Russian plans to explore the planets

51

The last two months of the last 2011 of the year were marked by unpleasant events around the Phobos-Grunt automatic interplanetary station (AMS). A promising spacecraft fell victim to problems with the accelerating device, as a result of which it remained in low earth orbit, and then descended from it. 15 January 2012, the failed "expedition" ended - the device burned down in the atmosphere. The first versions of the reasons for the failure began to appear almost immediately after the device did not fall into the calculated orbit. Moreover, not all hypotheses regarding an emergency situation were proposed by competent persons. Anyway, according to the results of the analysis of the information collected during the launch and in the following days, it was found that electronics unsuitable for actions in space conditions became the main culprit of the accident.

It should be noted that the failure pursued the Phobos-Grunt project from the very beginning. The idea to send an automatic station to the satellite of Mars in order for it to collect information and deliver samples of soil to Earth, appeared in 1996 year. At that time, the launch of the rocket with the device was planned for 2004 year. However, by the mid-2000s, the financial and temporary aspects of the program had been seriously revised. Therefore, the launch of the AMC Phobos-Grunt was first transferred to the 2009 year, and then to the 2011. The subsequent fate of this station is known to all.



As it became known, in the coming years a new project could be launched, the goals of which will coincide completely with the objectives of Phobos-Grunt. But this is a difficult and slow matter. Therefore, the updated station, equipped with new equipment, will go to the Red Planet no earlier than 2020 of the year. According to the general director of the NGO them. Lavochkin V. Hartova, such terms are caused by several factors at once. These are financing, space industry opportunities, and current plans. In particular, now a higher priority is the joint project “Exomars”, which is being conducted jointly with the European Space Agency. The latter, as Hartov says, will be useful for the new Phobos research program: several new solutions and technologies are required for a flight to Mars, and the ExoMors project is quite capable of becoming their “progenitor”.

Despite the failure of the Phobos-Grunt program, Roscosmos and related organizations continue to work and make some progress in their field. Moreover, these achievements are recognized abroad. So, in May 2012, the Russian Space Systems OJSC received a very interesting letter signed by the Director of the London Royal Institute of Navigation. In this letter, RKS notified that the Council of the Institute had decided to award the team of employees working on the GLONASS project a Duke of Edinburgh award for technical achievement for 2012 a year. RKS engineers received an honorary prize "for the full deployment of the system in December 2011 and the provision of navigation and time services." 11 July held a solemn ceremony.

As you can see, failures with electronics or criminal actions of some officials on the "mastering" of funds, in general, do not have a fatal effect on the work of the space industry. Among others, several automatic interplanetary stations are being developed at once, which will go to their targets in the coming years. The first of these projects is the Venus Research Probe, also known as the European Venus Explorer (European Venus Probe). Russia's participation in this program is to provide a launch vehicle and related equipment. In November 2013, the Venus probe will be launched into Earth orbit with the help of the Soyuz-FG rocket and the Fregat upper stage. The launch will take place at the Kourou space center in French Guiana. The purpose of the flight of the Venus research probe is to study the atmosphere of Venus, its composition, dynamics, etc.

A little later, in 2015, another spacecraft, this time exclusively Russian, will go to its target. With the help of the Soyuz-2 launch vehicle, the Interheliozond vehicle will be sent to Earth’s orbit. Then he will fly to Venus, where with the help of gravitational maneuvers he will gain enough speed to fly to the Sun. The set of equipment necessary for the required measurements of various parameters of the star will be installed at the automatic station. These are x-ray telescopes, spectrographs, magnetographs, analyzers and particle detectors, spectrometers, etc. With the help of Interheliozond station, scientists of the Russian Academy of Sciences hope to collect information about the Sun, the solar wind, the dynamics of matter inside the star, and much more. During research, the device will be in orbit with a diameter of about 40 of the radii of the Sun. To ensure work in such difficult conditions, domestic scientists are currently developing a new heat shield.

In the same year as Intergeliozond, the station of the Luna-Glob project will make its flight to the Moon. The first launch of the device, created by this program in the NPO. Lavochkin, planned for the beginning of the 2012 year, but because of the incident with the AMC "Phobos-Grunt" he was moved to three years. During the Luna-Glob program, at least two launches of spacecraft will be carried out. First, in 2015, an orbital probe carrying measurement, photo and video equipment will be sent to the natural satellite of the Earth. His goal will be to shoot the lunar surface and some explorations of the moon that can be done without descending onto it. A little later, in 2016, the Zenit-3 launch vehicle will send a second probe into space. This "participant" of the project will not be orbital, but descent. It is the descent vehicle "Luna-Glob" that will collect basic information and send it to Earth. In general, the objectives of the Luna-Glob project resemble what Soviet automatic stations of the sixties and seventies were doing. Since then, the technique has gone far ahead and the opportunity to resume research satellite of our native planet. In the future, according to the results of the Luna-Glob descent probe, it is possible to send other AMCs that have different equipment and other tasks. The information collected by the Luna-Glob apparatus will be useful in the preparation of the planned manned missions to the moon.

Obviously, the Luna-Glob orbiter will collect information not only to ensure the “landing” of its descendable fellow. In the 2017 year, Russia and India are planning to launch a joint launch of two more lunar vehicles. An Indian-made GSLV-2 launch vehicle will be launched from the Shriharikot cosmodrome, carrying the Russian station Luna-Resource and the Indian Chandrayan-2. By approaching the Moon, the stations will diverge: the Russian will land, and the Indian will remain in orbit. It is known that the Luna-Resource descent module will have a high degree of unification with the Luna-Glob descent station. The Russian station "Luna-Resource" will be engaged in contact and remote studies of the polar regions of the moon. In particular, the object of study will be the lunar soil, the structure of the satellite and its interaction with the Earth. The Indian module Chandrayaan-2, which is in orbit, in turn, will collect the information for which it is necessary to be at some distance from the surface: the state and features of the plasma and dust exosphere, the impact of solar radiation on the moon, etc.

At about the same time, Russia will again begin independent studies of Venus. On the 2016-17 years, the launch of the Venus-D probe is planned. The twelve-ton spacecraft will consist of three parts and will be launched into space using the carrier rocket “Proton” or “Angara”. The basis of the research complex: the orbital automatic station. Its task is to be in orbit and make measurements of various parameters of the Venusian atmosphere. Simultaneously with the work in orbit, the main module will send probes to the planet. The first of them will fall to a height of about 55-60 kilometers from the surface of the planet, and the second will work under a layer of clouds, at altitudes of 45-50 km. The strength of both probes should be enough for eight to ten days of operation, after which the aggressive atmosphere of the atmosphere will disable them. For the time available, the probes will collect information about the composition of the atmosphere in its various layers, the dynamics of movement of flows, etc. It is also planned to include in the research complex a descent vehicle. Due to the high pressure at the surface of the planet, its protection is only enough for two or three hours of work and for a descent of 30-60 minutes in length. Now, in the early stages of developing research probes, it is noted that if a more powerful launch vehicle is used, the expansion of the complex is possible. First of all, one more drifting atmospheric automatic station can be added. In addition, the persons responsible for the development of the equipment claim that in the very near future it is possible to create environmental protection systems with which the drifting probes can be located at altitudes of about 50 kilometers during the month.

The orbital module "Venus-D" will function until about the beginning of the twenties. Later, it will be replaced by a new automatic station. The Venus-Glob project is a further development of Venus-D. Unlike the earlier station, the Venus-Glob orbital module is planned to equip the 4-6 with descent vehicles capable of operating in the atmosphere and on the surface. The program "Venus-Glob" dates back to the mid-2000s, when scientists of the Russian Academy of Sciences were studying the issue of the characteristics of the long-lived station. According to the results of the mass of research, it was concluded that the creation of a landing module for long-term work on the surface of Venus is still possible. However, in the current state of materials science and industry, such an apparatus will be extremely expensive. In addition, you will need to spend a lot of effort on the creation of effective cooling systems, or on the development of electronics, adapted to such harsh conditions as are hidden under the Venusian atmosphere. The Solar System Section of the Russian Academy of Sciences hopes to complete all the necessary research and make the long-term station that scientists from all over the world have been dreaming about for the years remaining before the proposed launch. It is noted that the Venus-Glob program could well be completed in cooperation with the Europeans. The fact is that after the completion of the Euopean Venus Explorer station, the ESA plans to commission the AMC EVE-2. Cooperation between the Russian Academy of Sciences and the European Space Agency may lead to the fact that instead of two automatic stations, only one will fly to Venus, but it has a much greater scientific potential than the initial projects of independent development.

The projects of automatic interplanetary stations listed above have already gone beyond the stage of proposals and are the subject of design work. Almost all of them, with the exception of Venus-Glob, are also part of the Federal Space Program 2006-2015. When looking at the pace of proposals, the development of projects, launches and plans for the future, the idea of ​​the expediency of adopting a federal program involuntarily arises. In any case, even the mere reconstruction of the grouping of the GLONASS system clearly hints at the gradual restoration of the capacity of the domestic space industry. In the future, this will give a good pace of development in different directions, including automatic interplanetary stations. However, not everything is smooth here either. Remembering "Phobos-Grunt", it is worth noting the need to monitor each stage of development, assembly and operation. Space technology has one very unpleasant feature: even a small saving on the quality of any component can lead to disproportionate losses. It was for this reason that the notorious Phobos-Grunt was lost. I really do not want the following automatic stations to fly to other planets, but fall to their home.


On the materials of the sites:
http://interfax.by/
http://phobos.cosmos.ru/
http://lr.cosmos.ru/
http://venera-d.cosmos.ru/
http://stp.cosmos.ru/
http://izmiran.ru/
http://odnako.org/
51 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. itr
    +10
    19 July 2012 08: 34
    Well, I think that for a start Mr. Popovkin needs to hammer this satellite into the ass and scroll a bit, and there you look and the heyday of Russian cosmonautics is not far off
    1. FID
      +5
      19 July 2012 13: 33
      A bit rude. But VERY much on the topic +++++!
    2. Rider
      0
      20 July 2012 15: 40
      Quote: itr
      need Mr. Popovkin this satellite in the ass to score and scroll a little


      I noticed the tendency of VO forum visitors to non-traditional forms of love. Whatever they discuss, they will certainly come to homosexuality.
  2. Cosmonaut
    +13
    19 July 2012 08: 48
    There is stagnation all over the world in terms of the practical study of space. In the 60s, so many things happened, and then they got into their own orbit and started doing all sorts of dick (growing cucumbers, space tourism, etc.). I probably won’t live to see the moment when the human foot sets foot on the surface of Mars sad .
    1. +6
      19 July 2012 10: 39
      Cosmonaut
      Most likely we will not survive.
      In light of the underfunding of the industry, a strategy is not clear in which the stake was placed on Venusian projects.
      As for me, it’s better to concentrate on the moon and the construction of an inhabited base. Or they remembered the project to build a plant in orbit for the production of ultra-pure materials. Landier and the economic effect will be closer. Although such activities will not do harm.
      1. Cosmonaut
        0
        19 July 2012 12: 32
        EKIPs will be put into production more underground and cost-effective.
        1. +1
          19 July 2012 13: 12
          Cosmonaut
          See? The people did not understand. Decrypt ECIP.
          1. Cosmonaut
            -1
            19 July 2012 13: 14
            Ecology and progress. It seems so.
      2. +4
        19 July 2012 12: 40
        Guys, why so gloomy? We have to hope for the best. For example, I really want to live up to the time when this whole mess in the countries (Russia and Ukraine) will end. And since I think this will happen, I’m not afraid that I will have to live a very long time, well, very .
        1. Cosmonaut
          +1
          19 July 2012 13: 13
          So I also think smile
    2. deodorant
      0
      19 July 2012 20: 00
      "The whole world is stagnant in terms of practical space exploration" ....
      go to the site of rotting NASA
      1. Cosmonaut
        0
        19 July 2012 22: 12
        You do not understand me. Research is being conducted everywhere, I do not argue, but the scope is not the same.
    3. Rider
      0
      20 July 2012 15: 44
      Quote: Cosmonaut
      Worldwide stagnation in terms of the practical study of space.


      Stagnation only in Russia
      Since 2000, NASA has made several dozen expeditions into the depths of space.

      Three days after the accident with Phobos-Grunt, the unmanned spacecraft YUNONA (NASA) was successfully launched to Jupiter.
      The expedition "New Horizons" has been going on for the 6th year already - the American station is flying to Pluto. The expected arrival to the target is 2015.

      And in Russia - stagnation. While Anna Chapman will finance Roskosmos, Russian satellites will continue to study the bottom of the Pacific Ocean
      1. Cosmonaut
        0
        20 July 2012 22: 38
        You are wrong))) Everything is going well with us, "Phobos-Grunt" gave the trolls food, but soon, I hope everything will change. How do Americans and Europeans have ships?))
        1. Rider
          0
          22 July 2012 17: 43
          Quote: Cosmonaut
          How do Americans and Europeans have ships?


          With manned astronautics, everything is fine. While Russia is using the only successful development of the USSR - the Soyuz spacecraft, the United States has developed two heavy manned ships - the Apollo and its receiver - the Space Shuttle. The first commercial spacecraft, the Dragon, entered orbit a month ago.

          Shuttle 135 successful missions, two accidents. 14 of the fallen Americans is a tragedy for the USA, but what a trifle for the Soviet Cosmonautics. 18 April 1980 year in Plisetsk when the launch of a space satellite by the explosion killed 49 people, but all do not care. Plisetsk is not a Space Shuttle

          That's it smile



          Quote: Cosmonaut
          but soon, I hope everything changes

          First, remove Anna Chapman away from the financing of Roskosmos
          1. +1
            22 July 2012 17: 56
            While Russia is using the only successful development of the USSR - the Soyuz spacecraft, the United States has developed two heavy manned ships - the Apollo and its receiver - the Space Shuttle.

            this indicates the reliability and success of the union design.

            Shuttle 135 successful missions, two accidents. 14 of the fallen Americans is a tragedy for the USA, but what a trifle for the Soviet Cosmonautics. 18 April 1980 year in Plisetsk when the launch of a space satellite by the explosion killed 49 people, but all do not care. Plisetsk is not a Space Shuttle


            no need to juggle.

            Remind you how astronauts perished on earth burning in oxygen?

            On January 27 1967 on Cape Kennedy, Florida, during ground tests in the cockpit of the Apollo 1 American spacecraft preparing to launch on the moon, astronauts W. Griss, E. White, and R. Chaffee burned down alive.

            http://crash.worldwebspot.com/aviakatastrofy/gibel-amerikanskix-astronavtov.html




            when in Russia was the last disaster with the ship DURING THE FLIGHT? year so in 1960? Compare with the Shuttles.
            1. Rider
              0
              22 July 2012 20: 12
              Quote: Straus_zloy
              this indicates the reliability and success of the union design.

              This suggests that the Soviet space program succeeded only where it is easy, simple and cheap.
              When it took truly serious research, NASA quickly rushed forward. Soviet stations have never been to the outer planets of the solar system, all the data on space known to us were received from American probes. Hubble, Chandra, Herschel, Planck Space Observatories - Soviet cosmonautics could not create anything like this

              And you can continue to rejoice that Kalash does not need to be cleaned ...


              Quote: Straus_zloy
              Remind you how astronauts perished on earth burning in oxygen?

              On October 24, 1960, 78 people burned out in oxygen at Baikonur, including Marshal Mitrofan Nedelin. And no one cares, this is not the Apollo 1 crew

              Quote: Straus_zloy
              when was the last catastrophe in Russia during the flight? year so in 1960?

              A little later - in April 30, 1971 the crew of Volkov, Patsaev and Dobrovoltsev died
              The fact is that in the USSR, as in the United States, two spacecraft with the entire crew perished. And the fact that only 4 cosmonauts died against 14 amerskikh - speaks only of the lower carrying capacity of the "Union"
              1. 0
                22 July 2012 22: 50
                This suggests that the Soviet space program succeeded only where it is easy, simple and cheap.
                When it took truly serious research, NASA quickly rushed forward.


                NASA - JERASA, remember the story?


                4 October 1957, the first Soviet artificial Earth satellite was launched into orbit. This event is rightfully considered the beginning of the space age.

                12 April 1961, Space flight of Yuri Gagarin. This flight marked the beginning of the penetration of man beyond the boundaries of the Earth.

                Orbital stations, the technologies of which became the basis of the ISS, Panoramas from the surface of Venus - I probably dreamed about them, yes.

                1985 r The project '' Vega '' ('' Venus is Halley's Comet '') was one of the most complex studies of the solar system using spacecraft in the history.
                In the Vega project, the comet's nucleus was first studied as a spatially resolved object, its structure, dimensions, infrared temperature were determined, and estimates of its composition and characteristics of the surface layer were obtained.


                On October 24, 1960, 78 people burned out in oxygen at Baikonur, including Marshal Mitrofan Nedelin. And no one cares, this is not the Apollo 1 crew

                What the fuck is oxygen and where does the space program?

                accident with numerous casualties in preparation for the first test launch of the P-16 intercontinental ballistic missile.

                http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D1

                %84%D0%B0_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B5_%2

                81960% 29

                do not confuse warm with soft And why did you get the idea that someone does not care?

                The fact is that in the USSR, as well as in the USA, two spacecraft with the entire crew perished. And the fact that only 4 cosmonauts died against 14 amerskikh - speaks only of the lesser carrying capacity of the "Union"

                Or maybe that the USSR did not see the need to drive a crowd of people into orbit, and therefore the "Buran" remained unclaimed. A large carrying capacity was easily provided by "Proton"
                1. Rider
                  -1
                  23 July 2012 00: 00
                  Quote: Straus_zloy
                  NASA - JERASA, remember the story?

                  Why are you getting so dear smile Let's remember the story.

                  23.03.1965 - The first maneuver in orbit.
                  03.06.1965/XNUMX/XNUMX - The first use by an astronaut of an individual rocket engine.
                  16.03.1966 - The first dock.
                  14.09.1966 - An experiment to create gravity - 2 spacecraft were connected by ropes and untwisted.
                  23.05.1969/XNUMX/XNUMX - The first docking in the orbit of the moon.
                  12.04.1981/XNUMX/XNUMX - The first flight of the shuttle (reusable ship).
                  11.11.1982/XNUMX/XNUMX - The first launch of an Earth satellite from a spaceship.
                  07.02.1984 - The first spacewalk without reference to the ship.
                  11.04.1984 - First satellite repair in orbit.
                  11.05.2009/1000/400 - Repair of the Hubble telescope at an altitude of XNUMX km. For comparison: Soviet cosmonauts never went further than XNUMX km from Earth.

                  Soviet cosmonautics was in the lead in the early 60s, when it was simple and cheap. When the real research was needed, NASA took the lead. Space probes "Pioneer", "Voyager" - for the first time man was able to see the depths of space, the probes "Cassini", "Ulysses", "Soho", "Messenger", "New Horizons", "Juno" nothing like this.

                  Soviet "Vega" explored the nucleus of a comet? And NASA's spacecraft have visited Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, an asteroid and Saturn's moon Titan many times; now a new probe is moving towards Pluto. And Soviet probes never flew farther than Mars. So the Soviet cosmonautics takes a worthy second place, is leading by a large margin of NASA-HERAS laughing Learn the story, dear


                  Quote: Straus_zloy
                  accident with numerous casualties in preparation for the first test launch of the P-16 intercontinental ballistic missile.

                  I go nuts from your dibilism. What did Gagarin fly into space on? On the R-7 intercontinental ballistic missile. And to this day Soyuz uses this launch vehicle.
                  Therefore, the accident with R-16 and Marshal Nedelin is directly related to space exploration.


                  Quote: Straus_zloy
                  Remind you how astronauts perished on earth burning in oxygen?

                  March 23, 1960 a member of the cosmonaut squad Vladimir Bondarenko burned out in an oxygen atmosphere while practicing exercises in the sound chamber
                  Quote: Straus_zloy
                  Or maybe that the USSR did not see the need to drive a crowd of people into orbit, and therefore the "Buran" remained unclaimed. A large carrying capacity was easily provided by "Proton"

                  Well, firstly, the leader in carrying capacity is the American Saturn-5 LV; Soviet engineers were not able to launch their H-1
                  Secondly, the Shuttle had great capabilities, except for a crew of 7 people, it carried 20 tons in the cargo hold and, most importantly, it could maneuver in orbit for a long time (a lot of fuel and additional engines). It was he who climbed to an altitude of 1000 km to repair the Hubble telescope.

                  Well, the "Buran" was licked off the Shuttle (which the creators themselves already admit), and they never mastered it.
                  And yet - the first real orbital station was created by NASA-JERASA. Skylab, 1973 year
                  1. +1
                    23 July 2012 14: 15
                    Why are you starting up, dear smile Let's recall the story.

                    Let's

                    23.03.1965 - First Orbital Maneuvering

                    tell a psychiatrist

                    With the aim of studying stabilization issues and conducting wide maneuvering in near-Earth space, the manned maneuvering devices Flight-1 (November 1963) and Flight-2 (April 1964) were launched into orbit. After separation from rocket launchers and ballistic flight, the spacecraft Polet-1 and Polet-2 made numerous maneuvers in various directions.


                    16.03.1966 - First docking.


                    The world's first manual docking - US 16 March 1966 year.

                    The world's first fully automatic docking of two spacecraft - USSR 30 October 1967 years

                    The world's first docking of two manned ships - the USSR in January 1969 of the year (Soyuz-4 and Soyuz-5 ships)


                    14.09.1966 - An experiment to create gravity - 2 spacecraft were connected by ropes and untwisted.


                    this is not the creation of gravity, but the creation of centrifugal forces - learn physics

                    2 January 1959 - Moon-1 First achieved the second cosmic velocity,
                    as a result, the device entered the heliocentric orbit, becoming the first artificial satellite of the sun

                    14 September 1959 The Moon-2 station reached the surface of the Moon for the first time in the world

                    7 October 1959 The Luna-3 station for the first time in the world transmitted images of the far side of the Moon to Earth
                    The first use of gravity maneuver

                    3 February 1966 Luna-9 station made the first soft landing on the moon's surface for the first time in the world. First photos from the moon's surface

                    1 March 1966 of the year "Venus-3" was the first spacecraft to reach the surface of another planet

                    December 15 1970 of the year at 8 hours 34 minutes 10 seconds the descent vehicle of the Venera-7 station landed for the first time in history on the surface of Venus

                    22 July 1972 years, "Venus-8." For the first time, a soft landing was made on the day side of Venus.

                    On August 19 of 1960, the Sputnik-5 was launched in the USSR, on board of which were Belka and Strelka dogs. After the orbital flight, the dogs returned safely to Earth.

                    16 June 1963 - "East-6" The first woman in space

                    12 October 1964 - Sunrise-1 The first multi-seat spaceship, a crew of three cosmonauts at once

                    18 March 1965 - Astronaut's first spacewalk - Alexei Leonov

                    19 March 1965 - "Sunrise-2" The first landing of the ship in manual mode after an automatic failure

                    2 November 1965 - “Proton (SC)” and “Proton (LV)” The first heavy satellite (automatic station) and the first launch of a heavy launch vehicle



                    26 November 1965 Cosmos-97, installed a molecular generator to measure the stability and gravitational shift of its frequency to test the general theory of relativity in space flight.

                    15-21 September 1968 "Probe-5" The first flight of the moon and the return of the device to Earth.

                    October 1975 of the year “Venus-9 / 10” is the world's first photographs transmitted from the surface of another planet.

                    15 November 1988 year. The Buran was launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome using the Energia launch vehicle. The flight duration was 205 minutes, the ship made two orbits around the Earth, after which it landed at the Yubileiny airdrome on Baikonur. The flight took place without a crew in automatic mode using the on-board computer and on-board software, unlike the shuttle, which traditionally performs the last stage of landing on manual control. This fact - the flight of a spacecraft into space and its descent to Earth in automatic mode under the control of an on-board computer - was included in the Guinness Book of Records.

                    Further laziness, there are still orbital stations and long manned flights, space medicine and biology in which the USSR has gone very far ahead. I feel sorry for you if you think the Soviet space program is worse than the American


                    I go nuts from your dibilism. What did Gagarin fly into space on? On the R-7 intercontinental ballistic missile. And to this day Soyuz uses this launch vehicle.
                    Therefore, the accident with P-16 and Marshal Nedelin is directly related to space exploration.


                    You're stupid ? Let’s also bring the ships with accidents with submarine missile carriers and explosions in ammunition depots. Accidents with military missiles are not related to space programs.

                    Well, firstly, the leader in carrying capacity is the American Saturn-5 LV; Soviet engineers were not able to launch their H-1

                    It was a voluntary decision of the party and government at a time when the rocket was almost finished. Are you aware that the engines manufactured for her are now being re-opened and used, are they so good?


                    Well, the "Buran" was licked off the Shuttle (which the creators themselves already admit), and they never mastered it.


                    What nonsense (not mastered) - offhand:

                    Shuttle sits down with idle engines. He does not have the opportunity to land several times, therefore, several landing sites are provided in the United States.

                    Unlike the shuttles, the Buran system provided for an emergency crew rescue system.

                    After the disaster of the Columbia spacecraft, and especially with the closure of the Space Shuttle program, Western media have repeatedly expressed the view that the US space agency NASA is interested in reviving the Energy-Buran complex and expects to make a corresponding order for Russia in the near future time. Meanwhile, according to the Interfax news agency, TsNIIMash director G. G. Raikunov said that Russia could return to this program after 2018 year and create launch vehicles capable of launching cargo up to 24 tons into orbit; tests will be launched in 2015. In the future, it is planned to create rockets that will deliver into orbit cargo weighing more than 100 tons.

                    http://propulsiontech.wordpress.com/2011/05/07/russia-to-review-its-space-shuttl
                    e-project /

                    http://www.dailypress.com/sports/nationworld/bal-te.russia05feb05,0,3940646,full
                    .story

                    http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Russia_To_Review_Its_Space_Shuttle_Project_999
                    .html

                    And yet - the first real orbital station was created by NASA-JERASA. Skylab, 1973 year

                    In total, three expeditions visited the station.
                    don't compare dick with your finger
                    1. Rider
                      -1
                      23 July 2012 22: 20
                      Quote: Straus_zloy
                      In total, three expeditions visited the station.
                      don't compare dick with your finger

                      Indeed, it is impossible to compare Skylab with Soviet counterparts of that period.
                      The sealed volume of the Salyut station is 90 cubic meters.
                      The sealed volume of "Skylab" is 352 cubic meters.
                      It was only in 1986 that Mir was launched into orbit, which could be compared with the Skylab, created 13 years earlier. The sealed volume of "Mir" is 372 cubic meters.

                      The Skylab station was visited by 3 expeditions, and its peers, the Salutes, were at most 1-2. The first five Salyut stations were lost, without even starting work, only the Salyut-1975 launched in 5 was able to stay in orbit for 2 years (Skylab spent 6 years, 1973-1979). So talk about the priority of the USSR in creating space stations should be more modest.

                      Quote: Straus_zloy
                      Shuttle sits down with idle engines. He does not have the opportunity to land several times, therefore, several landing sites are provided in the United States.

                      Buran created later on 10 years
                      Buran does not fly. Shuttle - 135 missions for 30 years of flight.

                      The stories about the revival of "Buran" are patriotic nonsense. The Americans already have a commercial Dragon flying and the X-47 project is ready. The X-47 spaceplane spent 469 days in orbit (the Buran flight lasted 205 minutes)

                      http://topwar.ru/15480-sekretnyy-amerikanskiy-kosmoplan-vernulsya-na-zemlyu.html

                      Quote: Straus_zloy
                      Unlike the shuttles, the Buran system provided for an emergency crew rescue system.

                      Only for two crew members. And do not forget - Buran was created 10 years later.

                      Regarding copying - read the Wikipedia article to the end, what Lozino-Lozinsky and Mikoyan said.


                      Quote: Straus_zloy
                      Are you aware that the engines manufactured for her are now being re-opened and used, are they so good?

                      Engines are good, but not for this purpose. Soviet engineers failed to coordinate their work. The first stage of Saturn - 5 engines., The first stage of N-1 - 30 engines. Marasmus.
                      This only says that in the USSR they could not create a sufficiently powerful engine. The result is natural - Saturn has 13 successful launches, N-1 four times plowed the spaceport.
                      Abandoned weight on the NOO: N-1 90 ... 100 tons, Saturn - 140 tons. Damn NASA-JERAS !!!!!

                      Quote: Straus_zloy
                      3 February 1966 Luna-9 station made the first soft landing on the moon's surface for the first time in the world. First photos from the moon's surface

                      1 March 1966 of the year "Venus-3" was the first spacecraft to reach the surface of another planet

                      Here! You have confirmed my words. when it was simple and cheap, the USSR was ahead of everyone.
                      But when it was required not just to fly faster and crash, but to conduct a long-term expedition, to perform complex gravitational maneuvers and conduct hundreds of experiments - only NASA could do that.

                      Of course, you ignored dozens of difficult missions to the outskirts of the solar system and the study of 6 planets that Soviet stations never flew to. Here IT is real research and real cosmonautics, and not propaganda launches of blanks.
                      The lunar program stands apart.

                      P.S. Here is the graphic material, maybe it will be more understandable to you.
                      1. -1
                        25 July 2012 00: 00
                        "The first five Salyut stations were lost without even starting work, only the Salyut-1975 launched in 5 was able to stay in orbit for 2 years."

                        You probably forgot that half of the fireworks, namely Salyut-2, Salyut-3, Salyut-5, were actually Almazi - military stations with cameras, cannons (even missiles were supposed) and did not count on visiting expeditions

                        Only in 1986 was Mir launched into orbit, which could be compared with the Skylab, created 13 years earlier. The sealed volume of the "World" -

                        And why the basis for the ISS was the technologies of Mir and not Skylab, they are probably 13 years newer and better

                        Buran created later on 10 years
                        Buran does not fly. Shuttle - 135 missions for 30 years of flight.


                        There were no tasks for "Buran", especially after the collapse of the country. In the USSR, he would undoubtedly fly.

                        Regarding copying - read the Wikipedia article to the end, what Lozino-Lozinsky and Mikoyan said.

                        I have not disputed this anywhere. They copied a lot, although if it had not been for the bloody Glushko, the Spiral would have flown. I disagree with "Didn't master it"

                        This only says that in the USSR they could not create a sufficiently powerful engine.


                        Damn, but the men (the Americans) don't know that Soviet engines are shit and for some reason they buy them from Energomash.
                        RD-180:
                        At 2009, the year is an export engine. All rights to use RD-180 in the USA belonged to the Space Systems Division of General Dynamics (USA), which at the beginning of the 1990 were purchased by Lockheed Martin for use on Atlas disposable media (Atlas-3 and Atlas-5 ). Today, all engine production is concentrated in Russia

                        RD-170 is a liquid-propellant rocket engine developed by Energomash Design Bureau (the beginning of work of 1976). It is the most powerful liquid-propellant rocket engine ever created. It is 2-7% more powerful than the single-chamber F-1 engine, which was installed at the first stage of the Saturn 5 LV with dimensions smaller by a factor of 1,5.

                        By the way, where is that "Saturn", if it's so good, why haven't they been building it for 40 years?

                        P.S. Here is the graphic material, maybe it will be more understandable to you.

                        I myself can draw such propaganda materials for you. The Soviet space program was different from the American one. The goal was not to throw the station somewhere far away to distant planets - to show off, but a reliable phased exploration of near space first. Therefore, the USSR went much further in manned flights, space biology and medicine. By the way, if we talk about repairs in space, then besides the Hubble, it is worth remembering how Dzhanibekov landed on the practically cold Mir and revived it

                        Well, for a snack, for enlightenment, the opinion of an American specialist:

                        "If I had to fly, I would choose 'Soyuz', not 'shuttle'. I would rather trust Ivan with a monkey wrench than a graduate of California Polytechnic with his scientific degree and fancy computer"

                        "The fact is that the Russian space program is safer and more reliable than ours."

                        “The Russians, meanwhile, are just flying into space. They have developed an effective basic design and remain faithful to it. The Americans have created a much more technically complex ship, and today, almost a quarter of a century later, they still do not understand how it works .. ..
                        ... Designers call such a rocket 'simple as an ax'. A 1967 Chevrolet pickup immediately springs to mind - it has already covered 245000 miles, is rusted through, but still starts the first time. So Russian rockets are reliable as a rock "

                        "When the Chinese - masters of technological 'piracy' - launched their manned flight program, they did not steal the blueprints for the 'shuttle', but copied 'Soyuz'."

                        source "Chicago Tribune", USA

                        http://www.inosmi.ru/world/20050728/221231.html
      2. -1
        22 July 2012 11: 53
        Quote: Ryder
        Russian satellites will continue to study the bottom

        laughing
  3. +8
    19 July 2012 10: 12
    Grind the people in Rossmosmos, grind! Back in the 60 years, Korolev was going to send a man to Mars and the Moon, around the sun ... and now the 2012 year and what plans are we making? Will we compete with the Indians and Chinese? Wimps! We need a new Korolev, a strong-willed, purposeful person, so that a fantastic, crazy idea could be brought to life!
    1. Cosmonaut
      +1
      19 July 2012 12: 31
      Still need a team of the same people and funding.
    2. FID
      +4
      19 July 2012 13: 31
      And what will the new Korolev do with this power. He will come with a project for a new ship capable of delivering a man to Mars in a week. The official at the table will say, "Where's my kickback?" Korolyov will grab his heart and continue on to the film "The Taming of Fire". The timing is not right. You only hear - where is the profit, where is the income.
    3. +6
      19 July 2012 14: 12
      What would be the new Korolev, probably need a new Stalin.
      1. FID
        +2
        19 July 2012 14: 18
        Exactly! The Slavic brother understands what is what!
      2. not good
        +1
        19 July 2012 15: 57
        Maybe Mishiko ask to ... raised and lent
      3. +1
        23 July 2012 15: 51
        What would be the new Korolev, probably need a new Stalin.

        Rather, even the new Beria
    4. 0
      19 July 2012 14: 50
      According to the reviews of our specialists who visited ROSKOSMOS, it consists of a very inadequate public. I myself saw numerous commissions from there and even the predecessor of Popovkin - something like this is.
      1. FID
        +2
        19 July 2012 15: 08
        I am afraid that not only Roscosmos, but also many other organizations and ministries consists of a very inadequate public!
        1. +1
          19 July 2012 15: 36
          The question is that they impose a similar audience on and on, .. and below ..
          Well, to hell, we at the Research Institute need a General Nee-boom-boom,
          Deputy General for Science - Sharlanan - his phrase - ".. nano-technologies - this already sucks, we all research institutes are switching to femto-technologies .." I would like to say - "Come on * rock, and you from the school course remember, for example, the size of an atom whether.."

          When such a brainlessness is at the top, any personal efforts below are worthless.
  4. +2
    19 July 2012 10: 24
    Roads in the country would be built normal, at least from the end to the end, yes, bridges over the rivers, yes to restore the aircraft industry with airfields, and normal medicine with the formation in all regions and then it is possible on the Magelanic Clouds.
    1. Passing
      0
      19 July 2012 15: 45
      A very controversial statement that launching, for example, a person to Mars is money taken from people. This money does not go anywhere, it circulates in the economy, i.e. enterprises work, modernize, people get paid, spend it on goods that you produce, and therefore also get a salary, and your enterprise develops, i.e. economic revival waves emanate from each launch into space. The only thing that we indisputably "throw to the wind" is several tons of aluminum and several kilograms of silicon, which irrevocably fly away into space.
      But, all this works only if we use only domestic components and equipment, but if we import them, then really every launch is "money down the drain."
  5. +2
    19 July 2012 10: 27
    The handsome men at the top know how to gush with ideas ..
    .. but the question arises about the capacity of the space industry
    Here our experts went to Khimki Energomash - their impressions -
    ".. Yes, there are only grandfathers of a very, very decent age .."

    But what about the impressions of NPO Energia
    ".. the central buildings look well-groomed, but what is further away is desolate .."

    And in our research institute the opposite - flowering by youth - can be given the position of Leader immediately to any young incoming person and without experience.
  6. 0
    19 July 2012 11: 59
    Well, I can’t believe that in Russia there are no enthusiasts who truly understand and love space, who can revive their lost positions. From where such types as g, Popovkin and the like come up. Finally there is top management. winked
    1. Cosmonaut
      +1
      19 July 2012 12: 29
      There are such and there are many of them. Here let not very enthusiasts at the top.
  7. +1
    19 July 2012 13: 21
    Justme,
    The big question is which is more effective ..... Yes, neither one nor the other ... In Samara, in TsSKB, my friend worked as a designer - his words: everything is new - well forgotten old. Ie nothing is designed, in general
  8. FID
    +4
    19 July 2012 14: 03
    In Soviet times, high school taught (among other important subjects) astronomy! Therefore, obviously, Soviet cosmonautics was developing. Missiles flew. In modern Russia, astronomy has been removed from education and began (or want) to teach the law of God. Now the rockets hit the firmament of heaven and, safely, fall down. Everything is logical!
  9. +1
    19 July 2012 14: 40
    Quote: SSI
    In Soviet times, high school taught (among other important subjects) astronomy! Therefore, obviously, Soviet cosmonautics was developing. Missiles flew. In modern Russia, astronomy has been removed from education and began (or want) to teach the law of God. Now the rockets hit the firmament of heaven and, safely, fall down. Everything is logical!

    Why do we need stars, we would have more hamburgers. And to be honest it is insulting
    1. FID
      +2
      19 July 2012 15: 01
      It's a shame - that's not the right word! Destroyed, stolen, sold - something that did not! After all, he created the PEOPLE! At the cost of privations, deaths of testers ... yes, what to list. Everyone knows everything. It's sick to watch.
  10. 12061973
    +1
    19 July 2012 15: 37
    Popovkin’s work is dangerous, he’s beaten on the head with a bottle, but the press secretary is pretty, I wonder how much he pays her and what her official duties are. I will look at other planets on the nasa website, show onlain corporate Roskosmos without censorship.
    1. FID
      +1
      19 July 2012 16: 42
      He would have to make a personal suit! They say that a helmet withstands the blow of even champagne bottles!
  11. not good
    +1
    19 July 2012 16: 01
    Venus and Mars are great, but the moon is closer, and the inhabited station will be useful to the military!
  12. 0
    19 July 2012 20: 06
    But what about the photo-proton-m?
    1. 0
      20 July 2012 15: 40
      it seems Union
  13. +1
    19 July 2012 20: 27
    Recalling Phobos-Grunt, it is worth noting the need to control each stage of development, assembly and operation. Space technology has one very unpleasant feature: even a small saving on the quality of any component can lead to disproportionate losses. It is for this reason that the notorious Phobos-Grunt was lost. I really do not want the following automatic stations not to fly to other planets, but to fall to their native one.

    Dear article author
    there is a big paradox - here I work in the space industry. Everything that we are doing now, on the one hand, is permeated with the "wise guidelines" of our "leaders", the spirit of outdated traditions and standards, and creates a deep sense of real hack. On the other hand, I work on the left. Here I am not a pawn, but the Chief Designer. And the samples of technology created in this way are considered an example of the elegance of design solutions.
    .. So the question is as a guide ...
    1. 0
      20 July 2012 12: 32
      Here it is necessary to add
      From time to time I do projects that are in my narrow field the highest achievement of Russia.
      Due to what this is achieved.
      First of all, we need to pay attention to the general concept, a very high-quality study of the top level of the project. Here it is very good and in place of heavy theoretical knowledge and ideas from applied mathematics.
      Next, you need to have excellent qualifications as the executor of this plan in a variety of forms.
      And for one person - it's almost real.

      In the research institute, now all the management does not have the necessary professional knowledge. There is a doubt about it -
      give any of them the task of calculating, for example, the amplification cascade, or the task of calculating the frequency response by the impedance method, and the mechanics, of calculating the stick strength from the simplest version of the application of force (by the way - the last is the curse I heard from Professor Demidov in Baumanka - this friend of Feodosiev himself). Well, for us lower classes to compensate for the problem of incompetence of the upper classes is very difficult. There will always be inconsistencies at the joints.
  14. 0
    20 July 2012 16: 45
    Quote: JustMe
    Here I am not a pawn, but the Chief Designer.

    Well, why did Phobos-Grunt fall? Really because of the electronics from China, the radar pulse? I know your Phobos insurer, it was a pity to look at him.
    1. 0
      20 July 2012 21: 24
      This question is best asked to those who work in the NGO Lavochkina.
      But for them it was a really painful question and they didn’t spread much about it in a narrow circle
      1. 0
        20 July 2012 21: 46
        Can add
        Those projects in the field of electronics that we did in the 80s at IOM were distinguished by their quality.
        Now - the exact opposite.
        About five years ago I was given the opportunity to finish the project after another "specialist".
        On one page of the circuit, during the analysis, I found 2.5 error pages.
        And one more mistake - the most awesome - I could find only during testing.

        But such an elementary error when only low-frequency capacitors are installed on the power of a processor operating at high frequencies - it is found around and around. But this leads to increased sensitivity to interference ..