Military Review

SLS Heavyweight. American astronauts rush to Mars. Part of 1

106
The concept of SLS is not the first attempt by Americans to resume astronaut flights on their own platform after the Space Shuttle. 14 January 2004 was announced the program Constellation ("Constellation"). It was the idea of ​​George W. Bush, who was supposed to lead Americans for the second time to the moon in the period from 2015 to 2020. As you can see, NASA failed to implement the idea. At the heart of the Constellation were laid two rockets - one heavy class Ares I and one super heavy Ares V, as well as the development of a lunar module LSAM (Lunar Surface Access Module).





LSAM (Lunar Surface Access Module) - lunar module for Ares V. Computer model

Ares I is a modified solid-fuel booster, borrowed from the old Space Shuttle, to which the oxygen-hydrogen stage was attached. From above, everything was crowned by a CEV spacecraft equipped with an emergency rescue system. In fact, the main purpose of Ares I was to deliver cargo and astronauts to near-Earth orbit, mainly to the ISS. Much more ambitious was the “truck” Ares V, consisting of a central cryogenic unit with modified “Shuttle” accelerators suspended on its sides. A space head with an accelerating stage and a lunar LSAM module docked to the upper part. Naturally, such a serious car was aimed at least at the natural satellite of the Earth, and in the future, at the delivery of Americans to Mars. NASA had to make Ares V a true monster - solid fuel boosters became the most powerful in the world, and the first five cryogenic SSME or RS-25 propulsion engines with 181 mc starting power supply were first replaced with five, and then immediately with six RS-68 thrusting 295 hardware.


Perspective family Ares. Only one rocket went into space ...

They also increased the “thickness” of the central part of the rocket - from the initial 8,4 m to 10,3 m. In the final, American engineers played a little with an increase in the “super heavyweight” traction capabilities, and the standard tracked carrier of the cosmodrome was unable to take on such a large object. However, NASA decided one task after all: Ares V was able to take tons of payload with 180 into space. It was not easy for the smaller “brother” Ares I, which the engineers extended to 96 meters without taking care of the rigidity of the structure. As a result, the lower stage with a working accelerator generated oscillations that could be fatal for the rocket and crew. In addition, 2009 computer simulations of the year showed that the wind force of all 5-11 m / s will tilt the Ares I rocket to the cosmodrome service tower, and this threatens, if not a catastrophe, then serious damage to the launch pad from the displaced first-stage engine torch. Such fundamental miscalculations, of course, could be corrected, but the price exceeded all reasonable limits. In addition, the loss of time for revision generally put an end to the US lunar-Martian mission. One of the employees involved in the project noted very precisely: “If NASA pushes the program hard enough, the rocket will fly, but you will have to make so many compromises that it will be so expensive and will be created so late that it would be better flew in general ... ”Barack Obama in May 2009 of the year created a commission headed by space businessman Norman Augustine, whose task was to evaluate the project Constellation and work out further actions. Experts found out that the budget has grown from 27 to 44 billion dollars, which is not enough to keep the project on schedule, and the total spending on space initiatives of George W. Bush to 2025 would be more than 230 billion! Speaking to members of the House of Representatives, Norman Augustin reported on the results of the audit: “The current program in its current form cannot be implemented due to the inconsistency between the allocated funding and the chosen methods of implementing the tasks at hand.” He clarified that in order to launch astronauts beyond the limits of near-Earth orbit, the United States should allocate at least 3 billion to the project annually. Augustine also proposed to reorient the entire mission to land on asteroids flying near the Earth at the beginning of the 2020-s, or on Phobos with Deimos. NASA, feeling that the earth was literally burning under the Constellation project, October 28 of the year launches the first experimental Ares IX rocket with the CEV space-weight model.

SLS Heavyweight. American astronauts rush to Mars. Part of 1

Ares IX a few seconds after the start

The first launch turned out to be the only one - the arguments of the Augustine Commission had a greater impact on the authorities than the almost fake launch of the rocket, and in February 2010 of the year the Constellation was closed. It turned out that even practical and prudent Americans know how to spend budgetary resources inefficiently. Following an unsuccessful experience with Constellation, the congressmen in July 2010 had the idea to allocate money for two similar projects: Space Launch System SLS (Space Launch System) and Multi-Purpose Manned Ship Orion MPCV (Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle).


Norman Augustine - the man who put an end to the draft Constellation.

What did the Americans expect from the project? First of all, SLS should “open up completely new opportunities for science and human exploration of space, further near-earth orbit, including flights of astronaut researchers to various regions of the Solar System to search for resources, create new technologies and get an answer to the question about our place in the Universe.” Such an ambitious mission was complemented by a no less significant development of “a safe, affordable, long-term means for going beyond the existing limits and discoveries through research into remote, unique areas of outer space”. SLS will launch the Orion multi-purpose and more scientific equipment into deep space. The most interesting thing was that the SLS finances were actually allocated only at the initiative of the Senate and against the will of President Obama. 15 April 2011 of the year he “through force” signed a law establishing a ceiling for financing the project to 11,5 billion for the carrier and to 5,5 billion for the ship.


Multi-Purpose Manned Ship "Orion" MPCV (Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle). Computer model

Senators acted in the unusual role of engineers and independently determined the future look of the American "super heavyweight". It is assumed that this will be a rocket with two five-section solid-fuel boosters based on, again, Space Shuttle boosters, and with a giant central cryogenic part with RS-25 engines. The upper step is also assumed to be cryogenic. The usable mass of the cargo to be released into space was limited to 130 tons, which was somewhat more modest than the parameters of Ares V. The congressmen actually decided to rebuild their Constellation in the hope that this time it would be cheaper. The Economist weekly wrote in this connection: “The peculiarity of this project is that the launch vehicle was first created under the auspices of politicians, and not scientists and engineers.”


A promising SLS launch vehicle in the Block 1 modification - the brainchild of the US Senate. Computer model

Evil tongues in the United States in connection with the situation with the intervention of lawmakers in purely technical issues of space design, aptly renamed SLS to Senate Launch System ("Senate launch system"). Indeed, many decisions were dictated solely by politics. In particular, the program saved thousands of jobs at Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, which made the DS-25 engines, and at the Michuda, New Orleans, fuel tank plant. Hangars in Michuda generally stood idle after the shuttle program was closed, occasionally working for the needs of Hollywood - episodes of Ender's Game and other fiction were filmed in their gigantic premises. As a result, NASA had no choice but to comply with the law, taking the pretty dusty Ares V project from the shelf and simply re-stick the cover on SLS. Congressmen, together with the space agency, assured everyone that “the project will be the most powerful launch vehicle in stories humanity, while its design will be easy to adapt to the various requirements for both manned flights and the launch into space of various payloads. ”

According to the materials of the publication "Rise"
Author:
Photos used:
cgstudio.com, wikipedia.ru, skyship.ru, astronet.ru, users.livejournal.com
106 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Snail N9
    Snail N9 8 October 2018 06: 42 New
    14
    Okay. And what is “better” for Roscosmos' projects? The author sneers at the Americans, but something tells me that they will achieve their goal, and the Russian "drank projects" will end in the same way as the flight of the last Martian station, and this is at best, and at worst, everything will end with the death of the "donkey" and "padishaha" -on which everyone will write off. wink
    PS: I ask you not to mention about RD-180 (it is full of teeth, already ...) ... sad
    1. Lunic
      Lunic 8 October 2018 07: 08 New
      +4
      This direction develops by trial and error ... Politicians interfere with their ideas, some for PR, some for cutting. In America, by the way, politicians get involved in such matters so that factories in "their" home states are not closed, providing work for the electorate ...
      1. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 8 October 2018 08: 00 New
        +4
        Quote: Lunic
        In America, by the way, politicians get involved in such matters so that factories in "their" home states are not closed, providing work for the electorate ...

        It turns out that such a "space" initiative is, in fact, no different from the forced filling of beer only into aluminum cans to support RUSAL.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 8 October 2018 10: 05 New
          +3
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          does not differ from forced bottling of beer only in aluminum cans to maintain RUSAL

          The theme with Rusal (banks and aluminum wiring) is more like Trump flirting with coal miners. When decisions are made in favor of some voters to the detriment of the country as a whole. The difference is that, as considered, Americans make decisions in the interests of groups of voters, which are also beneficial to some businessmen, and in Russia, as considered, decisions are made in the interests of some businessmen who are also beneficial to some voters at city-forming enterprises.
          SLS is a ridiculously complete analogue of Energy. A political project without a clear goal. To make matters worse, it entails meaningless tasks designed to justify its existence. For example, ill-wishers believe that the lunar station is conceived only in order to have where to drive the SLS, since it is still there.
          1. Henderson
            Henderson 8 October 2018 10: 43 New
            0
            The lunar station is considered by NASA as an intermediate step before the manned flight to Mars in the 2030s.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 8 October 2018 11: 38 New
              +1
              Quote: Henderson
              The lunar station is considered by NASA as an intermediate step before the manned flight to Mars in the 2030s.

              Yes, there are a lot of good arguments, I heard. The main one is "well, you have to do something."
              1. Henderson
                Henderson 8 October 2018 12: 25 New
                0
                Nevertheless, they purposefully and consistently go to the solution of this problem. They create ships and their carriers, explore Mars with robots, gain experience of a long-term orbital station, etc.
                1. Cannonball
                  Cannonball 8 October 2018 21: 16 New
                  0
                  Rather stomp on the spot, feeding sponsors with fables.
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 8 October 2018 23: 57 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Cannonball
                    Rather stomp on the spot, feeding sponsors with fables.

                    Are you talking about NASA now?
          2. Proxima
            Proxima 8 October 2018 14: 43 New
            +2
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            SLS is ridiculously a complete analogue of Energy

            It's really ridiculous and full fellow I don’t remember something that "Energia" flew with solid fuel boosters request
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 8 October 2018 15: 45 New
              -1
              Quote: Proxima
              I don’t remember something that "Energia" flew with solid fuel boosters

              Details))))

              I meant, of course, conceptual similarities, not technical ones.
              1. Proxima
                Proxima 8 October 2018 18: 00 New
                0
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Quote: Proxima
                I don’t remember something that "Energia" flew with solid fuel boosters

                Details))))

                I meant, of course, conceptual similarities, not technical ones.

                And you know, you’re probably right, according to the concept of SLS, it’s closer to Energy than for Saturn 5, side accelerators, a central hydrogen block, a packet scheme, unlike Saturn, which is made in tandem hi....
    2. Maverick1812
      Maverick1812 12 December 2018 13: 59 New
      0
      That's right! They spend money on science! Even if something did not work out, but how much did it work in other industries !!!! It's scary to imagine! Our developments are 40-50 years old, and the "offices" of NanoChubais and Kosmodrmovosto-Rogozin shove loot into their pockets ...
  2. Conductor
    Conductor 8 October 2018 08: 37 New
    +2
    Do you need a flight to Mars?
    1. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 8 October 2018 09: 15 New
      +9
      Navigare necesse est, vivere non est necesse

      There was no need to get down from the trees either. Only they became extinct mainly.
      1. Cannonball
        Cannonball 8 October 2018 21: 19 New
        -2
        Slow Festina

        Running ahead of the engine is also hardly reasonable.
        1. Antares
          Antares 8 October 2018 22: 07 New
          0
          Quote: Cannonball
          steam train

          the engine is a symbol of the progress of the 19th century, now you need to fly at a speed much greater ...
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 8 October 2018 22: 38 New
            -1
            Quote: Antares
            the engine is a symbol of the progress of the 19th century, now you need to fly at a speed much greater ...

            And you first overtake the engine.
    2. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid 8 October 2018 10: 02 New
      0
      Quote: Conductor
      Do you need a flight to Mars?

      Somehow the promises of amers to fly to Mars come to mind ... That in 1994 ... That later ... That even later ... Sometimes with the Russians, sometimes without them ... They make a good face in a bad game. Or maybe they are not allowed to fly to Mars THOSE who at one time "" drove them from the moon "" ????????? HA-HA-HA !!!!!!!!!!
    3. Selevc
      Selevc 8 October 2018 14: 04 New
      +1
      The need is - but are flights to Mars real at all now or is this another political project ??? Isn't this another long-standing chatter ??? I want to remind you that preparation for flights to Mars lasts from the 80s of the last century - that is, almost 30 years - about half of the entire space age !!!
      Why so long ??? - the question is simple before banality !!! Why did the US take so long to develop superheavy rocket carriers if they have huge (largest in the world) experience in developing such missiles ??? ??? Why did Russian space projects of the 60s and 70s of the last century (modernized of course) fly quite successfully and the USA suddenly forgot their achievements from the Apollo project ??? Isn't it strange ???

      Are manned flights real beyond the Earth’s magnetic field? Is there an effective protection of the rocket crew from solar radiation ???
      Considering the fact that a large space is at all times still was Big Politics, then one can doubt both the Lunar and the Martian programs of the USA !!! Is the United States creating another Hollywood victory for the rest of the world called Landing on Mars ??? Fortunately, computer graphics and special effects of cinema have stepped very far over the past quarter of a century, and technically, the possibility of space fraud is indisputable ...
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 8 October 2018 17: 06 New
        0
        Because they don’t allocate money.
        Compared to 60 years, now NASA lives on pasture and saves on everything.
        http://zelenyikot.com/why-people-had-fly-off-the-moon/
        Well, an article in order to get acquainted with the situation
    4. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 9 October 2018 14: 01 New
      +3
      Quote: Conductor
      Do you need a flight to Mars?

      Not. Of course. However, no one will fly there. The maximum limit available to the non-team economy has already been reached - the rover has been thrown there. Given the unconditional allocation of resources, such a project could be carried out, and it would be a giant step ... back for humanity. Something reminiscent of an expedition across the Atlantic on a reed raft.
      You can try, but why? If you are very lucky, then the raft will reach the goal. But to finance such expeditions is stupid to the wild, there are no prospects for such a way of traveling, the risk exceeds all reasonable and unreasonable limits and cannot be reduced in principle. No improvement of technologies also takes place - the technologies in this case have reached the limit and there is simply nothing to improve.
      I understand the longing of today's space engineers for funding and high-profile headlines. But this is not a reason to burn resources into stillbirth. A fundamentally new way of delivering cargo to near-Earth orbit is needed. And accordingly - a fundamentally new way of landing on the planet. Missile technology in its current form is generally not suitable for interplanetary astronautics. Progressive methods of linking reeds can be introduced, as long as the leader is not tired of enduring loafers with burning eyes. But it will never fly properly.
  3. Forestol
    Forestol 8 October 2018 13: 03 New
    +1
    Technology and promotion of superprojects is best in the military confrontation of superpowers. America, left alone, lost the point of proving it. Every year, hundreds of technologies already discovered 30 years ago are lost, experts with experience die. The Senate, one of the few, understands that Musk is simply a “hauler” of NASA and the Pentagon budget funds; these are not hundreds of Boeing, Rockwell International or Lockheed research institutes with their scientific base, groundwork, scientists. Like in Roskosmos, NASA also has people eager to cut the state budget, at the level of ministers and people of the president, so Obama slowed down. As soon as China announces the deployment of its base on the moon, everyone will run to do their own thing. The fact is that so far everyone is restrained by the Treaty on the Non-Placement in Space of Y. O. Therefore, there are no open programs worthy of execution. For our part, it is necessary to reaffirm YOUR inhabited station, your military astronauts, performing missions of the Defense Ministry. And now, just colossal money is being stolen throughout the industry, without any benefit.
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 8 October 2018 16: 11 New
      +3
      Every year, hundreds of technologies already discovered 30 years ago are lost, experts with experience die.

      Following your logic, the USA should forget how to create both aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines as well - that's why the experts died !!! But for some reason, the old B-52 (greetings from the 50s) successfully flies and the terms of its operation are constantly being extended and the Apollo project is the pride of the USA and its technical world leadership is forgotten !!! CARL FORGOTTEN !!! - a masterpiece of American scientific thought !!! Yes, is it possible in principle ??? Hence the doubts about the Lunar and Martian projects !!!
      1. IImonolitII
        IImonolitII 8 October 2018 17: 26 New
        +2
        The B-52 is still in operation, but their production has long been curtailed, and they are not going to resume it.
      2. Cannonball
        Cannonball 8 October 2018 21: 24 New
        -1
        Of course, the F-35 and Zumwalt are the pinnacle of creation, and the Su-35 and S-300 are the last century. wink
        By the way, the Americans also forgot how to make tanks, and there is no place to do them in America.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 9 October 2018 00: 01 New
          +1
          Quote: Cannonball
          Of course, the F-35 and Zumwalt are the pinnacle of creation.

          Today, yes.
          Quote: Cannonball
          Su-35 and S-300 - the last century

          You guessed it again.
          Quote: Cannonball
          By the way, the Americans also forgot how to do tanks

          Now they are sitting without tanks, miserable.

          And why did you remember all this?
          1. Cannonball
            Cannonball 13 October 2018 11: 50 New
            0
            And to the fact that "outdated" technology is sometimes better than the most modern. And past achievements do not at all guarantee future benefits. Well, the usual saying that "the end justifies the means" can now take the form of "the means determine the end."
      3. Forestol
        Forestol 8 October 2018 21: 38 New
        +1
        Do you even read what you write? The aircraft carrier Gerald Ford just handed over, before that, two more aircraft carriers handed over, and when did Saturn 5? And the last shuttle? As we cannot create Buran, so the Americans don’t know how to make Saturn ...
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 8 October 2018 22: 40 New
          0
          Quote: Forestol
          and when did Saturn 5? And the last shuttle? As we cannot create Buran, so the Americans don’t know how to make Saturn ...

          So, but not so. Russia does not have enough resources for all projects, the USA does not have enough intelligence, do you feel the difference?
      4. atalef
        atalef 9 October 2018 16: 13 New
        +3
        Quote: Selevc
        ! CARL FORGOTTEN !!! - a masterpiece of American scientific thought !!! Yes, is it possible in principle ??? Hence the doubts about the Lunar and Martian projects !!!


        Why is forgotten?
        Technology is lost, as are the technological chains. more precisely, reproducing them now does not make any sense. I’m going to offer you now to release a cassette recorder, well, that would be an analogue of some kind of Spring.
        What would be brand new and what a net to him MK-90 say.
        How much will it cost to recreate it again?
        And then Saturn, think about it.
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 9 October 2018 18: 15 New
          -1
          Quote: atalef
          I’ll offer you now to release a cassette recorder, well, that would be an analogue of some kind of Spring.
          What would be brand new and what a net to him MK-90 say.
          How much will it cost to recreate it again?

          The cassette players were replaced by disc players, but what replaced Saturn? NOTHING!!!
          Quote: atalef
          Technology is lost, as are the technological chains. more precisely reproducing them now does not make any sense.

          It makes no sense to restore technology if there is something better, but the Americans don’t have anything better, in this case it makes sense to restore technology in order to restore personnel, but the Americans cannot.
    2. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 9 October 2018 14: 27 New
      +1
      Quote: Forestol
      Every year, hundreds of technologies already discovered 30 years ago are lost, experts with experience die.

      Unfortunately, the loss of unclaimed technology along with the holders of relevant knowledge is an inevitable process. You try now to take and create a piston aircraft engine with a capacity of a couple of thousand hp, which were stamped by tens of thousands in the same USA during the war. And so that he would be at least no worse than those in specific parameters, not wedge or shoot pistons. Will not work. What is it, nobody can even competently design a steam locomotive. That is, if you set a goal, you can do it, but you will have to spend no less (or even more) effort than when it was on the stream - there is nobody to learn from.
  4. aristok
    aristok 8 October 2018 19: 48 New
    +2
    Why don't the Americans just build an analogue of Saturn-5 - a tandem, the first stage of kerosene ..
    After all, the SLS promise characteristics no better than that of Saturn-5 -
    80-130 tons at the DOE at SLS
    140 tons at NOU at Saturn-5.

    And the starting mass of SLS is greater than that of Saturn-5 (this is at lower MON - this is progress over 50 years !!!), respectively, the starting complex is more complicated and more expensive.
    It turns out in all respects SLS worse than Saturn-5.
    It is strange.
    Moreover, the money will be spent ONLY on a rocket of more than $ 35 billion.
    And the development time will exceed the development time of Saturn-5, which will make the project even more expensive.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 8 October 2018 20: 00 New
      +2
      Quote: aristok
      Why don't the Americans just build an analogue of Saturn 5

      Only if in Hollywood.
      Quote: aristok
      It turns out in all respects SLS worse than Saturn-5.

      The mythical "Saturn" is better than the unborn SLS
      1. Forestol
        Forestol 8 October 2018 21: 33 New
        +3
        The Americans, Rlquel, and Lockheed officially announced that Saturn 5's building technology was completely lost. If you were once.
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 8 October 2018 22: 37 New
          +3
          Quote: Forestol
          The Americans, Rlquel, and Lockheed officially announced that Saturn 5's building technology was completely lost. If you were once.

          Apparently the cleaning lady when she cleaned all the drawings threw out.
          1. atalef
            atalef 9 October 2018 16: 15 New
            0
            Quote: Setrac
            Quote: Forestol
            The Americans, Rlquel, and Lockheed officially announced that Saturn 5's building technology was completely lost. If you were once.

            Apparently the cleaning lady when she cleaned all the drawings threw out.

            Are you sure that Roskosmos is now able to reproduce Buran or Energy?
            But he will be younger than Saturn.
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 9 October 2018 18: 17 New
              -3
              Quote: atalef
              Are you sure that Roskosmos is now able to reproduce Buran or Energy?
              But he will be younger than Saturn.

              Russia can reproduce Energy if other countries help with resources. As I wrote earlier, the lack of resources prevents Russia from promoting projects, the United States is lack of intelligence.
              1. GibSoN
                GibSoN 10 October 2018 19: 17 New
                0
                Russia can reproduce Energy if other countries help with resources. As I wrote earlier, the lack of resources prevents Russia from promoting projects, the United States is lack of intelligence.
                Finish wishful thinking and compare what was before and what is now. Who built the pyramids? Are you sure that now someone can build a full-fledged pyramid?
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 10 October 2018 20: 28 New
                  -2
                  Quote: GibSoN
                  Who built the pyramids? Are you sure that now someone can build a full-fledged pyramid?

                  The pyramid is a meaningless and merciless building, now anyone can build it - nothing complicated. In addition, the Egyptian pyramids remodels - a fake. No structure can stand for a thousand years.
                  1. indy424
                    indy424 17 November 2018 08: 38 New
                    -1
                    how quickly everything slid to flat earth
                  2. Darter88
                    Darter88 28 November 2018 10: 20 New
                    -1
                    The sun revolves around a flat earth, right?
                    1. Setrac
                      Setrac 28 November 2018 19: 28 New
                      0
                      Quote: Darter88
                      The sun revolves around a flat earth, right?

                      You know better
                  3. Lycan
                    Lycan 7 December 2018 14: 22 New
                    0
                    Quote: Setrac
                    The pyramid is meaningless and merciless, now anyone can build it - nothing complicated

                    Now - well, I don’t know - stone processing (namely processing, not casting from concrete - here about traces of processing - see Sklyarov’s article https://esoterics.wikireading.ru/98943) in order to pair adjacent blocks on a non-planar surface. .. This should be asked by modern stone-processing technologists, mentioning that production should be on an industrial scale and the time frame - 1 pyramid (the average of the 3 largest in Giza) - 35-40 years. And also ask about the energy consumption of such processing.
                    1. Setrac
                      Setrac 7 December 2018 17: 02 New
                      0
                      Quote: Lycan
                      Now - well, I don’t know - stone processing (namely processing, not casting from concrete - here about traces of processing

                      You don’t know this, they told you this, while others told you that it was concrete casting, and even cited pieces of matter poured into concrete pyramids as an example.
                      Quote: Lycan
                      And also ask about the energy consumption of such processing.

                      This means that the ancestors were not as "primitive" as we think.
                      1. Lycan
                        Lycan 10 December 2018 10: 50 New
                        0
                        Quote: Setrac
                        You don’t know this, you were told

                        It was shown in large numbers in many instances and in different parts of the world in ancient buildings, to which the use of stone cutting of large blocks is impractical (but if restoration - it’s better that there is no concrete).
                        Quote: Setrac
                        while others said that it was concrete casting, and even cited pieces of material poured into concrete pyramids as an example

                        How plausible has this been shown to you? Right on the pyramid? With periodicity in almost every block? In detail with opto-magnification? Can I link?
                        Quote: Setrac
                        This means that the ancestors were not as "primitive" as we think.

                        But we have to doubt that these were "our ancestors":
                        1) because everywhere scattered pieces of stone processing machines (Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, Mexico, Bolivia, Peru ...) are not found, although they should, because the products are very large, there are many of them and they require equally large machines that drive the plan and frequent breakdowns / obsolescence / replacement of units / cutting nozzles (even if they are ultrasonic, organized in a bunch) - this is common (look at car dumps or abandoned factories around the world).
                        2) Such technologies and works are accompanied by various kinds of documentation, reports, related technologies, technological transport, etc. (which either do not exist at all or some entries / characters indicate far from the primitive that is in museums).
                        3) I have an understanding - who are my distant ancestors (from the branch lol ) and who ancestors of many "Homo sapiens sapiens" on a blue ball ... Don't be shy about that. One must accept this fact (well, why bother if the DNA of chimpanzees and humans coincide by more than 95%, i.e. there is reason to suspect about a common ancestor) and develop further. And those who (presumably) created all this stone architecture around the world - (I have no other more weighty and well-reasoned arguments) Sklyarov (with a dry scientific approach) expounds in the form of a hypothesis - in his films. Alas, the arguments from school history textbooks do not apply to the technologies, accuracy, transportation and industrial volumes in question.
                      2. Setrac
                        Setrac 10 December 2018 17: 12 New
                        0
                        Quote: Lycan
                        Large shown in many copies and in different parts of the world in ancient buildings

                        No need to generalize, all the pyramids are different.
                        Quote: Lycan
                        How plausible has this been shown to you? Right on the pyramid? With periodicity in almost every block? In detail with opto-magnification? Can I link?

                        Exactly so, in detail with examples, quite convincingly, I can’t give a link - I don’t keep it.
                        Quote: Lycan
                        1) because everywhere scattered pieces of stone processing machines (Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, Mexico, Bolivia, Peru ...) do not occur, although they should

                        Should not and are not obliged, we may simply not be aware of what we have come across.
                        Quote: Lycan
                        2) Such technologies and works are accompanied by various kinds of documentation, reports, related technologies

                        However, the reports and documentation do not have to be on paper, maybe a pebble that you threw into the lake is a flash drive of the ancients?
                        Quote: Lycan
                        3) I have an understanding - who are my distant ancestors (from the branch) and who are the ancestors of many "Homo sapiens sapiens" on a blue ball ... You shouldn't be shy about that.

                        You are simply mistaken, the whole story until the nineteenth century was invented from scratch, the nineteenth century - yes we do not call the Napoleonic Wars - World War, and yet it was such, and there are such examples of the sea.
                      3. Lycan
                        Lycan 10 December 2018 23: 52 New
                        0
                        Quote: Setrac
                        Quote: Lycan
                        Large shown in many copies and in different parts of the world in ancient buildings
                        No need to generalize, all the pyramids are different.

                        It - not only about the pyramids. There are neighboring and remotely standing buildings and, as previously mentioned, spaced across the continents, having similar machining at high speeds. And no one claims that these are the same representatives riveted. But the technological result is obvious.
                        Quote: Setrac
                        Quote: Lycan
                        1) because everywhere scattered pieces of stone processing machines (Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, Mexico, Bolivia, Peru ...) do not occur, although they should
                        Should not and are not obliged, we may simply not be aware of what we have come across.

                        You know - you can distinguish stone from a palm tree and, all the more, from some very obvious material-processing equipment for large volumes.
                        Our argument is not that it was not there, but that our (human) ancestors did not have it, because the achievements in technology are always accompanied by a less developed techniquelying around here and there in large volumes. And if it was even a little bit closer to stone cutters (industrial type), we could definitely observe it for millennia. Moreover, the equipment of the transition period - with abrasive nozzles that can not be simply melted on swords by the crusaders. And there should be enough nozzles to look at them in the museum.
                        Further. The technique was probably there. But she is not the fruit of the development of "bipedal primates", even if they have palaces in Egypt (Bolivia, Peru): I explain that it is not easy to get and melt rare earth metals in the required proportion. Where is the technique from - try to think out. (Hint: from where the machine operators themselves came from. From where, in fact, they got away in the end, having correctly packed the tools.)
                        Quote: Setrac
                        However, the reports and documentation do not have to be on paper, maybe a pebble that you threw into the lake is a flash drive of the ancients?

                        I agree. This argument is fair. only in the case when at the same time with the representatives of high technology a reasonable person already existed, developed so much as to record in manuscripts (albeit little understood, but) great creations ... for example ... "gods" / titans / great ancients .. etc.
                        Quote: Setrac
                        You are simply mistaken, the whole story until the nineteenth century was invented from scratch,

                        I do not presume to confirm the accuracy and accuracy of events up to the 19th century, but regarding the origin of the Homo sapiens species, there are many parallel studies in DNA genealogy, where the history of the development of the Homo Sapiens species over 5 ... 8 million years is very well traced and speculation almost no there.
                        PS: If you don’t adhere to any specific theory, not believing anything (I mean specific studies), then how do you imagine the person’s past?
            2. Nulgorod
              Nulgorod 1 December 2018 23: 41 New
              0
              Using geopolymer concrete: no problem. And then try to distinguish them from the ancient laughing And yes, the age of these ancients is very much overstated.
              1. Lycan
                Lycan 10 December 2018 10: 15 New
                0
                Quote: Nulgorod
                Using geopolymer concrete: no problem.

                This is something like this:
                https://masterok.livejournal.com/973154.html
                1. Nulgorod
                  Nulgorod 10 December 2018 19: 03 New
                  0
                  No. Yes, there is a dark story with Stonehenge, but in the case of the pyramids in Egypt there is no talk of mystification! Geopolymer concrete is a type of artificial stone, which was used not only in the construction of the pyramids, but also in the creation of sculptures, wall paintings (even a fool can understand that the characters were squeezed out in stone, but not cut out) and even dishes (amphora from diorite). Subsequently, this technology was lost and rediscovered in the middle of the 20th century. fellow By the way, there is reason to believe that the "philosophical stone", which the alchemists of the Middle Ages were looking for, was this very concrete, that is, the technology of its production. winked
                  1. Lycan
                    Lycan 10 December 2018 22: 28 New
                    0
                    Quote: Nulgorod
                    it’s clear even to a fool that hieroglyphs were squeezed out in stone, and not cut out

                    This, you know, is a controversial statement, until the traces of the tool / molding / side effects associated with the manufacture are investigated and recorded. This may be clear in the first turn to those who have access to such instances.
                  2. Nulgorod
                    Nulgorod 11 December 2018 00: 11 New
                    0
                    What instances are needed here? With fibers inside? Or maybe with whole pieces of fabric, frozen into stone? So there are such laughing
                  3. Lycan
                    Lycan 11 December 2018 10: 24 New
                    0
                    So, hde at least some analysis of the sample? Link to the laboratory or at least to the device? To believe in rumors and fuzzy photos without authorship.
                  4. Nulgorod
                    Nulgorod 11 December 2018 20: 55 New
                    0
                    Yes already did analyzes. Those who were interested in the topic. You can finally fly to Egypt yourself and grab a pebble for analysis, but it costs money, not everyone will decide hi
                    Here is a fairly complete article on this topic: https: //masterok.livejournal.com/719278.html
                  5. Lycan
                    Lycan 12 December 2018 12: 50 New
                    0
                    Here is an excerpt from the article you submitted:
                    It is inconvenient to cut down large blocks from a solid massif, because it is difficult to transport them even over a distance of several kilometers ...


                    Here is a link to a video of our people "on site" (all (almost all) objects are open to the public):
                    https://lah.ru/taina-7-pyrmid/
                    (4: 08-5: 38) - about breeds;
                    (7: 12-8: 37) - about the common construction technolonies of that time (the time to which masonry from multi-ton blocks with a phenomenal fit of faces without mortar is attributed to)
                    (14: 34-15: 35) - and where, in fact, is the continuity of building traditions over generations? Yes, at least the same concrete - where ??? Why did the later dynasties forget how to sculpt large blocks from the vaunted "concrete"? (And outside in the building, just large blocks would be more appropriate - they would fasten the building like a shell).
                    (18:17) - and here is an instance of a block that was not cut from the rock. (Or what do you think?) Here the material is a little more disclosed: (https://lah.ru/seriya-3-tehnologii-bogov/) (18: 30-22: 17)

                    (19: 08-19: 25) (20: 44-22: 16) - here are the conclusions that are in harmony with logic.
                    (22: 22-22: 35) - approximate dating of the minimum age of construction based on traces of rock erosion on the Sphinx.
                    (For comparison: here is the information about the pharaohs from Wiki: the first association of the population under the rule of the 1st pharaoh ~ 3000 BC (~ 5 thousand years ago)
                    It is generally accepted that the buildings were created in the Ancient Kingdom of Ancient Egypt during the reign of the IV – VI dynasties (XXVI – XXIII centuries BC). ~ 4.4 thousand years ago).
                    (24: 23-24: 40) - From the end you can clearly see the rock from which we have reddish curbs. They serve in an aggressive environment, by the way, longer than their concrete counterparts.

                    Total: the brain of a modern person during long debates over versions is inclined to simplify the path to the final decision / verdict. So in our case - it is easier to dismiss it, agreeing with the version of "concrete casting" (as the only logical one given the initial data on civilizations), however, this does not bring us closer to the truth. It may not be in the presence of fundamental "initial data" (if, when studying versions, it becomes obvious "cutting a piece of rock with its subsequent, such as milling", then the versions of the "ancient Egyptians" with their "limestone" and "concrete" versions no longer work and should look for other solutions).
                    PS: About concrete. Have you heard of the connection between the Romans and the Egyptians (Caesar with Cleopatra, etc.)? The Romans already knew how to use cement great. So here are the possible Egyptian repair crews of the times of these international. relations could easily adopt the technique of building from concrete and restore individual parts of the pyramids and other important buildings. And scientists of the 20th century (if it was impossible to explain the presence of large blocks of rock) took for examination known samples of cement from there, asserted them properly, and already their authority and colleagues in the "workshop" defended them from all kinds of criticism and attempts at exposure. Try now to dissuade one of the well-known authoritative Egyptologists in the "limestone" or "cement" origin of the blocks - they simply won't talk to you, because there is no logical explanation (within the framework of the accepted course of development of civilizations) for the phenomenon of high technology results. To develop the hypotheses of paleocontact is a plan without grounds, but with a prolonged headache and without immediate prospects. Although the facts (blocks of hard rocks with traces of machining) - they are here, in front of the nose.
                  6. Nulgorod
                    Nulgorod 12 December 2018 22: 49 New
                    0
                    Have you heard about Occam's blade? What is more likely: extraterrestrial / ancient / secret technologies that are supposedly lost and cannot be restored (verified), or concreting technology that is open and tested, while providing answers to many puzzles? The answer, I think, is obvious. bully
                    And what is strange about the loss of this technology at a time when even writing was the destiny of a few, eh? request
                    By the way, Roman concrete is really reminiscent of Egyptian, and here at the time to raise the issue of dating of Egyptian structures. Since they were made using similar technology, why not assume that at about the same time? So, the technology still spread before it was lost. At the same time, Roman concrete used volcanic ash, and Egyptian concrete - river silt. It should also be understood that builders did not understand the processes that occurred in the materials, but simply operated on the visible consequences of certain actions that could be distorted during transmission from generation to generation hi
                  7. Lycan
                    Lycan 13 December 2018 11: 05 New
                    0
                    Quote: Nulgorod
                    What is more likely: extraterrestrial / ancient / secret technologies that are supposedly lost and cannot be restored (verified), or concreting technology that is open and tested, while providing answers to many puzzles? The answer, I think, is obvious

                    The controversy about "Which is more likely" will be quickly collapsed if you take one of the large blocks, accurately executed and with traces of machine processing - this is where the answer will be obvious. Occam's razor is just a way to quickly and effectively wriggle out of the "argument without argumentation", without bothering about the truth of the fact.
                    Quote: Nulgorod
                    And what is strange about the loss of this technology at a time when even writing was the destiny of a few, eh?

                    > If the technology is imported, then - nothing strange: there is no need to devote monkeys either to your letter, or to the instructions, or to the connection between symbols and real technologies. processes. And if the information never reached the primates, then the influence on their development (in the format of their future) can be officially neglected.
                    > If the technology is from the Earth, then there are traces of tech. development should have remained in some form: either as imperfect models or in the myths and legends of many ancient civilizations (the remains of ballistae, trebuchet, catapults, hand weapons, tools, ancient architecture of clearly human hands, mummification, information in various materially recorded forms , numerous settlements of primitive people, heaps of industrial debris in the earth's orbit, unfinished Burany in Kazakhstan). And in connection with these legends - the sudden loss of everything highly developed in tech. In terms of society - just very strange - a highly developed civilization does not just disappear without a trace. They couldn't take everything and fly away somewhere, taking all the technical samples. achievements.
                    Quote: Nulgorod
                    By the way, Roman concrete is really reminiscent of Egyptian, and here at the time to raise the issue of dating of Egyptian structures. Since they were made using similar technology, why not assume that at about the same time?

                    Of course, you can guess, but here's an example: in our city there is architecture from the early 13th century (Riga) with elements of concreting large stones at the base --- and nearby (which is disgusting) architecture (without indicating the dates of construction) - from reinforced concrete pillars, plasterboard ceilings, a fully glazed facade with its selective local illumination, with elevators and showcase glazing of the 1st floor - why not, after about 100 years, assume that these 2 buildings were created "at about the same time"? The concrete is there and there; steel and glass knew both there and there; location - on both sides of the street (which means that the order of the location of buildings depended on street trajectories laid down at that time). How do you like this logic?
                    Quote: Nulgorod
                    It should also be understood that builders did not understand the processes that occurred in the materials, but simply operated on the visible consequences of certain actions

                    They might not fully understand the processes, but the recipe is a recipe - if you move away from the well-known strong composition (recorded in manuscripts / archives / libraries), then no one needs the apparent fragility of the product.
                    But back to the fact: granite can be distinguished from Roman concrete, from simple concrete, shell rock, rocky limestone. And in Egypt (as well as on different continents) granite facts with traces of processing with such equipment, which at the time (I would say) of the tribal leader of Egypt (Bolivia, Mexico, Turkey, Lebanon, Israel), are annoying to the eye, his stonecutters even dream could not. And in conclusion, the phrase from that film: "If the generally accepted theory contradicts the available facts - for the objectivity of the picture of the past, the theory should be revised, and not swept aside the facts."
                  8. Nulgorod
                    Nulgorod 13 December 2018 19: 42 New
                    0
                    Quote: Lycan
                    finely executed and with traces of machining

                    Which could well be done manually and with simple tools, when this concrete block had not yet completely frozen. Or even be late fake like Stonehenge (and more) wink
                    Quote: Lycan
                    Occam's razor is just a way to quickly and effectively wriggle out of the "argument without argumentation"

                    But it’s not true: this is a methodological principle that allows you to achieve specific results in many problems in various fields, preventing them from drowning in countless "probabilities" of solutions.
                    Quote: Lycan
                    How do you like this logic?

                    It is quite useful and relevant, clearly demonstrating how really difficult it is to date ancient artifacts, even of such shallow antiquity, if there are no clear signs of certain eras, or there are, but they are taken from the ceiling. But what if some reputable archaeologist in the future dug up this street and really dated these buildings to the same time? How many other archaeologists will take his mistake as a basis and stick similar ones in their works? request
                    Quote: Lycan
                    but the recipe is a recipe - if you move away from the well-known strong composition (recorded in manuscripts / archives / libraries)

                    laughing It’s enough to take a look at how this discussion began, about missilessmile
                    Quote: Lycan
                    granite can be distinguished from Roman concrete, from simple concrete, shell rock, rocky limestone.

                    Roman is possible, but Egyptian is possible only under a microscope, because it is a full-fledged artificial stone.
                    Quote: Lycan
                    "If the generally accepted theory contradicts the available facts - for the objectivity of the picture of the past, one should revise the theory, and not sweep away the facts."

                    There is nothing to argue about, but there is one detail: the facts can be manipulated, nothing can be done about it.
                  9. Lycan
                    Lycan 13 December 2018 21: 22 New
                    0
                    Quote: Nulgorod
                    Quote: Lycan
                    finely executed and with traces of machining

                    Which could well be done manually and with simple tools, when this concrete block had not yet completely frozen.

                    Such are the traces:
                    http://www.goldentime.ru/hrs_machinegypt_3.htm
                    http://novikov-architect.ru/images/egypt_arch/egypt-21.jpg
                    manual work does not leave, especially in the absence of steel sheets (and the Iron Age began much later) + carbide nozzles on a scale that imply industrial quantities of the tool itself, not to mention the products of work + high temperatures and inert gas media (so that granite does not burn out and did not embrittle). There is no need to harbor false illusions regarding simple tools - they have their own accuracy, their resource, their workloads and their range of hardnesses they process. materials (see the video above, it clearly shows the level of architecture of even the late Pharaonic dynasties - rough brickwork on clay mortar).
                    And the traces are just - (probably repeat the 10th time) - on the granite block, which can not be confused with concrete (or do you think that everyone is completely confused?).
                    Quote: Nulgorod
                    But it’s not true: this is a methodological principle that allows you to achieve specific results in many problems in various fields, preventing them from drowning in countless "probabilities" of solutions.

                    The "methodological principle" works great: Why test inventions, produce a lot of options and look for responsible contractors to restore broken roads, if they can essentially not be repaired at all, redirecting a share of the budget to an affiliated organization that throws second-rate asphalt into autumn puddles for a penny, and next. year, you can again "wash" in this way part of the budget. Is not it? This method self-camouflages as “the convenience of avoiding countless probabilistic decisions,” although inherently it encourages laziness in the brain. Not in vain
                    he was invented by a monk. Why would they think there? And if we use this principle in our question - why did the ancient Egyptians cut granite on such a scale and with such accuracy, with an adherence to uneven surfaces of such a size? Isn’t it easier to fashion clay bricks commensurate with a person? (which was finally done).
                    Or this:
                    http://allnews7day.ru/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/26.jpg
                    Occam's razor explains why this masonry configuration was chosen? This, by the way, is a more complicated task than rectangular blocks to do (and arrange in the masonry), and even then they did not know much about plate tectonics to apply this.
                    Quote: Nulgorod
                    It’s enough to take a look at how this discussion began, about missiles

                    That's right.
                    Setrac, radish, touched on the topic, and I - after ....
                    Quote: Nulgorod
                    and Egyptian - only under the microscope, because it is a full-fledged artificial stone

                    There was a long story:
                    One crab complains to a friend: listen, I'm so unhappy - I, it turns out, is an artificial crab, an important person informed me. What a pity, I'm broken.
                    Friend: Here you go! What about your parents, who are they?
                    Crab: They are also artificial crabs, I asked them.
                    Friend: Buddy, do not be discouraged! You are not an artificial crab, you are Real Artificial Crab!
                    Quote: Nulgorod
                    facts can be juggled with, nothing can be done about it.

                    Who is suddenly impatient to juggle "facts" around the world, mounting them into walls of many thousands of years and scattering them over the fields, where few people walk?
                  10. Nulgorod
                    Nulgorod 13 December 2018 23: 14 New
                    0
                    It’s sad. It looks like you're from the ardent opponents of the concrete version. All your argument is based on this. No. More precisely, it’s not an argument, because we are not having a discussion: I’m talking about Thomas, you're talking about Yeryom. All of these holes are easily and simply made in raw concrete, cuts too, and this is probably a kind of marking, as correctly noted. And about Occam’s blade ... I’d better give the simplest formulation:
                    - you should not attract new entities, without a sufficient basis for them;
                    - if there are several logical and consistent explanations for any phenomenon, the simplest of them should be considered true.
                    Here is a simple explanation: http: //fb.ru/article/260816/chto-takoe-geopolimernyiy-beton
                    I can't say anything about the masonry, I don't know how about "plate tectonics" request
                    Who is it impatient? Well hell knows recourse Maybe the same one who rebuilt Stonehenge and "found" the tomb of Tutankhamun.
                  11. Lycan
                    Lycan 14 December 2018 10: 29 New
                    0
                    Quote: Nulgorod
                    It seems you are one of the most ardent opponents of the concrete version. All your argument is based on this. no More precisely, not argumentation, since we are not having a discussion: I tell you about Thomas, you tell me about Erema.

                    About the concrete version - when I look at a natural stone - for some reason I do not see concrete (although I need not deny it if I see it). This is probably my fault. Often you have to watch natural stone and / or concrete-like composites when sidewalks and pavements are restored. Well, the discussion turned out quite well. Everyone just remained with his convictions, (possibly) having heard the opponent’s arguments. Well - if anyone gets to these historians first. monuments - the first to consider it and draw conclusions (there is no need to pay attention to the restoration).
                    Quote: Nulgorod
                    All these holes are easily and simply made in raw concrete, cuts too, and this is probably a kind of marking, as correctly noted

                    It’s easy, but these holes are often not in the most monitored places / impractical. endurance / spoil the appearance / are randomly located (if this is an element of decor) / not on most blocks, but on 1-2 / their overall functionality is very controversial.
                    The marking inside the cuts on its side walls is not done - this is absurd. And the marking with cuts of 1 cm deep (or more) is a form of vandalism, spoiling the external. kind and just extra work (especially if you take the version of manual labor). Where did you see such a terrible deep marking at today's locksmiths or stonecutters (sculptors)?
                    Quote: Nulgorod
                    - if there are several logical and consistent explanations for any phenomenon, the simplest of them should be considered true.
                    Here is a simple explanation: http: //fb.ru/article/260816/chto-takoe-geopolimernyiy-beton

                    Specifically, this recipe implies a large percentage of potash (obtained by electrolysis, which was not known then) and liquid glass (first obtained in the early 19th century (using alkali and acids).
                    But the point, of course, is not this recipe. If we continue to “consider only that for which we have the simplest solution” as true, then a huge layer of rejected information will continue to roll under our feet, and from it we can extract an understanding of many processes if we are not afraid to recognize some phenomena. Example: in Khrushchev's time, they long and stubbornly opposed the development of the direction of cybernetics and genetics, considering it pseudoscience => result: our science was late, but still took up these topics and lags behind no more than the period of active refusal to study (15-20 years separation from Western science while providing the same level of funding, I think). Well, what, they also considered the simplest solution - to give up all this fuss with programming, and cells, and the management of ultra-fast physical and chemical processes in favor of a purely working class: the result is obvious.
                    Occam's razor - has its own range of action and it would be nice to clearly recognize the scope of this range.
                  12. Nulgorod
                    Nulgorod 16 December 2018 13: 47 New
                    0
                    [quote = Lycan] not in the most watched places / impractical precisely. endurance / spoil the appearance / are unsystematic (if it is an element of decor) / not on most blocks, but on 1-2 / their overall functionality is very controversial. [/ quote]
                    I didn’t understand something: is this an argument against the concrete version or ... what does this mean? request What did they possess with such super technologies that they simply did whatever they got out of boredom?
                    [quote = Lycan] Specifically, this recipe implies a large percentage of potash (obtained by electrolysis, which was not known then) and liquid glass (first obtained in the early 19th century (using alkali and acids). [/ quote]
                    Well, of course, this is not the case, because this is only one of many that has been improved using modern technologies and materials. This can be done if you understand the internal processes, which the ancients could not boast about. But specifically: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQk_yBHre4
                    By the way, here's an amateur video, but it's done quite well, I advise you to read it in detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=611&v=C6x2w2R4T3s
                    [quote = Lycan] If we continue to "consider only what we have the simplest solution for is true", then a huge layer of discarded information will continue to roll under our feet [/ quote]
                    This is true, but this does not apply to the principle itself, but to the one who uses it and how. quote = Lycan] Occam's razor - has its own range of action and it would be nice to clearly recognize the scope of this range. [/ quote]
                    But this is true, and an example from the history of the USSR is inappropriate here, because it has nothing to do with Occam's blade.
                  13. Lycan
                    Lycan 16 December 2018 23: 07 New
                    0
                    Quote: Nulgorod
                    Quote: Lycan
                    not in the most watched places / impractical precisely. endurance / spoil the appearance / are randomly located (if this is an element of decor) / not on most blocks, but on 1-2 / their overall functionality is very controversial.

                    Means:
                    - not in the most monitored places - it is understood that with the undeniable importance of the bearing, climatic, seismic and (according to some conclusions) explosive properties of the outer layer of the blocks, the facade of the buildings (different) still had to be decently decorated. And this means that their outer part should have looked neat and without technological flaws (nicks, marking, burrs, punching, sloppy cuts), while some marketable flaws were allowed inside, because Why lick them if they are not visible without taking out the block? Worked sparingly.
                    - impractical exactly. endurance view - why make a non-functional cut in a block that is at the foundation level?
                    - spoil the appearance / are arranged haphazardly (if this is an element of decor) / not on most blocks, but on 1-2 - of course, one can argue about tastes, especially separated by thousands of years, but an accidental cut (for example) by a grinder according to the established in the brickwork of the house to the brick / expanded clay block (when something was cut by a hand-held motorized tool) in the form of refinement in place - it looks a little like an ornament. But at the same time - it doesn’t come across on all blocks in a row, because the marriage of fair work - cannot be allowed on all blocks. So, some percentage.
                    - often such traces can be seen on large blocks that are not lying in the masonry, but have quite a lot of cuts - this is the approach, as in our cutting of firewood, when using a deck - a round timber is placed on it (in our case, the target masonry block) and applied splitting (cutting, sawing, milling-geometrizing (CNC)) movements.
                    Quote: Nulgorod
                    I didn’t understand something: is this an argument against the concrete version or ... what does this mean?

                    If you have high technology for processing rocks, then grind millions of tons of the required calcareous material and produce additional components, in general, everything that would withstand the crazy loads for thousands of years - no time / quick resources / patience to mine. You can use existing rock masses, which are definitely no worse than cement, and such as granite and basalt are also more durable. It took
                    - organize local monkeys for dozens or hundreds of rock climbing zones to perform relatively rough logging with temporary details given out (with a location beacon).
                    - all monkeys are under control, have a fixed salary (or just regular grub), the area of ​​their population is under control, all have a collared identifier and a beacon;
                    - the introduction of "old traditions" through generations, the design of a multi-stage hierarchy, punitive bodies, worship of "gods" (in fact, the masters who control the construction);
                    - transportation: since primates are not very neat, there are not so many of them as now, pulling a dozen (or even a hundred-) ton of stone to risk knocking it over, beat off the edges, drown in the river, and scratching it decently (here is a legend of old times, though, about Bolivia, but the topic is about the same)
                    "Peru and Bolivia, Long Before the Incas Series 2"
                    (13:50-14:24) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U_nlvTGQOs&list=PLDF49D3AB55423060&index=2
                    they simply will not be able to handle this, then the transportation "those who managed the construction" took upon themselves (mammoths and drawings with people pulling - a legend for cover);
                    Quote: Nulgorod
                    Quote: Lycan
                    If we continue to “consider only what we have the simplest solution for is correct”, then a huge layer of rejected information will continue to roll under our feet

                    This is true, but this does not apply to the principle itself, but to the one who uses it and how.

                    Oh, you and I know how "it" is used by recognized historians-Egyptologists. No way. For to lose a job and authority (gained for years, or maybe decades), in exchange for admitting a constructively described marginal (frankly speaking) hypothesis (officially, seriously and with the name of the author) to public and professional assessment is what is called - "clicking the trigger of a gun with peering into the barrel while checking the causes of misfire. "
                    About geopolymer concrete in antiquity (from the video) - no one explains - why those healthy blocks were not made from it in Aswan (Egypt), but in Baalbek (Lebanon)? And in Baalbek, by the way, a hefty part of the foundation was built of similar stones. It is impossible to say about geopolymer concrete in the form of "ubiquitous", because in Latin America, the arrival of the Spaniards only barely reached the Bronze Age, and typical buildings - a stone on clay mortar - what accuracy is there? Although there are buildings and they are - more precisely than a man can make a brosy of the century, because such a jungle / steppe / tribal type of "civilization" is not needed for such large buildings throughout Central America (ready to use - yes, many people do this by sprinkling on the building - this is mine, beloved Cheops). In the video, almost everything comes down to the notorious geopolymer concrete in different variations, and in the forms a person is guided only by today's logic. Those. "today's logic", the authority of a researcher who has found only geopolitics. concrete, and examples [there is criticism of Sklyarov, buzzing, but - what kind of stone is in front of you, especially if you brought a piece of it from there and checked it on the apparatus (there is one broadcast with him somewhere on YouTube about it) as traces processing, and the type of stone - without this understanding, and he would not have pushed in there - but what to do if there is already a version about concrete?].
                    And no information on an industrial scale. Imagine - how long does it take (over the entire volume) to dry / polymerize 1 block? And how many are there?
                    Quote: Nulgorod
                    and an example from the history of the USSR is inappropriate here, because it has nothing to do with Occam's blade at all.

                    And what are the problems with genetics and cybernetics?
                  14. Lycan
                    Lycan 16 December 2018 23: 23 New
                    0
                    And where is that logic - "All millions of stones without exception should have traces of formwork"? Or does the author think that all monkeys polished blocks? So close to sinking to the idea that, they say, ancient. The Egyptians created the desert around Egypt by a side route, making blocks for the pyramids. Hence the Sahara - here is the logic for you, dear.
                  15. Nulgorod
                    Nulgorod 16 December 2018 23: 59 New
                    0
                    Want honestly: I did not understand everything. sad Monkeys, external decor, the Bronze Age ... Aliens, or what? About the creation of the desert and in general fool And where does the formwork?
                    One can make an assumption about Aswan: they were cut down after the concrete formula was lost, and the habit of building megaliths did not pass. And not only there, similar cut down and unfinished blocks can be found in other places. Yes, and how to finish them? And for what? All the same, it will not work to push it off ... The builders understood this and abandoned it. Not to mention the fact that they could have done this much later (remember Stonehenge yes ).
                    By the way, there is a legend about some Egyptian king and a philosophical stone. I don’t remember the details, in the cycle "new chronology" it is, but the essence is this: he somehow collected alchemists from all over the country and ordered to create this stone (concrete, that is wink ) Only one succeeded, the rest were beheaded. But this last one soon escaped ... Well, megalomania remained, so the builders had to deal with the hopeless business of cutting down whole blocks No.

                    Quote: Lycan
                    In the video, almost everything comes down to the notorious geopolymer concrete in different variations,

                    That's all, but not all. It is clearly stated in the second video that in many Egyptian pyramids, the treated rock mass is at the base in order to save concrete casting hours; obelisks were often cut from a single piece of stone. But concrete still had to be finalized and finished.
                    Quote: Lycan
                    Imagine - how long does it take (over the entire volume) to dry / polymerize 1 block?

                    Ummm, what is there to represent? In the first video in English, the numbers request
                  16. Lycan
                    Lycan 17 December 2018 23: 53 New
                    0
                    Quote: Nulgorod
                    Aliens, or what?

                    Not monkeys are erect. This is a bold hypothesis. And it already contradicts a little. Significantly less than creationism, and in considering individual facts / traces in history, noticeably less than classical history.
                    Quote: Nulgorod
                    About creating a desert anyway

                    It was sarcasm. "Formation of desert dunes as a result of grinding blocks after casting with concrete". This is me saying that after casting in the formwork - the front side of hundreds of thousands of blocks had to be ground to a presentable look (when grinding, there is usually a lot of abrasive waste mixed with the waste of the grinded material).
                    Quote: Nulgorod
                    And where does the formwork?

                    And what are blocks usually cast into?
                    Quote: Nulgorod
                    One can make an assumption about Aswan: they were cut down after the concrete formula was lost, and the habit of building megaliths did not pass.

                    Yeah, it was stolen by Inca agents from Central America.
                    Well, yes, well, yes - since the time of the Roman Empire, the technology of discovering different concrete recipes has only been developing without significant "loss of technology", but in Egypt - once they have forgotten, and no one dared to reinvent it? For so many years ...
                    Quote: Nulgorod
                    Yes, and how to finish them? And for what? All the same, it will not work to push it off ... The builders understood this and abandoned it.

                    Precisely, without the organization "from above" - ​​not to finish, but without the corresponding. transport technologies - no longer move. What is there not to understand ......... But what they "cut down out of habit" ("the habit of building megaliths did not pass") - this is not confirmed at least by those tools that are offered as evidence of "cutting down" - diorite balls. It’s just baseless speculation, balls, as a tool for cutting down, are not suitable - fragile, verified in the video. The most sober conclusion: without a special tool - even if you break your head off, nothing will come of it. Out of habit, they could either work on rock with a special tool, or make curves and very small bricks from clay, having hand-held classical tools like museum exhibits (about cement - below in paragraphs).
                    Quote: Nulgorod
                    in the cycle "new chronology" it is, but the essence is this: he somehow gathered alchemists from all over the country and ordered to create this stone (that is, concrete). Only one succeeded, the rest were beheaded. But this last one too soon escaped ... well mania
                    greatness remained, and builders had to deal with the hopeless business of cutting down solid blocks no

                    Somehow it smacks of fiction, far-fetched - it was necessary to somehow explain their "forgetting of knowledge", which no one knew, but at the same time leave behind indirect copyright. For the shepherds the beginning of our era will do.
                    Quote: Nulgorod
                    That's all, but not all. It’s clearly said in the second video that in many Egyptian pyramids the processed rock mass is at the base,

                    “Everything” is what interests us when talking about large blocks. Rocky massif at the base - I agree there, but with some. reservations.

                    Here's an additional couple of questions (from the opposite) about the viability of geopolymer technologies in those days:
                    In that video, proponents of that theory and testing with the mixing of the future block did not mention:
                    1) if you make this block in a semi-solidified state on the ground, and then raise it - how to ensure that it does not fall apart when lifted to the treb. height? And this - many tons - requires accuracy, and lifting devices, and non-separation of the mass (to avoid cracking).
                    2) if it is made by pouring portions, organizing the formwork at a height, then how to fix that formwork based on the high position (and this is in Machu Picchu from the steep plumb lines, where there is absolutely nowhere to organize supporting structures to hold the formwork)?
                    3) Why did a similar polygon-masonry construction technique originate throughout the Near. East, in the North. Egypt, Central America, and Easter Island?
                    "Mosaic of Easter Island. Part 1"
                    (48:00-52:00) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ0odDUuJ1w
                    And this is in those days when intercontinental communications were far away, and those who presumably, sailed to Easter Island - he had no large-stone construction in his history, and not before construction was there - one civil strife between the tribes of the Mesolithic / early Neolithic level of development, albeit with a rich experience of navigation. Plus - from where on the small isolated island of Volcanich. the origin of the understanding of the "cement principle" (if we are talking about geopolymer technology), again, tribes of the level of development of the Mesolithic / Neolithic beginning?
                    Here about the feasibility (which there is no for the natives) of such a structure:
                    "Mosaic of Easter Island. Part 2"
                    (14:00-14:33) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoPuFfw6f5Y
                    This is where Occam's Razor can be applied - there is no need to attract new entities (to attribute the abilities of advanced stone processing and knowledge to obtain options for geopolymer concrete to ancient tribal civilizations) without sufficient reason. And Davidovich's theory about the use of concrete by the ancients in the Middle East and North. Egypt - it is fair and appropriate to write off the study of either internal or parts of objects restored in modern times, or an incorrect / biased study.
                  17. Lycan
                    Lycan 17 December 2018 23: 59 New
                    0
                    Here we need the political will of the combined scientific community of historical sciences (at least the Russian Federation) for an objective and reasonable analysis in this direction as final research stroke. And then the aggregate answer, putting everything in its place, will be relatively simple:

                    > there are ancient buildings made of crooked and small clay bricks (sometimes even fired), or broken stone on clay mortar - this is the natural architecture of ancient Homo sapiens from the north. Egypt, Turkey, central. America, Israel, etc all over the world;

                    > (hereinafter - without unnecessary pathos) there is reason to believe that there was an entry of separate, but newcomers, highly developed communities (possibly conflicting with each other, probably even just one species) on our planet on illegal terms;

                    > of course, our very young and potentially reasonable the species was not ready for such clashes, especially with those who can fly (vimans, flying ships, airplane models of the center Indians of America), play for a long time (pretending to be gods for hundreds of years, ruled our ancestors through the mediation of local authorities trained in the language ), organize a society with a defin. goals (flocks = taxpayers = stone-miners + stone-minders of gross and accurate levels + service staff + field workers), and to train a local fauna that is useful to itself (at least some organized sedentary society as opposed to northern nomadic tribes).

                    > put into operation the genetic modification of the local flora, which has been studied for a long time (this is more clearly noticeable in cereals that appeared for us as if ready for breeding suddenly or in a suspiciously short period of time):
                    a) https://lah.ru/civil-text/6/
                    b) http://elementy.ru/genbio/synopsis/98/Domestikatsiya_zlakov_Starogo_Sveta_poisk_novykh_podkhodov_dlya_resheniya_staroy_problemy

                    > it is fair to assume that some of our local individuals have been trained to "press buttons correctly" on "their" equipment;

                    > (I repeat) all mature, able-bodied individuals of local Homo Sapiens and equipment are equipped with tracking beacons;

                    > organized the construction of certain buildings (only for them of a known purpose - we are not yet considering) from small "booths" and landing sites for their transport to pyramids - from accessible rock material;

                    > you can even assume that they experimented with a human. DNA (say, for breeding with increased endurance for work, or with resistance to heat at noon), but this cannot be proved without old DNA;

                    > further-something happened either in their state. device on the paternal planets, or in the hierarchy in the same place - in short, a series of wars followed with the use. "their" weapons (the war of the gods in the legends of the Hittites / Jews, Egypt, India, Sumerians, etc. like here:
                    https://lah.ru/andrej-zhukov-sledy-vojny-bogov-arhiv-lai-neizdannoe-11/

                    [In short - they are no better in their own way than we or other primates:
                    1) "grub" - means of influence among their compatriots and trade in this influence;
                    2) "dominance" - that's how they revel in power over the centuries among our ancestors + divided spheres of influence between human nations - often - in completely "non-parliamentary" ways.
                    3) "fleshly licentiousness" - remember, as there is according to myths - with whom only they shared a bed.
                    Bottom line: by the nature of consciousness - they = people = herd animals.]

                    > some of the parties turned out to "fill up" the entrance of this not our "civil war";
                    > further - all communication means (mezuzu, tefillin - https://lah.ru/mono-text/14/) and collars with beacons were removed from people, equipment was similarly tracked and seized ... and stones - do not carry millions of tons with myself. If non-working copies remained somewhere on hand, then due to the lack of "charging" and "permission signal" for functioning, after millennia, they were lost and / or disassembled for souvenirs as unnecessary and change of generations.

                    > based on the results of a quick "gathering of manatoks", it turned out that the last remnants of the "gods" had moved out, and humanity was left with the "experience of obedience to the lord", experience with technology (which disappeared with the next generation), without knowledge of natural sciences (which probably were limited by the owners) and with themselves. There are legends, traditions and architecture made of stones;
                    > there remained "God-worship" and caste, which was firmly ingrained in some places;
                    > attempts to copy and imitate that technological architecture, but often it turned out like this:
                    http://old.lah.ru/expedition/greece2017/img/greece_93.jpg - Греция
                    https://lah.ru/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/051.jpg - Греция
                    https://lah.ru/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/048.jpg - Киото
                    (that polygonal masonry in Greece that could arouse interest is already more serious there and again refers to "not our technologies")

                    > then the story went the same course as to visits to "stray" ones, but with a noticeable preservation in some places of rituals, priestly castes, and simply for the sake of preserving the established hierarchical system. Aboriginal people have a center. America and the Turks, however, all had time to erode. On Easter Island, there was no one left at all - only the newly populated aborigines.
                    > and Joseph Davidovich-seems to me a small-scale careerist who ascribed to all isolated oceans (and in some places, thousands of years) to civilizations a single universal principle of high-speed and convenient industrial construction, which became known to one Davidovich. Well done, of course, that he invented, but so far there is no evidence of his research in the use of this particular technology. Whatever Western scientists write.

                    PS: according to the video, they removed the formwork after 4 hours for the block ~ 0.7x0.7x0.7m. 2 levels of blocks are convincing, but if we consider, say, the Cheops pyramid:
                    2.3 million blocks / (20 years of construction * 365 days) = 315 blocks (approx. 2 tons each).
                    a person in forced conditions can work approx. 14 hours / day (+ they work in the heat) => 14 hours of work per day * 60 min / 315 blocks = ~ 2.7 min.
                    Total - you can hardly assume that a lot of people per day:
                    + I was looking for resources
                    + mixed the solution
                    + poured into the formwork 315 blocks ~ 2t each, (let's say that this is possible with an uninterrupted supply of resources),
                    + dried the blocks while the batch of the previous day was put in place,

                    (!) - for every 2,7 minutes. Do not lift the 2-ton block and do not install it accurately. Alas. Even for 3 ... 5 minutes. We need regular measurements of accuracy.

                    This is some kind of fantasy - people can work this way only for an idea and with financial help from a family, and those - for fear of death - after a month of such a rhythm of work in the sun, slaves will ask them all to be "soaked" ...

                    Just fiction. Here is a pile of 3-storey. a bunch of bricks 1 pc / min - yes - quite real. And the pharaohs and other tribal leaders of different "orphaned" regions of the earth - already a later generation of rulers (than the one that came across in the newcomers) - simply "reserved the right" to use ownerless buildings at their discretion (slightly removing, restoring and ennobling the appearance ).
  5. Lycan
    Lycan 12 December 2018 13: 04 New
    0
    Although, probably, in fairness, it must be admitted that the interior of the pyramids could be filled with calcareous blocks of natural origin for the sake of saving granite material, nevertheless cut from a calcareous rock mass, however, by no means by making concrete pouring in the modern sense. Otherwise, concrete architecture would have developed as widely throughout the ancient world (even among the common people) as it is today.
  6. Nulgorod
    Nulgorod 12 December 2018 22: 53 New
    0
    Limestone blocks of natural origin are homogeneous and have a clearly defined layered structure, which is visible to the naked eye. The blocks in the pyramids are two-layer: solid on the outside, and crumbly inside. Again, it is simply explained: the bulk of the block was poured with cheap low-quality composition, and then covered with a better layer.
  • Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 8 October 2018 23: 53 New
    +5
    Quote: Forestol
    Americans, Rlquel and Lockheed officially reported

    What an interesting statement from Rockwell International, which closed 17 years ago, and Lockheed Martin, which had nothing to do with Saturn. And where did they report it, I guess in Russian Learn?
  • Blackmokona
    Blackmokona 8 October 2018 20: 14 New
    -1
    But the price is lower than that of Saturn-5 about half the current dollars
    1. aristok
      aristok 8 October 2018 20: 17 New
      +2
      Quote: BlackMokona
      But the price is lower than that of Saturn-5 about half the current dollars

      How can an unflown rocket have a lower price?
      And the planned price for SLS has repeatedly increased, and probably not the last time.
    2. aristok
      aristok 8 October 2018 20: 22 New
      -1
      Quote: BlackMokona
      But the price is lower than that of Saturn-5 about half the current dollars

      That is, this insanity with SLS .. is it from savings?
      What a funny excuse :)
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 8 October 2018 21: 11 New
        +1
        It is because of the savings that they are trying to make a rocket strictly from elements of the past and even to make it cheaper.
        Musk has already shown that it’s easier to create a new one and has its own Falcon-Heavy mini supercar at a ridiculous price compared to SLS.
        1. Forestol
          Forestol 8 October 2018 21: 32 New
          +1
          are mistaken. Just elements from other missiles do not require institutions, research, calculations. Let’s, without stubbornness, just wait a bit and watch. I assure you, there will not be a person in the world who will say a word in defense of the fraudster Mask.
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 8 October 2018 21: 49 New
            +2
            Falcon Heavy has already flown under the scrutiny of the whole world what is the fraud?
            1. aristok
              aristok 8 October 2018 23: 42 New
              0
              Quote: BlackMokona
              Falcon Heavy has already flown under the scrutiny of the whole world what is the fraud?

              The fact that he did not bring anything except a plastic body with wheels from a roadster and a mannequin in a spacesuit suit .. everything together fit into 1 ton "somewhere in the direction of" Mars (not very accurate though)
              Now, if he in the first test flight plus to this would put an additional model of PN weighing at least 8 tons in the same trajectory (or even better, a model of PN 50 tons at the IEO). .
              And so, there is no "super-gravity" in FH yet, and judging by the constant postponements of real launches, it won't be long
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 9 October 2018 07: 57 New
                +2
                How many PN will be if you add the first three steps and one second is already known from the Delta-4 Heavy
                The strength of Falcon-9, which brought 7 tons to the GPO with the return to the barge, has already been proved
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 9 October 2018 11: 32 New
                  +1
                  Quote: BlackMokona
                  The strength of Falcon-9, which brought 7 tons to the GPO with the return to the barge, has already been proved

                  Start Telstar provided two things, bad and good.
                  1. Good - satellites, at least Loral, can, in fact, be accelerating blocks for themselves, brought to GSO from relatively low orbits. That is, if Musk sank all disposable rockets, the Protons are under repair, Heavy will be unclear when, as always, there are no places on Arian, and all the Atlases were bought by the military, then you can pour a lot of fuel onto the satellite, put 18 into orbit and it’s he will slowly reach the GSO. Talking about it was a long time ago, but it was realized, in my memory, in normal mode for the first time, maybe it was poorly watched. Previously, this happened, and more than once, but during emergency launches, when the satellite paid for the extra by reducing life on the GSO.
                  2. Bad - in SpaceX press releases are written, to put it mildly, dreamers, and the industry press tends to assent to the obvious bullshit. Before SpaceX invented the "non-standard geotransfer orbit", the elliptical orbit 243 x 17863 km x 27.00º was never geotransferred. Worse, the performance of a rocket, for example, Proton, was determined by the standard GPO (GPO-1800), therefore, when launched from Baikonur, for example, Proton had to not only reach the GSO at its apogee (36 thousand km), but also add energy, to compensate for the difference in inclination.
              2. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 9 October 2018 12: 33 New
                +1
                Quote: aristok
                at least, 8 tons for the same trajectory (or even better, a model of PN 50 tons for DOE)

                For such loads, a one-time configuration is needed. About 50 tons of speech could not be, of course, but the same Starman could be thrown away.

                In principle, Musk could have done this - the second time that hevik would not have flown anyway - but it was more important for him to test boosters and centralcore for reusability. And not in vain, as it turned out.

                Quote: aristok
                And so, there is no "super-gravity" in FH yet

                Because the super-heavy launch vehicle is a jarring of half-educated journalists who, unfortunately, also work in SpaceX (though not as CEO, as in Roscosmos).
                Real Havik was created for real, and quite monetary tasks:
                1. Launching satellites of the "heavy from Ariana" format and above while maintaining reusability.
                2. Close all standard EELV orbits for the military. Earlier, Falcon, for example, could not in direct conclusion.
                3. Make a request for deep space, such as ParkerSolarProb, for example. Launches there infrequently, but there are big money.

                For these tasks, the test run worked out quite acceptable. It will finally become clear after certification for USAF at the launch of STP.
        2. Setrac
          Setrac 8 October 2018 22: 41 New
          0
          Quote: BlackMokona
          Musk has already shown that it’s easier to create a new one and has its own Falcon-Heavy mini supercar.

          So far, he has a US budget.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 8 October 2018 23: 55 New
            +3
            Quote: Setrac
            So far, he has a US budget.

            Just in the discussion of the SLC, claims to the Mask for American taxpayers look especially bewitching.
          2. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 9 October 2018 08: 06 New
            +1
            Has a budget running 2 times cheaper than competitors? We would have such swindlers in the state order
            1. Forestol
              Forestol 11 October 2018 13: 18 New
              -1
              And you first understand the topic. Just as Tesla is released using subsidies, including for the development of secondary IEs, so here, using hedge funds and NASA and the Pentagon BUDGET, you can build a financial pyramid when money for the THIRD launch covers 100% of the costs of the FIRST launch. Because, there is no access to this data, but only a kind of dumping pyramid can pull orders over yourself. The basis of the business.
        3. aristok
          aristok 8 October 2018 23: 35 New
          0
          Quote: BlackMokona
          It is because of the savings that they are trying to make a rocket strictly from elements of the past and even to make it cheaper.

          So Satarn-5 would have been done - it is not just "strictly" from the elements of the past, it is entirely "past" :) .... that is, you don't even need to combine these "elements from the past" - saving !!!
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 9 October 2018 00: 05 New
            +1
            Quote: aristok
            So Satarn-5 would have been done - it is not just "strictly" from the elements of the past, it is entirely "past" :) .... that is, you don't even need to combine these "elements from the past" - saving !!!

            So they made this rocket from the Shuttle 40 years ago. Actually, the article says this - there was a struggle to maintain the Shuttle production chain. Shuttle, not Saturn.
            1. aristok
              aristok 9 October 2018 02: 20 New
              -1
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Quote: aristok
              So Saturn-5 would have done - it is not just "strictly" from the elements of the past, it is entirely "past" :) .... that is, you don't even need to combine these "elements from the past" - saving !!!

              So they made this rocket from the Shuttle 40 years ago. Actually, the article says this - there was a struggle to maintain the Shuttle production chain. Shuttle, not Saturn.



              so the Shuttle legacy is worse than the Saturn legacy in fact.
              Moreover, from reusable (as previously stated for shuttles) TTU elements, RS-25 make a one-time rocket.
              More stupid and hard to come up with.
              Reusability and disposability imply the design of the launch vehicle in many ways in almost opposite directions: the first comes to the fore, the second comes to the technological (and, consequently, the cost).
              Like reusable and disposable lighters, they have one function, and the resource requirements are different, as a result of different materials, design solutions and technologies.
              The fact that instead of a one-time well-proven rocket they mold an ugly monster from reusable components, with an unambiguously more expensive launch complex (more starting weight and traction at SLS) and a lower carrying capacity means:
              1- the inability to create a rocket similar to Saturn-50 in 5 years (which is stupid),
              or the lack of a previously working Saturn-5 (which is more logical)
              2-NASA's inability to even cut the budget nicely.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 9 October 2018 07: 24 New
                0
                Quote: aristok
                so the Shuttle legacy is worse than the Saturn legacy in fact.

                Who told you that?
                Quote: aristok
                More stupid and hard to come up with.

                It is a rational approach if the task is to save jobs. It is easy to figure out that more disposable missiles need to be produced than reusable ones.
                Quote: aristok
                higher starting weight

                What is the starting weight of the SLS?
                Quote: aristok
                The fact that ... they are making an ugly monster ... means

                That the rocket itself was not originally interesting. What the article says, by the way.
                1. aristok
                  aristok 9 October 2018 15: 09 New
                  -1
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  It is easy to figure out that more disposable missiles need to be produced than reusable ones.

                  So Saturn-5 is disposable - that’s what they would do !!
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 9 October 2018 15: 45 New
                    0
                    What for?
                    If the task is to take something with people who made the shuttles?
              2. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 9 October 2018 08: 05 New
                0
                The Shatlovsk legacy at that time was, and Saturn was already dispersed. Therefore, save or renew, the first is simpler and cheaper
        4. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 9 October 2018 00: 59 New
          0
          Quote: BlackMokona
          Has its own Falcon Heavy Heavy Mini

          I have to upset you a little. Hawick, of course, is a wonderful rocket, but it is not super-heavy in the current configuration. Its 63 tons is a guile that SpaceX never concealed.
          1. aristok
            aristok 9 October 2018 02: 48 New
            -1
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            I have to upset you a little

            What are the cutesy passages? Disgusting.
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Its 63 tons is a guile that SpaceX never concealed.

            What a mediocre hopeless weak lie :)
            Only critics of the Federal Assembly indicated the absurdity of the figure of 63 tons of heavy fuel tanks at the IEO.
            Space X itself is still sculpting this nonsense about 63 tons on the official website.
            And sectarians and propagandists repeat it.
            ..
            When on this site (IN - not to go far for examples)
            after the first test flight of FH, many commentators (including me),
            they wrote about the delusional figures of 63 tons - all nasa-mask propagandists claimed that stupid figures were true.
            .
            The good news is that you "changed your shoes" - it even dawned on you that it was necessary to "spread straws" so as not to look like a completely finished liar-propagandist.
          2. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 9 October 2018 07: 58 New
            0
            Ours lowered the level of super-weight to 50 tons in order to add super-weight, so it’s already over heavy.
            At least a 100-ton border and usually add a mini
  • aristok
    aristok 9 October 2018 02: 50 New
    0
    Quote: aristok
    I am glad that you "changed your shoes" - it even dawned on you that it was necessary to "spread straws" so as not to look like a completely finished liar-propagandist.

    By the way, a test question for you, "Cherry Nine" and for everyone too.
    What is the maximum PN on the DOE for F9 block5?
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 9 October 2018 07: 19 New
      0
      Quote: aristok
      Mon at DOE for F9 block5

      Not announced as far as I know.
      Quote: aristok
      The good news is how you "changed your shoes"

      And I did not change shoes.
      Quote: aristok
      Space X herself still sculpts this crap about 63 tons

      Well, in order to attract the Mask swindler under the law on consumer protection, you just need to do nothing - pay for a one-time launch of a heavy and give a payload weighing under 63 tons, which will fit under a standard fairing. Armata tank, for example. Put the teslarodster in your belt.
      Because the reasons why 63 tons will not fly are the standard fairing and the standard 2nd stage, which hardly has a 6-fold reserve for permissible payloads. This is not such a rare event - for a long time the permissible PN on the Breeze could be lower than the capabilities of Proton in energy in a number of orbits.
      The main thing here is not to give the swindler the Mask 5 years before the start, as with Arabsat. And then after all, it will strengthen the second stage, the matter is relatively not tricky.
      Quote: aristok
      What are the cutesy passages? Disgusting

      You, by the hour, not a milling machine operator from Chelyabinsk?
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 9 October 2018 07: 39 New
        0
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Not announced as far as I know.

        But it was announced that the launch of the five in a one-time version is not planned. So the conversation about 23 tons on the F9 is not relevant. Again the swindler Musk jumped off.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 9 October 2018 08: 10 New
          -1
          So he now has a plan to make 50-60 Falcon-9 and curtail production in order to transfer all resources to the construction of the BFR, and whoever wants a bunch of tons at the IEO can order a reusable Heavy
      2. sebur
        sebur 15 October 2018 08: 20 New
        -1
        Quite possible
  • KBaHT_BpeMeHu
    KBaHT_BpeMeHu 9 October 2018 15: 57 New
    0
    This is Putin's fault.
  • GibSoN
    GibSoN 10 October 2018 19: 27 New
    -1
    How interesting it is probably to discuss other people's achievements .. 90% of news is related to the "decaying" West. And that's understandable! Because there is nothing to make news about myself .. And they are not interesting to anyone.
  • wooja
    wooja 14 October 2018 22: 01 New
    -1
    Well, che ..., another Hollywood achievement on the way ....,
  • Darter88
    Darter88 28 November 2018 10: 11 New
    0
    Everything about Ares-5 is clear, but I have never seen information about Ares-6. Good people, tell me, if anyone has information about the Ares-6 launch vehicle, its performance characteristics, share it, I will be very grateful!
  • The comment was deleted.
  • oldstepan
    oldstepan 9 August 2019 11: 28 New
    0
    And here it all came down to Hollywood, the pyramids and the backward ("stupid") people of the United States. It's a pity...