The prototype of the spacecraft Starhopper SpaceH again did not take off

195
The second attempt to lift into space the experimental SpaceX starhopper from the company SpaceX Ilona Mask ended in failure again. It is reported by Space.com.

The prototype of the spacecraft Starhopper SpaceH again did not take off

Starhopper spacecraft




Tests of the experimental spacecraft Starhopper, designed to deliver astronauts and cargo to the Moon and Mars, are held at the SpaceX test site in Boca Chica, Texas. In total, three stages of "air" tests are planned. At the first stage, the ship should be lifted off the ground and climb to a height of 20 meters, at the second - already at 500, and at the third - reach a height of 5 kilometers.

The ship installed on the platform released a pillar of flame and smoke, after which it turned off without ever taking off. The cause of the incident is not called, the degree of damage to the device is estimated as insignificant. This is the third fire on this spacecraft this month. The first occurred in early July, then there was damage in the amount from 50 to 100 thousand dollars. The cause of the incident was not called. The second fire occurred on July 17 during testing of the Raptor engine installed on a spacecraft.

Starhopper is a basic version of the Starship rocket designed to send astronauts to the Moon and Mars, and, in the future, space tourists. Starhopper is much smaller than Starship, but the equipment installed on it is fully consistent with the older model.

Earlier it was reported that Starship should become the largest and largest manned spacecraft in stories. Ilon Musk announced plans to create a spacecraft that will accommodate 100 colonists. However, the concept has already undergone several changes, so it is not known what will happen in the end.

  • © SpaceX
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

195 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    25 July 2019 11: 12
    It's a shame ... Popshikal, but did not fly ....
    1. +2
      25 July 2019 11: 29
      It has the first ever rocket engine with full gasification of components, which reached the stage of flight tests. And, most likely, the first who will be able to fly into the air. Nobody has ever come to that. They follow an unbeaten path, periodic plugs are inevitable.
      1. +4
        25 July 2019 11: 34
        Yes, the Raptor is cool, I see their private owners are beginning to better understand the engines, bezos with hydrogen, Mask with gasification
        1. -1
          26 July 2019 09: 42
          Today took off. Nothing is visible due to fire and smoke, but took off and sat back.



          ------------------------------------

          Camera near the engine: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1154629726914220032
          1. -1
            26 July 2019 11: 09
            Quote: vasilii
            Today took off.
            In this context, the topic is not at all interesting. Now, if it had exploded ... Then the enthusiasm of would-be patriots would have flared up, and the usual would have begun: "They did not fly to the moon! They themselves cannot go to the ISS! There were not and are not on Mars their 16 devices! To Jupiter, Saturn, to satellites of the planets, to asteroids, to Mercury did not fly and will not fly! Photos from Hubble - Photoshop! Merikans can only pick in their noses without us! Yes, we will throw them roguish! " Hurray-patriotism, flavored with kvass and ignorance is a terrible thing.
      2. +12
        25 July 2019 12: 23
        This is understandable ... But 50 years ago everything worked out for them with "ordinary" jet engines. And the first time. Without any challenge. Immediately on the moon.
        But you believe the Mask. He will not lie.
        1. -5
          25 July 2019 12: 39
          Quote: Private-K
          Without any trial.

          Yes indeed. After all, if 50 years ago someone had tested, they would have arranged a broadcast on YouTube.
          1. 0
            25 July 2019 12: 46
            It’s not a matter of broadcasting, but of the absence of a proper Apollo test program — 10 percent of that.
            1. 0
              25 July 2019 15: 58
              "In the absence of the prescribed test program for Apollo - like 10 percent of the prescribed." - Did you come up with this yourself?
        2. 0
          25 July 2019 14: 41
          Not the first time, there were a lot of bench tests, mislead people or you yourself do not know.
          1. +10
            25 July 2019 14: 57
            Yes Yes. Bench tests. Of course, flying is not needed. What is there - immediately to the moon! And so six times. They flied, and then decided to throw everything away: a rocket, an engine, drawings, videos, soil from the moon. Well, of course, why does it need something, no one needs it.
            1. 0
              26 July 2019 12: 38
              And there were flight tests, and not immediately to the moon, but after many trials. This is your envy just)
            2. -1
              4 August 2019 19: 08
              Quote: NOTaFED
              Yes Yes. Bench tests. Of course, flying is not needed. What is there - immediately to the moon! And so six times. They flied, and then decided to throw everything away: a rocket, an engine, drawings, videos, soil from the moon. Well, of course, why does it need something, no one needs it.

              Well, on Kuznetsovo, we threw out engine drawings ... This is a real fact, for any employee of Samara ... Then they restored it for 10 years ...
        3. 0
          25 July 2019 19: 15
          :))
          banned on the Internet? as an example, the first thing that came across (if there are problems with English then the rescue system tests): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqeJzItldSQ
          google yourself next ...
        4. 0
          26 July 2019 07: 58
          Quote: Private-K
          And the first time.
          The S-Saturn / Apollo program is quite lengthy and very consistent, unlike the H-1 program.
          And Saturn, unlike N-1, has a stage were tested whole!
          You do not know that N-1 has never been tested - the launches were without comprehensive tests on the ground.
      3. +7
        25 July 2019 14: 34
        the first ever complete gasification rocket engine
        The first ever flying pan. Although, if you look closely, it looks like a moonshine. laughing
    2. +2
      25 July 2019 11: 37
      Quote from Uncle Lee
      The prototype of the spacecraft Starhopper SpaceH again did not take off

      No, I didn't cry. "Looks like May Day" (Wick) feel
      1. +22
        25 July 2019 12: 43
        Not that, guys, "pepelats" have chosen. This one would be better.
    3. +5
      25 July 2019 11: 43
      Quote: Uncle Lee
      It's a shame ... Popshikal, but did not fly ....

      The holding cable is not untied !?
      1. +13
        25 July 2019 12: 22
        Gravitsapu stole. Or Katz was not reported
      2. +2
        25 July 2019 16: 16
        major147 .... Uholding cable not untied !?

        The second option - put the rocket upside down. The flame above and silence below. recourse
        1. 0
          25 July 2019 19: 48
          Quote: askort154
          The second option - put the rocket upside down.

          belay recourse
    4. +3
      25 July 2019 11: 47
      And it will not fly, this line-up is convenient for outer space, for a ground launch it is necessary or something more verified or based on completely different physical principles ... along the way, the Mask is simply bred for money. )))
      1. -2
        25 July 2019 17: 55
        Have you come up with other physical principles? Something in place of the law of conservation of momentum? Congratulations.
        1. +1
          25 July 2019 18: 31
          I'm just wondering how you will accelerate this pepelats with such drag in the atmosphere ...? Do not consider it work ... enlighten, preferably with calculations
          1. +1
            25 July 2019 18: 49
            Enlighten with calculations. This device is a reduced and simplified model of the second stage of the Starship and Super Heavy rocket, formerly known as BFR. It is not intended for independent flight, neither in space nor in the atmosphere, and serves to work out the modes of jet landing. Climbing to a height of 5 km does not require high speed, so the aerodynamics of the device are simplified - as the developers say, to reduce the cost.
            PS In good homes, it is customary to read about the subject of conversation earlier than asking questions to interlocutors.
      2. -3
        26 July 2019 09: 52
        Quote: Canecat
        along the way, the mask is simply bred for loot. )))

        Today the hopper took off. That's always the case - they breed the Mask for the loot, breed, and he ONCE! - And he himself led them to a flying water tower. No, well, just think what a scammer is!
    5. +3
      25 July 2019 12: 25
      Well, this is already better, on the last test Dragon was torn to pieces))) though they call it "anomalousness in the work of dvgatel")))
      1. -1
        25 July 2019 16: 00
        The fault of this accident was a valve made of titanium alloy - the design and material were changed.
    6. +2
      25 July 2019 12: 59
      We used to make rockets from combs and foil. It looks like this bundle is an enlarged version ... laughing
    7. 0
      26 July 2019 20: 15
      Quote: Uncle Lee
      It's a shame ... Popshikal, but did not fly ....


      The usual thing
    8. The comment was deleted.
  2. +11
    25 July 2019 11: 13
    This barrel is similar to the pepelats from the film by G. Danelia Kin-dza-dza ...
    Of course, miracles do happen, but we are not so far behind in technological terms so as not to doubt his (LA) ability to fly .... Or is this a complete divorce for the money of shareholders (Americans, they are stupid ..) or there was a technological breakthrough in rocket science. And Russia is so far behind that it cannot design a truly advanced spacecraft and rocket launcher of an advanced design, which determines the architecture of the placement of units
    1. +17
      25 July 2019 11: 35
      How do you like that, Ilon Musk? smile
      1. +1
        25 July 2019 12: 33
        both of these devices are somewhat similar
    2. +7
      25 July 2019 11: 59
      No. Rather, the rockets that are painted in children's books.
    3. +6
      25 July 2019 12: 04
      Actually, a ship from the country of crimson clouds.
      1. +4
        25 July 2019 12: 15
        No, there was a photonic spaceship "Chius" - a photonic mirror made of an absolute reflector for interplanetary flights on five columns - atomic rockets for launching and landing.
        Д
        Threat ... on Venus, he sat ... in the swamp on the very mirror.

        On Venus and in the swamp ... little, little was known about Venus then. But the cosmonauts had with them a carbine-machine of the "1975" model, I think. Here the Strugatskys almost guessed.

        In the midst of this fever Krayukhin called Bykov and went with him to one of the underground warehouses on the southern outskirts of the city. In the dry and bright room of the warehouse, Bykov saw boxes of weapons.
        - Familiar things? - inquired Krajukhin.
        Bykov looked at him in bewilderment and bent down.
        “A seventy-fifth year automatic rifle.”
        - But those?
        - Jet guns ... pistols ...
        - Well, choose.
        Bykov understood:
        - For everyone?
        - At all ... yes, take the stock.
        Bykov silently took away eight brand-new carbines, dozens of hand grenades, beam pistols, Finnish knives in light yellow leather cases.
        - Where are the cartridges? And pomegranate capsules?
        - There are cartridges, capsules and everything you want. Write to the warehouse manager what you need.
        They went down a floor below.
        “This is also for you,” said Krajukhin, pointing to cylindrical objects dimly shining with blued sides.
        “Nuclear mines ...” muttered Bykov.
        - Do you know?
        - How not to know ...
        - Take ten sets. Grab a dozen hanging projectile rockets.
        1. 0
          25 July 2019 17: 52
          When is Hius at the very mirror in the swamp sat down? At the first landing, over time, it simply lost stability and leaned forward. And on the second landing, everything seemed to be normal.
    4. -2
      25 July 2019 16: 46
      Quote: Invoce
      Of course, miracles do happen, but we are not so far behind in technological terms so as not to doubt his (LA) ability to fly .... Or is this a complete divorce for the money of shareholders (Americans, they are stupid ..) or happened in rocket science.


      Considering that in the USA private traders are developing new generation engines (Raptor, BE-4) on methane, and not on kerosene, this is certainly a technological breakthrough. A couple of years of testing and I think will bring to mind ....
      "We are not that far behind in technological terms" - but this is an interesting question, if we take specifically rocketry and the development of Methane + Liquid Oxygen engines, then we are lagging behind.
    5. The comment was deleted.
      1. 0
        6 August 2019 13: 42
        Quote: Elon Musk
        Here is the answer to your question! Alas, the patriots will not understand!


        Today, the launch of the next heavy communications satellite was launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome. The satellite is launched into the target orbit. A stable telemetric communication is maintained with him.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. 0
            6 August 2019 14: 04
            Quote: Elon Musk
            This is an achievement !!!


            This is just another launch - the fourth heavy communications satellite in our military’s GSO constellation.
            1. 0
              6 August 2019 14: 11
              Meanwhile, in a parallel universe, private space is taking contracts from Rogozin
              1. 0
                6 August 2019 14: 17
                Quote: Elon Musk
                Meanwhile, in a parallel universe, private space is taking contracts from Rogozin


                Meanwhile, Glavkosmos has halved the cost of launching small spacecraft in cluster launches from the Vostochny cosmodrome and signed new contracts.
                1. 0
                  6 August 2019 15: 03
                  We stock up on popcorn and wait for new trampolines
                  1. 0
                    6 August 2019 15: 16
                    Quote: Elon Musk
                    We stock up on popcorn and wait for new trampolines


                    yes no problem as you wish lol
  3. +1
    25 July 2019 11: 13
    What a strange design? Is it a spacecraft or a launch vehicle?
    1. +4
      25 July 2019 11: 39
      Quote: sabakina
      What a strange design? Is it a spacecraft or a launch vehicle?

      This is Karma. feel
    2. +3
      25 July 2019 11: 40
      This is a flying stand, not an apparatus.
      In general, the whole news consists of misinformation.
      The first fire mentioned was generally in a different state at another company site. And there was no third fire.
    3. 0
      25 July 2019 12: 11
      RN - for flight tests of the Raptor engine. And without a nose cone, as it was damaged by a hurricane during the assembly phase.
      1. +2
        25 July 2019 12: 37
        This is the "cut" .... what
      2. 0
        27 July 2019 00: 28
        Quote: Servisinzhener
        RN - for flight tests of the Raptor engine. And without a nose cone, as it was damaged by a hurricane during the assembly phase.

        Hehe ... The roof was demolished ... however ...
        Summer trials ... hehe ... "The war in Crimea, everything is in smoke ..." Not a damn thing is visible, but "... the trials were successful ..." My God, how many teenagers have multiplied at the present time ...
  4. +8
    25 July 2019 11: 14
    Space is an absolutely aggressive environment for humans. Musk does not understand this. To create not a ship, but a whole system for safe flights into space, decades of research and development of technology are needed, thousands of trained and experienced people are needed. A commercial organization cannot afford it. For a fool, you can just fly something into space and inflate in the media, but systematic flights are about something else.
    1. +3
      25 July 2019 11: 18
      Quote: Yrec
      bullet into space and inflate in the media

      like a red car! fellow
      1. +4
        25 July 2019 11: 48
        Quote: Uncle Lee
        Quote: Yrec
        bullet into space and inflate in the media

        like a red car! fellow

        Just like in the joke: "I'll buy you red Zhiguli and you will drive like" doubtfully clever "."
        And Musk is trying to make everyone doubtfully smart. But now there are times like people, such and their idols.
    2. Hog
      -4
      25 July 2019 11: 43
      In your opinion should he repeat the path done from the 50s to our time?
      But why, if this experience has already been gained and is generally accessible to all.
      1. +5
        25 July 2019 12: 03
        Quote: Hog
        In your opinion should he repeat the path done from the 50s to our time?
        But why, if this experience has already been gained and is generally accessible to all.

        Experience is available, it is only necessary to assimilate it, and then master it, understand what it has learned and process, and only then, a brilliant nose to the ceiling. feel and not vice versa.
        1. Hog
          -2
          25 July 2019 12: 14
          Well, do not you teach them, they created a Falcon and a dragon, and you?
          1. 0
            25 July 2019 12: 55
            Quote: Hog
            Well, do not you teach them, they created a Falcon and a dragon, and you?

            They don't want to learn, just like you. "Any Gascon since childhood is an academician" (Three Musketeers)
          2. +1
            25 July 2019 19: 38
            Hm. An alliance for starters, on which everyone flies and is proven safe. And how many flights do dragons and falcons have? And what percentage of success? It’s a shame to the power that flew as much as 6 times to the moon, and when the rival stomps in orbit around the earth. Lose all the documentation and buy from an opponent its backward engines to put their satellites and astronauts into near space ... Well, yes, well, yes, of course it is cheaper than giving work to their enterprises. But it’s interesting ... in other matters, it’s non-aliasing, and here we will refuse a silence on type 21-22.
            1. Hog
              -2
              25 July 2019 22: 37
              Only the union was made in a "more advanced civilization".
    3. 0
      25 July 2019 11: 50
      So you can endlessly sit on the ground and cut. Cosmonautics needs a breakthrough - the creation of a lunar base and the landing of people on Mars. With the current level of technology, this can well be done. And further resolve issues that will arise in the implementation of this. And yes, Musk probably knows what he's doing.
      1. -4
        25 July 2019 12: 38
        Here on earth would be sorted out, otherwise the astronauts will have nowhere to return. Although, if the chickens do not peck money ...
    4. -2
      25 July 2019 15: 19
      https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk Объясните ему что он двигается в не том направлении. Пусть денежные средства акционеров перенацелит на космодром "Восточный", а лучше всего на "ФЕДОРа". И будет всем счастье.
  5. 0
    25 July 2019 11: 18
    There are new methane engines - Raptor.
    Of run in on this steel grasshopper.
    1. +11
      25 July 2019 11: 20
      The engines are run in at the stands. Tsiolkovsky also drew such "grasshoppers" by science fiction writers of his time.
      1. -3
        25 July 2019 11: 33
        Quote: sabakina
        Engines run on the stands.

        This is an already completed stage.

        1. +4
          25 July 2019 11: 34
          Quote: vasilii
          Quote: sabakina
          Engines run on the stands.

          This is an already completed stage.
          So what did he stall at the start ???
          1. -3
            25 July 2019 11: 40
            Surely he was forcibly chopped off. Telemetry showed a deviation somewhere, they decided to stop and figure it out.
            1. +2
              25 July 2019 12: 39
              So he did not have time to deviate. Just burnt out like a samovar
              Joke
              1. +2
                25 July 2019 12: 40
                Deviations can be not only in the course, but in general in anything. Temperature, pressure, vibration level.
              2. +1
                25 July 2019 17: 13
                I think that torch on the side, just the drainage is forcibly burned, so that it is not uncontrollably ... LIKE! Nearby, it’s precisely a methane candle that burns!
          2. +1
            25 July 2019 11: 44
            Musk said that they had supercooled fuel, there will be a new attempt to take off soon
        2. +4
          25 July 2019 11: 39
          if this is a completed stage, then why the fires?
          why is this start more difficult than a stand?
          1. -1
            25 July 2019 11: 43
            Quote: yehat
            why is this start more difficult than a stand?

            The fact that the grasshopper is not bolted to the concrete block, and in case of deviation in the operating mode, may fall on someone’s head.
            1. +4
              25 July 2019 12: 00
              but fire hazard does not change
          2. -1
            25 July 2019 11: 45
            Because the journalists are lying.
            One fire was in another state.
            The second fire just did no harm.
            There was no third fire at all.
            1. +2
              25 July 2019 16: 47
              Quote: BlackMokona
              There was no third fire at all.

              then why didn't this toadstool take off?
              1. -2
                25 July 2019 18: 32
                According to the statement of the Mask, the fuel turned out to be colder than expected, due to which the pressure exceeded the calculated one.

                Well, of course, automation simply extinguished the engine due to the output of parameters beyond the calculated ones. In the near future a new jump is being prepared.
              2. +1
                26 July 2019 09: 10
                Well, here the samovar took off.
                https://youtu.be/sWT1788sBFA
                https://twitter.com/i/status/1154629726914220032
                As you can see no fire, and there were no serious problems.
      2. +3
        25 July 2019 12: 12
        On the pepelats gravitsap attached to the so-called tsap. To start the flight of the pepelats with the gravitsapa, the tsap should be pressed. Also, the tsapu is used to check the gravity when buying. Outwardly, the pivot looks like a very rusty nut.

        Their nut was not rusty enough. lol
        1. +3
          25 July 2019 13: 18
          Quote: Amateur
          Their nut was not rusty enough

          old joke on a new one:
          two crows are sitting at the start of the rocket ilon mask ...
          first fly!
          the second will not fly!
          the rocket hisses, shakes but does not start ....
          -This is you!
          I serve Russia!
    2. +3
      25 July 2019 11: 52
      Quote: voyaka uh
      There are new methane engines - Raptor.
      Of run in on this steel grasshopper.

      And at the stand it is poorly "to run in"! I understand, I understand, I understand, it is necessary to design and build a stand - time and money - a dull shade. Whether it is a circus tent - the arena has also pulled up. The show continues! feel
      1. -2
        25 July 2019 11: 55
        At the stand they ran around the ground, they rolled in over a year. Now there’s a flying stand where, besides the engine, there’s a lot more
  6. +4
    25 July 2019 11: 22
    it looks like a tin can with legs, and in content too ...
  7. +12
    25 July 2019 11: 26
    Something was shredded by American designers, it used to fly to the moon - back and forth, they will fly invigoratively after 5 days, as if they were going for a beer.
    1. -10
      25 July 2019 11: 35
      where does it come from?
    2. -2
      25 July 2019 16: 05
      You do not confuse 60th disposable rockets with 2019 reusable ones.
  8. +6
    25 July 2019 11: 29
    Quote: Invoce
    advanced design rocket carrier

    this one, if I may say "carrier", makes sense if it works
    and if it does not work, then this is not a breakthrough, but a failure, and a grand one.
    1. -5
      25 July 2019 11: 46
      This is not a rocket launcher, but a flying stand for the engine
      1. +3
        25 July 2019 12: 00
        invoice called IT a rocket launcher
        claims to him
  9. +7
    25 July 2019 11: 29
    It looks more like a moonshine still, it’s not up to the vodka, they thought it would fly on a braga ...
    1. Hog
      -7
      25 July 2019 11: 46
      Well, show us how to, when there is a flight of your rocket to the moon?
    2. 0
      25 July 2019 12: 43
      So their tsar was blown away by the wind ... from that moment, something went wrong ...
  10. +4
    25 July 2019 11: 29
    But I understand everything - they installed it on the wrong side. The instruction was kept upside down.
  11. +4
    25 July 2019 11: 33
    without gravitsapa pepelats will not fly
  12. 0
    25 July 2019 11: 38
    Probably there are not enough gravitsaps in that pepelats? Ku ... jin-boo!
  13. +1
    25 July 2019 11: 39
    Quote: Yrec
    but systematic flights are about something else.

    especially with live passengers, which if something does not stick together
  14. +3
    25 July 2019 11: 48
    A true triumph of methane as a rocket fuel!
    With such rastrizdystvosti holey jumper on any other fuel would have long exploded or burned to zero.
    And with methane after such spectacular fireworks, it receives only cosmetic damage.
  15. Hog
    -5
    25 July 2019 11: 50
    You read komenty and understand why Roskosmos has problems (see experts from the comments on VO choose).
  16. 0
    25 July 2019 11: 50
    Well ... And then, why on the side of the torch?
    1. +2
      25 July 2019 11: 56
      Quote: Archivist Vasya
      Well ... And then, why on the side of the torch?

      burn methane
    2. +4
      25 July 2019 11: 59
      Fuel liquid methane, while waiting to start the fuel heats up and evaporates. To prevent spectacular explosions with the destruction of everything around. It is required to burn evaporated gas. At Delta-4, a similar tower burner stands nearby.
    3. 0
      25 July 2019 14: 15
      Thanks for the clarification comrades! A rocket on gas, hmm, I wonder what in the end it will turn out.
  17. +1
    25 July 2019 12: 00
    Nothing pleases so much as the failures of their partners.
    1. -2
      25 July 2019 12: 37
      Passed the stage of ridiculing the Falcon ("this pencil will never fly"), the stage of ridiculing the returns of the 1st stage ("pencil on legs"), then laughing at the "super-heavy" ("27 engines - ha-ha-ha").
      A new stage of ridicule - on the march. fellow
      1. +3
        25 July 2019 13: 13
        About "it will not take off" is your fantasies, mainly they wrote about the prospects of the returned stages from an economic point of view. And about 27 engines, you are probably not familiar with the calculation of the reliability of technical systems.
        1. 0
          25 July 2019 13: 18
          Musk also seems unfamiliar, three consecutive successful launches of Falcon Heavy
          1. +2
            25 July 2019 13: 58
            That's when there will be at least thirty launches, then we can talk about reliability.
            1. -5
              25 July 2019 14: 01
              Given the speed of work on Starship, Heavy will retire up to 30 starts.
            2. -4
              25 July 2019 14: 04
              Quote: ultra
              That's when there will be at least thirty launches, then we can talk about reliability.

              === You are here ===
            3. The comment was deleted.
        2. 0
          25 July 2019 13: 33
          "And about 27 engines, you are probably not familiar with the calculation of the reliability of technical systems" ///
          -----
          And Korolev probably didn't know laughing
          On the Soviet heavy missile N-1,
          which was prepared for flights to the moon, there were 30 engines in the first stage. At that time, however, it was hard to synchronize all of this:
          there was no electronics and computer.
  18. 0
    25 July 2019 12: 21
    And 50 years ago everything turned out the first time! And on the moon!
    And repeated several more times.
    Ayah-yay! ;)
    1. -4
      25 July 2019 12: 39
      Then there were also accidents on the ground.
      And before the moon there were several test launches into lunar orbit.
      1. -2
        25 July 2019 12: 43
        Do not lie. Apollo did not pass and 10% of the required test program. People investigated all this in detail.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. 0
            25 July 2019 12: 47
            You suggest me to subscribe to Rogozin’s letter? ;)) Khrenushki.
            1. -2
              25 July 2019 12: 48
              Yes you, my friend, national pterodactyl.
              1. +1
                25 July 2019 12: 51
                A stupid tourist pokes a stick at the crocodile: "Who are you? - asks. The crocodile ate him:" Someone ... I don't know ... I live here. "
        2. -3
          25 July 2019 12: 54
          "Don’t lie. Apollo didn’t make it even 10% .."
          ----
          At first there were dynamic tests.
          Then there were 13 Saturn-V rocket launches.
          The first two are without a crew.
          Then with the crew into low Earth orbit.
          Only on the sixth flight did the moon landings begin.
          The last two missiles - 14 and 15
          are in museums on display.
          Always at your service hi
          1. +2
            25 July 2019 13: 19
            Well this is 10%. Moreover, without critical.
  19. 0
    25 July 2019 12: 21
    13 astronauts and one school teacher are probably not enough ...
  20. +1
    25 July 2019 12: 42
    Well, if they do such engines, then let them continue laughing
    1. -3
      25 July 2019 16: 10
      By hydrogen and methane liquid propellant rocket engines - they overtook us, and significantly.
      1. +1
        26 July 2019 13: 57
        and a bunch of minuses came to you as if you were wrong
  21. +1
    25 July 2019 12: 56
    The prototype of the spacecraft Starhopper SpaceH again did not take off

    Quite mattresses were stupefied. Spaceship Name - Starhopper SpaceX... wassat
    They would have him yet Startpoher spacex called ... lol
  22. 0
    25 July 2019 13: 05
    Gravitsap should have been put)))
  23. 0
    25 July 2019 13: 17
    Starhopper is the basic version of the Starship rocket, designed to send astronauts to the moon and Mars, and in the future, space tourists. Starhopper is much smaller than Starship, however the equipment installed on it is fully consistent with the older model.

    I understood correctly, everything was installed on it for a flight to Mars, well, there are 100 life support systems for a year of life, radiation protection, all-terrain vehicles, construction equipment for the base.
    In size if only for midgets ....

    Here on the next branch of the adept of the sect the mask is that in a few years we will see MULTIPLE INTERplanetary Ships. I understand this is IT? Is it supposed to fly to Mars with the passengers come back and fly again? Damn, I envy the mask here is the same genius for knocking out money ....
    1. +3
      25 July 2019 13: 19
      This is a flying stand for the Raptor engine, not a ship. Journalists they are.
      1. +2
        25 July 2019 14: 33
        Lawlessnesses your journalists, as well as ours ....
    2. -7
      25 July 2019 16: 13
      This is only the beginning - Falcons were also launched, and I respect Mask as an engineer engineer - he really does the job, unlike everyone else.
      1. +3
        25 July 2019 17: 28
        I respect as an engineer engineer

        If, as a businessman, a businessman, I would understand, but as an engineer .... What do you specifically know about this? Just not like BlacMokona: oh that’s damn media ....
        For me it’s exactly the same engineer as Billy the programmer.
        1. -3
          25 July 2019 19: 04
          Like Billy is a programmer. He is an engineer — like Bill Geitz is a programmer, you cannot engage in the high-tech industry, without knowing anything about its components and their changes — all the more, in the space industry, basic, even basic engineering knowledge is not enough to manage the company.
          1. +1
            25 July 2019 19: 13
            He is an engineer - like Bill Geitz a programmer,

            Well, that is, he is not an engineer, I did not accidentally give an example of Billy.
            Believe me, Billy as a programmer is a complete zero, he was, is, and certainly will be.
            This is a 140% PR move for those trusting like you,
            But the community of programmers is more open and you can't hide a sewing in a sack there. Well this is not a rocket, who did - WE. Each line of code has its own author, and even all the code is published and can be evaluated. Therefore, the phrase "Billy the programmer" causes laughter.
            Unfortunately, Musk Engineer is not. Not yet.
        2. 0
          26 July 2019 18: 22
          I know that it is impossible to create a vector for the development of a high-tech company without an engineering background - as for the news, there wasn’t any accident there either - as the stand took off
          1. 0
            29 July 2019 11: 01
            I know that it’s impossible to create a vector for the development of a high-tech company,

            You are very fond of criticizing the leadership of our companies, such as they are not specialists, I thought you were so naive or paid. Now I understand - naive.
            What kind of education do you think Geitz and Jobs have? And these are undoubtedly high-tech icons, people who have been setting "vectors of development" for decades not only for their companies, but for the entire industry.
            I can disappoint you, they do not have specialized education, moreover, they did not even have a general technical or scientific education. Humanitarian, then work and abandoned training, and when there were already Apple and Microsoft the notorious embiei.
            1. 0
              31 July 2019 14: 47
              Without a specialized, even self-educated, education, they would not have created anything, like Musk like many others, like me.
              1. 0
                31 July 2019 16: 30
                even self-made

                Self-made education is an oxymoron.
                Believe me, a person who out of 50 years 35 learns programming and only 15 of them are "homemade".
        3. The comment was deleted.
      2. +1
        25 July 2019 17: 40
        Quote: Vadim237
        and I respect the Mask as an engineer, an engineer - he really does the job, unlike everyone else.


        Well, of course, the rest are playing spools lol

        1. -3
          25 July 2019 18: 57
          Tests, trials - that's just the Mask with launches, as it happens much faster, our Angara with RD 191 has been experiencing it for 10 years, so far not a single commercial launch.
          1. +1
            25 July 2019 19: 15
            Quote: Vadim237
            We have been experiencing Angara with RD 191 for more than 10 years, so far not a single commercial launch.


            In the video of the test engine, which the fifteenth year as successfully flies. Angara-A5 is replacing the Proton-M missile. Another commercial launch at Proton in September. Proton-M will be replaced in the year 2025. Is it clear now?
            1. -1
              27 July 2019 22: 13
              It’s all empty - at 25 Angara it’s morally obsolete, but at the price of the load it will be — it will be great to lose to Western competitors, it remains only to hope for Union 7.
              1. -1
                28 July 2019 02: 57
                Quote: Vadim237
                It’s all empty - at 25 Angara it’s morally obsolete, but at the price of the load it will be — it will be great to lose to Western competitors, it remains only to hope for Union 7.


                Angara is a family of modular missiles for specific tasks. The missiles of this family will not be inferior to their "western competitors" and will be used for commercial purposes as well. The first commercial launch of the A1.2 version in 2021. Commercial launches of the A5M will begin in 2024, the A5B in 2026. And before that, all commercial launches of heavy satellites will continue to be carried out on the Proton-M rocket - another similar launch will take place in September.
                1. -1
                  28 July 2019 13: 17
                  Unfortunately, all its versions do not have a reusable first stage - so in the price segment it will not compete with the same Falkon 9 of the fifth series.
                  1. 0
                    28 July 2019 19: 53
                    Quote: Vadim237
                    Unfortunately, all its versions do not have a reusable first stage - so in the price segment it will not compete with the same Falkon 9 of the fifth series.


                    If the selling price is less or comparable, it will become. laughing It does not depend on whether it is reusable or not. Proton-M is disposable, and launch services cost the same as Falcon 9.
                    1. 0
                      31 July 2019 14: 49
                      But the rocket is more expensive due to the fact that it does not have a returnable first stage - we compare it with the one that has already completed 72 flights.
                      1. 0
                        31 July 2019 19: 43
                        How much is the cost of production of Falcon 9, and the cost of reconditioned Falcon 9? laughing
            2. The comment was deleted.
              1. 0
                6 August 2019 13: 37
                Quote: Elon Musk
                [1] - Now SpaceX has more than 70 orders for launches - this is about $ 11 billion. For comparison, the annual budget of Roscosmos last year was $ 2016 billion. And this is up to sequestration. Compare - eleven billion - and a half.
                Or, in other words, in 2017, SpaceX's turnover will be several times greater than the annual budget of Roscosmos.


                This year, Roscosmos carried out or was accompanied by its specialists 14 launches of space rockets and two launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles.

                Quote: Elon Musk
                [2] - At the moment, the Falcon 9 rocket in terms of carrying capacity exceeds everything that has flown and flies at Roskosmos.
                ************
                In simple words - Falcon 9 is specially "sharpened" for the orbits most necessary for the industry. Proton is not.


                This year, Proton-M has already successfully launched the Russian commercial communications satellite Yamal-601 into orbit, and in September two foreign commercial spacecraft are expected to be launched at once - Eutelsat-5DublYUBi and MEV-1. All in all, Proton-M has six launches this year, of which three have already taken place. Also this year, flight design tests at the Angara-A5 heavy launch vehicle continue at the request of the Ministry of Defense from the Plesetsk cosmodrome, which is going to replace the Proton-M launch vehicle, and the development of the elements of the Angara-A5M (P) heavy launch vehicle continues for its launches from the Amur spacecraft of the Vostochny cosmodrome.

                Quote: Elon Musk
                [3] - A few words about the Dragons.
                Firstly, they can return up to three tons of cargo - from the ISS to Earth. The Russian Unions can’t do anything similar now, and even in Soviet times they didn’t.


                A few words about pragmatism. Today, most of the space experiments taking place on the ISS RS do not require the return of large masses of material results of these experiments to Earth. With the advent of modernized biofabrication systems on the ISS RS, it is technologically more complicated than Organ.Avt or the new Polizon-M furnaces, there will be a need to return large volumes of cargo. To this end, RSC Energia is designing and testing an unmanned cargo returnable spacecraft based on the Soyuz MS TPK; as part of this work, the Soyuz MS-22 unmanned TPK will be launched on August 14.
  24. +1
    25 July 2019 13: 36
    released a pillar of flame
    “I don't think it is a fire.” I believe purging the system from oxygen residues. Similarly, only less due to less fuel residues, fire comes out after landing the Falcon 9 steps.
  25. +2
    25 July 2019 13: 51
    To whom, but it seemed to me that the design was like an unfinished bathhouse for permafrost conditions. Where drunk on the heater splashed instead of beer - gasoline.
  26. +1
    25 July 2019 14: 09
    Yes, they would make a film right away and not be dishonored.
  27. 0
    25 July 2019 15: 33
    Barrel and beer for the Martians or a moonshine still for them?
  28. +2
    25 July 2019 16: 02
    Well, you fucking give everything! In all seriousness you are discussing this stickiness, for "well, stupid". Look at the launch of any real rocket, there is a clear field a hundred meters around the launch pad. Because the torch from the engines (even from a rocket that has not taken off) will blow everything to the root crop. And here, at the side of the "rocket" tank (obviously on the idea of ​​something with fuel), etc. buildings. communications. Everything is clearly designed for an exceptional man in the street (and, as can be seen from the comments, not only for Americans)
  29. 0
    25 July 2019 16: 15
    Didn't explode. Either the leak is scanty, or the tanks are empty. Rather, the second.
  30. +3
    25 July 2019 16: 44
    Musk coolly disguises the cut of the budget dough, burning it in the furnace of unsuccessful experiments)))
    1. -3
      25 July 2019 19: 06
      They don’t give a cent to him from the budget for this project - everything is financed from startups and private investors.
      1. 0
        26 July 2019 16: 03
        Five years ago, SpaceX received $ 5,5 billion worth of contracts from NASA and the US Air Force. And state funding to this day continues on an equal footing
        1. 0
          26 July 2019 18: 27
          He received this money on a spaceship, Dragon - a cargo and manned version, as well as on the Falcon 9 rocket, BFR - no one financed from the budget and is not even going to, Musk himself finances this project as a private investor, the Japanese billionaire is also the first tourist who will fly around the moon on this ship.
          1. 0
            27 July 2019 00: 47
            Quote: Vadim237
            He received this money on a spaceship, Dragon - a cargo and manned version, as well as on the Falcon 9 rocket, BFR - no one financed from the budget and is not even going to, Musk himself finances this project as a private investor, the Japanese billionaire is also the first tourist who will fly around the moon on this ship.

            Since NASA doesn’t have fools around either ... and there’s a limit to everything - all the more so since Mask’s main patron, M. Griffin, now runs the Pentagon, and now there’s no Maskov’s ravings ... They need to be replaced by Minetmen, and then Boeing took all and sent ... away ... So it’s not up to Mask with Bigfacs to them now ...
            1. 0
              27 July 2019 09: 51
              Musk brings his nonsense to life - and they have already significantly affected the cosmonautics as a whole in a positive way, for the Russian cosmonautics in the negative side - we have less and less commercial launches every year. And here is another fact - the USA has already tested the fully closed-loop methane rocket engine and it works on a throwing bench - and ours is still at the R&D stage.
              1. 0
                27 July 2019 16: 38
                Quote: Vadim237
                Musk brings his nonsense to life - and they have already significantly affected the cosmonautics as a whole in a positive way, for the Russian cosmonautics in the negative side - we have less and less commercial launches every year. And here is another fact - the USA has already tested the fully closed-loop methane rocket engine and it works on a throwing bench - and ours is still at the R&D stage.

                Musk created his operational version of the reusable Falcon-9 LV block5 for 16 years from 2002 to 2018. And so far it has not yet reached the declared parameters, in particular for reusability - at least for tenfold use of the first stage ... Not to mention A 100-fold, with a 24-hour maintenance period for returned components between started ...
                Further, Roscosmos, unlike Space-X, is not an operator of launch services, and until recently it was generally a non-profit state corporation, one of the main tasks was (and still is) reforming the space industry of the Russian Federation ... As well as the implementation of the national CP of the Russian Federation. .. The office of St. I. Mask does not even come close to solving SUCH tasks ... In addition, Roscosmos solves the problems of development, production and testing of military and dual-use missile and space technology, up to ICBMs and SLBMs, which even NASA USA does not do. not to mention the "leaders" in the CD, TYPE of the same Space-X, Blue Origen and others ...
                Such methane engines — from demonstrators to working models — were made and tested quite a lot in the days of the USSR, and they made options for the French and Italians, including and for the Thing today ...
                About throwing tests of the Fau-2 tin cast model, you’d better bet the teenagers here - after reading the Mask tweets ... In addition to smoke pillars and periodic fires on a sand embankment among puddles on the Texas coast, proudly referred to as Space X Cosmodrome in Boca Chica, while St.I. Mask I could not show anything on the Raptor ...
                And his competitor Bezos, meanwhile, got a contract with ULA for the purchase of his BE-4 for the promising reusable Vulcan LV, which will primarily be used by the US Ministry of Defense ... But this is already a good result, and without a bunch of PR and tweets on the Internet .. .
                But I feel that I am wasting my time chewing on you, my dear, common truths, especially since earlier I already posted something here on the forum, including you ...
                But it’s hard to communicate with fanatics - they don’t want to see, read and understand anything, except for the ideas of their idol ...
                1. 0
                  27 July 2019 22: 17
                  He usually has tweets after business - Raptor even on the test bench> but takes off, unlike the same BE 4.
                  1. 0
                    28 July 2019 00: 22
                    Well, if what you saw is a serial RAPTOR, then you ... hehe ... Pope, no less ...
                    1. 0
                      28 July 2019 13: 19
                      The most difficult thing is behind - the engine was created and tested at the stand several tens of times - it works as planned, then only mass production.
          2. 0
            29 July 2019 16: 02
            Yes, yes, on his own blood, the selfless Musk revives the cosmic power of s. Considering how many unsuccessful launches there were, then his hard-earned money should have ended several times, as well as the contributions of various kinds of "tourists"
            1. 0
              31 July 2019 14: 50
              There were only two unsuccessful launches - the loss is not great with a total of 75.
  31. 0
    25 July 2019 17: 43
    Starhopper learns to fly ...

    Everything is fine - the process of working out a new technology for developers is often fraught with failures, well, they are not fools out of MIT, they will be able to "put Starhopper on fire" and take another step towards the realization of Musk's dreams.
    1. +1
      26 July 2019 14: 05
      already flew, though still low, but this is the first flight on a methane engine
  32. 0
    25 July 2019 18: 10
    Again, the ubiquitous Putin ....
  33. 0
    25 July 2019 18: 12
    All this has no real prospects. The energy content of the fuel is too low. The flow rate of gases from the nozzle / nozzle / low. The missiles are large, slow, expensive, complex, and much more. Humans have nothing to do on other planets. Orbit hush Yes. Telescopes Yes. Robots and orbital stations exploring other worlds Yes. But not a man. Expensive. Very expensive.
    1. 0
      25 July 2019 19: 10
      Expensively, this is when the entire rocket is disposable - in a reusable system with all its components, the costs are reduced significantly - fuel and maintenance are all costs.
      1. 0
        25 July 2019 19: 14
        The complexity and high cost of reusable systems do not justify themselves. At the present stage of experiments, this is not yet visible. For bases on the moon and Mars, and for their long-term use, the number of launches should be more per second than now. It will be well unrealistically expensive.
      2. 0
        27 July 2019 00: 56
        Quote: Vadim237
        Expensively, this is when the entire rocket is disposable - in a reusable system with all its components, the costs are reduced significantly - fuel and maintenance are all costs.

        They have already tried on the MTKS Space Shuttle ... half of the MRRD USD one start at a fleet of 5 MTKK and 135 flights ... Plus to all 14 corpses - a reusability fee ...
        1. 0
          27 July 2019 10: 00
          MTKS Space Shuttle - This system was not completely reusable - since the fuel tank itself burned in the upper atmosphere, and the turbojet engines needed to be charged again - the first and second cost a lot of money and was difficult to manufacture. And the material itself from which the Shuttle was made was quite thin, another thing is the stainless steel from which the BFR will be made and it must be recognized that its thermal protection is much more advanced than that of the Shuttle.
          1. +1
            27 July 2019 21: 25
            Quote: Vadim237
            MTKS Space Shuttle - This system was not completely reusable - since the fuel tank itself burned in the upper atmosphere, and the turbojet engines needed to be charged again - the first and second cost a lot of money and was difficult to manufacture. And the material itself from which the Shuttle was made was quite thin, another thing is the stainless steel from which the BFR will be made and it must be recognized that its thermal protection is much more advanced than that of the Shuttle.

            Yes, "... it's hard in the village without a revolver ..." Dear Vadim, whatever it seems strange to you, LPRE BOOSTERS of flacons, as the Americans call the 1st stage of the launch vehicle and side accelerators, also after landing, you need to defect, replace the identified faulty components then REFILL FUEL AND OXIDIZER AGAIN ... And this is not as cheap as you think ...
            The main fuel tank (OTB or PTB as it was called in different documents), the Shuttle, in comparison with the other components, cost KOPEYKI, therefore no one planned to save it (just like Mask does not save the 2nd stage of Vials), it was easier AND CHEAPER TO MAKE A NEW ...
            Regarding the "liquid material" Shuttle - you have read too much nonsense. fanatics like you ..
            REVIEW PHOTOS AND VIDEOS OF ALL EARLY CREATED AND NOW OPERATED RNA AND FIND AT LEAST ONE SIMILAR STARCHOPE BY THE QUALITY OF MANUFACTURE ...
            And you do not need to make excuses that these are just mock-ups, the mock-ups were before and will be after ...
            But there was no such abomination (another definition for this tin model is simply difficult to find), and I think it will no longer be, at least for companies claiming leadership in the creation and production of RCT ...
            Regarding thermal protection, the world does not stand still, and it was not in vain that Musk traveled twice to get to Russia, it would have been strange if his thermal protection was worse than that which was developed in the 70s of the last century ...
            1. 0
              27 July 2019 22: 39
              What kind of RNA is the usual test model, it should be like that, a simple design without any bells and whistles, a fuel tank for the Shuttle costs more than $ 100 million - such good pennies, do not forget that this is a cryogenic tank for liquid hydrogen and oxygen. Carbon fiber material is brittle and not yet heat-resistant, it is not suitable for a reusable spacecraft - stainless steel itself is also high-strength, heat-resistant and plastic, among other things better protection against cosmic radiation, so that Mask did the right thing by replacing the material. Fuel for turbojet accelerators is much more expensive than liquid: hydrogen, oxygen, kerosene, methane, etc.
              1. 0
                28 July 2019 00: 33
                Quote: Vadim237
                What kind of RNA is the usual test model, it should be like that, a simple design without any bells and whistles, a fuel tank for the Shuttle costs more than $ 100 million - such good pennies, do not forget that this is a cryogenic tank for liquid hydrogen and oxygen. Carbon fiber material is brittle and not yet heat-resistant, it is not suitable for a reusable spacecraft - stainless steel itself is also high-strength, heat-resistant and plastic, among other things better protection against cosmic radiation, so that Mask did the right thing by replacing the material. Fuel for turbojet accelerators is much more expensive than liquid: hydrogen, oxygen, kerosene, methane, etc.

                Uncle, the numbers in the studio, then we'll talk ...
                1. 0
                  28 July 2019 13: 40
                  If you want the numbers, please: a ton of kerosene 56000 rubles, a ton of liquid oxygen 9000 rubles, liquid hydrogen 78000 rubles per ton, methane 18000 rubles per cubic meter. Smokeless gunpowder costs 1400 rubles 500 grams is for hunting weapons - but for a turbojet engine the gunpowder is much cooler in composition, therefore it is more high-energy. To launch the shuttle, almost 1000 tons of such gunpowder was needed.
                  1. 0
                    29 July 2019 13: 21
                    Quote: Vadim237
                    If you want the numbers, please: a ton of kerosene 56000 rubles, a ton of liquid oxygen 9000 rubles, liquid hydrogen 78000 rubles per ton, methane 18000 rubles per cubic meter. Smokeless gunpowder costs 1400 rubles 500 grams is for hunting weapons - but for a turbojet engine the gunpowder is much cooler in composition, therefore it is more high-energy. To launch the shuttle, almost 1000 tons of such gunpowder was needed.

                    I don’t need to push in Russian prices for rocket fuel and pass them off as American, for fuel for Shuttle engines ...
                    MISCELLANEOUS. Learn the materiel. The second drain is counted.
                    1. -1
                      31 July 2019 14: 54
                      Offset - I told you the real value - in the USA all this costs not much more. So yourself learn the materiel and take your drain - you haven’t brought me a reasoned answer.
                      1. 0
                        31 July 2019 18: 13
                        For an oak tree that is completely unaware of space technology and a woodpecker, consuming exclusively foreign tweets and forum gossip ...
                        What smokeless powder, ignoramus ...? For starters, read about mixed rocket fuels for TTRDs, and for the Shuttle TTU in particular ... And don’t talk rubbish when comparing CPT and gunpowder ... If you don’t understand the difference, then better keep quiet and don’t disgrace ...
                        Fuel for TTU - AMMONIUM PERCHLORATE MIXTURE WITH ALUMINUM AND THE ADDITION OF BINDING BASIS ON THE BASIS OF POLYAMIDE RESIN ...
                        The basis of gunpowder is PYROXYLIN, so learn the lessons further ... US NATIONAL CURRENCY - USD ...
                        1USD - at the rate of more than 60 rubles ... So end up pounding with your beak and carry an open blizzard ...
                        For information, and in terms of facilitating the eradication of the illiteracy of some stubborn and oaky individuals, one Falcon refueling of a 9-block 5-operational version of this LV costs 200 THUS.USD (200). AT THIS, THE MAIN FUEL QUANTITY is 000 STEP ...
  34. -1
    25 July 2019 18: 19
    He who does not try to take off does not burn and does not fall ... smile
  35. +1
    25 July 2019 19: 16
    What kind of bucket is it with a rocket propulsion system, more precisely with a torch ??? Where is the super modern super rocket?
  36. 0
    25 July 2019 19: 47
    Quote: askort154
    The second option - put the rocket upside down.

    belay
  37. 0
    25 July 2019 19: 57
    This is not Kin-Dza-Za but reality. For Mask, the main thing is the movement and no matter where it leads. The Pentagon regularly pays bills and allows dumping in the market of commercial launches. Roscosmos is already out. Let's look at China, they recently presented a new launch vehicle for commercial launches.
  38. 0
    26 July 2019 09: 15
    Starhopper spacecraft

    And I thought it was a silo! laughing At dusk you can be confused to the fullest! bully
    1. +3
      26 July 2019 09: 43
      Quote: aszzz888
      And I thought it was a silo! At dusk you can be confused to the fullest!


      Nevertheless, this silo or water tower (as you like) jumped up. This is a serious success for the methane engine, you can even say a historic event in rocket science.
      1. 0
        27 July 2019 01: 04
        Quote: Aleksandr21
        Quote: aszzz888
        And I thought it was a silo! At dusk you can be confused to the fullest!


        Nevertheless, this silo or water tower (as you like) jumped up. This is a serious success for the methane engine, you can even say a historic event in rocket science.

        You’ll throw nonsense about historical events - the event will happen when the stage with methane engines will normally work on the LCI RN, at least in the first (or N-th) flight ... these tests of methane engines were carried out in Soviet times ... And now, at the same Bezos, a methane BE-4 after successful bench tests has already contracted ULA for the Volcano ... a promising launch vehicle, for the Pentagon in the first place ...
        1. 0
          27 July 2019 10: 02
          Only now none of them went into the series - to see they all failed bench tests.
          1. 0
            27 July 2019 21: 33
            Quote: Vadim237
            Only now none of them went into the series - to see they all failed bench tests.

            What series, are you really sick?
            Read carefully your god ... Made 6 copies. RAPTORA FOR THROWING TESTS!
            What do you feel now? GESTURE OR RAPTOR? Well, if it’s Raptor’s test, then what serial production are you trying to trynd about here?
            !
            1. 0
              27 July 2019 22: 45
              Consider the series - and the worker on the take-off stand and 6 pieces, it will not be completely limited.
              1. 0
                28 July 2019 00: 28
                Have you lost any landmarks? WHEN does R&D end, R&D begins, what is LCI, and when are products. In particular, rocket engines for rocket launchers transferred to mass production?
                Or just nonsense from Twitter Mask can stupidly replicate?
                1. 0
                  28 July 2019 13: 44
                  I know that Raptor’s R&D is already over, flight tests are starting.
                  1. 0
                    29 July 2019 13: 15
                    Quote: Vadim237
                    I know that Raptor’s R&D is already over, flight tests are starting.

                    Well, and if you know what nonsense are you talking about the SERIAL PRODUCTION OF RAPTORS?
                    The drain is counted.
                    1. 0
                      31 July 2019 14: 56
                      Serial production of engines is included in the test program - everywhere and always, even if it is small - but this is a series.
                      1. 0
                        31 July 2019 18: 25
                        Oh, and oak, you’re Vadik ... During the flight design tests, the rocket engines continue to make changes - hereby, the production of them - piece ...
                        Otherwise, in each small-scale (ALREADY MADE RD), it will be necessary to make changes (constructive, replace parts and assemblies with new ones, test a new one after a bulkhead ...)
                        IN GENERAL - AGAIN TWO, FAILURE AND TRANSFER IN AUTUMN ...
                        In the meantime, without a scholarship ... STUDENT ...
          2. -1
            28 July 2019 01: 07
            Quote: Vadim237
            Only now none of them went into the series - to see they all failed bench tests.

            For the coming sleep, digest at your leisure -Bezos in January of this year (2019) began the construction of a "factory" (as is customary for amers) for the serial production of BE-4 ...
            According to calculations, production will cover the needs of the US Department of Defense, VO for suborbital launches, and ULA for launches under state and commercial programs ...
            This is so for general development ..

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"