Manned race: US projects against the Russian "Union"

175

The launch of the Soyuz-FG rocket with the Soyuz-MS series ship. Photo Roskosmos / roscosmos.ru

Since 2011, the United States has not had its own manned spacecraft, allowing astronauts to be delivered to the ISS. For several years, work continues on the creation of the required equipment, and in the near future the first flights with people on board are expected. It is assumed that the Starliner products from Boeing and Dragon 2 from SpaceX will seriously compete with the Russian Soyuz and reduce its share in manned space exploration. However, such plans may seem overly optimistic for now.

Big plans


Recall that the development of new space technology started at the beginning of the current decade and was carried out as part of the NASA Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCDev, later CCtCap) program. Initially, several companies participated in the program, but only the Boeing and SpaceX projects - CST-100 Starliner and Dragon 2, respectively, entered the final stage.



According to initial plans, the Boeing Starliner trials were to begin in 2015, and by the end of the decade, the ship could go into operation. SpaceX's plans were similar. Her "Dragon-2" was supposed to fly to the ISS in the second half of the decade and then begin to transport astronauts.


The manned spacecraft Soyuz-MS-16. The launch is scheduled for April 2020. Photo by Roskosmos / roscosmos.ru

However, the technical requirements for the projects, the need to master new solutions and technologies, as well as a number of other factors led to a serious revision of the work schedules. At the moment, only one test flight has been completed on two projects, with no crew on board. Manned flights, according to current plans, will begin only in the spring of 2020.

In mid-November, the Office of the Inspector General of NASA (NASA OIG) published a report on the current status of work on CCtCAP. According to one of the conclusions of this document, the first manned launches of new ships will be postponed until next summer.

Plans for the Starliner


The schedule of work on the Boeing project was repeatedly adjusted, and the deadlines for the implementation of certain stages were constantly shifted to the right. For example, in the middle of last year, unmanned and manned flights were planned for April and August of 2019. However, in these terms, only a few tests were completed.

To date, the Boeing has found the causes of last year's accidents and recycled the ship. At the beginning of November, tests of the rescue system were recognized as successful. Work is ongoing, preparations are underway for new tests.


Statistics on the purchase of seats on the "Union" from NASA OIG

The start of the Boe-OFT-19 mission is scheduled for December 1. The Starliner device in an unmanned configuration is planned to be put into orbit and returned to Earth in eight days. In the first half of next year, a Boe-CTF flight with astronauts to the ISS will take place. Its exact date remains unknown.

In the CCtCAP program, not only terms are of great importance, but also the cost of putting the cargo into orbit. Starliner can take on board up to seven people. According to the NASA OIG report, the cost of one seat for an astronaut can vary widely enough depending on various factors. In particular, the number of jobs will affect it. The average flight cost per astronaut will be at the level of 90 million US dollars.

Success of the Dragon


The project Dragon 2 or Crew Dragon from Space X started a little later than Starliner, but has already bypassed it. To date, the bulk of the development work has been completed. Moreover, this year the first flight in an unmanned configuration took place. Various works are now being carried out, designed to provide the first manned mission.


The appearance of the ship CST-100 Starliner. NASA illustration

However, SpaceX also repeatedly faced various difficulties and repeatedly revised the work schedule. In particular, test runs with load and people were repeatedly postponed. There were also technical difficulties and accidents. For example, on 20 on August 2019, the first Dragon 2, which previously flew into space, exploded during ground tests.

SpX-DM1 unmanned flight began on 2 on March 2019. A few hours after takeoff, the ship docked to the ISS. 8 March, the device returned to Earth. The total duration of the mission is a little less than 5 days. In December, a test launch should be held with a check of the operation of the rescue system. This event will be carried out automatically.

The first manned flight SpX-DM2 was planned by the development company for the 1 quarter of 2020. The NASA Inspector General's Office considers such plans unrealistic and expects launch only in the summer. Next year, SpaceX is going to carry out the following Dragon 2 flights with cargo and people.


One of the stages of testing Starliner, October 2019. Photo by NASA

Depending on the configuration, Crew Dragon must transport up to 4 or up to 7 people or 3-6 tons. According to NASA OIG estimates, the average cost of one seat on such a ship will be 55 million dollars.

Against the background of the "Union"


Since 2011, NASA has been sending astronauts to the ISS using Russian Soyuz spacecraft, and this practice will take place before the creation and commissioning of its own new developments. Over the past few years, the timing of abandonment of the Unions has been repeatedly shifted in accordance with the change of schedules for CCDev / CCtCap. In recent months, loud statements have been made again about the imminent abandonment of Russian technology, but the real situation looks different.

According to a recent report by the Office of the Inspector General, from 2006 to the present day, NASA has acquired 70 spaceships from Roscosmos. They spent 3,9 billion dollars on this. Places cost from 21 to 86 million with an average of 55 million dollars. Negotiations are underway to purchase two more seats in the coming period. The appearance of this order is openly associated with a breakdown in the deadlines of their own projects.

In March of this year, against the backdrop of American trials, the leadership of Roscosmos revealed its opinion on current events. In particular, it was argued that the cost of space on the Soyuz within 80 million dollars allows you to compete with foreign ships. In addition, US companies do not have the opportunity for dumping.


Launch of the Falcon 9 rocket with the Crew Dragon ship, 2 on March 2019. Photo by SpaceX / spacex.com

After the start of operation of Starliner and Crew Dragon products, Roscosmos plans to switch to barter. NASA will be able to reserve seats at the Soyuz in exchange for the Starliner and Dragon seats. Such cooperation may be carried out without taking into account the cost of services, but will remain mutually beneficial.

Waiting for the "Federation"


In the foreseeable future, the current “Unions” will be replaced by the promising manned ship “Federation” / “Eagle”. To date, part of the work on this topic has been completed. Last spring, the beginning of the construction of the first flight model was reported. Necessary research and testing is underway.

Due to objective difficulties, the work schedule was repeatedly adjusted. Unmanned flight tests were originally planned to be carried out in 2017. To date, they have been transferred to the 2023. After that, a flight with the crew will take place. By the end of the next decade, the organization of the first missions with a flyby of the moon is possible.


Dragon 2 on board the ISS. NASA Photos

The transport version of the "Federation" will be able to carry up to 2 tons of payload. A manned ship will be able to deliver to the ISS or to another target up to 4 people. The cost of space for an astronaut or a kilogram of cargo is still unknown.

Manned race


Thus, to date, a curious situation has developed in the field of manned space exploration. Only Russia in the person of Roscosmos has a spaceship that has long been in operation. The United States temporarily does not have such a technique, but is already working on a solution to this problem. Now the United States is in the position of catching up. Their projects started quite late, and in addition, they faced a lot of problems. As a result, the completion dates had to be postponed several times, and real samples are still missing.

However, the situation is changing, and next year Boeing and SpaceX will send people into orbit. In addition, advanced ideas are laid and implemented in their projects, due to which it is planned to ensure the growth of basic characteristics and create a foundation for the future. There is a risk that in the foreseeable future, Soyuz will already be lagging behind.


Models of the ship "Federation". Photo Roskosmos / roscosmos.ru

Including for this reason, we are creating a multi-purpose ship of the next generation. "Federation" will go into operation a few years after the American models and is likely to again provide an advantage over foreign partners.

It is important that now the competition between the ships is not only in terms of performance, but also in cost. Even older designs may have cost-effectiveness benefits. Data on the cost of space in the ships, cited by NASA OIG, emphasize the specifics of this confrontation.

In fact, in the field of manned space exploration there is a real race in which organizations and companies from several countries participate. While its participants are competing for orders from the space departments of their countries. According to various forecasts, in the future, the current developments can contribute to the development of space tourism. Who will be the winner of such a race is unknown. However, it is clear what the prize will be for the winner. And it is clearly worth the effort and investment.
Our news channels

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

175 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -3
    9 December 2019 06: 45
    "Union" will win, because the cost of the chair to the ISS is about $ 12 million. In addition, all Yankee QCs seem to be seriously oversized. Soyuz's capacity of 3 people is optimal. There is simply no need for large crews.
    1. -5
      9 December 2019 06: 56

      Including for this reason, we are creating a multi-purpose ship of the next generation. "Federation" will go into operation a few years after the American models and is likely to again provide an advantage over foreign partners.

      Billy's terms, deadlines. As if without NASA money, the alliance program would not bend.
      1. 0
        9 December 2019 07: 01
        These are fantasies without any foundation. feel
      2. -2
        9 December 2019 08: 20
        Quote: Civil
        No matter how NASA’s union program bends without money

        Just now, one clever person wrote here that money "for a chair" makes up about 4-5% of Roskosmos' revenues.

        If so (and I for some reason inclined to believe this person. I have, you know, the foundation), then - it will not bend. Do not worry Yes
        1. +10
          9 December 2019 09: 12
          Quote: Golovan Jack
          money "for an armchair" accounts for about 4-5% of Roscosmos' revenues.

          By "income" we mean budgetary financing.
          1. +2
            10 December 2019 00: 13
            Quote: Octopus
            By "income" we mean budgetary financing.

            Do you understand the concept of "budget financing" well? Looks like no.
            This is a specific accounting term, in this case not having any meaning in relation to what is happening. For example, schools, clinics, etc. receive budget financing.
            Roscosmos concludes contracts.
            1. +3
              10 December 2019 01: 22
              Quote: Mityai65
              Roscosmos concludes contracts.

              Do you really want to talk about what kind of contracts Roskosmos has?
              Quote: Mityai65
              For example, schools, clinics, etc. receive budget financing.

              Do they also call it "income"? In an accounting sense, it is, you are right.
              1. 0
                10 December 2019 01: 28
                Quote: Octopus
                Do you really want to talk about what kind of contracts Roskosmos has?

                Of course yes buddy laughing Enlighten. Moreover, I also have some petty relation to them.
                Quote: Octopus
                Do they also call it "income"?

                No. Are you going to engage in verbal balancing?
        2. +5
          9 December 2019 13: 32
          Quote: Golovan Jack
          Just now, one clever person wrote here that money "for a chair" makes up about 4-5% of Roskosmos' revenues.

          Yeah
          Revenues of Russia in space activities in 1991-2017 in the foreign market ($ million)

          The green cat meticulously calculated everything

          4, $ 247 (CARL $ 000 billion) for 000-00 = 4,247, on average $ 163 per year


          1 rubles for 251-8 = 00 years = 000 rubles
          I will divide by 33 rubles / $ (although this is funny for 2014-2015,2016 years)
          we will receive 3 161 000,00 $ per year !!! / am I not mistaken where? Check, please.

          Budget: 3 161 000,00 $ per year !!!
          manned income: $ 163 per year
          Yes Yes

          This is if the average count
          Quote: Golovan Jack
          one smart man wrote here that the money "for the chair" is about 4-5% in the revenues of Roscosmos

          Quote: Golovan Jack
          but for some reason I am inclined to believe this person

          I don’t believe something clever.
          as
          For 26 years, the Russian space industry has earned 8,4% of the annual turnover of the global commercial market in 2016 alone.
          In the period 2006-2015, the Federal Space Agency received about $ 25 billion under the Federal Space Program, and the Federal Target Programs for the Development of Cosmodromes and GLONASS. The contribution of the Ministry of Defense in open sources cannot be found, you can only try to evaluate by indirect indicators. For example, a comparison of the number of missile launches in the interests of civilian and military departments. Thus, from 2000 to 2016, 209 missiles were launched under civilian and manned programs, and 117 military ones (including GLONASS) during the same time. For comparison - 155 missiles for foreign orders. Accordingly, the distribution of civilian government spending on the Russian space program can be estimated at 2/3, and the military at 1/3. That is, in all, Roscosmos from the state in 2006-2015 received about $ 35 billion.

          Foreign contracts over the same time added another $ 12 billion, or 25% of all funds
          1. -4
            9 December 2019 13: 41
            Quote: opus
            opus

            Umm ... Anton, hi

            The man corrected the above, not in such detail, but in essence - the same thing:

            Quote: Octopus
            "Income" means budgetary funding

            I personally agreed with him. Pluseg set laughing
            1. +3
              9 December 2019 16: 02
              Quote: Golovan Jack
              The above man has corrected already

              Well, I'm sorry ... I didn’t read the whole branch, just 4-5% caught my eye ...

              Quote: Golovan Jack
              I personally agreed with him. Pluseg put

              yes it’s not a matter of + (I, too, plyusanul that would extinguish minus)
              I'm just sorry: there was such a carte blanche ...
              Such money (this is not oil / gas, but high technology, high surplus value)
              Booster rocket. Soyuz-FG

              978 187 4 rubles cost and 00 77 112 rubles profit (almost 600%) MONOPOLY
              And?
              "trampolines"? and the luxuriously renovated Energomash foyer, imported cars and expensive furniture in the cones' offices ..



              Russia's aerospace industry has grown in TWO
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                      1. The comment was deleted.
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                      3. The comment was deleted.
          2. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
          3. +1
            10 December 2019 15: 06
            Quote: opus
            1 rubles for 251-8 = 00 years = 000 rubles
            I will divide by 33 rubles / $ (although this is ridiculous for 2014-2015,2016)
            we will receive 3 161 000,00 $ per year !!! / am I not mistaken where? Check, please.


            So check it out. I always had 5 in arithmetic.
            If 104 billion rubles. divide by 33 3 with a small $ billion.
            And not 3 million .. $!

            Further...

            income from manned: 163 346 154, 00 $ per year

            Do you recognize the numbers? Correctly. Yours. About $ 163 million.

            Having mobilized knowledge of arithmetic for the 4th grade, we get that 163 million are 1 / 20th of 3 with not more than a billion., i.e. around 5%.

            ... I don’t believe something clever.


            But in vain. Would believe and would look smart themselves.

            Liberal, come on?
            1. -3
              10 December 2019 17: 43
              Quote: crashing
              I always had 5 in arithmetic.

              very well! Didn't pay for "5"
              and with brains how?
              Quote: crashing
              3 with a small billion. $.

              1. That's right, my jamb.
              2.It is not right there then adjust the 2014-2015 something around 78, 2016-about 65.
              what would be more precise here

              3. Do not forget that millions of dollars from manned are considered
              Quote: opus
              Russian revenues from space activities in 1991-2017
              = 26 years old
              а
              Quote: opus
              1 251 8 00 000 rub for 000,00-2016 = 2004 years


              Quote: crashing
              Further...

              then you are our mathematician, then enter the correction for years and courses
              \ and you will be glad
              Quote: crashing
              Would believe and would look smart themselves.

              I am far from you
              Quote: crashing
              Liberal, come on?

              1. For what purpose are you interested?
              2. Do you have any kind of illness?
              3. Okay, calm down: bp, was and is
              More questions?
              1. +3
                12 December 2019 15: 18
                Quote: opus
                Quote: crashing
                I always had 5 in arithmetic.

                very well! Didn't pay for "5"
                and with brains how?
                ...
                More questions?


                Yes, what questions can you have? You do not even know how to admit your mistakes with dignity.

                Screeching, insults ... What does the "dollar rate" have to do with it? I didn't write about him at all. You also don't really know how to read.

                I took "your numbers and your calculations". YOURS !!! Do you understand? And he clearly showed the level of your reasoning and conclusions. Oh, how it got you. To hysteria.

                And all because people like you think of themselves as "experts", but in fact ordinary "Internet magpies" who pull everything "shiny" from the network, without even understanding what it means. And without trying to comprehend. Just to stand out.
                But in fact, you don’t know arithmetic either, and write with errors.
                And the aggression is unmotivated.

                Liberal. As it is - a liberal. With all their complexes and reflection.
                1. -2
                  12 December 2019 15: 57
                  Quote: crashing
                  Squeal, insults ...

                  as always .. when there is no argument

                  Why does the interlocutor, who has nothing to say, become personal: like "Liberast"? Is it self-defense or stupidity? think or
                  Quote: crashing
                  You do not even know how to admit your mistakes with dignity.

                  ABOUT?
                  Quote: opus
                  1. That's right, my jamb.

                  I had to sprinkle ash on my head and apologize to Roar, personally? Yes.
                  Imagining himself as illiberal, Kolya would take it and write in a personal: here you have a mistake in the division correct. That's what everyone does
                  But the roar is not like that, it is illiberal.
                  Yes?
                  Quote: crashing
                  I took "your numbers and your calculations". YOURS !!! Do you understand?

                  Yes
                  Quote: crashing
                  I have arithmetic always 5 was.

                  1. I already painted about years
                  2. I already painted about courses
                  3.Tables are, even by years, flash 5th in mathematics, count, by years and together, taking into account years and courses and show 4-5%
                  Quote: crashing
                  And all because people like you think of themselves as "experts"

                  1. I do not mnu.
                  2. Here you are definitely an "expert" You do not need to crush anything: rumble

                  Quote: crashing
                  Liberal. As it is - a liberal. With all their complexes and reflection.

                  Butthurt, 100%
                  As a rule, a person suffering from a buttherth loses all abilities to control his actions and immediately begins to show his negativity in all available ways.

                  thank you
                  I hope no longer cross
        3. 0
          10 December 2019 00: 07
          Quote: Golovan Jack
          Just now, one clever person wrote here that money "for a chair" makes up about 4-5% of Roskosmos' revenues.

          This figure is approximately true.
    2. +7
      9 December 2019 08: 55
      Well, it means that Roskosmos themselves are Pinocchio, since such a business was killed. If such a low cost, the point was to lift the price to 90 million and force the US to develop an alternative? They would ask for 40 million and rejoice, and the United States would build their own Orion for flights to the moon. But no, greed ruined everything - as a result, we have three manned US programs that are already practically ready. Speaking of Orion, the author forgot to mention something in the article.
      1. 0
        9 December 2019 13: 31
        He did not mention Starship either.
        1. 0
          9 December 2019 21: 45
          The piloted Starship will not be soon yet - in the 2030th it may make a whole mountain of technical problems there: rescue the crew in the event of an accident on the ship during take-off and the flight itself, orientation systems, life support systems, Raptor vacuum rocket engines, this ship will need the most reliable and reliable landing system, and you also need to create and test a rocket that will launch this ship - more than sure in the end the design of the spacecraft and rockets will still have to be redone thoroughly.
    3. +1
      9 December 2019 13: 32
      Quote: Mityai65
      "Union" will win, because the cost of the chair to the ISS is about $ 12 million. In addition, all Yankee QCs seem to be seriously oversized. Soyuz's capacity of 3 people is optimal. There is simply no need for large crews.

      Alas, the time of the "Union" is already running out. Yes, while people fly to the ONLY space station, its capacity is at least enough, but at stake is the Moon and its colonization and the Soyuz is already archaic.

      And yet, and the author is aware that Russia no longer has the Federation spacecraft project, but the Eagle spacecraft? So, the ship has not yet been made, but has already been renamed ...
      1. +5
        9 December 2019 14: 11
        Quote: svp67
        Alas, the time of the "Union" is already running out.

        I do not agree that the Union is everything.
        Hello, let's judge. There was a VAZ 2105 at a price a little more than a stack, removed from production - made Kalina for half a lama. Have people been asked? How many people would buy a cheap car without all the bells and whistles, but a new and cheap one to operate? Pay, people - there are no more VAZ-fives.
        Union go cheaper Federation three times. They themselves know how to count their money there. And the Eagle will fly to the moon once five years, and to the low orbits - the good old three times modernized Union.
        1. -2
          9 December 2019 14: 18
          Quote: ugol2
          Union go cheaper Federation three times.

          Cheaper in what? Cheaper does not mean better and safer, and most importantly, more efficient. What is the autonomy of the Soyuz, how much "excess weight" does it carry, in the form of outdated design solutions, is it possible to get rid of them without a radical alteration of the structure itself, what overloads the crew experiences upon landing, how does all this limit the sending of people into space, after all to master the same moon, people of many specialties are required, and not all of them are of good health, capable of withstanding such overloads ..
          And you shouldn't be comparing the VAZ-2105 and the VAZ-1118, you are not embarrassed that they have so many different indices. These are cars of different classes. If you want to compare the VAZ-2105, compare it with the VAZ-21099, VAZ-2110. and lastly, when the VAZ-1118 "Kalina" was produced in Togliatti, on the second site of the VAZ, in Izhevsk, the VAZ-2105 was still stamped, everyone bought what he wanted.
          1. -1
            9 December 2019 23: 36
            Quote: svp67
            What is the autonomy of the "Union", how much "excess weight" does it carry?

            What are you talking about, svp67 (Sergey), my goodness!
            What kind of cars? Which VAZ-21099? laughing
            Is this a competent person talking about space technology?
            1. 0
              10 December 2019 03: 11
              Quote: Ezekiel
              Is this a competent person talking about space technology?

              No, there was just a conversation about the automotive technology of the Volga Automobile Plant, if you are capable and able to read the chain of comments
            2. 0
              15 December 2019 19: 07
              Oh God, "and these people forbid me to pick my nose" ...
              Is that what you CARE?
              That's where you are right now in my question
              Quote: Ezekiel
              Quote: svp67
              What is the autonomy of the "Union", how much "excess weight" does it carry?

              Made out
              Quote: Ezekiel
              Which VAZ-21099?

              You have something clearly with vision ....
              And for that matter, why do not you give my comment in this form
              Quote: svp67
              What is the autonomy of the Soyuz, how much "excess weight" does it carry, in the form of outdated design solutions, is it possible to get rid of them without a radical alteration of the design itself
              So at least it is clear what kind of "excess weight" I meant
        2. +3
          9 December 2019 16: 28
          Quote: ugol2
          Union go cheaper Federation three times.
          Those. the fact that the Federation / Eagle will fly 10 times more (reusable, if that) and carry more - does this not compensate for the difference in price?
      2. +6
        9 December 2019 17: 08
        Alas, the time of the "Union" is already running out. Yes, while people fly to the ONLY space station, its capacity is at least enough, but at stake is the Moon and its colonization and the Soyuz is already archaic.


        And where excuse me are Starliner and Crew Dragon 2 going to (!) Fly? Those. Do I understand correctly that a high-performance American business (two) got into a dead end project in advance?

        but at stake is the moon and its colonization and "Union" is already archaic.


        Before talking about archaism, I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the genealogy of the "Union". In particular, with projects 7K-L1 (11f91), 7K-LOK (11F93), LK (11F94) and give examples of similar programs based on Starliner and Crew Dragon 2. Rather, it is more appropriate to compare Soyuz and Orion.

        And yet, and the author is aware that Russia no longer has the Federation spacecraft project, but the Eagle spacecraft? So, the ship has not yet been made, but has already been renamed ...


        And America has a model of the "Orion" ship. And the program used to be called "Constellation", and now - "Artemis". We haven't yet flown anywhere, but have already been renamed. By the way, who will remember all the names of what is now called Starship?
        1. -4
          9 December 2019 17: 18
          Quote: ak1978
          Before talking about archaism, I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the genealogy of the "Union".

          How old are these projects? And even then they brought ONE cosmonaut to the surface of the moon. Is that what you are proposing to do now?
          1. +2
            9 December 2019 18: 27
            My comment is that there is no need to make unfounded statements and compare the warm with the soft. Regarding the question of which years the project. And what has fundamentally changed in space physics over the past 60 years?
            1. -3
              9 December 2019 18: 52
              Quote: ak1978
              And what has fundamentally changed in space physics over the past 60 years?

              Perhaps nothing, but human technologies have also changed, and forgive me to launch Soyuz in the lunar version, to deliver ONE person to the surface of the Moon ... it will be something ...
              1. +3
                9 December 2019 19: 32
                The size of the crew depends on the purpose of the mission. 2 people fit for the flag plug. In principle, it is possible without people at all (see AMC). I can’t find the goal of the Artemis program anywhere. T.J. I can not find any intelligible business projects for the exploration of the moon. Roughly speaking, the goals have not changed at all since 1869;)
                1. -4
                  9 December 2019 19: 47
                  Quote: ak1978
                  2 people fit for the flag plug.

                  But this is with the Americans, our "lunar" could only deliver there ONE ... but apparently the same with the flag and bust of Lenin
                  1. +5
                    9 December 2019 19: 54
                    See how much we have developed cybernetics and control systems. The co-pilot was not needed.
                    1. -3
                      9 December 2019 19: 56
                      Quote: ak1978
                      See how much we have developed cybernetics and control systems. The co-pilot was not needed.

                      Yeah, a sense of humor cannot be taken away from you. But since this is now very bad, including a sense of humor, it would not hurt to bring about six people to the moon at a time .... well, about all the tricks, you’ll also take understudies
                      1. +3
                        9 December 2019 20: 06
                        Yes, at least ten thousand (or how many ocean liners were transported there at the beginning of the 20th century). The key question is goal? Re-flagging as a way out of the domestic political and economic crisis = Artemis program? ... Creating a scientific base on the moon? Maybe ... But where is the commercial interest? Example: People did not build caravels for the sake of caravels. People built caravels to sail to India. Those. first there was the economy of spices - then caravels. Caravel might not exist at all if the land route to India remained open to Western Europe.
                      2. -3
                        9 December 2019 21: 25
                        Quote: ak1978
                        Those. first there was the economy of spices - then caravels.

                        I understood you. But what they are planning to create is the Eagle, it is more of a reconnaissance sloop, and it is better than the Soyuz boat. So, the goal is to find "spices"
                      3. +3
                        9 December 2019 21: 36
                        Thank you for understanding. As a gateway for searching for spice, I would recommend building an analogue of Curiosity. There is almost no signal delay. That would be where the whole newfangled VR would be useful. Yes, and AI can be pumped. The future of space belongs to robots. Man in space has always been and will remain a stranger.
                      4. -3
                        9 December 2019 21: 44
                        Quote: ak1978
                        Man in space has always been and will remain a stranger.

                        No, we are a creature of the cosmos, and therefore we cannot be a stranger to him
                      5. The comment was deleted.
                      6. The comment was deleted.
                      7. The comment was deleted.
        2. 0
          9 December 2019 21: 49
          They will fly to the ISS in orbit, and in the future to the Lunar Station, Russia and China may have their own separate orbital stations in Earth orbit - after the closure of the ISS.
      3. 0
        9 December 2019 23: 39
        Quote: svp67
        So, the ship has not yet been made, but has already been renamed ...

        Mr. site moderator, are you out of your mind to make such comments?
        1. -1
          10 December 2019 03: 15
          Quote: Ezekiel
          Mr. site moderator, are you out of your mind to make such comments?

          Excuse me, WHERE ARE YOU SEEING A NOTE?
          It is simply a statement of fact.
      4. 0
        10 December 2019 00: 31
        Quote: svp67
        but the time of the "Union" is already running out.

        Why? Are there any arguments? Or are we talking in slogans? I affirm that the Soyuz is quite ideal for the tasks that exist now, for the current and future passenger traffic into orbit.
        Quote: svp67
        people fly to the ONLY space station

        The ONLY it will remain for the next 100 years for sure. Unless of course, it will be possible to resolve political issues with China, the United States and India. In the present the moment, the only states that firmly adhere to the principles of international cooperation in space are Russia and S. Korea.
        Quote: svp67
        the moon and its colonization are at stake

        Very strange statements. The typical composition of the expedition to the moon is 3 people, this is the crew of the Union.
        An accident? “I don't think so!” fellow
        Regarding "colonization" - the Moon is a dusty, radioactive piece of basalt, covered with regolith, with no minerals and nothing at all interesting to study if you are not a robot ...
        The moon is interesting to scientists, but for colonization ... brr ..
        Better colonize your Izhevsk staircase, there will be more sense.
        Quote: svp67
        And yet, and the author is aware that Russia no longer has the Federation spacecraft project, but the Eagle spacecraft? So, the ship has not yet been made, but has already been renamed

        And what makes you so angry here?
        Merete explain?
        1. -1
          10 December 2019 03: 18
          Quote: Mityai65
          The moon is interesting to scientists, but for colonization ... brr ..

          Unfortunately, but not only to them. You somehow discount the military-applied value of the moon
          Quote: Mityai65
          And what makes you so angry here?

          Excuse me, but where do you see that something EXCITS me here, just a statement of the fact that this project already has a different name and in order not to get confused, it's time to get used to it and call it by your name
          Quote: Mityai65
          The ONLY it will remain for the next 100 years for sure.

          Are you sure that the ISS or our segments will live so much? You are a BIG optimist
    4. +1
      9 December 2019 16: 25
      Quote: Mityai65
      "Union" will win, because the cost of the chair to the ISS is about $ 12 million.
      The union costs 80 M $, the training program is also some kind of money ... exactly 12 M $? In the prices of the 70s?
      Or from $ 30 M?

      Quote: Mityai65
      Also, it looks like all QC Yankees are seriously oversized
      This is in whose immodest opinion?

      Quote: Mityai65
      The Soyuz capacity of 3 people is optimal.
      Three of them were pushed into it with great difficulty, the average - no more than 190 cm, the side - less. You will no longer be able to shove, even if you cut your toenails ...

      Quote: Mityai65
      There is simply no need for large crews.
      In large crews where? To the MIR station? So it has long been in the Pacific Ocean, if you, after defrosting, did not read all the news.
      3 people are enough on the ISS, and for the next (the Moon, Mars, ...) - 4-7 will not be enough.
      1. +1
        10 December 2019 00: 59
        Quote: Simargl
        The union costs 80 M $, the training program is also some kind of money ... exactly 12 M $? In the prices of the 70s?
        Or from $ 30 M?

        I gave the price for the summer of 19. These are operating expenses for LV, spacecraft, logistics, refueling and launch.
        Total: 36 mln.n $.
        Quote: Simargl
        This is in whose immodest opinion?

        In my opinion. I'm a space visionary - minimalist laughing
        The passenger flow into orbit in the next 15-20 years will be no more than 36 people. in year. This is the maximum - the extreme! Well, just do not need more, even with the condition of flights to the moon, high orbits, lagrange points, operations on the assembly of interplanetary spacecraft, disassembly of satellites on the ISS slipway, etc. Total: 1 Union per month.
        So the assembly slipways of NPO Energia and the Baikonur launch sites are designed for 1 start per week, for a total of 48 starts, or 144 people. in year. But that is a lot. While there is no work for them.
        Quote: Simargl
        Three were shoved there with great difficulty, the average - no more than 190 cm

        Well, I fit in. Go to Mars, shorties! lol
        Quote: Simargl
        In large crews where? To the MIR station?

        Sarcasm is incomprehensible.
        All flights to the moon are designed for 3 people. And that is reasonable.
        We have: 3 people to the ISS in the Union, but from the ISS to the moon’s orbit (fuel depot) on another ship, without a SA, a purely atmospheric flyer, also 3 people. Further, from the orbit of the moon to the surface of the moon there are also 3 people.
        I assure you, all the logistics with us and the Yankees are designed for 3 people.
        I do not consider flights to Mars due to the complete senselessness of the event at this stage.
        But TEMs do it, so not everything is lost ...
        In any case, a generation has already been born whose representatives will die on Mars ... I hope this will cheer you up laughing
        1. +2
          10 December 2019 01: 45
          Quote: Mityai65
          I gave the price for the summer of 19. These are operating expenses for LV, spacecraft, logistics, refueling and launch.
          And, of course ... truth, the Union is not only a rocket, but also people, a ship ...

          Quote: Mityai65
          The passenger flow into orbit in the next 15-20 years will be no more than 36 people. in year.
          For Russia - a lot, for the world (this is without the Chinese and Indians) - not enough ...

          Quote: Mityai65
          Well, just do not need more, even with the condition of flights to the moon
          Within 10 years the ISS will be closed, I think. Flying to the moon in the Apollo mode is nonsense: you need to master it, but there is still nothing that cannot be obtained on Earth and cheaper (ITER was not launched, helium-3 in large volumes is not needed).

          Quote: Mityai65
          high orbits, Lagrange points, operations on the assembly of interplanetary spacecraft, disassembly of satellites on the ISS stocks, etc. Total: 1 Union per month.
          The Union will not pull 3 people into high orbits ...

          Quote: Mityai65
          All flights to the moon are designed for 3 people. And that is reasonable.
          Watching for what. Fossil g-3 mine - there are hundreds of gaster you need. There are no tasks for the Moon yet (or are tourists upholstering the rapids - let them trample the Moon?).

          Quote: Mityai65
          We have: 3 people to the ISS in the Union, but from the ISS to the moon’s orbit (fuel depot) on another ship, without a SA, a purely atmospheric flyer, also 3 people. Further, from the orbit of the moon to the surface of the moon there are also 3 people.
          Some kind of tourist option.
          In the fuel depot, the meaning of more than two people does not.
          They planned to build a lunar station in the orbit of the moon - no?
          On the lunar OS will not leave anyone? Clean machine?
          In any case, it all depends on the tasks ...

          Quote: Mityai65
          I do not consider flights to Mars due to the complete senselessness of the event at this stage.
          It must be sprinkled with bacteria and seeds to sit on a flowering garden.

          Quote: Mityai65
          In any case, a generation has already been born whose representatives will die on Mars ... I hope this will cheer you up
          No, I will not live to see ... probably ... laughing
          1. +2
            10 December 2019 02: 28
            Quote: Simargl
            For Russia - a lot, for the world (this is without the Chinese and Indians) - not enough ...

            Hmm .. so there should be half of us ... In orbit, of course, and generally in all satisfying places ... laughing
            Quote: Simargl
            For 10 years, the ISS has collapsed, I think.

            I hope not. ISS gives a lot. We have not yet begun assembling ships in orbit, and this technology will exclude the use of super heavy pH, and super expensive. Generally, increase flexibility.
            Quote: Simargl
            Flying to the moon in the Apollo mode is nonsense: you need to master it, but there is still nothing that cannot be obtained on Earth and cheaper (ITER was not launched, helium-3 in large volumes is not needed).

            There is a gorgeous scientific program, as far as I remember, well-designed by NPO Energia - deep drilling in the polar regions of the moon. This is very interesting from a scientific point of view, in terms of knowledge about the formation of the ultimate system. But, alas, there is no commerce there ...
            Quote: Simargl
            The Union will not pull 3 people into high orbits ...

            Of course not. Union transport to the ISS. From the ISS to the moon and in high orbits, this is another ship, without an SA, not the Union. Therefore, when politicians say that the Eagle / Federation is a ship for the moon, they are cunning.
            Quote: Simargl
            Fossil g-3 mine - there are hundreds of gaster you need.

            How do you imagine that? laughing Gastars ... I used to draw something like a skating rink and a grader, on a tip from the MIPT lads fool
            Yes, and He-3 can be found on earth, as they say, in natural gas fields.
            Quote: Simargl
            In the fuel depot, the meaning of more than two people does not.
            They planned to build a lunar station in the orbit of the moon - no?
            On the lunar OS will not leave anyone? Clean machine?
            In any case, it all depends on the tasks ...

            The fuel depot in the orbit of the moon is purely automatic. A person cannot be there - radiation. The ISS rotates under radiation belts, the moon does not have such.
            Station and orbit the moon is some kind of strange idea of ​​the Yankees. For me, it is not needed, you need a fuel depot to refuel the landing shuttles to the moon and to the earth.
            Something like this...
            1. +2
              10 December 2019 04: 34
              Quote: Mityai65
              Hmm .. so there should be half of us ... In orbit, of course, and generally in all satisfying places ...
              At least half, especially in satisfying places drinks

              Quote: Mityai65
              We have not yet begun assembling ships in orbit
              Actually constantly: Progress as a propulsion system for a contraption for 400 tons. Yes, for minutes and not far, but ...

              Quote: Mityai65
              and this technology will exclude the use of super heavy pH, and super expensive.
              Reduces the need for super-heavy, but does not exclude. And in general: I hope I will see the use of a hybrid. How is he there? Rocket rocket ?.

              Quote: Mityai65
              But, alas, there is no commerce there ...
              Without commerce, yes, the crowds have nothing to do there. All hope for G-3 wassat

              Quote: Mityai65
              Therefore, when politicians say that the Eagle / Federation is a ship for the moon, they are cunning.
              Why? With a normal launch vehicle - without a transfer to the orbiting lunar station - it is the most (at the first stage, while there is no commerce) ...

              Quote: Mityai65
              How do you imagine that? Gastar ...
              How, how ... shovels, cars ... laughing
              Mining PI is a lot of equipment that needs to be serviced.

              Quote: Mityai65
              Yes, and He-3 can be found on earth, as they say, in natural gas fields
              Problem: it is so small that they extract as much as there is enough for research. ToKaMaKu its annual output per hour of work.

              Quote: Mityai65
              A person cannot be there - radiation.
              And did Van Allen bite you? These belts do not reach the moon.

              Quote: Mityai65
              For me, it is not needed, you need a fuel depot to refuel the landing shuttles to the moon and to the earth.
              Something like this...
              Somehow it’s not so: there are two main options for flying to the Moon and back - fast (as Apollo flew and slow, with fuel economy (or overload). For people, you can use the fast method, for cargoes it is economical (with TEM, probably) .
  2. +6
    9 December 2019 06: 52
    However, such plans may seem overly optimistic for now.
    I wouldn't be so sure. I remember that in the early 00s there was a joke (slightly altered from a well-known expression) that the Chinese would have a normal car industry when Russia won the World Cup. Well, the Chinese already have an auto industry. Quite decent. And we not only did not become champions in football, but we are already completely inferior to the Chinese in terms of our own auto industry. So the Americans will soon begin to overtake us in manned astronautics, as soon as our "effective" ones are marking time and tongue scratching.
    1. 0
      10 December 2019 01: 05
      Quote: Dalny V
      So I would not be so sure

      You dishonor the Far East with your dibious jokes.
      I speak as a native Khabarovsk citizen in the 5th generation.
      1. 0
        10 December 2019 01: 23
        And what, the fifth generation gives you the right to call my words moronic? But jokes in my post do not even smell - pure truth. If there is anything to challenge, speak in essence, and do not go on insults.
        I speak as a native Far East in the 5th generation.
        1. 0
          10 December 2019 01: 30
          Quote: Dalny V
          speak essentially

          Jokes are dumb at you you, and not funny.
          1. 0
            10 December 2019 01: 41
            That is, essentially nothing to say. Clearly. Dosvidos.
  3. +6
    9 December 2019 07: 23
    Manned race: US projects against the Russian "Union"

    That's straight, straight, AGAINST? They just do their own and they have no other goals ... THE CREATORS - CREATORS!
    Everything else is verbal husk from politicians and zealous "journalists"!
    1. 0
      9 December 2019 07: 33
      unions flew even when the shuttle flew, diversification, and nothing more
      1. +4
        9 December 2019 08: 10
        Normal rocket UNION. For about earthly affairs, it is enough, especially the price-quality-reliability ratio, everything has been tested for a long time and is considered optimal.
        It’s just that the Yankees are doing YOURSELF, since they are a great cosmic power, they are making you - a hedgehog - are showing off, although the economic factor can play.
        We'll see.
        1. +1
          9 December 2019 08: 15
          Quote: rocket757
          Normal rocket UNION. For about earthly affairs, it is enough, especially the price-quality-reliability ratio, everything has been tested for a long time and is considered optimal.
          It’s just that the Yankees are doing YOURSELF, since they are a great cosmic power, they are making you - a hedgehog - are showing off, although the economic factor can play.
          We'll see.

          well, why immediately they show off, NASA simply develops America’s space sector with such programs, gives grants to companies so that more companies begin to work in space and eventually build a space economy, I think Roscosmos would also be nice to help other Russian companies, but Roscosmos is not an organization like NASA, and the corporation therefore competitors will only interfere with it, take orders
          1. +2
            9 December 2019 08: 23
            Quote: crap scratch
            Well, why immediately show off, just NASA with the help of such programs is developing the space sector

            There is still an element of showing off! This is not unambiguously bad, it’s just that ... making a space pen when you just have a pencil, it’s of course moving space technology, but is it worth it to go in cycles and then praise an insignificant achievement, like ACHIEVEMENT!
            Although, everything is new, in the end, technology moves and makes it possible to take another step in space exploration!
          2. +3
            9 December 2019 12: 51
            It seems to me that when the Americans start up their delivery system to orbit, they will begin to come up with pretexts for sanctions against Roscosmos and thus drive the rest to their Dragons.
            1. +2
              9 December 2019 13: 24
              Quote: Andrew NM
              It seems to me that when the Americans start their delivery system to orbit, they will begin to come up with pretexts for sanctions against Roscosmos.

              Certainly.
              But not "when", but "if"
          3. 0
            9 December 2019 18: 35
            gives grants to companies so that more and more companies begin to engage in space and eventually build space economy


            What? !!! But what about free competition and the invisible hand of the market that should form this economy itself?
            1. -4
              10 December 2019 03: 00
              Well, so free competition appears when there is some groundwork, and state assistance is not always bad, and the free hand of the market (a stupid name but as you said so) is the distribution of benefits that occurs due to competition and the buyer chooses only the best for its price
              1. +1
                10 December 2019 06: 57
                I will paraphrase with your permission: "The Americans - state regulation, the rest - liberalism!"
                1. -3
                  10 December 2019 08: 28
                  Quote: ak1978
                  I will paraphrase with your permission: "The Americans - state regulation, the rest - liberalism!"

                  for some reason, a large proportion of their workers are non-state (approximately 88 percent)
                  1. 0
                    10 December 2019 17: 13
                    Well it's called "contractors". In fact, they are day laborers. Firms of course save on social services, but the collapse of the labor system is complete. The people are eager to snatch at a time as much as possible, regardless of the consequences. The influence of this on the quality of production is very sad ...
        2. +5
          9 December 2019 09: 34
          Well, there are complaints to the Union (not the launch vehicle, but the spacecraft), for example:
          - 2 crew members, 1 manages the ship with the Americans, all the rest can be tourists, scientists with a minimum emergency training course. The Union needs to prepare 2 people in a full cycle (a place for a tourist / scientist is only 1).
          - Small internal volumes. This is not only crowded, but also significant limitations. Starliner, for example, is planning a mission for 4 people, Dragon has 7, but will be certified for 4 for the ISS. There remains a large amount for taking any perishable (living) with you / returning it from the ISS. More variability, always a plus.
          1. +1
            9 December 2019 10: 07
            Quote: donavi49
            Well, there are complaints to the Union (not the launch vehicle, but the spacecraft), for example:

            Not perfect, but it works until ... until "order in the troops will not be restored"!
            The problems there are systemic, so let it work what works! to break not for long, and then what, trampolines?
          2. -4
            9 December 2019 10: 17
            Quote: donavi49
            Well, there are complaints to the Union (not the launch vehicle, but the spacecraft), for example:

            - Small internal volumes. This is not only crowded, but also significant limitations.

            Dozens of times even here it was discussed with numbers and calculations:
            The Union is more spacious than stupid barrels Crew Dragon and Starliner !!
            It has the correct layout with OO (orbital compartment).
            But the shameless nasa propagandist who has repeatedly participated in these discussions is still stupidly oppressing the "party line".

            And what a "significant limitation." from the Union?
            No toilet maybe?
            HA!
            On the contrary, the union has a toilet, but new barrels do not!
            In fastening diapers will fly to the stars.
            1. -3
              9 December 2019 14: 31
              So these devices will never fly to the stars. Musk did the projects of the lunar deliveryman on Gateway there - but he was given to understand that the contracts were distributed and they did not see him in the program. Therefore, even Musk is everything.

              Both ships are made for a specific program - Commercial Crew Transportation. This is an analogue of the program Commercial Resupply Services (and its second version of Commercial Resupply Services 2).

              The first program seems to guarantee each company (Boeing and SpaceX) - 6 ordered manned flights to the ISS (but maybe more, as it happened with CRS). Then there will be 2 program (by the way, they still hope to get Lockheed / Sierra Nevada with the Dreamchaser).

              To the stars - robots will fly.

              To the moon of Orion. Which slows down a bit, but also approaches the final stage. Again, the Eagle (Federation) is closer to Orion. According to the terms announced by Orion, the first manned flight (Artemis 2) is earlier than that of the Eagle unmanned zero test.
              1. -2
                9 December 2019 14: 47
                Quote: donavi49
                So these devices will never fly to the stars.

                What a naive mechanical bounce?
                The mention of the stars was a reference to the absolutely stupid name of theirs astronauts - "astronaut" - which means a star-navigator,
                taken from the operetta fiction of the 30s.
                And it is in perfect harmony with the need to fly in diapers - this is such a brace in astronauts.


                Your further "water" has nothing to do with the subject of discussion (my thesis - the Union is better than Starlay and Cru Dragon) has nothing.
                You poured it for "solidity"?
                But it turned out the other way around - it became clear that on the subject of discussion you have nothing to argue with.
          3. +2
            10 December 2019 01: 16
            Quote: donavi49
            2 crew members, 1 manages the ship with the Americans, all the rest can be tourists, scientists with a minimum emergency training course. The Union must prepare for a full cycle of 2 people (a place for a tourist / scientist only

            Where did you get this?
            Why can’t you just study the issue on the Internet before blundering anyhow?
            Examine the question: The union is controlled by 1 person, the commander of the ship, in the central chair. So the Union of spacecraft automatic, start, interorbital flight and docking are automatic.
            It will not be possible to fly into space as a passenger soon. Basic training of a "passenger" takes 3 months. The commander of the ship, the Yankees offered, 8 months. bully
            Quote: donavi49
            Small internal volumes.

            You at least go to the Internet and find out the "internal volume" of the household compartment + descent (BO + CA) wassat
        3. 0
          9 December 2019 10: 00
          Quote: rocket757
          Just the Yankees do their own, because they are a great cosmic power

          No.

          If you didn’t notice, trampolines destroyed almost the entire Russian cosmonautics, except for the manned one. And then there was an emergency launch recently, and before that there was a hole in Progress, which, according to Rogozhin, was traced by an American astronaut to hang a portrait of Trump. So when they kill the astronauts - a matter of time. If there is no alternative ship at this point, the ISS will be drowned. Since letaka is expensive, questions may arise from NASA. When it came to NASA, there was a recovery.
          1. +1
            9 December 2019 10: 09
            Quote: Octopus
            So when they kill the astronauts - a matter of time.

            Extreme variant ... boom to hope that the order in the troops will restore everything.
          2. -1
            9 December 2019 11: 39
            before that is a hole in Progress

            the hole was in the Union
            but she suddenly became secret
            1. -2
              9 December 2019 11: 54
              Quote: Avior
              the hole was in the Union

              Better.
              Blundered, you're right.
        4. 0
          9 December 2019 13: 03
          The key word in your comment is "DO". And they did it in principle. It remains to bring to mind.
          Moreover, they did it in record short time.
          And what has Russia done during this time? The answer is NEVER!
          We only operate a product based on the royal seven. The product comes from the last century.
          Therefore, raising the question of who will win the manned race is generally wrong. This is clear today.
          Such a question as the comfort of a ship is generally not worth raising. Compare Lada with gelding - Moveton.
          1. +2
            9 December 2019 23: 29
            Quote: Neznaika
            Moreover, they did it in record short time.

            Here you are wrong. The partners since the 11th year have passed much more time than from the satellite to Glenn and even from Glenn to Armstrong.

            They really have problems, but not of a technical nature.
        5. +2
          10 December 2019 00: 32
          Quote: rocket757
          Normal rocket UNION.
          The rocket is normal. But the ship is too small: even the Chinese did a little more by copying.
    2. +2
      9 December 2019 08: 10
      Quote: rocket757
      Manned race: US projects against the Russian "Union"

      That's straight, straight, AGAINST?
      Yes, what kind of "against" there?))) Here, again, on the 20th, with the help of RD-180, the first Starliner will be dragged to the ISS.)
      1. +2
        9 December 2019 09: 28
        However, this will be the last burden for the RD-180 in the future.

        Atlas launches have contracted from 8 in 2016 to 1 (2 in your picture) in 2019.

        At the same time, the ULA is making a family to replace the Atlas (and Deltas) in the cargo version - Volcano-Centaurus. There, of course, the work is not Stakhanov’s (ULA does not like to rush at all - because lobbying allows it to sell DeltaHavy for 460-480mln apiece to the native state, why cut such a cow). But the rocket is already in active development, and the engine is at the final bench tests (they have already made maximum thrust for the standard operating time in August).
        1. +1
          9 December 2019 09: 34
          So I don’t mind.) I simply stated a fact, nothing more. hi
  4. +1
    9 December 2019 07: 27
    There is no question of reusability of at least descent vehicles, it seems ... But I do not follow the situation, I could be wrong.
    1. -1
      9 December 2019 07: 42
      Yes, there were a lot of projects, a lot but almost all were closed, the remaining ones look unrealistic
    2. +1
      9 December 2019 08: 37
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      It’s not about reusability of at least descent vehicles, it seems ...
      Just the same.) Now, after the shuttle flights, the reusability of the spacecraft is practically a global trend. At the first stage (and we are, exactly, now on it), literally all new ships (capsules) will be at least partially reusable. "Dragon", "Starliner", "Orion" and "Eagle" are among them.
      1. +3
        9 December 2019 08: 53
        Yes, I quickly ran through the search, the descent part should be reusable.
        1. +1
          9 December 2019 09: 04
          The crew module (capsule) of new ships is almost all reusable. The only disposable element in its composition is a thermal protection shield.
          1. -2
            9 December 2019 10: 07
            Quote: Herrr
            The crew module (capsule) of new ships is almost all reusable. The only disposable element in its composition is a thermal protection shield.

            What are the tales for girls with unicorns?
            What else, in a mortar, reusability ??
            NASA strongly demanded that the ship was new.
            No BU !!!
          2. +1
            10 December 2019 00: 58
            Since after the Shuttles only Dragon-1 is reusable, let's look at the statistics.
            So https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Dragon#Dragon_CRS.

            * C106 - 21 September 2014 - 3 June 2017 - 5 December 2019
            * C108 - April 14, 2015 - December 15, 2017 - July 24, 2019
            * C110 - April 8, 2016 - April 2, 2018
            * C111 - 18 July 2016 - 29 June 2018
            * C112 - February 19, 2017 - December 5, 2018
            * C113 - 14 August 2017 - 4 May 2019

            As you can see with the naked eye, between the reuse of 2-2.5-3 years. Isks them that keep in the barn all this time? :)
            1. +1
              10 December 2019 04: 27
              Here are the statistics for Falcon-9 Block 5 - the active fleet of the first stages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_boosters. The following is interesting. The first reuse after about 2-3 months. The second - already in the region of 6. Further may be longer (~ 1 year). There is a fact that the claimed 10 without a bulkhead and 100 from flights is somewhat optimistic. Well, or there is simply no demand - Starlink pigs will be fired to show the appearance of super-employment.
            2. -3
              10 December 2019 13: 41
              Quote: ak1978
              Since after the Shuttles only Dragon-1 is reusable, let's look at the statistics.
              So https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Dragon#Dragon_CRS.

              * C106 - 21 September 2014 - 3 June 2017 - 5 December 2019
              * C108 - April 14, 2015 - December 15, 2017 - July 24, 2019
              * C110 - April 8, 2016 - April 2, 2018
              * C111 - 18 July 2016 - 29 June 2018
              * C112 - February 19, 2017 - December 5, 2018
              * C113 - 14 August 2017 - 4 May 2019

              As you can see with the naked eye, between the reuse of 2-2.5-3 years. Isks them that keep in the barn all this time? :)

              Yes, just reworking it for reuse is comparable in laboriousness to making a new one - hence such long periods of time.
              The meaning of missile "reusability" is only in PR - for naive ordinary people with their everyday experience.
        2. 0
          9 December 2019 10: 09
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Yes, I quickly ran through the search, the descent part should be reusable.

          not "should be", but advertised for the naive public that it would be "reusable".
          In fact, there will be no "reusability" - NASA is sharply opposed to the boom.
          1. +2
            9 December 2019 10: 48
            Is NASA the customer of the Federation-Eagle? Roskosmos seems to be.
            1. 0
              9 December 2019 13: 17
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Is NASA the customer of the Federation-Eagle? Roskosmos seems to be.

              But was it just about the eagle?
              and generally the unnecessary eagle in discussion
              1. +4
                9 December 2019 14: 20
                Actually, you answered MY comment, and it was about the reusability of the domestic ship.
                1. -6
                  9 December 2019 15: 01
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  Actually, you answered MY comment, and it was about the reusability of the domestic ship.

                  There was no such thing - show a quote where it was in your post about the federation and only about it.
                  Maybe you spoke inside yourself, but you did not indicate this in the text?
                  1. +4
                    9 December 2019 15: 06
                    Quote: Herrr
                    "Eagle" is one of them.

                    In my comment, perhaps not
                    Quote: Lontus
                    and generally the unnecessary eagle in discussion

                    But "Eagle" was mentioned, and it was also about him.
                    1. -6
                      9 December 2019 15: 14
                      it was about the "reusability" of American barrels.
                      Therefore, I mentioned that NASA is against Bushes.

                      The fact that someone dragged for something in a common heap and a paper eagle. does not at all negate the accuracy and correctness of my remark that the PR "reusability" of Starlai and Krudragon will remain only in virtual and promises for gullible ordinary people.
                      Therefore, your objection was not the topic.
                      1. +4
                        9 December 2019 15: 19
                        Once again, I remind you that you responded to MY comment, and "Eagle" was mentioned BEFORE you added your very accurate and terribly correct comment. Run your eyes from the bottom up from this comment if in doubt.
                      2. -4
                        9 December 2019 15: 26
                        There was NO eagle in your comment.
                        In that comment to which you replied, he was only mentioned to the heap.
                        read and think
                      3. +4
                        9 December 2019 15: 32
                        Quote: Lontus
                        and generally the unnecessary eagle in discussion

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        In my comment, perhaps not

                        Quote: Herrr
                        "Dragon", "Starliner", "Orion" and "Eagle" are among them.

                        I understand that you are not a reader, but a writer, perhaps a great one, but develop your eyes.
      2. bar
        0
        9 December 2019 09: 15
        reusability of spacecraft is almost a global trend.

        Trend is such a trend ... Would you tell honestly what percentage of "hardware" is reused, and at what price is this "trend" provided?
        1. +3
          9 December 2019 09: 31
          The Dragon has the highest percentage of crew module reuse. Even the CAC is kept there. On all new ships, thermal protection is disposable.
          Quote: bar
          and at what cost is this "trend" provided?
          If you mean the risk when using this or that capsule, then here I am, apparently, a complete retrograde, tk. The "classic" spacecraft layout from Boeing seems to me to be safer compared to that from SpaceX. The latter is inherently revolutionary, but I personally would not like to sit surrounded by fuel and engines.)
          1. bar
            +2
            9 December 2019 09: 45
            and at what cost is this "trend" provided?
            If you mean the risk when using this or that capsule

            I mean exactly the price, in money. All this reusable "hardware" after flight, in which it is subjected to various thermal, mechanical, and other stresses, requires serious testing and, possibly, restoration and repair. All this costs money. Again, the safety margins (and, accordingly, weight) incorporated into the design to ensure "reusability" also require additional costs for their transportation "back and forth." Someone considered all this "savings" compared to disposable designs? Maybe there is none at all, but there is only a "trend"?
            1. +1
              9 December 2019 11: 58
              "Someone considered all this" savings "compared to disposable constructs?" ////
              ----
              Even as they thought! And safety margins, and the cost of inter-flight maintenance, and the cost of transportation.
              Musk is building a spaceport, where the distance from the launch and landing of the first stage will be minimal.
              So far, the estimated cost of launching a Falcon-9 with a used 1st stage reaches $ 25 million. Customer pays 53 million.
              But they plan to reduce the cost by another 5-10 million.
              1. bar
                0
                9 December 2019 12: 05
                And do you seriously believe Musk's "calculations"?
                1. +3
                  9 December 2019 12: 08
                  Everyone believes in his calculations. Because everyone started copying his landing system. Both the Chinese and other American firms. The Grasshopper Legs Landing Method is becoming the standard in rocketry.
                  Copy to dramatically reduce the cost of starting and earn more.
                  1. bar
                    -3
                    9 December 2019 12: 23
                    Everyone believes his calculations.

                    So I would not be so categorical. Believe those who before that were, like Musk himself, far from the space theme. They are copied in order to "be in trend". And Musk is a great specialist in trend creation and PR. But practice shows that many of his "calculations" are overly optimistic, to put it mildly.
                  2. 0
                    9 December 2019 13: 30
                    Quote: voyaka uh
                    Everyone believes his calculations.

                    Let's just say - according to verified information delivered by modest and reliable people who do not like excessive excitement, NASA is in a slight panic from the prospect of using Crew Dragon. Especially after the April 20 explosion, where there is suspicion of a water hammer. And he will do everything to defeat the Boeing. Crew Dragon is sure to slow down. They will find a way - a hole in Soza shows that nothing will stop them am
                    1. +1
                      9 December 2019 13: 40
                      "NASA is slightly panicked at the prospect of using Crew Dragon" ////
                      ----
                      I believe in that. Musk drives Boeing out of space. And Boeing and NASA are friends forever.
                      The cost of launching the future Boeing heavyweight will be 20 times higher than that of the heavyweight Mask, who has flown three times already. And Musk through the court will be able to defeat the Boeing, if in a tender NASA will cheat. Musk has already won a trial at the Pentagon, where they tried not to let him in for military launches.
                      Beginners are always hard!
                      1. -2
                        9 December 2019 17: 17
                        And who said Max is a newbie? He just works from another military department. Everything is fine with him there.

                        So far, the estimated cost of launching a Falcon-9 with a used 1st stage reaches $ 25 million. Customer pays 53 million.
                        But they plan to reduce the cost by another 5-10 million.


                        He has already announced $ 2M. Question to Musk: "What is the launch price?" Answer: "Any!" Caps in the air.

                        Because everyone started to copy his landing system. Both the Chinese and other American firms. Grasshopper Legs Landing on Own Exhaust Becomes the Rocketry Standard


                        Concrete live projects except Blue Origin (I haven’t flown anywhere yet) to the studio!
                  3. +2
                    9 December 2019 18: 28
                    Quote: voyaka uh
                    Because, everyone began to copy his landing system.

                    Back in 1985, we were working on the Zarya reusable spacecraft (product 14F70). The landing of the Zarya was to take place using reusable liquid propellant rocket engines. That is, another question is who copies from whom.


                    http://www.buran.ru/htm/zarya.htm
                    By the way, "Zarya":
                    The Zarya spacecraft had a diameter of 4,1 m, a length of 5 m, a maximum mass of about 15 tons when launched into a reference orbit with an altitude of 190 km and an inclination of 51,6 degrees, including the mass of delivered and returned cargoes, respectively, 2,5 tons and 1,5 , 2-3 tons with a crew of two cosmonauts; 2 tons and 2,5-XNUMX tons when flying without a crew, or a crew of up to eight cosmonauts.
                    It was to be launched into orbit using the Zenit launch vehicle.
              2. +2
                10 December 2019 01: 23
                Quote: voyaka uh
                "Someone considered all this" savings "compared to disposable constructs?" ////
                ----
                Even as they thought! And safety margins, and the cost of inter-flight maintenance, and the cost of transportation.

                Dear general with three stars (general - senior warrant officer ??)
                What are you doing? recourse
                And where to see these calculations? SpaceX hides them, does not reveal the contents of operations, nor their cost.
                This is the most interesting, by the way. But alas, while the fog of war is around ...
                1. +3
                  10 December 2019 02: 31
                  If you just look at the circus with horses called the assembly of Starship mock-ups, the persistent feeling of drinking a giant size does not leave. Especially the logistics for transporting parts of a water tower from Florida to Texas. To understand those who did not live in America. Even taking into account the hiring of semi-legal Mexicans, SpaceX has already wasted (and really wasted because the fifth-grade student it is clear that if you inflate the ball strongly, it will burst) tens of millions of dollars.
                  1. +3
                    10 December 2019 03: 10
                    Quote: ak1978
                    If you just look at the circus with horses called the assembly of Starship mock-ups, the persistent feeling of drinking a giant size does not leave.

                    The assembly of Starship layouts is a lot of thoughts. However, based on Soviet-Buddhist morality and Greco-Roman logic, one can sincerely wish Ilona success! wink
                    Let the people dare, I would have helped him in the place of Roscosmos as I could ...
              3. +3
                10 December 2019 01: 34
                Quote: voyaka uh
                So far, the estimated cost of launching a Falcon-9 with a used 1st stage reaches $ 25 million. Customer pays 53 million.
                But they plan to reduce the cost by another 5-10 million.

                Dear, so give a reference! lol
                Operating expenses for the whole thing - the biggest secret of St. Ilona!
            2. +1
              9 December 2019 12: 13
              You touched on a very important side of the issue. I believe that it is very important not to overdo it with the very definition of reusability. Simply put, you should not drive a conditionally reusable capsule until you lose consciousness. With this approach, it’s not far from trouble. But even if you limit the resource of its use by, say, 5 launches, then in the end it will decently reduce the cost of safely transporting a person into space and returning him safe and sound. The economy should not be economical, it should be meaningful.) hi
              1. +4
                9 December 2019 12: 29
                5 starts, or 10, or 50 will be revealed very soon. As long as there are steps (they are all numbered with a unique number) they have successfully flown 3 and 4 times.
                But Musk has started launching 60 satellite trains for StarLink.
                And this will require dozens of flights at used degrees. Satellites are his own, not customers. Musk can take risks. Here the real limit of reusability will be checked.
                1. +1
                  9 December 2019 12: 44
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  Musk can take risks. Here the real limit of reusability will be checked.
                  Risk is a noble cause.) In the USSR, Laika was irretrievably launched, there was something to hide. But people are not just "hardware", they are not even dogs. There is no way to risk it. As one of our movie heroes said:
                  Now people need to be softer, and look at questions more broadly. laughing
                  Thanks for the news from SpaceX. hi
              2. bar
                +1
                9 December 2019 12: 31
                The problem of "reusability" is still highly dependent on logistics. Where should this capsule be delivered after landing? In the MIC of the cosmodrome or across the country to the manufacturer? Will the MIC service ensure the preparation of the capsule for the next launch on its own? And if this is done by the manufacturer, then wouldn't it be cheaper for him to immediately lay a pariah of these capsules (which will reduce the cost of each individual one), and not to dance around every time with a used one with an unwarranted result?
                1. -3
                  9 December 2019 13: 16
                  Despite the considerable experience in the field of space exploration, we (Russia) are only embarking on the path of reusability of space systems. Everything will be here for us for the first time. I think that here we can benefit from experience in servicing aviation equipment. I do not think that flying space will be much more difficult to maintain than flying aviation. Transporting it is even easier, because By its dimensions (the capsule, of course, not a rocket) it is much more modest than an airplane - it has no planes. And dragging her to the MIC or the factory, so this is for specific circumstances, this is not critical. It is certainly better to lay in production in a small series - pieces, say, in 5, for example. Given the usual subsequent changes to the design of products (in accordance with the results of practical use) a larger series is not necessary.
                  1. bar
                    +1
                    9 December 2019 13: 25
                    Despite the considerable experience in the field of space exploration, we (Russia) are only embarking on the path of reusability of space systems.

                    Well, if you look at Russia in isolation from the USSR, then yes, for the first time. And so before that there was Buran, and up to a bunch of other returned devices.

                    experience in servicing aviation equipment may be useful to us. I don’t think that flying space will be much more difficult to maintain than flying aviation

                    Of course, experience will come in handy, but the specifics of space technology are very different from aviation. Take at least thermal protection and the effect of high temperatures on the construct.

                    And dragging her to the MIC or to the factory, so this is for specific circumstances, this is not critical

                    Just critical. The restoration of the same thermal protection is hardly possible in the conditions of the MIC, without a special industrial base. Again, after each flight, strict control over the state of the capsule design and its troubleshooting, up to X-ray inspection, etc. are necessary. And for this, special equipment and specialists should be in the same MIC. How justified is it with t.z. economics is a big question.
                    1. 0
                      9 December 2019 13: 35
                      In terms of thermal protection, everything is obscenely simple there - it is disposable. In any case, at the first stage - 100%. This is clearly seen in the video below, where it falls off the American Starliner before landing (look at 1:10).
                      If it is impossible to troubleshoot in the MIC, it is of course necessary to send it to the factory. Anyway, this repair will cost several times cheaper than building a new capsule, even taking into account logistics.
                      1. bar
                        +1
                        9 December 2019 14: 06
                        Despite the considerable experience in the field of space exploration, we (Russia) are only embarking on the path of reusability of space systems.

                        I like your optimism and belief in the effectiveness of "reusability" with the warrior, it's a pity that it is not backed up by calculations, but is based solely on belief in the genius of Elon Musk. How can we not remember Tertullian with his "I believe because it is absurd."
                      2. +1
                        9 December 2019 14: 17
                        And what does Musk have to do with it? The Starliner is actually from Boeing, and Orion is from Lockheed Martin.
                        For warm words to optimists - a low bow. hi
                        Only about myself as an optimist, I'm not quite sure, because have long been in the category of skeptics.)
                      3. bar
                        -1
                        9 December 2019 14: 27
                        What does Musk have to do with it?

                        Well, of course, "Everyone believes in his calculations. Because everyone began to copy his landing system. Both the Chinese and other American firms." (Warrior-uh)
                        Do you disagree with him?
                      4. 0
                        9 December 2019 15: 48
                        Quote: bar
                        What does Musk have to do with it?

                        Because, everyone began to copy his landing system.
                        Do you disagree with him?
                        Even theoretically, there are only 2 ways to lift the aircraft off the Earth and exactly the same number of ways to carefully put it back. This can be done either in an airplane way with a horizontal gain (damping) of the linear velocity, or in a helicopter with a vertical positive (negative) linear motion acceleration. Space launch vehicles have traditionally used the second of the two above. And here the trick is that SpaceX is the first of the rocket-building companies on the planet, which actually managed not only to carry its offspring into space, but also was lucky to carefully return its 1st stage back safe and sound. Yes, helicopter-like, vertically. But what's wrong with that? All that remains is to shout "bravo!" everything else is either just idle conversations in the kitchen "over a glass of tea", or projects of dignified "sawers" of budget "babosiks". I understand - "the Soviets have their own pride, we look down on the bourgeoisie" ... We also had interesting ideas such as "Spiral" or "MAKS", which were supposed to take off like an airplane and land at the airfield in the same way. Or, for example, "Baikal", the reusable booster "Angara" - with a vertical launch, but, at the same time, with landing on the GDP. Who can argue - the projects are interesting, but so far, as they say, at the level of "cartoons". And with Musk, all this really flies. Do not be offended, but no one is even standing next to him now. Just like Pushkin: "The Caucasus is under me, one in the sky ...". Such realism turns out.
                      5. bar
                        +2
                        9 December 2019 15: 56
                        SpaceX is the first rocket-building company on the planet that really managed to not only carry out its brainchild into space, but also was lucky to carefully return its first step back intact.

                        Well cool, what. I don’t even argue. My only doubts are in the economic sense of this circus act. And hence my doubts about the correctness of following this universal habit. It was these doubts that I tried to convey ...
                      6. 0
                        9 December 2019 16: 07
                        But we are alike, however.))) I recognize healthy skepticism.)
                        But seriously - of course, everything must be considered. Americans do just that. And it is right. It is also true that practice is the main criterion of truth. And we are already seeing it performed by Ilon and his team.
                      7. bar
                        +2
                        9 December 2019 16: 37
                        Of course, everything must be considered. Americans do just that

                        The Americans have nothing to count yet, I usually count chickens in the fall, which is still far away. While the experiments are going on, and nothing more. At one time, the Americans were already counting when they launched the shuttle program. In the fall, it turned out that they had miscalculated.
                        As for the universal favorite of Ilon Mask, we see one after another breaking off of his brilliant undertakings, starting with Tesla, hyperloops, etc. It is clear that the Space X Mask project is just a screen, and there are really serious specialists behind it, but let's see how it will end. It is too early to count chickens.
                      8. 0
                        9 December 2019 17: 54
                        Quote: bar
                        At one time, the Americans were already counting when they launched the "shuttle" program. In the fall, it turned out that they had miscalculated.
                        Financially - 100%. But there it was also in the confrontation with the USSR, and this is somewhat beyond the bounds of common sense. Elementary logic will not work here. It's like trying to explain the actions of a mentally ill person. Here I am not about all the inhabitants of the United States, but, as you know, only about the few of them that really affect global decision-making.
                        Quote: bar
                        It is clear that the Space X Mask project is just a screen, and really serious specialists are behind it, but let's see how this ends. It's too early to count chickens
                        I agree with this. As the saying goes: "Let's see." It is not so long to wait. The picture has been emerging quite cheerfully lately. Next year promises to be at least not boring.
                      9. -1
                        9 December 2019 18: 52
                        There are statistics.
                        And she says that Musk has captured most of the global market for commercial satellites in just a few years.
                        Displacing veterans: Boeing, Roscosmos and Arian.
                        In fact, Musk is now competing with Bezos, the second American private trader. Its rockets and engines are also economical and on the way.
                      10. 0
                        9 December 2019 22: 03
                        Bezos has not yet launched any satellites on his rockets - he hasn’t sent a single truck into orbit with his office. Mask can’t compete with him, the last market staked out a deed at the end of next year. Falcons may make the hundredth flight.
                      11. +4
                        10 December 2019 01: 58
                        Quote: voyaka uh
                        In fact, Musk is now competing with Bezos, the second American private trader. Its rockets and engines are also economical and on the way.

                        If Smirnover captures you and keeps you in the basement, forcing you to write nonsense, give us a signal by turning the photo in the avatar full face!
                      12. +1
                        9 December 2019 18: 41
                        Quote: Herrr
                        In terms of thermal protection, everything is obscenely simple there - it is disposable. In any case, at the first stage - 100%. This is clearly seen in the video below, where it falls off the American "Starliner" before landing.

                        The shots are interesting, but it is striking how many things fall off from this reusable ship.
                        For some reason I remembered:
                      13. +1
                        10 December 2019 13: 29
                        Plus for the humor and refreshment of my memory about OSB-studios.)))
                        And not much falls off the Starliner. In any case, nothing extra is unfastened.) Here are the moments of separation, captured on this video in time:
                        - 0:30 - the lid of the parachute compartment has come off.
                        - 0:43 - the service module fell off.
                        - 1:10 - the capsule said goodbye to the shield of ablation protection so as to free the air bags for boosting. The latter provide a soft fit on a hard surface.
                        In fact, this video captures the test of the SAS ship. In normal flight, the service module is disconnected from the crew module (capsule) back in space and subsequently burns in dense layers of the atmosphere. The service module is not reusable.
                  2. +2
                    10 December 2019 01: 43
                    Quote: Herrr
                    Despite the considerable experience in the field of space exploration, we (Russia) are only embarking on the path of reusability of space systems.

                    Thank you, an unknown compatriot who spent the last 30 years on a desert island, that you do not forget!
                    Quote: Herrr
                    I think that here we can benefit from experience in servicing aviation equipment. I do not think that flying space will be much more difficult to maintain than flying aviation.

                    Yes, it's almost the same thing!
                    Quote: Herrr
                    Transporting it is even easier, because By its dimensions (the capsule, of course, not a rocket) it is much more modest than an airplane - it has no planes. And dragging her to the MIC or the factory, so this is for specific circumstances, this is not critical. It is certainly better to lay in production in a small series - pieces, say, in 5, for example.

                    I agree, the lack of planes decides everything!
          2. -3
            9 December 2019 10: 04
            Quote: Herrr
            The Dragon has the highest percentage of crew module reuse. Even the CAC is kept there.

            Is that the SAS that exploded?

            What other reuse?
            NASA strongly demanded that the ship was new.
            No BU !!!
            1. +1
              10 December 2019 02: 01
              Quote: Lontus
              Is that the SAS that exploded?

              Be careful about the SAS explosion! smile
              This question sometimes provokes unprovoked aggression among the members of T. Mask's sect.
              Can bite
  5. +5
    9 December 2019 07: 33
    The transport version of the "Federation" will be able to carry up to 2 tons of payload. A manned ship will be able to deliver up to 4 people to the ISS or to another target.
    Transport version of the "Soyuz" -2,3-2,5 tons, manned - 3 people. For a lunar mission, in principle, it is suitable - what are the advantages of the "Federation-Eagle"? The same eggs only in profile and smile.
    Make Soyuz a carbon capsule and let it fly further.
    1. +1
      14 December 2019 17: 15
      Quote: mark1
      Make Soyuz a carbon capsule and let it fly further.

      Yes, this is the most reasonable idea.
  6. +1
    9 December 2019 07: 50
    new American ships are quite interesting, technically, but I wish Roskosmos success, the race is good, it benefits the participating countries, and interest in space is increasing
  7. +1
    9 December 2019 09: 24
    "Federation" will go into operation a few years after the American models and is likely to again provide an advantage over foreign partners.
    - what will be its advantage?
  8. -2
    9 December 2019 09: 34
    Funny
    1960s - Moon race.
    after 60 years:
    2020 - a manned race (for withdrawal only at the DOE)

    What would that mean? Degradation? Or..
    1. +1
      9 December 2019 10: 39
      Optimization
    2. 0
      9 December 2019 11: 54
      Quote: Lontus
      Funny
      1960s - Moon race.
      after 60 years:
      2020 - a manned race (for withdrawal only at the DOE)

      What would that mean? Degradation? Or..


      In 2020, not even a race, but a clumsy catch-up, which makes the comparison of eras even stranger.
  9. +1
    9 December 2019 10: 52
    What I admire about Americans is that "several companies participated in the competition," and two made it to the final.
    And how many companies in Russia are ready to participate in such a competition, being ready to produce spacecraft?
    1. +1
      9 December 2019 12: 11
      And how many are these few? -3 probably 1 in the span and 2 move further.
      1. 0
        9 December 2019 13: 32
        A few dozens.
        1. +1
          9 December 2019 17: 23
          Firms or specific samples in metal tested for competition?
          1. -1
            9 December 2019 19: 57
            Firms, samples in metal cost a lot of money, and no one will do them without a contract or business plan.
            1. 0
              9 December 2019 21: 45
              Well, nothing prevents our ours from doing one-day companies with a bunch of (independent private projects), and after making in specialized institutes and after with a considerable seal, choosing (the best) and financing the winning private trader through Roskosmos just like nasa finances the work of their private traders.
              1. -2
                10 December 2019 10: 13
                Well, nothing interferes with ours
                - but for some reason ours do not

                and in fact made in specialized research institutes
                - The projects presented by private owners in the framework of NASA competitions were developed by private owners themselves.

                doesn't stop making one-day firms
                - "Boeing", "Orbital ATK", "Sierra Nevada", "SpaceX" - are they one-day firms?

                as nasa finances the work of their private owners.
                - NASA pays for the contracts, not the private traders themselves, as Roscosmos does, paying the debts of the bankrupt center. Khrunichev.
  10. +2
    9 December 2019 11: 50
    Dragon 2 was promised to be launched with people in 2016 (and for 2015 an unmanned test), when they presented its prototype (assured that it was not just a mockup) in iron in 2014.
    Earlier projects promised to launch even earlier.

    Since then, there has been a classic "just about", "soon, soon", for the public with a memory like a fish.

    Boeing introduced Starliner in 2010, with the assurance that operations could begin in 2015.
    In 2011, there were already purge prototypes.
    Then the same song - "just about", "soon, soon".

    What is the true reason for such delays?
    1. +1
      9 December 2019 11: 56
      Quote: Lontus
      Then the same song - "just about", "soon, soon".

      Ahead there are a lot of unexpected difficulties in working out these capsules (Orion, Straliner, Cru dragon), so it’s impossible to talk about their planned operation in the near future.
    2. -1
      9 December 2019 13: 55
      The reason for such delays is:
      a) unstable project financing by NASA;
      b) very strict safety requirements for reusable ships (after Challenger and Colombia) and frequent changes to these requirements.
      1. 0
        9 December 2019 21: 41
        But it’s interesting how it turns out you don’t find it — private traders about what they scream at every corner — it is financed through and through by the state structure of NASA.
        1. -1
          10 December 2019 02: 15
          NASA does not finance the private owners themselves, but the projects that these private owners carry out under the contract. From the point of view of business, it makes no difference whether the client is another private company or government structure. For example, IBM also carries out government orders - it does not cease to be private from this.

          Plus, having developed a product for the state, the private owner has the right (unless otherwise indicated in the contract) to use this product for his own needs or to fulfill orders of other clients.
  11. +1
    9 December 2019 11: 52
    Cargo Dragon yesterday docked to the ISS for the 19th time (and the 75th launch of Falcon-9).
    Crew Dragon is exactly the same. Emergency landing engines are only added at the request of NASA. Almost the same design as the main Dragon engines.
    There should be no complications - the technology has been tested on a cargo version.
    Boeing is getting harder.
    1. +3
      9 December 2019 11: 58
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Cargo Dragon yesterday docked to the ISS for the 19th time (and the 75th launch of Falcon-9).
      Crew Dragon is exactly the same. Emergency landing engines are only added at the request of NASA. Almost the same design as the main Dragon engines.

      Well, still in the public domain.
      Why write such absurdities?
      Dragon 2 is a radically different ship.
      1. 0
        9 December 2019 12: 23
        Dragon-2 - upgrade Dragon (Dragon Cargo). There is nothing "cardinally different" and nothing new in it. All major nodes are the same.
        1. +4
          9 December 2019 13: 17
          SJO (life support system), SAS (emergency rescue system), manual traffic control system, automatic control system will be dismantled, Super Draco engines - all this is not in the truck. SAS is that thing that exploded on April 20.
          Indeed, everything is on the Internet.
          1. -2
            9 December 2019 13: 30
            "SAS is the thing that exploded on April 20th." ////
            ----
            She did not explode. The outer fuel pipe to the emergency landing engine caught fire. The device remained for tests. But the engines were removed from this device and transferred to another building at the request of NASA.
            1. +3
              9 December 2019 13: 53
              Quote: voyaka uh
              She didn't explode

              Look on YouTube. The saint was more modest than you, he calls it an anomaly laughing
              Stop calling white black.
              Quote: voyaka uh
              The outer fuel pipe to the emergency landing engine caught fire.

              The saint cannot give a clear explanation. "The pipe is on fire" is a otmpzka for loshar laughing
              In fact, this is a commonplace water hammer, and this speaks of the need to replace the entire fuel system. In short, St. Ilona will be slowed down by serious NASA guys.
              Quote: voyaka uh
              The device remained for tests.

              The device went to paradise lol
    2. bar
      +1
      9 December 2019 12: 41
      Cargo Dragon docked to the ISS yesterday for the 19th time

      Moreover, none of them was used more than 3 times.
      It's even sadder with the "reusability" of the falcon
      1. +2
        9 December 2019 13: 33
        3 times reusability is not enough for you? smile
        Falcons-9 flew 3 and 4 times. The first few steps.
        If you feel sad about this - I join your sadness hi
        1. +1
          10 December 2019 02: 04
          Quote: voyaka uh
          3 times reusability is not enough for you?

          We are not talking about the Falcon, but about the Dragon and others like him.
          Do not distort stop
          1. 0
            10 December 2019 02: 22
            Quote: Mityai65
            We are not talking about the Falcon, but about the Dragon and others like him.
            Do not distort


            Quote: bar
            Moreover, none of them was used more than 3 times.
            It's even sadder with the "reusability" of the falcon


            Alexey just replied to the comment, but for some reason he "distorts" it, not the one who wrote the comment. Where is the logic?

            And if we talk only about the "Dragon" - some of the copies of the ship (S-108 and S-106) were used at least 3 times. Even more copies flew 2 times.
            1. +2
              10 December 2019 02: 37
              Quote: Kirill Dou
              Alexey just replied to the comment, but for some reason he "distorts" it, not the one who wrote the comment. Where is the logic?

              Yes that's right. I just did not read the branch above. Sorry wink
  12. 0
    9 December 2019 13: 15
    Before using the term "race" - you need to imagine the process as a race. So, what kind of "race" are we talking about, when these guys have already visited one of the two vehicles in orbit, the second is breathing down the back of his head, and our "machine" has not even created a flight model (and the flights will be after some there 2023 (IN THREE YEARS MINIMUM !!!))
    I don’t see any race here) The turtle crawled onto the treadmill, along which a pair of athletes are running.
    As for the load of the ships - 2 tons of cargo / 4 people vs 4/7 people / 3/6 tons of cargo.
    The comparison is not very encouraging! It seems to me that while we are making the "Federation" it can become a "Hangar", or even altogether - it will change during the time we make priorities - we will abandon it and we will master a new bablishko.

    Of course, "in words" our view of the "Federation" may seem logical - we want a certain ship +, with good groundwork, so that it would be possible for adequate money to fly to the Moon and deliver someone to orbit. The autonomy time we have "on paper" is also good. And the Americans, when making their ships, clearly lay in them more practical and highly specialized goals. But at this moment, in my opinion, lies the most unpleasant thing - we can be outplayed purely commercially - in orbit (where our activities are mostly not on paper yet). If this happens - and we will not have time for the moon, and all our backlog may fall into the trap of a tough budget cuts and a long witch-hunt in Roscosmos (as they deserved it long ago).
  13. 0
    9 December 2019 15: 55
    General title does not match article
    The race is between CX and Boeing, for some reason they missed the BO. Unions in this race do not participate at all
  14. -1
    9 December 2019 17: 30
    The habit of thinking that in the space race, following the example of the USSR, Russia is the second in the worst case, and often the first, is a mistake. Akin to the "objective difficulties" that the author of the article mentions. What difficulties were objective? Theft?..

    China is No. 2 now, to my deep regret, and despite the deliberate lack of cooperation with the US / Europe. They do not want to cooperate and do not allow China to the ISS due to the proven theft of intellectual property. If China had access to the launch market like American companies or Arian, it would launch even more.

    Having stolen and bought our developments in space technology, de facto China has significantly surpassed Russia. To my deep regret, I will repeat. From improved Soyuz to lunar landings. Well, even with the state support traditional for Chinese "capitalism", they grow their own Masks. With a reserve, 9 companies test missiles, they explode, launch more, learn to land. I have no doubts that they will succeed. Sooner or later, lagging behind the United States, but it will definitely work out.

    Alas, we are no longer considered serious players.
    1. -1
      9 December 2019 22: 15
      Unfortunately for Russia, this race will remain in the background for a long time - we don’t have the necessary money for space, in the future we will launch tourists in the Unions and Eagles, train them to prepare cosmonauts from different countries of the world, make and sell special equipment for various foreign space missions, it is possible to supply engines for other countries, maybe in the future the nuclear power engine that is currently doing Rosatom will be in demand for interplanetary flights, the withdrawal of its military and commercial satellites.
  15. -4
    10 December 2019 07: 51
    For example, on August 20, 2019, the first Dragon 2 device, space flight previouslyexploded during ground tests.

    This is not true. Why do you think so?
  16. 0
    14 December 2019 15: 54
    Where the author saw the race - xs. We have a "race" not on ships, but on the personal fortunes of Rogozin and Co.
  17. 0
    15 January 2020 13: 56
    Quote: ak1978
    And where excuse me are Starliner and Crew Dragon 2 going to (!) Fly?

    The thermal protection of Dragon 2 was originally designed to return from the second space, Musk did not want to have a spacecraft purely for the NOU. Watch the video of Dan Raska from NASA, on YouTube there is one who worked with SpaceX on thermal protection, everything is said there.
    So in the future, Dragon 2 can fly on VOCs.
    Well, Starliner, yes, he’s kind of like a higher NOU without significant improvements you won’t jump.
    Because Boeing, starred, lazy, and they did KK not for themselves, for growth, but purely at a minimum (and even emphasized this minimalism as a virtue, I remember in many interviews) to get NASA money under the current contract. For SpaceX, NASA’s money (and much less than Boeing’s allocated) is primarily an opportunity to get a working manned spacecraft for myself. With the prospect of development up to Mars (there is such an idea-fix for the founder of SpaceX). And in fact, if you look in detail, Musk has laid a lot in Dragon 2, which is excessive for NOU. But if you look wider - very much nothing.
    Fundamentally different tasks for Boeing and SpaceX.
    Boeing does not seek space, but performs contract work.

"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"