SpaceX's Starhopper Successfully Passes Phase 2 Test

SpaceX conducted the second phase of testing the Starhopper, which has traditionally been held at the company's launch facility in Texas, USA. This was reported by Elon Musk on his Twitter page.


SpaceX's Starhopper Successfully Passes Phase 2 Test


The Starhopper was reportedly tested at the SpaceX training facility in Boca Chica, Texas. During the tests, the device took to the air, and then, using its only Raptor engine, shifted 100 meters to the side and made a soft landing. The flight lasted 57 seconds, it is assumed that the device has risen to a height of 150 meters, as previously the federal civilian administration aviation The United States has banned the planned flight to a height of 200 meters. In the first phase of testing, Starhopper climbed 20 meters.

One day Starship will land on the rusty sands of Mars

- Musk said, congratulating the company's employees on successful trials.

It was previously reported that a total of three phases of Starhopper "air" testing were planned. At the last stage, the device should reach a height of 5 kilometers.

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

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


Photos used:
SpaceX
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. rocket757 28 August 2019 11: 29 New
    • 18
    • 1
    +17
    Everything is fine, technology is developing, competencies are being developed by different inventors!
    It's up to the new engines !!! Powerful, economical, to hell with what principles!
    1. Blackmokona 28 August 2019 12: 10 New
      • 11
      • 5
      +6
      So it’s the Raptor, the new methane engine with full gasification of the components. Musk said that his current price is 2 million and after the start of mass production will fall to 200 thousand dollars.
      What for a space engine of such power a penny
      1. Sarmat Sanych 28 August 2019 12: 22 New
        • 24
        • 33
        -9
        Ostap Benderovich Musk can say anything, but in reality it turns out not like in his mrii. Yes, and he will soon be sitting, the parent company is in perpetual minus and pre-bankruptcy, from which the shareholders dismissed him from the post of head of the PSD a year ago, and then completely turned off the board of directors and soon something more significant is plannedlaughing. Therefore, tens of billions of $ NASA, given to the great combinator for development, will not save this combinator.
        1. Blackmokona 28 August 2019 12: 24 New
          • 16
          • 10
          +6
          It's kind of late for such statements, after Musk has captured the electric car market and the commercial space launch market
          Well, Musk general director in Tesla, and with the PSD his SEC was touched for a while, the shareholders were all hands for him
          1. rocket757 28 August 2019 12: 30 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            Just wait and see ... it's us, from the "sofa"!
            But our missile builders need to be more careful in their business !!! Less plans, projections, statements !!! More launched spacecraft ... as much as NECESSARY!
            1. Shurik70 28 August 2019 13: 05 New
              • 7
              • 6
              +1
              using his only Raptor engine, shifted 100 meters to the side and made a soft landing

              Not exactly the "only" engine. Moment 0:39 - 0:40 pulses of shunting engines are clearly visible.
              But the main one - yes, the only one.
              Envy, damn it (white envy). Are developing.
          2. Sarmat Sanych 28 August 2019 12: 35 New
            • 16
            • 22
            -6
            Bgggg)) Read what Bloomberg “temporarily” wrote about this. And by the way, he was not just removed from the PSD, but was generally thrown out of the board of directors. Who "captured the electric car market"laughing? Anyone who skewed plans for the production of electric cars in 2017 and 2018 by 70%? The one whose company never annually showed not only profit, but at least minus less than $ 600 million? And about the mission to the Mars sect of the great combinator, you can relax, you can send and return people there EXCLUSIVELY and ONLY on a nuclear engine. Which only Russia is able to create on Earth - the global leader in the nuclear industry, 68% of the world's nuclear plants under construction, 50% of the world's uranium enrichment, 60% of the RTG market, nuclear icebreakers, floating nuclear power plants, compact nuclear batteries, nuclear power plants - all this and much more can do only Rosatom. So the hope of mankind for Russia is Mother.
            1. Hakka 28 August 2019 12: 48 New
              • 8
              • 8
              0
              Where is the TEM promised in 2018 ?, now they promise for 2028-2029, to bring the Enesey to the super-gravity, will you also take off from the surface of a celestial body in a nuclear engine? such a spacecraft as Spaceix is ​​needed, it is simpler, less risky, perhaps cheaper than a nuclear tug, in general low-cost low-risk rocket
              1. Tuxuu 28 August 2019 12: 57 New
                • 4
                • 1
                +3
                Write nonsense, hardships with a nuclear propulsion system will be needed in space, and good old missiles from the chemical from the ground. engines, lifted into orbit, docked to the airlock, there reloading of payloads and forward, and that's the only way, this is the only true option in the future. Unless, of course, humanity finds something for the sake of which it is worth making such a large-scale project worthwhile. In research the same thing, only docking to the ISS
                1. Hakka 28 August 2019 13: 02 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  I am not writing that they are not necessary, but they are needed, but the development of such a tug will cost more for a private company, and for the state, there are also many technical risks, and no one has created tugs before. And super-forces similar to the BFR can be used to build large ships and stations, and cheaper than a one-time super-heavy.
              2. Nikalab 28 August 2019 13: 00 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                smile Ideally, you need both. To TEM dragged Straship on the solar system, and the eldership went to land on a celestial body. The Space x flight scheme involves refueling in orbit and fuel synthesis on Mars. Using TEM, this can be avoided.
              3. slipped 28 August 2019 13: 57 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Hakka
                Where is the TEM promised in 2018?


                In 2018, it was planned to create a compact megawatt-class nuclear reactor. Something done. laughing It's up to the drip cooler.

                Quote: Hakka
                now they promise for 2028-2029, to bring the Enesey to the supertight


                A tugboat and a tugboat that they need to carry something somewhere. For a cheap price. Roughly speaking, a barge is needed. Here is such a "barge" and there will be loads under the Lunar Program.

                Quote: Hakka
                from the surface of a celestial body will you also take off in a nuclear engine?


                TEM space tug. It is not suitable for descent or launch from planets. To do this, he is just pushing another device, which can be able to take off and lands on the planet.

                Quote: Hakka
                such a spacecraft as Spaceix is ​​needed, it is simpler, less risky, perhaps cheaper than a nuclear tug, in general low-cost low-risk rocket


                Regular flights require a nuclear tug.
              4. Sarmat Sanych 28 August 2019 14: 03 New
                • 7
                • 7
                0
                TEM is already being tested and I don’t know where you read about 2028, it was about 2024, that is, after 5 years. Well, heresy that some Space X will be cheaper to Mars than a nuclear move, perhaps I will not commentlaughing. And we don’t forget, guys, it’s not samurai who fly to Mars, but people who want to return to Earth.
            2. Blackmokona 28 August 2019 12: 55 New
              • 5
              • 4
              +1
              Musk general director of Tesla, you obviously read fakes. I advise you to check your facts
              1. Enot-13 29 August 2019 12: 37 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Quote: BlackMokona
                CEO Tesla

                there are aerial 2D and magnetic 3D winds ...
                that's what prevents creating a sail for flying in the magnetic field of the planet and is not soared about the engines ... or such technologies are not yet in fashion
                1. Blackmokona 29 August 2019 14: 04 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  The weakness of the Earth's magnetic field interferes. The sail will be needed just huge, it will weigh a lot, delivering it to orbit will be expensive. It’s easier to pour a little fuel for ion engines and does not soar about space weather. Which is very volatile and poorly predicted.
          3. The comment was deleted.
            1. Blackmokona 28 August 2019 13: 12 New
              • 7
              • 3
              +4
              You mixed electric cars and hybrids.
              Here are just an electric car, Tesla ranks first among all manufacturers.
              1. Vlad.by 28 August 2019 13: 15 New
                • 5
                • 2
                +3
                based on your chart, still no more than 17-20%.
                And again - how does this affect the company's financial performance?
                So far, a deep minus this year.
                Actually, as in the past ...
                Capture, Capture ...
                1. Blackmokona 28 August 2019 13: 16 New
                  • 5
                  • 4
                  +1
                  So first place, why don’t you capture? And the money all goes to expand production. Last year, Q3 and Q4 were in the black, and in the new year they began to build a gigafactory at 3 Stakhanov pace. So in January there was a wasteland, and now assembly lines are being tested.
                  1. Vlad.by 28 August 2019 13: 19 New
                    • 3
                    • 1
                    +2
                    The conclusions of market experts are given by me above.
                    I understand that, according to Musk, this is temporary.
                    But then the first place in production is temporary)
                    1. Blackmokona 28 August 2019 13: 20 New
                      • 2
                      • 2
                      0
                      It already depends on how quickly other manufacturers will increase the production of electric cars. At the moment, they are fighting with ICE, and not among themselves. Since the share of electric cars in the world is too small.
                      1. Vlad.by 28 August 2019 13: 29 New
                        • 3
                        • 1
                        +2
                        That's it! And whether Tesla will live to see a bright future is a very big question.
                        Personally, I treat battery cars like a scam. But that's my personal opinion.
                        Not that technology. Accordingly, its prospects are most likely foggy.
                        Too many drawbacks, from the "extraction" of electricity, supplying it to an outlet, to the efficiency of storage and disposal of batteries.

                        Wang, that ahead of the technology is the direct conversion of fields and matter into electricity, and possibly more interesting field operations.

                        And Musk is not near here. Yes, and why should he?
                        The dough will cut down and try to leave peacefully without rest.
                        If released)
                      2. Blackmokona 28 August 2019 13: 31 New
                        • 5
                        • 5
                        0
                        Wang, that ahead of the technology is the direct conversion of fields and matter into electricity, and possibly more interesting field operations.

                        But so far there are no practical examples, so we work with what we have.
                        Too many drawbacks, from the "extraction" of electricity, supplying it to an outlet, to the efficiency of storage and disposal of batteries.

                        Gasoline has even more, especially in the future when oil runs out.
                        That's it! And whether Tesla will live to see a bright future is a very big question.

                        This is a big question for any company, but so far Tesla has expanded rapidly and successfully.
                        Tesla's income and loss by years.
                      3. Vlad.by 28 August 2019 13: 43 New
                        • 5
                        • 2
                        +3
                        Strange, but brokers give other pictures:

                        and at 19 again minus.
                        Where is the growth then?

                        As for the "gasoline" - the fact that it will "end" is far from a fact. There are many studies confirming the reproduction of hydrocarbons in Mother Earth.
                        Although, the banal burning of matter with an efficiency of 20-30% is not gut - this is true.
                        But the saddest thing for electric cars is that to get the kilowatts that will later be accumulated in the batteries, all the same, hydrocarbons are burned or nuclear power plants are operating. Hydropower, the sun and wind power are still at the level of statistical error.
                        So from the replacement of internal combustion engines with electric cars, nothing will change fundamentally on the ground. Emissions of exhaust gases and heat will decrease slightly, but not much.
                        People and animals emit the same gases in much larger quantities)
                      4. Blackmokona 28 August 2019 13: 49 New
                        • 2
                        • 3
                        -1
                        I have both income and profit on the graph. And your only profit.
                        Income is earned by the company.
                        And profit is income minus expense. These are two different things.
                        And thus, when we have both of these points, we will see that in 2010, the income was 117 million, and the loss was 154 million
                        And in 2018, revenue was 21461 million, and a loss of 976 million. Thus, in 2010 the loss was more than 100% of revenues, and now less than 5% of revenues. And the income itself grew 183,4 times. Thus, the company is developing and growing rapidly.
                        It depends on which country Norway has almost 100% Hydro, and in France nuclear power plants dominate.
                      5. Vlad.by 28 August 2019 15: 15 New
                        • 3
                        • 1
                        +2
                        Sorry, but on my FCF chart (Tesla's Free Cash Flows)

                        Free cash flows (FCF, operating flow minus capex) became positive also in the second half of the year. In the iV quarter, FCF amounted to $ 880,7 million. This happened due to the release of operating flows to a positive level. The company raised $ 3,9 billion of debt, but reduced previous liabilities by $ 3,1 billion. Debt refinancing helped balance cash flow from financing activities.

                        More information on BCS Express:
                        https://bcs-express.ru/novosti-i-analitika/analiz-emitenta-tesla

                        Alas, in 19 everything was again in the red.

                        Yes, the value of Tesla's shares is growing slightly, but this is the result of the expansion of the company, and not its profitability. And stock growth to put it mildly "slowed down")

                        In January 2019, Musk promised that Tesla would once again become profitable starting in the first quarter of this year. Two months later, he warned that you should not wait for profit in the first quarter, but everything should work out in the second. Now the CEO of the company has hopes for the third quarter. In addition, he is confident that Tesla will be able to fulfill the planned plan for the supply of 360 thousand to 400 thousand cars in 2019.

                        In the spring of this year, Jessica Caldwell, executive director of industry analysis at the Edmunds auto-portal, announced that the Ilona Mask brand is “running out”. Caldwell noted that in the first quarter of 2019, most of the electric cars were sent abroad, which means a decrease in demand for them in the United States.

                        Elon Musk himself loses money from Tesla’s losses - in early April, he lost more than $ 1 billion in two minutes.

                        The reason for this was a sharp drop in company shares, caused by news about record decline in sales. However, this was not very upsetting the billionaire - in his Twitter account, he wished everyone to be positive and promised not to lose heart, posting a life-affirming meme with the caption “defeat your fears and never give up.”


                        Something like - There is no money, but are you holding on?

                        The soap bubble also expands.
                        Until a certain point.

                        Actually, believe the Mask?
                        My sincere wish - Good luck!
                      6. Blackmokona 28 August 2019 15: 29 New
                        • 2
                        • 4
                        -2
                        Tesla currently has 5 billion free money. What is the record for the company
                2. Sarmat Sanych 28 August 2019 17: 08 New
                  • 4
                  • 4
                  0
                  BlackMocon, what are you posting crazy schedules?) Yes, and the oil will not run out for a long time, in the Russian Arctic Lomonosov Ridge and Mendeleev’s Pldneniya 15% of the planet’s oil, and the closed nuclear cycle created by Russia will provide energy latergood.
                3. Blackmokona 28 August 2019 17: 49 New
                  • 1
                  • 2
                  -1
                  So this energy of the nuclear cycle can be shoved into electric cars directly, or first synthesize gasoline and then burn it with low efficiency, where is better?
            2. Nikalab 28 August 2019 13: 46 New
              • 4
              • 2
              +2
              Personally, I treat battery cars like a scam.

              Why so? The electric motor at the concept level is better than the internal combustion engine. its efficiency is 95-97% Unlike ICE (about 45%). Everything depends on the batteries when their parameters are acceptable, then the internal combustion engine will leave completely. And now electric vehicles are lobbying in order to reduce gas contamination directly in the places where people live.

              Wang, that ahead of the technology is the direct conversion of fields and matter into electricity, and possibly more interesting field operations.

              uh .. what is it? Which fields? Looks like a pseudoscientific murzilka.
            3. Sanichsan 28 August 2019 15: 15 New
              • 5
              • 3
              +2
              Quote: Nikalab
              Why so? The electric motor at the concept level is better than the internal combustion engine. its efficiency is 95-97% Unlike ICE (about 45%).

              you do not mind that in fact your "efficiency of 95-97%" is not from a unit, but from those same 45% of internal combustion engines, conditionally. that is, 95% of the electricity produced with an efficiency of 45%. Or do you assume that electricity is generated magically with 100% efficiency?
              Quote: Nikalab
              Everything depends on the batteries when their parameters are acceptable, then the internal combustion engine will leave completely.

              Seriously? Battery Pendalf charges the "Avada Kedavra" by having it stored? belay
              strong! hi
            4. Vlad.by 28 August 2019 15: 24 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              When a person understands gravity and learns to control neutrinos, then electric motors will go into oblivion.
              Is it against the fact that you can ride on one finger battery for a year?
              Totally agree. With two hands!
              But, little is believed that it will be soon. And even if this happens, then it will not last long.
              N. Tesla himself, they say, rode an electric car that was powered by "Earth energy"
              I wrote about these fields.
              Murzilka or Dunno - time will tell.
  • UserGun 28 August 2019 16: 47 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Sarmat Sanych
    Therefore, tens of billions of $ NASA, given to the great combinator for development, will not save this combinator.


    And about the same loot means non-combinators from Roskosmos saved ?! )))
    1. Sarmat Sanych 28 August 2019 17: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Well, it’s not such money in person, and we all know this very well). Unfortunately, Russia has no endless printing press for trillions of dollars.
  • Hakka 28 August 2019 11: 33 New
    • 17
    • 8
    +9
    Flying gas holder) good luck Mask, he’s done, such crazy people move progress.
    1. RUSS 28 August 2019 11: 55 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Hakka
      Flying gas holder) good luck Mask, he’s done, such crazy people move progress.

      Looks like a spaceship from 60's films
      1. Infinity 28 August 2019 12: 04 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        Quote: RUSS
        Looks like a spaceship from 60's films

        And because it is not a spaceship, but a test bench for a propulsion system. QC itself is still being designed. Like Grasshopper (photo below, although it looked decent), when the company mastered the technology of landing the first stage.
        PS: not 60's, but 30's)))
      2. Simargl 28 August 2019 12: 27 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: RUSS
        Looks like a spaceship from 60's films
        By and large, this is not even a weight, but a tank with an engine and legs.
        1. Sanichsan 28 August 2019 15: 31 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          about! and here you are hi
          what about solid rockets? still not suitable for launching satellites at all? here the Chinese strongly disagree with you wink
          https://tass.ru/kosmos/6508835
          Are you sure about the topic or just a fan of the Mask? what
          1. Simargl 28 August 2019 20: 50 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: SanichSan
            what about solid rockets? still not suitable for launching satellites at all?
            For those who can’t read, I’ll try to repeat: launch the satellite into a precisely specified orbit exclusively with TTU will not work, because he not manageable!
            However, you can come up with a variant of obviously redundant LV with load shedding ... but it will calculate the orbit, without an extra output unit ... horror ...

            Quote: SanichSan
            here the Chinese strongly disagree with you
            So the Chinese agreed with me and the fourth stage - with a liquid, throttle, engine tongue
            1. Sanichsan 29 August 2019 13: 30 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Quote: Simargl
              So the Chinese agreed with me and the fourth stage - with a liquid, throttle, engine

              OU! that is, now it is still possible if the last stage with liquid ??? belay Well, you have to!
              I recall that just about three months ago you assured that the solid-fuel engine is completely unsuitable for launching satellites wink Al forgot? laughing
              1. Simargl 30 August 2019 06: 58 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: SanichSan
                I recall that just about three months ago you assured that the solid-fuel engine is completely unsuitable for launching satellites al forgotten?
                And you read it again and it turns out that there was a small nuance (which the Chinese just understood and took into account): launching the cargo into a given orbit is impossible exclusively by TTU, because he is not manageable.
                Could not understand? Read until you understand. The same thing I wrote a while ago. What you do not understand is your problem in the first place.
                I'll try on the other hand ... for accurate output, feedback and dosing of traction (throttling and / or pulses) are needed.
                1. Sanichsan 30 August 2019 14: 22 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Quote: Simargl
                  Could not understand? Read until you understand. The same thing I wrote a while ago.

                  ha ha ha laughing
                  I am pleased to see you dodge bully
                  then you categorically denied the possibility of using solid-fuel rockets for satellite output. to the reasonable question "why the last stage cannot be with a liquid engine?", you burst into some kind of nonsense about a ballistic trajectory. it was funny laughing
                  in short, I realized ... wait for the genius hyperloop! I wish you success hi
                  1. Simargl 30 August 2019 16: 19 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: SanichSan
                    I am pleased to see you dodge
                    Which side?

                    Quote: SanichSan
                    then you categorically denied the possibility of using solid-fuel rockets for satellite output.
                    Those. You from post to post ignore part of the text in my answer, where I write clearly
                    Quote: Simargl
                    launching cargo into a given orbit is not possible by means only TTU, because he is not manageable.
                    and force me to describe you as a person weak in mind, to be banned, finally? This, at a minimum, is a provocation. Well then! I’ll sit in the bath - not the first time.

                    Quote: SanichSan
                    to the reasonable question "why the last stage cannot be with a liquid engine?
                    You attribute to me your speculation. From time to time I’m trying to explain to you that no matter how much TTU, the last stage will be necessarily with the possibility of correction (for example, with liquid propellant rocket engine), i.e. all steps cannot be from TTU, and now you accuse me of denying this? Strong move!

                    Quote: SanichSan
                    you burst into some kind of nonsense about a ballistic trajectory. it was funny
                    And now carefully read the text where it was written about the ballistic trajectory, we will laugh together at your ignorance ... although ... it’s a little tight with education - you won’t understand what you didn’t understand.

                    Quote: SanichSan
                    in short, I realized ... wait for the genius hyperloop! I wish you success
                    I do not care about hyperloop, about which I read in the author’s novel from the USSR. I don’t remember what is called - 30 years ago it was. But technically, the hyperloops with that tunnel match up to the details.
                    1. Sanichsan 30 August 2019 16: 39 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      OU! what an interesting concept! there are 4 stages on the rocket, of which 3 are solid-fuel ... are you ready to say that this is a rocket with a rocket engine? wink
                      let's laugh together at your ignorance laughing
                      1. Simargl 30 August 2019 17: 25 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: SanichSan
                        Are you ready to say that this is a rocket with a rocket engine?
                        I AM? No. This brachopedia writes that the YF-50 is liquid fuel.
                        If you claim that you are lying - you probably know better.
                        However...

                        Quote: SanichSan
                        on a rocket 4 stages of which 3 solid fuel ...
                        This only confirms my words, where I argue that it is impossible to do TTU exclusively (the output unit will be with engines that can change traction and / or re-engage or operate in pulsed mode).
                        Those. I will eat my hat if the pH will consist of 100% TTU. And so - you are trying to be right at all costs.
                      2. Sanichsan 30 August 2019 17: 48 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Quote: Simargl
                        I AM? No. This brachopedia writes that the YF-50 is liquid fuel.
                        If you claim that you are lying - you probably know better.
                        However...

                        How interesting! and most importantly funny laughing
                        and where does the YF-50? in the article then about Changzheng-11! Or do you not know how to read? wassat
                        "Changzheng-11 (Chinese 長征 十一 號 運載火箭), or Long March 11, abbr. LM-11 for export or CZ-11 for China) is the Chinese Changzheng carrier rocket. Solid fuel booster, developed by the Chinese Academy of Space Technology. Her first flight took place on September 25, 2015. The missile was created on the basis of a series of ballistic missiles DF-31[1]. Designed for launching light satellites (up to 350 kg) into the sun-synchronous orbit."
                        oops! how! it turns out your statement that something that ballistic missiles launch on the ground then falls too far from the true laughing and this your theory was past the cash register laughing
                        have you already found our old correspondence to which this refers? bully
                        Quote: Simargl
                        Those. I will eat my hat if the pH will consist of 100% TTU. And so - you are trying to be right at all costs.

                        right? cool! did you read fiction for sure? about the fact that the traction force can be regulated by the traction vector is not, did not hear? Do you know how reverse works on aircraft engines? continue?
                        Here's another example ..
                        https://www.booksite.ru/fulltext/1/001/008/109/300.htm
                        "Thrust control of solid propellant rocket motors can be made by changing (increasing or decreasing) the surface of the charge combustion or the critical area of ​​the nozzle; by injecting a liquid, such as water, into a solid propellant chamber. The thrust direction of the solid propellant rocket engine is changed by gas rudders; deviating cylindrical nozzle (deflector); auxiliary control engines; oscillating nozzles of the main engines, etc. To ensure a given rocket speed at the end of the active section of the trajectory, an “solid-state” solid-propellant rocket cut-off is used (damping by quickly reducing the pressure in the engine chamber, deflecting the jet, and other methods)."
                        Any suggestions for the hat? repeat
                      3. Simargl 30 August 2019 18: 09 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: SanichSan
                        and where does the YF-50? in the article then about Changzheng-11! Or do you not know how to read?
                        And the fourth stage of Changzheng-11 is just with the YF-50. Or do you not know how to read?
                        Quote: SanichSan
                        Any suggestions for the hat?
                        There is a reason?
                        Quote: Simargl
                        Those. I will eat my hat if the pH will consist of 100% TTU.
                      4. Sanichsan 2 September 2019 13: 49 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Quote: Simargl
                        And the fourth stage Changzheng-11 is just with the YF-50. Or do you not know how to read?

                        sorry what? stage? or rocket? bully
                        Quote: Simargl
                        There is a reason?

                        of course have. Google claims that a lot of reasons! write in the search engine "thrust regulation solid propellant engine" and see for yourself wink
                      5. Simargl 3 September 2019 18: 44 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: SanichSan
                        Google claims that a lot of reasons!
                        Stop, stop! The motive is a fully solid fuel rocket.
                        A step is part of a rocket, if that.
                      6. Sanichsan 4 September 2019 14: 12 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        so what is changzheng-11 rocket? please find the source where it says that this is NOT a solid rocket.
                        maybe you and Poplar is not solid fuel? and start-1?
  • Victor_B 28 August 2019 11: 35 New
    • 7
    • 7
    0
    ICHSX, maybe it really will fly before everyone else.
    And where, it’s according to the situation.
    If the device does not fly in the language of its own flame wherever it wants and sits down where it is necessary, then no matter where to fly.
    And after all, only a lazy "specialist" at first did not drive along the returned steps of the Falcon.
    And even real experts, without quotes, did not believe in success.
    And it seems to me that at the Mask, priests do not consecrate every launch.
    As a consolation for those who do not like the "Mask sect," one can recall the failures with Tesla.
    1. Sarmat Sanych 28 August 2019 12: 25 New
      • 8
      • 12
      -4
      Crafts of Ostap Benderovich Mask are unpromising for Mars and other planets, here you need energy of a completely different order, nuclear engines. And in the near future only Russia is able to create them on the planet - the leader of the atomic industry of the planet. By 2024, such an engine will be in Russia.
      1. Hakka 28 August 2019 12: 50 New
        • 3
        • 3
        0
        In the USA, they make a low cost low risk kilopower reactor, but TEM is a high-risk, complex and expensive project, albeit a cool one.
        1. Sarmat Sanych 28 August 2019 13: 54 New
          • 4
          • 7
          -3
          This “kilopower” is even bigger crap than the Lokhidov’s nuclear fusion, from which all the world's nuclear scientists laugh. The mattress would have at least mastered the usual enrichment of uranium - and then the dream limit would be, in 30 years, not abandoned, abandoned and now HALF depend on all their nuclear power plants from Russian supplies: The nuclear industry of Matrasia is in full anus, they built and dumped the only 3+ reactor for 15 years, the Chinese have already brought to mind themselves, since there is no one else, Westinghouse kicked out, leaving only the production of fuel elements and maintenance of old reactors.
      2. Nestorovich 28 August 2019 13: 43 New
        • 4
        • 4
        0
        Quote: Sarmat Sanych
        Crafts Ostap Benderovich Mask are unpromising

        you'd better take care of Ostap Bendorovich Rogozin, and Musk is not spending your money. While from Rogozmos some projections your attacks on Ilona are just a laugh in 2019 then laughing
        and what is there with the Federation by the way? Will it be ready by 2119?
        1. Sarmat Sanych 28 August 2019 13: 57 New
          • 3
          • 6
          -3
          Oh, how I am amused by maskophiles, they squabble each other on a squat. Wake up, last month in the world 11 space launches were made, of which 6 were successful Russian, 2 by China, 1 Mattress, 1 like Japan and 1 European cosmoageneration (unsuccessful). In July alone we made more launches than the rest of the planet.
          1. Tsoy 28 August 2019 18: 10 New
            • 4
            • 1
            +3
            Quote: Sarmat Sanych
            In July alone we made more launches than the rest of the planet.


            You're lying and not blushing ...

            In the first place is China with 15 launches, followed by the USA and the Russian Federation with 13 launches. Of these 13 8 launches, Space X has completed. Sense for a month to watch? This is for the whole incomplete 2019 year.
    2. Simargl 28 August 2019 12: 32 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: Victor_B
      And after all, only a lazy "specialist" at first did not drive along the returned steps of the Falcon.
      For example, I initially drew attention to the fact that even if the Flacon does not meet the expectations of cheaper launches due to reusability, it will allow to develop technologies for re-launching from the surface of the planet (Mars, Moon, satellites of giant planets), and this is already a real breakthrough.
      The fact that Musk divorced investors' loot about reusable steps, and in fact fulfilled the start from Mars is a very big plus for him as a manager. Now everything is clear and the investor will invest in the Martian mission, but 15 years ago it was not very obvious.
      But with our trampolines far from everything is rosy.
      1. Sanichsan 28 August 2019 15: 38 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        Quote: Simargl
        For example, I initially drew attention to the fact that even if the Flacon does not meet the expectations of cheaper launches due to reusability, it will allow to develop technologies for re-launching from the surface of the planet (Mars, Moon, satellites of giant planets), and this is already a real breakthrough.

        your "real breakthrough" is already 43 years old. "Moon 24" landed and after collecting the samples sent them to the earth. by the way did not Musk at all wink
        Quote: Simargl
        Now everything is clear and the investor will invest in the Martian mission, but 15 years ago it was not very obvious.

        Is this a new training manual for you? don't you think that it smacks of a lot of criminal responsibility? have you heard about non-targeted use of funds? for this, by the way, Korolev was "innocently repressed" wink
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. Sanichsan 29 August 2019 13: 56 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Simargl
            And the facts are such that reusability technologies, which currently allow dumping in launching cargo into orbit, can be used in the Martian program.

            I’m sure to upset you very much, but dumping is allowed not by “reusability technologies”, but by drinking a bold American budget. it is not connected with space.
            Quote: Simargl
            Parachuting to Mars, and even more so to the moon, is problematic

            I will reveal a terrible secret! they’re only planted on Mars. and nothing else wink
            Quote: Simargl
            Musk chose a universal scheme - he is a marketing genius and, perhaps, a little technical.

            ha ha ha :) you made my day! laughing
            Max’s “ingenious scheme” doesn’t let him go further than the low orbit. all that goes above is disposable. the samovar that they launched is the same money scam as a hyperloop cart and the same nonsense as a metro for cars that will carry cars at a speed of 200 km / h, and of course it will all be very cheap! laughing but there are hamsters who believe ... request
            1. Simargl 30 August 2019 07: 39 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: SanichSan
              dumping is allowed not by “reusability technologies”, but by drinking a bold American budget.
              More? And then under their Delta they will not find commercial launches. I don’t know something? Or are you lying?

              Quote: SanichSan
              I will reveal a terrible secret! they’re only planted on Mars. and nothing else
              I will reveal a terrible secret: nothing was returned from Mars. As soon as they try, they will forget about the parachute, at least at the final stage of landing.

              Quote: SanichSan
              Max’s “ingenious scheme” doesn’t let him go further than the low orbit.
              You are such a specialist ... actually, the reusability and the height of the orbit do not overlap. Absolutely. If the LV allows you to push the load to the NOO, then at least a speck of dust can be shaken outside the solar system.
              Quote: SanichSan
              like a cart for hyperloop and the same nonsense as a metro for cars that will carry cars at a speed of 200 km / h, and of course all this will be very cheap! but there are hamsters who believe ...
              I’m surprised if I say that science fiction writers described it 100 years ago?
              1. Sanichsan 30 August 2019 14: 11 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                MDA ...
                Quote: Simargl
                More? And then under their Delta they will not find commercial launches. I don’t know something? Or are you lying?

                of course! I, unlike you, do not forget about 5 lard subsidies and tax benefits wink Tell me, the deliberate ignoring of certain facts can be considered a lie?
                Quote: Simargl
                I will reveal a terrible secret: nothing was returned from Mars.

                and didn’t think about why they didn’t return? Do you think that the "ingenious flying toilet mask" was not invented? or maybe because the capacities for delivering the payload do not yet allow delivering fuel to return not only the entire module, but even the transport capsule.
                Quote: Simargl
                You are such a specialist ... actually, the reusability and the height of the orbit do not overlap.

                generally have a direct relationship. or you have a return stage and a loss of 30% of the power due to the dibile stage return circuit, or you do not show off and start up in a single use, but higher and with a greater load.
                Quote: Simargl
                I’m surprised if I say that science fiction writers described it 100 years ago?

                # facespalm
                Do you seriously believe this ??
                1. Simargl 30 August 2019 17: 04 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: SanichSan
                  I, unlike you, do not forget about 5 lard subsidies and tax benefits
                  Do not forget.
                  Just answer the questions:
                  1 - with what fright does the US government subsidize US orders (unless those orders are for loans under %% covering subsidies)?
                  2 - why is our government not doing the same?
                  3 - why is the Bottle subsidized, and the Delta not?
                  I dont know. Fair. Enlighten.

                  Quote: SanichSan
                  Tell me, the deliberate ignoring of certain facts can be considered a lie?
                  Don't ignore questions wink

                  Quote: SanichSan
                  and didn’t think about why they didn’t return?
                  I thought about it.

                  Quote: SanichSan
                  or maybe because the capacities for delivering the payload do not yet allow delivering fuel to return not only the entire module, but even the transport capsule.
                  Why so? Curiosity flopped a 3,3-ton module. By parachute and ... horror! .. by rocket propulsion !!!
                  Moreover, the next Mars rover will most likely be without parachutes.
                  But why am I? It all depends on what size the returned capsule needs to be pushed into orbit to the Earth! And the capsule can be returned to the atmosphere even with the ISS crew, i.e. to block a protective shield and a parachute, as in Luna-15, for example, is not required.

                  Quote: SanichSan
                  generally have a direct relationship.
                  Dont Have. Depends и from the mass of the load. Those. 22 tons can be launched on the DOE only in a one-time version and 2,5 tons on Mars in a reusable one.

                  Quote: SanichSan
                  or do not show off and start up in a single use, but higher and with a greater load.
                  Those. you can "show off", save customer’s and your own money by launching a lighter load.

                  Quote: SanichSan
                  # facespalm
                  Do you seriously believe this ??
                  What?! I, unlike some, was fond of science fiction. Yes, there is a lot of "invented". To read Julia Verne as if he had visited today ...
                  1. Sanichsan 30 August 2019 17: 25 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Quote: Simargl
                    Do not forget.
                    Just answer the questions:
                    1 - with what fright does the US government subsidize US orders (unless those orders are for loans under %% covering subsidies)?
                    2 - why is our government not doing the same?
                    3 - why is the Bottle subsidized, and the Delta not?
                    I dont know. Fair. Enlighten.

                    1) from the same fright as the gigofactory and other projects where you can cut the budget wink or do you think that corruption is only in Russia? belay
                    2) of course engaged laughing heard about the Vostochny spaceport?
                    3) and why did you decide that Delta is not subsidized?
                    Quote: Simargl
                    Why so? Curiosity flopped a 3,3-ton module. By parachute and ... horror! .. by rocket propulsion !!!

                    Does the brake engine make you so excited? hmm .. is that what your logic goes? this also means that the landing modules of Soviet rockets in the last century on a jet engine were landing! or wrong?
                    Quote: Simargl
                    Those. you can "show off", save customer’s and your own money by launching a lighter load.

                    look at the statistics. one-time starts more than with a return stage. somehow do not go out to "save" customer money ...
                    Quote: Simargl
                    What?! I, unlike some, was fond of science fiction. Yes, there is a lot of "invented". To read Julia Verne as if he had visited today ...

                    tin ... you know, it’s one thing to believe that someday you will learn to teleport matter or control gravity, and it’s quite another thing to believe that moving hundreds of cars (!) on carts in a vacuum tunnel will be faster and cheaper than driving along a road with several lanes movement. there is science fiction that drives science and progress, and there is OA "MMM"
                    1. Simargl 30 August 2019 17: 57 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: SanichSan
                      1) from the same fright as the gigofactory and other projects where you can cut the budget
                      I don’t understand something: do you distinguish investments from subsidies?
                      Quote: SanichSan
                      2) Of course, they’ve heard about the Vostochny spaceport?
                      I don’t understand something: Musk and his Bottle are private traders, and Roskosmos is like NASA, a government company.
                      Quote: SanichSan
                      3) and why did you decide that Delta is not subsidized?
                      Well ... I would say that it is not subsidized. It is 100% paid, because there are no commercial launches on it. Quite quite. Maybe because the launch cost is 4-5 times higher?

                      Quote: SanichSan
                      Does the brake engine make you so excited? hmm .. is that what your logic goes? this also means that the landing modules of Soviet rockets in the last century on a jet engine were landing! or wrong?
                      Uh ... Can you, at least by the difference in names, see the difference in the purpose and principle of operation of these engines? Brake engines give a standard impulse and are not controlled after start-up (CAC engines, it seems, too), landing engines have feedback and are controlled (tilt angles and / or thrust). There is a difference?

                      Quote: SanichSan
                      somehow do not go out to "save" customer money ...
                      I don’t understand something: dumping or not?

                      Quote: SanichSan
                      and it’s quite another matter to believe that moving hundreds of cars (!) on carts in a vacuum tunnel will be faster and cheaper than driving along a road with several lanes.
                      If the tunnel is long enough - it’s technically simpler and safer it can be just garbage in a vacuum (not a horse-lover). Have you ever wondered why fans stand in the Sochi car tunnels? And they are short, actually.
                      What is the most technically difficult task you have solved on your own? Have you built a house, at least one? Or a tree planted?
  • engineer74 28 August 2019 11: 37 New
    • 6
    • 5
    +1
    Something, it reminds me, the "experiments" of the professor ran out of "Monday starts on Saturday" ... recourse
    I can, of course, be mistaken.
  • Lord of the Sith 28 August 2019 11: 44 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    An interesting pepelats, but where can I use it?
    1. Starover_Z 28 August 2019 11: 55 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Lord of the Sith
      An interesting pepelats, but where can I use it?

      Fly to the cottage - no traffic jams are scary. There will be a good carrying capacity, and then the crop can fly out. (Joke).
      Jokes as jokes and vertical take-offs are convenient.
      1. Lord of the Sith 28 August 2019 12: 28 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        I think vertical take-offs are not on our planet. It would be convenient to use on the moon, from the surface to the future station and vice versa.
    2. Nikalab 28 August 2019 12: 00 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      Specifically, this pepelats? He has already completed his first and last flight (except for the 20 meter jump). It will be converted into a stationary bench for testing engines. And so he was needed for a test of software and hardware that will be installed on the Starship.
    3. Blackmokona 28 August 2019 12: 21 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      If the Starship is made in the declared characteristics, then it will be the cheapest kg in orbit and the key for flights throughout the solar system
  • MoJloT 28 August 2019 12: 04 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    However, the concept has already undergone changes several times, so it is not known what will turn out in the end.
    The main thing is that at least something happens. Space pressure cooker.
  • rotmistr60 28 August 2019 12: 06 New
    • 4
    • 13
    -9
    Hakka
    good luck Mask, well done, such crazy people drive progress
    This "moving progress" was again sued for its "progressive" environmental batteries, which at one firm burned six times (with subsequent fire) during the year. They are testing Starhoppe, which means Musk can still persuade sponsors and cut bills. Another thing is how it ends?
    The flight lasted 57 seconds, it is assumed that the device rose to a height of 150 meters
    To Mars is still like walking to the moon.
    1. Letun 28 August 2019 12: 25 New
      • 10
      • 1
      +9
      Quote: rotmistr60
      This "moving progress" was again sued for its "progressive" environmental batteries, which at one firm burned six times (with subsequent fire) during the year.

      If you sit on the couch and pick your nose, then no one will sue you. So it goes.
    2. donavi49 28 August 2019 12: 25 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      Well, here the emphasis is not in the barrel for 3 pennies, with a sullen look, but in the propulsion system. This is actually a flying stand.

      The main thing is that the engine works at full gasification of components. This is the basis of the prospects for Mask in the future, when corporations will bring BE-4 and NewGlenn + Volcano.

      Here is just a classic example - competition drives progress. If Musk stays on 9 and Heavik = he will be devoured after 10 years, and he understands this.
    3. Simargl 28 August 2019 12: 40 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      Quote: rotmistr60
      This “driving progress” was again sued for its “progressive” environmental batteries, which were burned six times by one company
      It would seem, what does the cosmos have to do with it?

      Quote: rotmistr60
      To Mars is still like walking to the moon.
      I am more concerned about the fact that Russian space companies, both private and state, are now on foot to the moon and to Mars.
      And the Russians can be proud so far only of the achievements of an earthling, but not of a compatriot.
      So far, people like you are paying attention to failures in an adjacent business, space programs are being implemented quite normally.
      Who will we buy trampolines from?
      1. Tuxuu 28 August 2019 12: 52 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        You would have figured out at the beginning of the matter, just the same, we have much more prospects to fly to Mars and vice versa. We have squeezed the maximum out of modern rocket engines, further development of this path is a dead end. The future belongs to the NEDA in the near future, or even some new technologies.
        1. Nikalab 28 August 2019 13: 11 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          YaEDU does not solve the main problem, namely: delivery of cargo from the earth to orbit. And here we have no alternative to chemical engines. In addition, it is unlikely that nuclear power plants will be allowed to descend below the GPO, due to the possible failure of the appart (out of order and not turn into a dirty bomb).
          1. vadimtt 28 August 2019 15: 10 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            There is an alternative, but, just like with batteries, there are no suitable materials laughing
            It is impossible to think of anything more practical and simpler than a space elevator. Well, perhaps, only with all sorts of "direct field transformations" wink
        2. Simargl 28 August 2019 20: 10 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Tuxuu
          The future belongs to the NEDA in the near future, or even some new technologies.
          This is how they will be put into orbit and at least once flies at least in test mode - there will be prospects. And now there is not even how to put this locomotive into orbit.
  • 9PA
    9PA 28 August 2019 12: 29 New
    • 7
    • 7
    0
    Ilya Mask is a creator man. That is what we did not. The step of one man and the leap of all mankind. Good luck Musk!
    1. Shuttle 28 August 2019 12: 53 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Quote: 9PA
      Ilya Mask is a creator man. That is what we did not. The step of one man and the leap of all mankind. Good luck Musk!

      Eugene, Musk, this is a mask man. NASA, DRAPA and others pour into it all their patents, inventions. This is a specialist in the privatization of the national budget. Yes, talented. But this is not an inventor. Of course, SpaceX employs the best rocket and space experts. But this is definitely not Musk himself.
      1. Blackmokona 28 August 2019 12: 57 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -1
        Musk is a general designer and organizer. laughing
        1. Sanichsan 28 August 2019 15: 45 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: BlackMokona
          Musk General Designer

          ha ha ha! this is the hit of 2019! laughing
          By the way, what did Musk construct?
          1. Blackmokona 28 August 2019 16: 00 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Falcon-1, Falcon-9, Dragon, Falcon Heavy
            1. Sanichsan 28 August 2019 16: 39 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              hmmm .. that is, do you think that Rogozin is the "general designer" of the "Unions"? what
              I'm just wondering how everything is running .. so far it looks very cool!
              1. Blackmokona 28 August 2019 16: 42 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Rogozin is the chief of cosmonautics, like NASA's general director, and not the general designer of any Energy
                1. Sanichsan 28 August 2019 16: 57 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quote: BlackMokona
                  Rogozin the chief of cosmonautics, like NASA's general director

                  very interesting ... that is, Rogozin is not the general designer of Soyuz, Energii and Angora because he is the director of Roskosmos, but is the director general of SpaceX (a privatized part of NASA) Musk the inventor and designer of all falcons?
                  Tell me, did he come up with PayPal too? probably also a brilliant programmer wassat
                  1. Blackmokona 28 August 2019 17: 48 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Laughed, you certainly do not know. That NASA has already transferred the development and production of launch vehicles to private hands for half a century. Before Mask, ULA, which is an alliance of Boeing and Lockheed, had a heavy load monopoly. Thus, NASA had nothing to transfer to the Mask, they had no designers of the launch vehicles and factories for their production.
                    Therefore, you should study the topic
                    1. Sanichsan 29 August 2019 14: 54 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      Quote: BlackMokona
                      Thus, NASA had nothing to transfer to the Mask, they had no designers of the launch vehicles and factories for their production.

                      truth? that is, cosmodromes do not count?
                      Quote: BlackMokona
                      Therefore, you should study the topic

                      in in. and to you the same ... well, so that at least a superficial idea of ​​the design abilities of your financial genius Mask has laughing
                      but I must admit, he is cutting money gorgeous!
                      1. Blackmokona 29 August 2019 15: 37 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Cosmodromes were transferred to him? Something new, because he only rents space at spaceports. Moreover, he built pads on them.
                        In general, you would clearly understand the topic
                      2. Sanichsan 29 August 2019 16: 14 New
                        • 1
                        • 2
                        -1
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        Moreover, he built pads on them.

                        uh .. do you mean the repair of a destroyed rental site after a rocket explosion on it? and which of the three (SLC-40, SLC-4E, LC-39A)?
                      3. Blackmokona 29 August 2019 17: 13 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        No, I mean the construction of a launcher for Falcon-9 and Falcon-Heavy launches.
                        At all three launchers.
                        For example, the SLC-40 began leasing in spring 2007, the first launch after numerous work in the summer of 2010.
                        Titan Launcher

                        Launch Falcon-9

                        Go look for differences laughing
                      4. Sanichsan 30 August 2019 15: 10 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        do you mean the refueling bar? do you want to pass this off as a pad construction? cool! laughing
                        so what did they build? or just hoses stretched out? laughing
                      5. Blackmokona 30 August 2019 16: 11 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Part is listed here.
                        April 25, 2007 was leased by SpaceX from the US Air Force [2], after which it was converted to launch the Falcon 9 launch vehicle. In particular, new refueling tanks for kerosene and liquid oxygen were installed, a new launch unit, and a hangar for horizontal assembly launch vehicle and system for its movement and verticalization Transporter-Erector (TE)

                        In general, everything is new
                        A hangar for assembling your own, your own rocket moving system, your own launch pad, and fuel tanks at your starting position.
                        SpaceX MCC also has its own
                      6. Sanichsan 30 August 2019 16: 19 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        after which there was refitted to launch Falcon 9 launch vehicles.

                        hmm .. well, I would have read it at least. the difference between converted and not built? don't know
                        and of course, all on a personal project Mask! not otherwise! laughing
                      7. Blackmokona 30 August 2019 16: 59 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        The difference is that SpaceX had to demolish everything old to make its own
  • donavi49 28 August 2019 13: 03 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    And so the mask is reluctant to give government orders. Despite the fact that competitors (ULA / Boeing), on the contrary, have now sat down on state orders and are actually playing Roskosmos, because if the native state closes the faucet, then corporations will close space production.

    Mask has a state order of about 30% (this is taking into account NASA), the rest is private satellites.

    Also, this Khoper-Mask does in fact to his loot. While on Volcano - Lockheed knocked out budget money almost a lard.
    1. Sanichsan 29 August 2019 14: 58 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: donavi49
      Also, this Khoper-Mask does in fact to his loot.

      5 lard state subsidies will not mention? so as not to spoil the light image laughing
      1. donavi49 29 August 2019 15: 20 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Well - and how much on Hoper? Another 4,2 for cosmoboing for example. They give money to everyone. Sierra Nevada for example - and the pool of money for the CRS-2 program is twice as much as for the CRS-1 (Zingus and Dragon current). And there Sierra Nevada with the Shuttle, the renewed Dragon and already in the departing train, only thanks to the sale of itself to Northrop, Orbital jumped with the renewed Tsingus.
        1. Sanichsan 29 August 2019 15: 27 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          Quote: donavi49
          They give money to everyone.

          he he laughing so all the same, not on their own wink
          the fact that everyone is given this yes, but you said that they say that Maskushka is all his own, sufferer ... and this is not so .. more precisely, it is not at all.
          5 Lard, this is actually subsidies per se, besides this there are also tax benefits and so on, which is not very honest in the competition. certainly not with ULA. wink
          1. donavi49 29 August 2019 17: 59 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Not. ULA received 976 million dollars of targeted money for Volcano. Musk received - 0 target money for Starhopper.

            ULA / Boeing / Lockheed and other companies also receive money from the government, subsidies and more. I am already silent about the procurement of Delt for 480 million per rocket. The mask of such a grandmother for a year must be pulled and launched 3-4 rockets in the interests of the government.
            1. Sanichsan 30 August 2019 14: 50 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              Quote: donavi49
              Not. ULA received 976 million dollars of targeted money for Volcano. Musk received - 0 target money for Starhopper.

              uh .. is this a space hey project, or not? how much money is drunk into this miracle office?
              Quote: donavi49
              I am already silent about the procurement of Delt for already 480 million per rocket.

              Tyuyuyu! but it was 5 years ago wink ULA launches now cost the state the same as SpaceX launches. yes
              By the way, on the issue of the actual launch price of Falcon 9. over the past few years, the price of state launches has been constantly growing. It didn’t decrease, namely it grew. don't you think this is strange?
  • Military77 28 August 2019 12: 32 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: Lord of the Sith
    I think vertical take-offs are not on our planet. It would be convenient to use on the moon, from the surface to the future station and vice versa.

    And after each take-off / landing, wait 20 years until the dust settles
  • Karabas 28 August 2019 12: 34 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Elon Musk announced plans to create a spaceship that will accommodate 100 colonists.

    Yes, I’ve heard, it’s going to be like our N-1. In the scientific community, this is called a big stupid carrier. Prospect Zero. However, I don’t rush at him while I am promoting the main project, I can declare anything and anytime, moreover, anything I can do if for the good of the case. Indulgences are absolute, because not subject to jurisdiction while promoting the main project.
    1. Hakka 28 August 2019 12: 52 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Big silly media is not about BFR, but rather about Sea Dragon, with displacement feed. And BFR has a lot of prospects, unless of course the project is brought to an end
      1. Karabas 28 August 2019 13: 04 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        from wiki
        The missile, as previously planned, will use Raptor engines, but in smaller numbers - 31 in the first stage and 6 in the second

        31 engine! This is not a stupid, smart carrier !? laughing
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. Karabas 28 August 2019 13: 15 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The wiki article is, to put it mildly, not very. Here it’s better. https://habr.com/en/post/376987/
            1. Hakka 28 August 2019 13: 22 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Well, you know, but you pretend.
              1. Karabas 28 August 2019 13: 32 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Well, you know, but you pretend.

                laughing
                Karabas will never pretend. Always a whip on obscurantism and on the facts, on the facts! laughing
                1. Hakka 28 August 2019 13: 48 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Well, what is the stupidity of 31 engines in the first stage? Now it’s already 35. On N-1, which was approved by the Korolev only at the first stage there were 30 engines, and Korolev was certainly not a stupid person, he sent people into space, would you know how block D on N-1 works, what flight scheme does 7K-LOCK and LK, in general, he would probably be considered a fool. Yes, the N-1 did not take off, at that time it was for 30 railways, and there were many reasons there, and cord, and the lack of powerful electronics, etc.
                  1. Karabas 28 August 2019 13: 55 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Well, what is the stupidity of 31 engines in the first stage? Now it’s already 35. On N-1, which was approved by the Korolev only at the first stage there were 30 engines, and Korolev was certainly not a stupid person, he sent people into space, would you know how block D on N-1 works, what flight scheme does 7K-LOCK and LK, in general, he would probably be considered a fool. Yes, N-1 did not take off, at that time it was for 30 railways, and there are many reasons there, and cord, and lack

                    In the same wiki
                    Four test launches of the N-1 were carried out. All of them ended in failure at the stage of the first stage. Although separate engines proved to be quite reliable during bench tests, most of the problems encountered with the carrier were caused by vibration, hydrodynamic shock (when the engines were turned off), turning torque, electrical noise, and other unaccounted for effects caused by the simultaneous operation of such a large number of engines and a large rocket size.

                    When I was a young engineer myself, I always raised the issue of resuming the production of N-1. Only after studying the problems and the history of development and launches, I realized the futility. However, a stupid carrier is possible and will be reliable (I'm not sure about the cheapness), but the fuel should be different, obviously not hydrogen.
    2. Blackmokona 28 August 2019 12: 57 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Falcon-Heavy showed that with modern electronics the H-1 would fly successfully
      1. Karabas 28 August 2019 13: 02 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Falcon-Heavy showed that with modern electronics the H-1 would fly successfully

        Do not improve electronics probability theory. This will never happen, even on a pepelats with a gravon mule.
        1. Blackmokona 28 August 2019 13: 04 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          So with probability theory, all is well. After all, even the explosion of three engines does not prevent Falcon Heavy from completing the mission, and the explosion of one engine on a single-engine rocket is a complete failure.
          1. Hakka 28 August 2019 13: 11 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            No, if the explosion is all, but if there is any stability in the work during the flight of the rocket, then you can turn off a couple of engines.
            1. Blackmokona 28 August 2019 13: 13 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              The Falcon-9 has protective partitions between the engines. (I hope you do not confuse the engines and their nozzles)
  • The comment was deleted.
  • greenx
    greenx 28 August 2019 12: 38 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0

    Test testTestTeating

  • Shuttle 28 August 2019 12: 51 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Like the comment under the video.

    1980s: I bet there'll be flying cars!
    2019: flying water towers
    -----------------
    1980: I'm sure there will be flying cars!
    2019: Flying Water Towers
    1. Blackmokona 28 August 2019 12: 58 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Flying cars have been around for a long time, the question is that no one is ready to pay the price for them
    2. donavi49 28 August 2019 13: 00 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Well this is more from ignorance and jokes.

      The appearance of this stand is not important at all. Equalized the diameter - to test more in combat mode and all.

      The main thing is an engine with complete gasification of elements. This is only the first step. But Bezos now does not have one, as well as the Corporation (Lockheed) which makes a new rocket for America = Volcano.
      1. UserGun 28 August 2019 17: 03 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: donavi49
        But Bezos now does not have one, as well as the Corporation (Lockheed) which makes a new rocket for America = Volcano.


        They won’t get theirs, they will buy a license or the engines themselves from Mask. Not at Roskosmos same buy)))
        1. donavi49 28 August 2019 18: 16 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Musk will not sell them. They are competitors for the markets.

          At the same time, they make their own methane BE-4. But just slow.
  • Vitaly Tsymbal 28 August 2019 13: 03 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    About how many laudatory and promising projects from this Max we were told, though so far people fly into space mainly on time-tested Unions. I have a “cantor named after Max” - it causes nostalgia for the 70s, when we guys, obsessed with the idea of ​​space exploration, were engaged in a rocket modeling circle))) The same ambitions, the same enthusiastic articles in the local “Pioneer truth”, the same records (though taking into account the lack of those technologies and materials that are now). Max is GOOD, if I had grown up forgetting about my hobby for space exploration, then Max remained in my soul as a boy who still believes that "apples will bloom on Mars" - I don’t know how it will sound in American, but faith is a dream, the belief that any dream can be fulfilled is wonderful !!!
    1. Nestorovich 28 August 2019 13: 51 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Vitaliy Tsymbal
      how many eulogy-promising projects from this Max have been told to us, though people still fly into space mainly on time-tested Unions

      not long left, from next year the United States and Europe abandon the alliance.
      1. Vitaly Tsymbal 28 August 2019 15: 14 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        In my memory, they have repeatedly refused))) Wait and see. It is one thing to say, another to do. I am an internationalist, and if the United States takes another step into space, I will be happy for the Americans and for all of Humanity !!!
  • DimerVladimer 28 August 2019 13: 15 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    While Falcon's reusability is conditional, yet 6 months between starts is a long time.
    But when they bring at least not up to a week, but to a month between launches on the same returnable medium, this will already be an economically viable process.
    On the other hand, from almost 190000 employees of Roscosmos, I would like to see the return on a cosmic scale, and not the protracted history of the Federation ship ...
    1. Blackmokona 28 August 2019 13: 22 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      There was already an example with a difference of 3 months between starts.
      The second launch in January 2019, the third launch in May 2019. The serial number of the stage B1049
      1. DimerVladimer 28 August 2019 13: 36 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: BlackMokona
        There was already an example with a difference of 3 months between starts.
        The second launch in January 2019, the third launch in May 2019. The serial number of the stage B1049


        Yes - this is not an indicator yet, although it is already twice as fast - that means labor costs have decreased approximately comparable.
        The expected list of works on inter-launch overhaul is not advertised, so it is difficult to conclude that the engine / carrier is reusable.
        But if TNA and KS fly off 10 starts without replacement, this pays off all the fuss and the cost of a multi-developed product. About the possibility of 70 starts at one stage - it’s too early to draw conclusions.
        1. Blackmokona 28 August 2019 13: 41 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Yes - this is not an indicator yet, although it is already twice as fast - that means labor costs have decreased approximately comparable.

          It is not necessary, since the starts depend on the customers. Until they prepare the load, and a fully finished rocket does not fly away anywhere.
          The expected list of works on inter-launch overhaul is not advertised, so it is difficult to conclude that the engine / carrier is reusable.

          Advertised, the first ten launches only inspection.
          1. DimerVladimer 28 August 2019 14: 00 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: BlackMokona
            It is not necessary, since the starts depend on the customers. Until they prepare the load, and a fully finished rocket does not fly away anywhere.

            With 50 scheduled launches, there is always room to use the finished media, 3 months is the deadline for a minimum of non-destructive testing.
            So I understand that the inter-launch schedule after the first launches included X-ray and ultrasound.
            In subsequent maintenance operations, the method of inter-launch work is simplified - statistics are being developed. If the node does not have fatigue cracks, burnouts, deformations, then non-destructive testing of secondary nodes remains outside the limits of the inter-launch regulation.
            Since the rocket launcher, the design is working close to the limit in terms of dynamic, vibrational, temperature loads, the guys go along a little-explored path.
            1. Blackmokona 28 August 2019 14: 04 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Not SpaceX decides which rocket will go where, but the customer. On what is agreed, it flies. And customers are not yet eager to sit down on missiles from which inspections have only inspection. But I think the massive launches of Starlink's own satellites will change the situation. In the meantime, you can safely accumulate rockets in the warehouse.
              1. DimerVladimer 28 August 2019 14: 15 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: BlackMokona
                And customers are not yet eager to sit down on missiles from which inspections have only inspection.

                I believe there is not only non-destructive testing (it is more familiar to express oneself in working terms).
                This is understandable - the risk increases in proportion - to risk a payload, the price of which is ten times more expensive than launch services, no one wants, because the equipment is insured, but unique and recreate it, it will take years.

                Quote: BlackMokona
                In the meantime, you can safely accumulate rockets in the warehouse.

                Oh Mask does not hear you :))
                Products should not be in stock - these are "buried" working capital that does not generate income ...
                1. Blackmokona 28 August 2019 14: 21 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  So Musk plans to launch 12 thousand satellites in the very near future. Here is the use
                  1. DimerVladimer 28 August 2019 14: 29 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: BlackMokona
                    So Musk plans to launch 12 thousand satellites in the very near future. Here is the use


                    I don’t think that for low-orbit satellites the term “launch” will be correct to say - launch.
                    The lifetime of such satellites is short. They are light, low orbits, satellites are actively slowed down.
                    So, the process will have to be supported constantly.
                    But in general, I agree with the development strategy: you use your launch services yourself, sell the surplus to the side, reducing your own costs. Especially if the satellite Internet market will generate 40 times more profit than launch services - God forbid.
                    All that "stirs" Roscosmos - this is also useful to us.
                    1. Nikalab 28 August 2019 20: 47 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      They are light, low orbits, satellites are actively slowed down.

                      It is not so simple. Each Starlink satellite has an ion engine in krypton, thanks to which it is held in orbit.
                      1. DimerVladimer 29 August 2019 09: 55 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Nikalab
                        It is not so simple. Each Starlink satellite has an ion engine in krypton, thanks to which it is held in orbit.


                        It is doubtful that for a satellite weighing 227-440 kg, the krypton reserve will be sufficient for correction in the orbital plane.
                        I assume that most likely this is a necessary minimum for correcting the angle of inclination of the orbit and for bringing the satellites that have worked out the resource from orbit.

                        Even the manufacturer’s theoretical calculations are cautiously called a period of 3 to 5 years.
                        This is a very big run, indicating that the organizers do not have clear statistics so they are careful in their assessments.
                        For example, the design life of a MicroSat 2a, 2b satellite (Tintin A, B) is six months - it’s clear that these are prototypes, but it’s very small. Even if you double the resource - not enough.
                        Judging by the parameters of the current orbit for today, Tintin AB https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=43217 they are kept within 500 km. That is, if you believe the press, then a year and a half later in the given orbit parameters (planned orbits at the time of launch 500 km × 516 km, 97.46 ° (# 1); 499 km × 515 km, 97.46 ° (# 2))
                      2. DimerVladimer 29 August 2019 10: 14 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Nikalab
                        It is not so simple. Each Starlink satellite has an ion engine in krypton, thanks to which it is held in orbit.


                        By the way - the press stated that 60 new Starlink satellites launch 440 km into orbit - in fact, they are now in orbits with parameters in the region of 549-560 km https://www.n2yo.com/satellites/?c=US&t=country
                        I will not be surprised at all that in a year they will be 10% lower - about 500 km
                        The lighter the satellite - the less its moment of inertia, the larger the area - the more actively it brakes.
                        In a year we will see the actual orbit and how ionic engines can support it.
  • K-50 28 August 2019 13: 32 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Starhopper is similar to Pepelats from Kin-dza-dza. lol
    But he, however, will not fly without a gravitsapa. request fellow laughing
  • pexotinec 28 August 2019 14: 21 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And we will fly to the ISS for another hundred years in the Unions, and not develop new ships for deep space flights. Fucking Roskosmos with Rogozin cannot fill all their pockets with dough with their topmanagers.
    1. DimerVladimer 28 August 2019 14: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: pexotinec
      Fucking Roskosmos with Rogozin cannot fill all their pockets with dough with their topmanagers.


      With his appearance, to the tradition of rewarding the uninvited and punishing the innocent, one more was added - to swear away engineers and scientists with outstanding competencies present in the great and mighty Russian :)
      What would rocket science do without him - wouldn’t it be sent to the Mask?
      And then they suspiciously everything is going smoothly ...
  • Popov Konstantin Ivanovich 28 August 2019 16: 15 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    on the headband - “starship”, the same pepelats flew in the film “Negroes (people) in black - 2”. Oh, they are dictated by fashion in NASA, Hollywood artists and modelers are stand-makers. In that movie, a beautiful Defka got out of the "ship" and started to hobble the dog, I'm afraid to imagine what Robot Fedorovich will do on the ISS belay
  • Viktor 7007 28 August 2019 20: 54 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    this is pipelac! ku !!!
  • olhon 29 August 2019 03: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Pepelats from Kin Dza Dza ...
  • slavaseven 29 August 2019 07: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Pepelats! Does Gravitsap work?