Reusable launch vehicle projects in Russia: do they have a future?

92
The space industry is one of the most high-tech, and its condition largely characterizes the general level of development of industry and technology in the country. The existing space achievements of Russia are for the most part based on the achievements of the USSR. At the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the capabilities of the USSR and the USA in space were approximately comparable. In the future, the situation with space in the Russian Federation began to gradually deteriorate.





Apart from the services for the delivery of American astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), which arose due to the US refusal of the expensive Space Shuttle program, Russia is inferior to the United States in everything: there are practically no successful large scientific projects comparable to sending rovers and deploying orbiting telescopes or sending spacecraft to distant objects in the solar system. The rapid development of private commercial companies has led to a significant reduction in the share of Roscosmos in the space launch market. Russian-supplied RD-180 engines in the US will soon replace the American BE-4 from Blue Origin.


Russian RD-180 engine and American BE-4, working on a methane + oxygen fuel pair


In the coming year, the United States will most likely refuse the services of Russia as a “space cab” by completing tests of its own manned spacecraft (three manned spacecraft are being developed at once).


Promising US manned spacecraft SpaceX Dragon V2, Boeing CST-100 and Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser (the latter dropped out of the NASA competition, but it may well be implemented on an initiative basis)


The last point of contact between the United States and Russia remains the ISS, whose life is nearing its end. If any domestic or international project with Russian participation is not implemented, then the stay of Russian cosmonauts in orbit will become extremely episodic.

The main established trend, which in the near future should lead to a significant reduction in the cost of putting payloads into orbit, is the creation of reusable rockets. To some extent, this is already happening: the stated goal of SpaceX is to reduce the cost of putting goods into orbit by ten times, and at the moment it has managed to bring down the price by about a half.

It must be understood that reusable rocket science in its present form (with the return of the first stage) is at the initial stage of development. Judging by the interest shown by other commercial companies in this area, the area can be considered extremely promising. A breakthrough in this direction may be the emergence of a two-stage launch vehicle (LV) BFR with full reusability of both stages and the expected reliability of flights at the level of modern airliners.

The Russian space industry also has several projects of reusable launch vehicles of varying degrees of sophistication.

"Baikal"


One of the most actively promoted reusable missile projects is Baikal-Angara. The promising module "Baikal" is a reusable accelerator (MRU) of the first stage of the Angara launch vehicle, developed at the GKNPC them. Khrunicheva.


MRU "Baikal"


Depending on the class of the rocket (light, medium, heavy), one, two or four reusable Baikal boosters should be used. In the light version, the Baikal accelerator, in fact, is the first step, which brings the Angara rocket concept in this version closer to the SpaceX Falcon-9 concept.

Reusable launch vehicle projects in Russia: do they have a future?

LV Angara A1-V based on the Baikal MRU


A feature of the reusable Baikal accelerator is a return carried out by airplane. After undocking, Baikal unfolds a rotary wing in the upper part of the hull and lands on the airfield, while maneuvering at a distance of about 400 km can be carried out.


Presentation of the Baikal project

The project is criticized because of its greater complexity and potentially lower efficiency compared to the vertical landing used in foreign projects. According to Roscosmos, a horizontal landing pattern is necessary to ensure the possibility of returning to the launch site, but the same possibility is stated for the BFR. And the first stages of the Falcon-9 LV are no more than 600 km away from the launch site, that is, landing sites for them can be equipped at a relatively short distance from the launch site.

Another disadvantage of the Baikal MRU + Angara launch vehicle concept is that in the medium and heavy version only accelerators return, the first stage (central unit) of the LV is lost. And landing at the same time four MRU when starting a heavy version of the launch vehicle can cause difficulties.

Against the background of the development of the Baikal-Angara project, statements by the general designer of the Angara rocket family Alexander Medvedev look strange. According to him, the rocket can land using jet engines on retractable supports, like the Falcon-9. Retrofitting the first stages of the Angara-A5В and Angara-A3В LVs with landing supports, a landing control system, additional thermal protection systems and additional fuel will increase their weight by approximately 19 percent. After refinement, Angara-A5B will be able to remove tons of 26-27 tons from Vostochny Cosmodrome, and not 37 tons, as in a one-time version. In the case of the implementation of this project, the cost of cargo removal using the "Hangar" should decrease by 22-37%, while the maximum allowable number of launches of the first stages of the launch vehicle is not indicated.

Considering the statements of the representatives of Roscosmos about the possibility of creating the Soyuz-7 launch vehicle in cooperation with the S7 Space company in the reusable version, we can conclude that the final design of the reusable launch vehicle in Russia has not yet been decided. Nevertheless, the Baikal switchgear project is being gradually developed. Its development is carried out by the experimental machine-building plant named after V. M. Myasishchev. The test horizontal flight of the demonstrator is planned in 2020, then a speed of the order of 6,5 M should be achieved. In the future, the MRU will be launched from a balloon, from an altitude of 48 km.


The concept of the test apparatus of the MRU "Baikal"


Soyuz-7


In September of 2018, Igor Radugin, first deputy general designer and chief designer of launch vehicles for the Energia rocket and space corporation, who led the development of the new Russian Soyuz-5 launch vehicle and Yenisei superheavy rocket, resigned and went to work to the private company S7 Space. According to him, the S7 Space company plans to create a Soyuz-7 rocket on the basis of the Soyuz-5 single-use rocket being developed by Roscosmos, which, in turn, is the ideological heir to the successful Soviet Zenit rocket.


Soyuz-5 launch vehicle


As in the Falcon-9 rocket, in the Soyuz-7 rocket it is planned to carry out the return of the first stage using rocket-dynamic maneuver and vertical landing using rocket engines. It is planned to develop a version of Soyuz-7SL for the Sea Launch platform. It is planned to use the proven RD-7 engine (most likely its modification RD-171МВ), which can be reused up to twenty times (171 flights and 10 burns) as the Soyuz-10 LV engine. S7 Space plans to implement its development over the course of 5-6 years. At present, Soyuz-7 launch vehicle can be considered the most realistic reusable launch vehicle project in Russia.



Theia


The Lin Industrial company is designing the Teiya ultra-small suborbital rocket, designed to take off to the conditional 100 km space border with subsequent return.


The reusable suborbital launch vehicle Teia


Despite the modest characteristics of the project, it can provide the technology needed to create higher-performance launch vehicles in the future, all the more so as Lin Industrial is simultaneously developing a project for the Taimyr one-time ultra-small launch vehicle.


Launch vehicle Taimyr


"Crown"


One of the most interesting and innovative projects can be considered a reusable single-stage launch vehicle with vertical take-off and landing "Corona", which was developed by the State Rocket Center (GRC) named after Makeev in the period from 1992 to 2012 year. As the project developed, many options of the Korona LV were considered, until the most optimal final version was formed.


The developed versions of the Korona launch vehicle


The final version of the Korona rocket is designed to launch payloads of 6-12 tons mass into low Earth orbit about 200-500 km high. Launch mass of the launch vehicle is expected in the region of 280-290 tons. As the engine, it was proposed to use a wedge-air liquid rocket engine (LRE) using a hydrogen + oxygen fuel pair. As thermal protection it is supposed to use the improved thermal protection of the Buran orbital spacecraft.

The axisymmetric conical shape of the hull has good aerodynamics when driving at high speeds, which allows the Korona launch vehicle to land at the launch point. This, in turn, allows launching the Korona launch vehicle from both land and offshore platforms. During the descent in the upper atmosphere, the vehicle performs aerodynamic braking and maneuvering, and at the final stage, when approaching the landing site, it turns aft down and lands using a rocket engine on the built-in shock absorbers. Presumably, the Korona LV can be used up to 100 times, when replacing individual structural elements every 25 flights.


The concept of the reusable Corona launch vehicle


According to the developer, to enter the trial operation phase it will take about 7 years and 2 billion dollars, not so much for the possibility of obtaining such a revolutionary complex.

Currently, the GRTS them. Makeev can be considered one of the most competent enterprises in the field of rocket science, which retained its maximum potential after the collapse of the USSR. It was they who created one of the most effective Sineva intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and they were entrusted with the creation of the Sarmat ICBM, which replaces the famous Satan. The completion of the creation of the Sarmat ICBM in the 2020-2021 year opens up the opportunity to attract them. Makeeva to space projects.

Speaking about the shortcomings of the Corona project, we can assume that this will primarily be the need to create infrastructure for the delivery and storage of liquid hydrogen, as well as all the problems and risks associated with its use. It is possible that the best solution would be to abandon the one-stage scheme of the Korona LV and to implement a two-stage, fully reusable methane fuel complex. For example, based on the RD-169 oxygen-methane engine under development or its modifications. In this case, the first stage could be used separately to output a specific payload to a height of the order of 100 km.

On the other hand, from liquid hydrogen, as from rocket fuel, most likely, there is nowhere to go. In many projects, depending on whether the first stage is methane or kerosene, hydrogen-oxygen engines are used in the second stage. In this context, it is appropriate to recall three-component engines, such as, for example, the two-mode three-component engine RD0750 being developed by the Design Bureau of Chemical Automation (KBKhA). In the first mode, the RD0750 engine runs on oxygen and kerosene with the addition of 6% hydrogen, in the second mode it runs on oxygen and hydrogen. Such an engine can also be implemented for a combination of hydrogen + methane + oxygen, and it is possible that this will turn out to be even simpler than in the version with kerosene.


RD0750 Dual-Mode Three-Component Engine


“Baikal-Angara”, “Soyuz-7” or “Crown”?


Which of these projects could be the first Russian reusable missile? The project "Baikal-Angara", in spite of its publicity, can be considered the least interesting. Firstly, the long-standing fuss with the Angara family launch vehicle itself is already leaving its mark, and secondly, the concept of returning MRS by aircraft also raises many questions. If we talk about the easy version, when the MDI is actually the first stage, then it’s still wherever it goes, and if we talk about medium and heavy variants with two / four MRI and the loss of the first and second stages, the idea looks very strange. Talk about the vertical landing of the Angara launch vehicle is likely to remain such, or will be realized when the rest of the world is already flying on antigravity or antimatter.

The creation of the reusable version of the Soyuz-7 LV by the private company S7 Space in cooperation with Roscosmos seems more optimistic, especially since the designed superheavy Yenisei LV will be created on the same engines, which will potentially allow the transfer of reusable technologies to it . Nevertheless, recalling the epic with the "E-mobile", and this project can go to landfill stories. Another issue is the initial use of oxygen-kerosene engines in the Soyuz-5, Soyuz-7 and Yenisei LV projects. The advantages and prospects of methane as a rocket fuel are obvious, and it is necessary to concentrate efforts on the transition to this technology - the creation of a throttle refillable methane rocket engine, instead of creating the next "most powerful in the world" oxygen-kerosene engine, which will cease to be relevant through 5-10 years .


RD0162 Methane LPRE, developed by KBHA, on the basis of which the creation of RD-169 is planned


The project “Crown” in this situation can be considered as a “dark horse”. As mentioned above, the GRC them. Makeeva has high competencies, and with appropriate funding, she could well have created a reusable single-stage or two-stage launch vehicle in the period from 2021 to 2030, after the completion of work on the Sarmat ICBM. Of all the possible options, the Corona project could potentially become the most innovative, capable of creating a reserve for the next generation of launch vehicles.

The appearance of the reusable Falcon-9 booster rocket showed that a new battle for space has begun, and in this battle we began to rapidly lag behind. There is no doubt that having gained unilateral advantages in the US space, and it is possible that China will also begin its rapid militarization after him. The low cost of putting payloads into orbit, provided by reusable launch vehicles, will make space attractive for commercial sector investments, which will further boost the space race.

In connection with the foregoing, I would like to hope that the leadership of our country realizes the importance of developing space technology in the context of, if not civilian, then at least military use, and invests the necessary funds in the development of advanced space technologies, and not in the construction of another stadium or amusement park, ensuring appropriate control over their intended use.
Our news channels

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

92 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    5 September 2019 18: 14
    We need powerful, economical engines! Then there will be a real breakthrough in rocket science.
    1. +8
      5 September 2019 18: 58
      Well, in the ratio of power and efficiency, a certain limit has been reached, beyond which you will not jump. Now there is a need to solve problems that were previously secondary.
      Firstly, the engines should run on a fuel mixture that is the least toxic, but at the same time quite convenient to use and at the same time suitable for reusable engines (for the time being quite contradictory requirements, there is still no optimal option).
      Secondly, the creation of a reusable engine (creation, not adaptation) is required, which entails (possibly) the development of new materials and a change in the brains of developers who are used to designing disposable engines in the RD-XXX style for decades (this is not a reproach! RD - a masterpiece, no options). A reusable engine should be convenient for maintenance, and the magnitude of this maintenance should be minimal, and this ideology should be laid down initially.
      In any case, a breakthrough in the world is not yet visible, here we live to see the gravitsap - then yeah ...
      PS: where gridasov? topic - well, as ordered by his ideas.
      1. 0
        5 September 2019 20: 40
        Quote: andranick
        Well, in the ratio of power and efficiency reached a certain limit

        1) you can use atmospheric air in the first steps
        2) it is possible to increase the efficiency by reducing the discharge of the working fluid
        3) you can use an airplane-like launch scheme
        So it's far from the limit. But nobody needs it, and the point is not even that no one will give money for R&D, but that neither the state nor corporations want to give financial guarantees to innovators and developers. What innovations can we talk about if organizations on the territory of the Russian Federation write "we want to get an innovation from you, we will give money to those who can implement it, we do not have to give you anything" well, why should those who have come up with something useful to give their ideas to such organizations? Personally, after their verbiage and noodles, such a desire does not arise.
        1. +1
          6 September 2019 09: 03
          it is possible to increase efficiency by reducing the discharge of the working fluid

          What is it like? if I’m not mistaken, the RD efficiency is the ratio of the net power to the available power, i.e., to the maximum power of the jet flowing out of the engine nozzle. And how do you increase the efficiency by reducing the discharge of the working fluid, if, as a result of the expiration of the working fluid from the engine nozzle, a reactive force is formed. That is, the specific impulse is equal to the velocity of the expiration of the working fluid from the nozzle. More momentum - higher kinetic energy. It's like trying to increase the efficiency of a gasoline engine by reducing the gas tank :))
          1. 0
            6 September 2019 16: 05
            Quote: Ka-52
            What is it like? if I am not mistaken RD efficiency ...

            Well, if you look from the point of view of what the "rocket scientists" write themselves and what they teach in specialized universities, then you are certainly right, but... but I think this is a mistake, the direction of thought I gave you, think and probably think of the same thing as me.
            1. 0
              7 September 2019 01: 40
              Brilliant ... and you "organizations on the territory of the Russian Federation do not give money" ??? Disgrace ...
              1. +1
                7 September 2019 14: 46
                And where is the money? read carefully "financial guarantees" it's not money it juristic documents which are concluded by the parties and which regulate the transfer of money when certain conditions are met in one form or another.

                For example, there is some new technology => design of a jet engine with higher efficiency (with lower fuel consumption) and the parties conclude financial guarantees, i.e. a legal agreement, in which, let's say, there are three parties, the first is the one (those) who invented the innovation, the one (those) who can implement, check and most importantly document the truth of the benefits of the innovation and the one (those) who finance all this. This agreement describes that the investor allocates targeted funding for documentary confirmation, and the resulting remuneration for innovation, that the innovator undertakes to provide analytical calculations on his technology, and a third party to confirm or deny the truth of these calculations.

                PS Well, like nowhere else to chew ...
          2. 0
            29 October 2019 11: 04
            It's like trying to increase the efficiency of a gasoline engine by reducing the gas tank
            Rather, a proposal to increase efficiency by reducing the volume of cylinders or reducing the amount of fuel mixture thrown into the cylinders hi
            Funny in general.
      2. +2
        5 September 2019 23: 25
        Quote: andranick
        where gridasov?

        I miss you too! winked
    2. +2
      5 September 2019 19: 25
      We need powerful, economical engines! Then there will be a real breakthrough in rocket science.

      Burning has a limit on the temperature of combustion, the combustion technology has reached its limit, real breakthroughs can be made only on thermonuclear fusion.
    3. +3
      5 September 2019 19: 53
      Why are any breakthroughs needed for modern Russian officials? All they need to do is to use the money, but otherwise everything is fine with them, there will be enough for Russia in their lifetime, and then there’s at least a fire, at least a flood. After all, their children have long and happily not lived in Russia.
      1. +2
        6 September 2019 08: 49
        Why are any breakthroughs needed for modern Russian officials? All they need to do is to use the money, but otherwise everything is fine with them, there will be enough for Russia in their lifetime, and then there’s at least a fire, at least a flood. After all, their children have long and happily not lived in Russia.

        I forgot about the trampoline, do not step back from the workpiece. It’s so important for us to read this 100500 times. It seems to me that when the commentator does not understand nicherta in the topic, he begins to write similar. Well, at least something to blur. Maybe also give likes
    4. +2
      5 September 2019 20: 19
      Alas, modern rocket engines have approached the theoretically possible limit. Without a fundamental change in the engine (a chemical fuel rocket), a significant increase in efficiency is impossible.

      Of the existing technologies today, небольшой an increase would be given by nuclear engines. Strange, huh? .. It would seem nuclear - power, wow! But no. For outer space - a good solution. To enter orbit - no. Risks outweigh potential gains.

      An interesting project of the British Skylon with acceleration (after all, to get into orbit, you need speed, not altitude) to the plane principle using oxygen from the atmosphere - and an oxidizer (oxygen) can easily weigh over 60% of the mass of the rocket at launch. But even he - is a breakthrough? ..
      1. 0
        5 September 2019 20: 28
        Upstairs we were talking about new, "unknown" physical principles !!!!
        So there it is, a field of activity! Go ahead with the song!
      2. +1
        5 September 2019 23: 55
        Quote: Proctologist
        But even he - is a breakthrough? ..

        Exactly ... Skylon is a "class" of aerospace "aircraft" ... A lot of "talked-wrote" about them at the end of the last century; but now this "entuzizism" has somehow subsided ... (Although, the "Baikal" project is a memory of this fashionable "current" ... Personally, I have not yet "reached" the criticism of this project: why is it much worse than a vertical return? Project yak project ...) I agree that the "use" of atmospheric oxygen is the highlight of the Skylon project, but the bulkiness of the compressor and refrigeration equipment, the difficulty of obtaining liquefied oxygen on board a "separate" aircraft ... will the apparent advantages "not" of this project?
  2. -1
    5 September 2019 18: 28
    Methane has only one advantage over kerosene, it does not give soot, it is useful for reusability, well, it can also be synthesized on other celestial bodies. And a slightly higher specific impulse is consumed by heavier tanks, so methane is less dense than kerosene. In general, the Soyuz-5 project is a rocket for the poor, from which it is possible to make a 6-7 block superheavy for the poor, if you suddenly do not need a superheavy, then you can launch an average payload rocket, Russia will not master an 8-10 meter in diameter superheavy. You do not need to compare NASA with its budget and Roscosmos, although the Indians, with a small budget, spend it quite efficiently, well, they, like the Chinese, have not done anything that the USA and the USSR did not do in the past.
    1. -1
      5 September 2019 19: 55
      Methane is extremely explosive and has no significant energy advantages over kerosene ...
      1. -1
        5 September 2019 20: 02
        So I’m writing about this, I will repeat the advantages only in that it does not give soot, for reusability, plus, and on the moon and Mars you can get, even natural gas is cheap.
        1. -4
          5 September 2019 20: 12
          Natural gas is cheaper than kerosene due to only a high tax component in the price of oil products ... The explosion hazard of the methane-oxygen mixture negates all the already meager advantages of its use. Hydrogen is another matter ... Hydrogen has real advantages over kerosene.
          1. -1
            5 September 2019 23: 48
            The explosiveness of the methane-oxygen mixture crosses out all the already meager advantages from its use.

            LNG (liquefied methane) equipment has been in operation for many years without problems with the explosion hazard in China. There, LNG is widely used for special purposes. transport, buses and river vessels. The problem is far-fetched.
            Hydrogen has real advantages over kerosene.

            The rocket is very expensive. They are trying to get away from hydrogen. In extreme cases, use only on the upper stage or booster block.
    2. +6
      5 September 2019 20: 04
      Quote: Hakka
      Methane has only one advantage over kerosene, it does not give soot, it is useful for reusability, well, it can also be synthesized on other celestial bodies. And a slightly higher specific impulse is consumed by heavier tanks, so methane is less dense than kerosene.


      Another of the advantages:
      1. Methane is supercooled to oxygen temperature to increase density.
      2. It is cheap and widespread, not like special grades of oil for special kerosene.
      3. It does not need to be cooled in flight.

      Quote: Hakka
      In general, the Soyuz-5 project is a rocket for the poor, from which it is possible to make the 6-7 block superheavy for the poor, if you suddenly do not need a superheavy, you can launch an average payload rocket, Russia will not master the 8-10 meter-long superheavy.


      The main thing is not for stupid, let's look at the result.

      Quote: Hakka
      You do not need to compare NASA with its budget and Roscosmos, although the Indians, with a small budget, spend it quite efficiently, well, they, like the Chinese, have not done anything that the USA and the USSR did not do in the past.


      How to compare GDP, one immediately recalls different purchasing power, it’s cheaper for us, so the GDP can be compared with respect to prices in the USA and the Russian Federation, and as it comes to achievements, then the budget is like NASA’s. You need to steal less, clearly set tasks and achieve them, and not rush about like one thing in the washstand.
      1. +2
        6 September 2019 13: 29
        Quote: AVM
        1. Methane is supercooled to oxygen temperature to increase density.
        2. It is cheap and widespread, not like special grades of oil for special kerosene.
        3. It does not need to be cooled in flight.

        1. Kerosene is also cooled to increase density.
        2. There are no "special grades" of oil. RG-1, aka naphthyl is produced from any oils.
        The cost of fuel in the cost of starting is a fraction of a percent.
        3. Generally some nonsense.
        Quote: AVM
        ..., and as it comes to achievements, then immediately the budget is like that of NASA. You need to steal less, clearly set tasks and achieve them, and not rush about like one thing in the washstand.

        It was necessary to start reforming the industry 20 years ago, and not from the 14th year, but such tasks were not set and money was not allocated for them.
      2. -1
        6 September 2019 14: 49
        I wanted to ask .. about "Baikal" you have written:
        Quote: AVM
        The project is criticized because of its greater complexity and potentially lower efficiency compared to the vertical landing used in foreign projects.

        why? 30% loss of power in vertically planted, not in those planning. some dubious thesis.
        1. -1
          6 September 2019 16: 31
          30% loss of power in vertically planted, not in those planning.


          The thesis is contested. 30% is when returning to the start, which is not necessary, and 5% is enough for landing, if the pulse is not extinguished. Comparison of missile and cruise landing schemes for reusable stages was studied in detail in the 80s and 90s. There are a lot of them. As a result, we chose the Baikal scheme, as it was simpler and more understandable, at that time, in implementation. But in terms of weight, it is not optimal and less reliable. Rocket and parachute are more efficient. And as soon as old Elon showed everyone that a rocket landing was not painful at all, everyone yelled, "I was the first to say that a rocket landing is better!"
          And yet, yes, a missile landing is more cost-effective ...
          P / S Baikal was pulled out of oblivion from despair when asked: "What do we have?"
          1. -1
            6 September 2019 17: 06
            Quote: Mityai65
            The thesis is disputed. 30% of this when returning to the start, which is not necessary, 5% is enough for landing, if the speed is not extinguished by an impulse.

            if you do not extinguish speed, then you will spread the accelerator on the landing pad. physics, you know. hi
            Quote: Mityai65
            And as soon as old Elon showed everyone that a rocket landing was not painful at all, everyone yelled, "I was the first to say that a rocket landing is better!"

            sorry, but terrible nonsense ...
            Quote: Mityai65
            And yet, yes, a missile landing is more cost-effective ...

            drank in the plan?
            Quote: Mityai65
            P / S Baikal was pulled out of oblivion from despair when asked: "What do we have?"

            in the year 2000 ??? belay from hopelessness from the fact that in 2006 Musk will launch his first Falcon ??? belay
  3. +2
    5 September 2019 18: 37
    All projects are good, choose your taste. Honestly, neighing at the Baikal project, "the cruising speed is 480 km / h", for which he laughed, so the separation of the first stage occurs at a speed of about 2,4 km / s or about 8640 km / h, for the MIG-31 about 3400 at maximum, Have you seen a straight wing ?, and I didn’t see, but on Baikal a direct one, the technology of reducing the speed of the separated stage is a military secret. With the collapse of the USSR, the concept of the development of the industry collapsed and the collapse of the production of materials and components. The Americans are fully mastering the technologies obtained from the USSR. It is hard to believe that a private shop honestly solves the problems with which the specialized enterprises of America could not cope, I am silent about Russia, having personnel, production capacities and experience in development and production.
    1. 0
      5 September 2019 18: 50
      Baikal can be used neither as the first step, the author could be mistaken here, but as an accelerator, like the Atlas-5, they will get rid of at a lower speed. Here f-104 also had straight, trapezoidal wings, and did not fly to 2200 km / h.
      1. +2
        5 September 2019 19: 58
        Quote: Hakka
        Baikal can be used neither as the first step, the author could be mistaken here, but as an accelerator, like the Atlas-5, they will get rid of at a lower speed. Here f-104 also had straight, trapezoidal wings, and did not fly to 2200 km / h.


        In the article, a picture of a light Angara with Baikal in the role of the first stage, I did not draw it.
    2. 0
      5 September 2019 19: 31
      that a private shop honestly solves problems that America's specialized enterprises could not cope with

      The shop is private only formally, it includes a couple of engineering teams from old companies, with all their best practices.
      1. -1
        5 September 2019 19: 50
        And from which?
        Lockheed and Boeing are busy over Volcano
        Orbital busy OmegaA
        That's all the old people in action.
    3. 0
      5 September 2019 20: 50
      Quote: Strashila
      Honestly, neighing at the Baikal project, "cruising speed 480 km / h", for which he laughed

      You laughed because you did not understand the point, there this speed is used after work to fly to the nearest airfield. That is, there, as with Ilon, a mask only landing is easier, cheaper and safer because it goes to a given point, sits on a stable surface (rather than a sea platform) and sits on a tangent (less impact and less fuel consumption).
      1. +2
        6 September 2019 07: 59
        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
        Quote: Strashila
        Honestly, neighing at the Baikal project, "cruising speed 480 km / h", for which he laughed

        You laughed because you did not understand the point, there this speed is used after work to fly to the nearest airfield. That is, there, as with Ilon, a mask only landing is easier, cheaper and safer because it goes to a given point, sits on a stable surface (rather than a sea platform) and sits on a tangent (less impact and less fuel consumption).


        Presumably - the mass of fuel for return + wing with mechanization + chassis will be more weight and less reliable than fuel + bearings in vertical landing.

        Life itself will show statistics when / if the BFR starts to fly, compare it in terms of accident rate and efficiency with the Shuttles.
    4. 0
      6 September 2019 16: 03
      By the way, how much will the "winglet" weigh together with the swing mechanism? What% will it make of the mass of the stage itself?
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. 0
    5 September 2019 19: 10
    the future is on the Crown, but with a detonation engine
    even the mass can leave 350 tons, where the fuel is 200 tons, the cargo is 50 tons
    Specific Impulse 4000 SI, avg. fuel consumption 100 l / s 5 minutes there and 5 minutes back = 60 tons.
    3 flight to orbit and without refueling (!)
    1. +1
      5 September 2019 19: 50
      Detonation engines do not give a sequential increase, but only a couple percent add
      1. +1
        6 September 2019 08: 07
        Quote: BlackMokona
        Detonation engines do not give a sequential increase, but only a couple percent add


        Well, not quite a couple:
        Theoretical calculations showed that detonation combustion at 25 is percent more efficient than the isobaric cycle, corresponding to the combustion of fuel at constant pressure, which is implemented in the chambers of modern liquid-propellant engines.

        https://rg.ru/2018/01/18/levochkin-vozmozhnost-sozdaniia-detonacionnogo-dvigatelia-podtverdilas.html

        specific efficiency (Coefficient) of combustion of a fuel pair in a detonation wave is higher than with a stationary flame front with constant pressure. Depending on the design, it can surpass the original LRE in efficiency from 23-27% for a typical design with an expanding nozzle, significantly processed for detonation combustion, up to 36-37% increase in ASR (wedge-air rocket engines), which, by the way, are themselves according to the total specific impulse at the excretion site, conventional LREs overlap.

        https://pikabu.ru/story/detonatsionnyiy_dvigatel_npo_yenergomash__proekt_ifrit_4614162

        Detonation KVRD on a project like "Crown" and we would be happy ...
        1. -1
          6 September 2019 09: 26
          It can theoretically, but in practice, everything is sad so far
    2. +4
      5 September 2019 19: 57
      Quote: Romario_Argo
      the future is on the Crown, but with a detonation engine
      even the mass can leave 350 tons, where the fuel is 200 tons, the cargo is 50 tons
      Specific Impulse 4000 SI, avg. fuel consumption 100 l / s 5 minutes there and 5 minutes back = 60 tons.
      3 flight to orbit and without refueling (!)


      Detonation engines are a separate topic, but very interesting!
    3. 0
      5 September 2019 20: 01
      No, the detonation train will not give so much, and their thrust is not great.
      1. +1
        6 September 2019 08: 30
        Quote: Hakka
        No, the detonation train will not give so much, and their thrust is not great.


        This is experimental 5 tons, and it is planned thrust comparable to conventional rocket engines.

        And I am not a supporter of one "big" engine. PMSM is somewhat better, with synchronization and diagnostic systems, to reduce risks in the event of a failure of one engine (for example, if 2 out of six engines fail and it is impossible to enter orbit, then landing is ensured).
  6. +2
    5 September 2019 19: 11
    Russia is inferior to the United States in everything: there are practically no successful large scientific projects comparable to sending rovers, deploying orbiting telescopes
    Sorry of course, but you're wrong. We are implementing the Radioastron program. With the most powerful radio telescopes at the moment. Already launched 4 pieces from 11 of the year
    1. +4
      5 September 2019 19: 54
      Quote: Grizli-666
      Russia is inferior to the United States in everything: there are practically no successful large scientific projects comparable to sending rovers, deploying orbiting telescopes
      Sorry of course, but you're wrong. We are implementing the Radioastron program. With the most powerful radio telescopes at the moment. Already launched 4 pieces from 11 of the year


      I knew that someone would definitely say about Radioastron smile but it is not comparable to "competitors", for all its usefulness.
    2. -1
      6 September 2019 05: 42
      Mars rover Cryositi, has already sprayed all over, for 7 years.
    3. 0
      6 September 2019 12: 52
      > Already launched 4 units since 11 years

      4 Radioastron? laughing
  7. +2
    5 September 2019 19: 15
    Nevertheless, recalling the epic with the "E-mobile", and this project can go to the dustbin of history.
    "Beautifully" attracted the creation of a car 10 years ago by a private owner, with the creation of a new rocket. Bravo
    1. +4
      5 September 2019 19: 56
      Quote: Grizli-666
      Nevertheless, recalling the epic with the "E-mobile", and this project can go to the dustbin of history.
      "Beautifully" attracted the creation of a car 10 years ago by a private owner, with the creation of a new rocket. Bravo


      Soyuz-7 plans to make a "private trader" - S7 Space. In the meantime, they have no special achievements in this field, only the purchase of a ready-made platform. And private traders in Russia may change their plans in a second "in connection with a change in the economic situation," therefore, referring to the Yo-mobile, they also said how ineffective Avtovaz was and how soon there would be a revolution. I sincerely hope that this will not be the case.
      1. 0
        5 September 2019 20: 06
        Well AvtoVAZ is generally effective oddly enough. Despite the habit of scolding him. It is quite actively sold, although it is clear that the matter is not at the level of Mercedes quality.
        1. 0
          5 September 2019 21: 48
          Quote: Grizli-666
          Well AvtoVAZ is generally effective oddly enough. Despite the habit of scolding him. It is quite actively sold, although it is clear that the matter is not at the level of Mercedes quality.


          I meant that he was positioned in this way with respect to the E-mobile, they say it will be a breakthrough in personal transport, everything will supersede.
          1. 0
            5 September 2019 21: 51
            Well, I’ll not recall about everything. And the fact that they advertised diligently .. And? This is kind of normal. Private traders decided to make a unique product. He advertises hard to the point ... Praises and so on. As a result, it did not grow together. It happens. It's just that we do not have the USSR and not all of the state. And criticizing on the basis of this case is incorrect in my opinion. Sorry if I find fault
            1. 0
              5 September 2019 22: 06
              Quote: Grizli-666
              Well, I’ll not recall about everything. And the fact that they advertised diligently .. And? This is kind of normal. Private traders decided to make a unique product. He advertises hard to the point ... Praises and so on. As a result, it did not grow together. It happens. It's just that we do not have the USSR and not all of the state. And criticizing on the basis of this case is incorrect in my opinion. Sorry if I find fault


              You have nothing to apologize for, anyone can express their point of view. It's just that we very often advertise with fanfare, but there’s nothing at all. It can be attributed to Prokhorov's credit that he did everything at his own expense, at least as far as I know.
              1. 0
                5 September 2019 22: 42
                Yes, how would it all have a lot of advertising. Americans, too, when there, according to the plans of the Bush and Obama administration, were supposed to return to the moon? 19 year? and a new heavy rocket? And the new ship for replacing the shuttles. And the shuttle’s advertising data for a penny into space dozens of times a year. Projects are always in any country. And under the USSR, it was enough to read the number of closed projects in aviation and in other areas. Just then, only the engineers and the country's leadership knew about it. And now advertise openly widely.
                I’m trying to convey the idea that I don’t need to be so critical of the plans. This is normal when the deadlines are shifted or, as a result, they understand the dead end of the project.
  8. -1
    5 September 2019 19: 15
    During the USSR, in the late 80s and early 90s, there were joint projects with India of engines on cryogenic components, buried in favor of America.
    1. 0
      6 September 2019 12: 54
      Why buried? Several KVD-1s were sold to Indians, but we don’t want to bother with hydrogen, unfortunately
  9. 0
    5 September 2019 19: 18
    If there is money, there will be reusable ships. We have enough smart people, but unfortunately, there are enough very greedy.
  10. -2
    5 September 2019 19: 25
    Reusable rocket launchers for the conclusion of the payload to the supporting near-Earth orbit are a dead-end branch.

    The future in this area lies in disposable single-stage methane-oxygen fuel vehicles.
    1. +2
      5 September 2019 19: 51
      Quote: Operator
      Reusable rocket launchers for the conclusion of the payload to the supporting near-Earth orbit are a dead-end branch.

      The future in this area lies in disposable single-stage methane-oxygen fuel vehicles.


      Of all the possible concepts, you always choose the strangest. If the rocket is disposable, then what's the difference, how many steps are there? All the same, to all Khan. A single-stage will always have the smallest PN.
      1. -2
        5 September 2019 20: 38
        The fewer stages the launch vehicle has, the lower its cost (the main criterion for the efficiency of space loading of payloads) by reducing the number of propulsion systems.

        An increase in the payload weight relative to the weight of the LV is achieved by using promising structural materials for the manufacture of cryogenic fuel tanks - for example, films made of organoplastics (shell) and airgel made of quartz (filler).
      2. 0
        5 September 2019 21: 48
        The most important thing: Khan and engines. Though methane, at least some.
        And the engine is the most time-consuming and expensive component of the 1 stage.
        Falcon-9 saves exactly the engines that can work several
        dozens of times.
        1. 0
          5 September 2019 21: 49
          Quote: voyaka uh
          The most important thing: Khan and engines. Though methane, at least some.
          And the engine is the most time-consuming and expensive component of the 1 stage.
          Falcon-9 saves exactly the engines that can work several
          dozens of times.


          And maybe a hundred times.
          1. +1
            6 September 2019 01: 32
            And maybe a hundred times.

            Where did such incredible numbers come from? Are there proofs?
            1. +1
              6 September 2019 08: 34
              Quote: Mityai65
              And maybe a hundred times.

              Where did such incredible numbers come from? Are there proofs?


              Even our RD-170 is designed for 10 flights. Now on reusable engines, engines that conditionally operate on 70-90% of their capabilities, so as not to overload their design, are deliberately installed.

              100 flights are planned to be made by SpaceX on BFR, without engine replacement, with maintenance after every 10 flights.

              100 flights are planned by the Makeeva SRC in the "Corona" project, every 25 flights the most loaded parts are changed.
              1. 0
                6 September 2019 17: 02
                Merlins in Falcon-9 operate at 2/3 of maximum power.
                That is, if 9 out of 1 engines of the 3st stage fail, then the rocket anyway
                should pull the load into orbit, as planned.
              2. -1
                6 September 2019 17: 51
                your RD-170 is designed for 10 flights

                As far as I remember, RD-170 according to TU provided 4 burning without spillage and bulkheads, the 5th start.
                Now reusable engines obviously put engines that conditionally speaking operate at 70-90% of their capabilities so as not to overload their design.

                Can you give a link in support of this thesis? Out of my ear I heard that Merlin can give + 10% thrust for taxiing for a short time, a few seconds, and that’s all.
                SpaceX plans to do 100 flights on BFR, without engine replacement

                Are you talking about a non-existent Raptor rocket under development? These are all the words of the famous chatterbox Elon. Which, as you know, is not particularly worth believing. In the context, the flying liquid rocket engine Merlin from Falcon-9 was discussed. Do you have any data on the frequency of its use "with MOT and without MOT". On this topic, everyone lies in different ways.
                THEN after every 10 flights

                Here is the nuance, what is the TO: dismantling, bulkhead, strait, fire tests, or what? Are there any component replacements? For example nozzles or THA? In reality, "TO" can mean not THAT, but "routine maintenance in the shop", and this is another song, then we really have a frequency of use not 100, but only 10.
                100 flights are planned by the Makeeva SRC in the "Corona" project, every 25 flights the most loaded parts are changed.

                Colleague, the project "Crown" is a project at the level of a student's thesis. Than always and amused the people; -))) Non-existent air-to-air jet engine with magical characteristics with undeveloped light and reliable reusable thermal protection (Makeyevites keep secret the way to the cave where all this lies). There is not enough astronaut Harry Potter ;-)))

                P / S I would be grateful if you drop a link to the frequency of use of the Merlin LRE on Falcon-9. According to real flight experience.
              3. -1
                7 September 2019 16: 29
                And it seems to me you missed the most interesting project - MAKS Lozino-Lozinsky, NGO Lightning. Although it requires a separate article, perhaps ...
        2. 0
          5 September 2019 23: 07
          Why not make the engine block separate and save it, and not the whole stage.
          In this case, it will not be necessary to lay the reserve strength of the tanks under the landing conditions ...
          Weight of 6 ... 10 tons can be completely parachuted.
          1. +2
            5 September 2019 23: 13
            It's possible. But the fit should be very soft,
            so as not to bend / mash something upon impact.
            Why didn't the Mask parachute? -
            1) inaccurate landing
            2) contact with salt water during landing (splashdown).
            The rocket sits on its feet very softly and accurately.
            You can also plant in the net, as Mask catches the head fairings.
  11. -1
    6 September 2019 00: 16
    A good review of today's relevant ideas in our space program. Thanks to the author!

    The Crown project seems to be the most promising of course, but I'm afraid they will not be given funding. All mushrooms in the Angara thump. The Union-7 project seems simple, but it is clearly catching up with Falcon, until all the cones and jambs have collected returns and the same Mask goes far ahead.
  12. 0
    6 September 2019 00: 24
    As long as "effective managers" like Rogozin will be responsible for the development of space, one can only dream of a breakthrough in this direction.
    1. 0
      6 September 2019 01: 35
      While "effective managers" like Rogozin will answer


      Is it a precise information?
  13. 0
    6 September 2019 03: 15
    In general, the propulsion system in Soviet missiles was designed for single use. For the possibility of many times it will be even more expensive, the turbopump unit will be harder for all.
    1. +1
      6 September 2019 08: 41
      Quote: Strashila
      In general, the propulsion system in Soviet missiles was designed for single use. For the possibility of many times it will be even more expensive, the turbopump unit will be harder for all.


      RD-171 is certified for 10 flights + 10 burns (20 inclusions).
  14. -1
    6 September 2019 03: 58
    solid projections and most importantly no one is responsible for anything. And it would be so that in the event of failure everyone from the top would have not only been turned from the post, but had also been driven a little to logging, for physical training, I think the projections would have reached the real products ...
  15. AAK
    -1
    6 September 2019 09: 10
    The pictures are beautiful, there are many sketches (not even projects), but all this is "... beautiful far away ..."
  16. 0
    7 September 2019 00: 48
    And why did everyone cling to the first stage rocket engines with a landing? What is the problem? We want to return the first step? Is she even needed? She has the task of 10km of the troposphere to pass. So it doesn’t matter, we blurt out a large derzhoplyu, inflate it with hydrogen (at 10km it will not explode, there is no oxygen). From it a Kevlar rope (since we don’t want to knit carbon) and on this very rope we raise our pepelats. smile Cheap and everyone is happy winked
    1. 0
      7 September 2019 14: 51
      Quote: Karabas
      And why did everyone cling to the first stage rocket engines with a landing?

      What part of the LV does most of the payload output work? wink
      1. 0
        7 September 2019 15: 12
        What part of the LV does most of the payload output work? wink

        What was that? Learning to write? laughing
        1. -1
          7 September 2019 18: 01
          It was a hint, to the answer, to your question about why everyone is so tormented with the first steps.
          1. +1
            7 September 2019 18: 15
            It was a hint, to the answer, to your question about why everyone is so tormented with the first steps.

            Are you feeling well? Letters do not dance before my eyes, so you can’t read what is written?
            1. -1
              7 September 2019 18: 22
              Or maybe instead of trolling and minusculeness, think about your post and my answer? Think about the direction in which the LV should be raised or dispersed? In general, think ....
              1. 0
                7 September 2019 18: 26
                Or maybe instead of trolling and minusculeness, think about your post and my answer? Think about the direction in which the LV should be raised or dispersed? In general, think ....

                I minus nothing to you. Also you are not trolled. You are all trying to say something, but as it turns out for a one-year-old child, I can’t understand anything that you want from me. Have you mastered the alphabet? Learn to read then, and then write, having first thought. If you have any questions, then use the search, so as not to be smart not to show yourself in public.
  17. +1
    7 September 2019 19: 09
    The most advanced rocket engines will appear when the developers, numerous "candidates" and "doctors" of sciences, understand the elementary, that not heat, but the pressure drop inside the engine compressor chamber relative to the ambient pressure, does not create a reactive driving force, as it is mistakenly assumed in theory RD, and the propulsive, pushing force for the movement of vehicles - aircraft and rockets, and the heat of combustion products can be used to create additional pressure and increase power by supplying water to the combustion products of chemical fuel, while the flame from the nozzles of the RD will disappear.
    But it is better to use water, the most gas-generating and accessible substance, as the only working fluid, and generate steam with a laser heat source.
    The design of the taxiways will be greatly simplified, the cost of their manufacture will decrease, the cost of launches will be reduced by dozens of times, the safety and security of the launch pads will be ensured, while reusable use of missiles or missile stages, the repair of which is not required, will be ensured.
    1. -1
      7 September 2019 20: 23
      it is better to use water, the most gas-generating and accessible substance, as the only working fluid


      Such ideas are in use. Here's an example of testing the engine on the water of a Romanian with a difficult fate - he sat in the states for a year for fraud (as the Yankees took his ideas) laughing



      It seems to me, however, that it is more convenient to generate steam not with a laser, but with a good old reactor.
      And it’s quite possible to achieve steam parameters in front of the nozzle of the order of 50–70 MPa and temperatures of about 1500 C. I suppose, however, this is useful for lifting payloads of 4–000 tons into orbit. Such block modules may be needed in the second half of the century, hardly whether earlier ...
  18. 0
    7 October 2019 22: 00
    Andrey, I sent you to the editorial office the material "Wings for CROWN-Wings for Russia. It is discussed at the NK forum, I think it will be interesting for you."
  19. 0
    29 October 2019 10: 29
    Listen, explain to the fool! And what for ass harmony?
    If I don’t confuse anything, the Amer’s Atlas had a dry weight of 2% of the starting weight. Well, Atlas is inflatable, let our Union have 3%. What to return then?
    Engine?
    So it should be fucking fucked up for a flight or be a lot harder. And I won’t be surprised if the check before reuse will cost a sum comparable to the cost of a new one.
    Kmk, development should go as already written here, in the use of a different energy and aerodynamic launch.
  20. 0
    8 November 2019 23: 05
    From the outside, the Union and Teia seem to be more real.
  21. 0
    14 November 2019 03: 30
    Six months ago, the Russian press mentioned the last stage of the development of new plasma engines with a great future. What happened to that.
    1. 0
      23 July 2023 22: 27
      What are you asking for? Plasma engines for rockets or what? You've seen fantasy. Plasma engines have been flying for a long time - only for space.
  22. +1
    21 November 2019 08: 45
    With this power, it’s not like in astronautics, the country itself has no future!
  23. -1
    22 November 2019 13: 52
    ... on what principle am I maneuvering the Russian "Inspector" satellites in orbit? Have new Russian low-power plasma engines already appeared?
  24. 0
    April 2 2022 13: 42
    You can reduce the cost of launching cargo into orbit by solving 3 obstacles:
    1 - the price of expensive rocket components. It is necessary to develop such important and expensive launch vehicle systems from scratch (for example, engines) with the calculation of large-scale and cheap production
    2 - Reusability. All the same, there will be no point in creating cheap engines if they will be used 1 time anyway. And it is not necessary to make the entire rocket stage reusable. It is safe enough to return a "block" with engines. And you can not try to return the empty fuel tank from the stage. In extreme cases, we will gather its fragments, which would then be melted down into a new tank.
    3 - simplification of maintenance, which in turn is a continuation of simplicity. The simpler the rocket scheme, the easier, cheaper and faster it is to maintain.
    The solution of these problems in a complex (so that each technical solution made in the RN meets all the above requirements).
    The use of a number of systems on large launch vehicles will also reduce the cost of launching cargo into orbit. It is better to create a medium of one medium and one heavy launch vehicle (in the future, also a super-heavy launch vehicle) that constantly put cargo into orbit. And light and super light loads are launched with additional cargo on heavy and medium launch vehicles. How is it organized on the Ariane V launch vehicle. There, the rocket was originally designed for the ability to launch several cargoes at the same time + the ability to take several mini satellites with you.
  25. 0
    23 July 2023 22: 26
    The most real project is Baikal. This is clearly cheaper than landing a block with your ass. In the case of Baikal, the main engine is started once and retains its resource. Plus, Baikal can fly to almost any airfield.

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

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