Rogozin answered Mask in absentia to words about the high competitiveness of SpaceX reusable missiles


An absentee exchange of statements regarding the effectiveness of Russian and American spacecraft continues between Roscosmos and SpaceX.


Earlier, the head of the American company, Elon Musk, stated that the reusable nature of missiles created in the US reduces the competitiveness of Russian-made missiles. According to Musk, today SpaceX possesses 80 percent reusable rockets, and Russia - “0%”.

The head of Roscosmos Dmitry Rogozin does not believe that on this basis we can talk about a decrease in competitiveness on the part of Russia. According to Rogozin, the use of reusable rockets for space flights does not make it possible to be cost-effective in comparison with the use of Russian-made disposable rockets for the same purpose.

В interview KP radio station Dmitry Rogozin said that about half of all fuel volumes of the Falcon-9 rocket are spent on returning its stages back to Earth. Because of this, the mass of the payload that an American missile is capable of carrying is also significantly reduced.

Additionally, the high cost of inter-missile launch service from SpaceX is noted.

In any case, the level of competition, especially when it comes to commercial launches, will increase. And here we need to draw conclusions about how our country is ready to increase this level of competition in the near future.
Photos used:
Roskosmos
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Fedorov April 20 2020 06: 40 New
    • 26
    • 19
    +7
    Rogozin is still a specialist, well, it was not in vain that he was appointed. Only who controls it, and in which case to the wall?
    1. Teberii April 20 2020 06: 50 New
      • 17
      • 39
      -22
      Who counted money in this country, Tsar Cannon, Tsar Bell, Tsar Bridge, etc.
    2. Pivot April 20 2020 07: 15 New
      • 17
      • 7
      +10
      We haven’t taken to the wall, in the worst case, a well-deserved retirement with all benefits remaining, and they’ll simply transfer to another industry to parasitize there.
      1. Malyuta April 20 2020 08: 43 New
        • 28
        • 12
        +16
        Quote: Pivot
        We haven’t taken to the wall, in the worst case, a well-deserved retirement with all benefits remaining, and they’ll simply transfer to another industry to parasitize there.

        It is characteristic that the entire power superstructure is now a parasite and a wedge is thrown everywhere.
        1. Pivot April 20 2020 08: 49 New
          • 12
          • 7
          +5
          This is not only with us, it is all over the world, I have never heard of a poor bureaucrat or a deputy from abroad. Tales of our liberals about a former worker who has become a deputy somewhere in the West cause laughter, I always wonder where this former worker takes money for an election campaign, how will he work that money out for sponsors?
          1. 3danimal April 21 2020 17: 44 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Rogozin, as I heard, previously oversaw the Russian marches. Maybe it’s "increased?"
    3. Aaron Zawi April 20 2020 09: 05 New
      • 14
      • 8
      +6
      Rogozin is in many ways right. Musk loses in terms of labor costs, which is up to 60% of production costs. And the American can’t do anything about it.
      1. Liam April 20 2020 09: 08 New
        • 11
        • 23
        -12
        Quote: Aaron Zawi
        Rogozin is in many ways right. Musk loses in terms of labor costs, which is up to 60% of production costs. And the American can’t do anything about it.

        And what is the labor productivity at the Mask factories and Rogozin factories? In Mask 1, the worker produces as 3-4 in Rogozin.
        1. vargo April 20 2020 09: 42 New
          • 11
          • 3
          +8
          Where do you come from?) The data on the proportion of workers you have in the crowd are in the form of documents. Who what what is worth. You workers decided to level off? What else? Maybe a long personal car?
          No need to compare Roskosmos and the company Mask. It’s just pointless, these companies live in fairly different conditions, and are not too similar. The only thing that unites them is this line of activity. But putting them in trying to compare on separate indicators is too much. Really it is not visible that this dispute / fight of the companies is started intentionally. In the information field, a confrontation between companies is created intentionally.
          1. Semen Sychev April 21 2020 12: 10 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Roskosmos
            Number of employees: 189
            SpaceX
            Number of employees: 7000
            Even if you drop half of Dmitry Olegovich’s employees to the elevator plant, it doesn’t work out very well.
        2. Pivot April 20 2020 09: 45 New
          • 3
          • 11
          -8
          Where does this information come from? I heard that the factories of the mask only collect the nodes ordered on the side, if you look from this angle, then 1 working Mask produces as 100 workers of our corporations.
          1. Liam April 20 2020 09: 51 New
            • 5
            • 13
            -8
            Quote: Pivot
            Where does this information come from?

            Labor productivity is not a secret behind 7 seals but rather specific data
            What is it in Russia and what is in the USA? You can see it in any scientific research on this topic.
            1. Pivot April 20 2020 10: 29 New
              • 15
              • 7
              +8
              Well, of course, for example, the productivity of a worker at the Cummins plant in the USA is eight times higher than the worker at the YaMZ Russia plant, but if you take into account that for the Cummins, CPG, cylinder head, Blocks, gears, camshafts and crankshafts are produced at third-party enterprises, mainly located in China, and all assembly nodes for YaMZ are produced at the enterprise and if we compare the performance of only the assembly shop, then the productivity at YaMZ is 1,3 times higher, I’m directly involved in the production of foreign diesel engines and in this regard e is far from a novice. So it is not necessary to show your incompetence to the rest, maybe you will marry a smart one.
              1. Liam April 20 2020 10: 44 New
                • 8
                • 13
                -5
                You are not particularly aware of what labor productivity is.
                Quote: Pivot
                do not show your incompetence to the rest,

                Tell Medvedev this.

                Labor productivity in Russia was 3 times lower than in the USA
                February 6, 2019 12:59 p.m. Economy

                In the past two years, it has been growing, but still remains at the level of undeveloped countries ....


                Back in 2017, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev noted that Russians work more than in OECD countries, “and the results are very average,” calling among the reasons for this state of affairs: lack of incentives for development due to lack of competition, technological lag, lack of managerial competencies of company and government leaders, lack of investment and lack of legislation ....
                Low labor productivity is also associated with poor automation of production, lack of modern equipment, low qualifications of the workforce
                .

                Or all these facts do not have a place to be?)
                1. Polymer April 20 2020 11: 42 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quote: Liam
                  Low labor productivity is also associated with poor automation of production, lack of modern equipment

                  Not “also,” but these are just the primary factors. There has long been an answer to management complaints about poor performance: put the same equipment as in Germany - and you will get the same performance. And even higher.
                2. Pivot April 20 2020 12: 46 New
                  • 5
                  • 5
                  0
                  You originally gave a concrete example of SpaceX and our CCM Energia, I specifically answered, now you are starting to give general data about the country, that Citizens Lyam are tricking your posts, by the way, is your nickname accidentally not ready to sell the price for?
              2. 3danimal April 21 2020 17: 43 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                You forget about the quality of parts and motors.
              3. 3danimal April 21 2020 17: 48 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                There is also such a parameter as the number of industrial robots per 10000 workers. The highest level in South Korea is -450, in Japan about 300, in the USA - 180, we have ... - 5.
          2. Blackmokona April 20 2020 12: 52 New
            • 4
            • 1
            +3
            No, SpaceX has extremely high vertical integration. They do a lot themselves, unlike their competitors.
            1. Pivot April 20 2020 13: 14 New
              • 5
              • 6
              -1
              What exactly they themselves produce and what they purchase, extremely high integration, this concept is extremely vague.
              1. Blackmokona April 20 2020 14: 00 New
                • 4
                • 2
                +2
                They themselves produce hulls, engines, avionics, fairings, trellised rudders and legs for their missiles, as they assemble all that is produced. They also have the production of satellites and ships of their own. It has its own spaceport, test sites, landing barges and more.
                The competitors from ULA (Boeing in alliance with Lockheed) are engaged in the assembly from the purchased ones. They have fairings from Switzerland, Rocketdain and Russian engines, avionics and others, also from third-party companies, etc.
        3. Peter is not the first April 20 2020 14: 01 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          No, you're wrong. For Rogozin, one worker produces as much as Mask, but for Rogozin, 15 more effective managers are attached to one worker with a salary 5 times that of that worker.
          1. Liam April 20 2020 14: 17 New
            • 5
            • 2
            +3
            You can find another 50 reasons why this is so, but it is a fact. A Russian worker on average works more hours than an American, but produces less. Due to poor management, because of antediluvian equipment, because of the low level of professional education, so at least Musk pays his workers more but in the end rockets cost him less.
            1. 3danimal April 21 2020 17: 56 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              An example was recently told: they install a valve (400-500mm), four specially trained locksmiths with wrenches. It is put by one Finnish or German with special equipment (a trolley with a jack, a wrench, etc.)
            2. Vadim237 April 21 2020 19: 16 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I would also add outdated equipment and the organization of the process technology to the list.
        4. Ratmir_Ryazan April 20 2020 14: 32 New
          • 3
          • 3
          0
          And what is the labor productivity at the Mask factories and Rogozin factories? In Mask 1, the worker produces as 3-4 in Rogozin.


          Where does the data come from? Blind faith that everything is right and better in America in America ?!
      2. Trotil42 April 20 2020 11: 45 New
        • 8
        • 3
        +5
        Everything is cheaper than sorting through defective Protons and watching how rockets fall .. It's a trampoline builder can do nothing ... just teach and give stupid advice ...
      3. Vadim237 April 20 2020 13: 07 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Believe me, his team of 7000 people gets much more than what Roskosmos spends on its 240000 team. The results are appropriate.
        1. 3danimal April 21 2020 17: 52 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          We have special principles for distributing the wage fund: 30 percent - to the Chief, to all kinds of design engineers - according to the residual principle.
      4. 3danimal April 21 2020 17: 50 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        However, Musk successfully pulls on commercial launches. It has lower launch costs and accident rate (despite the absence of “religious insurance” procedures for missiles) smile ).
    4. Alexy April 20 2020 12: 22 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      Well, here it is comparable in competence with Mask
  2. srelock April 20 2020 06: 41 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    And here we need to draw conclusions about how our country is ready to increase this level of competition in the near future.
    Dumping is not our method. We now need to feed the small-medium business, the space is in the dust.
  3. Cryvedco April 20 2020 06: 44 New
    • 43
    • 25
    +18
    Reusable missiles of this type are crap. Landing on a marching engine is generally fierce nonsense, although it is purely technically interesting. But pipil hawks, liberalism and progressive mankind are blaming on Space X ... And I am most sorry for the merged Soviet projects - Buran, Spiral, etc.
    1. Kalmar April 20 2020 08: 42 New
      • 17
      • 12
      +5
      Quote: Creedco
      Reusable missiles of this type - crap

      Perhaps this is not the crown of creation. But it should be noted that the total cost of removing 1 ton of cargo from Falcon 9 is significantly lower than that of Proton. It’s even sad to compare with Angara.

      Quote: Creedco
      But pipil hawala, liberalism and progressive humanity are blaming on Space X ...

      There is a lot to grind here, but the fact remains: the once-leading Roskosmos merges the competition in a private (!) Office.

      Quote: Creedco
      And most of all I feel sorry for the merged Soviet projects - Buran, Spiral, etc.

      Buran was a mixed project. Yes, a lot of very interesting solutions were implemented in it. But an expensive one-time launch vehicle, in fact, multiplied by zero the main idea of ​​a reusable spacecraft: reducing the cost of putting cargo into orbit.
      1. Cyril G ... April 20 2020 09: 42 New
        • 12
        • 9
        +3
        This is not nearly a private desk. Musk is a media cover for the US state, which in such a way circumvented the monstrously bureaucratic structure of NASA in order to achieve efficiency
        1. Blackmokona April 20 2020 12: 54 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Read about ULA and Orbital ATK
        2. Vadim237 April 20 2020 13: 10 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          If NASA was like you described it in reality, then it’s going on similarly to our Roskosmos.
          1. Iris April 23 2020 14: 29 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            It is not only a matter of bureaucracy; it is a matter of cutting government spending. This is just a fact: when developing a similar project by a government agency such as NASA, the total cost of the project is much (almost several times) higher. And in today's conditions of confrontation in the Congress of Democrats and Republicans, it becomes practically impossible to get a dimensionless development budget.
        3. Semen Sychev April 21 2020 12: 33 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          the US state in such a way circumvented the monstrously bureaucratic structure of the US state

          Do you even listen to yourself sometimes?
    2. knn54 April 20 2020 08: 48 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Something Rogozin is silent about the MRKN project from TsAGI.
    3. Starover_Z April 20 2020 08: 52 New
      • 9
      • 5
      +4
      Quote: Creedco
      Landing on a marching engine is generally fierce nonsense, although it is purely technically interesting.

      That really is. What is the resource with its loads for such an engine? Previously, such engines were made for one launch, naturally with reserves of power and strength. And use it for repeated use? All this construction must be paved for reliability, and then what weight? And then what is the real payload for one conclusion? There are tons of questions ...
      1. Kalmar April 20 2020 09: 17 New
        • 2
        • 4
        -2
        Quote: Starover_Z
        There are a lot of questions

        Weight. But it flies, and it’s quite productive for itself. Apparently, not so bad.
      2. Blackmokona April 20 2020 12: 58 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        For example, our RD-180 which is used exclusively on disposable missiles and designed for them. Has a resource for 10 starts. And as you see, the designers were completely feoletto, for all these thickenings and so on.
      3. Vadim237 April 20 2020 13: 15 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        There is simply no need to make and deliver the necessary materials and everything works; one of the steps brought the payload five times.
    4. Alex Nevs April 20 2020 09: 50 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Well, sparrows can be shot with a gun. Or is it better air? The cost of air is comparable to a gun.
    5. spirit April 20 2020 10: 01 New
      • 7
      • 7
      0
      Yeah, especially that stupid people who pays for these launches laughing the market put everything in its place no matter how much Rogozin bukht) Mask project NASA? Well, who is stopping Mr. Journalist from sponsoring private space in Russia with the same efficiency? hi
      Here it is ...
    6. meGrail April 20 2020 23: 29 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Hello to you from the age of 20 to your 14! We have here Musk has already covered as much market as Roskomoss never had, and you still have crap
      1. Cryvedco April 21 2020 06: 23 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Oh, the Witnesses of the Invisible Hand of the Market pulled themselves up. Well, shalom
  4. Mikhail m April 20 2020 06: 45 New
    • 23
    • 13
    +10
    Dmitry Rogozin said that about half of all fuel volumes of the Falcon-9 rocket are spent on returning its stages back to Earth. Because of this, the mass of the payload that an American missile is capable of carrying is also significantly reduced.
    And what exactly because of this significantly reduces the cost of subsequent launches, Mr. Rogozin forgot to mention. Over time, we will come to reusable systems, but, alas, again in the role of catching up. There are no people in the leadership who are capable of evaluating non-standard ideas and, moreover, risking translating them into iron. It’s good, however, that this did not happen with hypersound. And Roskosmos has long turned into a stagnant swamp.
    1. Vita vko April 20 2020 07: 07 New
      • 19
      • 13
      +6
      Quote: Michael m
      Over time, we will come to reusable systems, but, alas, again in the role of catching up

      The country was in the role of catching up when its leadership succumbed to the provocation of Reagan with its "Star Wars" and reboot.
      If everything was so smooth with Mask, then the United States has long stopped buying RD-180 rocket engines from Russia. However, they have been buying them for 10 years and the needs remain. In any case, the United States still has “trampolines” - they may not jump to the ISS, but Hollywood will jump to the Moon 100%. And all these statements of Mask are aimed only at creating an informational background for shareholders, investors and American taxpayers. I doubt that someone there is interested in Rogozin’s answer, the citation index of such statements in the American media is zero, they won’t even translate it.
      1. Zeev Zeev April 20 2020 07: 34 New
        • 22
        • 11
        +11
        Aren't you embarrassed that the missiles that use the RD-180 flew beautifully even before the purchase of Russian engines? Just cooperation with Roskosmos is a good cost savings.
        1. Vita vko April 20 2020 07: 36 New
          • 7
          • 7
          0
          Quote: Zeev Zeev
          You do not mind that the missiles that use the RD-180

          A lot of things fly around in the world, the whole question is economic feasibility. But Ponte is our everything, how do they have, but we do not.
          1. Zeev Zeev April 20 2020 07: 42 New
            • 16
            • 18
            -2
            From the point of view of economic feasibility, Mask rockets are more effective, despite the much higher salaries in SpaceX compared to the Russian space industry. They are cheaper to manufacture due to the use of more advanced technologies, they are cheaper to operate due to reusable use. Not without reason, after the appearance of Falcon 9, the price of launches ran down, making a considerable hole in the budget of Roskosmos.
            1. Vita vko April 20 2020 07: 56 New
              • 16
              • 11
              +5
              Quote: Zeev Zeev
              From the point of view of economic feasibility, the Mask rockets are more effective

              If someone wrote about this somewhere, this does not mean at all that it is so in reality. Just think about the meaning of returning the combustion chamber and gas generator (the main, most expensive components of a rocket engine), and then imagine a bunch of problems associated with their disassembly, troubleshooting, inspection and assembly. It is clear to any techie that it is easier to do one-time than to catch and plant it is not clear that with dubious reliability.
              1. donavi49 April 20 2020 08: 28 New
                • 19
                • 7
                +12
                Well, the rockets flew 4 times already. And some with very short service.

                What does it mean someone wrote. Musk devoured contracts not only from Rogozin, but also from serious people with lobbyists in the Senate.

                In 2019, he deduced:
                indonesian heavy satellite
                the new Arabsat at 6t, before they flew on Protons and Ariana, the new launch, according to the customer, was not only cheaper than the last (on Ariana), but it also turned out to be thrown into a better orbit, from which the estimated service life rose from 15 to 18 -20 years. In general, the customer will now fly only with the Mask.
                A pack of RCM - the next Canadian satellites of the Radarsat program.
                Amos 17 from Israel itself. Before that they flew on Protons.
                Casifik - Internet for New Guinea, Tuvatu and other islands in the Pacific Ocean. Sky customer - Japanese.

                5 launches with a foreign load, some of which used to fly on Protons / Arians.
                Plus Iridium - from an American customer.

                A total of 6 launches from various commercial customers per year.
                1. jonht April 20 2020 08: 41 New
                  • 6
                  • 5
                  +1
                  Hmm, how long has the estimated life of the satellite at the geostationary station become dependent on the LV, and not on the iron of the satellite itself?
                  If the satellite is in low orbit, and it was launched higher than necessary, then yes it flies longer, but again, its life depends on iron, and not on the pH.
                  1. donavi49 April 20 2020 08: 55 New
                    • 8
                    • 3
                    +5
                    The fuel is wink

                    As explained Arabsat Executive Director Khalid Balkheyur (Khalid Balkheyour) in an interview with SpaceNews, the company chose the Falcon Heavy rocket to launch its latest satellite to extend its lifespan.

                    “We needed to increase the satellite’s life, and we decided to use Falcon Heavy,” he said.

                    He also said that preliminary calculations showed that the satellite will receive greater momentum from Falcon Heavy and this will extend its life to 18-20 years.

                    Arabsat now has nine satellites in orbit, and Balkheyur said that they are now developing another satellite and expect that by the fall of this year, the company that will build it will be presented.
                    1. jonht April 20 2020 11: 06 New
                      • 5
                      • 2
                      +3
                      You did not answer how to prolong the satellite resource using a rocket launcher.
                      Let's go on the other hand, you have a radio tape recorder, you installed it in Toyota and not Nissan, how did the radio resource change?
                      And the mmm you quoted, "gentlemen believe in the word." And there is not one TECHNICALLY justified reason for EXTENDING THE RESOURCE.
                      If you are in the know, bring here due to what TECHNICAL features the same satellite (which has not suffered technical improvements) suddenly began to work longer by about 20% after changing the carrier.
                      1. donavi49 April 20 2020 11: 16 New
                        • 5
                        • 2
                        +3
                        He was thrown higher than Arian - he saved fuel on the final positioning wink Therefore, the number of corrections has increased.
                        https://spacenews.com/arabsat-ceo-falcon-heavy-gives-our-satellite-extra-life/

                        Everything is simple. They have restrictions on fuel that is consumed constantly:
                        By periodically turning on the small thrust engines (north-south correction to compensate for the increase in orbital inclination and west-east to compensate for drift along the orbit), the satellite is held at the designated standing point. Such inclusions are made several times every 10 to 15 days. It is significant that for the north-south correction, a much larger increment in the characteristic velocity (about 45-50 m / s per year) is required than for the longitudinal correction (about 2 m / s per year). To ensure the satellite’s orbit correction throughout its life (12-15 years for modern television satellites), a significant amount of fuel is required on board.

                        He saved some of the fuel due to the pH with the best characteristics, that is, the length of the segment that he made to the point on his engine was reduced. This allowed to extend the service life (that is, until the fuel runs out) by 3-5 years.
                      2. jonht April 20 2020 11: 23 New
                        • 3
                        • 5
                        -2
                        The spacecraft launches the satellite into the calculated orbit, and therefore the satellite itself does not need to increase it. The correction already in orbit is again independent of the launch vehicle. Since if the launch vehicle did not bring the satellite into a given orbit at a given speed, then the launch is considered partially successful and not calculated. And your example is not about anything.
                      3. donavi49 April 20 2020 11: 28 New
                        • 5
                        • 1
                        +4
                        These satellites (platform) are initially made so that on their engine puff at the desired point. This is a calculated successful launch. The rocket brings it to the maximum possible point in a given orbit. Then he puffs at 36000km on his own. Arian gave less - and therefore the last Arabsat spent more fuel to get to the calculated point. Khevik gave more - therefore, the CEO of the company is quite a calculated extension of the resource and is going to launch a new Arabsat with Mask.

                        What is the actual news, not from the mask, but from the CEO of the launch customer’s company wink .
                      4. jonht April 20 2020 11: 48 New
                        • 1
                        • 3
                        -2
                        I have not read about these satellites, but there are moments:
                        1. Mount the horseradish block (horsepower engine and large fuel supply) on horseradish and yearn for it; it’s easier to make it a separate part of the shot after it has worked.
                        2. A separate unit reduces the weight and variety of equipment installed on the satellite.
                        3. The resource of satellites is often measured not by fuel on board, but by the resource of power supply, solar panels, batteries, leaks in the circuit and the cost-effectiveness of the equipment itself.
                        4. In geostationary orbits, the effect of braking on the atmosphere is minimal and corrections are not often carried out, again, pulsed low-power engines are used there.

                        Therefore, I do not see the reason for the increase in satellite resource by 20%. This is all over their Wishlist. And so to speak "unobtrusive" bottle advertisement, no more. hi

                        PS. I forgot to add, marching (accelerating) engines do not use in correction.
                      5. donavi49 April 20 2020 12: 23 New
                        • 3
                        • 1
                        +2
                        Well, in the west they make such platforms for 6t satellites. Last:
                        Following launch, Arabsat-5A separated into a geosynchronous transfer orbit. It then use an apogee motor to raise itself into geostationary orbit. Once it reached geostationary orbit, it underwent testing before beginning operations at a longitude of 30.5 degrees East, where it replaced Arabsat-2B.

                        Another heavy satellite, already from SSL
                        EchoStar XVII was launched by Arianespace, using an Ariane 5ECA carrier rocket flying from ELA-3 at Kourou. The spacecraft was launched at 21:36 UTC on 5 July 2012. The launch successfully placed both satellites into a geosynchronous transfer orbit. EchoStar XVII used its own propulsion system to manoeuvre into a geostationary orbit.
                      6. jonht April 20 2020 12: 25 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        It turns out that they put the extra fuel into orbit and it doesn’t help them extend the resource, since the fuel is for acceleration and fuel for maneuvering in different tanks.
                      7. Blackmokona April 20 2020 13: 00 New
                        • 3
                        • 0
                        +3
                        The purpose of this combination is to litter less in orbit and not duplicate engines for positioning and leaving orbit.
                      8. jonht April 20 2020 14: 22 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Acceleration blocks after mining do not remain in space, they are also reduced from orbit into dense layers of the atmosphere and powerful engines are not needed for this. As well as satellites for the descent into the atmosphere.
                        In fact, the inhibitory impulse is already given against the movement and, proceeding from your application, you first need to deploy the satellite, and then slow down .... Many unnecessary operations.
                      9. Blackmokona April 20 2020 14: 33 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        It comes down to if the launch went to the GPO.
                        If went to GSO is not reduced, fuel for this will require a lot.
                      10. jonht April 20 2020 14: 41 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Have you tried to change the direction of movement? There is enough speed there, only time passes a lot, it does not immediately go into the gravitational field. And for that matter, the first satellites did not reduce it to the GSO, so they can fly for a very long time, everything else, when braking and lowering the orbit, I gradually fall to the ground, burning in the atmosphere.
                      11. Blackmokona April 20 2020 16: 08 New
                        • 3
                        • 0
                        +3
                        See the parameters of the orbits of the GPO and GSO.
                        201 × 37 688 km For example, a typical GPO, it is enough to slightly lower the orbit at the lower point to begin braking about the atmosphere and fall.
                        35 786 km x 35 786 But GSO orbit, you need to spend a lot of fuel to reduce the orbit to below 200 and begin to fall
                        And any speed is fuel, and fuel is a payload, leave more to go into the atmosphere, deliver less cargo to the point
  • Zeev Zeev April 20 2020 08: 36 New
    • 12
    • 4
    +8
    “Doubtful reliability”, as I understand it, is it five re-launches of a stage? Each of which cost half the production and launch of a new one-time stage? And the reduction in prices of "Roskosmos" by 40% for commercial launches, apparently, is "someone wrote somewhere"?
  • Roman123567 April 20 2020 08: 56 New
    • 6
    • 3
    +3
    If someone wrote about this somewhere, this does not mean at all that it is so in reality.

    But that does not mean that this is not so ..
    It is clear to any techie that it is easier to do one-time than to catch and plant it is not clear that with dubious reliability.
    Well, I’m quite daring to classify myself as a “techie” .. but I’m far from clear about that ..
    We Losharik completely burned out, but still gathered not to do new, but to repair the old ..
  • Tiksi-3 April 20 2020 08: 34 New
    • 12
    • 11
    +1
    Quote: Zeev Zeev
    Mask rockets are more effective

    I will ask you to justify in numbers
    Quote: Zeev Zeev
    They are cheaper to manufacture due to the use of more advanced technologies,

    I ask you to bring the technological cycle
    Quote: Zeev Zeev
    they are cheaper to operate due to reusable use

    where are the facts, figures ... you have the Jews, when it comes to your military - you yell where the photo video fixation, when others - you just have to fart in the water and say that it is an axiom!
    1. Zeev Zeev April 20 2020 08: 39 New
      • 6
      • 6
      0
      Look at the launch price of Proton in 2012 and the launch price of the same Proton in 2018.
      1. Tiksi-3 April 20 2020 08: 43 New
        • 8
        • 7
        +1
        Quote: Zeev Zeev
        Look at the launch price of Proton in 2012 and the launch price of the same Proton in 2018.

        You wrote about efficiency - without justifying, technocycle - without confirming the cost of operation without numbers! Well, what’s the price? —see how much a barrel of oil costs now and how much it cost in 09 ?? - according to your hair dryer for oil depends on the effectiveness of its production, processing ??))))))
        1. Zeev Zeev April 20 2020 08: 47 New
          • 7
          • 7
          0
          You want to say that the number of launches has grown so much that the price is bound to fall? That is, the appearance of a new player on the market made Roskosmos lower the price?
        2. Zeev Zeev April 20 2020 08: 53 New
          • 11
          • 8
          +3
          By the way, a few numbers.
          Roscosmos employs 189500 people.
          SpaceX has 7000 people.
        3. Roman123567 April 20 2020 09: 21 New
          • 3
          • 4
          -1
          in your hair dryer for oil depends on the effectiveness of its production, processing ??))))))

          Price depends on competitiveness ..
          If today something began to be sold cheaper than yesterday, then a competitive cheap offer appeared on the market, forcing the first buyer to lower the price too ..
  • Alex Nevs April 20 2020 09: 52 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    What are you? Really?
  • Golovan Jack April 20 2020 08: 01 New
    • 10
    • 13
    -3
    Quote: Zeev Zeev
    missiles that use the RD-180, flew beautifully and before the purchase of Russian engines

    More from now on, plz. As I understand it, the RD-180 is currently not used in the Russian Federation.


    Well, you can look into the wiki, sometimes it’s not a sin:

    in 1996, the RD-180 project won a competition to create and sell Atlas-3 and Atlas-5 engines for US launch vehicles
    1. Zeev Zeev April 20 2020 08: 41 New
      • 4
      • 8
      -4
      Of course I won. Because it was cheaper.
  • vadim dok April 20 2020 14: 30 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Today, Ragozin said that ROSCOSMOS REUSABLE rockets WILL BE (as always in the future) much better and cheaper than the Mask!
  • mole April 20 2020 06: 56 New
    • 14
    • 9
    +5
    Apparently, Rogozin has nothing to do. It doesn’t come out of Facebook, Twitter, etc. No application misses. Probably this is not his level. But if he likes it so much and the soul lies more in this direction, then it's probably time to change his position, for example, to the head of the press service of the Republic of Kazakhstan !? There will cause less harm. Maybe it will be useful !?
    1. bar
      bar April 20 2020 07: 24 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      Apparently, Rogozin has nothing to do. It doesn’t come out of Facebook, Twitter, etc. No application misses.

      Perhaps he has a specially trained person for this. This is not Trump to strain yourself laughing
    2. Semen Sychev April 21 2020 13: 08 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      So after all, he is a journalist by education with good parents, why he needs these subtleties. The son of party nomenclature, already studying at MGIMO, knew that he had a future. As a matter of fact, there is a future for the son of Rogozin, who is also a manager of a higher order. It’s not that Musk rogue, who has specially completed the California Technological course, is already aged and a millionaire.
      Rogozin’s task is to sell a face and make loud statements that we will soon catch up and overtake.
      I feel that after this comment I will be banned.
  • Tusv April 20 2020 07: 04 New
    • 9
    • 2
    +7
    Vague doubts torment me. Why the Pentagon does not trust Ilon Mask, and Rogozin believes in the word? One of them is definitely a Russian spy
    1. donavi49 April 20 2020 08: 42 New
      • 13
      • 2
      +11
      ULA has a serious business. But again, back to Mask subsidies. ULA received on the rocket and launch services (only for them) 420 млн dollars - hevik flew away on January 19, 2019 with a satellite at a price of a billion.


      And here comes some kind of Musk who agrees to do the same, taking into account over-price state orders, for only 180-220 million one way and about 100 with a return. Of course, Boeing and ULA are straining their people and pushing as they can from the trough. Who else will buy the Heavy Delta for 420 million ???

      Take last year, Musk made 6 launches on a commercial basis with different customers. 4 flights to the ISS via NASA. And 1 paid demo flight for the military.

      What did his main competitor do for the fattest orders?
      flew for 420 million on Hevik in January for reconnaissance
      flew on the middle delta for the US air force
      flew on the middle delta for the US air force

      that’s all. No one else needs these over pricing suitcases. Atlas (where RD180) is not better:
      flew with a U.S. Air Force satellite
      flew with Starliner on the ISS

      Antares with RD-181, where for every launch with a swan NASA pays more than 9ka + Dragon:
      flew with a swan on the ISS
      flew with a swan on the ISS

      Nobody needs this Antares anymore, in the history of 0 launches for money or from other customers. And again, 3 more launches were paid, they say that Antares-Lebed will not be extended.
  • SeregaBoss April 20 2020 07: 04 New
    • 12
    • 7
    +5
    Why a swamp? Or are you one of those to whom you can’t see from the window means nothing?
    People work, starts happen.
    We may come to a reusable system, but in our own way, the experience of the USSR will help.
  • Karaul73 April 20 2020 07: 14 New
    • 6
    • 3
    +3
    Quote: Fedorov
    Rogozin is still a specialist, well, it was not in vain that he was appointed. Only who controls it, and in which case to the wall?

    He is controlled by the same "advanced" astronautics experts as he is. It is a pity that there is no Stalin on them.
  • Ross xnumx April 20 2020 07: 20 New
    • 7
    • 5
    +2
    The head of Roscosmos Dmitry Rogozin does not believe that on this basis we can talk about a decrease in competitiveness on the part of Russia. According to Rogozin, the use of reusable rockets for space flights does not make it possible to be cost-effective in comparison with the use of disposable Russian-made rockets for the same purposes.

    Unfortunately, the journalist’s assumptions can only be of weight today, when 1-4 space speeds can be achieved through a rocket engine. With the advent of other principles of moving in space, reusable devices will become more in demand ...
    Your ways are interesting, Lord! The great Korolev proved the advantages of the Soviet space program over the American in practice, and the "great Rogozin" - in words. lol
  • bar
    bar April 20 2020 07: 22 New
    • 11
    • 11
    0
    about half of all fuel volumes of the Falcon-9 rocket goes to return its stages back to Earth. Because of this, the mass of the payload that an American missile is capable of carrying is also significantly reduced.

    Rogozin, to put it mildly, is not my idol, but here I agree with him. Reusability for reusability does not make sense.
    1. Zeev Zeev April 20 2020 08: 42 New
      • 8
      • 8
      0
      Reusability here to reduce costs.
      1. bar
        bar April 20 2020 20: 38 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        Mr. Mask usually has an idea for the sake of the idea itself. As for savings, there are no objective data on reducing costs from reusability, only statements. 80% of the reused iron, about which Musk speaks, is great, because it is unclear what and how it is measured. In cubic meters, kilograms or in the nomenclature? Wangyu, the "remaining" 20% probably includes engines with turbopump units. And this is not at all 20% of the price of a rocket, from which as a result only a burnt barrel is left repeatedly.
        1. Zeev Zeev April 21 2020 08: 32 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Reusability consists in the reuse of engines, turbines, and the design itself (the very barrel).
          1. bar
            bar April 21 2020 11: 19 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            These are all dreams and unverifiable statements. Kerosene engines are slagged, it is highly unlikely that they can withstand repeated starts. On ground tests, the engines of the first stage of Merlin 1C worked out only 170 seconds, the engines of the second stage of Merlin 1D - 370 seconds. It does not smell particularly reusable.
            For reference, the really reusable RS-24 space shuttle engines were powered by a hydrogen-oxygen pair.
            1. Zeev Zeev April 21 2020 11: 53 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              For reference, all jet and turboprop aircraft in the world operate on kerosene. So due to slagging, only piston aircraft should fly.
              Merlin 1D engine can be used repeatedly (up to 40 times).
              By the way, solid propellant boosters were used in shuttles. Reusable.
  • Errr April 20 2020 07: 27 New
    • 12
    • 3
    +9
    In an interview with the KP radio station, Dmitry Rogozin said that about half of all fuel volumes of the Falcon-9 rocket are spent on returning its stages back to Earth.
    In an interview I didn’t hear this for some reason, but if he really said that, then he 100% lied. smile
    Out of approximately 410 tons of fuel refueled to the first stage of the Falcon 9 FT, only 23 tons (i.e., about 5,6%) will be required to return it.
    1. Vadim237 April 20 2020 13: 28 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      This is all so for a loud word from tearing off the covers - the geniuses of control and production of the space sphere in whom landings on the new cosmodrome began earlier than takeoffs. And every year the criticism of these figures towards Mask and his company becomes more and more miserable - and becomes more like a clownery.
      1. Errr April 20 2020 14: 24 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        hi
        Nevertheless, this Rogozin interview was found for Komsomolka at https://www.kem.kp.ru/daily/27119/4201316/. Indeed, this figure lied:
        Falcon-9 in its current version is a heavy class rocket. When starting with the return of the stage, half of the fuel goes into returning this stage to Earth. belay
        Although he tried himself in his circle of rocket modeling in his youth, he nevertheless did the right thing that he went to study as a journalist after school; "noodles" produces a lot (though I have heartburn from her). laughing
  • 1536 April 20 2020 07: 38 New
    • 8
    • 3
    +5
    If the United States and bring down the prices of space launches, using support from the government, then they do it wisely, knock out competitors for sure. Even in these words of Comrade I. Mask sounds this "cowboy tactics." As the saying goes, do not chop off your shoulder, answering such statements ... (There is no time for "trampolines", and in childhood it was necessary to watch more westerns in order not to get into a mess). Then, when there will be no competitors or they will become completely controlled by NASA, or simply hopelessly lagging behind in their development for other reasons, then the United States will dictate its terms, its prices, its will to all consumers. Everything fits into the concept of "great America", nothing personal, only business.
    I ask myself a question: S.P. Korolev, did he work from under a stick? Was he, for the sake of money or fame, simply obsessed with the idea of ​​spaceflight beyond the atmosphere of the earth, to the moon, to Mars? Did he, von Braun, answer in the pages of the newspaper Pravda, finally, “Brown, you are wrong”? No, no and NO!
    We perfectly know the biography of Tsiolkovsky, Zhukovsky, Korolev, Zander, Glushko and others, without whom our space program would not have been possible. The main thing that motivated them was the desire to learn new things, to be at the peak of progress (this is not pathetics), and not to discharge the Colt into a competitor, and then quickly recharge it, because the next one is on the way. It is necessary to analyze not how Americans use "reusable" missiles, but how they know how to personally benefit, combine their business with progress and forward movement.
    1. Roman123567 April 20 2020 09: 27 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      He said beautifully ..
    2. Gato April 20 2020 10: 41 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      they know how to personal benefit, combine their business with progress and moving forward

      Something tells me that if it were not for the need to get ahead of the USSR in the space race, the United States would not have thought about the space program, because there are no markets outside the earth’s orbit (according to the current state request ) So S.P. Korolev with his obsession moved forward not only the Soviet cosmonautics.
      1. Cyril G ... April 20 2020 14: 23 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        True to all 200 percent.
    3. bar
      bar April 20 2020 20: 44 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      It is necessary to analyze not how Americans use "reusable" missiles, but how they know how to personally benefit, combine their business with progress and forward movement.

      Is it a secret for you that the mask does not work for its money, but for the protection of the state budget? And his business is not very different from the business of Rogozin, he also saws. Perhaps the result is different, but what can we do, the economic opportunities of our two countries are also slightly different.
  • Tired April 20 2020 07: 42 New
    • 13
    • 4
    +9
    Already got this balabolstvo. If you want to answer, go ahead. Rivet rockets, increase launches, expand your customer base, develop the industry. This is the real answer, not an idle talk.
    1. donavi49 April 20 2020 08: 50 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      7 starts are gone. OneWeb is everything. Due to what to build up? At the expense of the French - but they try to keep their Arians5 afloat, making the start-up program cheaper by alliances. But there, Arian6 is already on its way.

      For this year, a bunch of launches for bucks was planned, now it has reduced to 3:
      - Oneweb, but there with the bucks is still unclear. Not the fact that they paid for the entire launch.
      - Korean satellite in the fall and a passing bundle of rubbish bins.
      “The eye of the Falcon is a reconnaissance satellite of the sheikhs, they will look out for what's in Haftar.” Also in the fall.
  • Ilya098 April 20 2020 07: 46 New
    • 7
    • 8
    -1
    According to Musk, today SpaceX has 80 percent reusable rockets

    Again he tells about his strainer from Milan. lol
  • Thrifty April 20 2020 08: 02 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    It is possible that Russia will have to create partially reusable rockets in order not to lag behind in space forever and finally. And, moreover, we need healthy competition — a completely private missile, created from scratch in Russia, according to the latest developments and technologies, is needed. Only competition will push the state to develop the industry.
    1. Genry April 20 2020 12: 17 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Thrifty
      It is possible that Russia will have to create partially reusable rockets in order not to lag behind in space forever and finally.

      In fact, Rosskosmos is developing new LNG engines. After gas, the engine does not slag and allows repeated use.
    2. Vadim237 April 20 2020 13: 31 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      In the next 6 - 7 years, no reusable missiles will appear in Russia, well, except for the withdrawal of nanosatellites with a total mass of up to 100 kilograms.
  • Maks1995 April 20 2020 08: 10 New
    • 8
    • 7
    +1
    And, again, Mask is compared with the oligarch Rogozin, and we ourselves are quietly developing the descent steps ...
    There was news ....
    1. Ilya098 April 20 2020 09: 22 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      https://iz.ru/695624/2018-01-15/proekt-baikal-angara
      You probably Baikal mean.
      1. Maks1995 April 20 2020 11: 17 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        Not only. There were also about other species. Even here a week ago. Like light rocket was material ...
  • Azazelo April 20 2020 08: 31 New
    • 3
    • 9
    -6
    And what is competition for them if we supply these tricks with engines ...
    1. Zeev Zeev April 20 2020 08: 55 New
      • 14
      • 4
      +10
      Are you supplying Mask with your engines? And how long?
  • voyaka uh April 20 2020 09: 34 New
    • 13
    • 5
    +8
    "Dmitry Rogozin said that about half of all rocket fuel
    Falcon-9 goes to bring its steps back to Earth "///
    ----
    Why trifle? Say, "three quarters!" laughing
    In fact: 15%
    1. pru-pavel April 20 2020 10: 22 New
      • 10
      • 3
      +7
      In general, people who believe that in order to lower from orbit and slow down an almost empty rocket you need as much fuel as to lift a full rocket into orbit and also with a payload, overcoming not only the inertia of an almost empty rocket (and vice versa even a full one), but also Earth's gravity and air resistance are invincible. How can you defeat someone who has a forehead, a forehead?
    2. vadim dok April 20 2020 14: 40 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      420 t. Initial fuel mass of the 1st stage - 23 tn. fuel for landing, this is less than 6%. Ragozin does not know arithmetic or is lying!
    3. bar
      bar April 20 2020 20: 50 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      In fact: 15%

      Above they wrote about 5,6%. Confused in the testimony?
  • Trotil42 April 20 2020 09: 47 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Das ... Americans do not understand anything in the economy .. they would put Rogozin on the leadership of space .. and then trample ..
  • sanik2020 April 20 2020 09: 49 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    Reusable launch systems have already paid off when landing and returning to the Moon and Mars, because there is no spare rocket for a return start, I carry all of my things with me. Musk decided to try it on Earth, more or less happened.
    And the question is not the economic efficiency of such a start, but that they constantly invent and implement something, and we are still flying on the Korolevskaya R-7 and reassuring ourselves: once this flies, why is something new, it will go bad, then we will come up with.
    Oh yes, we’ll scold the Mask, because it's easier.
  • Fantazer911 April 20 2020 09: 59 New
    • 2
    • 6
    -4
    Economically, I support Rogozin’s words, on maneuvers, half the fuel for landing the unit and the payload of the delivered cargo is reduced.

    Others read for Rogozin, I don’t think he, Rogozin has knowledge in the field of economics
  • Gato April 20 2020 10: 09 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Cost-effectiveness is mixed. I suspect that the more the one-time payload that needs to be thrown into orbit, the higher the efficiency of disposable systems, and at certain values ​​of the payload mass, reusable systems generally lose their meaning. If I am mistaken, please correct.
    1. voyaka uh April 20 2020 10: 32 New
      • 8
      • 3
      +5
      1st stage- 75-80% of the cost of the entire rocket. Whatever weight you throw.
      1. Gato April 20 2020 10: 46 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        1st stage- 75-80% of the cost of the entire rocket

        Mass or value?
        1. voyaka uh April 20 2020 12: 25 New
          • 4
          • 2
          +2
          Namely the cost.
          On it are expensive engines of the first stage.
          1. Vadim237 April 20 2020 13: 37 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            The next stage in the development of rocket science and astronautics will be reusable spacecraft rockets and single-stage aerospace aircraft.
            1. voyaka uh April 20 2020 14: 16 New
              • 2
              • 2
              0
              I agree with you. There is a gradual transition to the second stage of space exploration - reusable spacecraft.
  • Gato April 20 2020 10: 29 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Once I read about the combined scheme out of the corner of my ear: a one-time accelerator simply throws an object into orbit, and reusable devices that are constantly hanging in orbit will reach the 1st space one. What is the benefit of such a scheme - niazilil, because reusable devices must first be slowed down to the speed of the object, and then again accelerated together to 1KS. We are talking about satellites, with 2 and 3KS clear.
  • 1536 April 20 2020 11: 09 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Gato
    they know how to personal benefit, combine their business with progress and moving forward

    Something tells me that if it were not for the need to get ahead of the USSR in the space race, the United States would not have thought about the space program, because there are no markets outside the earth’s orbit (according to the current state request ) So S.P. Korolev with his obsession moved forward not only the Soviet cosmonautics.

    Not really, dear. The Great Depression erupted in the United States in the 1930s. Second in a row in this country. The Americans realized that the cyclical repetition of such events is a fact, not the invention of K. Marx and other philosopher economists. And in order to avoid catastrophic consequences in the future, to protect powerful clans in the USA, the government of this country accepted attempts to solve this problem. First of all, emphasis was placed on the development of high-tech industries and the financial sector, which provided long-term investments in such projects and industries. Of course, the Second World War also served as a catalyst for this process. The fear that someone could get ahead of the United States in technologies that could even kill people played a role here. Nevertheless, such institutions as the Gallup Institute (formed in 1935), the notorious Club of Rome (1968), the strategic planning system as a whole, and those organizations that carry out this planning, and most importantly, the system of R&D implementation in production, allowed the Americans by the 1980s to get ahead of almost all countries of the world in scientific and technological development. The main competitor then was the USSR. He was cleverly removed from the road, using the greedy party elite who had ruined his own country.
    The trouble with the Americans is that they cannot unite countries and continents around themselves, but, in fact, are trying to continue the colonization that they once carried out within the framework of North America, and now they are already being implemented on a global scale. They use the same methods: the spread of "fiery water", "curled blankets", bribery, deceit, etc. attributes of the development of the "Wild West".
  • NordUral April 20 2020 11: 17 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Sometimes, and you would always, it is better to shut up and give way to a specialist, Rogozin.
  • Lord of the Sith April 20 2020 11: 33 New
    • 3
    • 6
    -3
    Mask’s office is called upon to do several things - to nationalize expenses, privatize revenues, pour fresh blood into the space program, put Mask as deputy chairman and declare all this as a help.
    And then people do not believe in nasa.
    1. Blackmokona April 20 2020 13: 06 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Read about Orbital ATK and ULA
    2. qobnvmog April 20 2020 14: 36 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Quote: Lord of the Sith
      put the mask as vice chairman

      Ilon’s specialized education has more than some here and in Roskosmos.
      1. Lord of the Sith April 20 2020 15: 51 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -1
        The untwisted showcase selling a person with an education.
        Right?
        1. Vadim237 April 20 2020 16: 16 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          You know, a showcase cannot organize production - if Musk and his company had not created a reusable first stage and very few people would have talked about everything else now.
          1. Lord of the Sith April 20 2020 16: 25 New
            • 2
            • 5
            -3
            He is not a developer, but a manager. And all those developments from nasa.
            Like the same eggs, only in profile. He was given money, full of blank check, if only he had given birth to something. It is difficult to screw up, without state support))

            So cute fairy tales about the "Genius Mask" can be left only for exalted girls, infantile fans and elderly people with progressive dementia.
            1. Vadim237 April 20 2020 17: 22 New
              • 3
              • 2
              +1
              You know, Roskosmos can give me a lot of things too - but I can’t build a reusable rocket and I can’t organize its production, because I need to live this. And NASA didn’t have anything on a reusable rocket, so they couldn’t pass on the developments on it. Musk and his team themselves designed and built such a stage - but NASA provided further test stands for work on the competition who won and will get the money.
        2. qobnvmog April 21 2020 18: 24 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Lord of the Sith
          The untwisted showcase selling a person with an education.
          Right?
          Not true. A person with diplomas in physics and economics knows what to make rockets from and how to make rockets.
  • qobnvmog April 20 2020 14: 33 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    In an interview with the KP radio station, Dmitry Rogozin said that about half of all fuel volumes of the Falcon-9 rocket are spent on returning its stages back to Earth.

    Lies and does not blush. He’s lying all over the country.
    1. Lord of the Sith April 20 2020 16: 29 New
      • 2
      • 4
      -2
      And where is lying, in what place?
      I do not protect Rogozin, his well-fed mug annoys me too, but in what place is he wrong?
      1. zlinn April 20 2020 19: 07 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        in the place that the return does not require half, but 6-7% of the fuel volume
        1. Lord of the Sith April 20 2020 19: 31 New
          • 2
          • 3
          -1
          Hmm, then the technical documentation in the studio is interesting to study))
          1. qobnvmog April 21 2020 18: 14 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Quote: Lord of the Sith
            Hmm, then the technical documentation in the studio is interesting to study))
            This is a cheap propaganda trick. T.D. and Roscosmos did not provide any of the defenders with all its statements.

            Ilon, as the creator and owner of SpaceX, can speak authoritatively for his company.
            Here is an article in which he is interviewed:
            https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a9504/musk-spacex-now-has-all-the-pieces-for-reusable-rockets-15985616/
            According to Musk, as of September 2013, SpaceX rockets needed to reduce payload by 30% to return to the Earth cosmodrome and 15% to return to the offshore platform.
            Even then, not half of the talk was discussed.

            Today is not 2013, but 2020. Now SpaceX has F9 block 5. The take-off mass from version 1.1 to block 5 rose from 506 (and 318 in version 1.0) to 549 tons.
            Today, especially not about half of which we are not talking.

            Rogozin even theoretically lied; I don’t understand at all in astronautics, but I could find on Wikipedia that, according to the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, theoretically, the fuel for landing will fluctuate within 10%. This is enough for me.
            Rogozin lied. And everyone who says the opposite lies. Including you.
      2. qobnvmog April 21 2020 18: 39 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: Lord of the Sith
        And where is lying, in what place?
        I do not protect Rogozin, his well-fed mug annoys me too, but in what place is he wrong?

        It is you who protect. He is wrong at least in that place (leaving aside the lies about half the load) that if SpaceX does not just compete, but crushes the space industry on all fronts (while losing, according to Rogozin, half the fuel in the return configuration), then the same Falcon 9 in a one-time configuration with the growth of this lost half of SpaceX all the more crush and bury Roskosmos.

        Rogozin either simply is stupid and does not understand, or (more likely) he considers the population of the Russian Federation so brainless that they can sound such a mess, and no one will understand that in his own words he even more shows the superiority of SpaceX.
        1. Lord of the Sith April 22 2020 22: 06 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Even this is all. Musk super telepuper))
          I never understood this masquerade. Where is superiority, in what place?
          Read the comment of Nicholas below, I completely agree with him.
          1. qobnvmog April 23 2020 00: 39 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Lord of the Sith
            Read the comment of Nicholas below, I completely agree with him.

            So he also lies about SpaceX. His lies are very easy to verify. All launches can even be viewed on YouTube. Most of the time I myself watched live.

            Want to be with him - your problems.

            Apart from the missions, when landing was not planned, those that generally planned to land.
            Until 2017, when the landings were worked out in test mode, 10 out of 16 landings were successfully completed. Since 2017, when SpaceX officially announced that the landings would be considered a regular routine operation, 3 out of 43 landings failed.

            For the entire time of launches (with and without landings), SpaceX did not complete only 2 missions. One of which exploded before the start.
            1. Lord of the Sith April 23 2020 01: 23 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Maskedrocher detective.
              1. qobnvmog April 23 2020 06: 45 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Quote: Lord of the Sith
                Maskedrocher detective.

                Well. As I caught the facts in a lie, so went baby talk.
                Rt
                1. Lord of the Sith April 24 2020 12: 42 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  What facts, what lies?
                  Oh my God, I caught you as a stubborn maskroder. Which, as in a joke, claims that the mask is Dartanyan, and the rest are tridvaras.

                  Whether you like it or not, it’s a lie, and the mask is still that swindler.
  • garmonist April 22 2020 03: 52 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    The Americans already had a reusable super-duper project called the space shuttle. Time has proved that the project is a failure, although the first 20 years were also considered a megasuperruptive miracle. Hundreds of launches a year were planned. As a result, 135 launches in 30 years. The total loss-making and loss of many people led to the closure of this failure. Mask's turn has not yet come time to test his project for durability. While these are some show-offs. That's when the number of successful launches exceeds 300, it will be possible to evaluate something.
  • garmonist April 22 2020 05: 56 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    while only half of the launches ended with a successful landing of the 1st stage