Military Review

NASA has announced a new date for the first launch of the Starliner Boeing to the ISS

137
NASA has announced a new date for the first launch of the Starliner Boeing to the ISS

The first unmanned trial launch of the latest American Starliner Boeing to the ISS using the Atlas V launch vehicle was postponed for one day and transferred to December 20. This was reported by the operator company United Launch Alliance (ULA).


Launch of the Atlas V booster rocket with Boeing Starliner Corporation ship, which will make a test flight, is now scheduled to be carried out on December 20

- said in a statement.

The company explained that the postponement of the launch date is related to the postponement of the dress rehearsal, which was held on Friday, December 6, and not the 5 number as planned in advance. The transfer is associated with bad weather.

According to information posted on the NASA website, the launch of the first unmanned Starliner mission is scheduled for 06: 36 on the East Coast of the United States (14: 36 Moscow time) on December 20 from the 41 launch complex at the Cosmodrome at Cape Canaveral in Florida.

The transfer of the launch of the Starliner to December 20 is already the second. Initially, the launch was planned for December 17, but was postponed to December 19 due to a problem in the purge air supply line found in the Atlas V rocket.

As previously reported, the first manned launches of the Starliner and Crew Dragon ships with American astronauts on board are scheduled for the first half of the 2020 of the year. After this, the United States plans to abandon flights on the Russian "Unions", but will not refuse to cooperate.
137 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Spartanez300
    Spartanez300 7 December 2019 12: 53
    -16
    To Mars or to Uranus, or where else.
    Moon ?????????
    1. RUSS
      RUSS 7 December 2019 13: 09
      0
      Quote: Spartanez300
      To Mars or to Uranus, or where else.
      Moon ?????????

      Yard skepticism
    2. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
      Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 7 December 2019 13: 16
      +27
      Quote: Spartanez300
      To Mars or to Uranus, or where else.
      Moon ?????????

      Look at the heading of the article "NASA has named a new date for the first launch of the Boeing Starliner to the ISS." The rate of comments on the site has been dropping at an alarming rate, especially over the past couple of years. More and more people consciously avoid situations where they need to think, and any serious conversation is turned into jokes. If something is not funny, then it does not deserve attention.
      1. Spartanez300
        Spartanez300 7 December 2019 14: 02
        -26
        I am very grateful to you for being so smart and forcing others to be idiots. I am especially glad that you turned your attention. hi
        This is my personal opinion on the article.
        And I would be grateful to you to keep your infamous to yourself. hi hi
        Minor special thanks. good
        1. Bshkaus
          Bshkaus 7 December 2019 17: 06
          +4
          Minor special thanks.

          Thank you for respecting my opinion - there is nothing personal, only dry logic and objective facts.
        2. Kirill Dou
          Kirill Dou 8 December 2019 03: 39
          -3
          Quote: Spartanez300
          that you are so smart, and you make others idiots.
          - You and yourselves like you expose yourself as such. You don’t even need to help.
        3. AUL
          AUL 8 December 2019 08: 16
          +3
          Quote: Spartanez300
          I am very grateful to you for being so smart and forcing others to be idiots.

          There is nothing to blame on the mirror ,,, (C)
      2. Oyo Sarkazmi
        Oyo Sarkazmi 7 December 2019 14: 53
        +7
        Quote: Aristarkh Ludwigovich
        If something is not funny

        If it were about Roscosmos, would diarrhea come from malignancy?
        The ship was supposed to start in the 18th, but is still unfinished. Brown passed from Jameny to the Moon in 7 years, and here in 10 years - they can’t make a barrel of SJO.
        Loss of competence in everything - from the construction of boats to spaceships. But the NASDAG index - soared beyond the moon !!!
        1. Lontus
          Lontus 7 December 2019 15: 11
          0
          Quote: Oo sarcasm
          Brown passed from Jameny to the Moon in 7 years, and here in 10 years - they can’t make a barrel of SJO.

          According to legend, for 4 years from the first flight of Gemini (1965) to the landing on the moon (1969).
          so the incongruity of tightening the deadlines is even more striking.
          1. Good_Anonymous
            Good_Anonymous 7 December 2019 15: 26
            -1
            Quote: Lontus
            so the incongruity of tightening the deadlines is even more striking.


            And the inconsistency of financing - does not rush?
            1. onix757
              onix757 7 December 2019 16: 01
              +1
              And the inconsistency of financing - does not rush?

              If you can’t, then even tie it to a pencil, but it won’t help
              1. Good_Anonymous
                Good_Anonymous 7 December 2019 16: 10
                -6
                So they are able and will do, you doubt? Just not for 7 years, but for 17. Or for 27.
                1. onix757
                  onix757 7 December 2019 16: 14
                  +3
                  As for what they will do there, I have no doubt.
                2. Kirill Dou
                  Kirill Dou 8 December 2019 03: 59
                  -3
                  Well, SpaceX began to develop its "Cru Dragon" in 2012, the unmanned test has been passed, so it's already at the finish line. Therefore, 17 years is too much for you.
                  1. Blackmokona
                    Blackmokona 8 December 2019 08: 57
                    0
                    SpaceX received a contract for the development of Crew Dregon only in 2014, and funding began to receive in 2015
                    1. Kirill Dou
                      Kirill Dou 8 December 2019 09: 05
                      0
                      Well, I think that in order to get a contract they should have submitted something in the competition. Not just the same way they won this competition.
                      1. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 8 December 2019 09: 09
                        -1
                        Well, they presented the plan, layout, business plan and other presentations. And the ship began to be developed as money went to him, otherwise today in the White House they are financing one plan, and tomorrow there is no other contract. And you dumped the money dump truck
                      2. Kirill Dou
                        Kirill Dou 8 December 2019 09: 16
                        -2
                        A. well, if so - then yes, it’s logical
                  2. Good_Anonymous
                    Good_Anonymous 8 December 2019 14: 28
                    0
                    Quote: Kirill Dou
                    17 years - you took too much.


                    But I answered, "7 years from Gemini to landing on the moon."
          2. bayard
            bayard 7 December 2019 19: 49
            -7
            Quote: Lontus
            According to legend, for 4 years from the first flight of Gemini (1965) to the landing on the moon (1969).
            so the incongruity of tightening the deadlines is even more striking.

            There was no moon landing. And there were no real flights on "Gemeni" either, it's all cinematography. Look at this "Dzhemeni", close up and you will understand everything yourself. This is a dummy, moreover, primitive and crude ... the sash outward on the piano hinges ...
            The Soviet Union recognized their props for the fact of manned flights solely for political and economic reasons. Look at their "moon suit" and give yourself an answer ... can a regular zipper (on the back) provide ... GEOMETIZATION ?!

            Brown then managed to create only "Saturn-1B" ... well, and a dummy Saturn-5.

            Before the Shuttle, they did not fly into space. They had no means of life support for the ship, no spacesuits, no rocket, no lunar module ... But they had satellites and Mariners. They tried to fool them, broadcasting a picture through the "Mariner" from the moon.

            I learned about the Lunar scam from a colonel from Baikonur back in 1985.
            1. Kirill Dou
              Kirill Dou 8 December 2019 03: 44
              0
              Did you write it all seriously now?
              1. bayard
                bayard 8 December 2019 06: 25
                +2
                More than . For 3 years I took part in ensuring the landing of almost all Soviet vehicles, from manned to military and research, including the only flight of "Buran" (1988 - 1991). Just look for yourself, google for example "Americans' spacesuit on the moon", look at this miracle of technology ... I was just shocked when I saw instead of a sealed bow belt (like the Americans on the "Shuttle") or a hatch door, like ours, ... the usual zipper on the back - like on a bag or a sports jacket ... And I saw it for the first time in a series of photos in the weekly intelligence bulletin "Rocket and Space Technology" in a filing for ... it seems 1970. This is DSP - literature and I studied all publications from 1966 (or 68) to 1988 inclusive. Now all this is in the public domain (not bulletins, but those materials about the US lunar program) on the Internet, where I met those very photographs and even much more, including video materials.
                Just type in the search engine "Lunar scam", under this name there is a very serious material with all the evidence base. In our country, everyone involved in cosmonautics of that time knew about this, but there was an order to keep quiet. In those materials you will learn about how and at what cost the dummy Apollo 13 descent vehicle was captured in the North Atlantic, you will see a photograph of its transfer to the Americans in Arkhangelsk, you will see photographs of the American "space" ships "Mercury", Dzhemeni "and, of course," Apollo "and the Eagle descent module, you will see and be able to check and recalculate all the data on the actual flight parameters of Saturn-5 ... There are also a lot of videos, films, investigations - both the Americans themselves and our compatriots ... the real reason and cost of the lie of cosmonaut Leonov ... and possibly the real reason for the death of Yuri Gagarin.
                I had a chance to closely communicate with the participants of our lunar program - with the people involved in the lander, from the Yuzhnoye design bureau ... with what nostalgia they recalled those times ... about those programs ... about trips to the Star City to the guys who had to pilot their products ...
                But the first time I heard about the lunar scam in 1985, in the spring, was from the colonel’s son, who served the entire service in Baikonur, and then from his father ... but under an obligation not to disclose. It was painful that I was interested in this topic in my youth, in high school I was a fan of the American lunar program in general ... Neil Armstrong's photograph (color) in a spacesuit on the moon hung over my bed ... he dreamed of becoming an astronaut ... getting ready ... wrote essays on the creation of the lunar base ...
                ... And then I found out the TRUTH ..
                At first there was a shock and it was not believed that the lie could be so grandiose, cynical and covered at such a level ... Then there were files of our intelligence bulletins with analytical squeezes about everything that happened during the week in the field of rocket science (primarily military) and astronautics ... well, and then more.

                By the way, Nixon was dismissed from the presidency precisely for the failure of the Lunar scam, for the shame that had to be flooded with money, concessions and gifts to the Soviet leaders ( Vietnam, acceptance on the balance sheet and maintenance of Egypt, which tore us apart with its war with Israel ... annual gifts to Brezhnev of new products from the American luxury car industry (he knew one driver from the Kremlin garage)) ... The USA began to buy our oil and opened correspondent accounts for our elite in their banks ... And they got even with us for all this in 1991, when the fed children of the "elite" sold OUR country to the USA ...
                The world is multidimensional and diverse, it is much more complicated (by many orders of magnitude) than it seems at first - an inexperienced look.
                If you really want to know the truth about the Lunar Scam, you can do this without leaving your computer. But you need to take this issue seriously. And without knowledge of the history of that moment, much will seem incomprehensible (motives, methods, reaction to consequences).
                1. Kirill Dou
                  Kirill Dou 8 December 2019 07: 11
                  -1
                  Clearly, I have no more questions laughing
          3. Mikhail3
            Mikhail3 8 December 2019 13: 37
            +2
            According to legend, for 4 years from the first flight of Gemini (1965) to the landing on the moon (1969).
            so the incongruity of tightening the deadlines is even more striking.
            But, but! At the state level, the US demands that Russia stop doubting the US "lunar missions"! Considering how sensitive our authorities are to the interests of the United States, you may be prosecuted for insulting the feelings of believers! And on the way to Execution Ground you will be torn apart by fanatics of the Witnesses of the Mask sect!
        2. Kirill Dou
          Kirill Dou 8 December 2019 03: 43
          -1
          “Brown has passed from Gemeni to the Moon in 7 years, but here in 10 years - they cannot make a barrel of LSS.
          P"
          - In those years there was a space race, so the time factor played a big role. Developments were accelerated, much more money was allocated for them than now. Moreover, in those days, the requirements of NASA (and the Soviet aerospace agency) for the safety of the devices were not so strict - they risked a lot, but this made it possible to get ahead of the opponent.

          Today there is no such race and competition, neither the Americans nor we need to hurry much. The rivalry is, of course, but far from the same as during the Cold War.
      3. Neznaika
        Neznaika 7 December 2019 14: 55
        -2
        Everything is simpler.
        If something does not fit into the framework of cheers-patriotism, it means that something needs to be laughed at, vulgarized.
        But the situation is more than serious.
        And the question is already in full swing: what will we do if next year the flights to the Starliner and Dragon ISS become manned and scheduled?
        Until now, we could not pay attention to the fact that many countries have long passed us in space in literally all directions, because there was only one trump card - the role of the cosmic cab driver. Like, only we carry astronauts to the ISS.
        And if this trump card is knocked out of hands?
        What will we be proud of? Rogozin trampolines? Its moon bases? Projects of the Angara and Federation, intended exclusively for cutting money?
        1. Oyo Sarkazmi
          Oyo Sarkazmi 7 December 2019 16: 23
          -4
          And why do all-weepers despise the patriots?
          Judge for yourself - they built a bridge - it’s like a sickle for everyone, like a sickle, and urapatriot is a reason to drink. At the same time, success in the USA - the prowler aches how bad it is here, and the urapatriot will slam a pile - we had such a shob!
          And so for any reason ... All-weepers are dying, not caressed by their own or others' victories ...
          The start and normal operation of Starliner / Dragon-2 will not affect the work of Roscosmos in any way. Since the need for the Unions was determined solely by the needs of the USA + Russia, and the scientific program on the ISS does not change in any way if the Americans get there on their ships.
          1. onix757
            onix757 7 December 2019 17: 52
            -9
            they built a bridge - to the prowler it’s like a sickle in the balls

            Over the bridge, the Chinese comrades were paid in full with folk money.
            1. standan
              standan 8 December 2019 00: 32
              +1
              But what, the Chinese comrades built the bridge? Proof in the studio
          2. Fraracol_2
            Fraracol_2 7 December 2019 18: 55
            -2
            And what will happen to the Unions when the Americans fly on their own?
          3. Neznaika
            Neznaika 7 December 2019 21: 05
            -1
            The scientific program may not change.
            The amount of money in the pocket of Roscosmos will change. In a smaller direction.
            The same money that Roskosmos receives today for transportation, for the R-180 engines (and it will also be possible to sing a waste song next year) and for the maintenance of toilets on the ISS.
            1. slipped
              slipped 7 December 2019 22: 09
              +5
              Quote: Neznaika
              The very money that Roskosmos receives today for


              In the volume of Roskosmos revenues, the share of American money for the purchase by foreigners of seats in our ships is 4-5% of all revenues.

              4-5% Karl! laughing

              Quote: Neznaika
              for the R-180 engines (and it will also be possible to sing a waste song next year)


              For RD-180 we paid for delivery until the year 2022.
            2. Oyo Sarkazmi
              Oyo Sarkazmi 7 December 2019 22: 17
              -5
              For engines Roscosmos nothing falls. Because he is not a tax office. There will be fewer unions - there will be less Roscosmos expenses. And the budget does not change.
              And the ISS is breathing. And there is no way to do another, If you don’t know, Starliner and Dragon must make 4 working flights each. 8 flights for the next 8 years of the possible functioning of the ISS. As if the ISS is the Moon of 1968.
              1. Kirill Dou
                Kirill Dou 8 December 2019 07: 14
                -2
                For engines Roscosmos nothing falls.
                - right. They are taken over by the engine manufacturer RSC Energia, the head developer of Roskosmos.
                1. Ezekiel
                  Ezekiel 8 December 2019 19: 30
                  +3
                  Quote: Kirill Dou
                  - right. They go to the engine manufacturer RSC Energia

                  RSC Energia does not manufacture or supply engines
                  1. Kirill Dou
                    Kirill Dou 9 December 2019 09: 00
                    -1
                    Yes, I'm wrong, I was wrong. "Energomash", of course. That does not change the essence.
                    1. Ezekiel
                      Ezekiel 9 December 2019 21: 20
                      -1
                      It changes. You were like a troll, and remained fellow
                      Before you write, you need to know at least something
          4. Kirill Dou
            Kirill Dou 8 December 2019 03: 46
            -3
            Quote: Oo sarcasm
            in no way affect the work of Roscosmos.
            - will influence. Americans will pay less or not pay for flights on Soyuz. They are now paying $ 80 million for each seat. This is a considerable amount. Considering. that the Russian cosmonautics is chronically short of funding is a serious loss.
            1. Oyo Sarkazmi
              Oyo Sarkazmi 8 December 2019 10: 43
              -2
              The purchase of seats in the Unions is only about 300 million dollars. Given that most of the money goes just for the manufacture of Unions - not too big a profit.
              Here is the transfer of Khrunikov to Omsk - yes, the losses are serious. Compared in price with the new orbital station.
        2. Bshkaus
          Bshkaus 7 December 2019 17: 13
          +1
          Until now, we could not pay attention to the fact that many countries have long passed us in space in literally all directions,

          I am most afraid that one fine morning we will wake up and exclaim amicably "And the king is naked!"
          See what we are proud of right now?
          this is a great victory for our grandfathers, but not for us, this is Gagarin’s flight and the power of our army. ALL.
          East is one misunderstanding and not the fact that they will fly from there in the near future.
          Angara - things are still there.
          In the army, there is only talk about the Armata, which is not even the Su-57 in an outrageously ridiculous party and, moreover, without the "2nd stage engine".
          Economy ?, well, do you seriously think that 1% growth is an economic breakthrough?
          And so in everything, where you don’t spit some problems under the patriotic shouts "that we are a great country", but it is worth talking about a real problem - you are 2%, you are the fifth column, grant eater, traitor to the motherland, etc.
          1. slipped
            slipped 7 December 2019 18: 15
            +4
            Quote: Bshkaus
            East is one misunderstanding and not the fact that they will fly from there in the near future.


            yah lol , already the missiles for the next launches were brought up:



            Quote: Bshkaus
            Angara - things are still there.


            on assembly



            Quote: Bshkaus
            you are 2%, you are the fifth column, grant grantor, traitor of the motherland, etc.


            try to talk more about your problems. laughing
      4. mehan
        mehan 7 December 2019 20: 43
        -2
        The epidemic of expertise. Transmitted over the Internet (saliva on the monitor).
        Medicine is powerless.
    3. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 7 December 2019 13: 18
      +6
      To Mars or to Uranus, or where else.
      Moon ?????????
      ISS
    4. U-58
      U-58 7 December 2019 14: 30
      0
      To Mars .... or to Snickers
  2. tihonmarine
    tihonmarine 7 December 2019 12: 59
    +3
    Launch of the Atlas V booster rocket with Boeing Starliner Corporation ship, which will make a test flight, is now scheduled to be carried out on December 20
    Fly to health, we are for healthy competition. It is for healthy, and not for "yard" competition.
    1. bouncyhunter
      bouncyhunter 7 December 2019 13: 02
      +11
      I will open (or not?) A little secret: mattresses have a different concept of healthy competition. wink
      1. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 7 December 2019 13: 07
        +1
        Quote: bouncyhunter
        mattresses have a different concept of healthy competition.

        Professor Alfred Kinski also wrote about this, they are all like that.
        1. bouncyhunter
          bouncyhunter 7 December 2019 13: 09
          +2
          Quote: tihonmarine
          Professor Alfred Kinski also wrote about this.

          good Do mattresses know about this? Or do not remember? yes
          1. tihonmarine
            tihonmarine 7 December 2019 14: 35
            0
            Quote: bouncyhunter
            Do mattresses know about this? Or do not remember?

            Of course they know, but they try to do everything so that they forget about him. Kinsey's studies caused a great negative of some sections of society. Many right-wing Christians felt that their religious views were at odds with Kinsky's methods. They considered those who supported Kinsky to be licentious and depraved, and his work morally degrading. Many consider him a racist and anti-Semite. Even the Rockefellers, who sponsored his work, stopped funding. Even today, the name Kinsky is embittered among many sections of society, we all know these layers.
            1. Good_Anonymous
              Good_Anonymous 7 December 2019 15: 20
              +4
              Quote: tihonmarine
              .Kinsey studies have caused great negativity of some sections of society. Many right-wing Christians felt that their religious views were at odds with Kinsky's methods.


              Kinsky is an actor. The name of the professor-sexologist is Kinsey (although how his research relates to competition in the launch market is HZ).
    2. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 7 December 2019 13: 05
      +2
      Let's wait for Rogozin to say. His pearls are sometimes funny, one might say "forever"!
      1. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 7 December 2019 13: 09
        0
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        His pearls are sometimes funny, one might say "forever"!

        I don’t know how special he is in space, but he is an intelligent journalist.
        1. knn54
          knn54 7 December 2019 13: 46
          +7
          Dmitry Rogozin earned sixty-five thousand rubles a day in 2018. This is more than a space engineer per month.
          Rogozin declared at his main place of work for 2018 23,5 million rubles.
          The director of NASA - one and a half times less.
          Putin's income for 2018 is 8,6 million rubles
          The director of "cosmos" has a lot of space income.
          1. tihonmarine
            tihonmarine 7 December 2019 14: 45
            +1
            Quote: knn54
            Dmitry Rogozin earned sixty-five thousand rubles a day in 2018. This is more than a space engineer per month.

            Interestingly, and how much the General Designer receives, is it really less.
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 7 December 2019 13: 39
        0
        What can he say "New Federation ship will fly in 2024"
        1. poquello
          poquello 7 December 2019 14: 37
          +3
          Quote: Vadim237
          What can he say "New Federation ship will fly in 2024"

          Well, something like this
          "Congratulations to the employees of the Keldysh Center Denis Slesarev and Vadim Tararyshkin with the receipt of the Russian Federation patent No. 2693951 for the invention" Combined aircraft engine "!
        2. Bshkaus
          Bshkaus 7 December 2019 16: 39
          +1
          The new Federation ship will fly in the year 2024

          yes the fact of the matter is that such pace already no one will fly anywhere
        3. ultra
          ultra 7 December 2019 18: 09
          +1
          And what kind of launch vehicle will he be lucky if not a secret?
          1. Errr
            Errr 7 December 2019 21: 10
            -1
            Not a secret. "Eagle" to the ISS orbit and "Irtysh" will fly with a breeze. Only when all this comes true, of course.)
            1. ultra
              ultra 7 December 2019 21: 40
              0
              I bet 10 kilo rubles, that neither at 24 nor 25, nor at 26 no "federation-eagle-golden eagle-bear ....." will fly anywhere.
            2. ultra
              ultra 7 December 2019 21: 43
              +1
              Quote: Herrr
              Only when all this comes true, of course.)

              Well, if you look at the saga with "Angara", I'm afraid I will not live to see this wonderful moment. laughing
              1. Errr
                Errr 7 December 2019 21: 47
                -2
                Admit, while I was gathering my thoughts, trying to answer your first answer, did you read them? laughing
                1. ultra
                  ultra 7 December 2019 21: 50
                  +3
                  Aha laughing Unfortunately, we have systemic problems in space and I don’t see any positive progress. Rogozin with his idiotic statements annoys not childishly. hi
                  1. Errr
                    Errr 7 December 2019 21: 55
                    0
                    May hope not leave us. Amen. drinks
        4. Fraracol_2
          Fraracol_2 7 December 2019 18: 58
          0
          And you say the salary is paid for nothing ?! He said the same !! Is this not enough ?!
      3. donavi49
        donavi49 7 December 2019 14: 57
        -2
        Well, what can he do? For example, a fresh global trend is methane, LNG rockets. It makes Musk. This is done by ULA (and will replace Atlas5 and DeltaHavi at cargo launches). It makes Bezos. This is done by the Chinese.

        As if we also have studies and demonstrators. However:
        Roskosmos cannot lead the development of promising engines for reusable rockets, since it sent all the free money to pay off the debts of the Khrunichev Center, said the head of Roskosmos Dmitry Rogozin.

        The head of Roscosmos explained that "the methane engine will enable us to reuse launch vehicles". "Such Development is in KB Chemicals. It really can be done in a couple of years, but for this we need funds that are not yet available: they are all nested in the program for the financial rehabilitation of the Khrunichev Center, "Rogozin said.
        1. Lontus
          Lontus 7 December 2019 15: 15
          +2
          Quote: donavi49
          For example, a fresh global trend is methane, LNG rockets. It makes Musk. This is done by ULA (and will replace Atlas5 and DeltaHavi at cargo launches). It makes Bezos. This is done by the Chinese.

          Achtung !! manipulator liar detective !!
          They do not make rockets, but plan to do it.
          Do not mislead people with your propaganda "like subtle tricks".
          1. donavi49
            donavi49 7 December 2019 15: 21
            +1
            That is, Musk has already cut his - Raptor? Or is he only in 3d? Demonstrator?
            That is, BlueOrigin already sawed his own - BE-4? And all these stands, and oath promises to pass tests next year and transfer the batch of products by the end of 20 years already to the rocket. In August, they conducted a full-power test with standard operating time = and did not explode by the way (unlike Northrop - where it finally burst).
            In China, everything is difficult with the submission of information, but CASIC is announcing the rocket by the year 22 (I think that by the year 23 it might start something).

            They are already working on a funded program. All of the above. Someone is already at the flight stand stage, someone is finishing the program at the ground stand, someone is not clear at what stage.

            Today’s Rogozin at RIA Novosti said that he has no serious work on a methane engine, because Khrunichev devoured all the money.
            1. Lontus
              Lontus 7 December 2019 15: 27
              +2
              Quote: Lontus
              They do not make rockets, but plan to do it.


              and you answer me:
              Quote: donavi49
              Musk has already cut his - Raptor? Or is he only in 3d? Demonstrator?
              That is, BlueOrigin already sawed his own - BE-4?


              Is a raptor a rocket? BE-4 is it a rocket?
              These are the engines.

              Do not discredit the nasa propagandists with your petty, funny juggling.

              Yes - methane is a very suitable fuel for launch vehicles.
              But there is no pH on methane yet.
              1. donavi49
                donavi49 7 December 2019 16: 01
                0
                And where I wrote - what done PH?

                I wrote - makes.

                All of them make. Everyone has their own timeline programs. And Volcano Centauri has a whole family, and the New Glenn, and the new Long March.

                Rogozin told RIA - all the money went to Khrunichev. Therefore, we are not doing it now.

                I wrote this as a whole, in general, plus Rogozin. What can he do? Not to save Khrunichev? So he will be kicked out and will be saved by another. Well, there are no options. To take more money is not allowed. Proactively stimulate? So well-fed years are behind, enterprises now do not have their own resources for serious developments, even under guarantees. Just go into debt -> Khrunichev 2.0 will be.

                That is, a situation where there is an unambiguously promising topic - which is slowed down, because resources go to save not very efficient enterprises. Which in the future will lead to even greater lag and non-competitiveness. An even greater tightening of foreign currency launches - and even greater problems with enterprises.
                1. Lontus
                  Lontus 7 December 2019 16: 33
                  +5
                  Quote: donavi49
                  And where did I write - what did the PH do?

                  I wrote - does.

                  A naive attempt to bounce.


                  The word "does", in a context similar to the one in your post, is used when there is already a working sample (s).
                  And when there is nothing else, it designs, constructs, makes a prototype, etc.

                  But you had a clear attempt to present the case, so there are already methane launch vehicles.
                  That is why you are in the initial post and did not indicate the names of the missiles, but only the designed engines.
                  Then, even in response to my correct remark, they called only Volcano and New Glenn, which naturally do not exist - they are only being designed.
                  But even there they did not name the project of the methane rocket from Mask.
                  And with the Chinese, it turned out funny in general - instead of indicating the methane project of the launch vehicle, the Chinese simply called the family of ALL and ANY of their state missiles - "long March",
                  but the methane launch vehicle project is not part of this family !!!
              2. Kirill Dou
                Kirill Dou 8 December 2019 09: 20
                -3
                Is a raptor a rocket? BE-4 is it a rocket?
                These are the engines.
                - and the engine is an essential part of the rocket. Therefore, developing an engine automatically means developing a rocket. What they told you about before you tried to understand the terms and got into a puddle.
            2. Rzzz
              Rzzz 7 December 2019 19: 24
              -3
              Rogozin will first build a skyscraper in the form of a rocket in Fili on the site of the plant. Then he will ask for money for a new plant. Then it will decide where to build. Then look for the stolen construction money. Then they will give more money and finally build it. Then he will build a rocket. Then they will say that this missile is bad, and it is not necessary to build it, it is necessary to develop a new one. Then, when a new one is ready, it turns out that the control units are American and because of sanctions are not supplied, another rocket must be made again under the Chinese units, etc. This crazy chain can be continued indefinitely, and with each step of this endless path several new people will appear on the Forbes list.
    3. RUSS
      RUSS 7 December 2019 13: 08
      +1
      Quote: tihonmarine
      Fly to health, we are for healthy competition. It is for healthy, and not for "yard" competition.

      I agree, good luck to Boeing!
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 7 December 2019 13: 20
        0
        In truth, Boeing has not been doing very well lately.
        They have turned into a kind of bulky "Roskosmos". Everything is expensive and slow.
        The best engineers ran away to Mask and other private owners for startups.
        Therefore, they lost in a row for new ICBMs instead of Minuteman-3.
        Even the powerful lobbying at NASA's Boeing has ceased to save.
        Its stuck in development "heavyweight" rocket will cost NASA
        20 times more expensive than SpaceX
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 7 December 2019 13: 48
          +1
          Falcon Heavy has flown three times already
        2. Lone gunman
          Lone gunman 7 December 2019 14: 38
          -1
          I disagree, but Musk is a "poser". "Boeing" are handsome, but the plane was extremely unsuccessful, the problem will be solved, and everything will be "chocolate" - a hand washes his hand.
          1. Oyo Sarkazmi
            Oyo Sarkazmi 7 December 2019 15: 08
            +1
            Quote: Lone gunman
            it’s just that it didn’t work out very successfully with the plane, they’ll solve the problem,

            laughing They set up a remote destruction system for the aircraft, and it works by itself. It should be removed, but for the aircraft of the heads of other states it is necessary to test ... fellow
          2. Kirill Dou
            Kirill Dou 8 December 2019 03: 50
            -1
            What is Mask's "posturing"? So far, he fulfills all his promises - albeit with some delays.
        3. tihonmarine
          tihonmarine 7 December 2019 14: 39
          -1
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Its stuck in development "heavyweight" rocket will cost NASA
          20 times more expensive than SpaceX

          The first will fly the one with more money.
    4. DAC scratch
      DAC scratch 7 December 2019 13: 27
      +3
      if it goes well, then the first manned somewhere in the first quarter of 20
      1. U-58
        U-58 7 December 2019 14: 34
        +1
        Well, right, the first quarter! ....
        Something too soon ..
        A typed package of comments?
        And the removal thereof, refinement, debugging ..
        I don’t think that everything will work out before April. Autumn is the most optimistic forecast
        1. DAC scratch
          DAC scratch 7 December 2019 14: 54
          -2
          well they say so
  3. Vasyan1971
    Vasyan1971 7 December 2019 13: 03
    +6
    Why so-and-so? Sooner or later this was to happen.
  4. Mytholog
    Mytholog 7 December 2019 13: 05
    0
    They will start it, it’s understandable.
    But the question of efficiency in terms of price - this is still "the grandmother wondered in two".
    1. RUSS
      RUSS 7 December 2019 13: 08
      0
      Quote: Mytholog
      They will start it, it’s understandable.
      But the question of efficiency in terms of price - this is still "the grandmother wondered in two".

      Any performance data?
      1. Mytholog
        Mytholog 8 December 2019 10: 54
        0
        Where, if you haven’t even run it yet? To draw conclusions early.
        ______________
        I understand your impatience to use your favorite dirty trick "where are the numbers?", But now - you put yourself in a silly light)
    2. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 7 December 2019 13: 11
      +1
      Quote: Mytholog
      But the question of efficiency in terms of price - this is still "the grandmother wondered in two".

      Well, when they launch, then we'll find out.
      1. DAC scratch
        DAC scratch 7 December 2019 13: 29
        0
        as I understand it, it will cost straight a little bit more expensive than the union, about 65 million like
        1. DAC scratch
          DAC scratch 7 December 2019 14: 04
          +1
          Quote: DAC scratch
          as I understand it, it will cost straight a little bit more expensive than the union, about 65 million like

          mistake, StarLiner is expected to have about 90 million, Space x has even less union of 55 million https://3dnews.ru/998065
          1. slipped
            slipped 8 December 2019 00: 08
            +2
            Quote: DAC scratch
            mistake, StarLiner is expected to have about 90 million, Space x has even less union of 55 million https://3dnews.ru/998065


            error again

            For Boeing, taking into account the contract $ 4,2 billion plus additional financing for the project another $ 877 million, with a crew of 4 people and 4-6 contracted launches - the price per seat is not $ 90 million, but $ 179-268 million.

            For SpaceX, the cost of space for NASA is $ 130 to $ 196 million.

            https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/nasa-report-finds-boeing-seat-prices-are-60-higher-than-spacex/
            1. DAC scratch
              DAC scratch 8 December 2019 06: 37
              -2
              Well, interestingly, you won’t tell me how much then it will cost to launch a hangar rocket taking into account its development cost?
              1. slipped
                slipped 8 December 2019 12: 33
                +2
                Quote: DAC scratch
                Well, interestingly, you won’t tell me how much then it will cost to launch a hangar rocket taking into account its development cost?


                What kind of Angara rocket? Angara missiles are assemblies of universal missile modules. The cost of assembling the URM was not announced, the launch price of the first prototype A5, launched from Plesetsk in 2014, was announced - about $ 100 million, in addition, the cost of the first two A1.2s was announced as about 2 billion rubles. But it was also stated that the cost of assembling new URMs was reduced by 30%, which suggests that the A5 rocket is already practically comparable in terms of the cost of launch services with the Proton-M rocket for foreign customers.
                1. DAC scratch
                  DAC scratch 8 December 2019 12: 34
                  -2
                  and taking into account the cost of development?
                  1. slipped
                    slipped 8 December 2019 12: 35
                    +2
                    Quote: DAC scratch
                    and taking into account the cost of development?


                    Of course. This is already taking into account the cost, which is distributed among the first carriers.
                    1. DAC scratch
                      DAC scratch 8 December 2019 13: 16
                      -1
                      you didn’t write that you already spent more than 5 billion dollars on the hangar, and this is in 2012, when you consider the cost of American ships, you took into account the cost of development, but here
                      1. slipped
                        slipped 8 December 2019 13: 53
                        +1
                        Quote: DAC scratch
                        you didn’t write that you already spent more than 5 billion dollars on the hangar, and this is in 2012, when you consider the cost of American ships, you took into account the cost of development, but here


                        you are wrong in assessing who spent what. The Angara missile complex is a federal project funded by the Ministry of Defense and intended to replace the Proton-M rocket; it does not require a quick payback, as in private companies. In the case of the commercial sale of services for the launch of this rocket, the profit received is an off-budget source of funding and is an addition to the MO budget. The rocket manufacturer already has a stable state order for federal launches.
                      2. DAC scratch
                        DAC scratch 8 December 2019 14: 06
                        -2
                        Well, I'm not mistaken feel and the head of the Federal Space Agency, I didn’t take these figures from the air
                      3. slipped
                        slipped 8 December 2019 14: 14
                        +2
                        Quote: DAC scratch
                        Well, I'm not mistaken feel and the head of the Federal Space Agency, I didn’t take these figures from the air


                        I'm not talking about the amount, although you made a mistake in it, I'm talking about estimating the cost of launch services, this is what you are interested in in the cost of services for the withdrawal of astronauts on new American ships - since the ships are private, they must pay off otherwise a private company will go bankrupt ... The number of launches of these ships is limited, since they were created only for the ISS, hence the price of the cost of space for them for the manufacturer. By lowering the cost of "commercial" sites, they will have to raise the cost for NASA astronauts. Which NASA really doesn't like. laughing
                      4. The comment was deleted.
                      5. slipped
                        slipped 8 December 2019 15: 51
                        +3
                        As part of a commercial contract. "Soyuz MS", for example, are being built in our country within the framework of a state contract under the federal space program.

                        In addition, earlier private companies planned to launch seven people each, but in the same Dragon, a change in the seat angle, at the request of NASA, made it necessary to reduce the crew to four, respectively, which affected the cost of the seat.
            2. DAC scratch
              DAC scratch 8 December 2019 13: 24
              -2
              Quote: slipped
              Quote: DAC scratch
              mistake, StarLiner is expected to have about 90 million, Space x has even less union of 55 million https://3dnews.ru/998065


              error again

              For Boeing, taking into account the contract $ 4,2 billion plus additional financing for the project another $ 877 million, with a crew of 4 people and 4-6 contracted launches - the price per seat is not $ 90 million, but $ 179-268 million.

              For SpaceX, the cost of space for NASA is $ 130 to $ 196 million.

              https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/nasa-report-finds-boeing-seat-prices-are-60-higher-than-spacex/

              I read the link, I didn’t understand why you think that the cost for a seat is from 170-270, it says that NASA gave extra money to the ship itself, but the price for a seat will cost 90 lyam, or didn’t I understand something?
  5. Aliken
    Aliken 7 December 2019 13: 07
    0
    We'll have to fasten the hitch to the Soyuz.
  6. Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 7 December 2019 13: 07
    0
    Will it fly or not?
  7. Thrifty
    Thrifty 7 December 2019 13: 12
    -2
    They could have come up with a simpler name, as if they would fly to the stars on this fragile space shuttle. .... except in a few thousand years.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 7 December 2019 13: 42
      +1
      In addition to Dragon 2 and this ship, they also have Orion and an analogue of our Bor - in iron.
      1. donavi49
        donavi49 7 December 2019 14: 50
        +3
        Orion is still about something else.
        The analogue of Bor - by the way, lives well. As friends with Lockheed, immediately the money flowed and work intensified. Well, they are in the CRS-2 program (the second stage of the ISS supply) - they most likely will solve the Cygnus (because Orbital is dead and the launch vehicle is also full, or rather it is still alive but the most expensive).


        By the way, they still dream of making it manned. At the same time they want to make or WOW for tourists - a projection system a la glass walls. Or pseudo-illuminators - well, in the sense of electronic. If NASA allows them, there will be the first deaf manned spacecraft that relies entirely on cameras.
  8. rocket757
    rocket757 7 December 2019 13: 25
    0
    We are waiting with. Or do not wait, sir?
  9. Vitaly Tsymbal
    Vitaly Tsymbal 7 December 2019 13: 30
    +1
    Finally, the States of America laughing And then they won World War II, the first flew to the moon, democracy is strenuously asserted all over the world, and their astronauts are delivered to the ISS in Zhiguli ... Isn't this a shame for the greatest of the greatest nations of our time crying
    1. DAC scratch
      DAC scratch 7 December 2019 14: 56
      -1
      Well, if they had to find fault, there was already such a period when they did not fly for 8 years, between Apollo and the shuttle
      1. Lontus
        Lontus 7 December 2019 15: 20
        -1
        Quote: DAC scratch
        Well, if they had to find fault, there was already such a period when they did not fly for 8 years, between Apollo and the shuttle

        You need to lie so that it would be hard to check.
        Less than 6 years old, according to legend, the interval without manned flights was: July 15, 1975 - April 12, 1981.
        Absolutely lazy and stupid nasa propagandists went.
        1. DAC scratch
          DAC scratch 7 December 2019 15: 35
          0
          Quote: Lontus
          Quote: DAC scratch
          Well, if they had to find fault, there was already such a period when they did not fly for 8 years, between Apollo and the shuttle

          You need to lie so that it would be hard to check.
          Less than 6 years old, according to legend, the interval without manned flights was: July 15, 1975 - April 12, 1981.
          Absolutely lazy and stupid nasa propagandists went.

          but I won’t be obligated as you, because above this I’ll explain what I wrote from memory and I didn’t remember exactly, but you immediately see me declassified
    2. Kirill Dou
      Kirill Dou 8 December 2019 03: 54
      -3
      Quote: Vitaly Tsymbal
      And then they won the World War II, the first flew to the moon, democracy is being strenuously asserted all over the world, and their astronauts are delivered to the ISS in Zhiguli ...


      But Russia has not yet been born a "Federation". Although she won World War II, put man into space, fights against American imperialism around the world - she continues to use ships of the 2s.
  10. thinker
    thinker 7 December 2019 14: 49
    +4
    That "road maps", now "dress rehearsal", the ears fade. Absolutely not a technical term. Final, pre-launch, complex test ... request
  11. Vladimir61
    Vladimir61 7 December 2019 14: 56
    0
    We start, today we are starting
    And I kiss Soyuz again and forget about everything ...
  12. Lord of the Sith
    Lord of the Sith 7 December 2019 15: 04
    +6
    We’ll see, and for almost 10 years the Yankees have not had their own manned cosmonautics, ayah)
  13. Lontus
    Lontus 7 December 2019 16: 53
    +2
    It's funny, but this expensive "ultra-modern" barrel does not have a toilet!

    Astronauts will go for themselves ..

    They hope that they will quickly reach the ISS and use the toilet there?
    And if the docking breaks? Or someone does not tolerate?

    And not only with the toilet is a problem.
    Initially, the entire SJO (life support system) is designed for only 60 hours.
    And if the delay?
    1. slipped
      slipped 7 December 2019 17: 53
      +3
      Like a herring in a barrel

      1. Lontus
        Lontus 7 December 2019 17: 54
        -1
        what is the bottom will sniff the diapers of the top?
        1. slipped
          slipped 7 December 2019 17: 58
          0
          Quote: Lontus
          what is the bottom will sniff the diapers of the top?


          And there’s still a lot of bags full of cargo ... but you still have to take off and store the spacesuits somewhere for drying ....
      2. Fraracol_2
        Fraracol_2 7 December 2019 19: 05
        -3
        Is it more spacious in the Union? There are at least 7 people here, and there is nowhere to put the 4th on.
        1. slipped
          slipped 7 December 2019 20: 53
          +1
          Quote: Fraancol_2
          Is it more spacious in the Union? There are at least 7 people here, and there is nowhere to put the 4th on.


          In "Soyuz MS" - 6,5 cubes for three are usually free of cargo, but here 7 cubes were barely scraped into seven.
      3. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 7 December 2019 20: 26
        -2
        "Like herrings in a barrel" ////
        ----
        And how are three placed in the Union? Also - not a luxury ...
        1. Lontus
          Lontus 7 December 2019 20: 50
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          "Like herrings in a barrel" ////
          ----
          And how are three placed in the Union? Also - not a luxury ...

          in your photo, only the SA lander.
          And KK Soyuz (as everyone who knows about the topic) also has an orbital compartment of the OO, which they do not land.
          And yes - the Union is more spacious and comfortable than other capsules, even not yet flying,
          because it is more competently arranged.
          1. Mityay65
            Mityay65 7 December 2019 21: 31
            +2
            Quote: Lontus
            There is also an orbital compartment of the OO, which is not landing.

            And in OO, last but not least, quite a comfortable space outhouse ... yes
            And apparently, the Union will remain for many years the only CC in which there is such an excess, others do not ...
            St. Ilon, however, provided for some kind of a nook behind the curtains, but all this looks very dumb ... how can women be?
        2. slipped
          slipped 7 December 2019 21: 05
          +3
          Quote: voyaka uh
          And how are three placed in the Union? Also - not a luxury ...


          You have a photo only the Descent Machine.

          In general, in flight something like this:

          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 7 December 2019 21: 08
            0
            Thank you for the clarification drinks
            1. slipped
              slipped 7 December 2019 22: 35
              +3
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Thank you for the clarification drinks


              I will add. The fact is that the Soyuz was originally planned as a spacecraft for flights to the Moon, so it is a "two-room" one and everyday conveniences were included in it based on a multi-day flight of two people without spacesuits. So this can be said to be a positive vestige of the past in its design. The appearance after the Soyuz-11 accident among the cosmonauts of flight suits, as well as the creation of a transport version with three cosmonauts to the orbital station, somewhat reduced the volume of his living area per person to almost Spartan conditions ... but on the whole, the slogan is fully justified there - "in cramped, but not offended. " Today the flight to the station reaches six hours, and they are going to shorten it still.
  14. 7,62x54
    7,62x54 7 December 2019 17: 12
    0
    Robot Fedor called the American rocket terrible. We trust Fedor more than NASA.
    1. slipped
      slipped 7 December 2019 17: 48
      +3
      Quote: 7,62x54
      Robot Fedor called the American rocket terrible. We trust Fedor more than NASA.


      and you don’t need to believe there, it's enough just to look at it:

      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 7 December 2019 20: 33
        -1
        And what is so particularly defective in Atlas-5?
        The missile is obsolete, of course, with its solid fuel boosters,
        launches are expensive. But plows, like the Unions.
        1. slipped
          slipped 7 December 2019 20: 51
          +2
          Yes, no one says that the Atlas-5 is defective, we are talking about its appearance with Starliner's supercaliber knob ... it looks stupid
  15. slipped
    slipped 7 December 2019 17: 28
    +4
    on our RD-180 laughing

    1. Kirill Dou
      Kirill Dou 8 December 2019 03: 57
      -2
      Starliner can be displayed not only by Atlas-5, but also by Delta-4 Heavy and even Falcon-9 (optional).
  16. da Vinci
    da Vinci 7 December 2019 19: 28
    0
    "After that, the US plans to abandon flights on Russian Soyuz, but will not refuse to cooperate."
  17. Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin 7 December 2019 21: 43
    0
    laughing Russian scientists have patented a combined engine for aviation and space

    State Corporation Roscosmos announced on Saturday on Facebook about the invention of a combined engine suitable for use in the atmosphere and in airless space. Scientists from the Keldysh Center Denis Slesarev and Vadim Tararyshkin received a patent for this invention.

    According to Roskosmos, the new engine will accelerate the aircraft to hypersonic speed.https: //yandex.ru/patents/doc/RU2693951C1_20190708 With our "partners" it is necessary to patent the possibility of patenting. Otherwise, it turns out that they invented and patented and sold it three times.

    RU2693951C1 - Combined aircraft engine - Yandex.Patents laughing
  18. Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin 7 December 2019 21: 47
    -2
    As told in Roscosmos, the new engine will accelerate the aircraft to hypersonic speed.

    "The invention can be used to create an aerospace horizontal launch system, or to create an aircraft that will be able to carry out a short flight at hypersonic speed," the message says.

    Russian scientists, confirmed in Roskosmos, are conducting current research, because such engines are currently being developed in the United States and Great Britain.
  19. Kirill Dou
    Kirill Dou 8 December 2019 03: 38
    -5
    Hurry up already. Because of the Starliner, NASA is slowing down the Cru Dragon to keep the development of both ships on a par.