The Cosmodrome Sea Launch received permission from the US State Department to relocate

168
The Cosmodrome Sea Launch received permission from the US State Department to relocate

The floating launch site Sea Launch will be relocated from the coast of the US state of California to the Russian Far East. The relevant permission from the US State Department is received. It is reported by RIA News with reference to the press service of the S7 group of companies.

The Sea Launch Spaceport will be moved from Long Beach to the village of Slavyanka south of Vladivostok, 80 km from North Korea. Transportation will begin next year, the exact date is still unknown. In order to prepare the Odyssey launch platform for relocation and obtain permission for transportation, all American and Ukrainian equipment was dismantled from it, which is not critical, since the main "filling" is Russian.



The international Sea Launch company appeared in 1995 with the participation of the Russian RSC Energia, the American Boeing company, the Norwegian Kvärner, as well as the Ukrainian enterprises of the Yuzhnoye and Yuzhmash design bureaus, which produced the Zenit rocket for the cosmodrome 3SL ", the only one adapted for launch from a marine spaceport. A total of 36 launches were made, of which 33 were successful.

In 2014, the last missile was launched, as Russia stopped supplying components for rocket production, including RD-171 rocket engines, to Ukraine.

Later it became known that the Sea Launch Cosmodrome, consisting of the Odyssey launch platform and the Sea Launch control ship, will be moved to the Far East, where Sovetskaya Gavan will become the likely location.

In March this year, the Russian state-owned corporation Roscosmos announced that it would support the Sea Launch project and would work on adapting the new Soyuz-5 medium-class launch vehicle to launch from a floating platform. Work on the creation of Soyuz-5 is planned to be completed by the 2021 year, and in 2022-2025, four test launches will be carried out.

At the same time, there is information that the Russian private owner of Sea Launch S7 Space is developing its own reusable rocket based on the Soyuz-5 draft design. The media received the code name Soyuz-7 and Soyuz-7SL (Sea Launch - "Sea Launch").

Earlier, S7 Space terminated the contract with the Ukrainian enterprise Yuzhmash for the production of 12 Zenit launch vehicles for launches from the platform as part of the Sea Launch program.
    Our news channels

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

    168 comments
    Information
    Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
    1. -4
      5 December 2019 15: 54
      Fair competition in space will not hurt. Maybe someone will become in our country, a talented analogue of Mask! Perhaps private traders will put into orbit the future Martian manned complex. ... dreams. ..
      1. +10
        5 December 2019 15: 57
        The long-awaited news.
        In 2014, the last missile was launched, as Russia stopped supplying components for the production of missiles, including RD-171 rocket engines, to Ukraine

        This is far from the only reason, more precisely - it was not the reason at all, there was an accident after which everyone got up. And firstly, the project was not able to attract enough orders to form a pool from it and arrive at the most profitable scheme for launching several missiles in one go to the sea. It was expensive to carry one missile.
        And yet, for information, the author gives incorrect and incomplete conclusions:
        The company was hit hardest by the loss of the Intelsat-27 telecommunications satellite. Despite the partial insurance coverage, the losses almost destroyed all hopes for the restoration of the project. The cause of the failed launch was the failure of the onboard power source developed at the Yuzhnoye Design Bureau.
        1. +3
          5 December 2019 17: 20
          Quote: maxim947
          airborne power source

          May be "power supply"worth translating as"power supply", but not "power source"?
          1. +4
            5 December 2019 18: 52
            But how much more solid and expressive does the English "hefty snot" sound? "power supply" in comparison with the gray invisible Russian "power supply"! laughing
        2. +1
          5 December 2019 20: 02
          Quote: maxim947
          there was an accident after which everyone got up.

          Everything is easier. The Americans decided that there was no need to feed strangers instead of their own. And the rest is ... reasons and not reasons
      2. -8
        5 December 2019 16: 11
        m \ scrap - leave in the states, sell and create your own pl platform, taking into account the experience of this
        1. -17
          5 December 2019 16: 37
          Only in Russia they honor the right to stole property. Others for some reason put the Law and state interests in the lead. Really, why? request
          1. +6
            5 December 2019 17: 14
            Quote: lexus
            Only in Russia they honor the right to stole property.

            What theft are we talking about?
            Quote: lexus
            Others for some reason put the Law and state interests in the lead.

            Which of the specified in the article does not correspond to the legislation and state interests of Russia?
          2. -16
            5 December 2019 18: 56
            Quote: lexus
            Only in Russia they honor the right to stole property.

            Because only in Russia there are laws that allow in such breathtaking volumes to freely rob the state, and at the same time you and me! laughing
            1. -3
              6 December 2019 07: 57
              Well done lamas!
              But it would be better. if you were to consider the state of the economy and the well-being of the people not from the height of strip pensions, but from the side of poverty and billions spent over the hill: no matter the time has come that you will have nothing to pay pensions for, and the economy will roll towards zeroing social achievements of the Union !!
          3. +7
            5 December 2019 18: 59
            "Others for some reason put the law and state interests in the lead ..." is it in what pink book for the younger preschool age did you subtract? Vorye, when the tail pinch, where does he run? what In countries where they are "honored". That's it.
          4. -1
            6 December 2019 16: 38
            Quote: lexus
            Others for some reason put the Law and state interests in the lead. Really, why?

            I tried to answer this question - I received exactly the same number of minuses as you.
            And what follows from this?
            And just the fact that we are surrounded by a huge number of liberal marginals, APPROVING BREAKING countries by liberty thieves.
            Or are they themselves liberals involved in theft ??
          5. -1
            6 December 2019 17: 12
            Only a notorious, ahem, Lexus can in an article talking about a floating spaceport ask such silly (and completely irrelevant to the topic) questions.

            Quote: lexus
            Really, why?

            Yes, because gladiolus ... that is, pah - Lexus, naturally negative

            Quote: hydrox
            I tried to answer this question - I received exactly the same number of minuses as you.
            And what follows from this?

            It follows that you are as gifted and preoccupied as the mentioned Lexus. Accordingly, the attitude towards both of you is approximately the same.

            IMHO, essno laughing
      3. -11
        5 December 2019 16: 32
        So, write a comment, and certain entities will certainly spit in the soul, sticking cons "just like that", because they so want! !! fool fool fool
        1. Fat
          0
          5 December 2019 16: 45
          Quote: Thrifty
          So, write a comment, and certain entities will certainly spit in the soul, sticking cons "just like that", because they so want! !! fool fool fool

          I tried to fix it for how long. For some, the word "Private trader" is a curse :)))
        2. +2
          5 December 2019 19: 01
          This is VO. Here, people with a fine mental organization that ... is not easy. laughing
      4. +1
        5 December 2019 18: 04
        Mask analog ?! Better not. Let it become in itself a Russian private Ivanov, Petrov, Sidorov space explorer. hi
        1. -4
          5 December 2019 18: 49
          Russia has in the space sphere: the Petrovs, Ivanovs and Sidorovs have been standing for 15 years already - enough for them to stand and sit there.
      5. -1
        5 December 2019 18: 48
        Private traders, perhaps, will deduce, only to you what will get from this !? laughing
        1. +5
          5 December 2019 20: 43
          When the first satellite flew, the whole country was happy and no one thought about their own pocket. Now "business" has come into space - now only money decides everything, and not science and the development of the state, as its founder. I don't really like it, but I am not so involved in the life of the state to make decisions. request The level does not allow. But nevertheless - let them work in this direction. The real return will be later and maybe I will not see it, but I hope.
          1. +1
            6 December 2019 22: 46
            Quote: Svarog51
            nobody thought about their own pocket

            You're not right. Cosmological exploration by itself does not mean anything. They should be useful to people, in the form of "pocket replenishment". Otherwise they are meaningless.
      6. +1
        5 December 2019 20: 27
        What is the competition in the state on manual control :) everyone decides “their” with “their”
        1. 0
          5 December 2019 21: 08
          Everything is correct :: and the budget denominations (nationwide!) Are also quiet and will be divided without noise and dust ...
    2. -1
      5 December 2019 15: 56
      Right when in hand (at home laughing ) -It is more reliable, otherwise ktotnit will put a paw on this thing, right now everything can be. angry
    3. -2
      5 December 2019 16: 03
      Well at least the owner of Sea Launch is developing his own launch vehicle, otherwise Roskosmos, by tradition, will fail all terms with Soyuz-5.

      S7 Space needs to resolve the issue of methane-oxygen RD and combined fuel tanks of the "Sarmat" type (since the boiling points of methane and oxygen are close) and then it will become the market leader for satellite launches, since the mobile launch platform can make launches at the equator with the greatest energy efficiency ...
      1. +5
        5 December 2019 16: 28
        Quote: Operator
        Well at least the owner of Sea Launch is developing his own launch vehicle, otherwise Roskosmos, by tradition, will fail all terms with Soyuz-5.


        Do you think that S7 space has its own rocket plant? Can you name the place where it is located? laughing

        There are no prerequisites for a "failure in terms" of Soyuz-5.
        1. -1
          5 December 2019 16: 34
          To design a launch vehicle and a taxiway, a design bureau is needed - that is, specialists and computers, the deficit of which in our country has not yet been observed. And the idle capacities for testing and manufacturing rocket technology in general are like dirt for us.

          The main thing is that Roskosmos should not be allowed in this matter - everything will fail, do not go to a fortuneteller.
          1. +2
            5 December 2019 16: 44
            Quote: Operator
            To design a launch vehicle and a taxiway, a design bureau is needed - that is, specialists and computers, the deficit of which in our country has not yet been observed.


            The rockets on the computer are virtual.

            Quote: Operator
            And the idle capacities for testing and manufacturing rocket technology in general are like dirt for us.


            Where is it? Name "idle"

            Quote: Operator
            The main thing is that Roskosmos should not be allowed in this matter - everything will fail, do not go to a fortuneteller.


            Without the permission of Roscosmos, no one will fly anywhere.
      2. +1
        5 December 2019 18: 32
        Quote: Operator
        the platform can launch at the equator with the highest energy efficiency.

        Unions from French Guiana are already launching. There the equator and the earth are solid.
        1. 0
          5 December 2019 19: 24
          We are not launching.
          1. +3
            6 December 2019 04: 00
            Quote: Operator
            We are not launching.


            Ha, we are launching. But the dividends from the payload are not ours. We only have rockets and launch services there, which in principle is also not bad, with a large number of launches.
      3. +3
        5 December 2019 21: 26
        Quote: Operator
        need to solve the problem with methane-oxygen taxiway

        But what is the benefit of LCH4 + LOX versus RP1 + LOX?
        The pH design is heavier for methane. The engine requires methane gasification, which complicates the already complex and unreliable rocket engine assembly.
        And, most importantly, all pipeline fittings, pipes, tank tanks, a control system, fueling systems on the Odyssey platform are designed for kerosene. In order to switch to liquid methane, it is necessary to cut everything off and build a new installation for storing and filling methane with a cryogenic liquid.
        It will be necessary to build a small-tonnage LNG refueling tanker, there are none, and renting a LNG carrier is very unbelievable in price.
        All this will be very expensive.
        Are there any arguments for methane, besides the fact that St. Ilon spoke so? lol
        1. 0
          5 December 2019 22: 15
          Methane provides 30 percent more thrust with the same fuel weight. There are difficulties, but they are more constructive, and therefore solvable
          1. +2
            5 December 2019 22: 39
            Here is what the chief designer of NPO Energomash Vladimir Chvanov thinks about methane:
            "The specific impulse of the CNG engine is high, but this advantage is offset by the fact that the methane fuel has a lower density, so the total is a slight energy advantage." hi
            I quote a big man, so as not to enter into a discussion on this item.
            For me, it is so necessary to take advantage of the fact that now the technology of obtaining H2 from natural gas, by the membrane method, has been greatly simplified, previously it was obtained by electrolysis. Therefore, liquid hydrogen is now cheap ... No, as in the 80s, when Glushko promised to make a deputy of anyone who would come up with a way to get rid of hydrogen at the central block of Energia.
            1. +1
              6 December 2019 18: 36
              Hydrogen has a low density, huge tanks are needed.
              1. +1
                6 December 2019 21: 26
                Well, do not tell ... laughing
                The LH2 + LOX fuel pair is the most advantageous in terms of design weight.
                But until recently, hydrogen was expensive. The technology that has emerged over the past decade has changed that.
                1. 0
                  6 December 2019 22: 11
                  Liquid methane is about 6 times more dense than liquid hydrogen. Of course, less dense than kerosene, but only 1,5 times. So the volume of the tanks for hydrogen is about 4 times larger, given the large draft of hydrogen. Not so much by the way and more, about a third only.
                  Hydrogen still needs to be frozen. And it needs more thermal insulation. And another problem - superfluidity, seeps through all gaskets and even through the walls of tanks and pipelines.
                  And methane is much cheaper than hydrogen. Much cheaper. And now money is the main thing in space. The era when we were pursuing achievements without reckoning with anything passed irrevocably.
        2. -4
          6 December 2019 14: 06
          The advantage of methane is not only greater energy intensity. Unlike kerosene, gas produces less soot - therefore, it has a less negative impact on the engine design, increasing the chances of reusing it. That is why Musk is developing the methane Raptor to increase the reusability of its future carriers.
          1. +1
            6 December 2019 14: 52
            Quote: Kirill Dou
            Unlike kerosene, gas gives less soot - therefore, it affects the engine design less negatively, increasing the chances of reusing it.

            This does not mean soot, but coke-like deposits on the liquid-propellant engine nozzle. There really are such. But there is no problem cleaning the nozzle if they get in the way. In any case, there is an opinion that they do not interfere. This is a virtual problem, it does not impair the "reusability" in any way.
            PS Here hydrogen removes this problem completely ... hi
            1. -4
              6 December 2019 15: 18
              There are no problems with cleaning, but this increases the time of inter-flight maintenance of the launch vehicle. And this affects the sustainability.
              1. +2
                6 December 2019 19: 45
                Quote: Kirill Dou
                And this affects the sustainability.

                When the engine is reused, a number of technological operations are implied: dismantling, bulkhead and troubleshooting, pressure testing, spilling at the stand, control burn-through, installation on the launch vehicle. This is quite a complex and lengthy technological process. By the way, SpaceX does not disclose the content of these operations. How would the hypothetical nozzle cleaning "affect reusability" here? fellow
                1. -3
                  6 December 2019 19: 58
                  When reusing the engine, a number of technological operations are implied: dismantling, reassembling and troubleshooting, pressure testing, spilling on the bench, test burn, mounting on the LV
                  - where did you get that should be just like that? After each flight of the aircraft, the engines are also removed, sorted out, defective, etc.?

                  Which side is the hypothetical cleaning of the nozzle will "affect the reusability"
                  - such that it takes time to conduct it. And reusable missiles are being developed precisely with the expectation that their inter-flight training should be reduced in time.
                  1. +2
                    6 December 2019 21: 50
                    Quote: Kirill Dou
                    where did you get that should be that way?

                    Because I understand that the process, as you and St. Elon together with you say, "reusability" has some nuances to which SpaceX, for example, does not give answers. Just getting away from the answer tongue
                    And that’s the whole point - what does reuse mean and what operations does it mean? In particular, the steps of SpaceX? This is the whole economy.
                    Quote: Kirill Dou
                    After each flight of the aircraft, the engines are also removed, sorted out, defective, etc.?

                    By the way, quite serious people in Russia say that the reuse of the designs of classic batch LVs is nonsense. The modern design of liquid propellant rocket launchers, rocket launchers, etc. inherently extreme, has no margin of safety. There is no point in saving her. In contrast to the turbojet engine of an airplane, which is calculated with all the reserves for loads and resource.
                    Quote: Kirill Dou
                    so that it takes time.

                    The time for this operation, if it is not mythical, is minimal. Modern rocket engines before installation on the rocket undergo mandatory procedures for spilling and burning at the stand where rejection is in progress, up to 30% of the products. No cleaning of the nozzle after burning is simply not provided. fellow Not necessary.
                    Quote: Kirill Dou
                    And reusable missiles are being developed precisely with the expectation that their inter-flight training should be reduced in time.

                    And where did you find specially designed reusable rockets? St. Elon originally designed the Falcon as a disposable carrier. The idea of ​​reusability is improvisation. Well done, of course, this improvisation is worth a lot.
                    1. -3
                      6 December 2019 22: 15
                      to which SpaceX, for example, does not give answers. Just walks away from the answer
                      - Have you personally made such a request to SpaceX?
                      And that’s the whole point - what does reuse mean and what operations does it mean?
                      - so make a request in SpaceX, ask to describe the process of inter-flight preparation.

                      By the way, quite serious people in Russia say
                      - in 2015, when Musk began experiments with reusability, "quite serious people", including those from Roscosmos (a serious organization, right?), said that the returned missiles were unprofitable, this was a dead-end path, etc. 3 years, Musk learned to plant and reuse his rockets - and now Roscosmos declares that they are developing their own reusable rocket. Similarly, their return missiles are being developed in China and Europe.

                      "The modern design of liquid-propellant rocket engines, carrier tanks, etc. is inherently extreme, no safety margins"- who told you this? Musk's rockets proved the opposite in the most reliable way - empirical. Moreover, the Russian RD-170 rocket engine Certified for 10 times use.... The designers who created it probably did not hear what "very serious people" said there.

                      "And where did you find specially designed reusable rockets? St. Elon originally designed the Falcon as a disposable launch vehicle." Of course, the technology needed to be brought to mind. Which Musk did from 9 to 2011. Today, some of his Falcon 2017s have already been used four times and have returned successfully.

                      Modern rocket engines before installation on the launch vehicle, undergo mandatory procedures for spilling and burning on the stand, where there is a rejection, up to 30% of products.
                      - that's it, before installation.... The meaning of the methane engines, which are cleaner in terms of combustion products, is that they can not be removed from the returned stage for cleaning, which just means the acceleration of the inter-flight preparation of the launch vehicle for a new launch. This is what Musk and his "raptors" are trying to achieve. You yourself answered your own question.
                      1. +1
                        7 December 2019 17: 30
                        Listen, you don’t understand this? Is not it?
                        Just a nerd boy from the couch laughing
                        You have every second sentence "Musk's rockets have been proven" and "Musk has proved to everyone" ...
                        I respect all religions and sects, even as strange as the sect of St. Ilon.
                        But why are you writing a shame?
                        What would blurt out ...
                        1. -1
                          8 December 2019 03: 28
                          Listen, you don’t understand this? Is not it?
                          - I do not pretend to be an expert, I use the information that I draw from open sources, as well as logic. I dare to remind you that you are not an employee of the space industry.

                          You have every second sentence "Musk's rockets have been proven" and "Musk has proved to everyone."
                          - we are talking about SpaceX, right?) So naturally I will often mention it.

                          And yes, Musk's rockets have proven. Even the head of Roscosmos, D. Rogozin, admitted that Musk is a serious competitor. And the more so the fact that today Roskosmos itself is leading the project of a reusable reusable rocket. And he began to do it exactly after that. how Musk began to successfully plant and use his own.

                          I respect all religions and sects, even as strange as the sect of St. Ilon.
                          - what have religions and sects to do with it? Musk returns the rockets? Returns. Reuse? Uses. Are his rockets the most sought after on the market right now? Are. These are all facts. If for you the recognition of facts is "religion" and "sectarianism" - well, please. Your problems.

                          But your denial of these facts contrary to their objectivity - this is just irrational behavior. Not a religion. Of course - just stupid.

                          "But why do you write and disgrace?" - in what "shame"? That I acknowledge SpaceX's accomplishments? Well, blame Rogozin and the Chinese for stupidity then.
                    2. -4
                      6 December 2019 22: 19
                      Because I understand that the process, as you and St. Elon together with you say, "reusability" has some nuances,
                      - forgive me, of course, but Musk, whose rockets successfully launch cargo into orbit, land and re-launch, understands this much better than you. Simply because he does it, and does not listen to "very serious people".
    4. 0
      5 December 2019 16: 03
      In my opinion, within the framework of the current contract, Ukraine simply did not fulfill its obligations, did not supply missiles for Sea Launch. Well, where are the claims in international courts in Ukraine?
      1. +2
        5 December 2019 16: 29
        Quote: Elephant
        In my opinion, under the current contract


        There was no contract. There was an agreement.
        1. -1
          5 December 2019 17: 17
          Quote: slipped
          There was no contract. There was an agreement.

          Probably oral? Phone right?
          How can a business operate without contracts?
    5. +3
      5 December 2019 16: 04
      but there are literate people who can explain whether we need it, what it is, whether Roskosmos has enough money, and why did the Americans get it that way? I don’t jerk, I really don’t know and where to read I don’t know
      1. +1
        5 December 2019 16: 18
        The closer to the equator, the cheaper the launch.
        And the Americans ... Well, actually this is private property. Holy cow for them. So you see, they realized that they had gone too far.
        1. +3
          5 December 2019 16: 25
          They are always ready to kill someone else’s holy cow.
      2. +3
        5 December 2019 16: 18
        https://masterok.livejournal.com/4750446.html
      3. 0
        5 December 2019 16: 30
        "Yes, this is a gold mine" ©
        (Bentsion (Benya) Mendelevich Creek)
        Just imagine how much paint can be capitalized on this scrap metal, I don’t say anything about the rental of berthing facilities, crew fees, docking and other crap.
        Well, we'll make a rocket, a rocket, "then, if someone wants ...", a rocket will appear, the time will come for writing off this rubbish, it will be possible to get a penny from the treasury to build a new fun ..
        It’s simpler and much cheaper to buy an equator for Russia from the Earth and nail it with nails in the region of the Russian Far East.
        1. -1
          5 December 2019 20: 22
          Pennies ?? Weird
      4. +2
        5 December 2019 16: 31
        Quote: vanavate
        will Roskosmos have enough money


        S7 space is a private company.
        1. 0
          5 December 2019 16: 44
          so roskosmos appears in the article ...
          1. +3
            5 December 2019 16: 47
            Quote: vanavate
            so roskosmos appears in the article ...


            S7 space bought the platform from Roskosmos, or rather from RSC Energia.
      5. -7
        5 December 2019 16: 34
        The sea launch went bankrupt twice, and this was before the reusable Mask rockets appeared on the scene. Now the United States believes that there is no chance, therefore, what will happen to it with it
        1. +3
          5 December 2019 16: 54
          Quote: BlackMokona
          Now the United States believes that there is no chance, therefore, what will happen to it with it


          Did you come up with this yourself? Where is it written?
          1. -3
            5 December 2019 16: 59
            They released it, and didn’t begin to fix it up to the bulb, they also didn’t fix the problems with the acquisition of missiles, licensing and sale.
            If the United States does not interfere, even if it has enormous opportunities for this, then it suits everything.
            1. +3
              5 December 2019 17: 05
              Quote: BlackMokona
              They released it, and didn’t begin to fix it up to the bulb, they also didn’t fix the problems with the acquisition of missiles, licensing and sale.
              If the United States does not interfere, even if it has enormous opportunities for this, then it suits everything.


              And those. this is your personal opinion. Well, IMHO add at least. laughing
      6. -1
        5 December 2019 17: 01
        Well, in extreme cases, you can redo the rig as an option. Everything is better than the Chinese for scrap.
      7. +1
        5 December 2019 17: 19
        Quote: vanavate
        but there are literate people who can explain whether we need it, what it is, whether Roskosmos has enough money, and why did the Americans get it that way? I don’t jerk, I really don’t know and where to read I don’t know

        I am not literate on this topic, but I believe that Americans can reasonably believe that the Sea Launch platform is a burden for Russia.
    6. 0
      5 December 2019 16: 12
      If this platform works, then why will Vostochny Cosmodrome?
      1. +5
        5 December 2019 16: 23
        Eastern - state, this one will be private.
        One does not interfere with the other, unless the money is not from one pocket bully
      2. +3
        5 December 2019 16: 32
        Quote: voyaka uh
        If this platform works, then why will Vostochny Cosmodrome?


        If there is Cape Canaveral, why launch from New Zealand? lol
        1. -2
          5 December 2019 16: 35
          But this platform and the Vostochny spaceport will be located close to each other. It’s almost the same to bring rockets to the East, to Vladivostok. And the launch from the platform will be cheaper, because it is south.
          1. +6
            5 December 2019 16: 40
            Quote: voyaka uh
            But this platform and the Vostochny spaceport will be located close to each other. It’s almost the same to bring rockets to the East, to Vladivostok. And the launch from the platform will be cheaper, because it is south.


            In Primorye, the platform has only a base. The launches are carried out from the equator. Private company for commercial launches. The Vostochny cosmodrome is a federal cosmodrome. And they have different tasks - the launch complex on Vostochny will allow launching a super-heavy launch vehicle.
          2. 0
            5 December 2019 17: 58
            Quote: voyaka uh
            launching from the platform will be cheaper because it is farther south.

            Platform heavy rockets will not pull.
          3. 0
            6 December 2019 04: 16
            Quote: voyaka uh
            But this platform and the Vostochny spaceport will be located close to each other. It’s almost the same to bring rockets to the East, to Vladivostok. And the launch from the platform will be cheaper, because it is south.

            Something I doubt that in the Slavyanka area they will launch. Too close North Korea (a little over 100 km.), China is even closer, Japan is nearby. There are many people who want to and a lot of opportunities to track launches, take information, and pay too close attention to rocket launches in this region. They will begin to lament about the environment, because in this place is the only Far Eastern State Marine Reserve in Russia, resort areas.
            But nearby Slavic shipyard. Maybe they just decided, slightly jerked off, to redo something and leave it alone at the bank and the finished infrastructure?
            1. +3
              6 December 2019 22: 02
              Quote: Gritsa
              Maybe they just decided, slightly jerked off, to redo something and leave it alone at the bank and the finished infrastructure?

              In Primorye, only the home port. The operating area is near the equator.
              Quote: Gritsa
              Something I doubt that in the Slavyanka area they will launch.

              When they were looking for a replacement for Baikonur (and found Vostochny), they considered various options, including Primorye - Posyet, etc. The point is not in the proximity of S. Korea and China. And the fact that the first steps and the fairing will fall directly to Japan. And the track will pass over them. We decided to postpone until better times.
              But it would be cool to launch from there - the latitude of Sochi, after all ... laughing
      3. -3
        5 December 2019 16: 48
        You cannot make manned launches from this platform, as I understand it.
        1. +2
          5 December 2019 16: 51
          Quote: Kirill Dou
          You cannot make manned launches from this platform, as I understand it.


          They are going to launch the reusable Argo truck on the ISS under a manned program.

          1. -2
            5 December 2019 16: 59
            The Argo is not a manned, but a cargo ship. Secondly, this is only a project that did not come out even at the stage of experimental work. Therefore, to say that manned spacecraft will be launched from Sea Launch is, to put it mildly, very premature.
            1. +2
              5 December 2019 17: 04
              Quote: Kirill Dou
              The Argo is not a manned, but a cargo ship.


              Above and it is written - cargo. THCs are launched as part of a manned program.
              1. -2
                5 December 2019 17: 08
                No, they are launched as part of the ISS supply program. A manned program is precisely manned launches.
                1. +1
                  5 December 2019 17: 09
                  Quote: Kirill Dou
                  No, they are launched as part of the ISS supply program. A manned program is precisely manned launches.


                  I’m talking about the Russian program. This American launches as part of the supply, since they do not have their manned launches.
                  1. -3
                    5 December 2019 17: 14
                    Russian Progress vehicles are also launched as part of the ISS supply program. Once again, the manned program includes only manned launches. The supply program may overlap with the manned program, but they are not the same thing.
                    1. +2
                      5 December 2019 17: 19
                      Quote: Kirill Dou
                      Once again, the manned program includes only manned launches.


                      Talk nonsense. Transport and technical support for the Russian segment of the International Space Station is provided by manned spacecraft Soyuz MS and cargo spacecraft Progress MS as part of a manned program on the ISS.
                  2. -4
                    5 December 2019 17: 20
                    And, warning your answer that I, they say, do not understand anything in domestic cosmonautics, I will quote from the RSC Energia website:
                    At Baikonur Cosmodrome, the final operations to prepare the Progress MS-13 transport cargo vehicle (TGC) for launch by program of the 74th mission of the supply of the International Space Station (ISS).


                    I hope you won't argue with RSC Energia?
                    1. +2
                      5 December 2019 17: 21
                      Quote: Kirill Dou
                      I hope you won't argue with RSC Energia?


                      The quote is taken out of context. This is an American interpretation and it can be seen by the number. It is they who have numbered supply missions.
                      1. -2
                        5 December 2019 17: 23
                        Yes Yes Yes. American interpretation on the website of the main manufacturer of Russian space trucks "Progress" laughing laughing

                        Oh, okay.
                        1. +2
                          5 December 2019 17: 25
                          Quote: Kirill Dou
                          Oh, okay.


                          And what surprises you. The ISS is an international station. Different countries have their own terminology. RSC Energia manufactures TPK Soyuz MS and TGK Progress MS under the Russian manned program, do you understand?
                        2. -4
                          5 December 2019 17: 27
                          Nothing surprises me. I just cited a quote from the website of RSC Energia - the head manufacturer of the state corporation Roscosmos - where it says in black and white that Progress is being launched as part of a supply program, and not as part of a manned program. And here the terminology of other countries is not clear.
                        3. +2
                          5 December 2019 17: 28
                          Quote: Kirill Dou
                          And here the terminology of other countries is not clear.


                          Again. The ISS supply program is part of the Russian manned program. Also, the supply of the station with the Argo spacecraft will also be included in the Russian manned program. If you float in terms, that's your problem. lol
                        4. -4
                          5 December 2019 17: 31
                          Not included, but carried out in parallel as part of a more general program. They are certainly interconnected, but not the same.
                        5. +1
                          6 December 2019 04: 09
                          Quote: Kirill Dou
                          but implemented in parallel as part of a more general program.


                          Well yes, a manned program on the ISS. I told you so above. laughing what a dumb you are. Not Russian what? lol

                          Regarding our and theirs terms - the mission of tomorrow's "Progress" MC-13 they call Progress-74 (74P).

                          At one time they wanted to name the station in their own way - ALPHA, while they in the brain did not give They didn’t politely explain that it’s not worth doing this. laughing
                        6. -6
                          6 December 2019 09: 49
                          "Well, yes, the manned program to the ISS" - no, under the ISS operation support program, under which there are 2 programs: the delivery of cosmonauts and the delivery of cargo. As I said, these programs are closely related, but not the same.

                          MS-13 is not the name of the mission, it is the serial number of the Progress MS spacecraft being launched. The designation of missions for the ISS is the same for all participating countries.

                          Nobody gave Americans "brains". And certainly not Russia, for which the creation of the ISS in the 90s was the only salvation of its own manned space exploration. Because MIR was outdated, she did not have money for her own station, and the ISS, funded mainly by the Americans, was.
                        7. +1
                          6 December 2019 12: 51
                          Quote: Kirill Dou
                          "Well, yes, the manned program to the ISS" - no, under the ISS operation support program, under which there are 2 programs: the delivery of cosmonauts and the delivery of cargo. As I said, these programs are closely related, but not the same.


                          Well, this is a diagnosis. laughing Everything is shot on Mosfilm.

                          Quote: Kirill Dou
                          MS-13 is not the name of the mission, it is the serial number of the Progress MS spacecraft being launched. The designation of missions for the ISS is the same for all participating countries.


                          I did not say that the MC-13 is the name of the mission. There is the name of the ship only. Here's a screen shot from NASA on Twitter.



                          As you see, the name of the ship is different for them.
                        8. -5
                          6 December 2019 13: 03
                          [quote Well, this is already a diagnosis. laughing Everything was filmed at Mosfilm.] [/ quote] - what has "filmed at Mosfilm" here? Do I deny the facts of flights of Russian spacecraft to the ISS? Why do you ascribe your insinuations to me, and then begin to refute them? This is your diagnosis, not mine.

                          "Here is a screen with the name from NASA's Twitter" - well, everything is correct on the screen: 74th flight of the cargo spacecraft "Progress within the supply mission. What's the problem? Once again: in the title" Progress MS-13 "the word" Progress "means a series of ships," MC "- a modification," 13 "- a serial number of a ship. This is not a mission name.
                        9. +1
                          6 December 2019 13: 09
                          Quote: Kirill Dou
                          This is not a mission name.


                          Continue to flood? Of course not the name, but I spoke about the name of the ships, and you moved to the name of the mission. laughing

                          Quote: Kirill Dou
                          Nobody gave Americans "brains".


                          Even as they gave. lol Today they try not to mention this name even.

                          Quote: Kirill Dou
                          Especially not Russia, for which the creation of the ISS in the 90s was the only salvation of its own manned space program.


                          As well as the Space Shuttle program, which at the end of the 80s was already on fire, and their own station "Freed" they "did not start". The collapse of the USSR actually saved the American astronautics. They got our technologies and the ability to fly into space in general.
                        10. -5
                          6 December 2019 13: 30
                          Continue to flood? Of course not the name, but I spoke about the name of the ships, and you moved to the name of the mission. laughing
                          - the dispute was about whether the Progress launches are part of the manned program of the Russian Federation. I told you that this is a parallel program related to manned, but not it. In confirmation, he quoted a quote from the website of the manufacturer "Progress", in which it is written in black and white "such and such supply mission".

                          In response, you sent me this:
                          the mission of tomorrow's "Progress" MS-13 they call Progress-74 (74P)
                          - what they sent to - is unclear, because it is fully consistent with how this supply mission named on the RSC Energia website. Corresponds because for all countries participating in the ISS project designations of missions are the same.

                          In other words, you tried to assure me that in Russia, missions are designated differently from the Americans. And they gave an example that fully proves my point.

                          Even as they gave. lol They are trying not to mention this name today.
                          - well, let's do it. What was the "hit on the head"? How exactly did this happen?

                          As well as the Space Shuttle program
                          - of course, the ISS gave a second wind to the American shuttle program. But there is a small nuance that you somehow do not notice. It consists in the fact that the Shuttles can be used without a space station - for example, with their help the Americans took out heavy orbital telescopes, communication satellites, etc., carried out their repair and return to Earth. But the "Soyuz" can be used exclusively in conjunction with the space station. In other words, if it weren't for the ISS, the Americans, if they wanted, could find use for the Shuttles, but Russia for the Soyuz would not. Therefore, our astronautics depended on this project much more strongly than the American one.

                          They got our technology and opportunity in general. fly into space
                          - Shuttles were made using Russian technology? This is something new.
                        11. +1
                          6 December 2019 14: 45
                          Quote: Kirill Dou
                          In confirmation, he quoted a quote from the website of the manufacturer "Progress", in which it is written in black and white "such and such supply mission".


                          And I answered you - Of course, a supply mission as part of a manned program to the ISS. And you confirmed it, you just crawl around and avoid the word "manned" by calling it a "more general program" lol

                          Quote: Kirill Dou
                          In other words, you tried to assure me that in Russia, missions are designated differently from the Americans. And they gave an example that fully proves my point.


                          He invented himself, and he proved it. laughing All in all, you were given the number in their name of the Progress ships.

                          Quote: Kirill Dou
                          What was the "hit on the head"? How exactly did this happen?


                          With a hammer. In their language - "big rushen hamer". Even then they wrapped it in a ribbon. laughing

                          Quote: Kirill Dou
                          But the "Soyuz" can be used exclusively in conjunction with the space station. In other words, if it weren't for the ISS, the Americans, if they wanted, could find use for the Shuttles, while Russia for the Soyuz would not.


                          Remind you that our country collapsed then, or about autonomous flights of "Soyuz" before the creation of DOS? laughing At that moment, various options were offered.

                          Quote: Kirill Dou
                          Shuttles were made using Russian technology? This is something new.


                          Everything new for you is a well-forgotten old. laughing The docking compartment of the Buranovsky Shuttles received, glue for the thermomat, something else on the little things. In fact, they got the technology of long-term stay in orbit.
                        12. -4
                          6 December 2019 15: 10
                          avoid the word "manned" by calling it "more general program" lol
                          - because the manned program consists in sending manned ships, and the sending of cargo ships is a supply program. And both programs are part of the overall ISS work support program. And you have all mixed up - horses, people.

                          All in all, you were shown the number in their name of the ships "Progress
                          - mission number within the supply program. The ship is simply called "Progress".

                          "With a hammer. In their language -" big rushen hamer ". Even then they wrapped it with a ribbon. Laughing" - of course, again your fantasies, not supported by evidence.

                          "about autonomous flights of" Soyuz "before the creation of DOS" - remind. The only thing that the Soyuz did on these flights was to practice the flights themselves and dock. Nothing else can be dealt with on the Soyuz due to the fact that it is an exclusively transport system, unlike the Shuttle. In 1969 (after only 2 years) they began to be used only for the delivery of astronauts to the DOS.

                          No, Russia, of course, can simply launch "Soyuz" into orbit without the ISS, so that the cosmonauts can chat there, sit, look at how beautiful the Earth is from space - that's all. No, well, ok that.

                          In fact, they got the technology of long-term stay in orbit.
                          - Nah, you said that the Americans due to the collapse of the USSR got the opportunity generally fly into space... So I'm asking - before the collapse of the USSR, did the Americans fly into space on Shuttles? Or did the USSR collapse in 1981, when the first Shuttle flew?
                        13. -4
                          6 December 2019 13: 39
                          And about the one who was more dependent on the ISS.

                          The American shuttles were equipped with the SpaceLab for scientific research in orbit. Its functionality, of course, is inferior to the ISS, but nevertheless, it fully allows for scientific research in orbit. In other words, the United States had its own orbital mini-station, and could at least at the basic level provide its needs in this regard.

                          Soyuz, of course, did not provide such an opportunity. So the ISS helped the States, but even without it, their manned program had the means to implement it. But the Russian manned program without the ISS was pointless.
                        14. +1
                          6 December 2019 14: 55
                          Quote: Kirill Dou
                          In other words, the United States had its own orbital mini-station, and could at least at the basic level meet its needs in this regard.


                          Yeah, from the series - "let's do it" quick. lol

                          Quote: Kirill Dou
                          Soyuz, of course, did not provide such an opportunity.


                          Probably all the same you should remind you of the large number of experiments carried out on the Soyuz in autonomous flights. For example, "Soyuz-16":



                          "The flight program included many experiments, including technical, physical, biological, medical. The cosmonauts photographed various parts of the USSR, investigated light effects in the atmosphere, worked out the equipment for experiments on artificial solar eclipse (during a joint flight of two ships, one of them can "cover" the Sun for observers on the second ship.) The cosmonauts photographed the panorama of the daytime horizon in polarized light over 30 thousand kilometers of the flight path, and monitored the development of microorganisms in the nutrient medium and the growth of ozone-forming fungi on board. germination of seeds of unpretentious plants were started after the spacecraft went into orbit and were artificially interrupted 48 hours later so as not to overload the seeds during descent.The experiment provided material for studying possible chromosomal rearrangements in zero gravity. The astronauts also observedfry of Danio rerio fish born in orbit from fertilized eggs. As a result of these observations, it was confirmed that weightlessness does not affect the development of the vestibular apparatus of fry. Moreover, fry born in space, unlike those brought into orbit from Earth, do not lose their ability to navigate in space.

                          All experiments in space confirmed the perfection of the ship's systems, confirmed the results of numerous ground tests of the equipment. "

                          Quote: Kirill Dou
                          So the ISS helped the States, but even without it, their manned program had the means to implement it. But the Russian manned program without the ISS was meaningless.


                          Oh li. laughing
                        15. -5
                          6 December 2019 15: 38
                          Wow, seeds sprouted, fish fry looked, even photographed the Earth - research! laughing
                          Not, all is true, of course, research. But in comparison with the experiments at SpaceLab, these were studies of the level of a biology classroom in a secondary school.

                          That is, okay, if you feel calmer this way, then without the ISS, Russian cosmonauts would once again investigate fish fry and germination of seeds, while the Americans on Shuttles equipped with the Spacelab module would conduct experiments in materials science, biomedical technologies etc.
                        16. +1
                          6 December 2019 15: 44
                          Quote: Kirill Dou
                          Wow, seeds sprouted, fish fry looked, even photographed the Earth - research! laughing
                          Not, all is true, of course, research. But in comparison with the experiments at SpaceLab, these were studies of the level of a biology classroom in a secondary school.


                          You were wrong for 10 years of general education. Maybe I still remind you when Soyuz-16 flew and when the first SpaceLab module? laughing At the time of their flight, we had a full-fledged greenhouse and a technological furnace on the Salyut.

                          Quote: Kirill Dou
                          That is, okay, if you feel calmer this way, then without the ISS, Russian cosmonauts would once again investigate fish fry and germination of seeds, while the Americans on Shuttles equipped with the Spacelab module would conduct experiments in materials science, biomedical technologies etc.


                          Clinic. It was a private example of one flight. And so in the autonomous flights of the Unions and electric welding there was also the receipt of new materials. Learn the story at last.
                        17. -5
                          6 December 2019 16: 02
                          Maybe I still remind you when Soyuz-16 flew and when the first SpaceLab module? laughing
                          - and what has it to do with when he flew?) What, at the time of the first launch of Spacelab, the Soyuz had a commensurate laboratory compartment?)

                          Once again: The design of the Soyuz spacecraft does not allow for serious scientific experiments - there is simply no room for this for equipment. All really significant scientific experiments of the USSR were carried out on board the DOS. On board the Soyuz, only experiments were carried out to study the state of the cosmonauts themselves, small samples of microorganisms and small animals, photographing the Earth.
                        18. +1
                          6 December 2019 22: 17
                          Quote: Kirill Dou
                          but what has to do with here, when he flew?) What, at the time of the first launch of Spacelab, the Soyuz had a commensurate laboratory compartment?


                          Of course, Salyut-7 is called. And the Soyuz itself has long ceased its autonomous flights.

                          Quote: Kirill Dou
                          Once again: The design of the Soyuz spacecraft does not allow for serious scientific experiments - there is simply no room for this for equipment.


                          Well, I said - you are an illiterate schoolboy who does not know history. There is a place for equipment there, usually everything was installed in the household compartment.

                          Quote: Kirill Dou
                          All really significant scientific experiments of the USSR were carried out on board the DOS. On board the Soyuz, only experiments were carried out to study the state of the cosmonauts themselves, small samples of microorganisms and small animals, photographing the Earth.


                          lol

                          The Soyuz-6 spacecraft autonomous flight is the world's first welding of metal in space on the Vulkan automated installation by an electron beam. In the "Hall of International Space Fame" in the United States, this experiment is noted as: "the beginning of technological processes in space." Also, biomedical experiments and remote sensing of the Earth were carried out.

                          Autonomous flight of the Soyuz-13 spacecraft - work with the Orion-2 astrophysical observatory, which includes a broadband meniscus telescope capable of registering ultraviolet radiation from celestial objects up to 10th magnitude. The Levkoy equipment was used to study the peculiarities of cerebral blood circulation in different stages of the period of adaptation of astronauts to weightlessness, as well as when the astronaut was in a calm state and after a dosed physical load. The possibilities of obtaining protein biomass under zero gravity conditions were investigated. This experiment was carried out using the "Oasis-2" apparatus - a biological system for studying regeneration processes in an enclosed space. Spectrography and multispectral survey of areas of the earth's surface were carried out.

                          You can continue further .... Learn the story, and not strew nonsense. laughing
                        19. -4
                          6 December 2019 22: 52
                          Of course, Salyut-7 is called
                          is a long-term orbital station, not a Soyuz laboratory compartment laughing The ship itself did not have any laboratory compartment comparable to the Shuttle, and never will - the design does not allow.

                          There is a place for equipment there, usually everything was installed in the household compartment.
                          - and now we look at the sizes of this household compartment:
                          - length 3,44 m,
                          - diameter 2,2 m,
                          - the volume of the inner contours of the sealed enclosure 6,6 m³,
                          - free volume - 4 m³

                          Do you imagine what 4 cubic meters is?) No, well, fish, a container with sprouts, a camera, gas welding and a small telescope will fit, of course laughing

                          And the volume of the sealed Spacelab module alone was 75 cubic meters - 18,75 times more. But, besides him, the Spacelab also had an unpressurized compartment of the same dimensions, in which laboratory equipment was also installed. A total of 150 cubic meters of volume for "Spacelab" versus 4 cubic meters of volume for the household compartment of "Soyuz". I hope you don’t need to chew, where are the opportunities for research and experimentation? Or is it still necessary?)
                        20. +1
                          6 December 2019 23: 00
                          Quote: Kirill Dou
                          The ship itself did not have any laboratory compartment comparable to the Shuttle, and never will - the design does not allow.


                          Take it easy. The shuttle also "will not be". But the Union is. laughing

                          Quote: Kirill Dou
                          You imagine


                          And I even sat there.

                          Quote: Kirill Dou
                          what is 4 cubic meters?) No, well, fish, a container with sprouts, a camera, gas welding and a small telescope will fit, of course laughing


                          Well, you see, they fit. There is still a docking unit, to which free volumes can be attached. For example, a specialized module. In principle, it was planned at first, even they began to do the module in Kuibyshev, but then the program was stopped due to the successful output of DOS. By the way, that module was very similar to today's MIM-1. laughing
                        21. -4
                          6 December 2019 15: 43
                          Here is a limited list of the laboratory facilities used on the Spacelab:

                          A module for studying fluid physics, which is actually an optical device that allows you to obtain shadow photographs and holograms that can be used to study the behavior of liquid in zero gravity (the device will be installed in a double instrument rack 1 m wide, located inside the sealed compartment of the station).

                          2 Acoustic levitator for container-free sample retention, providing triaxial retention to control position and rotation of samples up to 25 mm in size. The principle of operation of the levitator is similar to the vibration of the table to hold a pile of sand in its center. (It is located in the unsealed compartment of the station.)

                          3 Installation for crystallization (electric heating furnace), which allows to grow simultaneously up to 24 samples in ampoules with a diameter of 32 and a length of 254 mm. Samples can be grown either at a constant temperature along the length of the sample during heating and cooling, or in the presence of a temperature gradient by directional crystallization. (Housed in an unsealed compartment.)

                          4 Installation with a floating zone to determine the effectiveness of the method of zone cleaning in space and the degree of increase in purity and increase in the size of the crystals grown there compared to terrestrial counterparts. (Housed in an unsealed compartment.)

                          5 A module for studying biological processes in order to better understand the process of electrophoresis and its modifications. (Placed in a sealed compartment.)

                          6 Electrostatic levitator for container-free containment and shaping of large composite materials. (Placed in a sealed compartment.)


                          8 Module for carrying out processes of controlled heating and cooling of samples with electromagnetic retention, regardless of how to control their position. (Housed in an unsealed compartment.)

                          But this, of course, is nothing with the cultivation of fish and seeds in orbit))
                        22. +2
                          6 December 2019 22: 24
                          Quote: Kirill Dou
                          Here is a limited list of the laboratory facilities used on the Spacelab:


                          Are you trying to compare the capabilities of a laboratory module on board a spacecraft built 15 years after the creation of Soyuz? laughing

                          Then compare with the "Salyut-7" and "Mir" flying at that moment. I say - a schoolboy. laughing
                        23. -2
                          6 December 2019 23: 42
                          Are you trying to compare the capabilities of a laboratory module on board a spacecraft built 15 years after the creation of Soyuz?
                          - so "Soyuz" and in 1981 did not have such opportunities as the Shuttle with "Spacelab". The conversation is not about what kind of ship was created when, but about how justified the manned program of both countries without the ISS would be. Russia would have a Soyuz with 4 cubic meters for scientific research, and the United States - a Shuttle with 150. What do you think, which ship would have more scientific potential and, therefore, the "recoil"? And I'm not talking about the fact that, in addition to scientific research, the Shuttle could be used to repair spacecraft in orbit and to return spacecraft from orbit.

                          Then compare with the "Salyut-7" and "Mir" flying at that moment.
                          - we compare the capabilities of spacecraft, not spacecraft and orbital stations. You have something with logic, fix it.
                        24. +1
                          7 December 2019 00: 09
                          Quote: Kirill Dou
                          so the "Soyuz" and in 1981 did not have such opportunities as the Shuttle with the "Spacelab".


                          Just as the Shuttle had a SpaceLab in 1983, Soyuz-T had a Salyut-7. Is it really incomprehensible? lol

                          Quote: Kirill Dou
                          The conversation is not about what kind of ship was created when, but about how justified the manned program of both countries without the ISS would be. Russia would have a Soyuz with 4 cubic meters for scientific research, and the United States would have a Shuttle with 150.


                          It was possible to dock modules to the Soyuz from housings like this:



                          Photo, just that time. And the shuttle would no longer fly at all. He would have been covered up for cost overruns, as Congress intended.

                          Quote: Kirill Dou
                          What do you think, which ship would have more scientific potential and, consequently, the "return"?


                          If yes, mushrooms in my mouth ... laughing As a result, the Americans, like scalded ones, got into the Mir program, so they wanted it then. It is now burning up with them, because they are not able to steer the ISS station. That is why these statements are from Mikhail Kopeikin and other leaders who have no direct relation to their space program. But the head of NASA understands everything, but he is a bonded man, as Congress and the Senate say, so it will be, even if it is to the detriment of their astronautics.

                          Quote: Kirill Dou
                          we compare the capabilities of spaceships, not spaceships and orbital stations. You have something with logic, fix it.


                          I'm fine with logic. You then compare the Shuttle with the Buran, and not with the Soyuz, is it logical? laughing
                        25. -3
                          7 December 2019 01: 01
                          Just as the Shuttle had a SpaceLab in 1983, Soyuz-T had a Salyut-7. Is it really incomprehensible? lol
                          - "Spacelab" was installed in the "Shuttle" itself, turning it into an orbital station. Salyut-7 was a separate orbital station. Isn't it clear?

                          It was possible to dock modules to the Soyuz from housings like this:
                          - you see what's the matter ... "Spacelab" was in reality, and the modules for "Union" were just projects.

                          And the shuttle would no longer fly at all. He would have been covered up for cost overruns, as Congress intended.
                          - but they did not cover him.

                          You then compare the Shuttle with the Buran, and not with the Soyuz, is it logical? laughing
                          - Why should I have an operating Shuttle with a closed Buran?

                          Look, I explain. You and I were arguing about whose manned astronautics would have suffered more if it weren't for the ISS. So? So. So, we consider the situation that the countries did not agree and the ISS was not implemented. But the USA WERE (in reality) "Shuttles" with "Spacelab" (which more than once flew into orbit and were used for their intended purpose). Russia, on the other hand, had the Mir station, which by the mid-90s was worn out and was not so much used for its intended purpose as it was being repaired (which is why it was flooded), as well as Soyuz with 4 cubic meters of usable volume.

                          Russia would not have been able to use MIR for a long time - given the state of the economy at that time, it simply did not have the money to maintain it in working order. Projects to extend her life, too, Russia would not have pulled - again because of finances. There remain only "Unions" with 4 meters of volume and a hypothetical possibility of docking additional modules (for which there was no money either). But the USA, with their finances, could use (and use) Shuttles with Sileb at least until 2011 (as in reality), and if necessary could use it further.

                          Catch the logic?
              2. 0
                5 December 2019 18: 02
                Quote: slipped
                cargo. THCs are launched as part of a manned program.

                A manned program is not only a means of delivering astronauts, but also a means of supporting them. The Progress cargoes supplying the ISS are also part of the manned program
          2. +1
            5 December 2019 21: 40
            Quote: slipped
            Are going to launch the reusable Argo truck on the ISS

            This is a good idea, first of all in the commercial sense - Progress is no longer effective as a truck. The idea is ripe. And businessmen can do it quite well. And Roskosmos will gladly sign a contract. Although Roskosmom's own project called Parom promised much more benefits in terms of cargo logistics to the ISS. I believe that all of it did not go on the air, it will still be remembered in due time.
            Here is what you can pay attention to, IMHO.
            The Argo has a descent vehicle - the truck doesn't need it. And for what?
            The SA has a missile landing, which is also strange for a truck.
            Conclusion: it’s not quite a truck, it’s likely that they will check the SA on cargo flights, debug the maneuver and rocket landing. Well, after a couple of years they will create a manned version.
            But when the manned "Argo" appears, then the time will come to blow off the dust from the drawings of the "Ferry". hi
            1. +3
              6 December 2019 04: 37
              Quote: Mityai65
              This is a good idea, first of all in the commercial sense - Progress is no longer effective as a truck.


              You see, with Progress, not everything turned out to be so simple. Firstly, it is still effective, thanks to well-oiled production it was possible to reduce its cost significantly. Secondly, it is modular. It is enough for him to change the modules he outputs to the required ones and .... voila - "with a slight movement of the hand" this is a different functional truck. For example, at one time the size of the sealed and leaky compartments was increased. They also brought out the SO-1 and MIM-2 modules and are going to launch future UM and TM. In fact, "Progress" it is:



              Everything else that you saw earlier is a body kit. Nearly. laughing

              Quote: Mityai65
              Although Roskosmom's own project called Parom promised much more benefits in terms of cargo logistics to the ISS. I believe that all of it did not go on air, it will still be remembered in due time.


              "Ferry" came out more expensive in the end, and with the same idea of ​​modularity.

              Quote: Mityai65
              The Argo has a descent vehicle - the truck doesn't need it. And for what? The SA has a missile landing, which is also strange for a truck.
              Conclusion: it’s not quite a truck, it’s likely that they will check the SA on cargo flights, debug the maneuver and rocket landing. Well, after a couple of years they will create a manned version.


              This device is designed by the same people who did the early version of the PTK NP.
              1. +1
                6 December 2019 14: 38
                Quote: slipped
                with "Progress" not everything turned out to be so simple.

                In your photo, PJSC is an instrument-assembly compartment. Do you mean that you can change the Progress cargo compartment at will? Yes, I agree, this is a universal means of supplying the ISS. On the good, it is high time to redesign it, make it lighter and more compact for placement under the optic.
                Quote: slipped
                "Ferry" came out more expensive in the end, and with the same idea of ​​modularity.

                Here I disagree. PAO in equipped form weighs about 4000 kg. Ferry's logistic scheme makes it possible to get rid of this dead weight. Accordingly, the payload to be thrown at the station will increase to 6500 kg. There are, of course, some nuances, but in general it will give a solid economic effect up to 30% - 50% savings.
                In addition, Parom allows complex operations with satellites up to the GSO orbit and expands operational capabilities in orbit. I think this is the next step that should have been taken for 25 so-called years.
                Quote: slipped
                This device is designed by the same people who did the early version of the PTK NP.

                Of course, we have no other people. lol You do not cooperate with them, by chance?
                1. +1
                  6 December 2019 15: 08
                  Quote: Mityai65
                  In your photo, PJSC is an instrument-assembly compartment. Do you mean that you can change the Progress cargo compartment at will? Yes, I agree, this is a universal means of supplying the ISS. On the good, it is high time to redesign it, make it lighter and more compact for placement under the optic.


                  Spotter - is patronizing laughing. It is already redesigned, just according to your desire. laughing Only as a result stupidly became more expensive in this period of our time.



                  Quote: Mityai65
                  Here I do not agree.


                  This is good, but ships do not exist on their own. They also need rockets.

                  Quote: Mityai65
                  You do not cooperate with them, by chance?


                  Yes, I tried, but was later "politely sent." laughing For "got stupid questions" most likely.
      4. +1
        7 December 2019 00: 46
        Quote: voyaka uh
        If this platform works, then why will Vostochny Cosmodrome?

        Prospective Soyuz 5 "throws" 17 tons, Prospective Angara 5 24,5 tons.
        In the East, in the future, a full assembly cycle (block), a test cycle will be carried out.
        The presence of two or three "tables" will make it possible to launch the entire range of missile systems, which cannot but affect the cost of launching. hi .
    7. -1
      5 December 2019 16: 19
      How much dough from the treasury on this, ultimately useless tuning, domestic "highly effective" soaped? !!!
      It would be better if this "suitcase without a handle" was sent to the Chinese in due time, while they asked
    8. +1
      5 December 2019 16: 23
      Is it a valuable purchase or a suitcase without a handle?
      1. +2
        5 December 2019 16: 59
        For Israel, this would be a valuable acquisition. We have no place to launch space rockets. Previously, they ran literally from the city beach. laughing
        Now this beach spaceport was dismantled, so generally the priest.
        1. +3
          5 December 2019 22: 33
          If there is a need in your own spaceport, it is best to consider Baikonur. There is infrastructure. The Russian Federation is gradually reducing the rented area and transferring the sites to Kazakhstan. I think the Kazakhs will be happy.
          1. +1
            6 December 2019 04: 46
            Quote: Mityai65
            If there is a need in your own spaceport, it is best to consider Baikonur.


            I'm afraid the Israelis are already late, the Arabs are already joking around with might and main. They also do not have a platform and they are not as "orthodox" as the Jews. laughing
            1. +1
              6 December 2019 12: 13
              I believe there is enough room for everyone. Kazakhstan has a plan to create an international spaceport at Baikonur. Yes
    9. -1
      5 December 2019 16: 37
      Quote: Thrifty
      Fair competition in space will not hurt. Maybe someone will become in our country, a talented analogue of Mask! Perhaps private traders will put into orbit the future Martian manned complex. ... dreams. ..

      Competition with a state company? Yes, you are crazy. Go down to the sinful earth and consider another, more understandable example, the competition with the Russian Railways. Will the state allow you to lay the rail in parallel (or close to this) with the existing ones? Can you roll an incredible amount of rails, make sleepers, purchase equipment for laying tracks, bridges, organize dispatch services ......
      Believe me, in the space industry everything is much more expensive and more complicated.
      Let them make toys. And they present a platform for launching professionally made media. Of course, on a rental basis.
      1. +1
        5 December 2019 16: 50
        I am out of my mind, but without competition, and even competition with the state, the economy cannot be boosted!
    10. -2
      5 December 2019 16: 48
      Your deeds are wonderful, Lord! What a misfortune for Russia. Now they also floated the rusty spaceport to us. It’s cheaper to wash an island on the equator with some kind of Nauru, at least it won’t drown.
    11. 0
      5 December 2019 16: 50
      Quote: voyaka uh
      If this platform works, then why will Vostochny Cosmodrome?

      And what, from this little boat it will be possible to launch ANY racket? Or in the name of indefinite benefit for an indefinite start-up, to fake all media with reference to this particular launch?
    12. -1
      5 December 2019 16: 56
      Quote: Operator
      To design a launch vehicle and a taxiway, a design bureau is needed - that is, specialists and computers, the deficit of which in our country has not yet been observed. And the idle capacities for testing and manufacturing rocket technology in general are like dirt for us.

      The main thing is that Roskosmos should not be allowed in this matter - everything will fail, do not go to a fortuneteller.

      Only a complete blockhead can write this. The specialization of such a profession as a designer is unbelievable.
      No product in the world can be made without drawings and technological documents. Hundreds of millions of items. And no designer in the world can know all the nuances in the release of such a mass of products.
      Yes, the design principles are very similar. But if the car designer will design a rocket, you get a car that can neither fly nor ride. I’m telling you this, as a designer - an instrument maker with a quarter-century experience.
    13. The comment was deleted.
    14. -4
      5 December 2019 17: 06
      The Americans have their own carriers, one of which - Falcon-9 - is currently the most cost-effective of all in the world. In fact, they simply do not need Sea Launch, which does not have a rocket.
    15. 0
      5 December 2019 17: 23
      Quote: T.Henks
      Your deeds are wonderful, Lord! What a misfortune for Russia. Now they also floated the rusty spaceport to us. It’s cheaper to wash an island on the equator with some kind of Nauru, at least it won’t drown.

      This start was never state Russian. Private traders decided to swell the loot and tried to participate in ensuring the launches of Russian and other missiles.
      Sea launch is convenient in that you can choose almost any starting point. And here is not only the equatorial arrangement, which gives a gain in carrying capacity. More interesting are launches in orbits passing over well-defined objects on Earth. The inclination of the orbit is highly dependent on the launch site. To change the inclination in any direction already in space is to spend a very significant amount of fuel. There, in orbit, which there is not much to take. It is on Earth that such costs are not critical. And there ....
      1. -2
        5 December 2019 17: 37
        The Russian founder of Sea Launch is RSC Energia. It is not a private, but a state-owned company.
    16. 0
      5 December 2019 17: 29
      Quote: voyaka uh
      But this platform and the Vostochny spaceport will be located close to each other. It’s almost the same to bring rockets to the East, to Vladivostok. And the launch from the platform will be cheaper, because it is south.

      Home port, parking place is not at all the same as the starting place. A task will appear - they will expose the platform to the point from where it needs to be launched. Do you not understand such simple things? You are disappointing me. The more I communicate, the stronger.
    17. -2
      5 December 2019 17: 42
      The Sea Launch cosmodrome will be relocated from Long Beach to the Slavyanka village south of Vladivostok, 80 km from North Korea
      Poor spaceport.
    18. 0
      5 December 2019 17: 47
      Quote: Kirill Dou
      The Russian founder of Sea Launch is RSC Energia. It is not a private, but a state-owned company.

      Organize is not the same as being an owner. Organize is to establish the rules of use, the scope of technical requirements.
      I doubt it. so that you, for example, desiring to do this, would make the right choice on your own and not go nuts at the first sentence.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. -2
        6 December 2019 20: 12
        Quote: wkd dvk
        Organize is not the same as being an owner. To organize is to establish the rules of use, the scope of technical requirements


        "Organizing is not the same thing as being an owner" - and now we look at the owners of RSC Energia:

        The main shareholders of the company are Federal Agency on state property management (38,22%), Leader Management Company (7%) and Razvitie Investment Company LLC (17,25%), which, in turn, is 100% owned by RSC Energia.

        Total majority package shares (almost 40%) are owned by the state. Let me remind you that a "majority stake" is a complex of shares that give the holder the right to control all decisions of a joint-stock company in the absence of a controlling holder.

        In other words, RSC Energia is a state-owned company.
    19. 0
      5 December 2019 17: 49
      Quote: Karaul14
      The Sea Launch cosmodrome will be relocated from Long Beach to the Slavyanka village south of Vladivostok, 80 km from North Korea
      Poor spaceport.

      Closer to home, calmer. Penguins have more than once taken away Russian property. And what made them poorer? The sea is colder, why? Let them do business, not diving.
      1. -1
        5 December 2019 18: 05
        Closer to home, calmer.
        Is it right to rot? request Its place at the equator, if you understand why it was built. Therefore, Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, to choose from.
    20. AML
      0
      5 December 2019 17: 53
      Quote: lexus
      Only in Russia they honor the right to stole property. Others for some reason put the Law and state interests in the lead. Really, why? request


      Spin Russian diplomatic missions confirmation of this
    21. +1
      5 December 2019 17: 58
      Quote: Kirill Dou
      The Russian founder of Sea Launch is RSC Energia. It is not a private, but a state-owned company.

      "In March 2018, at a meeting of RKK Energia shareholders, shareholders supported the sale of the Sea Launch floating cosmodrome. The document states that the purchase price of the complex's assets is 6,28 billion rubles [31] [32]."
      Wikipedia.

      Prior to this, the owner of the Sea Launch was an international consortium.
      In connection with the bankruptcy, the ownership was gradually transferred to Energia. Which taxied through subsidiaries of the firm.
      1. -2
        7 December 2019 01: 13
        “In March 2018, at a meeting of RKK Energia shareholders, shareholders supported the sale of the Sea Launch floating cosmodrome. The document states that the purchase price of the complex's assets is 6,28 billion rubles [31] [32].


        Since 2018, yes, that's right, Sea Launch is not state-owned. I didn't argue with that. I argued with your statement that "Sea Launch never was not a state Russian ".

        We look at the same "Wikipedia": "On April 1, 2010, the board of directors of the international consortium Sea Launch Company (SLC) made a decision give the Rocket and Space Corporation (RSC) "Energy" the "main role" in the project "Sea Launch"[6]. At the end of July 2010, by court order, Energia Overseas Limited (EOL), a subsidiary of Energia Corporation, received 95% stake consortium Sea Launch, Boeing - 3% and Aker Solutions - 2% [7]. "

        In other words, from 2010 to 2018, 95% of the shares (controlling stake) belonged to the subsidiary of RSC Energia, in which (as I wrote in one of the comments) the majority (the largest - almost 40%) stake belongs to the state. To put it simply, from 2010 to 2018 Sea Launch was a Russian state project. What is at odds with your claim that he never was not one.
    22. The comment was deleted.
    23. 0
      5 December 2019 18: 09
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      Closer to home, calmer.
      Is it right to rot? request Its place at the equator, if you understand why it was built. Therefore, Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, to choose from.

      Hanging the hell knows where, waiting for the construction of the Zenith or analogue? In the best case, this is 2 years. It is not clear that the mess in this matter is already beyond measure. It will be necessary- towed to where it will be necessary to launch. And this is not necessarily the equator. More important is the inclination of the orbit. To observe exactly what is interesting. And this is done not from a random point, but from a very definite one. .
    24. +1
      5 December 2019 18: 11
      The Sea Launch cosmodrome, which consists of the Odyssey launch platform and the Sea Launch command vehicle, will be relocated to the Far East, where Sovetskaya Gavan will be the likely location.

      It is difficult to say, evaluate ... I want to believe that everything is justified and done correctly.
    25. +1
      5 December 2019 18: 22
      Quote: Kirill Dou
      The Americans have their own carriers, one of which - Falcon-9 - is currently the most cost-effective of all in the world. In fact, they simply do not need Sea Launch, which does not have a rocket.

      Not because Musk doesn’t build, but leases launch pads, doesn’t he have such overhead costs as ours? Further. His starts are already quite close to the equator, much closer than ours, and he won’t come to block the garden while penny expenses (NASA subsidies) can do without sea platforms?
      1. -3
        6 December 2019 23: 04
        Not because Musk doesn’t build, but leases launch pads,
        - That's it, rents. For money. Moreover, SpaceX is responsible for all maintenance costs for this launch pad. What makes you think that his expenses on launching sites are less than ours?

        like a penny (NASA subsidies
        - NASA does not give SpaceX any "subsidies". Read the definition of this word. NASA pays for contract work like a regular customer.

        and he won’t come to block the garden then - so far only you have come to the head to fence the garden. What are you doing successfully.

        allow you to do without offshore platforms?
        - do not allow. Because, firstly, there are no NASA subsidies (as I said), and secondly, the platform is needed to save fuel on the descent.
    26. 0
      5 December 2019 23: 01
      Quote: lexus
      Only in Russia they honor the right to stole property. Others for some reason put the Law and state interests in the lead. Really, why? request

      Stupidity and illiteracy do not decorate anyone. Aplomb, multiplied by idiocy, kills.
      K. Marx, in the 19th century, said that "Primary capital is always accumulated by criminal means." We were lucky. The endless redistribution of property in Russia, and then in the USSR, and then again in Russia, during these turbulent years made us witnesses and participants in this wild division. If in England all this WAS, but 400 years ago, under Cromwell, in France it happened, but 200 years ago, then we have it now. For this happiness, thank Comrade Lenin and other scoundrels.
    27. +1
      5 December 2019 23: 27
      The authorities ordered a change of point. Relocate!
    28. +3
      5 December 2019 23: 45
      Quote: Mityai65
      What is the benefit of LCH4 + LOX vs RP1 + LOX?

      In the increased specific impulse and unification of fuel tanks, valves and turbopumps operating with the same temperature range.

      For the Sea Launch floating launch facility, the cost of upgrading the fuel line (switching from kerosene to methane) will be minimal, as the storage and other equipment will become identical to the existing oxidizer (oxygen) line.
    29. +1
      6 December 2019 20: 14
      Quote: Kirill Dou
      "Organizing is not the same thing as being an owner" - and now we look at the owners of RSC Energia:

      The main shareholders of the company are Federal Agency on state property management (38,22%), Leader management company (7%) and Razvitie Investment Company LLC (17,25%), which, in turn, is 100% owned by RSC Energia.

      In total, the majority shareholding (almost 40%) belongs to the state. Let me remind you that a "majority stake" is a set of shares that give the holder the right control all decisions of a joint stock company in the absence of a controlling interest holder.

      In other words, RSC Energia is a state-owned company.

      A read is not fate? SOLD this piece of iron, there is a decision of shareholders. Major is not the owner. This is the fifth wheel in the cart, which has the right to block important decisions and votes. The owner is the one who has the monopoly right to do with the property that he will be flirted in the head. If you are the owner of your car, then no one and nothing .....

      You write garbage. And why did they wait for the penguins permission? And what, in the ass, then, the owner?
      1. +2
        6 December 2019 23: 15
        Quote: wkd dvk
        You write garbage.


        Yes, I already noticed this above. laughing

        In general, everything is even more fun there - CB Yuzhnoye lost the court for $ 200 million.

        The Yuzhnoye Design Bureau and the State Enterprise Yuzhny Machine-Building Plant (Yuzhmash) lost the court in the case of the Sea Launch international consortium. On November 12, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Ukrainian side is obliged to pay Boeing $ 200 million.

        In 2013, Boeing lawyers filed a lawsuit against Ukrainian companies for breach of contract. The basis was a package transferred to Boeing with guarantees for loans worth hundreds of millions of dollars associated with Sea Launch. The subsequent litigation lasted 6 years. The proceedings took place in the USA, Sweden, Russia and the UK. As a result, the court rejected the arguments of the Ukrainian side. "

        From this is the Yuzhnoye Design Bureau and Yuzhmash, but no, it is now Pivdenne ... pah, yes ... it becomes bankrupt, drawing at the same time a moon farm.
        1. -2
          7 December 2019 02: 37
          becomes bankrupt, while drawing a moon farm.
          - Well, just like the Khrunichev Center, which draws new rockets))

          In general, everything is even more fun there - CB Yuzhnoye lost the court for $ 200 million.
          - and even more fun is added by Boeing's claim against RKKA Energia on the latter's debt. Needless to say - fun laughing
      2. -3
        7 December 2019 01: 34
        SOLD this piece of iron, there is a decision of shareholders.
        - sold, that's right. Only it was sold in 2018, and from 2010 to 2018, 95% of the shares of Moscow Start were owned by the subsidiary of RSC Energia, which, in turn, is 40% (majority stake) owned by the state. You claimed that MC never been a Russian state project - the keyword is "never".

        Major is not the owner. This is the fifth wheel in the cart, which has the right to block important decisions and votes.
        - once again, for those who are dull: a majority stake is a complex of shares that gives the holder the right control everything decisions of a joint stock company in the absence of a controlling interest holder.

        But this is right block important decisions and voting - called blocking packet stocks. Understand the terms first, then argue.

        The owner is the one who has the monopoly right to do with the property that he will be flirted in the head.
        - that's right, from 2010 to 2018 RSC Energia had a monopoly right to do whatever it wanted with MS, because it had 95% of the shares.

        Quote: Vkd dvk
        And why did they wait for the penguins permission?
        - because between RKKA Energia and the American Boeing company there was a dispute over the debt of RSC Energia to this company. At the time of this dispute, the MS was with the Americans, while remaining the property of RSC Energia.

        The fact that from 2010 to 2018 MS was a Russian state project, at least the fact that at that time negotiations on the sale of MS with Australia led - surprise - Roscosmos.... Not Energia, not its "daughter" - but Roscosmos.
    30. +1
      6 December 2019 23: 33
      Quote: Kirill Dou
      Not because Musk doesn’t build, but leases launch pads,
      - That's it, rents. For money. Moreover, SpaceX is responsible for all maintenance costs for this launch pad. What makes you think that his expenses on launching sites are less than ours?

      like a penny (NASA subsidies
      - NASA does not give SpaceX any "subsidies". Read the definition of this word. NASA pays for contract work like a regular customer.

      and he won’t come to block the garden then - so far only you have come to the head to fence the garden. What are you doing successfully.

      allow you to do without offshore platforms?
      - do not allow. Because, firstly, there are no NASA subsidies (as I said), and secondly, the platform is needed to save fuel on the descent.

      What are you doing?
      To bear the costs of using the launch complex twice a year and build it for ten years. Remodel for a new rocket and pay the contractor for this work. You are not familiar with the structure of production with us and with them. Musk buys a lot of what Energy does in its production. The difference is enormous - to pay for downtime in production (four starts a year is not an ice, the tenant does not bear the costs of such a lazy job, you want to have loot, look for the customer) Energy pays for such a rush itself.
      In short, in one case, you consider EVERYTHING, including the construction of the city of Baikonur, and the rental of equipment on the other.
      Learn to think and count equidistantly all articles from both They and Us.
      Bottom line, the Mask has 4 thousand working, 150 thousand on Energy.
      1. -2
        7 December 2019 01: 54
        and build it for ten years
        - Baikonur was built in the gray 60s, the cost of its construction has long been paid off by Russian commercial launches. Now it is only being serviced.

        To bear the costs of using the launch complex twice a year
        - Is Musk to blame that Roscosmos uses its Baikonur only 2 times a year?

        The difference is enormous - to pay for downtime in production (four starts a year is not an ice, the tenant does not bear the costs of such a lazy job - you want to have money - look for the customer)
        - what prevents Roskosmos from making more than 4 launches a year?

        Convert to a new rocket and pay the contractor this work
        - so Musk also remade used launch complexes for his missiles. For their money. In addition to rent for use.

        Musk buys a lot of what Energy does in its production.
        - eg?

        In short, in one case, you consider EVERYTHING, including the construction of the city of Baikonur, and the rental of equipment on the other.
        - The city of Baikonur was built a bunch of years ago, its cost has long been paid off.

        Learn to think
        - I do it better. than you.

        "and to count equidistantly all the articles of both Them and Us" - that's how everything is counted. The United States as a state has the Falcon-9 missile (even if it is the property of SpaceX), which is the most cost-effective on the market today.
      2. -3
        7 December 2019 02: 30
        Bottom line, the Mask has 4 thousand working, 150 thousand on Energy.
        - and they do the same work)) That is, Musk does it more efficiently than "Energy" - which was required to be proved)
    31. 0
      6 December 2019 23: 47
      Quote: Kirill Dou
      When reusing the engine, a number of technological operations are implied: dismantling, reassembling and troubleshooting, pressure testing, spilling on the bench, test burn, mounting on the LV
      - where did you get that should be just like that? After each flight of the aircraft, the engines are also removed, sorted out, defective, etc.?

      Which side is the hypothetical cleaning of the nozzle will "affect the reusability"
      - such that it takes time to conduct it. And reusable missiles are being developed precisely with the expectation that their inter-flight training should be reduced in time.

      It is foolish to ask a question when you know the answer yourself. Aircraft engines are designed, manufactured and operated in modes very far from those of rocket engines. Hundreds of thousands of hours of work were compared to 200 seconds. And you, at the same time, are not ashamed?
      Go down to Earth. The Formula 1 engine weighs three times yours, but ten times more powerful. The difference in comparison between the engines of those spheres is even more striking. And you need to know what this translates into cubic reductions in reliability.
      So how many times did the wizard Mask fly the engine, with all his advertisements, boasting and PR?
      And how many replacements did he make during the "technical inspection" of the flyer? Ask him, but I think he will lie, as usual.
      1. -2
        7 December 2019 02: 00
        So how many times did the wizard Mask fly the engine, with all his advertisements, boasting and PR?
        - at the moment he used his individual steps 4 times. And plans to use them again.

        And how many replacements did he make during the "technical inspection" of the flyer?
        - after 1 re-launch of Falcon-9 in 2017, SpaceX Director Gwyneth Shotwell stated that the cost of inter-flight maintenance of the flying stage was in 2 times less than the cost of new production.

        but I think he, as usual, will lie.
        - you can think anything and as much as you like, your opinion does not mean anything, because you have nothing to do with astronautics. And Musk has it. Moreover, the attitude is very successful.
    32. 0
      6 December 2019 23: 59
      Quote: Kirill Dou
      Maybe I still remind you when Soyuz-16 flew and when the first SpaceLab module? laughing
      - and what has it to do with when he flew?) What, at the time of the first launch of Spacelab, the Soyuz had a commensurate laboratory compartment?)

      Once again: The design of the Soyuz spacecraft does not allow for serious scientific experiments - there is simply no room for this for equipment. All really significant scientific experiments of the USSR were carried out on board the DOS. On board the Soyuz, only experiments were carried out to study the state of the cosmonauts themselves, small samples of microorganisms and small animals, photographing the Earth.

      Skylab is interpreted as an icon from a horse. Three flights to the station. And the 63 ton station was safely drowned.
      Yes, I forgot to note that all three flights were for the repair of the station. You need to evaluate the result. Not the size of the letters in the headlines. The experiments are done different. And, the most important ones at that time were not using the latitude and depth of the station’s working space, but TERMS, DURATION, and so on, affecting the HUMAN, but not the airplane wing assembly. And that volume was enough for THESE purposes.
      1. -1
        7 December 2019 02: 03
        Skylab is interpreted as an icon from a horse.
        - you can't even distinguish Skylab (American orbital station) from Spacelab (Shuttle laboratory module). What to talk to you about after that?

        Yes, I forgot to note that all three flights were for the repair of the station.
        - and now march to read about what experiments were carried out on the "Skylab" for all 3 flights. Then come and talk.
    33. +1
      7 December 2019 00: 10
      Quote: Kirill Dou
      Of course, Salyut-7 is called
      is a long-term orbital station, not a Soyuz laboratory compartment laughing The ship itself did not have any laboratory compartment comparable to the Shuttle, and never will - the design does not allow.

      There is a place for equipment there, usually everything was installed in the household compartment.
      - and now we look at the sizes of this household compartment:
      - length 3,44 m,
      - diameter 2,2 m,
      - the volume of the inner contours of the sealed enclosure 6,6 m³,
      - free volume - 4 m³

      Do you imagine what 4 cubic meters is?) No, well, fish, a container with sprouts, a camera, gas welding and a small telescope will fit, of course laughing

      And the volume of the sealed Spacelab module alone was 75 cubic meters - 18,75 times more. But, besides him, the Spacelab also had an unpressurized compartment of the same dimensions, in which laboratory equipment was also installed. A total of 150 cubic meters of volume for "Spacelab" versus 4 cubic meters of volume for the household compartment of "Soyuz". I hope you don’t need to chew, where are the opportunities for research and experimentation? Or is it still necessary?)

      The shuttle carried 7 loafers, with the resource of being in orbit per week. Shuttle energy did not allow even two experiments to be simultaneously carried out. Thus, while one is looking through a microscope, six push him in the back and rush, waiting for their turn. A wonderful application of this ship is repair work at the telescope. 2,5 thousand tons of iron on Earth in the name of bringing into orbit a pair of pliers and a panel with transoms, which must be inserted instead of dead. Not one flight is THREE. Really penguins are more stupid than you, since with shame they covered up this madness. True, having previously killed two crews.
      They have bad shit unions, since they allowed the use of equipment without emergency rescue systems.
      Admire the loafer and idiot!
      1. -3
        7 December 2019 02: 05
        The shuttle carried 7 loafers,
        - laughing laughing

        You already have a tantrum. Drink a pill and calm down, for God's sake)) And then disturb the patients of others.
      2. -3
        7 December 2019 02: 21
        2,5 thousand tons of iron on Earth in the name of bringing into orbit a pair of pliers and a panel with transoms, which must be inserted instead of dead.
        - That's right, that's it. But they were only able to repair the telescope in orbit, and the Soviet cosmonauts couldn’t - any damage to the Soviet spacecraft meant flooding))
    34. +3
      7 December 2019 00: 19
      Quote: Kirill Dou
      Here is a limited list of the laboratory facilities used on the Spacelab:

      A module for studying fluid physics, which is actually an optical device that allows you to obtain shadow photographs and holograms that can be used to study the behavior of liquid in zero gravity (the device will be installed in a double instrument rack 1 m wide, located inside the sealed compartment of the station).

      2 Acoustic levitator for container-free sample retention, providing triaxial retention to control position and rotation of samples up to 25 mm in size. The principle of operation of the levitator is similar to the vibration of the table to hold a pile of sand in its center. (It is located in the unsealed compartment of the station.)

      3 Installation for crystallization (electric heating furnace), which allows to grow simultaneously up to 24 samples in ampoules with a diameter of 32 and a length of 254 mm. Samples can be grown either at a constant temperature along the length of the sample during heating and cooling, or in the presence of a temperature gradient by directional crystallization. (Housed in an unsealed compartment.)

      4 Installation with a floating zone to determine the effectiveness of the method of zone cleaning in space and the degree of increase in purity and increase in the size of the crystals grown there compared to terrestrial counterparts. (Housed in an unsealed compartment.)

      5 A module for studying biological processes in order to better understand the process of electrophoresis and its modifications. (Placed in a sealed compartment.)

      6 Electrostatic levitator for container-free containment and shaping of large composite materials. (Placed in a sealed compartment.)


      8 Module for carrying out processes of controlled heating and cooling of samples with electromagnetic retention, regardless of how to control their position. (Housed in an unsealed compartment.)

      But this, of course, is nothing with the cultivation of fish and seeds in orbit))


      I already wrote above that this station did not work for a single day for its intended purpose. Three visiting expeditions for all time, and then in order to restore its viability. So, your shot is in your foot.


      Admire. wimp!

      The first expedition SL-2 (Skylab-2) (Charles Conrad, Paul Whitz and Joseph Kervin) lasted 28 days (25.05.1973/22.06.1973/XNUMX - XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX) and was not so much scientific as repair. During several spacewalks, astronauts uncovered a jammed solar panel and restored the station’s thermoregulation using an installed heat-shielding “umbrella”.

      The second expedition SL-3 (Skylab-3) (Alan Bean, Jack Lausma and Owen Garriott) lasted 59 days (28.07.1973 - 25.09.1973). During the spacewalk, a second heat-insulating screen was installed, and operations related to the replacement of gyroscopes were also performed [3]: 36-38.

      The third and final expedition SL-4 (Skylab-4) (Gerald Carr, Edward Gibson and William Pogue) lasted 84 days (16.11.1973/08.02.1974/3 - 39/XNUMX/XNUMX). Carr, Gibson and Pogue were the first astronauts to celebrate New Year in space. During the mission, a one-day rebellion took place at the station, when the team arbitrarily disconnected from the flight control center and rested during the day. During spacewalk, the radar was corrected to study the earth's natural wealth [XNUMX]: XNUMX.
      1. -1
        7 December 2019 02: 09
        I already wrote above that you are not able to distinguish "Skylab" from "Spacelab" laughing Look, seriously, you already have foam from your mouth, well enough already, huh) Have pity on yourself - otherwise you’ll grab a heart.
      2. -1
        7 December 2019 02: 20
        Quote: Vkd dvk
        this station did not work as intended for a single day.


        Already during the very first expedition, the Skylab team (the Skylab-2 mission) conducted 87 (eighty-seven) scientific experiments. Well, straight "not a single day for the appointment" laughing
    35. 0
      7 December 2019 12: 48
      Quote: Kirill Dou
      and build it for ten years
      - Baikonur was built in the gray 60s, the cost of its construction has long been paid off by Russian commercial launches. Now it is only being serviced.

      To bear the costs of using the launch complex twice a year
      - Is Musk to blame that Roscosmos uses its Baikonur only 2 times a year?

      The difference is enormous - to pay for downtime in production (four starts a year is not an ice, the tenant does not bear the costs of such a lazy job - you want to have money - look for the customer)
      - what prevents Roskosmos from making more than 4 launches a year?

      Convert to a new rocket and pay the contractor this work
      - so Musk also remade used launch complexes for his missiles. For their money. In addition to rent for use.

      Musk buys a lot of what Energy does in its production.
      - eg?

      In short, in one case, you consider EVERYTHING, including the construction of the city of Baikonur, and the rental of equipment on the other.
      - The city of Baikonur was built a bunch of years ago, its cost has long been paid off.

      Learn to think
      - I do it better. than you.

      "and to count equidistantly all the articles of both Them and Us" - that's how everything is counted. The United States as a state has the Falcon-9 missile (even if it is the property of SpaceX), which is the most cost-effective on the market today.

      Of course, it’s not Musk’s fault that they gave him, just like that, that is, for nothing, several dozen Merlin-1 engines lying around after the lunar program was closed. Of course, it’s not his fault that all the cosmonautics of the countries participating in the race, BEFORE he appeared, prepared the metallurgy of metals, technologies, astronomers adjusted their knowledge to the right condition, programmers - their programs, chemists - their chemical materials, builders built complexes, design bureaus, which were dispersed after the forced idleness, received new opportunities, COLLECTIVES went to the offices, familiar, but with new signs ..... It’s not his fault that he simply, that is, for nothing, gave the equipment, stands, appliances that fell US space industry, sitting on their laurels after winning the moon visits (And they actually were?).

      https://hi-news.ru/space/bolshaya-grebanaya-raketa-spacex-bolshaya-polnaya-istoriya.html
      https://ain.ua/2017/01/16/finansovye-pokazateli-spacex
      https://ru.insider.pro/infographics/2017-05-25/istoriya-ilona-maska-istoriya-neudach/
    36. 0
      7 December 2019 14: 40
      Quote: Kirill Dou
      The shuttle carried 7 loafers,
      - laughing laughing

      You already have a tantrum. Drink a pill and calm down, for God's sake)) And then disturb the patients of others.

      Order begins with the proper naming of things. (Confucius).
    37. +1
      7 December 2019 14: 54
      Quote: Kirill Dou
      Space slab

      Battery experiments taken from Earth. No long-term, of particular value. For, popping into orbit for a week is not a damn thing to learn about changes in living conditions in the cosmos. If on Skylab they potentially had such an opportunity, visiting crews were there for 80 or less days, then on the appendix to the Shuttle, which could be in orbit for a week .... You were completely crazy, looking for the facts of victories of the pind wasps. I did not write about this tin can, seeing some success in Skylab, but not in experiments, but in the capabilities of the medium. And passing by, I see no need to notice. Under the pin, the dosnik is glad of such.
    38. +1
      7 December 2019 15: 01
      Quote: Kirill Dou
      - NASA does not give SpaceX any "subsidies". Read the definition of this word. NASA pays for contract work like a regular customer.


      I can pay you 100 rubles per one hundred square meters that you will plow in my garden. How do all the neighbors pay around. But no one will limit me to pay 300, if I have some interests in you for the future. You are either complete and d and t, or just want to appear to them.
    39. 0
      7 December 2019 16: 32
      Quote: Kirill Dou
      Bottom line, the Mask has 4 thousand working, 150 thousand on Energy.
      - and they do the same work)) That is, Musk does it more efficiently than "Energy" - which was required to be proved)


      You are a moron. Different economies, different production structures, different management systems.
      Here is an example.
      Poultry factories in Holland. There is no parent (egg) herd. There are no electrical, heat engineering, computer and other, even (horror!) Zootechnical services. There are no personnel for cleaning, washing the workshops, and preparing for a new settlement. There is no downhole workshop. There is no feed and transport facilities. The number of the factory in 100 workshops is 10 ... 45 people. From the watchman to the manager. Our factory is forced to have everything at home. And the main thing is our size. The size of the country. The Dutchman can call a specialist and he is on a bicycle, he will travel half the country in 2 hours. He will arrive on time and will help to solve any problem. Be it a Kipyan, or a veterinarian. Specials will get to us for a month. But you need to know that if an accident occurs with the power supply, for example, then in the summer, after 2 hours, all 25 thousand chickens will die in the workshop. Nature gave her only 2 degrees from normal, to the temperature at which she perishes. She does not have the body cooling system that God has awarded man. Evaporative cooling. Having the highest efficiency.
    40. 0
      7 December 2019 16: 55
      Quote: Vkd dvk
      You are a moron. Different economies, different production structures, different management systems.

      The adjustment time has passed, so I continue here.
      We cannot apply such a structure as theirs. Separate structural divisions of our production will then become legal entities. This will lead to the release of not a semi-finished product used in the general technological chain, but a finished product subject to VAT and other burdens. Which will lead to a sharp increase in prices. Multiple occurrences of the product, according to the principle of matryoshka, will multiply interest by percent. The total amount of the product will remain the same, but in the amount of money, this crap will grow many times. But what is this if not inflation? But the economy of rocket production cannot be different from the economy of the entire national economy.

    "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"