Military Review

Will Starship Spaceship Serve US Army?

88

Biggest ship


Each of SpaceX's ventures can change the fate of the world or has already influenced it, whether the critics of the Mask like it or not. Everyone heard about the first in stories the reusable Falcon 9 space rocket and the Starlink project, designed to give the world an affordable and fast Internet. If in the case of the second there are so far more questions than answers, then the "nine" has long become the most popular rocket in the world in the space launch market. At the end of last year, she made the largest number of starts: all 20, all successful. Due to the start-up cost in 65 of millions of dollars (which is relatively modest by space standards), Mask has more than enough business. And here is the first start of the manned "Dragon" with a man on board on the way ...




However, all these are toys against the background of the company's most ambitious and, perhaps, the most mysterious project - the project of the giant Starship spaceship, which supposedly can take on board up to a hundred people and with a length of 50 meters will be the largest manned spacecraft ever built . Don't be embarrassed by the ugly Starhopper jumper: they are just technology demonstrators for the ship of the future. All the most interesting is ahead.

Starship itself is nothing more than the development of the Interplanetary Transport System, which, in turn, has become an improved version of the Mars Colonial Transporter system. Over time, SpaceX tempered the ardor, so that the size of the system decreased slightly: if the height of the entire Interplanetary Transport System complex was 122 meters, then Starship and the rocket had “modest” 118. The diameter of the system was reduced from 12 to 9 meters, respectively. But again, this does not make the Big Falcon Rocket (the modern name for the bundle of the new rocket and Starship ship) a less revolutionary project. By the way, reusability is attached.



Will everything secret be revealed?


In connection with Ilon’s serious plans, experts have long wondered: why is this all necessary? To supply the ISS, the Americans have (or rather, will) relatively simple and cheap ships Crew Dragon and CST-100. For flight to the moon, the States have already decided to use Orion: it will also be used to supply the future Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway lunar orbital station. By the way, back in 2017, Donald Trump signed the "Directive No. 1", which implies the return of the United States to the satellite of our planet. US Martian ambitions finally went into oblivion: the state is not interested in this, and SpaceX itself will never be able to organize a manned flight (and even with a landing!) To the Red Planet.

The clue to the Starship concept can be quite unexpected. Perhaps this is nothing more than a “disguised” military project, no matter how strange and absurd it may sound. And what's the joke, if this was openly announced in SpaceX itself. In October 2019, SpaceX President and Chief Operating Officer Gwynn Shotwell, speaking at the Association of the United States Army conference, proposed Starship as a means of delivering soldiers and ammunition for the US Army. “We are talking with the army about Starlink and Starship,” she said, without going into details. At the same time, Shotwell called the spacecraft a "reliable and inexpensive" delivery method.



SpaceX, as already mentioned, did not go into details, but earlier, Elon Musk shared interesting information. Recall, back in 2017, the entrepreneur suggested using the BFR complex for earth flights. The maximum flight speed in this case will reach 27 thousand kilometers per hour in the upper atmosphere. Thus, from any point on the Earth to another point it will be possible to fly in less than an hour. For example, a flight from New York to Shanghai will take 39 minutes, and from London to Dubai - 29 minutes. “I forgot to say that the ticket price will be about the same as the fare in the economy class plane,” Musk wrote.

The latter, of course, is simply a colossal exaggeration, strange for a person who is engaged in space-rocket subjects. In fact, this type of transport can be useful only for solving individual problems of very great state (interstate) importance. Could this be the delivery of something in the interests of the US Armed Forces? It cannot be ruled out.

It is appropriate to recall here that the USSR has always perceived the Space Shuttle as a “combat complex” capable of hypothetically delivering nuclear strikes on Soviet territory and stealing satellites. Of course, nothing similar happened in real life, however, the shuttle did not justify itself as a civilian spaceship. Due to the huge cost of launches and the enormous technical complexity of the project. Musk simply cannot not see this example in front of him.

It is worth repeating: there are simply no real civil tasks for Starship. Colonization of other planets in the solar system is something from the next century, when the technology of BFR itself has already become obsolete. And Starship will not be able to replace ordinary passenger aircraft due to the price of launches.



Other "oddities"


It is noteworthy that relatively recently Western journalists decided to understand the meaning of another megaproject - the world's largest aircraft Stratolaunch Model 351 from Scaled Composites, which should act as a carrier for space rockets launched by the "air launch" method. The plane made its first flight in April 2019, and then the company was sold to an unnamed investor.

Quartz edition of Paul Allen built the world's biggest plane. Does anyone need it? ”Drew attention to some inconsistencies. Air Launch, in which a spacecraft is launched in flight, has long shown its commercial failure. At least with the current level of technology. And then there is Musk with his reusable missiles.

So the journalists suggested that the 351 is nothing more than an emergency means of launching military spacecraft into orbit. The logic is simple: it takes a lot of time and weather to prepare for a rocket launch. There are no such restrictions for launching a carrier aircraft (although, of course, there are also risks).



Those who find all this unnecessary conspiracy theories should remember that not so long ago, the former scientist Robert Ballard, who became famous after the discovery of the Titanic, said that the search for the ship was actually a secret state mission to search for sunken American submarines ...

On the other hand, all this cannot be unequivocally interpreted as evidence of the initial military focus of the Big Falcon Rocket project. Paradoxical as it may sound, but most likely, within its framework, we (or rather SpaceX) will get just a not-so-needed and very expensive spaceship. This, of course, on condition that he will ever take off at all. Musk himself does not lose his optimism.
Author:
88 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Operator
    Operator 3 November 2019 18: 39
    -23
    The bankrupt company SpaseX is trying to attach to its business its reusable Starship spacecraft with rocket landing, welded from stainless steel according to the shaggy project of the 1950's laughing
    1. Zeev Zeev
      Zeev Zeev 3 November 2019 19: 28
      +17
      The bankrupt company launches more rockets than Roskosmos. Moreover, the commercial load is scheduled for a couple of years ahead.
      1. tol100v
        tol100v 3 November 2019 20: 35
        -8
        Quote: Zeev Zeev
        Bankrupt Company Launches More Missiles

        Who pays for this "supper"? Transparent funding is not visible there!
        1. Zeev Zeev
          Zeev Zeev 3 November 2019 22: 33
          +5
          Who orders the launches, he pays. Commercial launches - private customers, military - US Department of Defense.
        2. Chit
          Chit 4 November 2019 01: 15
          +1
          And what, in fact, is the difference?
          Does this "opacity" somehow reduce the number of Musk launches? Compared to the number of Russians? A private office versus a public corporation?
          By the way, does Mr. Rogozin give information on his department that is absolutely transparent? After the authorities classified a huge part of Russian spending, I have big doubts about it.
          1. ALEX_SHTURMAN
            ALEX_SHTURMAN 5 November 2019 13: 45
            0
            The results of the investigation of a mysterious hole in the household compartment of the Union are also classified, Comrade Rogozin did not even tell the director of NASA about this ...
  2. Observer2014
    Observer2014 3 November 2019 18: 40
    +18
    Rogozin promises to respond to these insidious plans Mask with a grandiose skyscraper in Moscow in the form of a rocket. laughing
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Doctor
      Doctor 3 November 2019 22: 21
      +5
      Rogozin promises to respond to these insidious plans Mask with a grandiose skyscraper in Moscow in the form of a rocket.


      And nothing else remains. There will be no hangar campaign.

      MOSCOW, November 2 - RIA Novosti. Roscosmos terminated the contract with the Khrunichev Center for the production of the Angara-1.2 launch vehicle, according to the materials at the disposal of RIA Novosti.
      The contract worth more than two billion rubles was signed on July 25. The rocket was supposed to be ready by October 15, 2021. It was intended for launching the Gonets-M satellites numbered 33, 34 and 35 into orbit.
      According to the materials, the contract was terminated on October 30 by the decision of Roscosmos. The reasons for this step were not reported.
  3. Avis-bis
    Avis-bis 3 November 2019 18: 44
    0
    It takes a lot of time and weather to prepare for a rocket launch. There are no such restrictions for launching a carrier aircraft

    Yeah, like carrying this plane will not be a missile spared from the first stage ...
  4. K-50
    K-50 3 November 2019 19: 08
    +1
    Everyone has heard about the first ever reusable space rocket Falcon 9

    Well, the Space Shuttle also flew a bottle on reusable engines. There, only the fuel tank was disposable. And where is he? Failed to compete in cost with disposables. Did you get the same rake again? lol
    Until you "learn" how to make launches in one stage, talk about reusable rockets - projection.
    They will still print money at the pin dos nicknames, and the rest are a little expensive, although this did not save the "shuttles". fellow
    1. Zeev Zeev
      Zeev Zeev 3 November 2019 19: 32
      +10
      Projection ... Only the price of launches Musk knocked down by half, and "Falcons" fly so often that in Russia they have already begun to count test launches of combat missiles (which are really space, since the warhead flies beyond the Karman line), so as by the Mask company.
      1. tol100v
        tol100v 3 November 2019 20: 39
        -5
        Quote: Zeev Zeev
        Mask only doubled the price of launches

        Where did he steal all this?
        1. Do not care
          Do not care 3 November 2019 22: 11
          0
          Quote: Tol100v
          Quote: Zeev Zeev
          Mask only doubled the price of launches

          Where did he steal all this?


          They steal in Roscosmos, ULA and ESA, and at least half.
          And if you do without cuts, you get half the price
        2. Zeev Zeev
          Zeev Zeev 3 November 2019 22: 35
          0
          Nowhere. He just makes rockets at a normal price, not saws.
          1. Golovan Jack
            Golovan Jack 3 November 2019 23: 10
            -8
            Quote: Zeev Zeev
            Nowhere ...

            About three years ago, as I remember now - people like you - were "nowhere". Three skulls for shoulder straps - and "goodbye, Tanya."

            In vain removed this feature. IMHO, essno.
            1. Zeev Zeev
              Zeev Zeev 4 November 2019 00: 18
              +9
              I do not quite understand what I mean, but I suspect that about the bathhouse for an opinion that does not coincide with yours? Is it difficult for you to take a different point of view from you? Sorry.
              1. Golovan Jack
                Golovan Jack 4 November 2019 22: 33
                0
                Quote: Zeev Zeev
                I do not quite understand what I mean, but I suspect that about the bathhouse for an opinion that does not coincide with yours?

                No. It's about feedback. Google laughing

                Quote: Zeev Zeev
                Is it difficult for you to take a different point of view from you?

                Yes easily. But for some reason I’m telling trolls ... not very request

                Quote: Zeev Zeev
                I sympathize

                Feel better for "Svarog". The guy cries so, cries so ...

                Something you are alike. IMHO.
                1. Zeev Zeev
                  Zeev Zeev 4 November 2019 23: 22
                  0
                  I do not know who Svarog is and I am not trolling. I am just expressing my personal opinion. You want to argue with him, I will be glad. Just do not forget to argue.
                  1. Golovan Jack
                    Golovan Jack 4 November 2019 23: 27
                    +1
                    Quote: Zeev Zeev
                    You want to argue with him, I will be glad. Just argue do not forget

                    In a while. Tomorrow at work, sorry request
      2. Alexey LK
        Alexey LK 4 November 2019 04: 37
        +3
        Knocking down the price doesn't mean building a profitable business. This is what business analysts call "buy volume" - that is. entice customers at the expense of discounts. The problem is that such a business cannot exist independently without external support, although it can kill competitors. It's just that not only Roskosmos, but also Boeing, Lockheed, and others are competitors of the "space cross". And if Roscosmos is still not allowed to die, then I'm not sure about the space-rocket divisions of Boeing and Lockheed.
        Quote: Zeev Zeev
        Russia has already begun to consider test launches of military missiles

        Like before this shot, not counting? Or were they confused - where did their combat fly, and where was the space one - right? Who are you counting on your minor attacks? For those to whom Rogozin’s PR managers? Then how do you differ from them?
        1. Zeev Zeev
          Zeev Zeev 4 November 2019 07: 34
          -1
          Prior to that, test launches were not recorded in space. And now they write "suborbital flight". And it is Rogozin's PR specialists who are doing this crap.
          1. Alexey LK
            Alexey LK 5 November 2019 02: 25
            +2
            Listen, but do you understand that? And not only you. So, now discuss every yellow headline? Do we want to analyze reality, or its reflection in the information trash?
    2. tesser
      tesser 4 November 2019 05: 27
      -2
      Quote: K-50
      I could not stand the competition in cost with disposable.

      In principle, it did not support unmanned launches and was unsuitable for launches at the geostationary station (for this it was necessary to put an expensive and dangerous booster block into the Shuttle along with the satellite). And at the expense of expensive - NASA / Air Force do not know how cheap, Delta is also not cheap. As for competition, he competed with the hellishly expensive Titan of recent versions.
      Quote: K-50
      talk about reusable projectile rockets.

      That's all, up to one major project - Arian 6, Volcano, Glenn - support the return of the 1st stage or engines in one form or another.
  5. A.TOR
    A.TOR 3 November 2019 19: 12
    +8
    - The USA’s Martian ambitions finally went into oblivion: the state is not interested in this, and SpaceX itself will never be able to organize a manned flight (and even with a landing!) To the Red Planet. -

    There is nothing further from reality than a wretchedly simplistic view of the United States as a country of so-called Russia and China, where the decisions "to fly or not to fly" are made by the state. In America, this is decided by Musk himself, and his worries are to find investors and partners and / or to further interest the state in his work.
    It will turn out the last - well, it won’t work out - it will cope on the first path itself.
    Starship will fly to Mars
    Starship will reach Mars
    Starship will be the first means of starting its colonization.
    1. tol100v
      tol100v 3 November 2019 20: 42
      -7
      Quote: A.TOR
      It will turn out the last - well, it won’t work out - it will cope on the first path itself.
      Starship will fly to Mars
      Starship will reach Mars
      Starship will be the first means of starting its colonization.

      It will turn out to sit down on the 159th, part of the article is also space!
    2. Alexey LK
      Alexey LK 4 November 2019 04: 39
      +2
      Musk first receives permission to launch from the state, and only then decides whether to shoot or not.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 4 November 2019 16: 27
        +2
        Just like a passenger airliner receives permission to take off from the "state" - the airport's flight controller. The same rules apply to US spaceports.
        1. Alexey LK
          Alexey LK 5 November 2019 01: 27
          0
          Yeah, and tickets for the trampoline right online can be ordered.
    3. Passing
      Passing 22 January 2020 19: 37
      0
      Quote: A.TOR
      Starship will be the first means of starting its colonization.

      Colonization of Mars is nonsense. Colonization involves either settling or obtaining a local resource. There is nothing stupid to take from Mars, and it is impossible to live there fully, because terraforming is not possible in principle.
  6. mvmptzna
    mvmptzna 3 November 2019 19: 51
    +1
    Will Starship Spaceship Serve US Army?

    - Of course, as Falcon 9 now serves.
    I remember that after the first launch of a used missile with a military load, I watched the live broadcast of the press conference. A Pentagon spokesman said Musk had proven that he could re-launch missiles, and that it would be reliable and cheaper, and that the US Army would use that.
  7. AML
    AML 3 November 2019 20: 54
    0
    Quote: A.TOR

    There is nothing further from reality than a wretchedly simplistic view of the United States as a country of so-called Russia and China, where the decisions "to fly or not to fly" are made by the state. In America, this is decided by Musk himself, and his worries are to find investors and partners and / or to further interest the state in his work.


    Yes Yes. The United States will say that the flight is denied, and if at least Musk’s anti-gravity engines, his missiles will not fly anywhere.

    Musk is a genius of all trades. Enlighten how it happened that he mastered NASA's achievements and how he managed to entice TRW employees to him without any consequences. And then we will gladly listen to which Mask is independent and how it is not connected with government programs.
    1. A.TOR
      A.TOR 3 November 2019 21: 27
      +5
      What is "the US will say"? In the United States, Musk is a citizen, with his own businesses and ambitions. And all of America is a huge set of people with their own businesses and ambitions. Where the interests of the so-called. "states" coincide - there work together, where not - separately.
      When will you already understand that America is different
      1. Alexey LK
        Alexey LK 4 November 2019 04: 46
        +3
        Quote: A.TOR
        And all of America is a huge collection of people with their businesses and ambitions.

        Well, now everything is clear - in other countries - no people, no business, no ambition! Everything is different. How deeply you understood everything!
        1. tesser
          tesser 4 November 2019 06: 24
          -5
          Quote: Alexey LK
          in other countries, no people, no business, no ambition

          From what? There is, for example, a construction business, and there are people from the liquidation commission called Roscosmos.
          1. Alexey LK
            Alexey LK 4 November 2019 06: 49
            +1
            Well, then let's do it. Roscosmos used to be just a customer, and now it is becoming a manufacturer, developer, etc. Yes, this is not an easy task. And there is NASA, which was engaged in both development and production, and even sent people to the moon. And now it’s just become a customer. An effective manager, I would even say.
            1. tesser
              tesser 4 November 2019 07: 08
              -3
              Quote: Alexey LK
              Now it’s just become a customer. An effective manager, I would even say.

              Yes, NASA has degraded, I will not argue. Should this bother anyone?
              1. Alexey LK
                Alexey LK 4 November 2019 07: 30
                +1
                I think someone should, but they are busy with another - they admire Mask.
                1. tesser
                  tesser 4 November 2019 07: 47
                  -4
                  Quote: Alexey LK
                  owes someone, but they are busy with another - they admire the Mask.

                  Plant Donald - NASA.
                  1. Alexey LK
                    Alexey LK 5 November 2019 01: 54
                    +1
                    Where do you put him? For a second term?
                    1. tesser
                      tesser 5 November 2019 01: 57
                      -3
                      Quote: Alexey LK
                      Where do you put him? For a second term?

                      I would like for life.
              2. A.TOR
                A.TOR 4 November 2019 19: 49
                -2
                This is not degradation; "new times" have come - the level of development of industrial technologies allows private business to solve what was previously only the state could do.
                Not everyone.
                1. tesser
                  tesser 4 November 2019 20: 18
                  -3
                  Quote: A.TOR
                  This is not degradation; "new times" have come - the level of development of industrial technologies allows private business to solve what was previously only the state could do.

                  Yes and no.

                  Yes, the possibilities of private traders have increased dramatically.
                  No, because Alexey LK, of course, was lying. There was a time, NASA designed rockets, but produced the same Saturn-Apollo Boeing, North American, Douglas and Grumman. So the situation with production has not changed much. The topic of "buying launch services" is, first of all, a bureaucratic twist.

                  The degradation consists in the fact that for so many years NASA has written so many pieces of paper for itself that more or less nothing grows under their four-mile layer. A classic example is a new manned spacecraft, which began as part of the Constellation in 2006 and left already in 2021. 15 years, it's like practically from Hitlor to Gagarin. Not so far from Roskosmos as liberals and Russophobes would like, and without Rogozin, Putin, whoever else is there.
                  1. Alexey LK
                    Alexey LK 5 November 2019 02: 18
                    0
                    To you everything that is incomprehensible seems to be a lie? Of course, NASA has and had contractors and subcontractors - did you have to paint to the last bolt? Yes, private traders produced, but they did not carry risks - they were paid for what, then they produced. NASA made all major decisions, including technical.
                  2. Venya Selnikov
                    Venya Selnikov 12 November 2019 17: 08
                    -2
                    Quote: tesser
                    The topic of "buying launch services" is, first of all, a bureaucratic twist
                    There is no bureaucracy. There is a strict concept of property law, which defines the most important thing in the West. Boeing, Northrop, ULA and others, working on a contract with NASA (as well as the military) - transfers the result of their work to the customer. So it was before.
                    But Musk (like Orbital, and DreamChaser, emnip) - no. SpaceX retains title. And this applies to both the launch vehicle and the spacecraft.
                    Musk is selling a service, not a product.
                    This is a "small" difference, but a lot follows from it ...
                2. Alexey LK
                  Alexey LK 5 November 2019 02: 13
                  +1
                  Private traders are good where there is more or less a market, competition, where technologies have been tested and something can be reasonably planned in terms of return on capital. And where everything is new, where fundamental research, where there is a great technical risk, where you need to invest with an incomprehensible prospect of return, where you need a large concentration of resources, often unique, where there is no result without, literally, fanaticism at work and outrageous dedication, there better suited state. agency, "national project". The path of Roscosmos is the correct path for the future, but very difficult. NASA's path is a step backward, making room for SpaceX.
                  1. Aleksandr21
                    Aleksandr21 5 November 2019 09: 29
                    -2
                    Quote: Alexey LK
                    The path of Roscosmos is the right path for the future, but very difficult. NASA's journey is a step backward, making room for SpaceX.


                    The way of Roscosmos is to fulfill the FKP, and hope that the state will provide orders to the enterprises of the space industry. But the state’s interest in outer space is weak, as are financial opportunities. About the commercial part, this is generally past us, the main market in this area is in the West, as are the customers.

                    But the path of NASA, not even the agency itself, but government policy is right for the long term. Give way to private owners and act as a customer. Moreover, in this approach, there are much more pluses than minuses (the development of new technologies - cheaper production - cheaper output into orbit of goods, per kg., Development of the market for space services, etc., etc.).

                    Two countries (Russia-USA) and two completely different approaches to the development of the space industry.
                    1. Alexey LK
                      Alexey LK 5 November 2019 15: 37
                      0
                      Even you mixed everything together - just what I divided to better understand. What the national space agencies are made responsible for is in many ways the state's policy in the field of space. The path of Roscosmos (new) is not only to implement the FKP, but also to develop it, to be both a customer, an executor, and a controller. But here is the classic management problem - when you control yourself, there are temptations. But on the other hand, it is clear who is responsible. But NASA is going in the opposite direction - transferring responsibilities "at the mercy" to private individuals. And private traders will only be engaged in what generates income. For example, they will not launch the second Hubble - why should they? They'll just bill NASA with their wrap otherwise they would have used their resources in a commercial project ... This approach will lead to an increase in the cost of space activities and, as a result, will make impossible many projects that could otherwise have been implemented. Those. there will be a slowdown in the development of space exploration. But not in China!
                      1. Aleksandr21
                        Aleksandr21 5 November 2019 16: 17
                        0
                        Quote: Alexey LK
                        ... And private traders will only be engaged in what gives income. For example, they will not launch the second Hubble - why do they need something? They will simply bill NASA with their wrap, because otherwise, they would use their resources in a commercial project ... Such an approach will increase the cost of space activities and as a result will make many projects impossible, which could otherwise be implemented. Those. there will be a slowdown in space exploration. But not in China!


                        I disagree, look at the number of private companies that have appeared in the US, Europe, New Zealand, etc. , in recent years, there has simply been a boom in interest in the space industry and the successes of such companies as SpaceX, Bigelow Aerospace, Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin are pushing other private traders to develop this market, and the market itself is growing at a good pace, take a look at the presentation of Roscosmos and S7, there Filev talked about the prospects of private companies, etc. .... so what kind of slowdown in the development of space are you talking about? And if we talk about orders, it is precisely the competition between companies that is holding back prices, and companies are looking for ways to reduce their costs and offer better conditions than competitors. And such government offices as NASA can choose with whom to cooperate and whom to offer a contract. And the path of Roskosmos is a path to nowhere, when you yourself write: "to fulfill the FKP, but also to develop it, to be both a customer, and an executor, and a controller" where is the competition? And if we take into account the Russian realities, where Roskosmos is an organization in which: ““ Billions are being stolen ”: Bastrykin is the head of the Investigative Committee (s),” then its effectiveness is very low.

                        PS And as for Hubble and other scientific programs, it is natural that the state should finance these issues. But to launch the same Hubble (ready - built with NASA money) - private owners can, provided that they have delivery vehicles.
                  2. Venya Selnikov
                    Venya Selnikov 12 November 2019 17: 19
                    0
                    Quote: Alexey LK
                    where there is fundamental research, where there is a big technical risk, where you need to invest with an incomprehensible prospect of return, where you need a large concentration of resources, often unique, where there is no result without, literally, fanaticism at work and outrageous dedication, there is better government agency, "national project"

                    There is no problem creating and maintaining long state support for the project, when placing the order from a private company. With external audit, periodic accreditation, revision of the current status of the project, payment by milestones, etc.
                    So there is no rollback for NASA.
                    On the contrary, they will be able to concentrate on what they should do - science. And order space access services in the market. The choice the farther the higher, and the prices lower.
                    Moreover, NASA has been working on this model for a long time, long before the advent of SpaceX.
                    NASA even gave an estimate of how much it saved by attracting private owners. Further, when the same Bezos actively comes to the segment, and the ULA will be rebuilt (otherwise, they will concede their share further) there will only be more.
        2. A.TOR
          A.TOR 4 November 2019 19: 47
          -2
          I didn’t just understand, I check it on myself. And - yes, in America it’s really simpler and easier.
    2. A.TOR
      A.TOR 3 November 2019 21: 31
      +3
      What is "for free" I do not know, but the meaning of "for free"? If so, then there is no freebie, he found and invited specialists to work, offered the best conditions, bought the rights and patents necessary for work, contracted the necessary suppliers.
      In fact, it's all not complicated (in the USA).
      And what "consequences" can there be if you, for example, offered better conditions to employees? This is in an economy subordinate to the "state interests" through and through, there may be "consequences."
      1. AlexTss
        AlexTss 4 November 2019 02: 29
        +1
        What is "on the ball" I do not know, but the meaning of "for free"?

        The difference between "balls" and "freebies":
        If you are invited to visit, you go to the ball,
        but if you take your friends with you, then they go "for free" ...
        hi
        1. A.TOR
          A.TOR 4 November 2019 19: 49
          -2
          Thank you
      2. Alexey LK
        Alexey LK 4 November 2019 05: 02
        +2
        Yes there really! It’s the same as two fingers ... He took, found, hired, contracted, offered the conditions ... Boeing, Lockheed, Reiteon, etc. - they are just stupid and can’t do that, they don’t know anything, they can’t compare them with Mask, they don’t to mention Roskosmos ... And all the more to say nothing of Chinese and European colleagues - in the same place the state basically never helps anyone, especially with space ...
        The business is the same everywhere - if you pay the full cost for the necessary resources and components, you cannot set the price lower than the one who is subsidized without incurring a loss. You simply did not take the trouble to study the issue (unless you are doing propaganda specifically). If the cargo is launched on a decommissioned combat missile, then in theory it is possible to set a meager price there - and show a profit according to the accounting department! But this does not mean that the military has the cheapest missiles and "the best conditions."
        1. tesser
          tesser 4 November 2019 06: 44
          -2
          Quote: Alexey LK
          Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon and others. They are just stupid and can’t do that, they don’t know anything, they can’t be compared with Mask, not to mention Roskosmos ...

          Boeing, Lockheed and Ratheon can be compared with Roscosmos. Working with the state for 100 years, they understood life. And whoever understands life is not in a hurry. While there is no result - there is a budget, we got the result - that's it, financing is closed, thanks.
          Boeing SLS is a 100% hit in the format of Roscosmos. Crazy money, 20 years of work, the latest innovations of the 70s of the XX century, everyone is happy, there is no rocket.

          Then this Musk from Africa pinned up and washed raspberries. Bastard.
          1. Alexey LK
            Alexey LK 5 November 2019 01: 24
            0
            Now I begin to agree with you. True, with Roskosmos, it's a different story now - organizationally, financially, personnel, etc. they have yet to "settle down".
        2. A.TOR
          A.TOR 4 November 2019 19: 50
          -3
          I do not need to specifically study the question - I am already "inside" the question.
          1. Alexey LK
            Alexey LK 5 November 2019 01: 25
            0
            If you work in space - well done, respect!
      3. tesser
        tesser 4 November 2019 06: 32
        -4
        Quote: A.TOR
        bought rights and patents

        NASA patents are not for sale, they are in the public domain. Of course, within ITAR.
        1. Alexey LK
          Alexey LK 4 November 2019 06: 53
          +2
          So there is no tax on spacewalk yet ... So what? Let's essentially - Do you agree that Mask launches are subsidized, or not?
          1. tesser
            tesser 4 November 2019 07: 07
            -6
            Quote: Alexey LK
            Do you agree that Mask launches are subsidized or not?

            Commercial? Of course not. YULA is subsidized in the form of a "readiness fee" if you didn't know.
            1. Alexey LK
              Alexey LK 4 November 2019 07: 10
              +1
              Readiness fee - that is readiness fee. She is in the price tag. A subsidy is something that does not fall into the price tag if you did not know.
              1. tesser
                tesser 4 November 2019 07: 14
                -4
                Another brings rogue Mask to clean water. Wow, what a horse from the mountain, lobbied Boeing with Lockheed.
                1. Alexey LK
                  Alexey LK 4 November 2019 07: 35
                  +3
                  No, it’s just for risky business schemes that individual companies usually create. Which then will not be so pathetic as firms with brands with a long history. Well, it’s like in the shale business - there, too, Chevron, not Exxon-Mobil, not Shell and BP, but completely different ones (accumulated losses already under 200 lard). And Musk is not a bigger swindler than all advertisers / public relations workers.
                  1. tesser
                    tesser 4 November 2019 07: 49
                    -4
                    Quote: Alexey LK
                    accumulated losses already under 200 lard

                    And the shale bubble is not forgotten, good. The Americans spare no money to humiliate Russia.
                    1. Alexey LK
                      Alexey LK 5 November 2019 01: 53
                      0
                      To humiliate - not to humiliate, you know better. And in this I see attempts to somehow correct the chronically negative trade balance and "channel" the emission of the dollar in order to avoid inflation (say, to pay the budget for exploration costs and much more) - no, but still the real sector economy, albeit unprofitable.
                      1. tesser
                        tesser 5 November 2019 02: 00
                        -4
                        Quote: Alexey LK
                        "channel" the emission of the dollar to avoid inflation

                        They are already tired of accelerating inflation. Whatever they do, but all of it is gone. The problems of white people.

                        Neither to the Mask, nor to the slate it has anything to do. I also remind you that they are unprofitable or not unprofitable, and national production doubled over 10 years. Like Musk, the number of starts.
                      2. Alexey LK
                        Alexey LK 5 November 2019 07: 16
                        0
                        Why should they accelerate inflation?
                      3. tesser
                        tesser 5 November 2019 19: 48
                        -3
                        Quote: Alexey LK
                        Why should they accelerate inflation?

                        There is such a term "debt inflation". It is not that it interferes, but it is better to cut it somehow.
  8. JonnyT
    JonnyT 3 November 2019 20: 58
    -3
    Oh, these tales. Marketers are struggling to draw from the mask and the United States the dominants in space technology. But we know that dumping prices when placing into orbit and beautiful leaflets is not superior. Do any American space marines lie in a barrel without powder-propelled guns
    1. Depytat
      Depytat 4 November 2019 07: 01
      -2
      Quote: JonnyT
      Oh, these tales. Marketers are struggling to draw from the mask and the United States the dominants in space technology.

      not technically superior, this is the superiority of the economic model that took orders from Roscosmos.
      Quote: JonnyT
      Do any American space marines lie in a barrel without powder-propelled guns

      and what? who will ask the space Marine’s opinion, or as they say, or ... with a boot under the rear hemisphere.
      1. JonnyT
        JonnyT 4 November 2019 11: 43
        -1
        Oh yes, the inventors of capitalism and democracy have overtaken the young capitalist liberal democracy. Rogozmos took away orders of greed, laziness and constant servility to the Western masters. The American cosmo paratrooper has a contract, and there the death is not registered in the barrel, so they didn’t sign up for that and no boots, first the court in the Hague
        1. Depytat
          Depytat 5 November 2019 01: 06
          -1
          Quote: JonnyT
          American cosmo paratrooper contract, and there death in a barrel

          NASA conducts a million tests and more than one year, you can not worry, it will not fly raw. Many truck mask fell ?? or satellites, unlike?
          1. JonnyT
            JonnyT 5 November 2019 15: 06
            0
            First, let nasa and the masks learn how to safely deliver people to the ISS and only then they announce space transport. Of course, unlike roguzmos, nasa and masks are not mired in corruption and nepotism, insurance companies are not trying to throw. But Musk likes to shout louder so that stocks rise
  9. 7,62x54
    7,62x54 3 November 2019 21: 32
    +6
    Any civil aviation or space project is a screen for military development.
    1. Good_Anonymous
      Good_Anonymous 3 November 2019 22: 34
      0
      Quote: 7,62x54
      Any civil aviation or space project is a screen for military development.


      And the money that they get from civic development is also a screen.
  10. Klingon
    Klingon 4 November 2019 02: 01
    +1
    Quote: Observer2014
    Rogozin promises to respond to these insidious plans Mask with a grandiose skyscraper in Moscow in the form of a rocket. laughing

    it is necessary, but I thought it was a joke ((
    where did you go? in the USSR and their shuttles launched both the AMS and space interceptors with guns and the powerful Laser (Terra) was and its own orbital station was now, Super Trampolines and this? Korolev probably spinning in a coffin ((
  11. AML
    AML 4 November 2019 09: 23
    +1
    Quote: tesser
    Quote: A.TOR
    bought rights and patents

    NASA patents are not for sale, they are in the public domain. Of course, within ITAR.


    Shchaz. US patents are issued for 30 years. During these 30 years, the patent holder can make a profit by introducing its achievements. After 30 years, the patent passes to the state. All. There is no question of any public domain.
    1. tesser
      tesser 4 November 2019 10: 02
      -2
      Quote: AML
      There is no question of any public domain.

      You did not understand. If the patent holder is a government agency, then they smoking profit from it. "NASA patents" belong to the American people, who have already paid for them with their taxes.

      Naturally, in practice, everything is much more complicated, since NASA has a lot of every flying - pointing - exploding, which few people should know, but the general outline is just that.
  12. AML
    AML 4 November 2019 10: 02
    +1
    Quote: A.TOR
    What is "for free" I do not know, but the meaning of "for free"? If so, then there is no freebie, he found and invited specialists to work, offered the best conditions, bought the rights and patents necessary for work, contracted the necessary suppliers.
    In fact, it's all not complicated (in the USA).
    And what "consequences" can there be if you, for example, offered better conditions to employees? This is in an economy subordinate to the "state interests" through and through, there may be "consequences."


    Well, yes, why then was VAG pinched with a diesel gate or a huavei. Well, it suits the people and okay, why does the state interfere and prevent businesses from doing? And thank you for opening your eyes, now I can clearly see the picture, the line of "businessmen" in front of the doors of NASA with a request to sell them technology. It's simple ("It's not really difficult (in the US)"). I went to the NASA office, paid at the cashier according to the price list, and received the technology and employees at the exit. Tell me where you can get acquainted with the assortment. Maybe on ebay where is it or on Ali?
    1. Good_Anonymous
      Good_Anonymous 4 November 2019 10: 44
      -1
      Quote: AML
      now I can clearly see the picture, the line of "businessmen" in front of the doors of NASA asking to sell them technology.


      NASA even gives them away for free.

      Quote: AML
      Tell me where you can get acquainted with the assortment.


      Start here: https://technology.nasa.gov/ There are contacts there if you want something special.
  13. AML
    AML 4 November 2019 11: 02
    0
    Quote: Good_Anonymous
    Quote: AML
    now I can clearly see the picture, the line of "businessmen" in front of the doors of NASA asking to sell them technology.


    NASA even gives them away for free.

    Quote: AML
    Tell me where you can get acquainted with the assortment.


    Start here: https://technology.nasa.gov/ There are contacts there if you want something special.


    You either do not understand or do not want to understand. For example, what for me pancake manufacturing technology. In extreme cases, I’ll think of something myself. But the technology for the production of pans from high-temperature alloys and the percentage of metals would be useful to me, of course for the overall development. The first on that site, I will conditionally find. But the second is unlikely. NASA has been tinkering with RD-20 for 180 years, but has not mastered. But then Musk came and for 2 years heaped the engine. Wonders. And how the Chinese are sobbing. For decades, a lot of people, a lot of money, but there is no sensible aircraft engine. What are they doing wrong?
    1. Depytat
      Depytat 5 November 2019 01: 11
      -1
      Quote: AML
      NASA fumbled with RD-20 for 180 years, but did not master

      NASA was messing around, seriously? Are you completely that already? even know who the customer rd180?

      Quote: AML
      And how the Chinese are sobbing. For decades, a lot of people, a lot of money, but there is no sensible aircraft engine.

      and will sob further. Found the geniuses.
    2. tesser
      tesser 5 November 2019 01: 56
      -3
      Quote: AML
      a lot of money and there is no sensible aircraft engine

      And what does the aircraft engine have to do with it?
      Quote: AML
      What are they doing wrong?

      If we are talking about commercial aircraft, then there are only two engines that are now considered sensible. Rolls-Royce Trent in high thrust and Pratt & Whitney PurePower in low thrust. Everything, nothing else. GE is still holding on to higher reliability, but constructively this is the last generation, especially all sorts of powerjets from the superjet from the 70s. So the problem is not with the Chinese.
  14. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 4 November 2019 14: 07
    +2
    "It is pertinent to recall here that the USSR has always perceived the Space Shuttle as a" combat complex "capable of hypothetically delivering nuclear strikes on Soviet territory and abducting satellites. Nothing of the kind has happened in real life, of course." Well, of course it didn’t happen, but couldn’t it be possible in principle? Does this possibility contradict the laws of physics? The lying Anglo-Saxons could not have imagined this? And respect for Mask, and more than Rogozin.
  15. Mityay65
    Mityay65 6 November 2019 03: 50
    +1
    Recall that back in 2017, the entrepreneur suggested using the BFR complex for Earth flights.

    The author’s conclusion that Starship is a cover for something other than the declared flights to the Moon and Mars, tourists to orbit, etc., in my opinion is true.
    Starship spacecraft has CH4 / LOX cryogenic fuel, and accordingly, it cannot be in orbit for more than one turn, so that the fuel does not boil and does not have to be pushed into space.
    For flights to the Moon and Mars, the scheme is completely unsuitable, since it is not optimized for the masses of structures and fuel that Tsiolkovsky also taught that a single-stage launch vehicle is ineffective. Bringing to the Moon for landing a structure made of heat-resistant steel, intended for landing on Earth, is pretty stupid, if not crazy. The same can be said about the idea of ​​transporting it back and forth from Earth to Mars and vice versa.
    The payload is overweight to supply the ISS.
    The spacecraft has the main structural material, heat-resistant steel, which is justified only for entering the Earth’s atmosphere, but not for long-range interplanetary flights, where everything must be optimized by mass, and not for the Martian atmosphere, where such heat resistance of the structure is completely redundant.
    So what is it?
    Perhaps this is nothing more than a “disguised” military project, no matter how strange and absurd it may sound

    I agree with the author. Judging by what we see and we have been announced, it is planned 4 technology demonstrators Mk1 - Mk4, in front of the final finished ship. This is similar to the requirement of an outside investor - 4 stages, 4 rounds of investment in research and development. The Yankees are used to working this way - they confirm every new round with a technological demonstrator and acts that public fund accountants love.
    It is very likely that these are NASA or DARPA or MO funds, of course, secret funds, under the guise of some Soros, Bezos, etc. After each stage, a new round of investment.
    Closing for R&D devices for passenger Earth intercontinental flights along a suborbital trajectory.
    Thus, from any point on the Earth to another point it will be possible to fly in less than an hour. For example, a flight from New York to Shanghai takes 39 minutes, and from London to Dubai - 29 minutes.

    Yes, this is exactly the same, both military and purely civilian. Military purpose, as usual, will disappear after some time. Although, if people don’t feel sorry for the money for the construction and maintenance of 11 nuclear aircraft carriers, they may well spend 450 to 500 paratroopers on the fleet of landing suborbital ships.
    And so, everything in general is suitable: new powerful Raptor reusable engines with increased reliability, low-cost fuel (both liquid methane (LNG) and liquid oxygen can be bought on the market and order delivery), the stainless steel construction is not too expensive (cheaper than duralumin or composite).
    The choice of fuel especially delighted me - I just could not understand why it ran into this LNG (it is 4% liquid CH99,99 methane), if you really need specific impulse and engine perfection, then take hydrogen. What is the difference in price for an interplanetary flight? Moreover, the Yankees developed a lot of engines for a pair of H2 / LOX ... Liquid CH4 is much cheaper, it is full on the market, and now, thanks to the efforts of shale gas producers and NOVATEK, its price will be thrown to the bottom of the deepest abyss ...
    “I forgot to say that the ticket price will be about the same as the fare in the economy class plane,” Musk wrote.

    Here, old Ilon most likely lied, and the ticket will be closer to the cost of a ticket in a business class ... But everything may be, perhaps a new vehicle will create a new market and self-organize demand.
    Total: the author is right, but Ilon is also right ...
    1. Nedokomsomolets
      Nedokomsomolets 6 January 2020 16: 09
      0
      Thank you so much for the "analysis", very interesting.
      Absolutely off topic, but I propose to discuss the possibility of replacing "Hummers" with "Cybertracks" from Tesla
  16. G. Georgiev
    G. Georgiev 21 November 2019 15: 45
    -2
    These Americans have a lot of money and daring space projects. And what about the Russian perpetual missile projects Yenisei and Don, which can deliver up to 150 tons in space.