Military Review

Russian challenge to Ilona Mask. S7 Space Company

126
S7 Space (the legal name of C7 Space Transportation Systems LLC) is the first privately-owned commercial company in Russia whose main activity is the launch of rockets and the launch of various space objects into Earth orbit. She is the operator of the Sea Launch and Land Launch projects. The company has already announced its ambitions. In particular, S7 Space became the full owner of the floating launch site “Sea Launch” and seriously expects to compete with Ilon Mask and his private space company SpaceX in the United States. Sergey Sopov, CEO of S7 Space, spoke about this in an interview with RIA News April 2018 year.


In March, 2018 of the year, the Russian holding S7 Group fully closed the deal to acquire the floating launch site "Sea Launch" in California. About their plans in this regard, the company reported 1,5 a year ago. At the press conference held at that time, journalists actively asked co-owner of the holding Vladislav Filev whether there were risks that Ukraine would refuse to supply Zenith missiles even to a private company from Russia. As a result, it turned out that the risks were on the other hand: S7 Space was able to obtain permits from the USA and Ukraine, but the company had been waiting for orders for months for the company to deliver Russian components to Ukraine.

The issue of resolution was in limbo due to the change of the Russian government, while the CEO of S7 Space Sergey Sopov hopes to resolve the situation. According to him, the company has already placed an order for Zenit 12 missiles and is ready to launch the re-launch of the Sea Launch project at any time. In this case, we are talking only about the first steps of a private Russian space company. In addition, S7 Space is seriously considering the possibility of conducting space launches, dreams of creating its own plant to produce rocket engines in order to create a reusable launch vehicle, and also proposes not to drown the ISS segment belonging to Russia in 2024. The company wants to rent this segment in order to build an orbital cosmodrome on its base.

In order to carry out the first space launch from the Sea Launch, as planned, in December 2019 of the year, the company must receive the first Zenit rocket before the end of 2018 of the year. According to Sergey Sopov, the company keeps within the allotted time. After receiving permission from Ukraine in the spring of 2017, a contract was immediately signed with Yuzhmash on 12 sets of stages of the Zenit launch vehicle. Missile production was funded by 24 million dollars. At present, there are three Zenith sets that are almost completely ready in the Ukrainian plant; they lie there without Russian control systems and engines.


On the restoration of the Sea Launch complex and its withdrawal from the conservation of S7 Space will have to spend about 30 million dollars. But the company is waiting for the issue with the launch vehicle to be resolved, since today they have already invested about 160 million dollars in the acquisition of the Sea Launch and the production of missiles. According to Sopov, in order to bring the complex to a fully operational state, it is necessary to overhaul the command ship in dry dock, since the ship and the launch platform are partially preserved from 2014. For maintenance, repair and removal of all comments will need just about 1,5 year.

Sea Launch is a commercial international project of a sea-based rocket and space complex. To bring it to life in 1995, a company of the same name was created. Its founders were then the Russian RSC Energia, the American corporation Boeing, the shipbuilding enterprise from Norway Kvaerner (today Aker Solutions), the Yuzhnoye design bureau and the Yuzhmash from Ukraine. The project was implemented, but in the summer of the year 2009 faced the first serious problems, the Sea Launch company declared its bankruptcy. After the reorganization procedure in 2010, the Russian company RSC Energia began to play a leading role in the project, but in 2014, the launches were completely stopped. This was largely due to a serious deterioration in relations between Russia and Ukraine.

At the end of September 2016, the Russian group of companies S7 signed a contract with the Sea Launch group for the acquisition of the Sea Launch project. The subject of the transaction was the command ship Sea Launch Commander, the floating platform for launching Odyssey, ground equipment located in the port of Long Beach (California), as well as the trademark Sea Launch. If everything goes as planned, launches from the floating cosmodrome will be resumed at the end of 2019.

Rocket Difficulties for the Sea Launch

The missile challenges for the Sea Launch project forced S7 Space in June 2018 to announce its readiness to resurrect the release of the Soviet NK-33 rocket engines to create their own reusable rocket. S7 Space expected to receive permission from the Russian government for the supply of domestic components to restore the production of Zenit launch vehicles in Ukraine, but this permission is delayed for an indefinite period. Without such permission, Roskosmos is not ready to sell parts for Zenith missiles to the Russian company S7 Space, knowing that they will then be sent to Ukraine.


To replace Zenit, the Russian state corporation offered a Soyuz-5 rocket with an RD-171 engine. But this rocket does not suit S7 Space for economic reasons, although, in fact, it acts as a domestic clone of the formerly deserved Soviet rocket. At the same time, the leadership of S7 Space came out with harsh criticism of the Soyuz-5 rocket. In an interview with the Vedomosti newspaper, Sergey Zopov said that the company does not need a repetition of the Zenith rocket, which was created 40 years ago, irrespective of whether it is a bad rocket or a good one. The repetition of the past is a way in the opposite direction, not even marking time in one place. S7 Space hopes to get a modern and promising means of launching cargo into orbit, which would be based on principles that are clear to business. These principles are the following: a fully reusable space transportation system is needed (at the first stage, it can be partially reusable). Some believe that a cheap rocket can be effective and in a one-time option - nothing like that, notes Sopov. One-time carrier today is a one-time aircraft. Ilon Musk showed everyone a new approach in the field of rocket science: reusability. An effective future rocket must be reusable and have a resource of used elements on 50-100 launches.

That is why the company is not ready to invest in the project of yesterday, S7 Space needs a cost-effective modern carrier that could be used through 5-6 for years instead of Zenit missiles. At the same time, the appearance of such a rocket is being discussed jointly with RSC Energia; a special working group was created for this by the companies.

The way out of the current impasse for the first Russian private space company was the decision to invest 300 million dollars in restoring production in Russia of the former Soviet pride in the rocket engine industry - NK-33, this engine was developed for the Soviet lunar program and has the potential of multiple use. For the resumption of their production requires cooperation with PJSC "Kuznetsov" from Samara, this company is the owner of all the intellectual property on the engine NK-33 and has the necessary production site, as well as a stock of several dozen of these engines, which were collected in 1970-s . Most likely, for the resumption of production it will be necessary to create a separate joint venture with the allocation of production sites directly to PJSC “Kuznetsov”.

Unlike the original Zenith rocket or the future Soyuz-5 rocket, the NK-33 rocket with five engines will be able to make a vertical landing at the expense of the central engine. Therefore, the new rocket can be made reusable, like the brainchild of the American company SpaceX - the Falcon 9 rocket. According to experts, the development of the rocket and the first launches can be carried out in parallel with the resumption of production of new engines. In the scheme “we fly on old, while new ones are released” in this case a new economic sense of multiple use appears. If the very first stage of the rocket returning to earth does not immediately bring economic benefits, this will provide the company with engines for the next launch, which will increase the time to create new ones.


It should be noted that the Russian company took into account the lessons of SpaceX's American colleagues on production optimization. Unlike the "Angara" or "Proton", in which rocket engines are produced in different cities separately from the design, the rocket on the NK-33 engines can be produced in one city - the full production cycle can be organized in Samara. The engines for the new rocket will be manufactured by PJSC Kuznetsov, and the rocket, literally “behind the fence”, will be made at RCC Progress. At the last enterprise, the process of launching Soyuz-5 missiles for Roskosmos should be launched soon; similar elements of the structure can be produced here for S7 Space as well.

The mentioned work will be possible only with the full support of the investor from the state. Support for one Roscosmos is not enough. State support can be expressed in various ways: in readiness to provide the necessary technical documentation and production facilities; in the timely implementation of contracts and agreements reached; and also in government orders for launches. At the same time, the state is also interested in creating a private rocket in the country. As a result, new production will appear, new rocket engines will be assembled, high-tech Russian products will be produced competitively on the world market, and the capabilities of Russian astronautics will increase. But if state-owned corporations consider a private company only as an extra-budgetary source of funds, the project will not take off.

When entering the rocket business S7 Space will automatically have to incur more costs. Not only the investments made at the start will be beaten off - about 160 million dollars, but also 300 million dollars invested in rocketry, as well as annual expenses at the level of 20-30 million dollars that will be spent on operating the Odyssey launch platform. At the same time, the market value of the S7 Space rocket should not exceed the cost of the main competitor and the leader of the current market, the Falcon 9, that is, it should cost less than 62 million dollars in a reusable version and 70-80 million dollars - in a one-off version. Given the "free" of the NK-33 rocket engines that were released in Samara with funds from the USSR, such a price level can be kept. So in the 1990-ies engines NK-33 were sold in the US for 1,1 million dollars apiece. And for example, the Russian RD-171 engine of the Soyuz-5 launch vehicle costs much more, it costs at least 10 million dollars. At the first launches, the company will need to be dumped in order to attract the first customers and conduct full-fledged flight tests of the new launch vehicle to confirm its reliability.

It’s too early to talk about equal competition between SpaceX and the Russian S7 Space. However, there is every opportunity to grow in Russia the first private space company that can take its share in the international market. However, it must be emphasized that this will happen only with state support. Nowadays, high-ranking Roscosmos officials like to blame the American company SpaceX for receiving state support, justifying our commercial failures in the international market for space launches. However, now there is a window of opportunity when it is possible in practice to prove and show exactly how such state support is provided and how a new product can be brought to the world market directly from the Russian Federation.


On possible competition with Mask

It is necessary to understand that today the Sea Launch cosmodrome is the only high-tech project that unites Moscow and Washington in the current geopolitical realities. Today it is a kind of "Soyuz-Apollo". This is a project that in the years of difficult political relations between the two countries should demonstrate the possibility of international cooperation between states. At the same time, Sea Launch will be forced to exist in conditions of very strong competition from the private American space company SpaceX, whose office, by the way, is located just 14 kilometers from the Sea Launch home port, notes Sergey Sopov.

According to the CEO of S7 Space, there is nothing new in this situation; it is planned to compete with Ilon Mask with the price, convenience and comfort of working with the customer, the quality of services provided. Sopov stressed that after the first launch, which is scheduled for December 2019, the company expects to carry out approximately four launches from the Sea Launch each year, and only to launch about 15 space launches in the next 70 years.

At the same time, Sergei Sopov understands that it will be tough to compete. Especially in the beginning. SpaceX is now in the 60 manifest launches, while S7 Space still has none and still has no missiles. It is very difficult to compete in such conditions. At the same time, the Sea Launch has a technical limitations - 6 starts during the year. This is due to the complex logistics of the project: from the base port in California to the launch point at the equator near Christmas Island - 5200 miles, as the distance from Moscow to Vladivostok. The ship will go there from Los Angeles 11 days, the launch platform - 15 days. With the stress of all forces from the Sea Launch, it will be possible to launch up to 7 rockets a year.

A problem with a limited number of space launches has a solution. To do this, S7 Space should have its own Land Launch (a project to launch Zenit missiles from the Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan), which can significantly change the situation. So you can ensure that the rocket is used alone, and its market segments differ. For example, from Baikonur, the Zenit launch vehicle is able to put 3,8 tons of cargo into a commercial geo-transfer orbit and, when launched from the Sea Launch, up to 6,2 tons due to the optimal position of the platform at the equator. Plus the ability to output to low and medium orbits up to 16 tons of cargo with a wide range of orbital inclinations. For customers, the possibility of such a choice is important. In this case, S7 Space will indeed be able to compete with the leading player in the space launch market.


On the official website of S7 Space, a schedule of launches on 2019-2022 from the Odyssey floating platform, which is part of the Sea Launch project, is currently published. The first launch is scheduled for December 2019, with three launches planned for 2020, four launches for 2021 and 2022. Initially, the launches are planned to be carried out with the help of the Zenit rocket, the contract with the Ukrainian Yuzhmash for the construction of 12 rockets was concluded in April 2017 of the year. Deliveries of the first rockets in the Russian company are expected in 2018 year. Sergei Sopov noted that S7 Space will not abandon the Zenit launch vehicle until the Russian industry prepares a new missile for the Sea Launch project.

At the same time, according to Sopov, today many, including those working at Roskosmos, mistakenly believe that this project is only a personal matter of Vladislav Filev, co-owner of S7 company. However, nowadays, when interest in space and in the whole industry has really returned, when ideas of flights to Mars and the Moon are heard again, and the launch of missile launches gather an audience comparable to large television shows, the Sea Launch project’s success or vice versa his failure in the most direct way can affect the image of Russia. Perhaps, Roscosmos does not yet see anything special in Sea Launch, believing that this is just another minor space project. At the same time, in the West, they are aware that restoring the Sea Launch project and carrying out the first launch from the Odyssey platform in 2019 will have a global response more than all the failures and successes of Roskosmos for the year, Sergey stressed Sopov.

Plans for S7 Space for the future

The next stage in the development of the company, designed for 2022-2024 years, is the creation of an orbital cosmodrome based on the elements and segments of the ISS. Back in 2017, the American corporation Boeing addressed NASA with a proposal to privatize the American segment of the International Space Station with a view to its subsequent commercial exploitation. This step is in line with the American policy of the last two decades, aimed at the commercialization of activities in low-Earth orbit.

The plans of the Russian company to create its own orbital cosmodrome, making it a key element of the promising space transport system "near space - deep space." As part of the creation of such a system, the ISS will have to become a full-fledged reloading base, a transport hub, between our planet and deep space, significantly reducing the overall cost of organizing such space flights. With the successful implementation of this project there will be no need to develop very expensive super-heavy launch vehicles, to transport equipment and fuel from Earth. Everything can be done in orbit: repair equipment, refuel, relax.



This ambitious project is proposed to be implemented in the format of a concession agreement for the domestic segment of the ISS. Also, the main structural element of such an orbital cosmodrome will have to be the reusable inter-orbit tug being built today in Russia, which has a megawatt class nuclear power plant on board. No one else has such technologies in the world, therefore Russia should rather occupy a free niche of shipments in deep space. It is for this reason that the full name of S7 Space sounds like “С7 space transportation systems”, since the first private Russian space company expects to work not only in the market for launching missiles and launching various cargoes into near-earth orbit, to maintain space infrastructure in orbit of the Earth, as well as engaged in the maintenance of interplanetary transport.

Information sources:
https://www.vedomosti.ru/business/characters/2018/06/18/773120-mnogorazovaya-raketa
http://www.forbes.ru/tehnologii/364829-sdelay-sam-pobedyat-li-ilona-maska-samarskie-mnogorazovye-rakety
https://ria.ru/space/20180417/1518802021.html
http://tass.ru/kosmos/4995325
http://s7space.ru
Author:
126 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Theodore
    Theodore 27 July 2018 05: 28
    +2
    Moveton! Russian campaign, with a non-Russian name! Fuuuuuuuuu!
    1. For example
      For example 27 July 2018 22: 24
      +2
      as well as service interplanetary transport.

      The author recently read Ilf with Petrov wassat
      Intergalactic chess tournaments S7 will also serve wassat
    2. Bratkov Oleg
      Bratkov Oleg 2 August 2018 17: 38
      +1
      The Americans, only 10 years later, approximately after Gagarin, were able to send their first astronaut into orbit, but, quite American, they lied and lied like the last dogs, which not only fly to the moon, but simply fly into space.
      And here, a comparison of Russian space with "Ilon", as with a sample ...
      Slave-ingratiating, bulk, attitude ...
  2. Hole puncher
    Hole puncher 27 July 2018 05: 37
    +13
    What I see? In VO, did they mention the damned local audience, Ilon Mask, and mentioned in a good context? I can’t believe my eyes, because about SpaceX and the Mask on VO it’s either bad or nothing, basically nothing, not a single news about launches and successes, but here ...
    1. milling machine
      milling machine 27 July 2018 06: 25
      +14
      Quote: Puncher
      What I see? In VO, did they mention the damned local audience, Ilon Mask, and mentioned in a good context? I can’t believe my eyes, because about SpaceX and the Mask on VO it’s either bad or nothing, basically nothing, not a single news about launches and successes, but here ...

      The adoption phase has gone.
      1. Hole puncher
        Hole puncher 27 July 2018 06: 27
        +8
        Quote: frezer
        The adoption phase has gone.

        Depression didn’t seem to have passed yet ...
    2. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 27 July 2018 11: 53
      +3
      Quote: Puncher
      because about SpaceX and the Mask in VO is either bad or nothing,

      Zdra, you characterize the relationship "VO-Ilon Mask" ...! At VO there was already one article friendly to the "little rascal Ilon" - a reprint from some media ....
    3. venik
      venik 27 July 2018 19: 03
      +1
      Quote: Puncher
      What I see? In VO, did they mention the damned local audience, Ilon Mask, and mentioned in a good context?

      ==========
      To begin with, this is not a “VO opinion”, but a PERSONAL OPINION of Sergei Yuferev !!!!
      Secondly, as for me, this "S7 Space" is exactly the same SCAM as the notorious "Space-X" Mask !!! And the reception is similar - at first noisy PR, then a couple of “successful” launches, then even more noisy PR, then IPO, raising funds from investors ....... And then the project can be quietly “cheated”, after transferring money to offshore (further ) ... fellow
      1. Kirill Dou
        Kirill Dou 28 July 2018 12: 24
        +3
        Since when have 57 successful launches in 8 years become a "couple"? Do you have a math problem?
      2. SHURUM -BURUM
        SHURUM -BURUM 28 July 2018 16: 03
        +2
        the restoration of the Sea Launch project and the launch of the first launch from the Odyssey platform in 2019 will have a greater resonance in the world than all the failures and successes of Roscosmos for the year, Sergei Sopov emphasized.
        Yes, at first there will be a lot of noise and fiery speeches, and after death (respect to the lawyers of the new owners), the debts will be borne by Russia. This is the end of the tale. Sea launch and zenith of everything is just an expensive toy, i.e. make noise, play and throw it away. It will not be decisive. Its profitability, after it was calculated with tears, and served as an impetus for an immediate sale. And he, like a boomerang, seems to be back again.
    4. Bratkov Oleg
      Bratkov Oleg 2 August 2018 17: 42
      -1
      In the light of the “lunar scam”, when the USA still couldn’t launch a single astronaut into orbit, but laughed like dogs, they kinda flew to the Moon ... Now, déjà if they succeed, anyway, this will not be soon will believe.
      But you are aware that while the USSR did not give them the technology of burning generator gas, they considered this impossible? Nevertheless, the generator gas was burned up on the shuttles, and since then Russia has not had any restrictions on the sale of oil to countries?
      1. Kirill Dou
        Kirill Dou 2 August 2018 18: 29
        +1
        "In the light of the" lunar scam ", when the United States has not yet been able to launch a single astronaut into orbit, but they laughed like dogs, which kind of flew to the moon ...

        John Glenn's orbital flight was carried out in 1962. The American lunar program was implemented in 1969. Since when 1962 and 1969 - the same thing?)

        "But you are aware that until the USSR gave them the technology of afterburning generator gas, they considered this impossible?" - Yes, yes, yes, we are aware that the Universe itself came from the USSR. The Big Bang is a test of the Soviet cast-iron bomb, not otherwise.

        “Nevertheless, the generator gas was burned up on the shuttles, and Russia has not had any restrictions on the sale of oil to countries since then?”

        The USSR did not have any restrictions on the sale of oil since the first half of the 70s, when the Arab countries, which took place in the ... Doomsday War, organized an oil embargo on the West.

        In general, get drunk)
        1. Bratkov Oleg
          Bratkov Oleg 16 December 2018 13: 27
          0
          Quote: Kirill Dou
          John Glenn's orbital flight was carried out in 1962. The American lunar program was implemented in 1969. Since when 1962 and 1969 - the same thing?) ...

          No need to pass off the false American propaganda as the truth. Do not so stupidly believe in this lie.
          Remember, the United States first flew into space 10 years after the flight of Yuri Gagarin, and have never been to the moon.
          They still can not fly into space, get on the way.
      2. Simargl
        Simargl 22 October 2018 05: 36
        0
        Conspiroluch You are ours! Urgently fly to the moon, unscrew the spare part from the lunar module and back.
        Bablishka not? Then at least an orbital camera with sufficient resolution.
        And there is no so much money? Well, learn the information from official sources, and not from the ignorant conspirators.
        Not enough brains? ... a bad case. Do not help you ...
  3. Hole puncher
    Hole puncher 27 July 2018 05: 59
    +8
    Regarding the topic of the article, from the very beginning I consider this venture a complete profanity designed for
    The indicated work will be possible only with the full support of the investor from the state.

    That is, to stick to budget funds, suck a couple of yards of dollars and naturally hide behind the curtain of bankruptcy. There is no other motivation.
    1. Army soldier2
      Army soldier2 27 July 2018 11: 40
      +4
      And so it seems to me. Sea Launch showed its failure. 32 successful launch in 20 years.
      Why would Roskosmos load Yuzhmash? To help a competitor? Why would OAO them. Kuznetsov for nothing to give engines NK-33? But in what condition can rocket engines manufactured in the 70's be? This is not a foundation block.
      I support the aspirations of S7 Space, but what kind of state support are they talking about? Apparently, without its scientific and production base, all this will turn into a nibble of pieces from the budget of Roscosmos.
      State support is of course needed. In the form of tax benefits, loans, etc.
      1. Bratkov Oleg
        Bratkov Oleg 16 December 2018 13: 29
        0
        It turns out that NK-33, after half a century in stock, remain in excellent condition. This is not American bullshit, it is - Made in the USSR.
    2. Mikhail Matyugin
      Mikhail Matyugin 28 July 2018 10: 51
      +1
      Quote: Puncher
      That is, to stick to budget funds, suck a couple of yards of dollars and naturally hide behind the curtain of bankruptcy. There is no other motivation.

      I will only be very happy if in the end it is not so. Unfortunately, the scenario you described is very likely ...
    3. Kirill Dou
      Kirill Dou 28 July 2018 12: 48
      +1
      Well, do not judge so categorically. Filev is still not anyhow anyone to twist the scam. Another point is that his chosen course for close cooperation with Roskosmos may turn against him.
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. Nix1986
    Nix1986 27 July 2018 07: 03
    +8
    Yes, even call the star shipyard, there is no returnable carrier, and most importantly there is no Russian Elon Mask. Serdyuk should be appointed or Rogozin and things will go laughing
    1. Winnie76
      Winnie76 27 July 2018 11: 02
      +7
      Quote: Nix1986
      and most importantly there is no Russian Elon Mask.

      It was. Mavrodi is his last name. Poisoned a genius ...
      1. Nix1986
        Nix1986 27 July 2018 13: 03
        +1
        Actually, in fact, they were, but our system does not like geniuses, the same Elizarov.
      2. Kirill Dou
        Kirill Dou 28 July 2018 12: 28
        +1
        Well, if Mavrodi is a genius for you, then it’s understandable why the Russian Federation does not have its own “Elon Mask”))
    2. Lycan
      Lycan 27 July 2018 15: 45
      +2
      Quote: Nix1986
      Serdyuk should be appointed or Rogozin, and things will go laughing

      I want to make a joke, but I'm afraid they will realize it .. This is me about the omnipresent Mutko.
    3. Simargl
      Simargl 22 October 2018 05: 40
      0
      Quote: Nix1986
      no return media
      And why precisely returnable? Shuttle proved that the return media should be launched often, otherwise it is not profitable. With a modern launch load, a reusable carrier is like flying to the moon: it is possible (technologically) but not necessary (economically).
      Quote: Nix1986
      and most importantly there is no Russian Elon Mask
      Rogozin - not? wassat laughing
      And what is the "genius" of the Mask?
  6. san4es
    san4es 27 July 2018 09: 43
    +2
    The company announced its plans in this regard as early as 1,5 years ago. At the then press conference, journalists actively asked co-owner of the holding Vladislav Filev - are there any risks
    Sep 30 2016 year
  7. Loess
    Loess 27 July 2018 10: 48
    +1
    The company wants to rent this segment in order to build an orbital spaceport on its basis.

    The Russian company plans to create its own orbital spaceport, making it a key element of the promising space transport system “near space - deep space”.

    From the poem “Good” (1927) by Mayakovsky:
    I love our plans
  8. Curious
    Curious 27 July 2018 12: 33
    +2
    This is where the difference between drawing cartoons about the "peace of mind" and real affairs is manifested.
    There is a man - Filev Vladislav Feliksovich, In 1985 he graduated from the Mozhaisk Academy of Military Space Forces (Leningrad). That is, a person, on the one hand, is a successful businessman, and on the other, he is quite thinking in an object called astronautics. And this successful businessman in this very space program is not against investing his money .. It would seem that the ugly must be greeted with a bang. But no. Paradox.
  9. srha
    srha 27 July 2018 13: 10
    0
    Hmm. The speed (m / s) of the Earth's rotation at the equator 465, at Baikonur 316, the difference is 152, which is 7800% of the speed of the rocket at NOU 2. Is the game worth the candle? BUT if someone saves the project alive - that means that someone suggests a gesheft - and he is clearly not in these 2%. And seeing the American "ears" in the project, I even guess this someone. By the way, a very rare case when Americans support a competitor to their business. Doesn't it make you think?

    And by the way, why wouldn’t they make a ground start on a small island in the central Atlantic (+ 2%)? Why on Baikonur?

    In general, as for me, it’s so murky somehow with this “start”.
  10. Dazdranagon
    Dazdranagon 27 July 2018 14: 26
    0
    We saw private traders ... Where is the E-mobile now?
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 27 July 2018 19: 14
      +1
      In on E-point for senior citizens, has developed.
  11. Jerk
    Jerk 27 July 2018 14: 31
    +2
    Today, high-ranking officials of Roscosmos love to blame the American company SpaceX for receiving state support, justifying our commercial failures in the international space launch market.

    Somewhat wrong. The point is not that state support, the point is that it is pointless to compete with Mask - he is a swindler, not an entrepreneur. Do you realize that he does not have a single paid-off project? NO ONE!!! All of these Mask frauds are the purest advertising temptation, they only advertise not the product, but the "American way of life" - that’s why the state invests in it, this is not state support, but the purest advertising political project.
    And we need to make from a sea launch - a profitable enterprise, and not House-2 by Mask
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 27 July 2018 17: 06
      +7
      Like Be PayPel paid off quite well. And the remaining projects are in a stage of rapid growth and development.
      1. Hole puncher
        Hole puncher 27 July 2018 17: 58
        +7
        Quote: BlackMokona
        Like Be PayPel paid off quite well. And the remaining projects are in a stage of rapid growth and development.

        Do not argue with the patriot, he is in the stage of denial
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 27 July 2018 22: 05
      +6
      Are you not using PayPal? Awesomely profitable Mask project.
      And Space-X in 2017 came in net profit. And 2018 promises to be profitable if it goes smoothly, as it is today. Orders - three years in advance. The Mask has 59 successful launches and the lowest accident rate in the industry.
      Unprofitable - for now - Tesla. And not from the fact that there are LITTLE orders, in bulk - but from the fact that they do not have time to do 6,000 cars per WEEK. Compare in the E-mobile? laughing
      1. Jerk
        Jerk 28 July 2018 00: 23
        0
        Hm did it seem to pay off that NASA abandoned Falcon 9?
        February 06, 2018 - SpaceX has postponed plans to use the new Falcon Heavy superheavy rocket to deliver astronauts to the orbit of the moon and beyond Earth. Instead, the company, under the leadership of Elon Musk, will focus on developing an even larger medium, the Big Falcon Rocket (BFR), The Wall Street Journal reported with reference to Musk himself.

        Do not bother the sectarians to play with their unsubstantiated fantasies ... But Tesla generally bears the future, along with Solar City, according to which a US court found Mask guilty of fraud for the purpose of receiving subsidies from the government
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 28 July 2018 09: 25
          +4
          NASA is lobbying the Boeing Lockheed alliance, Mask rivals. And he puts sticks in the wheels of Space X, using the right of "veto" on manned flights. If not for this, Musk would have long launched people into space on his tested and returned Dragon (with minimal) alterations.
          The next launch of Falcon Heavy, by the way, is flaped for November of this year. With dozens of commercial satellites. Private traders in Mask believe in and do not refuse his services.
          1. Kirill Dou
            Kirill Dou 28 July 2018 12: 12
            +1
            Not certainly in that way. NASA uses both ULA and SpaceX services. The delay with manned launches at SpaceX is due to the fact that NASA is a big reinsurer, so the manned version of the "Dragon" is constantly tested for reliability. Actually, the “Starliner” from the Boeing is being detained for exactly the same time and for exactly the same reasons.

            But the US military - yes, they prefer to use the services of ULA, although this also changes - SpaceX is already fulfilling some military orders.
            1. Cannonball
              Cannonball 28 July 2018 13: 51
              +1
              NASA is not reinsurers, not adventurers. Reliability and safety requirements are written by human blood and human lives. Any accident with human casualties will stop the manned NASA program for several years with all the ensuing image, political, financial and other costs, and, without fail, an additional tightening of the requirements for reliability and safety.
              1. Kirill Dou
                Kirill Dou 28 July 2018 14: 06
                +1
                I used the word "reinsurers" in a neutral rather than negative context. It is clear that the STATE agency will present particularly stringent requirements to the CC. These requirements are not necessarily justified, but it is better to fulfill them all.

                If Musk will carry out manned launches in the future on an individual basis, not under the auspices of NASA, then the reliability requirements may change to a greater or lesser extent.
                1. Cannonball
                  Cannonball 28 July 2018 15: 26
                  +1
                  Reliability and safety requirements are always justified. Here we are talking about the life of astronauts.
                  1. Kirill Dou
                    Kirill Dou 28 July 2018 15: 40
                    +1
                    Not always. If the safety requirements begin to contradict the reliability, simplicity and other characteristics of the vehicle, they are either abandoned or are looking for a compromise. You will not make flights completely safe, especially space flights. Even car driving is not 100% safe. You will make them safe until the moment the risk becomes acceptable.
                    1. Cannonball
                      Cannonball 28 July 2018 17: 47
                      0
                      Oh no. In aviation and astronautics - always.
                      1. Kirill Dou
                        Kirill Dou 28 July 2018 17: 57
                        +1
                        Please read about the flight of Apollo 13. About Mir station, too. And then you will realize how unsafe it is to fly on spacecraft.
                      2. Cannonball
                        Cannonball 20 October 2018 15: 59
                        0
                        What I don't know about the Mir station if I created it myself?
        2. Jerk
          Jerk 31 July 2018 04: 22
          0
          Listen, you ... What about the payback, how would you. Do you know how a Jew is different from a Jew? Did you understand
      2. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 28 July 2018 09: 44
        +6
        "Tesla generally bears the future," /////
        ----
        Tesla caused the same shock in the automotive industry as the Falcon-9 in the rocket.
        And she stirred up all the veteran giants for new developments.
        Now there is not a single car company that would not develop a “response to Elon Mask”. There, the Scandinavians are planning to ban ALL petrol engines by 2030.
        You will come as a tourist to Sweden in Zhiguli, but there are no gas stations! belay
        Hello from Elon Musk!
        1. Kirill Dou
          Kirill Dou 28 July 2018 12: 44
          +2
          It’s just that the patriots, not understanding the market, are trying to judge this market.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 18 September 2018 20: 58
            0
            Quote: Kirill Dou
            It’s just that the patriots, not understanding the market, are trying to judge this market.

            Electric cars are not in demand on the market ... for now. While we generate electricity by burning oil, gas, coal - electric cars will not replace cars with internal combustion engines.
        2. Jerk
          Jerk 31 July 2018 04: 25
          0
          Volvo look at what they did, shock creature
          We are silent about ours))))
          1. Kirill Dou
            Kirill Dou 2 August 2018 15: 18
            0
            Yes, better generally keep quiet, about everything)
        3. Soho
          Soho 2 August 2018 08: 52
          0
          voyaka uh (Alexey) July 28, 2018 09:44 ↑
          Tesla caused the same shock in the automotive industry as the Falcon-9 in the rocket.

          phrase in the spirit of commentators on channel 1. What a shock? Some kind of stupidity ... Hybrid and electric cars are already more than 100 years old. Since the 90s, attempts have been constantly made to bring cars to the market, the principle of motion of which is mixed or electrical. And the main limitation until the early 2000s was the low performance of power supplies. And then it began in the 21st century with its expensive oil, the struggle for the environment and the improvement of the power plant (using more capacious LIBs). And Tesla here acts only on a par with other manufacturers. Musk just wrapped it all in a shiny candy wrapper, starting with the choice of the name and ending with the filing. So do not, dear, harness the cart in front of the horse ....
          1. Kirill Dou
            Kirill Dou 2 August 2018 17: 13
            0
            The shock is that it was Tesla on its Roadstere and then on subsequent models that the electric car can be beautiful, stylish and fashionable, and not a car for geeks. The first Roadster had many design flaws, but he performed his role.

            And in subsequent models, the main technical claims to the roadster were removed, but the chic and prestige remained. Which contributes to a new public view of electric cars.

            Nobody says that Musk "created an electric car." But it’s obvious that he created an electric car that you want to buy.
            1. Soho
              Soho 3 August 2018 04: 33
              0
              Kirill Dou (Kirill Dou)
              The shock is that it was Tesla on its Roadstere and then on subsequent models that the electric car showed

              write frank nonsense. Shock can be caused by innovative technology that has turned the general worldview and laid the foundation for a new concept. And what you write is just design and nothing more. Interior, exterior, all sorts of newfangled Pribluda - all this of course is pleasant and pleasing to the eye. But this is the reaction of consumers, and not representatives of the auto industry. No need to pick out the arguments from the nose, we already realized that you are praying for the Mask and are ready to fight for his bright image here until blue in the face :))
              1. Kirill Dou
                Kirill Dou 3 August 2018 16: 08
                0
                "The interior, exterior, all sorts of newfangled stray - all this of course is pleasant and pleasing to the eye. But this is the reaction of consumers, not representatives of the auto industry"

                Excuse me, of course, but it’s not the manufacturers who buy the cars, namely the consumers. You can make an arbitrarily breakthrough technology, but if it does not cause a response from the end customer, the price is worthless.
      3. Kirill Dou
        Kirill Dou 28 July 2018 12: 10
        +5
        1. And where in the passage you quoted says that NASA refused Falcon-9?

        Firstly, the Falcon-9 LV was never designed for flights to the moon at all, it is designed to remove the load on the NOU / GPO, including the delivery of cargo to the ISS. And since 2011, NASA has been using SpaceX to supply the ISS and is not going to refuse. Moreover, NASA also signed a contract with SpaceX for the development and launch of astronauts on the ISS using the reusable manned spacecraft Dragon Crew, the first manned launch of which will be in January 2019.

        Secondly, SpaceX planned to use Falcon Heavy (rather than Falcon-9) to deliver astronauts to the lunar orbit, and this was a personal initiative of the Mask itself. He canceled it not because of NASA, but because he plans to do it now not with the help of Falcon Heavy, but with the help of the BFR, the creation of which has thrown most of the company's money and labor resources. Falcon Heavy is planned to be used to launch heavy vehicles into Earth orbit.

        2. "along with Solar City, according to which a US court found Mask guilty of fraud in order to receive subsidies from the government"

        Can I refer to the fact that the US court accused Mask of fraud? Well, about Tesla, the Warrior-Uh told you everything.
    3. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 28 July 2018 02: 19
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Compare in the E-mobile?

      There was no such thing! There was a yo-mobile! stop
    4. The comment was deleted.
  12. Kirill Dou
    Kirill Dou 28 July 2018 12: 22
    +4
    1. SpaceX is profitable. And for the first time, she did this at the beginning of 2016, shortly before the rocket explosion on the launch pad in September 2016. This explosion and the delayed launch caused by it - yes, they again drove the company at a loss, from which it got out in 2017.

    As for the unprofitableness of Tesla, it is associated with a very sharp growth and expansion of production, and not with its supposedly inefficiency.

    2. There is no state support, there is a contract. NASA ordered Space to develop a rocket and a cargo ship to supply the ISS, allocating only 300 million dollars for this. This is generally a tiny figure, if that. Despite this, Musk was able to develop both the rocket and the Dragon truck, which are now flying to the ISS. NASA also signed a contract to develop a manned version of the ship and to launch astronauts to the ISS - the first manned flight in January 2019.

    If you do not distinguish a contract from state support, this is your problem, not the Mask.

    3. As for the fact that “Mask” is a swindler. Since 2010, SpaceX completed 59 launches, of which only 2 ended in disaster, the rest are all successful. We would have to Roskosmos such scams.
    1. Soho
      Soho 2 August 2018 09: 05
      0
      Kirill Dou (Kirill Dou)
      As for the unprofitableness of Tesla, it is associated with a very sharp growth and expansion of production, and not with its supposedly inefficiency.

      you claim to be the chief accountant of Tesla and keep the balance in your hands laughing and meanwhile, any economist will tell you what to show over the years operating loss (not to mention profit) can only a soap bubble company.
      If you do not distinguish a contract from state support - this is your problem, not the Mask

      before you shake the air so loudly you should look at the beginning of the creation of Space-X.
      1. Kirill Dou
        Kirill Dou 2 August 2018 14: 59
        +1
        “and yet any economist” - that’s when the economist, and not you, tells me that, then I will agree. In the meantime, blah blah blah.

        "before you shake the air so loudly, you should look at the beginning of the creation of Space-X"

        2002 - the establishment of the company.

        March 2006 - the company for the first time launches the Falcon-1 rocket, developed for its money. Crash. Investigation of the reasons.

        In August 2006, the company became one of the winners. in the competition NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program and received a total funding of approximately 396 million, for the development and demonstration of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon ship [2] [3]. The COTS contract was divided into 40 stages, each of which was paid separately. Its implementation lasted until 2012.

        September 28, 2008, the first successful launch of the Falcon 1 launch vehicle and the launch of the payload into orbit

        December 22, 2008 between SpaceX and NASA signed contract under the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) program for the supply of the International Space Station in the amount of $ 1,6 billion [6]. Three more were added to the original 12 planned missions later.

        Do you see the word CONTRACT? There is a private company founded on its own money by Musk. With his own money, he developed the first Falcon-1 rocket. Yes - an accident. The reason is established. Among other (important) companies, NASA chose SpaceX to develop a rocket and a space truck to supply the ISS. Allocating at the same time about 400 million dollars.

        There is a contract, there is a customer, there is a performer. The contract was completed on time (and in a very short time). What’s the state support here? The money was allocated specifically for this, and not for the existence of SpaceX itself. Of course, the money from this contract helped the company stay afloat, but they were honestly earned for the fulfillment of the contract, and were not issued by the state to the company just so that it would not put down its hooves.
        1. Soho
          Soho 3 August 2018 04: 39
          0
          “and yet any economist” - that’s when the economist, and not you, tells me that, then I will agree. In the meantime, blah blah blah.

          so far the primary source of the blab is another "argument", picked out of the nose, about Tesla's excellent financial position and prospects. Enough can be shocking here with data from Wikipedia No. so we already realized that you can copy data from there.
          1. Kirill Dou
            Kirill Dou 3 August 2018 16: 10
            0
            "Tesla's excellent financial position and prospects"

            Where did I talk about Tesla's excellent financial position? You have some kind of fantasy.

            And the previous comment generally related to SpaceX. Didn’t you sleep enough?

            Yes, I take data from Wikipedia, which, in turn, is based on other sources. And now what?
  • iouris
    iouris 27 July 2018 14: 44
    +1
    I doubt that Musk understands something. He simply “personifies” some of the programs developed by DARPA, funded by the US administration.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 27 July 2018 17: 07
      -1
      And you can find out what kind of projects DARPA?
    2. Hole puncher
      Hole puncher 27 July 2018 17: 59
      +4
      Quote: iouris
      He simply "personifies" some of the programs developed by DARPA, funded by the US administration

      What a dumb version, just dumber and can’t be
    3. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 27 July 2018 22: 00
      +3
      He himself understands, and his young engineers. Just the boys.
      And the chief engineer in his Space-X is a woman, a mechanical engineer.
      What a blow to male chauvinism! laughing
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 28 July 2018 02: 14
        +3
        Quote: voyaka uh
        What a blow to male chauvinism!


        Once "Yaroslavl guys" sang: ,, Valya, Valya Tereshkova! Give the countrymen an answer! You’ve undermined us .... oh, our male authority! " wink
      2. Kirill Dou
        Kirill Dou 28 July 2018 12: 38
        +2
        The spaces hit both male chauvinism and Russian chauvinism ("Yes, the Americans can’t do rockets!") And old-timer hi
        1. Cannonball
          Cannonball 28 July 2018 13: 54
          0
          Something I do not see a “blow." Well, people work, well, they launch rockets ... True, I do not know how much they are really cheaper than others. Maybe their Mask from his own pocket subsidizes to deceive the public.
          1. Kirill Dou
            Kirill Dou 28 July 2018 14: 03
            +2
            Yeah, 10 years subsidizes, lol
            1. Cannonball
              Cannonball 28 July 2018 15: 28
              0
              He can subsidize twenty-five years. Glory to him is more expensive than a certain amount of money, which the Mask is not critical. And fame just building rockets now is not particularly earned. Hence the dumping.
              1. Kirill Dou
                Kirill Dou 28 July 2018 15: 42
                0
                1. He cannot subsidize even 5 years, because he and his investors simply go broke. The state can subsidize, not the private trader, but SpaceX is precisely a private corporation.

                2. "Glory to him is more expensive than a certain amount of money" - are you the personal psychologist Mask? Where did you get information about what matters to him and what doesn't?)
                1. Cannonball
                  Cannonball 28 July 2018 17: 51
                  0
                  Ilon Mask has enough money to work at a loss in the automotive industry - Tesla, and therefore in rocket science too. But everyone is talking and writing about him - Musk may be pleased.
                  Mask was not written about ambitions and ambition only by the lazy. If you want to refute, refute. But only reasoned.
                  1. Kirill Dou
                    Kirill Dou 28 July 2018 19: 19
                    +2
                    "Ilon Mask has enough money to work at a loss in the automotive industry - Tesla, which means in rocket science too."

                    Very controversial. The automotive and space industry are very different, with different risks, market structure, etc. In the automotive industry, working at a loss and staying afloat is easier than in the space because cars are easier to sell and it is easier to attract foreign investment. In the rocket and space industry, everything is different - the market is much narrower, not everyone will invest in projects either.

                    "Mask was not written about ambitions and ambition only by the lazy. If you want to refute, refute. But only with argumentation"

                    And I did not say that he was not ambitious, I questioned your claim that fame is more expensive for him than money. That you must prove your point of view, not me)
                    1. Cannonball
                      Cannonball 28 July 2018 19: 24
                      0
                      The Internet is in your hands. I owe you nothing. I notified you, and you are looking for confirmation of my words or a refutation. I read, now you read.
                      1. Kirill Dou
                        Kirill Dou 28 July 2018 19: 49
                        +2
                        Clearly, you have no evidence.

                        On the Internet, they can write whatever they want. I judge by specific data - the growth in the number of launches. In addition, if the company was able to find the money to develop the Falcon Heavy supertractor in parallel with the launches of the Falcon-9, and even now it is developing a much more ambitious (and, therefore, costly) BFR, then this at least indirectly indicates that the company is doing very well not bad. You know that SpaceX is still a private company, it is not represented at the IPO? Accordingly, it cannot receive investments from the sale of its shares on the stock exchange (like Tesla Motors). 2/3 of SpaceX is owned by the Mask itself, which means that most of the costs are borne by him. There are also few investors. So if he manages to keep the company afloat for 8 years, and even increases explosive launch rates, this is just an indicator of profitability. According to Wall Street Jornal, which received financial documents from SpaceX, the company until 2015 (then the first of two accidents) of the year showed a small, but still profitable, despite the fact that it carried out launches at that time much less than now.
                      2. Cannonball
                        Cannonball 20 October 2018 16: 11
                        0
                        In August 2006, the company became one of the winners of the NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program and received a total funding of about 396 million, for the development and demonstration of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon ship. The COTS contract was divided into 40 stages, each of which was paid separately.

                        On December 22, 2008, SpaceX and NASA signed a contract under the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) program to supply the International Space Station in the amount of 1,6 billion. Three more were added to the original 12 planned missions later.

                        In 2011, SpaceX begins participating in the NASA Manned Commercial Crew Program. As part of this program, SpaceX concludes a contract to develop a manned spacecraft on 75 million $ in 2011 and on 440 million $ in 2012 year.

                        On January 14, 2016, NASA selected SpaceX as one of the three winners of the competition for the second phase of the ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) supply program, with 6 guaranteed missions for the Dragon ship and the option to renew the contract if necessary.

                        On April 27, 2016, the company received its first EELV contract with the United States Air Force on a space mission program for the most important satellites for state security, for launching the GPS 3-2 navigation satellite. The amount of the contract was 82,7 million.
  • Kirill Dou
    Kirill Dou 28 July 2018 12: 41
    +2
    Doubt further)) And Musk and his guys, meanwhile, will continue to develop and launch space carriers and devices.
    1. Cannonball
      Cannonball 28 July 2018 13: 54
      0
      Until they put him in prison for something.
      1. Kirill Dou
        Kirill Dou 28 July 2018 14: 01
        +3
        Fortunately, he lives not in Russia, but in the USA
        1. Cannonball
          Cannonball 28 July 2018 15: 29
          0
          In the US they plant one or two. At least for financial fraud with Tesla.
          1. Kirill Dou
            Kirill Dou 28 July 2018 15: 43
            +3
            And what financial fraud with Tesla do you incriminate Mask?)
            1. Cannonball
              Cannonball 28 July 2018 17: 55
              +1
              Read on the Internet, there, specialist financiers laid out everything on the shelves. Tesla Motoros, which has been suffering many million losses for a year, however, continues to pursue an aggressive policy, ignoring the money and the opinions of shareholders. A scam? Undoubtedly.
              1. Kirill Dou
                Kirill Dou 28 July 2018 18: 53
                +4
                And, that is, no official charges were brought against the Mask, and all your fantasies are based on the opinion of some "financial experts" there)))

                The losses of Tesla Motors are explained very simply - very high production growth. When you ramp up production at a fast pace, you will be at a loss. Nevertheless, Tesla’s shares are growing in the market, capitalization too - this proves a high level of investor confidence in the company. But investors are not. This month, Tesla reached a production volume of 7000 cars per week.
                1. Cannonball
                  Cannonball 28 July 2018 19: 26
                  0
                  It might be enough to troll, huh? You well understand what I'm writing about, you don’t have to build yourself out of "I have not seen, I do not know."
                  1. Kirill Dou
                    Kirill Dou 28 July 2018 19: 57
                    +3
                    No, I don’t understand what you are writing about. You first talk about some alleged financial fraud (this is a legal term meaning a financial crime), and then it turns out that by this concept you mean something of your own.

                    No charges were filed against Mask for finance - therefore, you cannot talk about them.

                    Yes, some financial analysts criticize Musk for his risky management scheme, but no one has ever accused him of fraud.
                    1. Cannonball
                      Cannonball 28 July 2018 20: 31
                      0
                      I am not a lawyer, not a lawyer, but I seem to have common sense. Therefore, the field for fraud is clearly looking through.

                      Here are some headlines from the Tesla Motors news site:

                      17.01.2018/XNUMX/XNUMX Norwegians filed a lawsuit against Tesla Motors
                      12.03.2018/XNUMX/XNUMX Tesla Chief Accountant quits
                      26.03.2018/XNUMX/XNUMX Tesla company left its director without salary
                      09.04.2018/123/XNUMX Tesla Motors recalled XNUMX thousand electric cars Model S
                      17.04.2018 Tesla Motors approaches bankruptcy
                      19.04.2018/XNUMX/XNUMX Tesla admitted its mistake
                      22.04.2018/3/XNUMX Tesla Model XNUMX production suspended
                      02.05.2018/XNUMX/XNUMX Tesla Motors left another employee
                      09.05.2018/XNUMX/XNUMX Tesla Motors sued
                      13.05.2018/XNUMX/XNUMX Tesla Motors incurs financial losses
                      19.05.2018/XNUMX/XNUMX Financier Soros saved Tesla Motors from bankruptcy
                      07.06.2018/XNUMX/XNUMX Ilona Mask was not fired from Tesla Motors
                      13.06.2018/9/XNUMX Tesla Motors will dismiss XNUMX% of its employees
                      29.06.2018/XNUMX/XNUMX Tesla Motors will lose state support
                      13.07.2018/XNUMX/XNUMX Tesla left their chief engineer
                      20.07.2018/XNUMX/XNUMX German Tesla buyers will have to return subsidies
                      26.07.2018/XNUMX/XNUMX Tesla shares fell due to a request for suppliers to return money
                      27.07.2018/XNUMX/XNUMX Tesla Motors secrets shared

                      http://teslazone.ru/news
  • Gennadich
    Gennadich 27 July 2018 14: 51
    +1
    fail, we only know how to cut money with this system ... conditionally, this office will belong to the conditional vrotenberg or Usman and will suck from the budget
  • prosto_rgb
    prosto_rgb 27 July 2018 18: 13
    +4
    Something tormented me by vague doubts that "Russian challenge to Elon Mask." will end as follows.
    That year by 2025, when the BFR "will be on the wing", and the Falcon-9 will go on a "well-deserved rest" in SpaceX.
    This very Falcon-9 will be bought for an unknown number of “dirty green papers” or Roscosmos or someone else, and it will become not capitalist-bourgeois, but the native Orthodox-patriotic Sunrise-7 or Soyuz-25.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 27 July 2018 19: 16
      +1
      Yes, horseradish bald Falcon-9 sell where.
      1. prosto_rgb
        prosto_rgb 27 July 2018 21: 56
        +1
        Quote: Vadim237
        Yes, horseradish bald Falcon-9 sell where.

        Now naturally they will not sell
        And when the BFR "will be on the wing" - who knows?
        In the 1st Five-Year Plan, how many plants from the USA were delivered to the USSR?
        Of course they paid in gold, but still ...
        Yes, and the sale is not at all obligatory under such a scheme.
        They may carry it to Vostochny, as Roscosmos is now carrying Unions to the Kura.
  • Cannonball
    Cannonball 27 July 2018 21: 24
    0
    Another blown bubble. I do not believe!!!
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 27 July 2018 21: 57
    +7
    "Sopov. One-time carrier today is a one-time aircraft." ////
    -----
    good good
    A few years ago, here on the forum, I gave the same example: "disposable aircraft."
    How they all attacked me! : "I don’t bother anything in rocket science, disposability is our everything!"
    laughing
    1. Kirill Dou
      Kirill Dou 28 July 2018 12: 40
      +2
      I am generally struck by the obstinacy of the idiots. Well, we would look at the list of launches made by SpaceX, how many of them were successful, how many were unsuccessful. This will give an answer to all questions related to the "con man Mask." But no, until now someone is talking about "a couple of successful launches and huge PR."
  • Kirill Dou
    Kirill Dou 28 July 2018 12: 43
    +1
    I really hope that S7 will succeed, although I believe that the chosen course for close cooperation with Roskosmos will not bring the guys to good. Hope I'm wrong, but ...
  • Cannonball
    Cannonball 28 July 2018 17: 59
    +1
    Kirill douwhat should i read? I did the Mir station myself. Will still argue. I have been working in the rocket and space industry for over 30 years.
    1. Kirill Dou
      Kirill Dou 28 July 2018 18: 10
      +1
      Then explain to me why the poisonous refrigerant ethylene glycol was used in the air conditioning systems of the Mir station, and not analogues safe for humans?
      1. Cannonball
        Cannonball 28 July 2018 19: 29
        +1
        In sealed systems, anything can be used, even heptyl in propulsion systems. By the way, ammonia used in the cooling system of the American segment can hardly be called safe for humans.
        1. Kirill Dou
          Kirill Dou 28 July 2018 20: 02
          +1
          "Anything can be used in sealed systems, even heptyl in propulsion systems."

          The only trick is that this very tight installation (air conditioning system) in 1997 was depressurized and there was a leak of toxic refrigerant, which directly threatened the health of the crew. So I ask - if in the space industry supposedly, as you say, the crew’s safety requirements are always complied with, why didn’t they use non-toxic refrigerant, which doesn’t pose a threat in case of a leak?
          1. Cannonball
            Cannonball 28 July 2018 20: 39
            +1
            Absolutely reliable systems do not exist in principle, however, with a sufficient degree of reliability and protection, the use of hazardous components is possible, if this is technically justified. The situation is the same with Mir. And not only with the "World". Nuclear power plants, ships with nuclear installations have been in operation for decades, despite the radioactive danger of fuel and half-life products. And few people decide to abandon nuclear energy, but you can’t build nuclear facilities that easily.
            In the end, even apricot kernels have a deadly hydrocyanic acid. However, apricots are eaten, as well as the nucleoli of apricot kernels.
            1. Kirill Dou
              Kirill Dou 28 July 2018 20: 51
              +2
              "Absolutely reliable systems do not exist in principle, however, with a sufficient degree of reliability and protection, the use of hazardous components is possible, if it is technically justified."

              That's it, I’m telling you about this - security is not brought to the absolute, but to an acceptable level of risk. The only question is that each organization itself determines this acceptable level. NASA may have one criteria, Roskosmos - other, Mask - third, Boeing and Lockheed Martin - fourth. While SpaceX is fulfilling a STATE contract for the delivery of astronauts, they are developing ships in accordance with state standards (represented by NASA). If in the future the company will carry out manned launches (in the moon, to Mars, etc.), it has the right to develop its own level of acceptable risk.

              The whole point is that NASA bases its safety criteria on the experience of its past flights. But the past manned ships of the Americans were developed in the 70s, when measuring equipment, diagnostic equipment were much less sophisticated than now. Therefore, it is possible that some of NASA's security requirements are already redundant.
              1. Cannonball
                Cannonball 29 July 2018 12: 38
                +1
                The degree of security is determined by the Customer. NASA and Roscosmos may be customers, Lockheed, Boeing, SpaceX - no. Without the permission of the Customer, no product can be taken into operation.
                Security requirements only tighten over time. Confirmed by time.
                1. Kirill Dou
                  Kirill Dou 29 July 2018 12: 59
                  0
                  "The degree of safety is determined by the Customer" That's right, now the state agencies are the customers of manned flights. But who told you that SpaceX, Boeing and other private companies can not completely independently carry out space flights in the future?
                  1. Cannonball
                    Cannonball 29 July 2018 15: 52
                    +1
                    Nobody will allow them on their own. NASA and Air Force Space Command control space launches. Without their knowledge, no one will fly anywhere.
                    1. Kirill Dou
                      Kirill Dou 29 July 2018 23: 10
                      -1
                      Yes, because it is so enshrined in law. But no one bothers to change this legislation. Just as in air transportation there are state, and there are private carriers, so in space it will be the same over time.
                      1. Cannonball
                        Cannonball 29 July 2018 23: 37
                        +1
                        Try changing something legislatively in the USA.
                        All private carriers have passed certification and access to air transportation. Otherwise, they will simply be knocked down as an unidentified (enemy) object.
  • Cannonball
    Cannonball 28 July 2018 20: 16
    +1
    Kirill douI do not argue, Space X is now afloat. However, elon Mask has not been written about the costs of maintaining her work. Therefore, I say that the prices for launches may well be dumped - the personal state of the mask allows dumping. And in his other brainchild, “Tesla Motoros” today is deeply unprofitable.
    Over the past 8 years, the company has shown a net annual loss. The largest losses occurred in 2017, amounting to 2,24 billion US dollars. In the first quarter of 2018, the company updated the record for loss-making. The loss amounted to 710 million dollars. Steve Wozniak, one of the co-founders of Apple, in early 2018 criticized the head of Tesla for not fulfilling public promises and for the lack of responsibility for software products that are often released in beta versions, thus removing the responsibility from the developer. Pure water fraud.
    1. Kirill Dou
      Kirill Dou 28 July 2018 20: 41
      +2
      Again.

      Tesla Motors is a public company, its shares are freely traded on exchanges. This gives the company a huge influx of foreign investment, thanks to which it can be kept afloat, even if it is deeply unprofitable.

      "SpeysX" is a PRIVATE company, its shares are not listed on stock exchanges. Accordingly, there is no need to wait for a powerful flow of external investment. 2/3 - owned by Mask himself (his personal capital now, as far as I remember, is $ 50 billion, and he spends most of it on supporting Tesla). Accordingly, without a powerful influx of foreign investment, a space-rocket company can stay afloat for 8 years only at the expense of profit, otherwise it would have already bent. Instead, it shows very steady growth both in the number of launches and in the development of new launch vehicles (FalconHeavy and BFR).

      Regarding Wozniak. First of all, he isn’t a financial financier. Secondly, Musk fulfills his promises, his only problem is that he does not always fit into the deadlines set by him. Nevertheless, he fulfilled his promise to produce 5000 cars a month, even exceeded it (this month the volumes reached 7000 cars a month), albeit with a delay.

      Regarding beta versions. It would be fraud if Tesla released beta software products, passing them off as alpha versions. But, as far as I read on Tesla, the company honestly warns customers about possible shortcomings and the test mode of its products. Thus, yes, the company declines responsibility - the client has the right to decide whether to buy a car with test software and increased risks, or not to buy it and, accordingly, avoid these risks. If customers buy, it means that they are aware of these risks, and the company should not bear any responsibility for the decision of customers.

      Where did you see the fraud here, I don’t know.
      1. Golovan Jack
        Golovan Jack 28 July 2018 21: 02
        0
        Quote: Kirill Dou
        It would be fraud if Tesla released software products beta versions, passing them off as alpha versions

        Please do not use words whose meanings you do not know:
        - alpha - knows how to portray what works
        - beta - can really work, possibly with hidden problems
        Therefore, betraying beta for alpha is not a scam. This is ... a sign of the mental inferiority of the one who does this, I would say so yes
        1. Kirill Dou
          Kirill Dou 28 July 2018 21: 24
          +1
          Guilty, in a hurry, wrongly mentioned alpha testing.

          Yes, I meant, of course, the final version of the product.
          1. Golovan Jack
            Golovan Jack 28 July 2018 21: 26
            +1
            Quote: Kirill Dou
            ... in a hurry ...

            Haste is needed ...
            Plus for admitting a mistake. Here, somehow, few "sin" laughing
            1. Kirill Dou
              Kirill Dou 28 July 2018 21: 34
              0
              Yes, I, damn it, I need to work, but I'm ranting here - hence the rush hi

              I’m used to admit my mistakes or reservations. But only if these are really mistakes
  • Kirill Dou
    Kirill Dou 28 July 2018 21: 21
    +1
    Cannonball,
    Ok, let's take a closer look at this news. I will go through some of them, just so that you understand how wrong it is to judge by the headlines of the news about their contents.

    1. Dismissal of employees. What does this indicate fraud? 9% of the employees, which was described in one of the news, had no relation to the production of cars - it was an auxiliary staff. By the way, investors reacted positively to this news - Tesla shares increased by 7%. Yes, there are layoffs and some figures involved in the development - the autopilot programmer quit, the accountant also quit, etc. But what of this indicates fraud? People actually have the right to change jobs.

    2. Next, about the ships. There is only two news - the Norwegians filed a lawsuit due to the fact that the alleged acceleration is not real. Has anyone satisfied the lawsuit? I did not hear this in the news. Therefore, Nicola Motor also sued Tesla for allegedly stolen several patented ideas from them. Again, the lawsuit is not yet satisfied - that is, it is too early to talk about the legality of these claims.

    I will say even more. Suppose these and other claims are satisfied. So what? Does that make Mask a con man? Do you know how many lawsuits are brought against ANY large corporation? Apple, Samsung, General Motors, Lockheed Martin and other companies do not climb out of the courts at all. Industrial espionage, theft of patents and other crimes, even proven ones, do not make companies a priori scam. This is normal corporate practice.

    3. About the alleged dismissal of the Mask and the deprivation of his salary. Firstly, only ONE shareholder voted for Mask’s dismissal at the meeting of shareholders, all the others decided to leave him as head of the company. Secondly, Mask was deprived of his salary - yes. However, this was his personal initiative, and in compensation he will receive shares of the company. The shareholders agreed to this, and this decision of theirs speaks of their complete trust in Mask as a leader, and not vice versa.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 28 July 2018 23: 38
    +3
    Cannonball,
    All the news that you have provided is quite common for a fast growing company.
    And dismissals, and dissatisfaction of shareholders, and all kinds of lawsuits. This is an integral part of big business.
    Read about the history of Apple ... What was there! Fire, water and copper pipes.
    How many times were they on the verge of collapse. Nothing - today is their turn for each of their new models.
  • iouris
    iouris 29 July 2018 12: 02
    +1
    A "private company" in this area is a budget cut. Elon Musk, Bill Gates and other guys just cover up the US administration, which under the US constitution does not have a legal right to participate in economic projects. Here, jumps are needed, and therefore the concentration of state resources (there are no allies) and the Beria measures for managing personnel and information.
    1. Kirill Dou
      Kirill Dou 29 July 2018 13: 00
      -1
      laughing laughing "cover up the US administration, which under the US constitution does not have a legal right to participate in economic projects"

      What is this nonsense?)
      1. Cannonball
        Cannonball 29 July 2018 15: 52
        +1
        And why not?
        1. Kirill Dou
          Kirill Dou 29 July 2018 23: 13
          0
          1. Why use such a complex scheme?

          2. Fraud schemes do not differ in longevity, while SpaceX is already 16 years old.

          3. To create a plant for the manufacture and launch of rockets to cut the budget? This is something new.
          1. Cannonball
            Cannonball 29 July 2018 23: 42
            +2
            16 years for business is nothing.

            Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. - An American investment bank, previously one of the world's leading financial conglomerates. It was founded in 1850. Went bankrupt in 2008.

            The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers is seen as the starting point of the global financial crisis of the late 2000s, marking its transition to the acute phase.
            1. Town Hall
              Town Hall 29 July 2018 23: 48
              0
              And what? ... Lehman was a fraudulent scheme? ... why did you drag this example here at all?
            2. Kirill Dou
              Kirill Dou 30 July 2018 04: 29
              0
              1. Lehman Brothers Holdings is a purely financial organization that is not involved in production.

              2. Uhhh ... and what is fraudulent in this example? Since when did bankruptcy become a fraud?
  • gridasov
    gridasov 31 July 2018 10: 47
    +1
    Russia needs to solve fundamental problems in creating completely new engines on the principle of work. Without this, forward movement is rotated into circular motion.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 18 September 2018 23: 42
      0
      Quote: gridasov
      Russia needs to solve fundamental problems in creating completely new engines on the principle of work. Without this, forward movement is rotated into circular motion.

      I strongly agree with you. Chemical missiles have come close to the limit of perfection. Musk will not fly to any Moon and will not send anyone; if the Moon is left out of reach, then there is where to swing to Mars.
  • ont65
    ont65 31 July 2018 23: 22
    +1
    Well, yes, give the NK-33 lying around in a warehouse of dubious quality for free and we will overtake the Mask. Hold your pocket wider! Not only will the cost of the required number of single-chamber NK-33 exceed the cost of the four-chamber RD-171, no one is going to begin their production. Could they ask their American partners - they tried to adapt the NK-33 purchased at the price of scrap, unsuccessfully. If they are locked in a five-engine circuit, there is a beautiful, fresh, guaranteed working RD-193. This is some unhealthy financial scam. It would be better if they turned to the projects of the Makeyevtsy or paid attention to the poached project of the salvaged steps of the Angara, if the chickens are not pecking money. However, no, S7 does not do anything of this. Waiting for free colored scrap. What for?
  • Normal ok
    Normal ok 2 August 2018 10: 20
    0
    Perhaps, at Roskosmos, they don’t see anything special at Sea Launch, considering it to be another secondary space project.

    It's just that Roscosmos knows how to cut a budget well. Why should they help a competitor? What if S7 succeeds ?!
  • DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 19 September 2018 13: 22
    0
    That is, the S7 project aggregator does not have its own production; according to his orders, engines and cases are assembled for him.
    It is doubtful that without having its own design department and affected the licenses for the design of engines and launch vehicles, a cheap launch vehicle will come out.