Reincarnation of the Soviet project. In Russia, thinking about the revival of a giant rocket

68
In Russia, talking about the creation of a super-heavy space rocket. Her model will be shown on the Army-2018 forum at the end of August. At the same time, the basis may be taken by the super-heavy Soviet rocket “Energy”, which was created specifically for the reusable transport space system “Energy-Buran”. This super heavy class launch vehicle is the most powerful of the Soviet missiles and one of the most powerful in the world.

The fact that Roskosmos will show the layout of the Russian super-heavy rocket has become known from public procurement materials published on the website. The documentation, which concerns the Roscosmos exposition at the Army-2018 forum, states that the Rocket and Space Corporation (RSC) Energia will present a model of a 5,5 rocket with a meter height of one to twenty. Also within the framework of the forum, RSC Energia is going to present a mock-up of a new Russian Soyuz-5 rocket, from the first few stages of which it is planned to create the first stage of a super-heavy rocket. Another prototype of the Soyuz is planning to present the Progress Rocket and Space Center (RCC) from Samara. It is already known that Energia is developing the Soyuz-5 rocket, and it will be assembled in Samara at RCC facilities. The Army-2018 Forum will be held from 21 to 26 in August in the Patriot park near Moscow.



There is also information that the aerospace committee of the Ministry of Defense and the aerospace industry of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Kazkosmos) will take part in the development of the super-heavy Russian rocket. This August 1 reported RIA "News"With reference to its sources in the Kazakh specialized ministries. It is reported that the project to create a super-heavy rocket is designated in the concept of further cooperation between the two states at the Baikonur cosmodrome as the main one. The two countries also intend to jointly develop an ultra-light rocket designed to launch small satellites, as well as to launch production of components for rocket technology at Baikonur.



Earlier in the beginning of 2018, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin signed a decree on the creation of an extra-heavy rocket. Then it became known that the RSC Energia was appointed the main developer of the new rocket. By the end of 2019, the draft design of the new rocket must be completed, and its first launch was then assigned to 2028. A new super heavy class rocket is planned to be used, in particular, for flights to the Moon and Mars. It is worth noting that the development of the most powerful rocket at the moment stories Our country was also engaged in the engineers of "Energy".

The rocket, developed by the Scientific and Production Association "Energy" almost 30 years ago, made only two flights. The first took place on 15 in May of 1987, it was a flight with an experimental load. The second flight was performed on 15 November, 1988, as part of the Buran reusable transport space system. Since almost the only target launch of the rocket, almost exactly three decades have passed. Neither before nor after the domestic space industry did not create such a powerful rocket that would compete with the Soviet H-1 and American Saturn-5.

The Soviet super-heavy booster Energia was part of the Energia-Buran reusable transport space system (MTKS), but unlike the American-made MTKS Space Shuttle it could be used autonomously from the space shuttle to deliver cargo into space with large mass and dimensions. Cargo could be delivered not only to the orbit of the Earth, but also to the Moon, as well as to the planets of the Solar System. Also, Energia could be used for manned flights, its development was associated with Soviet plans for the widespread development of industrial and military space. The collapse of the Soviet Union put an end to this ambitious and very expensive space program.

Reincarnation of the Soviet project. In Russia, thinking about the revival of a giant rocket


After 30 years, there is a chance that now Russia, albeit in cooperation with other countries, will be able to develop a new super-heavy rocket, using the Soviet groundwork for the Energiya booster rocket to do this, the new rocket could become the cornerstone for the implementation of all future spacecraft. ambitions of our country. While the Buran reusable orbital spacecraft will remain only the heritage of history, the Energia launch vehicle in the reincarnation of the 21st century can become the basis for a new domestic super-heavy class rocket. Especially when you consider that “Energy” was in all respects a unique rocket. She became the first in the Soviet Union to use cryogenic fuel (hydrogen) at the march stage, and the most powerful of the missiles ever created in the USSR. This can be assessed quite easily - Energia ensured the launch into space of spacecraft weighing five times more than the Proton rocket currently in use in Russia and three times more than the American Space Shuttle system.

It is worth noting that the super-heavy class of rockets begins with a mark in 50 or 60 tons of cargo that can be delivered to a low near-earth orbit (for higher orbits or for interplanetary flights, this figure decreases proportionally). The problem is that for 60 years of space exploration for such rockets there was no use, except for launches of inhabited spaceships to the Moon, as well as launching space shuttle returned to near-earth orbit. These huge carrier rockets turned out to be too complex, too expensive to manufacture and operate, and too inflexible for more practical use, including for business, scientific and military launches of satellite launches actively developing today.

Despite all this, mankind has not refused such missiles, but already a new generation. Above the rockets, designed to fly astronauts beyond the Earth’s orbit, they work at NASA. Here they create a giant Space Launch System. A new heavy rocket Falcon Heavy of a private American company SpaceX made its impressive first flight at the beginning of 2018, which was also presented as an excellent marketing move. China also has its own projects on the creation of super-heavy rockets; it is expected that Chinese missiles will compete with the legendary Saturn-5 rocket.



In the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the idea of ​​creating their own super-heavy rocket was addressed twice. The first project is the X-NUMX-meter H-100 rocket for the lunar program, which was supposed to compete with the American Apollo program. In 1, after four unsuccessful launches of the H-1974 rocket, it was decided to abandon further work on the project. As a result, the USSR took another 1 years of work in order to create an Energia launch vehicle, which eventually made two successful flights. This 10-meter rocket was recognized by many experts as the most powerful and modern rocket of its time.

However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, this rocket was placed in hangars at the Baikonur cosmodrome, where it safely rusted for many years. Numerous workers of the domestic space industry were forced to forget about its existence, and the key technologies - supercomplex hydrogen engines - in the industry turned out to be an unclaimed product of high technologies. For almost two decades, when the Russian Federation struggled to establish itself and find its own place in the world, there could be no question of reviving the Energia rocket. However, the rise in oil prices in the 2000s and the restoration of the Russian economy allowed the country to strengthen its position in the world. That is why the emergence of a super-heavy rocket of a new generation seems to be quite an attractive chance for the country, which will help to return to Russia the status quo in the space sphere.

In the proposed version, the reincarnation of the Energia rocket will be able to deliver up to 20 tons of cargo into the Moon's orbit or lift tons of payload to a low earth orbit up to 80. While the first version of Energia could take the space shuttle attached to it from the side, the new version will be designed to bring the payload to the trajectories leading to the Moon in the nose cargo compartment-cone. Having received Kremlin approval for work, Roskosmos, already in April of 2018, signed a contract with rocket technology manufacturers who must submit a draft of a new Russian super-heavy rocket before the end of 2019 of the year. At the same time, the competition of the new “Energy” at the preliminary stage consists of two lighter and smaller in size missiles.



In the event that the concept of "Energy" really wins, in Russia it will be necessary to build the RD-0120 oxygen space engines again. Three of these engines will accelerate the main compartment of the new 7,7 diameter rocket meter (the same as the Soviet "Energy"). And the four RD-171 (outboard accelerators of the first stage, working on kerosene and inherited directly from Energia) will help the rocket during the first two minutes of its flight. With certainty, we can only say that the new super-heavy Russian rocket is at the very beginning of the design process, and there is not enough concrete about this project. It is possible that there will be more information for reflection when the mockup of a super-heavy class rocket will be presented to the general public at the end of August at the Army-2018 forum.

Information sources:
https://inosmi.ru/science/20180727/242840118.html
https://ria.ru/space/20180801/1525746959.html
https://russian.rt.com/inotv/2018-02-10/Popular-Mechanics-Rossiya-razrabativaet-sobstvennuyu
https://mir24.tv/news/16316388/kazahstan-i-rossiya-vmeste-postroyat-sverhtyazheluyu-raketu
68 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -5
    6 August 2018 15: 14
    First, Russia does not need superheavy.
    If you do it, it is better from scratch.
    If you really want to engage in reconstruction, it is better to revive H-1.
    H-1 is conceptually much better than Energy.
    1. +8
      6 August 2018 15: 18
      Quote: aristok
      First, Russia does not need superheavy.
      If you do it, it is better from scratch.
      If you really want to engage in reconstruction, it is better to revive H-1.
      H-1 is conceptually much better than Energy.

      At this political stage (while compradors are still in the power of the Russian Federation) the development of a superheavy rocket is not just unnecessary, but harmful — it is just one more reason to steal and withdraw loot abroad, and to create a benevolent picture of the “revival of greatness” for the townsfolk.
      1. +7
        6 August 2018 15: 35
        Quote: aristok
        At this political stage (while compradors are still in the power of the Russian Federation) the development of a superheavy rocket is not just unnecessary, but harmful — it is just one more reason to steal and withdraw loot abroad, and to create a benevolent picture of the “revival of greatness” for the townsfolk.

        Right They will load tons of dollars into 80 Energy and send it abroad.
        But, given that you have made public their cunning plans, now they are afraid to do it.
        1. +1
          6 August 2018 16: 52
          "there is information that participation in the development of a superheavy Russian rocket will host the aerospace committee of the Ministry of Defense and the aerospace industry Republic of Kazakhstan (Kazcosmos) ... It is reported that the project for the creation of a superheavy rocket is indicated in the concept of further cooperation between the two states on Baikonur Cosmodrome as the main "about. (from text)
          Together with the Kazakhs, we should cooperate on the super-heavy - God himself commanded. Let me remind you that the launch pad with all the infrastructure for Energy is located in Baikonur. By the way, this Energy table, in turn, was inherited from N-1. hi
      2. +9
        6 August 2018 20: 35
        Roscosmos will show the layout of the Russian super-heavy rocket
        Do not worry, the next cardboard layout of enormous cost and it will end.
        1. 0
          10 August 2018 15: 13
          Now the design is in digital, and the layouts are printed on 3D printers, and it costs not so much because takes from and to no more than 5 months.
          but a passing amendment to a technical project can bury it and overspen the allocated budget (!)
    2. +7
      6 August 2018 16: 09
      Quote: aristok
      H-1 is conceptually much better than Energy.


      WHAT ??? belay request
      1. -1
        6 August 2018 16: 25
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        Quote: aristok
        H-1 is conceptually much better than Energy.


        WHAT ??? belay request

        tandem is much better than shared package
        in addition, the absence of hydrogen greatly simplifies and reduces the cost of both construction and infrastructure.
        Plus, the engines are much simpler and more fault-tolerant than the “diamond he..ra" Glushko RD-170
        1. +4
          6 August 2018 16: 38
          Quote: aristok
          ..tandem is much better than a shared package ..

          Why do you think so!?? request
          The layout of the "package", as well as in the "tandem", has its pros and cons.
          How can you compare which is better, a jaguar or anaconda?
        2. +10
          6 August 2018 17: 13
          Quote: aristok
          engines are much simpler and more fault-tolerant than the “diamond he..ra" Glushko RD-170


          When Korolev refused Glushko’s “heptyl” engines, and Glushko refused to make kerosene engines for the H-1; then Kuznetsov’s design bureau took up such engines. Kuznetsov’s engines turned out to be less powerful than they needed and, therefore, they had to be put “to hell”! But the number is not "friends" with quality! The insufficient quality of Kuznetsov’s engines, exacerbated by their number (!), Served as a breakdown of the N-1 tests!
        3. 0
          7 August 2018 08: 51
          Quote: aristok
          plus engines are much simpler and more resilient

          All four test launches of N-1 were unsuccessful at the stage of operation of the first stage. In 1974, the Soviet lunar landing manned program was actually closed until the target result was achieved, and somewhat later, in 1976, the work on N-1 was also officially closed.
    3. +4
      6 August 2018 16: 30
      Quote: aristok
      First, Russia does not need superheavy.
      If you do it, it is better from scratch.
      If you really want to engage in reconstruction, it is better to revive H-1.
      H-1 is conceptually much better than Energy.

      You have an interesting post! belay
      Four lines and each line - peremptory lies!
      Each line needs to be discussed separately.
    4. -2
      6 August 2018 16: 40
      Quote: aristok
      H-1 is conceptually much better than Energy.

      In addition to the superheavy from a rocket conceptually repeating N-1
      could get a good 30 ton heavy rocket,
      which would replace both the proton and the hangar.

      Let me remind you that I am against superheavy in Russia,
      and I am writing this to illustrate one of the advantages of the H-1 concept over Energy.
      1. -1
        7 August 2018 01: 43
        Perhaps you will be interested in an article
        ALTERNATIVE HISTORY OF COSMONAUTICS OF THE USSR
        http://cropman.ru/idei/aik/index.html
        1. -2
          7 August 2018 08: 18
          Quote: thinking
          Perhaps you will be interested in an article
          ALTERNATIVE HISTORY OF COSMONAUTICS OF THE USSR
          http://cropman.ru/idei/aik/index.html

          I read briefly .. (no time to delve into a rather amateurish article)
          What I liked:
          1. Criticism of imposing from above thoughtless copying of a foreign development path.
          2. Criticism of the shuttle and the imposition on top of creating it almost a copy of the snowstorm.
          3. Promotion of N-1 and the creation of the PH family on its basis.
          What did not like:
          1. Dreams about the aerospace system.
          2. the rejection of the still beautiful KK Soyuz
          1. -2
            7 August 2018 08: 27
            Quote: aristok
            I read briefly .. (no time to delve into a rather amateurish article)
            What I liked:

            I also liked:
            criticism (albeit indirect) of the pest and tyrant Ustinov.

            did not like:
            a ridiculously amateurish approach to comparing Soviet and American lunar programs.
    5. +8
      7 August 2018 01: 15
      Quote: aristok
      First, Russia does not need superheavy.

      ***
      This is a controversial statement and it evokes some analogies with the famous Krylov's fable "Fox and Grapes." I dare to express the idea that, owning the minds of space technology developers, the desire for miniaturization is caused mainly by the insufficient power of existing rockets.
      For example, the mass of the satellite in geostationary orbit is limited and the designers have to twist to fit into this rigid framework. To the detriment of reliability, multiple duplication of equipment is not widely used, and a limited amount of fuel for orientation systems reduces the service life of the devices.
      Interplanetary stations have a very modest set of scientific equipment and get to their goals for many months, or even years.
      Due to the double restart of the on-board computer complex, the Phobos-Grunt device switched to the mode of greatest energy savings and team expectations. But the specialists of Roscosmos could not issue a command, since the project did not provide for the possibility of communication with the device in low Earth orbit. The developers refused to use the “Frigate” overclocking unit, trying to win in mass characteristics.
      A reliable Frigate booster block could bring the AMS to the desired flight path and, at a sufficient distance from the Earth, it would be possible to contact the device and restart its onboard computer system - but the weight limitations played a fatal role.
      Scientists do not even stutter about many projects, since there are no superheavy rockets. Take at least a large (really large) space radio telescope. After all, a huge mirror not only increases the resolution of the telescope, but also its sensitivity. And two similar radio telescopes in interferometer mode with a truly space base will put the entire universe at the feet of scientists.
      Well, what fools will develop such projects without the presence of super-heavy?
      Payloads of tens of tons are not developed, because there is no super-gravity, well, that means that super-gravity is not needed.
      As a child, I launched toy boats into streams after rain and if we want to stop dabbling in space with such “toy” boats and really go out into space, as a man went out into the ocean on Earth at one time, then a cheap reusable super-heavy is absolutely vital.
      1. -2
        7 August 2018 19: 27
        So we have nothing, neither spacecraft, nor interplanetary stations. And that means the rocket is not needed.
      2. -1
        28 September 2018 00: 08
        Quote: thinking
        I dare to express the idea that, possessing the minds of space technology developers, the desire for miniaturization is caused mainly by the insufficient power of existing rockets.

        Price! - big "monsters" are expensive (very expensive)!
        You can’t even imagine what kind of "monsters" the engineers would do if their will ...
        As an example:
        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB_(%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82)
        and this not only concerns missiles or "ships", "a huge, eternal satellite" will cost a lot of money (and if "something goes wrong"?) besides, for decades that the satellite has served in orbit, here on earth technologies change, people invent everything new and new, and the hos is not the hos, but the satellite has to be changed to keep up with the progress ...
    6. -1
      8 August 2018 13: 15
      Quote: aristok
      First, Russia does not need superheavy.

      Russia may not need it. But the leadership of Roscosmos super heavy cut dough - that’s it.
  2. +7
    6 August 2018 15: 57
    Grandiose plans base on the moon, flight to Mars, super heavy rockets, I think from the number of cash injections from Rogozin, palms sweat, in short, you can bury Roskosmos
    1. +2
      6 August 2018 16: 13
      Quote: 100502
      base on the moon, flight to Mars, super heavy rockets

      Quote: 100502
      You can bury Roskosmos

      Together with the country .... recourse
    2. 0
      7 August 2018 01: 19
      Quote: 100502
      I think from the number of cash injections from Rogozin, palms sweat

      ***
      Someone moves science, someone designs new equipment, and someone prefers to count money in other people's pockets.
    3. dSK
      +1
      7 August 2018 01: 59
      Quote: 100502
      base on the moon, flight to Mars

      July 20, 2018 16:37 / TV "Tsargrad".
      "Live beyond our means": The lawyer explained why the searches in Roscosmos have become a necessity.
      Searches at the main institute of Roscosmos, TsNIImash, may be due to the fact that the institution’s team lived “to put it mildly, beyond its means”. This assumption was voiced by lawyer Ivan Mironov.
      “And there are a lot of corruption scandals, precisely with high-profile detentions, arrests, and searches. They accompanied, fever "Roscosmos" for quite some time. And it was necessary to put an end to all this, ”Mironov said. He considers what is happening now "quite logical and necessary, if we talk about the effective work of this department."
      Note that this is not the only scandal surrounding the activities of the Roskosmos corporation and related structures. In the near future, the audit of the Rocket and Space Corporation Energia is due to start, following an audit of which the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation has revealed large-scale violations amounting to 785,5 billion rubles.
      As a result, Rogozin demanded to carefully study the activities of all companies involved in the industry.
  3. +7
    6 August 2018 16: 15
    however, in contrast to the American-made Space Shuttle of the American manufacture, it could also be used autonomously from the space shuttle to deliver into space cargoes with large mass and dimensions.


    This battered stamp is repeated from article to article, from material to material.
    The design scheme with the main engines on a spaceplane and a suspended tank was thought to be more economical, since the main engines were saved and after replacing some nodes, they could be reused (relatively reusable).
    In the Buran scheme - its engines do not work at the start - that is, they are useless cargo until disconnected from the Energia LV. Such a scheme is irrational, since all the engines of the carrier rocket will be lost at launch, unlike the American version.
    The space shuttle system was used for reusability:
    - twenty times the use of solid fuel boosters
    - hundredfold - of the orbital ship
    - Marching oxygen-hydrogen engines were designed for 55 flights.

    An economic assessment carried out in 1970 showed that if a number of conditions are met (at least 30 shuttle flights per year, low operating costs and a complete rejection of disposable media), payback is in principle achievable.

    However, then the shuttle design was no longer customized to the requirements of the launch program, but vice versa.
    At the stage of conceptual research of the appearance of the new transport system, a fundamental approach to design was replaced: instead of creating an apparatus for certain purposes, within the framework of the allocated funds, the developers began at any cost, by “pulling the ears” of economic calculations and future operating conditions, to save the existing shuttle project, while maintaining the created production facilities and jobs. In other words, it wasn’t the shuttle designed for the tasks, but the tasks and the business case to fit its design

    here is well described https://myllalex65.wordpress.com/2015/08/13/histor
    ia-development-reusable-tra /

    The military requirements for payload determined the size of the orbital ship and the magnitude of the starting mass of the system as a whole. For increased lateral maneuver, significant lift was required at hypersonic speeds - this is how the double sweep wing and powerful thermal protection appeared on the ship.

    As a result, what happened:
    Unmet goals and failures:
    - High-quality ease of access to space. Instead of lowering the price per kilogram by two orders of magnitude, the Space Shuttle has become one of the most expensive means of delivering satellites into orbit.
    - Quick shuttle training between flights. Instead of the expected period of two weeks between flights, the shuttles were preparing for launch for months. Before the Challenger crash, the record between flights was 54 days, after the Challenger - 88 days. For all years of operation of the shuttles, they were launched on average 4,5 times a year instead of the minimum permissible by calculations 28 times a year.
    - Ease of maintenance. The selected technical solutions were very labor intensive to maintain. The main engines required dismantling and a lot of time for service. The turbopump units of the engines of the first model required a complete overhaul and repair after each flight. Thermal protection tiles were unique - each tile had its own tile. There are 35 tiles in total, and besides, they can be lost or damaged in flight.
    Replace all disposable media. Shuttles never launched into polar orbits, which is needed mainly for reconnaissance satellites. Preparatory work was underway, but they were stopped after the Challenger disaster.
    - Reliable access to space. Four orbiters meant that the crash of the shuttle was the loss of a quarter of the fleet. After the crash, flights ceased for years. Also, the shuttles were notorious for the constant carry-over of launches.
    - The shuttle's carrying capacity was five tons below the specifications required (24,4 instead of 30)
    - Great opportunities for horizontal maneuver were never used in reality due to the fact that the shuttle did not fly into polar orbits.
    - The return of satellites from orbit ceased in 1996. Only five satellites were returned from orbit.
    Satellite repair was also poorly in demand. In total, five satellites were repaired (although Hubble was serviced five times).
    - The adopted engineering decisions negatively affected the reliability of the system. On take-off and landing there were sections with no chance of saving the crew in an accident. Because of this, the Challenger died. The STS-9 mission almost ended in disaster due to a fire in the tail that had already occurred on the landing strip. If this fire happened a minute earlier, the shuttle would have fallen without a chance of saving the crew.
    - The fact that the shuttle always flew manned, put people at risk without the need for automation to launch satellites.
    - Due to the low intensity of operation, the shuttles are morally outdated earlier than physically. In 2011, the Space Shuttle was a very rare example of operating the 80386 processor. Disposable media could be upgraded gradually with new series.

    New control systems and nadkaliberny fairings allowed to launch large satellites on disposable missiles.
    The shuttle holds a sad anti-record among space systems in the number of dead people.

    https://lozga.livejournal.com/72702.html подробней тут.

    The point of creating an extra heavy carrier, if there are no tasks for it?
    It will become obsolete as fast as the US and not a technical breakthrough or any advantage.
    In modern realities, competition is for the cost of removing a kilogram of cargo - and here the Russian Federation loses to private American companies and here it is necessary to invest.
    Otherwise, the market for commercial launches will be lost.
    1. dSK
      0
      7 August 2018 01: 40
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      the market for commercial launches will be lost.

      The two countries also intend to jointly develop ultralight rocket designed to launch small satellites

      This is a real option. Two projects were developed in the USSR: Buran-30, 30-ton bomber, and Buran-5, hawk. As a result, the "bomber" won, they were laid 10 (ten) pieces, but the "discharge" began, oil prices fell, the USSR budget "collapsed". The "bombs" were no longer needed, and for 30-ton transporters there was no payload.
    2. +1
      7 August 2018 05: 43
      An economic assessment carried out in 1970 showed that if a number of conditions are met (at least 30 shuttle flights per year, low operating costs and a complete rejection of disposable media), payback is in principle achievable.
      It depends on what is meant by payback. Initially, the meaning of a rocket is the delivery of a payload (long-term equipment operating in orbit, communication satellites, cosmotelescopes, etc.), a shuttle is not a payload. The shuttle is useless ballast. In fact, spending fuel, launching a shuttle blank weighing 60 tons to put a satellite into orbit is the same if you launch a barrel of sand, weighing 60 tons and a satellite. Just a satellite, without blanks, without shuttles, it will be much cheaper to launch.
      The only shuttle you can swipe alien satellites from orbit.
    3. +2
      10 August 2018 15: 36
      DimerVladimer! Thanks to people like you, we almost lost the space industry in the early 90s of the last century! People like you said that we did not need Space ... People like you said: “We don’t need new technologies, that it’s expensive in Space, we don’t need anything at all, and it’s even better that we don’t exist .. "Do not write nonsense about Buran, Buran was withdrawn with the engines turned off and had much more possibilities regarding the Shuttle, regarding flight and maneuvering, although Energy was lost at the same time ... However, over time, it was possible to design another launch vehicle for Buran's flights - reusable and cheaper - do not forget when Buran with Energy was created, when the question of the USSR's defense capability was decided first of all on the basis of the technologies that we had! And people like you are fighting against a heavy-class rocket, not seeing beyond their nose and to the detriment of their country Russia ... All new technologies, including the creation of ultrapure semiconductors, this is Space ... The exploration of the moon, planets and manned flights in within the solar system ... In addition to the reusable universal economical rocket system, heavy-class rockets are needed for their tasks, which will not become obsolete for a long time if you carry out the appropriate modernization! And commercial launches need economical reusable
      rockets of light and middle class, and do not confuse "God's gift with scrambled eggs" ...
  4. +3
    6 August 2018 16: 39
    Quote: aristok
    First, Russia does not need superheavy.
    If you do it, it is better from scratch.
    If you really want to engage in reconstruction, it is better to revive H-1.
    H-1 is conceptually much better than Energy.

    What are you talking about ?! N-1 was never in flight, at launch it simply exploded, from which Korolev ceased to deal with this rocket, and Energy several times flew into space, and put space stations into orbit. It’s better to develop already proven carriers, rather than those that haven’t been in space. With modernization, this missile will work perfectly and will also serve Russia.
    1. +2
      6 August 2018 16: 48
      Quote: Simon
      What are you talking about?! ... when launched, it just exploded, which caused Korolev to stop working on this rocket

      Korolev died 3 years before the first attempt to launch this (H-1) rocket.
      Read at least a little about the subject of discussion before aggressively and rudely arguing exposing your ignorance in the field of spacecraft launch vehicles.
    2. -2
      6 August 2018 16: 55
      Only two launches of this unique complex were completed:

      May 15, 1987 with experimental load: Polyus satellite (Skif-DM mass-scale model, orbital laser platform prototype, in another source - an 80-ton model of a military space laser [8]), was not put into orbit due to a system failure orientation of the spacecraft itself;
      November 15, 1988 as part of the MTKK Buran complex.
  5. 0
    6 August 2018 17: 04
    Quote: aristok
    Quote: Simon
    What are you talking about?! ... when launched, it just exploded, which caused Korolev to stop working on this rocket

    Korolev died 3 years before the first attempt to launch this (H-1) rocket.
    Read at least a little about the subject of discussion before aggressively and rudely arguing exposing your ignorance in the field of spacecraft launch vehicles.

    Okay, I’ll check about Korolev, but it’s definitely not in space!
  6. -1
    6 August 2018 17: 25
    Quote: aristok
    Quote: Simon
    What are you talking about?! ... when launched, it just exploded, which caused Korolev to stop working on this rocket

    Korolev died 3 years before the first attempt to launch this (H-1) rocket.
    Read at least a little about the subject of discussion before aggressively and rudely arguing exposing your ignorance in the field of spacecraft launch vehicles.

    Yes, I agree, I made a mistake with Koralev, but N-1 developed, in the future, its design bureau.
    H-1, H1 (GUKOS index - 11A52) - Soviet super-heavy carrier rocket. It was developed from the beginning of the 1960s at OKB-1 under the leadership of Sergei Korolev, and after his death, under the leadership of Vasily Mishin [1].

    It was originally intended to bring a heavy (75 t) orbital station into near-Earth orbit with the prospect of providing the assembly of a heavy interplanetary ship for flights to Venus and Mars. With the adoption of a belated decision to include the USSR in the so-called “lunar race”, to organize manned flight to the surface of the moon and return it back, the H1 program was boosted and became the carrier for the expeditionary spacecraft L3 in the complex N1-L3 of the Soviet lunar landing manned program [2].

    All four test launches of N-1 were unsuccessful at the stage of operation of the first stage. In 1974, the Soviet lunar landing manned program was actually closed until the target result was achieved, and somewhat later, in 1976, the work on N-1 was also officially closed.
  7. 0
    6 August 2018 17: 51
    Quote: Simon
    Okay, I’ll check about Korolev, but it’s definitely not in space!

    Like Energy did not withdraw orbital stations. I flew twice, but "not several times." The first is the unsuccessful conclusion of "Scythian", the second is the conclusion of "Buran"
    1. 0
      6 August 2018 20: 24
      Quote: Old26
      Quote: Simon
      Okay, I’ll check about Korolev, but it’s definitely not in space!

      Like Energy did not withdraw orbital stations. I flew twice, but "not several times." The first is the unsuccessful conclusion of "Scythian", the second is the conclusion of "Buran"

      for all my dislike of Energy - “Scythian” she led quite successfully to the required trajectory, he himself did not carry out the maneuver of completion.
  8. 0
    6 August 2018 19: 41
    There will be no such rocket. At least in the coming years 20-30.
    1. +1
      6 August 2018 20: 30
      If you throw off the colonial administration of compradors of the Russian Federation, Russia will be able to, if not create super-heavy (in my opinion, it is not particularly needed), then begin to carry out the tasks that are now supposed to be assigned to super-heavy (base on the moon, launching heavy satellites on GSO, etc.), other means for 6-8 years.
      1. +3
        7 August 2018 19: 25
        Alas, everything is already ruined. People who knew how to make rockets have already left and continue to leave, and those who come instead of them cannot make rockets.
  9. 0
    6 August 2018 20: 55
    Quote: aristok
    for all my dislike of Energy - “Scythian” she led quite successfully to the required trajectory, he himself did not carry out the maneuver of completion.

    The result is one. The launch is unsuccessful. The fact that the rocket itself worked properly is understandable. The main end result
    1. 0
      6 August 2018 21: 30
      Quote: Old26
      Quote: aristok
      for all my dislike of Energy - “Scythian” she led quite successfully to the required trajectory, he himself did not carry out the maneuver of completion.

      The result is one. The launch is unsuccessful. The fact that the rocket itself worked properly is understandable. The main end result

      Just the reader will be incomprehensible
      that from your judgment "the unsuccessful conclusion of" Scythian "",
      it follows yours, "the rocket itself worked properly - that’s understandable."
      You made an incorrect statement,
      I corrected you correctly ..
      And don’t try to play the last word game with me
      ---
      for example, if the satellite launched the satellite to the GPO with a successful separation, the conclusion is considered successful regardless of whether it was able to make its remote control upgrade to the GSO or not.
      1. 0
        7 August 2018 19: 36
        You have an incorrect conclusion.
        The launch of the spacecraft into the target orbit is considered successful if the spacecraft reached it and started to work. The option with spacecraft underreporting is definitely a failure. At the same time, the launch vehicle itself, even in this case, can work out normally. In other words, the entire mission failed, but this does not worsen the statistics of accident-free launches of launch vehicles. I wrote about this Old26.
  10. +3
    6 August 2018 20: 59
    "That Roscosmos will show a model of a Russian super-heavy rocket ..."
    Really on a cartoon could not scrape together?
    1. +4
      6 August 2018 21: 21
      Quote: Curious
      Really on a cartoon could not scrape together?

      The mockup of papier mache will be made free of charge by children from the circle of astronautics lovers, and for the cartoon you will need to give real money.
  11. +1
    6 August 2018 21: 15
    Buran in the USSR was made by more than 3000 enterprises. Now we do not have the production capacity to make such missiles.
  12. Fox
    +5
    6 August 2018 21: 49
    Quote: steel maker
    Buran in the USSR was made by more than 3000 enterprises. Now we do not have the production capacity to make such missiles.

    but we have Peje and his party. weaken the layout, then they scrape together on the cartoon of babos and ... voila! ..
    and yes, PeZhe already said that in the USSR there was nothing but black galoshes and tomato paste!
  13. +4
    6 August 2018 21: 54
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    Insufficient quality of Kuznetsov’s engines, aggravated by their number (!) And served as a failure of the N-1 tests!

    ***
    It is very difficult to call it true, but such unfounded messages are sometimes found on the Internet.
    Let's look at the facts.
    http://www.buran.ru/htm/gud%2019.htm
    “The first launch of the N1-L3 (N 3L) space-rocket complex from the right start on February 21, 1969 ended abnormally. As a result of high-frequency oscillations in the gas generator of engine N 2, the pressure take-off fitting behind the turbine broke off and a component leak formed, resulting in a fire in tail compartment, violation of the BCS engine control system, which for 68,7 s issued a false command to turn off the engines.

    The second launch of the N1-L3 complex was carried out on July 3, 1969 and also ended abnormally due to abnormal operation of engine N8 of block A. The cause of the accident was not clearly established. According to the conclusion of the emergency commission, chaired by V.P. Mishin the most likely cause of the accident was the destruction of the engine oxidizer pump when it entered the main stage.

    The third launch of the space rocket complex N1-L3 N 6L was carried out on June 27, 1971 from the left start. All 30 engines of block A reached the mode of preliminary and main thrust in accordance with the standard sequence diagram and functioned normally until they were turned off by the control system for 50,1 s, but since the beginning of the flight, the stabilization process was abnormal along the roll, and the mismatch in the rotation angle was continuous increased and reached 14,5 by 1450 s. Since the AVD command was blocked for 50 s, the flight to 50,1 s was practically uncontrollable.
    The most probable cause of this accident is the loss of roll control due to the action of previously unaccounted for additional disturbing moments that exceed the available control moments of the roll.

    The fourth launch of the N1-L3 N 7L complex was carried out on November 23, 1972. The first stage worked almost without comment until 106,93 s, when the oxidizer pump of the N4 engine was destroyed, which led to the accumulation of the mixture.

    By the fifth launch of the N1-L3 N 8L complex, all types of ground-based multi-resource engines (11D111, 11D112 and 11D113) of high reliability, mounted on a rocket after fire tests without bulkhead, were developed and passed all the tests. However, the fifth launch did not take place ... "
    ***
    The first launch - 58 seconds the rocket is going fine! Insufficient durability of the penny fitting is easily removable and is not a serious obstacle to further testing.
    The second launch - the oxidizer pump is suspected. I specially note - the pump.
    The third launch is the termination of the flight due to the action of previously unaccounted for additional disturbing moments. It is quite possible to take these additional points into account and fend off them in the future. Engines, however, have nothing to do with it at all.
    The fourth launch - almost 107 seconds of flight, only a few seconds before the regular shutdown of the first stage, and if such an option had been taken into account in advance, the second stage would be able to compensate for the speed not reached by the first stage and the payload would go into orbit. But the engine is to blame, or rather the pump again!
    What conclusions can be drawn from these four launches?
    No problems with a large number of engines in the first stage have been identified! And the successful launches of the Falcons, and especially the heavy Falcon, convincingly prove that the problem of "a large number of engines" in the first stage is sucked from the finger. I would like to know whose finger excelled, and was it a finger?
    Unreliable operation of engines (or rather pumps) is present, it is true. Was it possible to increase the reliability of these engines? Yes, perhaps it was successfully done!
    I give a little help regarding the reliability of the NK-33 engine.
    http://lpre.de/sntk/NK-33/tests.htm
    Benchmarking on materials [1] and [10]
    "The high reliability of the engines was confirmed by the large positive statistics obtained in the process of bench testing - 221 tests of 76 engines in a wide range (significantly exceeding the requirements of the technical specifications) of changes in external and internal factors.
    The reliability of multiple starts was confirmed on 24 engines with a repeat rate of starts up to 10 on one engine. At the same time, the parameters of the start-up process during repeated starts were kept stable and did not depend on the number of starts.

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

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

    In 1976, instead of 33 s, required by the terms of reference, one of the engines of the first stage NK-140 worked at a stand of 14.000 s. "
    ***
    And you are telling us tales about the unreliability of the engines of the N-1 rocket.
    It was not for nothing that I specifically singled out the unreliable operation of pumps specifically.
    What engines, generally in the world, are capable of successfully chewing large portions of metal chips, fasteners (screws, nuts), large pieces of rough wiping cloth (60x60 cm in size), etc. in an oxygen pump of a working engine? Name at least one.
    These highly reliable engines were installed on the fifth N-1 rocket, but it, which was already completely ready, was not allowed to fly. Try now to find the real reason for the closure of the Royal N-1 missile project. Maybe it was Glushko, who had mortally quarreled with Korolev at one time and dreamed of personal glory, and not of the glory of his homeland, and covered up the N-1 project for the sake of his Energy? After all, if he had brought the N-1 missile to success, he would have been just one of many. Both the Royal R-7 and the Royal N-1 would fly now, and the Royal N-11 would make the development of the poisonous Proton unnecessary. Where then would Glushko be?
    1. +2
      7 August 2018 04: 04
      Is it really just the internet? More recently, a television program dedicated to space exploration of the USSR was broadcast on one of the central television channels ... And it said exactly what I said in the comment ... You can look at the “story with H-1” from a different angle: reliability calculations of various engine layout options on the H-1 ... and the results showed that the reliability of the Kuznetsovsky variant is insufficient! But at stake is not khukh-mukhra, but a flight to the moon (!) With the crew! There was, at one time, a “noise” district of the Lutz Kaiser project (HAZARD) ... there were also engines “to a fig and more (!) ...”, but there were engines simplified to the limit (!) ... there was nothing to break! Kuznetsov’s engines weren’t ...
      1. +2
        7 August 2018 22: 23
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        The reliability calculations of various engine layout options on the N-1 were carried out ... and the results showed that the reliability of the Kuznetsovsky variant is insufficient!

        But is there no difference when and accordingly for which engines these calculations were carried out? By the fact that they flew on the first four N-1 missiles, or were modified engines installed on the fifth missile that did not take off taken into account? These are, in essence, completely different engines in terms of their reliability.
        From this “other” perspective, they slipped someone who needs an outdated (already incorrect) calculation of the reliability of the rocket and did not let the fifth N-1 rocket fly up with reliable engines.
        And there are still lovers of brandishing these false calculations, so as not to justify, but make excuses for closing the Royal Project.
        Your reference to these calculations is incorrect.
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        There was, at one time, the “noise” of the Lutz Kaiser project district (HAZARD) ... there were also engines “to a fig and more (!) ...”, but there were engines that were simplified to the limit (!) ... there was nothing to break! Kuznetsov’s engines weren’t ...

        1st remark. OTRAG was bent for political reasons, not technical. She was simply not given the opportunity to work.
        2nd remark. Simplified engines will not necessarily have high reliability - it still needs to be achieved. There are so many pitfalls in the development of rocket engines and even the most simplified engines can explode.
        3rd remark. What were (and are) Kuznetsov’s engines I already wrote, re-read. If you really want to compare them with other engines, then compare with the RD-170. The pressure in the combustion chamber of the NK-33 is 147 atmospheres, against 250 atmospheres of the RD-170, where is the reliability higher, other things being equal?
        4th general comment. One should be wary of television with a certain degree of caution and not take on faith what they are reporting. It is better to check their information on the Internet in serious sources.
        1. +1
          8 August 2018 06: 53
          1. ... HORSE ... And where did I say that for technical reasons? request HAG is mentioned in another aspect!
          2. "... the most simplified engines can explode ...." And also they can not explode!
          "... Simplified engines will not necessarily have high reliability - it still needs to be achieved. ..",, Purely subjective" ... which engines in Africa will be more reliable: with pumps and gas generators, or without ...?
          3. ".. What were (and are) the Kuznetsov engines I wrote, re-read. If you really want to compare them with other engines, then compare with RD-170 ...."
          Why compare them? what This is a story! Here the situation has long been "stabilized"! And it was "compared": who is who ... how much ... who needs what and why ...
          4. "... One should be wary of television with a certain degree of caution and not take on faith what they are reporting. ..." Advice is not without strangeness! Often, TV is not a "source"! Often, both Internet users and TV draw from one source. If you continue your "advice", then, in general, nothing needs to be taken on faith! And will it be? Never mind ! Therefore, infa on the Internet is "scooped" by the principle: who loves an orange, and who is a pig cartilage! Everyone decides for himself (and has the right to decide ...) who and what to believe or not to believe!
          1. 0
            12 August 2018 20: 55
            1.
            Quote: Nikolaevich I
            ... HAZARD ... And where do I say that for technical reasons? request HAG is mentioned in another aspect!

            In fact, it was not said directly, but look at the source text.
            Quote: Nikolaevich I
            There was, at one time, the “noise” of the Lutz Kaiser project district (HAZARD) ... there were also engines “to a fig and more (!) ...”, but there were engines that were simplified to the limit (!) ... there was nothing to break! Kuznetsov’s engines weren’t ...

            It is clearly considered the technical side of things - the reliability of the rocket. You compare Kuznetsov’s engines with OTRAG engines, the reliability of which is not known, except that their design is simpler. Chinese LED lamps have a very simple circuit, but the reliability is very low, so sometimes a more complex circuit may have more reliability than a simple one.
            You mention a large number of engines in both missiles, but don't say anything about the reason Kaiser Lutz missiles do not fly.
            Your text carries the idea: the OTRAG rockets had a large number of very simple engines (their high reliability is also implied), but they did not fly, therefore the reliability of the rocket was very low. There are also many engines on the N-1 (more complex, and therefore less reliable), and therefore could not fly the N-1, even if Lutz failed.
            As you wrote, I understand. What other aspect do you mean?
            Your mention of the company OTRAG is not entirely correct.
            It is more correct to compare the N-1 with the Mask missiles: Falcon 9 has 9 engines and flies successfully, on a heavy Falcon there are already 27 engines and a successful flight in the offset, and on the BFR rocket under construction about 30 engines and no special problems in this Mask.
            A large number of engines on a rocket is not an obstacle to successful operation, provided that the engines are very reliable, and the NK-33 engines are just that.
            Two more words on reliability. Suppose that the reliability of the NK-33 and RD-170 engines is approximately equal, therefore engine failures on the N-1 rocket will occur more often than on the Soyuz 5 projected rocket with one RD-170. The failure of the NK-33 engine only leads to its shutdown (see my link about the NK-33 tests) and the rocket is still able to successfully bring the load into orbit, and the failure of the engine at Soyuz 5 is guaranteed to be catastrophic. An interesting alignment is obtained, isn't it? wink
            2. It all depends on the specific embodiment in the metal.
            3.
            Quote: Nikolaevich I
            Why compare them? what This is a story!

            Yes, this is history, but it is also an invaluable experience of our failures and our achievements. The story is like a searchlight beam in the dark, it illuminates the road along which we go forward, allowing us to choose the right path without bumping into obstacles.
            Don't underestimate the story.
            4.
            Quote: Nikolaevich I

            Quote: thinking
            ... It is necessary to treat television with a certain degree of caution and not to take on faith what they are reporting.

            Advice is not without strangeness! Often, TV is not a "source"! Often, both Internet users and TV draw from one source. If you continue your "advice", then, in general, nothing needs to be taken on faith! And will it be? Never mind ! Therefore, infa on the Internet is "scooped" by the principle: who loves an orange, and who is a pig cartilage! Everyone decides for himself (and has the right to decide ...) who and what to believe or not to believe!

            Any informational message has a certain degree of reliability (or unreliability). There are no absolutely reliable messages, as well as absolutely unreliable ones, since the absolutes are unattainable anywhere and never.
            It is always necessary to make an assessment of the reliability of the message, which is done based on the analysis of the primary source of information.
            Television, as a rule, does not provide references to the source and it is often difficult to evaluate the reliability of its messages.
            I warned you about this, what is strange about this?
            Quote: from Ushakov’s explanatory dictionary
            To take on faith - to recognize something true, without requiring evidence.

            You are completely right, everyone decides for himself (and has the right to decide ...) who and what to believe or not to believe! Personally, I am not inclined to take anything on faith (well, incredulous, I probably wink ), so I usually give links to my sources.
    2. 0
      7 August 2018 04: 30
      You messed up a bit with missiles, Glushko developed and pushed the "Proton", "Energy" is the brainchild of other designers.
  14. +1
    6 August 2018 22: 13
    Quote: Proxima
    You have an interesting post! belay
    Four lines and each line - peremptory lies!
    Each line needs to be discussed separately.

    ***
    However, you also got an interesting post - they declared a person a liar and in the bushes, but where is the discussion, will everyone else take a poke for you? wink
  15. -2
    6 August 2018 22: 38
    A heavy rocket is yesterday. The future is with orbital elevators)
  16. +2
    7 August 2018 13: 08
    Quote: aristok
    I read briefly .. (no time to delve into a rather amateurish article)

    Moreover, the kmk article was written by a fan of Korolev. For him, N-1 and its derivatives are a masterpiece. which, by thoughtlessness or malice, was slaughtered. And Glushko, he still has that fruit, “pushed” both Chelomei and Yangel.
    The most important thing is not written. What the failure of the Soviet lunar program is that the Americans had it NATIONAL PROGRAM, and here, each of the designers considered himself to be the navel of the earth and pulled a blanket over himself.
    At first, Korolev, using his influence, “pushed” the competing LVs. Moreover, the scheme taken as a basis was frankly controversial from the memoirs of the pro-Strists.
    In its original form, in the form of a two-stage rocket with 4 (EMNIP) engines of the 1st stage, this scheme, proposed back in the early 50s by a German group of designers, was with a minimum of risks. But Korolev decided to mechanically increase the size of the medium, hoping that what he proposed would be strictly implemented by others. But there was a bummer. Glushko dared to refuse. And they were forced to put 3 dozen engines that could not work simultaneously.
    But the second scheme of the Germans, which Korolev took as a basis - she went, and not just went, but ideally. And it has been in operation for 60 years.

    And the fact that Glushko ordered to destroy the backlog on H-1 is certainly stupid, if only in the fact that it would be possible, just like the Americans, to use them in the museum of space rocket technology (which, alas, unfortunately, we don’t).
    And Valentin Glushko didn’t need N-1. He had his own media projects, the so-called Radar, created on a modular basis, which has now become the main one.

    According to the "Buran". The creation of a ship close to Shuttle in its design and characteristics is also possible pressure from above. According to rumors. But most other projects, such as Spiral, were not feasible at that time in the initial configuration of this system. Chelomei's light spacecraft? HZ. "Spiral" even now is impossible, not to mention that time. Of course, a small shuttle would be more beneficial for us, since there were no loads for Buran.
    As for the author’s desire, everywhere and everywhere, to use the N-1 scheme by removing steps and heaping loads on it in the form of an OS - it was more profitable and reliable to use just a modular scheme, similar to the then Energia and the current Angara

    Quote from dsk
    This is a real option. Two projects were developed in the USSR: Buran-30, 30-ton bomber, and Buran-5, hawk. As a result, the "bomber" won, they were laid 10 (ten) pieces, but the "discharge" began, oil prices fell, the USSR budget "collapsed". The "bombs" were no longer needed, and for 30-ton transporters there was no payload.

    And where are you, dear, this has accumulated, such information. Nobody knows about the Buran-5 project, but you know. And in general, the name "Buran" appeared much later than the beginning of its development. At different stages, it was called OS and OK, and had an index of 11F35. And the name "Buran" (and evil tongues claim that they originally planned to call the first ship "Baikal", and the second "Buran") appeared shortly before the start. In the same way as the name “Energy” appeared before the start, before that, in addition to the 11K25 index, it also had its own designation RLA -... and its name. Different variations were called differently. And "Deuteron", and "Thunder", and "Thunderstorm" ... Like the carriers had their own indices RLA-125, RLA-130, etc.
    And on the slipways was laid FIVE ships. Their history is well known. If you want to know for sure - go to the Buran.ru website, but just don’t think about 10 mortgaged Buranas and Buran-5 hawks

    Quote: aristok
    for example, if the satellite launched the satellite to the GPO with a successful separation, the conclusion is considered successful regardless of whether it was able to make its remote control upgrade to the GSO or not.

    Yes, in this version you are right. The rocket worked normally, bringing the target load to the reference orbit. But the launch itself, since the satellite did not reach the geostationary station, will be considered unsuccessful. The same with the first stations MARS and VENERA. The carriers put them into the orbit in which they remained. But at the same time, the launch itself was considered unsuccessful, because the task was not withdrawn. The same with the "Scythian". The launch was unsuccessful. And the fact that both times "Energy" worked out successfully - no one says. It was about (at least on my part) that one of the launches was unsuccessful, the second successful. But you are right, for, let's say, people who are far from all this, my phrase may look ambiguous. Say "Energy" could not cope.

    Quote: jonht
    You messed up a bit with missiles, Glushko developed and pushed the "Proton", "Energy" is the brainchild of other designers.

    You got it wrong. "Proton" is the brainchild of Chelomei. Development of a completely different design bureau, not royal. Glushko became after Mishin the general designer of the royal company. Well, specifically, the rocket was engaged in its own chief designer. So "Energy" is first and foremost the brainchild of Glushko.
    1. +1
      7 August 2018 15: 20
      Quote: Old26
      Yes, in this version you are right. The rocket worked normally, bringing the target load to the reference orbit. But the launch itself, since the satellite did not reach the geostationary station, will be considered unsuccessful.

      stop the naive attempt to play the last word with me
      The context of the discussion is RN, and it worked normally.
      1. -1
        7 August 2018 15: 34
        Quote: Old26
        According to the "Buran". The creation of a ship close to Shuttle in its design and characteristics is also possible pressure from above. According to rumors. But most other projects, such as Spiral, were not feasible at that time in the initial configuration of this system. Chelomei's light spacecraft? HZ. "Spiral" even now is impossible, not to mention that time. Of course, a small shuttle would be more beneficial for us, since there were no loads for Buran.

        I wrote
        What did not like:
        1. Dreams about the aerospace system.

        I despise any "space planes"
        Why are you criticizing me in the form of opposition?
        Want to be holier than the pope?
        Or do you read inattentively?
      2. 0
        7 August 2018 19: 42
        Do not distort! am
        Your quote "for example, if the satellite launched the satellite to the GPO with a successful separation, the conclusion is considered successful regardless of whether it was able to make its remote control upgrade to the GSO or not." The key phrase is “withdrawal is considered successful,” not pH.
        Old26 absolutely right, correcting you.
    2. 0
      7 August 2018 15: 25
      Quote: Old26
      And the fact that Glushko ordered to destroy the backlog on H-1 is certainly stupid, if only in the fact that it would be possible, just like the Americans, to use them in the museum of space rocket technology (which, alas, unfortunately, we don’t).

      This is not stupidity, but a crime ...
      And no need to clown around in the style of "use them in a museum of rocket technology"
      The main thing is that not only finished copies of the rocket were destroyed, but also the documentation - a storehouse of intellectual achievements of the developers.
      1. 0
        7 August 2018 19: 47
        N-1 is a crime! As Chertok wrote, the money spent on each of the N-1 would be enough to build a city with a population of 100000 people.
    3. 0
      12 August 2018 23: 32
      Quote: Old26
      And they were forced to put 3 dozen engines that could not work simultaneously.

      Could you give a link to the source, which says that 3 dozen engines could not work simultaneously.
      Quote: Old26
      But the second scheme of the Germans, which Korolev took as a basis

      What are you Germans pulled here? Then it’s necessary to mention Kondratyuk and Tsiolkovsky, as well as many, many others whose ideas have been used and are used by numerous scientists and designers in their work.
      Quote: Old26
      And the fact that Glushko ordered to destroy the backlog on H-1 is of course stupidity ...
      And Valentin Glushko didn’t need N-1.

      Of course it was a crime, the country lost a lot of money for many years. It was a real sabotage.
      Valentin Glushko, mortally quarreling at one time with Korolev and dreaming of personal gloryand not about the glory of the Motherland, he covered the N-1 project for the sake of his Energy. After all, if he had brought the N-1 missile to success, he would have been just one of many. Both the Royal R-7 and the Royal N-1 would fly now, and the Royal N-11 (this is the 2nd and 3rd stage of the N-1 rocket with a payload of 29 tons) would make the development of a poisonous Proton unnecessary. Where then would Glushko be?
      It is insanely sorry that the USSR did not have a national program similar to the American one. We only need (and now need) full national program the development of astronautics for decades to come, which includes specific plans and dates: the Moon, Mars, deep space.
      Quote: Old26
      As for the author’s desire, everywhere and everywhere, to use the N-1 scheme by removing steps and heaping loads on it in the form of an OS - it was more profitable and reliable to use just a modular scheme, similar to the then Energia and the current Angara

      The author’s desire everywhere and everywhere to use the H-1 scheme is quite reasonable and justified.
      Let's compare the reliability of the N-1 rocket and the Soyuz 5: 30 rocket, NK-33 engines against one RD-107, which is being created now. Assume that the reliability of the engines is the same and on the N-1 engine failures will occur 30 times more often. NK-33 engines have an interesting feature, in case of failure they practically do not explode.
      http://lpre.de/sntk/NK-33/tests.htm
      [quote = bench testing based on materials [1] and [10]] For example, tests were carried out with throwing large portions of metal chips, fasteners (screws, nuts), large pieces of rough wiping cloth (60x60 cm in size) onto the inlet of the working engine’s oxygen pump ) and others. All this did not lead to emergency outcomes. Even a sharp, shock cutting (“guillotine”) with the help of a special device for the fuel inlet pipe with a running engine did not lead to an explosion and fire, but caused a gradual cessation of the working process while maintaining the engine’s operability during subsequent starts.
      In 1976, instead of 33 s, required by the technical specifications, one of the first stage NK-140 engines worked at a stand of 14.000 s. [/ Quote]
      So, in case of failure of one engine, the CORD system disables the opposite engine and the flight continues successfully. With modern automation, a second engine shutdown is not required.
      For thirty engine failures, the N-1 accounts for one RD-170 engine failure. If the NK-33 engine fails, the flight will continue successfully, and the Union will have an emergency flight termination.
      Another advantage of the H-1 scheme is the easily reusable first and second stage. The first stage sits perfectly on the jet thrust of three or four engines, the second, like the Falcon 9, sits on the jet thrust of one engine.
      So, on the basis of the N-1 rocket, it was possible to cover the full range of loads with a high reliability of the rocket, and even make the 1st and 2nd stages reusable. N-1 could have a long, long-term service ahead of it for the benefit and glory of the country, but some were a little "wrong" about something.
  17. +1
    7 August 2018 20: 47
    Quote: aristok
    I despise any "space planes"
    Why are you criticizing me in the form of opposition?
    Want to be holier than the pope?
    Or do you read inattentively?

    I do not despise space planes, but with regard to the Spiral, I said my opinion. Sorry, but each of us has the right to our opinion, even if someone else expressed it.
    And the criticism of the same "Spiral" I have for a completely different reason. And not because the “plane” itself is bad, just a spiral is unrealistic due to the lack of hypersonic booster. He was not then, not now.

    Quote: aristok
    This is not stupidity, but a crime ...
    And no need to clown around in the style of "use them in a museum of rocket technology"
    The main thing is that not only finished copies of the rocket were destroyed, but also the documentation - a storehouse of intellectual achievements of the developers.

    Do you seriously believe that the General Designer can, with his own authority, issue an order to destroy documentation that has the signature stamp at least “Top Secret” because he so wanted it? Do not tell me then where from the network the N-1 circuits "roam" including and in the context, with dimensions, sections and other nonsense if all the documentation on it was, as you say, destroyed ????
    Even documents stamped with chipboard in the Soviet era were destroyed not just "At will" of the General. So these are chipboards that didn’t contain anything like that.
    Documents with a signature stamp, if they were destroyed, they are mostly current, and it was necessary to collect so many signatures .... that my mother does not grieve. And here are hundreds of volumes of materials ...

    And I think the finished copies really needed to be preserved for the museum. Fragments hurt, EMNIP were either disposed of, or used "for the needs of the national economy." EMNIP in the park the summer scene seems to have been covered by fragments of a tank of the 1st stage ..
    1. -2
      10 August 2018 15: 34
      Quote: Old26
      Quote: aristok
      I despise any "space planes"
      Why are you criticizing me in the form of opposition?
      Want to be holier than the pope?
      Or do you read inattentively?
      -------------
      I do not despise space planes, but with regard to the Spiral, I said my opinion. Sorry, but each of us has the right to our opinion, even if someone else expressed it.

      Forced a third time to tell you
      I am NOT against expressing your opinion on spacecraft,
      I am AGAINST what you do it IN THE FORM OF OPPONATION TO ME.
      I.e :
      or trying to be holier than the pope (me - in the case of criticism of spacecraft)
      or don’t read at all what they write to you (therefore I’m forced to highlight keywords with a caps)
    2. 0
      13 August 2018 02: 01
      Quote: Old26
      Do you seriously believe that the General Designer can, with his own authority, issue an order to destroy documentation that has the signature stamp at least “Top Secret” because he so wanted it? Do not tell me then where from the network the N-1 circuits "roam" including and in the context, with dimensions, sections and other nonsense if all the documentation on it was, as you say, destroyed ????

      It is not worthwhile to assign all responsibility for the destruction of the N-1 and the documentation to the General Designer, but what is interesting: Kuznetsov was able to save the documentation and the finished engines themselves, and Glushko meekly complied with the order from above and did nothing to resume this project.
      But here is how the documentation for the N-1 rocket was partially preserved.
      From the memoirs of Dmitry Vorontsov "Notes of an ordinary engineer"
      http://www.buran.ru/htm/memory35.htm
      In 1991. an instruction was received to write off and liquidate the documentation for H1, with the exception of the documents required to carry out current work. The indication was motivated by the need to unload the archives of special libraries. The list of stored documents was compiled by specialists from specialized departments. Our department managed to defend only the ballistic calculation. Until now, I "bite my elbows" because I did not have time, I was afraid (mode!) To get acquainted with the N1-L3 project in more detail!

      The year of destruction of the documentation is doubtful, but perhaps in 1974 it was not all destroyed by order of the Politburo.
  18. -2
    10 August 2018 13: 46
    That's right, we need to recreate the Energia-Buran project. It is necessary for our astronautics. Only using modern, new technologies, including resource-saving ones, etc.
    1. 0
      22 August 2018 00: 57
      Quote: 1536
      That's right, we need to recreate the Energia-Buran project. It is necessary for our astronautics. Only using modern, new technologies, including resource-saving ones, etc.

      New technologies are undeniably necessary.
      For example, this:
      https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20151005/1297159118.html
      In Russia, created an engine for an aerospace plane
      KUBIN (Moscow region), October 5 - RIA Novosti. An engine for a promising aerospace aircraft, which will be used both in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and in the civilian sphere, was created in the Serpukhov branch of the Peter the Great Strategic Missile Forces Military Academy, an Academy spokesman told RIA Novosti on Monday.
      The combined air-rocket engine with a ramjet pulsating combustion chamber, a prechamber and an air launch system was created to enable the propulsion system to operate both in the atmosphere and in outer space. A promising aircraft with such an engine can deliver cargo to orbital stations with greater benefit, the agency’s interlocutor noted.
      "The problem of creating a combined power plant for the aircraft to transfer the engine from air to rocket in space during flight in the atmosphere has been solved. The engine includes a power plant operating on two circuits (modes) - air and rocket," explained the representative of the Academy in during the exhibition "Innovation Day of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation - 2015".

      Knock engine - the future of Russian engine building
      http://aviarf.ru/detonatsionnyiy-dvigatel-budushhee-rossiyskogo-dvigatelestroeniya/
      "Nevertheless, during tests in Khimki at Energomash, a steady-state mode of continuous spin detonation was recorded - 8 thousand revolutions per second on an oxygen-kerosene mixture. In this case, detonation waves balanced the vibration waves, and the heat-protective coatings withstood high temperatures."

      And of course, we must mention the small-sized nuclear power plant announced by V. Putin.
      It will not be possible to recreate the Energia-Buran project only with these technologies, but a reusable single-stage aerospace system can be obtained.
  19. 0
    15 September 2018 09: 43
    how did the Kremlin propaganda get it ... well, industry in Russia was killed .. instead of factories, ruins ..
  20. 0
    17 September 2018 16: 31
    The presence or absence of superheavy carriers determines the country's ability, in addition to manned interplanetary programs, to create large engineering objects in orbit in a short time. Does she need a superpower? In China, for example, they know how to not only count, but also earn money, and so far they only dream of this ability. In any case, such a thing, in an extremely scarce arsenal of funds today, does not hurt. History has accelerated, and this cannot be ignored.
  21. 0
    2 November 2018 17: 20
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    Quote: aristok
    engines are much simpler and more fault-tolerant than the “diamond he..ra" Glushko RD-170


    When Korolev refused Glushko’s “heptyl” engines, and Glushko refused to make kerosene engines for the H-1; then Kuznetsov’s design bureau took up such engines. Kuznetsov’s engines turned out to be less powerful than they needed and, therefore, they had to be put “to hell”! But the number is not "friends" with quality! The insufficient quality of Kuznetsov’s engines, exacerbated by their number (!), Served as a breakdown of the N-1 tests!



    How simple it is for you. First: no one tested the engines at the stand before installation. Second: there were no microprocessors capable of synchronizing their work. Third: the reliability of the system is determined by the weakest element. So there is a difference: five engines or 48?