Reusable booster "Corona"

Today, many of us know, or at least have heard about, the family of US partially reusable launch vehicles from the private company SpaceX. Thanks to the success of the company, as well as the personality of the founder Ilona Mask, who himself often becomes the hero of information guides, Falcon 9 missiles, SpaceX and space flights in general do not leave the pages of the international press. At the same time, Russia had and still has its own development and equally interesting projects of reusable rockets, about which much less is known. The answer to the question why this is happening is obvious. Ilona Mask’s rockets regularly fly into space, and reusable and partially reusable Russian rockets are still only projects, drawings and beautiful pictures in presentations.


Space launches today

Nowadays, we can safely say that at some point Roskosmos missed the topic of reusable rockets, having in its hands developments and projects that were ahead of other countries by several years. All projects of Russian reusable rockets were never completed, not implemented in the metal. For example, the reusable single-stage corona carrier rocket developed from 1992 to 2012 was never brought to its logical conclusion. The result of this miscalculation in the development we are seeing today. Russia seriously lost ground in the market of commercial space launches with the advent of the American Falcon 9 rocket and its varieties, and also seriously inferior to the number of space launches completed in the year. Following the results of 2018, Roskosmos reported on 20 space launches (one unsuccessful), while in April 2018, in an interview with TASS, the head of Roscosmos Igor Komarov told us that 30 space launches are scheduled to be completed by the end of the year. The leader of last year was China, which carried out 39 space launches (one unsuccessful), followed by the United States with the 31 space launch (no unsuccessful ones).

Speaking about modern space flights, it is necessary to understand that in the total price of launching a modern launch vehicle (PH), the main item of expenditure is the rocket itself. Its hull, fuel tanks, engines - all this flies away forever, burns in dense layers of the atmosphere, it is clear that such irretrievable waste makes any launch of the launch vehicle into a very expensive pleasure. Not the maintenance of space centers, not fuel, not installation work before launch, but the price of the launch vehicle itself is the main expense item. A very sophisticated technological product of engineering thought is used in minutes, after which it is completely destroyed. Naturally, this is true for disposable missiles. The idea of ​​using returning rocket begs here by itself, as a real chance to reduce the cost of each space launch. In this case, even the return of only the first stage makes the cost of each run lower.


The landing of the return of the first stage of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle


It was a similar scheme that was realized by the American billionaire Ilon Musk, making the return of the first stage of a heavy Falcon 9 booster. While the first stage of these missiles is partially returned, some landing attempts end in failure, but the number of unsuccessful landings dropped to almost zero in 2017 and 2018. For example, last year at the 10 successful first-touchdowns there was only one setback. In this new year, the company SpaceX also opened the successful landing of the first stage. 11 January 2019, the first stage of the Falcon 9 rocket successfully landed on a floating platform, moreover, it was reused, and earlier it also launched the Telestar 18V communication satellite in September 2018. At present, such returnable first steps are an accomplished fact. But when representatives of the American private space company only talked about their project, many experts doubted the possibility of its successful implementation.

In today's reality, the first stage of the heavy-duty Falcon 9 rocket in some launches can be used in the return version. Taking the second stage of the rocket to a sufficient height, it is separated from it at a height of the order of 70 kilometers, undocking occurs approximately 2,5 minutes after the launch of the carrier rocket (time depends on the specific launch tasks). After separation from the PH, the first stage, using the established orientation system, performs a small maneuver, moving away from the flames of the second stage operating engines, and turns the engines forward in preparation for the three basic braking maneuvers. When landing for braking the first stage uses its own engines. It is worth noting that the return stage imposes its limitations on the launch. For example, the maximum payload of the Falcon 9 rocket is reduced by 30-40 percent. This is due to the need to reserve fuel for braking and subsequent landing, as well as an additional mass of installed landing equipment (grid steering wheels, landing supports, elements of the control system, etc.).

The successes of the Americans and the large series of successful launches did not go unnoticed in the world, which provoked a series of statements about the start of projects using partial reusable rockets, including returning side accelerators and the first stage back to Earth. Representatives of "Roskosmos" also spoke on this matter. The Company started talking about the resumption of work on the creation of reusable rockets in Russia at the beginning of 2017.

Reusable booster "Corona"

Crown Booster - general view


Reusable rocket "Crown" and earlier projects

It is worth noting that the idea of ​​reusable missiles was engaged in the Soviet Union. After the collapse of the country, this topic has not disappeared, work in this direction continued. They began much earlier than Ilon Musk spoke about it. For example, the units of the first stage of the super-heavy Soviet “Energy” rocket should have been returned, it was necessary for economic reasons and to realize the service life of the RD-170 engines designed for at least 10 flights.

Less well-known is the Rossiyanka launch vehicle project, which was developed by specialists of the Academician V. P. Makeev State Rocket Center. This enterprise is mainly known for its military developments. For example, it was here that the majority of domestic ballistic missiles designed to arm submarines, including those currently armed with submarines, were created fleet Russian ballistic missiles R-29RMU "Sineva".

According to the draft, Rossiyanka was a two-stage launch vehicle, the first stage of which was reusable. Essentially the same idea as SpaceX engineers, but several years earlier. The rocket was supposed to bring tons of cargo into a low reference orbit of 21,5 — close to the Falcon 9 rocket. The return of the first stage should have taken place along a ballistic trajectory due to the re-activation of the standard stage engines. If necessary, the capacity of the rocket could be brought to 35 tons. December 12 The Makeev State Research Center presented its new rocket at the Roscosmos competition for developing reusable launch vehicles, but the order to create such devices went to competitors of the Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center with the Baikal-Angara project. Most likely, the specialists of the SRC Makeyev would have enough competence to implement their project, but without sufficient attention and funding this was impossible.



The project "Baikal-Angara" was even more ambitious, it was an aircraft version of the return to Earth of the first stage. It was planned that after reaching the set height of the compartment, a special wing would open at the first stage and then it would fly along an airplane with a landing at a conventional airfield with landing gear. However, such a system in itself is not only very complicated, but also expensive. Her undeniable merits could be attributed to the fact that she could return from a greater distance. Unfortunately, the project was never implemented, it is sometimes remembered, but no more.

Now the world is already thinking about fully returned launch vehicles. Ilon Mask announced the project Big Falcon Rocket. Such a rocket should receive a two-stage architecture, uncharacteristic of modern astronautics, its second stage is integral with the spacecraft, which can be both cargo and passenger. It is planned that the first stage of the Superheavy will return back to Earth, performing a vertical landing on the cosmodrome through the use of its engines, this technology has already been well developed by SpaceX engineers. The second stage of the rocket together with the spacecraft (in fact, this is a spacecraft of different purposes), which was called Starship, will go into Earth orbit. At the second stage, there will also be enough fuel left to perform braking in dense layers of the atmosphere after landing the space mission and land on a sea platform.

It should be noted that in a similar idea, SpaceX also does not have a palm. In Russia, the reusable launch vehicle project has been developed since the 1990-s. And again, they worked on the project at the State Rocket Center named after academician V.P. Makeev. The project of a reusable Russian rocket has the beautiful name "Crown". Roscosmos recalled this project in 2017, followed by various comments about the resumption of this project. For example, in January, 2018 appeared in Rossiyskaya Gazeta. news that Russia has resumed work on a reusable space rocket. It was just about the rocket carrier "Crown".



Unlike the American Falcon-9 rocket, the Russian Corona does not have detachable stages, in fact, it is a single spacecraft of soft takeoff and landing. According to Vladimir Degtyar, General Designer of the Makeyev Center, this project should open the way to the implementation of long-range interplanetary manned flights. It is planned that the main structural material of the new Russian rocket will be carbon fiber. At the same time, the “Crown” is intended for launching spacecraft into low near-earth orbits with a height from 200 to 500 kilometers. The launch weight of the PH is about 300 tons. Output payload mass from 7 to 12 tons. The take-off and landing of the Crown should be carried out using simplified launch facilities, in addition to this, the option of launching a reusable rocket from offshore platforms is being worked out. For takeoff and landing, the new PH will be able to use the same platform. The preparation of the rocket for the next launch is only about a day.

It should be noted that carbon fiber materials needed to create single-stage and reusable rockets have been used in aerospace engineering since the 90-s of the last century. Since the beginning of the 1990-ies, the Crown project has come a long way of development and has evolved significantly, is it necessary to say that initially it was about a one-time rocket. In the process of evolution, the design of the future rocket became both simpler and more perfect. Gradually, the developers of the rocket abandoned the use of wings and external fuel tanks, having come to understand that the main material of the reusable rocket body will be carbon fiber.

In the latest to date version of the reusable rocket "Crown", its mass is close to the mark in 280-290 tons. Such a large single-stage launch vehicle requires a highly efficient liquid-propellant rocket engine that would operate on hydrogen and oxygen. Unlike rocket engines, which are placed on separate stages, such a rocket engine must operate effectively in different conditions and at different altitudes, including takeoff and flight outside the Earth’s atmosphere. “An ordinary LRE with Laval nozzles is effective only at certain ranges of heights,” say the Makeevsky constructors, “for this reason we came to the need to use a wedge-air liquid engine”. The gas jet in such rocket engines itself adapts itself to the pressure “overboard”, moreover, they retain their effectiveness both at the Earth’s surface and high enough in the stratosphere.


PH "Corona" in orbital flight with a closed payload compartment, render


However, so far in the world there simply isn’t a working engine of this type, although they were actively engaged in their development in the USSR and in the USA. Experts believe that the reusable Korona launch vehicle should be equipped with a modular engine, in which the air-wedge nozzle is the only element that currently has no prototype and has not been worked out in practice. At the same time, there are technologists in the production of modern composite materials and parts from them in Russia. They are being developed and applied quite successfully, for example, at OJSC “Composite” and the All-Russian Institute of Aviation Materials (VIAM).

For a safe flight in the atmosphere of the Earth, the Corona carbon fiber power structure will be protected by heat protection tiles, which had previously been developed at VIAM for the Buran spacecraft and has since undergone a significant development path. "The main thermal load on the Crown will be concentrated on its nose, where high-temperature thermal protection elements are applied," the designers note. - At the same time, the expanding sides of the launch vehicle have a larger diameter and are located at an acute angle to the air flow. The temperature load on these elements is less, and this, in turn, allows us to use lighter materials. The result is a saving in the order of 1,5 tons of weight. The mass of the high-temperature part of the rocket does not exceed the 6 of the Corona in percent of the total mass of thermal protection. For comparison, in the space shuttles "Shuttle" it accounted for more than 20 percent. "

The elegant cone-shaped form of a reusable rocket was the result of a huge amount of trial and error. According to the developers, working on the project, they considered and evaluated hundreds of different options. “We decided to completely abandon the wings, like the Space Shuttle or on the Buran ship,” the developers say. - By and large, when in the upper layers of the atmosphere, spacecraft wings only interfere. Such spaceships do not enter the atmosphere at a hypersonic speed better than the “iron”, and only at supersonic speed do they go on to horizontal flight, after which they can fully rely on the aerodynamics of the wings. ”



The conical axisymmetric shape of the rocket allows not only to facilitate heat protection, but also to provide it with good aerodynamic qualities when driving at high flight speeds. Already being in the upper layers of the atmosphere, the "Crown" receives a lifting force that allows the rocket not only to slow down, but also to perform maneuvers. This allows the RN to maneuver at high altitude when flying to the landing site, in the future it remains only to complete the braking process, adjust its course, turn stern down using small shunting engines, and land on the Earth.

The problem of the project is that Corona is still being developed in the conditions of insufficient funding or its complete absence. At the present time, only a draft project on this topic has been completed at the Makeev State Research Center. According to the data sounded during the XLII Academic readings in astronautics in 2018, feasibility studies were carried out and an effective rocket development schedule was drawn up for the Corona launch project. The necessary conditions for the creation of a new launch vehicle were investigated and the perspectives and results of both the development process and the future operation of the new rocket were analyzed.

After a surge in news about the Crown project in 2017 and 2018, silence reappears ... The perspectives of the project and its implementation are still unclear. Meanwhile, SpaceX is already preparing to present a test sample of its new Big Falcon Rocket (BFR) in the summer of 2019. From the creation of a test sample to a full-fledged rocket, which will confirm its reliability and performance, it may take many more years, but for now we can say: Ilon Mask and his company are doing things that you can see and touch with your hands. At the same time, according to Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, Roskosmos should be finished with a project and talk about where we will fly in the future. Need to talk less and do more.

Information sources:
https://iz.ru
https://www.popmech.ru
http://www.spacephys.ru
https://vpk.name
https://rg.ru
Open source materials
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Hole puncher 31 January 2019 06: 03 New
    • 17
    • 5
    +12
    The author forgot to mention that the Crown is our answer to the American Delta Clipper and has completely repeated it. That's only when ours thought about the Crown, the Americans have already closed the project. It seems that this put an end to the Crown.
    1. Hole puncher 31 January 2019 06: 44 New
      • 15
      • 3
      +12
      Delta Clipper DC-X, prototype of the Crown.
      1. dla94 31 January 2019 11: 28 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Also remembered this "pepelats". Noble fireworks were on emergency landing.
        "DC-X (Delta Clipper Experimental) is a prototype single-stage reusable rocket, which was developed first by McDonnell Douglas and then NASA. According to the results of eight tests that ended in 1996, the maximum flight altitude was about 3 km." (C)
        http://kosmolenta.com/index.php/779-2015-12-22-rocket-landing-history
        The idea at the modern level of materials science and flaw detection is not real. But, if you cut money on R&D - just right. Well, you cannot fool Tsiolkovsky’s formula.
        1. Hole puncher 31 January 2019 13: 07 New
          • 4
          • 2
          +2
          Quote: dla94
          The idea at the modern level of materials science and flaw detection is not real.

          So they were preparing for suborbital flights, out of Bezos practically made Shepard, for 100 km. throws ...
    2. Mordvin 3 31 January 2019 07: 49 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      Quote: Puncher
      That's only when ours thought about the Crown, the Americans have already closed the project.

      Nothing, right now they read on Twitter what Musk came up with there, and they’ll make a new one:
      effective missile development schedule.
      by adding to the "Crown" of additional steps. Maybe not fall. wink
    3. svp67 31 January 2019 08: 51 New
      • 9
      • 2
      +7
      Quote: Puncher
      It seems that this put an end to the Crown.

      But what beautiful drawings .... but the Falcon is already flying ...
  2. Hole puncher 31 January 2019 06: 08 New
    • 8
    • 2
    +6
    For a safe flight in the Earth’s atmosphere, the Corona’s carbon-fiber power structure will be protected by heat-shielding tiles, which were previously developed at VIAM for the Buran spacecraft and have since passed a significant development path.

    The problem with the choice of material ... Composite housing for reusable systems is not suitable, because at high temperatures, the strength of the composite decreases, and the use of ceramic tiles makes the design heavier. In this regard, the departure of the Mask to a steel structure with internal cooling is more rational.
    The problem with the materials, by the way, was one of the reasons for the closure of a similar project from LM, which worked on the X-33 in the late 90s.
  3. merkava-2bet 31 January 2019 06: 15 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    I just can’t understand everything, they gave up vertical take-off and vertical landing. Vertical take-off and horizontal landing with the help of a folding wing and braking with the help of parachutes, you can still attach a pair of turbofan engines for a controlled flight, and you're done. I think it’s safer and more profitable.
    1. Hole puncher 31 January 2019 06: 39 New
      • 10
      • 1
      +9
      Quote: merkava-2bet
      I just can’t understand everything, they surrendered to them vertical take-off and vertical landing

      Vertical landing has many advantages.
      1. No super runway needed. For landing the shuttles there were high requirements for the runway, they should be oooooooooooooooooooooooooo smooth, when we did the runway for Buran, the requirements were (for memory) a drop of one centimeter per 100 meters. To do this, they bought expensive equipment for the construction of runways abroad. Part of the Americans sat on a salt lake with a very smooth surface.
      With a vertical landing, a concrete platform, or generally a platform on a barge, is sufficient.
      2. Thermal protection is not needed (at least for 1 stage Falcon9), because braking is done by engines, not the body.
      3. With a horizontal landing, increased hull strength, developed aerodynamic surfaces and reinforced chassis are necessary, which increases the mass of spacecraft, which is undesirable.
      In a vertical landing, the same starting engines are used and additional strength is not needed, landing bearings and rudders certainly add weight, but much less than the above.
      1. merkava-2bet 31 January 2019 10: 06 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        2. Thermal protection is not needed (at least for 1 stage Falcon9), because braking is done by engines, not the body.
        3. With a horizontal landing, increased hull strength, developed aerodynamic surfaces and reinforced chassis are necessary, which increases the mass of spacecraft, which is undesirable.

        I don’t quite agree about these two points. Now I’ll explain why.
        1) I like the layout of the Crown itself, one step and all. This greatly simplifies the design and reduces the cost, the lack of a taxiway in the second step and also disposable. Modern heat-shielding materials, both reusable and disposable, have taken a long step forward. My suggestion is to spray thermal protection after each landing, with the help of robotic systems, or an inflatable disposable heat shield that will dramatically increase the total surface area (windage) when leaving the orbit with a sharp decrease in temperature flows to the rocket’s body, For the combined method, you can think about (breathable) insulation with active cooling with water, at the time the British were experimenting with it, an example of the concept of Skylon.
        A horizontal landing does not require requirements like during take-off, the mass of a reusable rocket (ship) will be minimal, almost all fuel will be used. And most importantly, you can bleed off the oxidizer O2, the security will increase dramatically compared to a vertical landing. And besides, super-airfields usual with a strip of 3500 meters is enough for the eyes, and if installed on a ship turbofan engine in retractable gondolas, it will be possible to distill it to other airfields and even other countries, and in order to increase thrust-to-weight ratio and safety during the stretch, then it is necessary to hang temporary additional turbofan engines, easily removable.
        Well, that's all, your opinion comrades.
        1. Mordvin 3 31 January 2019 11: 14 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: merkava-2bet
          I like the layout of the Crown itself, one step and all. This greatly simplifies the design and reduces the cost, the lack of taxiway in the second step and also disposable.

          The mask on the "starship" the first step is supposed to be reusable.
          1. merkava-2bet 31 January 2019 11: 19 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Do not quite understand you?
            1. Mordvin 3 31 January 2019 11: 25 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Quote: merkava-2bet
              Do not quite understand you?

              In terms of BFR, Musk renamed. The manned part and the upper stages will be called Starship (starship), and the reused lower stage will be called Super Heavy (super-heavy - the first stage). He wrote about this on Twitter recently.
              1. merkava-2bet 31 January 2019 11: 29 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                As you call a yacht, so it will sail.
              2. spech 2 February 2019 11: 27 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                He wrote about this on Twitter recently.

                Before puffing or after?
        2. DimerVladimer 31 January 2019 13: 29 New
          • 9
          • 0
          +9
          Quote: merkava-2bet
          inflatable disposable heat shield,


          that pressurized can withstand heat transfer of thousands of degrees? Amused.
          Heat protection weight from 7% of the total weight of the returned device

          Quote: merkava-2bet
          I like the layout of the Crown itself, one step and that’s it.


          The dubious merit is to drag into orbit ballast in the form of marching engines, shells of fuel tanks, highways. At the same time, pressure must be relieved from the tanks in orbit, and when entering the atmosphere, pressurized again so that they can withstand the load - that is, at least pressure accumulators are needed - if for some reason the tanks are not pressurized or will be insufficient (leaks) then the system will lose strength - a dubious advantage.

          Quote: merkava-2bet
          .And the main thing is that you can bleed O2 oxidizer, the safety increases sharply,

          Enchanting naivete statement - you do not seem to imagine that only the boost prevents the load-bearing tanks of the PH from forming. If you relieve pressure in the tanks - the tanks will doubt under the influence of the payload at the start. Supercharging allows saving on the wall thickness of tanks. In addition, tanks of rockets with LRE are pressurized with nitrogen.

          Quote: merkava-2bet
          With a horizontal landing, requirements are not required as during take-off, the mass of a reusable rocket (ship) will be minimal, almost all fuel is used.


          Another enchanting suggestion on naivety is that LVs are designed for vertical loading. You suggest loading it also in the transverse direction - these are tons of metal in shells and frames. Vertical start and vertical landing provide unidirectional loads.

          Quote: merkava-2bet
          or a combined method, one might think of (breathing) thermal insulation with active water cooling, at one time the British experimented with it, an example of the Skylon concept.


          Which no one undertakes to realize, since the fantasies of the authors surpass the existing technical capabilities. There, only the development of a dual-mode engine will pull for 15 years with a very expensive experimental part.

          My opinion is that you should go to a specialized university with such enthusiasm. A lot of naive would have fallen.
          I was the same when at 17 I made a choice ....
          1. prodi 31 January 2019 16: 50 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Now, if the first step fluttered by parachute into the ocean - compared to the vertically landing Falcon - what has changed?
            1. Blackmokona 1 February 2019 11: 17 New
              • 2
              • 2
              0
              Contact with seawater. NASA was so hard on it during the Shuttle (His side boosters were in contact with seawater and then reused)
              That, for example, on the Dragon (Cargo ship) requires replacing all parts that came into contact with sea water during repeated flights.
              Seawater radically increases the cost of recovery for a second flight
          2. prodi 31 January 2019 17: 09 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: DimerVladimer
            Another enchanting suggestion on naivety is that LVs are designed for vertical loading. You suggest loading it also in the transverse direction - these are tons of metal in shells and frames. Vertical start and vertical landing provide unidirectional loads.

            those. it must be understood that the "packet" load (Energy, Shuttle) is written off to the archive?
            1. DimerVladimer 1 February 2019 14: 21 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: prodi
              those. it must be understood that the "packet" load (Energy, Shuttle) is written off to the archive


              Practically, in the form in which he thought. I will not list all the shortcomings of the system - a brief summary:
              2 lost crews (emergency rescue of astronauts at launch and landing was not supposed to be reserved at all - let's see if space-X will be saved the same way)
              an order of magnitude difference in the cost of the output payload, from the promised by the developers - this is not even a fiasco, it is a huge scam for knocking out funds from Congress.
              As a result, risky manned flights for launch vehicles, where it was possible to get by with the automation of ordinary launch vehicles.

              Reusable ships, designed for hundreds of launches, will become obsolete faster than they exhaust their resources.
              Even the newest versions of the shuttles used computers with outdated processor architecture, programs were loaded from magnetic tape ...

              As for the scheme - batch layout and in the first stage p-7 / union is applied.
          3. merkava-2bet 31 January 2019 19: 56 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            that pressurized can withstand heat transfer of thousands of degrees? Amused.
            Heat protection weight from 7% of the total weight of the returned device

            And what surprises you is that it was developed in the USSR and the USA, and Russia tested it in the 90s. Now they are doing it both in Israel and Germany. With regard to 7% of the mass, my friend, you all look at the Space Shuttles and the Burana, which are already antiquated. My university, in Israel, is developing an active cooling system, which already can withstand heating at 2500 ° C, I kept it myself, and the refrigerant is ordinary distilled water, and the thermal protection was created on a model of an aerospace apparatus, moreover, a joint project with the USA and Germany with France, by the way there are a lot of Russ oyazychnyh doctors and professorov.Chto most interesting, active protection is very simple, due to perenassyschennogo pair of screen effect, created teplobarer and the outer side will be heated to a maximum of 400 ° S.Tak that I did not invent anything.
            1. DimerVladimer 1 February 2019 14: 42 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: merkava-2bet
              In my university, in Israel, an active cooling system is being developed, which already freely withstands heating at 2500 ° C, it was kept by itself, and the refrigerant was ordinary distilled water, and the thermal protection was created on a model of an aerospace apparatus, moreover, a joint project with the USA and Germany with France


              And what - have you already provided an appropriate gradient of gas flow rates and a density gradient on a laboratory scale?
              I suppose, at best, your institute used a supersonic test bench for gas-dynamic research and heated the system with external influence ...

              And at the same time, what water flow rate should be per unit surface area, I wonder what total amount of refrigerant will have to be dragged into orbit? How is it supposed to provide heating of the water source in orbit? + pressure accumulator for displacement, + intake device for a guaranteed intake (at least a pressure siphon). At the same time, it is necessary to ensure 100% reliability and redundancy of the main system if manned ships are going to be launched on this principle.

              What works great in the laboratory, as a rule, refuses to work in space.
              The choice of refrigerant is dubious - the efficiency of liquid nitrogen is clearly higher, and it is safer to store it.

              I believe that before setting a task, you should ask about the conditions for storing refrigerant in operating mode in outer space.
          4. Xazarin 24 March 2019 14: 52 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            I have one naive fantasy, I’ll ask you to land me). Why is it impossible to start not from the surface but from the stratosphere, lifting the launch complex with helium? I understand that it’s a fantastic fantasy, but nothing more than a space elevator.
            1. DimerVladimer 26 March 2019 11: 20 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              The main task is not to raise, but to accelerate to 7,9 km / s.
              Acceleration to this speed requires certain energy costs - even in the stratosphere.
              This is a hundred tons accelerator + PN.
              That would raise the required weight of the accelerator into the stratosphere - the stratostat should be of cyclopean size.
              Therefore, an aircraft - a carrier with a similar carrying capacity, a more viable option - we may see practical tests soon. Stratolaunch Systems.


  4. Login_Off 31 January 2019 06: 24 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    According to Vladimir Degtyar, General Designer of Makeev Center, this project must open the way to the implementation of long-range interplanetary manned flights. It is planned that the main structural material of the new Russian missile will be carbon fiber. At the same time, the “Crown” is designed to launch spacecraft into low Earth orbits from 200 to 500 kilometers high. The launch weight of the launch vehicle is about 300 tons. The mass of the output payload is from 7 to 12 tons.

    Better forget it.
  5. Angelo Provolone 31 January 2019 06: 55 New
    • 2
    • 5
    -3
    Reusability is not profitable. Disposable ships are used to test new systems.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=560&v=NJRLEu2qpoA

    Play from 7:50.
    1. Hole puncher 31 January 2019 07: 31 New
      • 8
      • 2
      +6
      Quote: Angelo Provolone
      Reusability is not profitable. Disposable ships are used to test new systems.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=560&v=NJRLEu2qpoA

      Play from 7:50.

      You repeat someone else's insanity. Think with your own head.
      1. DimerVladimer 31 January 2019 13: 47 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        Quote: Puncher
        You repeat someone else's insanity. Think with your own head.


        What do you know about reusable pH?
        You know the exact numbers, how much space X puts into the engine bulkhead after the flight? Replacement of TNA, membrane valves, TNA gas generator, combustion chamber + nozzles, nozzle replacement.
        So at a discount - 70% of the engine (both in value and in quantitative terms) after several minutes of operation, requires replacement, or these parts will weigh two to three times more to ensure their partial reusability - let's say 10-20 starts .
        The remaining 30% of the parts (pipelines, shut-off valves, etc.) will require a long audit.

        And here the main thing is to observe a compromise, for how many launches, one-time use is more profitable, and for what investments in the restoration of the engine resource, the reusability becomes unprofitable.
        I’m afraid that no one knows the answer :)
        1. voyaka uh 31 January 2019 15: 05 New
          • 6
          • 1
          +5
          "how many space X does it put into the engine bulkhead after the flight? Replacing the TNA, membrane valves, TNA gas generator, combustion chamber + nozzles, replacing the nozzle" ////
          ----
          Not at all. Nothing burns. The engine is loaded at 60% of maximum power. Visual inspection and all. A second flight is possible after 48 hours. But they want to bring to 24.
          Time delays due to transportation from the launch pad to the launch pad and loading of new satellites (main delay time).
          Bulkhead engine is scheduled after 10 flights.
          1. DimerVladimer 31 January 2019 15: 23 New
            • 4
            • 1
            +3
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Not at all. Nothing burns. The engine is loaded at 60% of maximum power. Visual inspection and all. A second flight is possible after 48 hours. But they want to bring to 24.
            Time delays due to transportation from the launch pad to the launch pad and loading of new satellites (main delay time).
            Bulkhead engine is scheduled after 10 flights.


            I came across other information - from 30 to 70 days a bulkhead. Replacement of which parts except TNA is not reported.
            A visual inspection, this is of course strong - but I wouldn’t launch a satellite worth under one and a half to two billion ...

            As for "nothing is burned out" - the critical section of the nozzle and the inner jacket of the nozzle are uniquely exposed to high thermal loads and require revision after fire tests, not to mention a full start.
            1. voyaka uh 31 January 2019 15: 31 New
              • 6
              • 1
              +5
              They have - official! - goal: 2 launches of the same stage within 48 hours.
              I think that your info on the first missiles, not Block 5.
              Do not forget that the best engineers in America work at SpaceX. Both technologists and designers. After a tough competition, graduates of the best universities work as interns for free! Because writing in CV "worked for Mask" is a pass to any serious company. The results can not be.
              1. DimerVladimer 31 January 2019 15: 36 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: voyaka uh
                I think that your info on the first missiles, not Block 5.


                Maybe. I would be very obliged to you if you gave a link to the official publication of CX, where they confirm this possibility.

                Let's say RD-170 is certified for 10 times use, that is, it is a very decent resource for 15-20 minutes in the design mode with a one-time inclusion, say no more than 90-180 seconds.
                1. voyaka uh 31 January 2019 21: 06 New
                  • 4
                  • 0
                  +4
                  Here is their "official mouthpiece," so to speak ...
                  https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-falcon-9-landing-iridium-fairing-catch/
                  Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters should be capable of launching anywhere from
                  10 to 100 times, 10 times with minimal or no refurbishment and 100 times
                  with more regular maintenance, ...
                  (10 times without bulkhead)
                  On the horizon, of course, is SpaceX CEO Elon Musk's challenge to launch
                  a Falcon 9 Block 5 booster two times in less than 24 hours,
                  and do so before the end of 2019. (2 times in 24 hours)
                  They have a booster that successfully flew 3 times. They are going to dryuch
                  a few more times. So let's see how it goes.
                  1. Mordvin 3 31 January 2019 23: 25 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: voyaka uh
                    So let's see how it goes.

                    Warrior, are you going to Mars too?
                    1. voyaka uh 31 January 2019 23: 38 New
                      • 6
                      • 0
                      +6
                      Why am I so sick of everyone on the site that - even to Mars? drinks
                      1. Mordvin 3 31 January 2019 23: 52 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: voyaka uh
                        Why am I so sick of everyone on the site that - even to Mars?

                        Not the other way around. Why is it on Mars? Well, here the USSR even invented cheese for a flight to Mars ...
                      2. voyaka uh 1 February 2019 00: 17 New
                        • 5
                        • 1
                        +4
                        And we will invent kosher sausage: "smoked flight" wassat
                    2. Ehanatone April 2 2019 03: 26 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      The warrior
                      "Why, I was so sick of everyone on the site that - even to Mars?"
                      + + + + + + + + + + + + +
                2. DimerVladimer 1 February 2019 15: 49 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-falcon-9-landing-iridium-fairing-catch/


                  The Block 5 design, however, has taken the countless lessons-learned from flying and reflying previous versions of Falcon 9 and rolled them all into one (relatively) final iteration of the ever-changing rocket. With any luck and at least a little more iteration, Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters should be capable of launching anywhere from 10 to 100 times, 10 times with minimal or no refurbishment and 100 times with more regular maintenance, much like high-performance jet aircraft do today.

                  In this communique, I liked the keyword - "With any luck" - "If you're lucky" - it appears with operational experience :))
                  As expected, nevertheless some repair is supposed.

                  My English is apparently not so good, I interpreted the text several times, but did not see that the second time a rocket was launched, which took 48 hours to recover - it seems to me that you, dear, are mistaken.
                  48 hours and 24 hours in this message is the time between launches in general - from different launch points and different carriers, and not the time between the restoration of the return carrier rocket and its next launch.

                  Here from this information
                  SpaceX will launch # 70 and the 64th launch of the Falcon 9 rocket in California. Launch from the SLC-4E site of the Vandenberg cosmodrome is scheduled for December 3 at 21:32 Moscow time (18:32 UTC).
                  The launch is important because the first stage will be used for the third time - this year it was launched as part of the missions Bangabandhu-1 (May 11) and Merah Putih (August 7).

                  That is, all the same, the service time between repeated launches is about 3 months or 70 days - still it seems I was closer to the truth;)

                  Since I know approximately how much time I need to spend on installing and monitoring the same fuel valves.
                  1. voyaka uh 1 February 2019 17: 57 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    You asked for a link to the official goal of SpaceX. I gave.
                    This goal has not yet been achieved, but they are trying to achieve it.
                    They made 2 sites in California at the military base:
                    landing and starting pair of kilometers from one another.
                    In Florida, it was impossible - there is no place.
                    And the satellites will cook in advance. To provide 2 starts of one
                    and the same step for 24 hours.
            2. dla94 31 January 2019 17: 20 New
              • 2
              • 4
              -2
              Do not forget that the best engineers in America work at SpaceX. Both technologists and designers. After a tough competition, graduates of the best universities work as interns for free! Because writing in CV "worked for Mask" is a pass to any serious company.

              Is this a quote from an advertising booklet?
              "Visual inspection and all" is really "all"!
              Do not try to argue with a person who is "in the subject." Dmitry Vladimirovich outlined the main problems of reusable launch vehicles. Shuttle SSME got it that way. Conditional reusability. Even on an open circuit LRE like on SpaceX (they are less loaded) you can’t do just one visual inspection.
              Do not trust the advertising, and especially the advertising of Rogue Mask. :)
              1. voyaka uh 31 January 2019 21: 53 New
                • 5
                • 1
                +4
                Owners of satellites (worth over a hundred million each) trust the Mask.
                And they lined up for him 2 years in advance. Insurance
                companies willingly insuring these satellites also trust.
                Moreover, the launch price at the new and used stage is the same.
                1. DimerVladimer 1 February 2019 16: 04 New
                  • 2
                  • 1
                  +1
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  Owners of satellites (worth over a hundred million each) trust the Mask.
                  And they lined up for him 2 years in advance. Insurance
                  companies willingly insuring these satellites also trust.
                  Moreover, the launch price at the new and used stage is the same.


                  The Falcon 9 booster rocket exploded at the launch site at Cape Canaveral, an accident occurred during pre-flight tests.
                  The head of SpaceX, Elon Musk, told reporters that the oxygen tank of the Falcon 9 accelerator exploded
                  As a result of the incident, the rocket was completely destroyed, and the Israeli satellite Amos 6, worth two hundred million dollars, also burned - probably this added confidence to customers and the insurance company in Israel?

                  The Israeli company Israel Aerospace Industries recognized the loss in the explosion in the United States of its satellite, calling it the "largest and most modern" in its line of civilian spacecraft.


                  Clients are changeable - a couple more of these abnormal launches ...

                  Win in one battle, this is not a victory in the war;) is not it a warrior?

                  Believe me, dear, as a warrior to a rocket launcher, after a couple of such anomalies - they will also invite the pastor to the cosmodrome, bless the launch :))
                  1. voyaka uh 1 February 2019 17: 50 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    "probably it added confidence to customers
                    and an insurance company in Israel? "////
                    ----
                    Israel has not given up launches on the Falcons.
                    The case you took is the only one of many dozens
                    successful in missiles of this type (63, it seems, to date)
                    According to statistics, Falcon-9 is the most reliable missile in the commercial market
                    1. DimerVladimer 4 February 2019 13: 11 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: voyaka uh
                      Israel has not given up launches on the Falcons.
                      The case you took is the only one of many dozens
                      successful in missiles of this type (63, it seems, to date)
                      According to statistics, Falcon-9 is the most reliable missile in the commercial market


                      This is if you count on the launches successful / partially successful / unsuccessful.
                      Commercial launches do not take into account the load / mass and altitude / declination of the orbit, which significantly affects the energy consumption at launch.
                      In addition, the Falcon 9 has not yet worked out statistics and is not certified for manned flights.
                      Is Falcon 9 a good truck? In a couple of years it will be clear.
                      While the launch schedules, they say that he took his stake from Roscosmos, that says nothing about the technical component, how much about the sluggishness and outdated management structure of Roscosmos, resting on its laurels, complacency.

                      Young, impudent people came, they said A - they took away a piece of the pie from the old uncles, greatly infuriated. Let's wait for B to be answered

                      In the meantime, the picture for Roscosmos is depressing in the market for commercial launches.
                    2. voyaka uh 4 February 2019 13: 24 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      "Young, impudent came, they said A - they took away a piece of the pie from the old uncles," ///
                      ----
                      Thats exactly what I mean... good
                      Old uncles are everything: Boeing, Europeans with Arian, and Roskosmos ...
                      By the way, in the global automotive industry, Musk did the same thing: he took a piece of the pie from old uncles: Toyota, Volkswagen, Ford and others.
                      Do the old men have the strength to say B? Space is turning into a gigantic commercial market.
                      (And not a scientific, military or interstate competition, as it was before)
                      Musk was one of the first to realize this and jerked, attracting ambitious engineering youth to his firms.
                2. Infinity 1 February 2019 23: 08 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Of course changeable. But this fire in September 2016 did not prevent the Mask from steadily increasing the number of launches. There were 2017 launches in 18. In 2018, SpaceX made 21 launches, of which 20 fell on the Falcon 9 (+1 FH). Thus, this LV became the most frequently used in the world for both 2018 and 2017.
                  Now Musk has contracts for launches for several years to come (until 2021 for sure). With the development of the equipment, the accidents almost disappeared, except perhaps sometimes it’s not possible to land the steps, but the customers don’t care - their payloads are in the given orbit.

                  Those. is available full market confidence. And to break it you need at least run accidents. So that not one accident in a couple of years (with whom it does not happen) ... While SpaceX does not have this. Therefore, the same Israelis are happy to sign contracts with Musk. For example, on February 1 (if not transferred) SpaceX will launch the Israeli lunar probe Beresheet, created by the Israeli SpaceIL.
                  1. DimerVladimer 4 February 2019 13: 30 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: Infinity
                    Those. There is full market confidence.


                    Is this figure measured in anything?
                    Trust - an ephemeral concept - not amenable to measurement and forecasts - a couple of unsuccessful launches and ...

                    Space dumping in the market of commercial launches, by injecting funds from the state budget (in August 2006, the company received funding in the amount of about $ 396 million for the development and demonstration of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon ship, which allowed us to build up the technical base) picking up the lion's share of commercial launches, but that doesn’t mean anything - dropping the price of launches is easy, holding out for several years is a more difficult task.
                    A commercial company, with the help of state grants, has developed the technical base that it operates for commercial launches.

                    Competition is useful, Roscosmos has long needed a shake-up to move from the development of the state budget to a planned development.
                    While philologists rule space in Russia, businessmen in the United States may not be worried.
                  2. voyaka uh 4 February 2019 14: 26 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    1. Space X is no longer competing with Roscosmos and with Europeans. And with Bezos - the richest man on earth and as energetic and dynamic businessman as Musk himself.
                    But Bezos also bites into space. He, too (like Mask) needs the global Internet - for his Amazon octopus firm.
                    2. Trust - the concept is not ephemeral, but statistical and long-term. Even if two Boeing airliners crash on the same day, people will not stop buying tickets for Boeing planes. Confidence...
                    3. Musk has very few grants compared to the amount he invests in R&D from his pocket. With this is his strength - he believes in success and puts his personal money into space. This is not to be understood by the old state employees, state employees ...
                  3. dla94 4 February 2019 17: 10 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Trust is not an ephemeral concept, but a statistical and long-term one. Even if two Boeing airliners crash on the same day, people will not stop buying tickets for Boeing. Trust ...

                    For trust, you should ask former clients of the financial pyramids. :)
                    Musk is a fair swindler ("hyperloop" is just one thing). Such beautifully described About Henry. Dumping for a long time still will not work. So we'll see who is worth what.
                    About airplanes - De Haviland "Comet-1", an instructive story with him. I would not fly.
  • ANCIENT 31 January 2019 07: 04 New
    • 12
    • 4
    +8
    Only, the same Musk, although a PR man, has missiles, and we have a bunch of demagogues who have buried a bunch of good projects. And, for a long time, things will not get off the ground. Because we have random people at the head of space.
    1. Ruslan 31 January 2019 09: 24 New
      • 8
      • 4
      +4
      we have random people at the head of the country, and you're talking about space.
  • mag nit 31 January 2019 07: 19 New
    • 11
    • 1
    +10
    “Roskosmos” cosmodrome “Vostochny” would be completed, otherwise it would be a power-saw bench.
  • abrakadabre 31 January 2019 07: 54 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    At the same time, according to Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, Roskosmos should be finished with a project and talk about where we will fly in the future.
    One might think that no one knows how to cheer up the effectiveness of Roscosmos:
    1. Transfer half of the management with confiscation of property and relatives, too.
    2. Transfer the remaining half to support positions.
    3. On the part of the confiscated, to raise the salary of those who are just pulling the strap of development - scientists and engineers. Salary guidance should be lower. For they only create a favored mode for developers on whom more depends. Any awards to management only in agreement with the workforce. Mandatory regular inspection of management and relatives for unexplained income.
    4. For vacant management positions consider candidates nominated by the teams themselves. The criterion is professionalism. Third parties to take with the participation of groups and representatives of the RAS in the direction.
    5. Finally, begin to really follow the procedures for spending funds during the work. And not poking around in your nose, while the billions go to the left.
    6. Reports from the leadership quarterly, with a real, rather than a virtual opportunity to get on the head for jambs.
    1. teron 31 January 2019 09: 14 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      Yes you what! Is it possible so with "respected people"? Well, how will something good come out for the country, but well, as in other areas of government activity, they will propose moving to these events? No, this is unacceptable. (sarcasm if that)
    2. Ruslan 31 January 2019 09: 25 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      and start it all with a similar job in the Kremlin
    3. donavi49 31 January 2019 09: 38 New
      • 12
      • 0
      +12
      RK - has ~ 200bn debts. And someone has to pay. The budget for the last year does not want. Rogozin is looking for options. The last option is to eat Almaz-Antey and KRTV, cover their debts at the expense of their profit and live on quietly. But Almaz-Antey and KRTV already make noise - therefore, it will be difficult to devour them.

      In early January, the head of Roskosmos Dmitry Rogozin, in an interview with RBC, called the idea of ​​creating a single space-rocket holding company based on Roskosmos to include Almaz-Antey, RTI Sistemy and KTRV. KTRV and Almaz-Antey have a large export revenue. She could go for an operational solution to the problems of other Roskosmos enterprises.. They would help their own, and in the end they would also benefit, since they would receive serious orders from Roskosmos, ”Rogozin noted.

      Answer:
      Profit KTRV will not save Roskosmos, said head of the rocket corporation Boris Obnosov. According to him, at KTRV for "Roskosmos", the total debt of enterprises of which is about 200 billion rubles., there is no "extra ruble"

      Due to the profit of Tactical Rocket Weapons Corporation (KTRV) and Almaz-Antey Concern, the financial condition of Roskosmos cannot be improved, corporation CEO Boris Obnosov told RBC. So he commented on the words of the head of Roskosmos Dmitry Rogozin about the inevitability of creating a single space-rocket holding.

      Total debt burden by enterprises "Roskosmos" is about 200 billion rubles. The leader here is the center of Khrunichev - 111 billion rubles.

      Revenue KTRV following the results of the 2018 year amounted to 231 billion rubles., RBC was told in the corporation. This is 19 billion rubles. more than a year earlier. Net profit of the corporation - 25 billion rubles, loan portfolio - 12 billion rubles. The export figure exceeded $ 1,3 billion and was a record for the corporation.
      1. Corn 31 January 2019 10: 04 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        200 billion rubles, this is only 3 with a small billion dollars.
        For comparison, the country has left only 5 times more to Venezuela .... now Cuba is still (which has already forgiven 30 billion bucks) we begin to build railways for 2 billion bucks .... and of course again on credit.
        So, if the party leadership wants it, liberation of our enterprises from financial shackles will not be difficult, only there will be no sense in it.
    4. Shopping Mall 31 January 2019 10: 07 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: abrakadabre
      At the same time, according to Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, Roskosmos should be finished with a project and talk about where we will fly in the future.
      One might think that no one knows how to cheer up the effectiveness of Roscosmos:
      1. Transfer half of the management with confiscation of property and relatives, too.
      2. Transfer the remaining half to support positions.
      3. On the part of the confiscated, to raise the salary of those who are just pulling the strap of development - scientists and engineers. Salary guidance should be lower. For they only create a favored mode for developers on whom more depends. Any awards to management only in agreement with the workforce. Mandatory regular inspection of management and relatives for unexplained income.
      4. For vacant management positions consider candidates nominated by the teams themselves. The criterion is professionalism. Third parties to take with the participation of groups and representatives of the RAS in the direction.
      5. Finally, begin to really follow the procedures for spending funds during the work. And not poking around in your nose, while the billions go to the left.
      6. Reports from the leadership quarterly, with a real, rather than a virtual opportunity to get on the head for jambs.


      This is all well and good in an ideal world with ideal people. In fact, everything will be distributed, intrigues and a game of elections will begin instead of work.

      The leader often has to act against the will of the team, i.e. there must be a certain authoritarianism. I can imagine how, in the days of Korolev, Beria, all such voters vote, choose, aha, now. There was a complete despotism from the top down, and the results were. And the collective should be engaged in the work, and not colleagues to estimate to sit and play in democracy.

      And what is happening now is a consequence of corruption and nepotism. And democracy does not fix it.
      1. abrakadabre 31 January 2019 11: 25 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        The leader often has to act against the will of the team, i.e. there must be a certain authoritarianism. I can imagine how in the days of Korolev, Beria, all such people vote, choose, yeah, now.
        Did I write for a discussion with the team of any movement of the leader? Not at all. I suggested on the personnel issue:
        1. The former were transplanted.
        2. Teams nominate candidates whose professionalism they know firsthand. In addition, these candidates are in the subject of development and internal organization kitchen. These candidates have priority. But this does not mean that the team itself and only he alone decides.
        3. If a person comes from outside, then his professional suitability is considered with the participation of both the team and the scientific community (RAS), working on the corresponding profile. And not just from the bulldozer. We don’t know them all. And the corresponding specialists are aware of who and how they showed themselves in their secret profile areas.
        4. And as you have chosen, no democracy during the work process.
        5. Elements of democracy (rather accountability) - coordination of prizes with the team and quarterly challenges to the carpet: good things are going on - praised, bad - put in a corner. Or considered a replacement.
  • Ruslan 31 January 2019 09: 27 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Well, yes SpaceX has no priority in creating ideas, they have priority in REALIZING ideas. and this is much more important for the success of the country, people and just science.
  • Alex-333 31 January 2019 10: 31 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    I would like to see the analysis, as done on the “Hangar” and “Falcon”.
    Number of workers, Cost, Number of missile stages, Number of main structural elements, Launch mass, Dry mass, Midshiping area (affects drag coefficient during flight in the atmosphere), Distance between plants manufacturing rocket components and final assembly, Distance between rocket production and the spaceport.
    Then it is clear where and in what they got around. Well, or according to some of the above criteria. There is a lot of information in the article. Where?

    1. DimerVladimer 4 February 2019 16: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Alex-333
      Then it is clear where and in what they got around.


      The difference in the mass of the displayed payload is not obvious - for each carrier, the calculation was performed for operation from different spaceports for different latitudes.
      The launch vehicle is designed for its own conditions - the breadth of the spaceport.
      Cosmodrome East 51,49 N
      Cosmodrome Cape Canaveral 28,28 N
      Closer to the equator, the effectiveness of the spaceport is higher.



      Comparing engine specifications for the Hangar and Falcon 9 v1.1
      you can see that the RD-191, winning in traction at sea level by 2,94 times the LRE Merlin 1D loses him 4,4 times by weight.
      That is, 3 Merlin engines create the same thrust at sea level as the RD-191 rocket engine, but their total mass will be about 1500 kg and the RD-191 2200 kg - that is, the Falkon 9 propulsion system of about 1,5 times more mass effective. But at the same time, the specific impulse of RD-191 is slightly higher - by 10% at sea level and 8% in vacuum, respectively, RD-191 consumes less fuel by 8-10% of the mass of fuel, this is far from being 1,5 times saving on mass Merlin rocket engine.

      That is, when refueling the first stage of the Falcon 9 v1.1, a total of 395,7 tons of fuel and oxidizer are used, therefore, have the 9th Falcon RD-191 engines and get even 8% fuel savings, this saves a total of at least 31,6 t. components (actually even more), reducing the starting mass. What makes the RD-191 the undisputed leader in traction characteristics ... but not in cost, if you recall the reusable use of the Merlin.
      We must not forget that part of the fuel in the 9th Falcon is reserved for the return of the first stage. And the Merlin D1 engine will be reused.

      It makes sense to seek a compromise on the fuel efficiency of the liquid propellant rocket engine and the service life, design reusable ships for reusable rocket carriers, which is already being done.
  • aristok 31 January 2019 11: 31 New
    • 2
    • 5
    -3
    21,5 tons of cargo - close to the Falcon 9 rocket indicators.

    It has long been recognized even by stubborn maskophiles (except for the most illiterate and lazy) that Falcon 9 displays a maximum of 11 tons at the NOU.
    This is reflected in both the official user guide and the English-language wiki.
    It's funny, but the same limitation (associated with the strength characteristics of the 2nd stage) also lies on the "type of superheavy" Falcon Heavy
    1. Blackmokona 1 February 2019 11: 28 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      The user manual states that if you need more than 11 tons, then you need to turn to SpaceX to make the adapter to order, and not use the standard one specified in the manual.
      This limitation is due to the fact that the serial mass adapter is only designed for 11. But there is absolutely no difficulty making at least 70 tons.
      1. aristok 1 February 2019 11: 35 New
        • 0
        • 3
        -3
        Quote: BlackMokona
        The user manual states that if you need more than 11 tons, you need to turn to SpaceX to make an adapter to order

        A touchingly naive attempt to mislead gullible readers.
        I read the user manual - there is no such thing.
        Do not discredit yourself with your fantasies.
        1. Blackmokona 1 February 2019 12: 18 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Is.
          I don’t know what place you read
          Performance capability
          The Falcon 9 launch vehicle performance presented in the following tables and figures is for the
          Block 2 (see paragraph 2.1.2 for details). The performance shown is the maximum capability of
          the Falcon 9 Block 2 with margin withheld by SpaceX to ensure mission success. Please note
          typical payloads in the Falcon 9 class typically below 15000 lbs (6800 kg). Potential customers
          should contact SpaceX if they contemplate flying extra ‐ heavy payloads or using most of the
          listed performance of the Falcon 9.
          1. aristok 1 February 2019 12: 22 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            Quote: BlackMokona
            Is.
            I don’t know what place you read
            Performance capability
            The Falcon 9 launch vehicle performance presented in the following tables and figures is for the
            Block 2 (see paragraph 2.1.2 for details). The performance shown is the maximum capability of
            the Falcon 9 Block 2 with margin withheld by SpaceX to ensure mission success. Please note
            typical payloads in the Falcon 9 class typically below 15000 lbs (6800 kg). Potential customers
            should contact SpaceX if they contemplate flying extra ‐ heavy payloads or using most of the
            listed performance of the Falcon 9.

            Where is it about more than 11 tons?
            I see only 6800 kg.
            1. Blackmokona 1 February 2019 12: 22 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Highlighted for bold people.
              1. aristok 1 February 2019 12: 42 New
                • 0
                • 3
                -3
                Quote: BlackMokona
                Highlighted for bold people.

                decided to cover up your lies with rudeness?

                where is it about the fact that they can run more than 11 tons?

                And in general it is ridiculous that in order to justify his fantasies, the crook uses quotes from the publication already in 2009 !!!!
                When is there a 2019 edition.
                Where such a muddy quote is generally absent.
                Although, I repeat, it does not even follow from it that they can launch payloads of more than 11 tons.
                1. Blackmokona 1 February 2019 12: 55 New
                  • 2
                  • 1
                  +1
                  We open a site
                  https://www.spacex.com/falcon9
                  22,8 tons indicated load
                  On the same site we open userguide
                  As you can see in the current guide, the phrase has become clearer, but remained
                  SpaceX requires that customers verify the mass properties of their system through measurement before shipping it to
                  the launch site. The company may request insight into relevant analyzes and testing performed for satellite qualification,
                  acceptance and interface verification. Falcon vehicles may be able to accommodate payloads with characteristics
                  outside the limitations indicated in this section. Please contact SpaceX with your mission-unique requirements
                  .
                  1. aristok 1 February 2019 13: 06 New
                    • 1
                    • 3
                    -2
                    The impotent hamlo is now trying to mix a PR figure from the site with another muddy quote from userguide.
                    There are many restrictions ("the limitations indicated in this section") and they are associated not only with a maximum of 11 tons per IEO (as well as restrictions for other orbits), but also, for example, with the overall dimensions of the restrictions indicated in this section "indicated in this section ".

                    So write more, hamlo.
                    Your powerless attempts to justify the PR lie from the creator of the hyperjacket only bulge it even more before the readers.
  • nikolai.kolya 31 January 2019 11: 32 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    vertical landing is also used as technology development for future landings on other planets, it is not necessary to fly a little and will land.
  • DimerVladimer 31 January 2019 12: 15 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    "wedge liquid engine"
    The nozzle with the central body has long been known, has a design flaw - the problem is the cooling of the central body. A significant area at the epicenter of a high-temperature jet of gases.
  • srha 31 January 2019 13: 18 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Not a reusable panacea, but the construction of a new cargo delivery system, the specialization of its individual sections and types. Until near space rockets should work, tugs further. For cargo, specialized rockets with high acceleration should work, in the future, possibly electromagnetic accelerators or string systems. And on chemical missiles alone, although reusable, space will remain super-expensive like that.
  • Max20 1 February 2019 02: 54 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Are we going to copy the charlatan and the adventurer Mask? Probably, the answer of RosKosmos will be - the returned part of the rocket with a parachute.
    1. Pupkin Vasya 1 March 2019 21: 19 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      What will you answer tomorrow if Dragon B2 flies?
  • Vadim237 1 February 2019 12: 48 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    This Crown was covered with a copper basin - there is not any funding for this project in the space development program until the 30th year.
  • Karislav 4 March 2019 16: 45 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Cartoons again
  • Jurkovs 8 March 2019 06: 53 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Reusable here are only publications in the press.