Military Review

Plans for the creation of a heavy rocket "Angara-A5-B" have been confirmed and preparations for the launch of the "Angara-A5" LV are shown

83

Roscosmos General Director Dmitry Rogozin today confirmed the plans announced earlier - for the construction of the Angara-A5-B heavy launch vehicle. This rocket will be capable of launching up to 38 tons of cargo into space. Rogozin made this statement after his visit to the Vostochny cosmodrome.


It is planned to launch the Soyuz-2 rocket from the newest Russian cosmodrome in February next year.

It is noted that the Angara-A5 launch vehicle will be used at the first stage to launch military satellites into orbit, as well as spacecraft for civil telecommunication functions.

Quite recently, the Angara-A5 rocket made its second flight in several years. This launch has become a new milestone for Russia, which continues to upgrade its space rocket fleet. The creation of a family of Angara missiles of various classes is the centerpiece of this program.

Recently, the Zvezda TV channel released the Military Acceptance program, which this time was dedicated to the preparation for the launch of the Angara-A5 launch vehicle - the most powerful rocket for space launches in the entire history space exploration by our country.

Issue of "Military Acceptance":

83 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 21 December 2020 15: 51
    -10%
    Rogozin and Mask's fight becomes interesting
    1. Lionnvrsk
      Lionnvrsk 21 December 2020 16: 07
      +3
      Quote: Pessimist22
      Rogozin and Mask's fight becomes interesting

      In my opinion, nothing interesting. Weight categories (funding) are different. No.
      1. Pessimist22
        Pessimist22 21 December 2020 16: 19
        -3
        I agree, they are different, but our workers and engineers are paid much less and they steal state money from us and whoever is not lazy, it turns out that they have better spending efficiency.
        1. bk316
          bk316 21 December 2020 16: 57
          +8
          I agree, they are different, but our workers and engineers are paid much less and they steal state money from us and whoever is not lazy, it turns out that they have better spending efficiency.

          Something did not understand.
          - Pay more and steal more are multidirectional factors. Therefore, it is a mystery.
          - They steal MUCH more from them, it's just described in other terms.
          1. sevryuk
            sevryuk 21 December 2020 19: 19
            +1
            At the pots, Orwell's logic: "War is peace! ..."
        2. donavi49
          donavi49 21 December 2020 17: 16
          +1
          Well, another question of efficiency.
          SpaceX - 8000 people, this is already with the expansion under Starship + 2 line of engines. 25 launches with 11 boosters in 2020.
          Khrunichev - 20 000 people after all the cuts and without motors. 2 launches in 2020.
          Samara - 17 000 people and without engines. 14 launches in 2020.

          But Musk is still a conservative. Relavity is assembled by the plant in 500 man do 6 methane rockets of 1 t class per year together with engines.

          1. bolt
            bolt 21 December 2020 20: 57
            +18
            Quote: donavi49
            Well, another question of efficiency ...


            Let's try to look for answers to it ...

            Industrial.

            SpaceX has the only plant in Hawthorne with 3000 (!) Suppliers. 1100 of them deliver еженедельно... In fact, the firm only carries out assembly, testing and testing of finished products.

            Samara and Khrunichev make the launch vehicle, starting from the "metal" sheet up to the final tests.
            So your comparison of the number of staff is about nothing.

            Financial.

            SpaceX is a private company and has never disclosed its financials.
            Perhaps the real numbers for 2011-2015 were released by the WSJ.

            https://ain.ua/2017/01/16/finansovye-pokazateli-spacex/

            I don’t want to retell them. Anyone can read it. They are not impressive to say the least.
            There are simply no later objective materials. Or I didn't find them.

            But!
            It is known that SpaceX has sold 6 manned flights for its native NASA for $ 3 billion (!).
            $ 500 million per flight! $ 125 million per seat! Excluding the cost of crew training!
            Oh, how!

            And Roskosmos sells one seat at a price of $ 70 to $ 90 million. Including preparation. And while making a profit. It, unlike SpaceX, is public and is confirmed annually by the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation.

            This is the question of economic efficiency.

            The number of launches is generally a situational issue related to politics, sanctions and outright pressure on potential customers.

            In connection with these answers, I also have a question. Why are the Jews here on VO so fond of licking the Mask? As they say, from head to toe. Missing nothing. What's the profit for you?

            You, it seems, had your own space and even lunar programs. Tell us about them. How did they end?
            1. donavi49
              donavi49 21 December 2020 21: 13
              +2
              Khrunichev make RN, starting from the "metal" sheet up to the final tests.


              What good fellows they are. Suddenly, they began to make engines, BTsVK, turbopump units and so on, so on. They are the same enterprise as Horton. Moreover, for example, Musk makes the fairings himself, and they bring them to Khrunichev under the Proton from Obninsk. wink About 100 enterprises work for the same Proton, and even more at Angara.

              Why are the Jews here on VO so fond of licking the Mask?


              In general, I wrote that Musk is a conservative here. The guys from Relavity are innovators. Let the robots work with their approach. They work 24/7, do not make mistakes and allow you to implement more optimal solutions, with an integrated approach. Their system will be revolutionary in the number of completely deserted stages of creation.
              1. Arthur 85
                Arthur 85 21 December 2020 21: 28
                +1
                Cool. In this euphoria of robotics, one thing is interesting to me: where will you go to people? And where is that world monarch (and I’m already furtively beginning to reread the Apocalypse, and think when that messiah will come, from one side or the other, and why he hasn’t been there for so long), who will finally put things in order, shortening the appetites of corporations to the very top?
                1. military_cat
                  military_cat 22 December 2020 09: 13
                  +1
                  Quote: Arthur 85
                  In this euphoria of robotics, one thing is interesting to me: where will you go to people?

                  This question has been asked many times before with the advent of sewing machines, weaving machines, the replacement of horses with cars, sound recordings, and so on. And nothing, humanity somehow coped.
                2. donavi49
                  donavi49 22 December 2020 09: 36
                  +2
                  Robots are the future in all areas of activity. Those who deny this, at one time denied the steam revolution, the first automation, cars / trains / planes, etc. And their lot is in the same place - on the sidelines of civilization.

                  How to live with this, this is something to think about.
                  1. Arthur 85
                    Arthur 85 22 December 2020 23: 06
                    +1
                    Well, you are slandering me: I did not deny the steam revolution. I didn’t know about her in my landlord’s estate, being carried away on the sidelines of civilization (there, on the sidelines, right, it’s not bad - there’s silence, there’s no bustle of your capital, there’s no business that cannot be postponed until the day after tomorrow) ... liqueurs, I missed the Industrial Revolution (just in case - it's a joke).
                    And if, apart from jokes, humanity urgently needs to break the stopcock of the so-called "progress". What I wrote above. The evolution of reason, if you like, "spiritual evolution" must catch up with the technological one, otherwise the Dark Ages are ahead ...
                    Humanity itself cannot break this stop-valve for various reasons, and it needs an unkillable, unbreakable king. That is, the messiah (in our techno-reconstruction - Skynet.) Otherwise, alas, due to the lack of a positive ideology of communism, humanity in the next 100-150 years will exhaust the resources of the Earth, and robots will remain a funny rusty monument of arrogance and unreasonableness. Perhaps their rusted carcasses will even be worshiped.
              2. bolt
                bolt 22 December 2020 08: 56
                +4
                Quote: donavi49
                What good fellows they are ...

                ... They are the same enterprise as Horton(???) ...


                Yes, they are great! Their whole history speaks about this, which so far Musk does not have and, as we can see, today.

                About the enterprise "Horton" I can't say anything. I just don't know what it is. Explain.

                As far as the Hawthorne facility is concerned, it is in no way comparable to ours. At all. Just because, as you say yourself,

                ... about 100 enterprises work for the same Proton ...


                and at the factory in Hawthorne - 3000 suppliers... Feel, dear, the difference.

                And you wrote your comment to try to humiliate our firms by comparison with SpaceX. Admit it. What is there.

                But for you, it turns out, and Musk is already bullshit. "You have other favorite authors ..."

                In general, I wrote that Musk is a conservative here ...


                You, actually, be careful ... Local Maskites can eat.

                Do you now, as I understand it, have a different idol? Relativity Space? These sellers are not even "air", but emptiness? Are these "Ostap Benders" of the American scale?

                They have no money of their own, no enterprise, no rocket, no engine. There is a headquarters, several rented sites, and fairy tales, fairy tales, fairy tales ... And in this they really surpassed not only Bender, but also Mask.

                ... Since SpaceX, Relativity Space pre-sold more launches than any other company in the private space industry.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_Space

                Not having completed one yet!
                Having no rocket, no engine, no plant ... In general, nothing real !!!
                It seems impossible, but it is. And this ... Are you trying to compare with the enterprises of Roscosmos? Why did the guys from Relativity Space fascinate you so much? Close to something?

                And still, tell us better about the Israeli space program. It should be closer, clearer and dearer to you than some distant American one. In which, how
                it turns out that you are somehow not very ...
                1. donavi49
                  donavi49 22 December 2020 09: 33
                  +2
                  They have an engine, I even attached a photo of the tests. And the rocket will fly in 2021. wink



                  It is advanced methane. And yes, investors and contracts ran up to them. For the topic is very promising. Again, everyone laughed at Musk while he was doing Falcon1. And now it is number 2 in terms of launches in the world, second only to China.
                  1. bolt
                    bolt 22 December 2020 13: 40
                    +1
                    Quote: donavi49
                    They have an engine, I even attached a photo of the tests. And the rocket will fly in 2021.


                    They have no real engine. It's not on your video either. There is a kind of nozzle from which a jet of hot gas escapes. All.

                    Any gas cutter will demonstrate for twenty the same beautiful stream, only of a smaller size.

                    The stand generally looks like a painted one. A kind of doll-like clean. Which also does not make it all believable.

                    But that's not even the point. Real engines propel real rockets into real space.

                    And for today, Relativity Space has only talk about the engine, about the rocket, about the flights. There is no point in guessing whether they will come true.

                    And this phrase

                    ... Again, everyone laughed at Mask while he was doing Falcon1 ...


                    generally looks ridiculous.

                    For this he did not have any specialized education or experience in the industry. And there could not be enough money to raise such a project from scratch. I think he got this project from NASA ready-made.

                    And the project itself was most likely one of the alternatives to the Space Shuttle program.

                    Well then. Summarize. Since you do not want to demonstratively discuss the Israeli space achievements, the topic of dialogue has, as it were, exhausted itself. I think it makes sense to finish it.
                    1. Engineer Schukin
                      Engineer Schukin 22 December 2020 16: 20
                      +1
                      You have an amazing talent, honestly admit that you don't know anything on the topic at all, but in the end, sum up ...
                      But instead of all this, they could have read the history of the formation of SpaceX, how and where it all began, in particular with F1. Do not be afraid, all the information is easily accessible, and you just need not be lazy to familiarize yourself with it.
              3. Strelets1
                Strelets1 22 December 2020 23: 55
                0
                Quote: donavi49
                Their system will be revolutionary in the number of completely deserted stages of creation.

                "Revolutionaries" in the USA (and not only) were divorced - "like uncut dogs" (c) ...
                And the lunar soil is carried by the Chinese state CNPC .... hehe ... "under the wise leadership" of the CCP ....
            2. eklmn
              eklmn 23 December 2020 00: 01
              -1
              Elon Musk manufactures: SpaceX, Dragon, Starlink, Starship, Orbital Rocket Launch, ASDS landing Platforms.
              "SpaceX is privately held and has never disclosed its financials."
              Income for 2019 is slightly more than $ 2 billion. Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) from time to time carries out fundraising (those who invested receive% of the profit). Google invested, various funds, including pension funds, in the amount of $ 39 billion for 2019.
              “... which has 3000 (!) Suppliers. 1100 of them deliver weekly. In fact, the firm only assembles, tests and tests the finished product. ”
              I don't think the number of suppliers is as huge as yours, most likely 10 times less. Actually, the number and names of subcontractors is a commercial semi-secret, so it's hard to believe in your numbers.
              According to amerskoy laws, 30% of the assembly material must be produced by subcontractors (load small firms with work). And they work according to the drawings of the SpaceX company (and this is $$), and the audit is carried out by SpaceX (and this is $$), and certification from SpaceX (and this is $$). So it's not free for SpaceX - you have to pay for their work !!!
              By the way - it would have been cheaper without subcontractors, but not !!!
              “$ 500 million per flight! $ 125 million per seat! Excluding the cost of crew training! Oh, how! ”
              The contract with NASA includes the construction of launch sites at designated locations - a workshop for assembling / delivering a rocket to the table, a stage for landing a stage. Those that exist do not fit SpaceX. Oh how!
              "And Roskosmos sells one seat at a price of $ 70 to $ 90 million"
              In fact, the cost of a launch should include the cost of building a cosmodrome, not just a rocket, right? And if millions were stolen during construction, how can they be returned? Or have the money already been written off?
              “Why are the Jews here on VO so fond of licking the Mask? As they say, from head to toe. Missing nothing. What's the profit for you? "
              Firstly, Jews rejoice at smart and successful inventors (they resemble their own!) From different countries, and secondly (I can only guess!) To see Russia lagging behind for many years after the Jews left it in the 70-90s, they are also pleased ! And no profit - just a balm for the soul !!!
              “You seem to have had your own space and even lunar programs. Tell us about them. How did they end? "
              But for you, Nikolai, on a note - the Jews do not have a lunar program. But there are about 300 Nobel laureates in various sciences, and their ideas make their country (s) very successful (s) ...
    2. Kildin
      Kildin 21 December 2020 19: 04
      -4
      Are you interested in looking at the beating of babies (Rogozin)? I don't
      1. sevryuk
        sevryuk 21 December 2020 19: 25
        +2
        Of course, watching babies beat adults is more interesting ("If a dog bites a person, this is not news; news is if a person bites a dog").
        1. Kildin
          Kildin 22 December 2020 18: 49
          -1
          Can you specify in which particular component Roscosmos is superior to Space X?
          1. Strelets1
            Strelets1 23 December 2020 00: 00
            +1
            Quote: Kildin
            Can you specify in which particular component Roscosmos is superior to Space X?

            Hehe ... In the production of ICBMs ... for example ...
            1. Kildin
              Kildin 23 December 2020 10: 50
              0
              We're talking about astronautics here.
              1. Strelets1
                Strelets1 23 December 2020 18: 11
                0
                Quote: Kildin
                Can you specify in which particular component Roscosmos is superior to Space X?

                Strelets1 (Constantine)
                Today, 00: 00

                Hehe ... In the production of ICBMs ... for example ...


                Kildin (Cyril)
                Today, 10: 50
                NEW


                We're talking about astronautics here.


                Judging by your question, you are not talking about astronautics, but trying to compare incomparable things - the state corporation of the country (RF), which implements the entire range of tasks of the state's space activities, including in the defense sphere and the creation of military rocket and space systems and one of the private companies USA, working in the field of the US aerospace industry and solving a limited number of problems.

                At the same time, the purpose of the operation of Space-X, like any other business structure, is to generate profit in the course of its activities. Otherwise, it would have simply gone bankrupt, like many of the many US high-tech startups. The rest is verbiage, PR and propaganda husk. Moreover, this private company is implementing its projects with financial, technological and scientific support from the state.

                The purpose of the functioning of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, as a state structure, is the implementation of the RF FKP and the fulfillment of the tasks of the state armament program and the state defense order in the field of space activities. In addition, the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan is solving its main functional task - reforming the entire rocket and space industry of the Russian Federation.
                Unlike Space-X, the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan is not a commercial organization, although at certain points it is allowed to engage in commercial activities in the field of the RCP and CD.

                I hope you now understand the difference between the Civil Code of the RK RF and the private company Space-X of the USA?

                Or did you have to specifically list the tasks that Roscosmos solves and does not solve with Space-X?
                And also research, development, rocket and space systems and products that the GK GK is engaged in and Space-X does not?
                1. Kildin
                  Kildin 24 December 2020 10: 25
                  +1
                  I tried to talk specifically about astronautics, you (as expected for me) spread verbiage. Ok, I have no more questions!
                  1. Strelets1
                    Strelets1 24 December 2020 19: 55
                    0
                    Quote: Kildin
                    I tried to talk specifically about astronautics, you (as expected for me) spread verbiage. Ok, I have no more questions!


                    You tried to sing the praises of Musk and compare incomparable objective functions ... hehe ... human-machine systems.
                    I tried to explain this to you in detail (so that it would come to you).
                    I state that it did not come. Since information of more than one line of SMS on a smartphone is clearly not perceived by you.
                    That's all.
          2. Svetlana
            Svetlana 23 December 2020 08: 52
            +1
            Can you specify in which particular component Roscosmos is superior to Space X?

            In the field of manned astronautics
            1. Kildin
              Kildin 23 December 2020 10: 53
              -1
              What is it? Roskosmos uses the backlog of the USSR, slightly modernizing it. He did not create anything new, the Eagle (Federation) is still in the stage of a cardboard layout. Space X created a ship from scratch and began operating it. Therefore, they have parity here.
              1. Strelets1
                Strelets1 23 December 2020 19: 25
                +1
                Quote: Kildin
                Roskosmos uses the backlog of the USSR, slightly modernizing it. He created nothing new,


                And in your opinion, it was necessary to give up the reserves of the USSR? And to start all developments in the field of RCP and CD from scratch - like one of the neighboring countries - to "decommunize" everything, perlustrate, and stay, sorry, with a bare ass and puff out your cheeks from scratch, - in the likeness of Yuzhny KB and Yuzhmash RKZ, Hartron, Antonov corporation, Motor Sich ...
                And over the years of the existence of the Russian Federation, on the one hand, they really are not as much as we would like, but not as little as you think.
                The same Angara - more precisely, a line of new ballistic missile systems of the "Angara" family - have been developed, partly already created and have been in space, are at the stage of mass production deployment, and are partly in development.
                New generations of missile and space systems for military, dual and civilian purposes have been created already in the Russian Federation - from the 90s to the present. - communications, navigation, remote sensing (meteorology, cartography, geodesy), systems of optoelectronic, radar and radio-technical intelligence and target designation, the same ICBMs and SLBMs of new generations, including instead of those produced in Ukraine ... And a lot more.
                The same rocket engines - LPRE RD - 180, 181, created in the late 90s and early 2000s, which could not be created in the United States during the EELV program with multibillion-dollar investments (of course, in dollars) and which the United States will still rest near the Russian Federation for their RN Atlas and Antares. Which by the way (so, by the way) launch trucks to the ISS and deliver the US rovers to Mars ...
                But this is all of course - blue dregs, not work - in your opinion ...
                The fact that the new Vostochny cosmodrome of the Russian Federation has been built and is operating, a new line of the Soyuz ILV is being developed - (S-5,6 (Amur-LNG) to replace the ILV of the R-7 family, developed, created, put into production and is undergoing full-scale fire tests The R-7MV LPRE for the first stage of the S-171 (it is also the booster of the STK Yenisei launch vehicle), the engine for the second stage is being manufactured in the Voronezh CRDS - this is of course nonsense ... if it’s just a matter of assembling another "prototype prototype" of the Elon Musk Starship ...

                Interestingly, what actually new did the giants of the US aerospace industry create after the end of the Space Shuttle program - well, for example, the "three whales" - Boeing, Lockheed Martin (+ their daughter ULA) and Northrop? The SLS that have not flown so far, the Orion PTC (nominally American, but in fact - American-European), and the Starliner that has not yet flown ...?
                The next modifications of the last century launch vehicle Atlas and Titan - and even those with Russian rocket engines at the first stages? Or maybe they have already developed methane liquid-propellant rocket engines for their promising ILVs (which have not even begun to be tested yet)?
                Let’s explain what it was that prevented them (and still does) develop, like Musk, new promising rocket and space complexes, like ... hehe ... they do not have Rogozin as directors, but quite often they are cool pros ... And money in bulk - in contrast to the beggarly (at the level and even lower than India) funding of Roscosmos.
                1. Kildin
                  Kildin 24 December 2020 10: 42
                  0
                  Nobody suggests abandoning the old, but you must understand that everything has a limit to modernization. Alas, there is nothing new. The Federation is at the level of the model, the Angara is expensive and does not fly, everything else is at the stage of conversations.
                  What's in the USA? Ok, let's estimate: Boeing - Starliner (second test unmanned flight after NG), Sierra Nevada - Dream Chaser (being tested), Blue Origin - methane BE4 (being tested). I don’t know what will happen to Orion and SLS, it is possible that the program will be cut once again (Democrats, sir!).
                  If we compare Roscosmos with ULA (or Arian space), then Roscosmos is doing well, but the problem is that new players have appeared on the market: Space X, Blue Origin, Sierra Nevada. And large structures from the past cannot compete with them. Or they don't want to.
                  1. Strelets1
                    Strelets1 24 December 2020 21: 57
                    0
                    Quote: Kildin
                    I don’t know what will happen to Orion and SLS, it is possible that the program will be cut again (Democrats, sir!).

                    Our "democrats" (sir!) Have been cutting everything in a row for nearly 30 years (if you haven't noticed). And if you take it from the "humpbacked perestroika" - then it is already closer to 40 ...

                    Quote: Kildin
                    If we compare Roscosmos with ULA (or Arian space), then Roscosmos is doing well, but the problem is that new players have appeared on the market: Space X, Blue Origin, Sierra Nevada. And large structures from the past cannot compete with them. Or they don't want to.


                    These new players in the United States have been nurtured and created since the 80s of the last century according to state programs for which more than a dozen billion dollars were spent, and we in the USSR and then in the Russian Federation at that time writhed in convulsions of "perestroika" and "reforms" changing social economic formation "untwisting a new round of capitalism in Russia."

                    But these are certainly not arguments for you.
                    Democrats in the United States are of course serious ... because ... hehe ... this is the USA ... and not "bastard" Russia ...
                  2. Strelets1
                    Strelets1 24 December 2020 22: 40
                    0
                    Nobody suggests abandoning the old, but you must understand that everything has a limit to modernization. [Quote = Kildin]

                    The limit of modernization is of course ...
                    However, about the limits of modernization, you not only tell me and the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan ... hehe ... but tell NASA, and the SLS developers.

                    LRE RL -10 used in SLS - the last, as they say, "squeak" of the US RCP for the lunar program - development of the 60s of the last century (beginning of work in 1959) - USED BY "PATRIARCHS" US RN - "Jupiter" and "Saturn-1"
                    LRE RS-25 - those will be ... hehe- ... "newer" - 70s of the last century. In order not to bother for the first flights, they generally took from the warehouses the remaining old shuttle rocket engines, without any modifications and modifications, made 10-15 years ago.
                    [quote = Kildin] Alas, nothing new. Federation - at the level of the layout, Angara - expensive and does not fly, everything else - at the stage of conversations. [/ Quote]
                    It is clear that you are not aware of the Federation, for the Angara you do not even see point-blank even the last test launch and the launch of a full-scale MGM PN of maximum mass (2.4 t) into the maximum orbit (GSO).
                    You argue (with the filing of the media) about the cost of the launch vehicle, which has not yet completed the LCI and whose serial production has not yet been established.

                    [quote = Kildin] What's in the US? Ok, let's estimate: Boeing - Starliner (after NG, the second test unmanned flight), Sierra Nevada - Dream Chaser (being tested), Blue Origin - methane BE4 (being tested). [/ Quote]
                    Boeing's Starliner and Dream Chayzer SNK are the PKK for LEO (like Dragon V2).
                    The Federation series PKK is a "lunar class" type of the American-European Orion (with which you do not know what will happen) and the new generation Chinese PKK.
                    SNK for the development of Dream Chayzer for "a penny" acquired in Russia design documentation for orbital spacecraft developed in the USSR as part of the Spiral R&D project.
                    In the Russian Federation, on this topic, as part of the creation of a PKK for LEO with an aerodynamic landing, work is underway within the framework of the Avangard-Pilot ROC - only there are fears that the "liberal accountants" again will not have the money to create this PKK, as was by the PKK Clipper project and by the earlier USSR ones - TKS, Zarya ...
                    As for engines - if you are not aware - as part of the replacement of the Soyuz line from the R-7 family and the creation of the S-5,6,7 (Amur-LNG) and the STK Yenisei launch vehicle, the R-171MV rocket engine was developed and put into production. Firing tests of a full-scale rocket engine are currently underway. The creation of a methane engine has begun for the C-7 in the Voronezh CRD.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  2. Kuz
    Kuz 21 December 2020 15: 51
    +20
    Conflicting feelings. I'm glad for Angara, of course, but at the same time the line of Soyuz-5, 6, 7 is being developed. And at the same time, the budget for cosmonautics is being cut. request
    1. Boris Chernikov
      Boris Chernikov 21 December 2020 17: 45
      +4
      no one cuts anything for space exploration .. they allocate money for specific projects with concrete results. The maximum that happened was that scientists cut their wishes in the style of "give money just like that"
  3. SID
    SID 21 December 2020 17: 37
    +2
    ... Recently on the TV channel "Zvezda" there was a release of the "Military Acceptance" program, which this time was devoted to the preparation for the launch of the "Angara-A5" launch vehicle - the most powerful rocket for space launches throughout history space exploration by our country.

    Exactly! RN Energia (https://www.roscosmos.ru/472/) smokes nervously on the sidelines ... :)
    1. El Chuvachino
      El Chuvachino 22 December 2020 18: 46
      -2
      Unfortunately, the USSR no longer exists.
  4. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 21 December 2020 18: 43
    0
    Quite recently, the Angara-A5 rocket made its second flight in several years. This launch has become a new milestone for Russia
    A new second milestone. )))
  5. Maxwrx
    Maxwrx 21 December 2020 18: 47
    0
    What interests me most is why there is such a large displayed weight. Hangars A5 will be enough to launch any existing and promising satellites to any GSO (besides, there is a tendency to decrease this weight). At the same time, 38 tons is not enough for manned lunar flights (more than 80 tons are needed) From here I conclude:
    1) Something very heavy for the military (placing laser stations, warheads in orbit, etc.). This is most likely because the military is mainly promoting this modification
    2) Construction of our own orbital station / ISS. As you know, the station was limited by the Proton carrying capacity of 25 tons. A more powerful rocket will make the blocks larger.
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 21 December 2020 19: 09
      0
      Quote: MaxWRX
      Construction of our own orbital station / ISS. As you know, the station was limited by the Proton carrying capacity of 25 tons. A more powerful rocket will make blocks larger

      Indeed, the increase in blocks will reduce the number of transition compartments, and as a result, the useful volume of the station itself will be larger, and the weight is lighter.
      Quote: MaxWRX
      At the same time, 38t is not enough for manned lunar flights (more than 80t is needed)

      I think that this is a completely normal intermediate stage in increasing the capabilities of our carrier. The Americans still cannot reproduce their Saturn-5, and this causes bewilderment among many experts. So we're on the right track - I think so ...
      I am happy to note that for some reason all the critics of our space programs somehow became depressed with the "Rogozin trampoline" against the background of the last successful launch of our launch vehicle, and Musk's failure at the next tests.
      1. businessv
        businessv 21 December 2020 19: 20
        -3
        Quote: ccsr
        I am happy to note that for some reason all the critics of our space programs somehow became depressed with the "Rogozin trampoline" against the background of the last successful launch of our launch vehicle, and Musk's failure at the next tests.
        Well, colleague, you probably didn't see the comment from donavi 49:
        SpaceX - 8000 people, this is already with the expansion under Starship + 2 engine lines. 25 launches with 11 boosters in 2020.
        Khrunichev - 20 people after all reductions and without engines. 000 launches in 2.
        Samara - 17 people and no engines. 000 launches in 14.
        So all Rogozinskoe does not look very impressive compared to Maskovskoe, unfortunately.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 21 December 2020 19: 28
          +2
          Quote: businessv
          So all Rogozinskoe does not look very impressive compared to Maskovskoe, unfortunately.

          It is customary for us to slowly harness - we are so ugly. But seriously, in my opinion there was confusion and vacillation among the chief designers, and Rogozin is not the right person to become an authority for them. That is why there is confusion about which way to go, and even with a lack of funding, the construction of a new cosmodrome, etc. threw us back. Regarding Musk's success, I will only note that so far we see not a breakthrough, but only advertising PR campaigns - I have not seen anything close to Saturn-5. Maybe I'm wrong - correct it.
          1. businessv
            businessv 21 December 2020 19: 34
            +1
            Quote: ccsr
            Maybe I'm wrong - correct it.

            I'm afraid that I am far from this industry, you are probably closer to it. I just compared the number of starts and nothing else. I am pleased with any reports of successful launches, or developments, but you correctly noted that the appointment to positions today is conditioned by loyalty to the leadership and dedication, and not competence in specific matters. Where is Rogozin and where are the designers?
      2. Maxwrx
        Maxwrx 21 December 2020 20: 33
        +2
        They do not need Saturn, it is an outdated rocket (it's like we do H-1) SLS they will fly with a lunar ship as early as 21. They simply laundered money, it was more profitable for them to waste time than to make rockets.
        I watch Musk, there is no failure, the main (most difficult) goals are fulfilled. But they will definitely cope with the landing. One way or another, they gradually solve problems. Earlier they exploded when refueling. It seems silly to me to deny that he is developing a revolutionary reusable super-heavy (100t) rocket and will cope with the task sooner or later. The launch of a 100t SLS rocket, Energia, Saturn-5 is estimated at $ 1-1,5 billion (we have a little less). It will have a fully reusable system with an estimated cost of launching 20-30 million. Cheaper than launching the Falcon-9 (which is also being developed as its replacement) and our hangar.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 22 December 2020 12: 30
          +1
          Quote: MaxWRX
          They don't need Saturn

          It's strange, sort of like a masterpiece of American space thought and suddenly, after 26 billion of money invested in it, it turned out to be unnecessary. I don’t believe it, just like any competent engineer will never believe that an outstanding development will be abandoned just because someone would think to jump to multiple launches that ended in failure. It doesn't work that way. And now they are again moving towards the creation of such a medium - why not use the previous developments?
          Quote: MaxWRX
          I watch Musk, there is no failure, the main (most difficult) goals are fulfilled. But they will definitely cope with the landing.

          This can be understood after several dozen launches - remember the shuttle, what kind of PR it was, until they suddenly recognized the project as a failure. So now everything that Musk does with the carriers is just small projects, based on the achievements of space corporations of past years. I see no other. Can you dissuade me?
          1. Maxwrx
            Maxwrx 22 December 2020 14: 25
            +1
            1. The reliability of new missiles is higher. Just look at the missile accident rates of those years. Saturn is made according to old technologies.
            2. The cost of Saturn in today's prices is 2-2,5 billion. Similar to SLS 1-1,5 billion.
            3. Engines for Saturn are not produced, for SLS they used existing engines from the shuttle (they even took them from warehouses). How much more expensive it would be to design a new engine or rebuild an obsolete
            4. Development was used from the available ones, but from the shuttle and others, not Saturn

            And who recognized the shuttle project as a failure? Are you personally? Or NASA or their government? Who!
            The shuttle project is successful, although it did not show the declared results in terms of reusability and therefore price. I flew 135 times, of which 2 disasters, for comparison, our union 132 of them 2 disasters with victims and another 9 unsuccessful without victims. In addition, the shuttle could put 25 tons into orbit, unique overall cargo, carried out repairs of the same hubble, delivered ISS blocks (including our Rassvet). The shuttles lifted 1,6 thousand tons of payloads into space. 355 astronauts and cosmonauts made flights.
            The shuttle flew on its own engines with accelerators, in the center there was essentially a huge fuel tank
            Buran flew on Energia (the price of only its launch is 1 billion) + the same tile changes as the shuttle, equipment check, etc.
            Shuttle launch cost 0,5 million, Buran launch cost 1,3-1,4 billion

            Musk made everyone move. Its major price revolution is reusable and much more .. Ula sold rocket launches for $ 200-700 million. We are a proton for $ 100 million, each place in the union for $ 85 million. He came to the market and announced a 1,5-3 times lower price. He is developing a reusable ship larger than a shuttle, with a carrying capacity of 100 tons, at a launch price of 20-30 million. Which country made such developments and why did not achieve results and abandoned everything, but he continues to test partially his money.
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 22 December 2020 18: 39
              +1
              Quote: MaxWRX
              Saturn is made according to old technologies.

              At that time it is not clear why it is not possible to make it cheaper and more reliable using NEW technologies?
              Quote: MaxWRX
              The cost of Saturn in today's prices is 2-2,5 billion. Similar to SLS 1-1,5 billion.

              Are they the same in terms of characteristics?
              Quote: MaxWRX
              Engines are not released to Saturn,

              This is generally incomprehensible, because for any developed country it is not only prestige, but also a huge profit from their release.
              Quote: MaxWRX
              And who recognized the shuttle project as a failure? Are you personally? Or NASA or their government? Who!

              The abandonment of the program, and the loss of two shuttles with human casualties, is proof of failure. But you can personally consider it a success.
              Quote: MaxWRX
              Shuttle launch cost 0,5 million, Buran launch cost 1,3-1,4 billion

              Buran carried out only an experimental flight and even then without a crew, so the comparison is inappropriate.
              Quote: MaxWRX
              The shuttles lifted 1,6 thousand tons of payloads into space.

              The cost of delivery for one kilogram is practically the same as that of our "Soyuz" - that's all the achievements.
              Quote: MaxWRX
              Musk made everyone move. Its major price revolution is achieved through reusability and much more ..

              This is all blah blah blah, because until we saw anything breakthrough from him, even the Tesla car is just an ordinary electric car that was used in our warehouses fifty years ago. And only a new generation of batteries, to which Musk had nothing to do, allowed him to create a light electric car for fast movement on the roads. That's all - the rest is just skillful PR.
              Quote: MaxWRX
              He is developing a reusable ship larger than a shuttle,

              When he takes off and proves to the whole world that his brainchild is really cheaper, and without hiding all financial reports, then we will be happy for him. In the meantime, all this is just chatter ...
              1. Maxwrx
                Maxwrx 22 December 2020 19: 31
                0
                1. It is made cheaper by new technologies
                2. Block 2 gives the same output weight as Saturn.
                3. Who will buy them? And for what purpose? This is a superheavy-only engine. Production ceased in 73. Who could be sold to except the USSR?
                4. Then, according to your logic, the entire Soviet program is a failure, because we also killed cosmonauts.
                5. Buran was launched on a super-heavy load that was consumed, the Shuttle was launched on a fuel tank that was consumed. The concept itself is different and Buran, even in its thousandth flight, would cost more than launching the Shuttle
                6. The cost of 1 kg may be the same, but the question is what kind of cargo. Could our union have approached the observatory and renovated / modernized it? no. Could our Dawn be inferred by Proton? no. If you have a monolithic cargo, say 5 tons, and you have a gazelle with a carrying capacity of 3 tons, you still cannot transport the cargo, no matter how much the price for transportation of 1 kg is.
                7. Tesla is the world leader in sales. His car company costs more than ANY other company. More expensive Mercedes, VAG, GM, in general, any. Why couldn't Avtovaz or Gaz manage to do it faster, even if we had "it in our warehouses fifty years ago" ?? And PR is also part of the job.
                8. This is not idle talk, the proton has no more commercial launches. And businessmen know how to calculate where it is more profitable. Falcon 9 is cheaper period.
                1. ccsr
                  ccsr 22 December 2020 19: 52
                  +3
                  Quote: MaxWRX
                  1. It is made cheaper by new technologies

                  Those. you claim that Saturn 5 will be reanimated? Did I understand you correctly?
                  Quote: MaxWRX
                  Block 2 gives the same output weight as Saturn.

                  There is no need to talk about the possibilities of some components - the question is in the entire system. You claim that she has already successfully flown or not - at least here do not feed with promises.
                  Quote: MaxWRX
                  4. Then, according to your logic, the entire Soviet program is a failure, because we also have astronauts killed

                  No, not all - we have less deaths than the Americans when counting casualties per number of launches.
                  Quote: MaxWRX
                  The concept itself is different and Buran, even in its thousandth flight, would cost more than launching the Shuttle

                  Buran was initially imposed on the military, and no one was going to take this system into service or into operation - this is stupidity that our unscrupulous designers imposed on Ustinov, and smart people already understood this then.

                  Quote: MaxWRX
                  Could our union have approached the observatory and renovated / modernized it? no.

                  And we don’t need to solve this problem - our priority is military space, and let the Americans build the observatory, since it’s easy for them to print money. It is only incomprehensible why such rich Americans did not give money to NASA, but indirectly flooded it to Mask. Apparently NASA has not forgiven the failure with the shuttles until now - this is how I see it.
                  Quote: MaxWRX
                  Tesla is the world leader in sales. His car company costs more than ANY other company.

                  You just don't know what Panama is and what was connected with it in the 19th century. By the way, the cost of shares of companies and the profitability of the company itself are two big differences. This is why Musk is not close to the leading automakers:
                  Elon Musk has conquered another milestone, but it's too early to say that Tesla has become the first car company on the planet. If only because Toyota sold more than 30 times more cars last year, which allowed it to have revenue that is 10 times that of Tesla.

                  Quote: MaxWRX
                  Why couldn't Avtovaz or Gaz have been able to do it faster, even if we had "it in our warehouses fifty years ago"

                  So Musk then would not have been able to do anything - the batteries were lead, and lithium-ion did not exist in nature.
                  Quote: MaxWRX
                  Falcon 9 is cheaper period.

                  No one has yet seen the financial records of Musk's companies. What can you even talk about? I am simply amazed at your naivety, and you apparently do not understand that the credits collected do not yet mean the wealth of the manufacturer himself. De Laurian also thought he had created the car of the future. So where is he with his car?
                  1. Maxwrx
                    Maxwrx 22 December 2020 20: 51
                    +1
                    1. I claim that they are making a rocket based on shuttle engines
                    2. She will fly at 21
                    3. What's the difference, they died. Even 1 deceased astronaut, according to your logic, is the failure of the entire program. The fact that up to 8 people fit into the shuttles, and up to 3 people into ours, does not mean their equipment is less reliable than ours
                    4. Everyone fought for Buran, because they understood resources would go to their enterprises, design bureaus.
                    5. For me personally, the priority is scientific space. Both the USSR and Russia launched scientific observatories. Garnet, Astron, Gamma, Spectrum series They could well serve them.
                    6. Share prices can be overvalued, but investors are not stupid either. The question is not in the number of cars sold, the markup, profit / loss. The question is always about prospects, opportunities, etc. Why did all car companies suddenly decide to actively develop mainly electric cars, maximum hybrids. 90% of the money goes there. Because it is promising, and not immediate benefit
                    7. The question was why didn’t we just sit on everything ready?
                    8. Spaces is a private company. They are not obliged to show anything to anyone, a commercial secret. But there is a fact that you cannot argue with. The proton no longer has commercial loads; they were completely taken away by the falcon.
                    1. ccsr
                      ccsr 23 December 2020 12: 13
                      0
                      Quote: MaxWRX
                      2. She will fly at 21

                      When it flies, then we will return to discussing this topic - now there is still no subject for discussion.
                      Quote: MaxWRX
                      4. Everyone fought for Buran, because they understood resources would go to their enterprises, design bureaus.

                      Do not fantasize - the military were categorically against this venture, but Ustinov signed up to this project, and the money was allocated by the government.
                      Quote: MaxWRX
                      6. Share prices can be overvalued, but investors are not stupid either.

                      Leave that demagogy aside - Toyota is much more successful than Musk with his electric cars and this is a fixed fact. Your lies about Tesla did not work, and it is obvious.
                      Quote: MaxWRX
                      8. Spaces is a private company.

                      This is very convenient in order to write off the failures and waste of funds - this is why Musk was pulled into the aerospace industry. You just do not understand the essence of this process, and this is obvious to me.
                      Quote: MaxWRX
                      I claim to be making a rocket powered by a shuttle

                      What then is the novelty of the Mask? And why don't they use engines from Saturn-5? Can you explain sanely?
                      1. Maxwrx
                        Maxwrx 24 December 2020 15: 12
                        -1
                        1. Do you doubt that a fully assembled rocket will fly?
                        2. In the Soviet Union, everyone also pulled the blanket over themselves so that resources would go. From a military point of view, it may not have been necessary, what is the fantasy here
                        3. Have you ever driven a Toyota? I went to Kruzak and Camry. Toyota is outdated G ....., it is taken because it once built a reputation. Where and what is the recorded fact? Send facts to the studio! Or again because you decided so ?! Tesla model s bypassed the newest electric Porsche at the Nurburgring - it's a fact, Tesla sells the most electric vehicles in the world - it's a fact, Tesla shares are more expensive than any car company - it's a fact. What facts do you have? number of cars made? AvtoVAZ also made million cars at one time, but what is the result?
                        4. What is the failure? Again, everything is unfounded
                        5. You are confusing everything again. There is a disposable SLS rocket, it is made with engines from a shuttle, in terms of power it is like Saturn-5. There is Musk with his fully reusable rocket of the same power. The rocket is projected to fly 100 to 1000 times! Musk's engine surpassed everyone in its performance characteristics. Why does he need an outdated engine (and who will give it to him, they are competitors), if he can make his own and better?
                      2. ccsr
                        ccsr 24 December 2020 16: 53
                        0
                        Quote: MaxWRX
                        Have you ever driven a Toyota? I went to Kruzak and Camry. Toyota obsolete G .....,

                        I still drive a car of this company, and what does this prove about the number of cars produced and the profit of this company?
                        Quote: MaxWRX
                        Do you doubt that a fully assembled test rocket will fly?

                        I'm not as gullible as you - and I have reason to do so, because I remember well the American chatter about the shuttles.
                        Quote: MaxWRX
                        There is a disposable SLS rocket, it is made with engines from the shuttle,

                        This is how I prove to you that Musk did not create anything, but took old developments. What is the novelty?
                        Quote: MaxWRX
                        The rocket is projected to fly 100 to 1000 times!

                        You are just a dreamer who never stood next to real space technology. Burn with advertising slogans further - I seriously consider it futile to discuss something with you on this topic.
                        Quote: MaxWRX
                        if he can make his own and better?

                        So why didn't he make the engine yet, but took it from the shuttle - you said it yourself.
                      3. Maxwrx
                        Maxwrx 24 December 2020 17: 41
                        0
                        1. What year is the car of this company. In the 2000s, they made decent cars.
                        2. Well, it won't fly at 21, it will fly at 22, but it will fly anyway.
                        3. How he took the old sls makes Boeing, Musk's starship, with all-new Raptor engines that deliver a record thrust-to-weight ratio. At the same time, it is cheap and ready for reusable work.
                        4. I manufacture satellite parts for various companies in my own factory. And in the course a lot in this area. And your ignorance of the elementary says just that you have never stood near. If only as an ordinary employee.
                        5. Read point 3, first figure it out, then speak. In addition, there is an engine and it has already flown with mock-ups in the atmosphere.
                      4. ccsr
                        ccsr 24 December 2020 17: 56
                        +1
                        Quote: MaxWRX
                        And your ignorance of the elementary says just that you have never stood near.

                        You are illiterate, and this can be seen from your chatter, which is not related to the topic, and your statements about 100 or 1000 flights gave you away. As for me, I will just note that I received my first award from industry for being in command of the crew at the Almaz LKI in the seventies. So when you have something like this behind you, then come and talk - it’s funny for me to listen to your fantasies about Musk’s success, because you don’t have anything at all, and your ideas about the space industry are too naive and one-sided.
            2. Strelets1
              Strelets1 23 December 2020 20: 50
              +1
              Quote: MaxWRX
              Could our union have approached the observatory and renovated / modernized it? no. Could our Dawn be inferred by Proton? no. If you have a monolithic cargo, say 5 tons, and you have a gazelle with a carrying capacity of 3 tons, you still cannot transport the cargo, no matter how much the price for transportation of 1 kg is.
              =======================
              ccsr (ccsr)
              Yesterday, 19: 52

              And we don’t need to solve this problem - our priority is military space, and let the Americans build the observatory, since it’s easy for them to print money.


              For such tasks (launching into space on LEO cargoes exceeding the dimensions of the cargo compartments and the carrying capacity of the Shuttles and Buran), the STK Energia LV was made. The withdrawal of an oversized cargo weighing 80 tons was demonstrated during the first test launch of the Energia LV with a full-scale mass and size model of the Skif OS, a prototype of a combat laser station.
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 23 December 2020 21: 03
                -1
                Quote: Strelets1
                The withdrawal of an oversized cargo weighing 80 tons was demonstrated during the first test launch of the Energia LV with a full-scale mass and size model

                This was a demonstration in response to the creation of the shuttle by the Americans, because at that time the USSR had no practical use for Buran.
                Quote: Strelets1
                OS Skif is a prototype of a combat laser station.

                Yes, all this is a bluff, because a few years earlier, a similar venture ended with the conservation of six Almaz combat stations in Reutov, where they died quietly in view of their complete hopelessness.
                So do not believe the myths, especially if they come from those who want to prove how promising Buran was.
                1. Strelets1
                  Strelets1 24 December 2020 18: 42
                  0
                  Quote: ccsr
                  ccsr (ccsr)
                  Yesterday, 21: 03

                  -1
                  Quote: Strelets1
                  The withdrawal of an oversized cargo weighing 80 tons was demonstrated during the first test launch of the Energia LV with a full-scale mass and size model

                  This was a demonstration in response to the creation of the shuttle by the Americans, because at that time the USSR had no practical use for Buran.


                  The launch into orbit of the Pole (Skif) LV Energiya (which I wrote about) was, first of all, tests and demonstration of the possibility of STK Energia itself - exactly what the United States did not have at that time - launching a large-size launch vehicle with weighing up to 100 tons. As you know, the dimensions of the Shuttle launch vehicle and the weight of the launched launch vehicle were significantly less.
                  I know that Buran was our response to the creation of the Shuttle, and I agree with the opinion that BURAN did not represent any practical value (as a means of delivering crews to the ISS and to LEO) at that time.
                  Moreover, unlike the Americans, we had other means of delivering crews and cargo to the ISS, LEO and other types of orbits.

                  Quote: ccsr
                  Quote: Strelets1
                  OS Skif is a prototype of a combat laser station.

                  Yes, all this is a bluff, because a few years earlier, a similar venture ended with the conservation of six Almaz combat stations in Reutov, where they died quietly in view of their complete hopelessness.
                  So do not believe the myths, especially if they come from those who want to prove how promising Buran was.


                  Dear ccsr, there were a lot of projects in the world cosmonautics that were terminated for various reasons (unfeasibility at the given level of development of science and technology, insufficient safety, low economic efficiency - simply high cost, well, etc.). I think you know some, maybe even many of them. The project to create the Almaz rocket and space complex was, in principle, a response to the development in the United States of similar complexes - MODS (Military Orbital Development Station) - later renamed MOL.
                  To argue about the "complete hopelessness" of this project of V.N. Chelomei, I won't be with you - I don't see the point. This is the same as arguing which is better and more promising - research of the spacecraft with the help of the AMS or by means of manned astronautics.
                  In my understanding, the truth, as always, is in the middle (well, or in the American version, "somewhere nearby"). Simply thanks to the creation of the Almaz OS in various versions and the development of other elements of this unique complex, we now have modern means of remote sensing, radar and electronic reconnaissance, and much more. So if we compare the degree of usefulness with the same Buran, then I believe the Chelomey project brought the Soviet and now Russian cosmonautics much more practical benefit.

                  Regarding Skif, I can only say that the continuous gas-dynamic onboard space CO2 laser RD0600 operating on gaseous propellants (GDL RD0600) has undergone a full cycle of bench testing at the Voronezh KBKhA. Whether these technologies and developments are used in the Peresvet ground-based combat laser complex is unknown to me.
                  But it is known for sure that during the collapse of the USSR, many developments, and not only Almazy, Energia and Buran, were lost.
                2. ccsr
                  ccsr 24 December 2020 19: 32
                  +1
                  Quote: Strelets1
                  So if we compare the degree of usefulness with the same Buran, then I believe the Chelomey project brought the Soviet and now Russian cosmonautics much more practical benefit.

                  Yes, he did not bring anything, because, firstly, it is impossible to make a specialist out of an astronaut to conduct operational reconnaissance, and secondly, the bet on unmanned satellite systems is much more reasonable, at least in terms of cost and accident rate without human casualties. So there is no need to justify what was generally imposed by certain designers to satisfy their ambitions.
                  Quote: Strelets1
                  Regarding Skif, I can only say that the continuous gas-dynamic onboard space CO2 laser RD0600 operating on gaseous propellants (GDL RD0600) has undergone a full cycle of bench testing at the Voronezh KBKhA.

                  Well, what did it give in the end to our country? Another cut of money by the industry and laureate titles? I would not regret these costs, if only they had not undermined the economy of the USSR - it was because of such ill-considered expenses that the country was strained.
                3. Strelets1
                  Strelets1 24 December 2020 23: 15
                  0
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Yes, he did not bring anything, because, firstly, it is impossible to make a specialist out of an astronaut to conduct operational reconnaissance, and secondly, the bet on unmanned satellite systems is much more reasonable, at least in terms of cost and accident rate without human casualties. So there is no need to justify what was generally imposed by certain designers to satisfy their ambitions.

                  Well, that's right - whether Korolev's business ...
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Well, what did it give in the end to our country? Another cut of money by the industry and laureate titles? I would not regret these costs, if only they had not undermined the economy of the USSR - it was because of such ill-considered expenses that the country was strained.


                  Well, of course - why is this space activity needed in Russia at all - only money is sawing and the economy is straining - all pensioners (and not only) will be given a free piece of sausage, and we will buy satellite communications, navigation "abroad" ...
                  And Saint Elon will take us to the moon, and then to Mars ... on a cruise ... for cheap ...

                  It seems to me that somewhere I already heard this ... in the last century ... in the 90s ...
                4. ccsr
                  ccsr 25 December 2020 13: 03
                  +1
                  Quote: Strelets1
                  Well, that's right - whether Korolev's business ...

                  By the way, it was Korolev who was an ardent opponent of the reusable use of ships - he probably calculated all the dangers of such a design better than others.
                  Quote: Strelets1
                  Of course - why is this space activity needed in Russia at all?

                  We need military space like air, and the wishes of those who speculate on cosmonaut flights must always be cut at least on the basis that we have not been the USSR for a long time.
                  Quote: Strelets1
                  And Saint Elon will take us to the moon, and then to Mars ... on a cruise ... for cheap ...

                  Don't worry - why do you need the Moon and Mars, let the Chinese land there, since they have enough money for these programs. Enough for our people to listen to dreamers - already twice the country was allowed around the world only in the twentieth century because of their dreams.
                5. Strelets1
                  Strelets1 26 December 2020 18: 36
                  -1
                  Quote: ccsr
                  We need military space like air, and the wishes of those who speculate on cosmonaut flights must always be cut at least on the basis that we have not been the USSR for a long time.

                  One still cannot do with space by machine guns. AS the very recent history of Russia shows, it is easy to destroy the high-tech industry and lose technology, knowledge and the ability to create complex systems (competence as of today).
                  But to restore - at least at the level of past achievements, is much more difficult and expensive.

                  Quote: ccsr
                  Don't worry - why do you need the Moon and Mars, let the Chinese land there, since they have enough money for these programs. Enough for our people to listen to dreamers - already twice the country was allowed around the world only in the twentieth century because of their dreams.


                  Yes, brave you this liberal chewing gum - "the Soviet economy was ruined by the exorbitant costs of opposing the American SDI program," and manned space exploration (in your interpretation). After all, judging by your comments, you lived well in the USSR, and in adulthood.
                  The Soviet Union economically strained to drag on itself after the Second World War the "world socialist system" and the "friendly countries" that adjoined it - in Africa, Central and South America, the Near and Middle East, Asia (... hehe. .. the same China ... which has now gagged the former "sponsor" and not only him).
                  And the cost of manned space systems (both military and civil) is a penny compared to that.
                  For my part, I lived in the USSR no less than yours, and I also know about the KSVN of the USSR / RF and the USA not by hearsay.
                  By the way, about your maxim - "it is impossible to make a specialist out of an astronaut to conduct operational reconnaissance".
                  In all parts of OSNAZ of the times of the USSR (radio and electronic intelligence, including the US and NATO KSVN), the post operators were conscript soldiers and sergeants with a service life of 70 years from the 2s. For the most part - yesterday's graduates of secondary schools, at best - technical schools. And they were commanded by junior officers - again, for the most part, graduates of secondary military schools (the same technical school - that is, secondary specialized technical education).
                  I don’t think that working with a complex of photographic equipment and a Sword radar station is more difficult for a pilot-cosmonaut with a higher technical education than working on approximately the same technical means for a lieutenant with a secondary education, and even more so for conscripts.
                  Well, in conclusion - to walk in adhering to American programs or to supply them with LRE of our own design - and nothing more - this is degradation. Performing the functions of a "Polish plumber in Germany", which has now been successfully performed by "high-tech" residents of Russia's neighboring countries.
                  Money in the country - "like a makhorka fool (s)". Another thing is that they cannot be properly disposed of. Of course - no money will be enough - if today FAPa hospitals, schools and kindergartens are closed, and then - when the roasted rooster bites - again begin to "reform" - return to the old system, which was so diligently destroyed - from education, science, health care, social security ...
                6. ccsr
                  ccsr 27 December 2020 11: 08
                  0
                  Quote: Strelets1
                  But to restore - at least at the level of past achievements, is much more difficult and expensive.

                  Why do we need the achievements of past years if they did not save our country from collapse, but on the contrary led to a tragedy?
                  Quote: Strelets1
                  Yes, brave you this liberal chewing gum - "the Soviet economy was ruined by the exorbitant costs of opposing the American SDI program",

                  Not only on this program, but also on many others, which were a heavy burden on our budget. In order not to strain you, I will note that the cost of BAM was slightly more than the cost of Buran, only our descendants will use BAM, and Buran has become a monument to our mismanagement.
                  Quote: Strelets1
                  I don’t think that working with a complex of photographic equipment and a Sword radar station is more difficult for a pilot-cosmonaut with a higher technical education than working on approximately the same technical means for a lieutenant with a secondary education, and even more so for conscripts.

                  The flight of an astronaut itself is a great stress for the human body, and being on board a person is dangerous for a number of reasons, not to mention the fact that human life support systems are extra weight in orbit. So your comparison with osnaz specialists is inappropriate - they are still on the ground, and the cost of their maintenance is penny compared to those who are in orbit.
                7. Strelets1
                  Strelets1 28 December 2020 15: 39
                  +1
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Why do we need the achievements of past years if they did not save our country from collapse, but on the contrary led to a tragedy?


                  It looks like you were imbued with the spirit of the independent - "we will abandon the legacy of the USSR empire, we will de-communize everything, perlustrate - we will start from scratch and live - after all, we ... tse Europa ..." - you are inconsistent - criticizing the revolutionary transformations of the country since 17 and counter-revolutionary - since 1991 (or rather, since 1986), you are still proposing - the same thing ... to abandon the legacy of past years ... hehe ... "... to the ground, and then ..."
                  The geopolitical tragedy of the USSR was caused not by its achievements, but by the strategic miscalculations of its political leadership and open betrayal of the country's national interests by the military-political elite ...

                  Quote: ccsr
                  Not only on this program, but also on many others, which were a heavy burden on our budget. In order not to strain you, I will note that the cost of BAM was slightly more than the cost of Buran, only our descendants will use BAM, and Buran has become a monument to our mismanagement.


                  Ten BAMs will not be saved from fools in power and traitors ... According to Gubanov's data, cited in his four-volume edition "The Triumph and Tragedy of Energia", the expenses for the creation of the Energia-Buran RCS amounted to only TENTH of the total expenses of the Ministry of General Machinery ... now they like to express themselves - "this is only 10%, Karl!" ... But besides the Ministry of General Machinery, there were also Minmedmash and Mintyazhmash ... and other budget expenses ...
                  So your liberal propaganda campaign with Bam and Buran looks ... hehe ... somehow not very convincing ... Moreover, the "poverty" in comparison with the USSR economy of today's Russia "from somewhere" found funds - both for repeated "reforms" of the army and navy, and for the rearmament of the Strategic Missile Forces, the missile submarine fleet, strategic aviation ... the control system of the RF Armed Forces ... Yes, also for yachts, villas, castles, British and American sports clubs for someone was enough ...
                  And after all, they did not go bankrupt and did not disintegrate - like the USSR ...
                  .
                  Quote: ccsr
                  The flight of an astronaut itself is a great stress for the human body, and being on board a person is dangerous for a number of reasons, not to mention the fact that human life support systems are extra weight in orbit. So your comparison with osnaz specialists is inappropriate - they are still on the ground, and the cost of their maintenance is penny compared to those who are in orbit.


                  No need to juggle, my dear, and talk about the stresses and dangers of being in space - you argued that "it is impossible to make a specialist out of an astronaut to conduct operational reconnaissance." - I gave you specific examples - who were the operators of stations and complexes of electronic intelligence in the USSR (and, in fact, they are to this day, though now they are more professional soldiers and sergeants, contract soldiers).
                  As for the cosmonauts, they quite successfully perform more complex work in space than the functions of an operator of an electronic reconnaissance station - and the one-time stay of an astronaut in orbit has already exceeded a year. Compared to this, the duration of the stay of cosmonauts on Almazy / Soluty is minuscule ...

                  Well, in conclusion - I think I understood you correctly from the very beginning - astronautics should be curtailed (and manned, in the first place), pensioners and everyone else should be given a loaf of free sausage (at the expense of the saved funds) and the residents of the nezalezhnaya should be replaced by the role of "plumbers of Europe". And we will be happy - forever and ever ... hehe ... amen ...

                  PS Thanks to V.N. Chelomey, we now have an orbital segment as part of the ISS, since all Salyuty, Mira and the current Russian segment of the ISS are essentially the development of its Almazov, Just like today's Liana is the development of its unique MRKSN Legend ... and Condor is, accordingly, the continuation of the development of radar systems and ERS embedded in the Almaz-T, 1V complexes and further developments of NPO Mashinostroyenia - the former Chelomeevsky KB-52. Well, the RN UR-500 - aka Proton - still, like the royal seven, pulls the Russian cosmonautics now ...
                  Thanks to the development of the STK Energia launch vehicle, we now have the R-170- family of LPREs for the entire promising line of the Soyuz and Angara, and the experience of creating hydrogen-powered RD-0120 and cryogenic infrastructure at Baikonur and Voronezh is the groundwork for the entire hydrogen and methane series of LPRE.
                8. ccsr
                  ccsr 28 December 2020 18: 37
                  +1
                  Quote: Strelets1
                  It looks like you are imbued with the spirit of the indispensable

                  Live with mine, then I’m sure you will understand why I speak like that.
                  Quote: Strelets1
                  No need to distort, my dear, and talk about the stresses and dangers of being in space - you argued that "it is impossible to make a specialist out of an astronaut to conduct operational reconnaissance." - I gave you specific examples - who were the operators of stations and complexes

                  The trouble is that you have no idea how much an astronaut should be able to do, compared to an OSF serviceman, but that's not even the point, but the fact that the GRU General Staff abandoned the program for the training of reconnaissance cosmonauts due to the fact that such training would have to undergo each time to a different person - then they rarely flew into space.
                  Quote: Strelets1
                  Well, in conclusion - I think I understood you correctly from the beginning - astronautics needs to be curtailed (and manned, in the first place),

                  We understood correctly that I am piloting and I have to turn it down, because there is not enough money for military space.
                  Quote: Strelets1
                  Thanks to the development of the STK Energia launch vehicle, we now have the R-170-rocket engine family for the entire promising line of the Soyuz and Angara,

                  You forgot to add that from such zeal we lost the USSR, and this turned out to be much more terrible for our people, judging by the human sacrifices that we suffered without an external attack.
                  Quote: Strelets1
                  In order not to strain you in turn, I will refer to Gubanov's data, cited by him in the four-volume edition "The Triumph and Tragedy of Energia" - the costs of creating the Energia-Buran spacecraft were about a tenth of the total expenditures of the Ministry of General Machinery during that period.

                  This is how he hides the costs of other ministries and departments, which is why he is doing so smoothly - several thousand enterprises worked for Energy.
                  Quote: Strelets1
                  The future for operation from Earth to LEO is for manned and unmanned aerodynamic landing systems - this is unambiguous.

                  If you have money, otherwise you are walking wide, you will tear your pants, as happened in the USSR. By the way, why did you combine manned and unmanned systems - we were talking only about manned systems? It is ugly to engage in fraud ...
                9. Strelets1
                  Strelets1 28 December 2020 20: 17
                  +1
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Live with mine, then I’m sure you will understand why I speak like that.

                  Well, I guess my seventy-plus was enough for me to distinguish the liberal gum about "exorbitant military spending that destroyed the USSR" from the true causes of this geopolitical tragedy ...

                  Quote: ccsr
                  The trouble is that you have no idea how much an astronaut should be able to do, compared to an OSF serviceman, but that's not even the point, but the fact that the GRU General Staff abandoned the program for the training of reconnaissance cosmonauts due to the fact that such training would have to undergo each time to a different person - then they rarely flew into space.


                  If you ... hehe ... "a specialist of the CPC, who knows everything that an astronaut should know and be able to do," then the stupidity you expressed "it is impossible to make a specialist out of an astronaut to conduct operational reconnaissance" all the more does it do you no honor as a technical specialist who understands astronautics. Moreover, for example, real work on Almaz Popovich and Artyukhin refutes your nonsense.
                  They were not staff members and officers of the 6th GRU General Staff Directorate, but they were trained cosmonauts of the USSR and perfectly performed one of the main reconnaissance tasks facing the Almaz OPS - to make a detailed photo and radar reconnaissance of the positional areas of the Minuteman ICBM deployment in order to determine the exact coordinates and composition of facilities deployed in these areas.
                  The task that the Korolev "Probes" photo reconnaissance officers could not complete.

                  Quote: ccsr
                  You forgot to add that from such zeal we lost the USSR, and this turned out to be much more terrible for our people, judging by the human sacrifices that we suffered without an external attack.

                  I recall your obstinacy about an anecdote about Chapaev and a radio station on an armored car ...
                  I repeat once again - it was NOT SPACE that destroyed the USSR ... AND NOT MILITARY EXPENDITURE ...
                  Quote: ccsr
                  This is how he hides the costs of other ministries and departments, which is why he is doing so smoothly - several thousand enterprises worked for Energy.


                  Do not fidget ... by God ... the fact that at the Ust-Katavskiy mechanical plant they sharpened a hundred - another bolts for Energy - this is a drop in the ocean ... just the same for the mass of other subcontractors ...
                  The main expenses were for the Ministry of General Chemistry - and this is unambiguous ... now they are massively declassifying the original documents on the USSR CD ... and Gubanov's book among them.

                  Including Diamonds. Here I have at hand the book "Cutting Diamonds" published by the team of authors of the military-industrial complex "NPO" Mashinostroyenia ", 2019 - there are about 60 people, if not more. I think your name is not there (judging by your "reviews" about this project).
                  And I have no reason not to trust them and trust you.

                  Quote: ccsr
                  If you have money, otherwise you are walking wide, you will tear your pants, as happened in the USSR. By the way, why did you combine manned and unmanned systems - we were talking only about manned systems? It is ugly to engage in fraud ...

                  Again. Calculate how much money was spent on the rearmament of the RF Armed Forces - in particular, SNF. Probably more than Burany and Almazy, especially since this is in the current capitalist "paradise" (where every second person will ... I hope you know what) and, as you can see, they did not fall apart "from exorbitant military spending."
                  Money in the country like a makhorka fool. Another thing is that liberals are sitting on them like a chicken on eggs and clucking "... there is no money, but you hold on .." And those like you are listening to these stories from "impotent government officials" and repeating like a mantra - "commercialization, commercialization." .. "the state is an ineffective manager" ...
                  I did not combine unmanned systems and manned systems - you imagined it, you don't understand why - I wrote that both of them will be used. And he cited as an example - the manned Dream Chayzer and the unmanned X-37V. And there is some kind of fraudulent thing - do not understand ...

                  Well, in conclusion. I started working in the CD directly from 1973 to 1999. I have known radio engineering systems even earlier - since 1967. So I don't need to read morality, my dear sсsr.
                10. ccsr
                  ccsr 28 December 2020 20: 43
                  +1
                  Quote: Strelets1
                  Well, I guess my seventy-plus was enough for me to distinguish the liberal gum about "exorbitant military spending that destroyed the USSR" from the true causes of this geopolitical tragedy ...

                  And I thought that by this time wisdom comes to everyone, and a reassessment of the past begins.
                  Quote: Strelets1
                  If you ... hehe ... "a CTC specialist who knows everything that an astronaut should know and be able to," then the stupidity you expressed "to make an astronaut a specialist for conducting operational reconnaissance is impossible" all the more does not do you honor as a technical specialist profile, versed in astronautics.

                  Enlighten:
                  The project was immediately very seriously classified, a special space was created for it a detachment trained in the techniques of military intelligence activities in difficult conditions of weightlessness: Valery Makrushin, Dmitry Yukov, Valery Romanov, Vladimir Gevorkyan, Alexey Grechanik. These talented engineers with superhuman endurance and excellent health were selected in Reutov near Moscow to the NPO Mashinostroyenia. They were supposed to be paired with military pilots on flights.

                  But it so happened that only previously trained military cosmonaut pilots actually managed to fly. Here are the famous cosmonauts-diamond workers, as they are called in the industry: Pavel Popovich and Yuri Artyukhin (call sign "Berkuts", start on July 3, 1974), Gennady Sarafanov and Lev Demin ("Dunai", August 26, 1974), Boris Volynov and Vitaly Zholobov (Baikaly, July 6, 1976), Vyacheslav Zudov and Valery Rozhdestvensky (Rodony, October 14, 1976), Viktor Gorbatko and Yuri Glazkov (Tereki, February 7, 1977).

                  https://www.mk.ru/social/2017/05/25/almaznye-kosmonavty-rassekrecheny-porazitelnye-dannye-zvezdnykh-voyn-sssr-i-ssha.html
                  Artyukhin and Popovich were not trained under this program as scouts, but were the commanders of the ship, and the ground complex in 1974 was not yet ready for flight design tests.

                  Quote: Strelets1
                  The main expenses were for the Ministry of General Chemistry - and this is unambiguous ... now they are massively declassifying the original documents on the USSR CD ... and Gubanov's book among them.

                  Lies, because ground-based systems went under the expense of the Ministry of Defense.

                  Quote: Strelets1
                  And those like you are listening to these stories from the "impotent state administration" and repeating like a mantra - "commercialization, commercialization" ... "the state is an ineffective manager" ...

                  You are still that eccentric, as I see, but I will only note that in the tests of "Almazov" in 1976-1977. I personally participated as the head of the calculation of the ground complex, so unlike you, I even saw cosmonauts and many designers with my own eyes. Believe me, I know much better than you why this system was not put on alert.
                  Quote: Strelets1
                  I started working at CD directly from 1973 to 1999.

                  You just "forgot" to indicate that you worked along the line of Shmyrev, if I understood correctly, and this program went along the line of Kostin - however, you are hardly aware that these are completely different areas of intelligence.
                  Quote: Strelets1
                  So I don't need to read morality, my dear sсsr.

                  And in my thoughts was not, but you clearly do not know how everything was then, but I know this story better than you.
                11. Strelets1
                  Strelets1 28 December 2020 22: 54
                  0
                  Quote: ccsr
                  And I thought that by this time wisdom comes to everyone, and a reassessment of the past begins.


                  I do not strive to become wise men and I do not have the habit of introducing myself to others. Life experience and professional activity even during the times of the USSR taught us not to flatter ourselves and believe in propaganda, but to really assess the surrounding reality on the basis of factual material. Therefore, I really have nothing to overestimate. I worked for my country, which I loved, respected and appreciated - during the Soviet era. I am doing the same now - in relation to the Russian Federation. The truth is already in a slightly different incarnation.

                  Quote: ccsr
                  Educate yourself .... "... But it so happened that only previously trained military cosmonauts were able to fly. Here are the famous cosmonauts-diamonds, as they are called in the industry: Pavel Popovich and Yuri Artyukhin (call sign Berkuty, start 3 July 1974), Gennady Sarafanov and Lev Dyomin (Dunai, August 26, 1974), Boris Volynov and Vitaly Zholobov (Baikaly, July 6, 1976), Vyacheslav Zudov and Valery Rozhdestvensky (Rodony, October 14, 1976 of the year), Viktor Gorbatko and Yuri Glazkov (Tereki, February 7, 1977).

                  https://www.mk.ru/social/2017/05/25/almaznye-kosmonavty-rassekrecheny-porazitelnye-dannye-zvezdnykh-voyn-sssr-i-ssha.html
                  Artyukhin and Popovich were not trained under this program as scouts, but were the commanders of the ship, and the ground complex in 1974 was not yet ready for flight design tests.


                  You have not read to the end of the information on your own link. About the work of Popovich and Artyukhin. Educate yourself:

                  "... In July 1974, Yuri Artyukhin and Pavel Popovich safely started to the station.

                  - Those guys had a special specialization, - Vladimir Polyachenko recalls. - They had to be able to determine whether a missile base is under them or a farm, learn to identify ground targets and independently decide whether or not they are interesting to the military leadership. They were taught to handle the most complicated equipment, to transfer the film. It is now possible to conduct an electron-optical survey and transmit it to Earth via satellite communication, but then this was not ...
                  There was a capsule at the station, the cosmonauts put a film in it, and it flew down to a given area (if the capsule hit the wrong place, the option of detonating it with all the secret data was provided) ...

                  When the first film depicting real American military bases was put on the table to the chiefs of the GRU General Staff, they were amazed at the clarity of these images. After all, their resolution was a little more than 1 meter, almost the same as that obtained by modern scientists from automatic Earth remote sensing satellites. The film was 40 centimeters wide ...


                  Quote: ccsr
                  this program went along the line of Kostin - however, you are hardly in the subject,

                  Hehe ... I am in the subject of who Kostin is, what tasks were solved by his Center and the Office to which he belonged in those years. This is quite enough to understand the importance of the problem that Popovich and Artyukhin solved and solved.
                  I just, unlike you, saw in real life the work of the US systems on which Popovich and Artyukhin worked.
                  Quote: ccsr
                  in trials of "Almazov" in 1976-1977. I personally participated as the head of the calculation of the ground complex, so unlike you, I even saw cosmonauts and many designers with my own eyes.

                  Nevertheless, this does not prevent you from underestimating the contribution of Chelomey, KB-52 and the Almaz program to the development of Soviet and Russian cosmonautics. And also misinterpret the role of the Almaz and Energia-Buran programs as the reasons for the collapse of the USSR.
                  I do not pretend to have complete knowledge of all the nuances of the Almaz program - what I know is materials from the book of NPO VPK MASH, one of the co-authors of which is V.A. Polyachenko, whose memoirs are referred to by MK - which I wrote to you earlier.
                  It is a well-known fact that manned systems are much more expensive than unmanned ones.
                  But the fact that one cannot do without them in certain moments and situations of human activity is obvious to me. For you - apparently not.
                  You consider the Almaz and Energia-Buran projects a waste of money, the ambitions of their general developers, failure in their essence and destroying the economy of the USSR.
                  I do not think so, and in my turn I believe that the true reasons for the collapse of the USSR are different - which I wrote about. I believe that the history of Soviet and Russian cosmonautics, and the current economic situation of the Russian Federation, are proof of this.
                  That's all. I think further discussion of this topic does not make sense - since my arguments did not convince you, but yours did not convince me.
                  Therefore, I thank you for a pleasant time and a civilized exchange of views.
                  Sometimes you get tired of communicating with a stupid shkolota and members of the "St. Elon Musk" sect.
                12. ccsr
                  ccsr 29 December 2020 12: 48
                  +1
                  Quote: Strelets1
                  "... In July 1974, Yuri Artyukhin and Pavel Popovich safely started to the station.

                  - Those guys had a special specialization, - Vladimir Polyachenko recalls. - They had to be able to determine whether a missile base is under them or a farm, learn to identify ground targets and independently decide whether or not they are interesting to the military leadership. They were taught to handle the most complicated equipment, to transfer the film. It is now possible to conduct an electron-optical survey and transmit it to Earth via satellite communication, but then this was not ...
                  There was a capsule at the station, the cosmonauts put a film in it, and it flew down to a given area (if the capsule hit the wrong place, the option of detonating it with all the secret data was provided) ...

                  I don't know who wrote this, but the person is clearly not in the subject. The fired capsules were on the early reconnaissance satellites, and not at the station, because films were already being developed there and its negative was dumped over the radio channel to the ground point.
                  In general, do not believe everything that they write - sometimes people simply pass off their speculations as reality.
                  Quote: Strelets1
                  It is a well-known fact that manned systems are much more expensive than unmanned ones.

                  They are also unreliable - once even the docking did not occur, and the astronauts returned to Earth without completing the task at the station. That is why they put an end to these programs - too expensive, unreliable and ineffective.
                  Quote: Strelets1
                  I do not think so, and in my turn I believe that the true reasons for the collapse of the USSR are different - which I wrote about.

                  Stay with your opinion, only I think that you do not even know the order of prices for the cheapest research projects, otherwise you would think about the question of why the people no longer believed the CPSU.
      3. Strelets1
        Strelets1 28 December 2020 16: 06
        0
        Yes, to finish.
        About manned astronautics and "dreamers".
        The father of manned astronautics and part-time "dreamer" was, as you know, S.P. Korolyov. It was he who sent Y. Gagarin, G. Titov into space ... planned and designed the space station for manned flights to the Moon and Mars (which were then continued by V. Glushko and others).
        Chelomey also dreamed of manned flights and systems - but they did not let him take it up close - Almazy is his only manned system, and TKS never flew in a manned version - Korolev and Feoktistov won the upper hand with the Soyuz.

        And so, of course, because, you see ... hehe ...
        Of course, manned systems are more expensive - and not only in space, but also in the air, and in water, and on land ...
        Therefore ... hehe ... one of the ways to improve the well-being of the residents of the Russian Federation, apparently, in your opinion, should be the massive introduction of unmanned robotic systems into all these areas ... and since we ourselves only do what we waste money on insanely expensive projects, we should turn to the "genius of modern engineering" and he will create (cheap) for us unreasonable and Tesla with an autopilot and a bathyscaphe that will pull us out of a flooded cave and a bunch of all kinds of cheap and useful things - from the Internet at the speed of light to starships ... to Mars (and back?) ... and there will be everyone - both a starship and a piece of free sausage ... and ... hehe ... full of happiness pants ...
      4. Strelets1
        Strelets1 28 December 2020 17: 23
        0
        Quote: ccsr
        Why do we need the achievements of past years if they did not save our country from collapse, but on the contrary led to a tragedy?

        You have a clear violation of causation. It was not achievements in astronautics that destroyed the USSR, but strategic miscalculations and mistakes made by its political leadership in the post-war and subsequent years ...
        I already wrote which ones.
        Quote: ccsr
        Not only on this program, but also on many others, which were a heavy burden on our budget. In order not to strain you, I will note that the cost of BAM was slightly more than the cost of Buran, only our descendants will use BAM, and Buran has become a monument to our mismanagement.


        In order not to strain you in turn, I will refer to the data of Gubanov, cited by him in the four-volume edition "The Triumph and Tragedy of Energia" - the costs of creating the Energia-Buran space station amounted to about a tenth of the total expenditures of the Ministry of General Affairs in that period. , - "This is only 10%, Karl !!!" But in addition to expenses on the line of the Ministry of General Machinery, there were also expenses of the Ministry of Medium Machine Building, Ministry of Tyazhmash, and a bunch of other budgetary expenses ...
        Regarding the cost of BAM and Buran - look how many BAMs were "released" to "fraternal" and "friendly countries" - compare at least with those amounts of debts that they simply "forgiven" - already in today's Russia ... which (with a more feeble economy in comparison with the USSR) for some reason did not collapse from the loss of such amounts, as well as from the same endless "reforms" - in the "back and forth" regime - including the military ... for the rearmament of the Armed Forces - from the Strategic Missile Forces, the missile submarine fleet and strategic aviation to the control systems of the RF Armed Forces. One import substitution in the line of missile and aviation technology from the "non-cash" in what resulted do you have any idea of ​​the amount? What resulted in the creation of Yars, Topols, Vanguards, Sarmat, Bulava, Borey and other weapons?
        How much did the BAMs cost? And you are slipping liberalists' gum on me - about Buran and Almazy "who destroyed the USSR" ...
        Quote: ccsr
        The flight of an astronaut itself is a great stress for the human body, and being on board a person is dangerous for a number of reasons, not to mention the fact that human life support systems are extra weight in orbit. So your comparison with osnaz specialists is inappropriate - they are still on the ground, and the cost of their maintenance is penny compared to those who are in orbit.


        There is no need to distort and refer to the stresses and dangers of human being in space - you directly stated that "making an astronaut a specialist for operational reconnaissance is impossible. " I have proved to you with practical examples - that the functions of an operator of an electronic reconnaissance station (complex) are quite capable of even a specialist with a secondary education, which is proved by the work of operators of OSNAZ units and formations on land, sea (including submarine) and air RER complexes. during the Soviet era. As for the working capacity and the time spent in space, the practice of working in space has actually shown that cosmonauts are capable of performing more complex, laborious work on board orbital stations rather than the functions of an operator of the RER complex. Moreover, the duration of stay in orbit is more than a year. Compared to this, the working time of the Almazy crews is ridiculously short.

        P.S. Thanks to V.N., Chelomey and his developments at Almazy, we now have experience in creating OPS - from Salyuts and Mirov to the current ISS - at least its Russian segment. The Chelomeevskaya LV UR-500, which has become a Proton, is still a masterpiece of world rocketry and carries along with the royal R-7 the entire Russian cosmonautics. Not in many ways by the way inferior to the newest launch vehicle F-9-B5 I.Mask in launch cost.
        Thanks to the creation of the Energia-Buran rocket launcher, today we have a family of RD -170 rocket engines, which today all new promising lines of Soyuz and Angara launch vehicles are supported. Incl. and the RD-0120 hydrogen rocket engines and the hydrogen infrastructure created at Baikonur and reproduced now in Voronezh. All new developments in hydrogen technology, as well as the development of methane engines, are based on it. The experience in the development of Buran and Borov, as well as the developments in the Spiral, Max, Clipper, will be useful more than once - in the course of research and development work on the Avangard theme and its subsection Avangard-Pilot.
        The future for operation from Earth to LEO is for manned and unmanned aerodynamic landing systems - this is unambiguous. Both the Dream Chayzer and the X-37V are made and are not being made in vain. And the PRC is also on the alert.
  • Maxwrx
    Maxwrx 24 December 2020 15: 18
    0
    Yes, I read about them, but how often it was necessary to launch such a heavy rocket with a mass of up to 100 tons. But up to 25t was needed much more often, and a blizzard could only do this when launched on an expensive rocket, and in general, why is it needed then if there is energy and you can do without a blizzard? In general, we are talking about 2 different concepts. The Americans have created a shuttle for 8 cosmonauts and the ability to output up to 25 tons, ours have created an extremely highly specialized blizzard (at a launch price it is not comparable with alliances and protons), and super-heavy energy (for launching large loads) and long-distance flights (the moon). In my opinion, a blizzard is not needed in this scheme at all.
    1. Strelets1
      Strelets1 24 December 2020 19: 40
      0
      Quote: MaxWRX
      Yes, I read about them, but how often it was necessary to launch such a heavy rocket with a mass of up to 100 tons.

      Well, judging by the practice of the USA and the Russian Federation in the withdrawal of PN on heavy and superheavy carriers - not often. For example, Falcon Heavy - only three launches for the entire time - and all three - with an obvious "underload" from the declared carrying capacity.
      But, I believe, with the beginning of the practical implementation of the US lunar program and its component subprograms, the situation will change. The Starship / Superhevy project, even in a truncated (lunar) version, is unlikely to be implemented by 2024, as stated. Two months later, in February 2021, the second stage of the HLS competition - let's see what NASA has to say. In terms of actual and declared cost parameters, the SLS project is extremely expensive - at the level and even more expensive than shuttles under the Space Shuttle program, the cost of a single launch of which was estimated at the time of completion of the program at 775 million USD. The cost of launching SLS is estimated in the range of 0.8 - 1.2 billion USD.

      Quote: MaxWRX
      But up to 25t was needed much more often, and a blizzard could only do this when launched on an expensive rocket, and in general, why is it needed then if there is energy and you can do without a blizzard? In general, we are talking about 2 different concepts.


      Yes, that's right - the concepts are different. Only now, all the modern manned aerodynamic landing systems that are being developed still use the concept of the Energia-Buran system - and Dream Chayzer, and Space Ryder, and the Chinese shuttle too. Probably all the same, this solution is more promising - all the more so if the launch vehicle is partially reusable (according to the first stage), as in general it was planned in the RN Energia project.
  • Vadim237
    Vadim237 24 December 2020 00: 00
    0
    Already produced in the form of SLS - but like Saturn 5, it is very expensive in terms of launch cost and what is the point of an American need to deal with Saturn 5 when they had Titans Delta Shuttles and they coped well with their tasks of launching the payload into orbit and the payload for Saturn 5 was not because deep space with manned flights has not been engaged since the 70s.
  • d4rkmesa
    d4rkmesa 22 December 2020 17: 31
    0
    You mean what A5, I wonder? The same one about which Rogozin said 2 years ago that it does not correspond to the TK and a new one needs to be made? For which "Eagle" is too heavy and you need to make an oxygen-hydrogen upper stage? The most expensive options for the military will fly, however, infrequently - 2 times a year. Until, finally, new "Unions" are ready.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 24 December 2020 00: 04
      0
      He talked about the A5P for Orel and the heavy version of the A5B - but the latter will fly only in 2027.
  • Mikhail m
    Mikhail m 21 December 2020 19: 27
    -2
    "And plans,
    what before
    at forehead stations
    delayed
    begging brake,
    today
    get up
    from a blue day,
    iron
    and forming like a stone. "

    With regard to plans and prospects, Rogozin is ahead of the rest. As for the case ... What load did the "heavy" rocket carry on the second launch?
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 21 December 2020 19: 39
      +3
      Quote: Mikhail M
      As for the case ... What load did the "heavy" rocket carry on the second launch?

      In general, in Soviet times, they could carry out five or more launches without load until they achieve complete accident-free operation. Yes, and a satellite for a geostationary orbit is not worth a penny - it's a pity to risk this during experimental launches. So your question is inappropriate.
      1. Mikhail m
        Mikhail m 22 December 2020 18: 41
        0
        There is such a kunshtuk, the overall weight model is called. It costs a penny, but you can check the capabilities of the carrier. And 2m to display marasmus as a heavy carrier.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 22 December 2020 18: 52
          +3
          Quote: Mikhail M
          There is such a kunshtuk, the overall weight model is called.

          Of course - the Americans even claimed that we had just such a model of the lunar module caught in the Bay of Biscay by our reconnaissance ships. And we practiced this - even a reduced copy of our Buran or some other reentry vehicle was in the photographs of foreign publications in Soviet times.
          Quote: Mikhail M
          It costs a penny, but you can check the capabilities of the carrier.

          And this is certainly reasonable from all points of view - I think so ...
  • K-50
    K-50 21 December 2020 21: 13
    0
    Recently, the Zvezda TV channel released the Military Acceptance program, which this time was dedicated to the preparation for the launch of the Angara-A5 launch vehicle - the most powerful rocket for space launches in the entire history of space exploration by our country.

    The Energia rocket was much more powerful, but for some reason the groundwork is not used. Only its "sides" in the form of "Zenith" flew. sad
  • nikvic46
    nikvic46 22 December 2020 06: 25
    0
    Starting a car is always impressive. Especially when you are around. I must say, America and Russia have decided to set the bar high. China is slowly moving towards the same. It seems to me that China has decided to repeat the entire path of the last century. Who in this trio will come to the Moon faster is still unknown.
  • Engineer Schukin
    Engineer Schukin 22 December 2020 16: 13
    +1
    Quote: donavi49
    And now it is number 2 in terms of launches in the world, second only to China.

    This is only for the nominal number of launches. But F-9 is a heavy launch vehicle.
    And only under the Starlink program, they brought 2020+ tons of PN in 260, and a total of 300+ tons, which China never dreamed of. You can't even speak for Roskosmos.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Kildin
    Kildin 22 December 2020 19: 00
    +2
    Quote: ccsr
    the failure of the Mask in the next tests

    Can you clarify exactly what the failure consisted? A bad landing? Come on, they have been perfecting the F9 landing for several years, but now it works like a clock.
  • The comment was deleted.