Is the Soviet program “Energy-Buran” still not closed?

117
The project "Energy-Buran", in the course of which the unmanned flight of the orbital ship "Buran" was carried out, was not officially closed, reports RIA News a message from the director general of the spacecraft developer NPO Molniya (part of the Kalashnikov concern) Olga Sokolova.



It's true, Sokolova said. Of course, this is more a formality, but at that time “nobody had a hand to sign the project’s closure,” she explained.

According to the CEO, a document is stored in the company stating that the project is suspended. Under it are the signatures of the chief designers and members of the Central Committee of the CPSU. But a document stating that the program is closed is not.

No one dared to assume such responsibility, she added.

According to Sokolova, the project "Energy-Buran" was "in the wrong place at the wrong time." The so-called “perestroika” began, and the country's leadership had other tasks. One of them is to feed the people.

Although, if at that time there was a “man-locomotive”, like the main inspirer of the “Buran” Gleb Lozino-Lozinsky, who would be able to pull out this project or transform it into the national economy, then probably he would not have to look for money for to feed the people, said Sokolova.

Recall that 15 November will be 30 years of flight of the Buran, the world's first committed two orbits around the Earth in automatic mode, without crew on board. More than 1200 enterprises, about 100 ministries and departments, the largest scientific and production centers of the USSR were involved in the creation of this complex.

After 205 minutes of flight, the Buran landed at the Yubileiny airfield (Baikonur). This flight, performed in automatic mode using on-board software, entered the Guinness Book of Records.

Is the Soviet program “Energy-Buran” still not closed?
117 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +27
    14 November 2018 10: 58
    The carrier is most sorry. The program may not be closed, but everything is loved.
    1. +18
      14 November 2018 11: 01
      Formally - the patient is alive, but really - in the morgue. sad
      1. +5
        14 November 2018 11: 05
        Quote: bouncyhunter
        Formally - the patient is alive, but really - in the morgue.

        Like Vladimir Ilyich, exactly the same.
        1. +12
          14 November 2018 11: 10
          Quote: Gray Brother
          Like Vladimir Ilyich, exactly the same.

          And my thoughts were not to imitate, chesslovo! hi
          Recently there was a show on NatGeo about cosmochelnoki, so the mattresses there directly said that "Buran" is better than their shuttles. But they also stated directly that both programs were closed due to the exorbitant cost. Disingenuous, of course: shuttle crashes also played an important role in the closure, IMHO.
          1. +6
            14 November 2018 13: 06
            The general director decided to talk about a topic that causes both pride and pain at the same time. To a greater extent the second.
            It would be better if she told how she works to ensure that the rockets in the current stable reality do not fall.
          2. -10
            14 November 2018 13: 14
            Quote: bouncyhunter
            so there mattresses directly said that "Buran" is better than theirs shuttles

            And what exactly is it better than shuttles? Buran made only one flight, all data was classified, it is generally incorrect to compare it with the shuttle. The shuttles were already a well-established and long-running program, and Buran was in its infancy.
          3. +1
            14 November 2018 13: 21
            Quote: bouncyhunter
            But they also directly stated that both programs were closed due to exorbitant cost
            They themselves say that they counted on 100-150 million launch, and it turned out from 500 million. The cost of putting cargo into orbit is nowhere higher.
            Now they are sawing SLS - there is almost everything from that program, except for the useless load in the form of a shuttle.
            They wanted, it was, to revive the F-1, but how they calculated how much they need to be redone to adapt to modern production - it is easier to develop a new one. The most reproducible part, TNA, and that only as a concept fit.
            Times are completely different now.
        2. 0
          15 November 2018 07: 32
          Everyone is lying, and for some reason Vova is sell.
          And the morgue worker even sat ...

          PS: a bit of humor in the subject ...
      2. +6
        14 November 2018 11: 07
        Quote: bouncyhunter
        Formally - the patient is alive, but really - in the morgue

        VDNH, this is not for you, Pasha. Not a morgue
        1. +5
          14 November 2018 11: 12
          Volodya, do not cling to words. hi Amerz shuttles are also exhibited in museums, but this does not mean that they are in service. Yes
          1. +3
            14 November 2018 11: 31
            Quote: bouncyhunter
            Amerz shuttles are also exhibited in museums, but this does not mean that they are in service.

            We are not Yankees. If the data is in the Archive, it does not mean that they will not be read hi
            1. +4
              14 November 2018 11: 44
              Quote: Tusv
              We are not Yankees.

              God forbid - of course not!
              Quote: Tusv
              If the data is in the Archive, it does not mean that they will not be read

              This will be decided at the top. And not the fact that they will tell us that they decided:
              Quote: bouncyhunter
              Quote: pvv113
              But there is hope for resuscitation

              This is only if the Chief Physician considers it necessary and appropriate. Yes
            2. +2
              14 November 2018 13: 23
              Quote: Tusv
              We are not Yankees. If the data is in the Archive, it does not mean that they will not be read
              KD, or what? After breaking technological chains - oh how hard it is to restore them! It’s easier to do something new sometimes.
          2. +9
            14 November 2018 11: 43
            Quote: bouncyhunter
            Volodya, do not cling to words. hi Amerz shuttles are also exhibited in museums, but this does not mean that they are in service. Yes

            X-37V they have in orbit for a year, but it is smaller, but the functionality is the same .. so the Americans, unlike us, are developing this program ..
            1. +7
              14 November 2018 11: 48
              Quote: Svarog
              X-37V they have in orbit for a year, yes it’s smaller, but the functionality is the same..

              So what are they launching their astronauts on Soyuz? what
              1. +4
                14 November 2018 12: 12
                Because the Union has been developed and reliable for decades.
              2. +3
                14 November 2018 13: 25
                Quote: bouncyhunter
                So what are they launching their astronauts on Soyuz? what
                Because it is so convenient at the moment. And probably even cheaper.
                However, it may turn out that we will start to lag behind after working out their own programs.
                Papuans have to sell places.
                1. 0
                  15 November 2018 19: 54
                  Because there is no one of its own, American.
                  1. 0
                    15 November 2018 19: 56
                    Quote: Cannonball
                    Because there is no one of its own, American.
                    So what? Is this an insoluble problem for them?
                    1. -2
                      17 November 2018 11: 57
                      Not solvable yet
                      1. +1
                        17 November 2018 15: 36
                        Quote: Cannonball
                        Not yet resolvedthemth
                        Not yet resolvedyongand I.
                        Feel the difference.
                        The difference is not big, but how does the meaning change ...
                      2. -1
                        17 November 2018 15: 42
                        No, insoluble. Because American ships are not yet ready for manned missions, and no one will risk the lives of astronauts because of this unpreparedness.
                      3. +1
                        17 November 2018 17: 23
                        Quote: Cannonball
                        No, insoluble.
                        Insoluble - this means that there is a fundamental obstacle (Congress did not give money, the laws of physics do not allow, there is no knowledge), and unresolved is when the conditions are there and the developments are still at the stage of solving the problem.
                        There is almost a solution on the other side of the puddle, i.e. they have a second option.
                      4. 0
                        17 November 2018 17: 48
                        If launches are postponed from time to time, then all the problems still cannot be solved, that is, they while are unsolvable, and therefore unresolved.
                        I suppose that a considerable part of these problems is of a technical nature, part is bureaucratic, and part is private and general security.
                      5. 0
                        17 November 2018 17: 52
                        Quote: Cannonball
                        are unsolvable, and therefore unresolved.
                        Yeah...
                        This is some kind of religion! At first, thunder and lightning is a manifestation of God, and now he hid in the Higgs boson ...
                        Insoluble is a fundamental impossibility, and unresolved is a temporary difficulty.
                        A year or two and they will be fine.
                        And we have?
                      6. 0
                        17 November 2018 18: 00
                        I wrote "BYE" twice. I state the fact of the state of affairs today. I don't use forecasts and promises.
                        To date, the problem of the readiness of American manned ships IS NOT RESOLVED.
                        When it will be solved, and whether it will be solved at all, I do not know. Because I do not have the gift of clairvoyance.
                        However, my ears are not big enough to carry the noodles that the media and PR specialists of American manned spacecraft manufacturers and the like hang.
                        Let's live today and operate on the facts, and not someone expected.
                      7. 0
                        17 November 2018 18: 03
                        Quote: Cannonball
                        To date, the problem of the readiness of American manned ships IS NOT RESOLVED
                        Correctly! AND insoluble is not fundamentally! Moreover: they have were manned programs, because at least they will return to them can, but they look to the future and finish the spacecraft for flights not only around the globe, but also further.
                      8. 0
                        17 November 2018 18: 07
                        At the expense of "further" - big doubts. Too expensive, too dangerous, too unreliable. And most importantly, until the end justifies the means. The flag has already been stuck in the moon, and yet humanity cannot do more - it is too difficult, too expensive and dangerous.
                      9. 0
                        17 November 2018 18: 14
                        Quote: Cannonball
                        too complicated, too expensive and dangerous.
                        It is impossible to build a base on the Sun, it is dangerous to tease the Black Mamba. And about the moon - it's technical problem where is the risk miscalculated.
                        Expensive - this is until "hundreds of oil" were found there.
                        There is such a thing - means of production. For someone, buying pencils is a significant waste, and for someone and Prirazlomnaya to build is a reasonable price.
                        Quote: Cannonball
                         The flag has already been thrust into the moon, and so far mankind cannot do more
                        And what got worse? Technologies? So they advanced.
                        They also conquered the North Pole for the first time - they almost burst their girths, and now they are driving there for sports interest (in the UP too, but less often).
                      10. 0
                        17 November 2018 18: 17
                        Yes, only at some "space" firms even with writing paper problems. They can build a space rocket, but not buy paper for a printer. And they can't buy a lot of other things they need for work. Because there is no money. From the word "absolutely". What's the talk about prices and the moon?
                      11. 0
                        17 November 2018 18: 20
                        Quote: Cannonball
                        Yes, only at some "space" firms even with writing paper problems.
                        This means that the customer cannot decide what he needs. Or impoverished ...
                        In other words, NASA has no problems with "paper", I think. And we are not talking about Khrunichev.
                      12. The comment was deleted.
                      13. 0
                        17 November 2018 18: 21
                        NASA is not a manufacturer. NASA is a state customer. And NASA also counts every cent.
                      14. 0
                        17 November 2018 18: 23
                        Yula, Mask, etc. there are no problems with the "paper". I'm wrong?
                      15. 0
                        17 November 2018 18: 33
                        YULA and Musk will not do anything without profit. And what is the profit from the moon or from Mars?
                      16. 0
                        17 November 2018 18: 50
                        Here the congress operator through NASA. Yula and Musk are performers who care about the job. And why - the business of Congress. They will decide what kind of interest, like the Lunar program, they will fulfill.
                      17. 0
                        17 November 2018 19: 38
                        JULE and the Mask for the Moon are paid by NASA. NASA will not pay anywhere YULA with the Mask will not fly
              3. -1
                14 November 2018 13: 29
                Quote: bouncyhunter
                So what are they launching their astronauts on Soyuz?

                This fact has long been "squeezed lemon" from which pride has practically ceased to drip.
                It is already known that we have only a year left to pout due to the fact that we carry Amerov .. hi
          3. The comment was deleted.
        2. 0
          15 November 2018 19: 53
          And what is ENEA? There is only a layout.
      3. +2
        14 November 2018 11: 15
        Quote: bouncyhunter
        Formally - the patient is alive, but really - in the morgue. sad

        But there is hope for resuscitation wink
        1. +1
          14 November 2018 11: 20
          Quote: pvv113
          But there is hope for resuscitation

          It is doubtful, now everything was thrown on the “Angara”.
        2. +5
          14 November 2018 11: 20
          Quote: pvv113
          But there is hope for resuscitation

          This is only if the Chief Physician considers it necessary and appropriate. Yes
          1. +3
            14 November 2018 11: 36
            And again, back to the financial issue request
          2. +2
            14 November 2018 13: 03
            Quote: bouncyhunter
            This is only if the Chief Physician considers it necessary and appropriate.

            Now we’ll get tired of dragging everything that we need to reanimate to the morgue, maybe it’s time to think about replacing the head doctor?
            1. AUL
              +2
              14 November 2018 13: 27
              Quote: faridg7
              Quote: bouncyhunter
              This is only if the Chief Physician considers it necessary and appropriate.

              Now we’ll get tired of dragging everything that we need to reanimate to the morgue, maybe it’s time to think about replacing the head doctor?

              Sick, do not self-medicate! The doctor said - to the morgue, then - to the morgue!
      4. +2
        14 November 2018 15: 33
        Quote: bouncyhunter
        Formally - the patient is alive, but really - in the morgue. sad

        pasha hi
        It would be so ... yes, only the developments and solutions are still alive, and therefore, to say that this program is dead is premature.
    2. +1
      14 November 2018 12: 25
      The end of Buran was very sad. In the hangar, where it was preserved, the roof collapsed in 2002. The snowstorm was completely destroyed and dismantled for scrap. in VDNH is one of a dozen of its layouts.
    3. +1
      14 November 2018 15: 19
      Quote: Gray Brother

      The carrier is most sorry.

      Very specific pH ..
      1.Package scheme with a parallel arrangement of steps and ONLY lateral arrangement of a payload

      There are minimal restrictions on the weight of monitors
      2. Dimensions (the central unit of "Energy" was transported by plane)

      3. Cost
      The cost of the design of the Energia launch vehicle is 210 rubles (those)
      Where, then, when it was believed that with fuel and other invoices, the withdrawal of Buran $ 650-780 million one launch, those dollars and those rubles / salaries of course, and without the presence of the current "effective top managers"
      Dmitry Ilyich Kozlov (October 1, 1919, stanitsa Tikhoretskaya - March 7, 2009, Samara) - Soviet and Russian designer of rocket and space technology.
      Twice Hero of Socialist Labor, General Designer of the Central Specialized Design Bureau (TsSKB-Progress), Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences (1991; Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences since 1984):
      currently in outer space there are simply no facilities for the maintenance of which flights would be required (by the way, very expensive) of this huge rocket with a carrying capacity of over 100 tons.

      and now even more so
      1. +9
        14 November 2018 15: 28
        Quote: Aibolit
        and now even more so

        Do you know what the superiority of the USSR in space was? The fact that they did not spare money and spat on economic feasibility.
        I insist that the capitalist system is flawed in this regard and incapable of any global achievements if they do not bring adequate profit.
        With the death of the USSR, mankind had an unbelievable chance to devour and transfer into the loot all available resources and, in the end, die on this planet.
        1. +2
          14 November 2018 15: 58
          Quote: Gray Brother
          and spat on economic feasibility

          did not spit.
          Korolev N-1 launch vehicle
          that the capitalist system is flawed in this regard and is incapable of any global achievements if they do not bring adequate profit.

          1. Mathematics and economics, nothing more

          2. How to be with Voyagers -1,2? What is the profit here?
          In 2018, the new InSight Mars rover, the Parker sun probe, was launched. The Cassini interplanetary station successfully completed a long-term program, plunging into the atmosphere of Saturn, the TESS space observatory was launched to search for exoplanets, the American interplanetary station OSIRIS-Rex reached the asteroid Benu. In addition, the BepiColombo mission, a joint mission of the ESA and the Japan Aerospace Research Agency for Mercury Research, should start.

          Where is the "adequate" profit?

          Quote: Gray Brother
          With the death of the USSR,

          Look at a typical landscape of industrial cities of the 60s of the last century in the USSR.
          Tell in Cherepovets about caring for nature, during the USSR.
          Tenth Soviet territory was irrevocably corrupted by human economic activity.
          Statistics for 1977 (from the book of B. Komarov "Reserve country")


          for 1977:

          * 175-225 thousand square meters km (17,5–22,5 million ha) occupy areas mutilated and devalued by mining and peat mining.
          * 5 million ha - dumps, tailings, slag and sludge dumps of industrial enterprises, as well as urban landfills;
          * 12 million hectares are buried under the water of large reservoirs;
          * 50–55 million hectares - wasteland and swamps in forests after felling and fires that do not overgrow, except perhaps by weeds;
          * 63 million hectares of highly eroded, saline lands (arable and meadow-pasture lands), waving sands on the site of former fields, and of the 400 million hectares of lands subject to erosion, only hopelessly damaged (hundreds of years in advance) were taken into account. Losses from erosion in 1978 are estimated at 10 billion rubles!

          Total: 1450 thousand square meters. km of barren land, industrial deserts and semi-deserts.

          the territory of the USSR was 22 million square kilometers, and minus water surfaces, eternal ice and rocks unsuitable for life, there were 14,3 million square kilometers.
          / do not idealize the USSR
          1. +2
            14 November 2018 16: 17
            Quote: Aibolit
            and N-1 is an example of this

            Yes, this is not an example, they simply could not provide at least some kind of reliability.
            .How to be with Voyagers -1,2? What is the profit here?

            Yes, no. But there was no continuation precisely for this reason, as the lunar program was poher for the same reason.
            And the rovers are an attempt to find at least something useful, on which it would be possible to raise the dough. They will not find it - and it will go to the furnace.
            Look at a typical landscape of industrial cities of the 60s of the last century in the USSR.

            There is plenty of such good all over the world.
            1. 0
              14 November 2018 17: 02
              Quote: Gray Brother
              Yes, this is not an example, they simply could not provide at least some reliability

              reliability of what?
              B.E. Chertok
              Four unsuccessful launches of the H1 gave a wealth of experience. Hundreds of improvements have been implemented. The most important thing was the installation of new engines. Kuznetsov created a completely reliable engine. 76 firing bench tests were carried out on 220 engines. Reliability of repeated start is confirmed on 24 engines

              40 liquid-propellant rocket engines worked from 7000 to 14 s, and one NK-000 - 33 20 s. At the warehouses of NPP Trud, for the present laziness, 360 engines of blocks "A", "B", "V" and "G" of the N-94 rocket are stored. In addition to "commercial" rocket engines, there are 1 - 50 experimental and test ones. They can be used in additional designs. All are ready to use and switch on without removing from the stand at least 60 times.
              Even in spite of the obvious "jamb" of the SPK with the very design of the RN N-1, it would have been launched as it should.
              However, overloading industry and the budget, programs that were simultaneously developing (Soyuz, Almaz station) buried the lunar project
              / half of the country ran to the toilets on the street
              Quote: Gray Brother
              Yes, no.

              contradict yourself
              Quote: Gray Brother
              But the continuation did not follow precisely for this reason, as the lunar program is poher for the same reason.

              wait for a solution for New Frontiers

              Sparrow

              We (the Russian Federation) can boast of nothing more than 26 years old
              Quote: Gray Brother
              And the rovers are an attempt to find at least something useful, on which it would be possible to raise the dough

              on Mars?
              belay
              Quote: Gray Brother
              There is plenty of such good all over the world.

              Contradiction
              Quote: Gray Brother
              With the death of the USSR, mankind had an unbelievable chance to devour and transfer into the loot all available resources and, in the end, die on this planet.

              Leningrad suburb of Chernobyl
              in the 1950s, 200 hectares for testing new technologies and materials developed at the State Institute for Applied Chemistry (State Institute of Applied Chemistry, now FSUE RSC “Applied Chemistry”). The Radiochemical Production Complex and the systems for the development, testing and production of rocket fuel were also transferred to Kapitolovo. The problem of disposal of all unnecessary was solved according to the standards of the mid-XNUMXth century, that is, stored in storage. As a result, by our time the landfill has accumulated about 600 m³ of liquid and about 1450 m³ of solid radioactive waste.
              / From Kappitolovo to the city border you can add
              1. 0
                14 November 2018 18: 29
                reliability of what?

                Missiles N-1.
                contradict yourself

                There is no contradiction. Someone launched the first satellite, and the first astronaut, while someone outside the solar system zafigachil. This is a matter of the country's prestige in an arms race.
                Quote: Aibolit
                on Mars?

                Yes on Mars. On the moon, there’s not a damn thing.

                And yes, there are plenty of crap territories around the world.
                1. 0
                  14 November 2018 18: 42
                  Quote: Gray Brother
                  Missiles N-1.

                  RN consists of a lot of things.
                  the reliability of the "Rocket N-1" was = 0 (zero successful launches out of 4, in my opinion).
                  so what?
                  LV "Vostok" 8K72
                  1 September 23, 1958 E-1-1 Baikonur PU No. 1/5 Launch vehicle accident
                  2 October 12, 1958 E-1-2 Baikonur PU No. 1/5 LV accident
                  December 3 4, 1958 E-1-3 Baikonur PU No. 1/5 Launch vehicle accident
                  4 January 2, 1959 Luna-1 Baikonur PU No. 1/5 The main task of the flight was not completed. Luna-1 became the world's first artificial satellite of the Sun
                  5 June 18, 1959 Luna-2A Baikonur PU No. 1/5 Launch vehicle accident

                  Reliability ZERO
                  however 8K72K
                  April 12, 1961 Vostok-1 (Vostok) Baikonur PU No. 1/5 Success. First manned flight


                  Quote: Gray Brother
                  No controversy.

                  So in the West, not only greed, therefore
                  Quote: Gray Brother
                  I insist that the capitalist system is flawed in this regard and incapable of any global achievements if they do not bring adequate profit.
                  = falche

                  Quote: Gray Brother
                  Yes on Mars.

                  there is no shisha, even

                  On the moon, even though reserves of iron, titanium, aluminum, magnesium, sulfur, potassium and sodium, surface soil have been found, deposits of such a rare substance for the Earth as the helium-3 isotope (no one knows how to use it)

                  but all this is "good" and for 369 km to carry EXPENSIVE ..
                  I can’t imagine an altruist carrying Martian sand (and even GOLD) for 401 km (sometimes Mars is closer: 000 km, but rarely)
                  1. 0
                    14 November 2018 20: 19
                    We need reusable ships and trucks, as well as robotic plants for mining and producing fuel on the moon and Mars, a cubic meter of liquid oxygen costs 9000 rubles, liquid hydrogen of 20000.
                    1. 0
                      14 November 2018 20: 31
                      Quote: Vadim237
                      Need reusable ships and trucks, as well as robotic plants for mining and producing fuel on the moon and Mars

                      Pascal Lee, director of the NASA-sponsored Mars Institute, has calculated how much it will cost to send a NASA mission to Mars. He is sure that a manned flight to the red planet will cost mankind a completely astronomical sum - from 400 billion to 1 trillion dollars.
                      even if "robotic" is still 50% of this fantastic amount.
                      Quote: Vadim237
                      Oxygen costs 9000 rubles, liquid hydrogen 20000.

                      1. The industrial production of oxygen occurs through the separation of the atmospheric air of the Earth. In industry, membrane, adsorption and cryogenic methods for producing oxygen are used.
                      2. Industrial methods for producing hydrogen: electrolysis and plasma chemistry
                      Electrolysis: alkali + Н2О + 5 kW of electricity (per 1 m ^ 3 of hydrogen)
                      Plasma chemistry: Plasmatrons supply gases or vapors of various substances to the plants. An intense electromagnetic field in these gases or vapors creates electrical discharges, and plasma is formed. The energy of the electric field is transferred to its electrons, and from them to neutral molecules. The latter go into an excited, chemically active state. Nonequilibrium plasma-chemical systems are promising, where electrons heated by an electromagnetic field to temperatures of 10 ... 15 thousand degrees selectively transfer energy to molecules, and the latter, decaying, form the necessary chemical products. At the same time, the gas as a whole remains almost cold (its temperature is 300 ... 1000 ° C).
                      -> plasma-chemical decomposition of carbon dioxide;
                      -> the reaction of interaction of carbon monoxide with water vapor, which has long been mastered by industry

                      neither Mars nor the Moon have an atmosphere (21% O2), nor water: H2O, nor electricity, nor CO2, and no water vapor
                      HOW TO GO
                      Quote: Vadim237
                      fuel production on the moon and mars

                      ?
                      1. -1
                        14 November 2018 23: 34
                        Pascal Lee, director of the NASA-sponsored Mars Institute, has calculated how much it will cost to send a NASA mission to Mars. He is sure that a manned flight to the red planet will cost mankind a completely astronomical sum - from 400 billion to 1 trillion dollars.
                        When the thoughts in my head about the greatest possible profit, when instead of the dollar icon in the corner in the corner, humanity is unlikely to ever fly further than the Moon, or Mars. It's so EXPENSIVE! Humanity simply does not have a goal where it can be sought. One thirst for profit and consumerism .... And this will not lead to good.
                      2. 0
                        17 November 2018 18: 39
                        Quote: StWahmister
                        when instead of an icon in a corner of a dollar in a frame, humanity is unlikely to ever fly further than the Moon, or Mars
                        With a dollar in the frame, humanity and the Sun will colonize if there will be benefits (the World Ring will be a reality), but with an icon it is unlikely!
                      3. -1
                        15 November 2018 01: 23
                        There is frozen water and carbon dioxide on Mars, and most likely there is frozen water on the moon. And the declared 400-1000 billion dollars for the flight to Mars are absurd figures, a maximum of 100 billion.
                      4. 0
                        15 November 2018 13: 29
                        Quote: Vadim237
                        There is frozen water and carbon dioxide on Mars, and most likely there is frozen water on the moon.

                        Prize (crossed out) given to the STUDIO.
                        If there is, but a miser.
                        and to get them, that's another problem
                        -on Mars at the poles around –123С (there is dry CO2 there, but you won’t get H2 from it)
                        -on the moon, at the equator −173 ° C to +117 ° C, at the poles = - 238 C / -247 C
                        Note: in 24, the Luna-1976 probe detected water in the ground. H2O found in the sample was 0,1% by weight of the sample.
                        This is very cool.
                        therefore
                        Quote: Vadim237
                        A cubic meter of liquid Oxygen costs 9000 rubles, liquid hydrogen 20000.

                        FICTION.

                        AND MUCH H2 and O2 WILL NOT BE COST THERE.
                2. 0
                  14 November 2018 20: 16
                  On the Moon, there is no surface on the surface, but in the soil at a depth there is a lot of anything, as asteroids and meteorites have bombarded its surface for billions of years.
        2. +3
          14 November 2018 16: 32
          Quote: Gray Brother
          Quote: Aibolit
          and now even more so

          Do you know what the superiority of the USSR in space was? The fact that they did not spare money and spat on economic feasibility.
          I insist that the capitalist system is flawed in this regard and incapable of any global achievements if they do not bring adequate profit.
          With the death of the USSR, mankind had an unbelievable chance to devour and transfer into the loot all available resources and, in the end, die on this planet.

          Sergey to the point, but not only for this reason is he flawed ..
        3. 0
          14 November 2018 23: 06
          With the death of the USSR, mankind had an unbelievable chance to devour and transfer into the loot all available resources and, in the end, die on this planet.
          How do I agree with you ... sad
        4. 0
          17 November 2018 18: 28
          Quote: Gray Brother
          I insist that the capitalist system is flawed in this regard and incapable of any global achievements if they do not bring adequate profit.
          Shchetun. Those. Is the lunar program with Saturn 5 a temporary transition to socialism?
      2. 0
        14 November 2018 16: 47
        Quote: Aibolit
        1.Package scheme with a parallel arrangement of steps and ONLY lateral arrangement of a payload

        No, you are wrong at this point, the further development of this launch vehicle provides for a payload in the bow. The name "volcano", the most powerful modification and less standard energy is energy-M. There was also, if I am not mistaken, the project Energy II (Hurricane) fully refundable. Energia-M was tested and lost the tender, the rest remained on paper.
        1. 0
          14 November 2018 17: 39
          Quote: Svetoch
          The name "volcano", the most powerful modification and less standard energy is energy-M

          I answered
          The carrier is most sorry.

          It's about 11K25. The rest is all paper.
          * Energia-M product 217GC Neutron with a reduced by about 3 times the carrying capacity relative to the LV Energia, 30-35 tons per NOO = but this is not 11K25
          (Instead of 4 RD-0120 engines, only one was installed on the central unit.)

          * Energy II (Hurricane)
          The central block of the “Hurricane” was supposed to enter the atmosphere, plan and land on a regular airfield.

          This is not realistic for such a shell and it is no longer 11K25
          Volcano (Hercules), especially since it is not 11K25


          There are not even calculations for the PN end installation. 11K25 ("Energy") definitely did not allow this
    4. +1
      14 November 2018 20: 15
      Tagged at b y y dok Gorbachev
  2. +5
    14 November 2018 10: 59
    Formalities are useless. Buran - the story.
    Perhaps the experience of Buran will be in demand.
    1. +10
      14 November 2018 11: 05
      Buran is not just history, Buran is evidence of the great achievements of the USSR, evidence of the world's best scientific school, Buran is our pride and it is unfortunate that this project does not develop .. This project has great potential, both scientifically and militarily ..
      1. +9
        14 November 2018 11: 16
        When I found out the fate of Buran, who was buried / ditched at Baikonur .... very sorry, he was so beautiful, majestic, WAS! When I stood nearby, something fantastic was straight from him, it blew!
        1. +5
          14 November 2018 11: 19
          Quote: rocket757
          When I stood nearby, something fantastic was straight from him, it blew!

          So for that time he was fiction .. and now it is ..
          1. +6
            14 November 2018 11: 49
            Fiction from the reality of the long past. Trace of a highly developed civilization.
          2. -2
            14 November 2018 20: 30
            There was no breakthrough in Buran - the usual attempt to keep up with the American Shuttle, with a space price tag, for launching under the billion rubles of those times. Now, if they invested money in this
            this has become, without exaggeration, a breakthrough project in space exploration.
      2. -6
        14 November 2018 13: 40
        Quote: Svarog
        Buran testament to the great achievements of the USSR

        Buran was just a capsule with wings and the most primitive atopilot. Here is a quote from an interview with the Russian cosmonaut (I forgot my name but you can google it) The shuttles were an order of magnitude more technologically advanced than Buran, for example, there were as many electronics in the Shuttle as there probably weren't in the entire Union. You can find this article, it is quite interesting.
        1. +6
          14 November 2018 13: 57
          Quote: Herald of Revy

          The Buran was just a capsule with wings and the most primitive atopilot ... ... there were as many electronics in the Shuttle alone as there probably weren't in the entire Union ...

          The primitive autopilot does not land automatically. But the "fancy" shuttle could not afford this - landing only by hand.
          1. 0
            14 November 2018 14: 07
            landing was a miracle. due to an error in the control system, the ship landed in the opposite direction.
          2. -1
            14 November 2018 14: 25
            Quote: TarTar
            A primitive autopilot does not land automatically.

            The autopilot then was already a long-established technology in civil aviation and it was not surprising to anyone.
            Quote: TarTar
            But the "fancy" shuttle could not afford this - landing only by hand.

            You're wrong! All the shuttles had an autopilot and often resorted to it during landing.
            And in general, perfection then was considered (as indeed now) exactly pilot-controlled ships (see the science fiction of those times, for example), and if the snowstorm went into the series, it would also be controlled by the pilot.
            1. +1
              14 November 2018 14: 46
              Shuttle missed goals:
              ...
              11. The fact that the shuttle could only make manned flights would put astronauts at risk unnecessarily, for example, for routine satellite launches into orbit, there would be enough automation.
              ...
              https://topwar.ru/136809-programma-speys-shattl-chto-poluchilos-a-chto-net.html

              And with regards to civil aviation, an autopilot in an airplane supports horizontal flight. No maneuvers. And landing is generally a very complicated process. So the Buran control system is obviously more advanced.
              1. +1
                14 November 2018 15: 36
                Quote: TarTar
                And with regards to civil aviation, an autopilot in an airplane supports horizontal flight. No maneuvers.



                Quote: TarTar
                And landing is generally a very complicated process.

                Seriously? and what's that?


                AUTOLAND = a set of procedures performed by the aircraft in automatic mode and providing the aircraft landing approach, descent along the glide path with the necessary landing speed and the landing itself, followed by a decrease in runway speed to 40-60 knots in fully automatic mode without human intervention. In an automatic landing, the landing is performed by an autopilot (more precisely, at least two autopilots, and usually three). It is necessary to distinguish an automatic approach from the automatic landing itself. There are several categories of instrumental landing systems (ILS) approaches depending on weather conditions, airfield equipment, aircraft equipment, and crew clearance.

                CAT 1: VLR 60m, visibility on the runway 800m, approach by directors.
                CAT 2: VLR 30m, visibility on the runway 400m, automatic approach to VLR, then in helm mode. Requires a traction machine and automatic care device.
                CAT 3a: VLR 0m, runway visibility 200m, touchdown only automatic.
                CAT 3c: VLR 0m, runway visibility 50m, touchdown and mileage automatic.
                CAT 3s: VLR 0m, runway visibility 0m, touchdown, mileage, and taxiing automatic.
                ===================
                There are very few pilots who prefer to sit on the machine, and not "on hand".
                There are many restrictions for landing on autopilot, for example, if the strip is too wet or snowy, or with a very strong crosswind
                To land "on hand" the rules are much more complicated, but in general visibility is required about 800 meters.
                So in cases where visibility is from 800 to 200 meters, and landing on hands is impossible, they have to sit on the machine .... if
                IF the ILS (Instrumented Approach System) is in place, the runway "meets" the aircraft certification:

                1. The angle of inclination of the glide path.

                For example, holiday lovers in Courchevel have to fly to Chambery. The runway, with a length of only 2 km, is equipped with a single-course ILS, while the glide path angle is almost 5 degrees. Believe me, this is really cool!

                2. Downwind.
                3. In case of engine failure.
                4. In case of malfunctions.
                5. Restrictions on the relief of the runway in the landing zone.
                1. 0
                  14 November 2018 15: 50
                  Quote: Aibolit
                  ...Seriously? and what's that?...

                  Thank you for enlightening in the field of GA regarding autopilots. But this does not refute my claim that landing is a difficult process. And on the shuttle there is no automatic landing function. Crew of at least 2 people. Those. in unmanned mode, he can’t fly.
                  1. +2
                    14 November 2018 17: 27
                    Please
                    I remember
                    1. The first automatic landing of the aircraft was made back in 1937, on a modified C-14B aircraft ("Fokker Aircraft Corporation" in New Jersey, USA)
                    2. In 1957, the F3D Skyknight experimental automatic landing on the USS Antietam aircraft carrier was carried out for the first time - a total of fifty landings under various weather conditions.
                    3. Since 1965, the routine automatic landing of Hawker Siddeley HS 121 Trident aircraft began, which were operated by British European Airways.
                    1 + 2 + 3 = USA
                    Do you really think that FIVE specialized IBM AP101Bs are worse than the Biser-4 BCCW ??
                    IBM AP101B (the port is still working on the B-52 and B-1 and the F-15 fighter) "top" IBM System / 4 Pi
                    HAL / S language, which supports vector arithmetic and task schedule in accordance with the priority levels defined by programmers.
                    CPU performance (according to Gibson), op./s 480 000

                    "Beads-4"
                    problem-oriented language DIPOLE + LAX language, then DRAGON (Friendly Russian Algorithmic language, which provides visibility).
                    Computational channels FOUR (or cores, in modern terminology) operated at a frequency of 4 MHz and had 128 KB of RAM and 16 KB of program memory.

                    CPU performance (according to Gibson), op./s 370 000

                    Quote: TarTar
                    And on the shuttle there is no automatic landing function.

                    You are wrong (like most people misled by stupid propaganda)
                    See: Space Shuttle Avionics System, pp. 24-25
                    shuttle fully automatic landing was available until the runway was touched

                    Automatic landing was tested in the first shuttle flights:
                    So, in the STS-3 mission (1982), the Shuttle was lowered on autopilot to a height of 40-60 meters. The flight path was calculated up to the moment when the commander took control. But after the intervention of the astronaut, an accident almost occurred due to the human factor: initially, Robert Lausma turned off the autopilot only for roll, but not for pitch. The second astronaut prompted him this in the last moments before touching, and Lausma, who was slightly panicked, overcompensated: this video clearly shows how the Shuttle “sausages” right before landing, and immediately after touching the runway (watch from 2:00)

                    [media = https: //youtu.be/dDvyznX1ipY]
                    There are legends that without a man on board the shuttle would not be able to release the chassis and the brake parachute.
                    According to the insistent demands of astronauts, whose influence in American manned space exploration has been great since the time of the "Mercury", the landing gear and parachute release drives were "tied" to the levers in the cockpit and were not controlled by the onboard computer. Thus, the astronauts ruled out for the "eggheads" from NASA or warriors from the Air Force the opportunity to use the shuttle as an unmanned launch vehicle.


                    X-37B (takes off, sooooo long "there" flies, sits down without a person
    2. +7
      14 November 2018 11: 14
      Quote: Bearded
      Formalities are useless. Buran - the story.
      Perhaps the experience of Buran will be in demand.

      So everything has already migrated in our time, just do not appropriate them for the current democrats, the USSR created the basis for high-tech progress. And what were your ideas, science fiction writers and today are surprised that science in the USSR thought so, and not artists .... Yes
      1. +10
        14 November 2018 11: 21
        Quote: XXXIII
        So everything has already migrated in our time, just do not appropriate them for the current democrats, the USSR created the basis for high-tech progress. And what were your ideas, science fiction writers and today are surprised that science in the USSR thought so, and not artists ....

        Yes, the USSR brought up youth differently, the main thing was not money, but lofty dreams, which became the goal and realized in practice ..
      2. +5
        14 November 2018 11: 35
        Quote: XXXIII
        And what were your ideas, science fiction writers and today are surprised that science in the USSR thought so, and not artists ....

        Our ancestors are all GREAT and will not be offended if their ideas benefit the homeland, at least in any form, even under whose name! And they have something to learn and ideas they left us for a couple of generations ahead ... maybe more!
        1. +6
          14 November 2018 12: 18
          You can return to any idea at a new level. Moreover, no one dared to bury this idea. Too bright and promising. In Primorye, we also deployed a site for the reception of "Burans" in the Khorol region, but curtailed.
          1. +5
            14 November 2018 12: 27
            Quote: bessmertniy
            You can return to any idea at a new level. Moreover, no one dared to bury this idea. Too bright and promising. In Primorye, we also deployed a site for the reception of "Burans" in the Khorol region, but curtailed.

            Of course you can, but with current managers, the likelihood of this tends to zero .. Or everything will be stolen. It’s even strange why there is not enough money for anything, the country's population is fully self-sufficient, there is no need to feed half the world, the army is several times less than under the USSR, but there is no money ..
            1. +3
              14 November 2018 13: 03
              Quote: Svarog
              but with current managers the probability of this tends to zero

              HERE! What question do not we consider, sooner or later (often sooner) we come across the same plug - Modern managers! - then don’t tell me that they don’t have a plug in all holes! Unfortunately the plug is not ice !!!
  3. +3
    14 November 2018 11: 03
    Closed - not closed, that’s not the point. As if our modern cosmonautics would not close. Now it will be scary.
  4. -2
    14 November 2018 11: 03
    It turns out that "Kalashnikov" also climbed into space? Will rockets and reusable shuttles be launched?
    1. +7
      14 November 2018 11: 10
      He did not crawl into space, he crawled into real estate in Tushino ...
  5. IGU
    +4
    14 November 2018 11: 06
    Having taken off a head through hair do not cry ...
  6. +6
    14 November 2018 11: 09
    Is the Soviet program “Energy-Buran” still not closed?
    The Soviet program did not close at all! laughing
    They drag everything from the archives of the Soviets, and then wipe their hands, there are reserves for a century in front of yet progress for Russia .... bully
    1. +6
      14 November 2018 11: 19
      Modern menezhars are not so scrupulous .... these are the merits of someone else’s cleaned up / forget, they are at once.
      Okay, I think the ancestors forgave b and that, they are GREAT, if only it would go to the good of the people and the country !!!
  7. 0
    14 November 2018 11: 15
    Even so, do not pull this program of today's Russia.
  8. +1
    14 November 2018 11: 20
    The Buran-Energy program is such a victory that is hard to imagine. But tagged ruined everything.
    I hope that at least part of the unique technologies that were not handed over to "Western partners" for a carrot have survived from the project.
  9. +2
    14 November 2018 11: 28
    There were people like people, and all at once cretins became a friend ... Paradox.
    1. -3
      14 November 2018 11: 43
      By the way, despite your irony, the question really has a place to be - how did it happen that the citizens of the country with the best education in the world and the fairest social order with joyful laughter pulled the country apart?
      Or people like that, or order.
  10. +7
    14 November 2018 11: 31
    The so-called "perestroika" began, and the country's leadership had other tasks. One of them is to feed the people.
    Stunning cynicism: the task of "feeding the people" was a consequence of that very mediocre "perestroika", the main task of which was how to rob the people. The goal, it must be admitted, was fully realized.
    1. -6
      14 November 2018 11: 45
      Yes, the Soviet government has this task to "feed the people" from its very foundation.
      And all the time, something was in the way - civil war, Great Patriotic War, stagnation, perestroika ... so it was not possible to feed. As a result, the people spat on this matter, and began to feed themselves.
      1. +3
        14 November 2018 13: 47
        In your opinion, perestroika and the subsequent people started? How old are you? Did you lively watch what was happening, or judge by the fact that they are getting involved in the media and at school?
  11. +7
    14 November 2018 11: 43
    I remember my admiration for the moment when Buran touched the runway, then the Soviet cosmonautics seemed to have a great future ... More recently, the mission Vega1 and Vega2 ended brilliantly, two Phobos flew to Mars, and the Mir station grew in orbit ...
    How ..... could SUCH ........?
    1. 0
      14 November 2018 12: 16
      Unfortunately, the creation of Buran killed other much more promising projects - aerospace single-stage aircraft M 19 and Tu 2000, as well as the Spiral air launch system.
      1. +3
        14 November 2018 13: 45
        Quote: Vadim237
        Unfortunately, the creation of Buran stabbed other much more promising projects.

        It is now that we know many aspects of this program, but then 30 years ago we saw the triumph of Soviet cosmonautics. Yes, we didn’t have much, we couldn’t and didn’t get support, but what groundwork was created and how epic it was to love ...
  12. +5
    14 November 2018 12: 07
    The most interesting thing is that you can still roll into Kazakhstan and feel the second flight model, item 1.02 Storm and OK-MT - a technical layout. They stand in an abandoned hangar, have virtually no protection.


    1. +9
      14 November 2018 12: 26
      Yeah .. The remnants of a more advanced civilization.
      By the way, the authors of the pictures were already screwed by the same guards. Managed to flash a flash drive ...
  13. +2
    14 November 2018 12: 22
    With new technology
    Buran with a nuclear engine, this is a breakthrough in space!
  14. +5
    14 November 2018 12: 48
    From the project a lot of things went into the economy, and not only into the military. It's just that we don't talk about it. But those who are in the subject or just know how to compare facts know. A lot of things have gone on this project why the secrecy label will never be removed. For example, a little who remembers that before the blizzard was launched, a "mock-up" of a combat laser station was launched. What does this mean? That at that time we already had a powerful compact chemical combat laser. Or, for example, when the Buran landed, the deviation of the trajectory line was +/- After that, the hitting accuracy of our shock complexes suddenly increased sharply, and for some samples it became higher than that of the sworn "partners". Light heat-resistant composites. This is so, on the surface, what lies on the surface.
  15. 0
    14 November 2018 13: 08
    I’m never an expert, but I read that Buran was initially flawed compared to American shuttles and was doomed for the following reason: the most expensive thing in a spacecraft is engines and control systems. Unlike shuttles, Buran had only shunting engines. The main engines and control systems were carried by the Energia rocket, and it was very expensive and disposable. In other words, the rocket, along with expensive engines and control systems, died during the launch, hence the enormous costs and losses. In the case of American shuttles, only relatively cheap fuel tanks died during launches, hence the great economic efficiency.
    Please understand me correctly, I don’t directly or indirectly want to beat the Buran program, but maybe someone from the experts will comment on this opinion?
    1. +2
      14 November 2018 15: 21
      The first stage of Energy was supposed to be made reusable. Apparently they did not have time to work out this function. But the shuttle is also not going smoothly with reusability.
      https://topwar.ru/136809-programma-speys-shattl-chto-poluchilos-a-chto-net.html
      1. +1
        14 November 2018 15: 34
        The first stage of Energy was supposed to be made reusable

        They also planned to save the central block. We did not manage to implement it.
    2. 0
      14 November 2018 18: 38
      Energy is a rocket launcher. She herself could throw 100 tons of cargo. A snowstorm is one of the options for the cargo. In energy, the first steps are reusable. They went down by parachute.
    3. +1
      14 November 2018 18: 41
      Unlike the shuttles, the snowstorm still did not drag the weight of marching engines into orbit. There are many nuances. The systems are different. They probably are not correctly compared.
      1. -2
        14 November 2018 20: 39
        Ours went the more expensive way, the Shuttle had a fuel tank and two reusable turbojet engines, and ours made an extra-heavy rocket - a more complex and expensive device, respectively, for putting Buran into orbit.
  16. 0
    14 November 2018 18: 42
    Energy is a cool carrier without being tied to a snowstorm.
    1. 0
      14 November 2018 20: 40
      The launch price tag at the moment will also be very cool.
  17. 0
    15 November 2018 14: 28
    Quote: bouncyhunter
    Recently there was a show on NatGeo about cosmochelnoki, so the mattresses there directly said that "Buran" is better than their shuttles. But they also stated directly that both programs were closed due to the exorbitant cost. Disingenuous, of course: shuttle crashes also played an important role in the closure, IMHO.

    Well, what they say on TV is not always true. The machines are of approximately the same order. With approximately the same carrying capacity. The characteristic difference between our carrier and theirs is universalism. They could "pull out" the shuttle, they could "Pole", they could even HZ that. For the Americans, the carrier as such could not be used for anything else. Although one of our first options was exactly a copy of the Shuttle according to the withdrawal scheme.
    The accidents did not really play a role in the closure. There were two accidents, but they did not play a special role in the closure of the program. The first was on January 28, 1986, when the Challenger exploded during the launching phase, and the second on January 16, 2003, when the Columbia shuttle collapsed while landing in the upper atmosphere. The last, final flight under the Space Shuttle program was on July 8, 2011 (Shuttle Atlantis). That is, 8,5 years after the accident, "Columbia"
    But the fact that the cost of the program turned out to be prohibitive is true. While creating this transport system, the Americans planned that each ship would make at least 1 flights into space. Secondly, the interflight period will be short and not very expensive. Therefore, with 100 flights a year (every week the next shuttle is launched) and 2 flights for each, the cost would be less than for one-off. But the interflight cycle turned out to be quite long and costly. The number of launches of 52 per year could never have been achieved. This means that the cost was much higher than that of disposable ones. EMNIP is their most expensive launch - "Delta-100 Heavy" something about 52 million, and the shuttle - about 4 million. But nevertheless, it was a milestone project and a total of 180 flights were made.

    Quote: Aibolit
    1.Package scheme with a parallel arrangement of steps and ONLY lateral arrangement of a payload

    Not certainly in that way. It’s just that on two launches this exact payload scheme was used. On other options, another scheme was possible, classic
  18. 0
    15 November 2018 19: 48
    Decision No. 245-25 / 05-193 of the Council of Chief Designers to consider the program of work on the Energia-M and Energia-Buran systems for 1993 and their financing

    http://www.buran.ru/other/sgk_245-25_05-93.pdf
  19. 0
    15 November 2018 20: 10
    Quote: Aibolit

    LV "Vostok" 8K72
    1 September 23, 1958 E-1-1 Baikonur PU No. 1/5 Launch vehicle accident
    2 October 12, 1958 E-1-2 Baikonur PU No. 1/5 LV accident
    December 3 4, 1958 E-1-3 Baikonur PU No. 1/5 Launch vehicle accident
    4 January 2, 1959 Luna-1 Baikonur PU No. 1/5 The main task of the flight was not completed. Luna-1 became the world's first artificial satellite of the Sun
    5 June 18, 1959 Luna-2A Baikonur PU No. 1/5 Launch vehicle accident
    Reliability ZERO
    however 8K72K
    April 12, 1961 Vostok-1 (Vostok) Baikonur PU No. 1/5 Success. First manned flight

    Desa!
    Vostok-L LV 8K72 - 13 launches - 7 accidents - reliability 0,4615
    LV "Vostok" 8K72K - (before Gagarin's flight) - 3 launches - 1 accident - reliability 0,6666

    April 12, 1961 "Vostok-1" - 4th launch of the Vostok launch vehicle - success - reliability 0,75

    Vostok LV 8K72K - 13 launches - 2 accidents - reliability 0,8461

    NO reliability ZERO!