Foreign press about the ship Crew Dragon, losses of Russia and competitors of NASA


The manned spacecraft Crew Dragon successfully docked with the ISS. This event did not go unnoticed by the world media, but it gave conflicting assessments.


Historical The mission was called the event by the authors of The Guardian. The Los Angeles Times writes that NASA will no longer have to depend on Russia for the delivery of astronauts to the International Space Station. Moreover, the cost of such flights was always not cheap - 70-80 million dollars (previously they called an even higher price - 90 million dollars).

The publication also praised NASA's experience with commercial companies. Such practices, the Los Angeles Times are convinced, will open the way to the colonization of the Moon and Mars. The fact that nine years of US dependence on Russian "Unions" remained in the past, Bloomberg agency writes.

Kenneth Chang of The New York Times also draws attention to the fact that now it will be possible not to depend on Russia, and claims that after the astronauts the capsule will be able to deliver space tourists to space.

SpaceX became the first private company to accomplish a feat by putting people into orbit. Prior to this, only government agencies could do something similar,

- noted the author of The New York Times.


Marcin Kaczmarczyk from the Polish Gazeta is gloating over the consequences of the launch of Crew Dragon for the Russian space industry. After all, the delivery of American astronauts was a good means of making profit for Russia. However, many Polish readers are quite adequately tuned and remind that this is only the first flight of an American ship in many years, while Russia sent people into space on its ships all the time.

It’s not clear whether the Americans will be able to return safely,

- jokes one of the Polish readers.

The Chinese edition of Sohu draws attention to another, very interesting aspect of the flight. For the first time, the NASA monopoly was “hacked” by a private company, and for NASA this move posed certain risks.

Not only has NASA entrusted so much responsibility to a commercial organization, so even now, "private traders", it turns out, will be able to fly into space themselves. On the other hand, writes Sohu, NASA didn’t have much choice, given the strong desire to free itself from Russia in space missions.

Sina also writes about NASA's new idea - to ensure commercial competition in the space sector, which should increase the efficiency of its development. Actually, the story with the docking Crew Dragon showed it perfectly.

At the same time, Sina emphasizes:

It should be clear that although SpaceX completed its first flight first, this does not mean that SpaceX has formed a monopoly.

In fact, the very fact of a flight organized by a commercial company, and here the Chinese are right, can completely reformat the American space industry, integrating private business into it and making it more flexible and creative. But will Russia follow the US example? It seems that in our country, the state is not yet ready to allow private companies to intervene in such important not only for science, but also for the country's defense capabilities.
Author:
Photos used:
Twitter / Jim Bridenstine
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Same lech 1 June 2020 16: 59 New
    • 37
    • 12
    +25
    It seems that in our country, the state is not yet ready to allow private companies to intervene in such important not only for science, but also for the country's defense capabilities.

    It is impossible to compare the private business of Russia and the private business of the United States ... these are completely different polar formations, although they are on the same platform of capitalism ... a different story ... different attitude of the state towards it ... different goals and thinking of private traders in Russia and the United States.
    It is difficult to compare the Silicon Valley of the United States and Skolkovo of Russia ... the scale and achievements are completely incomparable.
    Unfortunately, the activities of Russian space organizations greatly disappointed me ... first of all, in terms of the scale of the tasks before them ... there are no ambitious and ambitious goals ... they began to think like that ... at the level of a day ... with the Royal Projects they no longer compete.
    1. Sling cutter 1 June 2020 17: 07 New
      • 42
      • 16
      +26
      Quote: The same Lech
      Unfortunately, the activities of Russian space organizations greatly disappointed me ... first of all, in terms of the scale of the tasks before them ... there are no ambitious and ambitious goals ... they began to think like that ... at the level of a day ... with the Royal Projects they no longer compete.

      Colleague, we in space have absolutely the same degradation as in other industries, look, for example, at the aircraft industry.
      Our state is not capable and not sharpened for development, only mantras for plebs about "without buildup".
      1. Overlock 1 June 2020 17: 15 New
        • 24
        • 8
        +16
        Quote: Stroporez
        we in space have absolutely the same degradation as in other industries, look, for example, at the aircraft industry.

        Listen, Stroporez!
        Who was and is at the helm!

        Dot! Tax collectors at the helm! What a development!
        1. sleeve 1 June 2020 19: 24 New
          • 11
          • 22
          -11
          Go forest with cinema these times did not teach to think.
      2. Amin_vivec 8 June 2020 05: 05 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        This is the horror of what is happening. The degradation is so strong that the Americans were able to build a spaceship similar to the one on which we have been flying since 1962, only now in 2020. And while using parts manufactured in Russia)))
        Aviation is generally horror. In the 90s, they did not build anything, but now every year we release 25-30 SSJ-100s ... We all collapsed !!!
    2. ultra 1 June 2020 17: 12 New
      • 19
      • 11
      +8
      We have the entire post-Soviet era, the space program consists of projections, only a few reach real realization. Ragozin is the apotheosis of projection and throwing empty words into the wind. Personally, I do not see our prospects in space, from an owl at all.
      1. military_cat 1 June 2020 17: 24 New
        • 25
        • 6
        +19
        Rogozin with his clownery serves as a lightning rod, diverting attention from the person who appointed him and his inability to give the industry any impetus for development.
      2. Alexander I 1 June 2020 17: 46 New
        • 21
        • 13
        +8
        While we are the only ones who can dock the apparatus to the ISS in less than 3 hours, all the others hang out for a day and this is the achievement of modern rockets, so no one stands still. Be more positive))).
        1. ultra 1 June 2020 17: 51 New
          • 34
          • 14
          +20
          Over the past 10 years, we have 5,5% of LV launch launches, worse only for Indians. The long-suffering Angara, for 22 years of development, only two test launches. Scientific space has long been dying. We live on the Soviet heritage, but it does not last forever. In what place should I be more positive?
          1. ccsr 1 June 2020 18: 32 New
            • 20
            • 24
            -4
            Quote: ultra
            Over the past 10 years, we have 5,5% of emergency launch vehicles,

            So let's compare what indicators Mask will have in ten years. And then you learned how to sing praises, although the Americans haven’t even returned to Earth on a new ship - maybe you shouldn’t curry favor with Mask for the first start like this?
            1. ultra 1 June 2020 20: 23 New
              • 16
              • 5
              +11
              I’m generally on the drum and Musk and the USA, I care about what is happening with us.
            2. viktor_ui 2 June 2020 07: 13 New
              • 6
              • 9
              -3
              In the next 10 years, I. Musk puts everyone in the trash, taking into account his specific goals in developing the Earth, Moon and Martian orbits and surfaces ... God forbid roskokosmos just survive without any sarcasm ... And in terms of efficiency, you just need to compare the number for people working for Rosskosmos and the space sector I. Mask - the difference in efficiency is simply deadly. I'm afraid that there will simply be nothing to compare stupidly or will cause a wry grin. One of the significant examples for you in terms of technological separation: How many external robotic manipulators on the ISS in the Russian segment and the rest INTERNATIONAL ??? Robonaut R2 and Canadarm-2 is for whom? Do we not need them, or do we have no similar technologies and corresponding goods for their use? AND SO WHERE WE DO NOT LOOK, we don’t want ... we don’t need ... no dough, they don’t sell us sanctions and other similar excuses. One person on the resource has already voiced an important idea - “WHEREOF” are “high-tech industries” led by “HUMANITARIES and other stomping managers?” This is a minimum of idiocy, which leads to stagnation with the subsequent collapse of everything and everything with an extremely rare exception at the level of error. It is already sore, and things are still getting deeper and deeper there.
              1. ccsr 2 June 2020 11: 53 New
                • 2
                • 4
                -2
                Quote: viktor_ui
                How many external robotic manipulators on the ISS in the Russian segment and the rest INTERNATIONAL ???

                Why do we need so many of them? It’s not hard to guess that not being able to create serious space systems, especially in the military sphere, Western countries pay all garbage for the ISS, and for us this is good - we need to invest less. What depresses you here if we have control over everything that goes there and is necessarily agreed with us?
                Quote: viktor_ui
                AND SO WHERE DO NOT YOU LOOK, we don’t want ... no need ... no dough,

                There really is not enough money, especially given the creation of new weapons, including hypersonic missiles - this is much more important for us than the entire Mask program.
                1. viktor_ui 2 June 2020 12: 16 New
                  • 4
                  • 4
                  0
                  Candelabra hinder bad dancers, but new technologies and robotic systems in particular on the ISS ... where is this wretched-avatar Fedor? Apparently, in my personal account, I started to indulge in idleness ... I had mastered the loot with window dressing and, God bless him, an lumberjack, apparently the Macedonian sterling and trips in the quadric at the station were definitely not useful and there was nothing to guard there no There is no money but you hold on ... even vaguely it reminds me. You are unconvincing in your arguments.
                  1. ccsr 2 June 2020 13: 32 New
                    • 5
                    • 3
                    +2
                    Quote: viktor_ui
                    Candelabra hinder bad dancers, and new technologies and robotic systems, in particular, on the ISS, are for us.

                    We have no money to develop manned space only at our own expense - Russia is not the USSR, put up with this.
                    Quote: viktor_ui
                    where is the misery-avatar Fedor? Apparently, in my personal account, I started to indulge in idleness ... I had mastered the loot with window dressing and, God bless him, an lumberjack, apparently the Macedonian sterling and trips in the quadric at the station were definitely not useful and there was nothing to guard there

                    I did not understand this set of words, so leave the crossword puzzle with you.


                    Quote: viktor_ui
                    You are unconvincing in your arguments.

                    Maybe. But you in your awesome comparisons look naive.
        2. Hagen 2 June 2020 07: 41 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: AlexanderI
          Be more positive))).

          There was no good for this "foreign land" ... wassat
        3. Whatman 7 June 2020 08: 05 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Americans could speed up the process. But, the ship performed test tasks, as it was the first flight with people.
          I understand your pain - there are less and less reasons for pride ...
      3. Svarog 1 June 2020 18: 22 New
        • 10
        • 12
        -2
        Quote: ultra
        Personally, I do not see our prospects in space, from an owl at all.

        I have the same opinion, but not only in space .. space is now getting farther from us .. but on the earth there are no prospects either .. positive naturally ..
      4. vadimtt 2 June 2020 10: 27 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: ultra
        Personally, I do not see our prospects in space, from an owl at all.

        There was still hope for Rosatom with a nuclear power plant, both for the orbital tugboat and for outer space. There are still chances, but Roscosmos is something completely ...
    3. Overlock 1 June 2020 17: 13 New
      • 27
      • 3
      +24
      Quote: The same Lech
      It is impossible to compare the private business of Russia and the private business of the United States ... these are completely opposite polar formations, although they are on the same platform of capitalism ...

      What is our capitalism? Is there any competition? - Not her. Who runs the corporations, smart ones? - No, kids or those close to the body themselves. What could be the result? -Zero. Therefore, we do not have capitalism, but the devil knows that they have come out of socialism, but they have not reached capitalism
      1. Ryaruav 1 June 2020 18: 29 New
        • 12
        • 4
        +8
        it would be better if we didn’t get out of socialism, but unfortunately it was no longer socialism but a degenerate dictatorship of cones which the USSR actually sold, but it’s so cheap that their stupidity is visible, like that of modern authorities
      2. ANB
        ANB 2 June 2020 09: 10 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        . Who runs the corporations, smart ones? - No, kids or those close to the body themselves. What could be the result? -Zero.

        This is not only the same with us.
        The rejection of socialism does not lead to automatic prosperity.
        Quite the contrary.
      3. ALARI 2 June 2020 15: 23 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        We have a clan system, with elements of feudalism.
    4. Svarog 1 June 2020 18: 20 New
      • 7
      • 9
      -2
      Quote: The same Lech
      finely they began to think somehow ...

      So the heads there are appropriate .. the thought process is not provided .. more precisely, it works in the direction of how to sniff something yourself ..
    5. Thor 1 June 2020 19: 39 New
      • 15
      • 6
      +9
      About "private launch" - this is rhetoric at the "suborbital" level) SpaceX was provided with Nasa resources, state contracts (in fact, financing) and tax benefits, so this is Nasa and the State Department)
      1. Mountain shooter 1 June 2020 20: 39 New
        • 10
        • 12
        -2
        Quote: Thor
        Nasa resources, government contracts (actually-financing) and tax breaks

        I agree, colleague. At 100. But the voice of reason is not quoted here. “It’s all gone,” they all lost, lost, sold, “stole ... Well, not all, I swear, not everything ... there was a bit left.
        Here is a space plasma engine. On my avatar laughing
    6. Deck 1 June 2020 19: 50 New
      • 10
      • 3
      +7
      One cannot compare the private business of Russia and the private business of the USA.


      Curious: The FBI and the Secret Service also cover and squeeze business? And the graduates of Quantico ride on heliks? Does anyone know?
    7. NordUral 1 June 2020 20: 12 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Small people have small thoughts. What is there to be surprised.
    8. iouris 1 June 2020 22: 00 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      Quote: The same Lech
      You can not compare the private business of Russia and the private business of the United States ...

      In general, probably yes. And what do you all know about who Musk is and how it works? In the United States, strictly speaking, the state does not have the right to engage in economic activity, so all kinds of private firms are required, which are a screen. Everything - propaganda and temptation to organize a brain drain in the United States.
    9. letinant 2 June 2020 04: 38 New
      • 4
      • 7
      -3
      It is impossible to compare the private business of Russia and the private business of the United States ... these are completely different polar formations, although they are on the same platform of capitalism ... a different story ... different attitude of the state towards it ... different goals and thinking of private traders in Russia and the United States.
      It is difficult to compare the Silicon Valley of the United States and Skolkovo of Russia ... the scale and achievements are completely incomparable.
      Unfortunately, the activities of Russian space organizations greatly disappointed me ... first of all, in terms of the scale of the tasks before them ... there are no ambitious and ambitious goals ... they began to think like that ... at the level of a day ... with the Royal Projects they no longer compete.

      Colleague, we in space have absolutely the same degradation as in other industries, look, for example, at the aircraft industry.
      Our state is not capable and not sharpened for development, only mantras for plebs about "without buildup".

      Without going into technical aspects (the USA has not flown into space on its own for 9 years, the ISS is built of modules for the manufacture of which the technical documentation of Russia is used and I can tell you a lot more). My question is, will you apologize to the citizens of the Russian Federation who believe in their space program. Who know more than you. And I can’t keep silent, in order to rise to the ISS, the Mask ship needs almost 19 hours and, accordingly, 8 turns. Russian rocket 3 hours and 3 turns.
      1. Ghost of reagan 3 June 2020 03: 38 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Who! Who ever said that the Dragon cannot fly 3 hours before the ISS? They said humanly at NASA that the 19-hour flight was a test flight, they drove the ship in orbit with a full “test drive” in the first manned flight. Well, humanly, the same thing was said at NASA! Why don’t you check the information, but simply believe in nonsense? It's not difficult, just go to the site, watch a video, see a flight plan, finally ask knowledgeable people. Do you hate the States so much that you are ready to believe, well, in frank delusions?
        1. letinant 3 June 2020 05: 50 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          Quote: Reagan's Ghost
          Who! Who ever said that the Dragon cannot fly 3 hours before the ISS? They said humanly at NASA that the 19-hour flight was a test flight, they drove the ship in orbit with a full “test drive” in the first manned flight. Well, humanly, the same thing was said at NASA! Why don’t you check the information, but simply believe in nonsense? It's not difficult, just go to the site, watch a video, see a flight plan, finally ask knowledgeable people. Do you hate the States so much that you are ready to believe, well, in frank delusions?

          Well, if it’s nonsense for you, the words of a person preparing for the next crew of the Dragon. Then, it's OK.
          1. Ghost of reagan 3 June 2020 14: 59 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Who exactly? I’m just wondering who said that? Drop a video or interview. You are discrediting yourself with your comments. Then you will not be taken seriously if you are lying frankly.
            1. letinant 3 June 2020 15: 09 New
              • 0
              • 3
              -3
              Quote: Reagan's Ghost
              Who exactly? I’m just wondering who said that? Drop a video or interview. You are discrediting yourself with your comments. Then you will not be taken seriously if you are lying frankly.
              Torment yourself, I have to spit on you. And in your opinion, even more.
              1. Ghost of reagan 3 June 2020 20: 14 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Merged into the net. Such as you is a disease of the site IN !!!!!!!!
                1. letinant 4 June 2020 00: 46 New
                  • 0
                  • 2
                  -2
                  Quote: Reagan's Ghost
                  Merged into the net. Such as you is a disease of the site IN !!!!!!!!

                  Reagan, feel better?
    10. Grading 2 June 2020 05: 16 New
      • 8
      • 7
      +1
      Elon Musk even remembered the tweet of the Director General of Roscosmos Dmitry Rogozin, who in 2014 suggested the United States "deliver its astronauts to the ISS using a trampoline." Rogozin yesterday tried to make a good face with a bad game and said that a tweet about a trampoline was a real threat from Russia, and the United States heard it.

      I think our historians will one day write a whole book about how Dmitry Rogozin saved the American space program with his tweets and saved the United States from national disgrace, NASA from disbandment, and Ilon Mask from bankruptcy.
      But what are we all about Americans? Let's see how things are in the first space power in the last 30 years. And the former engineer of the Space Center named after him will tell us about this. Khrunicheva Ilya Kharlamov:
      1. Russia flies on the Soyuz ship, which was still made by Korolev (died in 1966). That neoplasm called "RF" has nothing to do with all of this - in 30 years it has done nothing at all.
      2. Under Yeltsin, they barely managed to complete the Soviet long-term construction project Mir-2 and launch it as the “ISS Russian Segment”. Under Putin, they did not do anything new at all.
      3. There were good projects - new ships of the Dawn / Federation / Clipper / Ferry / Eagle for the Zenit rocket. The Zenith launch vehicle is good for everyone - except for one - it is produced by our worst enemy Ukraine, so all this was doomed even before the Crimea, and now even more so.
      4. In 2003, I came to the Khrunichev Plant in the hope of raising Russian Space ...

      5. At Khrunichev, I was offered a salary of a space engineer of about $ 100, while at McDonalds across the road they offered $ 250 to the toilet polisher.
      6. There is the so-called "Curse of five hundred dollars." In the early 2000s, Russian cosmonautics could save $ 500 salary. Now nothing will save her, and the problem is no longer in the money. Read reviews about working there: one, two.

      7. Particularly patriotic citizens, probably think that since we had Gagarin, Russia is now in an honorable second place in space. So, in 2012, with oil $ 150, we planned to enter the top three space powers by 2030.

      8. Five in 2030 in space will be something like this:
      1) USA
      2) China
      3) EU
      4) Japan
      5) India
      We will compete with Brazil and Israel, but not with the leading countries (2030 is very soon, Putin’s current presidential term will not end yet).
      9. What is the main project of Roskosmos now? That's right - the construction of a 200-meter office in the form of a Rocket with a shopping center, apartments and a cable car.
      10. When the ISS began, it was a joint project: Ours sometimes flew in shuttles, Americans sometimes in the Unions. In 2003, a tragedy occurred - the disaster of the shuttle Columbia. What did Roskosmos do? Increased the price tag for the transport of Americans from $ 20 million to $ 70 million.
      11. The head of Roscosmos Rogozin, a journalist by education, and a press secretary by behavior. I wouldn’t even trust him to file wrenches.
      12. Often you hear - “we launched Gagarin, we launched Mir, Buran, etc.” Who are we? It was a different country, the joint work of 15 republics, with a different entity, with a different economic system, a different administration, a different military acceptance - everything else.
      13. In 2001-2002, the same Elon Musk came to the Russian Federation several times to buy R-36 missiles decommissioned under the disarmament program (incidentally, the production is Ukrainian Yuzhmash, Dnepr). Offered joint ventures ...
      14. .. according to our official version - he is lying and did not come. According to an unofficial one, the generals heard that he went to the cache after the sale of PayPal and wanted too much of his "paw" ...
      15. Missiles, then, of course, disposed of. But Musk realized that if such stupid people can make rockets, then he can try too.
      16. "If we had our own Elon Musk, he would still wind up for PayPal." In Russia, there were also private, young, non-state-owned space companies - Dauria Aerospace, Lin Industrial and others. You probably already guess what happened next ...

      17. Salaries 2020. The $ 500 curse still hasn’t been released in 20 years. But there are achievements - an engineer gets more than a cook for as much as 2000 rubles!
      18. The same SpaceX salaries are from about 800 thousand to 1 million rubles per month.
      19. The salary of the director of NASA $ 232K - about one and a half times higher than the salary of an engineer.
      20. Rogozin's salary - $ 450K - is about 2 times higher than the director of NASA and about 120 times higher than the salary of a Russian engineer.

      21. Those who enjoy watching “Channel 1” and other psychotropic substances know how “Americans buy the world's best Russian RD-180 engines.” That we, as it were, do mercy and sell to the near American Americans excellent examples of Russian technology ...
      22. ... RD-180 is a half of RD-170 from Buran / Energy (the beginning of work - 1976). Created in the Yeltsin years as part of Am-Ros cooperation. The Americans have all the documentation and rights to this engine, and they can do it at home, but for some reason they don’t want it, and you will soon find out why ...
      23. RD-170/180 - a masterpiece of Soviet technical art of the 80s. Like any masterpiece, it is very moody and expensive. For example, any piece of human skin inside causes a fire and explosion.
      It is expensive even for Americans, and for our budget it is simply too heavy. But there is a solution:
      24. That is, in the Yeltsin years, with American money, the Russian Federation cut the Soviet engine in half, sells for half the price, is proud of it, but at the same time threatens America that it will cease. What does all this mean - probably already they do not understand neither we nor.
      25. One of the most complex and unsolvable technical problems in the cosmonautics of the Russian Federation is ... the legacy of the tsarist regime. No kidding...
      26. ... when Baikonur stayed in Kazakhstan, New Russia needed a New Cosmodrome. They thought about building it for a long time, there were many options, they designed it for about 15 years, the managers came, quit, received bonuses. Finally, we came up with, found a place, and shockly built, well, you remember ...

      27. ... suddenly it turned out that the plants that could manufacture the rocket are located either in the European part of Russia or in the Far East, and the New Vostochny Cosmodrome is connected to the plants only with tunnels of the trans-Siberian era of Tsar Nicholas II ...
      28. ... i.e. it is impossible to deliver a rocket with a diameter larger than the royal tunnels to the cosmodrome; it does not physically fit. The tunnels built in 1890-1915 are thousands of kilometers away and even the USSR could not afford to expand them ...

      29. ... Americans carry missiles along rivers, the ocean, or along the famous American highways. We have problems with the ocean and highways ...
      30. The new Martian ship Ilona Mask- 9m. China's new lunar rocket - diameter 10m. But we need to fit the rocket into such a dimension (3.9m) and a point. The Soyuz rocket (1957) fits there, but physically we cannot compete with Vostochny with China and the USA. To build another spaceport?

      Original https://twitter.com/ilyakharlamov/status/1266821702216028162
      1. Wedmak 2 June 2020 06: 23 New
        • 8
        • 12
        -4
        To honor you, everything, kitten, everything is ruined, stolen and sprinkled with ashes. Well, to the last resort to sell everything remaining for next to nothing in India, and return back to the caves by ourselves. Not?
        Let’s take the situation adequately:
        1. The fact that the Mask rocket flew to the ISS does not mean anything. Just the Americans returned to the orbit delivery segment. And they still need to prove the safety of their ship.
        2. Prices for flights increased accordingly to costs and the economic situation; one should not blame the Russian Federation for trying to make money on a monopoly. And do not forget such a touching feature of the United States as the imposition of sanctions on everything that makes them at least some kind of competition. They drank a lot of blood for us.
        3. The Union Queen and the Union are now two different ships with almost the same appearance. How can a spacecraft engineer not know this?
        4. RD-180, if the States wanted, they would have created the production of this engine, they had all the cards in their hands. But for some reason it did not grow together. And don’t talk about dear, their Raptor is not much cheaper, they also invested in development. And if we sold it for half the price, it means working at a loss - something I doubt the inadequacy of the management of the core plant.
        5. About the five space powers in the 30th year ... well, funny, yes: if the United States can do something else, then the rest ... India was especially touched.
        6. Suddenly, the Vostochny was built away from the factories not because it was a diversion, but because it was the southernmost point of the Russian Federation with a safe launch trajectory. Why didn’t you mention Kura in this context? It’s also in forest slums and missiles are delivered there not in the easiest way.
        7. The Angara project was based on URM, which could be docked to obtain the required load capacity, and not because the blocks do not enter the tunnels. It would have to have a larger diameter, delivered in parts and collected on the spot, what problems.
        8. The Mars Mask is still far stomp, a little closer to the moon to China. And a manned flight to these goals is far from both. So now measured by diameters is stupid.
        9. And the last: everyone knew that the United States would jump out of boots, but would make its own ship to deliver people to the ISS. Ok, done. Despite Dragon's outward appeal, the United States only returned to where it left off, leaving the Shuttles on the ground. Nothing breakthrough and supernatural happened. And even rolled back, I would say, because Shuttles were more versatile.
        The United States has not flown on its ships for 9 years, let's see what Roskosmos will give out over the same 9 years. And then we will measure the spacecraft.
        1. ccsr 2 June 2020 12: 13 New
          • 3
          • 4
          -1
          Quote: Wedmak
          3. The Union Queen and the Union are now two different ships with almost the same appearance. How can a spacecraft engineer not know this?

          Apparently the engineer was still ...
          Quote: Wedmak
          And they still need to prove the safety of their ship.

          Absolutely, and not the fact that everything will go well, given that reusability in itself reduces the reliability of the entire system.
          Quote: Wedmak
          RD-180, if the States wanted, they would have created the production of this engine, they had all the cards on hand. But for some reason it did not grow together.

          They simply did not pull it, because they would have to create a new production under it, and it was too expensive.
          Quote: Wedmak
          About the five space powers in the 30th year ... well, funny, yes: if the United States can still do something, then the rest ... India was especially touched.

          This is left to the conscience of the author - apparently what kind of engineer he was, the same soothsayer.
          Quote: Wedmak
          Suddenly, Vostochny was built away from the factories not because it was a diversion, but because it was the southernmost point of the Russian Federation with a safe launch trajectory.

          And an important fact is the navigable river Zeya, which will allow delivering on barges what they could not deliver to Baikonur by rail.
          Quote: Wedmak
          Nothing breakthrough and supernatural happened. And even rolled back, I would say, because Shuttles were more versatile.

          I completely agree - this is exactly what the current flight of the Mask ship looks like.
      2. MMX
        MMX 2 June 2020 19: 12 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        At VO, the degradation of visitors is true. On the whole branch 3-4 adequate comments, and the rest is darkness or pink snot on the Mask.
        Here the character dashed off a whole sheet (copy-paste?), And the sense and awareness of zero.
        I’m more interested in the facts. For example, what is the payback period of Dragon? Is there such information?
        Or, for example, will NASA continue to use the services of Roscosmos? If so, why?
        Why is a competing Boeing using RD-180 engines?
        There are many interesting things.
        The launch of the Mask for Roscosmos did not come as a surprise, and certainly there is no fatal situation for us. They flew on our ships for 9 years and nothing, no one said that NASA is a backward office, and the United States is not a space TOP power.
        But we immediately went through the pipes ...
        1. ruivit1988 4 June 2020 06: 21 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Here the problem is different, there is danger, but it is, I would say it’s tangible that we will be left without manned space exploration. The fact is that the ISS can flood in 24 years. And they will build a new station but only without us! The fact that Ragozin promises there, but he promised a lot. So what am I talking about, so then he will promise a new national space station. They won’t build it for sure, since we cannot even complete one unfortunate module for thirty years. So the existence of the Russian manned space program is in question.
    11. Nosgoth 2 June 2020 17: 09 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      And where does the private business? From the US government, the military and NASA, the company was sold and the swindler Mask received funding in the amount of more than $ 2,5 billion, and even rocket technology from NASA. Wow so "private" company ...
      1. MMX
        MMX 2 June 2020 19: 14 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: Nosgoth
        And where does the private business? From the US government, the military and NASA, the company was sold and the swindler Mask received funding in the amount of more than $ 2,5 billion, and even rocket technology from NASA. Wow so "private" company ...


        As for me, it's so obvious that Musk is an affiliate.
  2. Mouse 1 June 2020 17: 01 New
    • 5
    • 4
    +1
    will open the way to the colonization of the Moon and Mars

    The next step will be ...
    But will they sway them ...
    to the moon, you see, Mars?
    1. iouris 1 June 2020 22: 01 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Quote: Mouse
      The next step will be ...

      Exactly: they’ll go on foot.
    2. tagil 2 June 2020 11: 40 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      On the MOON, it is unlikely without us.
      The problems with the creation of the American lunar launcher were obvious for a long time, and NASA constantly expressed its willingness to cooperate with Russian engineers. The publication of the March report by the NASA inspector general put an end to the hopes of the Americans to create reliable media for space exploration programs.

      In January 2019, Dmitry Rogozin announced that NASA was asking the Russian side to develop a version of the Soyuz spacecraft that could fly to the moon in order to create a second backup transport system.
  3. Break through 1 June 2020 17: 05 New
    • 14
    • 16
    -2
    Let them fly not a pity. We always flew. This was their break for 9 years. In the world there are only three cosmic powers sending people into space.
    1. ALARI 2 June 2020 15: 41 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      We ONLY FLYED and then more for the money of the USA. Virtually no scientific activity was conducted. Sensors on FOREIGN platforms is not a science. Our Science is still on the earth and no one knows when it will fly. Now everything will be the same, but without commercial recharge, and then they will stop buying engines. It’s easy to fly, because we can (without obtaining at least scientific data) be unprofitable.
  4. Pvi1206 1 June 2020 17: 05 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    there was information that our company S7 is working in the field of space development ... a number of leading specialists from RosKosmos went there ...
    1. ultra 1 June 2020 17: 15 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      Quote: Pvi1206
      a number of leading experts from RosKosmos went there ...

      It would be nice if everyone went there along with the empty Ragozin.
      1. nPuBaTuP 1 June 2020 17: 28 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        together with the empty ones Ragozin

        Without it, only ..... send it to the Mask .... to practice ....
    2. unaha 1 June 2020 17: 20 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      S7 had quite decent chances for commercial launches of zeniths, but politics intervened here ... But there are no suitable rockets yet. Will they do the most important thing - when, the big question.
      "It seems that in our country, the state is not yet ready to allow private companies to intervene in areas that are so important not only for science, but also for the country's defense capabilities." - And what is the actual difference, who will put the satellite into orbit, a state or private company?
      1. nPuBaTuP 1 June 2020 17: 29 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        S7 had quite decent chances for commercial launches of zeniths, but politics intervened here ...
        this is when politics intervened there? .... clarify ....
        1. Blackmokona 1 June 2020 18: 06 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          When the S7, despite the promises of Rosskosmos, was not allowed to deliver jet engines from Russia to equip the Ukrainian Zeniths to launch them into space. They even tried to crank up the deal, with the final assembly in the United States, so as not to supply anything to Ukraine itself. But also did not pass.
          1. nPuBaTuP 1 June 2020 18: 13 New
            • 2
            • 4
            -2
            Just do not have a blame on a healthy blame ....
            were not allowed to deliver jet engines from Russia to complete the Ukrainian Zeniths
            Missiles were always delivered to Baikonur and there they were already equipped with engines ..... for Launch Launch was Sea Launch assembly was there ...... so why did you have to send engines to dill?
            1. Blackmokona 1 June 2020 18: 18 New
              • 3
              • 2
              +1
              It has always been done on Yuzhmash as I recall. In any case, it does not matter, the S7 engines did not receive even in the absence of scuffing send them to Yuzhmash.
              1. nPuBaTuP 1 June 2020 18: 19 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                It has always been done on Yuzhmash as I recall.
                That's right .... the cigar was made there .... and then it was taken either to Baikonur or See Launh where they made the final assembly ....
    3. NordUral 1 June 2020 20: 16 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      I looked. And here is the effective manager ?:
      S7 Group announces the appointment of Rano Juraeva to the position of Director General of S 7 Space Transport Systems (S7 Space) LLC since March 31, 2019. The decision on the appointment was made by the company's board of directors in connection with the expiration of the powers of the former CEO Sergei Sopov.

      http://s7space.ru/news/rano-dzhuraeva-naznachena-generalnym-direktorom-s7-space/
    4. Mountain shooter 1 June 2020 20: 42 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      Quote: Pvi1206
      there was information that our company S7 is working in the field of space development ... a number of leading specialists from RosKosmos went there.

      The right information.
    5. ALARI 2 June 2020 15: 46 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      S7 needs a rocket for a surface launch, but it is not. When a rocket appears with our development speed, I’m afraid the sea launch will not be able to go into the ocean. I would like to be mistaken but
  5. Thrifty 1 June 2020 17: 07 New
    • 9
    • 3
    +6
    Yeah, Gazprom will finance the launch of the Transgaz ship, which will lay a pipe from Russia to Germany through an orbit fool Only on such afero-like actions can Russia get a “private” spaceship ...
    1. Overlock 1 June 2020 17: 17 New
      • 16
      • 5
      +11
      Quote: Thrifty
      Gazprom will finance the launch of the Transgaz ship, which will lay a pipe from Russia to Germany through an orbit

      Gazprom is in debt, like silk. Putin will soon be asking for support
  6. knn54 1 June 2020 17: 11 New
    • 7
    • 10
    -3
    - It’s still not clear whether the Americans can return safely,
    one of the Polish readers jokes.
    This is not a joke. The operation of undocking and returning to the ground is more difficult than the start.
    1. nPuBaTuP 1 June 2020 17: 31 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Marcin Kachmarchik from the Polish Gazeta

      These are the Poles :))))
    2. ultra 1 June 2020 17: 54 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      Quote: knn54
      -It is still not clear whether the Americans will be able to return safely.

      To be honest, these are their problems, and we need to deal with our own.
  7. begemot20091 1 June 2020 17: 12 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    Quote: Pvi1206
    there was information that our company S7 is working in the field of space development ... a number of leading specialists from RosKosmos went there ...

    I know not from Roskosmos. My companion is in Canada and his brother is on Cape Canaveral. Ballistic.
  8. Courier 1 June 2020 17: 14 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    About this flight, I wanted to listen to a professional review in Russian, at least somewhere. But he is not. There is only "politics." And from the liberal side, and from the conservative.

    Alas, it looks like the United States will take near-Earth orbit with a swarm of its satellites, put the station in lunar orbit and begin the systematic launch of weapons into space. The United States will have the most carriers, more weapons in space, more spaceships and even more satellites.
  9. Razvedka_Boem 1 June 2020 17: 14 New
    • 10
    • 4
    +6
    Talk about the real success of Crew Dragon, it will be possible only after a dozen flights without incident.
    Moreover, NASA generously shared its various resources with I. Mask.
    Or it is possible that in the person of Mask, NASA is conducting its tests.
    There will be a failure - this Musk failed.
    Everything will be fine - NASA is in the black.
    Wait and see.
    1. Crowe 1 June 2020 17: 37 New
      • 21
      • 8
      +13
      Yes, it's too early to say.
      That's when they launch the device to the moon, then we'll talk.
      That's when they learn to land a ship without parachutes, then we'll talk.
      That's when they launch Red Dragon, then we'll talk.
      That's when he sits on Mars, then we'll talk.
      That's when they make their Martian transport, then we'll talk.
      That's when people will land on Mars, then we'll talk.
      That's when the colonization of Mars, then we'll talk.
      1. Razvedka_Boem 20 June 2020 20: 32 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Yes, it's too early to say.
        That's when they launch the device to the moon, then we'll talk.
        That's when they learn to land a ship without parachutes, then we'll talk.
        That's when they launch Red Dragon, then we'll talk.
        That's when he sits on Mars, then we'll talk.
        That's when they make their Martian transport, then we'll talk.
        That's when people will land on Mars, then we'll talk.
        That's when the colonization of Mars, then we'll talk.


        How is it in orbit?
        Planned return delayed by how much?
    2. ccsr 1 June 2020 18: 43 New
      • 9
      • 7
      +2
      Quote: Razvedka_Boem
      Wait and see.

      You correctly described the situation - this is how NASA behaves after the crash of two shuttles. Then there was a scandal, which is why the leaders of this government agency decided to go aside, and therefore a tricky scheme was invented with Mask, who received technology and part of the funding from NASA, but at the same time, a private company was supposedly doing all this. Naturally, the footage that passed from NASA to Mask and allowed him to develop a new medium, because from scratch he would not have developed one step - that's what I'm sure of.
      1. ALARI 2 June 2020 15: 54 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        In our country, Korolev also used von Braun's achievements, when he did both R-5 and R-7. Just don’t say that he didn’t see the FAU-2 in his eyes. I didn’t use it, he put it all together and this is now in orbit with people, although very many considered it nonsense.
        1. ccsr 2 June 2020 19: 48 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: ALARI
          In our country, Korolev also used von Braun's achievements, when he did both R-5 and R-7.

          Yes, to create a new generation of rocket technology, we had to use German developments, just like the Americans did. But Korolev surpassed F. Brown in development, and we were able to take the first person into space under the most difficult conditions.
          Quote: ALARI
          I didn’t use it, he put it all together and this is now in orbit with people, although very many considered it nonsense.

          Bullshit in this case, compare the FAU-2 with the East.
  10. credo 1 June 2020 17: 14 New
    • 9
    • 12
    -3
    [/quote†....In fact, the very fact of a flight organized by a commercial company, and here the Chinese are right, can completely reformat the American space industry, integrating private business into it and making it more flexible and creative. But will Russia follow the US example? It seems that in our country, the state is not yet ready to allow private companies to intervene in areas that are so important not only for science, but also for the country's defense capability .... [quote]

    What a muddy story with the "successful businessman Ilon Mask" and his commercial projects. And frankly, there are huge doubts about the creation of spacecraft from scratch by an allegedly commercial company. It seems that the special services and NASA and the strengths of the American world, as well as government finances, had a hand in the work of the Mask, because for years to experience space technology and suffer constant failures, but at the same time not feel constrained in money, only a commercial company that has unlimited credit in the form of a state budget.
    1. nPuBaTuP 1 June 2020 17: 34 New
      • 0
      • 10
      -10
      It seems that the special services and NASA and the strengths of the American world, along with public finances, had a hand in the activities of the Mask.

      There is such a series "Sheldon’s Childhood" ..... and so there in one of the series and tells where the success of Elon Mask ......
    2. military_cat 1 June 2020 17: 41 New
      • 9
      • 5
      +4
      Quote: credo
      experience space technology for years and endure constant failures
      Your picture of SpaceX's activity is not entirely adequate. It is clear that it is more pleasant and comfortable to consume from the appropriate resources. Only then such awkward moments arise when you have to urgently seek an explanation of how the fraudster and the charlatan had worse things to go nowhere, and all of a sudden it suddenly ended with worthy success.
      1. credo 1 June 2020 17: 58 New
        • 3
        • 5
        -2
        Quote: military_cat
        Quote: credo
        experience space technology for years and endure constant failures
        Your picture of SpaceX's activity is not entirely adequate. It is clear that it is more pleasant and comfortable to consume from the appropriate resources. Only then such awkward moments arise when you have to urgently seek an explanation of how the fraudster and the charlatan had worse things to go nowhere, and all of a sudden it suddenly ended with worthy success.

        No need to juggle with what is not in my written statement, namely, about a fraudster and a charlatan. I just know that if there is a design bureau in the commercial structure that is engaged in promising and expensive developments, then all the expenses for these developments are taken from the profits of the main business and in no other way, except for one case - if the state budget finances these expenses or wealthy sponsor (shareholder).
        And if something doesn’t suit you in my picture of the presentation of SpaceX financing, then you can adequately correct me without going to inappropriate hints.
        1. Blackmokona 1 June 2020 18: 08 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          No, private companies easily and unconstrainedly receive investments for their business plans if investors in the person, funds, oligarchs and others see this as an opportunity to make money. And Musk himself with big money was at the beginning of the SpaceX project recently selling his share in PayPal
          1. credo 1 June 2020 18: 32 New
            • 4
            • 3
            +1
            Quote: BlackMokona
            No, private companies easily and unconstrainedly receive investments for their business plans if investors in the person, funds, oligarchs and others see this as an opportunity to make money. And Musk himself with big money was at the beginning of the SpaceX project recently selling his share in PayPal

            The fact of the matter is that money alone, even if there is so much that the chickens do not peck, cannot provide the commercial structure with access to a fairly closed market for space exploration directly related to the country's defense capabilities, therefore, to gain access to such things even in such a a liberal and democratic "country like the United States, you need to have very good ties both in the military department and in the intelligence community and in NASA. So I very much doubt that we are facing another American child prodigy who made himself. Anglo-Saxons mastaki to hide the true background of such "successful" companies, this is a fact. Well, how’s it going further with SpaceX we’ll see. Although I am more concerned about the activities of Roscosmos.
            1. Blackmokona 1 June 2020 18: 33 New
              • 3
              • 2
              +1
              Absolutely not necessary. You take people from bankrupt companies and you recruit students. You develop all the necessary technologies either on your own or buy on the side the necessary mechanisms and materials. So that is all
            2. military_cat 1 June 2020 20: 48 New
              • 2
              • 3
              -1
              Quote: credo
              Anglo-Saxon Mastaki hide the true background

              That’s exactly why I didn’t even try to answer. Because I understand perfectly well that no matter what I say, no matter what facts I give, the answer will be that this is an Anglo-Saxon cover operation.
              1. credo 2 June 2020 14: 16 New
                • 0
                • 2
                -2
                Quote: military_cat
                Quote: credo
                Anglo-Saxon Mastaki hide the true background

                That’s exactly why I didn’t even try to answer. Because I understand perfectly well that no matter what I say, no matter what facts I give, the answer will be that this is an Anglo-Saxon cover operation.

                So you have not brought a single fact, but already upset. Your "arguments" from the series - "I know, but I will not say." That’s all the “arguments”.
    3. donavi49 1 June 2020 19: 22 New
      • 10
      • 1
      +9
      And to be honest, there are huge doubts about creating spaceships from scratch as a supposedly commercial company


      Here you have an engine and a rocket created from scratch. At the helm of Peter Beck.

      At 15 years old, he collected great from luminium. At 18, he equipped it with rocket engines (of his own design) and tried to kill himself in New Zealand. It didn’t work out. But it accelerated to 150km / h. Then he worked in New Zealand, in the laboratory. But dreamed of space and rockets. As a result, a bold startup took off - at first they scored 300 thousand. Then, having a prototype engine, developments in technology collected about 150 million on the launch pad, production, the rocket itself, scaling, etc. Today, a successful commercial rocket company worth $ 5,7 billion. Which opens the second launch pad, already in the USA, launches new products (Photon) on the market and is looking for how to increase efficiency (return of the stage, missile modernization program, which was launched last year).




      It’s just that Beck and Musk were the first to succeed (and a dozen more innovators raised money and dissolved / failed). Now the second generation is breathing on the approach - Fireflies, Bezos, Branson with their private systems. They already have a flight this year / next year / first file this year, now they are actively filling up the problem and repeating (Branson generally had a Napoleonic 5 launch plan for this year). At the same time, there is already the next generation who burst into the topic amid hype and is now collecting money for even more crazy projects.
  11. pereselenec 1 June 2020 17: 44 New
    • 11
    • 2
    +9
    In fact, the very fact of a flight organized by a commercial company, and here the Chinese are right, can completely reformat the American space industry, integrating private business into it and making it more flexible and creative. But will Russia follow the US example? It seems that in our country, the state is not yet ready to allow private companies to intervene in such important not only for science, but also for the country's defense capabilities.


    Why so? Private companies of various Prigogine, Usmanov, Sechin, Vekselberg, Chubais, Srdyukov and other chicks of Putin’s nest, IMHO, will gladly intervene in such important areas.
  12. gvozdan 1 June 2020 17: 48 New
    • 7
    • 11
    -4
    It is unclear why so much noise. Saying that Spaceics itself launched a man to the ISS is like saying that before that, Rogozin personally launched American cosmonauts.
    1. Blackmokona 1 June 2020 18: 09 New
      • 8
      • 1
      +7
      Is Rogozin already the general designer of the Union? laughing
      1. iouris 1 June 2020 23: 08 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        It's impossible. He is the domestic Musk!
  13. edeligor 1 June 2020 18: 15 New
    • 7
    • 11
    -4
    For the first time, NASA's monopoly was “hacked” by a private company
    Do not tell my tomatoes !!! Most likely I agree with the opinion expressed earlier, NASA was afraid of failure. And by the amount of funds poured in and the technology transferred to Ilon Mask, this offspring can hardly be called a private commercial project ... well, if only spacesuits))) Moreover, I do not understand the irony of Mask over the “Unions”, saying that Korolev is turned over in his grave. Dragon engine from where? In short, a lot of noise from nothing. If only the brothers in the next ecstasy clogged up ... It would be ridiculous if the last Empire of our planet could not create an orbital vehicle and delivery vehicle. Honestly, this offspring is not by parent.
    1. Blackmokona 1 June 2020 18: 21 New
      • 8
      • 2
      +6
      The engines Draco and Super Draco on Dragons are developed by SpaceX.
      There are fewer and fewer injected funds in the entire history of the development of manned spacecraft from NASA.
      No one can ever name technologies, at least one transferred.
    2. donavi49 1 June 2020 19: 09 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Spending on a manned commercial program:
      Boeing - 4,820.9 plus one more 187 million in unexpected spending in 2019 - The report, published Thursday by NASA's Office of Inspector General, also said that the space agency unnecessarily allocated $ 187 million to Boeing.
      SpaceX - 3,144.6

      Wherein:
      Boeing did a bunch of tests on the computer (more than 15%) - which made Mask do it real.
      At the same time, the Boeing is still not ready for manned flights.
      At the same time, Starliner + Atlas is more expensive than Falcon + Dragon.


      You can also recall the DreamChaser. Which NASA tried to throw, but they went to court and threw NASA. wassat
      Now they are trump cards in CRS-2 - a contract for 6 flights. Moreover, they are vigorously planning to immediately fly to Vulcan and deliver 5 tons of cargo at a time to the ISS (No. 2 after the Japanese megabar Kounotori, which carries 6 tons with a small ton).

      And Bezos will still be born with his rocket, on his own methane engines next year (or not, but concrete work is already underway there, and the engine actually shot at the tests).
  14. mvg
    mvg 1 June 2020 18: 24 New
    • 4
    • 7
    -3
    I ran through the article twice, and I didn’t understand the meaning ... The author burns, in the sense of pouring water, as usual .. But he is an erudite. Articles on any topic: like Armament, like Analytics or News, or, as an option, Space. But the result is the same. Two pair boots ... without specific pseudonyms.
  15. Kind Dec 1 June 2020 18: 58 New
    • 6
    • 5
    +1
    Here's how an American manages to make a sensation out of the long-known “bullshit”? And to present it as if nobody had ever done such a thing before them? America again became a country flying to space? In a sense, this is an exaggeration. Rather, she regained the function of a low-orbit taxi. The first Americans flew into space in the world, and there they were met by the Russians on the ISS.
  16. Operator 1 June 2020 19: 43 New
    • 8
    • 18
    -10
    The fact that the United States in 2020 reached the level of the USSR fifty years ago is really a reason to crap from happiness laughing
  17. Pvi1206 1 June 2020 20: 44 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    Rogozin - PR instead of rockets ...
  18. ser56 1 June 2020 21: 13 New
    • 7
    • 10
    -3
    I do not really understand fanfare - over 9 years they repeated the achievement of 60 years ago bully
    The cool part is that the need for both the ISS and the permanent presence in orbit in general is not obvious. request Most practical tasks make machines both better and cheaper ... repeat
  19. Shahno 1 June 2020 21: 43 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    // In fact, the very fact of a flight organized by a commercial company, and here the Chinese are right, can completely reformat the American space industry, integrating private business into it and making it more flexible and creative. But will Russia follow the US example? //
    In my opinion, this is one of the foundations of success for the states, such is NASA’s “reckless" behavior. About two months ago I wrote here that this would lead to success ... And not just one.
  20. Prisoner 1 June 2020 21: 44 New
    • 7
    • 14
    -7
    The Americans launched a rocket with a crew. They didn’t start, they didn’t start, and now they started. And our run-run and run. And Shaw ?! What is the logic of the articles filling in the information field? And the end of Russian cosmonautics, and blah-blah, and "everything is gone, boss." How did resuscitation of amerovskoy manned space exploration "kill" the Russian? what I do not understand. request
  21. UserGun 2 June 2020 08: 14 New
    • 4
    • 6
    -2
    You read the comments of the near and wonder how far they are ... Only one Mask pushed the "ingenious" Roscosmos to the backyard, taking for starters almost ALL STARTS of commercial (and not only) satellites. Now the turn has come to passenger launches, for ridiculous money. And so everything is fine, a beautiful marquise))) As they say, people who are not disfigured by intellect, in the State Duma, everything "starts up", everything "fits together")))
  22. ZaDedov 2 June 2020 08: 54 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    10 evidence that the launch of the Mask spaceship is a fake VASILY Rybnikov
  23. Kostadinov 2 June 2020 10: 02 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    In fact, the very fact of a flight organized by a commercial company, and here the Chinese are right, can completely reformat the American space industry, integrating private business into it and making it more flexible and creative.

    It is in China that the Chinese are mistaken. A private company was created by the state - with its money, technology and specialists. It exists on state orders.
    But she will do it with maximum nailed for herself. In other words, for NASA, everything will be much more expensive if it (NASA) itself did it.
  24. Sergey Pedenko 2 June 2020 10: 20 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    what is the argument about? Well, they flew, well, but we didn’t stop, let’s say our private owners will fly, so what? What has each of us given space for 60 years? what problems will we solve by flying a little further, curiosity? What do we miss on Earth to fly further?
  25. Slippery 2 June 2020 11: 17 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Quote: Thor
    About "private launch" - this is rhetoric at the "suborbital" level) SpaceX was provided with Nasa resources, state contracts (in fact, financing) and tax benefits, so this is Nasa and the State Department)

    Does Roskosmos have this? Spin on your own?
  26. Slippery 2 June 2020 11: 22 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    Quote: BlackMokona
    The engines Draco and Super Draco on Dragons are developed by SpaceX.
    There are fewer and fewer injected funds in the entire history of the development of manned spacecraft from NASA.
    No one can ever name technologies, at least one transferred.

    And they won’t call it))) hurray-patroits yell that they repeated the 60s and then they start pouring into their ears about pumping with technologies, what are these? 60s? ))) when did NASA return the steps? . Fighting hamsters are deprived of reason, they only know how to gulp and speak profanely)))
  27. Slippery 2 June 2020 11: 27 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    Quote: Kostadinov
    It is in China that the Chinese are mistaken. A private company was created by the state - with its money, technology and specialists. It exists on state orders.
    But she will do it with maximum nailed for herself. In other words, for NASA, everything will be much more expensive if it (NASA) itself did it.

    What kind of money? contracts? so we have 90% of private traders on state contracts, technology? what kind ? 60s? . Name one! . And do not forget Max PayPal has withdrawn to the cache by 1,5 billion, and lo and behold, he has neither a football club, nor a 300-meter yacht, but a manned flight into space. All. This is the bottom. It would not have whitewashed Roskosmos.
  28. pmkemcity 2 June 2020 11: 44 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    He flew from the USSR, and returned to Russia. This is me about Sergey Krikalev.
    When did the Americans get home?
  29. Shahno 2 June 2020 19: 21 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: Nosgoth
    And where does the private business? From the US government, the military and NASA, the company was sold and the swindler Mask received funding in the amount of more than $ 2,5 billion, and even rocket technology from NASA. Wow so "private" company ...

    Got ... Trust from NASA. That's enough. We believe in him, he will not act in the interests of the bureaucracy, but will realize his goals.
    Lucidly outlined?
  30. Venya Selnikov 3 June 2020 20: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Wedmak
    And don’t talk about dear, their Raptor is not much cheaper, they also invested in development. And if we sold it for half the price, it means working at a loss - something I doubt the inadequacy of the management of the core plant.
    Why inadequacy?
    If the owner of the plant is compensated by the state for all expenses, and you can attribute external foreign exchange profit as your merit, a very profitable deal!

    A raptor costs less than 2 million, RD 180 - more than 25 million under the latest contracts.
    About 100 million were paid from the US state budget for the production of the Raptor. The main investments in this engine were attracted by themselves. They have quite normal with cash flow now.
    The mask simply does not need an expensive dvigun - it is meaningless for him. If the Raptor will cost as much as the RD-180, then no competition will be discussed.
    In Bezos, by the way, BE-4 costs about the same - 2 million.
    This does not mean that the United States does not know how to make expensive engines.
    They can, just like that - the RS-25 costs twice as much as the RD-180, but it’s a hydrogen atom, and it’s just made by order of the state, which by definition does not know how to save. As much as necessary - so much and pay.
    And Musk makes the engine for himself, not the state.
  31. aviator6768 5 June 2020 00: 00 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    set a task, gave money - they flew, what problems? We need to look at ourselves - neither tasks (hello to May chatter), nor money (hello to the plundered yards of the east) do not solve anything for us ... Recently, I began to get lost in the boss ... I would like to talk to simple business leaders, hospitals, collective farms! The key condition is not MOSCOW!
  32. Molot1979 5 June 2020 08: 38 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Joy something. Finally, after 9 years of torment. Only Soyuz one hell is cheaper. But their joy is understandable. The bucket did not even explode. But, whatever one may say, even such success is success. It is unclear why some of them were so alarmed, as if the Americans managed to put into orbit a low-cost peer with a dviglom from the time of Ochakov and the conquest of the Crimea, and immediately the spaceship "ZARYA" from "Moscow - Cassiopeia".
  33. Kostadinov 8 June 2020 10: 48 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Shahno
    Got ... Trust from NASA. That's enough. We believe in him, he will not act in the interests of the bureaucracy, but will realize his goals.
    Lucidly outlined?

    Does NASA not trust itself?
    Musk will not act in the interest of the bureaucracy, but in his personal private interest to get the maximum nailed. This means selling the space flight to NASA itself is as expensive as possible.
    And what is the interest of NASA bureaucracy - flying into space as cheap as possible.
  34. Kostadinov 8 June 2020 11: 08 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Slippery
    Quote: Kostadinov
    It is in China that the Chinese are mistaken. A private company was created by the state - with its money, technology and specialists. It exists on state orders.
    But she will do it with maximum nailed for herself. In other words, for NASA, everything will be much more expensive if it (NASA) itself did it.

    What kind of money? contracts? so we have 90% of private traders on state contracts, technology? what kind ? 60s? . Name one! . And do not forget Max PayPal has withdrawn to the cache by 1,5 billion, and lo and behold, he has neither a football club, nor a 300-meter yacht, but a manned flight into space. All. This is the bottom. It would not have whitewashed Roskosmos.

    1. Everything that Musk does in space, including the development of rockets and ships, is paid to the last cent from the state budget.
    2. New in missiles and ships The mask is very small. Sovalka beat much more revolutionary technology. Almost Musk returns to the modernized Apolo. The return of the first stage with engines is still from the era of the German A-10 / A-9. They didn’t just because it was more expensive.