Military Review

Expensive and fast. Space X ballistic missiles to supply US troops

60

Something like this will look like the launch of a military transport rocket, built on the basis of Falcon 9. Source: rbk.ru


Wonders of extravagance


The idea of ​​delivering multi-ton cargo using a rocket is certainly beautiful and promising. Until recently, it was impossible due to the lack of technologies for careful landing of cargo at the finish point. The scale of Elon Musk's personality, multiplied by his multibillion-dollar fortune, made this trick quite viable. Now, few people will be surprised by the video of the steps of the Falcon series rockets smoothly returning to the ground. In early October, US Transportation Command, inspired by Space X's achievements, proposed testing a prototype of such a rocket system in 2021 for the army's logistics needs. The launch vehicle, developed on the basis of the Falcon, will have to provide the Pentagon with unprecedented mobility. According to calculations, the military will be able to send several tons of cargo anywhere in the world in less than an hour. At the same time, the rocket will go out in flight into near space, which will not require permits for the use of the airspace of countries located on the trajectory.


Transport aircraft aviation The Pentagon's work is still several times cheaper than Elon Musk's missiles. Source: media.defense.gov

The heavyweight C-17 Globemaster, for example, will not climb to such a height and will spend at least 12 hours for a flight from California to Okinawa. This time, under certain circumstances, can be critical for the military grouping on the Japanese island. A slow-moving transport aircraft can be easily shot down, and it also requires refueling on long routes. With a rocket in this sense, it is much simpler: a speed of several Machs practically guarantees it invulnerability for most of the trajectory. Pentagon theorists fantasize about a rocket capable of delivering more than 100 tons of payload (the mentioned C-17 takes on board up to 85 tons). Now there is no such monster in Space X's arsenal, but Musk's team is actively working on the "Martian" Starship launch vehicle or Big Falcon Rocket. In this case, the Pentagon will receive a direct competitor to its flagship military transport aircraft C-5 Galaxy. There are also ideas about the place of launching transport missiles. Traditionally, this can be organized from spaceports in the continental United States, or from flying orbital warehouses in low Earth orbit. It is assumed that such a station with tons of essential goods will gradually "float" several tens (hundreds) of kilometers to the Earth, waiting for the command to launch the launch vehicle. In case of successful implementation of everything conceived, such an operational method of delivering military cargo may be in demand in the course of a large-scale war. For example, a large group of US forces surrounded on all sides is undergoing a long siege, and supply by traditional means is impossible. In this situation, several tens of tons weapons, medicines and other supplies may well be delivered by Space X missiles. Common sense cannot find any other option for such a wasteful spending of the military budget.

Good idea with bad prospects


Delivering cargo using rocket engines is beneficial only if nothing else is at hand. They are excellent for overcoming gravity in airless space, as well as for the rapid destruction of expensive enemy targets. For all other options, cargo missiles are too expensive and difficult to operate. According to American estimates, the cost of launching a Falcon 9 from California to Okinawa could reach $ 30 million. At the same time, the C-17 Globemaster truck will do it for only 312 thousand dollars - almost two orders of magnitude cheaper! At the same time, the plane will transfer about 85 tons (albeit in half a day), and not 25 tons in the case of Elon Musk's rocket. And if we compare the unit cost of transporting cargo with a hundred-ton C-5 Galaxy, then there will be almost no arguments in favor of a transport rocket.


Space X rocket stages returned from space. Source: wikipedia.org

At first glance, there is nothing difficult in the technology of rocket cargo transportation: start at the start, and catch at the finish. But how many days and even weeks does Space X prepare to launch each rocket? Therefore, there is no need to talk about the promptness of the launch. Yes, the rocket will deliver the cargo to the addressee with lightning speed, but before that it will require at least several tens of hours of preparation. How far will the S-17 fly during this time?

Now there are no technologies allowing to quickly fill the rocket with cargo and unload it as quickly as possible. For example, how to extract a tank or other heavy equipment from a vertically landed missile at an airfield? If a military transport aircraft can land even on an improvised unpaved airfield, then a cargo rocket requires a special infrastructure. This means that the Pentagon will not be able to send parcels anywhere in the world. The next obstacle is the very landing of the rocket at the required point. Now the Falcon steps are landing virtually empty, and the military needs to deliver several tons of cargo. All this will require additional fuel supply, design revisions, and, consequently, additional costs. In addition, the relatively low cost of space flights for Musk rockets is due to the reuse of landed stages. And in the case of a military transport missile, it will be a one-way flight. The project is getting more expensive again!

Questions also arise about the vulnerability of such large Starship missiles at the end of the trajectory. If the goods are delivered to hot spots in the world (otherwise such efficiency is not needed), then the close location of the front line is implied. The gigantic missile, actively maneuvering when landing at low speeds, will be an excellent target both for the enemy's air defense and for his aviation.

The use of military transport missiles solely for the purpose of transporting goods can become a big problem for the anti-missile defense of other countries. Of course, you will have to inform potential opponents about each launch so that they react to it correctly. Theoretically, this is not difficult, but again it takes time, which negates the entire efficiency of transport missiles. The time from the decision to launch to the launch itself can rise to critical values.

Consider a hypothetical situation of a sluggish conflict between Russia and NATO countries without the use of weapons of mass destruction. How will the Russian leadership view the launch of a transport rocket from a California cosmodrome, the trajectory of which will lead to the confrontation line? Will this be the signal for a nuclear retaliatory strike?

As a result, many questions arise about the method of using such equipment, which seriously limit combat use.


Space X technologies allow a lot. For example, synchronously plant the rocket stages on the ground. However, the mass of the transported cargo in this case tends to zero. Source: i.ytimg.com

With its perseverance, the Pentagon will, of course, get a new method of delivering military supplies that has no analogues in the world. However, against the backdrop of the forthcoming reduction in the military budget, which ordinary Americans dream about and which the economic situation requires, it is hard to believe in this. Demonstrators of rocket transportation technologies in 2021-2022 should appear, but the prospects for serial implementation are still in fog. Too much will have to change in the infrastructure and logistics of military communications for the full implementation of such technology. The US military is somewhat more optimistic about the above-mentioned idea of ​​placing cargo initially in orbit. At hour X, an empty rocket is sent to such a space depot, which returns to the target already with a payload. Here, there is a saving in launching an empty launch vehicle, but initially huge costs arise for the construction of an orbital military depot. The military has to choose between an expensive and a very expensive solution.
Author:
60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Tom Johnson
    Tom Johnson 14 October 2020 05: 16
    +1
    Project will be a 10 year study to development at the minimum, so the real question is "what" system "does the US" foresee "with the intent to transport?" With such a high cost per pound it will be something very special. IMHO this will not be cargo that we have at the current time, or it is TOP SECRET "Black Budget"
    1. Sergey_G_M
      Sergey_G_M 14 October 2020 05: 33
      +3
      We chew popcorn and are happy to watch the waste of the US budget on an openly delusional project.
      1. Linxs
        Linxs 14 October 2020 08: 37
        +2
        Unfortunately, they not only spend the budget, but also introduce new technologies, hone and modernize old ones.
        1. Sergey_G_M
          Sergey_G_M 14 October 2020 08: 47
          +1
          Of course, they develop and work out new technologies, but this project is already too much in terms of delusionalism of its practical value.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 14 October 2020 16: 51
            0
            Quote: Sergey_G_M
            This project is already overkill in terms of delusionalism of its practical value.

            Exactly.
            They will coordinate the launch and landing with the interested parties for so long that the classic BTA will deliver faster.

            Moreover, the Americans have messed everyone up so much that this coordination process will definitely be delayed. Especially Russia and China. laughing
        2. Lopatov
          Lopatov 14 October 2020 16: 49
          0
          Quote: LinxS
          Unfortunately, they not only spend the budget, but also introduce new technologies, hone and modernize old ones.

          laughing
          You can evaluate this process on the example of a new ACS.
          Already the third approach .... Billions spent. And "new technologies" rather create inconveniences.
          1. The eye of the crying
            The eye of the crying 14 October 2020 19: 38
            -1
            Quote: Spade
            You can evaluate this process on the example of a new ACS.


            Actually, no, you can't. Because Starship will be created regardless of the will of the military. And they will simply decide whether it is profitable for them to use the already existing technology.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 14 October 2020 20: 04
              +2
              Quote: Eye of the Crying
              Because Starship will be created regardless of the will of the military.

              laughing
              The self-propelled guns were also created regardless of the opinion of the military. How we stopped development

              And regardless of the will of the military, they had to suffer with the consequences in the form of "new technologies."
              For example, the charge modules that have entered service. Which were more expensive than caps and at the same time much less convenient for manual loading. We even had to create a special loading accelerator.

              But the funny thing is that it turned out that supertechnology is not suitable ... they never learned how to light with a laser, even though they invested a lot of money. To make a microwave initiation, like the Russians, the mind was not enough. And therefore for the XM1299 it was necessary to refine the "new technology".
              And it is not at all high-tech. Just created special "end" modules with a capsule sleeve laughing Repeating the virtually Soviet developments of the 70s of the last century on charges for a tank gun laughing

              In short, an anecdote, and not "introduce technologies"
              1. The eye of the crying
                The eye of the crying 14 October 2020 20: 08
                -3
                Quote: Spade
                The self-propelled guns were also created regardless of the opinion of the military.


                Yea Yea. Developed for their money.

                Quote: Spade
                In short, an anecdote, and not "introduce technologies"


                And in this sad story they found analogies with Starship ... well, well.
      2. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 14 October 2020 18: 00
        +1
        The key word is "expensive". A favorite word of mattress lobbyists. It doesn't matter that it's bullshit, the main thing is to make it more expensive. The more the manufacturer earns, the more the one who managed to "sell" this bullshit to the army or the navy will get more)))
    2. 7,62h54
      7,62h54 14 October 2020 06: 02
      0
      Are you sure that in 10 years the US will still be a hegemon country?
      1. Grandfather
        Grandfather 14 October 2020 06: 05
        0
        Expensive and fast. Space X ballistic missiles to supply US troops
        what is the affected area? lol
    3. Knell wardenheart
      Knell wardenheart 14 October 2020 09: 13
      +1
      Black Budget Important too! (c)
    4. MKPU-115
      MKPU-115 14 October 2020 10: 26
      +1
      Quote: Tom Johnson
      Project will be a 10 year study to development at the minimum, so the real question is "what" system "does the US" foresee "with the intent to transport?" With such a high cost per pound it will be something very special. IMHO this will not be cargo that we have at the current time, or it is TOP SECRET "Black Budget"

      request
    5. Angelo Provolone
      Angelo Provolone 14 October 2020 12: 25
      0
      They don't know how to spend reused rockets now
  2. Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 14 October 2020 05: 38
    0
    The main thing then is not to confuse the rocket smile
  3. Sergey_G_M
    Sergey_G_M 14 October 2020 05: 41
    +4
    The US military is somewhat more optimistic about the above-mentioned idea of ​​placing cargo initially in orbit. At hour X, an empty rocket is sent to such a space depot, which returns to the target already with a payload.

    Tin!
    1. Why can't the cargo be put into orbit immediately with the descent vehicle?
    2. If the Americans start placing military cargo in space, and ours will not know what kind of cargo it is, ours will also begin to place everything in space, then the Chinese, Koreans, Indians. Soon, the orbit will be stuffed with nuclear bombs, and this is a fierce tin!
    1. Proctologist
      Proctologist 14 October 2020 16: 56
      -3
      The energy consumption (also known as "payload weight") for an orbital rocket accelerated to the first cosmic speed, and a ballistic one, which does not require this speed, are different. For example, only the Starship upper stage without the first Super Heavy booster stage can be a ballistic missile with a range of up to 10.000 km and with the same payload under 100 tons, which it will launch into orbit only in a two-stage version.

      For military applications, reusability (otherwise known as "reducing the cost of a launch provided that it is repeated many times and the infrastructure is available for them") is not critical.

      As far as I understand, it is declared not to hit the enemy with a missile - it would be clearly a ballistic missile with a 100 ton warhead, but to deliver 100 tonnes of critical cargo in close proximity to the point of their use. Now the Americans have to keep the bases at a distance of ~ 1500 km from the zones of increased attention, duplicating all this important "payload" on each. This is not required with a ballistic transport missile.

      There are questions about the payload types of such a system. First of all, overloads, which will complicate (another name "reduce the weight of the payload") transportation of people, but technology will not become an obstacle.
      1. Sergey_G_M
        Sergey_G_M 14 October 2020 17: 11
        0
        Everything in your head is messed up.
        For military applications, reusability (otherwise known as "reducing the cost of a launch provided that it is repeated many times and the infrastructure is available for them") is not critical.

        This is not the case even for the United States. The delivery price will be very expensive.
        As far as I understand, it is declared not to hit the adversary with a missile - it would be clearly a ballistic missile with a 100-ton warhead, but to deliver 100 tons of critical cargo in close proximity to the point of their use.

        Deliver the warhead and safely land the cargo very very different things and you should forget about such masses.
        There are questions about the payload types of such a system. First of all, overloads, which will complicate (another name "reduce the weight of the payload") transportation of people, but technology will not become an obstacle.

        It will become a hindrance, with unloading and loading and the creation of special platforms for attaching equipment to a rocket, preparation of equipment, which will cost more than this equipment, but for each nomenclature of equipment, a platform for attaching to the rocket must be developed (this is not for you to carry anything in an aircraft compartment)

        In general, this idea was initially a failure and is only suitable for advertising cartoons.
  4. 7,62h54
    7,62h54 14 October 2020 05: 56
    +5
    When a group of US forces is under siege, their opponents will send missiles as well. Small ones, several kilotons.
    1. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 14 October 2020 19: 55
      0
      Read about the siege of Kheshan and don't be silly anymore.
      1. 7,62h54
        7,62h54 14 October 2020 20: 52
        +1
        McCain seems to have died, but possessed another ...
        1. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 14 October 2020 20: 54
          -1
          If you think you are seeing the dead, try crossing yourself.
  5. lelik613
    lelik613 14 October 2020 06: 16
    -1
    What are the dimensions of the cargo? Dpya condoms are the best, but a hummer will not fit into it, let alone a tank. A rocket plane with landing on the hull is more suitable for transporting ammunition.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 14 October 2020 09: 44
      -3
      Cargo height up to 22 meters, diameter up to 8 meters
      Google translation from the official instructions
      The payload dynamic range of an 8m starship is
      shown in Figure 4. This large deployable shell
      allows you to develop new payloads, ridesharing
      possibilities and entire constellations of satellites on
      one-time launch. The increased payload also
      available for loads requiring heights up to 22 m.
  6. doktorkurgan
    doktorkurgan 14 October 2020 07: 36
    +3
    Everything new is well forgotten old ...
    https://topwar.ru/86575-proekt-desantnoy-raketnoy-sistemy-douglas-icarus-ithacus.html
  7. Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 14 October 2020 08: 45
    +1
    The need for a soft landing of a heavy ship with cargo on an unprepared site and takeoff from there without any serious maintenance.
    And if we are talking about the development of other planets, isn't that meant by default?
    Now the Pentagon will pay for testing the technology. Whether he will need such rockets or not is still unknown, but the developments will remain.
    1. vargo
      vargo 14 October 2020 09: 06
      0
      It seems to me more expedient then to immediately develop for other planets. As long as there is no cheaper way to fly, it is best not to spend money on the idea of ​​rocket jumping on Earth if you are going to Mars.
      1. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 14 October 2020 09: 43
        -3
        Quote: vargo
        It seems to me more expedient then to immediately develop for other planets. As long as there is no cheaper way to fly, it is best not to spend money on the idea of ​​rocket jumping on Earth if you are going to Mars.

        Any landing practice begins with jumping on the ground.
        The main thing is that Uncle Sam pays for the jumps, not the developer.
        1. Mityay65
          Mityay65 14 October 2020 11: 19
          +1
          That's all right. I really believe that by all indications Starship is not an interplanetary ship, but originally a partially orbital transport system. Then everything falls into place.
          И Yes , if the Saint makes the guys from the Pentagon pay for it, then honor and praise him laughing
          1. Narak-zempo
            Narak-zempo 14 October 2020 11: 49
            +2
            Quote: Mityai65
            And yes, if the Saint makes the Pentagon guys pay for it, then honor and praise him

            I do not at all consider Mask to be a saint, but against the background of the low general interest in manned astronautics and the development of other planets, he is certainly a magnitude.
            1. Mityay65
              Mityay65 14 October 2020 13: 05
              0
              I didn't mean to say anything bad about this cool guy Ilona love
              May good luck accompany him, no matter what he starts. The Starship idea is generally a revolution of consciousness!
              И Yes , he created a good techno-cosmo-hype, I support him in every possible way.
          2. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 14 October 2020 12: 35
            -3
            What prevents him from being an interplanetary ship?
            1. Mityay65
              Mityay65 14 October 2020 12: 55
              -1
              The principles of design of the spacecraft and optimization of the design of the spacecraft.
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 14 October 2020 13: 25
                -3
                What's the difference? That there is a need for a huge drin with a minimum dry mass and fashionable rocket engines, what is there?
      2. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 14 October 2020 09: 47
        +1
        So it is immediately developed for the colonization of Mars, just Musk is looking for as many applications as possible for the growth of serial production.
    2. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 14 October 2020 19: 42
      -1
      Quote: Narak-zempo
      Now the Pentagon will pay for testing the technology.


      Will not pay. Starship will fly (and land) before the Pentagon gives money.
  8. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 14 October 2020 09: 22
    +1
    In short, nonsense like "Star Wars" at the current level of technology.
    More genuinely - again, our overseas partners are probing the potential boundaries of the possible, with the hope that they will be able to find "something" revolutionary and useful. This can be followed by a variety of things - and the emerging militarization of space, and outlines for the protection of their Lunar projects, and Musk's mutual interest in expanding production, reducing costs, increasing parties, access to some technologies - and the military - in the presence of some significant operational missile reserve ( relatively prompt, at the moment) with a minimum of extra charges and costs for the development of the idea.
    Infantry or tanks will be transported in this way vryatli - but delivering an array of orbital interceptors BR is quite.
  9. da Vinci
    da Vinci 14 October 2020 09: 45
    +1
    In the late 80s, there was an article in the Tekhnika Molodezhi magazine about a project to deliver an escape capsule using a rocket (there was even a photo of this capsule). So the idea is not new for a long time. Musk has a great lightweight and relatively cheap partly reusable media that he wants to adapt to different needs.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 14 October 2020 09: 48
      -4
      This author just knows almost nothing about Starship, so he constantly tried to pull Falcon-9 on this
      But there will be Starship, a fully reusable super-heavy carrier
  10. Mityay65
    Mityay65 14 October 2020 11: 13
    -1
    The idea is quite old, in my 60s. There are / were quite a few projects of movement between points of the planet along partially orbital trajectories. This is not a purely "ballistic" flight and of course the Starship is not ballistic.
    Commercial use for moving passengers and cargo could very well be a hit. In any case, at such distances as New York - Sydney (Australia), the cost of a passenger-seat is quite comparable to the cost in a supersonic vehicle, which are again talked about. This was calculated by economists and published, but in the English version, of course.
    The fact is that Elon proposed reusability and a fairly cheap fuel - LNG. In terms of energy, such a flight is more profitable than a flight in a supersonic aircraft. Everyone who analyzed the Martian and Lunar ideas of the Saint saw their complete absurdity and asked the question "What is Starship really?" And they came to the conclusion that this is most likely a commercial and military system for moving around the planet.
    And on VO it was written about this.
    So nothing new, everything is going according to plan! hi
    PS But how will the Saint's sectarians take this turn now? That's where the catch is ... After all, we were going to the Mars-Moon in a herd? And here you have an expeditionary ship for the occupation of Antarctica!
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 14 October 2020 11: 55
      +3
      1) The moon is very real.
      2) Mars is Musk's dream. Without people, I think, they will send a ship and look at monitoring the internal compartment, whether it is possible to send people (radiation level, etc.).
      3) Space terrestrial transporter - for testing takeoffs and landings, system reliability
      1. Mityay65
        Mityay65 14 October 2020 13: 11
        -1
        I respect all religions.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 14 October 2020 13: 52
          +4
          If God is a living and still healthy billionaire (and, as it is assumed, a trillionaire after the full deployment of 12,000 StarLink satellites), then he can afford some harmless miracles laughing
          1. Mityay65
            Mityay65 14 October 2020 18: 33
            0
            Man sold millions of romantics the idea of ​​flying to the Moon and Mars ... young fellow! he gave them hope, and for free- and at that time he himself built a military transport and a commercial airliner (for the money of the Pentagon, as it turns out, that is, for the money of the same romantics), on which he would raise money ... a sincere person. Hipster metrosexual! sad In a good sense of the word.
            You are deeply privy to the commercial affairs of the Saint, I remember. Has he already ripped off the money to build StarLink? Should in my opinion. There were some murky graters with the Pentagon on this topic, I heard out of my ear, about the total global radar field on the Earth's surface to control everything that flies, rides, swims and crawls. I don't know the details.
            1. The eye of the crying
              The eye of the crying 14 October 2020 19: 45
              -1
              Quote: Mityai65
              while he himself built a military transport


              Not built yet. Don't overestimate your idol.
              1. Mityay65
                Mityay65 14 October 2020 20: 18
                0
                As always, you’re talking about the wrong thing ... fool
                1. The eye of the crying
                  The eye of the crying 14 October 2020 20: 19
                  0
                  You call the Mask Saints (just like that, with a capital letter), Musk has not yet built a military transport (and possibly will not build) - everything is relevant. By the way, "out of place" is written together.
                  1. Mityay65
                    Mityay65 15 October 2020 12: 38
                    0
                    Have you considered getting a normal job?
                    1. The eye of the crying
                      The eye of the crying 15 October 2020 14: 16
                      0
                      I like my job.
                      1. Mityay65
                        Mityay65 15 October 2020 15: 05
                        0
                        You are registered on August 29, 2020 posts, rating -918.
                        You work as a troll. Most likely for food.
                        You need to find a normal job, get to know a girl and start helping your parents.
                      2. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 16 October 2020 08: 24
                        0
                        Quote: Mityai65
                        You work as a troll.


                        "TroLLeat. "No, I have a different job.

                        Quote: Mityai65
                        rating -20323.


                        It just means that my words are not approved by the local community.
  • Alien From
    Alien From 14 October 2020 13: 05
    0
    Crazy idea.
  • Lontus
    Lontus 14 October 2020 14: 01
    +3
    DG - Dorogo i Glupo

    Goal PR to attract investors.
    Even if there is a need for fast delivery of cargo or passengers along a ballistic trajectory, it will be easier, cheaper and more reliable to do this using an accelerator specially designed for this task.
    And it will have nothing to do with the current "prototypes" participating in Musk's clowning with the "Martian starship".
  • AllBiBek
    AllBiBek 14 October 2020 14: 14
    +1
    Will go down against an enemy with no air defense at all.
    Although, for such a fool at the time of landing, you can easily get into a lot. Don't even have first-generation ATGMs? It doesn't matter, even a ZU-shka or DShK will get it. Not her? Enough and RPG. It is enough to be near the place where the American soldiers are waiting for the urgent delivery of cold Coca-Cola to the front lines.
  • Virus-free crown
    Virus-free crown 14 October 2020 14: 59
    0
    I reread the comments, I am writing ...

    At first glance, there is nothing difficult in the technology of rocket cargo transportation: start at the start, and catch at the finish. But how many days and even weeks does Space X prepare to launch each rocket? Therefore, there is no need to talk about the promptness of the launch. Yes, the rocket will deliver the cargo to the addressee with lightning speed, but before that it will require at least several tens of hours of preparation. How far will the S-17 fly during this time?

    Purely hypothetically, consider the situation with the encirclement of Paulus's army at Stalingrad in 1943 ...

    It doesn't matter at what speed today's American C-17 would fly - at best, every fifth C-17 flew and brought cargo ... But from space it would be possible to establish a constant supply ... If someone does not remember - then Hitler wanted to "chhat" on "aviation expenses" ... The most important thing for him was not to let Paulus surrender with his army ...

    This is just an example from the recent past ... and how many situations are there now in local wars when "either now or never" ?!

    So ... in my opinion, the project has the right to life !!! good

    As they say, sometimes in life there are situations when "show-off is more expensive than money")))
  • iouris
    iouris 14 October 2020 15: 25
    +1
    Can it make a controlled landing on Red Square?
    1. Proctologist
      Proctologist 14 October 2020 17: 00
      +1
      Quote: iouris
      Can it make a controlled landing on Red Square?

      well, since the days of Rust, technology has gone ahead. Gotta handle it.
  • The eye of the crying
    The eye of the crying 14 October 2020 19: 47
    0
    Something like this will look like the launch of a military transport rocket, built on the basis of Falcon 9


    Is someone going to build a transport rocket based on the Falcon 9? Evgeny Fedorov doesn't count.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 15 October 2020 22: 58
    0
    If the program is shortened, how fast is the orange juice delivered?