Soyuz-5 and Angara-A5: what is wrong with Russian missiles

"Angara-A5": work on mistakes or their repetition?

Heavy Class Carrier "Angara-A5" is an important project for the Russian space industry and for the country's defense capability. They want to use it, as well as the improved Angara-A5M, which will have a greater carrying capacity, for launching satellites in the interests of the Ministry of Defense. In June, we recall, it became known about the signing of a contract between Roskosmos and the Ministry of Defense for four Angara-A5 rockets.

With commercial operation, everything is much more complicated. Having flown only once, as part of a test mission in 2014, the rocket, in fact, was not needed by the market. With a launch price twice as high as that of Proton-M, there are practically no prospects for ousting a direct competitor in the face of the Falcon 9. By the way, according to the results of the first half of 2020, SpaceX made more rocket and space launches than Russia, Europe and Japan combined.

In this regard, the opinion of the creator of the Angara, the former general director (2005-2012) and general designer (2009-2014) of the Khrunichev Center, Vladimir Nesterov, is very interesting. He spoke about the prospects of the carrier in an interview with RIA "News».

It would be naive to believe that the creator will criticize his offspring. Nevertheless, the assessment exceeded the wildest expectations.

“This is the best complex in the world. I speak as a person who has been involved in rockets for forty-eight years, who knows everything about the Chinese, Indians, Japanese, Israelis, Iranians, Europeans and Americans, I say that Angara is the best rocket and space complex in the world. He has only one major drawback, in which Musk surpassed us in his rocket - the returnable first stage, ”

Nesterov said.

Why is Angara-A5 so good? In short, everyone! (At least, according to the former head of the Khrunichev Center.)

“The engine of the first stage of the Angara is RD-191. This is a unique engine. No one in the world has ever done this and will not do it for another ten years. RD-0124 on the second stage. It has a specific impulse of 359 units. Not a single designer in the world, even Elon Musk, even dreamed of such a figure, ”

ex-leader says.

Indeed, there are no complaints about the technical aspects of the Angara: or rather, they did not exist at the time of the 90s, when they began to create the rocket. Now kerosene rocket engines are gradually giving way to promising methane engines. The latter is cheap, has a wide raw material base and, unlike kerosene, does not leave combustion by-products in the form of soot.

Methane engines have long and not without reason been considered the most promising direction. It's not just about the concept. Blue Origin recently supplied United Launch Alliance with the first BE-4 methane rocket engine for the promising Vulcan heavy rocket, a direct competitor of the Angara-A5. We should not forget about SpaceX's methane Raptor, which will be installed on the Starship spacecraft and the Super Heavy booster. And all these missiles are seen as reusable, which, probably, never shines for representatives of the Angara family (which, by the way, Vladimir Nesterov himself correctly noted).

It can be objected that the Angara-A5 is already flying, while promising missiles are yet to be created. In fact, this is only partly true. Flight design tests of the Russian carrier, according to the most conservative estimates, will last until about the mid-2020s. Given the dynamics of "private traders", by that time it will be possible to expect the full commissioning of the methane Vulcan, New Glenn and even Elon Musk's Starship.

"Irtysh": the old "Zenith" for the new market

In addition to assessing the Angara, the ex-head of the Khrunichev Center analyzed the prospects for the Soyuz-5 medium rocket, also known as the Irtysh or Phoenix.

In fact, it is she who should become the main Russian launch vehicle after the Soyuz rockets are decommissioned. Despite the similar names, the new rocket will have practically nothing in common with them, representing in a broad sense the development of the Soviet Zenit. Now Soyuz-5 is seen as a two-stage medium-class rocket capable of launching seventeen tons of payload into low Earth orbit. This is less than the heavy Falcon 9, but more than, for example, Soyuz-2.1a. At the first stage of the Irtysh, a kerosene liquid-propellant rocket engine RD-171MV will be installed, which is a development of the RD-171 for Zenit missiles. The second stage will have two RD-0124MS engines.

Externally, the rocket will be similar to the Falcon 9. However, the Irtysh will not be able to boast of the return of the first stage. And in general, its advantages are not entirely clear even against the background of old Soviet missiles. “I think that there will be no Soyuz-5 due to the fact that no one needs it,” said Vladimir Nesterov about the brainchild of RSC Energia.

It is difficult to say what is more here: perhaps the reason is the wide media attention to Soyuz-5 or the media criticism of Angara itself, but in any case, there is some truth in the words of the former head of the Khrunichev Center.

Recall that back in 2018, the former head of S7 Space, Sergey Sopov, said that Soyuz-5 is, in fact, a grown and fat Zenit rocket.

Zenit is a wonderful carrier with excellent technical characteristics, but repeating it at a new technical level, moreover, by 2022, when our competitors will go even further, does not look like the most optimal solution.”

Will there be analogues?

In general, the two main Russian carriers of the foreseeable future, the Angara-A5 and the Irtysh, suffer from similar conceptual problems. Designed with an eye to the 90s, they are largely obsolete long before full-fledged entry into service.

Vladimir Nesterov himself believes that one of the options could be the Soyuz-LNG methane rocket: according to the head of the Khrunichev Center, it should be made reusable.

It is not entirely clear how exactly Russian (and not only Russian) specialists will be able to catch up with SpaceX in this direction. After all, the creation of a reusable rocket requires not just a political decision: it requires technology, funding, many years of trial and error, as well as a clear understanding of which market segment can be claimed.

It is important to say that reusability in itself is not the key to success, but is no more than one of its components, at least when it comes to promising media.

Summing up all of the above, we can say that in order to create a truly successful rocket and expect to get a share of the modern market, Russian developers will have to rethink the approach to rocket design.

Comments

[shinobi]

I don’t understand this lamentation of Yaroslavna in our media. Well, Musk’s rocket turned out a little better than ours, so what? Don’t make our own at all? A methane engine, you say? more and more resources every year.

[military_cat]

Quote: shinobi

Are we lagging behind? So what? Time wagon

Yep, time to swing.

Don't make your own?

Of course they will do something. But without competitiveness, it will be something like Elbrus: of course, we make processors, the defense industry uses them, but everyone buys Intel with their own money. And before, Russian missiles were market leaders.

[Octopus]

Quote: military_cat

And before, Russian missiles were market leaders.

What Russian missiles do you know? Soyuz-2? Was he the market leader?

[military_cat]

I meant "Proton-M". Soyuz-2, however, also dominated its niches.

[A1845]

No one in the world has ever done this and will not do it for another ten years

maybe it won't be anymore
Valentin Petrovich Glushko has reached incredible heights, but how much can you eat up the legacy of the USSR?

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: military_cat

Everyone buys their own money from Intel. And before, Russian missiles were market leaders.

Because they were made not for the market, but for their space program. And now they are trying to make them competitive, and as a result, neither a rocket, a competitive one, nor a clear program. It's possible that I'm wrong. Simply, "it's a shame for the State."

[military_cat]

Roskosmos is not trying to make rockets competitive now. Because positions are distributed and retained not for the competitiveness of missiles, but for loyalty to the authorities. And money is obtained by milking them from the budget, and not through attracting customers. There are no incentives to make missiles competitive.

[vVvAD]

The problem is much deeper than you think. We don’t have a spaceport at Cape Canaveral, and we don’t have a fleet comparable in size to the American fleet. This means that in order to compete on equal terms with the American Falcon-9, New Glenn and their possible development and analogues, we need to create a rocket, bend your fingers: 1) no less environmentally friendly, 2) with more powerful energy (compare the latitudes of Cape Canaveral and the Vostochny cosmodrome and we draw conclusions), 3) just as cheap, therefore 4) reusable (without soot, therefore, on gas), 5) but not having the possibility of splashdown with subsequent catch, and at the same time not damaging the coating and communications of the cosmodrome during landing, which means 6 ) returned otherwise. Well, either we swell funds comparable to Vostochny into the landing site for it (provided that it is technologically possible to create such a structure that can withstand at least several hundred landings, and preferably at least 1000).
Trial balloon - "Wing SV". But there are reasonable doubts about the possibility of scaling such a launch vehicle to even a medium-class carrier, not to mention a heavy one, due to the need for a corresponding increase in at least the length of the required runway.
In general, I consider the vertical launch a dead end branch in principle, and even more so under the current conditions.
When launching in an airplane manner, the required fuel reserves are less. The options for the return of the multi-platform 1st winged stage and the super-heavy balloon of stratospheric altitude for air launch, in my opinion, would be worth considering.

[Stas157]

Quote: shinobi

Falling behind? So what?

To someone and the tanks have nothing.

[mikh-korsakov]

Stas! That's right, although I am not an expert in rocket technology, the author in his article convinced me of the shame of Russian projects and the genius of Elon Musk.

[U-58]

Yes, Musk is a genius. But not the most important.
The genius is the one who "created" it.
This is a person or even a group of people from the top echelon of NASA who have found the courage to realize that the bureaucracy, "charters and laws" that flourish in the agency have become a real brake on the path of, uh, progress.
Musk is freed from all conventions, financial and legal hooks.
He, in a certain sense, is free to spit on all the rules of contracting, approval and approval.
It is free from the need to renegotiate everything for years in case of a change in the technical situation.
He will not be called to report to a Congressional committee to identify his liberties.
The mask works "on a turn-key basis".
The principle is simple to shamelessness ": So, guys, what do you want? Yeah, I understand, I'll do it tomorrow. And it does.

[mikh-korsakov]

u 58. I do not know anything about how things were under Korolev in terms of his relationship with the state. But there, as they say, the result was evident. But I know firsthand about another great project of the USSR - the creation of an atomic bomb. The fact is that a long time ago, when I was studying radiochemistry, the old professors who participated in this project were still alive. They told us something. The work was done in a hurry. It is clear that in their time little was known about the effect of radiation on humans, so one without a finger, the other with a burnt face, worked heroically. But they all said that Beria was then the "supervisor" of the project. Therefore, for example, graphite was needed - a carload of graphite is being transported in a month. And so it is with everything. Therefore, the point is not whether the state helps or not, but in stupid fools and mediocrity, and they are always right there.

[Civil]

Here are the related photos, a soda truck in Moscow in the 80s led to the sawing, in the 90s, of the space measuring vessels "Yuri Gagarin" and "Akademik Korolev" ... in two photographs, one explains the shame of the other ...

[Grazdanin]

The problem is that the Angara is outdated and we spent at least $3 billion on it alone. SpaceX spent $9 billion on Falcon0,4.

[Freemason Mason]

About $800 million, another 500 could be added to develop the falcon heavy, but everything else is correct. In addition, you need to understand that falcon 9 was already 4 years ago, in 2016, now starship is being developed - this is generally a different level

[Grazdanin]

For the development of 0,4, everything else for launches or alterations to the requirements of the customer. Even if 0,8 is very far from 3 billion. Heavy is another project.

[Freemason Mason]

The hangar was supposed to appear 15 years ago, at the same time as Atlas-5, Ariane-5 and Delta IV, among them it would be competitive, but now it is a stillborn project that is being dragged simply because they are not able to give birth to anything else. It was necessary at one time not to brag about the launches of the Unions and the best toilets in the galaxy, but to think about the future. And now it's too late to drink Borjomi...

[Grazdanin]

Agree to 100%

[vVvAD]

It's never too late to learn.
We overtook the Americans in (according to the chronology of the beginning): missile technologies, the nuclear program, dynamic protection, KAZ, combat lasers, electronic warfare, compact and aviation nuclear weapons, although we did not have the initial technological advantages and temporary odds.

[AUL]

Quote: Grazdanin

The problem is that the Angara is outdated and we spent at least $3 billion on it alone.

If these 3 billion dollars went only to her, she would now fly twice a day ...

[Grazdanin]

Yes, because it didn’t take more than 3 billion, I even downplayed it, some estimate up to 4 billion.

[post]

In 2011, the cost of the rocket development program was estimated by the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) at $3 billion 977 million

[Vadim237]

Morally outdated - but physically for the military and their civilian launches, the military has already ordered four missiles for the Sphere of 600 satellites, another 30 missiles will be ordered and satellites and platforms will continue to be launched like on Soyuz 5. And what will happen tomorrow, who knows, maybe the USA will come out from the treaty on the deployment of weapons in outer space and Russia will need to withdraw its space combat satellites and missile platforms, everything is needed, all sorts of missiles are important.

[Grazdanin]

The military does not care about the price, they do not spend their own, but our money.

Quote: Vadim237

who knows, maybe the United States will withdraw from the treaty on the placement of weapons in space

What does can mean? In the next few years will come out, 100%. They already have space troops, orbital planes have been flying in space for ten years, after 24 years they will make their own station.

[mister-red]

Do you really believe in this amount? The platform of a new passenger car costs 1 billion, and a rocket from scratch 0,4 billion? Naive though.

[Konstantin Makovsky]

if they say 50 million pesos to all-propellers, they will also believe :)

[Virus-free crown]

Quote: shinobi

I don’t understand this lamentation of Yaroslavna in our media. Well, Musk’s rocket turned out a little better than ours, so what? Don’t make our own at all? A methane engine, you say? more and more resources every year.

Well, for now, from firms and firms involved in space, employees with experience and experience will scatter like cockroaches - so in 10 years we will have to compete with Africa who will launch more rockets into space

"Cadres decide everything!!!" (c) Stalin

Until this reaches the Power, our space industry will slowly die ...

It's worth every penny!!! Pay for work corresponding to experience and responsibility money!!! And there is no need to cut money for space into yachts for sawmills !!!

[Podvodnik]

Until this reaches the Power, our space industry will slowly die ...

It's worth every penny!!! Pay for work corresponding to experience and responsibility money!!! And there is no need to cut money for space into yachts for sawmills !!!

Until the indignant people take to the streets, no one will pay. At one event, the great one was asked by a fearless journalist about the big difference in pay between top managers and ordinary workers. I remind you of the answer: "This is the global trend"

[Virus-free crown]

Quote: Podvodnik

Until this reaches the Power, our space industry will slowly die ...

It's worth every penny!!! Pay for work corresponding to experience and responsibility money!!! And there is no need to cut money for space into yachts for sawmills !!!

Until the indignant people take to the streets, no one will pay. At one event, the great one was asked by a fearless journalist about the big difference in pay between top managers and ordinary workers. I remind you of the answer: "This is the global trend"

When the indignant people from "space" take to the streets - that's it, the championship of Africa in space can definitely be passed on to us But ... while there is still time ... not everyone with knowledge and experience quit ... and there are still young people who are "sick" with space There is still time... but... it is running out...

[Aibolit]

Quote: shinobi

Well, Musk got a rocket a little better than ours, so what?

The thirst to snatch a sweeter piece overshadowed the professional mind

This is their war, not ours.

Dmitry Rogozin

Quote: shinobi

belt wagon

[smart ass]

What do you recommend smoking

[Avior]

Without a competitive launch vehicle, astronautics will be looked at as a means of pumping money out of the budget
For now, it will hold out on military launches, but it’s a matter of time when military launches are “optimized” on a competitive basis and outsiders are allowed to enter.

[Octopus]

Quote: Avior

No competitive pH

)))
In Russia in the 90s, they learned to understand launches as cosmonautics. A very small, to be honest, segment of the market, but in it the Russian Federation retained Soviet baggage, while in other aspects the failure was complete, and even in Soviet times. This baggage was enough for the 90s.

Now the luggage is over, but you still want to puff out your cheeks. I think this is not the last enchanting statement on space from amateur realtors like Nesterov or his heirs.

[military_cat]

Quote: Octopus

while in other aspects the failure was utter

Well, not in all. How could you forget such an important thing?

 Show / Hide text

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: Octopus

In Russia in the 90s, they learned to understand launches as cosmonautics

And what else, I'm sorry, by it understand?
If you don't launch it, it won't fly.

[Octopus]

Quote: Narak-zempo

And what else, I'm sorry, by it understand?

[smart ass]

I love it when they have Roskosmos and cattails, it happens when you sit exactly on the priest or are engaged in the creation of a product that is unnecessary to the market

[Stas157]

. methane rocket "Soyuz-LNG": according to the head of the Khrunichev Center, it needs to be done reusable

No need to copy the Americans. Rocket Mask with a return stage is more complicated and more expensive. To return the stage, you need to carry additional fuel. We have strengths, this is the best energy-efficient engine and a simple, cheap rocket, the most reliable in the world (Proton). So you need to use it in the version with methane. And it’s not a fact that reusability will be cheaper, and most importantly, more reliable.

[Avior]

Even gasoline for diesel fuel is not so easy to replace, and the type of engine in the launch vehicle is even more so.
To be honest, I don't remember such a case at all.

[Blackmokona]

At the moment, Mask's used launches are more reliable than non-used ones.
And we do not have the most efficient engine in terms of UI, the same RS-25 has much higher performance. Only Musk showed that UI is not a panacea and generally uninteresting technical parameter for customers who care about the price of the issue

[Stas157]

Quote: BlackMokona

At the moment, Mask's used launches are more reliable than not used.

Yeah, the more used the more reliable! Brilliant))

[Blackmokona]

Which car is more reliable, which just left the assembly line, or which drove the first 10 kilometers?

[Stas157]

Quote: BlackMokona

Or which drove the first 10 kilometers?

The one who drove the first 100 meters!)) Did you come here to amuse people?

And if we take the acceptable categories of car operation (and not some mythical 10 km, a car is not created for this), then by the first MOT (10-15 thousand km), any car will have various sores. Do you have a car?

[Blackmokona]

I pointed to the test tracks of automakers. It's strange that you didn't know about them. And as you can see, used does not reduce reliability in itself. And it reduces wear, which manifests itself at the end of the product cycle. And at the beginning, operation increases reliability, in the form of identifying jambs.

[AUL]

Quote: BlackMokona

I pointed to the test tracks of automakers.

In fact, the analogy with the car is absolutely inappropriate here. If, for the first 100 km, a new car has, say, a fuel pump (or something else) gone wrong, then the car will stop, the pump will be purged / repaired and they will go further. If the rocket's "fuel pump" goes haywire on takeoff, there will be nothing to purge. 100% reliability should be there initially!

[Blackmokona]

If one of the turbopumps of the Falcon-9 rocket breaks down, then it will successfully go into space. That has already been proven in practice. 9 engines and reusability gives the necessary redundancy. You can always donate the supply of PN or fuel for landing to complete the withdrawal of the main load.
Also, due to the reusability of engines and rockets, very intensive fire tests can be carried out before launch to identify problems.

[BAI]

then by the first MOT (10-15 thousand km), any car will have different sores.

Suzuki Grand Vitara. NONE. And not a single one for 40 (I didn’t have time anymore, I don’t travel much). Don't think of it as advertising.

[krizis]

By the start, the carrier is already at the bottom of the "trough", but where it will be at the next launches is a big question.

[Blackmokona]

No, as practice has shown with Falcon-9, used ones have higher reliability

[krizis]

how did you count?

[Blackmokona]

All 100% of used Falcon-9 launches are successful, but the new Falcon-9s do not have such beauty

[krizis]

i.e. you don’t compare flights of one modification to a used stage on a new one, but just different ones, and there, and there are new stages? What is the point?

[Blackmokona]

I just took all the Falcon-9 launches, divided them for the first time and used, and calculated for used 100% reliability

[krizis]

did not forget to add one emergency? To take into account the quantity.

[Aibolit]

Quote: BlackMokona

Which car is more reliable, which just left the assembly line, or which drove the first 10 kilometers?

the main thing is that something would not go off the assembly line before or immediately after the holidays

[Zeev zeev]

Rocket Mask with a reusable stage is cheaper. Both in production, thanks to advanced technologies, and in operation, due to reusability. Therefore, Musk was able to bring prices down in the launch market by almost 50%, squeezing Roscosmos out of the commercial launch market. Fuel in the launch cost is the smallest item of expenditure, the engine and design cost an order of magnitude more.

[Stas157]

Quote: ZeevZeev

Rocket Mask with reusable step is cheaper.

Reusable, the key word. And it doesn't seem to make it any more reliable. And the problem of reliability in space will be more important than the price. Then a reusable rocket is much more complicated and obviously more expensive. Ballast fuel that you need to take on a flight is a huge minus for energy efficiency. And given that the returned stage must be carefully diagnosed and re-prepared for a new launch, then a significant effect of such reusability is not visible at all.

[donavi49]

Why? Here he already has five-time boosters flying. That is, they made 5 flights. The most risky stage is landing, when the output load is already safe. That is - in the worst case many times, in this particular case it will work once.

Checks are optimized. At the same time, competitors will generally be in chocolate, on methane BE-4s with a base (in the current block) resource of 100 flights. In theory, like an airplane - an inter-flight check + flight, and so there 10 times, then a V / C check and 10 more times, and so on. With 50 and 75 after D check.

[Stas157]

Quote: donavi49

Here he already has five-time boosters flying.

It is clear that the future lies in reusability. But this must be reached. Shuttle didn't work. The non-refundable Union turned out to be more reliable and cheaper. The simplest for our country at this stage make a simple, cheap, reliable methane rocket. And then think about reusability.

[Grazdanin]

Quote: Stas157

Shuttle didn't work.

Why didn't it work? It's just redundant, 3/4 of the possibilities were not used. The capabilities of the X-37B or dream chaser are enough.

[krizis]

The shuttle did not pull these opportunities in terms of launch frequency. For cargo - a dead-end concept of combining cargo and passenger transportation. And inter-flight service turned out to be comparable to manufacturing.

[Vadim237]

Shuttles - a development of 50 years ago, much has changed since then, new ones have appeared: materials, manufacturing technologies, CAD modulating programs for development and testing, new technical solutions.

[chenia]

Quote: Stas157

Then a reusable rocket is much more complicated and obviously more expensive. Ballast fuel

Here. agree. And if you really wanted to be reusable, then why not parachute down (at the same time, separate the engines from the first stage tanks - engines are the most expensive). And so ours, they decided to teach how to plan the first stage, but not plant like Musk.

[Zeev zeev]

If you parachute, the landing will be uncontrollable and the first stage may be damaged. And if you also separate the tanks from the engines, then the design will be heavier and the cost of reassembly will negate all the benefits of reusability

[chenia]

Quote: ZeevZeev

If you parachute, the landing will be uncontrollable and the first stage may be damaged

It is easy and simple to calculate the landing area of ​​the first stage. Stabilization on the descent, landing (touching the ground, or even splashing down) with the corresponding side.

Quote: ZeevZeev

And if you also separate the tanks from the engines, then the design will be heavier

Why did it happen? All this is an order of magnitude simpler and easier to implement than Mask's. This has long been worked out for us for heavier equipment.

Quote: ZeevZeev

the cost of reassembly will negate all the benefits

Well, yes. A bulkhead of the engine is necessary for any restart, so the "bucket" will only interfere.
And this method is cheaper and has long been tested.

For Musk, such a "return" is determined by environmental considerations. And we are a simpler people ..

[Zeev zeev]

Why did it happen? All this is an order of magnitude simpler and easier to implement than Mask's. This has long been worked out for us for heavier equipment.

Because the fastening and separation system has weight. And it is more than just a supporting structure.

[Stas157]

Quote: chenia

And if you really wanted to be reusable, then why not parachute down (at the same time separate engines from tanks the first stage - engines are the most expensive). And so ours, thought teach to plan the first stage, but not to plant like Musk.

I completely agree. If these options are implemented, they will certainly be cheaper than Maskov's, using ballast fuel (parasitic load) and complex return technology.

[Grazdanin]

Is the parachute of brides okay?)) And so that nothing breaks upon landing, you need a parachute weighing half the first stage))

[Stas157]

Quote: Grazdanin

you need a parachute weighing half the first stage))

They wrote to you:

Quote: chenia

while separating the engines from the tanks of the first stage

And the descent speed does not have to be like that of parachutes intended for people. And while touching, squibs can be used. But this is only one of the options. There are others, such as planning.

[Grazdanin]

Such stupidity. It's not cheap and it's pointless. There are 2 main tasks 1. cheap flights 2. Preparation of the first stage for restart in 2-3 days. This solution does not solve any of the problems.

[chenia]

Quote: Grazdanin

Such stupidity. It's not cheap and it's pointless

For an amateur, this is really stupid. But any normal engineer will say the opposite. Separating a block with engines from a "bucket" is obviously easier than, for example, separating a shuttle from a tank. You don't need to make a reservation. reinsured creating a super-reliable system. If something goes wrong with the shuttle during separation, this is serious (and there were no problems). And if with the first stage, then there will be a successful launch, only a little more expensive (the block with engines will break).

Quote: Grazdanin

Preparation of the first stage for restart in 2-3 days.

In engines, one way or another, there are elements, parts, assemblies and blocks with varying degrees of reliability. Some element can withstand 100 restarts, some only 2 (and then the entire block must be sorted out). Refractory gaskets, connection elements, etc. are replaced immediately.
So there is no such thing (at least now, but we will see the future of new technologies and materials) that would be in two days. according to the principle - refueled and forward. will not be for a long time (even with Musk).

Quote: Grazdanin

This solution does not solve any of the problems.

The area where the first stage "arrives" is known. The rocket will only be at the start, the lads will already fly there in helicopters. Further, as when meeting astronauts, the block is still in the air and already up to visual control (about all kinds of beacons, by default). I did not have time to land, after 10 minutes. lads near the block, and attached to the external suspension to the next helicopter. 40 minutes later at the airport. push the block into the transporter. And after a couple of hours in the assembly shop.
And then like Musk.

And everything is cheaper, more reliable and easier.
Our plans are to blur the "planning" first step. But it looks like cutting the dough.

[Drummer]

In fact, the capabilities of rockets are always redundant and the first stages always have a supply of fuel.
And it turns out, for example, that both Flacon and Proton can launch a device weighing 7-8 tons, and for both it is ~ 50% of the maximum load, but Flacon's first stage uses the excess fuel for landing, and the Proton's first stage will fall with it into the taiga in Altai . Here is your ballast.
Landing engines on a parachute is, of course, good, but how to catch / look for them, they will not fall in the steppe, but again in Altai or in the Pacific Ocean. In the second case, landing on the deck will not work, which means there will be unwanted contact with water, and you also need to somehow provide a reserve of buoyancy, search / rise by itself.

[krizis]

Such an apparatus can launch the Union. And much cheaper than the Falcon. . Of course, the Proton in this case will carry a passing load.

[Zeev zeev]

You consider the launch as a unique isolated case, after which at least the grass does not grow (in the case of the Proton, which uses super-poisonous heptyl, the grass does not grow at the site of the first stage fall in the literal sense). And Musk and his engineers and economists see launch as part of a work cycle. A well-established work cycle, which is very important. Start-up, landing, transportation for inspection, maintenance, refueling, new start-up. The whole process is extremely worked out and calculated both technically and economically. Therefore, the effect, especially in terms of price, is very large.

[Grazdanin]

Everyone forgets about the speed of preparation for launch. Current missiles are built 1-2 years. From reusable they want to achieve a preparation speed of 2-3 days. For mass launches, this is critical. For military and civilian purposes, this makes it possible to mass-use orbital aircraft such as the X-37B or dream chaser.

[krizis]

there are no such reusable missiles yet. You still need to do the second step.

[3danimal]

In terms of reliability: SpaceX has a better indicator than Roscosmos, alas. Although they do not consecrate missiles before launches ..

[snucerist]

"Then a reusable rocket is much more complicated and obviously more expensive."
Musk doesn't sell ROCKETS.
Musk sells STARTS.
When you understand the difference between these terms, you will also understand why Musk has already ousted Russian cosmonautics from the commercial segment, and by the end of the year will finish it completely.
Bringing a kilogram of cargo from Musk is already cheaper. And not the last role in the price is played by the reusability of the first stage.
What is the price of a rocket?
The customer is only interested in the amount he will pay for the delivery of his cargo.
That's it!

[krizis]

empty sound. No need to pretend to be smart about it :) Yes, launches are implied. And they are highly dependent on the cost of the carrier.
And it’s not so much that Musk squeezed out how much Roskosmos screwed up. And then there are also sanctions, that is, a restriction on the launch of foreign satellites. It would seem that it is not necessary. if the mask is so cheap.
"What does the price of a rocket have to do with it?"
- holy simplicity::) you are not one of those liberals - marketers who are subconsciously confident. what money can you eat? :)

[krizis]

a reusable rocket stage definitely increases the cost, but does not reduce the cost. Some benefit from reusability can be obtained with a sufficient number of repeated launches. According to various estimates, from 5 to 10. Now the average flight time is less than 3x.
"Therefore, Musk was able to bring down prices in the launch market by almost 50%, squeezing out Roskosmos"
- not because.

[Zeev zeev]

Now there are already the first stages that have completed a full cycle of five launches. According to various estimates, a stage costing 29 million and a launch costing 11 million (this is the entire cycle, including preparation for a restart) is cheaper than the first stage for the same Proton already at the second launch.
And Roskosmos was squeezed out of the market by lower prices.

[krizis]

Now there are already the first stages that have completed a full cycle of five launches

Right. but it is the averages that matter. So here's a 2-guaranteed loss. now - on average less than 3x.

according to various estimates, a stage worth 29 million and a launch cost of 11

- there are no grounds for precise estimates, it is only possible to evaluate the economic effect of the transition to semi-reusability according to the Mask scheme. So the cheap first step does not contribute to this efficiency at all. By the way. when Musk launched, the launch of the entire Proton was 25-40 million.

comes out cheaper than the first stage for the same "Proton" already at the second launch.

- again. I return to the cost of the Proton in the 2005 series.

And Roskosmos was squeezed out of the market by lower prices.

- First of all, the cessation of flights. for several reasons, such as accidents due to stupid mistakes or a crazy situation with a gross violation of engine production technology. an increase in the cost of Proton due to series restrictions.
The proton can fly noticeably cheaper than the Falcon, even if the military continues to overpay for the Falcon. The real average launch price of Proton is less than 60 million, Falcon - more than 70.

[Mikhail Ya2]

And how did you calculate the “real launch price”? Can you show me the calculations?

[3danimal]

Musk gave an example in an interview: imagine a disposable passenger or transport aircraft and the cost of a ticket / transportation of a kg of cargo on it. And everything falls into place.

Therefore, Musk was able to bring down prices in the launch market by almost 50%, squeezing out Roskosmos.
- not because.

Of course not (after all, Rogozin said so). Therefore, we are also going to make reusable steps, for fun

[krizis]

Of course not (after all, Rogozin said so). Therefore, we are also going to make reusable steps, for fun

Really. not because, and Rogozin has nothing to do with it. I gave the real reasons for the loss of the market by Proton above
And the maskophilia epidemic finds fertile ground among iPhoneophiles. because projects "like Musk's" find funding more easily. But that's what you wanted, right?
Reusable media will become effective over time, but today it is a pursuit of ten percent of the cost, while an increase in the series of products reduces the cost by 2-3 times.

[Sanichsan]

Quote: ZeevZeev

Rocket Mask with a reusable stage is cheaper.

this is probably why more than half of the launches of this reusable rocket are made in a one-time form

[Mikhail Ya2]

The statistics tell a different story. Only military and manned launches, so far it has been decided to carry out on the new first stages. But over time, this will change.

[smart ass]

Sofa queens in action)))

[Mountain shooter]

Commercial launches are a good thing. And the startup cost is the deciding factor. Not the most important thing, reusability. The cost of production matters. There will be a cheap disposable rocket - and they will immediately remember the difficulty of returning the stages, and the incomplete efficiency in terms of the output mass (you need to carry fuel for landing with you!) ...

[Grazdanin]

There is a flight preparation factor. The launch vehicle takes 1-2 years to build, SpaseX and Blue Origin want to achieve a restart of the first stage in 2-3 days. And yes, disposable rockets will always be more expensive to launch reusable ones, that's how life works.

[krizis]

Did you forget to take into account the experience of the Shuttle?

[3danimal]

You can't make a disposable (and reliable enough) rocket cheaply enough. Even if you use serf engineers and workers (you still need factories, machines, materials).

[Engineer Schukin]

Quote: Stas157

. methane rocket "Soyuz-LNG": according to the head of the Khrunichev Center, it needs to be done reusable

No need to copy the Americans. Rocket Mask with a return stage is more complicated and more expensive. To return the stage, you need to carry additional fuel. We have strengths, this is the best energy-efficient engine and a simple, cheap rocket, the most reliable in the world (Proton). So you need to use it in the version with methane. And it’s not a fact that reusability will be cheaper, and most importantly, more reliable.

Proton - the most reliable rocket in the world?
Do not invent nonsense, since you do not know the materiel.

[Blackmokona]

Now calculate the percentage of successful launches, based on the wiki data.

[Stas157]

Quote: BlackMokona

Now count

So consider yourself or others should do it for you. Unless of course you want to back up your speculations with something.

[Blackmokona]

No problem, as examples
Completely successfully completed 88.9% of Proton-M launches (Khrunechev, Russia)
97.73% of Falcon 9 launches completed successfully (SpaceX, USA)
Completely successfully completed 98.8% of Atlas-5 launches (ULA, USA)
Completely successfully completed 97.5% of Delta-4 launches (ULA, USA)
94.4% of Ariane-5 launches (Ariane, EU) completed successfully

[Stas157]

Quote: BlackMokona

Completely successfully completed 88.9% of Proton-M launches (Khrunechev, Russia)

And here is another infa:

As of December 24, 2019, the Proton-M launch vehicle was launched 109 times, of which 99 were completely successful (90,8%).

And if you look at individual years, then everything is 100%. All these Falcons and Atlases do not have such a long sample as Proton. Therefore, comparing launches for 75 years and for 5 is not entirely correct.

[Blackmokona]

1) You look at the wiki. There are not 109 launches at Proton-M at all.
2) Happiness is not in years, but in launches. And usually a couple of tens is enough to create statistics. Falcon-9, the same 88 times, tried to fly away, of which 86 times everything ended completely successfully, exploded 1 time, and once lost a side load, removing the main one.

[Stas157]

You are simply a master of conversation to divert, clinging to details and particulars. My Main thought was that the USSR made the most reliable, energy efficient and at the same time inexpensive rockets in the world and we need to follow this tradition. I gave the proton, only as an example. And not at all by chance. Because even:

An American independent consulting company, based on a market study by Futron Corporation, recognized the Russian Proton launch vehicle as the most reliable in the world.

It should be noted that this applied to launches before 2004. The fact that the Soviet Proton suddenly became more dangerous is the problem of modern Russia, and not of proven Soviet technologies.

[Blackmokona]

As for the most reliable, energy efficient, I would argue. Although, of course, they were at the forefront and actively fought for leadership. And so inexpensive salaries need to be compared first. To assess where the worker was not paid extra, and where the production and product were built correctly.
There, in the 90s, we captured the market, Proton collectors ate promises instead of salaries. And the collectors in the USA demanded thicker black caviar. .

[Grazdanin]

A cleaner working at SpaceX cannot receive less than 90 rubles a month by law. S / n is comparable only to the first persons. More than $000 billion was spent on the Angara, $3 billion on the Falcon 9.

[3danimal]

Rogozin's income is significantly higher than that of the head of NASA. But the salary of engineers - on the contrary. An interesting correlation that distinguishes us from many developed countries ..

[Grazdanin]

therefore, there is one in five employees, a native of the countries of the former USSR in the first or second generation.

[3danimal]

So I wrote that Rogozin's s/a is higher
One of the five employees in the first (and even in the second) comes from the USSR - commendable, but it's like being proud of the white (black) skin color.
By the way, in the second generation, this is already an American who grew up in that society and received an education there.

[3danimal]

If human ancestors had exclusively followed tradition, they would still differ little from animals.
We must develop. And if today technologies allow us to make reusable returnable stages of rockets, they should be made.
Let me remind you once again of an example with an inexpensive disposable passenger plane and an ordinary Boeing 737. How much will the tickets for them differ?

[Mikhail Ya2]

How can you even estimate the cost of something in the USSR? As the Politburo writes, such a price will be

[krizis]

"And usually a couple of dozen is enough to create statistics"
- to determine the achieved reliability, one unsuccessful start should be added to take into account the difference in the number of starts.

[Blackmokona]

Falcon-9 will still have higher reliability, even if the launch is attributed to it as unsuccessful.

[krizis]

More than Proton? maybe didn't count. Historical record holders are a couple of modifications of the Union, and, it seems, some kind of small conversion.

[Blackmokona]

More than Proton, he is generally not famous for reliability now.

[krizis]

More, although now the numbers are close.

[Blackmokona]

Now Proton is almost flightless, so its statistics are almost frozen. But the Falcon-9 flies often and completely successfully, and is gaining its numbers. So the difference is growing.

[smart ass]

In vain you are so, you need to shout hurray and throw your hats into the sky!

[Octopus]

Quote: Stas157

back up your ideas.

Trouble free series.
Proton - 19
Delta-4 - 36
Falcon - 60 (load loss during an accident before launch), 70 (accident launch vehicle).
Atlas-5 - 74.
Ariane-5 - 94 (LV destruction, loss of load), 10 (partial accident, insufficient orbital velocity).

[Errr]

Quote: Engineer Shchukin

Proton - the most reliable rocket in the world?
Do not invent nonsense, since you do not know the materiel.

Really...
The most reliable carrier at the moment is Soyuz-FG; for 70 launches there is only one accident, which gives an accident rate of less than 1,43. And if some brave fellow had not used a power tool instead of turning on the brain during assembly at Baikonur, then in the entire history of this carrier there would not have been a single accident at all. We should not recruit more chickens into the morflot.

[Octopus]

Quote: Herrr

The most reliable carrier at the moment is Soyuz-FG; for 70 launches there is only one accident

Trouble-free series are given above. Atlas has one partial failure in 84 launches (underspeed).

The Delta 2 had 2 failures in 156 launches. Her last launch, in 18, was the 100th consecutive accident-free launch.

[Errr]

Thanks for the amendment.

Quote: Octopus

The Delta 2 had 2 failures in 156 launches.

In fact, "Delta II" flew only 1989 times from 2018 to 155 (for launch control, see starting from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Thor_and_Delta_launches_(1980–1989)), but this is a trifle. Once - there, once - here at one and a half hundred launches - the error is insignificant.
On the whole, you are right. Indeed, the American "Atlas V" and "Delta II" rule in accident-free operation with accident rates of 1,19 and 1,29 (taking into account my amendment), respectively.
PS But the RD-180 is on the 1st stage of the "Atlas V", nevertheless, ours, Russian! There is a real reason to be proud.

[krizis]

Some versions of the Soyuz had much larger trouble-free series.

[U-58]

Proton is the most reliable rocket in the world after the Union. I know the materiel, because He devoted 36 years to production. Not the whole Proton, of course, but one of its most important elements.
The main plus is the relative simplicity of the design and the technology refined to the smallest detail.
Plus a margin of safety.
That's what Toko did not do with this Proton, but he, the dog, flies.
Even with the weakening of the structural elements, even with a sudden drainage of the oxidizer into the aggregate compartment at the start, when the wiring should have corroded and shorted out tightly.
Yes, there wasn't much!
Once a Proton took off, which did not have ANY retreat.
Everyone had that jitters. From the unusual situation. Take off.
And he could fly another 30 years, or even 50. Moreover, although belatedly, the ideas of his medium and light versions were born.

[3danimal]

Then why did accidents happen with the “unkillable” Proton?

[U-58]

To date, accidents have occurred with all carriers in operation. Are you only interested in Proton? Then open Wikipedia. There, the causes of accidents are described in more or less detail. And at the same time find out how much more accidents the Union had

[Svlad]

Something went wrong. This is not about Proton?

[U-58]

Quote from a report on the second channel. I confirm..
Moreover, what was Lunokhod-1 according to the score?
According to official statistics - the fourth. According to the memoirs of the fighters who served at that time - the fifth.
And this is also a Proton.
So what?
Yes, and nothing. A person who was called to serve at the Baikodrom cosmonur for two years saw at times a ratio of 6: 4 in terms of success / failure at launch. This is for all types of missiles, including the Voyevoda and the "seven".
Normal spaceport life...

[krizis]

From reusability, it will not become more reliable.

[U-58]

If we sum up everything that is written about our astronautics, one conclusion suggests itself.
We want: now, best of all, cheaper than all, with a commercial return the coolest of all.
We have: almost nothing, except for old media, no longer commercially in demand by anyone.
What to do? (About who is to blame to talk is to crush water in a mortar).
And you have to do it. And this requires money. No, not the ones that are being isolated now.
These amounts are not enough for anything.
Much more funding is needed. That is, 10 times more.
The trick is that with an increase in the allocated amounts, they (the amounts) begin to creep in an incomprehensible way, get lost, disappear.
And all our "authorities" can only find traces of this missing money, but the money itself...
And money is needed to work.
We can design everything conceivable and unthinkable. But they give so much for working out that everything should work out the first, maximum, the second time.
In fact, it doesn't work out that way.
It is necessary to repeat the production of complex parts and assemblies over and over again, without being burdened with the thought of what and with what shisha to make the next in case of failure.
Give enterprises "the right to make a mistake" in order to avoid panic and scandals in the event of an expensive marriage, if it is inevitable.
It is necessary to pay really high salaries not only to the director and his deputies, but also to the worker, controller, technologist, foreman, so that they do not "break" in the process of work, do not run away to where there is no tension (because in the production of hammers, bicycles and pipelayers you are not so pressed by numerous checks and punishments).
Then this contingent, over time, will become the experienced backbone of the industry, capable of fulfilling all its tasks.

[ANB]

. It is necessary to pay really high salaries not only to the director and his deputies, but also to the worker

The director and deputies can be cut.

[Svlad]

Right. While an engineer or an assembler receives a salary like an Uzbek who collects carts in Auchan, good luck cannot be seen

[3danimal]

But this is precisely the feature of modern Russia: top managers are paid more than in the (decaying) west, and engineers and workers are paid less. And to say later: you don’t look at our modest budget, we pay small salaries (to engineers), the return is hoo

[ont65]

If we talk about superheavy, then methane is a half measure. Without hydrogen engine 120 - 90 t.s. there will be no significant increase in the output mass in the second and third stages. Methane gives 20%, hydrogen to this 30%. If there was such an engine by the 68th, then they could launch their Saturn from the 16th RD-253 (275) in the first stage. So what, what's on heptyl? - In the ampoule design, such accelerators differ from those that were carried by shuttles only in controllability and, by the way, in a 4-fold resource. Cheap and cheerful.

[Indifferent]

Musk's rocket flies on government subsidies. The Americans do not hide it. They now value more prestige than money. Moreover, they do not consider "green" now. How much you need, so much and print. As soon as Musk switches to the cost price, his "furore" will end.
And yet, until the journalist Rogozin is exchanged for a real techie, nothing will change. Pies should be baked by a pie-maker says folk wisdom!

[Blackmokona]

No Musk receives subsidies for SpaceX.
Before Musk, ULA (the union of Boeing and Lockheed) received subsidies in the amount of one billion dollars a year to maintain national access to space, but after the advent of Musk and his question where his half is. The Pentagon canceled the subsidy.
There are no other subsidies.

[Grazdanin]

Receives. A large number of companies receive them, this is the norm, for example, funds allocated for manned flights:
Sierra Nevada Corporation (Louisville, Colorado) - $20 million
The Boeing Company (Houston, Texas) - $18 million;
United Launch Alliance (Centennial, Colorado) - $6,7 million
Blue Origin (Kent, WA) - $3,7 million
Paragon Space Development Corporation (Tucson, Arizona) - $1,4 million

SpaceX didn't exist at first, but then they joined. Che is in the region of 300 million for 3 companies. Then there was the payment for services for the delivery of goods.
3-4 billion dollars were spent on the Angara, such an amount for the development of Spacex never dreamed of. About $9 million was spent on Falcon 400.

[Blackmokona]

You do not confuse subsidies and state orders? And those are completely different things.

[Grazdanin]

No. A state order is a cargo sent to the ISS, i.e. payment for a specific result. Subsidies are money allocated for research in this area, they may end in failure, there may not be results, the money does not have to be returned. As far as I remember, Paragon went bankrupt.

[Blackmokona]

Research money can be government orders or subsidies. It all depends on the goals and objectives.
If NASA orders a rocket and a ship for its own needs, at its own request, this is a state order.
If NASA gave the dough for Musk to create a rocket for his own needs, at his own request. This is a subsidy.

[krizis]

You forget about grants for development, and overpayment under government contracts.

[Blackmokona]

What is the overpayment? The mask is grossly underpaid

On December 22, 2008, contracts were signed with two companies, totaling $3,5 billion, to carry out 20 resupply missions to the ISS. The $1,6 billion contract with SpaceX was for 12 missions of the Falcon 9 Dragon spacecraft. The $1,9 billion contract with Orbital Sciences Corporation was for 8 cargo missions. spacecraft Cygnus, which will launch the Antares launch vehicle into orbit

Musk was paid less for more missions. More serious ship.
3.3 tons up and 2.5 tons down is dragged by the Dragon Mask, against 2.5 tons up and down by Signus of that modification.
And a development order is not a subsidy if you want to make a certain product that the state needs, and not for yourself. What I have explained.

[krizis]

Overpay. in the sense - they pay above the market. That is, if you want to talk about the cost, then you need to take into account not only cheap commercial launches, but also expensive state ones. . It does not matter here that some other players are overpaid even more.

Musk was paid less for more missions. More serious ship.
3.3 tons up and 2.5 tons down is dragged by the Dragon Mask, against 2.5 tons up and down by Signus of that modification.

Maybe on paper the Dragon can do more, but it carries about the same amount.

[Blackmokona]

He is paid well below market.

[krizis]

noticeably more expensive than its own price for commercial launches. This is "above the market".

[Blackmokona]

You don't really understand what a market is. There is an international commercial market, and there is a domestic US government market. And they have different participants, with different prices.
And thus the market price is different in different markets. And in both markets, Musk offers the lowest price among all participants.

And the explanation is quite simple. A store near your home does not compete with a store in Vietnam. You will not go to Vietnam if bread costs 5 rubles cheaper there. A store near you competes with another store nearby. A store in Vietnam with another Vietnamese store. Separate markets and separate competition

[krizis]

You don't understand very well. what are we talking about. It's about the actual average price of launches. which is higher than the international market. if you like .. Although the allocation of the American market is meaningless. American companies are also buying launch services around the world.
It's about that. that high prices under the state order allow to reduce the price of commercial launches. Price tag, Seis X, by the way. does not distinguish between "world" and "American" markets.

[krizis]

The mask was paid for development. and not for the delivered cargo from the very beginning, after the first unsuccessful launches.

[Blackmokona]

He developed Falcon-1 with his own money.
It was already Falcon-9 that he was developing with NASA, as he planned to make Falcon-5, but NASA needed a more powerful rocket for its purposes.
As far as I remember, they divided the expenses in half. 200 million from Musk and the same amount from NASA.

[krizis]

Musk received a grant to develop the carrier after the first unsuccessful launches of Falcon 1

[Blackmokona]

After the first successful flight of Falcon-1

[krizis]

unsuccessful.

[Blackmokona]

The contract immediately included delivery

[krizis]

If NASA now takes the initiative to develop an interstellar spacecraft, and hammers in hundreds of billions of dollars in grants, they will be paid even if no one flies to the stars.

[Blackmokona]

Depending on how the contract is drawn up.
For example, Google announced a reward for reaching the moon by a private lunar rover, and did not pay a penny. Despite all the work done, including the launch and arrival to the moon of the Israeli lunar rover. But even if he successfully sat down and completed the program, Google would still not pay a dime. Because they missed the deadline.

[krizis]

Well, it's not about Google. and not about a contract, according to which just not to pay, but about the systematic flooding of the industry with money .. Which create an environment for start-ups like spaceix.

[Brancodd]

These zayoata are the tip of the iceberg. Advertising booklet. Shall we take a deeper look?
- A super-closed, super-cool office, which our inventor-innovator Musk immediately enters. Well, isn't it a miracle? Inventor with a new running engine. Where did Musk and Muller anneal this engine? In the garage? Another miracle. Inventor with tolerances for super-mode objects? Again - a miracle! A young genius with already developed start and landing algorithms is another miracle. An inventor who not only immediately finds full support in the Pentagon and DARPA, but also manages to hire people with already well-established teams. Biblical miracles against such a backdrop are just cheap market tricks.

Is there any explanation for this phenomenon?

- Let's not rush - remember about hired by Tom Masler Muller. Who is that?

“The guy who was rumored to be driving a jet engine in the garage.”

- We do not have access to the DARPA archives, so we will use open English-language sources. It follows from them that, firstly, Comrade Tom Muller did not use his garage at all for the test bench for the Merlin engine, but the test site of the former aviation ammunition factory, located in the Texas region near the town of McGregor. The most interesting thing is that the first stands for rocket engines were built by the Beal Aerospace corporation of an enthusiastic engineer Andrew Beal. And all this was done as part of the NLI - National Launch Initiative, "National Launch Initiative". But the NLI program was completed in 2000, Andrew Beal's company, in fact, was ruined, but the brilliant Elon Musk immediately arose. Summary: our newly-minted Canadian-American Leonardo da Vinci literally "on the ball" received a ready-made test base.

Secondly, Tom Muller worked as a lead developer of the largest hydrogen engine in the framework of the same NLI, which had government funding through a joint program between NASA and the US Department of Defense. In 15 years, Muller has gone from an ordinary engineer to almost a vice president of TRW. This guy was in charge of rocket technology there. And suddenly Mueller, without sitting in the vice-presidential chair, leaves for the company of the most complete newcomer Musk. And Muller leaves for Musk not alone, but taking with him leading specialists in missile and rocket affairs from TRW. At the same time, Muller works on the technologies of the famous American lunar program, used in the lunar lander, using pin nozzles. It works - and all this, together with a ready-made team of specialists, is transferred to the Mask.

- What's next?

- More interesting. In 2002, at the same time as Mueller left, TRW Corporation was bought by the giant Northrop Grumman Corporation. Not even a giant, but a monster that built stealth bombers and nuclear aircraft carriers. This monster is suing Musk's company, which, through the hiring of former TRW's Muller, commercialized TRW's intellectual property now owned by Northrop Grumman Corporation. The results of the trial are indicative - it looks like the little SpaceX managed to fight off the aerospace tyrannosaurus rex! Well, or someone helped Musk to realize another miracle.

- And what kind of company is this - TRW?

- 57th place in the Fortune Global 500, that is, in the ranking of the 500 largest global companies, the criterion for compiling which is the company's revenue. TRW, or Thompson-Ramo-Wooldridge, is the developer of all major US reconnaissance satellites. It was TRW who created the Pioneer 10, an automatic interplanetary station sent to the edge of the solar system, and the American Viking probes for Mars. TRW is a staff of 122.000 people.

And from such a monster Tom Muller, along with a proven team and in an embrace with a nozzle escapes to the mask. At the same time, let me remind you, in TRW, Muller was working on a hydrogen engine, while Mask meekly took up the kerosene-oxygen Merlin. Hydrogen and kerosene engines correlate with each other approximately like Ferrari and Zaporozhets ...

I almost forgot one more touch to the portrait of TRW. Ramo and Wooldridge, the founders of the company, were employees of the truly legendary Howard Hughes. They made a long-range air-to-air missile induced by him. A noteworthy detail: the missile had a range of up to 180 km and the name ... Falcon. So, in the early 1950s, fed up with the eccentric Hughes' management style, Ramo and Wooldridge decided to start their own company. In this they were helped by a simple guy named Thompson, who until that moment owned a company that back in 1926 was the No. 1 supplier of valves and other auto engine parts for American industry.

When Charles Lindbergh became the first person to fly across the Atlantic in May 1927, there were Thompson valves in the engine of his plane - that's what a tricky story we have ... Let's make it even trickier: it was at TRW that Bill Gates did his first job, with whom - here strange coincidence! - there was a grandmother named Thompson ...

One way or another, the familiar TRW appears, which in 1953 becomes the general contractor for the US Air Force in the development of ballistic missiles. It turns out that the white and fluffy TRW, baking satellites like pancakes and pioneering in space, is an enterprise of the level of our Votkinsk or Makeevsky plants. That is, a company deeply buried in the American military-industrial complex, from which Comrade Musk at some point lures a leading specialist and without five minutes a vice president with a group of specialists and a suitcase of top-secret technologies.

It is clear that Mask could never do anything like this if he did not have the support at the highest level. Even not so - on the highest. And these “achievements” of Ilona Mask, which consist in the fact that foreign developments and foreign specialists were literally invested in his hands, are presented here as an example of his genius.
In fact, both SpaceX and Scaled Composites are private "pocket" campaigns, in which there is an order of magnitude less bureaucracy and where fewer approvals are required when working than in NASA. They are very convenient to quickly work out something utterly innovative and just as convenient to hide the development of something very secret. It can be vice versa - take and put something on display there in order to put competitors on the wrong track. DARPA is a big "black hole", and no one, except for the top leadership of the United States, has any idea what is going on inside. SpaceX, Scaled Composites, and others like them are little black holes that pop up on or off the board as needed.

[U-58]

I am also not a fan of Rogozin. Not even a big fan.
However, indicate how Rogozin affected the development of Russian cosmonautics for the worse.
What steps show his inability to lead Roskosmos?
In the end, he does not write development programs, but competent specialists, he does not construct and considers costs.
Personally, I consider it a sin to patronize exclusively the Angara.
But even here there was someone to correct Dmitry Olegovich - this was Deputy Prime Minister Borisov.
Although not from the first shout, Rogozin had to move the topic of Soyuz-5 / Irtysh.

[Blackmokona]

For example, his constant and regular failures at the Vostochny cosmodrome.

[BAI]

And the very actual construction of the new central office of Roscosmos, which at a price is not very different from the spaceport.

[Brancodd]

The construction of the second stage on Vostochny is going slightly ahead of schedule. If Borisov and Co. will not interfere, it will be ready by 2023. There are no corruption claims against the second stage of construction.

[Blackmokona]

On Vostochny, the first stage has not yet been completed.

10 MAR, 09:17
State expertise of unfinished objects of the first stage of the East will be completed before the end of April
The state corporation clarified that specialists are examining objects of the first stage, work on which is not completed or performed poorly

https://tass.ru/kosmos/7933181

[Brancodd]

On Vostochny, the first stage has not yet been completed

Insipidly memorable Spetsstroy, which Borisov lobbies so much.
Financing through the treasury was rolled out at Crimean thermal power plants. According to this algorithm, a new contractor is working on the second stage of Vostochny. And in parallel next year we should start building a runway for transport workers. For the sake of fairness, it must be said that the rate of return there is so insignificant that the proposed contractors were not interested in the offer. Almost everyone refused.

[Blackmokona]

The entire construction of the eastern since 2014 under the direct control of Rogozin

[Alexander Sosnitsky]

The leader always inspires the rest, like S.P. Korolev. If there is no inspiration, but only the smell of dirty socks, the team will go there

[3danimal]

Yes, this version is regularly voiced by Rogozin and co. to justify why SpaceX has crushed the commercial launch market.
Once again: where is the cheapest ticket: in a one-time super-cheap (yeah, but it must be safe at the same time), or a reusable Boeing 737?

[svp67]

Soyuz-5 and Angara-A5: what is wrong with Russian missiles

The main "not so" is that they simply do not exist in "metal"

[Grazdanin]

It's amazing, we've been building a rocket for 25 years and it's outdated. What is the problem? It's time to close the hangar, and they are only testing.

[BAI]

Because if you make and debug the Angara, then after it you will have to develop a new one. And there are no people who can do it anymore. As a matter of fact, the debugging of the Angara was delayed primarily due to the lack of personnel. And so - a piece of bread for decades to come.

[Grazdanin]

There are people, it's just that "impotent" people have gathered in power, who, apart from the desire for money and power, have nothing.
Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) is an American space technology company. Founded in 2002.
On August 26, 1995, a Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation was issued, which determined the stages of the creation of the Angara complex, approved the master schedule for the creation of the complex, the volume of its financing, as well as the cooperation of co-executors.

[Brancodd]

From 1997 to 2004 there was practically no funding. Those. There was a government decree, but there was no money. By the way, in 2017, funding for the federal space program was cut 2 times. Now the budget of Roskosmos is $3 billion. For example, EKA has -12 billion Eur

[Alexander Sosnitsky]

And with the brains, the Russian has always had problems because of their uselessness, everything is already in abundance. Well, the Germans woke up at 41, the Americans later, well, the half-Slavic world broke off in the history of Europe. Never mind, how much Russia is left!

[BAI]

and won't do it for another ten years.

In 10 years, there will be a completely different equipment and other engines abroad. And the RD-191 type engine will not be needed by anyone.

[Grazdanin]

Years 5, the Blue origin engine on methane is already in the metal for testing.

[Maks1995]

Absolutely right.
The main thing is that these missiles do not exist.
And there are endless promises, refusals, renaming in Roskosmos .....

[steelmaker]

Over the past 5 years, Russia's budget has grown from 15 to 19 trillion. rub. And you want breakthrough technologies in our space? We don't even have weather satellites. We buy information from the EU. With such an economy, it's good that we have it!

[Grazdanin]

We all want it right. If the government can not change the government. More than $3 billion has been spent on the Angara, $9 billion on Falcon0,4. We have the money, but the authorities just don't know how to work.

[Jurkovs]

Soyuz-5 and Angara-A5: what is wrong with Russian missiles

Everything is so, except for the fact that there are no payloads, not at all. We missed the foreign market apparently forever. Of their loads, only the satellites of the Moscow Region and the Orel being developed, and even that from the designers who have lost their competence, have exceeded 20 tons of weight. Here comes the fight. Nesterov's article has already been condemned in interested circles, the "diarrhea of ​​thoughts" has turned into "diarrhea of ​​ideas." As soon as an article appeared about the high cost of the Angara, everyone immediately saw the light (as if they had not known before) and let's offer ideas to reduce the cost. Here I am voicing another diabolical idea. It is proposed to revive the design of the Angara-A5V, and make the four blocks of the first stage returnable by aircraft (Baikal project). This will dramatically increase the launch weight of the carrier, but the hydrogen stage will compensate for this and the output payload will be at the level of 26 tons. Due to the returned blocks, the cost of the rocket will fall. It will become cheaper than the Angara-A5 but slightly more expensive than the Proton. And as always, forward with a flag in hand to conquer the world market. They don't think differently.
Now about the Mask. We have devastation, as always, begins in our heads. If, for the same weight, optimize the carrier for the maximum engine thrust. then you need to take the RD-191M. If you optimize for the minimum cost of the carrier, then you need to take Merlin. It works at a much lower pressure in the working chamber, due to this, reliability increases dramatically, weight and cost decrease, since less stressed materials are used, less clean production (they say that even tanks are not washed for Merlin, he will gobble up everything anyway). As a result, there are no record engine performance. but there is a very cheap carrier. And it's all on kerosene. When Musk switches to methane, he will overtake us by two generations.

[Zeev zeev]

It is proposed to revive the design of the Angara-A5V, and make the four blocks of the first stage returnable by aircraft (Baikal project). This will dramatically increase the launch weight of the carrier, but the hydrogen stage will compensate for this and the output payload will be at the level of 26 tons. Due to the returned blocks, the cost of the rocket will fall.

Can I, can I? Instead of first-stage blocks, make solid-fuel reusable boosters with parachute landing (as was the case in the Shuttles). The scheme has been worked out, the technologies of the 80s are quite accessible, the economic component is clear.

[Blackmokona]

Solid rockets are expensive.

[Jurkovs]

Solid-propellant boosters have already been offered and have already been rejected. Why is not known.

[ont65]

You can and have done a lot. Parachutes and solid-fuel boosters are not limited to design options. The walls of the fuel tanks themselves, in retractable versions, can serve both as parachutes and wings (elements of maneuvering and speed control). Landing on retractable supports (and not only vertically), braking near the surface with soft landing solid-propellant engines. All this has been and will be. The point is small - who needs it and who will undertake to design? Roskosmos definitely does not need it in any of the launched projects.

[krizis]

Can I, can I? Instead of first-stage blocks, make solid-fuel reusable boosters with parachute landing (as was the case in the Shuttles). The scheme has been worked out, the technologies of the 80s are quite accessible, the economic component is clear.

Maybe you don't need to? even on the ocean with full control of the coastal zone for hundreds of miles, the economic effect was doubtful - the cost of restoration was about half the cost of manufacture. . We will have to land through the forests and hills, and then it is not yet known how to drag from there.

[Sanichsan]

Quote: Jurkovs

We missed the foreign market apparently forever.

open the wiki and see what and who is running. For 5 years now you have been repeating this mantra, but for some reason Russia continues to launch foreign satellites into space and not much less than Mask. the proportion is the same as 5 years ago. Aren't you tired of throwing mud at yourself, your country and your fellow citizens? Or are you not from Russia?
PS
Are you familiar with the "first law of organic chemistry"? even if your further considerations make sense, they are already mixed with the first thesis with which you started and further along the "first law of organic chemistry"

[Brancodd]

Musk disagrees with the author. Here is his opinion about the Angara and Zenith (Soyuz5):
“Russia has excellent rocket technology and the best engine available. The reusable version of their new Angara rocket would be excellent. ”
“Apart from ours, then Zenit is perhaps the next best,” said Musk.

[Region-25.rus]

That is OK. They will shoot the next "Time of the first, second, third ...." about something Soviet (and many more topics and achievements that have not been burned out) .. and the people will wipe their tears en masse in cinemas and be proud! Be proud .... but that's what?

[Maxim364364]

There can be only one chance to catch up and overtake America: if Rogozin and his effective managers are placed in a hut with amenities in the courtyard in the middle of the cosmodrome and given an order until we get ahead of America, you will be here at grazing. Well, probably, it would not hurt to plant a dozen others, to shoot the heels of those who were especially stealing to stimulate the cerebral and guiding gyrus, so to speak.

[kamui91]

There will be no effect. The failure of the Angara is not to blame for the bosses, but for the performers.

[Usher]

There can be only one chance to catch up and overtake America: if Rogozin and his effective managers are placed in a hut with amenities in the courtyard in the middle of the cosmodrome and given an order until we get ahead of America, you will be here at grazing. Well, probably, it would not hurt to plant a dozen others, to shoot the heels of those who were especially stealing to stimulate the cerebral and guiding gyrus, so to speak.

Are you serious? Catch up? Are we flying on our ships to the ISS? Are we launching satellites? Or Americans?

[Sanichsan]

Quote: Usher

Are you serious? Catch up? Are we flying on our ships to the ISS? Are we launching satellites? Or Americans?

you ask in vain maskophiles are a sect. they don't even see the obvious. who makes the most launches? Musk? of course not. can the US be a joint effort of all corporations? again no. first place in China. so why are they all compared to Musk? there is a good ad but really the first place is in China. do they know something about China's astronautics? no. this is "Generichen-P", the usual victims of propaganda

[kamui91]

I recommend reading a very capacious story about the GKNPTs.
I can say that absolutely nothing has changed.
http://zhurnal.lib.ru/s/solomatin_a_w/terrarium.shtml

[Knell wardenheart]

What can I say - probably we are not interested in the potential of commercial exploitation of space for launches at the international level. Or perhaps we intend to work in the niche of launching military-dual-use facilities for countries that are not in the best relations with the United States and the West, and therefore receive an epic refusal, so to speak.
It was worth expecting - for us, space is still a military toy - neither the launches of space tourists, nor the billion-dollar contracts for the launch of satellite constellations, nor the fact that Vostochny should be repaid by such enterprises, at least partially .
In general, we have such a joint - we are making some kind of epic mess without a clear and sober plan of how it will all pay off ..

[gridasov]

Do the designers really not understand the futility of modern engines. If you need to explain that in order to increase the payload, the number of engines is increased, and with it the amount of fuel, then this is no longer correct. Therefore, it is necessary to work with the energy density in the engine. Therefore, a new technology of more energy-intensive engines is being positioned.

[Usher]

Do the designers really not understand the futility of modern engines. If you need to explain that in order to increase the payload, the number of engines is increased, and with it the amount of fuel, then this is no longer correct. Therefore, it is necessary to work with the energy density in the engine. Therefore, a new technology of more energy-intensive engines is being positioned.

Are you brainwashed?

[Falcon5555]

For a long time it was necessary to start making winged steps and winged ships (reusable)! And an airplane launch would not hurt. There were also projects. With them, it would be possible to launch and land all this economy from much more diverse places - it would not fall on your head. There was no crap with spaceports. And it would be pushes for science and technology, and children would have something to dream about. And in case of accidents in space or the detection of asteroids, rockets would always be ready to launch, moreover, multiple times. Why didn’t they finish anything?.. And now it’s not clear what they are doing... The leapfrog of obsolete projects continues...

[Vovan]

Quote: military_cat

And money is obtained by milking them from the budget, and not through attracting customers.

Isn't it funny to voice such nonsense?

[Proctologist]

Roskosmos, who mentioned plans to modify the Angara into a reusable version, rightly kicked Ars Technica editor Eric Berger - you would first launch your rocket more than 2 times in 10 years, and then you would be puzzled by its reusability. Indeed, why should a rocket be reusable if there is no stream of launches? The development and piece production costs will be truly cosmic (a play on words), and making 1 piece or 5 pieces is already "spray" against their background.

As for the outstanding, in the opinion of the chief designer, characteristics of the Angara, he is only partially right. If we compare a reusable rocket optimized for launch cost with a disposable rocket optimized for delivering the maximum payload weight relative to its own weight according to this criterion, then it will obviously win. Like a motorcycle with a tractor. A motorcycle is definitely faster and cheaper, yes.

But for reusability, you need a market, the number of customers. Musk has it. But Roscosmos does not. We lost the market for geostationary satellites (Musk recaptured it by lowering the price with good accident statistics), we will soon lose the market for manned launches. A and B were sitting on the pipe, A fell, B disappeared, what was left on the pipe? The Russian Federation remained on the pipe (again, a play on words).

[Sanichsan]

Quote: Proctologist

But for reusability, you need a market, the number of customers. Musk has it. But Roscosmos does not.

yes, are you? Truth? and if you look at the launches of 2019? How many foreign satellites has Musk launched? How many foreign satellites has Roscosmos launched? looks like you're lying

[3danimal]

It is strange that the author called reusability only part of the success. After all, it reduces the cost of launch. Hence, it is the cornerstone of success in the commercial launch market.

[Usher]

How does she reduce? What about reliability? If I were an astronaut, I would not fly on a used rocket for any price. Let the satellites fly, it doesn't hurt them to explode.

[3danimal]

Are you scared to fly on a used plane? Do you know how many he has already transported?
For example, in Formula 1 cars, the engine is disposable. Extremely light and powerful, very expensive. But Ferrari (with similar power) does not, it is heavier and with a larger resource.
Also with reusable steps. They are simply designed for it.
Ask: SpaceX has the lowest accident rate. Here's your reliability.
And imagine how much you would give for a ticket in a disposable (each time new, but as cheap as possible) airplane. - Always many times more.

[Sanichsan]

Quote: 3danimal

Also with reusable steps. They are simply designed for it.
Ask: SpaceX has the lowest accident rate.

first place in launches is not with SpaceX. the first place belongs to the Chinese with disposable rockets. China has just begun to think about reusable carriers and is only assessing their prospects. does not run to repeat after Musk, but evaluates the prospects.
Maybe it's time to evaluate the experience of leaders, and not wave advertising booklets?

[Usher]

You don't confuse one with the other. The loads on the rocket are much higher, and it is much more difficult.

[3danimal]

There are more loads, but they can be planned during the project. It's just that no one has tried to implement reusability before. The exception is the Shuttles, where only boosters and a fuel tank were consumed.

[ont65]

With the weight and dimensions of the satellites comparable to the Proton, the cost of launching the Shuttle was $ 450 million old. Such carriers justify themselves in programs like SDI, and in our country there is no one to make even satellites and there is nothing for it.

[shinobi]

I read the comments and understood. The complete northern fox in our country.
PS: The Angara doesn’t fly for one single reason, it didn’t give up on anyone except the military. You say commerce? There is no commercial space in Russia, and there never was. Everyone forgot what the Unions and Protons were originally created for? based on the technical ideas of Koralev and Vonbraun. Ideas that became obsolete back in the 90s. And yes, it is incorrect in principle to compare the Angara with Musk's rockets. aircraft types, like Myasishevsky.

[3danimal]

Ok, but an aerospace rocket can be reusable (and customers need to lower launch prices).
And such a rocket cannot be heavy, only for launching small satellites.

[Sanichsan]

Quote: shinobi

There is no commercial space in Russia, and there never has been.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85_%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%B2_2019_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%83
amazing discoveries await you! it turns out that more than 90% of the "commercial" launches of the most effective Mask are American satellites at the same time, more than half of Roskosmos launches are foreign satellites, including American ones. How many Russian satellites has Musk launched? zero it seems? How many American satellites has Roskosmos launched, and, by the way, is it still launching?
in reality, the situation is completely opposite to the fictional world in which you live
the problem is not the loss of market share by launch. this is not even close! the problem is the negligible amount of their own satellites!

[shinobi]

Do not confuse round with square. A commercial company is commercial because it does not depend on the state in any way and exists on private capital. Rosskosmos is not a government agency? Who lives in a different reality?

[Sanichsan]

Quote: shinobi

A commercial company is therefore a commercial company because it does not depend on the state and exists on private capital.

you are delirious. see what grants SpaceX receives annually from the state and what are they launching? including government satellites.
What do you think changes the form of ownership? private SpaceX was never able to enter the international market. it is a fact The state-owned Roscosmos has been and remains the world leader in launching satellites.
I don’t understand why the sect of maskophiles rejoices? SpaceX launches satellites for money and Roskosmos for money, only Roskosmos on an international scale, and SpaceX could not enter the international market and launches American satellites

[shinobi]

The form of private property changes and simplifies forms of government. The main problem of any current state power is the slowness of its administrative apparatus. Hello dictatorships and autocracies! Kamrad! I don’t even argue with you. I got the impression that we are saying the same things, only a little different viewpoints.

[Umalta]

Unfortunately, to the greatest regret, Roskosmos did not shock the world with more than one breakthrough achievement !!!! I remember very well what jubilation was at the achievements of the Queen, how we miss him now !!! At that time, it seemed we could do everything !!!!, but the time has come for a consumer society and eaters whose morality probably allows them to grow exorbitantly hypertrophied throats and eat everything, including people and resources, and probably the country will soon be swallowed up.

[Usher]

What are you carrying? Did you understand what you said? And who shook after the FIRST launch? Only in the 70s Luna. Did we have the money and strength to fly to the moon? You would be the first to yell about schools and pensioners. So rejoice that flying into space is commonplace, not a holiday. It's good on the contrary.

[Umalta]

You deign to distort, no one is talking about megaprojects, the question is how to create a space shuttle and a workhorse for launches, and any breakthrough project means technology and is not necessarily costly, as in financial and material terms. Our engineers and designers were famous for finding just such solutions !!

[Usher]

Why do you need a shuttle? The cost of launching the Shuttle is higher. There is an example. Shuttle. The workhorse is the Union. Now they are making another one.

[Umalta]

The shuttle, a common truth, is a space plane, in our case it should be a small maneuverable one, naturally for military purposes. The first Shuttle during the Brezhnev era made a "dive" over Moscow to demonstrate that it could cover any region of the USSR. Plus, it will cool Trump off with his new space war agenda.

[Usher]

And SpaceX doesn't release its financial statements. Just their baloney.

[Umalta]

And by the way, about "you carry" and "you", I did not drink with you to brotherhood, but what you "carry", well, probably rotten eggs.

[Usher]

What are you saying? Then there is nothing to write any nonsense. I would have written how I answered, it would have been clear, otherwise there was a breakthrough and all that, why pathos?

[Umalta]

I got tired of effective managers, gentlemen taburetkins at the head of mo, a red-haired tack in ananotechnologies in clusters and TD. I'm afraid the Russian Federation will not bear them all.

[tolancop]

Quote: BlackMokona

Which car is more reliable, which just left the assembly line, or which drove the first 10 kilometers?

Fresh from the assembly line is more reliable. Since a person who has traveled 10 km has wear parts in 10 km.
And your failure curve in the initial part is doubtful. In the late 80s, I had to face and study the issue ... the failure schedule in the stage of running-in failures started from 0, then there was a peak, and then a decline and a transition to normal operation .. And this is logical: with the start of operation, weak ones begin to make themselves felt elements, something will fly out almost immediately, something will last longer, etc. And on your graph, running-in failures have a maximum immediately after the start of operation. In principle, it is possible if the plant drives a frank marriage without output control. But I think this is an extreme case...

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

SpaceX engineers created not the most outstanding Merlin 1D engine (frankly ordinary in terms of specific impulse of 282s at sea level) due to the relatively low pressure in the COP of 98,9 kgf / cm2 (for RD-191 263,4 kgf / cm2).
The Merlin 1D engine has a very good ratio of the mass of the remote control to the thrust - 150 (for comparison, for the RD-191 it is 89).
This makes the Merlin 1D relatively cheap and relatively reusable.
RD-191 gives more propulsion from the same amount of fuel, three times more thrust than Merlin 1D, but at the same time 4,5 times heavier (high pressure in the combustion chamber, forces to increase pressure in the fuel and oxidizer lines, makes the shirt heavier cooling, as a result - a large mass of the turbopump unit.
A gain in the specific impulse of RD-191 before Merlin 1D from about 10% at sea level to 8,48% in vacuum is a completely excellent result.
But it becomes completely insignificant when the RD-191 crashes when the first stage falls, and the SpaseX engines return and, after a short bulkhead, again carry out the removal of the load.
The conclusion is obvious: develop a returnable first stage and strive for relative reusability of the RD-191 engine, and if this is not possible, develop an inexpensive reusable engine.
There is no other way.

[Usher]

The conclusion is wrong. How much does a CG cost at SpaceX? 60 million? 140 million (Order of the US Armed Forces)?

[Selevc]

Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich

The conclusion is obvious: develop a returnable first stage and strive for relative reusability of the RD-191 engine, and if this is not possible, develop an inexpensive reusable engine.
There is no other way.

Yes - quite recently (literally yesterday by the standards of history) - everyone around applauded and sang odes to the American Shuttle ... And how progressive they are and how perfect the design of the heat-absorbing tiles with which the shuttle body is sheathed !!! And which Soyuz missiles are ancient and primitive against the background of the same Colombia and other American prodigies ??? !!!

Time passed - where are the space shuttles??? IN THE MUSEUM !!! In the museum - unsuccessful space projects !!! And the Space Shuttle project is precisely unsuccessful based on the analysis of the return on the project and the clouds of dough invested in it !!! And the old Soyuz and Protons are slowly carrying cargo and people into orbit, just like they did 50 years ago !!!
So who is really progressive and who only splurges with periodic space sensations - in fact, they turn out to be regular fakes, tabloid sensations and soap bubbles ???!!!

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

Quote: Selevc

Yes - quite recently (literally yesterday by the standards of history) - everyone around applauded and sang odes to the American Shuttle...

We - Soviet engineers of the RKT - did not sing. They knew the failure in the economy of the Space Shuttle system and the problem with the impossibility of rescuing the crew in an emergency (which "flew" soon with the Challenger), and its limited autonomy, and low orbits, long post-flight service, etc.
But the Buran-Energy system turned out to be even less economical, since the SSH rose on its engines and lost only the tank (albeit not cheap), and Buran was removed by RN Energy, which was monstrously expensive and lost both remote control and tanks - nothing returned, the economy of the project just none.
Since the 90s, our astronautics has been marking time indiscriminately.
Earned in the launch services market - tritely eaten away by inefficient Roskosmos

[Usher]

even Elon Musk

you mean even? Has he become a standard now? What are the gaps with SpaceX? By the number of accidents? Or at a loss?

[Vasisdas]

Just because the Falcon 9's first stage is reusable doesn't mean it's reusable. And this is not taking into account the fact that not everyone is returning, and the payload is correspondingly less output, since fuel is needed to return. But that's okay, the main thing is that no one except Musk and his company knows whether the first stage is reusable or not, there was not a single independent examination, not a single third-party specialist was allowed to confirm this thesis. It remains to believe in the word. Many famous techies around the world do not believe. And if you see that Musk is dumping the private sector, and selling launches to the Pentagon at a price twice the market price, such doubts are quite justified. And in conclusion, there is no private space, this is a myth, the same Space X exists on public money. Hi all.

[Vadim237]

Five flights and landings of the same two steps are, of course, not reusable, stop your clowning.

[Selevc]

Quote: Vadim237

Five flights and landings of the same two steps are, of course, not reusable, stop your clowning.

Yes, go ahead in the same spirit ... Both the Challenger and Columbia also seemed to be reusable ... But no one can say which flight will be the last successful one and which one will turn into a disaster !!!

[indy424]

yeah. stage 1: denial.

[Selevc]

Quote: Wasisdas

Just because the Falcon 9's first stage is reusable doesn't mean it's reusable. And this is not taking into account the fact that not everyone returns, and the payload is correspondingly less output, since fuel is needed to return

The fact is that the idea of ​​returning stages is as old as cosmonautics itself .... Many countries and the USSR, first of all, did not follow that path for one main reason - there are no 100% reliable criteria for evaluating the suitability of a returned stage. Flight into space is not a game of Russian roulette - I won’t take off .... And apparently it’s easier to control the assembly of a new stage than to sort out the returned stage by screw !!!

[Drone 11]

In my opinion, this area should be led by a rocket specialist and not a philosopher and politician. From this we have a "mess" in the country, where you don’t look, that it’s not a leader, it’s from business or someone’s godfather or matchmaker, often from criminal structures. Until specialists take leadership positions, there will be no order and breakthrough in the country.

[ultra]

In my opinion, a vertical start is a dead end, even if it’s reusable, even if it’s disposable, it’s essentially the same thing.

[mister-red]

Hot air balloons were a dead end for 200 years, until azhroplanes learned how to make. A non-vertical launch for manned space technology is not yet visible even in the future.

[ultra]

Your outlook is very bad. It is necessary to bring aircraft manufacturers into astronautics, taking into account developments in the avant-garde, in terms of heat resistance of the skin, there are good prospects for creating horizontal-launch orbital aircraft.

[mister-red]

In the future, it meant that at the moment even R&D on this topic is not being done in the world. Haven't heard anyway. So in the next 20-30 years there will be nothing like this, except for possibly small unmanned spacecraft. And nothing will change from mantras

[Kuz]

And the Chinese do not bother at all about heptyl.

[mister-red]

To make a reusable rocket, you need to roll back and make the engine 4-5 times weaker than the RD-191.
Musk succeeded simply because he didn’t have a powerful engine at hand and he used this opportunity to the fullest. In fact, the RD-100 is not suitable in principle for multi-carrying, you need to put 171-4 RD-5 and one to return the stage between them. Or new engines from scratch.
With regards to the Angara, the alteration under the RD-180 with the adjustment of the dimensions can solve the issue of efficiency.
Soyuz-5, as I see it, is just an attempt to return a very good Zenith rocket and find a niche for the RD-171.
All smart people here, I promise to do everything from scratch, including from engines. This is exactly wastefulness, you should always use what you already have as much as possible.

[Selevc]

Roskosmos, in my opinion, has one but fundamental problem - this is the problem of generational change in astronautics !!! And from this grow all the other problems of Roskosmos. By the way, this problem is also inherent in other sectors of the Russian economy, but in cosmonautics and aviation, these processes are most evident !!!

In the upper echelons sit old dinosaurs from the era of Soviet cosmonautics - people who should have retired the day before yesterday. They think in terms of yesterday's patterns and simply lack the flexibility of youth. In the middle echelon, there is a sharp shortage of promising personnel who have long ago given up on everything and left abroad or moved to other sectors of the economy. The lower echelon is full of young interesting personnel who, however, are not at all sure "will their talent help them rise up? Or it’s basically impossible to become a boss - because the boss also has a son who will take the place of the pope anyway !!!"

[Old Orc]

Space and as part of it, the production and development of rockets is not a commercial direction, but a political one. Musk's success is ensured by political and military factors and PR. How can missiles be developed for commercial purposes and expected to be used by a potential enemy or his companies

[IC]

Modern space technology is now the subject of a market economy, like passenger aircraft. In Russia, many people cannot understand this. And the main criterion is the cost of launching commercial objects into orbit. Everything else is secondary.