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

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 the purely technical issues of space design, aptly renamed SLS in the Senate Launch System ("Senate Launch System"). Indeed, many decisions were dictated solely by politics. In particular, the program retained thousands of jobs at Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, which produced DS-25 engines, as well as at the Michuda (New Orleans) plant, which is engaged in the manufacture of fuel tanks. The hangars in Michuda generally stood idle after the shuttles program closed, occasionally working for the needs of Hollywood — they shot episodes of Ender's Game and other fiction in their giant rooms. As a result, NASA had no choice but to enforce the law, taking the pretty dusty Ares V project from the shelf and simply re-gluing the cover on the 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
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

106 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Snail N9 8 October 2018 06: 42 New
    • 17
    • 3
    +14
    Good. And what are the projects of Roscosmos "better"? The author is ironic over the Americans, but something tells me that they will achieve their goal, and the Russian “drank-draft” will end in the same way as the flight of the last Martian station, and in the best case, and in the worst, it will end in the death of “donkey” and "padishah," on which they all write off. wink
    PS: I ask you not to mention about RD-180 (it is full of teeth, already ...) ... sad
    1. Lunic 8 October 2018 07: 08 New
      • 6
      • 2
      +4
      This direction is developing by trial and error ... Politicians interfere with their ideas, some for PR, some for cut. In America, by the way, politicians climb into such matters so that factories in "their" home states do not close providing jobs for the electorate ...
      1. Narak-zempo 8 October 2018 08: 00 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        Quote: Lunic
        In America, by the way, politicians climb into such matters so that factories in "their" home states do not close providing jobs for the electorate ...

        It turns out that such a “space” initiative is essentially no different from forcing beer only into aluminum cans to support RUSAL.
        1. Cherry Nine 8 October 2018 10: 05 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +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 8 October 2018 10: 43 New
            • 3
            • 3
            0
            The lunar station is considered by NASA as an intermediate step before the manned flight to Mars in the 2030s.
            1. Cherry Nine 8 October 2018 11: 38 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +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 8 October 2018 12: 25 New
                • 2
                • 2
                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 8 October 2018 21: 16 New
                  • 2
                  • 2
                  0
                  Rather stomp on the spot, feeding sponsors with fables.
                  1. Cherry Nine 8 October 2018 23: 57 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Cannonball
                    Rather stomp on the spot, feeding sponsors with fables.

                    Are you talking about NASA now?
          2. Proxima 8 October 2018 14: 43 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            SLS is ridiculously a complete analogue of Energy

            It's really ridiculous and full fellow I don’t remember something so that Energia would fly with solid fuel boosters request
            1. Cherry Nine 8 October 2018 15: 45 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Quote: Proxima
              I don’t remember something so that Energia would fly with solid fuel boosters

              Details))))

              I meant, of course, conceptual similarities, not technical ones.
              1. Proxima 8 October 2018 18: 00 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Quote: Proxima
                I don’t remember something so that Energia would fly 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 12 December 2018 13: 59 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      All right! They spend money on science! Let something not work, but how much as a result it turned out in other industries !!!! Scary to imagine! Our developments are 40-50 years old, and the "office" of NanoChubais and the Cosmodrome-East Rogozin loot pockets ....
  2. Conductor 8 October 2018 08: 37 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    Do you need a flight to Mars?
    1. Narak-zempo 8 October 2018 09: 15 New
      • 10
      • 1
      +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 8 October 2018 21: 19 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        Slow Festina

        Running ahead of the engine is also hardly reasonable.
        1. Antares 8 October 2018 22: 07 New
          • 0
          • 0
          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 8 October 2018 22: 38 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -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 8 October 2018 10: 02 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Quote: Conductor
      Do you need a flight to Mars?

      Somehow, the promises of Amers come to mind on Mars ... That in 1994m ... That later ... That even later ... That together with the Russians, then without them ... They make a good face with a bad game. Or maybe they are not allowed to fly to Mars TE, who at one time "" drove them from the Moon "" ????????? HA-HA-HA !!!!!!!!!!
    3. Selevc 8 October 2018 14: 04 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +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 ???
      If we take into account the fact that large space has always been Big politics at all times, then you can doubt both the Lunar and Martian programs of the USA !!! Is the USA creating the rest of the world another Hollywood victory called "Landing on Mars" ??? Fortunately, the computer graphics and special effects of the cinema over the past quarter century have taken a very long way and technically the possibility of space forgery is undeniable ...
      1. Blackmokona 8 October 2018 17: 06 New
        • 1
        • 1
        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 9 October 2018 14: 01 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +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 8 October 2018 13: 03 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +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 8 October 2018 16: 11 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +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 8 October 2018 17: 26 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +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 8 October 2018 21: 24 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -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 9 October 2018 00: 01 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +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 13 October 2018 11: 50 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            And the fact that the "obsolete" equipment is sometimes better than the most modern. And past merits do not guarantee benefits in the future. Well, the usual saying that “the end justifies the means” can now take the form “means determine the end”.
      3. Forestol 8 October 2018 21: 38 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +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 8 October 2018 22: 40 New
          • 1
          • 1
          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 9 October 2018 16: 13 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +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 9 October 2018 18: 15 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -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 9 October 2018 14: 27 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +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 8 October 2018 19: 48 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +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 8 October 2018 20: 00 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +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 8 October 2018 21: 33 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        The Americans, Rlquel, and Lockheed officially announced that Saturn 5's building technology was completely lost. If you were once.
        1. Setrac 8 October 2018 22: 37 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +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 9 October 2018 16: 15 New
            • 1
            • 1
            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 9 October 2018 18: 17 New
              • 0
              • 3
              -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 10 October 2018 19: 17 New
                • 2
                • 2
                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 10 October 2018 20: 28 New
                  • 0
                  • 2
                  -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 17 November 2018 08: 38 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    how quickly everything slid to flat earth
                  2. Darter88 28 November 2018 10: 20 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    The sun revolves around a flat earth, right?
                    1. Setrac 28 November 2018 19: 28 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Darter88
                      The sun revolves around a flat earth, right?

                      You know better
                  3. Lycan 7 December 2018 14: 22 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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 7 December 2018 17: 02 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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 10 December 2018 10: 50 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        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 the fact that these were “our ancestors” is to be doubted:
                        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 ... This should not be shy. One must put up with this fact (well, what is there to do if the chimpanzee and human DNA are more than 95% identical, that is, there is reason to suspect a common ancestor) and develop further. And those who (presumably) built all this stone architecture around the world - (I have no other more weighty and reasoned arguments) Sklyarov (with a dry scientific approach) sets out in the form of a hypothesis - in his films. Alas, the arguments from school history textbooks to the technologies, accuracy, transportation and industrial volumes under consideration are not suitable.
                      2. Setrac 10 December 2018 17: 12 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        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 ... This should not be shy.

                        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 10 December 2018 23: 52 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        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 probably was. But it is not the fruit of the development of upright primates, albeit having palaces in Egypt (Bolivia, Peru): I explain that the gut is thin to mine and melt rare earth metals in the required proportion. Where the technique comes from - try to think it over. (Hint: from where the machine operators themselves came from. From there, where, in fact, they cleaned up as a result, competently packing 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 as to capture in the 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 1 December 2018 23: 41 New
              • 0
              • 0
              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 10 December 2018 10: 15 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Nulgorod
                Using geopolymer concrete: no problem.

                This is something like this:
                https://masterok.livejournal.com/973154.html
                1. Nulgorod 10 December 2018 19: 03 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  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 "Philosopher's stone", which was sought by alchemists of the Middle Ages, was this very concrete, that is, the technology for its production. winked
                  1. Lycan 10 December 2018 22: 28 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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 11 December 2018 00: 11 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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 11 December 2018 10: 24 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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 11 December 2018 20: 55 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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 12 December 2018 12: 50 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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 the video of our people "in place" (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, the continuity of building traditions over generations? Yes, at least the same concrete - where ??? Why did the late dynasties forget how to sculpt large blocks of vaunted "concrete"? (And outside 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 entering a long debate over versions, is inclined to simplify the path to the final decision / verdict. Here, in our case, it is easier to dismiss, agreeing with the version of "concrete casting" (as the only logical one for the initial data on civilizations), however, this does not bring us closer to the truth. Fundamental “initial data” may not be available (if, when studying the versions, “cutting down a piece of rock with its subsequent, such as milling,” becomes apparent, then 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 about the connection of the Romans and Egyptians (Caesar with Cleopatra, etc.)? The Romans already knew how to use cement well. So here are the possible Egyptian repair crews of the times of these international. Relations could well adopt the construction technique of concrete and restore individual parts of the pyramids and other important buildings. And scientists from the 20th century (if it was impossible to explain the presence of large blocks of rock) took famous cement samples for examination from there, asserted as they should, and their authority and colleagues on the shop defended them from all kinds of criticism and attempts at revelations. Try now to convince one of the well-known authoritative Egyptologists of the "limestone" or "cement" origin of the blocks - they simply will not talk to you, because there is no logical explanation (within the framework of the accepted course of development of civilizations) to the phenomenon of the results of high technologies. To develop the hypotheses of paleocontact is an idea without reasons, but with a long 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 12 December 2018 22: 49 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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 13 December 2018 11: 05 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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 on the topic “What is more likely” will be quickly curtailed, if you take one of the large blocks, precisely executed and with traces of machine processing - this is precisely the answer and it will be obvious. Occam’s razor is just a way to quickly and effectively turn out of a “dispute without argument” without bothering with 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 has been introduced, then-nothing is strange: there is no need to dedicate the monkeys either in their letter, in the instructions, or in the connection between symbols and real technol. processes. And if the information did not reach the primates, then the influence on their development (in the format of their future) can be officially neglected.
                    > If technology is from the Earth-then the 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 ballists, trebuchet, catapults, hand weapons, tools, ancient architecture of clearly human hands, mummification, information in different material forms , numerous settlements of primitive people, heaps of techno-garbage in orbit of the earth, unfinished Burans in Kazakhstan). And in connection with these traditions - the sudden loss of everything highly developed in tech. the plan of society - just very strange - just like that, a highly developed civilization does not disappear. 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 assume, but here's an example: in our city there is architecture from the beginning of the 13th century (Riga) with concrete elements of large stones at the base --- and nearby (which is disgusting) architecture (without designation of construction dates) - from reinforced concrete pillars, plasterboard ceilings, a fully glazed facade with its selective local lighting, elevators and glass windows of the 1st floor - why not after some 100 years say that these 2 buildings were created "at about the same time"? Concrete is there and there; steel and glass knew both there and there; location - on both sides of the street (which means - the arrangement of buildings depended on street paths 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 in different continents) granite facts are an excitement with traces of processing such equipment, which in the days (I would say) of chief tribal Egypt (Bolivia, Mexico, Turkey, Lebanon, Israel), its stone carriers even dream of 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 it is necessary to revise the theory, and not to sweep away the facts.”
                  8. Nulgorod 13 December 2018 19: 42 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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 turn out of the "argument without argument"

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

                    It’s quite suitable and relevant, clearly demonstrating how difficult it is to date ancient artifacts, even of such shallow antiquity, if there are no clear signs of certain eras, or if there are, but they are taken “from the ceiling”. But what if some authoritative archaeologist in the future digs this street and really takes these buildings to the same time? How many other archaeologists will take his mistake as a basis and stick similar 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 facts available, for the objectivity of the picture of the past, it is necessary to revise the theory, and not to 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 13 December 2018 21: 22 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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 this is not true: this is a methodological principle that allows achieving concrete results in many problems of various fields, preventing them from drowning in the countless "probabilities" of solutions.

                    The "methodological principle" works perfectly: Why run around inventions, produce a ton of options and look for responsible contractors to restore broken roads, if they can be essentially not 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 in the next. year, you can again "wash" in this way part of the budget. Is not it? This method is self-camouflaged under the “convenience of avoiding countless probabilistic solutions”, although in its essence it encourages laziness of 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 suddenly felt the urge to juggle "facts" around the world, having mounted them in millennia-old walls and scattered them across fields where few people walk?
                  10. Nulgorod 13 December 2018 23: 14 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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 the “plate tectonics” request
                    Who is it impatient? Well hell knows recourse Maybe the same one who Stonehenge rebuilt and "found" the tomb of Tutankhamun.
                  11. Lycan 14 December 2018 10: 29 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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 it true only for what we have the simplest solution”, then a huge layer of rejected information will continue to lie under our feet, and from it we can fetch an understanding of many processes if you are not afraid to recognize some phenomena. Example: in Khrushchev’s time, they persistently and persistently opposed the development of the field of cybernetics and genetics, considering pseudoscience => the result: our science was late, but still took up these topics and was no more than a period of active refusal to study (15-20 years separation from Western science while ensuring the same level of funding, I think). But what, they also considered the simplest solution - to abandon all this fuss with programming, yes with cells, and with control of ultrafast 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 16 December 2018 13: 47 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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, this is an amateur video, but it’s done quite qualitatively, 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 to be true", then a huge layer of rejected information will continue to lie 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 16 December 2018 23: 07 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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 organs, worship of the "gods" (in fact, the gentlemen who manage 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
                    if they simply don’t pull it, then the transport "those who managed the construction" took over (mammoths and drawings with pulling people - a legend for cover);
                    Quote: Nulgorod
                    Quote: Lycan
                    If we continue “to consider it true only for what we have the simplest solution”, then the huge layer of rejected information will continue to lie 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 recognized Egyptian historians use it. No way. For to lose work and authority (gained for years, or maybe decades), in exchange allowing public and professional assessment to constructively describe the marginal (frankly) hypothesis (officially, seriously, and with the author’s name) - this is what is called - “firing a gun with looking into the barrel while checking the causes of misfire. "
                    About ancient geopolymer concrete (from the video) - no one explains - why didn’t those healthy blocks in Aswan (Egypt) and Baalbek (Lebanon) be made of it? And in Baalbek, by the way, a hefty part of the foundation is built of such stones. About geopolymer concrete it is impossible to assert in the form of "universally used", because in Latin America the Spaniards arrived just before the Bronze Age, and typical buildings - a stone on clay mortar - what accuracy is there? Although there are buildings, they are more accurate than man can make through the centuries, for such a jungle / steppe / tribal type of "civilization" does not need such large buildings throughout Central America (it’s already ready to use - yes, so many do it, screaming at the building - this is mine, Cheops beloved). In the video, almost everything comes down to the notorious geopolymer concrete in different variations, and in forms a person is guided only by today's logic. Those. "today's logic", the authority of a researcher who has found only a geopolis. concrete, and examples [there is a criticism of Sklyarov, buzzing there, 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 device (there is one transmission with it somewhere on YouTube about this) as traces processing, and the type of stone - without this understanding, and he would not have popped in there - but what to pop 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 16 December 2018 23: 23 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    And where is that logic - "On all, without exception, millions of stones should be traces of formwork"? Or does the author think that all polls monkeys polished blocks? So close to get to the idea that, they say, a tree. the Egyptians created a desert around Egypt in a side way, making blocks for the pyramids. Hence the Sahara - here is the logic, dear ones.
                  15. Nulgorod 16 December 2018 23: 59 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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 Philosopher’s stone. I don’t remember the details, in the “new chronology” cycle it is, but the essence is this: he somehow gathered alchemists from all over the country and ordered to create this stone (concrete, I mean 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 17 December 2018 23: 53 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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

                    That was sarcasm. "Formation of desert dunes due to grinding of blocks after concrete casting." It's me that after casting in the formwork, the front side of hundreds of thousands of blocks had to be grinded to a presentable appearance (when grinding, usually there is a lot of abrasive waste mixed with the waste of the material being grinded).
                    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, yes, yes - since the time of the Roman Empire, the technology for discovering various concrete recipes has only developed without significant "loss of technology", but in Egypt - they forgot 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 complete, but without acc. transport technology - no way to move. What is there to not understand ......... But the fact that they "knocked out of habit" ("the habit of building megaliths did not pass") - this is not confirmed even by those tools that are proposed as evidence of "cutting" - dioritic balls. Just groundless speculation, balls, like a cutting tool, are not good - fragile, verified in the video. The most sober conclusion: without a special tool - at least break your head, but nothing will come of it. Out of habit, they could either work on rock with a special tool, or make curves and very small clay bricks, using classic hand tools like museum exhibits (about cement - below in points).
                    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 (concrete, I mean). Only one succeeded, the rest were beheaded. But this last one 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 his "oblivion of knowledge", which no one knew, but to reserve 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 in a conversation about large blocks. The rock mass at the base - there I agree, 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 - there was no large-stone construction in its history, and it wasn’t there before construction - there was one feud between the tribes of the Mesolithic / Neolithic development level, albeit with rich experience in navigation. Plus, from where on a small isolated island is volcanic. the origin of the “cement principle” (if we touch upon geo-polymer 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 ability of advanced stone processing and knowledge of obtaining options for geopolymer concrete to long-standing tribal civilizations) without sufficient justification. And Davidovich’s theory of the use of concrete by the ancients in the Middle East and North. Egypt - it is fair and appropriate to blame it on research on either internal or restored in modern times parts of objects or on incorrect / biased research.
                  17. Lycan 17 December 2018 23: 59 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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 curves and small clay bricks (sometimes even deified), or broken stone on clay mortar-this is the natural architecture of ancient Homo sapiens from the north. Egypt, Turkey, central. America, Israel, etc. around the world;

                    >>

                    > 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).

                    > they put into practice a long-studied gene modification of the local flora (this is more clearly seen in cereals that appeared to 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 admit that some individuals from our local ones were able to train "correctly press buttons" on "their" equipment;

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

                    > they organized the construction of certain buildings (only they know the purpose - we are not yet considering it) from small "booths" and landing sites of their vehicles to the pyramids - from accessible rock material;

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

                    > further-something happened either in their state. device on the other planet, or in the hierarchy there - in short, a series of wars with the use of. "their" weapons (war of the gods in the traditions 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" - like people reveling in power over the centuries among our ancestors + divided the spheres of influence between peoples of the people - often - in completely "non-parliamentary" ways.
                    3) “carnal licentiousness” - remember, according to myths, with whom only they shared the 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 tools (mezuzu, tefillin - https://lah.ru/mono-text/14/) and the collars with beacons were removed from people, the equipment was tracked and seized in the same way ... and the stones didn’t carry millions of tons with myself. If non-working copies remained somewhere on hand, then due to the lack of a “charge” and an “enable signal” for operation, after millennia, as unnecessary and generational changes were lost and / or taken apart for souvenirs.

                    > according to the results of an early “gathering of manatoks”, it turned out that the last remnants of the “gods” had moved out, and humanity was left with “experience of obedience to the gentleman”, experience in working with technology (which had disappeared with the next generation), without knowledge of the natural sciences (which probably were limited by the owners) and with themselves. There are legends, traditions and stone architecture;
                    > there was a "worship of God" and a strong caste in some places caste;
                    > attempts to copy and simulate 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
                    (the polygonal masonry in Greece that could be of interest is already more serious there and, again, refers to "not our technology")

                    > then the story went the same course as to visits to "vagrants", but with a noticeable preservation of rites, priestly castes in some places, and simply for the sake of preserving the established hierarchical system. Aboriginal people have a center. America and the Turks all managed to weather. On Easter Island - there was no one left at all - only the resettling Aborigines.
                    > and Joseph Davidovich-it seems to me a shallow careerist who ascribes to all isolated oceans (and sometimes in thousands of years) civilizations a single universal principle of speedy and convenient industrial construction, which became known only to Davidovich. Well done, of course, that he invented, but there is no evidence of his research in the application of this particular technology. No matter what Western scholars 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 only work for the idea and with financial help to the family, and those - for the fear of death - after a month of such a rhythm of work in the sun, the slaves will ask them all to “dunk” ...

                    Just fiction. Here heap a 3-story. a bunch of bricks 1 pc / min - yes, that's real. And the pharaohs and other tribal leaders of different "orphaned" regions of the earth - a later generation of rulers (than the one encountered by the newcomers) - simply "reserved the right" to use orphaned constructions at their discretion (slightly removing, restoring and ennobled appearance )
  5. Lycan 12 December 2018 13: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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 12 December 2018 22: 53 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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 8 October 2018 23: 53 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +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 8 October 2018 20: 14 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    But the price is lower than that of Saturn-5 about half the current dollars
    1. aristok 8 October 2018 20: 17 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +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 8 October 2018 20: 22 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -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 8 October 2018 21: 11 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +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 8 October 2018 21: 32 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +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 8 October 2018 21: 49 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Falcon Heavy has already flown under the scrutiny of the whole world what is the fraud?
            1. aristok 8 October 2018 23: 42 New
              • 1
              • 1
              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 out anything other than a plastic body with wheels from a roadster and a mannequin in a suit of a spacesuit .. all together fit into 1 ton of “somewhere to the side” of Mars (very not exactly at that)
              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 "superheavy" in the FH yet, and judging by the constant postponement of real launches, there will not be a long time
              1. Blackmokona 9 October 2018 07: 57 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +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 9 October 2018 11: 32 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +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, by dreamers, and the industry press tends to assent to the obvious bullshit. Before SpaceX invented the “non-standard geo-transitional orbit”, the elliptical orbit 243 x 17863 km x 27.00º has never been a geo-transitional orbit. Worse, the performance of a rocket, for example, Proton, was determined by the standard GPO (GPO-1800), therefore, when launching from Baikonur, for example, Proton needed to not only reach the GSO at its peak (36 thousand km), but also add energy, to compensate for the difference in inclination.
              2. Cherry Nine 9 October 2018 12: 33 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +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, no "superheavy" in the 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. Launch while maintaining reusability satellites of the format "heavy from Ariana" and above.
                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 8 October 2018 22: 41 New
          • 1
          • 1
          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 8 October 2018 23: 55 New
            • 4
            • 1
            +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 9 October 2018 08: 06 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Has a budget running 2 times cheaper than competitors? We would have such swindlers in the state order
            1. Forestol 11 October 2018 13: 18 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -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 8 October 2018 23: 35 New
          • 1
          • 1
          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.

          and Satarn-5 would have done so - it’s not just “strictly” from the elements of the past, it is entirely “past” :) .... that is, you don’t even have to put these “elements from the past” together - saving !!!
          1. Cherry Nine 9 October 2018 00: 05 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Quote: aristok
            and Satarn-5 would have done so - it’s not just “strictly” from the elements of the past, it is entirely “past” :) .... that is, you don’t even have to put these “elements from the past” together - 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 9 October 2018 02: 20 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Quote: aristok
              Saturn-5 would have done so - it’s not just “strictly” from the elements of the past, it is entirely “past” :) .... that is, you don’t even have to compose 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 9 October 2018 07: 24 New
                • 1
                • 1
                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 9 October 2018 15: 09 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -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 9 October 2018 15: 45 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    What for?
                    If the task is to take something with people who made the shuttles?
              2. Blackmokona 9 October 2018 08: 05 New
                • 1
                • 1
                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 9 October 2018 00: 59 New
          • 1
          • 1
          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 9 October 2018 02: 48 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -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 shoes” - it even dawned on you that you had to “lay straws” so that you would not look like a completely finished propaganda liar.
          2. Blackmokona 9 October 2018 07: 58 New
            • 1
            • 1
            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 9 October 2018 02: 50 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: aristok
    The good news is that you “changed shoes” - it even dawned on you that you had to “lay straws” so that you would not look like a completely finished propaganda liar.

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

      Not announced as far as I know.
      Quote: aristok
      The good news is that you "change the 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 9 October 2018 07: 39 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 9 October 2018 08: 10 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -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 15 October 2018 08: 20 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quite possible
  • KBaHT_BpeMeHu 9 October 2018 15: 57 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    This is Putin's fault.
  • GibSoN 10 October 2018 19: 27 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    How interesting it is to probably discuss other people's achievements .. 90% of the news is related to the “decaying” West. And, this is understandable! Because as for myself, the news is nothing to do from .. And they are not interested in anyone.
  • wooja 14 October 2018 22: 01 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Well, che ..., another Hollywood achievement on the way ....,
  • Darter88 28 November 2018 10: 11 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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 9 August 2019 11: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And here it all came down to Hollywood, the pyramids and the backward ("stupid") residents of the United States. Sorry...