun-synchronous orbit." with the Energia-Buran complex (withdrawal of payloads up to 100 tons at the IEO) - this, excuse me, is amateurism.

According to the American "icon of world space" - Ilon Mask, a separate conversation. Yes, a passionate guy, a dreamer and a desperate optimist, plus an excellent PR man and a good manager ...
But forgive me - to compare a lokach businessman who knows how to make the necessary acquaintances and manage the personnel and finances of a mid-level company (up to 5000 employees) does not mean to be a genius equal to the Queen, Chelomey, the same Werner von Braun ...

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Strelets1

But forgive me - to compare a lokach businessman who knows how to make the necessary acquaintances and manage the personnel and finances of a mid-level company (up to 5000 employees) does not mean to be a genius equal to the Queen, Chelomey, the same Werner von Braun ...

And why do you despise him? Is it everyday jealousy or an attempt to drown out the pain of looking at the Russian cosmonautics? I think the second.
Musk made a reusable rocket, that's a fact.
Musk made a heavy rocket at its base, which is also a fact.
Musk sentenced the car with ICE, another fact.
Musk returned to people an interest in space by launching a new space race, it is also impossible to deny.
What he does is called "Move progress forward" and it puts him on a par with both Korolev and V. f. Brown.

[Cannonball]

Musk did nothing himself, engineers, technicians, hard workers did everything. This is a real fact.

[voyaka uh]

Which Musk found, hired, inspired and explained what he wants from them.

[Cannonball]

You might think until Mask they were, unaware of what to do.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Cannonball

You might think until Mask they were, unaware of what to do.

You can go to the guards or trade shawarma. See Roscosmos.

[Cannonball]

People came to the Mask not "from the street", and not just "people", but qualified specialists. And it is worth a lot.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Cannonball

Musk did nothing himself, engineers, technicians, hard workers did everything.

This is true for everyone. Do you think Korolev did everything himself or Werner von Braun?

[Cannonball]

Korolev and von Braun had an appropriate engineering background, which Musk cannot boast of. So both Korolev and von Braun were designers, but Musk was not.

[prosto_rgb]

Quote: Cannonball

Korolev and von Braun had an appropriate engineering background, which Musk cannot boast of. So both Korolev and von Braun were designers, but Musk was not.

And who do you think Musk is?

[Golovan Jack]

Quote: prosto_rgb

And who do you think Musk is?

Showman

[prosto_rgb]

Quote: Golovan Jack

Quote: prosto_rgb

And who do you think Musk is?

Showman

come on
even Rogozin will not agree with you

[Golovan Jack]

Quote: prosto_rgb

even Rogozin will not agree with you

That's when I do not agree, then I may think about changing my (personal) opinion about the Mask.
In the meantime, except for the PR man and the manipulator, I do not see anything in it.
IMHO

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Golovan Jack

In the meantime, except for the PR man and the manipulator, I do not see anything in it.

[Cannonball]

Thank you for this Rogozin. He so wanted to be in charge of outer space, that he ruined everything for the sake of it.

[Cannonball]

Definitely - a man with an adventurous streak. Not, but not a genius. The person is clearly artificially replicated - the seller of air.

[prosto_rgb]

Quote: Cannonball

Musk did nothing himself, engineers, technicians, hard workers did everything. This is a real fact.

Just do not forget that in SpaceX Musk, among other things, there is also a "general designer" according to the USSR classification, because he could not find anyone for this position. I had to take it myself.

[Cannonball]

The position of "general designer" is exclusively administrative. He himself does not design anything, but only agrees or approves and answers to the higher authorities.

[Strelets1]

Quote: Puncher

And why do you despise him? Is it everyday jealousy or an attempt to drown out the pain of looking at the Russian cosmonautics? I think the second.

What makes you think that I despise I. Mask personally?
I despise the PR and fans' attempts to make an icon out of it (it seems to you that this is already a fact and Mask is listed as a “saint”) ....

Quote: Puncher

Musk made a reusable rocket, that's a fact.

The reusable space transportation system (STS) in the USA MADE LONG BEFORE THE MASK - if you do not know - it was called the "Space Shuttle" if you do not know ...
That's just with the STS ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY, the problem REMAINS UNSOLVED ...
MULTI-TIME PROVIDED EXTRAORDINLY EXPENSIVE - even for the United States - where money in which case is printed in USD TRILLIONS ...
Mask did not prove the main - economic efficiency of the reusable system on the basis of Falcons 9 (and in particular Falcon 9 Block5 - as the basic pH of this system).

Quote: Puncher

Musk made a heavy rocket at its base, which is also a fact.

So far, this "heavy" launch vehicle has only launched 1.5 tons into space and completed only 1 successful launch (which made Elon Musk ofigel himself) ...
When the declared weight of the PN is displayed, then we’ll talk about the heavy LV Mask ... and when will it do this even with the regularity of the ancient Chelomei Protons ...

Quote: Puncher

Musk returned to people an interest in space by launching a new space race, it is also impossible to deny.

I don’t want to dissuade you into this - they just put it on Mask, because he was “at the right time in the right place” ... well, to make it more clear - for example, there is Gagarin and there are Titov ... Korolev chose Gagarin ...

Regarding the current Russian cosmonautics and its condition ...
Yes, I’m personally offended as “bookkeepers” like ... I won’t give names, otherwise the post will be banned, the Russian cosmonautics will be ruined ...
All the two thousandths, even during the greasy oil years - the Federal Space Program of the Russian Federation is financed at the level “below the baseboard” - lower or equal to the level with the CP of India ...

And "advisers to the president" like the financier and economist Belousov, before muttering at symposia and in the press that Roscosmos Group of Companies with 40 thousand employees can’t make money does not even bother to READ THE LAW ON ROSKOSMOS Group of Companies where it is written in black and white that the Roskosmos Group of Companies is a NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION and the purpose of its operation IS NOT TO RECEIVE PROFIT ...
But for "effective managers" the icon is hung - "Elon Musk is our everything" ...

[prosto_rgb]

Quote: Strelets1

When it displays the declared weight of the PN, then we’ll talk about the heavy PH Mask ..

What year are you writing from? Talk lover ...
That's when their Falcon 1 will fly, then we'll talk. (March 24, 2006 / successful September 28, 2008)
That's when there will be customers, then we'll talk. (2005)
That's when there will be a contract with NASA, then we'll talk. (The first contract with NASA - COTS COTS - August 18, 2006)
That's when their Falcon 9 will fly, then we'll talk. (June 4, 2010)
That's when they build their ship, then we'll talk. (December 8, 2010)
That's when he reaches the ISS, then we'll talk. (The first Dragon flight to the ISS - May 22, 2012)
That's when the geostationary satellites will be launched, then we'll talk. (The first Falcon flight to the GPO - December 3, 2013)
That's when they come up with how to plant rockets, then we'll talk. (The first flight of the Falcon 9 "with legs and wings" - April 18, 2014.)
That's when they plant at least one, then we'll talk. (Successful landing of the first stage on LZ-1 - December 22, 2015)
That's when they put on a barge, then we'll talk. (Successful landing of the first stage on the offshore platform - April 8, 2016)
That's when they start planting after the launch at the GPO, then we'll talk. (Successful landing of the first stage on the offshore platform after the launch of JCSat-14 at the GPO - May 6, 2016)
That's when a used rocket flies, then we'll talk. (The first stage is reused for the first time. A successful launch and landing of the first stage on the offshore platform is March 30, 2017)
====== you are here =========
That's when they launch their Falcon Heavy, then we'll talk. (The first launch of Falcon Heavy - February 6, 2018)
That's when they make their Dragon 2, then we'll talk. (And he’s already done - all the stages of the CDR have been completed, the necessary Qualification Tests have been completed, and all Production Tests are already behind. The first test sample successfully flew off its Pad Abort Test - May 6, 2015)
That's when they start to carry people, then we'll talk.
That's when they launch the device to the moon, then we'll talk.
That's when we learn to land a ship without a parachute, then we'll talk.
That's when they launch Red Dragon, then we'll talk.
That's when he sits on Mars, then we'll talk.
That's when he makes his Martian transport, then we'll talk.
That's when people land on Mars, then we'll talk.
That's when he colonizes Mars, then we'll talk.
That's when Mars terraforms, then we'll talk.

[Snail N9]

Russia will not “catch up” with anything, alas .... people have changed ....

[Strelets1]

Quote: Strelets1

And why do you despise him? Is it everyday jealousy or an attempt to drown out the pain of looking at the Russian cosmonautics? I think the second.
Musk made a reusable rocket, that's a fact.

And after - read Ashley Vance - "Elon Musk: Tesla, Space-X and the Road to the Future" ... everything is described who generated ideas, who implemented in metal, where his legs grow from the rapid successes in creating, in particular, the Merlin engine. .., in particular, what Musk did on two trips to Russia (2001) before founding Space X (2002). And I can immediately unsubscribe to you the chronicle of the activities of Mask and Space x ... with finances and others ...
If interested of course ...

[voyaka uh]

There are thousands of such disclosure books. They expose Leonardo da Vinci, then Einstein,
then the queen. People who have not managed to implement a single project in life adore exposing the great people and their projects. And impotent writers who are not able to write a novel sculpt cheap books with a bang.

[Strelets1]

Quote: voyaka uh

There are thousands of such disclosure books. They expose Leonardo da Vinci, then Einstein,
then the queen. People who have not managed to implement a single project in life adore exposing the great people and their projects. And impotent writers who are not able to write a novel sculpt cheap books with a bang.

Here "I love" I like - "did not see, did not read - but I condemn" ...
This book was written by a friend of Mask, an American professional journalist who writes about modern technology in the United States ...
And before expressing your opinion about the author, you at least read something from his publications, books, etc.

And then here now they love to rattle everything on the Internet ...
Here you go too ...
Don't you know that Mask OFFICIALLY finances NASA? According to the COTS program in particular ...
And NASA, among other things, the US GOVERNMENT Agency, funded by the US State Budget ...
Next - The Mask OFFICIALLY finances the Pentagon, giving it the opportunity to LAUNCH MON MOSSHA (a government office financed from the state budget - if you are not in the "promised land" there ...)
More - more ... Both NASA and Moscow Region provide Mask with the ground-based infrastructure of their space centers and landfills (contained, incidentally, for budget money) ...
Even the governor of Texas provides the Mask of the discount for the fact that he creates new jobs in his staff ...
Yes, there’s a lot more that I can bring - but I can’t convince you - "Mask has a private company, where he is the sole owner and investor - all expenses are out of pocket ..." ... At least they would have looked in more detail, perhaps ...

And then today's opus (not your truth) - "all NASA patents are in the public domain ... except for ITAR" is another nonsense ... - NASA in May 2016 opened access to 56 of its patents for technology related with his activities ...
In 2017 and 2018, units of patents were added to open access ... and the range is from nanotubes to programming and design ...

Is that all NASA patents for the entire 21st century? (I'm not saying for "all activity").
That is why

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Strelets1

in particular, what Musk did on two trips to Russia (2001) before founding Space X (2002).

And they stole it from the Russians, it is necessary.

Quote: Strelets1

And I can immediately unsubscribe to you the chronicle of the activities of Mask and Space x ... with finances and others ...

Seriously? With finances? Do you have an insider?

Quote: Strelets1

Don't you know that Mask OFFICIALLY finances NASA? According to the COTS program in particular ...

The Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program, as the name implies, involves the creation of transports for the delivery of goods into orbit. The entire program is $ 500M, which is about one shuttle launch, half of the Ahmat Tower or 0,1 Hangars. Of this amount, SpaceX got $ 278M. For this money, Dragon and Falcon 9 were created. For the price of one Boeing 787 Dreamliner. IMHO, successfully invested.

Quote: Strelets1

Next - The Mask OFFICIALLY finances the Pentagon giving him the opportunity to LAUNCH MON MOSH

You won’t believe it, but if the US DOD needs to launch something into space, and it needs a lot of things, it can do it with its own Delta rocket for 400 million (it’s own, not Boeing’s), the Lokhidov Atlas for 200, or Falcon for 120. Again, if there are questions about money, then definitely not to SpaceX.

Quote: Strelets1

Both NASA and Moscow Region provide Mask with the ground-based infrastructure of their space centers and landfills (contained, incidentally, for budget money) ...

Why does this infrastructure exist? Not for space launches? Well, they kicked out the Mask from there, what should I do with it after that?

Quote: Strelets1

Even the governor of Texas provides a discount mask

This is a common practice in countries, oddly enough.

Quote: Strelets1

for the fact that he creates new jobs in his staff ...

Exactly.

Quote: Strelets1

Mask has a private company, where he is the sole owner and investor - all expenses from his own pocket

Exactly. It’s more correct to say that all risks are on SpaceX investors, and not on the budget. If Musk goes broke - the US budget will not lose a cent. Everything paid by SpaceX is paid for a specific work, which is done much cheaper than originally expected.

Quote: Strelets1

NASA in May 2016 opened access to 56 of its patents for technology related to its activities ...

You have strange ideas about patent law.

[Strelets1]

Quote: Strelets1

That is why

I didn’t finish it - that’s why I’m saying - before you make a fuss about “Our Mask is everything”, you first have to figure out where the truth is and achievements, and where is the person’s PR and advertising of a nonexistent product (which, as you know, is not always bona fide) ...
Regarding state financing, I’ll give you more details here tomorrow ...

[Blackmokona]

Do not forget to lay out how much before the mask received competitors for similar work

[Old26]

Quote: Cannonball

Tales do not need to be told. They laid only five cars. And the payload was for him. Take at least the "37th series" modules.

Which module do you mean? Those that were supposed to dock with DOS? So since 1985, work on them has been stopped and their backlogs have been used for other purposes, in particular to create a number of other products. What was used in the first Burana flight and planned for other flights was the 37KB module (additional instrumentation unit - BJP) and the subsequent ones, in particular 37KBI, they were really based on backlogs, but you must admit that the weight is 7,15 tons for Buran "somewhat not the load for which he was designed. He, this module was a functional part of Buran, although it seemed to be planned for the future for docking with DOS ...

Quote: arkadiyssk

But Buran was not a show? NU could not repeat the Shuttle. The Americans had the Shuttle and the ship and the main engines at once, and they only lost 2 boosters and a canister of fuel at launch. And the USSR was unable to create compact engines that would fit into Buran, and therefore there was just a glider similar to the Shuttle and a huge full-fledged rocket that was simply thrown after launch. As a result, a golden boat came out, the country could not pull.

He, "Buran" was not window dressing. He was not lucky to be “born” at sunset in the USSR. By the way, the Shuttle at the start did not lose boosters. They descended into the ocean by parachute, were delivered ashore and, after prevention and refueling, were reused. Only the central tank was lost. But there was a model in Buran’s history that was almost an exact copy of the Shuttle - the so-called OS-120. Only unlike the Shuttle, it had not 2 solid fuel boosters, but 4 liquid ones, as a result of Energia. There were also 3 mid-flight engines that were fed from a central tank that did not have engines. so the above opinion is that there were no engines that were not true. There was an option where it fit the same as on the Shuttle 3 engines

Quote: Cannonball

Saturn V itself is only a tool to achieve the main goal - flying to the moon. There was no goal, no Saturna. If it weren’t for the Moon, then Saturn V would not have been needed for anyone, and the USSR in astronautics still held the lead in most positions for a long time.

You are right about the tool. Like our N-1, the American Saturn-5 was only a tool. But regarding leadership. We can say that this concerned long-term orbital flights at stations. Deep space, we are just P.ro.Srali (sorry for my French). . As soon as the Americans launched their shuttle, we lost ground in such a direction as the number of astronauts. Research by the Moon’s guns went with varying success, although there were advances in the form of a Lunokhod and machine guns that delivered the soil. Mars was a failure for us. Things were more or less well with Venus.

Quote: Cannonball

Korolev and von Braun had an appropriate engineering background, which Musk cannot boast of. So both Korolev and von Braun were designers, but Musk was not.

Comrad. At the present time, you can be a good administrator, having established business. And there are constructors. I once had a chance to talk on the topic of Sergey Pavlovich with those who knew him. And you know what is interesting. To say that he was a brilliant designer - is impossible (from their words). But he had a phenomenal ability to understand what others were offering him and was at the same time GREAT IF NOT TO SAY TO THE GREAT ADMINISTRATOR. It was him, as the administrator, who managed to put everything together. Rockets, dvigatelistov, instrumentation and do what without him hardly anyone could do. Although, to be honest, both the R-7 scheme and the H-1 scheme are not his ... But he somehow understood the “bestial” instinct that it was necessary to do so ...
So is Musk. If he has the ability to admin, there will be a constructor.

Quote: Strelets1

I despise PR

Change, Konstantin, but PR is our everything. Our Roskosmos is being promoted no less. Read the statements of the leaders of this department. Everything that Roscosmos starts to do - DOES NOT HAVE ANALOGUES IN THE WORLD. Some leaders, in turn, were sore about the trampoline. But only who will need the trampoline as a result - for some reason they are silent. But PR - you don’t sell it - you won’t sell it. In this case, he sells his services by biting off what a bold piece, including and from us. This year, the number of rockets launched at the end of the year will be equal to the launch of such a space power as Russia. The remaining launches of other missiles in the United States do not even count. So is it PR or not. Maybe he has "Twists." like launching into an orbit of a car, but essentially ...

[Strelets1]

[quote = Cherry Nine] And it was stolen from the Russians, it is necessary [/ quote]

No, of course - Musk and Griffin (NASA's future director - since 2004 ... at the time of adoption of the COTS program at the state level as such) went to Russian conversion workers, as well as to Khimki, NPO Lavochkin and Energomash - drink vodka (Californian viskar tired of seeing) ...
I liked vodka in 2001, we went again - in 2002 ...
And then ... bam - and by 2006 - Falcon -1 is ready ... Heh-heh ... Like that ... In February 2002 - vodka in Moscow, in June 2002 - Boeing's hangar suburb of Los Angeles, and in March 2004 - a brand new launch vehicle ready for launch ... on about. Omelek, at. Kwajalein, Marshall Islands, Pacific ...
"... burn, burn - Tatar arrows are flying, bang-bang - Cossack homemade fires are burning ... What colors, what dynamics ... (c) A. Raikin" ...
Something similar in the idyll of the Mask ...
[quote = Cherry Nine] Really? With finances? Do you have an insider? [/ Quote]
Why do insiders - all absolutely from open American sources - from numbers right through to quotations from Mask ...
For you and tovarischa from Israel (citizens of the world?) - I will give you a separate post on government funding ... [quote = Cherry Nine] The Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program, as you might guess from the name, involves the creation of transports for the delivery of goods into orbit. The entire program is $ 500M, which is approximately one Shuttle launch, half the Akhmat Tower or 0,1 Hangars. SpaceX got $ 278M from this amount. [/ Quote]
The answer is incorrect - 288 million USD went to Orbital Science Corp. (this is the company where Griffin worked before being appointed to the post of NASA director and adopting the COTS program), Space-X received 396 million USD (this is the company of Musk, a friend of Griffin, to whom Griffin interpreted his ideas, and whom he promoted in Los Angeles and not just before the foundation of Space-X ... Yes, he still drove the Mask to Russia ... to drink vodka)
[quote = Cherry Nine] Quote: Strelets1
You won’t believe it, but if the US DOD needs to launch something into space, and it needs a lot of things, it can do it with its own Delta rocket for 400 million (it’s own, not Boeing’s), the Lokhidov Atlas for 200, or Falcon for 120. Again, if there are questions about money, then definitely not to SpaceX. [/ Quote]

And there are no questions about Space X — this is a question for you — payment for the implementation of PUBLIC PROGRAMS FROM THE STATE BUDGET — Is it STATE FINANCE or not?

Quote: Strelets1
Both NASA and Moscow Region provide Mask with the ground-based infrastructure of their space centers and landfills (contained, incidentally, for budget money) ...
Why does this infrastructure exist? Not for space launches? [/ Quote]
This infrastructure, amiable, is contained again - FOR BUDGET MONEY ...
Presentation of its PRIVATE COMMERCIAL FIRM - there is GOSFINANCING MASK PARTICIPANT, if you do not understand ...

[quote = Cherry Nine] It would be more correct to say that all the risks are on the SpaceX investors, not on the budget. If Musk goes broke, the American budget will not lose a cent. [/ Quote]

Judging by this maxim, you have no idea about the conclusion of contracts in general and about the contractual obligations of the executors to withdraw PN in particular ... As well as about losses in case of non-fulfillment of the contract and the procedure for their compensation ...

[quote = Cherry Nine] You have strange ideas about patent law. [/ quote]

Well, in your style, you have strange ideas about NASA’s copyrights, intellectual property and openness in technology ...

[Strelets1]

Quote: Strelets1

Regarding state financing, I’ll give you more details here tomorrow ...

For Warriors and Cherry Nine

Regarding the alleged "complete lack of state financing of the private company Space-X I. Mask."


Here are the facts:

2002 - foundation of Space X
The end of 2005 - the beginning of 2006 - the number of employees - 150 - 200 people.
March 24, 2006 - the first launch of Falcon-1 - though unsuccessful, an accident on the launch vehicle.
But that is not the point.

Those. - for 4 years, one and a half hundred and a few people from scratch in the former Boeing hangar designed, constructed, produced all the necessary components, conducted ground-based fire tests of engines and prepared for launching a modern LV ...
Yes, and they even abandoned it for testing together with a team of engineers, testers and hard-working assemblers - but not somewhere but for 8 thousand versts (sorry, nautical miles) - on the Marshall Islands (at. Kvadzheleyn, about. Omelek , Ronald Reagan Missile Defense Range - former PKK)
However ... the entire previous world history of the development of astronautics, the development and creation of spacecraft in particular, is resting ...

Hehe ... It’s impressive, it’s painfully quick, and it clearly looks like a bluff or a trivial falsification given x in open sources of information ... Again, if you believe the friend-biographer Mask Vens - he studied Russian rocket science textbooks back in 2001
Well and further ...
In August 2006, the company became one of the winners in the competition of the NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program and received a total funding of $ 396 million for the development and demonstration of Falcon launch vehicles and a truck to deliver cargo to the ISS, at the IEO.
(Heh heh ... and this despite the unsuccessful launch and the accident at the first and only at the time of the launch contest) ...
The COTS contract was divided into 40 stages, each of which was paid separately. Its implementation lasted until the end of 2012.

Further - even more interesting - in general, the apotheosis ...
In parallel with COTS payments (since 2006), in 2007 long-term contracts were signed with Mask for launching NASA and US Air Force missions totaling $ 5.5 billion.
Not sickly, right? The truth is incomprehensible - where did the US federal agencies get such agility,
because at this time .. hehe ...
March 21, 2007 - the second launch of Falcon-1 - unsuccessful, accident
August 3, 2008 - the third launch of Falcon -1 - unsuccessful, an accident to the launch vehicle, two NASA satellites and one US Air Force satellites were destroyed (i.e., despite the complete unavailability of the carrier by the end of 2008, Space X has been funded by NASA since 2007 and the Pentagon - that is, two US federal agencies).
Well, in conclusion.
For test and commercial launches of the Falcon launch vehicle, launch complexes were provided at state space centers and US training sites: - NASA - Space Center named after Kennedy, launch complexes No. 39 and 40, the United States Department of Defense - launch complexes at the United States Missile Range at at. Kvadzheleyn and Ab Vandenberg, as well as a bunch of related polygon technical equipment - radio engineering and radar tools for external trajectory measurements, telemetry, film-photo theodolites, etc. etc., which are maintained solely by the U.S. State Budget.

Yes, and deliver from California to Kwajalein and mount on the PU on about. Omelek and Roy-Namur of the Falcon type are also not a couple of rubles worth ...

Do you still need facts about state financing of the Space-X E. Mask company and “private space exploration” in the USA as a whole?

I could still continue ... but is it worth it to prove the obvious?

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Strelets1

I could still continue ...

Not worth it. It is worth learning the terms.
1. What is public finance? According to your scheme, the US government, having provided the Mask with a free highway to carry its missiles, and even allowing them to sometimes be blocked, it financed in this way. This scheme is not quite true.
2. Public finance involves financing. It is foolish to declare financial statements of intent that were made prior to the appearance and certification of Falcon 9. Unless, of course, you claim that the Mask paid these 5 yards in advance.
3. Absolutely aerobatics. Perhaps someday you will know the difference between the Cost + scheme, according to which Boeing makes SLS for 20 billion, and the tender schemes, according to which SpaceX works.

[-Pollux]

Quote: Cherry Nine

1. What is public finance? According to your scheme, the US government, having provided the Mask with a free highway to carry its missiles, and even allowing them to sometimes be blocked, it financed in this way. This scheme is not quite true.

I did not expect such a deception from you. The spaceport is not a public road built for everyone. Why lie so impudently?

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Pollux

Why lie so impudently?

Select expression.

Quote: Pollux

Cosmodrome is not a public road,

In this case, we are talking about a concrete tray, built 50 years ago, and a military radar. If Mask escapes with money tomorrow, neither the tray, nor the military radar will change their expenses.
It would be strange for NASA to launch private traders in orbital delivery and not to warn the watchman at the cosmodrome so that they would not be kicked out with the tourists.
Neither NASA's contractors, nor non-contractors (Bezos), nor completely left-handed comrades (Stratolanch, Virgin) are worried about the question "will we be allowed to launch?"

[-Pollux]

Quote: Cherry Nine

If Mask escapes with money tomorrow, neither the tray, nor the military radar will change their expenses.

Nevertheless, Musk did not build this tray with related equipment (by the way very expensive), which means its price is not invested in the cost of launches.

Quote: Cherry Nine

In this case, we are talking about a concrete tray built 50 years ago

Not so simple this "tray"

Quote: Cherry Nine

Select expression.

So do not hang noodles and you will have pleasant expressions, observe politeness, do not hold others for fools.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Pollux

Not so simple this "tray"

I know. Nevertheless, the SLC-40 began operating in 1965, the LC-39A in the 67th, the SLC-4 in the 63rd. Musk was born in 71st. If he hadn’t been born, they would have stood on conservation, overgrown with bushes on the sly. Like the Gagarin launch, for example.

Quote: Pollux

Here do not hang noodles

A person who does not see the difference between a lie and an interpretation should be careful when cornering.

Quote: Cherry Nine

According to your scheme, the US government, providing the Mask for free highway

This is an interpretation of the “Strelets1 scheme” about access to infrastructure as a way of financing. Possibly polemical.

Quote: Pollux

Nevertheless, Musk did not build this tray with related equipment (by the way very expensive)

But this could pass for "arrogant lies", but for now let's call it ignorance. Prior to Mask, these sites were used to launch the Shuttle (TT / hydrogen, 39th) and Titan-4 (TT / UDMH, 40th and 4th). It is not too difficult to guess that there is not much equipment needed for the oxygen-kerosene Falcon. That is, Uncle Sam built the road in the 60s, conducted electricity, water, sewage, made a gas outlet. The rest (erector, service towers, refueling equipment, electronics, etc.) is new from SpaceX.

[-Pollux]

Quote: Cherry Nine

It is not too difficult to guess that there is not much equipment needed for the oxygen-kerosene Falcon.

But there is not only a "tray", technologies that Musk did not develop, tests that Musk did not carry out - huge funds. He took ready-made, repeatedly tested units, piled "their" rocket from them ...

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Pollux

He took ready-made, repeatedly tested units, piled "their" rocket from them ...

You are absolutely right. Samara engines were dug up in the backyard, which they brought to mind in the 70s, and in the 90s they sold the Aerojet, they put the second stage from Piskiper ICBMs, ready, cheap and cheerful.
Only this is Antares, not Falcon. In Falcon, the new is more or less everything. Merlin is the first serial American oxygen-kerosene liquid propellant rocket engine after the RS-27A of the 89th year (Delta-2), if I do not confuse anything. Unusual design of the rocket (in RuNet they liked to make fun of "pasta" at one time), SU on commercial components, yes, take it. Proven solutions, yes. Especially not tested.

[-Pollux]

Quote: Cherry Nine

SU on commercial components, no matter what. Proven solutions, yes. Especially not tested.

As businessman Musk, well done, you have to give him his due, but ... another chemical rocket, you can't fly to other planets on it.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Pollux

you cannot fly to other planets on it.

[Strelets1]

Quote: BlackMokona

how much did Mask get competitors for similar work

Before Mask - the Earth was flat and stood on three elephants ... which, in turn, were based on a sea platform in the form of a turtle ...
But Musk came - and enlightened everyone ... practically for nothing ... the turtle can be used as a landing platform ... and the Earth is not at all flat ...

[Strelets1]

Quote: Old26

Change, Konstantin, but PR is our everything. Our Roskosmos is being promoted no less. Read the statements of the leaders of this department. Everything that Roscosmos starts to do - DOES NOT HAVE ANALOGUES IN THE WORLD.

What can I say - we quickly learned how to PR, because we rolled up our sleeves to build ... hehe ... developed capitalism ...
Here are just the ability to study problems, to outline goals and ways to solve them from the Americans do not learn ...
PR and bluffing are easier than working ...
Regarding DOESN'T HAVE ANALOGUES IN THE WORLD - it’s not only Roscosmos ... this slogan of "effective managers" has already reached out - wherever you turn everything - DOES NOT HAVE ANALOGUES ...
This empty bragging and disgusts me - both with Mask and with us ... and in Roskosmos including ...

PR Mask with Tesla - on the one hand - pure water advertising gimmick, and on the other - a pure cold-blooded calculation of a businessman ...
Why load a full PN - even more likely that Heavy will not take off - Musk already doubted his success and rated the first start as 70-by 30, then - wifi-wifi ...
He didn’t take the steps at all for reusability tests at Heavy - he just cleaned up the “old trash” systematically - he reused the steps with the old Merlin modifications to get clean on the steps with the latest engine versions in the F9-Block5 variant - which he calculated will have tenfold resource ...
So even if Heavy had gone to bed, the damage would have been minimal ...

Regarding trampolines - here I understand Rogozin - they got it with their sanctions and constant tricks, either from the US Congress, or among their own liberals, such as the "wise guy" Belousov ...

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Strelets1

Why ship full PN - even more likely that Heavy will not take off

To show the performance of a rocket, you need to take either more weight, or disperse it harder. The second option was chosen.

Quote: Strelets1

PR Mask with Tesla - on the one hand - pure water publicity stunt

Musk, unlike most officials, understands the meaning of the word "cool."

Quote: Strelets1

About trampolines - here I understand Rogozin

And here the liberals are to blame, everywhere they have time!

[Strelets1]

Quote: Old26

But only who will need the trampoline as a result - for some reason they are silent.

I have no doubt that in the USA they will create a manned spacecraft of a new generation and a carrier for it ahead of our “Federation” ...
I just don’t like comparisons stupidly - like “The hangar was done for twenty years” ... and how many SLS do, what engines are used there and what year are they developed? And how much money was spent on SLS and the entire line of Angara air defense complex
When did Orion, SLS begin, and when did Federation and Soyuz 5 ... and how are these programs funded?
About Rogozin - the benevolence comes to naught "zhurnalyuga, corruptionist, snickering" ... and look at the funding of Roscosmos - if there are a lot of expenses for the manned program - financing of the entire space crew - below the baseboard, like the space program of India, where there is no mention of manned space ... Moreover, this minuscule is always sequestered - it’s not Rogozin who steers money - there’s a whole bunch of “effective ones” - from Nabiullina with the Higher School of Economics and the IMF to fortune-tellers-Oreshkin and apologists for the “free market” like Kudrin-Gref ... ” joined them "Siluyanov ...
Bezos, with his billion USD, is tormented by methane BE-4 and so far cannot boast of success ...
Ours are ready to make a 200-ton methane-oxygen even now ... but ... there is no "team", "no money" ... everything is as always ...
And then it starts again ... "Rogozin is to blame for everything" ...
Rogozin is poorly poor - he built the Vostochny first stage -Unions fly, the light Angara also, in July it will start the second - near the Angara ... a universal complex for the entire line - production in Omsk is just around the corner ...
Again, the debts to Boeing were returned by the same “Russian carts”, taking the Americans for the debts on the Sea Launch, redeeming the share of the Boeing ... Now here are the businesses from S7 who were attached to fly for MS and NS ...

[Old26]

Quote: Strelets1

I have no doubt that in the USA they will create a manned spacecraft of a new generation and a carrier for it ahead of our “Federation” ....

Me too.

Quote: Strelets1

I just don’t like comparisons stupidly - like “The hangar was done for twenty years” ... and how many SLS do, what engines are used there and what year are they developed? And how much money was spent on SLS and the entire line of Angara air defense complex

Alas, Konstantin, but it is customary for us to compare the incomparable. As for the deadlines - yes, the Angara was started in 1998 and in 2012 it was spent in the region of 160 billion rubles, or 5,33 billion dollars at the then exchange rate. Although not everything is clear here. According to other sources, in 2013, 100 billion rubles were spent, in 2015 - 160, and in 2018 Koptev said that 110 billion was spent. I am still inclined to the first figure, as it was repeatedly said - for 2012, 160 billion rubles.
The financial costs of the program almost do not appear in the open press, but the fact that the Flight software was upgraded at the first stage 6, and at the second stage 10 billion rubles. Data for the third stage is unknown. That is, roughly speaking, 16 billion rubles or $ 0,533 billion have already been spent. And this is at the rate of 30 rubles per dollar. It is possible that the second stage has already passed at a rate of 60 rubles per dollar.
The cost of building a universal table on the 35th site of Plesetsk is practically unknown, and how much a similar platform on the East will cost - only God knows ....

Work on SLS was launched in 2011. It is known that the costs for the carrier itself were planned in the amount of $ 2017 billion until 10 (actually 11 billion 877 million). Another 7,18 billion is planned to be invested in 2017-2020 (this is the development of a 130-ton version).

Orion, now created in the MPCV version, spent $ 2011 billion on it from 2017 to 6. How much is spent on the ship, which is now called the "Federation" - is unknown. Although the time of the start of development is about 2006. During this time, the design scheme has changed several times and the ship in 2017 does not look like a ship in 2009.

Quote: Strelets1

When did Orion, SLS begin to do, and when did Federation and Soyuz 5 ... and how are these programs funded ?.

This is easiest to answer. "Orion" in the CEV version began to be developed in 2004, in the version of the multi-purpose MPCV taken as the basis - in 2011. And EMNIP in 2014 he already had an unmanned experimental launch. Our ship, which is now called the "Federation" began to be developed around 2006, maybe in 2007-2008, it is necessary to clarify.
SLS began to be developed in 2011, Soyuz-5 was announced at a maximum in 2017.

Quote: Strelets1

About Rogozin - the benevolence comes to naught "zhurnalyuga, corruptionist, snickering" ... and look at the funding of Roscosmos - if there are a lot of expenses for the manned program - financing of the entire space crew - below the baseboard, like the space program of India, where there is no mention of manned space ... Moreover, this minuscule is always sequestered - it’s not Rogozin who steers money - there’s a whole bunch of “effective ones” - from Nabiullina with the Higher School of Economics and the IMF to fortune-tellers-Oreshkin and apologists for the “free market” like Kudrin-Gref ... ” joined them "Siluyanov ...

Here I agree with you. Rogozin in the blogosphere "was appointed" a sort of "scapegoat." In some cases, he is most likely to blame. He became too public a person and sometimes said things that speak out loud and would not be worth it. One trampoline is worth it. Or offers not to sell engines that have already been paid to the Americans. And at the same time, a "mess" at the Vostochny spaceport, theft, delays on schedule.
Yes, you’re right, it’s not he who manages the money and having financing 10-20 times less than that of the USA, we sometimes start IMHO to spray on projects. who could wait. And his "commemoration" in the blogosphere is sometimes due to the fact that as a deputy prime minister in charge of this industry, he did not take measures to insist on his own and not allow cutting an already meager budget. And now, having become the head of Roscosmos, he will become a target and all dogs will be hanged on him for any miscalculation in the FCS, even he is not to blame here

Quote: Strelets1

Bezos, with his billion USD, is tormented by methane BE-4 and so far cannot boast of success ...

Torturing, creating it since 2011. Currently, in March he achieved a thrust of 65% within 114 seconds. In May - already 70%. The industry is new, no one has made methane engines of such thrust.

Quote: Strelets1

Ours are ready to make a 200-ton methane-oxygen even now ... but ... there is no "team", "no money" ... everything is as always ... And then it starts again ... "Rogozin is to blame." ...

Maybe ready. Although talk about our methane engine has been going on for almost 10-15 years, it’s still there. Although surely there could be some kind of engines, albeit not immediately, but it was necessary to start doing, and not talking. The statement that they are “ready at least for now” smacks of populism. Most likely there are problems with the engine, and until work has begun, talking when you are ready to do it, now or after 5-10 years is somewhat irresponsible. And he will be to blame. For over the years, being vice-premier, he talked a lot, but he didn’t succeed in “punching” something

Quote: Strelets1

Rogozin is poorly poor - he built the Vostochny first stage -Unions fly, the light Angara also, in July it will start the second - near the Angara ... a universal complex for the entire line - production in Omsk is just around the corner ...

To start is good. But it seems that problems are being drawn with the “Angora” itself. As far as I heard option A-5P (manned) either closed or it is on the verge of closing. And then it makes sense to invest huge amounts of money into launch construction, when what it was planned for for manned flights is generally in question

[Strelets1]

Quote: Old26

Alas, Konstantin, but it is customary for us to compare the incomparable.

That's for sure - I agree 100%. And in the blogosphere, and the "expert environment", and in government cabbage ...

Quote: Old26

As for the deadlines - yes, the Angara began to be made in 1998.

Well, if we take the whole history of the STC of the Moscow Region and the Ministry of Environment for the development of a universal CRC, it took place in 1992, where the requirements for the complex were formulated, and in 1994 a competition was held for the selection of project proposals from three leading companies - Energia, Khrunichev and Makeev. ..Those. from 1992 to 1994, preliminary studies were already carried out ... and from 1995 financing of the Khrunichev project began, which in 1994 won the competition (Russia-M - RKK Energia lost) ... Several co-contractors for the project were identified - head - Khrunichev ...
But internecine squabbles and, frankly speaking, the greed of the Khrunic leaders won - in 1997 all decisions of 1995, together with the development option, work schedule, timing and amount of funding, were sucked and a radically new version of the CRC construction was adopted again proposed by Khrunichev and pushed through by the Government Y. Koptev - at that time the head of the RCA ... RSC Energia and GRT Makeev were excluded from the co-executives ...
Here you have the payoff - in five lost years and money spent (how much - no one will calculate now) ...
Well, then ... not much better ... that's why we have it today - Khrunichev has a broken trough, with debts of 100 billion rubles. ... and the half-done Angara missile complex ... with not very clear prospects for improvements and use ...
But the second phase of the infrastructure for the heavy Angara in the East (more precisely, the universal complex for all its modifications) will begin to be built in July 2018.

[Cannonball]

Where did you get about greed?
And why should Khrunichev worry about the financial well-being of the same Energia, if the same Energia wanted to financially fuck Khrunichev, being a monopoly on the acceleration blocks for Protons?
Why is the Angara half-finished? On the contrary, several options have been made, the production of which was hindered by the prolonged lack of funding, infrastructure and PN.
Not knowing the fullness of the history of the “Angara,” judging it by inventions from online forums is not the smartest idea.

[Strelets1]

Quote: Old26

This is easiest to answer. "Orion" in the CEV version began to be developed in 2004, in the version of the multi-purpose MPCV taken as the basis - in 2011. And EMNIP in 2014 he already had an unmanned experimental launch. Our ship, which is now called the "Federation" began to be developed around 2006, maybe in 2007-2008, it is necessary to clarify.
SLS began to be developed in 2011, Soyuz-5 was announced at a maximum in 2017.

Well, if you take the whole ins and outs - then ORION and super-heavy for it in the USA began to be developed in 2004 as part of the Constellation program - only super-fumes were then called Aries - 5. But the essence doesn’t change - the same modifications of the Shuttle oxygen-hydrogen engines RS-25 and, in general, old rocketday J-2 ...
The same thing on SLS ... one to one ... Only the sign is different ...
According to the Federation, the competition was held in 2009, so the sketches began to be made in 2007-2008. - not earlier...
Well and further - the service module of the "American" Orion completely does ESA (more precisely, in the cooperation of 11 Western European countries working on Airbus Space, which in turn in the 90s worked closely with RCA and RKK Energia to create the European ATV truck .. .
And then in the blogosphere they will tryndet that "the Russians tore the Federation from Orion" ...

[Old26]

Quote: Strelets1

Well, if we take the whole history of the STC of the Moscow Region and the Ministry of Environment for the development of a universal CRC, it took place in 1992, where the requirements for the complex were formulated, and in 1994 a competition was held for the selection of project proposals from three leading companies - Energia, Khrunichev and Makeev. ..Those. from 1992 to 1994, preliminary studies were already carried out ... and from 1995 financing of the Khrunichev project began, which in 1994 won the competition (Russia-M - RKK Energia lost) ... Several co-contractors for the project were identified - head - Khrunichev

I pointed out 1996 due to the fact that the concept of the carrier itself was then changed and, in principle, the option that is now was launched in 1998.

Quote: Strelets1

But internecine squabbles and, frankly speaking, the greed of the Khrunic leaders won - in 1997 all decisions of 1995, together with the development option, work schedule, timing and amount of funding, were sucked and a radically new version of the CRC construction was adopted again proposed by Khrunichev and pushed through by the Government Y. Koptev - at that time the head of the RCA ... RSC Energia and GRT Makeev were excluded from the co-executives ...
Here you have the payoff - in five lost years and money spent (how much - no one will calculate now) ...
Well, then ... not much better ... that's why we have it today - Khrunichev has a broken trough, with debts of 100 billion rubles. ... and the half-done Angara missile complex ... with not very clear prospects for improvements and use ...

I don’t know whether greed or not, but to a greater extent KVM there was lobbying for the interests of Angara and ZiH correspondingly on the part of the same Popovkin, who, as head of Roscosmos, had already stopped developing an alternative project Rus-M with higher characteristics

Quote: Strelets1

But the second phase of the infrastructure for the heavy Angara in the East (more precisely, the universal complex for all its modifications) will begin to be built in July 2018.

Yes, they will. And according to the initial plans, the launch of the unmanned “Angara” was planned, if my sclerosis doesn’t change me at all for 2015, or for 2017. And I am surprised by a somewhat unusual attitude towards the same starts. Experience, quite rich, has shown that anything can happen on the launch pad. At one time, the explosive launch vehicle of the Soyuz on the launch pad disabled the "Gagarin launch". And only the presence of a “double” at 31 sites allowed us not to minimize the manned program. Now on the eastern start 1C (for the "Union") and 1A (for the Angara) is done in one copy. What will happen if something happens on the table? The spaceport will be out of work ...

Quote: Cannonball

Why is the Angara half-finished? On the contrary, several options have been made, the production of which was hindered by the prolonged lack of funding, infrastructure and PN.

Well, about the fact that the “Angara” “half-done” Konstantin got excited. But the fact that a fairly wide planned line of these carriers (at different stages) shrank to 2 - “Angara 1.2” and “Angara A-5” - a fact. Moreover, as far as I heard even the manned version of the "Angara" - "Angara A-5P" it was decided to multiply by zero

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Old26

Well, about the fact that the "Angara" "half done" Konstantin got excited

If we take the 3/7 principle, then the Angara is still in trials.

[Cannonball]

Everything rests on money and demand. Khrunichev made a proposal for a wide range of carriers. Two types were in demand; for the rest, practical work was not carried out for this reason. The exception is Angara-1.1, but there was no demand for it either.

[Tarasios]

all this is good, but how do you think about the environmental damage and the same ozone layer caused by all these numerous missiles ...

[Cannonball]

Cherry nine, You reason from the height of today's knowledge. In the 60s and 70s, the most prestigious were manned astronautics and interplanetary flights. Nothing was known about the military space from the word at all. There was practically no commerce either, we have 100%. Telecommunications, meteorology and remote sensing are in their infancy.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Cannonball

In the 60s and 70s, the most prestigious were manned astronautics and interplanetary flights.

Kamanin agrees with you, Chertok is not quite. However, precisely in manned, interplanetary, and especially manned interplanetary flights, the question of leadership by the end of the 60s did not arise.

Quote: Cannonball

Nothing was known about the military space from the word at all.

The number of launches of military satellites is known. In particular, the same Kamanin writes a lot about this.

Quote: Cannonball

There was practically no commerce either, we have 100%

That's why I screwed up the strange word "national economic"

Quote: Cannonball

Telecommunications, meteorology and remote sensing are in their infancy.

Seriously?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIROS-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_(satellite)

[Cannonball]

Quote: Strelets1

the whole history of the STC of the Moscow Region and the Ministry of the Environment for the development of a universal air defense system

Minsredmash has nothing to do with it. Minsredmash was engaged in the atom, not space. Space was occupied by the General Ministry.

[KKND]

Listen, guys, I certainly understand that the "writing" whose missiles are "longer", American and Russian, is certainly sacred, but the issues of rocket science were outlined by Meshchersky and Tsiolkovsky and they have long been exhausted!
The whole question is who will be able to launch future commercial cargoes as cheaply as possible and whether there will be demand.
And this can be solved by returning as many steps as possible and preferably without "busting" on Earth and using cheap types of fuels.
And the fact that Musk is a private businessman, tell the tales to the children. Behind him with a probability of 99% is the financial elite of the United States. Most likely, she gave him this "quest", as well as with the "electric car". And don’t say that, but Mask and his secret "proteges" have chances for success.

[Strelets1]

Quote: Old26

Quote: Strelets1
Bezos, with his billion USD, is tormented by methane BE-4 and so far cannot boast of success ...
Torturing, creating it since 2011. Currently, in March he achieved a thrust of 65% within 114 seconds. In May - already 70%. The industry is new, no one has made methane engines of such thrust.

There was no demand from the rocketers - they didn’t. They did what they requested ... Actually, they have been engaged in methane engines for quite some time - and here ("EnergoMash - started in the USSR - in 1981, then naturally abandoned it), and in the USA, and in Europe (and, as always , not without Russian help - in the form of "voluntary donations of developments and technologies" for ridiculous money - the Ural, Volga projects, etc.). Now - the old workings have been taken on a new material science and technology basis from Voronezh (KBHA) made a commercial offer and TTZ for an engine demonstrator with a thrust of 85 tons, EnergoMASH finished conceptually design and calculations on the feasibility study for launch vehicles with a load capacity of 6-8 tons at the NOO - his forecast for the withdrawal of payloads of this class 160-180 until 2022 (commercial) - by this time we are ready to present the finished methane single chamber in metal with a thrust of about 200 tons ( BE-4 has approximately the same - about 240-250 tons). Isaevites (KBKhM) have their respective achievements - their methane demonstrator was successfully tested back in 2011 - when Blue Orient began to develop BE-4.

[Strelets1]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Not worth it. It is worth learning the terms.
1. What is public finance? According to your scheme, the US government, having provided the Mask with a free highway to carry its missiles, and even allowing them to sometimes be blocked, it financed in this way. This scheme is not quite true.

Hehe ... No need to "sculpt the gobat," as they say ...
The mask was provided for use by the INFRASTRUCTURE OF US STATE SPACE DIVISIONS LOCATED BY THE FEDERAL OFFICES OF THE USA - NASA and DOD, serviced by the personnel of these departments, whose expenses for THIS INFRASTRUCTURE WILL BE FINANCED FROM THE STATE ...
And do not confuse public infrastructure (roads in your example) with SPECIFIC (and quite expensive to operate) INFRASTRUCTURE SPECIAL PURPOSE ...
As the classics used to say, “do not confuse your own wool with the state ... (s) ...

Quote: Cherry Nine

Public finance involves financing. It is foolish to declare financial statements of intent that were made prior to the appearance and certification of Falcon 9. Unless, of course, you claim that the Mask paid these 5 yards in advance.

You are generally aware of such terms as "project advance", "conclusion of contracts" (including start-up services), "prepayment" ...
You generally know that not a single serious office, especially a private one in the West (and especially in the USA) will not start working on a LOAN contract ...
Therefore, there is no need to breed a la la and build hints about the "memoranda of intent" ... between NASA, DOD and Space X.
Look at the COTS - there for each event (almost the “nut-tightening phase No. 17”) - a separate line is paid out to the Mask (sorry, Space-x of course) ... hehe ... read the originals, as they say. ..

Quote: Cherry Nine

Quote: Strelets1

I could still continue ...

Not worth it. It is worth learning the terms.
1. What is public finance? According to your scheme, the US government, having provided the Mask with a free highway to carry its missiles, and even allowing them to sometimes be blocked, it financed in this way. This scheme is not quite true.
2. Public finance involves financing. It is foolish to declare financial statements of intent that were made prior to the appearance and certification of Falcon 9. Unless, of course, you claim that the Mask paid these 5 yards in advance.
3. Absolutely aerobatics. Perhaps someday you will know the difference between the Cost + scheme, according to which Boeing makes SLS for 20 billion, and the tender schemes, according to which SpaceX works.

This is for sure - absolutely aerobatics - you are not corny that in the USA, and NASA in particular, all the projects funded from the state budget are carried out on a competitive basis? Or again "sculpt a hunchback" by weaving "Cost + ...?

[Strelets1]

Quote: Cherry Nine

In this case, we are talking about a concrete tray, built 50 years ago, and a military radar. If Mask escapes with money tomorrow, neither the tray, nor the military radar will change their expenses.
It would be strange for NASA to launch private traders in orbital delivery and not to warn the watchman at the cosmodrome so that they would not be kicked out with the tourists.
Neither NASA's contractors, nor non-contractors (Bezos), nor completely left-handed comrades (Stratolanch, Virgin) are worried about the question "will we be allowed to launch?"

Hehe... and where do you get the information for such categorical and self-confident statements?

I feel it’s time to move on to quoting - you and Kamanin were practicing the other day, and I’ll quote Vance and Musk to you:
“...Launching rockets from Vandenberg would be very convenient for Space-X. This place is located near Los Angeles and has several launch pads. But the company turned out to be an uninvited guest there. The Air Force was not welcoming to the new arrivals, and the people in charge of the launch pads were not at all willing to help. Lockheed and Boeing, which launch billion-dollar military spy satellites there, were also not happy about the presence of Space-X - firstly, it posed a threat to their business, and secondly, they did not like the fact that some startups were messing around with with their rocket next to their precious cargo. When Space-X began to move from testing to launch, she was told to get in line. This meant waiting several months. “We were allowed to launch, but in such a way that it was obvious: there would be no launch,” said Gwynne Shotwell...”

So, as you can see, private owners are soaring and how - until they “unfasten” the right people... oh, sorry, “until they lobby for the interests of their company” ... that’s what it seems to be called in the USA...

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Strelets1

So, as you can see, private owners are soaring and what not - until they “unfasten” the right people... oh, sorry, “until they lobby for the interests of their company”

Quote: Strelets1

Yes, and they even abandoned it for testing together with a team of engineers, testers and hard-working assemblers - but not somewhere but for 8 thousand versts (sorry, nautical miles) - on the Marshall Islands (at. Kvadzheleyn, about. Omelek , Ronald Reagan Missile Defense Range - former PKK)

Is your memory failing? They asked from Vandenberg and moved to Omelek. There are plenty of empty spaceports in the USA, and new ones are being built.

Quote: Strelets1

that in the USA, and NASA in particular, all projects FINANCED FROM THE STATE BUDGET ARE CONDUCTED ON A COMPETITIVE BASIS?

That is, you don’t see any difference between COTS, EELV and SLS? Well, OK.

Quote: Strelets1

Look at COTS - for each event (almost the “stage of tightening screw No. 17”) there is a separate line for the amount of payments to Musk

1. There were about 40 stages, as you wrote earlier. As you correctly noted, I tightened the nut - reported - got it. Chairs in the morning, money in the evening. Is this government funding?
2. COTS, if you don’t go into details, 398 million (I’ll take your figure). You talked about 5,5 billion, it seems. When did he receive these funds?

Quote: Strelets1

You generally know that not a single serious office, especially a private one in the West (and especially in the USA) will not start working on a LOAN contract ...

No, I don't know. SpaceX, by the way, was not a “serious company” at that time.

Quote: Strelets1

You are generally aware of such terms as "project advance", "conclusion of contracts" (including start-up services), "prepayment" ...

He had some connection, although not in SpaceX, to be honest.
So in what amount, you say, was the advance made?

Quote: Strelets1

The mask was provided for use

No need to overdo it with caps. Providing infrastructure to NASA in fulfillment of the NASA contract seems quite logical, no? I’ll tell you more, NASA does not have the right to engage in commercial activities, just like the Air Force. She could not take the money even if she suddenly wanted to.

[Cherry Nine]

What does this replica refer to?

[Strelets1]

Quote: Cherry Nine

To show the performance of a rocket, you need to take either more weight, or disperse it harder. The second option was chosen.

Hehe...are you a specialist in rocket dynamics, or a practitioner in the flight testing of launch vehicles with liquid propellant rocket engines? MAI, Baumanka, and, sorry, probably MTU? judging by the flags for your nicknames... True, you have it, it changes periodically and is now more associated with Skoda, Tesla, etc. Citizen of the world?

Quote: Cherry Nine

And here the liberals are to blame, everywhere they have time!

Liberals are fundamentally to blame for one thing - to consider all spheres of human activity (announcing and pushing it at the state level, as well as hammering it into the fragile heads of teenagers and similar individuals) as COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES THAT SHOULD BENEFIT PROFIT...
Literally everything - from fundamental science, healthcare, education, etc. and so on.
Well, astronautics - of course...

And after such brainwashing, some, not fully formed personalities, begin to make statements like “Roscosmos State Corporation sucks, capable only of selling shawarma, Elon Musk’s private company Space-X is foreva....! Give the Moon, Mars and mice in in one bottle...!"... sorry Falcone (Block 5, Heavy or Big Fake...)

[Strelets1]

Quote: Old26

Torturing, creating it since 2011. Currently, in March he achieved a thrust of 65% within 114 seconds. In May - already 70%. The industry is new, no one has made methane engines of such thrust.

"Tests September 28, 2011:
Record-long fire tests of a reusable rocket engine using liquefied natural gas and liquid oxygen.
Another fire life test of the reusable rocket engine demonstrator S5.86.1000-0 No. 2 with a thrust of 7,5 tf, developed and manufactured by KBKhM im. A. M. Isaev" according to the technical specifications of the State Scientific Center FSUE "Keldysh Center" within the framework of the development work "Engine-2015-KBKhM" on the fuel pair liquid oxygen (LO) - liquefied natural gas (LNG) was carried out on September 28, 2011 at stand B2A IS -106 FKP “National Research Center RKP”, Peresvet.
The test was successful. The engine has been turned on twice. Duration of the first switching on is 162 s. On the second switch-on, a record duration of operation of an engine of this size with a single switch-on was achieved - 2007 s. The tests were stopped due to the production of components. The total operating time of this engine instance was 3389 s (4 starts). "

And this is just one of the episodes...
(For the “Cherry Nine”) - And all this is rotting thanks to the liberals in power and the “effective accountants” assigned to manage the economy and finances everywhere in government bodies - and in almost all industries...

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Strelets1

For "Cherry Nine"

Your messages regarding Soviet/post-Soviet missiles look relatively respectable. The transition to economic and socio-political topics greatly spoils the impression. The point is not even that you and I have different views, but that you are poorly prepared.

Quote: Strelets1

thanks to the liberals in power

The liberal in power is, for example, Michael D. Griffin, who launched COTS and marked the beginning of the ousting of states from the space launch industry (by the way, I don’t think that NASA was counting on such a result in 2006). I don’t remember any liberals in the Russian government.

Quote: Strelets1

announce and push it at the state level

A liberal, in principle, cannot push anything at the state level - he is an enemy of the state (although, on the other hand, for some reason socialists are enlisted as liberals). You apparently mean officials who refuse to do their jobs.

Quote: Strelets1

Literally everything - from fundamental science, healthcare, education, etc. and so on.

You definitely mean officials. You can call them liberals, or you can, say, Stalinists (paid state school education, at least, will fit into this concept).

[Strelets1]

Quote: Cannonball

Where did you get about greed?

Do you know the history of the relationship between Energia and Khrunichev? The struggle for orders between them has been going on since the time of its formation in the USSR, and even “during the era of building developed capitalism in the Russian Federation”...sorry...
I hope you were in Russia in the 90s? If you don’t like the Russian “greed”, I can replace it with the modern “desire to obtain maximum profit in market conditions”..."...without taking into account the risks associated with it"...
which, translated again into modern ordinary Russian, means “CHChV - a man is a man and a wolf...”, “... let’s cut off the money quickly, and after us there will be a flood...”

Quote: Cannonball

And why should Khrunichev worry about the financial well-being of the same Energia, if the same Energia wanted to financially fuck Khrunichev, being a monopoly on the acceleration blocks for Protons?

What prevented Khrunichev from continuing his own developments and making his Breeze not in 1999, but earlier? How will Energia make its second modification of the RB DM-2M? Well, then - okay, RKK - the old song - Korolev or Chelomey... Well, what about the rest of the co-executors of the project - Makeev Design Bureau, KBHA, etc.?
Well, then - remember the main event in the Russian Federation in 1997... Do you remember...? This is also a plus for my version...

Quote: Cannonball

Why is the Angara half-finished? On the contrary, several options have been made, the production of which was hindered by the prolonged lack of funding, infrastructure and PN.
Not knowing the fullness of the history of the “Angara,” judging it by inventions from online forums is not the smartest idea.

Excuse me, you probably work at Khrunichev?
Well then, please publish briefly reliable information about the Angara KRK project and its new (next) offshoot Amur...
As for Internet forums, this is not the place where they get reliable information - at least I don’t use it, I prefer the official websites of the relevant structures, as well as interviews with competent official representatives of the space industry... And what is published in blogs and specialized websites as well subject to verification to identify primary sources of information...

[Strelets1]

Quote: Old26

Well, about the fact that the “Angara” “half-done” Konstantin got excited. But the fact that a fairly wide planned line of these carriers (at different stages) shrank to 2 - “Angara 1.2” and “Angara A-5” - a fact. Moreover, as far as I heard even the manned version of the "Angara" - "Angara A-5P" it was decided to multiply by zero

Well, he didn’t so much get excited as he did not formulate it correctly enough - not so much the Angara carriers themselves (although there are complaints about them too, and the line of carriers has not yet been fully implemented and tested), but about the entire project of creating the Angara missile launcher - Khrunichev took over everything blanket - from design and construction to production and support for launches, he clearly overestimated his capabilities and did not carry out the project... Yes, financing is the scourge of modern Russian cosmonautics from 1991 to the present day...
But as they say - there was no point in pulling everything under oneself in 1997 - they simply threw out the cry of “save yourself who can” due to default - so they threw in the co-executors... But in general, as I wrote - this is, of course, one of the reasons, there are plenty of others too ...

[Cannonball]

Calling winning a project competition “pulled the blanket over oneself”, excuse me, is bad manners.

[Strelets1]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Your messages regarding Soviet/post-Soviet missiles look relatively respectable. The transition to economic and socio-political topics greatly spoils the impression. The point is not even that you and I have different views, but that you are poorly prepared.

There's no need for so much verbiage - let's talk more specifically if you want...

Quote: Cherry Nine

The liberal in power is, for example, Michael D. Griffin, who launched COTS and marked the beginning of the ousting of states from the space launch industry (by the way, I don’t think that NASA was counting on such a result in 2006).

You don’t understand the difference between the terms “liberal” and “liberal”... Otherwise you wouldn’t call Griffin “liberal”...
And you also don’t understand (or perhaps you don’t know) the US development strategy in the field of space activities...

Quote: Cherry Nine

I don’t remember any liberals in the Russian government.

It’s not surprising - being a “citizen of the world” you have no time to visit Russia...

Quote: Cherry Nine

A liberal, in principle, cannot push anything at the state level - he is an enemy of the state (although, on the other hand, for some reason socialists are enlisted as liberals). You apparently mean officials who refuse to do their jobs.

Quote: Cherry Nine

You definitely mean officials. You can call them liberals, or you can, say, Stalinists (paid state school education, at least, will fit into this concept).

I have already answered these maxims - see paragraph 2

As a bonus - regarding terminology in general and the term “official” in particular - both individuals - the director of NASA in the USA and the head of the Russian Space Agency in 2006 - are officials... this is so... for your information and regarding your preparedness.. .
Well, a piece of advice - if you want to argue the point, state the facts...
And then answer your opponent on the merits of his arguments, and not with verbiage about everything and nothing...
Well, as for preparedness, you have so far not provided anything other than streams of verbiage to prove the lack of government support for Space-X Musk, even in the COTS numbers and in those you managed to lie...
There are no answers at all to a whole series of my arguments...sorry - either your preparation is suffering or basic ignorance...

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Strelets1

You don't understand the difference between the terms "liberal" and "liberal"

Apparently you didn't choose the best term.

Quote: Strelets1

And you also don’t understand (or perhaps you don’t know) the US development strategy in the field of space activities...

Yes, I must admit, I don’t even observe the “strategy” of the United States. What does it consist of, in short?

Quote: Strelets1

the director of NASA USA and the head of the Russian Space Agency in 2006 are officials.

Yes.
But at the same time, one of them was a liberal, and the other was a thief, a liar and a hack. And not only according to the situation in 2006, unfortunately.

Quote: Strelets1

on the merits of his arguments

If you remember the economics of SpaceX about arguments, then the “essence of the arguments” is that you call the government contractor the recipient of government funding. Just like, for example, BMW is a recipient of Russian government funding. Being a liberal, I mean subsidies in the term “state financing,” which was not the case with Musk. Works were purchased on market conditions, as far as possible in a market where the largest buyers are states.
As far as I know, “just like that” Musk has received money so far for only one project - Raptor from the Air Force. But even there, government money covers a minor part of expenses.

Quote: Strelets1

even in the COTS numbers they managed to lie...

Accurate cornering.

Following the original $500M Space Act Agreement, an additional $288M in "augmentation" funding was awarded to the two contractors before the demonstration flights
...
SpaceX - awarded contract worth $278 million; in 2011 additional milestones were added bringing the total contract value to $396 million

Quote: Strelets1

In August 2006, the company became one of the winners in the NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program competition and received total funding of $396 million.

Quote: Cherry Nine

Of this amount, SpaceX received $278M. Dragon and Falcon 9 were created with this money

The rocket and spacecraft were created at 278M. First flight of Dragon and Nine - 2010

[Strelets1]

Quote: Cannonball

Minsredmash has nothing to do with it. Minsredmash was engaged in the atom, not space. Space was occupied by the General Ministry.

Sorry - the comment is accepted, there was a typo, sorry, the Ministry of GeneralMash would be correct

[Cannonball]

-Pollux, don’t judge by yourself. Speaking about literature, I advise you not to use articles of dubious content, but to get acquainted with the history of the creation of nuclear reactors for spacecraft remote control in the USSR. "Buk", "Topaz" and others like them.

[Cannonball]

Cherry nine, this is not an engine, this is a nuclear power plant. Such systems may well be considered the predecessor of a nuclear electric propulsion system with a plasma or ion engine.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Cannonball

can be considered the predecessor of a nuclear electric propulsion system with a plasma or ion engine.

Can not.
They were used to power the spy's powerful radars. For an electric motor, the sun or RTEG is now sufficient. No one will launch a reactor into space purely for processing technology; it is too dangerous.

[Cannonball]

They can, they can.

[Cannonball]

[quote:Strelets1] Do you know the history of the relationship between Energia and Khrunichev? The struggle for orders between them has been going on since the time of its formation in the USSR, and even “during the era of building developed capitalism in the Russian Federation”...sorry...
I hope you were in Russia in the 90s? If you don’t like the Russian “greed”, I can replace it with the modern “desire to obtain maximum profit in market conditions”..."...without taking into account the risks associated with it"...
which, translated again into modern ordinary Russian, means “CHChV - a man is a wolf...", "... let's cut off the money quickly, and after us there will be a flood..."[/quote]I’m just aware of that, unlike most of those who have spoken here. Just please explain what this competition consisted of? Especially considering the fact that in the 80s the same Salyut design bureau was a branch of NPO Energia, and the Salyut, Mir, and ISS stations were created jointly. We also jointly made “Protons” - “Salyut” with ZiKh - all three stages, “Energia” - upper stages. "Skif" ("Polyus") is also the brainchild of two companies.
In the 90s, I was in Moscow and was directly related to the issue under discussion.
The breakdown occurred in the 90s, when companies were on financial starvation and everyone survived as best they could and pulled the blanket on themselves. In the case of Protons, there were three main players who wanted to make money from them - KB Salyut - the developer of the launch vehicle, ZiKh - the manufacturer of stages, Energia - the manufacturer of DM upper stages. If the financial disputes between the Salyut design bureau and ZiH were resolved by the creation of the State Research and Production Space Center, then Energia was not part of its structure, and, being a monopolist in the creation of the Republic of Belarus, it pushed the price for them to the maximum. Which made launches on Proton-K uncompetitive. “Energia” did not want to reduce the price, so it was decided to develop its own “Briz-M” RB, thereby getting rid of the partner that had become incapable of contracting.
Also indicating the lack of competition between Khrunichev and Energia can be considered the absence of a carrier with the carrying capacity of the Soyuz launch vehicle in the Angara launch vehicle line. That is, this niche was deliberately left by “Energy” with “Progress”.

What prevented Khrunichev from continuing his own developments and making his Breeze not in 1999, but earlier? How will Energia make its second modification of the RB DM-2M? Well, then - okay, RKK - the old song - Korolev or Chelomey... Well, what about the rest of the co-executors of the project - Makeev Design Bureau, KBHA, etc.?
Well, then - remember the main event in the Russian Federation in 1997... Do you remember...? This is also a plus for my version...

A lack of money. Almost complete. As well as work on hydrogen RB for India. And the start of work on the first Angara projects.

Excuse me, you probably work at Khrunichev?
Well then, please publish briefly reliable information about the Angara KRK project and its new (next) offshoot Amur...
As for Internet forums, this is not the place where they get reliable information - at least I don’t use it, I prefer the official websites of the relevant structures, as well as interviews with competent official representatives of the space industry... And what is published in blogs and specialized websites as well subject to verification to identify primary sources of information...

You are insightful.
However, there is such a thing as a “regime” with a ban on such publications. Therefore, I'm sorry, I will not be able to fulfill your request. I still have to work further.

[Old26]

Quote: Cannonball

Everything rests on money and demand. Khrunichev made a proposal for a wide range of carriers. Two types were in demand; for the rest, practical work was not carried out for this reason. The exception is Angara-1.1, but there was no demand for it either.

As far as I remember, the Angara A-3 was positioned as a replacement for the Zenit (in terms of carrying capacity). Really, the problems with “Zenith” (Ukraine) did not become a reason for further development of the A-3???

Quote: Strelets1

There was no demand from the rocketers - they didn’t. They did what they requested ... Actually, they have been engaged in methane engines for quite some time - and here ("EnergoMash - started in the USSR - in 1981, then naturally abandoned it), and in the USA, and in Europe (and, as always , not without Russian help - in the form of "voluntary donations of developments and technologies" for ridiculous money - the Ural, Volga projects, etc.). Now - the old workings have been taken on a new material science and technology basis from Voronezh (KBHA) made a commercial offer and TTZ for an engine demonstrator with a thrust of 85 tons, EnergoMASH finished conceptually design and calculations on the feasibility study for launch vehicles with a load capacity of 6-8 tons at the NOO - his forecast for the withdrawal of payloads of this class 160-180 until 2022 (commercial) - by this time we are ready to present the finished methane single chamber in metal with a thrust of about 200 tons ( BE-4 has approximately the same - about 240-250 tons). Isaevites (KBKhM) have their respective achievements - their methane demonstrator was successfully tested back in 2011 - when Blue Orient began to develop BE-4.

I disagree, first of all, with the phrase that the Americans are “tormenting” BE-4. Yes, they did what they asked, I agree with you here. “The customer’s desire” has always been the basis. But in any case, the phrase “torments” does not correspond to reality. Yes, we started earlier, but as you write correctly, we “abandoned.” But what we, the same Voronezh residents, are doing now is a demonstrator engine with a thrust of 85 tons, or Energomashevsky, which by 2022 plans to have a thrust of 200 tons. But they are planning it. It is well known how our plans are executed. All this is correct, but we are just planning it, but BE-4 already exists and is being tested. And who “tortures” and who doesn’t is a moot point. We have always relied on priority at times. We start doing it first, and as a result, competitors are the first and in production... So you write about the Isaevites and their demonstrator in 2011, when BE-4 had just begun to be developed. But where is the KBHM engine now? It turns out that we talk and they do

[Strelets1]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Quote: Strelets1
So, as you can see, private owners are soaring and what not - until they “unfasten” the right people... oh, sorry, “until they lobby for the interests of their company”
Quote: Strelets1
Yes, and they even abandoned it for testing together with a team of engineers, testers and hard-working assemblers - but not somewhere but for 8 thousand versts (sorry, nautical miles) - on the Marshall Islands (at. Kvadzheleyn, about. Omelek , Ronald Reagan Missile Defense Range - former PKK)
Is your memory failing? They asked from Vandenberg and moved to Omelek. There are plenty of empty spaceports in the USA, and new ones are being built.

No, it doesn't fail. From Vandenberg, Musk was NOT ASKED, but put in a QUEUE - you probably just don’t know that at cosmodromes and military training grounds there are PLANS FOR LAUNCHES OF CO, LV and ICBM LAUNCHES, with corresponding LAUNCH WINDOWS, RESERVATION OF AIR AND SEA SPACE and with the planning of a bunch of OTHER WORK RELATED TO THE PREPARATION AND CONDUCT OF LAUNCHES AND LAUNCHES…
And then some startup guy comes out of nowhere (on a call from a NASA clerk) and yells “my program is on fire, I need it urgently, immediately, I’ll be removed from the competition... to hell with Boeing, and Lockheed and Northrop are even farther away.” “... Well, naturally he was sent away - “either wait, or look for another place”...
Musk's call to M. Griffin corrected the situation with the timing - he apparently blurted out to his friends and colleagues from the BMDTP program and they suggested RPK...Kwadzh in the common people (by the way, we called it that in the 70s, back when Mask's mother was changing diapers)... With Canaveral Apparently, things weren’t so simple either – at that time for startups and for Musk in particular, despite his friendly relations with Griffin...
True, Musk’s overhead costs have increased (delivery of everything to Kwaj, if you don’t understand, is MORE EXPENSIVE than to Vandenberg - but DEADLINE - even now)...
This is so - to your amateurish maxims about “pieces of concrete are all you need to launch” and “in the USA there are a lot of abandoned launch sites overgrown with weeds” and “start-ups in the USA don’t wait in line..”

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Strelets1

No, it doesn't fail. From Vandenberg, Musk was NOT ASKED, but put in a QUEUE - you probably just don’t know that at cosmodromes and military training grounds there are PLANS FOR LAUNCHES OF CO, LV and ICBM LAUNCHES, with corresponding LAUNCH WINDOWS, RESERVATION OF AIR AND SEA SPACE and with the planning of a bunch of OTHER WORK RELATED TO THE PREPARATION AND CONDUCT OF LAUNCHES AND LAUNCHES…

I know. And you also know that Rocketlab created all this stuff for launching a light rocket (like the F1) in an open field for very moderate money (since they simply don’t have extravagant ones).

Quote: Strelets1

THEY DID NOT ASK FOR A MASK, BUT WERE PLACED IN A QUEUE

Musk was made to understand that he was not needed there. With an argument similar to yours: extra people are an extra headache for the military.

Quote: Strelets1

he apparently blurted out to his friends and colleagues from the BMDTP program, and they suggested the PKK... Kvadzh in common people (by the way, we called it that in the 70s, back when Mas

NASA has 2 of its own cosmodromes, named after. Kennedy and Wallop, where Antares flew from the very beginning.
By the way, there is no one on Kennedy right now.

Quote: Strelets1

This is so - to your amateurish maxims about “pieces of concrete are all you need to launch” and “in the USA there are a lot of abandoned launch sites overgrown with weeds” and “start-ups in the USA don’t wait in line..”

Could you please stop twisting my words? It seems you know how to use the "quote" button?

[Strelets1]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Quote: Strelets1
that in the USA, and NASA in particular, all projects FINANCED FROM THE STATE BUDGET ARE CONDUCTED ON A COMPETITIVE BASIS?
That is, you don’t see any difference between COTS, EELV and SLS? Well, OK.

In the financing scheme and most importantly, IN THE SOURCE OF FINANCING, WHERE THE FUNDS COME FROM - NO.
An extremely unfortunate example with EELV - all funding is carried out approximately according to the same scheme as in COTS - only the distributor of budget (state) money, not NASA, but the DOD, or rather, the US Air Force (SMSC USAF, to be precise) was closely involved in this. Well, the project was dual-use - for soldiers and civilians...
Well, the scales are different - if Musk and Orbital Science required only launch vehicles and trucks to work with the ISS (the main headache and goal of NASA in the first place, to quickly plug the hole after the Japanese and European trucks were decommissioned), then EELV is a much more ambitious project – since I was reviewing the modernization of all lines of launch vehicles for DOD programs (including heavy ones for launching DOD payloads into transfer orbits), plus the suitability of new modernized launch vehicles for commercial launches... – and excuse me – don’t carry bananas to the ISS... from here and the cost of the project is different...
The entire project is divided into stages - as in COTS, and accordingly the payment is staged...
And also - a competition - four companies were issued FTs and contracts were concluded to conduct research work to study problems in the project, identify and minimize technical risks for the project (term - 1 year) - 30 million each. USD...each...(c)
Based on the results of the research work, two winning companies were identified (as in COTS) and, accordingly, two lines of media...
To complete the research on their project proposals (risks) and preliminary design, contracts were signed with Boeing (which by that time had bought one of the winners - MDAC) and Lockheed for the amount of 60 million... each... (c)...
Previously, when it was planned to select one lead contractor (and one line of launch vehicles, respectively - but with a greater weight of output payloads for heavy launch vehicles), it was planned to conclude a contract with him for 1.5 billion USD.
In reality, two contracts were concluded - for the completion of design work (to the stage of preparation of launch vehicle demonstrators - as in COTS, launch vehicle and truck demonstrators) - with Boeing and Lockheed - 500 million USD...each...(c)
In case of fulfillment of contractual obligations, program executors were guaranteed to sign contracts for state programs (19 launches worth 1.38 billion for Boeing and 9 for 650 million for Lockheed) for the period 2002-2006 financial years. GUARANTEED BUDGET MONEY.
As you know, NASA signed a contract with Musk for 12 launches in the amount of 1.6 billion USD - for seven years, then extended it for three more launches - and the amount became tidy - 2 billion USD - GUARANTEED BUDGET money, and the contract as part of the continuation of the COST program - The CRS was signed back in 2008 long before it began (almost five years) in 2012.
Griffin’s native USC - for 8 Signus received a contract for - 1.9 billion USD - GUARANTEED BUDGET money.
Well, where is the fundamental difference in the scheme and, most importantly, in the SOURCES of financing?
In both places there are STATE PROGRAMS (and COST-CRS and EELV) and in both places the SOURCE OF FINANCING FOR THE PROGRAMS IS THE STATE BUDGET.

[Strelets1]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Quote: Strelets1
You don't understand the difference between the terms "liberal" and "liberal"
Apparently you didn't choose the best term.

This is not my term. For a citizen of the world who has not visited Russia for a long time, I’ll explain...
"LIBERASTS" (not to be confused with LIBERALS) in modern Russia contemptuously refer to a group of sectarians on the margins of a liberal market economy who believe that in Russia ALL AREAS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY should be privatized and commercialized (heh heh... up to conception and reproduction posterity is a joke, but perhaps they will soon reach an agreement before that)...
Well, somewhere it has an abusive connotation (akin to a pederast)...

So he is a specialist and a pro in his field - one of the ideologists of the US space strategy and the most educated person, Dr. M, Griffin in no way deserves such a “click”...sorry for the vulgarity...

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Strelets1

akin to a pederast

Thanks for the clarification, but I'm quite in the know. As for your position, in my opinion, it is more adequately stated here (the original text is now on paywall; for some reason the punctuation is messed up in the Googlecache version).

23.07.2012/XNUMX/XNUMX Expert
About the hand and mitten
There are possible arguments in favor of a liberal policy even reaching the point of social Darwinism. They are known: the economic bloc of the government and its constant ideologists have been repeating such arguments for more than twenty years. Arguments are also possible in favor of a paternalistic policy even reaching the point of obscurantism. Well-known circles have also been repeating them since the beginning of time, and in recent months they have been used in abundance and the authorities have become more representative. But since the first arguments are opposite to the second, there is no reasonable justification for the cocktail of ultra-liberalism and ultra-paternalism, and it is this cocktail that our government has come to love. In an old film, the still young Kalyagin, looking at his briskly growing belly in the mirror, muttered: I want to eat. I want to lose weight. I want everything. So the authorities still want to liberally relieve themselves of responsibility and retrogradely tighten the screws, and they do not deny themselves anything.
Much has been written about tightening the screws, and even with considerable overlap, regarding a series of laws adopted at the end of the summer session. But the series is not over; the legislator has only just begun to get the hang of it. First Vice Speaker of the Federation Council Torshin wants to introduce responsibility for the spread of panic rumors: I think that legislators, although this is very difficult, need to think about the fact that such actions should not go unpunished. I don’t know where the senator sees the difficulty. Our colleagues did not hesitate to introduce a law on a blacklist of sites without presenting a single serious argument. But this law makes it possible to close huge Internet resources for one page that seems to someone to deny family values. So alarmists can easily be included in the Criminal Code, and with wording that allows for an arbitrarily broad interpretation. Why are there alarmists? A trifle. Duma deputy, General of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Moskalkova proposes to introduce a criminal article for an attempt on morality and gross violation of hostel rules. Well, they can include a violation of hostel rules in the Criminal Code, who will forbid them? Paternalism is an absurdly soft word for these enthusiastic innovations, and there is no end in sight.
But if the government undertakes to look after us so meticulously that even the rules of community life will be instilled through criminal law, then is it really ready to take on serious matters such as the country’s development strategy? Nothing happened. On this side, she has liberalism without boundaries: the Tambov wolf is our strategist. I mean, the invisible hand of the market will develop us. The farce with Russia's accession to the WTO ended this week. The country has never heard evidence of the benefits of this step, except for joyful words that there will be no particular harm from the WTO. In fact, there is no question whether to join or not to join the WTO; there is a question of when and under what conditions to join, which the public was never told. And that our negotiators resolved and resolved this issue in a flagrantly inadequate manner, suspicion grows into confidence. The chief negotiator, Medvedkov, celebrating his victory, recalls from what depths the eighteen-year ascent to it began: I remember 1993 very well (the year of filing the application to the WTO. A.P.). Moscow, coupons, once a month a kilogram of sugar per person and one chicken. What coupons were there in 1993? Which one chicken in a flood of Bush legs? He remembers very well, yeah. Whatever a person who knew his country so thoroughly (or so easily uh evaded the truth) could agree on, he agreed on. So ; nothing personal, just the hand of the market. And woe to those who did not adapt, as they liked to call the greater half of the country back in 1993.
What's the WTO? No one is interested anymore, they got worried. The same week, the Economic Council under the President was formed. The people in it are famous, their views are no secret to anyone. I know the member of the new council who publicly stated that there is no need to invest in infrastructure, they say, under the guise of building roads to nowhere, everything will be stolen; There are plenty of those who, apparently, think the same thing to themselves. And to find five people in it who will speak out not for waiting for favors from the hand of the market, not for road maps for moving in some kind of rankings, but for the conscious and very specific work of growing national capital, I don’t know if it’s possible. So spin around, guys, under the scourge of an invisible hand; but we won’t really help you, and if you blather in the heat of the moment, we’ll put you in jail for something wrong.
And it’s like that in everything. This same week, the Ministry of Finance published budget outlines. Expenditures on education by 2015 will decrease in both relative and even absolute terms by 7%. The situation with healthcare is even more severe: there the amount generally drops by one and a half times. It would seem that since you are such a social Darwinist, then at least leave people alone and let them get out as they see fit! Never. The new head of the Ministry of Education, Livanov, said, for example, that he intends to update the leadership of universities: universities, they say, should be headed by business-oriented specialists. In fact, all over the world, serious scientists are usually at the head of serious universities. But something else is more surprising: for two hundred years now, no one except the Russian Ministry of Education has infringed on university autonomy. Let universities choose their own rectors! No, it doesn’t even cross my mind. But how to interfere comes constantly.
In front of me is an alarming letter sent out by the alumni union of one of the best schools in Russia: alma mater for the first time in many years! asks graduates for help. It, like all Moscow schools, was transferred to per capita funding; Like in the whole country, her lyceum bonus was cancelled, and the school began to run out of funds. Many of the school's graduates are thriving abroad. They are often wealthier than their classmates who stayed at home, and are more accustomed to charity, but the school now does not dare to directly take money from them: only it did not have enough to be branded as a foreign agent. Sponsors will help here and in other similar cases; we will continue to have elite schools; will not help in five to ten years it will be difficult to remember where they were.
So, we repeat, it would be nice for the authorities to at least choose one of their two favorite things. Otherwise, the invisible hand of the market, but with a tight grip, somehow turns out to be too much.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Strelets1

Dr. M, the most educated person, Griffin in no way deserves such a “click”

By the way, it’s in your piggy bank.

On December 4, 2017, Reuters reported that Griffin was nominated by President Donald Trump to be Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering.This nomination was confirmed by vote of the US Senate on February 15, 2018.

Before Monday's announcement it was not clear how many flights the Air Force would require before it certifies the Falcon Heavy rocket—typically it requires several flights. However, officials indicated to Ars that the military was evolving its certification process. Now, it seems clear that the Air Force was comfortable with data from the test flight in February and the more than 50 flights of the Falcon 9 rocket, which forms the three cores of each Falcon Heavy booster.

[Strelets1]

Quote: Cannonball

Calling winning a project competition “pulled the blanket over oneself”, excuse me, is bad manners.
Reply

Sorry - but in 1997 there was no longer a competition... and there was a default due to the collapse of the GKO pyramid, if your memory serves you right... And the further fate of the Angara project was decided on the proposal of Khrunichev and his lobbyists at the NTS and further, by the government - or by Was there a second competition, your information?

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Strelets1

Sorry - but in 1997 there was no competition anymore... and there was a default due to the collapse of the GKO pyramid, if your memory serves you correctly...

The default in Russia was in 98, if I’m not confusing anything. 97th - the beginning of the crisis in Southeast Asia.

[Strelets1]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Yes, I must admit, I don’t even observe the “strategy” of the United States. What does it consist of, in short?

In the choice of goal setting for US space activities in the 21st century...in short...

If you want more details, write here on the site (or on your blog if you have one) in a separate topic your thoughts on this issue and I will answer you in more detail...

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Strelets1

In the choice of goal setting for US space activities

I see, let’s say, a certain crisis of goal-setting and a lack of strategy (all this going to the Moon/not going to the Moon), and not only among the Americans.

However, you are right, this is a very long conversation.

[Strelets1]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Being a liberal, I mean subsidies in the term “state financing,” which was not the case with Musk.

What do you think the state COTS program is in terms of using 500 million BUDGET FUNDS...?

[Strelets1]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Quote: Strelets1
even in the COTS numbers they managed to lie...
Accurate cornering.
Following the original $500M Space Act Agreement, an additional $288M in "augmentation" funding was awarded to the two contractors before the demonstration flights
...
SpaceX - awarded contract worth $278 million; in 2011 additional milestones were added bringing the total contract value to $396 million
Quote: Strelets1
In August 2006, the company became one of the winners in the NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program competition and received total funding of $396 million.
Quote: Cherry Nine
Of this amount, SpaceX received $278M. Dragon and Falcon 9 were created with this money
The rocket and spacecraft were created at 278M. First flight of Dragon and Nine - 2010

No need to wag your back, my dear - the COTS conditions for Space-X initially determined the conditions for CERTIFICATION of the Falcon-9 launch vehicle and the cargo Dragon. So - after the first test demonstration flight in 2010, Dragon and Falcon were refined for another two years in order to pass certification only after the second test flight and real docking with the ISS and return to Earth in May 2012. RECEIVED A NASA CERTIFICATE FOR FLIGHT AND DELIVERY CERTIFICATE CARGO TO THE ISS under the CRS program...
For which 396 million USD FROM THE US STATE BUDGET was spent - and this is only DIRECT SUBSIDIZATION OF MASK DEVELOPMENTS FROM THE US STATE BUDGET
How much MASK, the co-founders and investors of Space-X personally spent - history is silent... at least these figures are unknown to me...
I’ve already written about indirect subsidies, but I won’t repeat them...

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Strelets1

No need to wag your butt, my dear

For some, age brings wisdom, but for others, only a quarrelsome nature (for some reason it seems to me that you are not a schoolboy). Maybe you should watch gay porn, relieve your soul, and not discuss someone’s ass in a topic about astronautics?

Quote: Strelets1

For which 396 million USD FROM THE US STATE BUDGET was spent - and this is only DIRECT SUBSIDIZATION OF MASK DEVELOPMENTS FROM THE US STATE BUDGET
How much did MASK personally spend?

In theory, not at all. He was hired to do the CC and media for a pre-agreed amount, rather than seek funding.

Quote: Strelets1

So - after the first test demonstration flight in 2010, Dragon and Falcon were refined for another two years in order to pass certification only after the second test flight and real docking with the ISS and return to Earth in May 2012. RECEIVED A NASA CERTIFICATE FOR FLIGHT AND DELIVERY CERTIFICATE CARGO TO THE ISS under the CRS program

I know. As far as I know, NASA, unlike you, did not make any claims against SpaceX in 2011 that they did not meet the budget. SpaceX CRS-1 flew 14 months earlier than Cygnus CRS Orb-1.

Quote: Strelets1

What do you think the state COTS program is in terms of using 500 million BUDGET FUNDS...?

Yes, on this point you and I disagree.
According to your calculations: SpaceX created the Dragon/Falcon project under a government order, therefore, it is a budget recipient.
According to my calculations, by the mid-00s the US government had several options:
1. Sink the ISS
2. Buy additional launches on Progress, European or Japanese spacecraft, and involve the Chinese in this matter.
3. Make a ship for EELV
4. Rebuild the entire truck/carrier complex.

BUDGET FUNDS were spent (or lost) in any development of events. The option chosen was definitely not the most expensive and one that (unexpectedly) led to the triumph of American (commercial) astronautics.

For this reason, I do not see subsidies in this scheme. I see that NASA solved purely its own problems, simultaneously creating a huge market. Budget money was required to solve NASA problems in any case, with or without Musk.

Quote: Strelets1

Well, where is the fundamental difference in the scheme?

Tell me, if it’s not difficult, how it happened that the rights to Delta belong to DoD, and not Boeing.

Quote: Strelets1

THE SOURCE OF FINANCING FOR THE PROGRAMS IS THE STATE BUDGET.

What should a poor American do? You need to fly. Or wait for Bezos?

You see. I, like many others, see the COTS program as a triumphant example of how it was possible to combine a government project and private initiative. Therefore, talk about “subsidization” here seems far-fetched. Subsidization is SLS.

[Strelets1]

Quote: Cannonball

You are insightful.
However, there is such a thing as a “regime” with a ban on such publications. Therefore, I'm sorry, I will not be able to fulfill your request. I still have to work further.

I understand, since I myself have been associated with this concept for a very long time. Accepted.
I just came across materials on the Amur River - I would like to assess the reliability.
But I won’t bother you.

[Strelets1]

[quote=Cannonball]You are insightful.
However, there is such a thing as a “regime” with a ban on such publications. Therefore, I'm sorry, I will not be able to fulfill your request. I still have to work further.[/quote]

I understand, since I myself have been associated with this concept for a very long time. Accepted.
[/ Quote]
To follow up - how do you assess today’s interview with Rogozin in Vienna?

[Cannonball]

Quote: Strelets1

To follow up - how do you assess today’s interview with Rogozin in Vienna?

"I do not believe!"

[Strelets1]

Quote: Old26

But what we, the same Voronezh residents, are doing now is a demonstrator engine with a thrust of 85 tons, or Energomashevsky, which by 2022 plans to have a thrust of 200 tons. But they are planning it. It is well known how our plans are executed. All this is correct, but we are just planning it, but BE-4 already exists and is being tested. And who “tortures” and who doesn’t is a moot point. We have always relied on priority at times. We start doing it first, and as a result, competitors are the first and in production... So you write about the Isaevites and their demonstrator in 2011, when BE-4 had just begun to be developed. But where is the KBHM engine now? It turns out that we talk and they do

They do this because the work is financed - there are customers...
But our developers often stew in their own juices...
The work on methane was ordered by the KBKhM Keldysh Center... they carried out R&D with the money allocated to them and did what the Keldyshites asked - they handed over the work and... silence... What next is not clear... But they ordered the topic for some reason?
Or so - out of love for art... as EnergoMASH is doing now, developing a 200-ton methane engine at its own expense... But he can afford it - being a PJSC, DOING COMMERCIAL (including on RD- 180, -181) and being the head of the newly formed rocket engine holding company as part of the Roscosmos State Corporation...
But where is the interest of the rocket scientists again? There Filevsky (in the sense of S7) Sopov whined that he was not satisfied with the S-5 with the old RD-171...like the “fat Zenit”...
They would have taken it and bought a new racket for Sea Launch, or collaborated with the same Samarans when they offered a line of Soyuz on methane...
And then everyone just nods, then at Komarov, then at Ragozin, the masters... So why then were they transformed into CJSC, PJSC, LLC, etc., etc.? To sit and wait for Siluyanov to submit... But he won’t... He can only “help” with the sequestration of what has been approved...

[Lena363]

Well, what can they do in Khrunichev? They are being cut down and the factory area is being given over to residential buildings! Still, landing vertically is more profitable than on the runway, like an airplane. Can be done anywhere in the country. It was in vain that Dimon was appointed chief. He is not a techie, but a PhD!

[the same doctor]

Making new rockets using old technologies is pointless. First, we need to master new materials that will reduce the dry weight of rockets by 2 times. Electronics that will provide flexible control of the rocket, allowing the shutdown of a pair of engines and orbit correction in the event of an abnormal launch. Yes, he will not simply refuse. Lick production so that it is cheaper than in the West. While this is not the case, aiming at new samples is an empty waste of funds.
.
Rogozin is again being sold bullshit about missiles, as before with combat robots. Instead of actually applicable samples, he received ostentatious androids and remote-controlled wedges. No, if he had delivered a million half-baked wedges to Syria, then there would be no conversation. But the industry's capabilities are limited to a couple of dozen units. As a result, the army did not receive cheap and numerous robotic equipment; the allocated funds were wasted on show. Although already in 2011 it was absolutely clear what needed to be done. However, the main consumer was unable to appreciate the potential of invisible solutions, but really loves external effects.
.
Does he have enough character and outlook to correctly determine priorities in astronautics now? In my opinion, it would be more correct to focus on improving the production of existing missiles, achieve stable financing, produce missiles using the conveyor method, and thereby reduce the cost of launches. And new missiles... Let the authors prove their superiority, then master the technologies, then produce machines and equipment... While all this is not there, do not twitch in the direction of new products. Plus: if tanks using new technologies become twice as light, then maybe it would be better to put new tanks on old rockets?

[Strelets1]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Quote: Strelets1
In the choice of goal setting for US space activities
I see, let’s say, a certain crisis of goal-setting and a lack of strategy (all this going to the Moon/not going to the Moon), and not only among the Americans.
However, you are right, this is a very long conversation.

Yes, this is generally a worldwide problem, of course, Russia too... only here, unlike the USA, our throwing is more down-to-earth and we don’t aim at a manned flight to the Kuiper Belt... (this is probably because... hehe.. that we don’t have Musk, and the last dreamers died back in the days of the USSR...)
Okay, jokes aside - this is a really long and largely philosophical topic... about civilizational development in general...

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Strelets1

for a manned flight to the Kuiper Belt...(this is probably because...hehe.. we don’t have Mask, and the last dreamers died back in Soviet times...)

Well, Musk has little to do with the problems of American state space, except that he makes them brighter. From a distance, it seems that the partners are cosplaying the USSR from the time of stagnation, when departmental games determined the strategy. That is, DSG was invented only and exclusively in order not to recognize the collapse of the Constellation - SLS - Orion, on which a ton of money was thrown away without any sense.

[Strelets1]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Thanks for the clarification, but I'm quite in the know.

Well, if it’s on topic, then don’t identify Russian marginal sectarians from the market with American liberalism and hehe... don’t call the respected Dr. M. Griffin a liberal...

[Strelets1]

Quote: Strelets1

Quote: Strelets1
In August 2006, the company became one of the winners in the NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program competition and received total funding of $396 million.

and your...

Quote: Cherry Nine

...the total contract value to $396 million

With your quotation in English, you confirmed my statement - in 2012, after the second demo flight, Dragon and the carrier were certified and approved by NASA to perform CRS -1 - COTS was completed. In the course of carrying out work under this Space-x program, I. Musk RECEIVED FINANCING FROM THE US STATE BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF
396 million USD

With this statement of mine addressed, by the way, not to yours, but to the Warriors from the Promised Land, all this fuss began that you actually started trying to deny an OBJECTIVELY EXISTING REALITY...
Sprinkle with terms, quotes in English and in the end we come to where I started...

Quote: Cherry Nine

Quote: Strelets1
For which 396 million USD FROM THE US STATE BUDGET was spent - and this is only DIRECT SUBSIDIZATION OF MASK DEVELOPMENTS FROM THE US STATE BUDGET
How much did MASK personally spend?
In theory, not at all. He was hired to do the CC and media for a pre-agreed amount, rather than seek funding.

Well then, even more so - Falcon and Dragon - according to your statement, WERE MADE EXCLUSIVELY WITH MONEY FROM THE US BUDGET...

We can debate for a long time on topics abstracted from the essence of the issue - what is financing in general, what types of financing are there, direct, indirect, project financing, etc., etc.... What are subsidies, subventions, subsidies, what are sources of financing and types of payment (such as “expenses + remuneration”, etc.)...
So, as you can see, the field for verbiage... sorry... for discussion... is huge...
But this does not change the essence of the matter and my statements are actually confirmed by you...
If you are offended by my expression “wiggle your butt”, well, excuse me, I’ll change it to the more decent “fidget in your chair, trying to get out of your way and talk about the topic”...
In general, I’ll end here because I think it doesn’t make sense to prove to you what you agree with (you just don’t want to say it directly) - since all your other arguments... to put it mildly... from the evil one... perhaps ...
Maybe we’ll meet again somewhere on other topics, I’ll tell you some facts and thoughts on the topic of “commercialization of US space activities” ... although in general, talking about some kind of “commercialization” in the USA is generally with one On the one hand it’s funny, on the other hand it’s paradoxical... One might think that Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop and other giants of American and world industry are state unitary enterprises modeled after Russian ones...
Now I’m finishing up, there’s a lot of work - just within the framework of FT, feasibility study and preliminary design - to get THIS ONE - budget funding in 2019...

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Strelets1

With your quotation in English, you confirmed my statement - in 2012.

I wrote that 278M passed from the order to the first flight of the RN+KK complex, opposing your statement.

Quote: Strelets1

In August 2006, the company became one of the winners in the competition of the NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program and received a total funding of $ 396 million for the development and demonstration of Falcon launch vehicles and a truck to deliver cargo to the ISS, at the IEO.

In 2006, the contract amount was different. The first flight was carried out using funds received before 2011.
You clarified that the ultimate goal of the program was not the first flight of the launch vehicle and spacecraft, but their certification for the needs of the program, which required additional funds. This position seems flawed to me, but oh well, there’s no point in arguing.

Quote: Strelets1

Falcon and Dragon - according to your statement, WERE MADE EXCLUSIVELY WITH MONEY FROM THE US BUDGET...

Neither you nor I know the inner workings of SpaceX. However, Musk was contracted to complete a specific task for specific money, and I don’t see anything contrary to the laws of nature if he met the specified amount. He didn’t really have his own money; Musk is not Bezos.

Quote: Strelets1

chat topic

Sorry, but you are rambling on the topic, diverting attention with your capslock from what is new that began with the COTS program - revolutionary changes in the American launch industry, caused by both objective and subjective circumstances.
At the same time (apparently, this should be stated separately) I have never stated that NASA’s experience is suitable for Roscosmos.

Quote: Strelets1

although in general it is funny to talk about some kind of “commercialization” in the USA, on the one hand, and paradoxical on the other... One might think that Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop and other giants of American and world industry are state unitary enterprises according to model and likeness of Russian...

Yes, yes, this is roughly what I mean by “chattering.”

Quote: Strelets1

Boeing, ...state unitary enterprises modeled after Russian ones...

Using the SLS as an example, we haven’t gone that far.

Quote: Strelets1

I'm finishing up now, a lot of work

Success.

[Strelets1]

I almost forgot.
As a P.S.

Quote: Cherry Nine

On December 4, 2017, Reuters reported that Griffin was nominated by President Donald Trump to be Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering.This nomination was confirmed by vote of the US Senate on February 15, 2018.

“It is very important to calculate the effectiveness of development, to collect statistics over several years, how many times the same stage can actually be launched. For now, this is all an open question. But I think that in the rocket part of the business, the Pentagon and NASA will not let Musk go to waste - they will help him, so how they gave him money until now,” said academician R. Sagdeev. (from an interview in June 2018)

Elon Musk notes that NASA is an excellent partner. He loves NASA and notes the importance of USAF support. “It’s a pleasure to work with them,” he said at a press conference.” (20 theses by I. Musk - press conference on the eve of the first launch of Falcon-9 Block5).

private space...
the show must go on... (Strelets1)

[Bypassed]

I’m embarrassed to ask - what is the edge of Buran - a rocket for 80-100 tons of payload to a rocket for a nanosatellite - up to 100 kg?
What does the author smoke?
Until the state takes deep space under its wing - there will be no heavy rocket in principle - businessmen do not need it. And rockets for nanosatellites - startups in the USA are already riveting them together on their knees - well, in the sense of a screwdriver assembly.

[Cannonball]

Quote: Old26

As far as I remember, the Angara A-3 was positioned as a replacement for the Zenit (in terms of carrying capacity). Really, the problems with “Zenith” (Ukraine) did not become a reason for further development of the A-3???

I don't know anything about such a development. Even earlier work on it did not go further than the EP (if there was one at all).

[Cannonball]

Cherry nine, such things are not done from scratch in a year and a half. Even in the States.

[Cherry Nine]

Sorry, what was that about?

[Peter Ivanov]

Yes! And don't tell his horseshoes! They compared the incomparable: the USSR AND ITS Space Program and Industry, with ReFe with its flawed thieving pseudo-economy and destroyed rocket and aviation industry!
Fairy tales tell that the “Angara” and the second launch pad at the Vostochny Cosmodrome are being built! One is fabulous, the other is unreal! But in general... in general - a universal bummer!

[pafegosoff]

Elon Musk is receiving enormous attention and assistance from the US government. In fact, this is a hidden government project, not private enterprise. I remember the difficulty with which Lido Anthony “Lee” Iacocca sought government assistance to Chrysler. Mask's camouflage of state activities is quite transparent.
However, this suggests that the S-7 company must be provided with all possible assistance with the subsequent extraction of part of the profit into the state budgetary part of the costs of astronautics.

[Dull]

I read a lot of comments. Many are worthwhile, in my opinion. But no one noticed one bonus: Musk has a private company that does not spend a single cent from the US budget, and we are opposing him with our Roscosmos with budget funding at the expense of the elderly and disabled. Let's appoint my little son to this Post and design rockets to Alpha Centauri with a quasi-temporal transition? I understand that there are no such engines, but my son will receive his share of the “pie” from the budget, which will be enough for all his descendants. It doesn’t matter that old people will die before they reach the retirement age set by the state, and their pension contributions will go either directly into the pockets of thieves in the “elite” caste, or later, as bonuses. The disabled and children of the “people” who “grab” don’t care. , caring for “people, as the Tsar ordered.

[voyaka uh]

In my opinion, this is the first article on VO that praises Elon Musk and sets him up as a role model. Well... Better late than never.

[surok1]

We need to dust off the daddy with the title "MAX". Not modernizing anything, doing it as it was, is already good and you can show the fig to Musk and the USA.

[surok1]

A parachute is cheaper than wings. If the steps are landed correctly and quickly found, they can be evacuated by a large helicopter. Why should we build a helicopter with 4-6 propellers? Like MI-12?

[NordUral]

Empty bastards! Stalin's people wouldn't have lasted even a month in their jobs. They took aim at Buran. At least you will decide on priorities and plans for the near, medium and long term.
And do it strictly, and don’t chatter. Otherwise, your eyes are full of epic plans that end in quiet zilch.

[nemoXX]

In the foreseeable future, Russia will have no time for space. Everything else is empty wishful thinking of dreamers.