What to do with the old "Voivode"?


Launch of ICBM R-36M2. Photo Rbase.new-factoria.ru


For several decades, intercontinental ballistic missiles of the R-36M line have been a key element of the ground component of strategic nuclear forces. However, by now, even the newest modifications of the Voivode are out of date, and their operation should be completed in the very near future. To replace the R-36M2 products, a completely new RS-28 Sarmat missile is being created. At the same time, the issue of disposal or alternative use of decommissioned Voivode becomes relevant.

Old plans


The R-36M2 / 15P018M / RS-20V / Voevoda missile system was adopted in 1988 and replaced the older systems of its family. More than 30 years have passed since then, leading to well-known consequences. Despite all the measures to extend the resource and service life, the R-36M2 missiles will soon have to be removed from service.

The topic of rejection of the Voivode in favor of other models with subsequent cancellation has been discussed for many years. In March 2018, the Ministry of Defense revealed its plans in this regard. Deputy Minister of Defense Yuri Borisov then said that the life cycle of the R-36M2 ICBM is nearing its end, and it is planned to remove them from duty in the near future. Old missiles were supposed to be sent for disposal.


R-36M2 missile monument in Orenburg. Wikimedia Commons Photos

According to data from various open sources, the Strategic Missile Forces currently holds no more than 45-50 missiles of the R-36M2 type on alert duty. A number of such products may be in storage. Thus, in the foreseeable future, the Ministry of Defense will write off dozens of old ICBMs and make way for new ones.

The further fate of the decommissioned missiles is obvious. Waste ICBMs will be sent for disassembly and disposal. However, another use of products is possible, as officials and sources of various kinds have already spoken about.

Waste - to income


A certain part of the Voevoda ICBMs remaining on duty will soon be dismantled. Such a process starts already this year. In early January, Interfax, citing the Spark-Marketing information system, announced the launch of a tender for the disposal of two decommissioned missiles.

According to the terms of reference of the tender, the contractor will have to accept for disposal two transport and launch containers with the Voivode. They should be taken from the military unit in the Urals and delivered to the enterprise, which will have to be disassembled. When disassembling, a certain amount of materials to be sold will be obtained. The remaining waste is disposed of in the prescribed manner. The work on the two ICBMs should be completed by November 30 this year. Disposal will be carried out in accordance with the terms of the current strategic arms treaties.


Launch of the Dnepr launch vehicle, June 21, 2010. Photo by Wikimedia Commons

The expected results of missile disposal are known. The R-36M2 product with a TPK weighs about 52 tons, and about half of this mass falls on materials suitable for reuse. The contractor will “extract” 20 tons of non-ferrous and 6 tons of ferrous metals, 19 kg of silver, 1200 g of gold and 55 g of platinum from each rocket. Some other materials will also be sent for recycling.

The cost of work and their contractor are not specified. It is clear that the sale of recovered materials will at least partially offset the cost of disposal.

It is likely that the current tender for the disposal of two R-36M2 ICBMs will not be the last. Over the course of several years, about 50-60 missiles will be decommissioned, and a significant part of them should be disassembled. The exact schedule for the disposal of missiles and other plans of the Ministry of Defense have not yet been announced. Probably new details will appear in the near future.

From the mine to space


One way to get rid of decommissioned ICBMs is to convert them into launch vehicles to bring payloads into orbit. So, in 1999-2015. the Dnepr missiles, built on the basis of decommissioned combat R-36M UTTH / RS-20B, were operated. 22 launches (1 emergency) with 140 spacecraft took place. Over the past few years, the Dnieper has not been used for a number of reasons, but there is evidence of a small stock of R-36M UTTKh ICBMs suitable for conversion.


Voyevoda missile in the workshop of the Center for the Elimination of ICBMs. Photo TsLMBR / TsENKI / russian.space

In recent years, the theme of developing a new launch vehicle based on the R-36M2 Voyevoda product has been repeatedly raised. So, in May 2018, RIA News referring to sources in the space industry spoke about the possible creation of a new project of the Dnieper type on a new base.

It was about the conversion of combat ICBMs R-36M2 into launch vehicles using existing experience. At the same time, unlike the Dnipro project, it was planned to manage on its own and without the involvement of Ukraine. It was noted that the use of R-36M UTTX modification missiles is now not advisable due to their small number. The newer and more numerous P-36M2s are of more interest in this context.

About a year after the news, official statements were made. In May 2019, the head of Roskosmos Dmitry Rogozin spoke about the plans for the Voivode. According to him, the decommissioned missiles will undergo conversion and will be used to launch a load into orbit. However, the head of Roskosmos did not provide specific data.


In anticipation of a showdown. Photo TsLMBR / TsENKI / russian.space

Since then, the topic of processing combat ICBMs into a launch vehicle has not been raised. It cannot be ruled out that the development of such a project is already underway, but data on its account are not yet available. The lack of news about the launch vehicle and the announcement of a tender for disposal can also be interpreted as a rejection of plans for the conversion of decommissioned weapons.

For its intended purpose ...


An alternative to utilization or conversion may be the use of missiles for their intended purpose - as part of exercises or tests. However, not all such methods are expedient and make sense, given the well-known plans for the future.

In the past, combat training launches of Voevoda products were regularly conducted, both in the order of the Strategic Missile Forces exercises and as part of larger events of the armed forces as a whole. Regular missile launches allow you to test the skills of personnel and the performance of the systems in conditions as close to combat as possible. However, it should be noted that the last training launches of R-36M2 products took place several years ago, and since then weapon did not apply.

Training launches of the R-36M family of ICBMs were regularly carried out in the order of testing according to the results of measures to extend the life of equipment and weapons. The successful launch of ICBMs for training purposes at the training ground confirmed the correctness of the solutions used and allowed to extend the operational life. However, now such events and launches simply do not make sense. R-36M2 missiles will be abandoned in the near future, and the extension of the resource is no longer planned.


Photo TsLMBR / TsENKI / russian.space

The launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile during exercises or for the purpose of testing is a kind of alternative to disposal and also has its advantages. Nevertheless, the number of reasons for such use of the Voivode has decreased for objective reasons.

Recent years of service


As you can see, old ICBMs with an expiring life can be used in different ways or disposed of with certain benefits. To date, reliable information has appeared only about the future disposal of missiles. The prospects for conversion in the interests of the space industry remain unclear. However, new information about the plans of the Strategic Missile Forces and the Ministry of Defense may appear in the very near future.

Since the late eighties, the R-36M2 Voyevoda missile system has been one of the main means of ensuring the strategic security of our country. However, more than 30 years have passed, and this complex is outdated - it will have to be removed from service and replaced with a modern one. Old missiles are regularly handed over for cutting, and this year two regular products will cease to exist.

In fact, an era ends in stories our strategic missile forces. And now everything possible is being done so that its completion is not associated with losses, but gives certain benefits. How exactly the Ministry of Defense will get rid of old weapons is already clear. Perhaps in the near future new details will appear.
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

115 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Far B 10 January 2020 05: 15 New
    • 15
    • 24
    -9
    Remove the bun and give for grandmother to Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and then everywhere)))
    1. Graz 10 January 2020 05: 35 New
      • 6
      • 12
      -6
      But why give, remove the warhead, change it to the usual one and use it for its intended purpose, goals or something you can’t find
      1. Far B 10 January 2020 05: 49 New
        • 9
        • 6
        +3
        So give for grandmothers, but not without a cart, mez-bottom, that is, for nothing)))
    2. Uncle lee 10 January 2020 05: 48 New
      • 21
      • 6
      +15
      I have a more radical plan for the disposal of missiles, but I will not voice it .... repeat
      1. Far B 10 January 2020 05: 51 New
        • 24
        • 6
        +18
        Wang ... Walk grandma, go grandfather ... Having spilled the name of Stalin, I see clearly through your profile picture ...
        1. Uncle lee 10 January 2020 05: 54 New
          • 18
          • 7
          +11
          Quote: Far In
          Stalin Strait

          Crystal Dream ..... yes
          1. Far B 10 January 2020 06: 00 New
            • 12
            • 7
            +5
            drinks For a dream come true, colleague! wassat
            1. Octopus 10 January 2020 08: 00 New
              • 5
              • 4
              +1
              May I have a small suggestion, colleagues?

              US Embassy - Moscow, Bolshoi Devyatinsky, 8, metro Krasnopresnenskaya ring line. Why don't you and your colleagues drive up there and not <ROSKOMNADZOR>? You don’t have much difference, but a lot of people will be happy with this option. Why be shy, he personally will suit me much more.
              1. Far B 10 January 2020 08: 10 New
                • 3
                • 2
                +1
                It will not work drinks and <ROSKOMNADZOR> laughing There, for this, the police will immediately roll up to the jail. Because drinks and <ROSKOMNADZOR> in public places are prohibited laughing
                1. Octopus 10 January 2020 09: 00 New
                  • 1
                  • 3
                  -2
                  Take off the hotel.
            2. Sckepsis 12 January 2020 22: 22 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Shoot you for such dreams.
    3. Lexus 10 January 2020 05: 52 New
      • 12
      • 10
      +2
      Regularly conduct training launches with a flight over "friends". And give them the appropriate name - "Wet pants - 1,2 ... etc." laughing
    4. Same lech 10 January 2020 05: 56 New
      • 22
      • 2
      +20
      Or maybe it's better to launch my satellites into orbit with their help ... it's cheaper and safer ... I somehow trust the military more in terms of reliability of launches ... at least they do not allow such shameful failures of Rogozin launches.
      1. Far B 10 January 2020 06: 02 New
        • 14
        • 5
        +9
        So the author directly says that Rogozmos stopped talking about this topic. Probably for Rogozmos, this option will break off much less exhaust. Although from an economic point of view, of course, I am for it.
      2. Monar 10 January 2020 06: 53 New
        • 1
        • 5
        -4
        Can you imagine how much such a launch will cost? Or do you have reasons that such a launch would be cheaper?
        1. Octopus 10 January 2020 07: 54 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          There, the problem is not accelerations, satellites in this regard are now doing undemanding (mostly). They recently launched on the ICBMs literally, the Dnieper and Rokot.

          There is another problem. A different control system is needed for the launch vehicle, which is completely different than on an ICBM. It was made in the Dnieper. Now for certain reasons do not do. To do the same in Russia is not quick, expensive, and requires test launches. Given that time is running out, the topic is rotten.
          1. Monar 10 January 2020 08: 31 New
            • 8
            • 0
            +8
            It is in acceleration that the first problem. The mortar launch is called. And then another high-speed output into space. You just look at how ICBMs start and how "civilian" launch vehicles.
            And the management system ... Yes, in fact, there is no fundamental difference. It is programmed where and in which direction. Dnepropetrovsk nothing to do with it. Or do you think that without specialists from this city it is not possible to redirect from one goal to another?
            1. Octopus 10 January 2020 09: 19 New
              • 6
              • 2
              +4
              Quote: Monar
              just look at how ICBMs start and how "civilian" launch vehicles.

              Excuse me, are you designing for pH vidosos?

              The last (although, they say, the last) launch of Rokot, also known as UR-100, was on December 26, 2019. It was also launched from the mine.
              Quote: Monar
              It is not possible to redirect one target to another?

              If you want to deliver a satellite to some point in the Pacific Ocean - no problem. If you need an orbit - yes, change the entire control system. Khrunichev promises to replace it with import, but, frankly, there is little hope.
              1. Monar 10 January 2020 09: 47 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                Excuse me, are you designing for pH vidosos?
                What's the problem? Or have you seen a mortar launch for civilian missiles somewhere? By the way, on the UR-100 gas-dynamic launch, and not mortar.
                If you need an orbit - yes,
                But can this place be more detailed? To drag to a certain point and shoot off the load the whole task of the launch vehicle. Everything else is decided by the withdrawal system or by the satellite itself.
                1. Octopus 10 January 2020 14: 53 New
                  • 4
                  • 1
                  +3
                  About Rokot / Dnepr and mortar launch unsubscribed below.

                  About hauling. Or you screw the space block of the third stage to the rocket onto the rocket, on Rokot it is the Breeze, EMNIP. Then yes, the lower stages of the ICBM throw him on a ballistic trajectory for the atmosphere, then he himself. But the breeze is very expensive in itself.

                  Or you teach the upper stage of the ICBM to finish. To do this, you will have to fundamentally change the control system. ICBMs are not intended for launches into the sky, only into the ground.
              2. SID
                SID 10 January 2020 11: 42 New
                • 3
                • 4
                -1
                The last (although, they say, the last) launch of Rokot, also known as UR-100, was on December 26, 2019. It was also launched from the mine.

                First: The rumble starts from the TPK on its own, rather than a mortar launch. The difference in acceleration is very significant (Roar starts much smoother.). Not all satellites will survive the mortar launch overload, especially domestic ones.
                Secondly: The roar is launched from the platform equipped on Plesetsk - the launch pad, on which the LV is installed in the TPK. The Dnieper was launched from Baikonur from a special mine made and equipped at one time for LCI. Baikonur is Kazakhstan ...
                Khrunichev promises to import it (SU Rokot), but there is little hope, frankly.

                From what ... ? Work is underway, there are no technical problems, the only question is financing and organizing the process.
                Accelerators under the Roar lie in warehouses dozens.
                1. Octopus 10 January 2020 13: 03 New
                  • 4
                  • 1
                  +3
                  Thoroughly, thanks.

                  At the expense of the mine for Rokot wrong, you are right.

                  Regarding the r-36 and overloads - it’s more appropriate to talk about the Dnieper, after all. I brought the rumble as the last flying alteration, maybe in vain. The Dnieper has not been flying for 4 years.

                  About the general meaning. The general meaning was that the Ukrainian control system, rather than a mortar launch, was preventing the Russian Dnieper from making the Russian Dnieper. Do you agree with this or not?

                  As for import substitution from Khrunichev, I have my own understanding from the sofa, you have your own, especially if you, unlike me, have a relationship with this organization. We will see how import substitution will be seen.
                  1. SID
                    SID 11 January 2020 16: 59 New
                    • 0
                    • 2
                    -2
                    The control system for Rokot was developed by PJSC Hartron - this is now Ukraine. Khartron - the legacy of the USSR, of course. The roar successfully performed commercial launches after 2014 only because there were stocks of SU purchased in store before the departure of hundreds of heavens. Import substitution according to Rokot - this, in fact, is SU RN. Russian contractor, curious people will easily find him, because he is now a monopolist in this subject.

                    Dnepr what is bad ...?
                    And he is bad, firstly, precisely because of his main advantage - a huge payload. To launch one, two or three satellites on it is not enough. And the need to collect a large number of orders for each launch is an extra crap, risks, waiting time between launches. The indicated reason, IMHO, at one time made the Rokot program preferable to the Dnieper.
                    And today there are even more preferences, because there is no launch pad in Russia for the Dnepr program, there is no SU in Russia, there is no ready and convenient backlog for LV sets (they need to be removed from the mine, then much more .... no ), there is no set of documentation on adaptation to commercial launches, there is no plaque confirming reliability, as in Rokot.
                    Well, a control shot: R-36 / Dnepr is Yuzhmash (Ukraine), and R-35 / Rokot is GKNPC Khrunicheva.

                    In our age of tendencies towards miniaturization of cosmic apparatuses, such heavyweights as the Dnieper no longer have a commercial perspective.
                    1. Octopus 11 January 2020 17: 51 New
                      • 3
                      • 0
                      +3
                      Quote: SID
                      The indicated reason, IMHO, at one time made the Rokot program preferable to the Dnieper.
                      And today there are even more preferences

                      Yes, but there is some problem. The price of the Rokot with the Breeze is selected for the Union.
                      1. SID
                        SID 11 January 2020 18: 15 New
                        • 1
                        • 2
                        -1
                        Why do you think so?
                        And more ... Can the Union bring out three satellites and separate them at three given points?
                      2. Octopus 11 January 2020 18: 45 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: SID
                        Why do you think so?

                        Aunt Wick writes. Lying?
                        Quote: SID
                        Can the Union bring out three satellites and separate them at three given points?

                        Frigate, you want to say? It depends on the orbits, but it can, for example, 2017/07/14.
                      3. SID
                        SID 11 January 2020 18: 48 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        Frigate, you want to say?

                        Then you need to compare the Union + Frigate / Rokot + Breeze
                      4. Octopus 11 January 2020 18: 53 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        If you have a conclusion to several orbits, then RB is without options. Not Americans, tea.
                      5. SID
                        SID 11 January 2020 20: 34 New
                        • 1
                        • 2
                        -1
                        ... into several orbits ...

                        Yes, that was meant.
                        I do not know about the accelerating blocks of the Unions, but the accelerating blocks of Rokot are ready. The USSR has already paid for them.
                        You say the cost of starting ... This is a very vague topic. Who and what counts ...?
                        Usually consider a way convenient for themselves. Musk announced the cost of starting with return units cheaper than Proton launches. This does not mean that it costs so much, it means that for the money he will do it. Today. And tomorrow, when Proton and Rokot bend from the overflow to the Amer of "customers", the price may be different. Dumping is called. The Russian space industry is mired in the internal squabbles of grabbers and ambitious people, instead of combining their potential to move forward. Russian space is being completed in parts. While spread rot one, the other giggles quietly. Until they come for her.
                        PS: Well, if the garlic ... Relations Khrunichev and Korolevtsev, especially the attitude of Korolevtsev to Khrunichevtsy, to put it mildly specific. The princesses of the queen to tear up (sorry), are engaged in this systematically and with inspiration. However, what will happen to them if Khrunichevtsev is completely overwhelmed ...? More precisely, what will remain? With crafts from kerosene technology 50-60-xx ...?
                        Although the Khrunichevites have collapsed the design and engineering corps, although there are no intelligible managers and organizers, they still have a powerful scientific groundwork both for civilian launch vehicles (the Angara family) and for military topics.
                      6. Octopus 11 January 2020 21: 19 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: SID
                        but the boom blocks of Rokot are ready. The USSR has already paid for them.

                        Breezes lie for 30 years, seriously?
                      7. The comment was deleted.
                      8. SID
                        SID 11 January 2020 21: 54 New
                        • 1
                        • 2
                        -1
                        I made a mistake: not an accelerating block, but accelerator blocks - 1,2 steps.
                      9. Octopus 11 January 2020 22: 03 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Well, in this sense, your reasoning about price and value is more clear.
                      10. SID
                        SID 13 January 2020 03: 06 New
                        • 1
                        • 2
                        -1
                        I hope for the benefit, colleague hi
                  2. Mityay65 12 January 2020 13: 10 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Breezes lie for 30 years, seriously?

                    Perhaps, in any case, I would not be surprised if so. Could do for some program that did not go. Since then they have been in the warehouse, waiting for their moment. RB thing is an individual fit.
                    There are a lot of interesting things in warehouses.
                2. Mityay65 12 January 2020 13: 17 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: SID
                  Well, if the garlic ... Relations Khrunichev and Korolevtsev, especially the attitude of Korolevtsev to Khrunichevtsy, to put it mildly specific.

                  Korolevtsy to blame for the collapse of Khrunichev? Your strange opinion no
                  Or is it ephemeism for which you do not want to state the true reasons?
                  Quote: SID
                  but the most powerful scientific reserve remained

                  Yes, the collapse of Khrunichev, which is happening before our eyes, is a crime. But who is to blame? These ideas are by no means an initiative of Roskosmosovskaya.
                3. SID
                  SID 13 January 2020 03: 04 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Korolevtsy to blame for the collapse of Khrunichev? Your strange opinion

                  This is not my opinion, comrade :) You said so.
                  In general, in many ways the difficulties of mutual understanding lie in the tendency to extremes of judgments and conclusions. Not worth it - it never works.
                  Yes, the collapse of Khrunichev, which is happening before our eyes, is a crime. But who is to blame?

                  Again, absolute unconstructive. If you want to rectify the situation, then the right questions are “Why?” and "How to be?". "Who's guilty?" - this is for history lovers. IMHO ...
  • Alexey LK 13 January 2020 03: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Monar
    Dnepropetrovsk has nothing to do with it.

    As far as I know, it was always not very good - the control system for the Governor was made in Kharkov.
    1. Octopus 13 January 2020 06: 17 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Quote: Alexey LK
      The control system for the Voivode was done in Kharkov.

      You are right, thanks.
  • Mityay65 10 January 2020 15: 17 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Octopus
    There, the problem is not accelerations, satellites in this regard are now doing undemanding (mostly).

    Not really. If the PN is commercial, then it means the insured. Now insurance companies involved in space insurance have specialists to analyze the conditions of launch, in the state or on the contract. In particular, on the analysis of shock-vibro-acoustic load on the load cell during removal.
    This greatly affects the cost of insurance and start-up. And they may refuse.
    The flight program will have to be changed, it is almost 100%. In particular, the conditions of start and acceleration. This of course will affect the weight of the Mon, but, IMHO, bearable.
    1. Octopus 10 January 2020 17: 03 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Mityai65
      Of course affect the weight of the PN, but, IMHO, bearable.

      These arguments would be understandable if the R-36 early modifications had not flown. So the layouts are more or less known.

      Another thing is that the situation has changed dramatically. There is an inexpensive taxi RocketLab, there are regular buses from Mask and Indians. So the economy on small satellites is not the same as 10 years ago.
      1. Mityay65 11 January 2020 13: 39 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Octopus
        These arguments would be understandable if the R-36 early modifications had not flown.

        The arguments are simple. The Dnieper LV has a maximum longitudinal overload at the withdrawal site of 7,8 units. Modern newly developed LV requirements for maximum acceleration - not higher than 3 - 3,5 units. At Proton and Zenith, the maximum longitudinal overload at the excretion site does not exceed 4g. Such high acceleration due to mortar launch.
        What closes this launch vehicle to the market. You can be convinced of this by looking at the list of PNs that the Dnieper launched - there is a set of some left satellites, student, scientific, cubesats, group launches, almost no commerce. She needs specially developed satellites. And it is necessary to solve problems with insurance, without this commerce there is no.
        This means that the Dnieper launch vehicle is a whipped up sleek hack. The Dnieper launch vehicle in the form in which it was implemented is uncompetitive. This is understandable, because The Dnieper launch vehicle was used without significant modifications; they just rewritten the program for launching into orbit. But the metal is the same.
        As I understand it, the new option should be done more reasonably and economically. It is necessary to change the third stage to cryogenic, probably to solve the problem of increasing the diameter of the head fairing, to change the flight program and, of course, get rid of the mortar launch.
        In terms of price, RocketLab and St. Ilon will lose in any case, without options. So you have to go for it.
        P / S And what does the Indians have to do with it?
        1. Octopus 11 January 2020 15: 15 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: Mityai65
          In terms of price, RocketLab and St. Ilon will lose in any case, without options.

          They made a joke.
          Elon
          https://www.spacex.com/smallsat
          ready to throw 200 kg per million, if on the road. Mulon, Karl!

          The rocketlab can bring the suitcase where necessary and when necessary for 5-6 million (in theory, maybe now they have a hefty turn).
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_(rocket)

          Dnipro cost 29M
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnepr_(rocket)
          Rumble with this your cryogenic stage (Do you understand how much she costs alone?), 42M
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rokot


          Quote: Mityai65
          P / S And what does the Indians have to do with it?

          https://hi-news.ru/research-development/rekord-indiya-vyvela-na-orbitu-104-sputnika.html

          Another thing is that the Dnieper / Rokot is not an Electron, but rather, a Vega class. But firstly, the boom of small satellites is just small loads, tens and first hundreds of kilograms. And secondly, in the class of 1-2 tons, the same Union squeezes them at a price, where is your cryogenic stage, and reliability statistics, and whatever.
          1. Mityay65 12 January 2020 01: 14 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Octopus
            Elon
            https://www.spacex.com/smallsat
            ready to throw 200 kg per million, if on the road. Mulon, Karl!

            Ah, so you are a believer in the True Teacher? No, I don’t argue with religious boys and I don’t believe the saint’s declarations ... Now when I publish the figures of operating expenses, then it makes sense to say that among Americans you can only trust accountants, it’s checked hi
            After all, we already had a Space Shuttle with promises of $ 800 per kg for DOE, right? And how did it end? $ 1 billion per week flight? Well now the Yankees will believe in words?
            The saint is cunning too much. Oh, there will be disappointment ... recourse
            Quote: Octopus
            The rocketlab can bring the suitcase where necessary and when necessary for 5-6 million (in theory, maybe now they have a hefty turn).

            In this regard, Rocketlab is the most interesting company. And she, in my opinion, has prospects, because the guys there gathered sensible and dexterous. In any case, the technical solutions that they use, for example, the rejection of TNA in favor of the electric drive, are very interesting and lead to lower costs. I am for Rocketlab with 2 hands. And they have a good marketing strategy.
            However, 150 kg of fuel oil per MTR for $ 6,5 million? In the world of chistogan it can take a ride, but our handsome Dnipro is not a competitor, especially if it is completed as it should ...
            You can independently calculate on a calculator.
            Quote: Octopus
            Dnipro cost 29M

            Is it otkedova? From the wiki? They lie.
            As proven reliable people who are modest enough say, the cost of the launches was from $ 14 to $ 32 million. The latter for the breeding of 5 satellites on the MTR, it is the most expensive and in demand today.
            I found a launch with PN Bigelow Aerospace in 2006 for $ 10 million. That seems to be true.
            Total, the Dnieper yearned for LEO 3,7 tons for $ 20 - 25 million, somewhere like that. Now there will be no old version of the Dnieper, but something new, I think if there are somewhere between 4 and 4,2 tons per DOE, the price will increase, but not by much. The lower cut-off price is worth $ 10 million.

            It is not difficult to understand, using the skills of working on a calculator, that with a reserve of 160 R-36 LVs, in the next 10 years the market will be closed to other participants of the light LV services market if the competition is purely price. But this is not worth the wait, because striped rascals the Yankees, as always, will begin to bring forth divine political reasons.
            Quote: Octopus
            Rumble with this cryogenic step of yours (Do you understand how much it costs alone?)

            How much is? Are you asking me? repeat
            We have the majority, in "civilian" LVs, booster blocks are cryogenic. You know? Even the Proton LV uses DM blocks.
            The cryogenic block stands like a regular rocket block. No more, no less. This is an almost serial product that has been produced for many years and is well mastered. It doesn’t need to be specifically designed, it’s enough to select from the catalogs the serial components that have been produced over the past 30–40 years.
            It is interesting to put the block on a pair of LH2 + LO2, this can increase the mass of the loading capacity up to 4,5 tons, but this is R&D and some capital investments.
            Quote: Octopus
            Another thing is that the Dnieper / Rokot is not an Electron, but rather, a Vega class. But firstly, the boom of small satellites is just small loads, tens and first hundreds of kilograms.

            There is one. Yes, the Dnieper launch vehicle may be oversized, or maybe not. I don’t know about Rokot. There is a tendency to reduce the mass of satellites, especially low-orbit ones.
            Analysis cannot be understood, it is necessary to try.
            In any case, the main danger for the Dnieper and Rokot is not Ilon and RocketLab and other startups, but the fact that these LVs belong to the Moscow Region, and not to Roskosmos. And Roscosmos with the Moscow region will not be able to agree. Where the military is, there any business can easily turn into dung ... they know how. We must take them to share. hi
            Quote: Octopus
            in the class of 1-2 tons, the same Union is running out for the price of them

            I doubt it. I believe that even after the modification of the LV, the Dnieper will be somewhere 2 times cheaper than the Soyuz 2.1v launch vehicle. Still, the 2 lower steps are free, and that means a lot.
            1. Octopus 12 January 2020 04: 04 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              Quote: Mityai65
              That's when it will publish operating expenses figures

              And what do I care about his expenses? He writes on his website that the price for a passing load is like this, respectively, other operators are forced to consider that market conditions for light loads are like that. You have information that he refused to carry someone on this price list or what?
              Quote: Mityai65
              The saint is cunning too much.

              Remind me when he didn’t hold Pricewhich the space officially announced.
              Quote: Mityai65
              You can independently calculate on a calculator.

              The brain calculator does not replace. The Dnieper and Rokot is Vega's class, if the load is a ton + on NOO / MTR, then, of course, the Electron does not play.
              Quote: Mityai65
              I found a launch with PN Bigelow Aerospace in 2006 for 10 million.

              By some estimates. When the Spaniards sued, the price was $ 24M. (the euro in 2013 was $ 1,3)
              https://diana-mihailova.livejournal.com/384190.html (в ЖЖ кириллическая ссылка на DW, не хочу ее вставлять).
              Quote: Mityai65
              It is not difficult to understand, using the skills of working on a calculator, that with a reserve of 160 R-36, in the next 10 years the market will be closed to other market participants

              Only for Vega and the like. This 200-ton fool is not a competitor to the electron, and even with the Breeze, which you stubbornly want to add to it.
              Quote: Mityai65
              the Yankees, as always, will begin to bring forth divine political reasons.

              Russia under ITAR in connection with some circumstances, which are not directly related to price competition with your hypothetical rocket.
              Quote: Mityai65
              How much is? Are you asking me?

              Well, you offer this "cryogenic step". Must be aware, I guess.
              And Breeze alone costs around $ 10M
              https://habr.com/ru/post/411709/
              Quote: Mityai65
              It is interesting to put a block on a pair of LH2 + LO2

              Yes, you are completely ... dreaming, I'm watching. Russia has not been able to hydrogen since the time of Energy. Centaurus they saycompletely expensive so far.
              Hydrogen is very not easy, and in the space, and in the ground component, and the Mask were very There are good reasons to go to methane, not hydrogen, even though the Americans just have hydrogen steps flying all this time, and not the last time in 88.
              Quote: Mityai65
              Where the military is, there any business can easily turn into dung ... they can

              I’m not sure that Roskosmos is very different from them in this respect.
              Quote: Mityai65
              I believe that even after the modification of the LV, the Dnieper will be somewhere 2 times cheaper than the Soyuz 2.1v launch vehicle. Still, the 2 lower steps are free, and that means a lot.

              Kosmotrans and Eurocot did not know this, unfortunately.
              1. Mityay65 13 January 2020 02: 01 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Octopus
                The price for a passing load is like that, respectively, other operators are forced to consider that market conditions for small loads are like that.

                On announced terms, SpaceX takes in passing load, provided that there is a place. And brings to the orbit that SpaceX needs, i.e. the owner of the PN should not care where to fly and what to do. There are very few such customers, these are either some student projects or purely scientific ones. That is, these are niche conditions - there are very few such customers and they are not particularly promising. This is not commerce. But Ilon is well done, and he will collect money from the orphaned and wretched.
                Both Roscosmos and NASA have programs to launch free satellites for educational purposes.
                Now about the price: 200 kg for $ 1 million. Or based on PN Dnepr - 3 kg for $ 700 million.
                Compare with $ 10 million for the 3,7 tons of the Dnieper. This is the cheapest known Dnepr launch.
                You see for yourself, the calculator helped us, compared not in favor of SpaceX. Moreover, the Dnieper launch vehicle provides not just launching into orbit, but the exact separation of satellites into orbital positions, in contrast to the Sokol’s “passing cargo” 9. This is very important because this is the objective function is the conclusion to a given position relative to other spacecraft.
                Now there is a clear trend, the conclusion is not of a single spacecraft, but of satellite systems, which are located relative to each other in a certain way. The most expensive launch of the Dnieper LV cost the customer $ 32 million for the launch of 5 satellites on the MTR. A passing start cannot provide anything like that.
                By the way, as for the prices of competitors.
                RocketLab displays 150 kg for $ 6,5 million. And even the line was lined up.
                Esche there are advanced cranks from Firefly. They promise 1 ton for $ 15 million.
                Both are specifically losing to the Dnieper launch vehicle, and I believe the Rokot launch vehicle, which has a similar economy. And both, I believe, have no means of dilution in orbital positions, there are no overclocking blocks, i.e. another question is how much this is really in demand, is there really a “line-up”. It may turn out that this is like with the widely publicized Pegasus thirty years ago, held on for 20 years due to a couple of launches a year with Pentagon money, and then died ...
                Why all this above? And besides the fact that in the presence of purely price competition, the Dnieper will pour into the toilet for the next 10 years all lightweight LV projects, there will remain St. Ilon with a passing load, and so on, the Chinese, they still have to prove themselves, I believe in them.
                Quote: Octopus
                Remind me when he did not hold the price

                Yes, dig yourself. SpaceX once in 2 months re-announces prices, reassigns dates and redefines goals. I hope the Saint eventually ascends to the Flying Brilliant Silo that he is building.
                Quote: Octopus
                The brain calculator does not replace.

                Yes, how do you know that? All humanities say so. Try it first. fellow
                Quote: Octopus
                When the Spaniards sued, the price was $ 24M.

                Each start is different, the prices have a very large spread according to the withdrawal conditions.
                Quote: Octopus
                This 200-ton fool is not a competitor to electron

                Why, in fact? As we have seen, the Dnieper LV has the technology of transporting satellites to specific orbital positions. This is its advantage - the implementation of accurate and complex tasks for the formation of satellite systems. And the PN RN Electron, he can capture along the way, nothing prevents.
                Quote: Octopus
                Russia is under ITAR due to some circumstances that are not directly related to price competition with your hypothetical missile.

                I’m not sure that the sanctions apply personally to the Dnieper launch vehicle - after all, they made an exception to it in START-2 at the time, that disposal by shooting into space is possible. This is not casual. For this nice product can be in Iran and S. Korea. In general, it would be better if he flew away. Therefore, I think the Yankees will be happy to get rid of the Dnieper as soon as possible. Even, I think, they will help.
                Quote: Octopus
                And Breeze alone costs around $ 10M

                In an article by an unknown dude from Habr, it says that Breeze-M costs $ 8,2 million, and not 10 like yours. Breeze-M is a hefty fool for the Proton launch vehicle, with payload capacity of 24 t at DOE. How can it be compared with the booster block for the Dnieper LV with a payload of 3,7 tons at the NOO? It is impossible. But you can use your calculator skills. The price of the booster unit is reduced in proportion to the decrease in the weight of the load cell. Total (I will give the result immediately): $ 1,24 million. Seem to be. But all the booster blocks are different, they are designed separately for each flight.
                I hate, I think that the cost of the Dnieper launch vehicle along with the start is within $ 1 million. And add RB. Total: $ 2,24 million. This is the cost of launching space rocket launcher Dnepr.
                Quote: Octopus
                Russia has not been able to hydrogen since the time of Energy. The centaur is said to be quite expensive so far.
                Hydrogen is very difficult, and in the space and in the ground component, and Mask had very good reasons to go to methane, and not hydrogen, despite the fact that the Americans have been flying hydrogen steps all this time, and not in the 88th last year.

                This is simply not true. Liquid hydrogen was not liked in the 80s because it was expensive and did not know how to work with it. But since then everything has changed. As a fuel, it is better than kerosene and LNG. And Musk is stupid, although I do not want to offend your religious feelings hi In any case, hydrogen is ideal for the upper stages. And with the Dnieper LV there may be an interesting hybrid option: the booster block to the MTR is hydrogen cryogenic and the PN separation block at the position of AT + UDMH, multiple switching. From it will be a beast car!
                Quote: Octopus
                I’m not sure that Roskosmos is very different from them in this respect.

                No, it’s different. Here the main problem with the Dnieper LV is that the missile itself and a lot of documentation belong to the military. And all after-sales services, and refueling systems and start, and all specialists with shoulder straps. And that's all. Only accompaniment at Makeev. This may ultimately put an end to the Dnieper.
                This, and the second, is that in this weighty category, Soyuz-2.1v and Angara-1 are at their disposal, and both of them are more expensive than three-four times, and, accordingly, are more beloved by the performers. These 2 factors can leave the Dnieper pH on Earth.
                Quote: Octopus
                Kosmotrans and Eurocot did not know this, unfortunately.

                In the sense of? At one time, old Ilon came to Kosmotras, if you remember, he wanted to buy the Dnieper LV and remake. But he was sent and then through California he told how they drank vodka in Moscow in the morning, but he did not give in and was resistant ...
                Here is the source: https://iz.ru/news/587558
  • SID
    SID 10 January 2020 11: 34 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    Or maybe it's better to launch their satellites into orbit with their help ... it's cheaper and safer ..

    This is a purely commercial approach. Need wider - on the state :)
    Roscosmos today is not able to load up our space industry with launches. Let’s start up everything on conversion, then the factories and design bureaus suck lollipops? These are tens of thousands of people + dozens of allies and further down the chain to the miners.
    1. Octopus 10 January 2020 13: 05 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Quote: SID
      Roscosmos today is not able to load up our space industry with launches

      What do you mean by industry? Samara?
      1. Mityay65 10 January 2020 15: 52 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Octopus
        What do you mean by industry?

        Probably means:
        Samara, Omsk, Moscow, Korolev, Reutov, Perm, Krasnoyarsk, Votkinsk, Mias.
        And the whole loop of test and logistics facilities.
      2. SID
        SID 11 January 2020 17: 02 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        What do you mean by industry?

        Yes, all that is in Russia. And Samara and Khrunicheva and Korolev and Podlipki and all the rest.
        1. Octopus 11 January 2020 17: 34 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: SID
          Yes, all that is in Russia. And Samara and Khrunicheva and Korolev and Podlipki and all the rest.

          Flies, like, one Samara, no? The rest are in liquidation, no matter what Rogozin says.
          1. SID
            SID 11 January 2020 18: 12 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            Protons are still flying, but the production base under them was destroyed under control from the beginning of Kalinovsky - the Varangians from the Sukhoi plant, and now Varochko is generally a tractor driver.
            In addition to the general line (since 1991. on the destruction of high-tech production and the design and engineering school in Russia, in the process of the collapse of Khrunichev, there is a powerful commercial interest - this is the land on which the GKNPTS is located.
            Moscow site of GKNPC Khrunicheva: https://yandex.ru/maps/213/moscow/?l=sat%2Cskl&ll=37.500318%2C55.758006&z=15
            Сладкое и притягательное расположение площадки в г. Москва: https://yandex.ru/maps/213/moscow/?l=sat%2Cskl&ll=37.577394%2C55.755090&mode=whatshere&whatshere%5Bpoint%5D=37.489503https://yandex.ru/maps/213/moscow/?l=sat%2Cskl&ll=37.577394%2C55.755090&mode=whatshere&whatshere%5Bpoint%5D=37.489503%2C55.755961&whatshere%5Bzoom%5D=12&z=12
          2. SID
            SID 11 January 2020 18: 27 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            ... maybe the production of the Angara at the Omsk site can be adjusted.
            But, and this is the most basic, for the Angara there is no clearly defined payload. Rogozmas, in the current t.s. configuration, vryatli will provide the hangar load.
            1. Octopus 11 January 2020 18: 49 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: SID
              in the process of the collapse of Khrunichev there is a powerful commercial interest - this is the land on which the GKNPTS is located.

              Effective managers effectively manage.
              Quote: SID
              the production of the Angara at the Omsk site can be adjusted.

              It's hard to believe, sorry. Effective managers pretend that they do not understand that very few people from Moscow will go to Omsk. And it will definitely not be those who have the option to leave for LA.
    2. Mityay65 10 January 2020 15: 08 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: SID
      Roscosmos today is not able to load up our space industry with launches.

      Конечно.
      This hypothetical LV based on the Voivode should clearly be oriented towards the foreign market, which is now galloping, I mean the market for light class LV services. Now many startups of light launch vehicles have appeared, it is necessary to enter it until the infrastructure has developed.
      1. SID
        SID 11 January 2020 19: 11 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        Enter where no one is waiting for you ...
        And the Dnieper can not be called an easy class. He takes out three times the load (if I'm not mistaken, although I can) and two times (minimum) more expensive than Rokot.
  • Atilla 21 March 2020 10: 12 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    yes the old leaves and the new era with bald and Rogozin, do not tell me never comes.
  • Cryvedco 10 January 2020 05: 57 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    No, really, maybe we gotta go?
  • Monar 10 January 2020 06: 07 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    ICBMs are distinguished from civilian ones by greater acceleration at the withdrawal stage. Accordingly, one will either have to upgrade missiles or satellites. But in any case, hemorrhoids with toxic fuel will work. In my humble opinion, it is better to focus on the development and launch of a series of new launch vehicles. The same "Angara" long-suffering.
    If
    20 tons of non-ferrous and 6 tons of ferrous metals, 19 kg of silver, 1200 g of gold and 55 g of platinum.
    will be able to offset the cost of disposal, then saw. If not, let them fly to the training ground.
  • Narak-zempo 10 January 2020 09: 42 New
    • 1
    • 5
    -4
    What to do with the old "Voivode"?

    It’s necessary, as with the “Fly”, which was brought into a fighting position, but suddenly there were no goals - launch towards the enemy laughing
    Or another option to sell missiles to Iran (for conversion to carriers, of course bully ) Directly in the mines and sell, and lease the mines - before the end of Trump's term.
  • Sancho_SP 10 January 2020 12: 48 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    1. For space, only the first stage is used, as I understand it. We must carefully consider the savings, which may not be.

    2. Use for military purposes is an interesting option. But interest is nothing more than sporting. But it will reveal to the world all the features and flaws of missiles that are still unknown.
    1. ycuce234-san 11 January 2020 10: 31 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      We must carefully consider the savings, which may not be.


      You can take a moment and implement whatever the missile, technologically breakthrough, non-military project. For example, to implement a system of emergency missile delivery of equipment and means of saving people and property for polar stations or ships in distress in the ocean. As far as I know, no one has tried to deliver the means of rescue urgently, within tens of minutes, by any means. Then the features of ICBMs, such as mortar launch and the focus of control systems on ground objects will not become problems, as well as high accelerations, to which their new payload will be insensitive. Undoubtedly, an experimental delivery system will be unprofitable, but it will allow gaining experience, then replacing ICBMs with light, specially designed to be profitable, civilian missiles and thus open a new market for services.
      1. Sancho_SP 11 January 2020 13: 41 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        So missiles expire. They can be used for a couple of years. Yes, and they occupy the mines, but in the same mines they will put new missiles.

        Or do you mean just working out the concept?
        1. ycuce234-san 12 January 2020 01: 50 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Or do you mean just working out the concept?

          And the first and second and third - the expiration date goes beyond military requirements for military missiles, but this does not mean that they can not actually be applied.
          Missiles are hidden in the mines, protecting them from the influence of enemy weapons, in this case, the mine will not be needed, and if all the same the rocket can’t do without it for technical reasons, then it’s more logical to re-equip the existing closed / abandoned one.
          Initially decommissioned missiles will be needed to work out concepts and gain experience, since immediately from scratch, it will be very expensive to do such a technically advanced project.
          Saying “a”, in the future we can say “b” - to learn how to transfer people-specialists to the very distant places of disasters, accidents and catastrophes by means of already manned astronautics. They have been able to send and return living and healthy people to space for a long time, now the commercial manned space program can take the next step - to learn how to deliver, for example, a capable doctor with equipment, to a ship or plane crashed in Antarctica. And this is also an interesting commercial market.
  • feokot1982 10 January 2020 13: 22 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    the heading "Use for its intended purpose" pleased, "we bang, we must bang, the whole world is in ruin, but then" laughing
  • Old26 10 January 2020 13: 50 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    I did not quite understand the meaning of Cyril's article. What conclusion?

    Quote: Far In
    Remove the bun and give for grandmother to Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and then everywhere)))

    Give for grandmas? Interesting interpretation of the term gift

    Quote: lexus
    Regularly conduct training launches with a flight over "friends". And give them the appropriate name - "Wet pants - 1,2 ... etc." laughing

    And how do you, Alexei, react to the answer of "friends" who also want to arrange their training launches with a flight over our territory ??

    Quote: The same Lech
    Or maybe it's better to launch my satellites into orbit with their help ... it's cheaper and safer ... I somehow trust the military more in terms of reliability of launches ... at least they do not allow such shameful failures of Rogozin launches.

    To do this, you will have to ask the “non-brothers” to design the LV on the basis of this ICBM (Voyevoad). Then it will be possible to run

    Quote: Far In
    So the author directly says that Rogozmos stopped talking about this topic. Probably for Rogozmos, this option will break off much less exhaust. Although from an economic point of view, of course, I am for it.

    There is a second explanation. The Dnieper are over.

    Quote: Monar
    Can you imagine how much such a launch will cost? Or do you have reasons that such a launch would be cheaper?

    In fact, the cost of removing the load on the Dnieper was two times less than on the Soyuz, here is the Rokot - for some reason it came out expensive

    Quote: SID
    Secondly: The roar is launched from the platform equipped on Plesetsk - the launch pad, on which the LV is installed in the TPK. The Dnieper was launched from Baikonur from a special mine made and equipped at one time for LCI. Baikonur is Kazakhstan ...

    I agree with "Rokot". But the Dnieper was allowed not only from Baikonur, but also from the PR of the 13th division. Moreover, 10 out of 22 launches (45%) were made from there.

    Quote: SID
    From what ... ? Work is underway, there are no technical problems, the only question is financing and organizing the process.
    Accelerators under Rokot lie in dozens of warehouses.

    But without Russian SU. That is, in warehouses lie de-assembled ICBMs with an already sufficiently developed resource. How much longer can they lie there?

    Quote: Sancho_SP
    1. For space, only the first stage is used, as I understand it. We must carefully consider the savings, which may not be.

    For space, both 1 and 2 steps are used. Just the breeding stage is replaced with a space head with its own booster block. This applies to the Dnepr launch vehicle created on the basis of the R-36M UTTKh ICBM
    As for the creation of the LV on the basis of the "Voivode". then this can only be done by the manufacturer of the ICBM itself. In addition, just so remove the breeding stage from the "Governor" will not work. It is structurally part of the ICBM, and is not installed during the loading of ICBMs into the mine
    1. Mityay65 10 January 2020 14: 31 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      As for the creation of the LV on the basis of the "Voivode". then this can only be done by the manufacturer of the ICBM itself.

      It’s not clear why?
      The problem will be caused primarily by a change in the flight program, and this will be required. As I understand it, all the mathematics and cyclograms lie not only in Kharkov and the Dnieper, but also somewhere in the suburbs, in a good place. If not, then the problem. But this is with the military, not in Roskosmos. Why Rogozin speaks on this subject is not entirely clear. The missile belongs to the MO. Maybe they will agree, or maybe not - this is the main problem when creating LV on the basis of the Voivode, IMHO.
      Quote: Old26
      It is structurally part of the ICBMs,

      This is not clear. Is this the third step? Well, it must be changed to a cryogenic overclocking unit, which is obligatory. 2 lower steps unchanged.
      We'll have to finalize the start, to service the upper ciogenic stage. Well, it’s not difficult, everything can be done in a mobile version, on an auto base, without the construction of masts and platforms. Although the lack of the largest amount of alterations can damage the project.
      The launch cost is somewhere around $ 20-25 million. This is a lot of money if you multiply by 60 pcs. The launch vehicle market of this class is now promoted, in the world there are about 100 startups on launch vehicles of the light class.
      We need to get into it and extinguish our competitors, they just know about the attempts to create a full-fledged launch vehicle at the R-36 base, and are afraid, I somehow read the analytics. All R-36 are registered. lol
      It seems to miss such a stupid thing.
  • Vadim01 10 January 2020 14: 11 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    Write off before it’s too late. Without support from Ukraine, these missiles a priori cannot be on alert.
    1. Yar_Vyatkin 10 January 2020 15: 45 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      No need to say stupid things and overestimate the brothers and their dubious value. PSE for 15A18M may well carry out without ukrov. All documentation was exported by us in advance. And the best specialists from the “Yuzhny cafe” also moved to where the missiles are actually being occupied with, and not, distorting the Russian language, “roaming about the breakthroughs”

      It’s another matter that a replacement is on the way, and 46 (minimum) 15A28 “SarmaT” can be made and put in silos for 3 years maximum, considering, by the way, that the GRTs with the production of R-29RMU2.1 “Sineva-Liner” it will not be loaded in these years just (and so riveted above the roof). And to the new liquid SLBM heavier than the Bulava 3M30 and Sineva, the class for the senior Boreev-A (or Boreev-B and the SSBN, created on the basis of the Husky) will still be far . Although it is already in the Program.
  • iouris 10 January 2020 14: 26 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    What to do with what cannot be used? Or a slime? Then you need to use.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Yar_Vyatkin 10 January 2020 15: 36 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    To date, reliable information has appeared only about the future disposal of missiles. The prospects for conversion in the interests of the space industry remain unclear.

    This is not true. They will dispose of the majority by conversion to ILV. And already without ukrov. Somewhere even officially reported this, but unofficially - this has long been known. And so, in general, good stuff.
  • opus 10 January 2020 15: 52 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    Quote: Ryabov Kirill
    Product R-36M2 with TPK weighs about 52 tons, and about half of this mass is recyclable materials. The contractor will “extract” 20 tons of non-ferrous and 6 tons of ferrous metals from each rocket, 19 kg of silver, 1200 g of gold and 55 g of platinum. Some other materials will also be sent for recycling.

    fool
    1.Weight is force, with which the body acts on the support (or suspension, or another type of attachment)
    Forces are measured in Newtons, or kgf
    2. Starting weight R-36M2 (only it, without TPK): 211.4 t / 211.1 t (depending on the type of warhead)
    3. The mass of the warhead: 8470 kg
    4. Masses of fuel components: 150,2 + 37,6 + 2,1 = 189,9 t
    2 + 3 + 4 output
    211,1-189,9-8,47 = 21,2 tare = 12,73 tons.
    I wonder WHERE THE AUTHOR WILL GET
    Quote: Ryabov Kirill
    20 tons of color и 6 tons of ferrous metals, 19 kg of silver, 1200 g of gold and 55 g of platinum

    belay
    from TPK? yeah, trouble current:
    TPK 15Y184, made from organic materials (high-strength fiberglass grades).
    fiberglass, though with metal elements (just the proportion of chernukha of 6 tons)
    4. If we accept the author’s version, then 52t- (211,1t-189,9t) = 30,8 tons of TPK only?
    TPK with thermostating. Length 27,9, diameter 3,5 m

    V = Sh V = π * r ^ 2 * h
    Let the wall thickness be t = 10 cm and the fiberglass density 2,0 g / cm³
    V tpc = π * 27,9 * (1,75 ^ 2-1,65 ^ 2) = 29,8m³
    M = 29,8m³ * 2000 kg / m³ = 59 kg !!
    almost 60 tons, without the P36M2 and warhead itself.
    WITHOUT "METAL ELEMENTS AND THERMOSTATING"
    fool
    WHERE IS THE AUTHOR "HADING" THE MISSILES TO MYSELF?

    IF TAKE WALL THICKNESS 5 CM (DOES NOT BREAK?)THAT WILL GET 15,11 TONS
    15,11 +12,73 (out of 4) = 28 tons.
    Discrepancy again

    Here are the important questions:
    The R-36M UTTH missile in a transport and launch container (TPK) is installed in the silo launcher in the filled state and is on combat alert in full combat readiness.

    Oxidizing agent - nitrogen tetroxide
    Fuel - HDD
    frank muck I must say
    almost 190 tons: WHERE? WHO WILL DRAIN?
    These works are not intended to be carried out by the manufacturer.


    Conclusion No.1:

    it looks like 52 tons is openly sucked from a finger

    Quote: Ryabov Kirill
    In May 2019, the head of Roskosmos Dmitry Rogozin spoke about the plans for the Voivode. According to him, the decommissioned missiles will undergo conversion and will be used to launch a load into orbit.

    1. Rogozin, which only does not promise, but will not fulfill, 100%
    2. Launches into orbit are possible ONLY with Clear (launch base), since launch is only mine
    51 ° 05′38 ″ s. w. 59 ° 50′32 ″ c. d.

    axiom:
    Initial inclination of the orbit cannot be less than latitude cosmodrome.

    So low

    many customers in orbits?
    3. else it is necessary that our and the Chinese do not get a "Step on the cumpole"
    4. sanctions + restriction on the import of satellite equipment to Russia, there are no launch vehicles of its own, Rogoin DOES NOT CLEAR, GLONAS can not be deduced from 51 grsh using the R-36M

    1 2 + + + 3 4 = who needs it in 2020?
    Quote: Ryabov Kirill
    An alternative to utilization or conversion may be the use of missiles for their intended purpose - as part of exercises or tests.

    1.Ecology
    2. It is dangerous for an expensive mine (the mine is still useful for Sarmat) and personnel (it may flop)
    3. The contract limits
    4.Before starting, it is necessary to call specialists (Ukrainian) and drag the equipment and inspect everything = expensive

    1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = unlikely
    1. Lekz 10 January 2020 22: 13 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Do not scold the pianist, he plays as he can ... 52 tons is the mass of a dry rocket in the TPC. For use as a carrier there are no problems, the Dnepr launch vehicle is a witness to this. It can be launched both from the Baikonur special mine and from the standard silo (with some restrictions). It is necessary to replace the dilution stage with the satellite (s) upper stage and finalize the control system software. Both have no problems. The participation of our brothers is not required; everything necessary is already available in Russia. The reliability of missiles is determined not by dancing with tambourines from the developer, although this is not superfluous, but by real launches carried out to confirm the service life.
      1. opus 10 January 2020 22: 56 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        Quote: Lekz
        Do not scold the pianist

        Ryabov is not a pianist; he earns his bread by the insane generation of letters.
        In all the topics that he writes, it is practically a deer. good
        Quote: Lekz
        52 tons is the mass of dry rockets in the TPK.

        1. Be nice to the "proof" in the studio, at the level of 1 + 1.
        is it not difficult?
        2. And "dry" the rocket where will they be and how and who?
        combat crew merge AT + UDMG in silos? to the nearest potato field? swamp?
        3. I, nevertheless, know this ICBM a bit, Tk merge with it ONLY in factory conditions, and not otherwise
        1 + 2 (they will not be from you) = 3 = Ryabov whistler
        Quote: Lekz
        For use as a carrier there are no problems, the Dnepr launch vehicle is a witness to this.

        You again poorly read what I wrote.
        1. Yes, not such a big problem
        2. in orbit (tilt), why the hell doesn’t anyone need but us, and we can’t provide the payload with the payload
        3. foreigners will not bring here (to Russia) any satellite having at least some technological significance
        4.and if it crosses out at start-up? Silos for Sarmat You and Ryabov will build (pay for restoration)?
        5.without (in) Ukrainians, the conversion of ICBMs into launch vehicles is not possible, from the word completely
        Quote: Lekz
        The participation of our brothers is not required; everything necessary is already available in Russia.

        don't make my fifth point laugh. I had a direct relationship with rackets.
        This is you Temko Volodin

        Throw it, he is a political instructor, or a Komsomol, he eats
        1. Lekz 11 January 2020 21: 37 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Tsiolkovsky also wrote something on the topic. To deliver a “bus” to an understandable range, a rocket needs about 200 tons of fuel. If you add a little metal in which it will be stored and the mass of TPK, then just get the desired. I hope you are not offended by my free treatment with the tenths and hundredths. The rocket transporter-installer has a saddle load of 25 tons and a towed semi-trailer weight of 65 tons.
          The experience of the Russian-Ukrainian joint venture gained with Dnipro was quite positive for itself. And for loads, and for documentation. And the destruction of silos during mortar launch missiles is an extremely rare thing in an accident.
          1. opus 11 January 2020 23: 43 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            Quote: Lekz
            The rocket transporter-installer has a saddle load of 25 tons and a towed semi-trailer weight of 65 tons.

            Yokkar Babai.
            Isn't that complicated?
            1. There is an ampoule, ICBM refueling, merges and is serviced ONLY at the factory
            2. To download TPK (with fueled rocket) developed into a mine structure at SKB MAZ
            Special transport and installation equipment in the form of a cross-country semi-trailer with a tractor based on MAZ-537

            3. Launch mass of ICBMs +/- 211: 212 tons

            R-36M UTTH missile in a transport and launch container (TPK), installed in the silo launcher in a tucked state and is on alert in full combat readiness. TPK with thermostating. Length 27,9, diameter 3,5 m.



            The mass of the road train is 69914 kg, the load on the front axle is 42000 kg, the load on the rear axle is 27914 kg, the turning radius is 35 m. Length - 26460 mm, height - 4600 mm, width - 3350 mm.
            Weight of the EQUIPPED road train (dry = drove + fuel)
            "saddle load" is for people who have a category in, at best!
            All SZMs (tractors) have a saddle load of 8–9 tons standard, for Schwerlast from 12 to 18 tons
            So what?
            they are dragging, while they are from 25 tons of cargo to 150 according to the additional orders.
            Quote: Lekz
            And the destruction of silos during mortar launch missiles is an extremely rare thing in an accident.

            Yeah ... visit Baikonur, there are a lot of them
            and isho: with a guaranteed service life of the product, yes, rarely, and if it is “overdue”?
            1. Lekz 12 January 2020 02: 05 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              And for what purpose are you struggling with common sense? Yes, and remind you how many destroyed SHAFT heavy missiles in Baikonur. And the “delay” happens on the market, but even there they punish her.
              1. opus 12 January 2020 02: 14 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                Quote: Lekz
                And for what purpose are you struggling with common sense?

                with whom? with your? belay
                you do not have it

                Quote: Lekz
                Yes, and remind you how many destroyed SHAFT heavy missiles in Baikonur.

                I personally saw three. Not a very pleasant sight, people burned there
                Tests of the R-36M2 began in March 1986. By the way, the very first launch was unsuccessful: after leaving the mine the main engine did not start, the rocket crashed onto the launcher, completely destroying it.


                Quote: Lekz
                And the “delay” happens on the market, but even there they punish her.

                1. Well, punish the Ministry of Defense, the Supreme and Yuzhmash
                2. Don’t be dumb, it’s clear that I wrote
                1. Lekz 12 January 2020 14: 03 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  I agree with you, common sense is a shaky thing. It seemed to me that if a person writes "The mass of the road train is 69914 kg, the load on the front axle is 42000 kg, the load on the rear axle is 27914 kg", then he understands what is at stake. I was wrong. He must understand that the sum of axle loads must be greater than the weight of the transported cargo. I was wrong. If a person looks at the rear axle of the conveyor-installer, it should be clear to him that it is clearly not for 200 (-25) tons. I was wrong. You left me no choice, I give a quote.
                  “According to the project, a plant-start scheme was provided, that is, the rocket was transported directly from the manufacturer to the silo launcher. This was the first time this procedure was used and the high reliability of the rocket systems was confirmed. At the same time, the time was reduced many times the rocket is in an unprotected state: only along the route.Thus, during the LCI, the technology for preparing the rocket for launch was as follows:
                  1. From the railway platform, the container was loaded onto a transport trolley (crane loading was applied: the container was pulled from the platform onto the trolley). Then the container was transported to the starting position, where in the same way it was moved to the installer, who loaded the container into the silos on vertical and horizontal shock absorbers. This made it possible to move it horizontally and vertically, which increased its security (more precisely, the security of a rocket - author's note) in a nuclear explosion.
                  2. Conducted electrical tests, aiming and input flight mission.
                  3. The rocket refueling began - one of the time-consuming and dangerous operations (one of the most dangerous operations is the production of rocket refueling, and not just its beginning - approx. Author). 180 tons of aggressive components were poured from the mobile refueling tanks into the rocket tanks. I had to work in protective equipment, often at a temperature of more than 30 ° C.
                  4. Docked head part (RGCh or monoblock). Then proceeded to the final operations. The pivoting roof closed, everything was checked, hatches were sealed, and the silo was surrendered under guard of guard. Since that time, unauthorized access to the silos has been ruled out. The missile is put on combat duty, and from that moment it can only be controlled by the combat crew command post. "(Baikonur. Korolev. Yangel. Compiled by M. I. Kuznetskiy. - Voronezh: IPF Voronezh, 1997. P. 174) .
                  This description is for R-36M. I hope you do not insist on submitting a description of the preparation of the R-36M2? If not, thanks in advance.
                  And for the mines, it was not worth it so emotionally. To one of six (if memory serves) the first start turned around, there was such a disaster. Then they did without it.
                  The appeal to the Supreme is meaningless, no one in the Strategic Missile Forces, being in good mind, will not exploit the unpredictable 200 tons of toxic explosives.
                  1. opus 12 January 2020 16: 01 New
                    • 2
                    • 3
                    -1
                    Quote: Lekz
                    "The mass of the road train is 69914 kg, the load on the front axle is 42000 kg, the load on the rear axle is 27914 kg," then he understands what is at stake.

                    the mass of the road train (and not only) is different:
                    maximum, permissible and permitted. for DOP and not for DOP
                    technically authorized
                    Actros SLT 4160 8x6 / 4 für bis zu 500 Tonnen Lastzuggesamtgewicht

                    the load on the saddle is 18 tons (if you have not forgotten), the permissible weight is 48 tons, it can drag 6Cam + p / trailer + cargo = with a total weight of 500 tons.
                    This is for additional, but not for additional + 30%
                    I understand what I mean

                    Quote: Lekz
                    "The plant-start scheme was provided for under the project

                    interestingly convinced. doubt itself creeped in, but not to carry, but unload from the railway, lift, install in the mine (tps) 200+ tons.
                    Quote: Lekz
                    then he should understand that it is clearly not for 200 (-25) tons. I was wrong.

                    you are wrong. the view on the axis says nothing. Lifting device yes

                    Quote: Lekz
                    being in a good mind will not exploit the unpredictable 200 tons of toxic explosives.

                    1. This is not explosive.
                    2. exploited the same.
                    The Americans did not solve the problem with the oozing titans, but they exploited the same.
    2. SID
      SID 24 January 2020 18: 21 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Quote: opus
      axiom:
      The initial inclination of the orbit cannot be less than the width of the cosmodrome.
      ....

      So low

      .
      What is drawn is not an inclination of the orbit. So does not buva;)
      Take a look here ...
  • Old26 10 January 2020 15: 57 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Mityai65
    Quote: Old26
    As for the creation of the LV on the basis of the "Voivode". then this can only be done by the manufacturer of the ICBM itself.

    It’s not clear why?
    The problem will be caused primarily by a change in the flight program, and this will be required. As I understand it, all the mathematics and cyclograms lie not only in Kharkov and the Dnieper, but also somewhere in the suburbs, in a good place. If not, then the problem. But this is with the military, not in Roskosmos. Why Rogozin speaks on this subject is not entirely clear. The missile belongs to the MO. Maybe they will agree, or maybe not - this is the main problem when creating LV on the basis of the Voivode, IMHO.

    There is such a term, design support (field supervision). Even the extension of the service life until recently was carried out by the Yuzhny NPO and only in recent years have we agreed that this process is now carried out by the EMNIP SRC named after Makeeva. But in essence, this is amateur initiative, and if the manufacturer could be responsible if the Dnepr satellites were not withdrawn, now they can just send us away with our complaints in such a situation and say that they didn’t do this and did not give permission.
    If you give an example from normal life, for example, you buy an Audi and after some time of operation you decide to replace the engine, but not with its native one, but with Mercedes, for example (of course, this is all very conditional). Somewhere in the village where GAI officers are not found during the day with fire you can dissect on this "hodgepodge". But if you go out onto the track and run into them, you will rake in full. About the same thing here.
    The control system needs to be modernized, and it can only be modernized by the developer, you yourself have no right to do this (if you want everything to be legal). Well, or should install their own control system.
    A number of R-36M UTTH ICBMs were converted to the Dnepr carrier. But the rest, if they are in the arsenals (in warehouses), lie with unchanged control system. Some time ago there were rumors that we were going to do our domestic LV on the basis of the R-36M UTX instead of the Dnieper, even the name sounded like, like, Don, but then everything calmed down.

    Quote: Mityai65
    Quote: Old26
    It is structurally part of the ICBMs,

    This is not clear. Is this the third step? Well, it must be changed to a cryogenic overclocking unit, this is mandatory. 2 lower steps unchanged.

    Yes, in fact, constructively this is the third step. After all, what is the R-36M UTTKh ICBM? At the plant, the first and second stages of this ICBM are docked. All this is placed in the TPK and sent to the positional area of ​​the division (intermediate stages such as the arsenal, etc., I omit). Next, this transport and launch container is placed in the silos, the cap is removed from the TPK, the APB (hardware-instrument unit) is installed, or as it is sometimes called the dilution stage. Then, warheads and a head fairing are installed on this APB (SR) (I omitted part of the operations).

    As for the Voivode, in addition to the first and second stages, a breeding stage is also installed at the plant in the TPK. Yes, in fact, this is constructively the third stage of ICBMs. And operations on the installation of APB when working with ICBMs in the mine are no longer performed. If the APB on the R-36M UTTKh ICBM can be removed when the rocket is removed from the mine, which was done, then the same dilution stage at the Voevoda cannot be removed just like that. This is part of the rocket. That is, in fact, we are illegally, without copyright control, we must remove one step and instead install a booster block of the space step.

    Quote: Mityai65
    We'll have to finalize the start, to service the upper ciogenic stage. Well, it’s not difficult, everything can be done in a mobile version, on an auto base, without the construction of masts and platforms. Although the lack of the largest amount of alterations can damage the project.
    The launch cost is somewhere around $ 20-25 million. This is a lot of money if you multiply by 60 pcs. The launch vehicle market of this class is now promoted, in the world there are about 100 startups on launch vehicles of the light class.
    We need to get into it and extinguish our competitors, they just know about the attempts to create a full-fledged LV on the R-36 base, and are afraid, I somehow read the analytics. All R-36 are registered. lol
    It seems to miss such a stupid thing.

    The Dnieper was launched from the standard silo launcher of the ICBM R-36M UTTH. It was just that the entire launch vehicle did not fit into the silos and the space warhead protruded from the silos. Accordingly, the protective device (shaft cover) did not close. If we modernize the remaining R-36M UTTH (and how many of them remain - HZ), then we won’t have to redo anything in the starting system. But if you use the Voevoda (R-36M2) instead of the R-36M UTTX, you will have to carry out the work, because even the Voevoda ICBMs were not installed in the mine from the UTTX without modernization.
    The launch price, according to open sources in the region of 10 million dollars (although this is information about 3-5 years ago)
    The market (theoretical) may be of the order of 100), but in fact 2019 carriers were launched in 97, of which about 60-70 were light and medium.
    And even in the best times of relations with Ukraine, such launches were 1-2 per year. As far as possible now use the shot rockets - HZ. R-36M UTTH were removed from combat duty about 5-7 years ago, R-36M2 "Voivoda" on the database now God forbid that a couple dozen remain. How much is in storage - I do not know. They, too, cannot be stored indefinitely. According to START-3, the number of non-deployed carriers cannot be more than 100. And these are ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers

    Quote: Vadim01
    Write off before it’s too late. Without support from Ukraine, these missiles a priori cannot be on alert.

    Most are already decommissioned. But those who are still on alert are on alert. Makeev’s company is now engaged in the extension of PSE, although of course this is not field supervision
  • Sergey Obraztsov 10 January 2020 20: 11 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    And I would give one to the Americans. Or even a couple. Let them put it in their cities for all to see, then you look and fools will lessen the pressure of confrontation with Russia, seeing before their eyes the legendary "Satan" ....
  • Petrol cutter 10 January 2020 20: 45 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    The devil knows him. Ninety-nine percent of those here are hardly rocket professionals. Especially heavy class. Professionals in terms of missiles, in principle, will not write here. Since they have no such right.
    Hence the conclusion is a discussion of the "spherical horse in a vacuum."
    Nobody knows anything. But everyone is discussing something ...
    How to use / not use ....
    Let's let the professionals decide. They, as they say in Russia, see better.
    1. Pevek 11 January 2020 14: 44 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Benzorez
      The devil knows him. Ninety-nine percent of those here are hardly rocket professionals. Especially heavy class. Professionals in terms of missiles, in principle, will not write here. Since they have no such right.
      Hence the conclusion is a discussion of the "spherical horse in a vacuum."
      Nobody knows anything. But everyone is discussing something ...
      How to use / not use ....
      Let's let the professionals decide. They, as they say in Russia, see better.


      Hello)))
      Look at the comments of the Old26.
      good
      1. Petrol cutter 11 January 2020 18: 35 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Old! This is our Everything! This is a cult figure. Even the legend of the site (not afraid of the word). Therefore, he can.
  • tarackanovaleksei 11 January 2020 00: 56 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Launch satellites into space. The mass of launch into orbit is probably not small. A companion come in handy.
    1. opus 12 January 2020 02: 06 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: tarackanovaleksei
      Launch satellites into space. The mass of launch into orbit, probably not small

      It’s useful to launch a spacecraft or a group of satellites for various purposes with a launching mass of 300-900 km in orbit up to 3,7 t. One Dnepr launch costs about $ 31 million

      Quote: opus
      2. Launches into orbit are possible ONLY with Clear (launch base), since launch is only mine
      51 ° 05′38 ″ s. w. 59 ° 50′32 ″ c. d.
      Show / Hide text

      axiom:
      2. The initial inclination of the orbit cannot be less than the latitude of the cosmodrome.
      So low

      many customers in orbits from the launch complex Yasny ?
      3. else it is necessary that our and the Chinese do not get a "Step on the cumpole"
      4. sanctions + restriction on the import of satellite equipment to Russia, there are no launch vehicles of its own, Rogoin DOES NOT CLEAR, GLONAS can not be deduced from 51 grsh using the R-36M
  • eklmn 11 January 2020 04: 53 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Once the USSR did a great job - instead of building special rockets for launching man into space, engineers put accelerators on a ballistic missile and launched Gagarin, ahead of the amers. They built a separate, just different rocket and fell behind. If the Voivode attach side boosters and run to the moon - you can again get ahead of the amers!
    1. Bratkov Oleg 11 January 2020 11: 51 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: eklmn
      Once the USSR did a great job - instead of building special rockets for launching man into space, engineers put accelerators on a ballistic missile and launched Gagarin, ahead of the amers. They built a separate, just different rocket and fell behind. ...

      the Americans didn’t build ICBMs at that time, and they didn’t do any separate missiles for the satellites either ... It was the USSR’s problem how to deliver nuclear bombs to the United States, the United States didn’t have such a problem, they were from Turkey, Germany, England, Japan could launch von Braun’s tactical missiles, and their flying fortresses. They didn’t need ICBMs and in figs, and so everything went well, and the plans were only atomic bombs with which their bombers would iron the USSR.
      But for the USSR, either aircraft with a greater range than the United States were needed to fly to the United States, or missiles. The missiles turned out faster, and the output of Sputnik-1 greatly defused the tension in the world, because it turned out that atomic bombs were already reaching the USA.
      All American nonsense and propaganda about their flights into space, and to the Moon - the USA’s simple desire is to keep a good face on a bad game, they were not on the Moon, but Dzhemeni and Mercury, on which they supposedly flew into space, finally look like the creation of pioneers schoolchildren. That is, the United States then finally could not imagine what problems were when entering orbit and returning from it.
      1. Octopus 11 January 2020 16: 41 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        That special people pulled up, hello.
        Quote: Bratkov Oleg
        Americans didn’t build ICBMs at that time, and they didn’t make any separate rockets for satellites ...

        The Americans, naturally, were ahead of the USSR in missiles. But there were several circumstances.

        1. Pest-recidivists Korolev and Glushko promised their native Soviet power to blow up the bourgeoisie. We received two steamers of folk money under this topic. each and the topic of the ICBMs was safely overwhelmed. Referring to the heavy, made with the ax, Soviet hydrogen bombs, they planted a rocket of enormous power and weight, sacrificing, first of all, launch characteristics. As a result, the seven could raise an elephant into space, but could not be on combat duty, especially when lying in the basement, like Atlas. In addition, hefty, few, insanely expensive and well-known to the Americans launchers reduced the combat value of the seven to almost zero.

        The first Soviet ICBM - R-16 Yangel with a mine launch.

        On the other hand, Korolev and Glushko remained forever in history, and few people know who Yangel is.

        2. The adventurer and voluntarist Khrushchev did not send the Queen and Glushko back to the Gulag, as Comrade Comrade would have done. Stalin, but bought on Korolev’s idea to insert a hairpin to the Americans and get around them in launching a satellite for the international year of geophysics. Initially, this seemed like a meaningless flag-stick, but the PR result exceeded all and all expectations.

        3. Mr. Eisenhower, 34th President of the United States, hated the American military (or rather the military-industrial complex) (yes, such a general Eisenhower was a man) and harmed her as much as he could. In addition, he hated the Nazis, especially the SS, and personally Sturmbannführer Werner von Braun. Therefore, when in the 55th year it was a question of launching a satellite in the international year of geophysics, there was no question of launching the most successful American rocket at that time - the fonbrownsky ​​Jupiter - and the Americans began to make a separate rocket for this task. Firstly, the Fleet, which did not know how to make rockets, began to do it, secondly, from available (actually commercial) components, and thirdly, the rocket specifically for a tiny satellite (Vanguard-1 weighed 1,5 kg), due to with which the rocket itself weighed 10 tons (seven in the Sputnik version - 267 tons). Only when it became clear that the naval ones were crap (the first launch of the Vanguard on 06.12.1957/8/1957 with a large concentration of presses turned out to be emergency, after three successful tests), was von Braun allowed to launch the Explorer. For launch, a spare copy of the rocket flying on the tests on August XNUMX, XNUMX was used without any alterations (they say that von Braun already tried to quietly screw the satellite onto this rocket, but this was undermined by the Soviet authorities anti-fascists from the U.S. Air Force).
        1. Bratkov Oleg 8 February 2020 10: 58 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Octopus
          ... The Americans, of course, were ahead of the USSR in missiles. But there were several circumstances.
          1. Pest-recidivists Korolev and Glushko promised their native Soviet power ...

          Again, Americans did not have any ICBMs. The USA had airfields in Europe, in England, in Japan, in Turkey, from where flying fortresses were supposed to bomb the territory of the USSR. The USSR did not have planes reaching the United States, therefore, the Soviet "pests" created intercontinental missiles. And to demonstrate the United States that they are no longer invulnerable, they launched a satellite.
          Brown made tactical missiles, and with some stretch, medium-range missiles, they are an order of magnitude cheaper than intercontinental missiles, and they can also be launched from England, Japan, and Turkey. That is, the United States did not have the economic and political need to do ICBMs. But I had to make some mock-ups that mimic ICBMs, when the USSR had intercontinental missiles, to preserve a pure image. Then all these American first-generation ICBMs were simply cut into scrap metal, and that would be many millions of dollars, even billions would ... For some reason, launching a satellite with these missiles was not at all practiced, and the USSR used the used ICBMs to launch satellites, it is much more profitable than just sawing. Just because the first American ICBMs were fakes, they sawed them. And for the same reason they never were on the Moon, all the cosmonauts of the Earth, until 1975, approximately, maybe later, this is a list of launches from the Baikonur Cosmodrome.
          This is reality.
          1. Octopus 8 February 2020 15: 05 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Quote: Bratkov Oleg
            the first Americans ICBMs were fakes, and they sawed them. And for the same reason they never were on the Moon, all cosmonauts of the Earth

            The computer irradiates you, throw it away.
  • Valery Potapov 11 January 2020 09: 55 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I read komenty, I was glad, not a single person ...
  • Old26 11 January 2020 12: 03 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: ycuce234-san
    As far as I know, no one has tried to deliver the means of rescue urgently, within tens of minutes, by any means. Then the features of ICBMs, such as mortar launch and the focus of control systems on ground targets will not become problems, as well as high accelerations, to which their new payload will be insensitive. Undoubtedly, an experimental delivery system will be unprofitable, but it will allow gaining experience, then replacing ICBMs with light, specially designed to be profitable, civilian missiles and thus open a new market for services

    Almost 20 years ago such a project was, however, based on the ICBM UR-100N UTTH. The payload in one case is 420 kg, in the other 2500 kg. Not implemented ...
  • Old26 11 January 2020 15: 22 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: tarackanovaleksei
    Launch satellites into space. The mass of launch into orbit is probably not small. A companion come in handy.

    At the Dnieper, she had 3,4 tons

    Quote: eklmn
    Once the USSR did a great job - instead of building special rockets for launching man into space, engineers put accelerators on a ballistic missile and launched Gagarin, ahead of the amers. They built a separate, just different rocket and fell behind. If the Voivode attach side boosters and run to the moon - you can again get ahead of the amers!

    For starters, can you learn the materiel before writing such posts? What accelerators were put on the ballistic missile R-7? A war rocket has been added ONE step - third
    The fact that the Americans were ahead in the first space launch is an indisputable fact. But they did not build any "separate" rocket. The first two suborbital launches were on the Redstone rocket without any finishing touches, and the first orbital launches were on the Atlas rocket. Also without any tweaks
    And if you add sidewalls to the "Voivode" - it will be possible to hand over this rocket to the scrap. The cost of such an alteration will be much more than creating a new launch vehicle.

    Quote: Bratkov Oleg
    Americans didn’t build ICBMs at all,

    You have to understand the Atlas, you don’t consider an intercontinental missile. But the first experimental launch was on June 6, 1957, less than a month after the first launch of the royal R-7. And it was deployed, unlike the royal R-7, not in the amount of 6 copies, but in the amount of 129. Expert, damn it
    1. Octopus 11 January 2020 17: 39 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Old26
      The fact that the Americans were ahead in the first space launch is an indisputable fact.

      Orbital.
      And here the merit of the Americans themselves is immeasurably great, just one missile squabble between the Air Force / Army / Navy is worth it.
      Quote: Old26
      But they did not build any "separate" rocket.

      Unfortunately, they did exactly what the space rocket did separately from the ICBM programs. Vanguard.
    2. Bratkov Oleg 8 February 2020 11: 34 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      [quote = Old26] [quote = tarackanovaleksei] Launch satellites into space. The mass of launch into orbit is probably not small. A companions come in handy. [/ Quote]
      At the Dnieper, she had 3,4 tons

      [quote = eklmn]
      [quote = Bratkov Oleg] the Americans didn’t build ICBMs at all then, [/ quote]
      You have to understand the Atlas, you don’t consider an intercontinental missile. But the first experimental launch was on June 6, 1957, less than a month after the first launch of the royal R-7. And it was deployed, unlike the royal R-7, not in the amount of 6 copies, but in the amount of 129. Expert, damn it [/ quote]
      This is all according to the Americans, such as a rocket, and a tooth gives that it flies.
      Neither ICBMs, nor flights into space, they didn’t get along for a long time, the USSR was 10-20 years ahead of them in all respects. But the American mentality does not allow them to be second, so they falsified, lied, dodged as they could. A flight to the moon was invented, although not a single astronaut at that time could even be delivered to Earth’s orbit. It is a pity that the leadership of the USSR betrayed and sold its people ...
  • 75 Sergey 11 January 2020 15: 23 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    And what gases are emitted during the operation of these rocket engines?
    What is the difference between "Sarmat" and "Voivode" in addition to the name, or is it like the MiG-29 and MiG-35?
  • Old26 11 January 2020 16: 07 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: 75Sergey
    And what gases are emitted during the operation of these rocket engines?
    What is the difference between "Sarmat" and "Voivode" in addition to the name, or is it like the MiG-29 and MiG-35?

    What gases are emitted? In the process of fuel combustion? THE SAME. Both ICBMs have the same fuel vapor.
    What is the difference between "Sarmat" and "Voivode", for this you need to have at hand the whole set of design documentation. But the fact that the two missiles were created with a difference of 30 years and at two different firms suggests that there are many differences
  • Old26 11 January 2020 19: 19 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Octopus
    Orbital.
    And here the merit of the Americans themselves is immeasurably great, just one missile squabble between the Air Force / Army / Navy is worth it.

    But we did not have suborbital ones. The American suborbital space flight was with the Americans in May 1961. And bickering - you're right. Everyone pulled a financial blanket over himself

    Quote: Octopus
    Unfortunately, they did exactly what the space rocket did separately from the ICBM programs. Vanguard.

    For satellites - I agree. For manned, it was not space, but military missiles that were used. The Vanguard was an extremely unsuccessful missile. Of the 12 launches, one is suborbital, 2 are successful orbital, and 9 with an unsuccessful rating.
    1. Octopus 11 January 2020 19: 41 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      But we did not have suborbital ones.

      Piloted. And the first space (suborbital), of course, is for the SS. This is now embarrassing to talk about.
      Quote: Old26
      For satellites - I agree. For manned, it was not space, but military missiles that were used.

      In the 50s, as far as I know, they had no interest in manned programs. Eisenhower and his entourage greatly underestimated the propaganda effect. (in Aiki it was a crown jamb))
      Quote: Old26
      The Vanguard was an extremely unsuccessful missile.

      Vanguard was a minimalist solution for placing watermelon in orbit (in size and weight). Like the SS-520. But the 50s and 60s required other heroes.
  • Ros 56 11 January 2020 19: 33 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Well, what a question, send it for its intended purpose, I think all the locals will even say exactly where exactly the first time. negative
  • Old26 11 January 2020 20: 20 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Octopus
    Piloted. And the first space (suborbital), of course, is for the SS. This is now embarrassing to talk about.

    The first suborbital was on May 5, 1961 with astronaut Alan Shepard. The second suborbital was performed on July 21, 1961 by Virgil Grissom. February 20, 1962 the United States conducted the first orbital manned space flight of the spacecraft "Mercury-Atlas-6" with astronaut John Glenn.
    Talk that the first suborbital was performed in the Reich - let's leave it to fans of conspiracy theories

    Quote: Octopus
    In the 50s, as far as I know, they had no interest in manned programs. Eisenhower and his entourage greatly underestimated the propaganda effect. (in Aiki it was a crown jamb))

    The most common misconception. The first X-15 enrollment with NASA was in 1957. Even if you do not consider it a space program, the first military set of astronauts in the United States was in 1958, the first set of NASA in 1959. The first set of CPC Air Force in the USSR was carried out in 1960.
    1. Octopus 11 January 2020 21: 31 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      The first suborbital was on May 5, 1961 with astronaut Alan Shepard.

      Again. Speaking of suborbital flights, for some reason you mean strictly manned flights. I'm just talking about a product with an apogee above the Pocket line. The first time the Germans did this in Peenemuende, as far as I know, then the same FAA flew already in the States with equipment, as a geophysical rocket. In the USSR, the R-1A flew in the 49th, it seems.
      Quote: Old26
      The first military astronaut kit in the United States was in 1958, the first NASA kit in 1959.

      You understand that a set of astronauts is good, but the alteration of the Atlas and the Titans was not such a simple matter. Moreover. You are talking about post-satellite times, and I'm talking about pre-satellite times. After the roasted cock pecked, Eisenhower perked up a bit, I do not argue.
    2. Bratkov Oleg 8 February 2020 11: 48 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Old26

      The first suborbital was on May 5, 1961 with astronaut Alan Shepard. The second suborbital was performed on July 21, 1961 by Virgil Grissom. February 20, 1962 the United States conducted the first orbital manned space flight of the spacecraft "Mercury-Atlas-6" with astronaut John Glenn.
      Talk that the first suborbital was performed in the Reich - let's leave it to fans of conspiracy theories

      This is a 100 percent lie, and American propaganda! Mercury, like Gemini, never flew into space, hence the huge doubt about the possibility of suborbital flights. They would then realize that it’s IMPOSSIBLE to plant actors like they are in Jemeni, or Mercury. This is not a fighter that takes off from an aircraft carrier, from a catapult, and that is how the Americans imagined it. That's just the scheme of the East, how Gagarin was located there, declassified after decades, and that's not all. But it is quite visible how the astronaut’s body is located in relation to the axis of acceleration. In Mercury-Jemeni, the legs are high, the body is slightly forward with the pelvis and the head at the very bottom. 5 for 5 minutes, and I guarantee the troupe of hemorrhage in the brain. And from the catapult of the aircraft carrier, three seconds, at most, overloads last.
      This is not counting the main argument when Amstrong said that stars are not visible in space. If his words were then shown on television in the USSR, the whole country would have laughed ...
  • Old26 11 January 2020 23: 31 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Octopus
    Again. Speaking of suborbital flights, for some reason you mean strictly manned flights. I'm just talking about a product with an apogee above the Pocket line. The first time the Germans did this in Peenemuende, as far as I know, then the same FAA flew already in the States with equipment, as a geophysical rocket. In the USSR, the R-1A flew in the 49th, it seems.

    Well, if specifically about a suborbital flight without a payload (I do not consider explosives), then yes, the Germans were the first. EMNIP climbed 193 km. But in principle, when it comes to suborbital ones always mean manned. Although yes, of course, the Americans had programs at the beginning of the 50s and started ex. FAA already with payload
    1. Octopus 12 January 2020 02: 30 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: Old26
      But in principle, when it comes to suborbital ones always mean manned

      Pretty strange to hear. I clarified this point in posts. Personally, I generally believe that the manned space program, as we know it, is an accident. The result of the Soviet championship in space and the absurdly powerful royal rocket, which allowed to launch a man (having no other purpose than to launch a man). With the normal development of this topic, the next big step after the Vanguard would be the Crown and, accordingly, Thor-Agena. We would have reached the manned space program much later and much more modestly. So, in a sense, Sputnik is a consequence of Eisenhower's fakaps, and Armstrong is the result of the successes of Khrushchev / Korolev))).
    2. Bratkov Oleg 8 February 2020 11: 51 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The Germans could throw at 300, only it immediately fell back.
      The beginning of the space age is considered to be the achievement of the first cosmic velocity, when thrown into orbit, and it remained there.
  • Old26 12 January 2020 10: 56 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Octopus
    Quote: Old26
    But in principle, when it comes to suborbital ones always mean manned

    Pretty strange to hear. I clarified this point in posts. Personally, I generally believe that the manned space program, as we know it, is an accident. The result of the Soviet championship in space and the absurdly powerful royal rocket, which allowed to launch a man (having no other purpose than to launch a man). With the normal development of this topic, the next big step after the Vanguard would be the Crown and, accordingly, Thor-Agena. We would have reached the manned space program much later and much more modestly. So, in a sense, Sputnik is a consequence of Eisenhower's fakaps, and Armstrong is the result of the successes of Khrushchev / Korolev))).

    Nothing of a country. Just a stereotype of human thinking. Indeed, the word "suborbital flight" for most people is instantly associated precisely with manned flight
  • Vyacheslav34 13 January 2020 08: 53 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Put the bullseye and screw on the tan. and disposal and benefit
  • Chaldon48 18 January 2020 14: 02 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    If it is possible to benefit from the disposal of an expensive product, it must be done, what is there to discuss?
    1. Bratkov Oleg 8 February 2020 11: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Absolutely all ICBMs can put a satellite into orbit. The USSR did just that, having served the ICBM term, launched a satellite into orbit. This is much more profitable than just sawing on a color.
      The United States destroyed all of its first series of ICBMs without launching satellites ... The model cannot put a payload into orbit, this is a fact. In fact, they showed inflatable mock-ups to the Soviet Union, like we also have this, we can do it too, and our American is the best in the world.
      And because initially they relied on aviation and the fleet. They had no economic, political, military reasons to do ICBMs. But this was vital to the Soviet Union, which did not have a large fleet, and could not bomb the territory of the United States, because there were neither bombers of such range, nor aircraft carriers from the USSR. Only missiles could solve this problem, or create ultra-long-range aviation. Missiles came out much earlier.
  • Old26 8 February 2020 12: 03 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Quote: Bratkov Oleg
    The beginning of the space age is considered to be the achievement of the first cosmic velocity, when thrown into orbit, and it remained there.

    Where did the Octopus comrade and I talk about the beginning of the space age? It was about suborbital flights
  • Old26 8 February 2020 12: 07 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Quote: Bratkov Oleg
    This is all according to the Americans, such as a rocket, and a tooth gives that it flies.
    Neither ICBMs, nor flights into space, they didn’t get along for a long time, the USSR was 10-20 years ahead of them in all respects. But the American mentality does not allow them to be second, so they falsified, lied, dodged as they could. A flight to the moon was invented, although not a single astronaut at that time could even be delivered to Earth’s orbit. It is a pity that the leadership of the USSR betrayed and sold its people ...

    Do not smack bullshit, Oleg! This is not according to the Americans, but according to our data. And do not be so "an unbending fighter with the falsification of history." For some reason, our astronauts believed that the Americans flew both Mirkurii and Jamen, "but Oleg Bratkov appeared and exposed the machinations of American imperialism
    1. agond 9 February 2020 11: 37 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Old Voivods can be profiled for other tasks, that is, to defeat aircraft carriers with kinetic weapons, for which you can change nuclear warheads to the third stage with a detection system - guidance to the AOG, and metal striking cores. A large powerful missile can lift a stage with cores above the ocean to a height about 5 thousand km and look at the surface of the ocean in a square of 2 thousand km per 2 thousand km of an aircraft carrier and then begin to decrease while simultaneously adjusting the trajectory and pointing at the aircraft carrier, Before entering different layers of the atmosphere, the descent speed will reach 7 km / s the guidance of the cores will stop and they will cover the rest of the trajectory, about 100-150 km in uncontrollable mode for 15-20 seconds, during this time the aircraft carrier will not be able to significantly change course or speed to avoid falling cores on the deck.