Military Review

In the USA, they talked about the VORTEX engine and the OpFires program for promising Dream Chaser spaceships

75

US media report that Sierra Nevada Corporation has been able to take a significant step forward in developing a new rocket engine program. It is called "hypersonic."


This is a program for creating a power plant VORTEX. The work is commissioned by the US Agency for Advanced Defense Research and Development DARPA.

The company expands the capabilities of the VORTEX engine through the use of the new OpFires program.

From Defense Blog:

With OpFires, Sierra Nevada expands its VORTEX hybrid engine. The system uses high-quality solid fuel with a liquid oxidizing agent, and these components are equally stable both on Earth and in space. Recent testing has shown positive results.

It is noted that the system has high power, taking into account its compactness. At the same time, no detailed parameters are announced.

It is alleged that the engine has received the ability to deep regulation and smooth restart on command.

Sierra Nevada Vice President Tom Crabbe notes that the updated program opens up a market for the company not only in the military sphere, but also in the civilian - space sector.

Tom Crabbe:

The power plant's controllability and restart capabilities expand the range of possible flight paths of various systems.

At the moment, about 30 tests have been carried out.

The company said that the new power plant will become the basis for the promising reusable spacecraft Dream Chaser. This is a cargo ship, which (according to plan) should deliver up to 5,5 tons of cargo to a low reference orbit and take up to 1,85 tons from orbit. The announced launch weight is 11340 kg. In the United States, both unmanned and its manned versions are being developed.
75 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Alexey Sommer
    Alexey Sommer April 3 2020 18: 05 New
    -10
    Here you get it right.
    But it's a shame to read this when we have only made the "bottom" for the "eagle".
    Well, by golly!
    1. 17085
      17085 April 3 2020 18: 35 New
      +9
      Quote: Alexey Sommer
      Here you get it right.
      But it's a shame to read this when we have only made the "bottom" for the "eagle".
      Well, by golly!

      What is there to understand. The first launch of a cruise missile with a hybrid engine, designed under the direction of S.P. Korolev in the GIRD, took place on May 23, 1934.
      1. poquello
        poquello April 4 2020 00: 41 New
        0
        Quote: 17085
        Quote: Alexey Sommer
        Here you get it right.
        But it's a shame to read this when we have only made the "bottom" for the "eagle".
        Well, by golly!

        What is there to understand. The first launch of a cruise missile with a hybrid engine, designed under the direction of S.P. Korolev in the GIRD, took place on May 23, 1934.

        incomprehensible echo, a year or two like ours imagined, industrial espionage or go almost to the nostril?
        1. cost
          cost April 4 2020 11: 48 New
          +1
          The photo perspective is interesting. The device looks like a shark
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. cost
              cost April 4 2020 12: 04 New
              0
              Why don't we say hello? They didn't seem to quarrel. Yes, and not the first year on "you"
  2. Thrifty
    Thrifty April 3 2020 18: 08 New
    -2
    If the engine is hypersonic, then the spacecraft will be suborbital! Well, if it is combined, and the main unit is rocket, then the spaceship will be able to normally bring loads into orbit.
    1. Alexey Sommer
      Alexey Sommer April 3 2020 18: 15 New
      +9
      Quote: Thrifty
      If the engine is hypersonic, then

      There is an oxidizing agent in the article written. Physics taught in the framework of the Unified State Examination, Comrade General? \
      What kind of hypersonic engine for KLA?
      This concept is acceptable for atmospheric aircraft. Spaceships all move at a speed greater than hypersonic for understanding the atmosphere. 1 spacecraft about 8 km / s, 2 spacecraft about 11 km / s and 3 spacecraft about 16 km / s
      1. Thrifty
        Thrifty April 3 2020 18: 36 New
        +1
        The first space velocity is 7,8 km / s, to be precise. ... I have nothing to do with ehe, for I am already more than half a century old. ...
  3. Doccor18
    Doccor18 April 3 2020 18: 29 New
    +4
    Everything that they are now passing over the ocean as a breakthrough in the USSR simply did not complete at the time.
    And in the photo, the device is very similar to the Soviet Spiral.
    1. Alex777
      Alex777 April 3 2020 18: 35 New
      +2
      It is well known that the Yankees studied the drawings of the Spiral and were surprised to find out that this is the optimal form. hi
      1. Voyager
        Voyager April 3 2020 20: 54 New
        +3
        The spiral conceptually appeared as a response to the American X-20
        1. Alex777
          Alex777 April 3 2020 21: 06 New
          +3
          You're right. But apparently they had nothing in common.
          And the American program stopped without building a single ship.
    2. slipped
      slipped April 3 2020 19: 06 New
      +3
      Quote: Doccor18
      And in the photo, the device is very similar to the Soviet Spiral.


      so wink

      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 April 3 2020 19: 10 New
        +5
        G.E. Lozino-Lozinsky developed the program already in 1966. More than half a century has passed, and still the standard in forms.
        1. slipped
          slipped April 3 2020 19: 11 New
          +2
          Quote: Doccor18
          G.E. Lozino-Lozinsky developed the program already in 1966. More than half a century has passed, and still the standard in forms.


          what is higher in the photo flew into space
          1. Aviator_
            Aviator_ April 3 2020 19: 23 New
            +4
            Quite right, this is Bor - an unmanned orbital rocket plane. As a result of its launches, "Buran" was made. And they did.
            1. slipped
              slipped April 3 2020 19: 30 New
              0
              Quote: Aviator_
              Quite right, this is Bor - an unmanned orbital rocket plane. As a result of its launches, "Buran" was made. And they did.


              "Bor" is the name of the program, the products were numbered. The mock-ups left over from the Spiral program were used in four flights.
      2. Alex777
        Alex777 April 3 2020 19: 23 New
        +1
        so ...

        Of course, I know how Spiral looks.
        I can’t understand one thing - what’s the minus for what?
      3. Aviator_
        Aviator_ April 3 2020 19: 28 New
        -1
        The above picture is a test in TsAGI, in TPVK (heat-strength vacuum chamber)
        1. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U April 4 2020 06: 59 New
          -2
          Quote: Alex777
          I can’t understand one thing - what’s the minus for what?

          Here's a plus for you, don’t goof, but you’ll not be gundim. )))
    3. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A April 4 2020 09: 32 New
      0
      Quote: Doccor18
      Soviet spiral


      Nothing like that.
  4. shadow
    shadow April 3 2020 18: 33 New
    +2
    All done, the most, the most, and then? And then - the program is closed, the program is closed. It didn’t fly, it didn’t fly, it exploded. Let's see what happens with this.
    1. slipped
      slipped April 3 2020 19: 08 New
      -1
      Quote: Shadows
      Let's see what happens with this.


      so? belay

  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. Aviator_
    Aviator_ April 3 2020 18: 39 New
    +5
    Or the translation is oak, or the original note is as follows. Well, they made a solid-propellant engine with a liquid oxidizer, which runs stably both in space and on Earth. You can congratulate. And what does hypersound have to do with it? - the word is fashionable, and nothing more. Any spacecraft must get a speed higher than 1 space speed, they have learned to do this since 1957, and "hypersound" for a space vacuum is generally journalistic nonsense.
    1. Victor March 47
      Victor March 47 April 3 2020 18: 43 New
      +3
      Yes, it doesn’t. Provocation is, yes. The article itself, as it is called, is directly all the Nobel’s for a hundred years ahead and in all respects ..... Purposeful, and there are no errors. There is a lie.
  7. Klingon
    Klingon April 3 2020 18: 52 New
    -1
    Quote: Doccor18
    Everything that they are now passing over the ocean as a breakthrough in the USSR simply did not complete at the time.
    And in the photo, the device is very similar to the Soviet Spiral.

    similar of course. sorry, * the spiral * wasn’t screwed up then ... I wonder if the Rogozin trampoline is also spiral?
    1. slipped
      slipped April 3 2020 19: 15 New
      -2
      Quote: Klingon
      interesting and Rogozin trampoline is it also spiral?


      convex concave

    2. mole
      mole April 3 2020 19: 47 New
      -3
      On a spiral fantasy is not enough.
  8. Chaldon48
    Chaldon48 April 3 2020 18: 59 New
    0
    Previously, there were attempts to make an engine in which there was a graphite rod as fuel and oxygen as an oxidizing agent.
  9. Mouse
    Mouse April 3 2020 19: 04 New
    0
    tell, tell .... and show, show ????
    or fake "cartoons" only from our side recourse
  10. Klingon
    Klingon April 3 2020 19: 18 New
    0
    Quote: slipped
    Quote: Klingon
    interesting and Rogozin trampoline is it also spiral?


    convex concave


    yeah see, warp engine! well that's it
    we can now be admitted to the volcanic academy of sciences wassat
  11. Nuclear_winter
    Nuclear_winter April 3 2020 19: 20 New
    0
    Ehhh .... I look at the photo and see the native "bast shoe" of the "spiral" project.
  12. Nedokomsomolets
    Nedokomsomolets April 3 2020 19: 46 New
    0
    Well done Americans. They will do and will fly. And to protect their homeland, and people and their interests. And no snot "we did this a hundred years ago, but they stole and finished it from us."
  13. rocket757
    rocket757 April 3 2020 19: 53 New
    +1
    US media report that Sierra Nevada Corporation has made significant progress in developing a new rocket engine program

    Will fly, then OH, but for now .....
  14. K-50
    K-50 April 3 2020 20: 51 New
    -1
    The VORTEX system uses high quality solid fuel with a liquid oxidizing agent. It is alleged that the engine has received the ability to deep regulation and smooth restart on command.

    A solid-fuel engine with a restart system is something unusual. So to speak. what
    Let's see where the dog rummaged! lol
    1. orionvitt
      orionvitt April 4 2020 05: 37 New
      -1
      Quote: K-50
      A solid fuel engine with a restart system is something unusual

      Not only this. Solid fuel with a liquid oxidizer, you know, too. what
      1. 113262a
        113262a April 4 2020 10: 08 New
        -2
        It has long been known and flies! On a Branson plane. Fuel-specific rubber, oxidizing agent or nitrogen or liquid oxygen.
        1. orionvitt
          orionvitt April 4 2020 10: 15 New
          0
          Quote: 113262
          It has long been known and flies!

          Does it fly far? And how often does it fly? The whole project of Branson, has long been covered with a copper basin. So to say, all went into PR, without really "exhaust".
  15. Gust
    Gust April 3 2020 21: 37 New
    +2
    Naturally, they were familiar with the results of the "Spiral" project, and in this weight category this is apparently the optimal form - there is one physics for all. In a weight of 100 tons - already another form - see Shuttle / Buran. Now there is no problem to repeat "Spiral" or "Buran" - but it will be expensive, long and of little use. 90% of tasks are solved by existing means, for the remaining 10% superheavy is designed. And it is very expensive for agencies to fence such a garden for agencies just for the sake of descent from orbit and repairs, it is cheaper to ditch the spacecraft and make and launch a new one.
    Private projects in this area can and will turn out - they do not have such bureaucracy, big overhead expenses. The plus is that everything is run-in in practice. Take the finished, upgrade a little and occupy your niche in the market at a few percent.
    1. Svetlana
      Svetlana April 3 2020 23: 00 New
      -1
      Quote: Rafale
      With a weight of 100 t, this is a different form - see Shuttle / Buran.
      Shuttle / Buran can be launched into space using a toroidal scramjet, used as a return first stage:
      1. Svetlana
        Svetlana April 3 2020 23: 03 New
        -1
        Characteristics of the returned first stage with toroidal scramjet and Shuttle as the 2nd stage:
        The large diameter of the torus of the scramjet engine is 36 m, the small diameter of the torus of the scramjet engine is 4m
      2. Svetlana
        Svetlana April 5 2020 11: 01 New
        0
        Quote: Svetlana
        using a toroidal scramjet, used as a return first stage
        Shuttle / Buran can be launched into space using a toroidal hypersonic ramjet engine (scramjet) with a magnetic nozzle used as the return first stage. The starting mass of 773 tons includes a returnable first stage, toroidal scramjet, filled with fuel and oxidizer, a returnable second stage, the Shuttle orbiter. The large diameter of the torus of the scramjet engine is 36 m, the small diameter of the torus of the scramjet engine is 4 m. A magnetic nozzle at a toroidal scramjet is created by a mannitic field of superconducting solenoids installed in a cryogenic toroidal tank of liquid hydrogen in a scramjet. A toroidal hypersonic ramjet with a magnetic nozzle will increase the mass of the payload, since it does not carry oxygen to burn fuel (liquid hydrogen) with it, but takes it from the atmosphere. Air for burning hydrogen enters the torid scramjet via an axial hole in the torus in the form of a hypersonic flow, and hydrogen is supplied to the torch area from a toroidal cryogenic tank with liquid hydrogen through nozzles, which are used as analogues of RD-0120. At the exit of the scramjet engine above the Karman line, the supply of liquid oxygen to the analogues of RD-0120 from the cryogenic toroidal tank with liquid oxygen is increased.
        1. Svetlana
          Svetlana April 5 2020 23: 09 New
          0
          Characteristics of the returned first stage with toroidal scramjet and Shuttle as the 2nd stage:
  16. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh April 3 2020 22: 17 New
    +1
    Why is such crucial news missing? (not April 1) belay am

    On February 18, in Bujumbura and March 27 in Moscow, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation S.V. Lavrov and the Republic of Burundi E. Nibigira signed the Joint Statement on the Non-Placing of Weapons in Space by the First (NPOK)
    1. Ironcity
      Ironcity April 3 2020 23: 59 New
      +3
      See source. On the website of the Russian Foreign Ministry, this news is dated April 1.04.2020, XNUMX.
    2. orionvitt
      orionvitt April 4 2020 05: 33 New
      -1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Joint statement on the first non-deployment of weapons in space

      Now the Republic of Burundi, and personally E. Nibigira, will have to return all of its weapons previously launched into space. And also to reduce the military grouping of the Republic of Burundi in space. laughing
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. Svetlana
    Svetlana April 3 2020 23: 09 New
    -2
    Quote: Rafale
    Now there is no problem to repeat "Spiral"

    Return toroidal scramjet with a mini-shuttle of the Spiral type and a toroidal orbital module in the second stage:
  19. orionvitt
    orionvitt April 4 2020 05: 29 New
    -2
    managed to make a significant step forward in the development of the program for creating a new rocket engine
    They cannot even take a step back to repeat the old ones, but there too.
    1. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A April 4 2020 09: 41 New
      0
      Quote: orionvitt
      managed to make a significant step forward in the development of the program for creating a new rocket engine
      They cannot even take a step back to repeat the old ones, but there too.


      And have you tried?
      To make a rocket from the 60s, you need to recreate the scientific methodology of the 60s again and recreate the technological equipment, materials science, chemistry, and all-all-all - just like in the 60s.

      It is impossible to make a product from the 2000s using the technique of the 60s.

      Just think with your head.
      Why is this so.
      1. orionvitt
        orionvitt April 4 2020 10: 09 New
        -3
        Quote: SovAr238A
        And have you tried?
        It is impossible to make a product from the 2000s using the technique of the 60s.

        Just think with your head.
        Nonsense say the dearest. I have worked in the field of aircraft engine manufacturing for half my life. And the technology is there, I’ll tell you no less sophisticated. What is old, what is new, no difference. Possessing modern technology, repeating old ones is almost always not a problem. It would be a desire. So I tried, and you?
        1. SovAr238A
          SovAr238A April 4 2020 11: 52 New
          +1
          Quote: orionvitt
          Possessing modern technology, repeating old ones is almost always not a problem. It would be a desire. So I tried, and you?


          Ever been a technologist?

          In simple terms, not for stubborn unicellular.
          And for those who understand the system as a whole.

          Quote:
          An interesting article about an opportunity to recreate the Apollo technologies, which many non-Muslims often ask, came across my eyes.

          1. The Apollo program was an impressive success for the American industry - but it did not receive a direct continuation. Now that NASA is returning to the idea of ​​lunar expeditions, many are wondering: why re-develop superheavy launch vehicles? There are ready-made drawings! Let's build Saturn 5 again!
          There are some problems

          Suppose we got the blueprints of a rocket, knocked out funding from Congress and decided to restore the Saturn-5 production. We begin to deal with the drawings to determine what parts and where to order.

          And ... immediately we come across a problem. In the rocket drawings for some key details, for example, alloy A018 is indicated (hereinafter the names and brands of units and assemblies are conditional, purely to illustrate the problems that may arise when solving a similar problem. - Ed.). What kind of alloy is this, in the drawings, of course, is not indicated. The specifications give us some insight into why this particular alloy was chosen, but they do not shed light on how and what it was made of.
          2. Through a long digging in the archives, we manage to find invoices for the notorious alloy and find out that it was made by order of NASA by the company, conventionally, "Jones & Sons" at a plant in Maryland. But neither the plant nor the company has long been gone: Jones & Sons went bankrupt in the mid-70s, and its assets were bought by a large metallurgical concern. The plant that made the A018 was closed and demolished a long time ago, and in its place is now a city park.

          We're trying to figure out who might have gotten the Jones & Sons archives. With great difficulty, we manage to find an old retired archivist who recalls that all the documentation related to work at NASA, when the company went bankrupt, was put in a box with number 28956B and sent to the office of the concern that bought the company. The old man no longer remembers what office exactly is. And the management of the concern will not be able to help us either: the concern collapsed in the early 90s, the archives were divided by a dozen successor firms, and, of course, no one has any idea where the metal box with the number 28956B went.

          As a result, we have neither an alloy nor an understanding of how it was made.

          What to do? Replace with known analogues? What if there is some subtlety that we are missing? Re-engineer the alloy by reverse engineering? It will take an indefinitely a lot of time and money (taking into account the fact that someone will also have to set up production of the alloy). Or redesign completely all rocket components made from A018?
          Hell, temporarily pushed the crisis from A018 to the side and are trying to further understand the heap of half a century-old papers. In them we find the technology of, say, the manufacture of the walls of tanks for liquid oxygen. The technology is archaic by modern standards, and a quick survey of manufacturers in the industry confirms our concerns: no one else does it. Worse, no one else has the equipment that was used in the 60s to make the walls of Saturn-5 tanks - production chains were dismantled a long time ago, workshops were redesigned for other tasks.

          Even if by some miracle we find ancient equipment (and by another miracle we make it work), we don’t have anyone who could actually use it.

          Those of the workers and engineers who made the Saturn-5 components in the 1960s who have survived to this day are now at a very, very advanced age. Yes, many of them remember well the individual stages of the process we need, but none of them will guarantee that they have not forgotten something important. Human memory is still not the most reliable custodian of accurate industrial information!
          to be continued.
          1. SovAr238A
            SovAr238A April 4 2020 11: 53 New
            +1
            Quote: SovAr238A

            to be continued.




            As a result, we are confronted with an “encouraging” prospect to launch the production of rocket tanks on worn-out equipment half assembled from parts from landfills, under the watchful guidance of eighty-year-old old men who are furiously arguing with each other about what temperature regime they used for this. Well, or to completely redesign rocket tanks for modern production technologies (noticed that this decision is repeated with dismal regularity? ..)
            Too many questions

            We move on. In the drawings of the first stage, we find a complex shape of a structural part that could be made simpler and easier to look at. The surviving documents do not have a clear explanation why they chose such a complex form. The engineer who once made this decision has long been dead, and we cannot ask him. His personal working archive was lost upon moving.

            Very elderly colleagues of the late engineer disagree on why this part has the shape of a Z-shaped squiggle with a hand thickness. Some say that this form is optimal in terms of the redistribution of vibration loads. Others argue that the level of mathematical modeling of the 60s simply did not really allow to calculate this detail, so it was made with a huge margin of safety. For sure.

            Who to believe? And what to do?

            To order the production of Z-shaped squiggles or redesign this part of the structure again?

            We go even further. In cryogenic systems of the second stage of the rocket, the QB51 seal is used everywhere. To our great relief, this seal is still being produced ... we just can’t use it anymore. Over the past decades, safety standards have been tightened, and OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration - Occupational Health and Safety Administration) has banned the use of a QB51 type sealant in rocket science.

            What to do? Submit petitions to OSHA to make an exception, "because we are trying to re-make a rocket half a century ago, and otherwise it just doesn't work out"? Or redesign completely components using QB51 for modern - safe - materials?

            Then the commonplace problem - the bolts that were used on the Saturn-5 to secure the nozzles for supplying fuel components are now made using a different technology, from a different material. And they did not pass certification for space conditions. The manufacturer is not ready to guarantee that its bolts will withstand the required combination of thermal and dynamic loads. So what? To order an expensive and complex examination of bolts - which may well result in the conclusion that they are not suitable for our purposes and we need to look for a replacement? Or redesign all the mounts completely?

            In the engine compartment of the second stage, we stumble upon a set of sensors built into the bulkhead, weighing about 50 kg and occupying a volume of 0,5 cubic meters. Modern digital sensors that perform a similar task are placed in the palm of your hand and weigh half a kilogram from the force. Completely redesign the bulkhead for new sensors? Spend years and effort re-creating ancient sensors? Or put new sensors, and fill the place from under the old systems with ballast?
            For a turbopump system, nozzles of a special shape are needed. The company that produced them still exists, it has all the necessary technology, and it can fulfill our order ... but not for the money that we can allocate for this.

            The order is non-standard, the company will have to restore old technological solutions, disrupt normal operation. To the argument that in the 60s the company agreed to do this work for such and such a part of the total budget of the project, the owner coldly replies that in the 60s gasoline cost thirty cents per gallon. What do we do? To ask for a budget increase from a Congress irritated by incomprehensible delays? Or redesign a turbopump (which will also take time and money)?


            Further. In the rocket's electrical system, we see a primitive, by modern standards, unreliable and inefficient solution. Yes, in the 60s it seemed the height of engineering grace and wit, but over the past decades, technology has gone far ahead. In its current form, the electrical system is wasting precious weight (and money).

            If we try to improve this particular element, we will soon realize that others can also be improved now - to make it easier, more reliable, more efficient.

            The question will inevitably arise at some stage: “Why not redo the entire electrical system again?”
            The attentive reader, no doubt, already understood where our model is heading. In almost every of the situations considered, at some point the question arises: "Isn't it easier to design this from scratch?" The amount of alterations that will need to be done only in order to bring old solutions into line with modern capabilities will sooner or later be comparable to efforts to develop a new rocket from scratch.

            Why then even try to reproduce the old rocket?


            Attempts to combine technical solutions half a century ago with modern ones inevitably give rise to forced compromises. In engineering, any compromise is, by definition, a sacrifice of efficiency in order to "at least somehow work." But rocket science in general, and astronautics in particular, is too complicated (and expensive) to be satisfied with this "at least somehow."

            The creation of a super-heavy launch vehicle is not only an engineering feat. This is also a huge strain of industrial effort, a great many technological chains converging at one point. In the 60s, such a system was built to create the Saturn 5. But over the past decades, the industry has changed almost beyond recognition, and the technological chains participating in the Saturn program have broken up. To restore them, it will take much more time and effort than to create new ones - for a new missile.
            1. Mikhail3
              Mikhail3 April 4 2020 16: 49 New
              0
              alloy A018 (hereinafter, the names and brands of units and assemblies are conditional, purely to illustrate the problems that may arise when solving a similar problem. - Approx. Ed.). What kind of alloy is this, in the drawings, of course, is not indicated. The specifications give us some insight into why this particular alloy was chosen, but they do not shed light on how and what it was made of.
              Enough is enough! I am ashamed to read this miserable childhood! The alloy has a numbered name, of course. This means that it is patented! Zadolbali poets who compose all this nonsense! The patent has a detailed description that allows you to reproduce it! And even if it is not patented, keep the secret of the company, all the same, in principle, it is incapable of an abyss, because it is - PART OF THE COMPANY'S MAIN FUNDS!
              The company could be bankrupt, sold, anything. But no real values ​​can, in principle, ever get past bookkeeping! So a detailed description, as part of a considerable property, is clearly stored either by the current owner or in the bankruptcy management warehouse. Well this is money, and big!
              All this extremely amateurish and amazingly stupid text is composed by people who have absolutely no idea about engineering, nor about property, or even about the system for accepting and storing documents in technical projects. Advertisers entrusted with a smoke screen over this moon body. Reading all this is not even funny ...
              1. SovAr238A
                SovAr238A April 4 2020 19: 19 New
                -1
                Quote: Mikhail3
                alloy A018 (hereinafter, the names and brands of units and assemblies are conditional, purely to illustrate the problems that may arise when solving a similar problem. - Approx. Ed.). What kind of alloy is this, in the drawings, of course, is not indicated. The specifications give us some insight into why this particular alloy was chosen, but they do not shed light on how and what it was made of.
                Enough is enough! I am ashamed to read this miserable childhood! The alloy has a numbered name, of course. This means that it is patented! Zadolbali poets who compose all this nonsense! The patent has a detailed description that allows you to reproduce it! And even if it is not patented, keep the secret of the company, all the same, in principle, it is incapable of an abyss, because it is - PART OF THE COMPANY'S MAIN FUNDS!


                Tell us where the patents of the 30s-40s and 50s are stored.

                What is the patent validity period?

                What is the storage period for such important documents in state archives as documents and test reports, rationale for formulations, regulatory and methodological documents, passports, regulations, expert opinions, results of experimental and acceptance tests on research?
                Do you know these deadlines?
                They are there for 5 and 10 and 15 years. And until "the need is passed" ...

                At us, on Samara Kuznetsovo, NK-32 engines were previously made.
                Yes, for the very strategist Tu-160.
                Until 1993, they were mass-produced!
                Note serial!
                And in April 2014, the Ministry of Defense wanted to resume production.

                2016
                Until the end of 2016, the Ministry of Defense planned to receive the first batch of modernized engines from the manufacturer. Five items were ordered as part of the installation batch.



                2017year
                The Russian Ministry of Defense is preparing a contract for the supply of NK-32 series 02 engines (produced by PJSC Kuznetsov, Samara) for 2018-2020. Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov said this yesterday, according to the press service of the enterprise. Engines will be installed on Tu-160 aircraft. According to Borisov, the plane "should take to the skies in the first quarter of 2018." "... if everything goes well, then this year we will receive five NK-32 engines, and one more in the first quarter of next year," RIA Novosti reports.


                In 2018, I wrote that most of the technical documentation on the NK-32 was lost. And that for 4 consecutive years, there are frantic attempts to restore it.

                Watch the following news.
                Summer 2019
                The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation has announced a closed auction in search of a contractor company that will repair NK-32 engines. In total, the department is ready to spend 1,19 billion rubles for these purposes, including in 2019 - up to 100 thousand rubles, in 2020 - up to 582,39 million, in 2021 - up to 607,54 million rubles. Earlier it was reported that in 2018 the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation signed a contract with PJSC Kuznetsov for the supply of 22 second-generation NK-32 engines for installation on the modernized Tu-160 missile-bombers.

                See what that means? That no one at the factory can restore the documentation of a serial product that completed its cycle in 1993, i.e. 20 years ago. And for almost 6 years they have been convulsively recovering.

                And instead of producing a new modernized engine, overhauls of old engines went.

                And finally, the news of 2 months ago. February 2020
                The production of NK-32-02 engines of the second series, planned for installation on new and modernized Russian strategic missile carriers Tu-160, must be accelerated. This was stated by the Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Alexei Krivoruchko during a visit to the Samara enterprise of PJSC Kuznetsov

                Those. The documentation is not restored. They cannot upgrade yet, the old ones are being repaired.
                And after the explosion in Tu-15 in 95 because of an unfused engine, there is not much faith.
                But they promised 5 new ones, modernized in 2016.

                These are facts of reality.
                And not your theoretical calculations.
                1. Mikhail3
                  Mikhail3 April 4 2020 23: 22 New
                  +1
                  Quote: SovAr238A
                  Tell us where the patents of the 30s-40s and 50s are stored.

                  I'll tell you. At the Patent Office. They do not have a standard for the shelf life, patents are stored forever. Can you imagine? Is always. Americans are well aware that their inventors and inventions are one of the foundations of the country's economic power.
                  If possible, do not talk about the American space program, giving examples from the Soviet-Russian nightmare. This is, as it were, softer ... rather vile speculation. If the USSR were still here, Soviet patents of at least the forties, and at least the twenties, would be in full access, and production could be resumed on demand.
                  Can you tell me, for a moment, what kind of counter-revolution that destroyed the state itself took place in the United States, that they suddenly "lost" an entire space project? No? Can you tell me? Well, how is that ?! Ugh!
                  The man, not ashamed of anything, writes that the Americans, a high-tech company NASA, first violated all the standards for the acceptance of project documentation. That is, no verification and verification of all materials used was made. A routine task that is always done in projects of a similar, and even much simpler level. Without verification, the project simply no one could pay!
                  But then, NASA loses all the documentation without hesitation! This ... well, by the way, those who carry this mess about the "American lunar triumph" are no strangers. This is called - no shame, no conscience. A habitual life arrangement for some. Shame won't eat away ...
                  By the way. Do you want to know where the "lost technologies" that our MO is tirelessly looking for? So I will say. IN USA. Bought for a couple of bucks. Many - along with the authors. Do you see Spiral in the photo? Turned, however, foolishly, so that it was not so striking ...
                  1. SovAr238A
                    SovAr238A April 5 2020 10: 25 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Mikhail3
                    Quote: SovAr238A
                    Tell us where the patents of the 30s-40s and 50s are stored.

                    I'll tell you. At the Patent Office. They do not have a standard for the shelf life, patents are stored forever. Can you imagine? Is always.
                    ....
                    By the way. Want to know where the "lost technologies" that our MO is tirelessly looking for? So I will say. IN USA. Bought for a couple of bucks. Many - together with the authors.


                    In one message, you completely contradict yourself ...
                    In one, change shoes on the fly.

                    You don’t even know where the fact documentation is stored.
                    I have written years to you and the terminology of R&D and R&D with years of storage.

                    And you don’t understand anything.
                    That is stored forever - the Americans stole it.
                    Decide already.
                    1. Mikhail3
                      Mikhail3 April 5 2020 11: 52 New
                      0
                      Again. The USA experienced a complete collapse, and began to be called differently, destroying everything and everything at home? Decide already ....
              2. Leonid Batsura
                Leonid Batsura April 4 2020 20: 27 New
                0
                Valentine. I applaud. Decent short answer to brain damage. This is, perhaps, an intellectual from the Balancer forum "Man on the Moon? What evidence? -3". He didn't sweat much. He has this vague text ready and he inserts it into all discussions. Turbidity
          2. Alexey Polyutkin
            Alexey Polyutkin April 7 2020 02: 39 New
            0
            What idiocy do you copy-paste)))) Probably among believers that the Americans were on the moon?))) (By the way, I do not deny it,) It should be a shame !!!! It is not possible to repeat tanks for an oxidizer because there is no equipment, 60th years ???? You rave !!!!! There are specific parameters of the product, part, material. Set the task that you need a part, roughly speaking, a meter per meter 1 mm thick from an alloy of this kind. And what difference does it make on what equipment if it has the same parameters and properties? Explain to me))))
            Below you crammed about number alloys and so on)))
  20. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 April 4 2020 16: 40 New
    -2
    If this is true (which is far from being a fact), then space programs will revive slightly. But obviously slightly, otherwise everything would have gone into series for a long time. I suspect that solid fuel costs so much that it has "prospects in the civilian market", but because of the high cost, you cannot get into the market itself. Let's see ...
    1. Leonid Batsura
      Leonid Batsura April 4 2020 20: 39 New
      0
      I have a book, it seems, hybrid engines. Too lazy to get it. I faded it from the head. He made me count the benefits of such an engine. I proved to him that it is better not to come up with AT + UDMH. He was offended. In terms of fuel density, these hybrid liquid propellant rocket engines can be superior to AT + UDMH (1180 kg / m3), but from the point of view of the UIT value, they are gunners. And from the point of view of operation, durability, stability of fuel components - AT + UDMH out of competition. What did the boss like about the hybrid? If you write a good justification, then you can get a lot of funding for research, development ... Actually, these motifs are kept by the bullshit of the progressiveness and effectiveness of rocket systems powered by LC + LF fuel. For 80 years, the scavengers have been milking the state budget, but have done nothing. Absolutely nothing - based on the needs of a defense technician
  21. lvov_aleksey
    lvov_aleksey April 4 2020 18: 31 New
    +1
    well done, but they forgot one topic: the engine is good, but what will you do with a hooper sound with other parts of the ship !?
    "They call it hypersonic." This phrase killed me !!!
    1. Leonid Batsura
      Leonid Batsura April 4 2020 20: 43 New
      0
      I read this article and tried to find at least one word, at least one term to cling to. NOTHING! Until the days of the Internet in Moscow, I met a smart guy who sold knives for free, a Brown razor - exactly the same slogans
      1. Leonid Batsura
        Leonid Batsura April 4 2020 21: 02 New
        +1
        By the way, a lot depends on the eloquence of the speaker, and on the impressionability of the one who should allocate the money. Von Braun was so eloquent. When in the middle of 1943 the campashka reached Hitler's body, von Braun reported. After the report: Hitler got up and went to the pennies: "Thank you! Why did I still not believe in the success of your work? I was simply poorly informed"



        "11 September 1962 ... President Kennedy visited the J. Marshall Center. He was accompanied by Deputy Prime Minister Lyndon B. Johnson, Secretary of Defense McNamara, British Secretary of Defense, leading scientists ... von Braun's explanation of the new large liquid-propellant rocket Saturn 5. Kennedy was impressed by the persuasiveness of von Braun's argument
        Meanwhile, the indicators of "Saturn-5" were published by the BNI TsAGI a month before the visit of Kennedy von Braun "Launch vehicles, satellites and spacecraft of the United States" Issue 4, 1962, signed to print 09.08.1962/XNUMX/XNUMX
        So ... What am I talking about ???
    2. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 April 4 2020 23: 32 New
      +1
      Well, you can’t wait for accuracy from journalists. The main thing in the article is that the Americans are ready to offer some engines to the market. Sort of. If this happens (I don’t believe in it very much, but suddenly), then it will be possible to understand more precisely. With time. And yet they are unlikely to have invented an anemone there. Modern miracles do not pull such miracles. Most likely, there will be some kind of percentage winnings for huge money ...
  22. Gust
    Gust April 4 2020 20: 58 New
    +1
    Undoubtedly, technological chains are very difficult to restore, especially after half a century. And there is no point in repeating an old product when there are new materials and technologies. But here's the interesting thing: Mask has Falcon engines so far at the level of the same 60s;)), but there are no promised new ones in the series yet.
    As for the NK-32 engines, I doubt it. The CD for such a product does not exist in one copy and is stored in more than one location, and probably under the bar. And the matter, as always, is in allied equipment and accessories, and in the organization of work.
    1. orionvitt
      orionvitt April 5 2020 05: 22 New
      +2
      Quote: Rafale
      And the matter, as always, is in allied equipment and accessories, and in the organization of work.

      This I understand, in three words and to the point. That's just about the experts forgot.
      And then some lit up here, footcloths on six sheets, about nothing. Nonsense.
    2. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 April 5 2020 11: 49 New
      0
      No need to repeat the Kyuno cart, because there are more efficient engines and propellers. But the device, which is much more powerful and reliable (according to claims) of today, would not be a sin to repeat! Only no one can do this. Not to improve (what are you talking about ?!) but at least just to achieve similar parameters!
      At Musk's people, they can't correctly test lousy pressure vessels. The third "spaceship" has already burst. At any thermal power plant, dozens of such vessels are tested every year, and everything goes smoothly. That is, the "specialists" who work for Musk are unable to draw up a regime test map. Even if the vessel is lousy welded, or designed clumsily (although, it would seem, why? Engineers have gained experience in this regard for more than a hundred years, all the nuances have been sucked long ago), then bring the vessel to complete destruction ... It seems that "engineers "The mask is the guys who, to put it mildly, do not pull.
  23. Victor March 47
    Victor March 47 April 6 2020 01: 34 New
    0
    Quote: K-50
    The VORTEX system uses high quality solid fuel with a liquid oxidizing agent. It is alleged that the engine has received the ability to deep regulation and smooth restart on command.

    A solid-fuel engine with a restart system is something unusual. So to speak. what
    Let's see where the dog rummaged! lol

    They have been working for a long time. The stoker covers the blower; the throttle is throttled. The steam in the furnace was opened ajet-thrust jet spars.
    You can even put out at a long stop.
  24. Victor March 47
    Victor March 47 April 6 2020 01: 49 New
    0
    Quote: orionvitt
    Possessing modern technology, repeating old ones is almost always not a problem. It would be a desire. So I tried, and you?

    But what about it? To establish production from the extraction of components that were already left only in the shopkeeper, technological equipment, devices specific to this technology only, stands, chemistry, and in the name of already lagging quality? When is there a streamlined production quality several steps higher? Conduct the whole range of tests (the designer, after all, without a protocol and an act will not let anything go anywhere). Even if he is 90 years old, and he remembers very well that it was THEN how all this worked perfectly, no one will allow him to do this without a piece of paper. The final piece of paper.
  25. Victor March 47
    Victor March 47 April 6 2020 02: 07 New
    0
    Quote: Mikhail3
    Quote: SovAr238A
    Tell us where the patents of the 30s-40s and 50s are stored.
    ......
    Can you tell me, for a moment, what kind of counter-revolution that destroyed the state itself took place in the United States, that they suddenly "lost" a whole space project? No? Can you tell me? Well, how is that ?! Ugh!
    .

    There are many words, little meaning. It is not possible to lose documentation in the USSR. Even during periods of gunfight. For, the SYSTEM has always worked. Documents were microfilmed and in the first departments, stored where it should be. In the United States, given that space race fever, things were completely different. At stake put prestige. Billions of dollars, millions of participants. Hundreds of thousands of firms, firms, and semi-individual collaborators participated to some extent in the implementation of the Lunar program. The budget is tasty, and there were many people who wanted to bite off of it. Of course, the list and nomenclature of materials allowed for this technique has been determined. But one cannot make a rocket out of standards and materials. Millions of those small elements that make up this complex production are needed. It is in the USSR that it was possible (not a fact) to keep equipment, test benches, instruments and all this crap, by order of Mind, Honor, and Conscience, transferred for safekeeping to the warehouses of the first or second departments of mailboxes. Private trader, when fulfilling the order, will write off and throw away all illiquid assets, hammers, anvils and all the fixtures to hell. And he does not have a minister in his superiors. Does the state need this? BUY IT. No, I'm sorry. That is why, there everything was lost VERY QUICKLY. ALL competencies are lost. Specialists, design bureaus were dispersed and switched to the production of other iron. If the program is closed, do not blame me. In the USSR there were a dime a dozen loafers, a hundred thousand more or less, but what's the difference?
    1. Alexey Polyutkin
      Alexey Polyutkin April 7 2020 03: 04 New
      0
      Do you not understand that everything developed in the interests of the US state becomes its property (as well as in the interests of any physicist or Yurik ... An online store site for example). For this reason, all the documentation is not scattered in a single copy from private traders but consolidated in the archives of NASA, (or where it is laid, I do not know)
  26. Victor March 47
    Victor March 47 April 7 2020 12: 00 New
    0
    Quote: Alexey Polyutkin
    Do you not understand that everything developed in the interests of the US state becomes its property (as well as in the interests of any physicist or Yurik ... An online store site for example). For this reason, all the documentation is not scattered in a single copy from private traders but consolidated in the archives of NASA, (or where it is laid, I do not know)

    Theory, my friend, Documentation is something that can be applied ONLY complete with everything else. Here are the drawings and diagrams of the computer. Do it. Does not work? So, in fact, EVERYTHING, in your opinion. you have. If the mold was decommissioned and remelted, the most complicated bench was disassembled, on which the engine was worked out, its control system, since the launch complex went dead, that's it, Mendelssohn’s march.
    Further. This is in our country, in the USSR, ALL means of production belonged to a single owner-state, and, therefore, EVERYTHING could be transferred for FREE, because all the equipment that was the property of the manufacturer itself had already been paid for the manufacture. They cannot be dispossessed of them for free. But pay for already closed, will Congress allow? Do you realize what you are writing? And then, who will take it somewhere, store it, and in the name of something, the program is closed, there is no funding.
  27. Victor March 47
    Victor March 47 April 7 2020 12: 17 New
    0
    Quote: Alexey Polyutkin
    What idiocy do you copy-paste)))) Probably among believers that the Americans were on the moon?))) (By the way, I do not deny it,) It should be a shame !!!! It is not possible to repeat tanks for an oxidizer because there is no equipment, 60th years ???? You rave !!!!! There are specific parameters of the product, part, material. Set the task that you need a part, roughly speaking, a meter per meter 1 mm thick from an alloy of this kind. And what difference does it make on what equipment if it has the same parameters and properties? Explain to me))))
    Below you crammed about number alloys and so on)))

    This theorist does not understand that it is only necessary to recreate the old design on the old equipment, according to the old technology, with the old methods of work. Only this method will copy properties of parts to the greatest extent. Which double-check the longest tests, in many ways will not be needed. In the USSR, with the resumption of production, it is necessary to conduct TYPICAL tests, which are a small proportion of SETTING. They, of course, have much the same arrangement. If the technology is changed, please conduct the tests in full. And this is in the name of what? As a result of success, they will have a piece of iron conceived in 1960. The cost price is enormous. The result is 1960.
  28. Victor March 47
    Victor March 47 April 7 2020 12: 33 New
    0
    Quote: Alexey Polyutkin
    Do you not understand that everything developed in the interests of the US state becomes its property (as well as in the interests of any physicist or Yurik ... An online store site for example). For this reason, all the documentation is not scattered in a single copy from private traders but consolidated in the archives of NASA, (or where it is laid, I do not know)

    You do not understand what you are talking about. There is a clear separation of the type of document - the main production and auxiliary. The main thing is the drawing of the rocket engine. But a bunch of fixtures, machines, tool holders, stands, and other things, molds, dies, conductors, broaches, ..... (stop listing?) - This is the property of the manufacturer. As the documents for the manufacture of all this, so are the glands themselves.
    For example: A mold for a fluid coupling, for a mine conveyor, which our factory made, costs 7 thousand rubles, in the prices of the 1970s. There are two pieces for manufacturing a fluid coupling. And the fluid coupling itself cost 300 rubles. So, the price of equipment, distributed over thousands of fluid couplings, each increases the cost of a penny. Saturn did, as I understand it, no more than two dozen. And the price of equipment for this piece of iron can not be compared with our molds. The program is closed. Who will pay billions for what is no longer needed? Are you out of your mind? To buy a book is one thing, and to buy the right to publish a book (transfer of equipment documentation and equipment itself — is this not a transfer of the right to manufacture?) Is another. And finally. There are no state machine-building industries in the USA. WHO will this crap be given to?