Military Review

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

231

Angara-A5: work on mistakes or their repetition?



Heavy Carrier Angara-A5 - An important project for the Russian space sector and for the country's defense. They want to use it, as well as the improved Angara-A5M, which will have greater carrying capacity, for satellite launches in the interests of the Ministry of Defense. In June, we recall, it became known about the signing of a contract between Roscosmos and the Ministry of Defense for four Angara-A5 missiles.

With commercial operation, everything is much more complicated. Flying 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 is practically no prospect of crowding out a direct competitor in the person of Falcon 9. By the way, in 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 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 brainchild. Nevertheless, the assessment exceeded the wildest expectations.

“This is the best complex in the world. I speak as a man who has been engaged 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 space-rocket complex in the world. He has only one major flaw, according to which Musk has surpassed us in his rocket - the returning first stage, ”

- said Nesterov.

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 - RD-191. This engine is unique in its characteristics. No one in the world has ever done it and will not do it for another ten years. RD-0124 in the second stage. He has a specific impulse of 359 units. Not a single designer in the world, even Ilon Mask, even dreamed of such a figure, "

- says the ex-leader.


Indeed, there are no complaints about the technical aspects of the Angara: or rather, they were not there at the time of the 90s, when the rocket began to be created. 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 been considered the most promising direction for a long time. It's not just about a concept. Recently, Blue Origin delivered the United Launch Alliance the first BE-4 methane rocket engine for the promising Vulcan heavy missile, a direct competitor to the Angara-A5. Do not forget about the methane Raptor from SpaceX, which will be installed on the Starship spaceship and Super Heavy accelerator. And yet they see all these missiles as reusable, which probably never shines for the representatives of the Angara family (which, incidentally, was rightly noted by Vladimir Nesterov himself).


One could argue that the Angara-A5 is already flying, while promising missiles have yet to be created. In fact, this is only partially true. The flight design tests of the Russian carrier, according to the most conservative estimates, will last until approximately the mid-2020s. Given the dynamics of the "private traders", by that time one can expect a full-fledged introduction of methane Vulcan, New Glenn and even Starship Ilona Mask into operation.

Irtysh: the old Zenit for the new market


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

In fact, it was she who should become the main Russian launch vehicle after the decommissioning of Soyuz rockets. Despite similar names, the new missile will have practically nothing in common with them, representing in a broad sense the development of the Soviet Zenith. Now Soyuz-5 is seen as a two-stage middle-class missile capable of bringing 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, an RD-171MV kerosene liquid rocket engine will be installed, which is a development of the RD-171 for Zenit missiles. At the second stage there will be two RD-0124MS engines.

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

Externally, the rocket will be similar to the Falcon 9. However, the Irtysh will not be able to boast of the returning first stage. And in general, its advantages are not entirely clear even against the background of old Soviet missiles. “I think that Soyuz-5 will not be due to the fact that nobody 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’s criticism of Angara itself, but in any case, there is some truth in the words of the former head of the Center Khrunichev.

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

"Zenith" is a wonderful medium with excellent technical characteristics, but to repeat it at a new technical level, moreover, by 2022, when our competitors go even further, does not look like the best solution. "


Will there be analogs?


In general, the two main Russian carriers of the foreseeable future, Angara-A5 and Irtysh, suffer from similar conceptual problems. Being developed with an eye to the 90s, they are largely outdated long before the full commissioning.

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


It is not 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: we need technology, financing, 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 alone is not the key to success, but represents no more than one of its components, at least when it comes to promising carriers.

Summarizing all of the above, we can say: 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 designing rockets.
Author:
231 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. shinobi
    shinobi 13 July 2020 06: 16 New
    -10
    I don’t understand this cry of Yaroslavna in our mass media. Well, Mask turned out to have a slightly better rocket than ours, so what? Don't do it at all? Methane engine, you say? Well, we’ve got such a development. We’re lagging behind? And so? resources every year more.
    1. military_cat
      military_cat 13 July 2020 06: 26 New
      23
      Quote: shinobi
      We lag? And what? Time wagon
      Yeah, time for a buildup.

      Do not do mine at all?
      Of course, they will do it. But without competitiveness, it will be something like Elbrus: processors, of course, we do, the defense industry uses them, but everyone buys Intel for their personal money. And before, Russian missiles were market leaders.
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 13 July 2020 06: 55 New
        -3
        Quote: military_cat
        And before, Russian missiles were market leaders.

        What Russian missiles do you know? Soyuz-2? Was he the market leader?
        1. military_cat
          military_cat 13 July 2020 07: 02 New
          17
          I meant Proton-M. Soyuz-2, however, also dominated its niches.
        2. A1845
          A1845 13 July 2020 10: 55 New
          18
          Nobody in the world has ever done it and another ten years will not.
          maybe it won’t be
          Valentin Petrovich Glushko reached incredible heights, but how much can you eat the legacy of the USSR?
      2. Krasnoyarsk
        Krasnoyarsk 13 July 2020 07: 53 New
        +2
        Quote: military_cat
        everyone buys their personal money 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 competitive and, as a result, neither a rocket, nor a competitive, nor a clear program. It is possible that I am mistaken. Simply, "it’s a shame for the Power."
        1. military_cat
          military_cat 13 July 2020 08: 44 New
          25
          Now they are not trying to make rockets competitive in Roscosmos. Because the positions are allocated and maintained not for the competitiveness of missiles, but for loyalty to the authorities. And money is obtained by issuing them from the budget, and not through attracting customers. There are no incentives to make rockets competitive.
          1. vVvAD
            vVvAD 19 July 2020 17: 00 New
            0
            The problem is much deeper than you think. We do not have a cosmodrome at Cape Canaveral, nor do we have one comparable in size to the American fleet. This means that in order to compete on an equal footing 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 (we compare the latitudes of Cape Canaveral and the Vostochny cosmodrome and we draw conclusions), 3) the same cheap, therefore 4) reusable (without soot, therefore, on gas), 5) but not having the possibility of splashing down with subsequent fishing, and at the same time not damaging the coating and communications of the cosmodrome during landing, which means 6 ) returned otherwise. Well, either we throw in funds comparable to the 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, or better, at least 1000).
            Trial balloon - "SV Wing". 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 vertical start to be a dead-end branch in principle, and even more so in the current conditions.
            When starting in an airplane way, the required fuel reserves are less. The options for the recoverable multi-platform 1st winged stage and the super-heavy balloon of stratospheric altitude for air launch, in my opinion, would be worth considering.
    2. Stas157
      Stas157 13 July 2020 06: 39 New
      +4
      Quote: shinobi
      We lag? And what?

      Someone and tanks have nothing.
      1. mikh-korsakov
        mikh-korsakov 13 July 2020 08: 23 New
        -6
        Stas! That's right, although I'm not an expert in rocketry, but the author in his article convinced me of the shame of Russian projects and the genius of Ilon Mask.
        1. U-58
          U-58 13 July 2020 10: 10 New
          13
          Yes, Maskgenius. 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.
          In a certain sense, he is free to spit on all the rules of contracting, coordination and approval.
          He is free from the need to reconcile everything for years in case of a change in the technical situation.
          He will not be called up for report to the Congress Commission to reveal his liberties.
          Musk works on a turnkey basis.
          The principle is simple until indifference ": So, guys, what do you want? Yeah, I understand that I’ll do it tomorrow.
          1. mikh-korsakov
            mikh-korsakov 13 July 2020 10: 53 New
            +6
            u 58. I don’t know anything about how things were under Korolev in the sense of his relationship with the state. But there, as they say, the result was obvious. But I know firsthand about another great project of the USSR - the creation of the atomic bomb. The fact is that a long time ago, when I studied radiochemistry, the old professors who participated in this project were still alive. They told us something. Work was carried out 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 "foreman" of the project. Therefore, for example, graphite was needed - a month later a graphite carriage was being transported. And so in everything. Therefore, the point is not whether the state helps or not, but in fools and mediocrity, and they are always right there.
    3. Civil
      Civil 13 July 2020 07: 47 New
      +3
      Here are the related pictures, a truck with soda in Moscow in the 80s led to the cut, in the 90s, of the space measuring vessels Yuri Gagarin and Academician Korolev ... in two photos, one explains the shame of the other ...

    4. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 13 July 2020 09: 39 New
      13
      The problem is that the Angara is out of date and we spent only at least $ 3 billion on it. SpaceX on Falcon9 spent $ 0,4 billion.
      1. Freemason Mason
        Freemason Mason 13 July 2020 11: 25 New
        +8
        About $ 800 million, another 500 can be added to the development of falcon heavy, but everything else is true. In addition, you must understand that falcon 9 was already 4 years ago, in 2016, now starship is being developed - this is generally a different level
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 13 July 2020 11: 28 New
          +1
          For the development of 0,4 everything else for launches or alterations to customer requirements. Even if 0,8 is very far from 3 billion. Heavy is another project.
          1. Freemason Mason
            Freemason Mason 13 July 2020 13: 55 New
            10
            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 it is not able to give birth to anything else. It was necessary at the 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 ...
            1. Grazdanin
              Grazdanin 13 July 2020 13: 58 New
              +1
              Agree to 100%
            2. vVvAD
              vVvAD 19 July 2020 17: 20 New
              -1
              It's never too late to learn.
              We bypassed the Americans in (according to the chronology of the beginning): missile technology, nuclear program, dynamic protection, KAZ, combat lasers, electronic warfare, compact and aviation nuclear systems, although we did not have the initial technological advantages and time lead.
      2. AUL
        AUL 13 July 2020 19: 29 New
        +4
        Quote: Grazdanin
        The problem is that the Angara is out of date and we spent only at least $ 3 billion on it.

        If these 3 billion bucks went only to her, she would now fly twice a day ...
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 13 July 2020 19: 32 New
          -4
          Yes, because it didn’t take more than 3 billion, I have downplayed it, some estimate it to 4 billion.
      3. forpost
        forpost 13 July 2020 20: 45 New
        0
        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
      4. Vadim237
        Vadim237 13 July 2020 23: 03 New
        0
        Morally obsolete - but physically for the military and its civilian launches, the military itself has already ordered four missiles to the Sphere of 600 satellites, 30 more will be ordered and will continue to launch satellites and platforms as well as at Union 5. And what will happen tomorrow, who knows, maybe the USA will leave from the treaty on the placement of weapons in space and Russia will need to withdraw its space combat satellites and rocket platforms all need all kinds of missiles are important.
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 13 July 2020 23: 11 New
          -2
          The military do not care about the price, they do not spend their money, but our money.
          Quote: Vadim237
          who knows, maybe the USA will withdraw from the agreement on the placement of weapons in space

          What does it mean? The next few years will come, 100%. They already have space troops, orbital planes have been flying in space for ten years, and after 24 years they will make their own station.
      5. dog of war
        dog of war 13 July 2020 23: 09 New
        +3
        You can also add that the Angara began to be developed in 1994, in the year when the young Elon Musk graduated from the university.
      6. mister-red
        mister-red Today, 16: 47 New
        0
        Реально вы верите в такую сумму? Платформа новоой легковушки стоит 1 млрд, а ракета с нуля 0,4 млрд? Наивный однако.
    5. Virus-free crown
      Virus-free crown 13 July 2020 13: 24 New
      +8
      Quote: shinobi
      I don’t understand this cry of Yaroslavna in our mass media. Well, Mask turned out to have a slightly better rocket than ours, so what? Don't do it at all? Methane engine, you say? Well, we’ve got such a development. We’re lagging behind? And so? resources every year more.

      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 rockets into space more laughing

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

      So long as this does not reach the Authority, so our space industry will slowly die ...

      The same "penny" is worth it !!! Pay for work appropriate to the experience and responsibility !!! And do not cut money into space for yachts for saw cutters !!!
      1. Podvodnik
        Podvodnik 13 July 2020 20: 44 New
        +2
        So long as this does not reach the Authority, so our space industry will slowly die ...

        The same "penny" is worth it !!! Pay for work appropriate to the experience and responsibility !!! And do not cut money into space for yachts for saw cutters !!!


        Until indignant people go outside, no one will pay. At one event, the great one frightened journalist asked a big difference in the pay of top managers and ordinary workers. I recall the answer: "This is the global trend"
        1. Virus-free crown
          Virus-free crown 13 July 2020 21: 54 New
          +3
          Quote: Podvodnik
          So long as this does not reach the Authority, so our space industry will slowly die ...

          The same "penny" is worth it !!! Pay for work appropriate to the experience and responsibility !!! And do not cut money into space for yachts for saw cutters !!!


          Until indignant people go outside, no one will pay. At one event, the great one frightened journalist asked a big difference in the pay of top managers and ordinary workers. I recall the answer: "This is the global trend"

          When indignant people from outer space take to the streets - everything, Africa’s primacy in space can definitely be passed on lol laughing But ... there is still time ... not everyone with knowledge and experience quit ... and there are still young people who are "sick" in space drinks There is still time ... but ... it is running out ...
    6. Aibolit
      Aibolit 13 July 2020 14: 02 New
      +8
      Quote: shinobi
      Well, Mask got a rocket a little better than ours, so what?

      The thirst to snatch a piece sweeter overshadowed the professional mind

      This is their war, not ours.

      Dmitry Rogozin
      Quote: shinobi
      wagon belt

      belay
    7. smart ass
      smart ass 14 July 2020 21: 05 New
      0
      What do you recommend?
  2. Avior
    Avior 13 July 2020 06: 31 New
    13
    Without a competitive launch vehicle, they will look at the space program as a means of pumping money out of the budget
    So far it will hold out on military launches, but it is a matter of time before they “optimize” military launches on a competitive basis and allow outsiders.
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 13 July 2020 06: 43 New
      15
      Quote: Avior
      No competitive pH

      )))
      In Russia in the 90s, astronautics have learned to understand launches. To be honest, the market segment is very small, but the Russian baggage was retained in it in the Russian Federation, while in other aspects the failure was utter, and even in Soviet times. This baggage was enough for the 90s.

      Now the luggage is over, but I still want to puff out my cheeks. I think this is not the last enchanting statement in space from amateur realtors like Nesterov or his heirs.
      1. military_cat
        military_cat 13 July 2020 06: 49 New
        +8
        Quote: Octopus
        while in other aspects the failure was utter

        Well, not at all. How could you forget such an important thing?
      2. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 13 July 2020 08: 13 New
        -2
        Quote: Octopus
        In Russia in the 90s, astronautics have learned to understand launches

        And what else, excuse me, by her?
        If you don’t start, it won’t fly.
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 13 July 2020 09: 10 New
          +8
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          And what else, excuse me, by her?

      3. smart ass
        smart ass 14 July 2020 21: 07 New
        -1
        I love when they have Roskosmos and a cattail, it happens when you sit exactly on the pope or are engaged in creating a product that is unnecessary for the market
  3. Stas157
    Stas157 13 July 2020 07: 06 New
    -1
    . Soyuz-LNG methane rocket: according to the head of the Khrunichev Center, it needs to be done reusable

    No need to copy the Americans. A rocket with a retractable stage is more complex and expensive. To return the stage you need to carry extra fuel. We have strengths, this is the best engine in terms of energy efficiency and a simple, cheap rocket, the most reliable in the world (Proton). So you need to use this in the version with methane. And not the fact that reusability will be cheaper, and most importantly - more reliable.
    1. Avior
      Avior 13 July 2020 07: 21 New
      +5
      Even gasoline for diesel fuel is not so easy to replace, and even the type of engine in the launch vehicle is even more so.
      Honestly, I do not remember such a case at all.
    2. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 13 July 2020 07: 55 New
      +8
      At the moment, second-hand launches at the Mask have greater reliability than not second-hand.
      And we do not have the most efficient engine for UI, the same RS-25 has much higher performance. Only now, Musk showed that UI is not a panacea and generally uninteresting tech. Parameter for customers who care about the price of the issue
      1. Stas157
        Stas157 13 July 2020 08: 52 New
        0
        Quote: BlackMokona
        At the moment, second-hand starts at the Mask have great reliability than not used.

        Yeah, the more reliable the more reliable! Brilliant))
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 13 July 2020 08: 57 New
          +6
          Which car is more reliable, which just got off the conveyor line, or which drove the first 10 kilometers? laughing
          1. Stas157
            Stas157 13 July 2020 09: 20 New
            -2
            Quote: BlackMokona
            or which drove the first 10 kilometers?

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

            And if we take 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) different sores come out of any car. Do you have a car?
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 13 July 2020 09: 21 New
              10
              I pointed to the test tracks of automakers. It’s strange that you didn’t know about them laughing And as you can see, B \ U 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.
              1. AUL
                AUL 13 July 2020 19: 45 New
                +4
                Quote: BlackMokona
                I pointed to the test tracks of automakers.

                In fact, the analogy with a car is absolutely inappropriate here. If, for example, a gasoline pump (or something else) has flown up on the first 100 km of a new car, then the car will stand up, the pump will be sold / repaired and will go on. If a “gas pump” clogs up on a rocket on takeoff, there will be nothing to purge. 100% reliability should be there initially!
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 13 July 2020 23: 26 New
                  0
                  If the Falcon-9 rocket breaks one turbo pump, then it will successfully go into space. What has already been proven in practice. 9 engines and reusability gives the desired redundancy. You can always sacrifice a supply of fuel or landing fuel for additional output of the main load.
                  Also, thanks to the reusability of engines and rockets, it is possible to conduct very intense fire tests before launch to identify problems.
            2. BAI
              BAI 13 July 2020 16: 53 New
              +2
              then to the first MOT (10-15 thousand km) different sores get out on any car.

              Suzuki Grand Vitara. NONE. And not a single one at 40 (I didn’t have time anymore, I travel a little). Do not count for advertising.
          2. krizis
            krizis 13 July 2020 10: 08 New
            0
            By launch, the carrier is already at the bottom of the “trough”, but where it will be at the next launches is a big question.
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 13 July 2020 10: 52 New
              +2
              No, as practice with Falcon-9 B \ U has shown, they have higher reliability
              1. krizis
                krizis 21 July 2020 22: 12 New
                0
                how did you count?
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 21 July 2020 22: 43 New
                  0
                  All 100% of launches of the Used Falcon-9 are successful, but the new Falcon-9 does not have such beauty
                  1. krizis
                    krizis 13 August 2020 17: 54 New
                    0
                    that is, you are not comparing the flights of one modification on a second stage on a new one, but simply different, and there, and there are new stages? What is the point?
                    1. Blackmokona
                      Blackmokona 13 August 2020 18: 33 New
                      0
                      I just took all Falcon-9 launches, divided both used and used for the first time, and calculated 100% reliability for the used
                      1. krizis
                        krizis 3 September 2020 00: 18 New
                        0
                        did you forget to add one emergency? To account for the quantity.
          3. Aibolit
            Aibolit 13 July 2020 15: 49 New
            +2
            Quote: BlackMokona
            Which car is more reliable, which just got off the conveyor 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 wassat
    3. Zeev
      Zeev zeev 13 July 2020 08: 31 New
      +4
      Reusable Stage Rocket Mask comes out cheaper. And in production, thanks to advanced technologies, and in operation, due to reusability. Therefore, Musk was able to bring down prices in the launch market by almost 50%, squeezing Roskosmos from the market for commercial launches. Fuel in the cost of launching is the smallest expense, the engine and design cost an order of magnitude more.
      1. Stas157
        Stas157 13 July 2020 09: 00 New
        +4
        Quote: ZeevZeev
        Rocket mask with reusable step comes out cheaper.

        Reusable, keyword. And obviously does not become more reliable from this. And the problem of reliability in space will be more important than price. Then a reusable rocket is much more complicated and obviously more expensive. The ballast fuel you need to take on a flight is a huge minus of energy efficiency. And if you take into account that the returned stage must be carefully diagnosed and re-prepared for a new launch, then there is no significant effect of such reusability at all.
        1. donavi49
          donavi49 13 July 2020 09: 20 New
          13
          Why? Here he is flying five-time boosters. 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 be worked out once.

          Checks are optimized. At the same time, competitors will generally have chocolate, on methane BE-4 with a base (in the current block) resource of 100 flights. In theory, like an airplane - an inter-flight check + flight and so on there 10 times, then a B / C check and another 10 times, well, etc. From 50 and 75 after the D check.
          1. Stas157
            Stas157 13 July 2020 09: 42 New
            -1
            Quote: donavi49
            Here he is flying five-time boosters.

            It is clear that the future is reusable. But we have to get to this. With the shuttle did not work. The non-refundable Union turned out to be more reliable and cheaper. The easiest for our country at this stage make a simple, cheap, reliable methane rocket. And then think about reusability.
            1. Grazdanin
              Grazdanin 13 July 2020 10: 54 New
              +6
              Quote: Stas157
              With the shuttle did not 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.
              1. krizis
                krizis 13 August 2020 18: 03 New
                0
                The shuttle didn’t pull these capabilities in terms of the frequency of launches. For cargo - a dead-end concept of combining cargo and passenger transportation. And the inter-flight service turned out to be comparable to the manufacture.
            2. Vadim237
              Vadim237 13 July 2020 23: 11 New
              0
              Shuttles - development 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.
        2. chenia
          chenia 13 July 2020 09: 37 New
          0
          Quote: Stas157
          Then a reusable rocket is much more complicated and obviously more expensive. Ballast fuel


          Here. I agree. And if you really wanted to reusability, then do not let down the parachute (at the same time, to separate the engines from the tanks of the first stage, the engines are the most expensive). And so, we decided to teach how to plan the first step, but not to plant like Mask.
          1. Zeev
            Zeev zeev 13 July 2020 10: 16 New
            +1
            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, the design will be heavier and the cost of reassembly will negate the full benefit of reusability
            1. chenia
              chenia 13 July 2020 11: 33 New
              0
              Quote: ZeevZeev
              If you parachute, the landing will be uncontrollable and the first step 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 splashdown) by the corresponding side.

              Quote: ZeevZeev
              And if you also separate the tanks from the engines, the design will be heavier

              Why's that? All this is an order of magnitude simpler and easier to implement than with Mask. This has long been worked out for more heavy equipment.

              Quote: ZeevZeev
              the cost of reassembling will nullify all the benefits

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

              The Mask has such a "return" is determined by environmental considerations. And we people are easier ..
              1. Zeev
                Zeev zeev 13 July 2020 11: 44 New
                +1

                Why's that? All this is an order of magnitude simpler and easier to implement than with Mask. This has long been worked out for more heavy equipment.

                Because the attachment and separation system has weight. And it is more than just a supporting structure.
          2. Stas157
            Stas157 13 July 2020 10: 19 New
            +4
            Quote: chenia
            And if you really wanted to reusability, then do not lower the parachute (while separate engines from tanks the first stage, the engines are the most expensive). And so we conceived teach to plan first step, but do not plant like Musk.

            I completely agree. If these options are implemented, they will certainly be cheaper than maskovskie ones using ballast fuel (parasitic load) and sophisticated return technology.
            1. Grazdanin
              Grazdanin 13 July 2020 10: 56 New
              +3
              A parachute is nothing for brides?)) And so that nothing would break when landing, we need a parachute weighing half the first step))
              1. Stas157
                Stas157 13 July 2020 11: 29 New
                +3
                Quote: Grazdanin
                need a parachute weighing half the first stage))

                They wrote to you:

                Quote: chenia
                at the same time separate the engines from the tanks of the first stage

                And the descent speed does not have to be, like parachutes intended for people. And during the touch can be used squibs. But this is only one option. There are others, such as planning.
                1. Grazdanin
                  Grazdanin 13 July 2020 11: 33 New
                  +3
                  Such stupidity. It is not cheaper and pointless. There are 2 main tasks 1. cheap flights 2. Preparing the first stage for a restart in 2-3 days. This solution does not solve more than one of the problems.
                  1. chenia
                    chenia 13 July 2020 16: 45 New
                    0
                    Quote: Grazdanin
                    Such stupidity. It is not cheaper and pointless


                    For an amateur, this is really stupid. But any normal engineer will say the opposite. Separating the engine block from the "bucket" is obviously simpler than, for example, separating the shuttle from the tank. No need to reserve so. reinsuring creating a highly reliable system. If the shuttle at the shutdown, something goes wrong, this is serious (but there were no problems). And if with the first stage - it will be a successful launch, only a little more expensive (a block with engines will break).

                    Quote: Grazdanin
                    Preparation of the first stage for a 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 repeated starts, some only 2 (and then the whole block must be sorted out). Refractory gaskets, connection elements, etc. replace immediately.
                    So there is no such thing (at least for now, and in the future new technologies and materials, we will see) that would be in two days. according to the principle - tucked in and on. it won’t be for a long time (even Mask).

                    Quote: Grazdanin
                    This solution does not solve more than one of the problems.


                    The area where the "first fly" is known. The missile will only be at the start, the lads in helicopters will already fly there. Further, as at the meeting of the astronauts, the unit is still in the air and already down to visual control (about all kinds of lighthouses, by default). I did not have time to land in 10 minutes. lads near the block, and fasten on the external suspension to the next helicopter. After 40 minutes at the airport. stuff the block into the transporter. And after a couple of hours in the assembly shop.
                    And then like the Mask.

                    And everything is cheaper, more reliable and easier.
                    Ours is planning to "plan" the first step to barbecue. But it looks like a dough cut.
            2. dog of war
              dog of war 13 July 2020 23: 20 New
              0
              Musk considered many landing options and came up with that rocket landing is the most profitable.
              Posada on the "airplane" is very unprofitable, because you have to carry: wings. chassis, controls. And the stage itself must withstand overloads. so you need to make thicker walls of the body.
            3. Drummer
              Drummer 16 July 2020 16: 09 New
              0
              In fact, missile capabilities are always redundant and the first stages always have a fuel supply.
              And it turns out, for example, that both the Bottle and the Proton can launch a device weighing 7-8 tons and for both it is ~ 50% of the maximum load, but the first stage of the Bottle uses excess fuel for landing, and the first stage of the Proton falls with it into the taiga in Altai . So much for the ballast.
              Landing engines on a parachute, it’s certainly good, that's just how to catch / search for them, because 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 undesirable contact with water, and you still need to somehow provide a buoyancy margin, the search / rise by itself.
              1. krizis
                krizis 13 August 2020 18: 07 New
                0
                Such a device can launch the Union. Moreover, it is much cheaper than the Falcon. ... Understandably, the Proton in this case will carry a passing load.
        3. Zeev
          Zeev zeev 13 July 2020 09: 42 New
          +7
          You consider the launch as a unique isolated case, after which the grass does not grow (in the case of Proton, which uses ultra-toxic heptyl, the grass at the first stage fall does not literally grow). And Musk, with his engineers and economists, is considering launch as part of the work cycle. An established work cycle, which is very important. Start-up, landing, transportation for inspection, maintenance, refueling, new start-up. The whole process has been worked out and calculated both technically and economically. Therefore, the effect, especially in terms of price, is very large.
          1. Grazdanin
            Grazdanin 13 July 2020 10: 59 New
            +1
            Everyone forgets about the speed of preparation for launch. Current missiles are being 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 possible the massive use of orbital aircraft such as the X-37B or dream chaser.
            1. krizis
              krizis 13 August 2020 18: 08 New
              0
              there are no such reusable rockets yet. You still need to do the second step.
        4. 3danimal
          3danimal 13 July 2020 21: 18 New
          +1
          Reliability: SpaceX has this indicator better than Roskosmos, alas. Although they do not consecrate rockets before launches .. request
        5. snucerist
          snucerist 13 July 2020 23: 16 New
          +3
          "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 understand why Musk has already squeezed out Russian cosmonautics from the commercial segment, and by the end of the year will finish it off completely.
          To remove a kilogram of cargo at the Mask is already cheaper. And not the least role in the price is played by the reusability of the first stage.
          What does the price of a rocket have to do with it?
          The customer is only interested in the amount that he will pay for the delivery of his cargo.
          That's it!
          1. krizis
            krizis 13 August 2020 18: 11 New
            0
            empty sound. No need to pretend to be smart about it :) Yes, starts are meant. And they are highly dependent on the cost of the media.
            And not so much Musk pressed as Roscosmos screwed up. And then there were sanctions, that is, restrictions on the launch of foreign satellites. It would seem - not necessary. if Musk 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 sure. what money can you eat? :)
      2. krizis
        krizis 13 July 2020 10: 13 New
        -3
        the reusable stage of the rocket is definitely more expensive, and not cheaper. Some benefit from reusability can be obtained with a sufficient number of repeated starts. According to various estimates, from 5 to 10. Now the average plaque is less than 3x.
        "Therefore, Musk was able to bring down prices in the launch market by almost 50%, squeezing Roscosmos"
        - not because.
        1. Zeev
          Zeev zeev 13 July 2020 11: 00 New
          +4
          Now there are already the first steps that have worked out a full cycle of five launches. According to various estimates, a stage costing 29 million and a launch cost of 11 million (this is the entire cycle, including preparations for a restart) is cheaper than the first stage for the same Proton at the second launch.
          And Roskosmos was squeezed out of the market by lower prices.
          1. krizis
            krizis 21 July 2020 22: 06 New
            0
            Now there are already the first stages that have completed a full cycle of five launches

            Right. but it is the average numbers that matter. so here is 2- guaranteed loss. now - less than 3x on average.
            according to various estimates, a stage costing 29 million and a start-up cost of 11

            - there are no grounds for accurate estimates, only the economic effect of the transition to semi-reusability using Musk's scheme can be estimated. So the cheap first stage does not contribute to this efficiency at all. By the way. when Musk started, the entire Proton launch was 25-40 million.
            comes out cheaper than the first stage for the same "Proton" already at the second launch.

            - again. back 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 termination of flights. for several reasons, such as accidents due to stupid mistakes or a delusional situation with a gross violation of engine production technology. an increase in the cost of Proton due to the limitation of the series.
            The proton can fly significantly cheaper than Falcon even if the military continues to overpay for Falcon. The real average cost of launching Proton is less than 60 million, Falcon - more than 70.
        2. 3danimal
          3danimal 13 July 2020 21: 21 New
          0
          Musk cited an example in an interview: imagine a one-time passenger or transport plane and the cost of the ticket / 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 Roscosmos "
          - not because.

          Of course not (because Rogozin spoke like that). Therefore, we are also going to do multi-stage steps, just for fun smile
          1. krizis
            krizis 21 July 2020 22: 11 New
            0
            Of course not (because Rogozin spoke like that). Therefore, we are also going to do multi-stage steps, just for fun


            Really. not because, and Rogozin has nothing to do with it. The real reasons for the loss of the market by Proton I gave above
            And the epidemic of maskophilia is finding fertile ground among iPhoneophiles. therefore, projects "like Musk's" find funding more easily. But that's what you wanted, really.
            Reusable media will become effective over time, but today it is a pursuit of ten percent of the cost price, while an increase in the series of products reduces the cost price by 2-3 times.
      3. Sanichsan
        Sanichsan 14 July 2020 14: 51 New
        +1
        Quote: ZeevZeev
        Reusable Stage Rocket Mask comes out cheaper.

        probably this is why more than half of the launches of this reusable missile are made in a single use what
    4. smart ass
      smart ass 14 July 2020 21: 08 New
      -1
      Sofa queens in business)))
  4. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 13 July 2020 07: 17 New
    0
    Commercial launches are a good thing. And the cost of launch is a decisive factor. Not most important, reusability. The cost of production is important. There will be a cheap disposable rocket - and they will immediately remember the difficulty of returning the steps, and the incomplete efficiency in terms of the output mass (you need to carry fuel to land with you!) ...
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 13 July 2020 09: 19 New
      +2
      There is a preparation factor for the flight. The rocket carrier is being built in 1-2 years, SpaseX and Blue Origin want to achieve the restart of the first stage in 2-3 days. And yes, disposable rockets will always be more expensive in launching reusable ones, so life is arranged.
      1. krizis
        krizis 13 August 2020 18: 13 New
        0
        You did not forget to take into account the experience of the Shuttle?
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 13 July 2020 21: 23 New
      -1
      You cannot make a disposable (and reliable enough) rocket cheaply enough. Even if you use serf engineers and workers (you still need factories, machine tools, materials).
  5. Engineer Schukin
    Engineer Schukin 13 July 2020 07: 36 New
    +5
    Quote: Stas157
    . Soyuz-LNG methane rocket: according to the head of the Khrunichev Center, it needs to be done reusable

    No need to copy the Americans. A rocket with a retractable stage is more complex and expensive. To return the stage you need to carry extra fuel. We have strengths, this is the best engine in terms of energy efficiency and a simple, cheap rocket, the most reliable in the world (Proton). So you need to use this in the version with methane. And not the fact that reusability will be cheaper, and most importantly - more reliable.

    Proton - the most reliable rocket in the world?
    Do not invent stupid things, since you don’t know the materiel.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 13 July 2020 08: 59 New
        +4
        Now calculate the proportion of successful launches based on the wiki data.
        wink
        1. Stas157
          Stas157 13 July 2020 09: 04 New
          0
          Quote: BlackMokona
          Now count

          So count it yourself or others should do it for you. Unless of course you want to reinforce your speculation with something.
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 13 July 2020 09: 12 New
            10
            No problem, as examples
            88.9% of Proton-M launches (Khrunechev, Russia) fully completed successfully
            Fully successfully completed 97.73% of Falcon-9 launches (SpaceX, USA)
            98.8% of Atlas-5 launches (ULA, USA) were fully completed.
            Completely successfully completed 97.5% of Delta-4 launches (ULA, USA)
            Completely successfully completed 94.4% of launches of Arian-5 (Arian, EU)
            1. Stas157
              Stas157 13 July 2020 09: 29 New
              0
              Quote: BlackMokona
              88.9% of Proton-M launches (Khrunechev, Russia) fully completed successfully

              And here is another info:
              As of December 24, 2019, Proton-M 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 sampling as that of Proton. Therefore, comparing launches over 75 years and over 5 is not entirely correct.
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 13 July 2020 09: 38 New
                +6
                1) You are looking at the wiki. There are not 109 launches at Proton-M at all.
                2) Not in years of happiness, but in launches. And usually a couple of dozen are enough to create statistics. Falcon-9 tried to fly the same 88 times, of which 86 times everything ended completely successfully, exploded 1 time, and once lost the side load, removing the main one.
                1. Stas157
                  Stas157 13 July 2020 10: 07 New
                  +3
                  You just take the conversation away as a master, clinging to details and particulars. My the basic idea It was that the USSR made the most reliable, energy-efficient and at the same time inexpensive missiles in the world, and we need to follow this tradition. I brought the proton, just as an example. And it’s not at all accidental. Because even:
                  Based on market research conducted by Futron Corporation, the American independent consulting company recognized the Russian Proton launch vehicle as the most reliable in the world

                  It should be noted that this concerned launches until 2004. The fact that the Soviet Proton suddenly became more accidental is the problem of modern Russia, and not of the developed Soviet technologies.
                  1. Blackmokona
                    Blackmokona 13 July 2020 10: 19 New
                    +3
                    As for the most reliable, energy-efficient, I would argue. Although, of course, they were at the forefront and actively fought for leadership. And low-cost salaries should be compared first. To evaluate where the worker was not paid extra, and where the production and product were built correctly.
                    In 90 years we seized the market, proton pickers ate promises instead of salaries. And collectors in the United States demanded themselves and the black layer is thicker. .
                    1. Grazdanin
                      Grazdanin 13 July 2020 11: 03 New
                      +1
                      A cleaning lady working in SpaceX cannot receive less than 90 rubles per month according to the law. The salary is comparable only in the first persons. More than $ 000 billion was spent on the Angara, and $ 3 billion on the Falcon.
                      1. 3danimal
                        3danimal 13 July 2020 21: 31 New
                        +1
                        Rogozin’s income is significantly higher than that of the head of NASA. But the salary of engineers is the opposite. An interesting correlation that distinguishes us from many developed countries ..
                      2. Grazdanin
                        Grazdanin 13 July 2020 21: 34 New
                        -1
                        therefore, there is one of five employees, a native of the former USSR in the first or second generation.
                      3. 3danimal
                        3danimal 13 July 2020 21: 37 New
                        0
                        So I wrote that z / a Rogozin above request
                        One of the five employees in the first (and even second) hails from the USSR is commendable, but this is how to be proud of the white (black) skin color.
                        By the way, in the second generation - this is an American who grew up in that society and received education there.
              2. 3danimal
                3danimal 13 July 2020 21: 28 New
                -1
                If human ancestors exclusively followed traditions, they would still be little different from animals.
                It is necessary to develop. And if today technology allows you to make reusable returnable rocket stages - they must be done.
                Once again, I recall the example of an inexpensive disposable passenger plane and the usual Boeing 737. How much will the tickets for them differ?
            2. krizis
              krizis 13 July 2020 10: 16 New
              -2
              "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.
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 13 July 2020 10: 20 New
                +6
                The Falcon-9 will still have higher reliability, even if the launch is attributed to it unsuccessful.
                1. krizis
                  krizis 13 July 2020 10: 23 New
                  -1
                  More than Proton? maybe not counted. Historical champions are a couple of modifications of the Union, and, it seems, some sort of minor conversion one.
                  1. Blackmokona
                    Blackmokona 13 July 2020 10: 29 New
                    +3
                    More than Proton, he is now generally not known for reliability.
                  2. krizis
                    krizis 21 July 2020 22: 13 New
                    0
                    More, although now the numbers are close.
                  3. Blackmokona
                    Blackmokona 21 July 2020 22: 44 New
                    0
                    Now Proton is almost flightless, so its statistics are almost frozen. But Falcon-9 flies often and completely successfully, and gains its numbers. So the difference is growing
    2. smart ass
      smart ass 14 July 2020 21: 10 New
      -1
      In vain you are so, you need to shout cheers and throw caps in the sky!
  6. Octopus
    Octopus 13 July 2020 09: 22 New
    +7
    Quote: Stas157
    reinforce with something your fiction.

    Trouble-free series.
    Proton - 19
    Delta 4 - 36
    Falcon - 60 (load loss during an accident before launch), 70 (LV accident).
    Atlas 5 - 74.
    Arian-5 - 94 (launch vehicle destruction, load loss), 10 (partial accident, under-orbital velocity).
  • Errr
    Errr 13 July 2020 09: 06 New
    +2
    Quote: Engineer Schukin
    Proton - the most reliable rocket in the world?
    Do not invent stupid things, since you don’t know the materiel.
    Really... smile
    The most reliable carrier at the moment is Soyuz-FG; 70 launches have only one accident, which gives an accident rate of less than 1,43. And if some brave fellow in the assembly at Baikonur did not use a silushka instead of turning on the brain, then in the entire history of this carrier there would have been no accident at all. We don’t need to type more chickens in the morphlot.
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 13 July 2020 09: 52 New
      +5
      Quote: Herrr
      The most reliable carrier at the moment is Soyuz-FG; 70 launches in just one accident

      Trouble-free series are given above. Atlas in 84 starts has one partial accident (underfilling speed).

      Delta 2 had 2 accidents for 156 launches. Its last launch, in the 18th year, became the 100th consecutive accident-free.
      1. Errr
        Errr 13 July 2020 12: 26 New
        -1
        hi Thanks for the amendment.
        Quote: Octopus
        Delta 2 had 2 accidents for 156 launches.
        In fact, "Delta II" from 1989 to 2018 flew only 155 times (for start-up control, see from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Thor_and_Delta_launches_(1980–1989)), but this is a trifle. yes Once - there, times - here on one and a half hundred launches - the error is insignificant.
        In general, you are right. Indeed, the American “Atlas V” and “Delta II” steer in trouble-free conditions with accident rates of 1,19 and 1,29 (subject to my amendment), respectively.
        PS But the RD-180 at the first stage of the Atlas V is, nevertheless, ours, Russian! wink There is a real reason to be proud. yes
    2. krizis
      krizis 13 August 2020 18: 16 New
      0
      Some versions of Unions had much larger trouble-free series.
  • U-58
    U-58 13 July 2020 09: 16 New
    +3
    Proton is the most reliable missile in the world after the Union. I know the materiel, because He devoted 36 years to production. Not just the Proton, of course, but one of its most important elements.
    The most important plus is the relative simplicity of the design and the finely tuned technology.
    Plus a margin of reliability.
    That's what Toko did not do with this Proton, and he, the dog, flies.
    Even with the weakening of structural elements, even with the sudden drainage of the oxidizing agent into the aggregate axle at start-up, when the wiring was to corrode and short-circuit tightly.
    Yes, you never know what happened!
    Once Proton took off, not having a single retreat.
    That was a jerk for everyone. From the non-standard situation. Took off.
    And it could fly another 30 years, or even 50. Moreover, even though with a delay, the ideas of its medium and light versions were born.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 13 July 2020 21: 34 New
      0
      Then why did the accident happen with the “unkillable” Proton?
      1. U-58
        U-58 14 July 2020 03: 47 New
        0
        Today, accidents 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 many accidents the Union had
    2. Svlad
      Svlad 20 July 2020 02: 06 New
      +1
      Something went wrong. This is not about Proton?
      1. U-58
        U-58 20 July 2020 04: 02 New
        0
        Quote from the report on the second channel. I confirm ..
        Moreover, what was Lunokhod-1 like?
        According to official statistics - the fourth. According to the recollections of the soldiers who served at that time - the fifth.
        And this is also Proton.
        So what?
        And nothing. The person who was called to serve at the Baikodrom cosmonur for two years saw at times a 6: 4 ratio in terms of success / failure at launch. This is for all types of missiles, including the Voevoda and the GXNUMX.
        Normal cosmodrome life ...
  • krizis
    krizis 13 August 2020 18: 14 New
    0
    It will not become more reliable from reusability.
  • U-58
    U-58 13 July 2020 07: 37 New
    +9
    If to summarize everything that is written about our space program, one conclusion suggests itself.
    We want: now, best of all, cheaper than all, with commercial returns the coolest of all.
    We have: almost nothing, except for old carriers, is already unclaimed by anyone commercially.
    What to do? (About who is to blame to argue, this is water in a mortar to crush).
    But it is necessary to do. And you need money for this. No, not the ones that stand out now.
    These amounts are not enough for anything.
    Financing is needed an order of magnitude greater. That is, 10 times more.
    The trick is that when the allocated amounts increase, they (the sums) begin to creep inexplicably, to get lost, to disappear.
    And all our "organs" can only find traces of this missing money, but the money itself ...
    And the days are needed for working out.
    We can design everything conceivable and inconceivable. But they give so much for working out that everything should work out the first, maximum, the second time.
    In fact, this does not work out.
    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 what kind of shisha to do the following with failure.
    Give enterprises "the right to make mistakes" in order to avoid panic and scandals in the event of an expensive marriage, because 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 places where there is no tension (because in the production of hammers, bicycles and pipe layers you are not pressed so many checks and punishments).
    Then this contingent, over time, will become the experienced backbone of the industry, capable of fulfilling all its tasks.
    1. ANB
      ANB 13 July 2020 15: 20 New
      +1
      . One must pay really high salaries not only to the director and his deputies, but also to the worker

      Director and deputies can be cut.
      1. Svlad
        Svlad 20 July 2020 02: 10 New
        +1
        Right. While an engineer or assembler receives a salary as an Uzbek collecting carts in Ashan, there is no luck
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 14 July 2020 10: 25 New
      0
      But this is precisely the trick of modern Russia: to pay top managers more than in the (decaying) West, and engineers and workers less. And to say later: you do not look at our modest budget, we pay small salaries (to engineers), the return of no
  • ont65
    ont65 13 July 2020 07: 41 New
    +3
    If we talk about super-gravity, then methane is a half measure. Without a hydrogen engine 120 - 90 tp at the second and third stages there will be no significant increase in the output mass. Methane gives 20%, hydrogen to this 30%. If there was such an engine by the 68th, then their Saturn could be launched from the 16th RD-253 (275) in the first stage. So what on heptyl? - In the ampoule design, such accelerators from those that dragged the shuttles differ only in controllability and, by the way, 4 times the resource. Cheap and cheerful.
  • Indifferent
    Indifferent 13 July 2020 07: 46 New
    -1
    Mask has a rocket flying on state subsidies. Americans do not hide it. They are now prestige more expensive than money. Moreover, they are not considered "green" now. How much is needed, so much is printed. As soon as Musk switches to prime cost, his “furor” will end.
    And yet, until the journalist Rogozin is changed to a real techie, nothing will change. Pies must bake a pie, says folk wisdom!
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 13 July 2020 07: 58 New
      -3
      No Mask does not receive subsidies for SpaceX.
      Prior to Mask, a subsidy of one billion dollars a year to maintain national access to space was received by ULA (Boeing and Lockheed Union), but after the coming of Mask and his question, where is half of it. The Pentagon canceled the subsidy.
      There are no other subsidies there.
      1. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 13 July 2020 09: 36 New
        +6
        Gets. A large number of companies receive them, this is the norm, for example, finances 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, Washington) - $ 3,7 million;
        Paragon Space Development Corporation (Tucson, Arizona) - $ 1,4 million.

        SpaceX at first was not at all, then they joined. Something in the region of 300 million for 3 companies. Then payment of services for the delivery of goods already went.
        3-4 billion dollars were spent on the Angara, such a sum for the development of Spacex was not dreamed of. About $ 9 million was spent on Falcon 400.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 13 July 2020 09: 40 New
          +2
          You do not confuse subsidies and government orders? And these are completely different things. laughing
          1. Grazdanin
            Grazdanin 13 July 2020 09: 44 New
            +2
            Not. The state order is the shipped cargo 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 be no results, money does not have to be returned. As far as I remember, Paragon went broke.
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 13 July 2020 10: 16 New
              0
              Research money can be government orders or subsidies. It all depends on the goals and objectives.
              If NASA orders for its needs a rocket and a ship, at its request, this is a government order.
              If NASA gave the dough for Musk to create a rocket for his needs, at his request. This is a subsidy.
              1. krizis
                krizis 13 July 2020 10: 33 New
                -3
                You forget about development grants, and overpayments on government contracts.
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 13 July 2020 10: 35 New
                  +3
                  What is the overpayment? The mask is greatly underpaid
                  On December 22, 2008, contracts were signed with two companies, for a total amount of US $ 3,5 billion, to carry out 20 ISS supply missions. The $ 1,6 billion contract with SpaceX was for 12 missions of the Dragon spaceship launched into orbit by the Falcon 9 rocket. The $ 1,9 billion contract with Orbital Sciences Corporation was designed for 8 missions of the Cygnus spacecraft, which will launch the Antares launch vehicle

                  The mask was paid less for a larger number of missions. More serious ship.
                  The Dragon Mask drags 3.3 tons up and 2.5 tons down, versus 2.5 tons up and zero down at Signus of that modification.
                  A development order is not a subsidy if you want to make a specific product that the state needs, and not for yourself. What I clarified.
                  1. krizis
                    krizis 21 July 2020 22: 17 New
                    0
                    Overpaid. in the sense - they pay above the market. That is, if you want to talk about the cost price, then you must take into account not only cheap commercial launches, but also expensive state ones. ... It doesn't matter at all here that some other players are overpaid even more.
                    The mask was paid less for a larger number of missions. More serious ship.
                    The Dragon Mask drags 3.3 tons up and 2.5 tons down, versus 2.5 tons up and zero down at Signus of that modification.

                    Maybe on paper the Dragon can do more, but carries about the same.
                    1. Blackmokona
                      Blackmokona 21 July 2020 22: 45 New
                      0
                      He is paid well below the market
                      1. krizis
                        krizis 13 August 2020 17: 50 New
                        0
                        much more expensive than its own price for commercial launches. This is "above the market".
                      2. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 13 August 2020 18: 39 New
                        0
                        You don't really understand what the 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 won't go to Vietnam if bread is 5 rubles cheaper there. A store near you competes with another store nearby. A shop in Vietnam with another Vietnamese shop. Selected Markets and Selected Competition
                      3. krizis
                        krizis 3 September 2020 00: 15 New
                        0
                        You don't really understand. what is it about. It's about the actual average launch price. which is above the international market. if you want .. Although the allocation of the American market is pointless. American companies also buy launch services around the world.
                        It's about that. that high government procurement prices allow lower prices for commercial launches. Price tag, Seis X, by the way. does not distinguish between "world" and "American" markets.
        2. krizis
          krizis 13 July 2020 10: 21 New
          0
          The mask was paid for development. and not for the delivered cargo from the very beginning, after the first unsuccessful launches.
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 13 July 2020 10: 30 New
            +3
            He developed the Falcon-1 with his own money.
            This is already Falcon-9 he was developing with NASA a contributor, since he planned to make Falcon-5, but NASA needed a more powerful rocket for its purposes.
            As I recall, they shared the costs in half. 200 million from the Mask and the same from NASA.
            1. krizis
              krizis 21 July 2020 22: 14 New
              0
              Musk received a grant for the development of the launch vehicle after the first unsuccessful launches of Falcon 1
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 21 July 2020 22: 45 New
                0
                After the first successful flight of Falcon-1
                1. krizis
                  krizis 13 August 2020 17: 50 New
                  0
                  unsuccessful.
          2. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 21 July 2020 22: 45 New
            0
            The contract immediately included delivery
            1. krizis
              krizis 13 August 2020 17: 52 New
              0
              If NASA now takes the initiative to develop an interstellar spacecraft, and injects a hundred billion dollars into grants, they will be paid even if no one flies to the stars.
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 13 August 2020 18: 36 New
                0
                Depending on how the contract will be drawn up.
                For example, Google announced an award for reaching the moon by a private moon 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 had successfully sat down and executed the program, Google would still not have paid a dime. Since they did not meet the deadlines.
                1. krizis
                  krizis 3 September 2020 00: 17 New
                  0
                  Well, this is not about Google. and not about a contract under which just not to pay, but about the systematic pouring of money into the industry .. Which create an environment for startups such as space.
    2. Brancodd
      Brancodd 18 July 2020 22: 54 New
      0
      These zaoats are the tip of the iceberg. Advertising brochure. Take a deeper look?
      - Over-closed, super-cool office, in which our inventor-innovator Musk is immediately entering. Well, is it not a miracle? Inventor with a new engine running. Where are Musk and Muller annealed this engine? In the garage? Another miracle. An inventor with tolerances on supermodes? Again - a miracle! The young genius with the already developed start and landing algorithms is another miracle. The inventor, who not only immediately finds full support in the Pentagon and DARPA, but also manages to hire people to him already worked together teams. Biblical miracles on such a background are just cheap bazaar 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 sources. It follows from them that, firstly, Comrade Tom Muller did not use his garage for the test bench for the Merlin engine, but the test site of the former aircraft ammunition plant, located in the Texas region near the town of McGregor. Most interestingly, the first rocket engine stands were built by the Beal Aerospace corporation by enthusiastic engineer Andrew Beale. And all this was done in the framework of the NLI - National Launch Initiative, "National Launch Initiative". But the NLI program was completed in 2000, the company of Andrew Beale, in fact, was ruined, but then the brilliant Elon Musk 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 leading developer of the largest hydrogen engine in the framework of the very NLI, which had government funding through a joint program of NASA and the US Department of Defense. Muller in 15 years has gone from an ordinary engineer to almost the vice-president of the company TRW. This guy was there the most important rocket technology. Suddenly, Muller, who did not sit in the vice-presidential chair, goes to the company of the most perfect newcomer Mask. And Muller goes to the Mask is not one, but taking with him the leading experts in rocket affairs from TRW. At the same time, Muller is working on technologies of the famous American lunar program, applied in the lunar landing module, using pin nozzles. It works - and all this, together with the already prepared team of specialists, is being transferred to the Mask.

      - What's next?

      - Further interesting. In the 2002 year, at the same time as Muller left, the giant Northrop Grumman Corporation buys TRW. Not even a giant, but a monster who built stealth bombers and nuclear aircraft carriers. This monster sues Mask, which, by hiring a former TRW manager Muller, gained commercial gain from TRW's intellectual property, now owned by Northrop Grumman Corporation. The results of the trial are indicative - it seems that the SpaceX baby has managed to fend off an aerospace tyrannosaur! Well, or Mask someone helped implement another miracle.

      - What kind of company is this - TRW?

      - 57 is a place in Fortune Global 500, that is, in the 500 ranking of the world's largest companies, the criterion for compiling which is the company's revenue. TRW, or Thompson-Ramo-Wooldridge, is the developer of all major US intelligence satellites. It was TRW that created the Pioneer 10, an automatic interplanetary station sent to the edge of the solar system, and 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 TRW portrait. Rameau and Woldridge, 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 remarkable detail: the missile had a range of up to 180 km and the name ... Falcon. So, in the early 1950s, bored with the eccentric Hughes' management style, Rameau and Wooldridge decided to create their own company. A simple guy named Thompson helped them in this, until that time he owned a company that back in 1926 was a supplier of No. 1 valves and other auto parts for American industry.

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

      One way or another, a familiar TRW appears, which in 1953, becomes the general contractor of the US Air Force for 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 Makeevka factories. That is, a company deeply buried in the US military-industrial complex, from which Comrade Musk at some point lures the leading specialist and five minutes to the 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 work approvals are required than at NASA. It is very convenient to quickly work out something extremely innovative in them, and it is just as convenient to hide the development of something very secret. You can vice versa - take and flaunt something there to put competitors on the wrong track. DARPA is a big "black hole", and no one, except the top US leadership, has any idea what is going on inside. SpaceX, Scaled Composites and others like them are small black holes that appear on or off the game board as needed.
  • U-58
    U-58 13 July 2020 09: 04 New
    +1
    I'm not a fan of Rogozin either. Not even a fan.
    However, indicate why Rogozin has affected the development of Russian cosmonautics for the worse.
    What steps show his inability to lead Roscosmos?
    In the end, he does not write development programs, but competent specialists, he does not construct and considers costs.
    Personally, I consider it his sin to persistently patronize the Angara exclusively.
    But here there was someone to correct Dmitry Olegovich - this is Deputy Prime Minister Borisov.
    Although not from the first shout, Rogozin had to move the Soyuz-5 / Irtysh theme.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 13 July 2020 09: 24 New
      0
      For example, its constant and regular failures at the Vostochny spaceport.
      1. BAI
        BAI 13 July 2020 09: 44 New
        +8
        And the very actual construction of the new central office of Roscosmos, which at a price is not very different from the spaceport.
      2. Brancodd
        Brancodd 13 July 2020 12: 26 New
        -2
        The construction of the second stage on Vostochny is proceeding slightly ahead of schedule. If Borisov and Co. If they don’t interfere, they will be ready by 2023. There is not a single corruption claim to the second stage of construction.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 13 July 2020 13: 03 New
          +2
          In Vostochny, the first stage is still unfinished.
          MAR 10, 09:17
          State examination of unfinished objects of the first stage of the East will be completed before the end of April
          The state corporation clarified that specialists will examine first-stage facilities for which work has not been completed or performed poorly

          https://tass.ru/kosmos/7933181
          1. Brancodd
            Brancodd 13 July 2020 13: 33 New
            -1
            In Vostochny, the first stage is still unfinished

            Freshly memorable Spetsstroy, which is so lobbying for Borisov.
            Financing through the treasury was run in at Crimean thermal stations. According to this algorithm, a new contractor is working on the second stage of Vostochny. And in parallel next year should begin the construction of an airstrip for transporters. For the sake of fairness, it must be said that the rate of return there is so insignificant that the proposal did not interest prospective contractors. Almost all refused.
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 13 July 2020 16: 01 New
              +1
              The entire construction of the eastern since 2014 under the direct control of Rogozin
    2. Alexander Sosnitsky
      Alexander Sosnitsky 13 July 2020 09: 39 New
      +4
      The leader always inspires the rest, like Korolev S.P. If there is no inspiration, but only the smell of dirty socks, the team will go there
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 14 July 2020 10: 28 New
    -1
    Yes, this version is regularly voiced by Rogozin and Co., in order to justify why SpaceX crushed the market for commercial launches.
    Once again: where is the ticket cheaper: in a one-time super-cheap (yeah, but it must be safe at the same time), or a reusable Boeing 737?
  • svp67
    svp67 13 July 2020 09: 05 New
    +1
    Soyuz-5 and Angara-A5: what is wrong with Russian missiles
    The main "netak" is that they simply are not in the "metal"
  • Grazdanin
    Grazdanin 13 July 2020 09: 24 New
    +2
    It's an amazing thing, we’ve been building a rocket for 25 years and it is out of date. What is the problem? It’s time to close the hangar, and they are only testing.
    1. BAI
      BAI 13 July 2020 09: 42 New
      +3
      Because, if you make and debug the Angara, then after it you will have to develop a new one. And there are no more people capable of this. 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.
      1. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 13 July 2020 09: 49 New
        0
        There are people, simply “impotent” gathered in power, who, besides the desire for money and power, have nothing.
        Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) - an American company, a manufacturer of space technology. It was founded in 2002.
        On August 26, 1995, a Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation was issued, which determined the stage-by-stage development of the Angara complex, and approved the general schedule for the creation of the complex, the volumes of its financing, as well as the cooperation of co-executors.
        1. Brancodd
          Brancodd 13 July 2020 13: 22 New
          0
          From 1997 to 2004, there was virtually no funding. Those. there was a government decree, but no money. By the way, in 2017, funding for the federal space program was cut 2 times. Now the budget of Roscosmos is $ 3 billion. For example, EKA has -12 billion Eur
  • Alexander Sosnitsky
    Alexander Sosnitsky 13 July 2020 09: 37 New
    -1
    And with Russian brains, there have always been problems because of their uselessness, everything is already in excess. Well, the Germans woke up at 41m, the Americans later, well, broke off the half-Slavic world in the history of Europe. Nothing, yet how much Russia is left!
  • BAI
    BAI 13 July 2020 09: 39 New
    +4
    and another ten years does not.

    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.
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 13 July 2020 09: 51 New
      +4
      5 years, the Blue origin engine on methane is already in the metal in trials.
  • Maks1995
    Maks1995 13 July 2020 09: 41 New
    +2
    Absolutely right.
    The main thing is that these missiles are not.
    And there are endless promises, failures, renaming in Roskosmos .....
  • steelmaker
    steelmaker 13 July 2020 09: 45 New
    +6
    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, well, at least we have it!
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 13 July 2020 11: 07 New
      -2
      All right we want. If power can not need to change power. More than $ 3 billion was spent on the Angara, and $ 9 billion on Falcon0,4. We have the money, the government simply does not know how to work.
  • Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 13 July 2020 09: 46 New
    +3
    Soyuz-5 and Angara-A5: what is wrong with Russian missiles

    All this, except for the fact that there are no payloads, not at all. We lost the foreign market apparently forever. Of its loads, only MO satellites and the Orel being developed, and even that one, which lost their competence, exceeded 20 tons of weight. Here comes the brawl. Nesterov’s article has already been condemned in interested circles; "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 didn’t know before) and let's suggest ideas for reducing the cost. Here I am voicing another diarrhea idea. They propose to revive the design of the Angara-A5V, and make the four blocks of the first stage returnable by airplane (the Baikal project). This will dramatically increase the starting 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 Angara-A5 but slightly more expensive than Proton. And as always, forward with the flag in hand to conquer the world market. They don’t think differently.
    Now about the Mask. Our devastation, as always, begins in our heads. If under the same weight optimize the medium for maximum engine thrust. then you need to take the RD-191M. If you optimize for the minimum cost of media, then you need to take Merlin. It works at a significantly lower pressure in the working chamber, due to this, reliability increases sharply, weight and cost decrease, as they use less stressed materials, less clean production (they say that even tanks do not wash for Merlin, he will gobble up everything). As a result, there is 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.
    1. Zeev
      Zeev zeev 13 July 2020 10: 36 New
      +1

      They propose to revive the design of the Angara-A5V, and make the four blocks of the first stage returnable by airplane (the Baikal project). This will dramatically increase the starting 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 blocks of the first stage, make solid-fuel reusable boosters with parachute landing (as was the case in the Shuttles). The scheme is worked out, the technology of the 80s is quite affordable, the economic component is clear.
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 13 July 2020 10: 54 New
        +2
        Solid rockets are priced high.
      2. Jurkovs
        Jurkovs 14 July 2020 09: 34 New
        0
        Solid fuel accelerators have already been proposed and have already been abandoned. Why it is not known.
      3. ont65
        ont65 18 July 2020 18: 21 New
        0
        You can and have done a lot. History is not limited to parachutes and solid fuel boosters. The walls of the fuel tanks themselves can in retractable versions serve as parachutes and wings (elements of maneuvering and speed control). Landing on retractable supports (and not only vertically), braking at the surface with solid-propellant soft landing engines. All this has been used and will be. The matter is small - who needs it and who will undertake to design? Roscosmos definitely does not need in any of the launched projects.
      4. krizis
        krizis 21 July 2020 22: 26 New
        0
        Can I, can I? Instead of blocks of the first stage, make solid-fuel reusable boosters with parachute landing (as was the case in the Shuttles). The scheme is worked out, the technology of the 80s is quite affordable, the economic component is clear.

        Can't you? even on the oceanfront, with full coastal control for hundreds of miles, the economic impact was dubious — the cost of restoration was about half the cost of manufacturing. ... We will have to land through forests and hills, and then it is not yet known how to drag from there.
    2. Sanichsan
      Sanichsan 14 July 2020 15: 13 New
      -1
      Quote: Jurkovs
      We lost the foreign market apparently forever.

      open the wiki and see what and who launches. for 5 years now repeat this mantra but for some reason Russia continues to launch foreign satellites into space and not much less than the Mask. the proportion is the same as 5 years ago. request you are not tired of pouring mud on yourself, your country and your fellow citizens? or are you not from Russia?
      PS
      Do you know the "first law of organic chemistry"? even if your further considerations make sense, they are already mixed with the first thesis from which you started and further according to the "first law of organic chemistry" request
  • Brancodd
    Brancodd 13 July 2020 10: 56 New
    0
    Musk disagrees with the author. Here is his opinion on the Hangar 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
    Region-25.rus 13 July 2020 11: 30 New
    +4
    Well nothing. They will remove the next "Time of the first, second, third ...." about something Soviet (and many more topics and achievements unflaked) .. and people will massively wipe away tears in cinemas and be proud! To be proud .... only with what?
  • Maxim364364
    Maxim364364 13 July 2020 14: 33 New
    0
    There is only one chance to catch up with and overtake America: if Rogozin and his effective managers are put in a hut with conveniences in the courtyard in the middle of the cosmodrome and will be given orders until we get ahead of America here at the rear. Well, probably, to plant a dozen others, to shoot the heels that were especially stealing for stimulation of the brain and guiding gyrus, so to speak, would also not hurt.
    1. kamui91
      kamui91 13 July 2020 14: 43 New
      -7
      There will be no effect. The failure of the Angara is not to blame for the bosses, but performers.
    2. Usher
      Usher 14 July 2020 12: 21 New
      +2
      There is only one chance to catch up with and overtake America: if Rogozin and his effective managers are put in a hut with conveniences in the courtyard in the middle of the cosmodrome and will be given orders until we get ahead of America here at the rear. Well, probably, to plant a dozen others, to shoot the heels that were especially stealing for stimulation of the brain and guiding gyrus, so to speak, would also not hurt.
      Are you serious? Catch up? Are we flying our ships to the ISS? And deduce satellites? Or the Americans?
      1. Sanichsan
        Sanichsan 14 July 2020 15: 25 New
        +2
        Quote: Usher
        Are you serious? Catch up? Are we flying our ships to the ISS? And deduce satellites? Or the Americans?

        you wonder in vain wink maskophiles are a sect. yes they don’t even see obvious things. who makes the most launches? Mask? of course not. Can the United States through the joint efforts of all corporations? again no. first place in China. so why are they all comparing with Mask? there is a good advertisement yes but really, first place in China. Do they know something about the cosmonautics of China? not. this is "Gen.-P," the usual victims of propaganda request
  • kamui91
    kamui91 13 July 2020 14: 42 New
    -3
    I recommend reading a very capacious story about GKNPTS.
    I can say that absolutely nothing has changed.
    http://zhurnal.lib.ru/s/solomatin_a_w/terrarium.shtml
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 13 July 2020 14: 53 New
    +2
    What can I say - probably we are not interested in the potential for commercial exploitation of space for launches at the international level. Or maybe we are planning to work in a niche for launching dual-use military facilities for countries that are not in the best relations with the USA and the West, and therefore receive epic rejection, so to speak.
    It was to be expected - for us, space is still a military toy - neither space launch launches, nor billions of contracts for launching satellite constellations, nor the fact that Vostochny should be repaid by such enterprises in a good way, at least partially .
    In general, we have such a jamb - we make some kind of epic mess without a clear and sober plan as this will pay for itself ..
  • gridasov
    gridasov 13 July 2020 16: 03 New
    -2
    Really designers do not understand the futility of modern engines. If you need to explain that to increase the payload, the number of engines is increased, and with this the amount of fuel, then this is no longer correct. Therefore, you need to work with the energy density in the engine. Therefore, the new technology of more energy-intensive engines is positioned.
    1. Usher
      Usher 14 July 2020 12: 19 New
      0
      Really designers do not understand the futility of modern engines. If you need to explain that to increase the payload, the number of engines is increased, and with this the amount of fuel, then this is no longer correct. Therefore, you need to work with the energy density in the engine. Therefore, the new technology of more energy-intensive engines is positioned.

      Do you have brains?
  • Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 13 July 2020 16: 28 New
    0
    For a long time it was necessary to start winged steps and winged ships (reusable)! And an airplane launch would not hurt. There were projects. With them, it would be possible to launch and land all this economy from much more diverse places - it would not fall on one’s head. There was no haemorrhoids with spaceports. And these would be impetus for science and technology, and children would have something to dream about. And in case of accidents in space or when asteroids were discovered, rockets would always be ready to launch. Why didn’t you finish anything? .. And now it’s not clear what they are doing ... Leapfrog of outdated projects continues ...
  • Vovan
    Vovan 13 July 2020 16: 46 New
    -2
    Quote: military_cat
    And money is obtained by issuing them from the budget, and not through attracting customers.

    It’s not funny to voice such nonsense yourself?
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Proctologist
    Proctologist 13 July 2020 19: 21 New
    +1
    Roscosmos, 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 would a rocket be reusable if there is no launch flow? The costs of development and unit production will be truly cosmic (puns), and to make 1 pc or 5 pc - already against their background this is a "spray".

    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 missile optimized for the cost of launching with a one-time rocket optimized for delivering the maximum payload weight relative to its own weight by 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. Mask has it. But Roskosmos doesn’t. We have lost the market for geostationary satellites (Mask beat off, 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? RF remained on the pipe (again a pun).
    1. Sanichsan
      Sanichsan 14 July 2020 15: 32 New
      0
      Quote: Proctologist
      But for reusability, you need a market, the number of customers. Mask has it. But Roskosmos doesn’t.

      yes you? true? But if you look at the launches of 2019? how many foreign satellites did Musk launch? how many foreign satellites did Roskosmos launch? it seems you are lying negative
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 13 July 2020 21: 13 New
    -1
    It is strange that the author called reusability only a part of success. After all, it reduces the cost of starting. Consequently, it is the cornerstone of success in the commercial launch market.
    1. Usher
      Usher 14 July 2020 12: 16 New
      0
      How does it reduce? And reliability? If I were an astronaut, I wouldn’t fly on a used rocket for any gimmicks. Let the satellites fly, it does not hurt to explode.
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 14 July 2020 14: 05 New
        -2
        Are you afraid to fly a used plane? Do you know how many he already managed to transport?
        For example, in Formula 1 cars, the engine is a disposable one. The most lightweight and powerful, very expensive. But the Ferrari (with similar power) - no, it is heavier and with more resources.
        Also with reusable steps. They are just originally designed for this.
        Ask: SpaceX has the lowest accident rate. Here you have the 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.
        1. Sanichsan
          Sanichsan 14 July 2020 15: 37 New
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          Also with reusable steps. They are just originally designed for this.
          Ask: SpaceX has the lowest accident rate.

          SpaceX is not the first in launches. first place among the Chinese with disposable rockets. China has only just begun to think about reusable media and is only evaluating their prospects. does not run to repeat after the Mask, but evaluates the prospects.
          maybe it's time to evaluate the experience of leaders, rather than brandishing brochures? request
        2. Usher
          Usher 14 July 2020 16: 08 New
          0
          You do not confuse one with the other. The load on the rocket is much higher, and it is more complicated at times.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 14 July 2020 16: 12 New
            -1
            The loads are greater, but they can also be planned during the project. Just before no one tried to realize reusability. The exception is Shuttles, only boosters and a fuel tank were spent there.
            1. ont65
              ont65 18 July 2020 17: 32 New
              0
              With the launching weight and dimensions of satellites comparable to the Proton, the cost of launching the Shuttle was $ 450 million by the old. Such carriers justify themselves in programs such as SDI, and even satellites don’t have much to do with anyone at all.
  • shinobi
    shinobi 13 July 2020 21: 23 New
    +1
    I read komenty, and realized. The complete northern fox to our country. The main message of all scribbles-All leaked, all gone, all thieves. Brains propagating the enemy successfully washed. The enemy defeated.
    PS: The hangar doesn’t fly for one reason, it didn’t surrender to anyone except the military. Do you say Commerce? There is no commercial space in Russia, and never has it. Have everyone forgotten why the Unions and Protons were originally created? Rockets Mask, our rockets, all this trampling based on the technical ideas of Koralev and Fonbraun. Ideas that have outlived themselves back in 90. And yes, comparing the Hangar with Mask missiles is incorrect in principle. Different concepts are at the core. But both of these, a useful but dead-end branch of development. You need to develop aerospace systems aircraft types like Myasischevsky.
    1. dog of war
      dog of war 13 July 2020 23: 33 New
      0
      And what have already developed a ramjet engine capable of developing hypersonic speed? They solved the issue of sustainable combustion in a supersonic air stream.
      You see, to create an aerospace system, you need to create a hypersonic plane that will replace the first stage. And for this it is necessary to create a ramjet engine that will accelerate the carrier aircraft to hypersonic speeds. also create an effective thermal protection system for hypersonic aircraft.
      1. shinobi
        shinobi 14 July 2020 05: 05 New
        0
        There is thermal protection, and for a long time. The scramjet engine is also there. There are still frames. And there is money. There is no strong-willed decision.
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 14 July 2020 14: 08 New
      -1
      Ok, but an aerospace rocket can be reusable (and customers need to lower launch prices).
      And such a rocket cannot be heavy, only to launch small satellites.
    3. Sanichsan
      Sanichsan 14 July 2020 15: 50 New
      0
      Quote: shinobi
      There is no commercial space in Russia, and it has never happened.

      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 yes At the same time, more than half of the launches of Roskosmos are foreign satellites, including American ones. how many Russian satellites did Musk launch? does it seem zero? how many American satellites did Roskosmos launch, and by the way, continues to launch?
      in reality, the situation is completely opposite to the fictional world in which you live request
      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! soldier
      1. shinobi
        shinobi 16 July 2020 01: 19 New
        0
        Do not confuse the round with the square. The commercial company is therefore commercial because it does not depend on the state and exists on private capital. Is Russian space not a state sponsor? Who lives in a different reality?
        1. Sanichsan
          Sanichsan 16 July 2020 11: 07 New
          0
          Quote: shinobi
          A commercial company is therefore a commercial company because it does not depend on the state and exists on private capital.

          you rave. see what grants SpaceX receives annually from the state wink and what do they launch? government satellites including.
          What do you think changes the form of ownership? Private SpaceX was never able to enter the international market. it is a fact request State Roscosmos as it was and remains the world leader in launching satellites.
          I don’t understand why the maskophile sect rejoices? SpaceX launches satellites for money and Roscosmos for money, only Roscosmos on an international scale, and SpaceX could not enter the international market and launches American satellites request
          1. shinobi
            shinobi 17 July 2020 02: 31 New
            0
            The form of private property changes and simplifies the forms of management. The main problem of any current state power, in the sluggishness of its administrative apparatus. Hello to dictatorships and autocracies! Comrade, I do not even argue with you. different points of view. hi
  • Umalta
    Umalta 13 July 2020 23: 34 New
    0
    Unfortunately, to the greatest regret, Roscosmos did not shock the world with more than one breakthrough achievement !!!! I perfectly remember what glee was at the achievements of the Queen, as we are missing him now !!! At that time, it seemed we could do it all !!!!, but the time has come for the consumer society and the devourers, whose morality probably allows them to grow exorbitantly throaty throats, eat everything, including people and resources, and probably the country will soon be swallowed.
    1. Usher
      Usher 14 July 2020 12: 14 New
      0
      What are you talking about? Do you understand what you said? And who was shocked after the FIRST launch? Only in the 70s the moon. And we had the money and the strength to fly to the moon? You would be the first to yell about schools and senior citizens. So rejoice that flying into space is an ordinary thing, not a holiday. This is vice versa good.
      1. Umalta
        Umalta 14 July 2020 18: 32 New
        0
        You deign to juggle, no one talks about megaprojects, the question is about creating a space shuttle and a workhorse for launches, and any breakthrough project means technology and not necessarily costly, as in financial terms. Our engineers and designers were glorious in that they found exactly such solutions !!
        1. Usher
          Usher 14 July 2020 19: 38 New
          0
          Why do we need a shuttle? The shuttle launch cost is higher. There is an example. Shuttle. The workhorse is the Union. Now they are doing another.
          1. Umalta
            Umalta 14 July 2020 21: 34 New
            0
            The shuttle, a common truth, is a space plane, in our case it should be a little maneuverable, naturally for military purposes. The first Shuttle during Brezhnev’s time made a “dive” over Moscow to demonstrate what could cover any region of the USSR. Plus it will cool Trump with his new space war program.
        2. Usher
          Usher 14 July 2020 19: 39 New
          0
          And SpaceX does not open its financial statements. Only their balabolstvo.
      2. Umalta
        Umalta 14 July 2020 18: 39 New
        0
        And by the way, about the "bear" and "you", I didn’t drink with you on the broodershaft, but what you "bear", well, probably rotten eggs.
        1. Usher
          Usher 14 July 2020 19: 40 New
          0
          What are you saying? Then there is nothing to write all nonsense. I would write as I answered, it would be clear, otherwise a breakthrough and all that, why pathos?
          1. Umalta
            Umalta 14 July 2020 21: 38 New
            0
            They got effective managers, gentlemen, stools at the head of mo, a red-haired strangler in ananotechnology in clusters and TD. I’m afraid the Russian Federation cannot bear them all.
  • tolancop
    tolancop 14 July 2020 11: 09 New
    0
    Quote: BlackMokona
    Which car is more reliable, which just got off the conveyor line, or which drove the first 10 kilometers? laughing

    Fresh from the conveyor reliable. Since the traveler 10 km has wear parts of 10 km.
    And the failure curve in your initial part is dubious. At the end of the 80s, I had to deal with and study the issue ... the failure schedule in the run-in failure stage started from 0, then there was a peak, and then a decline and transition to normal operation .. And this is logical: with the start of operation, the weak elements, something will fly out almost immediately, something will last longer, etc. And on your schedule, 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 exit control. But, I think that this is an extreme case ...
  • Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 14 July 2020 11: 46 New
    +1
    SpaceX engineers did not create the most outstanding Merlin 1D engine (openly ordinary in specific impulse 282s at sea level) due to the relatively low pressure in the compressor station 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 Merlin 1D relatively cheap and relatively reusable.
    RD-191 gives a greater amount of movement from the same volume 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 the 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 during the fall of the first stage, and the SpaseX engines return even after a short bulkhead and carry out the cargo removal again.
    The conclusion is obvious: to develop a returnable first stage and strive for the relative reusability of the RD-191 engine, and if this is impossible, to develop an inexpensive reusable engine.
    There is no other way.
    1. Usher
      Usher 14 July 2020 12: 11 New
      0
      The conclusion is wrong. How much does KG in SpaceX cost? 60 million? 140 Million (US Air Force Order)?
  • Usher
    Usher 14 July 2020 12: 05 New
    0
    even Ilona Mask
    I mean even? And has he become the standard now? What is the lag behind SpaceX? By the number of accidents? Or at a loss?
  • Wasisdas
    Wasisdas 14 July 2020 13: 26 New
    0
    The fact that the first stage of the Falcon 9 is returned does not mean that it is reusable. And this is not taking into account the fact that not all are returned, and the payload is accordingly reduced less, since fuel is needed to return. But that’s okay, the main thing is that no one except Mask and his company knows whether the reusable first stage or not, there was not a single independent examination, not a single third-party specialist was allowed to confirm this thesis. It remains to take a word. Many famous techies around the world do not believe. And if you see that Musk is dumping the private sector, and the Pentagon is selling launches at a price two times higher than the market, such doubts are well-founded. And in conclusion, there is no private space, this is a myth, the same Space X exists with state money. Hello.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 14 July 2020 20: 59 New
      +1
      Five flights and landings of the same two steps - this is certainly not reusability, finish your clowning.
    2. indy424
      indy424 19 July 2020 20: 39 New
      0
      yeah. stage 1: denial.
  • Drone 11
    Drone 11 14 July 2020 13: 48 New
    0
    In my opinion, this area should be led by a specialist rocket scientist and not a philosopher and politician. That’s why we have a “mess” in a country where you don’t look that it’s not a leader, it’s from a business or someone’s godfather or matchmaker, it’s not uncommon from criminal structures. Until experts take up leadership positions, there will be no order and breakthrough in the country.
  • ultra
    ultra 15 July 2020 13: 06 New
    0
    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.
    1. mister-red
      mister-red Today, 16: 55 New
      0
      Воздушные шары были тое тупиком в тесение 200 лет, пока ажропланы не научились делать. Не веритикального старта для пилотируемого космоса технологии ещё не видно даже в перспективе.
      1. ultra
        ultra Today, 17: 16 New
        0
        Совсем плохо у вас с перспективой.Надо подтягивать в космонавтику авиастроителей,с учётом наработок по авангарду,в плане термостойкости обшивки есть хорошие перспективы для создания орбитальных самолётов горизонтального старта.
        1. mister-red
          mister-red Today, 17: 20 New
          0
          В перспективе имелось в виду, что на текущий момент даже НИОКР по этой теме не произвоится в мире. Не слышал во всяком случае. Так что в ближайшие 20-30 лет ничего такого не будет, кроме возможно небольших непилотируемых космолётиков. А от мантр ничего неизменится
  • Kuz
    Kuz 18 July 2020 22: 41 New
    12
    And the Chinese do not bother with heptyl at all.
  • mister-red
    mister-red Today, 16: 53 New
    0
    Чтобы сделать многоразовую ракету нужно откатиться назад и сделать движок в 4-5 раз слабее РД-191.
    У Маска получилось просто потому, что не было под рукой мощного двигателя и он использовал эту возможность на все 100. По факту для многразовости РД-171 не подходит в принципе, нужно ставить 4-5 РД-191 и один для возврашения ступени между ними. Или новые движки с нуля.
    Касаемо Ангары переделка под РД-180 с коректировкой габариов может решить вопрос экономичности.
    Союз-5 как мне видится, это просто попытка вернуть очень хорошую ракету Зенит и найти нишу для РД-171.
    Все умники туту предалгаю делають вообще ввсё с нуля, в том числе и с двигателей. Вот это точно расточительство, всегда нужно использовать по возможности то, что уже есть