We don’t agree on trampolines: in the USA they showed the course of creation and testing of a new OmegA


In the United States, they cannot agree with the forecast of one well-known Russian official regarding space flights using trampolines. In parallel, several developments in the American space industry are underway at once - both on the basis of state funding, and purely on a private basis (for example, SpaceX).


A few days ago, the American company Northrop Grumman published several videos that demonstrate preparations for the implementation of the OmegA launch vehicle project. It is planned that this rocket will make its first space flight in the spring of 2021.

One of the videos demonstrates tests of solid propellant rocket engines as part of the OmegA project.

OmegA LV belongs to the middle class of three-stage missiles. The project assumes the ability of these launch vehicles to throw payloads weighing up to 7,8 tons into geostationary orbit (although in this case it is already difficult to classify the rocket as a middle class).

At one stage of the rocket engine tests, a partial destruction of the nozzle occurred. However, then the company nevertheless announced the tests as "successful." Now it is added that the flaws are being phased out and that the rocket will be completely ready for its first test flight, which is about a year away.



It is noted how many enterprises and research centers are involved in the implementation of the project of the new launch vehicle. In particular, testing of engines at the Promontori training ground (Utah) is noted, the last of which was carried out in February 2020:



The US military also has plans for a new missile. In particular, it is planned to use it to launch a group of military satellites into orbit.

Recall that Dmitry Rogozin, today the head of Roscosmos, announced trampolines for the American space industry several years ago.
Photos used:
Northrop Grumman website
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mountain shooter 1 May 2020 08: 53 New
    • 21
    • 16
    +5
    The only warning on our VO I received when I wrote that Rogozin ... !!! So, was I right?
    Our trampoline ... though ... Striped ears for 10 years on the "Union" flew. From the country "gas stations".
    How do they, the striped-eared, "turn" so that the apparent loss of image is unanimously noticed by the whole country? Psychology?
    1. Malyuta 1 May 2020 09: 02 New
      • 38
      • 24
      +14
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      that Rogozin ... !!!

      Batutych is still a dreamer)) He already launched the lunar station and Mars almost flew.
      It is amazing how he is still not a dick of labor, because he has so many merits inscribed in the history of Russian cosmonautics.
      1. Dreamboat 1 May 2020 09: 18 New
        • 37
        • 43
        -6
        The USA is a leader in the production of commercials, and VO passionately replicates them in illiterate articles. The US space industry has degraded abruptly Russian. How many manned flights have they made in recent years? Whose engines are there on their heavy Atlases?
        Some commercials of the Botex Mask on trapping the debris of its first steps in the ocean and launching car simulations into space.
        If we focus on someone in space, it’s China. Here there is a clear development of astronautics with leaps and bounds and without bullshit advertising. The first place in launches was with them, but the FSA did not lie nearby.
        1. Pashhenko Nikolay 1 May 2020 09: 54 New
          • 36
          • 11
          +25
          I would love to watch our Russian videos on this subject. But why are they not there. The notorious secrecy? Or nothing to shoot? I don’t know.
          1. Malyuta 1 May 2020 10: 41 New
            • 17
            • 27
            -10
            Quote: Pashhenko Nikolay
            I would love to watch our Russian videos on this subject. But why are they not there. The notorious secrecy? Or nothing to shoot? I don’t know.

            But what secrecy is there, the president of the cartoon showed you about tireless nuclear reactors in the Kyrgyz Republic, about a submarine tractor. What more do you want?
        2. Kronos 1 May 2020 10: 29 New
          • 16
          • 14
          +2
          Why there are Mask advertising rockets and Russian crowds are flying
        3. mikhailovich22 1 May 2020 10: 33 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: Dreamboat
          If we focus on someone in space, it’s China. Here there is a clear development of astronautics with leaps and bounds and without bullshit advertising. The first place in launches was with them, but the FSA did not lie nearby.

          At the moment, China and the United States have the same number of launches since the beginning of the year, only the United States has one failed and China has two. Although China is developing astronautics, it is still far from the United States. But with the manned program, the United States somehow did not work out.
          1. Blackmokona 1 May 2020 15: 49 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The USA has 9 launches, 9 successful this year. Are you confusing anything?
        4. snake 1 May 2020 11: 44 New
          • 7
          • 12
          -5
          Quote: Dreamboat
          launch vehicle simulations into space

          Musk what, did the "brainchild" of the Russian automobile industry launch into space?
          And what's wrong with Botox? Putin and Malysheva are possible, but not others?
        5. Vladimir_2U 1 May 2020 12: 31 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: Dreamboat
          launch vehicle simulations into space

          And what about imitation? By the way, he was beeping, it was just that you could not hear in the vacuum! laughing
        6. krillon 1 May 2020 22: 11 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          As Russia is moving away from dependence on ship propulsion systems, helicopters, missile chassis, so are the States doing the same. What is unusual, while they coped with the tasks that they set.
      2. Svarog 1 May 2020 09: 28 New
        • 24
        • 17
        +7
        Recall that Dmitry Rogozin, today the head of Roscosmos, announced trampolines for the American space industry several years ago.

        To collect all these "managers" and send them into space .. they would fly beautifully ..
        1. martin-159 1 May 2020 10: 28 New
          • 7
          • 5
          +2
          From a cannon like False Dmitry.
      3. NKT
        NKT 1 May 2020 10: 03 New
        • 11
        • 10
        +1
        Now the new building of Roscosmos will build and receive the title of Hero of Labor.
      4. mikhailovich22 1 May 2020 10: 35 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Quote: Malyuta
        and Mars almost flew.

        It was not because of Rogozin that they didn’t fly to Mars; the Europeans pulled the rover with the rover.
      5. Odessa Greek 1 May 2020 13: 10 New
        • 8
        • 3
        +5
        Well, then the USA is a super space empire, not a dreamer. They walked to the moon like they were home, and then they said that they had studied everything there, closed the program and decided that there was nothing to do there. And now after 30 years, we decided to try again to start flying, but only now not in the Hollywood studio))))
    2. A. Privalov 1 May 2020 09: 33 New
      • 23
      • 8
      +15
      Everything is easier. This is pure pragmatism. While it is cheaper to buy a disposable product than to do it yourself, they took the opportunity. As soon as the seller begins to act up, raise prices, pucker fingers, he stays at home with his goods.
      Image, this is nothing more than a show off. Before them there "the whole country" does not care. People are busy with their worries. Imagine a farmer from Iowa who raised srach in a discussion on some Russian device? And the saying "to be reputed, but not to be" is not at all American.
    3. Pashhenko Nikolay 1 May 2020 09: 48 New
      • 20
      • 4
      +16
      To be honest, the “Unions” were not made by the country “gas station”.
      1. Sasha Minakov 1 May 2020 14: 31 New
        • 9
        • 9
        0
        100 percent. They are made by Russia. The only country at the moment that can send a person into space.
      2. orionvitt 1 May 2020 14: 53 New
        • 7
        • 2
        +5
        Quote: Pashhenko Nikolay
        To be honest, the “Unions” were not made by the country “gas station”.

        To be completely honest, a country that "flew to the moon" (and more than once laughing ) and that is not. Well, launch satellites, so everyone who is not too lazy is now doing this. Eka is unseen.
      3. Doliva63 1 May 2020 19: 36 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Pashhenko Nikolay
        To be honest, the “Unions” were not made by the country “gas station”.

        That's right, she was not a "gas station" then.
    4. Sergey39 1 May 2020 11: 53 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      How do they, the striped-eared, "turn" so that the apparent loss of image is unanimously noticed by the whole country? Psychology?

      And at the same time they are stubbornly taking a step backwards - they are trying to create a new rocket, the initial step for going out into space.
      1. orionvitt 1 May 2020 15: 02 New
        • 5
        • 3
        +2
        Quote: Sergey39
        initial step to space

        All this is terribly interesting, but where are the old, long-tested (even on the moon lol ) technologies? How can one lose technological power by constantly showing economic growth, without disasters and revolutions? If necessary, fly to the ISS, constantly bowing to the "country gas station". Vague doubts creep in that they are trying to sell us another American cat in a poke. We will see what they get there. But it seems to me that with the onset of the global economic crisis, now the Americans will not be in space.
        1. Sergey39 1 May 2020 15: 33 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: orionvitt
          constantly showing economic growth

          The economic growth of the stock market economy does not include the development of new technologies, as well as the maintenance of old ones. So now everything will have to be from scratch.)))
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Digital error 1 May 2020 08: 54 New
    • 6
    • 3
    +3
    It is noted how many enterprises and research centers are involved in the implementation of the project of the new launch vehicle
    Hmmm ... And which of these enterprises belongs to the Yuzhnoye Design Bureau? smile
    From last year's article on VO:
    The Ukrainian design bureau Yuzhnoye announces plans to reorient production. We are talking about the fact that Yuzhnoye intends to develop cooperation with American partners, including in the engine segment for missiles of various types ... According to Mr. Degtyarev, Yuzhnoye Design Bureau sees prospects for Ukrainian-American development cooperation space technology and plans to deploy rocket engines in the US
    1. Avior 1 May 2020 09: 10 New
      • 3
      • 4
      -1
      southern works on Antares
      https://www.yuzhnoye.com/press-center/news/copy_news_724.html
      1. Digital error 1 May 2020 09: 18 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Informative. But what about “deploying rocket engines in the US”? hi
      2. donavi49 1 May 2020 09: 51 New
        • 10
        • 0
        +10
        Antares corpse. So far, 3 rockets have been paid yet. There is no further money. There is a high probability that there will be no more orders from NASA. According to the ISS supply program, NASA is the only rich Pinocchio that buys this rocket at such a price. After the final death of Orbital and all plans to upgrade the rocket (now the orbital is working on Omega) - Antares seems to have risen in price and will rise in price again. In general, it is already more profitable to transport a swan on the Atlas even for money.
      3. Errr 1 May 2020 10: 00 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        Quote: Avior
        southern works on Antares
        It works, it works, but not on the engines.
        Since Orbital did not have enough experience working with large liquid stages and cryogenic components, a contract was signed with the Yuzhny Design Bureau (Ukraine), the developer of Zenit-class space rockets, to work on the first stage of Antares. The Yuzhny site includes the main phase of work with fuel tanks and related equipment. The main task of Yuzhnoye Design Bureau is to develop and control the manufacture of fuel tanks, high pressure tanks, valves, sensors, fuel and power supply systems, pipes, wires and other related equipment at the Yuzhmash plant.
        Source: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antares_ (carrier rocket )## First_step
      4. Odessa Greek 1 May 2020 13: 12 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        More precisely, she worked on Antares. Now works on trams))
  4. Servisinzhener 1 May 2020 08: 59 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    In my opinion, the Americans are clearly something very interested in space, judging by the variety of space rockets being developed. But just what exactly did they find there?
    1. Oyo Sarkazmi 1 May 2020 10: 42 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      I saw a good cut. Like, save the US astronautics, let's get 2 billion a year.
      We have Atlas from Boeing, Falcon from Space, Omega from Grumman, and NewGlen from Bezos. At 20-30 starts per year. For everyone.
      1. voyaka uh 1 May 2020 11: 57 New
        • 8
        • 0
        +8
        Found a growing commercial market for communications satellites.
        The military launches for state money and is therefore ready to "overpay."
        Private traders pay out of pocket and therefore are traded for every dollar.
        There is a race, who will create the cheapest booster, and not the most
        powerful or effective.
        1. ccsr 1 May 2020 12: 42 New
          • 4
          • 4
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Found a growing commercial market for communications satellites.

          The market of COMMUNICATION satellites is not growing, but rather falling, because fiber-optic communication lines are dominating in this niche. And in the future, due to the increasing urbanization of the population of different countries, the share of opto-bluish lines will increase even more. By the way, from our current life - I watch television channels on “Three Colors” in one place and on the prefix “Bee-line” in another place, which is connected to a router in the apartment. The quality of B-Line TV is better than that of satellite channels, and the speed of switching channels is much higher, not to mention the options for recording and viewing previously transmitted programs.
          1. voyaka uh 1 May 2020 12: 49 New
            • 9
            • 1
            +8
            Optical cables will not disappear, they are about 80%
            the amount of information transmitted.
            But satellite communications are growing.
            Elon Musk is up to date on cables, but experts promise his 12,000 StarLink satellites
            trillion profits. Two months later, StarLink will begin a test broadcast over
            Canada with about 500 satellites.
            Private owners fuss with missiles for good reason.
            1. ccsr 1 May 2020 13: 41 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Optical cables will not disappear, they are about 80%
              the amount of information transmitted.

              I think that your figure is correct, though I thought that it is less today.
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Two months later, StarLink will begin trial broadcast over
              Canada with about 500 satellites.

              We wish them success, but I have already made my choice, and of course I will continue to use only high-speed Internet connections through fiber-optic communication lines. True, I live where it is available, which is why satellite communications systems will always have their own niche. But for the time being, because they will be crowded by CFM.
            2. ak1978 12 May 2020 23: 42 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              The experts will promise you anything if only the stock would rise. Starlink has only one serious source of revenue and is not commercial at all.
        2. quote 2 May 2020 12: 25 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Found a growing commercial market for communications satellites.
          The military launches for state money and is therefore ready to "overpay."
          Private traders pay out of pocket and therefore are traded for every dollar.
          There is a race, who will create the cheapest booster, and not the most
          powerful or effective.

          So cheap and not effective? Great.
          Do you buy yourself a cheap and inefficient refrigerator?
          1. voyaka uh 2 May 2020 14: 36 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            A home refrigerator is designed for 7-15 years of operation.
            Therefore, their compressors are not forced. Had a fridge
            designed as a “one-time” - for a month of work, for example, then
            his compressor would be completely different: at high speeds, with more
            strong cylinders (or rotor, if centrifugal), etc.
            1. ak1978 12 May 2020 23: 44 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Oh really? Only here is one of my friends repairman for some reason claims that 3 years is the ceiling. Regardless of brand and price. Or are you talking about the Dnepr fridge in 1977?
        3. ak1978 12 May 2020 23: 37 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Are you talking about the Internet for $ 49,99 for the Bedouins of the Sahara and the natives of Micronesia? :)
    2. unaha 1 May 2020 11: 49 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      I believe that they have “found” an ever-growing launch market and are preparing a service for any pocket. It’s faster and cheaper than government sluggish structures. With the prospect (quite distant of course) of developing something on the moon and asteroids.
      Not just because Trump actually allowed US private traders to develop the moon. It’s quite a job for the future, albeit not tomorrow.
  5. grandfather_Kostya 1 May 2020 09: 02 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    OmegA LV belongs to the middle class of three-stage missiles. The project implies the ability of these launch vehicles to throw payloads weighing up to 7,8 tons into geostationary orbit.

    A heavy class rocket throws such a load at the geostationary station, and not the middle peasant!
  6. Vasily Ponomarev 1 May 2020 09: 04 New
    • 5
    • 3
    +2
    > Recall that Dmitry Rogozin said about trampolines for the American space industry several years ago
  7. knn54 1 May 2020 09: 08 New
    • 14
    • 8
    +6
    The Yankees refused manned flights because they didn’t see the point. To maintain the skills of the astronauts, maintain the US “share” of the ISS, and solve certain problems, it’s enough to send a couple / three astronauts a year aboard the Russian Unions.
    Today, intelligible tasks have appeared, the Pentagon's INTEREST. How could Rogozin not jump ...
    1. businessv 1 May 2020 09: 29 New
      • 10
      • 1
      +9
      Quote: knn54
      How could Rogozin not jump ...

      But who cares, then just Rogozin! wink
    2. Disant 1 May 2020 09: 47 New
      • 9
      • 6
      +3
      The Yankees refused manned flights because they did not see the point.

      Well, yes, of course - at first they put a bunch of people on the shuttles, then they decided that it made no sense, but they would fly, so be it, on the back of the gas station
      1. Avior 1 May 2020 13: 54 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        The shuttle according to plan was - this is a manned carrier for putting spacecraft into orbit.
        It was really not very interesting to fly for the sake of flying on a ship, where three with great difficulty get in.
    3. mikhailovich22 1 May 2020 10: 46 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: knn54
      The Yankees refused manned flights because they didn’t see the point. To maintain the skills of the astronauts, to maintain the working condition of the US “share” of the ISS,

      On January 14, 2004, US President George W. Bush introduced the new US space program.
      2004-2008 - development of a manned spacecraft that will replace the shuttles and will be able to deliver people to the moon.
      2004-2010 - the resumption of shuttle flights terminated after the Columbia shuttle crash to the International Space Station.
      2010 - termination of work on the ISS, replacement of shuttles with new ships.
      2010-2014 - unmanned flights to the moon.
      2015-2020 - manned flights to the moon, creation of an inhabited base on it.
      After 2020 - the preparation of the expedition to Mars.
    4. Pontiffsulyvahn 1 May 2020 15: 15 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      States have never abandoned manned flights. The break in them was due to objective factors: the shuttles were very expensive, not too reliable, very complex and excess power. Therefore, it was decided to prepare them to replace the classic type ships. They wanted to manage quickly, for 4-5 years. They decided that there was no point in simultaneously spending money on shuttles and on development. Shuttles were abandoned.
      Alas, it was not possible to quickly create a replacement for many different reasons, so they fly only in 2020. But manned flights have never been abandoned and will not be abandoned.
  8. Mikhail3 1 May 2020 09: 11 New
    • 12
    • 21
    -9
    In less than a hundred years, the proud West will reach the level of the USSR in the 60s of the last century! Hooray!
    1. Maki maki 1 May 2020 09: 15 New
      • 14
      • 13
      +1
      Let's face it, we rolled back a few years too.
      1. Mikhail3 1 May 2020 09: 17 New
        • 12
        • 3
        +9
        Of course. We are up to the Queen, as before China in an unnatural way).
      2. Mylenef 1 May 2020 09: 21 New
        • 5
        • 6
        -1
        Most likely didn’t roll away
        1. Mikhail3 1 May 2020 09: 35 New
          • 13
          • 7
          +6
          Do not roll back. Stuck down in the mud. Korolev was developing a new one. Complexes of equipment, machinery, mechanisms that allow you to throw loads into orbit and over long distances. We now even podshamanit the case and cram into the apparatus of the LCD panels (the ship "Federation") is not able. Not able to build a spaceport.
          Korolev was the first, and his spaceport still serves. He did not know how to do it, his people invented and made everything for the first time in the world. From scratch. We cannot repeat the long known. At least repeat!
          Chemical astronautics per se is a dead end. Need a new mover. But the question is that we are degrading, being unable to implement even long-developed projects. That is, we do not reach the engineers of Korolev at all. And a quarter of that is gone ...
          1. mikhailovich22 1 May 2020 10: 52 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            Quote: Mikhail3
            . Not able to build a spaceport.

            Russia has six cosmodromes, five in Russia itself and one in Kazakhstan.
            1. Mikhail3 1 May 2020 13: 22 New
              • 2
              • 4
              -2
              Yes, at least 666. So what? They tried to build a new one, but they got so bad, it’s a shame to remember ...
              1. mikhailovich22 1 May 2020 14: 55 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                Quote: Mikhail3
                They tried to build a new one, but they got so bad, it’s a shame to remember ...

                Are you talking about the East?
              2. Oyo Sarkazmi 1 May 2020 17: 30 New
                • 3
                • 1
                +2
                Quote: Mikhail3
                They tried to build a new one, but they got so bad

                Come on, we never dreamed of American cuts. At Vostochny, together with the stolen one, it took 2 times less money than for one service tower at Cape Canaveral. After the Columbia disaster, the tower was reconstructed under the "promising" Ares. They led one test launch, Ares was slaughtered, the tower began to be reconstructed under the SLS. But then SLS changed the configuration. And now the tower, which absorbed 4 billion evergreens, again requires reconstruction of 1,5 billion.
                It’s good to build in the USA, 5 billion - and only one rocket has started, in 10 years.
                1. Mikhail3 4 May 2020 14: 49 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Yes, do not care about theft. We DO NOT DO IT. The spaceport is not functional, it was not possible to build a working launch complex. In this form, theft is a miserable trifle.
                  1. Oyo Sarkazmi 4 May 2020 14: 55 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    They coped with the bridge, but they could not cope with the spaceport. Why? Is the holographic apparatus broken?
                    1. Mikhail3 4 May 2020 14: 58 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      The bridge is much simpler. A very ordinary construction in general. If you do not steal absolutely crazy, building it is quite simple.
          2. Cresta999 1 May 2020 10: 56 New
            • 11
            • 1
            +10
            Not only in astronautics. We are somewhat similar to the fragments of the Roman Empire. We can still use the bathroom, but we don’t already know where the hot water comes from.
        2. Mordvin 3 1 May 2020 11: 05 New
          • 9
          • 4
          +5
          Quote: Mylenef
          Most likely didn’t roll away

          Rolled back. Energy Buran will no longer be able to create, no matter how puffed up.
          1. ccsr 1 May 2020 12: 52 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Quote: mordvin xnumx
            Rolled back. Energy Buran will no longer be able to create, no matter how puffed up.

            And why do we need this system, what are you going to do with it, even if the Americans could not load their shuttle to the level of 50 flights a year, so that it would have at least some kind of economic feasibility? You probably forgot that we are not living in the USSR with a population of 286 million, but in Russia, where the population is two times smaller, which means there will be less deductions to space than in the USSR. So do not puff up - it's time to learn how to live within our means, if only so that our people do not pay for the world development of manned space exploration with their labor. First of all, we need to think about defense capabilities, and not about flying to Mars or elsewhere - that's why we do not need to tear the remnants of hair on a bald head.
            1. Mordvin 3 1 May 2020 13: 17 New
              • 2
              • 4
              -2
              Quote: ccsr
              And why do we need this system, what are you going to do with it, even if the Americans could not load their shuttle to the level of 50 flights a year, so that it would have at least some kind of economic feasibility?

              Shuttles, unlike Burans, were manned.
              Quote: ccsr
              You probably forgot that we are not living in the USSR with a population of 286 million, but in Russia, where the population is two times smaller, which means there will be less deductions to space than in the USSR.

              I have not forgotten at all. But the above is compared precisely with the USSR.
              Quote: ccsr
              We first need to think about defense

              First of all, we need to think about the economy.
              1. Mikhail3 1 May 2020 13: 25 New
                • 3
                • 3
                0
                Quote: mordvin xnumx
                First of all, we need to think about the economy.

                It is impossible. As soon as you start thinking about it, you immediately run into those who destroy it. And they are power. We must not think about the economy.
              2. ccsr 1 May 2020 13: 46 New
                • 4
                • 1
                +3
                Quote: mordvin xnumx
                Shuttles, unlike Burans, were manned.

                The Buran is also a manned system - it was simply tested in unmanned mode, which in itself is a unique phenomenon.
                Quote: mordvin xnumx
                First of all, we need to think about the economy.

                I agree, you should always think about it. But 286 million people in the USSR produced more and consumed more than 142 million in Russia, which means that the budget was much higher. From this we must proceed, building ambitious plans in the spirit of New Vasyukov.
                1. Mordvin 3 1 May 2020 13: 49 New
                  • 1
                  • 2
                  -1
                  Quote: ccsr
                  The Buran is also a manned system - it was simply tested in unmanned mode, which in itself is a unique phenomenon.

                  Combined, rather. As far as I remember, it was planned to fly to the World precisely in unmanned mode.
                  Quote: ccsr
                  But 286 million people in the USSR produced more and consumed more than 142 million in Russia, which means that the budget was much higher.

                  And I don’t argue with that.
  9. KVU-NSVD 1 May 2020 09: 12 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    The project assumes the ability of these launch vehicles to throw payloads weighing up to 7,8 tons into geostationary orbit.

    8 tons into a geostationary orbit with a solid rocket? However ... I’m stupid felts, ski felts do not go ... recourse
    One of the videos demonstrates tests of solid propellant rocket engines as part of the OmegA project
    1. Blackmokona 1 May 2020 09: 54 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      There is hydrogen top
  10. rocket757 1 May 2020 09: 22 New
    • 7
    • 2
    +5
    What does this mean?
    That the Yankees are making their plans and may well fulfill them.
    Now just wait and see how they fulfill them.
    However, chatting is much praised everywhere, and who will turn out to be the most, the most praiseworthy, and who will turn from words to action, realize his plan, we will see. Not so long to wait.
  11. businessv 1 May 2020 09: 24 New
    • 3
    • 8
    -5
    In the USA, they cannot agree with the forecast of one well-known Russian official regarding space flights using trampolines.
    How many years no longer agree, but things are still there! smile
    1. donavi49 1 May 2020 09: 58 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      Last year Atlas (with RD-180) flew 2 times, Antares 2 times (both on the ISS under the supply program). All other starts were on their engines. Yes, they will spoil money, launching Deltas with space price tags. But they can afford it.

      This year, the Atlas flew twice - 1 Solar Orbiter mission, a large US-EU science program and one military satellite. Antares 1. But the latter is probably a corpse. Paid program for 2021. For 22 years there is no money and probably will not. NASA is considering options for abandoning such expensive antares that have risen significantly in price after Orbital’s death and their transfer to Northrop.
      1. businessv 1 May 2020 15: 01 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: donavi49
        Yes, they will spoil money, launching Deltas with space price tags. But they can afford it.

        Thank you, colleague, enlightened! I, apparently, are too trusting - I believe the written article, according to the written, I form an opinion. I do not follow the space industry of minke whales. hi
  12. The comment was deleted.
  13. Vasily Ponomarev 1 May 2020 09: 30 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    Quote: Dreamboat
    The USA is a leader in the production of commercials, and VO passionately replicates them in illiterate articles. The US space industry has degraded abruptly Russian. How many manned flights have they made in recent years? Whose engines are there on their heavy Atlases?
    Some commercials of the Botex Mask on trapping the debris of its first steps in the ocean and launching car simulations into space.
    If we focus on someone in space, it’s China. Here there is a clear development of astronautics with leaps and bounds and without bullshit advertising. The first place in launches was with them, but the FSA did not lie nearby.

    that's really a dream bot fellow
  14. Vasily Ponomarev 1 May 2020 09: 43 New
    • 9
    • 4
    +5
    Quote: Not a liberoid Russian
    one phrase about a purely private project space x betrayed the desire of the author of this opus to lick the mask ... maskedrocher? ps this fraudster himself admitted that he will receive subsidies and financing from Washington

    and doesn’t receive subsidies by Roskosm? where is roskosmovsky falcon9?
  15. Nikolaevich I 1 May 2020 09: 54 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    Think of trampolines! Vaughn Arthur Clarke in full anticipation offered elevators! yes
    1. Blackmokona 1 May 2020 09: 59 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      So elevators and now no one abandoned. One Japanese company threatens to do
    2. T.Henks 1 May 2020 10: 17 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Clark only scientifically fantasized a Soviet scientist. first put forward by the designer from Leningrad, Yuri Artsutanov.
    3. martin-159 1 May 2020 10: 40 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      No need to compare the shitty CEO and a good science fiction.
    4. Avior 1 May 2020 12: 58 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      The elevator was offered by Yuri Artsutanov
  16. Pvi1206 1 May 2020 10: 17 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    there would be a goal, and sooner or later a solution will be found ...
  17. vvp2412 1 May 2020 10: 27 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    and purely on private ground (example - SpaceX).

    Very interesting ... Private. With what fright is it purely private? If receives grandmas from the state? Just sawing money that way.
  18. Oyo Sarkazmi 1 May 2020 10: 37 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    They create an Atlas and Falcon-9 class rocket.
    There is Bezos with the same drive up. And this is the market with 20 launches per year ...
    Obviously a failed project, like the competition of Proton and the Angara.
    1. atalef 1 May 2020 11: 06 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      Quote: Oyo Sarkazmi
      Obviously a failed project, like the competition of Proton and the Angara.

      despite the fact that Proton is no longer there, and the Angara is not yet.
      1. Oyo Sarkazmi 1 May 2020 11: 38 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Both that, and that - are, and will be together 3 years. There is nothing to run ...
  19. didra 1 May 2020 10: 44 New
    • 3
    • 7
    -4
    For twenty years, the country "gigemon" has not created a manned ship, nor an engine ready for normal operation. So Ragozin is still right, if right now, then on trampolines.
    1. atalef 1 May 2020 11: 08 New
      • 8
      • 3
      +5
      Quote: didra
      So Ragozin is still right, if right now, then on trampolines.

      1. didra 1 May 2020 11: 32 New
        • 4
        • 3
        +1
        I am at home now. Not being a specialist in the space field and not claiming that there is no space industry in the USA, I want to draw your attention once again to the fact that: the USA cannot send a person into space guaranteed and right now., The USA was not created over the past 20 years, if I’m not mistaken, an engine that is comparable in terms of characteristics with engines of the 60s, the best of which are produced in Russia.
        1. kamui91 1 May 2020 11: 53 New
          • 1
          • 3
          -2
          The engine is the cause of the stupor of Russian space.
          It has record-breaking characteristics, yes - but it is too expensive and complicated.
          At NK someone said a terrific phrase - a rocket should possess economic, not mass perfection. But with Energomash this cannot be achieved in any way. And it’s not clear what to do now.
        2. voyaka uh 1 May 2020 12: 10 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Reusable engines are not designed as disposable ones.
          Toyota engine is different from the Formula 1 engine, although not worse in quality.
          Falcon-9 rocket engines do not exceed 60% of their maximum power in operation.
          Because they are designed for 10 launches, and not for one.
          Falcon-9 has nine engines. But even if three of them fail at the start,
          then the rocket will be able to reach a given orbit.
          For missiles with forced disposable engines, if at least one fails
          engine at launch - missile mission is canceled.
    2. Servisinzhener 1 May 2020 12: 22 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      The first manned launch of the Crew Dragon is scheduled for May 27. Plus on the way CST-100 Starliner and Orion.
      The prospects are not very joyful, especially considering how the creation of our new ship and missiles is moving towards it. It seems that the process is going on for the sake of the process. That was done simultaneously by the Angara and Rus-M missiles. Abandoned from the "Rus-M". A couple of years ago it turned out that the Angara was not particularly needed, but it was necessary to create the Union-5. The end and edge are not visible. Like the result.
  20. Maks1995 1 May 2020 10: 47 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Ah, all the garbage, except for honey !!)))
    And what not to fly on our engines, if they are already 3 times cheaper than them, and even ours managed to sell them at the same time cheaper than the cost ...

    In the meantime, Rogozin was “trampling”, China overtook us on launches, caught up with the USA, and we failed almost all of the new well-known space programs ... (for example, the return of the Russian Federation to the Moon was promised in 2015, and where is it ???).

    Of the successful well-known ones, only the launch of a telescope with the Europeans is recalled, and it seems like a miracle ... (at the last moment, uncharged batteries were discovered)
  21. kamui91 1 May 2020 11: 51 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    I don’t understand why the US needs so many missiles. Volcano, Omega, New Glenn, Falcon - why the heck is so much heavy?
    1. voyaka uh 1 May 2020 12: 13 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      A growing commercial satellite market. There is a demand for cheap boosters.
      And the competition began to boil among private traders.
  22. rotfuks 1 May 2020 12: 18 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    To draw conclusions based on American videos is to be a great optimist. So what, and they know how to shoot videos. Especially on the subject of space exploration. Only the rollers of conquering the moon with astronauts jumping on the moon are worth it. These astronauts jumping on the moon were so firmly stuck in the brain of several generations that even the originals of these videos shot in the pavilion and posted by the famous Wikileaks site did not convince many.
  23. aleks26 1 May 2020 12: 35 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    I would love to watch our Russian videos on this topic. But why aren't they. The notorious secrecy? Or is there nothing to shoot?

    The answer is simple.
    Everything is easier. This is pure pragmatism.

    And yes.
    But what secrecy is there, the president of the cartoon showed you about tireless nuclear reactors in the Kyrgyz Republic, about a submarine tractor.

    It was enough and video filming of real launches, real products, and not pathos launching cars into space. Someone specializes in commercials, and someone does not bother with advertising makes real products.
  24. thinker 1 May 2020 12: 48 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: rocket757
    Now just wait and see how they fulfill them.

    Yes, you can say - the moment of truth is approaching.
    27 May 2020 years NASA will send astronauts to the ISS from the launch pad at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The launch will take place at 16:32 Eastern time (23:32 Moscow time). The Falcon 9 rocket will deliver the Crew Dragon to the ISS with astronauts Doug Hurley and Bob Behnken.
  25. Old26 1 May 2020 13: 55 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Dreamboat
    If we focus on someone in space, it’s China. Here there is a clear development of astronautics with leaps and bounds and without bullshit advertising. The first place in launches was with them, but the FSA did not lie nearby.

    In fact, before making such statements, one must “know the materiel”. And the "materiel" says that since 2016 (that is, for 5 years, albeit not complete), the United States has "been lying nearby." At the same time, they share 1-2 places with China. And here is the last time we were the first in terms of the number of launches in 2015.
    2016 - USA -22, PRC-22, Russia -19
    2017 - USA -29, Russia - 20, China - 18
    2018 - PRC - 31, USA - 31 Russia - 20
    2019 - China -34, Russia - 25, Russia - 21
    2020 (as of May 1.05.2020, 9) - USA -8, China - 6, Russia - XNUMX
    So for 5 years, three times the Americans were the first in terms of the number of launches, twice - China.

    Quote: mikhailovich22
    At the moment, China and the United States have the same number of launches since the beginning of the year, only the United States has one failed and China has two. Although China is developing astronautics, it is still far from the United States. But with the manned program, the United States somehow did not work out.

    As of 1.05, the United States has 10 launches (including the joint US-New Zealand electron rocket), China has 8. And as for accidents, the United States has zero on May 1, and China has 2
    As for the manned program, the Americans were "crippled" by the cessation of flights of their "shuttles." And they had no other manned at that time ...

    Quote: Sergey39
    And at the same time they are stubbornly taking a step backwards - they are trying to create a new rocket, the initial step for going out into space.

    And what's wrong with the new rocket? So when we start to replicate new ones - Soyuz-5, Soyuz-6, Soyuz-7, Don, Irtysh, Angara - this is normal. But when the Americans are trying to create - this is a step back and the initial step to spacewalk. In addition, the Americans now have about 6-7 flying carriers ...

    Quote: donavi49
    Antares corpse. So far, 3 rockets have been paid yet. There is no further money. There is a high probability that there will be no more orders from NASA. According to the ISS supply program, NASA is the only rich Pinocchio that buys this rocket at such a price. After the final death of Orbital and all plans to upgrade the rocket (now the orbital is working on Omega) - Antares seems to have risen in price and will rise in price again. In general, it is already more profitable to transport a swan on the Atlas even for money.

    Well, actually, in the near future 4 launches are planned. One in 2020, two in 2021, at least one in 2022. And it is unlikely that Antares will become a corpse, since it is on this media that their transport ship Cygnus is displayed ...

    Quote: Oyo Sarkazmi
    I saw a good cut. Like, save the US astronautics, let's get 2 billion a year.
    We have Atlas from Boeing, Falcon from Space, Omega from Grumman, and NewGlen from Bezos. At 20-30 starts per year. For everyone.

    Yeah, and we have a step forward, or did he rap too? So many options for building rockets - Soyuz-5, Soyuz-6, Soyuz-7, Don, Irtysh, Angara. Why do we need so many when there are "Unions", "Protons"? Guys! Well, you should not consider your opponents rivals as complete suckers and like that - immediately suspect them of a cut. They very clearly know what they want and try to fulfill their Wishlist. Their program is long-term. Good or bad is another matter. But here we like the "Angara", then we do not like it and the creation of another complex begins. twitch like ...

    Quote: knn54
    The Yankees refused manned flights because they didn’t see the point. To maintain the skills of the astronauts, maintain the US “share” of the ISS, and solve certain problems, it’s enough to send a couple / three astronauts a year aboard the Russian Unions.
    Today, intelligible tasks have appeared, the Pentagon's INTEREST. How could Rogozin not jump ...

    Nikolay! Do not come up with something that does not correspond to reality. If the Americans refused manned flights, what for would they develop several types of ships and carriers? For all occasions, so to speak. Starting from commercial flights of tourists and ending with ships for the flight of astronauts, not only into orbit and the ISS, but also into the moon.

    Quote: Disant
    Well, yes, of course - at first they put a bunch of people on the shuttles, then they decided that it made no sense, but they would fly, so be it, on the back of the gas station

    A bunch of people? In fact, there were two catastrophes on the shuttles plus a catastrophe in the preparation and the death of 17 people. You can’t call it a bunch when they have under 4 hundreds of astronauts flying into space ... We died less during the preparation and conduct of flights (6) just because we did not have shuttles with a crew of 5-7 people

    Quote: mikhailovich22
    Russia has six spaceports, five in Russia itself and one in Kazakhstan

    Can I announce the whole list?
    1. slipped 1 May 2020 21: 30 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Yeah, and we have a step forward, or did he rap too? So many options for building rockets - Soyuz-5, Soyuz-6, Soyuz-7, Don, Irtysh, Angara. Why do we need so many when there are "Unions", "Protons"?


      And what about "Unions" - "Protons"? Soyuz-2 take off every month, but launches are also planned in May-June, but they wouldn’t have closed the GKTs and there would have been more launches. "Protons" will be released in quantities of more than a dozen missiles only for those orders that remained on them and their launch sites will be closed, since Kazakhstan has been doing this for so long.

      And about the "why", there is a simple scheme for Russian promising means of output with a weight distribution:



      and on this diagram, by the way already approved, everything is perfectly visible.

      To date, from the media shown in the diagram:

      Ultralight class - organized by the design bureau them. Bartini, there is a preliminary project of the rocket, embarking on development work. In 2023, the launch of the demonstrator.
      Angara - A1.2 - getting ready for operation in the year 2021. The aggregate module is being tested.
      Soyuz-LNG - development work is ongoing, we have begun to create a prototype of the 85-ton engine for LNG - RD-0177.
      Soyuz-6 - began to modernize the RD-180MV engine for installation on this medium.
      Soyuz-5 - started to begin bench tests of structural elements of the carrier. The RD-171MV engine is being developed, the creation of the second-stage engine RD-0124MS has begun.
      Angara - A5M - missile assembly will begin in the year 2023. The RD-191M engine is being developed. Production is being prepared. This year, the launch of the A5 version in the continuation of flight design tests of the carrier.
      Angara - A5V - launches of a missile with a hydrogen third stage are planned no earlier than 2026.
      STK - preparations are underway for the adoption of a preliminary design.
  26. bar
    bar 1 May 2020 14: 16 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    It is planned that this rocket will make its first space flight in the spring of 2021.

    From the first space flight to the first flight with humans, the distance is very decent.
  27. pexotinec 1 May 2020 18: 17 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Well, if the money from each sale of engines for premiums to managers was cut, and I think they divorced them in the corporation, hoo, then in 3000 in the Unions we will really fly only by ourselves.
  28. Torak 1 May 2020 19: 09 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    and purely on private ground (example - SpaceX).
    But this is a lie. More than half there is state funding through some kind of supermutual schemes. And Musk regularly reports on their implementation.
  29. lazy 2 May 2020 06: 35 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    if our grandmothers didn’t choose, then they would have to jump only on trampolines, and the liberda would not remember about trampolines, but cried that the “bad” Russians deprived the citizens of the “superpower” of access to space. in my opinion, in response to the American sanctions, it was necessary to deprive them of their seats on unions
  30. Reserve buildbat 2 May 2020 08: 23 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    "At one stage of the rocket engine test, a partial destruction of the nozzle occurred."
    And in the video you can see that at first there is a nozzle (a truncated cone) on the rocket, and then it is not there. Torn off ...
    But successfully laughing
  31. The comment was deleted.
  32. Dzafdet 3 May 2020 08: 30 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    What is space for us? We even forgot how to do a manual tool. Only assembly from parts made in China. The degradation is terrible. and it all started with the destruction of vocational schools and technical schools. Then we got to the institutes.