Reusable rockets: an economical solution for a quick global strike

The revolution in the creation of reusable spaceships


At the beginning of the XXI century there was a revolution in space exploration. Quietly, almost imperceptibly, without multibillion-dollar national projects such as the program for the exploration of the moon or the program for the creation of reusable spacecraft Space Shuttle. Of course, we are talking about commercial reusable spaceships, and first of all reusable SpaсeX rockets Ilona Mask.



Take-off of the “dinosaur” of a bygone era - Space Shuttle, and the synchronous landing of reusable spacecraft boosters Falcon Heavy



Synchronous landing of reusable spacecraft boosters Falcon Heavy

However, he did not rest on his laurels for long; other private companies, including Chinese, breathe in the back of his head. For example, on 10 on August 2019, the Chinese company LinkSpace launched the RLV rocket, which, having soared to a height of 300 meters, returned to the launch pad on its own in 50 seconds. In 2020, it is planned to launch the RLV-T16 rocket, which can reach an altitude of 150 kilometers. Private companies plan to build reusable spaceships for all ranges of possible loads - from several hundred kilograms to tens to hundreds of tons.


Rocket Lab plans to return the first stage of the Electron ultralight class launch vehicle with a payload capacity of 250 kilograms to a low reference orbit (SPL), and SpaexX plans to make the launch of its BFR rocket, with a payload capacity of 100 tons to a SPL, the same routine as flying an airliner


The widespread use of reusable spacecraft capable of being reused up to 100 times, and up to 10 times without carrying out repairs, will significantly reduce the cost of launching a payload into orbit, which in turn will spur the development of the commercial space market.

There is no doubt that the possibility of putting payload into orbit at a lower cost will also interest the military. First of all, these will be traditional reconnaissance and communications satellites, the need for which is increasing all the time, taking into account the increase in the fleet of long-range unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which are controlled via satellites.

In the future, the ability to output payload at a minimum cost may lead to space-to-surface orbital shock platforms.

Reusable rockets: an economical solution for a quick global strike

The concept of the orbital strike platform "Wands of God"


However, reusable commercial missiles may have other military uses.

Planning hypersonic warheads


Since 2003, the Defense Advanced Research and Development Agency (DARPA), together with the US Air Force, has been developing the Falcon HTV-2 (Hypersonic Test Vehicle - an experimental guided combat unit), designed for hypersonic speed flights. The U.S. Army is developing a similar project AHW (Advanced Hypersonic Weapon - a promising hypersonic weapon).


Estimated Falcon HTV-2 warhead appearance


Projects Falcon HTV-2 and AHW have a similar layout - a non-engine-mounted planning warhead is displayed at a predetermined height by a launch vehicle, then it is detached and plans at a hypersonic speed toward the target. The estimated flight range of warheads should be 6000-7600 kilometers, with a flight speed of 17-22 M (5,8-7,5 km / s). Thus, taking into account the time required to exit the rocket to the height of the dumping of the warhead, the time of hitting the target will be about 20-30 minutes.


Estimated Falcon HTV-2 Flight Profile


To launch Falcon HTV-2 warheads, it is proposed to use Minotaur-IV launch vehicles (LV) or LGM-30G Minuteman-III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). To test the AHW hypersonic blocks, the STARS three-stage solid-fuel rocket was used.

A similar project has been implemented in Russia - a hypersonic guided warhead as part of the Avangard complex, launched by the UR-100N UTTKh ICBM. In this area, Russia is ahead of the United States - already in 2019, it is planned to adopt the Avangard complex into service. The flight speed of the combat unit should be about 27 M (9 km / s), the flight range is intercontinental. There is a fundamental difference: the Russian warhead is equipped with a nuclear warhead, while the United States is considering the use of hypersonic warheads in non-nuclear equipment. A non-nuclear warhead places high demands on the accuracy of guidance of warheads.


The alleged appearance of the Russian hypersonic warhead of the Avangard complex



Testing and presentation of the Avangard missile system

An alternative solution is hypersonic missiles launched from strategic aircraft aviation, such as the American X-51 Waverider or the Russian 3M22 Zircon. The X-51 and 3M22 missiles have greater versatility compared to hypersonic warheads launched by launch vehicles and possibly lower cost. However, their range and speed are significantly less than those of the planning warheads - about 500-2000 km and 5-8 M (1,7-2,7 km / s), respectively. A lower speed and range will not allow for a reaction time comparable to that which allows for hypersonic gliding warheads. When striking a range of 6000-7000 or more, the total flight time of a bomber and a hypersonic missile will be about five hours, while a hypersonic planning combat unit can strike for half an hour, which can be critical for some missions.


American hypersonic rocket X-51 Waverider



Russian hypersonic rocket 3M22 Zircon


The above comparison does not mean the abandonment of one type or another of weapons, but only shows the niche of each of them. In this “division of labor”, hypersonic planning blocks are given the task of defeating high-priority goals - command posts, decision centers, etc.

Fast global punch and VIP terror


Article Strategic conventional forces: carriers and weapons the installation of hypersonic warheads on ICBMs was considered, the terms of which are in service are coming to an end. This decision is fully justified and it is it that is being considered by the US armed forces as part of the Fast Global Strike program.

The BSU program itself also causes skepticism among many, for some reason it is always opposed to nuclear weapons. In fact, it has no effect on the nuclear shield. Although in the START-3 treaty non-nuclear military equipment is considered on a par with nuclear, which could theoretically lead to a decrease in the number of US nuclear weapons, in fact, as soon as the BSU program is developed and the number of warheads begins to increase, the START-3 treaty will already expire and if not, the United States will withdraw from it with the same ease as it withdrew from the ABM Treaty and the INF Treaty, at the same time blaming Russia for this.

Another objection is that the use of BSU funds will begin the third world war. It should be understood that the United States does not in any way plan to use BSU funds against Russia at its current level of development of the armed forces. And against China too. But countries like Iran or Venezuela may well become a target for BSU, which will be delivered the first decapitation blow.

Article Strategic conventional weapon. Damage The strategic conventional weapon is formulated as: causing damage to the enemy, significantly reducing its organizational, industrial and military capabilities from a distance, minimizing or eliminating the likelihood of a direct combat collision with the armed forces of the enemy. To this we can add - as soon as possible.

The material resources spent on funds from the BSU will pay off handsomely by saving in forces and means of general forces. In some cases, for example, in the case of the liquidation of the leadership of the enemy, a military conflict may end without starting. The United States may well realize such a scenario, for example, in Venezuela. By means of BSU to liquidate the incumbent president, at the same time organizing another “color” revolution, and no Tanks, airplanes and ships will not help to avoid such a scenario.

Based on the foregoing, one can draw another conclusion - the weapon of the Quick Global Strike or the Strategic Conventional Weapon is an ideal tool for VIP terror, that is, the physical elimination of the enemy’s top leadership.

No other weapon has such capabilities. The mere presence of such type of Rapid Global Attack weapons, or Strategic Conventional Weapons, will force the enemy’s leadership to act prudently when making military, political and economic decisions, or make them live in danger of inevitable destruction.

In some cases, ICBMs may not be the most optimal medium for hypersonic glide warheads, or the cheapest. Are there any other more effective carriers for hypersonic planning warheads?

Reusable rocket as a carrier of hypersonic warheads


Promising reusable missiles based on commercial products can be the most effective and cheapest means of casting combat units.

Based on open information posted on the Internet, the casting height of hypersonic warheads should be about 100 kilometers. The estimated mass of Falcon HTV-2 hypersonic battle blogs should be 1100-1800 kg.

The payload of the Falcon-9 rocket, launched at the IEO (200 km), is 13-16 tons. The total mass of the second stage of the latest version of the Falcon-9 is 111 tons, the second stage is separated from the first at an altitude of about 70 km. The first stage of the Falcon 9 is planned to be used up to 10 times, and with maintenance after every 10 flights, it can be used up to 100 times.


Falcon-9 booster and landing its first stage


It can be assumed that to launch hypersonic warheads, the first stage of the Falcon-9 launch vehicle is enough. The abandonment of the second stage with a mass of 111 tons will presumably allow to bring to the height of 100 km about 10 hypersonic warheads weighing 1100-1800 kg each.

On the basis of technologies implemented in commercial rocket science, other small reusable launch vehicles can be created for given loads, which allow the abandonment of one or two hypersonic warheads, followed by landing of the carrier and its repeated reuse.

If we talk about an increase in combat load, then we can not help but recall the plans of SpaсeX for the construction of a fully reusable two-stage BFR missile, with its possibility of putting payloads weighing up to 100 tons to the DOE. The Internet is already being discussed the possibility of the prospective use of BFR as an orbital bomber for striking with controlled tungsten rods.


The concept of a fully reusable BFR super heavy launch vehicle


If we draw an analogy using the first stage of the Falcon-9 LV, the first stage of the BFR LV - Super Heavy will be able to carry out the 55-85 hypersonic warheads.

On the one hand, the development of BFR has not yet been completed, so talking about its military use is somewhat premature. On the other hand, Elon Musk is determined to complete this missile. According to SpaEx plans, it should replace all missiles used by the company, including the Falcon-9 launch vehicle.

The question arises, why should such a promising development disappear? SpaсeX can well adapt the first stage of the Falcon-9 or simply sell to the military all the developments on this missile, fully focusing on BFR. The military, in turn, will receive a unique reusable platform for launching planning hypersonic warheads or other payloads.

Basing


The problem with reusable missiles is that, unlike bombers, you can’t put them on the airfield, however, the options for deploying such weapons are quite enough.

In the case of a launch vehicle with planning hypersonic warheads in the southern United States (the launch site at Cape Canaveral is taken as an example), practically all of Latin America will be in the affected area. If deployed in Alaska, most of Russia, China, all of North Korea will be in the affected area. This is provided that the flight range of the warheads will be 6000-7000 kilometers, and will not be intercontinental, as in the Avangard complex.


Conditional range of destruction when placing a LV with planning hypersonic warheads in the southern part of the USA



Conditional range of destruction when placing a launch vehicle with planning hypersonic warheads in Alaska


The United States can use the territory of its satellites to deploy launch vehicles with planning hypersonic warheads in Europe or Asia. It is unlikely that Poland, Romania, or Japan would dare to refuse such a smallness to their overlord.
In addition, given the fact that private military companies (PMCs) are already armed with combat aircraft, one cannot but imagine a scenario in which platforms for launching rockets with planning hypersonic warheads will be leased by PMCs and provided by the U.S. Armed Forces on request on a commercial basis.

And finally, one cannot exclude the possibility of creating offshore launch platforms similar to the Sea Launch commercial project. The overall dimensions of the Falcon-9 LV are comparable to those of the Zenit-3SL LV, so there should be no problems.


The floating spaceport for launching Zenit-3SL rockets


Considering that only the first stage with a combat load will need to be launched, two launch vehicles with ten planning hypersonic warheads on each can well be placed on a floating spaceport. When placing a floating spaceport in the Mediterranean Sea, almost all of Africa, the Persian Gulf, Pakistan, partially Central Asia, China, and most of the territory of the Russian Federation fall into the affected area. Landing of the LV can be carried out on existing ASDS (Autonomous spaceport drone ship - autonomous unmanned spacecraft-spacecraft) platforms used for landing the first stage of the Falcon-9 LV, or similar vessels / platforms developed on their basis.


Autonomous unmanned spacecraft ASDS, and the landing plan of the first stage of the Falcon-9 LV



Conditional range of destruction when deploying launch vehicles with planning hypersonic warheads at a floating spaceport in the Mediterranean Sea


One may ask: if Russia or China, as nuclear powers, are not considered as targets for BSU, then why is it indicated that their territory is in the affected area? The answer is simple, BSU is a factor that will have to be taken into account. If the deployment of Mk-41 launchers in Europe caused so much noise, what will happen when a floating spaceport with LV with planning hypersonic warheads appears in the Mediterranean Sea ...

The financial side of the issue


The cost of the first stage of the launch vehicle is 60 – 70% of its total cost. The launch cost declared for Falcon-9 is 60-80 million dollars, respectively, the cost of the first stage will be 36-56 million dollars. Even taking into account the tenfold use of the first stage of the Falcon-9, the cost of withdrawal will be 3,6-5,6 million dollars, the cost of fuel will be about 500 thousand dollars to launch. Thus, for 10 blocks, the cost of casting will be about 400-600 thousand dollars per block (not counting the cost of the block itself). With the resource of the first stage of Falcon-9 in 100 launches, the cost of each launch will fall by almost an order of magnitude. Of course, it is necessary to take into account other expenses - maintenance, repair, transportation, etc., but other weapons systems are not without additional costs. For example, an hour of flight of the B-2 costs more than 150 thousand dollars, and when hit at a distance of 7000 km, the total flight time will be 10 flight hours, i.e. one flight will cost 1,5 one million dollars.

And what about us?


Apparently, by hypersonic weapons in general, and by planning hypersonic warheads in particular, we are ahead of the rest.

But with reusable launch vehicles we have serious problems, more precisely, there are no problems, since there are no reusable launch vehicles themselves. But there are projects, including interesting ones, some of which may well be adapted for military use. Perhaps, as often happens in our country, this will give life to their civilian modifications. However, we’ll talk about this in the next article.
Author:
Photos used:
topwar.ru, topcor.ru, spacex.com, linkspace.com.cn, spacelin.ru, popmech.ru, s7space.ru
Articles from this series:
Strategic conventional weapon. Damage
Strategic conventional forces: carriers and weapons
The militarization of space is the next step of the United States. SpaX and orbiting lasers
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 August 2019 06: 26 New
    • 14
    • 6
    +8
    I still did not understand why the author believes that reusable ships will be cheaper than disposable ones. As for me, they will be more expensive for a very long time
    1. Shopping Mall 28 August 2019 08: 03 New
      • 8
      • 2
      +6
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      I still did not understand why the author believes that reusable ships will be cheaper than disposable ones. As for me, they will be more expensive for a very long time


      Of course, they will be more expensive if we talk about one launch, but if you divide by the number of starts in which they are used, then the numbers will be completely different, even taking into account maintenance and repair work.
      1. Shuttle 28 August 2019 08: 28 New
        • 6
        • 5
        +1
        Quote: AVM
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I still did not understand why the author believes that reusable ships will be cheaper than disposable ones. As for me, they will be more expensive for a very long time


        Of course, they will be more expensive if we talk about one launch, but if you divide by the number of starts in which they are used, then the numbers will be completely different, even taking into account maintenance and repair work.

        Do you believe or have objective trends, facts?
        Capitalism is trying to flood the world with disposable goods. Why should it be different here?
        1. Shopping Mall 28 August 2019 08: 33 New
          • 8
          • 4
          +4
          Quote: Shuttle
          Quote: AVM
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          I still did not understand why the author believes that reusable ships will be cheaper than disposable ones. As for me, they will be more expensive for a very long time


          Of course, they will be more expensive if we talk about one launch, but if you divide by the number of starts in which they are used, then the numbers will be completely different, even taking into account maintenance and repair work.

          Do you believe or have objective facts?


          An objective fact is that SpaceX has squeezed the commercial market from Roskosmos, despite the fact that we use inexpensive rockets from the Soviet backlog.

          And if you think logically, if a car for 1 000 000 rubles is intended for one trip, then it will cost 1 000 000 rubles. And if you can make 1000 trips on it, then 1000 p. The analogy is certainly not direct, but reusability is needed precisely for this - to reduce the cost of outputting the payload. SpaceX even considers the cost of returning the head fairing as a trifle, but it will give its few percent of the launch cost.

          Shuttles can not be considered a negative example, they have the most expensive disposable parts.
          1. igorbrsv 28 August 2019 09: 59 New
            • 2
            • 3
            -1
            . for 1 000 000 rubles is intended for one trip, it will cost 1 000 000 rubles. And if you can make 1000 trips on it, then 1000 p.

            But somehow it does not fit with capitalism. Bourgeois what are the benefits? request
            1. Shopping Mall 28 August 2019 10: 10 New
              • 6
              • 0
              +6
              Quote: igorbrsv
              . for 1 000 000 rubles is intended for one trip, it will cost 1 000 000 rubles. And if you can make 1000 trips on it, then 1000 p.

              But somehow it does not fit with capitalism. Bourgeois what are the benefits? request


              The benefit is that no one wants to buy a car on an 1 trip ...
            2. Narak-zempo 28 August 2019 14: 32 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              Quote: igorbrsv
              But somehow it does not fit with capitalism. Bourgeois what are the benefits?

              If the bourgeois sells rockets, then there is no profit.
              And if it sells launches, then it’s direct. Cost reduction is the ability to either increase profits or squeeze competitors by lowering the price.
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 August 2019 12: 02 New
            • 5
            • 4
            +1
            Objectively, no one has squeezed out anything, since the cost of launching the same Union is about 35 million dollars, which is significantly cheaper than the Mask. An example with a car here, by the way, is not applicable, later I will unsubscribe why
            1. Shopping Mall 28 August 2019 13: 12 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Objectively, no one has squeezed out anything, since the cost of launching the same Union is about 35 million dollars, which is significantly cheaper than the Mask. An example with a car here, by the way, is not applicable, later I will unsubscribe why


              The fact remains. I remember reading a scientific article on one resource, why the Falcon will not fly, the walls are thin, the engines are not the same, and in general, the designers. But he flies and flies.
              But this is all experience, such as we gained during the time of Korolev. And now they are working out. But what if BFRs do it all the same? And will she really be able to fly into orbit once a day? Have a resource on 100 flights? And when will they really break its cost into these 100 flights, drastically reducing the cost of withdrawal?

              And where will they go next with such developments?

              And the cost of withdrawing Falcon PMSM is now determined not by its cost, but by market prices. Why reduce if they already take it?
          3. ccsr 28 August 2019 12: 33 New
            • 6
            • 3
            +3
            Quote: AVM
            And if you can make 1000 trips on it, then 1000 p.

            You just forgot about one thing - a resource that must be considered when designing any engine. If the resource 2-3 hours for one "trip", then this is one engine cost. But on 1000 "trips" you will need an engine with a much larger resource, which in itself increases the cost of the entire rocket. So there is no linear dependence here - any constructor will confirm this for you. But this is not even the point, but that the military and nafig do not need reusability - they all well understand that the global nuclear war will not last long, and then there will be no new missile launches.
            1. Shopping Mall 28 August 2019 13: 17 New
              • 5
              • 1
              +4
              Quote: ccsr
              Quote: AVM
              And if you can make 1000 trips on it, then 1000 p.

              You just forgot about one thing - a resource that must be considered when designing any engine. If the resource 2-3 hours for one "trip", then this is one engine cost. But on 1000 "trips" you will need an engine with a much larger resource, which in itself increases the cost of the entire rocket. So there is no linear dependence here - any constructor will confirm this for you. But this is not even the point, but that the military and nafig do not need reusability - they all well understand that the global nuclear war will not last long, and then there will be no new missile launches.


              Everything is correct, nonlinear. That's just why you decided that increasing the resource by 100 times its cost will increase by 100 times, and what if it’s only 2 times? As actually happens.

              And about the nuclear war it did not go from the word at all.
              1. ccsr 28 August 2019 19: 25 New
                • 2
                • 3
                -1
                Quote: AVM
                That's just why you decided that increasing the resource by 100 times its cost will increase by 100 times, and what if it’s only 2 times?

                Twice you won’t learn - ten times for sure. But it’s not even the cost, but the probability of failure of such an engine. And here the circus with horses will start, especially after several dozen starts.
                Quote: AVM
                And about the nuclear war it did not go from the word at all.

                Why then do you push the idea that the military needs such systems? Can you correctly explain why the military needs such media?
                1. Shopping Mall 29 August 2019 10: 12 New
                  • 2
                  • 1
                  +1
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Quote: AVM
                  That's just why you decided that increasing the resource by 100 times its cost will increase by 100 times, and what if it’s only 2 times?

                  Twice you won’t learn - ten times for sure. But it’s not even the cost, but the probability of failure of such an engine. And here the circus with horses will start, especially after several dozen starts.


                  I don't think at ten. They reduced the load on the 1 engines (continuing the analogy with cars, they made a one-millionth atmospheric engine and not a turbocharged liter engine with an 3 service life of one year), increased their number (the mass of engines is relatively small with respect to fuel and body). Reliability is also increased by an excess of engines, the failure of two allows the flight to continue.

                  Quote: ccsr
                  Quote: AVM
                  And about the nuclear war it did not go from the word at all.

                  Why then do you push the idea that the military needs such systems? Can you correctly explain why the military needs such media?


                  In the article Strategic conventional weapon. Damage The objective of conventional strategic weapons is formulated as: damaging the enemy, significantly reducing their organizational, industrial and military capabilities from a distance that minimizes or excludes the likelihood of a direct military collision with the enemy’s armed forces. To this can be added - as soon as possible.

                  The material resources spent on the funds of the Belarusian State University will be repaid in full by the saving of forces and means of general forces. In some cases, for example, in the case of the liquidation of the enemy’s leadership, a military conflict may end without starting. The United States may well realize such a scenario, for example, in Venezuela. By means of BSU, it is possible to liquidate the incumbent president, at the same time organizing another “color” revolution, and no tanks, planes or ships will help to avoid such a scenario.
                  1. ccsr 29 August 2019 10: 19 New
                    • 2
                    • 5
                    -3
                    Quote: AVM
                    I don't think at ten.

                    We can think anything, but it’s better to listen to the opinions of experts, not bloggers. Are you a professional in rocket science or not - answer directly. Do you have an engineering background or are you a specialist in a "wide" profile?
                    Quote: AVM
                    In the article Strategic conventional weapon. Damage The strategic conventional weapon is formulated as:

                    This article has been criticized by many military professionals - I do not take it seriously at all. So imagine more noteworthy sources.
                    1. Shopping Mall 29 August 2019 12: 49 New
                      • 2
                      • 1
                      +1
                      Quote: ccsr
                      Quote: AVM
                      I don't think at ten.

                      We can think anything, but it’s better to listen to the opinions of experts, not bloggers. Are you a professional in rocket science or not - answer directly. Do you have an engineering background or are you a specialist in a "wide" profile?
                      Quote: AVM
                      In the article Strategic conventional weapon. Damage The strategic conventional weapon is formulated as:

                      This article has been criticized by many military professionals - I do not take it seriously at all. So imagine more noteworthy sources.


                      Engineering education is.

                      I doubt very much that you have data on the increase in the cost of engines and the like.

                      As for the opinion of "many military professionals," I am not familiar with them, their competence is not known to me. And sometimes people defend the point of view that they Likedespite its validity. This is not bad, everyone has the right to opinion, it’s bad when people dogmatically rest on something and do not perceive other people's arguments in principle.

                      My articles are based on open data on the development of a potential adversary. For example, in today's material - https://topwar.ru/161831-so-srokami-poluchenija-giperzvukovogo-oruzhija-opredelilis-v-ssha.html?utm_source=yxnews&utm_medium=desktop&utm_referrer=https%XNUMFNUMAXNUMFNUMAXNUMFNUMAXNUMFNUMFNUMF

                      It is confirmed that these developments are being actively conducted.
                      1. ccsr 29 August 2019 17: 00 New
                        • 1
                        • 4
                        -3
                        Quote: AVM
                        I doubt very much that you have data on the increase in the cost of engines and the like.

                        Actually, I led the development, but in a different area, so unlike you, I know perfectly well what a "resource of technology" is.
                        Quote: AVM
                        As for the opinion of "many military professionals," I am not familiar with them, their competence is not known to me.

                        But they immediately understand who writes professionally and who only portrays literacy.
                        Quote: AVM
                        My articles are based on open data on the development of a potential adversary.

                        What makes you think that they will be successful, and most importantly, we need them or not.
                      2. Shopping Mall 30 August 2019 08: 00 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Quote: ccsr
                        Quote: AVM
                        I doubt very much that you have data on the increase in the cost of engines and the like.

                        Actually, I led the development, but in a different area, so unlike you, I know perfectly well what a "resource of technology" is.
                        Quote: AVM
                        As for the opinion of "many military professionals," I am not familiar with them, their competence is not known to me.

                        But they immediately understand who writes professionally and who only portrays literacy.
                        Quote: AVM
                        My articles are based on open data on the development of a potential adversary.

                        What makes you think that they will be successful, and most importantly, we need them or not.


                        Let's see what you say when my predictions come true.
                      3. ccsr 30 August 2019 12: 49 New
                        • 1
                        • 3
                        -2
                        Quote: AVM
                        Let's see what you say when my predictions come true.

                        Dream ....
                        You don’t even have any idea what the US trade war with China might lead in a couple of years, but you’re already making forecasts that you’re not able to foresee five to seven years from now.
                      4. Shopping Mall 30 August 2019 15: 04 New
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        +1
                        Quote: ccsr
                        Quote: AVM
                        Let's see what you say when my predictions come true.

                        Dream ....
                        You don’t even have any idea what the US trade war with China might lead in a couple of years, but you’re already making forecasts that you’re not able to foresee five to seven years from now.


                        Where can I compete with yours special knowledge ...
    2. Shuttle 28 August 2019 14: 00 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      Quote: AVM
      Quote: Shuttle
      Quote: AVM
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      I still did not understand why the author believes that reusable ships will be cheaper than disposable ones. As for me, they will be more expensive for a very long time


      Of course, they will be more expensive if we talk about one launch, but if you divide by the number of starts in which they are used, then the numbers will be completely different, even taking into account maintenance and repair work.

      Do you believe or have objective facts?


      An objective fact is that SpaceX has squeezed the commercial market from Roskosmos, despite the fact that we use inexpensive rockets from the Soviet backlog.

      And if you think logically, if a car for 1 000 000 rubles is intended for one trip, then it will cost 1 000 000 rubles. And if you can make 1000 trips on it, then 1000 p. The analogy is certainly not direct, but reusability is needed precisely for this - to reduce the cost of outputting the payload. SpaceX even considers the cost of returning the head fairing as a trifle, but it will give its few percent of the launch cost.

      Shuttles can not be considered a negative example, they have the most expensive disposable parts.

      I have never come from the space industry. I am from IT. But I also know that miracles do not happen. In addition to capital investments related to the development, acquisition, commissioning, and even in some advanced accounting, decommissioning, which are called CAPEX in Creak, there are also so-called operating costs associated with maintaining the systems in good condition. Believe me, even those unpretentious with t.z. operation in comparison with space-rocket systems like ordinary industrial servers, storage facilities, fire extinguishing means, means of maintaining humidity, temperature, all kinds of monitoring, and other facilities require significant expenses. Over the years of operation, pieces of iron t.s. eating up more than one cost of service.
      If you go to your analogy, then the cost of the car in the cost of the trip (i.e. depreciation of it as a means of production) is far from the first and certainly not the main article. Much more important is the remuneration of staff (a driver in a car, technicians serving machinery or, in the case of a rocket, rockets for prelaunch preparations), fuel, and supplies. At the same Kreakl - OPEX (operating expenses). While you will fly 1000 times on a constantly and inevitably aging rocket, I will have a much newer (read, more advanced and efficient) reusable rocket. Why is that? Yes, because a rocket, even in order to stop and hover, must constantly spend fuel.
      This, by the way, can become a serious economic problem. While Musk is supported by government support. And let his state support as long as possible. On the one hand, he is a threat to us. But for them it is not sugar. Indeed, now no one is thinking about any real cost in the hope that everything will be taken off in the future. But when? What is the payback period? Only real, and not at the expense of taxpayers as it is now.
      After all, if everything was so beautiful and wonderful, then what for a goat button accordion, i.e. why do they need our engines? Ah, yes ... F-1 can’t do it anymore, because it has been a long time, and others have not been riveted as unnecessary. Everything went to the shuttles. But the shuttles were launched on their own, American. Where are they? Not profitable. The shuttles themselves are also not profitable. With Falcons, the exact same situation may turn out to be. They will not be killed by Roscosmos, not China, but by a simple American bookkeeper when he puts down CAPEX and OPEX and gets what Soviet engineers have long known. In Creakl it is TCO - total cost ownership. And Soviet space engineers and designers were far from fools.

      P / S Yes, I am also for reusability. But for the truly innovative. For example, for one like Virgin Galactic.
      1. Shopping Mall 28 August 2019 15: 06 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: Shuttle
        In addition to capital investments related to the development, acquisition, commissioning, and even in some advanced accounting, decommissioning, which are called CAPEX in Creak, there are also so-called operating costs associated with maintaining the systems in good condition. Believe me, even those unpretentious with t.z. operation in comparison with space-rocket systems like ordinary industrial servers, storage facilities, fire extinguishing means, means of maintaining humidity, temperature, all kinds of monitoring, and other facilities require significant expenses. Over the years of operation, pieces of iron t.s. eating up more than one cost of service.


        This is all for the pH, incl. and disposable at the stage of production-transportation-storage, etc.

        Quote: Shuttle
        If you go to your analogy, then the cost of the car in the cost of the trip (i.e. depreciation of it as a means of production) is far from the first and certainly not the main article. Much more important is the remuneration of staff (a driver in a car, technicians serving machinery or, in the case of a rocket, rockets for prelaunch preparations), fuel, and supplies. At the same Kreakl - OPEX (operating expenses). While you will fly 1000 times on a constantly and inevitably aging rocket, I will have a much newer (read, more advanced and efficient) reusable rocket.


        Well, not 1000, it's about 100 flights. 10 per year is 10 years, how many we fly there in unions? The space industry is not changing so dynamically as servers and software.

        Quote: Shuttle
        Why is that? Yes, because a rocket, even in order to stop and hover, must constantly spend fuel.


        Fuel is less than 5% of the launch cost, and the lost first stage 60-70%

        Quote: Shuttle
        This, by the way, can become a serious economic problem. While Musk is supported by government support. And let his state support as long as possible.


        This is a common opinion, but how realistic is it? How much did he receive state support funds?

        Quote: Shuttle
        On the one hand, he is a threat to us. But for them it is not sugar. Indeed, now no one is thinking about any real cost in the hope that everything will be taken off in the future. But when? What is the payback period? Only real, and not at the expense of taxpayers as it is now.


        Which one? I do not have these data. But the rest follow him, and also rely on reusability. Bezos, for example. Do they all also sit in subsidies?

        Quote: Shuttle
        After all, if everything was so beautiful and wonderful, then what for a goat button accordion, i.e. why do they need our engines?


        They are just cheaper.

        Quote: Shuttle
        Ah, yes ... F-1 can’t do it anymore, because it has been a long time, and others have not been riveted as unnecessary. Everything went to the shuttles. But the shuttles were launched on their own, American. Where are they? Not profitable. The shuttles themselves are also not profitable.


        There are no shuttles, there is no question of them, the whole program was controversial and compromise. Engines from the RS-25 Shuttle will be in the SLS rocket, and more:

        Development of an accelerator with an F-1B engine
        As part of the Space Launch System, NASA held a competition for the development of side boosters to select a winner by the end of the 2015 year. In 2012, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne proposed using a liquid accelerator with the new version of the F-1.
        In 2013, NASA engineers decided to draw on the experience of the previous generation of engineers who created the F-1. As part of the SLS heavy carrier development program, tests were carried out on the F-1 engine gas generator. The tests took place thanks to the young engineers of the Marshall Space Center, who disassembled the engine under the number F-6090, which was planned for use in the canceled Apollo-19 mission, and carried out its three-dimensional scan. According to the drawings received, new parts were assembled for the gas generator from the engine under the number F-6049, which was tested.
        Pratt & Whitney, Aerojet Rocketdyne and Dynetics participated in the test, and as part of the accelerator competition, they proposed a development called Pyrios to replace the MTCC Space Shuttle solid-state five-segment accelerators, which were planned for use on the early versions of the Space Launch System. Pyrios, according to plan, should be a liquid accelerator with two F-1B engines, and, if installed on the SLS Block II, the launch vehicle could deliver 150 tons to a low reference orbit.



        Quote: Shuttle
        With Falcons, the exact same situation may turn out to be. They will not be killed by Roscosmos, not China, but by a simple American bookkeeper when he puts down CAPEX and OPEX and gets what Soviet engineers have long known. In Creakl it is TCO - total cost ownership. And Soviet space engineers and designers were far from fools. .


        I don’t think so, SpaceX can only kill if the market does not go up according to their plans - there will be no deployment of global satellite Internet networks. Or maybe it won’t kill, they just refuse BFR and will slowly develop the line of Falcons.

        Quote: Shuttle
        P / S Yes, I am also for reusability. But for the truly innovative. For example, for one like Virgin Galactic.


        In my opinion, the concept is controversial, BFR is more interesting, but why not? The United States goes in many ways at once, can afford it, any of them will lead to a breakthrough.
        1. Shuttle 28 August 2019 16: 51 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Piecemeal.

          Quote: AVM

          I don’t think so, SpaceX can only kill if the market does not go up according to their plans - there will be no deployment of global satellite Internet networks. Or maybe it won’t kill, they just refuse BFR and will slowly develop the line of Falcons.

          Wait a minute. BFR - this is just for the megaplanes of flights to Mars. For global satellite internet in every refrigerator (How is it, by the way, the question of communication with household, i.e. relatively low-power mobile terminals, through the Earth’s, i.e. not at all radio-neutral atmosphere, and even at a distance of kilometers that way in 100, or even more?) and assume Falcon, who will carry satellites into orbit with string bags. Not BFR. Those. launches not the day after tomorrow should become the same routine as a flight from Chicago to Miami. Three hours and flew again.
        2. Shuttle 28 August 2019 17: 50 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: AVM

          Quote: Shuttle
          If you go to your analogy, then the cost of the car in the cost of the trip (i.e. depreciation of it as a means of production) is far from the first and certainly not the main article. Much more important is the remuneration of staff (a driver in a car, technicians serving machinery or, in the case of a rocket, rockets for prelaunch preparations), fuel, and supplies. At the same Kreakl - OPEX (operating expenses). While you will fly 1000 times on a constantly and inevitably aging rocket, I will have a much newer (read, more advanced and efficient) reusable rocket.


          Well, not 1000, it's about 100 flights. 10 per year is 10 years, how many we fly there in unions? The space industry is not changing so dynamically as servers and software.

          Truth? Maybe the whole thing is that the main player in the form of the USSR in this industry has disappeared? After all, everything that the USSR did in space, he did not only, but rather not so much for prestige, but for survival. Here, for example, they flew into space not because a manned cosmonautics was needed, but because a rocket was needed to deliver light and heat to the territory of a potential enemy. Perhaps because of this, in the end, we never flew to the moon. And the Americans flew. It was not so important for survival. With reusable spaceships, it turned out exactly as ours decided. Not profitable. But the Americans had a lot of money and a lot of ambition. Therefore, they began to saw shuttles. And, I must say honestly, they did very, very well. Space Shuttle is very successful since technical solutions, even despite the terrible catastrophes from a human point of view. It was closed for economic reasons only. Stupidly expensive. To develop, create, build from scratch was interesting and possible, but to exploit .... expensive. That's when the first bell came. Because pre-flight inspections must be carried out on single-use equipment even more thoroughly and in more detail (read, longer and more expensive) than on single-use.


          Quote: AVM

          Quote: Shuttle
          Why is that? Yes, because a rocket, even in order to stop and hover, must constantly spend fuel.

          Fuel is less than 5% of the launch cost, and the lost first stage 60-70%

          I am not talking about that. I’m talking about the fact that a rocket, unlike a car that just can stop in case of something, or even unlike an airplane, which in which case can even plan and even sometimes make an emergency landing with one or another success, and so the rocket is SO can. Every second of her stay outside the starting position is a huge energy cost. Those. cost of weight, structural strength, etc. All this then will result in money. But now, at that moment when the rocket took off from her, only two options. Either in orbit, or in a chronicle of disasters.

          Quote: AVM

          Quote: Shuttle
          This, by the way, can become a serious economic problem. While Musk is supported by government support. And let his state support as long as possible.


          This is a common opinion, but how realistic is it? How much did he receive state support funds?

          Do you think that the regulator just allows this soap bubble to exist for so long?
          http://www.ejinsight.com/20160428-elon-musk-supports-his-business-empire-with-unusual-help/
          It is not even funny.
          Yes, by the way, the original article about Mask and his "ways of financing" is here.
          https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-supports-his-business-empire-with-unusual-financial-moves-1461781962

          Quote: AVM

          Quote: Shuttle
          On the one hand, he is a threat to us. But for them it is not sugar. Indeed, now no one is thinking about any real cost in the hope that everything will be taken off in the future. But when? What is the payback period? Only real, and not at the expense of taxpayers as it is now.


          Which one? I do not have these data. But the rest follow him, and also rely on reusability. Bezos, for example. Do they all also sit in subsidies?

          No. Bezos is unlikely to be in subsidies. But he has a completely different idea - to land only the first stage and, moreover, by parachute. His chip in another - environmentally friendly fuel. He creates (the team of course creates, which he ultimately provides) because he, unlike the Mask, has a lot of OWN money. If the money runs out before commercial success appears, Bezos will simply lose the money invested and that’s it. But in case of success, he will really shut up a big chunk with himself. He owes no one, unlike Mask. Well, at least not so much.


          Quote: AVM

          Quote: Shuttle
          After all, if everything was so beautiful and wonderful, then what for a goat button accordion, i.e. why do they need our engines?


          They are just cheaper.

          That's it.


          Quote: AVM

          Quote: Shuttle
          Ah, yes ... F-1 can’t do it anymore, because it has been a long time, and others have not been riveted as unnecessary. Everything went to the shuttles. But the shuttles were launched on their own, American. Where are they? Not profitable. The shuttles themselves are also not profitable.


          There are no shuttles, there is no question of them, the whole program was controversial and compromise. Engines from the RS-25 Shuttle will be in the SLS rocket, and more:
          .

          On 25 of May 1961 of the year, POTUS #35 told Congress: "The country must make every effort to send a man to the moon and return him alive to Earth by the end of the decade."
          16 July 1969 years, i.e. in 2974 days, Neil Armstrong, Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin and Michael Collins were already sitting in Apollo-11 mounted on the top of the finished and usable Saturn-5 SA-506 rocket. Saturn Americans, we must also admit this, riveted like pies. So much their t.s. bit for pride, Comrade Korolev and his creative team, together with working people from the USSR, launched Comrade Gagarin into low Earth orbit.
          And then they repeated this trick more than once. No one was hurt at the same time and the right amount of F-1 of the right quality was made on time from the materials available fifty years ago. What now prevents stupidly repeating ?! Economy. Then everyone was a damn about how much it costs. Now there is no. Need the best materials? You are welcome. We need the best engineers - please. Now everything is decided by the accountants.
          And what about the Mask with a real financial situation?
          1. ccsr 28 August 2019 19: 34 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Quote: Shuttle
            Truth? Maybe the whole thing is that the main player in the form of the USSR in this industry has disappeared?

            No, that's not the point. It’s just that the global Internet uses fiber-optic lines for its communication lines, which is why the bet on the orbital grouping for communication systems turned out to be irrelevant, and the speeds are not the same.
      2. ccsr 28 August 2019 19: 29 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: Shuttle
        Over the years of operation, pieces of iron t.s. eating up more than one cost of service.

        Absolutely accurately noticed. In space rocket technology, this is even more noticeable, because the cost of servicing UNIQUE technology is higher than the cost of mass-produced in large quantities.
  2. Proxima 28 August 2019 17: 46 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    There was one REAL experiment about multi-disciplinary. This is a shuttle. Everything was reusable there .. Side boosters, engines that remained on the shuttle and only the fuel tank was dumped. And what all this led to - we all know very well.
  • mister-red 4 November 2019 19: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It was the same with the Shuttles. It was supposed to launch a minimum per month, as a result of 3-4 per year. The question is what exactly to launch into space in such quantity. It looks like a provincial airport, where An-2 with 10 passengers sat down, and the whole village arrived to tax.
  • Proxima 28 August 2019 11: 27 New
    • 6
    • 4
    +2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    I still did not understand why the author believes that reusable ships will be cheaper than disposable ones. As for me, they will be more expensive for a very long time

    Andrey, you are absolutely right! Designers thought about the reusability of missiles immediately when a one-time took off. But, this is the way back, back to reusable syringes and diapers. The main headache of these beautiful pictures is the fuel costs of landing the stage and the consequence of this is a decrease in the payload.
    1. Mordvin 3 28 August 2019 12: 18 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Proxima
      way back, back to refillable syringes

      And why, actually? I have reusable syringes lying around, so it’s easier to boil them than to buy new ones.
    2. Shopping Mall 28 August 2019 13: 16 New
      • 5
      • 3
      +2
      Quote: Proxima
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      I still did not understand why the author believes that reusable ships will be cheaper than disposable ones. As for me, they will be more expensive for a very long time

      Andrey, you are absolutely right! Designers thought about the reusability of missiles immediately when a one-time took off. But, this is the way back, back to reusable syringes and diapers. The main headache of these beautiful pictures is the fuel costs of landing the stage and the consequence of this is a decrease in the payload.


      You give strange analogies - syringes, diapers, someone spoke about reusable pasta and bullets.

      If you talk like that, then let's do everything one-time - at home for a week, cars for a day, clothes for an hour. The story "This fragile, fragile, fragile world" read?

      Again:
      Reusable launchers will be more expensive if we talk about one launch, but if you divide by the number of launches in which they are used, then the numbers will be completely different, even taking into account maintenance and repair work.
  • usa agent 30 August 2019 00: 30 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    somewhere, one Falcon 9 laughs, dropping 40 million prices due to reusability
  • Nestorovich 28 August 2019 06: 52 New
    • 7
    • 10
    -3
    Apparently, by hypersonic weapons in general, and by planning hypersonic warheads in particular, we are ahead of the rest

    on cartoons, yes, on a bluff for a C grade, but the Americans "with a fright" will build it all.
  • evgen1221 28 August 2019 07: 25 New
    • 10
    • 2
    +8
    And why would reusable boosters be cheaper for the military? And the time for post-flight prophylaxis and replacement (hey enemies, we had a dozen of you, wait a moment, we rush to clean up our many times and we’ll have a beat in three weeks) -so chtoli?
    1. Simargl 28 August 2019 07: 38 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Quote: evgen1221
      And why would reusable boosters be cheaper for the military?
      Reusable shock - nonsense: it's like a reusable bullet.
      But a reusable barge for removing military cargo - why not?
      1. Shopping Mall 28 August 2019 08: 09 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        Quote: Simargl
        Quote: evgen1221
        And why would reusable boosters be cheaper for the military?
        Reusable shock - nonsense: it's like a reusable bullet.
        But a reusable barge for removing military cargo - why not?


        Draw an analogy:
        Missile bomber + cruise missile
        Reusable booster + gliding hypersonic warhead
        1. armata_armata 28 August 2019 09: 31 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Draw an analogy:
          Missile bomber + cruise missile
          Reusable booster + gliding hypersonic warhead

          During a real war, both options are one-time, using ICBMs during local conflicts is expensive and not safe
        2. Ka-52 28 August 2019 10: 06 New
          • 6
          • 2
          +4
          Missile bomber + cruise missile
          Reusable booster + gliding hypersonic warhead

          utter stupidity. The use of weapons that threaten the existence of the state will cause a retaliatory strike. Launch platforms (if any will be involved in striking) will be the first targets. In which garage on your knee are you going to "recharge" your reusable media?
          The article is for trying "+", for matching reality with "-"
          1. Shopping Mall 28 August 2019 10: 14 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            Quote: Ka-52
            Missile bomber + cruise missile
            Reusable booster + gliding hypersonic warhead

            utter stupidity. The use of weapons that threaten the existence of the state will cause a retaliatory strike. Launch platforms (if any will be involved in striking) will be the first targets.


            Which state? Venezuela? Iran? Well, it’s stated in the article:
            Another objection is that the use of BSU funds will begin the third world war. It should be understood that the United States does not in any way plan to use BSU funds against Russia at its current level of development of the armed forces. And against China too. But countries like Iran or Venezuela may well become a target for BSU, which will be delivered the first decapitation blow.


            at the same time it will have to be taken into account:
            One may ask: if Russia or China, as nuclear powers, are not considered as targets for BSU, then why is it indicated that their territory is in the affected area? The answer is simple, BSU is a factor that will have to be taken into account. If the deployment of Mk-41 launchers in Europe caused so much noise, what will happen when a floating spaceport with LV with planning hypersonic warheads appears in the Mediterranean Sea ...


            Quote: Ka-52
            In which garage on your knee are you going to "recharge" your reusable media?


            PS Bombers in the garage refuel and do that?
            1. Ka-52 28 August 2019 10: 35 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              Which state? Venezuela? Iran? Well, it’s stated in the article:

              all the more stupid to use such an expensive weapon against such countries. There is quite a well-stocked arsenal of conventional weapons. Obama-shaped Guaido can ruin Venezuela, Iran will not survive the more or less massive blow of the Kyrgyz Republic and GBU. Why fantasize about punches hypersonic blocks according to caracas? what
              Bombers in the garage refuel and do that?

              if this is with respect to the Russian Federation, then there will be few chances for reloading of any of the components of the strategic forces. In the case of third world states, read above.
              1. Shopping Mall 28 August 2019 10: 52 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Quote: Ka-52
                Which state? Venezuela? Iran? Well, it’s stated in the article:

                all the more stupid to use such an expensive weapon against such countries. There is quite a well-stocked arsenal of conventional weapons. Obama-shaped Guaido can ruin Venezuela, Iran will not survive the more or less massive blow of the Kyrgyz Republic and GBU. Why fantasize about punches hypersonic blocks according to caracas? what


                And how much more expensive? The article shows the cost of an hour of flight of a bomber, and KR with GBU are not free.

                The whole point is that BSU is doing everything fast. The same Maduro can fill up BSU during a speech in parliament dropping 4 planning blocks (for reliability), + 6 for the Ministry of Defense of Venezuela. And then, during the chaos, the CIA makes a coup.

                In the event of an attack by conventional forces, there should be many of them - bombers, UAVs, electronic warfare vehicles, tankers, etc. are likely to spot them, Maduro will flee, the conflict will drag on, and KR / GBU will be spent much more.

                The point is that countries like Venezuela or Iran have no chance to immediately see and respond to BSU, and then it may be too late. And we can’t prevent them, at least not always.

                And if the United States comes closer, for example, the launch will be from an offshore platform with a range of 3000 km, then the flight time will be 10-15 minutes. Even if ours are spotted, then they will report back to the leadership, while they will contact the potential target, until the team passes there, it will be too late, everything will end. Something like this...
        3. Simargl 28 August 2019 12: 44 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: AVM
          Draw an analogy:
          What effect did the dive into the stratosphere of the shuttle over Moscow remember?
          But there is no analogy between bomber + CR << >> There is no reusable launch vehicle + hypersonic block: a bomber from the Kyrgyz Republic took off, stood on guard and returned from the Kyrgyz Republic to the base, if everything is calm, but what about the second version?
          1. Shopping Mall 28 August 2019 13: 02 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Simargl
            Quote: AVM
            Draw an analogy:
            What effect did the dive into the stratosphere of the shuttle over Moscow remember?
            But there is no analogy between bomber + CR << >> There is no reusable launch vehicle + hypersonic block: a bomber from the Kyrgyz Republic took off, stood on guard and returned from the Kyrgyz Republic to the base, if everything is calm, but what about the second version?


            Analogy in returnable media. A reusable LV does not need to be on duty, if only on the ground. Exit to 100 km will take 2-5 minutes, during this time there is little to change, which means that there is no return.

            Look at the analogy like this:
            The bomber takes off, flies 5 hours (at this time it can be returned), launches a hypersonic KR, which flies 30 minutes (Zircon 8M flight speed), returns to the 5 clock base.
            Reusable R.N. all the time that the bomber flies (5 hours) stands still in readiness for launch, then 5 minutes take off + 25 minutes flight block (flight speed Vanguard 27M) and 10-15 minutes landing.
            1. Simargl 28 August 2019 20: 37 New
              • 1
              • 2
              -1
              Quote: AVM
              Look at the analogy like this:
              An owl, when trying to pull on a globe, often bursts. Be careful with globes or with dimensions do not overdo it.
              Using reusable launchers under the Vanguard (doomsday product) is beyond logic: how do you imagine it?
              Okay, hunters: they have the ability to reload used ammunition, while the cartridge case, gunpowder, shell, capsule can wait as much as you like, but what about the sentry?
              Reusability is needed when baraging is necessary (as the "strategists" do), and it is an anchor to the Yars and Vanguard.
              1. Shopping Mall 29 August 2019 08: 10 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Quote: Simargl
                Quote: AVM
                Look at the analogy like this:
                An owl, when trying to pull on a globe, often bursts. Be careful with globes or with dimensions do not overdo it.
                Using reusable launchers under the Vanguard (doomsday product) is beyond logic: how do you imagine it?
                Okay, hunters: they have the ability to reload used ammunition, while the cartridge case, gunpowder, shell, capsule can wait as much as you like, but what about the sentry?
                Reusability is needed when baraging is necessary (as the "strategists" do), and it is an anchor to the Yars and Vanguard.


                And where it was about Vanguard, it is nuclear. I am talking only about conventional blocks, and the tasks for them are indicated in three articles.
                1. Simargl 29 August 2019 09: 35 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quote: AVM
                  And where it was about Vanguard

                  Quote: AVM
                  25 minutes flight block (flight speed Avant-garde 27M) and 10-15 minutes landing.


                  Quote: AVM
                  I am only talking about conventional blocks
                  I repeat the question: why reusable media for single use?
                  Strategically, bombers carry their threat in order to deter and threaten to use. Mine installations (reusable) do this without flying anywhere. But the rockets - so far all are disposable.
    2. donavi49 28 August 2019 08: 06 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Well why not. Again, everything is from the enemy. If he can only threaten with curses and promise terrible punishments from Allah. Then you can clean it slowly. In this case - it will be cheaper than wailing what Peacemaker with a land mine.

      In principle, such needs may arise. More and more countries are acquiring at least Chinese but +/- already dangerous RCCs. Air defense is also gradually increasing. This increases the necessary outfit to take all this out. That is the cost of the operation. At the same time, the main nodes, the most important plants and control centers must be demolished and preferably in the first waves. Here, such an ersatzMBR can, in principle, be a very cheap and interesting system. Which will break through both the air defense / missile defense and the target will be destroyed and the carrier will return, where it will be possible to attach a new head and reuse it.
    3. Shopping Mall 28 August 2019 08: 08 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: evgen1221
      And why would reusable boosters be cheaper for the military?


      And where does it say that they will be cheaper for the military? The article for Falcon shows the cost range of 60-80 million $, in fact for civilians about 60, for military 80.

      Quote: evgen1221
      And the time for post-flight prophylaxis and replacement (hey enemies, we’ve gotten a dozen of you, wait, we rush back to clean up our many times and we’ll even hit three weeks later) -so chtoli?


      This is a specific weapon of the first strike in the "middle" countries, i.e. not to Bantustans, but not to superpowers. After the first strike, they can "rest" while other forces are working. And yes, SpaceX achieves a second flight within 24 hours, this is quite comparable with the B-2, which is restored after the flight, etc.
    4. voyaka uh 28 August 2019 09: 46 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      "And the time for post-flight prophylaxis and replacement" ////
      ----
      24-48 hours in the plans for the Mask.
      So far, it did not work out, but this is due to the fact that there was no prepared cargo (satellite) for restarting.
      1. usa agent 30 August 2019 00: 33 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        this is due to the fact that the technology is not yet perfect
  • Sancho_SP 28 August 2019 08: 01 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Tashchemta and commercial missiles differ from the military in that the time for their preparation for launch is much higher, and the salaries of legal personnel are lower.

    It would take a few minutes to launch an MBR from a mine, and it probably takes days to falcons. Therefore, there is no quick strike here.


    It would be possible to launch batteries with blocks into orbit in advance, but these are completely different star wars.
    1. Shopping Mall 28 August 2019 08: 14 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Quote: Sancho_SP
      Tashchemta and commercial missiles differ from the military in that the time for their preparation for launch is much higher, and the salaries of legal personnel are lower.


      The launch of the Falcon for civilian 60 million, for the military 80 million

      Quote: Sancho_SP
      It would take a few minutes to launch an MBR from a mine, and it probably takes days to falcons. Therefore, there is no quick strike here.


      SpaceX achieves the departure of the reusable 1 stage once a day. Given that this is a first strike weapon, this is not critical. In the future, it should be comparable with the preparation of the bomber for the departure.


      Quote: Sancho_SP
      It would be possible to launch batteries with blocks into orbit in advance, but these are completely different star wars.


      Yes, I think this topic in the US can go with the advent of the BFR. But these are not mutually exclusive, but complementary programs.
      1. voyaka uh 28 August 2019 09: 52 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        "Launch of the Falcon for civil 60 million" ////
        ----
        On used missiles, the launch price was reduced to 51 million.
        According to estimates, the cost of launching used steps does not exceed 20-25 million dollars. Customers began to resent that they too profit smile
        So they dropped 9 million from 60
        1. Shopping Mall 28 August 2019 10: 32 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          "Launch of the Falcon for civil 60 million" ////
          ----
          On used missiles, the launch price was reduced to 51 million.
          According to estimates, the cost of launching used steps does not exceed 20-25 million dollars. Customers began to resent that they too profit smile
          So they dropped 9 million from 60


          Maybe less if they use the 10 rocket once, I generally am silent about 100. It’s just capitalism, the price is determined not only by the cost price, but also by the cost of analogues from competitors, and the willingness of the market to take the goods.
  • Semurg 28 August 2019 08: 44 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    This will be a real quick global hit, and not what was previously said about before sound tomahawks.
    1. g1washntwn 28 August 2019 09: 56 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Only BB delivery speed increased, the risks and consequences remained the same as in the original BSU concept.
  • Vladimir61 28 August 2019 09: 31 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    We can talk about the effectiveness, relevance and, especially, the cost of some things, only for a while.
    Technically, much can be made reusable, which in the long run can both reduce the cost and cost of production. Whether it is necessary, whether it finds application, the care of either the customer or the manufacturer’s corresponding advertisement.
    For example, reusable dishes are in demand, and reusable pasta, even with successful marketing, no one needs.
  • Avior 28 August 2019 09: 44 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Such pictures roam in "tyrnets"
    1. g1washntwn 28 August 2019 11: 20 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      At the zenith, the USSR flag is laid. Ukrainian in them on the strength of 30%
  • g1washntwn 28 August 2019 09: 53 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The achievements of the civil sector can be used, but reusable launch vehicles themselves are unlikely. For BSU, the main factor is surprise; with the same success, one can try to deliver to the office of the “zealous dictator” an ultra-precise warhead by a civilian airliner. The only option is a one-time action, to tell everyone that we are launching microsatellites, and to plod at the “honduras” with planning blocks. What will happen to the ratings of such a country and how will everyone else react to ANY subsequent launches after such a scenario, including those with their own nuclear weapons?
    1. Shopping Mall 28 August 2019 10: 29 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: g1washntwn
      The achievements of the civil sector can be used, but reusable launch vehicles themselves are unlikely. For BSU, the main factor is surprise; with the same success, one can try to deliver to the office of the “zealous dictator” an ultra-precise warhead by a civilian airliner.


      The intended goals usually don’t have an SPR; this is not cheap.

      Quote: g1washntwn
      The only option is a one-time action, to tell everyone that we are launching microsatellites, and to plod at the “honduras” with planning blocks. What will happen to ratings of such a country ..


      We are crucified, the United States will spit, as is the case with Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and many others.

      Quote: g1washntwn
      ... how will everyone else react after ANY subsequent launches after such a scenario, including those with their own nuclear weapons?


      No way. SPRN defines an attack in two ways:
      1. The fact of launching a rocket from satellites, by IR emission.
      2. The radar "sees" flying warheads.

      In the case of a reusable BSU carrier, there is only a launch fact, and a single (well, or paired), at an altitude of less than 100 km, there are no blocks flying towards the Russian Federation.

      I’m wondering, but what kind of Rocketlab with its Electron notify the Russian Federation of launches? Or private Chinese companies?
      1. g1washntwn 28 August 2019 11: 12 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        1. SPRN thing is not an object, but more global. If the “Honduras" do not have it, then the whole problem is only in costs, and not in the absence of a desire to have it. Everything goes to the fact that, on the basis of alliances, everyone wants to have such means of warning.
        2. Biased and one-sided opinion.
        3. There is a Hague code of conduct to prevent the spread of BR, which only China, India, Pakistan, Iran and the DPRK did not sign. There are bilateral treaties and agreements purely on ICBMs (for example, the USSR (RF) -USA, and the RF-PRC). All signatories of these documents must be notified by the country launching any types of launch vehicles and notify others of such launches. Another point is that the same Code is de jure not mandatory but declarative, and the same USA as you put it will not give a damn. But here again the saying about the well is recalled.
        1. Avior 28 August 2019 11: 29 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          There is a Hague code of conduct to prevent the spread of BR, which only China, India, Pakistan, Iran and the DPRK did not sign.

          Rocket technology distribution control mode.
          Only India has already signed up recently.
        2. Shopping Mall 28 August 2019 11: 44 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: g1washntwn
          1. SPRN thing is not an object, but more global. If the “Honduras" do not have it, then the whole problem is only in costs, and not in the absence of a desire to have it.


          So the problem is almost always in the means, and not in the absence of desire. Many people have a desire, but with means it is more difficult.

          Quote: g1washntwn
          Everything goes to the fact that, on the basis of alliances, everyone wants to have such means of warning.


          So far I have not heard about such projects, if you share, I will be grateful. Taking into account the short flight time of the means of the BSU, the SPRN should have its own and well-developed response mechanism.

          Given the general gouging in countries such as Venezuela, I see little chance of this.

          Quote: g1washntwn
          2. Biased and one-sided opinion.


          This is about the "radar" sees the "flying warheads.", But can be more detailed, what’s wrong?

          Quote: g1washntwn
          3. There is a Hague code of conduct to prevent the spread of BR, which only China, India, Pakistan, Iran and the DPRK did not sign. There are bilateral treaties and agreements purely on ICBMs (for example, the USSR (RF) -USA, and the RF-PRC). All signatories of these documents must be notified by the country launching any types of launch vehicles and notify others of such launches. Another point is that the same Code is de jure not mandatory but declarative, and the same USA as you put it will not give a damn. But here again the saying about the well is recalled.


          The advent of BSU does not spread rocket technologies, they are for their own use.

          And as for the warning, the question is in detail - do I need to provide information on all launches? Training? To what height? Maybe you do not need to submit km to 100? (this is a question).

          And how does this apply to other countries
          I’m wondering, but what kind of Rocketlab with its Electron notify the Russian Federation of launches? Or private Chinese companies?


          Quote: g1washntwn
          Another point is that the same Code is de jure not mandatory but declarative, and the same USA as you put it will not give a damn. But here again the saying about the well is recalled.


          So they have been spitting for more than half a century where they can reach ... For all contracts, sovereignty, privacy and correspondence, etc.
          1. g1washntwn 29 August 2019 06: 56 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: AVM
            So far I have not heard about such projects, if you share, I will be grateful. Taking into account the short flight time of the means of the BSU, the SPRN should have its own and well-developed response mechanism.

            The names of the "projects" are probably familiar to you, this is the "single space system" and the "single air defense system." So far, within the framework of the CSTO, but the doors are open for everyone.
            Prejudiced about the fact that Americans are permissive. This is far from being the case otherwise they would not have yuli with the concluded agreements, but simply would have unilaterally and prematurely torn them apart and would not argue about the implementation of their points. Regarding the violation of human rights in the United States itself and other things, this is a completely alien monastery to us. Let them pray to their paper presidents as they like.
            1. Shopping Mall 29 August 2019 08: 08 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: g1washntwn
              The names of the "projects" are probably familiar to you, this is the "single space system" and the "single air defense system." So far, within the framework of the CSTO, but the doors are open for everyone.


              The names are familiar, but to be honest I don’t really believe in them ...
              Unfortunately, our allies are mostly Holodians and their existence is not due to military or economic power, but to the need of the United States in the enemy. And then deal with everyone, until then to receive money for the defense industry?

              Quote: g1washntwn
              Quote: AVM
              So far I have not heard about such projects, if you share, I will be grateful. Taking into account the short flight time of the means of the BSU, the SPRN should have its own and well-developed response mechanism.

              The names of the "projects" are probably familiar to you, this is the "single space system" and the "single air defense system." So far, within the framework of the CSTO, but the doors are open for everyone.


              I think that they have several goals at the same time.
              - military, get new weapons, such as missile defense;
              - political, substitute the Russian Federation as if it were our fault;
              - economic, strike the ABM allies.

              Perhaps others:
              - create centers of tension;
              - Substitute the allies under attack (some missiles will then be aimed at them, and not at the continental states;
              - create new bases for this business;
              - earn some money;
              - etc. etc.
              1. g1washntwn 29 August 2019 12: 23 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                We are talking about which country? Unified air defense system - RF-Belarus-Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan expressed interest in the Unified Space System (Baikonur wants it to work). Combine "space" and "air defense" in Photoshop and get what they wanted - SPRN. Everything is possible, there would be a desire of the parties, and such a need is becoming more clear every day. In addition to the ICBMs, the third countries are actively and on all sides exploring the INF Treaty, and the USA with its BSU does not guarantee anyone quiet sovereignty.
                1. Shopping Mall 29 August 2019 12: 43 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: g1washntwn
                  We are talking about which country? Unified air defense system - RF-Belarus-Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan expressed interest in the Unified Space System (Baikonur wants it to work). Combine "space" and "air defense" in Photoshop and get what they wanted - SPRN. Everything is possible, there would be a desire of the parties, and such a need is becoming more clear every day. In addition to the ICBMs, the third countries are actively and on all sides exploring the INF Treaty, and the USA with its BSU does not guarantee anyone quiet sovereignty.



                  I am talking about Venezuela, Iran, Nigeria, etc., with whom we communicate.

                  It is clear that Belarus and Kazakhstan are not included in this number, but they are still the heirs of a single country.
                  1. g1washntwn 29 August 2019 13: 00 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    In Venezuela, you can discuss a common spacecraft tracking station and overseas, the mountains there are convenient. After all, participation in the Unified Air Defense / ABM System can be not only monetary, and it is not necessary to build or have your own expensive facilities. As if there is such a word "rent", "leasing", etc.
                    It is more complicated with Iran, except for the general desire not to fall under the American "tomahawks" there is little in common. Africa is even more complex and even more unpredictable than the East, as with the "heirs." In general, one mug of cognac will not be enough for conversation.
                    1. ccsr 29 August 2019 17: 03 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: g1washntwn
                      In Venezuela, you can discuss a common spacecraft tracking station and overseas, the mountains there are convenient.

                      Do not tell, we were already discussing a similar issue with Chile in the seventies when we were President Allende. But then Pinochet came and everything went down the drain. The same will happen with Venezuela, so do not dream about what is unrealistic and does not have a long-term perspective.
                      1. g1washntwn 30 August 2019 06: 37 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        How to say, it wasn’t funny for the Americans, since they decided to bring to power and cooperate with outright dictators and hint at interventions with the bombing (everywhere, not just about Chile). For a long time to keep third countries in the role of their own pantry with reserves, they still will not succeed. Democracy is the same. Otherwise, the United States itself will need to slide into a military dictatorship and the state of the next historical Reich. And by the way, dreaming and doing a little different.
  • Alexander Sosnitsky 28 August 2019 09: 57 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    There was a war that they overslept and paid in full, but after it they overtook and surpassed everyone from scratch. Then again they overslept and after sobering up, we were catching up, although half a century ago everyone had ahead of the rest of the planet until the actual flight to the moon. What kind of nation is this? We cough up blood, then we drink it. When, how and how will it end?
  • voyaka uh 28 August 2019 10: 08 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    As for the synchronous landing of the first two steps of the Falcons on the platforms next to me, the author is right -
    it was the most amazing sight in cosmonautics for many years.
    In my opinion, the milestones were:
    1) first satellite
    2) flight of Yuri Gagarin
    3) Lunokhod
    4) astronaut descent to the moon
    5) astronauts spacewalk
    6) Shuttle civil crews
    7) Mounting the Hubble Orbital Telescope
    8) NASA Rovers Mars Travel
    Then there was some kind of stagnation ...
    Which Musk clearly enlivened by landing rockets "on his own exhaust", as in science fiction books.
    1. Shopping Mall 28 August 2019 10: 22 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Quote: voyaka uh
      As for the synchronous landing of the first two steps of the Falcons on the platforms next to me, the author is right -
      it was the most amazing sight in cosmonautics for many years.
      In my opinion, the milestones were:
      1) first satellite
      2) flight of Yuri Gagarin
      3) Lunokhod
      4) astronaut descent to the moon
      5) astronauts spacewalk
      6) Shuttle civil crews
      7) Mounting the Hubble Orbital Telescope
      8) NASA Rovers Mars Travel
      Then there was some kind of stagnation ...
      Which Musk clearly enlivened by landing rockets "on his own exhaust", as in science fiction books.


      I have a passion for wanting to see a fully reusable heavy BFR. I hope this will make our Roskosmos move in this direction.
    2. Proctologist 28 August 2019 12: 29 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      I would also add missions to distant planets and beyond the borders of the solar system. Too much.
    3. Local from the Volga 29 August 2019 00: 03 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      And Voyagers, and Mir, and the ISS ?!
  • Operator 28 August 2019 10: 47 New
    • 2
    • 7
    -5
    Article - hodgepodge advertising of stale US products.

    The following pearls of the author were especially amused:
    - "In Russia, a similar project has been implemented - a hypersonic guided warhead as part of the Avangard complex launched by the ICBM UR-100N UTTX" (such as have been used for a long time abroad, but we only implemented their analogue);
    - "hypersonic missiles launched from strategic aircraft, such as the American X-51 Waverider or the Russian 3M22" Zircon "(such as a burnt-out X-51 and a working 3М22 - one berry field);
    - "the installation of hypersonic warheads on ICBMs [USA], the terms of which are in service are coming to an end. This decision is justified" (such as US unilateral nuclear disarmament is justified for the United States).

    "Funny pictures" rule laughing
  • Proctologist 28 August 2019 11: 34 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    There is no certainty with the benefits of using reusable launch vehicles. Using existing technologies and fuels, with 50 launches per year (a lot, huh?), Savings from 15% (pessimistic scenario) to 30% are expected. That is, nothing radical, not at times. This is for civilian flights.

    As for the use of missiles for military purposes, priorities are changing. The reliability of the launch, including the guaranteed possibility of starting at the right time, and not a couple of days later, after inspection and routine maintenance, is probably estimated above 15% -30% savings.
    1. Shopping Mall 28 August 2019 11: 56 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Proctologist
      There is no certainty with the benefits of using reusable launch vehicles. Using existing technologies and fuels, with 50 launches per year (a lot, huh?), Savings from 15% (pessimistic scenario) to 30% are expected. That is, nothing radical, not at times. This is for civilian flights.

      As for the use of missiles for military purposes, priorities are changing. The reliability of the launch, including the guaranteed possibility of starting at the right time, and not a couple of days later, after inspection and routine maintenance, is probably estimated above 15% -30% savings.


      When the article - Strategic Conventional Forces: carriers and weapons https://topwar.ru/161030-strategicheskie-konvencionalnye-sily-nositeli-i-vooruzhenie.html was considered by ICBMs as carriers, then one of the objections was - expensive when it comes went about reusable systems, it turns out that the cost is not so important.

      By the way, these output methods can "coexist", each for its own tasks.
      1. Proctologist 28 August 2019 11: 59 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        these withdrawal methods can "coexist", each for its own tasks


        100%. Reusable rockets - in the "truck" mode, put a lot of cargo into orbit, including increasing military presence there. Disposable ICBMs and CDs for operational strike.
  • Proctologist 28 August 2019 11: 50 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Let me explain about the "hypersound": the speed of aircraft in the atmosphere they are measured in Mach numbers (sound speeds) because the behavior of the gas flow changes radically and dictates completely different requirements for the aircraft and its engines. Hence the wings of variable sweep and the need for several engines (yes!) For different flight speeds, because the turbojet engine will not be able to work at hypersonic speeds, and the ramjet engine will not work at subsonic and supersonic speeds. Recall SR-71 transformer engines or the British SABER project, which allows you to get by with one sophisticated engine design.

    Therefore, any spacecraft (entering a low orbit) and most ballistic missiles are “hypersonic” in terms of flight speed, but they are not considered as such precisely from a ballistic flight path.

    And if a hypersonic glider (analogous to the Falcon HTV, not to be confused with the SpaceX! Falcon launch vehicle!), We may have or is being designed, then with a hypersonic engine everything is worse.

    Why do I focus on engines? A missile carries an oxidizing agent (oxygen) on itself, and the mass of this oxidizing agent may be 80% of its mass. The "breathing" engine for flight in the atmosphere takes oxygen from the air, which gives mass savings - consider the flight range. This is a pilot project Waverider X-51 with ramjet engine. He seems to have given encouraging results.

    Choosing from two systems, a hypersonic glider (Vanguard / HTV 2) or a ramjet, it seems to me that the second has significantly more advantages. Starting a ballistic missile necessary to disperse the airframe is a priori, expensive and risky (provoking a retaliatory nuclear strike) event. A direct-current air launch allows you to hit, without entering the affected area, a missile that cannot be intercepted - this is a pun, as in Russian, “missile” means both an aircraft with a rocket engine, and an unmanned shock single-use aircraft, even quite a plane principle, a cruise missile, and I’m talking about such a missile. For her, the booster is not needed at all.
    1. Shopping Mall 28 August 2019 12: 54 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Proctologist
      Choosing from two systems, a hypersonic glider (Vanguard / HTV 2) or a ramjet, it seems to me that the second has significantly more advantages. Starting a ballistic missile necessary to disperse the airframe is a priori, expensive and risky (provoking a retaliatory nuclear strike) event. A direct-current air launch allows you to hit, without entering the affected area, a missile that cannot be intercepted - this is a pun, as in Russian, “missile” means both an aircraft with a rocket engine, and an unmanned shock single-use aircraft, even quite a plane principle, a cruise missile, and I’m talking about such a missile. For her, the booster is not needed at all.


      The flight heights of the forward-flow and planning GBDs should be comparable (in the middle and final section), while, so far, even smaller forward-flight paths are declared for much shorter ranges than for planning GBDs. PMSM these types of weapons will complement each other.

      An alternative solution is hypersonic missiles launched from strategic aircraft, such as the American X-51 Waverider or the Russian 3M22 Zircon. The X-51 and 3M22 missiles have greater versatility compared to hypersonic warheads launched by launch vehicles and possibly lower cost. However, their range and speed are significantly less than those of the planning warheads - of the order of 500-2000 km and 5-8 M (1,7-2,7 km / s), respectively. A lower speed and range will not allow for a reaction time comparable to that which allows for hypersonic gliding warheads. When striking a range of 6000-7000 or more, the total flight time of a bomber and a hypersonic missile will be about five hours, while a hypersonic planning warhead can strike for half an hour, which can be critical for some missions.

      The above comparison does not mean the abandonment of one type or another of weapons, but only shows the niche of each of them. In this “division of labor”, hypersonic planning blocks are given the task of defeating high-priority goals - command posts, decision centers, etc.
  • Rostislav 28 August 2019 12: 43 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    If this is a platform for destroying VIPs (persons or objects), then why is there a resource for it in 100 launches, especially with shared blocks? Where so many worthy goals in a single small country to find?
    1. Shopping Mall 28 August 2019 12: 50 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Rostislav
      If this is a platform for destroying VIPs (persons or objects), then why is there a resource for it in 100 launches, especially with shared blocks? Where so many worthy goals in a single small country to find?


      In any case, several blocks are necessary, because there is a certain probability of defeat. For guaranteed destruction of the target send several ammunition.

      And reusability is based on the tasks of a specific user, they may not want to get by with one goal, all the same, there are different situations, and the company will drag out.

      And so:
      On the basis of technologies implemented in commercial rocket science, other small reusable launch vehicles can be created for given loads, which allow the abandonment of one or two hypersonic warheads, followed by landing of the carrier and its repeated reuse.


      And as I wrote above - reusable media and ICBMs with conventional units can "coexist", each for its own tasks.
  • Operator 28 August 2019 14: 31 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Rostislav
    If it is a platform for the destruction of VIP (persons or objects)

    How can you destroy a person with kinetic ammunition with a KVO in 100 meters?

    When tungsten scrap gets into the building at a speed of several kilometers per second, a neat hole with a diameter of scrap is formed in the building (like a hole from the BPS in a tank armor) - where here destruction building?
    1. Shopping Mall 28 August 2019 14: 46 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Operator
      Quote: Rostislav
      If it is a platform for the destruction of VIP (persons or objects)

      How can you destroy a person with kinetic ammunition with a KVO in 100 meters?

      When tungsten scrap gets into the building at a speed of several kilometers per second, a neat hole with a diameter of scrap is formed in the building (like a hole from the BPS in a tank armor) - where here destruction building?


      1. QUO of the block should not be 100 but 10 meters, or even less.
      2. Maybe not a "crowbar" but a scattering of pins.
      3. Kinetic defeat is not an end in itself, it may also be In general, there may be different blocks for different tasks.
      4. Tungsten rods are from another topic, but n.1 and n.2, and n.3 may be applicable to it
      1. Operator 28 August 2019 17: 54 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        The KVO of a combat unit with an astro correction system is declared at the level of 100 yards. KVO does not depend on the type of BB. Each BB in a salvo has its own CVO, which overlap only partially.

        Ballistic missiles with explosive warheads have been known since 1945, but no one has ever used them not only for personal destruction of the enemy, but also as a threat of such destruction.

        Due to the unacceptably high KVO BB BR, as a means of personal destruction, only aviation ammunition with high-explosive fragmentation warheads, laser or optical aiming at the target and KVO within a meter is used. To destroy objects, cruise missiles with a KVO are used within 10 meters.

        The costs of creating these types of threats are several orders of magnitude less than the costs of creating exotic means of "quick global strike."
        1. Shopping Mall 29 August 2019 08: 02 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Operator
          The KVO of a combat unit with an astro correction system is declared at the level of 100 yards. KVO does not depend on the type of BB. Each BB in a salvo has its own CVO, which overlap only partially.

          Ballistic missiles with explosive warheads have been known since 1945, but no one has ever used them not only for personal destruction of the enemy, but also as a threat of such destruction.

          Due to the unacceptably high KVO BB BR, as a means of personal destruction, only aviation ammunition with high-explosive fragmentation warheads, laser or optical aiming at the target and KVO within a meter is used. To destroy objects, cruise missiles with a KVO are used within 10 meters.

          The costs of creating these types of threats are several orders of magnitude less than the costs of creating exotic means of "quick global strike."


          KVO what block? Nuclear?

          Obviously, for blocks with a conventional or inert warhead, the KVO KVO 100 m is not suitable. And it is equally obvious that since such projects are being worked out, and they are being worked out, these are not my inventions, the task is to provide acceptable hypersonic warheads for the planning hypersonic warheads.

          You can’t say anything about costs, because you don’t have such data, just like mine. I estimated the cost of withdrawal. And how to evaluate what is more expensive, to develop a hypersonic CR with a ramjet engine or a planning block?
  • Shopping Mall 28 August 2019 16: 31 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    SpaceX successfully completes Starhopper spacecraft prototype testing
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=121&v=bYb3bfA6_sQ

    https://ria.ru/20190828/1557971208.html
  • Andrey VOV 28 August 2019 18: 21 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    To experts and experts in metal science ... it flashed in the article that 100 launches could withstand ... and what will become of the design during this time?
    1. Shopping Mall 29 August 2019 07: 58 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Andrey VOV
      To experts and experts in metal science ... it flashed in the article that 100 launches could withstand ... and what will become of the design during this time?


      Likely to do it with such a calculation, with a margin of safety, albeit due to some increase in mass. Engines also do not work at full load, so they wear less.

      BFR will generally be made of steel.
  • Shopping Mall 29 August 2019 10: 13 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In the topic of hypersonic weapons:

    https://topwar.ru/161831-so-srokami-poluchenija-giperzvukovogo-oruzhija-opredelilis-v-ssha.html?utm_source=yxnews&utm_medium=desktop&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fyandex.ru%2Fnews
  • Operator 29 August 2019 11: 06 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    Quote: AVM
    KVO what block? Nuclear?

    Any descending from Earth orbit at speeds greater than 5M.
    1. Shopping Mall 29 August 2019 12: 47 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Operator
      https://topwar.ru/161831-so-srokami-poluchenija-giperzvukovogo-oruzhija-opredelilis-v-ssha.html?utm_source=yxnews&utm_medium=desktop&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fyandex.ru%2Fnews


      Those. Do you think that the United States, by creating a conventional weapon that is being actively worked on, as described in the link of the posts above, is creating a deliberately useless weapon, not knowing that any unit at a speed higher than 5M KVO will have 100 meters? Well, of course, it's all fiction and pictures.

      But what about the Zircon, with its 8M, will also have a QUO 100 meters?
      1. Operator 29 August 2019 13: 01 New
        • 1
        • 4
        -3
        Everything that flies in the atmosphere at a speed greater than 5M is surrounded by a plasma cloud and, therefore, it can homing at a target only with the help of a gravimeter with a CVO of ~ 200 meters.

        When approaching a target with a decrease from a height of 40 km, the Zircon may well slow down from 8 to 5 M and switch to guidance with the help of a CWS with a CVO of ~ 10 meters.

        For a planning BB with a speed of entry into the atmosphere of the order of 25М, speeding down to 5М does not work (it has too little air resistance compared to the shuttle or the descent module of the KLA). For a tungsten rod, speed relief is meaningless, since it needs it to provide a kinetic effect on the target.
        1. Grigory_45 29 August 2019 13: 28 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Operator
          Zircon when approaching a target with a decrease from an altitude of 40 km may well slow down from 8 to 5 M

          and what's the point in hypersound? High speed is needed just at the target, to break through enemy air defense. Effective counteraction to hypersonic ammunition is absent.

          It is logical to do just the opposite: on the marching section to go on supersonic, maintaining control, and after capturing the target of the GOS - accelerate to max speed. Yes, you lose control, but due to the high speed, this section is very short, flight time is minimal, the target will not leave the affected area.
          1. Shopping Mall 29 August 2019 13: 39 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Gregory_45
            Quote: Operator
            Zircon when approaching a target with a decrease from an altitude of 40 km may well slow down from 8 to 5 M

            and what's the point in hypersound? High speed is needed just at the target, to break through enemy air defense. Effective counteraction to hypersonic ammunition is absent.

            It is logical to do just the opposite: on the marching section to go on supersonic, maintaining control, and after capturing the target of the GOS - accelerate to max speed. Yes, you lose control, but due to the high speed, this section is very short, flight time is minimal, the target will not leave the affected area.


            Weapons of destruction now hit hundreds of kilometers. Those. such a block will be brought down even on the approach. Rather, a method of pointing through a plasma formation or a method of creating a window in it will be found (or already found). If the work is carried out on stationary targets and only coordinates are required, then in the tail part there can be a flexible extended antenna (for example), which is located in the discharged space formed by the “body” of the block or another solution.
      2. ccsr 29 August 2019 17: 05 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        Quote: AVM
        Those. Do you think that the United States, by creating a conventional weapon that is being actively worked on, as discussed in the link of the posts above, is creating obviously useless weapons,

        And what is surprising here - did you forget the history of Star Wars or did not hear about this unique misinformation from the USA?
        1. Shopping Mall 30 August 2019 07: 57 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          I think that such programs pursue several goals at once. Misinformation is just one of them. Those works that were carried out as part of Star Wars made it possible to create a technical reserve, to research the same lasers. It’s just that these studies were not kept secret, but they were pulled out for public viewing adding the cinema drama of Reagan.

          We also had megaprojects, take at least Terra-3 or Skif-L, only they were silent about them.

          If we talk about planning combat units, then this is practically a reality. We tested our own, albeit in the nuclear version, but it will go into service.

          The United States was not far behind us in hypersonic weapons, as if someone did not want to. And they will make their weapons of this type very quickly. And I see no signs of SOI-2 - there is no particular hype, routine. Now, if they declared that they were developing an anti-gravity engine or a time machine laughing
          1. ccsr 30 August 2019 12: 46 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            Quote: AVM
            And they will make their weapons of this type very quickly.

            Like the Star Wars orbital group? Oh well...
            Quote: AVM
            I think that such programs pursue several goals at once.

            "From the point of view of banal erudition ..."
  • Operator 29 August 2019 14: 17 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: Gregory_45
    what's the point of hypersound?

    At present, hypersonic flight in the atmosphere at an altitude of 40 km guarantees protection against foreign air defense / missile defense systems, which are designed to intercept less high-speed and high-altitude targets or, conversely, higher-speed and high-altitude targets.

    At the same time, the Zircon does not slow down at the marching altitude of 40 km, but in the process of performing the anti-aircraft maneuver “snake” while decreasing towards the target - i.e. 5М speed is reached at the turn of several kilometers to the surface of the earth / water with an estimated flight time of ~ 5 seconds to the target.

    But you are right in one thing - in the case of equipping Zircon with a special warhead with an 250 CTN power and a gravimeter, diving at a target with a speed of 8 or more Machs with a KVO in 200 meters becomes absolutely acceptable regardless of the type of target (settlement, industrial facility, military base, command post, communication center, deep bunker, aircraft carrier, nuclear reactor, SNF storage, etc.).
  • Storog dvornik 4 September 2019 19: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Shuttle
    needed a rocket to deliver light and heat to the territory of a potential enemy

    How beautifully and peacefully said - to deliver light and heat. Bravo!