Military Review

Not on the way with Federation: why is Roscosmos reviving the Buran concept?

199

"Eagle" did not take off



SpaceX's successes are dizzy not only for its leader, but also for many other specialists in the rocket and space industry. Not so long ago, for example, the not too well-known Russian company Reusable Transport Space Systems (MTKS) announced the development of a fundamentally new transport spacecraft. They even announced the price of creation of four devices - 136 million dollars.

The space agency of the Russian Federation, which, we recall, has been headed by Dmitry Rogozin since 2018, is hatching ambitious plans. Probably no other leader Roscosmos so often did not give journalists new news feeds. And he did not change the industry development strategy so often.

It is difficult to say whether this is good or bad for the space industry, but the fact remains: Dmitry Olegovich is constantly looking for new solutions. And now he has not changed his principle, having declared de facto that the unborn "Federation", also known as "Eagle", does not meet the assigned tasks.

“If we do replace the Soyuz MS for servicing orbital stations, because the operation of the Eagle will be expensive for these purposes, we need to make a reusable spacecraft of a completely different configuration - something like the Buran with the ability to land on landing strips. I set this task to our engineers. The Energia Corporation and other teams will now offer such options for space technology, ”

- quotes the words of the RIA official “News».


Let us remind you that the Federation should (should?) Become a completely new reusable manned spacecraft, which in the future would replace the Soyuz-MS, which is a modernized version of the Soyuz, which made its first flight back in 1967. They have been talking about the obsolescence of the Soyuz for a long time, as well as the problems with the development of the Federation. The latter is seen as a direct analogue of the American ships Crew Dragon and CST-100. The Crew Dragon is known to have successfully returned to Earth on Sunday 2 August. Actually, this is precisely one of the problems. If the American spacecraft already exists and is already performing flights to the ISS, then the Russian one still exists only as a model. And when and if it appears, the ISS may already be decommissioned.

Flights to the Moon were previously named as an alternative task for the Federation, however, it seems that Russia did not fit into the American Artemis program. As in the project for the new lunar station Gateway, which has now become part of Artemis. “We are still being kept in the project, but they would have gotten rid of it with great pleasure,” a source in the rocket and space industry said in 2018, commenting on the situation around the lunar station.

As for an independent flight to the satellite with the landing of cosmonauts on its surface, Russia will not "pull" such a program, if only for financial reasons.

Russian Starship


Probably speaking of Buran, Rogozin was guided not so much by the experience of Buran itself as by the project known as Starship. This is, recall, a large manned spacecraft being developed by SpaceX. According to the concept, it will act as the second stage of the new complex: the first should be the Super Heavy booster, conceptually close to what we can see on the example of the first stage of Falcon 9. Both the booster and the ship will be reusable. The length of the complex, including the accelerator, will be 118 meters. It is assumed that it will be able to launch cargo weighing up to 100 tons into a low reference orbit.


It is difficult to say what exactly prompted the head of Roscosmos to make such a decision. SpaceX's recent successful launch of the Starship technology demonstrator, the Starship SN5, could have played a role. As a reminder, he became the first of the spaceship technology demonstrators who was able to perform a 150-meter "jump". New, more serious tests will follow.

At the same time, one should understand that there is no talk of any revival of "Buran". Firstly, today the concept is morally outdated and on the example of the American Space Shuttle it has shown that there is no need for it. Recall that the American shuttle was taken out of service in 2011 due to its high cost.

It cannot be said that the Buran was conceptually better than the shuttle. If the engines of the American shuttle, used at launch, returned to Earth with it, then the Buran, in fact, was a “naked” glider, apart from the shunting engines. The rest were on the rocket itself. The advantage of the Soviet scheme can be called the potentially wider possibilities due to the presence of a powerful rocket, which could theoretically be used in isolation from the shuttle. However, it (at least in the basic version) was not reusable. So now this approach is unlikely to make the complex competitive.


The second reason for the utopian nature of the concept is more trivial - the lack of funds. Regardless of how the Starship project develops, it is clear that a large spacecraft will cost more than a small Federation. Earlier, some experts believed that even it could be too expensive for the country. There are also technological problems.

“At one time we had a project for a six-seater reusable spacecraft Clipper, the competition for which in 2006 ended unsuccessfully. And in 2012, it seems, at a meeting of the public council under the head of the Military-Industrial Commission, which was Rogozin, cosmonaut Sergei Krikalev said that the main reason why we abandoned the Clipper was that already in 2006-07 this task exceeded our technological capabilities: we could no longer create a winged ship that would return on wings and land on the airfield ”,

- quotes Gazeta.ru the words of an expert in the field of astronautics Vadim Lukashevich.

If you look more broadly, it is obvious that the ship proposed by Dmitry Rogozin has redundant capabilities, regardless of the program under which they want to use it. To supply the orbital station, a device with the capabilities of the Soyuz or Crew Dragon is enough. And even for a flight to the Moon, there is no pronounced need to have a new Buran with you: this is well shown by the example of the disposable American Apollo.


In this regard, another question is appropriate, which no longer directly concerns the conditional Rogozin "Buran": why is SpaceX creating the above-mentioned Starship? So far, all the ideas voiced on this score by Elon Musk were like science fiction works. Be that as it may, the SpaceX ship still has a chance of being born, and the project Rogozin spoke about has no chance. De facto, the only goal of reviving the Buran concept is to divert attention from the problems of the space agency. In particular, from difficulties with the "Science" module, the heavy "Hangara" or a promising medium of the middle class. Unlike the Federation, they cannot simply be abandoned.
Author:
199 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Far B
    Far B 11 August 2020 05: 51 New
    60
    good or bad for the space industry, but the fact remains: Dmitry Olegovich is constantly looking for new solutions
    Oh yes, he's on the lookout! He is on such a quest that words cannot convey:
    Earlier, the head of Roscosmos Dmitry Rogozin proposed to decorate Russian spaceships with Khokhloma, Gzhel and other folk paintings. He also shared another idea - to make a series of launch vehicles depicting the cities of the Golden Ring to advertise domestic tourism.

    It seems that in this search he has found so far only a clearing with interesting mushrooms. And the clearing does not want to let him go.
    1. Pessimist22
      Pessimist22 11 August 2020 06: 12 New
      14
      On his forehead, let him first make a hozloma, for advertising so to speak.
      1. For example
        For example 12 August 2020 06: 40 New
        -8
        declaring de facto that the unborn "Federation", also known as "Eagle", is not up to the task.

        This is where you lie, Uncle.
        Exactly what meets the assigned tasks.
        Eagle has NO TASK for servicing the ISS orbital stations,
        The eagle is created for a DIFFERENT TASK.

        Are you intentionally lying?
        Or simply did not read what Rogozin said?

        What kind of downs do you need to be in order to use a spacecraft for flights to the moon to service the ISS?

        You may not love Rogozin, but lying is not good.

        I recommend reading Rogozin's interview to those who are interested in Russian space.

        And those who are interested in shit cannot read our country.
        Your diarrhea can quickly turn into constipation.
        Tear apart from the internal overabundance of shit.

        zs laughs the one who laughs last.
        1. Letun
          Letun 12 August 2020 13: 05 New
          +8
          Quote: For example
          zs laughs the one who laughs last.

          So who was the last to laugh at his "funny" joke about trampolines?
          1. Rubi0
            Rubi0 15 August 2020 08: 02 New
            +2
            10 years ago, his joke was appropriate. And who said that in another 10 years we will not laugh?
        2. vVvAD
          vVvAD 12 August 2020 19: 24 New
          +5
          The problem is this: it is wasteful for our country to have one ship, and it is quite expensive, exclusively for flights to the moon in modern conditions. If there is no other economically viable application for it, the money will go down the drain. it does not seem that in the near future we will seriously take up an inhabited lunar station. And to put a flag on the moon, to fly a couple of times to do everything that lunar rovers and orbital spacecraft can do is such a "pleasure". And for other purposes, it will be necessary to create other ships - and this is still money in addition to the spent, and considerable.
          I have nothing against the Federation, it's just that its production has been delayed: where competitors in the person of the United States take next steps (1 - reusable launch vehicle (1st stage, but not the essence), 2 - manned spacecraft, 3 - heavy manned spacecraft with a launch vehicle of the corresponding class) , we cannot even take the first step and become a catch-up, and this is a losing path. Including because they have an advantage in time (1m will occupy the niche of commercial space exploration and drop the prices for spacecraft launches) and finance (including thanks to skimming the cream - previous comment), the geographic location of the cosmodrome (closer to the equator - less fuel - more payload) and infrastructure (there is something to catch the 1st stage of the Falcon during water landing - we cannot create the same reusable rocket, because it still needs to be planted somewhere, the launch pads of the existing cosmodromes are not adapted to this, and building new tables is a new waste). Therefore, you need to answer asymmetrically - to develop your own projects within the framework of other concepts that use the strengths of our country.

          Regarding the rocket plane, I strongly disagree with the author of the article:
          Firstly, the descendant of "Buran" can be of different sizes, and, as the author emphasized, it can be either a pure glider or a full-fledged rocket plane that helps the launch vehicle to start or is capable of independent flight somewhat further than near-earth space.
          Secondly, the aerodynamic shape and small diameter of the fuselage make it possible to launch it by means of an air launch (see e.g. Spiral).
          Thirdly, it can have a really wide functionality if the modularity of the transport compartment is foreseen in advance, incl. habitable module. For example, as optionally inhabited: in cargo configuration - like X-37: scientific and reconnaissance equipment, delivery of cargo to the ISS or other orbital stations (near-earth, circumlunar - when they appear), launch of small spacecraft, inspection and maintenance on site or with return to the ground; in habitable - like "Buran": delivery and return of astronauts, maintenance of the lunar project, study of meteorites. At the same time, it can have a dimension between 1m and 2m, with a capacity of 3-6 astronauts, which will positively affect the cost of development, production and maintenance and the space program as a whole, with a simultaneous increase in capabilities.
          1. zenion
            zenion 14 August 2020 14: 06 New
            +2
            Everyone is so tuned in to this and that, forgetting the main thing - who will do it? There are no specialists, no factories. There is a desire, that is, a flight of fancy, but only Baron Munchausen could fly on fantasies.
          2. 17085
            17085 15 August 2020 06: 28 New
            +1
            Quote: vVvAD
            vVvAD
            12 August 2020 19: 24
            NEW

            The only sensible comment. Thank.
        3. Vlad Gore
          Vlad Gore 17 August 2020 15: 55 New
          0
          What kind of downs do you need to be in order to use a spacecraft for flights to the moon to service the ISS?

          The Soyuz spacecraft was built specifically for the lunar program; its unmanned versions (the Probe series spacecraft) made several flights around the Moon. But now it is used specifically for flights to the ISS, although it would seem that a slightly lighter apparatus can be used to transport 2-3 people. The utility compartment on the Soyuz is essentially unnecessary, especially given the current speed of delivery to the ISS.
    2. military_cat
      military_cat 11 August 2020 06: 14 New
      19
      Western observers are already laughing at Rogozin. And I still remember the time when they carefully studied each of his tweets, admired, pondered how great it would be when they did it.

      Now "The leader of Russia's civil space program appears to be increasingly disengaged from reality."
      (https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/08/russias-space-leader-blusters-about-mars-in-the-face-of-stiff-budget-cuts/)
      1. Greenwood
        Greenwood 11 August 2020 06: 34 New
        40
        Quote: military_cat
        Western observers are already laughing at Rogozin.
        Rogozin just never got out of his role, in which he felt great as Russia's representative to NATO. His favorite occupation there was to denounce the evil West and sing patriotic songs about Russia surrounded by a ring of enemies. Except how to chat, he knows nothing else. And now, instead of real deeds, we see only pretentious speeches about more and more ambitious projects (unrealizable of course), ridiculous puffing of cheeks and even more ridiculous attempts to hurt Americans. The saddest thing is that while engaging in idle talk, Rogozin does not notice that he has long become a laughingstock both in the eyes of foreigners and in the eyes of his own compatriots.
        1. da Vinci
          da Vinci 11 August 2020 09: 09 New
          19
          So why does this clown continue to lead the once pride of Russia? For almost 30 years now, unfortunately, the space industry has been run by some rogues. But they are convenient for the authorities, for some reason?
          1. Taga
            Taga 19 August 2020 12: 20 New
            +1
            And those who are comfortable with it are not the same rogues?
        2. Undecim
          Undecim 11 August 2020 14: 27 New
          +6
          His favorite occupation there was to denounce the evil West and sing patriotic songs about Russia surrounded by a ring of enemies.
          So this is the ideological mainstream of modern Russia !!!
      2. astepanov
        astepanov 11 August 2020 14: 35 New
        12
        Why are you attacking poor Dima? He is a product of the metabolism of power: ignorant, at least in space technology, with a stolen Ph.D. (like all the higher ones), clumsy (like all the higher ones) and empty talker (like all the higher ones). I offered to allocate the same talkers to help him: Solovyov, Kiseleva, Malakhova and the woman from "Let's Get Married", so that at least from the screens the eyes would be less callous, and sooner bring the task of cutting the industry to the end - so they immediately minus.
        The fact that Roskosmos is still more alive than dead testifies to how powerful this organization is. And if not for Dima, then hell we would know about it.
    3. Sergey_G_M
      Sergey_G_M 11 August 2020 08: 49 New
      -18
      "Earlier, the head of Roscosmos Dmitry Rogozin proposed to decorate Russian spaceships with Khokhloma, Gzhel and other folk paintings. He also shared another idea - to make a series of launch vehicles depicting cities of the Golden Ring to advertise domestic tourism."

      It seems that in this search he has found so far only a clearing with interesting mushrooms. And the clearing does not want to let him go.

      So what's so bad about that? Foreigners after watching movies and Michael Jackson buy herds with earflaps. With sufficient advertising, they will buy Gzhel and travel as tourists.
      And Mask's flash mob with the launch into orbit of a car with an astronaut suit with music (think about music in an airless space), what is it?
      Why is one brilliant marketing and the other stupidity of the leader?
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Sergey_G_M
          Sergey_G_M 11 August 2020 11: 33 New
          -14
          Regarding the "tongue scratching" Rogozin Mask is not even a candle, where:
          hyperloop?
          cheap roof tiles-solar battery?
          home wall battery?
          super batteries for electric vehicles (a block of standard 18650 cells)?
          Or will we only notice Musk's successful projects, and not the rest of his trembling?
          1. Greenwood
            Greenwood 11 August 2020 16: 33 New
            +8
            Who said that absolutely all ideas are successful and commercially viable? Musk is great at giving free rein to his imagination. Only the one who does nothing is not mistaken. Dima Rogozin for example. lol
      2. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 11 August 2020 11: 19 New
        +9
        Because Musk launched and successfully tested the most powerful space rocket currently in existence, and the replacement of a faceless mass and size model with a huge advertisement with a bunch of references and easter eggs was very popular with the public and attracted great attention to his company. In fact, he made tens of billions of dollars in advertising similar to traditional advertising for free.
        1. Sergey_G_M
          Sergey_G_M 11 August 2020 11: 25 New
          -3
          Well, how does it follow from this that Rogozin's proposal to put advertising on a rocket is something inadequate and stupid?
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 11 August 2020 11: 31 New
            12
            Because for Musk it was free, but for Rosskosmos it will not be very free.
            Firstly, paint and painting costs money, and secondly it weighs a lot, which reduces the payload put into orbit. If he certainly finds someone who will pay, why not. But he doesn't even suggest that.
            1. Jurkovs
              Jurkovs 11 August 2020 13: 16 New
              0
              And why everyone ran into Musk's car. Well done, I painted the overall weight layout. For the second time in a row, they are preparing to launch the main computer on the Angara. So jokers have long been saying that this is just a concrete cube.
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 11 August 2020 13: 31 New
                +3
                In general, for the third time in a row, they are going to launch the main computer,
                And the GVM is usually a concrete cube, there are other materials, but the meaning does not change
          2. Greenwood
            Greenwood 11 August 2020 16: 35 New
            10
            Quote: Sergey_G_M
            is Rogozin's proposal to advertise on a rocket something inadequate and stupid?
            Musk's pranks serve only as an addition to his large-scale and really operating projects and create good advertising for him. And Rogozin's all these "brilliant" ideas, in the absence of real breakthroughs and achievements, look like an imitation of violent activity and an attempt to show off.
        2. snerg7520
          snerg7520 12 August 2020 17: 32 New
          0
          Musk launched and successfully tested the most powerful space rocket in existence

          Little black, don't be so naive and don't make my slippers laugh - everything in SpaceX is done by NASA engineers, under the guidance of NASA management and funded by NASA and the US Air Force, and it costs significantly more than Roscosmos, but to capture the space launch market, they are now dumping for US budget account. The cheapness of launches and the private nature of the NASA SpaceX branch is pure PR and fake, and Musk works there as a dumb talking head, not a brain. ©
          It would be great if Rogozin also worked for us only as a talking head, but here the Americans got ahead of us - our empty-headed dummy, unlike the American one, is trying to lead with zero result.
      3. bayard
        bayard 11 August 2020 23: 14 New
        12
        Quote: Sergey_G_M
        Why is one brilliant marketing and the other stupidity of the leader?

        Because Rogozin's stupidity is obvious, does not work and discredits the industry and the country.
        And Musk actually builds and launches rockets, spacecraft ... and cars.
        It is a shame to be proud of missiles developed back in the 60s and paint them under Khokhloma for the sake of self-promotion.
        Shame on Rogozin personally.
        Shame on the head of state who appointed him to this position.
        And the shame of the Country ... which he shames so much.
        1. sla1372
          sla1372 12 August 2020 11: 53 New
          -9
          What did your vaunted mask create such a breakthrough that we began to fly to the moon or to Mars? no, he just created an improved copy of the UNION 60 years, that's all his merit, but how many laudatory materials that he turns out to be Chosen
          1. bayard
            bayard 12 August 2020 14: 08 New
            +9
            Are you really so ... primitive?
            Or so young and uneducated?
            Quote: sla1372
            what did your vaunted mask create such a breakthrough

            He is not mine at all and I do not promote him, rather you - with your hysterics.
            What breakthrough has this American citizen created?
            Reusable first stage of a launch vehicle.
            Returnable.
            With a vertical fit.
            On engines.
            On a relatively small raft in the ocean.
            And THIS is really a breakthrough.
            And even the fact that this rocket was made on engines of the 60s ("Merlin") only adds to his honor - to arrange these engines so that taking off on the entire "armful", he lands on one - the central one.
            But the magnificent Soviet-Russian engines developed in the 80s: RD-170 \ 171, RD-180, RD-190 ... they cannot afford this - simply by their nature, architecture and properties.
            To make a reusable rocket out of improvised means of old NASA developments ... That works.
            Flies often.
            And quite successfully.
            Which took away all contracts for commercial launches from Roscosmos.
            It really is a breakthrough.
            No grimaces and antics.
            Designers have dreamed of such a reusable stage since the 50s, and ours - Soviet designers too.
            But Musk did it.
            I can't say anything about his spacecraft - further launches will show.
            But in any case, he already exists.
            He is flying .
            He had already taken their astronauts into orbit and launched them back.
            Not without flaws, roughness, failures and risks.
            But let me remind you that two crews were killed during the tests of the Soyuz.
            Four people !
            And this did not prevent the Soyuz from becoming the most reliable spacecraft later.
            Quote: sla1372
            he just created an improved copy of UNION 60 years, that's all his credit

            fool
            Young man, you definitely need to see a doctor.
            Or, at worst, to a psychotherapist.
            Or to school, library ... to Wikipedia at worst (!!!)
            You are fantastic ...
            Cosmically illiterate.
            Quote: sla1372
            copy of UNION 60 years

            , and both the KK and the rockets (but with completely different engines) were made by the CHINESE.
            And not very much their manned flights went.
            Till .
            And Musk has his own rocket - the home-grown "Macaronina Mask", which was so criticized before its first launches. And which continues to successfully fly and launch satellites, return its first stages and ... at the same time amaze specialists with the low efficiency of the old (but nevertheless reliable) Merlin engines.

            And now they laugh at the "Rogozinsky Trampoline" in the USA, all over the world, and in Russia - everyone laughs ALSO.
            Except for you and a few others.
            Learn.
            Read good, smart books.
            If you are so attracted to science fiction, read better a good SOVIET science fiction - it really develops.
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 12 August 2020 14: 50 New
              0
              Marilyn's engine is a new and original development by SpaceX
              1. Kuzmich Sibiryakov
                Kuzmich Sibiryakov 18 August 2020 20: 04 New
                0
                Quote: BlackMokona
                Marilyn's engine is a new and original development by SpaceX

                This engine was used for the application. The main, pivotal device of the engine was used, and the strapping is the business of the designer-student. These illiquid assets were taken from the closed lunar program. This is not all. used design bureaus, which were threatened with reduction and acceleration. We used ready-made launch complexes, equipment, materials, stands and all the equipment, which was kept only as a gift to a competitor who is implementing state programs for creating a plurality of clusters working for defense.
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 18 August 2020 20: 29 New
                  0
                  What? In what part of the Lunar program was the Marilyn engine used?
                  1. Kuzmich Sibiryakov
                    Kuzmich Sibiryakov 18 August 2020 23: 33 New
                    0
                    Quote: BlackMokona
                    What? In what part of the Lunar program was the Marilyn engine used?

                    You see how you are not in the know. Merlin was used on the lunar module.
                    1. Blackmokona
                      Blackmokona 19 August 2020 09: 20 New
                      0
                      A 90-ton engine on the Lunar Module? Are you serious?
                      With a Lunnik mass of 15 tons, the thrust-to-weight ratio will be posed by the most powerful fighters
                      wassat
                      There was no Marilyn engine on the Lunar Module. There were low-power hydrazine engines.
                      1. Kuzmich Sibiryakov
                        Kuzmich Sibiryakov 19 August 2020 12: 01 New
                        0
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        A 90-ton engine on the Lunar Module? Are you serious?
                        With a Lunnik mass of 15 tons, the thrust-to-weight ratio will be posed by the most powerful fighters
                        wassat
                        There was no Marilyn engine on the Lunar Module. There were low-power hydrazine engines.

                        LRE "Merlin" - an open cycle. Kerosene is used as fuel, liquid oxygen is an oxidizing agent.

                        The Merlin engine uses pin injectors. This type of nozzle was first used in NASA's Apollo program on the lunar module's landing stage engine, which was one of the most critical segments of this program. The fuel components are supplied through a twin impeller turbo pump (developed and manufactured by Barber-Nichols [5]) located on the same axis. The pump also supplies high pressure kerosene for the hydraulic control system, which is then discharged into the low pressure channel. This eliminates the need for a separate hydraulic system for thrust vector control and guarantees its operation throughout the entire operation of the Merlin rocket engine.

                        Above I wrote that the main element of the engine was used. The harness can be designed by the student.
                      2. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 19 August 2020 12: 17 New
                        -2
                        O means not an engine, but just one part out of thousands.
                        Then we can directly say that the RD-180 is the heritage of ancient China, you understand the main thing is to invent the reactive principle, and any student will do the trim. laughing
                      3. Kuzmich Sibiryakov
                        Kuzmich Sibiryakov 19 August 2020 15: 42 New
                        0
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        O means not an engine, but just one part out of thousands.
                        Then we can directly say that the RD-180 is the heritage of ancient China, you understand the main thing is to invent the reactive principle, and any student will do the trim. laughing

                        Quite right. Not one detail, but the basis, if you understand something yourself. At least that's how Vicki writes.
                        The Chinese, of course, are to blame for everything - they invented gunpowder, they invented paper, on which they now draw murder weapons, write libels and denunciations. They invented porcelain, which is the basis for the creation of electronics for guided artillery shells, they are the inventors of the most brutal execution technology. Cutting small pieces of flesh from the body of the condemned with knives. One victim is known to have died after cutting off 2000 pieces.
                      4. Kuzmich Sibiryakov
                        Kuzmich Sibiryakov 19 August 2020 15: 56 New
                        0
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        O means not an engine, but just one part out of thousands.
                        Then we can directly say that the RD-180 is the heritage of ancient China, you understand the main thing is to invent the reactive principle, and any student will do the trim. laughing

                        Not out of thousands. Out of 4 ... 5 million. Which have already been developed, used and tested by hundredfold real launches. In the design of Musk's missiles, there is nothing new; he was the first to use friction welding of very large parts. Although, the principle itself has been known for a long time. He used the 3 D method of printing some details. But the method itself was not invented by him. He achieved the results achieved by the USSR in 1961. Launched a man into space. People who admire his "achievement" - the re-use of rocket blocks - are brat-bats, admiring shiny pieces of paper on candy. Those who do not understand that the main thing is candy, not a shiny thing.
                        The main thing in Space Affairs is not the reuse of scrap metal, which still needs to be repaired, but achievements in durability, reliability, mass scale, and range. The launch of the Hubble Telescope is a delight. Voyager launch is a delight. Launching rovers is a delight. The launch of automobile junk by Mask is the idiocy of the madman.
                      5. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 19 August 2020 16: 23 New
                        -1
                        That is, to create the cheapest heavy launch vehicle in the world both at the selling price and at the development price is no longer an achievement? Similarly with the engine, Marilyn is radically cheaper than its competitors and has shown great reliability. laughing
                        Between us and the planets has been a huge price like a wall for decades. Overcoming it will allow us to step further. wink
                      6. Kuzmich Sibiryakov
                        Kuzmich Sibiryakov 19 August 2020 17: 16 New
                        0
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        That is, to create the cheapest heavy launch vehicle in the world both at the selling price and at the development price is no longer an achievement? Similarly with the engine, Marilyn is radically cheaper than its competitors and has shown great reliability. laughing
                        Between us and the planets has been a huge price like a wall for decades. Overcoming it will allow us to step further. wink

                        If I were you, I would have thought before ...
                        The price of the launch, which is completely obliged to the budget and NASA, Musk, who received treasures in the form of patents, design bureaus, launch complexes, stands, equipment and everything that he uses, and the price of MONOPOLIST-Russia, which launches the Americans on its own funds. Are you in your mind? Musk, in such conditions, with the return of part of the treasures to the budget, will launch for free in general, so long as it is not closed for debts. The price of launching a state rocket under a state order is basically a fiction. (This is in relation to interaction within Russia). The budget pays and the budget gets. You can transfer a trillion from one pocket of one jacket to another. And NOTHING will change.
                        Musk has a different position - there are different jackets. State and private.
                      7. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 19 August 2020 17: 23 New
                        -2
                        You just, like many, do not know about the existence of the ULA (Lockheed and Boeing Association) and that NASA does not develop spaceships and rockets.
                        And thus, in principle, SpaceX cannot convey anything like that.
                      8. Kuzmich Sibiryakov
                        Kuzmich Sibiryakov 19 August 2020 23: 01 New
                        0
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        You just, like many, do not know about the existence of the ULA (Lockheed and Boeing Association) and that NASA does not develop spaceships and rockets.
                        And thus, in principle, SpaceX cannot convey anything like that.

                        You know, I KNOW. And that Mask is being pulled like a hippopotamus of their swamps, following the concept of not doing strategically important things with one hand. Tell us carefully, not about the plans, they have even more trenchant. than we have, but about the realities. How many and when did they start ASTRONAUT (this is necessary, the stupidity of these idiots is included in the name. They will not fly to the stars for another hundred or two years). The cosmonaut is with us, and it is real.
                  2. Kuzmich Sibiryakov
                    Kuzmich Sibiryakov 19 August 2020 17: 33 New
                    0
                    Quote: BlackMokona
                    That is, to create the cheapest heavy launch vehicle in the world both at the selling price and at the development price is no longer an achievement? Similarly with the engine, Marilyn is radically cheaper than its competitors and has shown great reliability. laughing
                    Between us and the planets has been a huge price like a wall for decades. Overcoming it will allow us to step further. wink

                    Do not rush with concepts that are far from you. Compare the number of launches, and prove that 50-something Musk launches proves reliability. Up to SUCH parameters of reliability, the Mask is like Mongolia on all fours.

                  3. Blackmokona
                    Blackmokona 19 August 2020 17: 57 New
                    -1
                    You can't keep up with Musk, there are already 91 launches.
                  4. Kuzmich Sibiryakov
                    Kuzmich Sibiryakov 19 August 2020 19: 21 New
                    0
                    Quote: BlackMokona
                    You can't keep up with Musk, there are already 91 launches.

                    I don't pay attention to flies. Reliability parameters operate with numbers of several orders of magnitude. For comparison, Musk has to work for 80 years.
                  5. Blackmokona
                    Blackmokona 19 August 2020 22: 36 New
                    -1
                    Now, almost all space rockets in the world are unreliable. Poor Angara and Soyuz-5 how they will have to live hard wassat
                  6. Kuzmich Sibiryakov
                    Kuzmich Sibiryakov 19 August 2020 22: 56 New
                    0
                    Quote: BlackMokona
                    Now, almost all space rockets in the world are unreliable. Poor Angara and Soyuz-5 how they will have to live hard wassat

                    I propose to work out the flights of these structures, launching you and your fellow tribesmen. You, how ... will find a way out of any disastrous situation. And we will be fine with the carriers.
  • dog of war
    dog of war 14 August 2020 19: 39 New
    0
    With the Merlin engines, you got excited. You can't call them old junk from the 60s. Yes, according to some parameters, such as pressure in the combustion chamber and specific thrust, these engines will be worse than many modern ones, but they are reusable and can be ignited several times in one start. This could not be done by engines from the 60s. ...
    1. bayard
      bayard 14 August 2020 20: 54 New
      0
      And yet "Merlin" is a legacy of the American lunar program. And I didn't call them junk. Not all antiquity is junk. And yes, their low characteristics in terms of specific thrust and pressure in the combustion chamber are compensated by reusability.
      By the way, our engines from the Energia launch vehicle also had a resource of 10 - 30 starts (they were tested for 30 starts (without accident), and the permit was for 10 repeated starts) and they also wanted to reuse them. But the steps had to be returned by parachute ... and these tests were not completed. The hydrogen engines of the 2nd stage of Energia were designed for no less number of starts ... but a block of 4 such engines did not fit into Buran itself and had to be placed directly on the central tank, turning it into a second stage.
      But only Musk managed to land on the engines.
      Although at the end of the 80s, R&D was conducted in the United States under the Phoenix program - an attempt to create a single-stage reusable rocket with a vertical landing on engines ... It did not work out.
      Macaronina Mask became the successor of these two programs - the lunar and the Phoenix program.
  • shahor
    shahor 13 August 2020 23: 11 New
    0
    Quote: Sergey_G_M
    with launch into orbit

    Because one is launching into orbit, and the other is irresponsible empty chatter. Feel the difference.
  • Akuzenka
    Akuzenka 11 August 2020 11: 31 New
    11
    It is difficult to say what exactly prompted the head of Roscosmos to make such a decision. SpaceX's recent successful launch of the Starship technology demonstrator, the Starship SN5, could have played a role.
    And it's not difficult for me. The money is out, we need a new drink.
  • Civil
    Civil 11 August 2020 11: 32 New
    +7
    Rogozin's task becomes clear, under the smoke of demagogy and promises - to OPTIMIZE the already overwhelming burden, Roscosmos. And then they got used to that space is ours.
    1. snucerist
      snucerist 11 August 2020 12: 59 New
      +6
      Yes, the space burden for Roscosmos is already becoming overwhelming.
      But Mr. Rogozin finds other areas where he can apply his potential and seething energy. For example, in the elevator industry.

      "MOSCOW, June 3. / TASS /. The Ust-Katavskiy Carriage Works (UKVZ, part of the United Rocket and Space Corporation) has completed the certification procedure for elevators of its own production," the press service of the corporation told TASS.

      The elevators in front of the movement will greet passengers with the phrase of the world's first cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin. "Let's go!" - sounds in the speakers of the elevator before it starts to descend or rise. "

      Joke? Not.
      Information from tass.ru.
      1. dSK
        dSK 11 August 2020 16: 36 New
        -1
        Under Rogozin, the chair "sways", which he may lose (in the wake of the deputy prime minister). After the "spy" scandal (the former journalist took the journalist Safonov as his assistant to intensify the advertising of his activities, and that "radish" leaked the secret information. And how much he leaked is not known.
        And Dmitry Olegovich is stepping up his advertising, because he can lose this chair too.
        1. dSK
          dSK 11 August 2020 16: 51 New
          -1
          Ars Technica, USA: "Dmitry Rogozin is out of touch with reality".
          Over the past few months, Rogozin has given a number of interviews in which he made a lot of loud promises, declaring the bright future of his country's space program. (11.08.20)
        2. itis
          itis 11 August 2020 17: 59 New
          +3
          according to plans for the future Buran (jabbering for the "public", clearly trying to get away from planting for empty bazaars
  • Skifotavr
    Skifotavr 11 August 2020 22: 05 New
    +6
    Dimona suffered ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Shelest2000
    Shelest2000 12 August 2020 17: 43 New
    +3
    When I hear the words "Rogozin" and Roskosmos ", I remember this picture ...
    1. Nosgoth
      Nosgoth 18 August 2020 18: 36 New
      -2
      Is this a subtle hint of Rogozin's dreaminess, and the mockery of pigs over him?
  • lelik613
    lelik613 23 September 2020 04: 16 New
    0
    Outpatient treatment does not help, a hospital is needed ...
  • Sergey_G_M
    Sergey_G_M 11 August 2020 06: 07 New
    -21
    Something the author of the article thought too much for Rogozin, and then began to compare his conjectures with the American space program, and to smithereens won over his own conjectures - all rosskosmos was defeated!
    Article - Fat Meaty Throwing on the Fan!
    1. Genry
      Genry 11 August 2020 08: 03 New
      -26
      The article is another order on the topic "to kill Roscosmos" ..
      Where VO has slipped: this is no longer even the yellow press.

      It has long been clear about the current rocket and space systems that they are fundamentally outdated. It is much cheaper and more efficient to take off by plane (hello to the "Spiral" project).

      And Rogozin is a normal and intelligent man, whom they just want to "push".
      1. snucerist
        snucerist 11 August 2020 09: 57 New
        27
        How can you "wet" something that has already "wet" itself? Is it final and irrevocable?
        What does Roscosmos have in general today, if we remove the Soviet legacy - Protons, Unions and Progress? NOTHING!
        There is nothing for the soul.
        No new launch vehicles, no new spacecraft, no new ideas, no new technologies, no new developments.
        The Eagle project failed.
        The Angara project is a failure.
        The Science module is still on Earth. The service life of the ISS itself is already coming to an end, and everyone cannot start the module.
        They won't take you to Artemis with old luggage. They take them there only with new ideas and real deeds. Russia itself will not pull the lunar program.
        As well as your own DOS.
        Martian direction? "Phobos-soil" in 2011 did not even leave near-earth orbit. Failure.
        How can you create space know-how in old workshops in Russia? With the old gear? Older funds? With a shortage of smart workers, with colossal personnel problems?
        "It is much cheaper and more efficient to take off by plane."
        This is serious?
        Where to take off, may I ask? And for what? Is it okay that such a mini-shuttle needs a booster plane? Able to hit Mach 6 with a decent shoulder load? Is there such?
        Ideas Lozino-Lozinsky do not give rest? Or a thirst to make a semblance of the Boeing X-37B Orbital? So it doesn't take off like an airplane. It is taken out by the RN. The Atlas-5 launch vehicle was taken out 5 times, and once - the "nine" Mask.
        And only one thing can be said about Rogozin: if they start laughing at a person, this is the finish line.
        1. Brancodd
          Brancodd 11 August 2020 11: 19 New
          -29
          Well, I'm laughing at you. Finish.
        2. Akuzenka
          Akuzenka 11 August 2020 11: 41 New
          11
          And they generally stayed, cadres capable of making old CC and RN at least on the old rig? It seems to me that the current "Protons" and "Salutes" are assembled from the Soviet stock. And there are no new personnel, just not. And it will not be with the current attitude to space exploration.
        3. Vadim237
          Vadim237 11 August 2020 17: 48 New
          +4
          And Roskosmos also has 130 billion rubles in debt from Khrunichev, and in the coming years, the Ministry of Finance will be forced to cut the budget in all areas, including Roskosmos. Today he announced that Oryol will say dear tomorrow to Union 5 dear and after tomorrow he will declare we have no money for super-heavy Yenisei.
      2. donavi49
        donavi49 11 August 2020 10: 09 New
        +5
        It is much cheaper and more efficient to take off by airplane


        Now there is very high competition and new companies around the world are looking for the most unusual options.

        There are currently 3 air launch systems:
        Pegasus from the dead Orbital - the last (99% the last in the history of the LV) flew last year, with a delay of 3-4 years from the planned one. Expensive, little, not interesting.
        Branson's tourist spacecraft - interesting, but so far everything is in the final stages.
        LauncherOne - the first pancake is lumpy, but the next launch is coming soon. However, there is nothing breakthrough in the economy there.

        If you take serious air launches, then you need a 3-6M accelerator on its economical resource engines. And to pressurize already on the rocket engines of the LV. The cost of this system in current technology is fantastic. Therefore, you can forget about the air start for another 20 years, as a serious and universal one. Light rockets are possible, but there is more likely not due to acceleration, but due to the base height. Boeing or MD throws it at 10 km + and further you can use other trajectories, again, fuel is not needed for these 10 km.
      3. Dmitry V.
        Dmitry V. 11 August 2020 11: 27 New
        18
        Quote: Genry
        And Rogozin is a normal and intelligent man, whom they just want to "push"


        Yeah - a philologist who obscenities scientists, engineers, specialists in such specific sciences.
        Out of pity, it seems to the position: in 2016 he defended N.G. Gorky at the Naval Academy named after Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union. Kuznetsov's dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Technical Sciences (!) In the specialty "theory of weapons, military-technical policy, weapons system."
        Doctor (!) Bypassing the candidate ...
        I am no longer surprised at anything - that is, he has no idea about tolerances and landings, he has no idea how to calculate primitive constructions - but I got the DTN.
        This is a fiasco Russia - "cook" leads the engineers, but now the DTN is also assigned to just about anyone ...
      4. Greenwood
        Greenwood 11 August 2020 16: 37 New
        +3
        Quote: Genry
        Rogozin is a normal and intelligent man
        Sensible balabol you wanted to say. lol
        Quote: Genry
        which just want to "move"
        Who wants? belay
      5. Plastmaster
        Plastmaster 13 August 2020 20: 25 New
        0
        Beria would have looked at this booth ....... And he would have punished him not to steal. And I would teach to lead and work. Well, or forced. But in any case, we would not be in the backyard.
        1. Old Orc
          Old Orc 14 August 2020 11: 57 New
          +1
          Beria received information about the theft at an object of strategic importance. I would send the NKVD commission. as a result of the investigation, the information was transferred to the court and the Politburo. The Politburo would have been stripped of all awards and removed from the party based on the results of consideration. and the court, based on the results of the proceedings, would have issued a verdict with confiscation of all property and forced labor to compensate for damage somewhere in the northern mines. but how it would be now. Beria directs the trailblazers. they are answered and they report that everything is fine. Lavrenty Palych, having gone through 70 percent of the employees, finds principled ones. the result comes to thought and court. In the Duma there is a fuss about political repression as it is now in Khabarovsk. and the court decides that all this is an accident and passes a sentence on a fine of 1000 rubles. and what Lavrenty Palych can do when the whole system is built against such people.
  • Lynx-z
    Lynx-z 11 August 2020 06: 13 New
    11
    someone to close Rogozin's mouth?
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 11 August 2020 17: 54 New
        -2
        Roskosmos has enough models and projects for everyone - our main prospect to somehow stay in the leaders of the space sphere is nuclear power propulsion systems for spacecraft, satellites and interplanetary expeditions, Rosatom is engaged in it and they will definitely make it by 2030. And the Trampoline by this time will sail away on retirement, that's where the real space will begin.
  • Sahalinets
    Sahalinets 11 August 2020 06: 23 New
    14
    The only thing Rogozin and his accomplices want is more and more to steal from the budget. And for the sake of this, he will tell anything, even about teleportation, even about the departure of the Kremlin to Alpha Centauri. bully
  • KCA
    KCA 11 August 2020 06: 32 New
    +3
    Not specifically about the storyteller Rogozin, but in general - almost every day, articles appear on VO in which various experts reflect on various projects of various techniques, and, without any information, make some of their own assumptions, criticize their own assumptions and say that it is not feasible and we don’t need to. Well, about this article - did Rogozin say anything about plans to create a space bus? He said "something like" Buran ", which he meant is known only to him and those with whom he discussed this topic, well, why talk about what you don't know? Sometimes it's better to chew than write.
    1. Greenwood
      Greenwood 11 August 2020 06: 35 New
      13
      Who cares what he meant. At the exit, there will be nothing at all, because Rogozin is not capable of anything except to wag his tongue.
      1. KCA
        KCA 11 August 2020 06: 58 New
        0
        So I did not write about him, but about the authors of articles who, in your opinion, also use their tongue
        1. Cruorvult
          Cruorvult 11 August 2020 07: 42 New
          -2
          Quote: KCA
          So I did not write about him, but about the authors of articles who, in your opinion, also use their tongue

          That's for sure, let's drive Rogozin virtually with a broom.
          Why did the author not remember the Boeing X-37, got hung up on the Mask.
          1. Grazdanin
            Grazdanin 11 August 2020 10: 55 New
            11
            Okay, X-37, there is a direct analogue of Dream Chaser, which will deliver cargo to the ISS starting in 2021. Too similar to Bor 4, this project would be worth reviving. With a rocket start.
            1. donavi49
              donavi49 11 August 2020 12: 16 New
              +9
              It is similar to the X38 in general, the basic layout and the pull-down trunk.



              And before the BOR-4 flights, they flew X24V.

              1. Grazdanin
                Grazdanin 11 August 2020 12: 24 New
                +5
                Visually very similar, this does not mean that Dream Chaser has Bor4 roots. Although they analyzed 100% of the Soviet project. The laws of physics are the same for everyone.
      2. Brancodd
        Brancodd 11 August 2020 11: 20 New
        -11
        While we hear your chatter.
  • rocket757
    rocket757 11 August 2020 06: 41 New
    +9
    The space department of the Russian Federation, which, we recall, has been headed by Dmitry Rogozin since 2018, is also hatching ambitious plans.

    I don’t know how anyone, but I don’t associate the current head and this whole ban n group of "successful managers" with the possible success of our space program !!! Everything is exactly the opposite.
    1. marchcat
      marchcat 11 August 2020 06: 55 New
      +6
      Throwing from one extreme to another is not development .... it is degradation!
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 11 August 2020 07: 36 New
        +5
        Quote: marchcat
        it's degradation!
        Degradation is Russian capitalism itself, in which only new shopping centers and nodes for pumping raw materials are good at building. Everything else is being raked out of Soviet reserves, which is not surprising, with the current optimized science and education.

        Where would we be if we hadn't pissed away a great country. The photo shows the ascent on board the spacecraft "Kosmos-1374" (BOR-4 under the "Spiral" program).

        Based on the ideas and solutions of our Spiral, the Americans have created their own Boeing X-37.

        How much has been lost has not been done, including Energia and Buran, for which, with the current renegades, it is unlikely that even a repeat of the forces will be enough.
        1. rocket757
          rocket757 11 August 2020 08: 01 New
          +3
          Quote: Per se.
          Degradation, this is Russian capitalism itself,

          You can look more broadly, there are plenty of facts confirming this thesis.
        2. Avior
          Avior 11 August 2020 08: 10 New
          11
          And what kind of Spiral solutions were used in the x-37?
          Spiral is a project of a manned spacecraft with an air launch from a hypersonic aircraft, and the X-37 is an unmanned spacecraft, which is launched into space by a carrier rocket, for ultra-long flights in orbit.
          What do they have in common?
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 11 August 2020 08: 19 New
            +1
            Quote: Avior
            What do they have in common?
            Nobody said that the Boeing X-37 is a copy, a clone. It's about an idea where Dream Chaser and X-37 were the consequence.
            For the rest, judge for yourself.
            The Spiral prototype has been in space, more than once. In 1979, the BOR-4 apparatus was created, which was a size and weight model of the "Spiral" on a scale of 1: 2.

            In 1982-1984 BOR-4 made four orbital flights. For printing, the launches of the device were encrypted under the names of satellites of the Cosmos series.

            After one of the flights, BOR-4 splashed down in the Indian Ocean, where not only Soviet warships, but also representatives of the Australian Navy, who took a huge number of photographs of the Soviet apparatus, awaited it. The pictures were transferred to the CIA, from where they migrated to NASA.

            After analyzing, American engineers were delighted: they recognized the constructive solutions of their Russian colleagues as ingenious. So much so that at first they were actually copied in the HL-20 orbital aircraft project, which was not implemented in the nineties, and now migrated to the Dream Chaser.

            You shouldn't be offended by the Yankees. What we didn't need, they use with success. We can only bite our elbows and regret the missed opportunities.
            https://aif.ru/society/science/proekt_spiral_kak_sovetskiy_kosmolet_stal_amerikanskoy_novinkoy
            1. Avior
              Avior 11 August 2020 09: 01 New
              +2
              I never wrote that he was a clone.
              I want to understand what it is about, what decisions were taken from there in x-37, and not general words, that something was taken. Very different systems.
              I did not write about the Dream Chaser at all.
              1. Per se.
                Per se. 11 August 2020 11: 09 New
                +3
                Quote: Avior
                I did not write about the Dream Chaser at all.
                Sergey, what do you want from me? We get one about "shaved", the other about "bobbed". For clarity, "Dream Chaser", about which you really did not write.
                The point is only that the Spiral program, in particular the Soviet BOR-5 and MiG-105.11, gave rise to American developments, including the HL-20 program, on the basis of these developments, the Dream Chaser and X -37V. If you are waiting for the drawings of the units for comparison, I must disappoint you; in fact, there was no talk about this. We had vast experience in space, we were in the lead in many ways, now everything is sliding into the past. That's what the conversation is about.
                1. Avior
                  Avior 11 August 2020 12: 31 New
                  +1
                  about Chaser and you did not write
                  Based on the ideas and solutions of our Spiral, the Americans have created their own Boeing X-37.

                  I do not know anything that the Americans would have taken in the x-37 from the Spiral, so I asked.

                  hi
                2. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 11 August 2020 17: 58 New
                  +2
                  And before that they had a project X 20
            2. snucerist
              snucerist 11 August 2020 11: 28 New
              +9
              Were the bourgeois in admiration? From what?
              The spiral was originally conceived as an analogue and response to the American project of the X-20 Dyna-Soar combat spaceplane (1957). But Robert McNamara was smart enough to understand that with the advent of the LGM-30 Minuteman ICBM, there was no need for an orbital spaceplane bomber, and he closed the project.
              In the USSR, it is not known for what reason they decided to follow the same dead-end path. Neither the military department nor the party was embarrassed by the fact that the spacecraft does not constantly hang over a potential target. He is forced to make orbital turns, finding himself over the target only after the next 1,5 hours (not counting the shift of the projection of the orbit onto the Earth's surface with each turn due to the rotation of the latter). The flight time of an ICBM is several tens of minutes.
              Those. the idea itself was flawed.
              But they began to do it.
              To begin with, the option with a booster plane was chosen. For some reason, the speed of the latter in 6M did not bother anyone. The military-industrial complex allocated money for this business, and they began to successfully "master" it, as they say now - to saw. But in 1969, the Minister of Defense of the USSR Grechko closed this shop with a formidable resolution "We will not be engaged in fantasies."
              In 1974, the idea of ​​the Spiral-Buran link was born. With the Spiral already as PN. As a result, for the sake of PN, they ditched the very idea to make an analogue of the Shuttle out of Buran, because much had to be adjusted to military needs.
              But the military-industrial complex continued to give money for the Buran-Spiral project. They even began some research on them, launching mini-copies of BOR-4/5 with K65M-RB5. But!
              In 1988, the military-industrial complex demanded a simulation of the combat use of the B-S system. 25 years after the US prudently abandoned the concept of an orbital bomber.
              And the military realized that this system does not represent military value. They realized that the Americans still a quarter of a century ago. As well as the fact that they were stupidly bred for grandmothers. That the system is futile. Funding was covered with a copper basin.
              But the X-37B flies? It flies, and quite successfully. But its mission is shrouded in mystery (as well as its functionality).
              Is it possible, in principle, to use such systems in low-earth orbits in commerce? Only limited. With the advent of cheap reusable RCSs, it is impossible to compete with them.
              1. Grazdanin
                Grazdanin 11 August 2020 11: 41 New
                -1
                Quote: snucerist
                But the X-37B flies? It flies, and quite successfully. But its mission is shrouded in mystery (as well as its functionality).

                With the functionality, it is just clear to withdraw and lower a load of up to 900 kg that fits into the cargo compartment of 2,1 × 1,2 m. This is the kind of load, this is the second question.
                Launched in May partly known with what
                https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35167/we-talk-to-the-scientist-whose-revolutionary-power-beaming-experiment-is-flying-on-the-x-37b
                In my opinion, this is preparation for SDI 2. A universal orbital aircraft for various tasks. Dream Chaser will also be adapted for this task. https://topwar.ru/173165-pentagon-zakazal-razrabotku-neobitaemogo-orbitalnogo-forposta-uoo.html
        3. Zeev
          Zeev zeev 11 August 2020 08: 34 New
          +8
          X-20 Dyna-Soar (from Dynamic Soaring, translated from English - "Dynamic soaring"; transliteration - "Dyna-So (a) r" [pun: pronounced the same as the English dinosaur - dinosaur]) - the American program for the creation of a manned space interceptor-reconnaissance-bomber X-20. Development was carried out from October 24, 1957 to December 10, 1963. The customer of the program is the US Air Force; developer - Boeing. General Designer - Vice President of Bell Aircraft Corporation Walter Dornberger (nicknamed "Father of the Dinosaur" for his participation in this project)
          In response to this American project, Spiral was created.
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 11 August 2020 10: 52 New
            +2
            Quote: ZeevZeev
            In response to this American project, Spiral was created.
            Yes, Project Spiral, which began in the 1960s, was a response to the US program of the X-20 Dyna Soar space interceptor reconnaissance bomber. The difference is that the Americans did not go further than several mass-dimensional models of the apparatus and the conduct of scientific and technical research. Everything was limited to "studied" and "assumed". The very fact that in the States at that moment only the Gemini program could be implemented, for suborbital jumps, is indicative. The Americans lagged behind the USSR in space, not having heavy rockets, using oxygen for their light vehicles instead of air (which was on our Soyuz). They lagged behind so much that they went to falsify their achievements, the most ambitious of which was the lunar scam.
        4. strelokmira
          strelokmira 11 August 2020 11: 28 New
          +2
          Degradation, this is Russian capitalism itself

          Well, a direct consequence of the defeat in the Cold War. It is not profitable for the winner to have a competitive industry, science, etc. in the defeated country. Only the raw material component is beneficial
    2. Brancodd
      Brancodd 11 August 2020 11: 22 New
      -3
      Two trouble-free years. An amazing coincidence. Until Rogozin, an endless series of accidents. From autumn 2018 - 40 trouble-free launches. There was no such period neither in the post-Soviet nor in the Soviet period ..
      1. snucerist
        snucerist 11 August 2020 13: 10 New
        +6
        40 trouble-free launches is cool.
        Isn't it necessary to mention the number of these launches? That it is drastically declining?
        Needless to say, this year alone Russia has made TWICE LESS launches than the United States and China each separately? Is this trend alarming?
        I'll tell you more: in the absence of launches, the accident rate will always be zero. In any weather, at any time of the year.
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 11 August 2020 13: 15 New
          +4
          Quote: snucerist
          Has Russia made twice as few launches as the United States and China each separately?

          Worse. We are no longer competing with countries, but with SpaceX. A company that was not 20 years ago.
          1. snucerist
            snucerist 11 August 2020 14: 18 New
            +4
            Right.
            But I pay attention to the general statistics.
            Since the beginning of the year to date, the United States has carried out 22 launches.
            China - 22.
            Russia is only 9.
            It is somewhat presumptuous to be proud of trouble-free operation against the background of such figures.
            How not to cry soon with such statistics.
        2. Brancodd
          Brancodd 11 August 2020 14: 41 New
          -6
          Tell this to EKA. Just wait when they shake off the ashes from the burnt Vega. The budget is 4 times the budget of Roscosmos. There are 3 times less starts. And the accident.
          Keith has 3 accidents last year, 2 this year. But no one there shouts about the end of Chinese astronautics.
          For you, maybe 40 trouble-free launches is not convincing. And for someone it is even regrettable that we have no accidents. I think in the near future they will have even more reasons to grieve.
          1. snucerist
            snucerist 11 August 2020 15: 40 New
            +7
            Right.
            Nobody is shouting about the end of Chinese astronautics. As well as about the end of the American one.
            For the number of launches in these countries is growing steadily, in contrast to Russia.
            The number of new launch vehicles, spacecrafts, interplanetary missions is growing, the number of new space technologies is growing.
            Which of the above can oppose the United States and China today, Russia?
            It's nothing.
            In addition to the number of trouble-free launches of products originated in the second half of the last century, right? Against the background of a catastrophic reduction in the number of these same launches.
            So to the cosmonautics of which country is it more appropriate to apply the noun "end"?
            1. Brancodd
              Brancodd 11 August 2020 20: 16 New
              -5
              Very pompous, but boring. Like a worn-out record.
              They have been using these "technologies from the second half of the last century" for 10 years for delivery by an astronaut to the ISS. And they are still used when launching Atlases (RD 180). They repeated the achievements of Apollo, although they were puffed up five years ago to replace them with their own.
              China has established the production of copies of Protons. But given their financial capabilities, this is not surprising.
              There is no "catastrophic" drop in launches. Last year we had 25, the Americans had 22. This year was impacted by the bankruptcy of One Web. This cut off 9 starts. But the year is not over yet. We will reach 20 launches.
              Musk about "products from the second half of the last century":
              “Russia has excellent rocket technology and the best engine available. The reusable version of their new Angara rocket would be excellent. ”
              About SLS - “Creating SLS -“ 100% Tragedy for the Industry ”
              “Apart from ours, then Zenit is perhaps the next best,” said Musk.
              1. snucerist
                snucerist 12 August 2020 00: 24 New
                +1
                Zenith is not worth mentioning, not from that opera. From which - we will not specify.
                It's not worth bragging about the RD-180, I personally feel jarred every time when I am reminded that Roscosmos is working for the Pentagon. Do not forget that the X-37V is bringing the Atlas-5 to the RD-180, of which Russia is so proud. Links to last year, to the year before last, are also not necessary, we are talking about the degradation of Russian cosmonautics in the present. If history is so interested, I can remind you that only 20 years ago Roskosmos occupied about 90% of the market. As of 2020, only 13% (however, this is not the case anymore). Is the trend clear? I can attach a graph of these "successes" for clarity.
                Worst of all, the prospects are nil.
                In general, there is a problem with heavy RN, there is no reason to take Angara seriously.
                Meanwhile, even Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is planning at the turn of 2020/2021. issue H3, which will be able to throw 8 tons into the GSO.
                Ariane 6 will carry 5-10 tons on the GSO.
                Omega from Northrop Grumman - 5-10 tons
                The Vulcan-Centaur from the United Launch Alliance will be able to throw 14,4 tons at the GSO on the BE-4 engines from Blue Origin (hello RD-180, even for the Atlas-5!).
                The heavy Chinese Changzheng-5 has 4 successful launches.
                The Space Launch System project will be completed, despite all the revelations. NASA has nowhere to retreat, too much money has already been invested. So the SLS will throw its 20 tons on the GSO yet.
                Falcon Heavy has 3 successful launches from fantastic PN.
                The Super Heavy / Starship project is being successfully implemented.
                Where is Russia on this list? With what? With a broken trough?
                1. Brancodd
                  Brancodd 12 August 2020 10: 31 New
                  -4
                  What should I talk about and what I shouldn't figure out without your advice.
                  Hangar, which will be launched in October - not worth taking? And the listed plans in the form of projects are certainly worth it. They are also planned by the "civilized world". For this world, a 10-year shift to the right is the norm. And just closing a project is the same norm. They could not and the funds were written off.
                  Union 5 is a modernized Zenith. So your gentle hearing will have to be patient. Hear this opera more than once.
                  Let me remind you once again that I have not compared competitors' projects. I compared the state of Roscosmos before 2018. and now.
  • Catfish
    Catfish 11 August 2020 07: 09 New
    +2
    The second reason for the utopian nature of the concept is more trivial - the lack of funds.

    And the first, stubborn unwillingness to shake out these funds from the snickering bourgeois. "Expropriation of the expropriators" - it was said a long time ago.
  • Free wind
    Free wind 11 August 2020 07: 16 New
    +5
    Nobody revives anything. A dog waving its tail does not mean that it creates wind.
  • svp67
    svp67 11 August 2020 07: 57 New
    +8
    Well, hold on, the author, now the "faithful Rogozinites" will arrive and begin to work off the received fees ...
  • smaug78
    smaug78 11 August 2020 08: 12 New
    0
    why is Roscosmos reviving the Buran concept?
    because Rogozin needs a new drink ...
  • Simargl
    Simargl 11 August 2020 09: 04 New
    +6
    In my opinion, lateral loading of the Energia-Buran type is not energetically favorable, because there is a constant correction of thrust to the center of mass and cantilever load on the LV structure (weighting of the structure). It is much more profitable to set the load traditionally.
    The side docking at the Space Shuttle is more logical: there are two TTUs pushing the tank, and the Shuttle is pushing itself, picking fuel from the tank. When the tank is half empty, TTUs fall off.
    Those. the Energia-Buran bundle is the consumption of a full-fledged launch vehicle, and the Space Shuttle is only a tank, in fact (the TTU is reusable), if you make the Energy reusable, then it will turn out to be terrible ...
    1. prodi
      prodi 11 August 2020 16: 02 New
      +1
      - to place the "plane" other than on the side is very problematic
      - comparison of the Shuttle - Buran systems is also not unambiguous.
      Yes, we couldn’t make engines similar to Shuttle engines, but I don’t see any logic in them (why are they like that in orbit?)
      An obvious disadvantage of the Energia-Buran scheme is the disposable components of Energy at the time of the program's closure, but this is really difficult when starting from Baikonur, although there could be a solution to this.
      1. Simargl
        Simargl 12 August 2020 07: 38 New
        +1
        Quote: prodi
        it is very problematic to place the "plane" other than on the side
        Starship will be staged traditionally.
        Quote: prodi
        but I don't see any logic in them (why are they like that in orbit at all?)
        In orbit - not needed. But without detaching it is easier to ensure reusability. In general, neither the USSR nor Russia noticed that NASA, since 1981, having blocked Cosmonautics Day (the first launch of the shuttle on April 12 ... trolls ...), began the era of reusable components (only the tank was thrown out in the Shuttle).

        Quote: prodi
        although they thought about it and the solution could be
        Chelomey was not listened to in due time, they began to do everything at once. It turned out somehow.
        From simple to complex. S-Sh is a very simple system, oddly enough (speaking on the scale of space technology). Energy ... expensive and complex.
        Look what Musk is doing - honing the launch of the launch vehicle (this software, basically, we have everything for the technical side). But you can't land on any planet by plane. In 2-3 years he will have the technology of landing on any planet comparable to the Earth. And we have? Promises and Wishlist.
        What am I doing? "Airplane landing" is only for the Earth and other planets with equipped airfields. However, while Buran-2 is completed, Musk will build it.
        It's a shame for gibberish, fraud, spraying funds ...
  • Valery Potapov
    Valery Potapov 11 August 2020 09: 08 New
    0
    Anything but professional work ...
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 11 August 2020 18: 02 New
      +1
      Our officials' promises stretched out over the years allow us to imitate professional work, especially in the field, this is noticeable.
  • camo ridges
    camo ridges 11 August 2020 09: 14 New
    +3
    Anyone condemning Rogozin should understand
    that Dmitry Olegovich needs to somehow justify
    his tenure in such an important post - if not
    deeds, then at least words. Well, imagine
    to myself - things are not going well at Roscosmos, and the head
    he is silent, he won't even say a word in his own defense.
    Is he at his post? Savvy Rogozin
    decided not to make excuses, but to suppress all
    hitting your address with stunning ideas,
    grandiose projects and broadcast about the beautiful
    the future of Russian cosmonautics. Man is very
    thinks big - what can be
    claims? Well, the results, do not exact, will appear
    only after many, many years, during this time either
    the donkey dies, or the padishah. In a word, the main thing is
    confuse everyone's head, and with this the journalist
    Rogozin never had any problems ...
  • Assyrian
    Assyrian 11 August 2020 09: 52 New
    -3
    Vladimir Vladimirovich! Take this person away, somewhere.
    I have no strength to watch and listen.
  • Grazdanin
    Grazdanin 11 August 2020 10: 09 New
    0
    Article is nonsense. What does SpaceX Starship have to do with it? He has a rocket landing, a completely different project. Boing X-37, Dream chaser have an airplane landing. Why a Shuttle / Buran size project? The concept proved to be ineffective, the United States is now making much fewer machines.
  • ALEX_SHTURMAN
    ALEX_SHTURMAN 11 August 2020 10: 20 New
    +3
    Someone explain to Rogozin that it is better to be silent and do more! Chatterbox in one word, some statements ...
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 11 August 2020 11: 24 New
      0
      Already explained, does not understand
      https://www.znak.com/2019-01-23/medvedev_posovetoval_roskosmosu_hvatit_boltat_o_tom_kuda_my_poletim_v_2030_m_godu
      Medvedev advised Roskosmos: "Stop talking about where we will fly in 2030"
      “We must end with the projection. Stop chatting about where we will fly in 2030, ”Medvedev said, urging“ to talk less and do more, ”as well as to actively commercialize the space industry and increase Russia's share in the international market.
      1. Brancodd
        Brancodd 11 August 2020 14: 52 New
        +5
        It's very funny to hear about work from Medvedev.
      2. Simargl
        Simargl 12 August 2020 07: 43 New
        0
        Quote: BlackMokona
        “We must end with the projection. Stop chatting about where we will fly in 2030, ”Medvedev said, urging“ to talk less and do more, ”as well as to actively commercialize the space industry and increase Russia's share in the international market.
        Medvedev with a clever idea? Who prompted, or even bothered yourself?
    2. alone
      alone 12 August 2020 09: 30 New
      0
      Quote: ALEX_SHTURMAN
      Someone explain to Rogozin that it is better to be silent and do more! Chatterbox in one word, some statements ...

      You contradict yourself. They called him a chatterbox (it's hard to disagree with this hi ), but at the same time you demand from him to do more ... And what do you order the chatterbox to do? Chatting? This is how he does his job .. wassat
  • parusnik
    parusnik 11 August 2020 10: 41 New
    +2
    And when and if it appears, the ISS may already be decommissioned.
    ... The novel by A. Belyaeva "The Star of the CEC" is still science fiction ...
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 11 August 2020 20: 42 New
      0
      Belyaev was a prophet. Maybe they will also create it.
  • Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 11 August 2020 11: 07 New
    +3
    Dmitry Olegovich is constantly looking for new solutions

    Let's make a reservation right away - a specialist with a technical education is able to solve, a philologist cannot solve - he was taught boltology.
  • Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 11 August 2020 11: 15 New
    +3
    a reusable spacecraft of a completely different configuration - something of the Buran type with the ability to land on runways.

    Well, this is generally an absurd reasoning - a useless load: the chassis and aerodynamic planes, operating features - dependence on weather conditions and maintaining more accurate trajectories when returning.
    Parachute return method - does not require special accuracy of entering the runway.
    In addition, Buran was not particularly economical - it was launched by a heavy class rocket (!), Which was completely destroyed. The same Space Shuttle had recoverable boosters and a propulsion system, and that did not justify the economic calculations.
    Some kind of amateurism in such high offices.
    1. mark1
      mark1 12 August 2020 06: 12 New
      +1
      Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
      Well, this is generally an absurd reasoning - a useless load: the chassis and aerodynamic planes, operating features - dependence on weather conditions and maintaining more accurate trajectories when returning.

      The return from orbit of up to 25 tons of cargo, that's what the Buran and other Shuttles were needed for, as it is forgotten by all critics and destroyers. What D.O.Rogozin had in mind when he said about "... something like Buran ..." we do not know why the air is shaken. Maybe we are talking about just "wings" on a small device, maybe there are plans to remove satellites from orbit, wait and see
      1. Simargl
        Simargl 12 August 2020 07: 46 New
        0
        Quote: mark1
        The return from orbit of up to 25 tons of cargo, that's what the Buran and other Shuttles were needed for, as it is forgotten by all critics and destroyers.
        In case of urgent need, a special container could be made for this in order to launch with a not the heaviest rocket (empty), pack the cargo and launch it. It would be cheaper. Let's calculate how much cargo was transported by the Shuttles.
        1. mark1
          mark1 12 August 2020 16: 30 New
          0
          Quote: Simargl
          pack cargo

          Launch of a team of packers
          Quote: Simargl
          and lower

          Remote control and control system needed
          The descent is not controlled, i.e. search brigade, delivery means, not guaranteed safety of cargo, not prompt delivery and a lot is not, and it will not be cheap, and such packaging has not been invented. And for "Star Wars" and not at all what you need.
          1. Simargl
            Simargl 13 August 2020 08: 28 New
            0
            Quote: mark1
            Launch of a team of packers
            If you pack a piece of the satellite - yes. And so - in orbit now a whole team is on duty.

            Quote: mark1
            Remote control and control system needed
            The remote control in the "hot" section will not work well.

            Quote: mark1
            The descent is not controlled
            The descent near the orbiter is practically uncontrollable (more precisely, compare qualitatively with the same Soyuz or Dragon) until the completion of the "hot" section.

            Quote: mark1
            search team, delivery vehicles, cargo safety is not guaranteed
            Oddly enough, things are much worse with the orbiter: he needs an airfield of a strictly defined configuration, i.e. if the control system fails, when landing, it may not survive. That the Dragon, that the Union, with the regular operation of the automation, they plant very accurately.

            Quote: mark1
            not prompt delivery and a lot is not, and it will not be cheap,
            Space is not cheap anyway. Not prompt delivery - how is it? The barrel can be removed from orbit almost at any moment, but the orbiter cannot.

            Quote: mark1
            and such packaging has not been invented.
            The creators of the Dragon and the Union do not agree with you: what prevents the launch of the Union with one cosmonaut? Or even empty. And take out the cargo. The dragon was originally created for this. Dragons have taken out more from orbit than the Shuttles. If we talk about large loads - here yes: there are no containers yet. Do you need it?

            Quote: mark1
            And for "Star Wars" and not at all what you need.
            Not understood. To withdraw loads? This is not how it is done.
            Lower warheads? So the perigee of a ballistic missile warhead under 1000 km can be. Those. with the descent from orbit, the standard warhead will have no problems.
            1. mark1
              mark1 13 August 2020 08: 43 New
              0
              Quote: Simargl
              Do not understand.

              I hope you will figure it out over time, everything you wrote below any criticism
              1. Simargl
                Simargl 13 August 2020 08: 56 New
                0
                Quote: mark1
                everything you wrote below any criticism
                Just say: “I want, I want Buran-2 !!!
                The question remains: why?
                As I understand it, you cannot refute anything.
  • ont65
    ont65 11 August 2020 11: 21 New
    +4
    It's okay, but what a mess in promising media ?! Some Unions - 3 modifications, 3 modifications of the Angara, plus 2 super-heavy carriers. For today, the operating spacecraft is only Soyuz-MS and its transport version. The funny thing is that Rogozin somehow manages to combine the reusable Soyuz-LNG and a certain reusable gliding spacecraft, the weight of which will obviously go beyond the carrier's carrying capacity of 10,5 tons, since the same Clipper from the designers weighed 13 tons. In general, you give a 10-ton Buran and it's in the bag!
    1. Simargl
      Simargl 12 August 2020 08: 00 New
      0
      Quote: ont65
      a certain reusable planning spacecraft, the weight of which will obviously go beyond the carrier's carrying capacity of 10,5 tons, since the same Clipper from the designers weighed 13 tons.
      The Federation Eagle is also heavier.
      1. ont65
        ont65 12 August 2020 11: 59 New
        0
        This is what we are talking about, moreover, these devices are designed for a larger number of people on board than the Soyuz-MS. In principle, the same X-37 weighs less than 5 tons and uses everything that so worries Rogozin for landing, but whether he will be given the money he needs for such a development, with the mass of projects already started and not completed, this is a question. If we add the fully automatic mode that worked on Buran, we get a universal cargo-passenger multipurpose concept of a low-orbit spacecraft.
        1. Simargl
          Simargl 13 August 2020 08: 38 New
          0
          Quote: ont65
          but whether he will be given the money needed for such a development, with the mass of projects already started and not completed, this is a question.
          So why is he so needed now? With modern search and rescue technology.
          Fans now go to meet astronauts in their cars. Sometimes they help the evacuation team.
          Now there is no problem finding the capsule, and the aircraft CA will have big problems if it does not reach the site.
          1. ont65
            ont65 13 August 2020 10: 16 New
            0
            Not now. He announced that this project (probably comparing with the Federation / Eagle / and others ...) will be implemented in ten years. In general, if they start something, it is not a fact that they will finish. There were not one, not two similar ones. So far, these are just words, but people are very, very excited! :) Comrade knows how to screw catchy phrases!
            1. Simargl
              Simargl 13 August 2020 11: 11 New
              0
              Quote: ont65
              He announced that this project (probably comparing with the Federation / Eagle / and others ...) will be implemented in ten years.
              As if the Federation / Eagle did not move for 10 years.
              Whenever possible, it will be necessary to think about an aerospace plane ...
  • Brancodd
    Brancodd 11 August 2020 11: 37 New
    -2
    If without hysterics and snot, then it is clear that there is no throwing. The eagle is an analogue of Orion. It is not created to deliver astronauts to the ISS or another orbital station. It is really expensive. The eagle is created for the lunar and not only program. Orion is also not intended to deliver the ISS. If we consider options for replacing the Union, then we need to consider various options, including an airplane landing. Boing X37 in unmanned mode has shown the effectiveness of this idea. At the first stage, it can be realized as a cargo ship.
    To cite the opinion of the maydanut Lukashevich as an expert is to slide down to the level of Lenta.ru and Echo.
    1. Pavel73
      Pavel73 11 August 2020 12: 04 New
      -1
      I completely agree! And on ships, and on Lukashevich, and on Lenta with Echo. Lukashevich is an iksperd, which has long had nothing to do with aviation, and never had anything to do with astronautics. Maidan yap, lost in life.
  • Antonio_Mariarti
    Antonio_Mariarti 11 August 2020 11: 49 New
    +3
    Interestingly, the Finance Ministry is cutting funding by 60 billion, but Roscosmos wants to return Buran, which is not just expensive, but terribly expensive.
  • Linxs
    Linxs 11 August 2020 11: 53 New
    +2
    It's strange. Rogozin recently said that "We don't need all this."
  • Vasilenko Vladimir
    Vasilenko Vladimir 11 August 2020 11: 54 New
    +5
    brilliant !!!
    and the money and time spent on "federation" he personally from his own pocket to the state treasury is true ?!
    1. Brancodd
      Brancodd 11 August 2020 12: 15 New
      -2
      What kind of money? Someone is going to close the Eagle program? What are you talking about?
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 11 August 2020 18: 11 New
        +2
        If he declares that Oryol is too expensive to service orbital stations - then it’s like not the first notes in the curtailment of the program that will make him a new truck as cheap as possible and continue to further modernize the Soyuz - this is what he tends to suck out of his finger about the new "Buran" and in the next 10 - 15 years we will definitely not have it.
  • Pavel73
    Pavel73 11 August 2020 12: 02 New
    +1
    We can't afford the moon. But Buran, reduced in size by half - it will cost much less, and a good way to reduce health requirements for flights to near-earth orbital stations, and Soyuz-5 will fit just in terms of weight and dimensions.
  • kamui91
    kamui91 11 August 2020 12: 18 New
    +6
    Damn, the energies are great, of course. Master a bunch of dough on the Clipper, then a bunch of dough on the Federation, now a bunch of dough on this new Buran.
    And every time without any consequences at all - well, the Clipper was closed, well, okay. Well, it turned out that the PTC is not optimal for low orbits (and we only fly there) - and to hell with it, we will do Buran.
    And in the eyes of the public, only the State Scientific and Practical Center looks like an ugly duckling, how can they make Angara for 25 years. But we are her in any case done... And what has Energy done during this time? A bunch of paper projectors? Angosat, which failed 15 minutes after separation, while KazSat-2 has been flying with us for 10+ years? All this does not bother the public at all.
    I want it too.
    I assure you, if the MLM reaches it, it will be a triumph of Energy. If it breaks on the way - a jamb of idlers from the State Research and Production Space Center.
  • Herman 4223
    Herman 4223 11 August 2020 12: 35 New
    -3
    Maybe the new ship will not be as huge as a blizzard, but will only repeat its shape and manned return method. If the rocket that will launch it into orbit will be reusable, then everything may not be so bad.
  • Klingon
    Klingon 11 August 2020 12: 55 New
    +1
    Rogozin, with his statements, has turned into a world-class space clown. Rogozin is our Dunno. All he had to do was take a moonstone, bungle a weightlessness device from it, and jump from his trampoline to fly to the moon wassat
    PS: lately, news from Roscosmos has caused nothing but irritation and laughter
  • Berg berg
    Berg berg 11 August 2020 12: 55 New
    -2
    It revives because it is two different concepts, one Orel for space exploration, and the other Buranovskaya to support the country in the military field, as the Americans did.
  • Klingon
    Klingon 11 August 2020 12: 59 New
    +3
    Quote: Antonio_Mariarti
    Interestingly, the Finance Ministry is cutting funding by 60 billion, but Roscosmos wants to return Buran, which is not just expensive, but terribly expensive.

    Duc Russia is an extraordinary country, full of surprises and non-trivial personalities. and also full of liars and dreamers
  • Indifferent
    Indifferent 11 August 2020 13: 10 New
    +1
    Until Rogozin is removed, our "Cosmos" will jump from project to project without real projects of anything.
  • Old Orc
    Old Orc 11 August 2020 13: 52 New
    +3
    The biggest problem with Roscosmos is that there is no one in space to sell gas.
  • Foundling
    Foundling 11 August 2020 13: 57 New
    +6
    Angara and Vostochny have become symbols of the hands-on skills of today's effective managers. Give me a new toy!
  • silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 11 August 2020 14: 04 New
    +1
    Until the concept of space exploration appears in Russia, which sets meanings ... from which the tasks and performance characteristics of rocket and space complexes follow ... you can argue endlessly ... rush about changing concepts ... the main thing is to decide WHY? and from sense to go to implementation in hardware, taking into account long-term plans ... Space is always work for the future ...
    1. Falcon5555
      Falcon5555 11 August 2020 16: 11 New
      +1
      making sense ...
      Yes, right. In my opinion, the main goal of the space industry in general is to protect the Earth, asteroids and other as yet unknown dangers. Everything else is optional and for training. But the low probability of the arrival of asteroids, disastrous for all life on Earth, per unit time relaxes the ruling circles. It is not realized that if this is a universal end, then even a small probability is significant and unacceptable.
  • prodi
    prodi 11 August 2020 14: 40 New
    -5
    in my opinion, a completely reasonable and balanced state position is visible: the Roscosmos budget is being cut, because only satellites and possible advanced weapon systems are needed, everything else in the space sphere is a whim
    1. ont65
      ont65 12 August 2020 12: 36 New
      -1
      Where the Russian flag is once raised, it should not descend. And to this day it is relevant. And your reasonable policy is not yours, but let's say the European Union. An eccentric man, a great power is not great because it supposedly carries something reasonable, good and eternal, but because its greatness is determined by the scale of its activities in all directions. - The weak do not survive alone.
      1. prodi
        prodi 12 August 2020 16: 32 New
        0
        Quote: ont65
        there is such a story that when Lozino-Lozinsky was asked if it was possible to speed up the work on the creation of the "Buran ship", he replied that it is possible, but then the bread will cost more

        that's why, already just a satellite constellation is preferable to clowns on the Moon and Mars
  • Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 11 August 2020 15: 15 New
    0
    If you look more broadly, it is obvious that the ship proposed by Dmitry Rogozin has redundant capabilities, regardless of the program under which they want to use it. To supply the orbital station, an apparatus with the capabilities of the Soyuz or the Crew Dragon is enough ... and the project that Rogozin spoke about has no chances. De facto, the only goal of reviving the Buran concept is to divert attention from the problems of the space agency.
    Nonsense!
    What is this "Legate"? A winged ship for several people is needed. And for the supply, and for everything. It is clear to anyone who has at least a couple of convolutions in the head. Twice the Doctor of Sciences makes progress, once less than three years have passed since he realized it. He already needs to write a third dissertation now. smile
    1. Firelake
      Firelake 11 August 2020 15: 43 New
      0
      Taking off by plane is very expensive. If on a rocket then it is necessary to repeat the shuttle in a smaller size. We will only lose the tank.
      1. Falcon5555
        Falcon5555 11 August 2020 16: 05 New
        0
        The shuttle should not be repeated, but placed on top of the rocket. Have a ship rescue system. Rescue the first steps either on engines or on wings. For us, it's probably better on the wings, especially since there was already a development. Let them fly to the cosmodrome from the plant themselves - the restrictions on dimensions are removed. The second stage should be made reversible, probably on wings, possibly with one turn around the Earth. The price of the issue is not the main thing. This is safety, and image, and the possibility of urgent and massive launches (no need to build a new ship for everyone), and children will have something to dream about. It is impossible to dream of flying to the Soviet Union. Flying in a barrel (all the more so antique like the Union), uncontrollably flopping where the wind will bring, essentially belittles human dignity. This was only normal for early adopters.
        1. Simargl
          Simargl 12 August 2020 08: 08 New
          0
          Quote: Falcon5555
          Rescue the first steps either on engines or on wings. For us, it's probably better on the wings, especially since there was already a development.
          The fact is that the wings are only for the Earth and extra mass (not only do the wings have weight, so the loads change from longitudinal to transverse, and it can only be used on a planet with an atmosphere and airfields).
          1. Falcon5555
            Falcon5555 12 August 2020 15: 21 New
            0
            What planet are we talking about?
            The wings are mass, but the landing on the engines is the fuel supply, which is also mass. Wings are better because they allow you to fly like an airplane - to return, fly, etc.
            1. Simargl
              Simargl 13 August 2020 08: 33 New
              0
              Quote: Falcon5555
              What planet are we talking about?
              The atmosphere and airfields only we can have.
              Quote: Falcon5555
              The wings are mass, but the landing on the engines is the fuel supply, which is also mass.
              Fuel supply is also needed for the wings. Less, but still. The same is for pressurization, so that the tanks do not collapse. But if during a propulsion landing the loads do not change, then when landing on the wings they change from longitudinal to transverse. Do you think the mass will not increase to compensate?

              Quote: Falcon5555
              return, fly, etc.
              Fly ?! Are you seriously?
              1. Falcon5555
                Falcon5555 13 August 2020 20: 16 New
                0
                The atmosphere and airfields only we can have.

                If "here" means on Earth, then I am aware of this. But what kind of planet are you talking about when you seem to be against the wings, because they "can only be used on a planet with an atmosphere and airfields"? Who are you, not a local? smile
                Transverse loads - I think I understand what you mean. Well, yes, not without difficulties. But the side steps should still have strength for asymmetric, i.e. not quite longitudinal loads during launch. When descending, when there is little or no fuel, lateral loads will probably not be critical. When returning after launch, you can limit yourself to planning, like the Shuttle and Buran, and you don't need fuel at all. Let them use new lightweight materials.
                Fly ?! Are you seriously?

                Well, yes, absolutely. What did you see frivolous? Don't they know drones on your planet yet? sad
                1. Simargl
                  Simargl 14 August 2020 21: 53 New
                  0
                  Quote: Falcon5555
                  But what kind of planet are you talking about when it seems like against the wings
                  Do not separate the wings from the airfields. Wings are such a thing that is calculated according to the parameters of the atmosphere. And on the same Mars terrestrial will work poorly. Very bad. And on the moon ... purely decoration.

                  Quote: Falcon5555
                  But the side steps should still have strength for asymmetric, i.e. not quite longitudinal, loads at launch.
                  Then it is called a big engineering miscalculation.

                  Quote: Falcon5555
                  On a descent with little or no fuel, lateral loads are likely to be non-critical.
                  They can be not critical only when compensated by the design. And this is an increase in mass.

                  Quote: Falcon5555
                  When returning after launch, you can limit yourself to planning, like the Shuttle and Buran, and you don't need any fuel at all.
                  Look at Flacon's return profile - there is 99% of the time aerodynamic braking. Something like a corrected boNbu (not planning).
  • Engineer Schukin
    Engineer Schukin 11 August 2020 15: 20 New
    +3
    Quote: Per se.
    Quote: Avior
    I did not write about the Dream Chaser at all.
    Sergey, what do you want from me? We get one about "shaved", the other about "bobbed". For clarity, "Dream Chaser", about which you really did not write.
    The point is only that the Spiral program, in particular the Soviet BOR-5 and MiG-105.11, gave rise to American developments, including the HL-20 program, on the basis of these developments, the Dream Chaser and X -37V. If you are waiting for the drawings of the units for comparison, I must disappoint you; in fact, there was no talk about this. We had vast experience in space, we were in the lead in many ways, now everything is sliding into the past. That's what the conversation is about.

    Learn materiel, and do not invent your own story.

    Northrop M2-F2, USA 1966
    Martin Marietta X-24B, USA 1969
    Martin Marietta X-24A, USA 1969
    Northrop HL-10, USA 1966
    X-20 Dyna-Sohr, USA 1966
    MiG-105 (Spiral), USSR 1976
    BOR-4, CCCR 1982
  • Hlavaty
    Hlavaty 11 August 2020 15: 51 New
    -4
    Why is SpaceX creating the Starship mentioned above? So far, all the ideas voiced on this score by Elon Musk were like science fiction works.

    I recommend the rather amusing book The Next 100 Years: Forecasting the Events of the XNUMXst Century, written by George Friedman (head of the "private CIA" of the American private intelligence and analytical company Stratfor).

    There he writes that one of the main activities of the leading world powers will be the construction of orbital reconnaissance and strike platforms. Such a platform can carry various weapons: both missile and laser. The advantage over ballistic missiles is half the distance (and therefore noticeably less time to strike) and better aiming capabilities. The platform itself is quite a massive product. It is better to hang it in geostationary orbit, keeping a potential enemy at a constant sight. And it turns out that a very powerful super-heavy rocket is needed to deliver such a platform to geostationary orbit. In the USSR, such a rocket "Energia" appeared in the 80s. That is, the USSR had the opportunity to create such a platform when the United States was not capable of this. After that, the USSR was somehow suspiciously quickly destroyed.

    And if we accept the version that Musk is creating a super-heavy rocket not for fantastic projects, but for creating an orbital reconnaissance and strike platform, then one immediately recalls that the Spiral, Bor, Buran and the like are often called orbital fighters. ...

    Now the picture is taking shape: the United States is preparing to create an orbital reconnaissance and strike platform, and Russia, in its best traditions, is preparing an asymmetric response - an orbital fighter.
  • 5-9
    5-9 11 August 2020 16: 20 New
    -5
    Indistinct babbling from the RK ..... what and, most importantly, why do we need not reflected?
    Hype-condo CruDragon is a temporary palliative made on the knee for the sake of "the prestige of the country". This is a stupid "pickup to the ISS" (with a bunch of safety drawbacks) ... Soyuz as "Lada to the ISS" is no worse ... "to the ISS" is not a problem at all, you can fly on the Soyuz until the oil runs out ...
    And if we are talking about a ship for a little more than 500 km of deep space, then you need to understand how, why and, again, on what to launch it into orbit.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 13 August 2020 02: 01 New
      0
      The ISS in this decade will order to live a long time - so what will our Unions fly to is unknown after the ISS is landed.
  • Last centurion
    Last centurion 11 August 2020 16: 50 New
    -3
    it seems that the author of the article does not distinguish between the interplanetary spacecraft - Eagle (Federation). from a reusable launch vehicle. The author - if the barge Musk can catch a step in the constantly stormy northern seas and take it to the port entirely, it would be cool, but it is not. and around Vostochny one pancake taiga permafrost, etc. on reindeer back the steps that have sat down on the ground? in addition to winged structures that can plan to the nearest airfield with a decent strip of reusable launch options, the Russian Federation has essentially no
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 13 August 2020 02: 04 New
      0
      Russia has the opportunity to get ahead - they will return to the Tu 2000 project without a stepped aerospace aircraft, but such an apparatus must be made together with the military - since the brakes from Roscosmos will break everything into one snout, as always.
  • Andrey.AN
    Andrey.AN 11 August 2020 17: 25 New
    -1
    There is not a sickly difference between the new concept and the Buranovsk one, because a tractor should go into orbit along the new one. And in the first place, the tractor must be pulled out only to the lowest orbit, and the tractor does not carry loads from the Earth, it carries them from low orbits.
  • Engineer Schukin
    Engineer Schukin 11 August 2020 17: 42 New
    +2
    Quote: Last centurion
    it seems that the author of the article does not distinguish between the interplanetary spacecraft - Eagle (Federation). from a reusable launch vehicle. The author - if the barge Musk can catch a step in the constantly stormy northern seas and take it to the port entirely, it would be cool, but it is not. and around Vostochny one pancake taiga permafrost, etc. on reindeer back the steps that have sat down on the ground? in addition to winged structures that can plan to the nearest airfield with a decent strip of reusable launch options, the Russian Federation has essentially no

    You would better study your country than write that Vostochny is in the permafrost with deer.
    Open the map, find the Amur region, in the south it will be the Zeisko-Bureinskaya plain, and that's where the Eastern one is. Half of the inhabitants of the entire region live there, an agricultural land.

    Falcon-9 is transported on regular roads with regular trucks. Even when landing on a platform in the ocean, it is only 300 km from the launch site. The distance from the East to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk or the Sea of ​​Japan is 1000 km.
    Thus, there is no problem to make a road of 300-400 km to the landing site, and also return to the track.

    Well, no problem ... you can build a road, but where to get your Falcon-9, that's the question.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 13 August 2020 02: 08 New
      0
      "So there is no problem to make the road 300-400 km to the landing site." Such a road will cost 500 billion rubles with bridges, tunnels and other infrastructure.
    2. Engineer Schukin
      Engineer Schukin 13 August 2020 05: 34 New
      0
      Well, first of all, it is not for nothing that this area is called a plain, with appropriate sparing conditions for road construction.
      Secondly, according to the Ministry of Transport, the cost of 1 km of the road is about 35 million rubles, which means 10-13 billion rubles, not 500. And even if it is twice as expensive (so that the children of officials do not starve), it is still a relative penny, 160 million dollars, the cost of a couple of launches. They have already spent $ 1,5-2 billion on Angara.
      Thirdly, roads, in principle, need to be built, at least for the sake of people and the development of regions, especially in the Far East, where the development of infrastructural life stopped 50 years ago.
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 11 August 2020 17: 45 New
    +3
    There is really nothing to discuss here. Rogozin has been talking nonsense for quite some time without an economic or practical foundation.
    Let's speculate - okay, let's say they are considering the task of reviving Buran 2.0, indeed, and proceeding from reasons of economy as well. What is Buran? This is a load to a super-heavy rocket specially designed for such loads. Do we have modern heavyweights? Not. But we have "Angara", which has been "giving birth" since 1996. An analogue of "Energia" is at least a comparable (due to the rejection of modularity) product, but much more expensive (if you do not take into account reusability) and completely overwhelming if you take into account. What engines should be used for such a rocket? Old on toxic fuels? What is the point - if we get away from this, such a decision would be a step backward. New ones would have to be largely designed from zero, and these are expensive tests of a super-powerful and for little purpose other than this missile a suitable product, with a near-zero medium-term commercial payback.

    And that's all - just a look at the launch vehicle. I do not even consider a look at the economy on potentially new construction of launching tables, test stands, design and construction of the airframe itself, using modern composites or Soviet developments, which are not less cheap.

    In general, frivolous things, pure projecting.
  • Tektor
    Tektor 11 August 2020 17: 48 New
    0
    I see a grain of rationality in the creation of the Clipper with the return stages of the launch vehicle. in this case, it is really possible to reduce launch costs. If, for example, the cost of the Clipper with the launch vehicle is 10 times more than one Union, then already the 11th Clipper flight will give a payoff.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 13 August 2020 02: 09 New
      0
      Maybe the Clipper will be reanimated, it seems like they have solved the problem with the heat-resistant material and other problems.
  • itis
    itis 11 August 2020 17: 55 New
    -6
    do not lose sight of the fact that the crew dragon will still burn out in the atmosphere with carcasses inside. this is inevitable with such projects
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 11 August 2020 21: 59 New
      +4
      Why would it burn out - all systems and materials have already been repeatedly tested in combat conditions on the same reusable Cargo Dragon during the flights of this one and return from the ISS.
  • CastroRuiz
    CastroRuiz 11 August 2020 23: 52 New
    0
    Rogozina slushat sebia neuvazhat.
  • tolmachiev51
    tolmachiev51 12 August 2020 03: 54 New
    +2
    If you want to destroy something, entrust it to Rogozin !!! The only thing that he does very well.
  • Diviz
    Diviz 12 August 2020 09: 48 New
    0
    Alekseev secretly tested the apparatus. And then he drove the ship to the exhibition in Moscow in spite of the Minister of Transport. Where do such people live?
    Although, in secret, drones of unknown origin fly at night in the Astrakhan region. Just a bright star flies. There are about 10 pieces with an interval of several minutes. But this is not a satellite.
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 12 August 2020 10: 13 New
      0
      The trouble is if the shoemaker bakes pies - but the pie-maker sews boots !!! Such a regular misfortune has been observed in Russia for all 30 years of post-Soviet history ...
      And then there are these totally stupid and destructive aerospace mergers - let's combine a bulldog with a rhinoceros and have a united bulldog-rhino corporation !!!
      It seems to me that these mergers are a sign of the absolute incompetence of the top management ...

      In fact, there is the state corporation Roscosmos, there is an equally huge vertical of control over it - this is the apparatus of people who want to live very well and at the same time bear a minimum of responsibility for their decisions ... Therefore, the aerospace industry in Russia quietly degraded in the 90-00s - instead of the advanced science, Russian space has simply become a place where currency is quickly earned and where castles in the air are built (in the form of pictures of future projects and empty statements) ...
      These processes were little noticeable while the Soviet groundwork and developments existed - but nothing lasts forever under the Moon - in recent years we have seen a picture of a complete or almost complete absence of advanced achievements in Roscosmos ...
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 12 August 2020 11: 12 New
    +1
    We have not fulfilled our obligations, we take increased ones.
  • Campanella
    Campanella 12 August 2020 11: 26 New
    0
    Some kind of chatter, this suggests that there are no sane centers of scientific thinking in the rocket industry, a weak technological base, and most importantly, there is no understanding of the prospects for the development of the industry. There are only good wishes.