Military Review

Echidna comments. Is Angara cheaper than Proton? Fantastic!

141

I can not help but comment news, which was with us that the Angara launch vehicle is much more expensive than the Proton launch vehicle. 7 billion against 2,33. Rubles, of course.


The Roskosmos explained the high cost of the Angara-A5 rocket. Very luxurious.

The reason, it turns out, is that they are assembling a rocket in two cities: Moscow and Omsk. And while this is a piece of goods. But when mass production is launched, then the price will become close to the market.

Are you laughing? It's time.

Here is the Proton launch vehicle.


The acceleration block for the Proton is made in Moscow. At the State Scientific and Technical Center named after Khrunichev.

The engine of the first stage is produced in Perm.

The engine of the second and third stage - in Voronezh.

And the final assembly takes place in the installation and testing complexes of Baikonur, since only from there "Protons" are launched.

As you can see, the geography of Moscow - Perm - Voronezh - Baikonur is no less than that of the Moscow - Omsk - cosmodrome link.

So geography has nothing to do with it, obviously. Yes, carrying elements of the Angara to Vostochny is not the smartest thing, but, in fact, no one Roskosmos forced them to build a cosmodrome there. One could otherwise get out of the problem than start a construction site there, and even this ...

Moving on.

Saying that the “launch vehicle" is a piece of goods is generally worthy of Zadornov. Of course, a booster rocket is such a thing, they are issued in a stream, they can be purchased by anyone with enough money on a credit card.

And this happens often, more often than the purchase of new Rolls-Royces, Maybachs or yachts.

More precisely, it should happen. But since the Angara is not produced as a Maybach conveyor, it is expensive.

This is logical. Manual assembly and all that. Accordingly, the costs. This means that as soon as (according to the figures of Roskosmos) the rocket gets into the flow, into mass production, it will immediately begin to get cheaper.

From March 10, 1967 (first launch) to March 30, 2012 (last launch) 310 Proton launches were made. 310 starts in 63 years. An average of 5 starts per year.

And this is mainly in the USSR (207), the rest in Russia.

310 starts in 63 years.

How many launches will need to be made to Angara in order to become cheaper? “Get closer to the market,” as the representatives of the press service of Roscosmos said?

In fact, the reason is not in mass production. And not in the number of starts, especially successful ones. The reason is somewhat different.

One could say that the ruble is to blame, which has fallen madly in price over the past 20 years. And that would be fair. How fair it would be to say that the Soviet “Proton” is absolutely not a couple of the Russian “Angara”. It was developed in a slightly different country, with a different approach. Then there was no such unscrupulous approach to work and saws did not scream at every stage of construction.

In order for the modern Angara to begin to cost, as promised in Roskosmos, not 7, but “only” 4 billion, which is still more than the cost of the ancient “Proton”, it is not necessary to produce a series of 100 units, calculated over the years at 20-25. Will not fall in price.

There will not be so many launches, according to the statistics of Roskosmos itself.


Echidna comments. Is Angara cheaper than Proton? Fantastic!

It will not fall in price, since recently the depreciating ruble simply will not allow it to be done. And given how they help him ...

Of course, if you reduce the number of loafers-managers in the departments of statistics, advertising and marketing at enterprises of the industry, if you bring the Roskosmos add-on at least in approximate conformity with the Ministry of General Engineering, disperse countless supervisory, audit and authorized councils, strange departments and so on ...

And then it is possible to reduce the cost of an unfortunate rocket.

A funny situation was created in the bowels of Roskosmos. The new rocket costs three times more expensive than the old one, there is no place to launch it yet, but the old one has already been abandoned. And the new rocket needs to be built in quantities not inferior to the old, and then it may become cheaper.

What interesting times do we live in ...
Author:
141 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Snail N9
    Snail N9 1 July 2020 05: 19
    25
    What interesting times do we live in ...

    Honestly, these, these "interesting times" already cause nothing but gnashing of teeth ....
    1. Civil
      Civil 1 July 2020 10: 26
      18
      And another branch of the economy ended the Soviet reserve.
  2. Errr
    Errr 1 July 2020 05: 22
    +3
    From the article:
    From March 10, 1967 (first launch) to March 30, 2012 (last launch) 310 Proton launches were made. 310 starts in 63 years. An average of 5 starts per year.
    Actually, according to elementary arithmetic an average of almost 6 starts per year for about 53 years. what
    1. Avior
      Avior 1 July 2020 05: 51
      +5
      Actually, from 1967 to 2012, 45 years.
      That is 7 (6.89) launches per year on average.
      I can’t imagine who can count on so many launches now.
      1. Errr
        Errr 1 July 2020 06: 14
        +2
        Quote: Avior
        I can’t imagine who can count on so many launches now.
        So far, only "SpaceX" with the "Falcon 9 FT" is really. There, however, the load lifted to LEO is smaller than the "proton" one (if the first stage is returned, only about 1 tons can be lifted).
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 1 July 2020 08: 50
          11
          Falcon-9 has already displayed multiple packs of satellites of 15.6 tons each with a successful return of the stage.
          1. Errr
            Errr 1 July 2020 12: 32
            -1
            hi
            What is characteristic, in the Aglitz Wick it is written:
            15,600 kg (34,400 lb) when landing smile
            Thanks for the adjustment. hi
      2. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 1 July 2020 08: 32
        10
        SpaceX launched the Falcon 9 this year already 11 times.
      3. Leonid Batsura
        Leonid Batsura 3 July 2020 14: 21
        0
        When the number of manufactured and launched Proton-M launch vehicles was 10-11 units per year, the RF Ministry of Defense used secret satellites 1, 2, or a maximum of three rockets to launch its own owls. Then he slightly increased the number of Glonass. The rest went to the sale of commercial launches. The United States itself has purchased 8 Proton-M launches over a period of 17 years. And taking into account the poorly conspiratorial buyer, dependent on the United States, there were 31 such buyers. Here are the possibilities of the Russian Defense Ministry consumer. 2 pieces per year. And this is with 1005 launch reliability. Where will the number of launches for testing "Angara-A5" come from?
        1. Boris ⁣ Shaver
          Boris ⁣ Shaver 5 July 2020 13: 13
          0
          Quote: Leonid Batsura
          Where will the number of launches for testing "Angara-A5" come from?

          Well, that means it will not fall in price. On that, to see, and calculation - like we can, but you are not request
    2. lucul
      lucul 1 July 2020 08: 05
      -7
      In fact, according to elementary arithmetic, an average of almost 6 starts per year for about 53 years.

      Vootoot, Proton’s depreciation has long been eaten up and fixed assets have fought back 40 years ago, hence the low price.
      And the Angara depreciation has just begun, and the cost of fixed assets is included in the price. It would be time for the author of the article to know the basics of economics, they are now being taught even in the techie.
      In addition, Proton, everything - has exhausted its modernization potential, and the Angara is only the beginning.
      The cost of the hangar, of course, decline over time, but I don’t think it will be equal to Proton. Capitalism, after all, makes its own adjustments ...
      1. Alexey Sommer
        Alexey Sommer 1 July 2020 08: 32
        14
        Quote: lucul
        And the Angara depreciation has just begun

        Do not write nonsense. Just annoying. What is the depreciation of a disposable product?
        What funds ?! There, unique equipment stands on it, at least Proton, at least the Angara, at least the Falcon, plan everything to him.
        What do you think Proton in Russia did on Soviet machines or what?
        As already tired, these are brainless advocates of effective managers.
        1. lucul
          lucul 1 July 2020 08: 55
          0
          As already tired, these are brainless advocates of effective managers.

          How tired of these paid all-crawlers - they have Russia, it was under Putin, it dies especially badly.
          As you can see, the geography of Moscow - Perm - Voronezh - Baikonur
          This is for Proton.
          И
          than the Moscow-Omsk-spaceport ligament.

          This is for the hangar.
          therefore
          What funds ?! There, unique equipment stands on it, at least Proton, at least the Angara, at least the Falcon, plan everything to him.

          The phrase could not be written - if rockets are manufactured in different cities, then the machines there are also different, as are the production buildings and infrastructure.
          1. Alexey Sommer
            Alexey Sommer 1 July 2020 09: 00
            +1
            Quote: lucul
            The phrase could not be written - if rockets are manufactured in different cities, then the machines there are also different, as are the production buildings and infrastructure.

            Thank. But you know the argument is not convincing. Once again I write to you, Proton was not ground on trophy machines and now too. What in the same cities does not begin to make the Angara as Proton?)
            1. lucul
              lucul 1 July 2020 09: 10
              +7
              What in the same cities does not begin to make the Angara as Proton?)

              When they did Proton, the land didn’t cost anything, but now, for example, 1 sq. M. Of land in Moscow costs a lot, besides, the salary in Soviet times cannot be compared now.
              Now inflation goes to almost everything - twenty years ago I could safely buy a video card, into a computer for $ 20, and now I need to give $ 200. Or for example, a brand new one, in the Passat V-5 cabin (basic equipment) in 1996 it cost only $ 16, and now the new V-000 (also basic equipment) costs from $ 8.
              I do not want to say that the price of the Angara is directly 100% consistent with the declared one, no, of course, everything must be checked and verified, but for 40 years the dollar has depreciated quite strongly, hence the large numbers.
              1. Guazdilla
                Guazdilla 1 July 2020 11: 02
                0
                If 50 years ago you could have appeared with some sort of fashionable feature now, you would have been recognized as a mission with all the ensuing outstanding financial consequences for you. For example, the right to rub with your fingers and put your smartphone on your head could be monetized.
              2. Hagen
                Hagen 1 July 2020 14: 24
                +9
                Quote: lucul
                definitely need to check everything and check

                The article was written on the knee in the office without going out to the countryside. Compiled rumors "about space" news are presented solely for one purpose, to show how today everything is bad and worse in the country day by day. Reading the articles of a specialist "in all directions" is simply boring. Why not give an interview with some specialist from the Khrunichev center? Note, nowhere and no one refers to information from VO ... Such is its value and veracity. The chief editor needs to do something about the quality of the material. NI, of course, is very far away, but what is produced today can not be called anything other than sludge ... Friends (I mean the editorial team), it's time to start working like an adult.
                1. lucul
                  lucul 1 July 2020 14: 28
                  +2
                  Compiled rumors "about space" news are presented solely for one purpose, to show how today everything is bad and worse in the country day by day.

                  Articles on this subject (how bad it is) collect the largest number of views, more views - more dough from advertising ....
                2. Local from the Volga
                  Local from the Volga 3 July 2020 18: 28
                  0
                  The chief editor needs to do something with the quality of the material. and with Skomorokhov!
              3. Boris ⁣ Shaver
                Boris ⁣ Shaver 5 July 2020 13: 21
                -1
                Quote: lucul
                B-8 (also basic equipment) costs from $ 25

                Do regime advocates now think in dollars?
                VAGs are now inadequately bent prices. Take better Camry.
        2. Jurkovs
          Jurkovs 1 July 2020 10: 01
          +3
          Quote: Alexey Sommer
          There, unique equipment stands on it, at least Proton, at least the Angara, at least the Falcon, plan everything to him.

          It’s funny and sad to read your comment. In QiH, only Protons and Roars were issued. The first has a step diameter of 4,1 meters, the second 2,5 meters. That means releasing something else on these slipways is no longer possible. The diameter of the URM-1 is 2,9 meters, which is why they launch it on Flight in Omsk, and the first Angara was assembled on the knee, but the knee is not suitable for mass production. Although I think that reducing the cost of the Angara still will not work, and in general this is a failed project.
        3. Alexander 555ru
          Alexander 555ru 3 July 2020 10: 45
          0
          Yes, in the Soviet!
      2. Jurkovs
        Jurkovs 1 July 2020 09: 54
        +5
        Quote: lucul
        And the Angara depreciation has just begun

        Depreciation at the Angara began back in 1993 and since then there is nothing to modernize there. The rocket is outdated.
      3. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 1 July 2020 13: 05
        0
        Quote: lucul
        In addition, Proton, everything - has exhausted its modernization potential

        What is there to upgrade? The missile is tailored to a certain load. The engine can only be developed ecological. Well, really changing the rocket is such an achievement.
      4. evgenii67
        evgenii67 1 July 2020 13: 22
        0
        Today, a friend sent one article

        "Money goes into space

        Some wonder where our taxes go and why life doesn't want to be any better. Here's an example. Roskosmos announced how long one heavy carrier rocket "Angara" will stand - 7 billion rubles. This is three times more expensive than the Protons-M, which are being launched now. But that's not the point. We are here behind the scenes competing with SpaceX. So Rogozin parried the recent success with Crew Dragon - they say, our response will be "Angara", and also the ship "Eagle". There is no information about the second one yet, let's go over the first one.

        Angara has been under development for almost a quarter of a century, more than Putin has been in power. During this time, $ 3 billion was poured into the "novelty". By the way, the debts of the developer - the Khrunichev Center - are already 80 billion rubles. For comparison: the reusable Falcon 9 rocket cost SpaceX $ 850 million. Its heavy version, Falcon Heavy, cost the company $ 500 million. That is, the development of one "Angara" has already cost us twice as much as SpaceX both of its rockets. The first of which has been actively flying for several years. And the spending is lower, one step is returnable. To be fair, let's compare two new projects from Roscosmos and SpaceX. Musk's company is currently working on the Starship. The estimated launch price should be about $ 2 million. The minimum price for one launch of the heavy Angara will be about $ 100 million. It is 50 times more expensive! Falcon Heavy, by the way, was launched for $ 90 million.

        Even if Roskosmos begins to mass-produce Angara and its price drops to 4 billion rubles, this will not change the balance of power in space. After Crew Dragon has successfully delivered astronauts to the ISS, the United States can do such launches on its own and at a much lower cost. They will be able to reuse the first stage of the Falcon 9 and the Crew Dragon itself. Our obsolete "Unions" will simply not be needed. And when the "Angara" arrives, Musk will get to Mars, as promised.

        I will not say that it is not necessary. I will say that this is ineffective. But up there, of course, this is not the case. For such grandmothers, you can stir up your space. On the ground. Sorry, Yura. "
        1. lucul
          lucul 1 July 2020 14: 07
          -3
          Today, a friend sent one article

          Ahahaahah)))
          Spread - without reflecting, right? ))))
        2. slipped
          slipped 3 July 2020 23: 54
          +1
          False article from and to.

          Quote: evgenii67
          Here's an example. Roskosmos announced how long one heavy carrier rocket "Angara" will stand - 7 billion rubles.


          This is the cost of producing a heavy rocket as part of a flight design test. This figure was announced back in 2014.

          Quote: evgenii67
          This is three times more expensive than the Protons-M, which are being launched now.


          Price for the desire to fly environmentally friendly rockets.

          Quote: evgenii67
          We are behind the scenes competing with SpaceX.


          Lying.
          Internet hamsters compete in the comments ... that's for sure lol

          Quote: evgenii67
          So on the recent success with Crew Dragon Rogozin parried - they say, our response will be "Angara",


          Lying.
          Rogozin said about Soyuz-5.

          Quote: evgenii67
          and also the ship "Eagle".


          Lying.
          "Eagle" is not an analogue of Crew Dragon in principle.

          Quote: evgenii67
          Angara has been under development for almost a quarter of a century, more than Putin has been in power.


          And then Putin was dragged. laughing The hangar made two flights in 2014. The production of this rocket has already been launched.

          Quote: evgenii67
          During this time, $ 3 billion was poured into the “novelty.” Incidentally, the debts of the developer, the Khrunichev center, are already 80 billion rubles.


          Lying.
          Khrunichev's debts have nothing to do with Angara.

          Quote: evgenii67
          The minimum price for one launch of the heavy "Angara" will be about $ 100 million. 50 times more expensive! Falcon Heavy, by the way, was launched for $ 90 million.


          Lying.
          A contract has been signed between the Khrunichev Center and the RF Ministry of Defense for four serial Angara-A5s at a price of less than 5 billion rubles. In addition, according to Kommersant, TsiH already has signed contracts for 12 Angara missiles.

          Quote: evgenii67
          Even if Roskosmos begins to mass-produce Angara and its price drops to 4 billion rubles, this will not change the balance of power in space.


          Lying.
          The cost of services to launch the Pentagon satellite on F9 ~ $ 90-100 million
          The cost of launching services on the A5 satellite of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation ~ $ 64 million

          Quote: evgenii67
          After Crew Dragon successfully delivered astronauts to the ISS, the United States can make such launches independently and much cheaper.


          Lying.
          "Contract for the manufacture and supply of products (the Soyuz-2-1a launch vehicle and the assembly and protection unit) for the launch of the Soyuz MS manned transport vehicle.
          The contract price is fixed 1 409 881 493,50 rubles. "- ie ~ $ 20 million.

          Quote: evgenii67
          They will be able to reuse the first stage of the Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon itself.


          We do not need to reuse the first stage of Soyuz-2.1a - it is much cheaper to manufacture a new one for this launch vehicle, the same applies to the Soyuz MS spacecraft.

          Quote: evgenii67
          Our obsolete "Unions" will simply not be needed.


          Lying. Two contracts have been signed with Space Adventures and the manufacture of two commercial spacecraft Soyuz MS has begun, in addition, one place has been reserved in the serial Soyuz MS under the ISS program for the flight of foreign cosmonauts on a commercial basis.

          Quote: evgenii67
          Sorry, Yura. "


          Illiterate idiots who wrote this article. lol
        3. Boris ⁣ Shaver
          Boris ⁣ Shaver 5 July 2020 13: 52
          0
          Quote: evgenii67
          Money goes into space

          Okay, to space. Offshore is pulling so much that no space has dreamed
        4. Leonid Batsura
          Leonid Batsura 5 July 2020 21: 32
          +1
          Captured by American bluffs. All numbers are bullshit. Musk Heavy is, in essence, a single-stage rocket, which, with the help of a second rocket unit, can launch into LEO, you need to count, well, about ten tons. This is offhand. When they start throwing handfuls of Mr. ... Mr., I'll count. Musk Heavy, go ahead, is it capable of producing 63,8 tons to LEO? "Crazy, get off the roof!" But joke ... the transformation of the Shuttle into a disposable rocket is underway ... according to conversations, count from the first launch of the Shuttle. But the active phase ... of conversations ... began, perhaps from the beginning of the 21st vekkkha .. "And things are still there." There were reports somewhere, perhaps 2014-2015 ?, that in the US talk about the SLS system will stop in 2018. But ... talk of creating SLS in half of the US states provides hundreds of high-paying jobs. Nevertheless, ten to twelve years ago, information on SLS gave three queues of SLS. The first provided for a carrying capacity of 75 tons for LEO. Note that Musk created his Heavy without tension: barely moving the little finger of his left hand. And no one in the US knows about this labor feat of Maksk. It was Musk-Khevy who gnawed our bald spots in Russia. And it was decided, apparently, to speed up the talks in the USA about the creation of SLS. But already about any three stages of the creation of SLS are not conducted. The capacity of the SLS has already been announced at 90 tonnes without any talk of "queues". It is clear that this is a "smart" American move - to get away from reproaches: Musk casually made Musk-Heavy for 63 tons, and here the whole USA is soaring all 21 century over the creation of SLS - for 75 tons on LEO. By the way, according to the launch tables, "Shuttle" was listed with a carrying capacity of 120 tons per LEO.
          U.S. say? The United States is also struck by space corruption in space dimensions, as is Russia ...
      5. Vikxnumx
        Vikxnumx 1 July 2020 14: 15
        0
        The cost of the hangar, of course, decline over time, but I don’t think it will be equal to Proton. Capitalism, after all, makes its own adjustments ...

        Vitaly, go and get an engineering education!
        And we do not need to tell tales!
        1. lucul
          lucul 1 July 2020 14: 18
          +1
          Vitaly, go and get an engineering education!
          And we do not need to tell tales!

          ))))
        2. Boris ⁣ Shaver
          Boris ⁣ Shaver 5 July 2020 13: 54
          0
          Quote: VIK1711
          get an engineering education!

          When did engineers consider the project economics? Torn off from life estimates - it still can be.
      6. Leonid Batsura
        Leonid Batsura 3 July 2020 20: 27
        -1
        Proton-M "has not exhausted its modernization potential. Comrade threw a lump of dirt at Proton-M just for the sake of confusing a fluent reading person. Angara-A5 has no modernization potential. That's it! This is the end product of licking the ideology of D4X, which has exhausted itself long ago, but its production and launches are carried out (0,75 units per year) for the sake of political “kin.” Time will not give any chances for Angara-A5, since “chances” are launches. Over the past six years, Angara -A5 "has never been launched. November 3, 2020 announced the first (or second) launch of Angara-A5". Look at Wikipedia. For ten years, the same text has been spent without specifying indicators No, for example, the value of the dry mass of BB ( 4 pieces) and one central bank There are no values ​​for the mass of the refueled fuel in both the BB and the central bank.
  3. Errr
    Errr 1 July 2020 05: 40
    +3
    Only Proton-K flew 310 times in about 45 years (until 2012). Since 2001, 109 Proton-Ms have already been fired. In total, all the "Protons" have already been "fired" for almost 53 years, 419 pieces. And this is without taking into account the launches of the current 2020 year. It turns out on average almost 8 launches per year.
  4. Out
    Out 1 July 2020 06: 15
    13
    Regarding the construction of the cosmodrome in the Far East - where else? In the Rostov region or in the Crimea? What would all fall in densely populated areas?
    1. Far East
      Far East 1 July 2020 07: 34
      +1
      yeah, let everything fall on us!
    2. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 1 July 2020 08: 10
      -2
      Quote: Out
      In the Rostov region or in the Crimea?

      Just the place is there. The closer to the equator the spaceport, the better.
      Quote: Out
      What would all fall in densely populated areas?

      So the rocket is no longer on heptyl, there is no great danger of pollution. Unless someone falls on his head - well, so the probability of getting a fallen off cornice on the head will be higher.
      1. Fedorovich
        Fedorovich 1 July 2020 09: 39
        +4
        When an eleven-ton bandura will fall on your house from a height of fifty kilometers, you can console yourself with the fact that it is not on heptyl.
        1. Narak-zempo
          Narak-zempo 1 July 2020 11: 23
          -4
          Quote: Fedorovich
          When an eleven-ton bandura will fall on your house from a height of fifty kilometers, you can console yourself with the fact that it is not on heptyl.

          I don’t fall down - I'm far enough from the Crimea, and from Rostov.
          And in Crimea, by the way, you can make it fall into the sea or it is the outskirts.
    3. Vikxnumx
      Vikxnumx 1 July 2020 14: 20
      +1
      Regarding the construction of the cosmodrome in the Far East - where else? In the Rostov region or in the Crimea? What would all fall in densely populated areas?

      In the Black Lands!
      Look at the address on the map. And the whole Caspian land.
      How is this option?
      1. Out
        Out 1 July 2020 21: 40
        +1
        And the whole Caspian land.

        But how will Kazakhstan or Iran look at this? And in case of emergency where everything will fall in? Exclusion zones will still be required.
    4. Simargl
      Simargl 1 July 2020 18: 09
      +1
      Quote: Out
      In the Rostov region or in the Crimea?
      From "Execution Ground" the author of the opus, apparently, wants to launch.
    5. evgenii67
      evgenii67 2 July 2020 00: 17
      0
      In Voronezh. Then the phrase "hitting Voronezh" will acquire new colors.
    6. Boris ⁣ Shaver
      Boris ⁣ Shaver 5 July 2020 13: 56
      0
      Quote: Out
      In the Rostov region or in the Crimea?

      In Kalmykia.
  5. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 1 July 2020 06: 36
    +1
    What interesting times do we live in ...

    yes good
    To make a consuming thinker out of a person who, instead of an exam, passes some tests with a scientific poke, like a monkey in a research institute .... And then these creatures fry barbecue on the Eternal Flame winked .
    What is there to be surprised if the electorate believes in the tales of Roscosmos request
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. mark1
    mark1 1 July 2020 06: 42
    +9
    Well, what does this "bul" mean? Are "protons" environmentally harmful? * - harmful ... are we losing the site at Baikonur? - losing ... Need a replacement? - is needed ... Is there an alternative to "Angara" for the next period? - no...
    But the offer is in! Universal! Reduce salaries for managers and half to disperse (which half? Or Rogozin personally?), And, probably, start making a rocket out of shit and sticks, the cost of launching will immediately fall in price - is it funny? -I'm sad...
    1. U-58
      U-58 1 July 2020 08: 32
      +3
      The area on Baikonur is really losing. But why lose?
      Exclusively in its mildness. The lease was signed for 49 years.
      Yes, there were Proton accidents with a heptyl spill. But who and how suffered from this?
      Well, hearing is specifically one person. And this is a Russian. The head of Roscosmos Popovkin, who, after the accident shown on-line, rushed to the crash site, breathed and died a year later. The Russian side also suffered, which for its money exported allegedly contaminated soil in considerable quantities. Allegedly, this is because heptyl in the soil decomposed into non-hazardous elements by the time of removal. In addition, the half-century statistics of Proton launches showed unambiguous safety during standard breeding. The remaining fuel in the tanks is drained at an altitude of 42–46 km, scattered by the winds, decomposed by ultraviolet radiation and oxidized by ozone, that is, completely disposed of naturally.
      But for the sake of friendship with the Kazakhs (which nonetheless bursts at all seams) a deep curtsy was made and commitments were made to complete the launches with the 25th year. Short-sighted and sad.
      1. mark1
        mark1 1 July 2020 08: 47
        +3
        How does all of the above change the situation? There is a decision of Kazakhstan, and, let it be, our "softness" (there are no others, and those are far away ... - you can't replay it, and you don't need to) - the site is lost. The rest is alternative history
      2. Jurkovs
        Jurkovs 1 July 2020 10: 06
        +2
        Do not know do not write. You can run into rudeness. Heptyl from Baikonur carried the wind to the whole Altai and further to Khakassia and Tuva. According to medical statistics, the incidence of cancer in these regions is ten times higher than the national average. Come to us for permanent residence and write further about Heptyl and about harmful Kazakhs.
        1. U-58
          U-58 1 July 2020 12: 54
          +3
          You are not the first to write about cancer in Altai. But here are the reasons .. They have not been established for certain. In terms of communication, it is heptyl and oncological diseases.
          Moreover, the carcinogenicity of heptyl has not been established by science. It is a fact that UDMH could be used as a chemical weapon. If it weren’t for its prohibitive value for weapons.
          Poisons in half. And quickly ruining, fact. Yes, so that cancer doesn’t survive.
          By the way, I come from Altai, if that.
          1. MBRSS
            MBRSS 3 July 2020 15: 12
            -1
            UDMH could be used as a chemical weapon. If it weren’t for its prohibitive value for weapons.

            why is it exorbitant cost? Yes, and in quality. weapons are of little use. Toxic than chlorine, probably, but how far it is to modern OM. It is more convenient to use it as nitrogen fertilizer))
            1. U-58
              U-58 3 July 2020 16: 07
              0
              The cost of fuel is normal. Chemical weapons cost less by order.
              Fertilize the soil?
              Is there courage in the world, everyone decides for himself.
              Starting to fertilize, finish the deceased by 150%.
              You can’t reach the harvest))))).
              So this is all nonsense, decay and soaking nonsense.
          2. Local from the Volga
            Local from the Volga 3 July 2020 18: 33
            0
            My grandfather was not the last person, to put it mildly, on Baikonur! Cancer, six months, was buried ... 47 years old!
    2. Alexey Sommer
      Alexey Sommer 1 July 2020 08: 42
      +2
      Even lived like that with the poisonous Protons?
      And what about Baikonur? Are we losing it, or are we leaving?
      And the most important thing! How is it that the Angara with a load capacity of 24 tons is one and a half times more expensive than the Falcon with a load capacity of 63.
      Can you explain?
      1. mark1
        mark1 1 July 2020 09: 00
        +6
        Quote: Alexey Sommer
        Even lived like that with the poisonous Protons?

        Not we, however, lived with him ...
        Quote: Alexey Sommer
        And what about Baikonur? Are we losing it, or are we leaving?

        Do you want a death grip on him? I think at the time of the end of the lease we should have our own full-fledged spaceport (you won’t do it in a day)
        Quote: Alexey Sommer
        one and a half times more expensive than the Falcon with a load capacity of 63.

        "According to Musk's estimates, it will cost no more than $ 10 million to withdraw 90 tons from gas processing facilities."
        A neighbor says that 8 times a night can ... so you say you can ...
        It seems like an adult and believe in advance.
        1. Alexey Sommer
          Alexey Sommer 1 July 2020 09: 03
          -4
          Quote: mark1
          A neighbor says that 8 times a night can ...

          Do you consider this a serious argument?
          And I didn’t ask Mask. He went to VIKI and looked at both the Angara and Falcon and Proton.
          1. mark1
            mark1 1 July 2020 09: 05
            +5
            Vicki's argument is serious, I don’t know what to say ... I went for the ashes.
            1. Alexey Sommer
              Alexey Sommer 1 July 2020 09: 05
              -1
              Quote: mark1
              Wiki argument is serious

              And yours?)
              1. mark1
                mark1 1 July 2020 09: 08
                0
                Yes, at least equivalent.
                1. Alexey Sommer
                  Alexey Sommer 1 July 2020 09: 10
                  -4
                  Quote: mark1
                  Yes, at least equivalent.

                  Now, when you have your own analogue of VIKI, then we will return to this conversation. hi
                  In the meantime, sho, the allegation is one from you. And a waste of time.
                  1. mark1
                    mark1 1 July 2020 09: 13
                    0
                    We have freedom of religion. So - blessed is he who believes (VIKI !!!!)
                  2. Grazdanin
                    Grazdanin 1 July 2020 09: 22
                    +6
                    In the USA, a cleaning lady who works all month receives at least 90 rubles. Therefore, the price of putting cargo into Falcon into orbit is cheaper than using a proton.
          2. Dart2027
            Dart2027 1 July 2020 10: 02
            0
            Quote: Alexey Sommer
            And I didn’t ask Mask
            And here is what he himself says.
            https://www.rbc.ru/technology_and_media/17/01/2020/5e2180a89a7947381fce8fd0
            1. Alexey Sommer
              Alexey Sommer 1 July 2020 12: 19
              +1
              Quote: Dart2027
              And here is what he himself says.

              Good. Although it is not clear what year it is, okay. So Flcon stands like a hangar.
              And what to do with load capacity. UValkon 63 at the NOU, Angara 23, it is for the same money.
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 1 July 2020 12: 40
                +2
                Quote: Alexey Sommer
                it's for the same money

                At the current rate, this is 10,5 billion, that is, more expensive than the Angara, so the question is money.
                Quote: Alexey Sommer
                UFalcon 63 at the DOE, at Angara 23

                The Angara-A5 has a starting weight of 773 tons, and the Falcon Heavy 1420 tons, these are missiles of different classes.
              2. Vadim237
                Vadim237 1 July 2020 20: 10
                +1
                63 tons Falcon Heavyy displays only in a one-time version of all the first steps.
      2. U-58
        U-58 1 July 2020 09: 46
        +1
        Explain the high cost and simple and difficult ...
        If it’s simple: The hangar is low-tech. No, this is not from thoughtlessness.
        All equipment is initially low-tech.
        In the technology of the Angara, the accumulation of experience did not pass. Everything that was assembled can be conditionally called a screwdriver assembly.
        In the presence of at least some seriality, the production of technological methods occurs, including changing, if necessary, the design of the elements.
        Always the third time doing something is easier than the first time.
        In the production of elements of the same Proton, the manufacturing and assembly technology has been constantly improved over the years. I will not reveal any secret if I inform you that some of the improving developments at the time of withdrawal from production have not been introduced. For there is no limit to perfection.
        Nevertheless, in Proton, as an industrial product, everything was brought to the highest degree of perfection, licked and sucked. To do it was easy and inexpensive.
        The hangar, if it is produced in series, has yet to go this way of technological improvement. Then the price will fall.
        1. Vikxnumx
          Vikxnumx 1 July 2020 14: 25
          +2
          The hangar, if it is produced in series, has yet to go this way of technological improvement. Then the price will fall.

          In Russia ?
          Yes, you re-read the tales of Afanasyev!
          In a year, the price will grow by 50 percent!
          We must save the children !!!
          1. U-58
            U-58 1 July 2020 15: 50
            0
            This is called the deflation coefficient, it seems.
            Everything rises in price, except gold))))
      3. Jurkovs
        Jurkovs 1 July 2020 10: 13
        +3
        Quote: Alexey Sommer
        Can you explain?

        Can. From the creation of Proton to the creation of Falcon, technology has gone far ahead. A couple of examples. The use of new lighter and stronger lithium-magnesium alloys greatly reduced the dry weight of the carrier, increased mass excellence (the best in the world) and, consequently, increased the specific gravity of the cargo being thrown. The use of friction welding of the shells of the tanks made it possible to abandon the expensive slipways into which the stage is sealed and welding is carried out under argon and a laser. And so on a very long list of applicable technologies.
      4. Alexander X
        Alexander X 1 July 2020 11: 13
        +5
        Everyone is discussing the cost of the Angara in comparison with the cost of other missiles. But, apparently by accident, they miss the clarification about what value they are talking about. As far as I understand, according to Falcon, the PRODUCTION cost of the rocket is voiced, that is, the cost of materials + the cost of human hours to create one rocket. And in the Angara, the FULL COST (the cost of the project) is announced, that is, the costs of development, tooling, depreciation costs of enterprises in terms of buildings, structures and equipment involved in the production + plus PRODUCTION COSTS. Divided by the expected number of missiles for the project. Wrote simplified to facilitate understanding. IMHO
        1. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 1 July 2020 13: 15
          0
          Quote: Alexander X
          As far as I understand, according to Falcon, the PRODUCTION cost of the rocket is voiced, that is, the cost of materials + the cost of human hours to create one rocket. And the hangar voiced FULL COST

          Who told you this? What, is there some other economy abroad? Do you think the cost of start-up is around the world, and everything is done separately for us? You might think Falcon fell from the sky and there was no development or depreciation. Yes, and the workers and engineers donated worked
        2. Jurkovs
          Jurkovs 2 July 2020 13: 29
          +1
          I agree. The cost of Falcon starts does not include the design and creation of test benches and launching tables. All this NASA gave away for free, they no longer needed it, well, do not blow it up. But in the long run they got another ship to Orion already ordered from Boeing. You can’t say anything, practical people.
      5. MBRSS
        MBRSS 3 July 2020 15: 18
        0
        24-tonne hangar, one and a half times more expensive than Falcon

        engines are more advanced, more expensive. There are many buildings, there are many tanks, there are many. Production is not serial.
    3. Simargl
      Simargl 1 July 2020 18: 21
      +1
      Well, the author, apparently, is not aware that Kazakhstan is lobbying not just the alienation of Baikonur, but, even more actively, the ban on launches of Protons, and foreign bourgeoisie boycotts "harmful" launches.

      Quote: mark1
      Reduce salaries for managers and disperse half (what half? Or personally Rogozin?),
      This is probably due to the fact that in the United States many times less work ... in NASA and Specix ... just does not lead to the distribution structure of orders for components in the United States and Russia ...

      Quote: mark1
      and, probably, to start making a rocket out of shit and sticks, the cost of launching will immediately fall in price - is it funny?
      Well, there were "jokes" about Chinese space:
      "The launch of the satellite by China ended in failure - a million of the cosmodrome workers overdid it and broke the rope on the slingshot" ... or "China successfully launched a manned spacecraft. The crew included a teikonaut and 3000 stokers" ...
      ... today is not funny.
  8. Dmitry Batalin
    Dmitry Batalin 1 July 2020 06: 44
    +5
    I don’t understand. What is the Author unhappy with? The arguments of Roskosmos are reasonable, since it is so, but the author's counterarguments, in the sense of cooperation of related industries, do not ... One gets the impression that he does not understand what he is writing about and does not know the question at all, probably because he never worked in real production with a "custom-made production planning method", and therefore in the economy of the enterprise does not understand a damn thing ...
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 1 July 2020 07: 02
      +3
      Quote: Dmitry Batalin
      One gets the impression that he does not understand what he is writing about and does not own the question at all

      And this author has all the articles.
      1. Alexey Sommer
        Alexey Sommer 1 July 2020 08: 49
        -1
        Comrades understanding. Please explain why the Angara 5 costs 7 lards and displays 24 tons on the DOE, and Falcon costs 90 lyam $ this is our 6,3 lards and displays on NOU 63.
        Only nonsense about factories in different parts of the country do not write. Find a more plausible reason.
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 1 July 2020 09: 03
          -1
          Wrong numbers were written, Falcon 9 $ 62 million
          Payload mass
          • at the DOE
          * FT: 22 kg without returning the first stage
          v1.1: 13 kg
          This is Falcon Heavy $ 90 million
          Payload mass
          • at the DOE
          63 kg
        2. Dart2027
          Dart2027 1 July 2020 09: 59
          0
          Quote: Alexey Sommer
          and Falcon costs 90 lyam

          There are some nuances. Musk himself said that the cost may be 150 lyam.
          https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/963076231921938432
          https://www.rbc.ru/technology_and_media/17/01/2020/5e2180a89a7947381fce8fd0
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 1 July 2020 10: 33
            +3
            There are different versions and different flight configurations.
            If you want to launch Falcon Heavy and bring 62 tons to the lower orbit, I ask 150 million in your pocket Mask
            If you want to launch Falcon Heavy and are satisfied with 30 tons, then 90 million
            If you need to run 15 tons, then you will be offered Falcon-9 for $ 62 million
            If you have nothing against B \ U Falcon-9, then for 50 million it will throw you 15 tons into orbit

            Well, in the end, do not confuse the price of a rocket with the price of launch. These are different things.
            SpaceX sells launches, not rockets
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 1 July 2020 11: 01
              +1
              Quote: BlackMokona
              There are different versions and different flight configurations.

              This is what we are talking about.
              Quote: BlackMokona
              SpaceX sells launches, not rockets

              Like ours.
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 1 July 2020 11: 16
                0
                Here the price is for missiles, not launches.
                Starting a Proton-M costs $ 65 million, a Proton-M rocket costs about $ 33.3 million.
        3. slipped
          slipped 4 July 2020 00: 24
          -1
          Quote: Alexey Sommer
          Comrades understanding. Please explain why the Angara 5 costs 7 lards and displays 24 tons on the DOE, and Falcon costs 90 lyam $ this is our 6,3 lards and displays on NOU 63.


          You are confused in numbers. laughing

          production cost A5 - 7 billion rubles within the framework of tests, since the Angara rocket is not serially produced, but piecemeal - the rocket is in the stage of development work, the cost price reflects significantly higher, in comparison with the batch production process, the costs associated with the development of the design and manufacturing technology. Also, the cost of the product is increasing due to the technical re-equipment, which is being carried out at the Omsk PO Polet.

          In addition, a contract for several missiles of this type in the framework of development work was signed at a price of less than 5 billion rubles. for one rocket.

          Cost of services According to the conclusion on already concluded contracts for A5 with Plesetsk, today it is ~ $ 64 million in equivalent.

          24 tons are put into low-earth orbit by the so-called. The "basic version" is the A5 heavy missile. The version of the A5M rocket with a 10% increase in thrust will already output ~ 27 tons. And the version of the A5B rocket with the third hydrogen stage is ~ 37 tons.

          production cost Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets - unknown.
    2. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 1 July 2020 08: 42
      +1
      The author is not satisfied that only Russian satellites will fly on these missiles, more expensive than the rest of the world on American and European ones. Proton and Angara are all the brainchild of the 20th century, they are already outdated.
    3. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 1 July 2020 13: 20
      0
      Quote: Dmitry Batalin
      Roscosmos's arguments are reasonable

      They have been with him for 20 years already, as a result, we have what we have. In fact, all the funds of Roscosmos have been swelling into the Angara. Khrunichev does not bring profit. But the Union brings, but this profit goes to Khrunichev for a miracle rocket
  9. U-58
    U-58 1 July 2020 07: 00
    -2
    In many ways, you can agree with the author. True, you need to fix it in the number of launched Proton carriers. There are more than 410 of them and the year of the first start-up is 1965.
    And so ..... our Chief on skeet, being a committed person, rushes with this Hangar like [ch.u.d.k.] with an accordion. To accelerate its introduction into the brains of industry, he ordered the production of Protons to cease. Thrust motors are not manufactured as early as a year. And even if you resume right now (well, suddenly someone changes their minds!), It will be very costly and painful. In fact, this will be a new development ....
    It has long become clear that Angara will never become a commercial project from words in any way. It is useful for the military 2-3 times a year and for scientists once every 3-5 years. But, on the other hand, having the Angara and two spaceports for it on our territory, we will have independent access to space. Here, apparently, we will pay a high price for this ..
    1. Alexey Sommer
      Alexey Sommer 1 July 2020 08: 50
      -5
      And what Proton does not fly from the East?
      And who is Skeet Chief?
      1. U-58
        U-58 1 July 2020 09: 50
        +2
        A proton from Vostochny will not fly, because no one in their right mind and solid memory will build a more than super-expensive start for an old rocket.
        Well ...)))) but not to know the Commander-in-Chief of Comrade Rogozin, it ...
        Well, okay, I explained to you)))
      2. PSih2097
        PSih2097 1 July 2020 09: 53
        +1
        Quote: Alexey Sommer
        And who is Skeet Chief?

        Rogozin, who else ...
  10. Arkon
    Arkon 1 July 2020 07: 04
    -4
    Of course, if you reduce the number of loafers-managers in the departments of statistics, advertising and marketing at enterprises of the industry, if you bring the Roskosmos add-on at least in approximate conformity with the Ministry of General Engineering, disperse countless supervisory, audit and authorized councils, strange departments and so on ...

    And then it is possible to reduce the cost of an unfortunate rocket.


    What does Roskosmos have to do with it? The Khrunichev Center is doing the hangar. He announces the price. And if Skororokhov, once again, does not understand how the serial product differs from the installation (or experienced) one - a hint: not only in quantity - it only means that it is extremely far from both industry and common sense.

    And about "unhappiness" let him look in the mirror. Because we will launch a rocket and make it cheaper, and we will be the first on the moon. And the unfortunate Roman will remain with his unfulfilled hopes for a "protest". laughing
  11. Engineer Schukin
    Engineer Schukin 1 July 2020 07: 13
    0
    Quote: Herrr
    Quote: Avior
    I can’t imagine who can count on so many launches now.
    So far, only "SpaceX" with the "Falcon 9 FT" is really. There, however, the load lifted to LEO is smaller than the "proton" one (if the first stage is returned, only about 1 tons can be lifted).

    You are not right.
    All Falcon 9 launches under the Starlink program were with payloads of 18,6 tons (taking into account the dispenser), and launches occur with return steps. The latest launches were carried out in steps that have already flown 5 times.
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 1 July 2020 08: 45
      0
      Quote: Engineer Shchukin
      The latest launches were carried out in steps that have already flown 5 times.


      Lagging behind in life it was the penultimate, yesterday took off For the first time.
  12. Pavel73
    Pavel73 1 July 2020 07: 27
    +1
    And what, when Proton flew, were there all these parasites? No, the main reason for the high cost of the Angara is its complexity and multiblockness. A bunch of sausages of the first stage. After all, the main purpose of a heavy rocket is to bring payloads to a geostationary orbit. It is for this that the biggest money is paid. It is on this that she earns. Therefore, the configuration of the rocket for the GSO should be as simple as possible, that is, monoblock. Only in this case will it be profitable. Just look at the pictures of Falcon, Proton and Hangar-5, to accurately distribute them by profitability. The hangar will come first. From the tail.
  13. viktor_ui
    viktor_ui 1 July 2020 07: 41
    -3
    Let roskokosmos burn further ... managerial idiocy already can not be covered. Let him puff on and swarm - NOT INTERESTING and PRIMITIVE.
  14. parusnik
    parusnik 1 July 2020 07: 42
    +5
    I cannot but comment on the news that we had that the Angara launch vehicle costs much more than the Proton launch vehicle. 7 billion against 2,33. Rubles, of course.
    ... Colonel Zakharchenko found 9 lard rubles, i.e. stole one Angara and Proton
    1. AU Ivanov.
      AU Ivanov. 1 July 2020 08: 10
      -1
      To an ordinary polkan such sums are not by rank. Not for Ivashka shirt. Or a common fund, or a cashier.
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 1 July 2020 08: 49
        +3
        And what does that change? He kept a common fund stolen money. Of course, it’s not your fault laughing He kept the stolen, which would be enough for the production of one Angara and Proton, what a crime here ... he was also forced by the liberals damned with American agents laughing You probably don’t know that all over the world, keeping stolen goods is considered a crime ....
  15. Sahalinets
    Sahalinets 1 July 2020 07: 54
    0
    The more expensive the products, the more cuts. You are outraged, and they are buying penthouses in Miami Beach ...
  16. common man
    common man 1 July 2020 08: 03
    -4
    The message of the Author is quite clear. Why change the "awl for soap", but three times more expensive? The main purpose of the launch vehicle is to launch a certain mass of cargo into a certain orbit. And if the compared launch vehicles have the same characteristics, including both disposable ones, it makes sense to switch to a new one three times more expensive.
    Quote: mark1
    Are "protons" environmentally harmful? * - harmful ... are we losing the site at Baikonur? - losing ...

    And who is stopping to make a proton site on the East? The only indisputable argument, the Angara is environmentally cleaner than Proton. But ... Probably because of this they made Protons on such fuel, because at that technological level could not make comparable in characteristics and price environmentally friendly rocket launcher. There would be a task, for any money, but harmless, they would create. The same Energy, for example. And if, after forty years, we can’t create anything new (for the same money, but harmless, or reusable for example), then US and our technologies are worthless.
    1. Leonid Batsura
      Leonid Batsura 3 July 2020 12: 10
      +1
      And what do you mean by "ecological cleanliness" ?. Drinking heptyl or kerosene? Both are not provided for by the methods of using both AT + NDMK fuel and ZhK + kerosene. And kerosene affects the so-called ecology, in the sense of destroying, more strongly than UDMH. On this score, there are studies, for example, Moscow State University, which compares the terrain at the points of fall of both heptyl and kerosene rocket blocks.
  17. Sibguest
    Sibguest 1 July 2020 08: 19
    -2
    Until the main "cosmonaut" is the verbiage Rogozin, until the head of Roscosmos is put a true statesman, a specialist in the space industry, and not a "manager-optimizer", and until all space government orders are controlled at every stage of their implementation by the FSB and the TFR, there will be only one is theft of cosmic proportions.
    1. Souchastnik
      Souchastnik 1 July 2020 11: 13
      -1
      until at the head of Roscosmos put a true statesman

      In my opinion, you have raised the most important problem of our time. But it is very, very difficult to remove "effective managers" from the leadership. If we manage to solve it, then we will heal.
      In the meantime, you have to fly on what is, it's better than not flying at all.
  18. Engineer Schukin
    Engineer Schukin 1 July 2020 08: 52
    -1
    Quote: Grazdanin
    Quote: Engineer Shchukin
    The latest launches were carried out in steps that have already flown 5 times.


    Lagging behind in life it was the penultimate, yesterday took off For the first time.

    So I wrote about Starlink.


    [/ Center]
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 1 July 2020 09: 24
      +2
      Starlink is a companion, just a load. At Falcon, the first two stages made 5 flights each.
  19. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 1 July 2020 09: 10
    0
    And this happens often, more often than the purchase of new Rolls-Royces, Maybachs or yachts.
    Managers of Roscosmos.
  20. Engineer Schukin
    Engineer Schukin 1 July 2020 09: 30
    0
    Quote: Grazdanin
    Starlink is a companion, just a load. At Falcon, the first two stages made 5 flights each.

    Everything is correct. Only in addition to being just a load is it also the official name for the launches.
    As a result, Starlink 5 and 7 were launched by boosters flying for the 5th time.
  21. sevtrash
    sevtrash 1 July 2020 09: 33
    0
    Apparently, the first action / thought of the absolute majority of officials - how much will I get from this? What is the "norm" of cutting now? 30 percent or 40 percent? So throw it on or minus it. In the USSR, they stole en masse, as it were, everything that is popular, that is, ours, now - total theft of officials on a large scale, in the form of sawing, of course. They catch those who did not share as they should.
  22. g1v2
    g1v2 1 July 2020 09: 40
    +3
    And why not compare su57 and su27? And to express outrage that the su57 is more expensive? laughing belay Any more modern product is more expensive than its predecessors. It is a fact. The deployment of a new production of a completely new rocket and production of a rocket according to a well-functioning project, which has been carried out for decades, is even stupid to compare. There is a good rule - the larger the series, the lower the cost of a single unit of production. This is an axiom. Th sensation is not even sucked from the finger. but from some other organ.
    This applies to all areas and not only the military-industrial complex. It’s one thing to punch Varshavyanka for decades, and another thing is to deploy a new Lada production. It’s one thing to stamp Burke over the years, another thing is to deploy the Prospect of Zumwalt. In general, as the serialization of the Angara increases, its cost will decrease - this is not in doubt. This is almost always the case. request
    Why did such tantrums go from scratch? Xs. Probably some were upset because of the vote. I sympathize. wink
    1. Avior
      Avior 1 July 2020 10: 23
      +3
      Su-57 is not an analogue of the Su-27 in terms of capabilities
      Yes, and the initial plan is far ahead of Burke.
      Another thing that did not finish
  23. Maks1995
    Maks1995 1 July 2020 09: 41
    0
    Well, what did you want?
    There were several posts with statistics, and obviously not liberal, that:
    Only the official salary of Rogozin is like that of 6 experienced cosmonauts. 600% profit.
    Deputies and VIPs - 2-3 million per month. Moscow office for salary fund - like the rest of Roscosmos .....

    And what for with such profits is it worth flying?

    And after all, there are also bonuses, funds, shares, a family with income ("famous" for having missed the ILE) ...

    Which is cheaper there ....
  24. Dmitry Donskoy_2
    Dmitry Donskoy_2 1 July 2020 09: 41
    -4
    Rogozin will correct everything
  25. Unsam
    Unsam 1 July 2020 10: 39
    0
    It is sad that canceled dislikes.
    "... nobody forced Roskosmos to build a cosmodrome there. It could have been a different way to get out of the problem, than to start a construction there, and even this ..." How's that? We have Plesetsk, where there is an inclination limitation. You need a point as close to the equator as possible. Moreover, with a restriction on the allowed sectors of the launch. the author just raises hysteria.
    1. Leonid Batsura
      Leonid Batsura 3 July 2020 09: 10
      -1
      Vostochny was chosen taking into account the fact that the debris of the four side blocks of the Angara-A5 cover an area equal to 4 areas of the fall of the debris of one Columbia. Since these areas will not overlap each other, this area of ​​damage from the release of 4 BB "Angara-A5" will be 400 km long and 200 km wide. For this reason, "Baiterek" did not pass, since in Kazakhstan, apparently, even in the time of Korolev it was impossible to find such an area for the RP. And now - even more so. East of the East, under the RP, not only "desert", "lifeless" land areas east of the East are allocated, but also the vicinity of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. Comrade Shatrov examined not only these territories, but also the waters of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk with the adjacent islands. It is better to launch Angara-A5 from Plesetsk in winter, during the period when a huge RP with snow is covered - when there are no crowds of tourists and other people
      Therefore ... There are no potential victims, but what is important, there are no witnesses. Well, let's say, if you want to simulate the "successful" launch of "Angara-A5".
      By the way, taking into account the real losses of speed during launching: RB Briz-M will spend 22,585 , 2,3 tons of its own fuel, and if the same Angara-A1,6 block is put into operation, the Briz-m will spend about 5-10 tons of its own fuel supply for the additional deployment of the RB. Roscosmos
  26. Vovan
    Vovan 1 July 2020 10: 59
    -1
    I’m wondering: did the author build a house with his own hands? Not to mention the launch of a new production, with all these conceptual, design, technical and production aspects? And the staff with its competence, which must not only be maintained, but also restored: no need to explain how? But verbiage the author spread for a whole article ...
    1. Leonid Batsura
      Leonid Batsura 3 July 2020 09: 40
      -2
      I think that Vovan did not build the house either. As far as I know little, the house was not built by Korolev, and Chelomey, and Keldysh, and Tikhonravov. Skomorokhov chose the right story line. And the facts and statistics given by him are correct. Skomorokhov's drawback is that he did not dare to predict the behavior of the RF Ministry of Defense in conditions when Proton-M has been firmly eliminated and Angara-A5 will not be. And the reason is not so much the price (which is a lie to promise to decrease over time). but in her weakness, because her concept was licked with the underdeveloped D4X. So the colonels of the RF Ministry of Defense (a lot of assumptions have been made about this) are ready to represent the RF Ministry of Defense for permanent residence at the “private trader” Mask, “who is out of politics and regardless” of the CIA. This is trumpeting the essence of American democracy. 17 US intelligence services, however, cannot influence American "privateers".
  27. doubovitski
    doubovitski 1 July 2020 11: 40
    +1
    The author does not understand the topic, well, directly, not with a foot. Specialized production of rocket components at various industries and final assembly at the launch complex (or, very close to it). Is there such a technology with such technology when the subsequent operations are carried out either in Siberia or continue in Moscow? Having two productions, not yet localized in one (any) place, they lead precisely to such a hassle.
    Further. The design of such a product is an order of magnitude, or even two orders of magnitude, more expensive than the rocket itself. Because this process includes not only the artist’s work with his easel, not only the work of thousands of design teams with shutters and CAD programs, but also production workshops that make models, models, experimental and other elements, test benches, instruments, completely new ones are smelted alloys, new materials are created, etc. If a single copy of the product is made (and this is actually three or four, which are tested before destruction to find out the real possibilities), then the price of this one is more than cosmic. With the release of 440 pieces (this is as much as Proton was made), the price of each decreases by almost 440 times. Since the cost of preparing production is decomposed into the entire mass of products.
    1. Leonid Batsura
      Leonid Batsura 3 July 2020 09: 55
      0
      Dear Victor Kuzmich, in semolina, he also mixed the rancid herring.
      What series, if it is destined to happen, "shines" "Angara-A5"? The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation used only three (maximum) rockets per year in the production of 11-12 Proton-Ms. The rest went to the sale of launch services in the external market. And, if you believe some information, at the time of 02.07, when the cartoon was shown at 2013:6 Moscow time on TV channels ("but something went wrong") about the shocking accident of the Proton-M launch vehicle, in the "portfolio" Proton-M "there were about 00 orders for launches of" Proton-M ". 30 sabotage accidents "Proton-M", after each sabotage 4 months of a ban on launches of "Proton-M", allowed dear Russians to hang on their ears "why Musk is overtaking Russia in space?" Yes, because Russia was muzzled with continuous sabotage when launching missiles
      1. slipped
        slipped 4 July 2020 00: 33
        -1
        Quote: Leonid Batsura
        What series, if it is destined to happen, "shines" "Angara-A5"?


        Already signed contracts for at least 12 missiles.
  28. Alexander Sosnitsky
    Alexander Sosnitsky 1 July 2020 12: 03
    -1
    To disperse this Roskosmos long and forever, and to create an effective organization on its grave
    1. doubovitski
      doubovitski 2 July 2020 20: 10
      0
      Quote: Alexander Sosnitsky
      To disperse this Roskosmos long and forever, and to create an effective organization on its grave

      Suggest which one.
      1. Alexander Sosnitsky
        Alexander Sosnitsky 3 July 2020 02: 02
        -1
        Professional, you can simply Stalin. You can more complicated than the Royal (type and not the name). You can even more difficult type of mask. You can super type Arzamas, which no one will catch up. But not a dohlyatsky type of trampoline
  29. steelmaker
    steelmaker 1 July 2020 14: 09
    0
    "What is the pop, such is the arrival!"
  30. Virus-free crown
    Virus-free crown 1 July 2020 15: 06
    0
    By the way, who will enlighten - from those who know - but is it really possible, for example, purely hypothetically, for a private person to buy a Proton-M and pull his thread into space? good
    1. doubovitski
      doubovitski 2 July 2020 20: 15
      0
      Quote: Crown without virus
      By the way, who will enlighten - from those who know - but is it really possible, for example, purely hypothetically, for a private person to buy a Proton-M and pull his thread into space? good

      Not. There is no idiot to joke your own loot. Not very small. State - yes, as much as necessary! Musk started his car not because he wanted to become famous, but because he was far behind with the launch to Mars, the planet passed the point of its shortest distance to Earth. Therefore, in order not to look like a fool, and not to waste what I wanted to launch to Mars, I launched my old shit. To stop is to be an asshole in front of NASA, who threw budget loot into his project. These crooks do not care what to PR. As they say in Odessa, "even at the cemetery, but only without a queue."
  31. Fedorovich
    Fedorovich 1 July 2020 20: 11
    0
    Quote: Narak-zempo
    or she's outskirts.

    There is already a fire in the brothel during the flood, and you still want to let the laughing gas out there?
  32. Engineer
    Engineer 2 July 2020 11: 35
    +1
    Now I’m just reading a series of books by Gubanov, the chief designer of Energy. In the late 80s, the Union launched 80 missiles per year. And this is despite the restructuring. Union spending in the 80s on space was 0,3% (!!!) of the country's budget. This money was enough to develop such a system as Energia-Buran, Zenit LV, Energia-M LV, to build its own PIC Mir, launch AMC Phobos, develop a 37K rocket, a hydrogen block for the Proton and the Skif battle station, and much more. 0,3% is even less than the write-off costs of spoiling products at the time.
    Under Yeltsin, Chernomyrdin traveled to the United States and requested permission for 8 launches per year at the geostationary station. This is about the free market and sovereignty.
    In the late 80s, Americans calculated how much money the moon flight program brought to the country. For every dollar invested, the country's economy brought 14 profits. And here everyone argues whether they flew or not) The Space Shuttle program is several times more expensive than the lunar program. The estimated payback at the design stage was 60 starts per year! For NASA, the launch of one Shuttle cost 110 million, the remaining 80% was paid from the pocket of taxpayers. Absolutely unprofitable program would seem. Why, knowing how to count dollars, the Americans didn’t close it and exploited it for so long? Because shuttle dollars penetrated all spheres of the country's economy.
    In a country without a long-term economic development policy, something simply cannot appear at the level of the same Soviet Proton. Voronezh residents say that it’s no longer able to simply restore the production of hydrogen RD0120. Technology is lost. All promising carriers are built on the remnants of Soviet technology. All these Unions-5, Phoenixes, Irtysh, Yenisei, Angars are based on one Soviet engine RD-170. They divide it in half, then in a quarter. And at the same time they have the audacity to harass the lunar engine Mask. The Americans have a clear policy of conquering the market for commercial launches. By subsidizing the cost of launching Mask rockets from the budget, they have already taken the lion's share of the market, leaving Roscosmos without launches. Now they will take away more manned flights. Because every dollar invested in space brings in the future an order of magnitude more.
    Article 67 of the Constitution says that the Russian Federation is the successor of the Union. It’s also now added that from our ancestors we received ideals and faith in God. The ancestors also did not forget to leave us advanced technical and scientific achievements, so that we wisely use them for the good of the country. Mind was enough to break apart and sell. It is hoped that, even with God's help, the Eagle will rise to the wing and someday fly to the Moon.
    1. Leonid Batsura
      Leonid Batsura 3 July 2020 10: 14
      -3
      Do you see? 1973 was fatal for the Soviet Union, when in the period June 16-24 L.I. Brezhnev went to the United States on an official visit and with a plan for the elimination of the Soviet Union ("For the sake of peace on Earth - down with the Soviet Union." There is a film by such Heinrich Borovik, which until recently was on the Internet). Brezhnev took the work of the USSR Academy of Sciences, the USSR Science and Technology Committee, VINITI about (approved by the heads of these organizations) that the United States flew to the moon. As a result of this visit, the Soviet Union was banned from all space exploration. This was similar to the Versailles restrictions against Germany. But with diametrically opposite endings. The Versailles-like restrictions for Russia are still being sacredly fulfilled. The liquidation of the Proton-M launch vehicle was accomplished in the spirit of following the restrictions imposed on the Soviet Union by the Brezhnevs in 1973. On the gradual curtailment of all Soviet programs, Ivan Skomorokhov (I hope) will give us statistics ... In general, today Russia is the Bzdozhinsky's dream: Russia there is "Upper Volta". but no missiles.
  33. Ua3qhp
    Ua3qhp 2 July 2020 13: 02
    -1
    Quote: Engineer
    Voronezh residents say that it’s no longer able to simply restore the production of hydrogen RD0120. Technology is lost.

    There is no desire, that's impossible. If you want, you can re-develop technology.
  34. mister-red
    mister-red 2 July 2020 17: 57
    0
    The main task of the author was to prove that the cost of rockets in the production of 1-2 pieces is the same, so much at 20-30-50-100?
    All manufacturers in the world grabbed their heads and hung.
  35. Leonid Batsura
    Leonid Batsura 3 July 2020 07: 21
    -2
    Ivan Skomorokhov does not understand! Everything goes according to the script. And no matter how much they laughed at the "messiah" Mask in Russia, it doesn't count. According to the scenario, the stage when Musk is already recognized as a prophet sent down from above, but not for the United States, but for Russia, has already been successfully passed. It is the House of the Mask, which Rogozin plans to build on the site of the former FSUE GKNPTs named after M.V. Khrunichev and who "then the Russians will lovingly call the House of the Holy Mask " has already been successfully completed. The next stage is the one that has come. Shock because while the Proton-M launch vehicle was liquidated - this takes time, just carpet bombing could have lowered the level of the GKNPTs below the Moscow River level - it was necessary to lull that Angara-A5 would be cheaper than the Proton-M launch vehicle ... And now we can make a shocking confession: "Angara-A5" will be "three times more expensive." So!!! Not three times, but more times. And that nobody knew this? "Only the lazy didn't talk about it." Now it is possible to deliver, as they say, "cancer": "Proton-M" is completely liquidated, and "Angara-A5" will not be .. For "Angara-A5" is an abortion material of the American D4X - completely hydrogen. Which, for political reasons, is launched in the amount of 0,75 pieces per year.
    But now how to launch the secret satellites of the RF Ministry of Defense? That's right, the private owner Musk will lend a helping hand. Which is out of politics, etc. So, against the background of the fact that the Angara-A5 will be three times more expensive than the Proton-M launch vehicle, and the Proton-M will be twice as expensive as Musk's missiles (all these propaganda stages WE HAVE ALREADY passed) - rejoice the RUSSIANS of the savings that the RF Ministry of Defense will throw out to us on the launches of secret satellites of the RF Ministry of Defense with the missiles of the "holy" Mask !!!
    But not everything is said about the "Angara-A5": "Angara-A5", without taking into account the launch losses, fulfills 6% less than the characteristic velocity, and its launch mass is 9% more than the starting mass of the Proton-M launch vehicle.
    DOESN'T KNOW THIS ANYTHING IN ROSKOSMOS?
  36. Vovan
    Vovan 3 July 2020 10: 52
    0
    Quote: Leonid Batsura
    Skororokhov chose the right line of the story. And his facts and statistics are correct.

    Those. It is useless to explain that it is not necessary to choose the story line, but to understand the issue?
    Threat Vovan built a house with his own hands, but to equate Skomorokhov with "Korolev, and Chelomey, and Keldysh, and Tikhonravov" on the grounds that, in your opinion, none of them built a house with their own hands - bad manners.
  37. MBRSS
    MBRSS 3 July 2020 14: 29
    -3
    Yes, the Angara simply cannot be cheaper than Proton because of its modularity (which, after abandoning the A3 in favor of the S-5, was not really needed). In the best case, it will be 2 times more expensive, and that is unlikely. Burst with this hangar.
  38. slipped
    slipped 4 July 2020 01: 17
    0
    The correct opinion.

    1. Dmitry V.
      Dmitry V. 7 July 2020 10: 27
      0
      Quote: slipped
      The correct opinion.


      Competent opinion of a specialist.
  39. Leonid Batsura
    Leonid Batsura 4 July 2020 09: 52
    -2
    Taking into account also the methane rocket, which Roskosmos is allegedly starting up - already in five years! - someone decided to become Ivan Susanin, leading the Russian rocket and space industry through the lost places. If only not to let Russia into space. Until recently, Russia had everything for a full-fledged exploration of space and planets. But they wanted to make "Angara-A5", which supposedly was supposed to replace "Proton-M". Therefore, even while talking about the Angara-A5, the Proton-M rocket was eliminated. "Tempo, tempo, tempo !!!" Now it turns out that the Angara-A5 is three times more expensive than the Proton-M, which completely excludes its use as a commercial rocket .. But even without that it is clear: even in the ideal case (excluding launch losses) Angara-A5 "fulfills the characteristic speed (in three stages) by 6% less, but despite the fact that its starting mass is 9,5% more. Is it time to drain? But at the same time, those who brought Russian rocket and space technology into this dead end must merge. Out of which: owls. to launch secret satellites of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation on "cheap" ("cheaper only for nothing") missiles "independent" from the CIA "private trader" Mask
    And what do we expect from November 3, 2020, for which the first start of the Angara-A5 is supposedly scheduled. But the attention of the Russian suckers can be distracted by the plans of Roscosmos to make a methane returnable rocket (as if Roscosmos can at least do something?), Which will be lighter than Soyuz-2, but will output 200 tons more to LEO 10 km high than the one under development. rocket "Soyuz-2". You see, the development of the Soyuz-2 launch vehicle can already be covered with a "wet towel". Although methane is not methane, but LNG. This time! And two - two times - "methane" is cryogenic kerosene, which only in the sick imagination of the supporters of "methane", gives an increase in specific impulse of 10 s. In reality, this increase cannot be obtained. That is, a methane-fueled liquid-propellant rocket engine ("pie in the sky") will be worse than the "Tit in the Hand", which exists in the form of a series of liquid-propellant rocket engines fueled by ZhK + kerosene fuel. But methane is two times lighter in density than kerosene, it is cryogenic, that is, methane introduces into the structure the design specifics of structures on ZhK + ZhV fuel.
    Well, VERY TRUE, isn't it cheaper for US to liquidate Roscosmoso State Corporation ?????
    1. slipped
      slipped 4 July 2020 21: 12
      -1
      Quote: Leonid Batsura
      Taking into account the methane rocket, which Roskosmos allegedly is up to - five years later! - someone decided to become Ivan Susanin, leading the rocket and space industry in dead places.


      You carry the sweetest Purgu. laughing After the start of operation of the "Angara" LV, our nearest new rocket is "Rokot-M". It is followed by Soyuz-5, followed by A5M and SLK.

      Quote: Leonid Batsura
      And until recently, Russia had everything for a full-fledged exploration of space and planets.


      What does it mean - was it? laughing all three moons fly on Soyuz-2.1b, and Exomars-2022 starts on Proton-M.

      Quote: Leonid Batsura
      But they wanted to make "Angara-A5", which supposedly was supposed to replace "Proton-M". Therefore, even while talking about the Angara-A5, the Proton-M rocket was eliminated. "Tempo, tempo, tempo !!!"


      You're lying. The Proton-M rocket is still being produced and will still be launched until 2025, while Kazakhstan permits.

      Quote: Leonid Batsura
      Now it turns out that the Angara-A5 is three times more expensive than the Proton-M, which completely excludes its use as a commercial rocket ..


      Oh, whether. The price of the contracts already signed for the launch of the A5 is comparable to the commercial price of Proton-M.

      Quote: Leonid Batsura
      Out of which: owls. to launch secret satellites of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation on "cheap" ("cheaper only for nothing") missiles "independent" of the CIA "private trader" Mask


      And after this nonsense, even further commenting on this opus got sick.
  40. Comrade Kim
    Comrade Kim 4 July 2020 22: 41
    0
    Quote: Civil
    And another branch of the economy ended the Soviet reserve.


    Bitter truth.
    Effective managers who sent teachers and doctors to commerce even drained the remnants of the Soviet past.




    https://habr.com/ru/post/509580/


    "Results of June.
    The number of launches has decreased compared to May. Only seven. And only from two countries - the USA and China. The rest are being restored after quarantine and shutdown of cosmodromes and industry enterprises.
    USA. Four starts. All "new private traders"! SpaceX and Rocket Lab. SpaceX tensed up and tried to fulfill his plan - two Starlink per month. There were two of them, but one came by transfer from May. It didn’t work out this time. Another launch of a navigation satellite commissioned by the US military. Rocket Lab launched something small military.
    China. Three starts. The next satellites of remote sensing. Plus a navigation satellite - the completion of the full-time grouping. The Chinese have fulfilled their promise to form a navigation system by the 20th year! A rare case in modern astronautics (Europe also promised by the 20th).
    Russia, Europe, India, Iran, and others ... didn’t start anything ... they returned to life space centers and factories abandoned during quarantine.

    The growth of launches and the increase in rates are carried over again to the future. We wait."
  41. Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 5 July 2020 15: 35
    0
    One expert said somewhere that the Angara is so expensive because when they started to design it back in the USSR, no one was thinking about the economy. Musk thought something else. In addition, it is not clear how the cost of developing the Angara is taken into account in the cost of the rocket itself. I’ll also add from myself - the Americans, in fact, plow like Carla’s dads, as many of us have never dreamed of. I also note that if the Angara first-stage returnable cruise missile modules were implemented, as it was, as it was originally planned, then the spaceport could probably be built in the Rostov Region, or it could be launched from the same Baikonur. As a joke of humor, it could have been straight from Moscow.
  42. Ua3qhp
    Ua3qhp 6 July 2020 16: 26
    +1
    Quote: Falcon5555
    One expert said somewhere that the Angara is so expensive because when they started to design it back in the USSR, no one was thinking about the economy.

    These writing experts have no idea about the pricing at the Khrunichev Center, but they talk great about prices from the rocket photo.
  43. Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 7 July 2020 10: 07
    0
    In general, switching to a carrier by an order of magnitude less toxic components, this is already progress.

    Mr. Skomorokhov - who is by education?
    Judging by amateurish reasoning, overflowing with unnecessary emotions are far from technology.
    Not far from Rogozin left.

    Why undertake to discuss a topic far from you?

    As a process engineer (by first education), who has an idea of ​​the design, construction, and production of aircraft, I’ll say that the gentlemen from Roscosmos are right.

    Since the first batch of rocket launchers is laid down, the price of designing and creating technological equipment is very expensive for such large-sized products.
    For example, you need to create a series of conductors for each docking frame in order to meet tolerances in production (master conductors allow you to process docking frames of individual stages or rocket modules with perfect accuracy. You need to design and manufacture test benches for individual nodes (electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic).
    According to general estimates, the cost of technological equipment is tens of times higher than the cost of one carrier.
    Accordingly, the cost of equipment and technological equipment is scattered on a batch of missiles - for example, for 5-7 years of planned launches.
    Why do we need technological equipment? - Equipment is also needed for non-mass production, but equipment designed for mass production allows you to reduce intermediate technological operations, perform processing from one installation (which increases accuracy and eliminates the steps for reinstalling buildings into a new stock), reduces the cost of production at times in subsequent stages , as a result, makes the products monotonous (stable) in quality and independent of a particular specialist (minimizes the human factor).

    The guys are doing a long-overdue and necessary thing - the transition from a "toxic" carrier to a modern design, many times safer in preparation for the launch, causing an order of magnitude less environmental damage during launch.