Military Review

"Nuclon" through the eyes of an amateur

184
"Nuclon" through the eyes of an amateur

Not being even in the slightest degree a specialist in space technology, I will nevertheless try to understand: what does the actual termination of work on the program "Nuclear Power Propulsion Plant of a Megawatt Class" mean? As well as the start of research on the Nuclon program, which was loudly announced in the media?


For brevity, let's call the first program “Program 1” and the second “Program 2”.

Program 1


How to evaluate the change of direction? Is this a step forward or a temporary retreat?

The reason was the listening of a certain gentleman who spoke on the program of the Zvezda channel and presented as an expert. This "expert" confidently said that "Nuclon" would be able to fly to Mars in a couple of months, because in space one could move with any acceleration, since there was no air there.

From such a pearl, I was somewhat dazed. Because the laws of physics are not able to abolish even our legislators: even though there are physically gifted individuals among them like Valuev, Khorkina or Rodnina.

Let's take it for granted that any of these programs, if successful, will give Russia colossal new opportunities in space: the study of the Moon and distant planets. Monitoring the atmosphere and oceans. Intelligence service. Space debris cleaning. Correction of satellite orbits. If necessary, the placement of space weapons.

I think that the creation of automatic, rather than manned, vehicles is also an advantage, not a disadvantage: automatic devices now work better in space than people. They do not need a life support system, time to sleep, protection from radiation ... Anyway, plans like the colonization of Mars seem like a harmful and utopian idea.

In some cases, I give not literary, but my own calculated data. And I ask you to believe me: after all, I have been performing similar assessments for the fifth decade due to my profession.

So let's start with the working body. In both cases, it is xenon. Judging by the publications, ten tons of it will be required per refueling.

Why xenon? But because it is an absolutely corrosive non-aggressive substance with a high density (more than 2 tons per cubic meter) with a low ionization potential. And therefore it is convenient for working in an electric rocket engine, relatively high boiling point.

It is extracted from the air during liquefaction and distillation into nitrogen and oxygen. One ton of air contains about 0,39 g of xenon, and therefore it is very expensive. To obtain 10 tons of xenon, it will be necessary to liquidate and distill at least 25 million tons of air! Does Russia have the necessary capacities, or will it be necessary to build new ones from scratch?

In 2009, the price of xenon was around € 20 per liter of gaseous substance at standard pressure. It is unlikely that xenon has fallen in price in 9 years, and the euro is subject to inflation.

A liter of gaseous xenon weighs about 5,85 g. Hence, it is easy to estimate the price of refueling the device: 34 million euros in 2009 prices. For the current ruble, this means three billion. Too much.

Where can you fly at this gas station? Really to Mars, as we are promised?

Let's count.

Program 1 assumed the use of an ID-50 ion engine in combination with a 1 MW power source.

Characteristics of the ID-500 engine: thrust 0,75 N, power consumption 35 kW, specific impulse 7000 s (70000 m / s). It can be seen that the apparatus can include up to 20 engines with a total thrust of 15 N.

It follows from Newton's first law that such a thrust allows an apparatus with a mass of 50 tons to provide an acceleration of 0,0003 m / s / s. With such an acceleration in the absence of the attraction of other bodies, the speed can grow by 1 km / s in 38 days, by 10 km / s in a year.

The average change in speed per year will be 5 km / s, and the distance traveled will be 157 million km.

It seems to be a lot, twice the distance to Mars. But…

But the trick is that the influence of massive bodies has not been canceled. The spacecraft will spin up to the moon's orbit for 180 days, overcoming gravity. He will continue to overcome it, albeit extremely weakened. And the sun's attraction too.

Further, one should not forget that the spacecraft should be decelerated when approaching Mars and entering its orbit. And braking is no easier than accelerating.

In addition, it will not be possible to fly in a straight line - it will be a very intricate trajectory. So you can safely take a flight to Mars - a year and a half.

But on the other hand, it will be possible to deliver a heavy landing module with a bunch of equipment, and maybe with the possibility of launching from a planet with soil samples for subsequent sending to Earth.

It should be noted that the further we fly, the greater the advantages over chemical missiles. The reason is that you can accelerate for a long time. By the way, how long does it take?

How long will xenon reserves last at maximum thrust?

It should be remembered here that the specific impulse coincides with the velocity of the products outflow from the nozzle. Hence, it is not difficult to calculate the xenon consumption at a thrust of 15 N:

F = d (mV) / dt
F = 15 N, V ​​= 70000 m / s, t = 1 s.

Hence, m / t = F / V = ​​0.00021 kg / s = 0,21 g / s.

This is enough for a year and a half of continuous engine operation and reaching a maximum speed of 15 km / s.

Here someone can blame the fact that instead of calculating according to Tsiolkovsky's formula, the calculation "head-on" was used. But the mass of the working fluid in the electric transport system is small, some 20% instead of 95, so we’re not much mistaken.

Needless to say, the Pioneer accelerated to sixty: there the speed was achieved due to complex gravitational maneuvers near Jupiter and Saturn. But an important conclusion: there is no need to talk about any flights to the outer planets in two months, as it is written in many sources.

Program 2


And what about Nuclon?

And here's what.

Judging by the publications, the power going to power the engines in the Nuclon will amount to 0,45 MW with the same mass of the entire apparatus with the payload as in Program 1.

The reactor and radiators seem to be the same. But instead of a gas turbine with an electric generator, a thermoelectric generator will be used.

Apparently, something has not grown together with the machine technology of energy conversion. But the efficiency of thermal converters is lower, hence the decrease in electrical power by half.

When using ion engines, the thrust, and accordingly, the acceleration, in this case will drop by half - to 7,5 N and 0,00015 m / s / s. These are absurdly low values. That is why, probably, ion thrusters were replaced by plasma ones of the SPD-290 type, which have good thrust (1,5 N with a power consumption of 30 kW).

Up to 15 such engines can be installed, the total thrust will be 22 N (more than in Program 1), but the specific impulse is 3000 s (30000 m / s), i.e. more than two times less than with ID-500. Accordingly, the specific consumption of xenon increases by a factor of two, and the maximum acceleration in empty space is reduced to 7 km / s. And the advantages over "chemistry" in terms of the duration of flights to distant planets are lost - if you do not resort to gravitational maneuvers.

True, there remains an excellent power-to-weight ratio and cargo capacity: none of the existing missiles can pull ten tons into deep space.

What are the prospects?

Oddly enough, but Program 2 can facilitate manned missions to the Moon. No, "Nuclon" will not be lucky for the astronauts, but it will be able to deliver the takeoff and landing module and fuel to the lunar orbit in parts. And this will make it possible to do without the insanely expensive super-heavy missiles.

It is unlikely that in the foreseeable future it will be possible to significantly increase the specific power of the reactor. Also, radiators will remain massive for a long time. And their dimensions cannot be reduced by any tricks at all: the Stefan-Boltzmann law cannot be prohibited.

But nothing prohibits improving the characteristics of engines, as well as moving away from expensive xenon to cheap lithium, iodine, krypton. And such work is underway.

In the same way, work will probably continue on the machine generation of electricity, or increase the efficiency of thermoelectric generators.

Сonclusion


Nuclon is definitely a step back compared to Program 1.

But this step allows you to master what has been successfully developed in the framework of program 2 and move forward.

So space (both far and near) will be ours.
Author:
184 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Mikhail m
    Mikhail m 24 December 2020 18: 13
    -9
    space (both far and near) will be ours.
    Did the author consult with Rogozin? He, too, enthusiastically tells that just about, literally in the next decade, or a little later, a miracle will happen.
    1. Ilya-spb
      Ilya-spb 24 December 2020 18: 17
      +13
      I believe in our scientists. They can handle it.

      And they will make a nuclear tug! Humanity needs Space!
      1. Mikhail m
        Mikhail m 24 December 2020 18: 22
        -2
        Under the guidance of "effective managers"? When work is progressing not thanks to, but in spite of, the results are long to wait.
      2. Doctor
        Doctor 24 December 2020 19: 02
        +3

        +2
        I believe in our scientists. They can handle it.

        And they will make a nuclear tug! Humanity needs Space!

        Done. Direct-flow.
        Pluto Americans first, then we

        RD-0410, aka "Irbit", aka "IR-100".
        Developed by the Khimavtomatika design bureau, Voronezh.
        The project was closed in 1985.
        The reason - we need big lead panties for the crew. laughing
        And for electronics too ...

        1. astepanov
          24 December 2020 20: 21
          +8
          Quote: Arzt
          Done. Direct-flow.
          Pluto Americans first, then we

          RD-0410, aka "Irbit", aka "IR-100".

          It is not co-current. He worked on hydrogen. The specific impulse is about 1000 s (compare with the Hall effect motor - 3000 s and with ID-500 - 7000 s.
          1. nobody75
            nobody75 24 December 2020 21: 30
            0
            What does the word "direct-flow" mean !!! ???
            Sincerely
            1. Doctor
              Doctor 24 December 2020 22: 14
              0
              What does the word "direct-flow" mean !!! ???

              The original design was for rockets in the atmosphere.

              https://topwar.ru/156377-jadernyj-raketnyj-dvigatel-rd0410-smelaja-razrabotka-bez-perspektiv.html
          2. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 25 December 2020 03: 40
            0
            But nothing prohibits improving the characteristics of engines, as well as moving away from expensive xenon to cheap lithium, iodine, krypton. And such work is underway.
            I just wanted to inquire about the substitutes, but already the author "atpyridil". )))
            1. Vasiliev S.
              Vasiliev S. 26 December 2020 08: 50
              0
              I didn't understand about lithium ...
              It's light!
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 26 December 2020 09: 07
                0
                Quote: VasilievS
                I didn't understand about lithium ...
                It's light!
                Figs knows, I'm not the author, you seem to have missed the question! )
                But maybe because it is the only metal with suitable properties?
              2. astepanov
                28 December 2020 12: 52
                +1
                The lighter the better
                Quote: VasilievS
                I didn't understand about lithium ...
                It's light!

                The lower the atomic mass, the higher the specific impulse of the fuel, other things being equal. That is why hydrogen is used in thermal NRE, in chemical the best indicators in oxygen-hydrogen with an excess of hydrogen against stoichiometry.
          3. Vadim237
            Vadim237 25 December 2020 15: 26
            0
            The most important thing in space is the thrust - the speed of the ship depends on it; on ionic ones, the ship will fly for 11 years to Jupiter. This approach is useless for manned long-distance flights, all the more the better is the NLRE oxygen - hydrogen is not compact, but it will fly quickly
          4. El Chuvachino
            El Chuvachino 27 December 2020 19: 25
            -1
            It seems to me, or in your article you missed the fact that Nuclon will lose mass in the process of fulfilling its mission? Payload in the form of launching satellites + reducing the volume of fuel, which is also allocated a lot.
            1. astepanov
              28 December 2020 12: 57
              +1
              Quote: El Chuvachino
              It seems to me, or in your article you missed the fact that Nuclon will lose mass in the process of fulfilling its mission?

              I drew attention in the article to the fact that the change in mass is less than 20 percent - and therefore, for rough estimates, the mass can be considered constant. Moreover, there (in the Tsiolkovsky formula) the mass ratio before / after is under the logarithm. The error is absolutely insignificant. It just will not reach nobodi75.
        2. Nigilist666
          Nigilist666 24 December 2020 21: 35
          +1
          A nucleon is something else, not a jet, but an ionic one powered by a nuclear reactor
          1. nobody75
            nobody75 24 December 2020 22: 15
            0
            Here I am about the same ...
            Sincerely
        3. MBRSS
          MBRSS 25 December 2020 02: 54
          +2
          direct-flow - this is when the oxidizer (or working fluid) flows directly from the environment to the CC (or heating zone). Everything is on board here. It's a pity that the project was canceled. Would fit just for Mars. Yes, and lead panties are needed no thicker than for Nuclon.
    2. nnm
      nnm 24 December 2020 18: 29
      +13
      And now, while Rogozin is in charge of Roscosmos, everyone should fold their hands and wait for a more worthy leader? A lot in our history has been done not because of, but in spite of. And precisely at the cost of the efforts of such caring people as the author of the article.
      I am not a physicist, or an engineer, to assess the correctness of the author's judgments, but the fact that he is fundamentally aimed at the development of our space industry, and not at sawing in the form of building an unnecessary new office of Roskosmos, even me.
    3. astepanov
      24 December 2020 18: 38
      +16
      Quote: Mikhail M
      He, too, enthusiastically tells that just about, literally in the next decade, or a little later, a miracle will happen.

      If you had read carefully, you would have noticed that the author doubts the suitability of the Nuclon system for deep space exploration. And in terms of economic profitability, he is skeptical. And he doubts the availability of the necessary infrastructure. But, nevertheless, "Nuclon" is a beautiful and necessary step if we want to really explore space.
      1. Lexus
        Lexus 24 December 2020 18: 46
        0
        Colleague hi ,
        at Raspilkosmos with Rogozin, any "beautiful step" is nothing more than a jump in place. Alas.
        1. bk316
          bk316 24 December 2020 19: 51
          +14
          at Raspilkosmos with Rogozin, any "beautiful step" is nothing more than a jump in place.

          I'm just curious, sorry I forgot.
          Are you a rocket scientist, auditor, or a big executive to write such things soundly?
          1. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 24 December 2020 20: 07
            -6
            Quote: bk316
            what would be reasonable to write such things?

            You don't need to be a specialist here. It is enough to compare the sums for space development allocated by the United States, China, and Russia, to compare the salaries of managers of space programs, and the effectiveness of them. Simple arithmetic. hi
            1. bk316
              bk316 24 December 2020 20: 14
              +18
              You don't need to be a specialist here.

              This is a deep delusion from which many troubles have happened in history.
              To make reasonable statements of this kind, you MUST be a specialist.
              I bet that a non-specialist does not even represent the economics of the space industry and therefore cannot judge the efficiency.

              Here half of the people cannot solve the quadratic equation (and this is the same SIMPLE ARITHMETICS), people do not know the school curriculum, but with wild aplomb they COPY a different nonsense. You say simple arithmetic, well, let's examine the same Lexus in arithmetic. am

              Actually, I'm not even against all-fighters or fighters,
              I am against obscurantists, and especially against how they stray into flocks.
              Nazism, anti-Semitism, sectarianism and this demonstrative obscurantism of one order of things.
              1. Ingvar 72
                Ingvar 72 24 December 2020 20: 32
                +1
                Eck you shoveled everything together! And in fact what? Are you saying that we are ahead of everyone in the space race, despite the smallest space budget? Or that Rogozin is honestly working off his salary, which is higher than that of the heads of NASA and the Chinese space program?
                Compare the exhaust.
                1. Usher
                  Usher 25 December 2020 01: 15
                  0
                  Quote: Ingvar 72
                  Eck you shoveled everything together! And in fact what? Are you saying that we are ahead of everyone in the space race, despite the smallest space budget? Or that Rogozin is honestly working off his salary, which is higher than that of the heads of NASA and the Chinese space program?
                  Compare the exhaust.

                  Can I have proofs? About salaries?
                  1. Simargl
                    Simargl 25 December 2020 05: 57
                    0
                    Quote: Usher
                    Can I have proofs? About salaries?
                    Moscow engineering vacancies - less than $ 1000. Is it worthy?
                  2. Ingvar 72
                    Ingvar 72 25 December 2020 08: 20
                    -2
                    Quote: Usher
                    Can I have proofs? About salaries?

                    Have you been banned from Google? All news agencies wrote about this, even TASS and RIA.
                2. bk316
                  bk316 25 December 2020 13: 38
                  +4
                  And in fact what?

                  In fact, the lag in manned astronautics is weakly connected with Rogozin.
                  And the Lexus statement not just unfounded but false.

                  Now I have little connection with this industry, but my father worked directly under the leadership of Chelomey. And for example, Efremov often went to visit his father.
                  So I know something. So we started to lag behind at the end of the 80s, and in the 90s we hopelessly stopped developing. This is me about manned space exploration. Rogozin, as you know, has nothing to do with it.
                  1. Ingvar 72
                    Ingvar 72 25 December 2020 15: 08
                    0
                    Quote: bk316
                    lag in manned space exploration is weakly related to Rogozin

                    Is it loosely connected with the leadership of the industry? belay
                    Then with what (or with whom) is it connected?
                    Let me give you a hint - with an absolutely miserable internal policy of "our" government. In which such paradoxes are possible with the salaries of top management, with losses and lagging industries.
                    1. bk316
                      bk316 25 December 2020 16: 37
                      +1
                      Then with what (or with whom) is it connected?

                      Are you sure you want to raise this issue?
                      Oh well. This is due to the fact that some of the general secretaries (in my opinion, Chernenko or Andropov), even during the Soviet era, said: why do we need manned space exploration at all?
                      Since then, no one up there has answered this question. And it is not clear that spending trillions of rubles on it is a bad idea.
                      And about salaries, you are probably a poor person, otherwise you would know that a salary of 5 or 10 lemmas is practically the same thing and does not affect the results of work. And in general, for example mine, at the level of the material factor goes by the wayside, and at the level of the top Gazprom, it becomes hygienic (there is such a term in the theory of motivation).
                      1. Ingvar 72
                        Ingvar 72 25 December 2020 16: 53
                        -1
                        Everything, I understand you. All is well, lovely marquise ...
                      2. bk316
                        bk316 25 December 2020 16: 55
                        +2
                        All is well, lovely marquise ...

                        They misunderstood: on the contrary, the mare died. Long.
                        It is unclear whether it will be possible to grow a new one.
                        About 3 years ago, I confidently wrote no - do not wait in our lifetime.
                        Now there are vague doubts, doubts actually not from Roscosmos, everything is just as dull there. But in some related areas, everything is much more optimistic than I thought, and manned astronautics is not just one state corporation, but an entire economy.
        2. Revival
          Revival 25 December 2020 11: 06
          +1
          Rogozin rocket engineer, auditor?
          and the philologist ...
          "The trampoline works" ... it was very revealing
        3. Artunis
          Artunis 25 December 2020 12: 38
          +1
          I may be wrong, but he looks more like a patient.
    4. Genry
      Genry 24 December 2020 19: 06
      0
      Quote: astepanov
      If you had read carefully, you would have noticed that the author doubts the suitability of the Nuclon system for deep space exploration.

      But the author specifically called his creation "Nuclon" through the eyes of an amateur "and frankly described the level of his conclusions:
      Not being even in the slightest degree a specialist in space technology, I will try to understand ...

      According to the principle: "The truth is somewhere there ...".

      The reason was the listening of a certain gentleman who spoke on the program of the Zvezda channel and presented as an expert. This "expert" confidently told

      As in the song "Somewhere where we sometimes have someone ...".
      Who???

      In short, we are not looking at the amateur:
      1. astepanov
        24 December 2020 20: 58
        +6
        Quote: Genry
        In short, we are not looking at the amateur:

        With all due respect, but a specialist would not call ten tons of a working fluid - xenon - a payload. It's like calling oxygen and kerosene a payload. Further, at first he says that "people with lowered something there" yell that the system will crawl to the Moon for 200 days - and after a few minutes he confirms: yes, 200 days. Say, because you have to carry the payload module - i.e. half the same xenon! It looks like he could say: now if it were without xenon, then it would have flown like that! But calculations show: reduce the mass of the "Nuclon" by 10 tons - and nothing will change dramatically. Specific thrust will increase by less than 20%. There are enough other blunders. Actually, I have not seen a single figure with reference to reliable sources, I have not seen a single calculation. On what basis do you think that Konanykhin is not an amateur? Maybe he is a specialist, but this does not follow from the video presented.
        1. Genry
          Genry 24 December 2020 21: 55
          -1
          Quote: astepanov
          a specialist would not call ten tons of the working fluid - xenon - a payload.

          You have a leaky perception: I don't see here - I don't hear here ...
          The payload, in that case, will be a 450 kW radar. Together with the weight of the xenon tanks, it will be 10 tons. There will be another 10 tons in the tanks ...


          Quote: astepanov
          Further, at first he says that "people with lowered something there" yell that the system will crawl to the Moon for 200 days - and after a few minutes he confirms: yes, 200 days. Say, because you have to carry the payload module - i.e. half the same xenon!


          It dawned on you that only half of the payload is xenon.
          He himself said 200 days at 12:36 without any reference to your screams.
          Quote: astepanov
          It looks like he could say: ....

          Your assumptions are your delusions and should not be attributed to others.
          Quote: astepanov
          There are enough other blunders.

          But you invented this blunder yourself and assumed ...
          Quote: astepanov
          On what basis do you believe that Konanykhin is not an amateur?

          On the basis of comparing his judgments with you, he is simply an Assistant of Cosmonautics. But he directly says that he was engaged in cryogenic engineering at the KB on space issues. It is impossible to do this without joining with other bordering developments.
        2. Cosm22
          Cosm22 24 December 2020 23: 16
          +6
          Isn't this the same Mr. Konanykhin, who issued the work “Elon Musk's Macaroni Monster” on the mountain in 2016? And who claimed that "the very idea of ​​landing the first stage of a launch vehicle on planet Earth, in his deepest conviction, is a stillborn lump"? Now, however, he fell silent. Have you retrained for Nuclon?
          The problem for this great astronaut is that he crows long before midnight.
          The idea with Nuclon has the right to exist. Certainly. But why talk about him as if everything is already on the ointment and everything is working? His YouTube channel is possible. This is how he earns likes. And for bread. But you need to know when to stop. In your fantasies, not wishful thinking.
          Meanwhile, there are still a lot of problems.
          SPD-290 already approved? Previously, it was about the 230th. In the amount of two dozen. Some work was underway on 290, but it's hard to say in what condition it is.
          KB "Arsenal" seems to be still rushing between the choice of turbine or thermal emission nuclear power plants.
          10 t is, of course, good. But to drag them 200 Earth days ... How else to understand the meaning of the phrase that the payload should be delivered from the near-Earth orbit to the low orbit of the Moon in a period of no more than 4800 hours?
          Okay, I got it. But what is the meaning of the concept? Delivered 10 tons to the moon - what's next? What to do with the device? Will it serve as a source of energy? 3 years? For what / who? Will the moon itself shine through? How to use 450 kW? Or will the unit be returned to Earth? Mmm ... I'm afraid to even imagine such a prospect. Whatever one may say - you can't do without svehtyazh. For Nuclon is only, figuratively speaking, a low-speed cargo barge. The same Chang'e-5 delivered 8,2 tons to the moon in a week.
          So what is the concept of Nuclon? Will it fly not to the Moon, but to Saturn-Jupiter? Yeah ...
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 25 December 2020 15: 34
            0
            The nucleon is more suitable as energy generation, but not for flight - ion engines, like plasma engines up to hundreds of kilometers per second, cannot quickly accelerate the ship, only gas-phase nuclear-powered liquid-propellant engines on oxygen and hydrogen will not be able to do this without them there will be no long-range manned flights to other planets since the longer a person is in outer space, the more this will affect his health
            1. Vasiliev S.
              Vasiliev S. 26 December 2020 08: 53
              +2
              Quote: Vadim237
              gas-phase nuclear fuel rocket engines on oxygen and hydrogen

              You either take off the cross or put on your panties
      2. astepanov
        24 December 2020 21: 29
        +5
        Quote: Genry

        In short, we are not looking at the amateur:

        To begin with, Kanonykhin is a specialist in refrigeration engineering. He never worked on the development of rocketry directly. In his speech that you are referring to, there is not a single calculated figure, not a single reference to a technical document. Specialist, you say? But a specialist will never call the working fluid (xenon) a "payload". Will not speak in declarations. Nuclear engines and electric rocket engines will not interfere in one heap, and even more so to find fault with some of them, because these are fundamentally different things with their own shortcomings and advantages. Will not water opponents because they said that you need to fly 200 days to the moon, and after a few minutes he will say the same thing himself. He will not argue that it will take a long time to fly to the Moon, because the payload interferes (its fraction is too small to influence anything fundamentally). In general, there are plenty of blunders.
        And in order to perform the simplest estimates using the basics of mechanics, calculate the flow rate of the working fluid and other little things, you don't need to be Glushko or Korolyov. Trust me, in 99% of cases these are the basics that specialists use.
        1. Yura
          Yura 24 December 2020 22: 10
          -3
          Quote: astepanov
          But a specialist will never call the working fluid (xenon) a "payload".

          Just a question, but the excess of xenon of 10 tons, which he carries, but already for the operation of the station for the purpose of generating energy, let's say in the orbit of the Moon, to ensure the work, there may be even for months and years of modules docked with people and laboratories in the future, can be called payload? The "Tug" itself, which is not only "tax" but also a life support station generating email. energy can also be called a payload?
          1. astepanov
            24 December 2020 23: 24
            +1
            Quote: Jura
            And the excess of xenon of 10 tons, which he carries, but already for the operation of the station for the purpose of generating energy, let's say in the orbit of the Moon, to ensure the work, maybe even for months and years of modules with people and laboratories docked in the future, can you call a payload?

            No xenon is needed to operate the Nuclon as a power plant. Xenon is ONLY the working medium of an electric rocket.
            1. Yura
              Yura 24 December 2020 23: 47
              +1
              Quote: astepanov
              this is ONLY the working medium of an electric rocket.

              A bit wrong - xenon acts as a working fluid in a rocket engine, the design of which provides for the refueling of this working fluid, that is, we can say that xenon is a consumable?
        2. Genry
          Genry 24 December 2020 22: 40
          -2
          Quote: astepanov
          Let's start with the fact that Kanonykhin is a specialist in refrigeration engineering.

          You are misleading! Cryogenic - this is a completely different order of temperatures.
          Quote: astepanov
          In his speech that you are referring to, there is not a single calculated figure, not a single reference to a technical document.

          Can you also lay out all the drawings?
          Search and count if your head allows.
          Quote: astepanov
          Specialist, you say? But a specialist will never call the working fluid (xenon) a "payload".

          Prove that you are useless. It's not ballast.
          And you are already here in writing distinguished themselves about the first law .... No need to aggravate.

          Quote: astepanov
          Will not speak in declarations. Nuclear engines and electric rocket engines will not interfere in one heap, and even more to find fault with some of them, because they are fundamentally different things with their own shortcomings and advantages. Will not water opponents because they said that you need to fly 200 days to the moon, and after a few minutes you will say the same thing yourself. He will not argue that it will take a long time to fly to the Moon, because the payload interferes (its fraction is too small to affect anything fundamentally).

          You "will not say declarations"?
          Where does it get in the way of a bunch of nuclear and ionic? Where are the rest of the facts of your claims?
          At what minute of the video did the opponents say about 200 days?
          And where did he say that interferes useful ....?
          And again your useless load .... in the form of a set of words.
          Quote: astepanov
          And in order to perform the simplest estimates using the basics of mechanics, calculate the flow rate of the working fluid and other little things, you don't need to be Glushko or Korolyov. Trust me, in 99% of cases these are the basics that specialists use.

          Ask your neighbor and he will calculate for you - it's elementary ... Why jam a video with the basics for schoolchildren.
        3. MBRSS
          MBRSS 25 December 2020 03: 19
          +4
          Let's start with the fact that Kanonykhin is a specialist in refrigeration engineering.

          cosmoconspirologist and journalist of Radio Russia. Leads the program "Radio University", where all aspects of life are discussed, from history and biology to thermonuclear fusion. Cosmophone - "Hydroblow" :)
          As for the TEM, your estimates only confirmed my speculative assumptions that in two months it will not be able to reach Mars (using the available ionic systems). And if we want to travel to the outskirts of the solar system, then now is the time to throw barrels of xenon into the desired distant orbits for refueling. They will arrive there in about 20 years. You look, and the tug will be ripe by this time.
      3. SovAr238A
        SovAr238A 24 December 2020 22: 35
        +4
        [quote = Genry]
        In short, we are not looking at the amateur:

        I said so many absurdities ...
        Is fuel included in the payload? This is not just nonsense - it is a criminal mistake ...
        He needs a lot of energy "to scan the moon deep into the depths" ... - How do geological exploration expeditions make deep sounding to a depth of several kilometers over huge areas, having only a gasoline generator? Can it be easier to pour out a bunch of sensors to the moon, which will work synchronously?
        1. Genry
          Genry 25 December 2020 00: 13
          +1
          Quote: SovAr238A
          Is fuel included in the payload? This is not just nonsense - it is a criminal mistake ...

          Where is the criterion for the payload? It is useless to talk about it without an appropriate regulation / document.
          Quote: SovAr238A
          He needs a lot of energy "to scan the moon deep into the depths" ... - How do geological exploration expeditions make deep sounding to a depth of several kilometers over huge areas, having only a gasoline generator?

          You are confusing radar with seismic (electrical, gravity and magnetic).
          You need to know the location of the scattered sensors and the source of the signal / explosion very accurately (there is a very high energy consumption) otherwise the 3D model will not work. The number of these devices will be simply enormous and will not fit into a mass commensurate with a radar.
    5. ghby
      ghby 25 December 2020 09: 03
      0
      Quote: astepanov
      If you had read carefully, you would have noticed that the author doubts the suitability of the Nuclon system for deep space exploration. And in terms of economic profitability, he is skeptical. And he doubts the availability of the necessary infrastructure.

      Let the author doubt it, but our "partners" do not doubt it and on December 16 of this year adopted the Memorandum on the National Strategy for the Development of Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion Systems (Directive on Space Policy-6). Here is the link https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/memorandum-national-strategy-space-nuclear-power-propulsion-space-policy-directive-6/

  • andr327
    andr327 24 December 2020 18: 17
    -5
    Something reminds me of the organization of the ROC in the previous articles "Our" Pentagon Wars "-2. Chaos of development work." Ragozin tee company show an effective system of cutting the allocated money without achieving concrete results.
    But the article is a plus for our comprehension of cosmic problems.
  • nnm
    nnm 24 December 2020 18: 22
    0
    An interesting article, it's a pity that I taught physics poorly at school. If it’s not difficult, please answer the stupid question: how are these vehicles planned to be disposed of if they work in Earth orbits? Deep space launch? And if there is a failure of systems, is there a likelihood of a subsequent fall from orbit to Earth of these vehicles and what will be the environmental consequences?
    And an even more stupid question: do these systems independently reach the space velocity necessary to overcome the attraction, or are additional booster units / carrier supposed to be?
    1. astepanov
      24 December 2020 18: 32
      +6
      Let's divide it into two parts: the problems during the launch and the problems in the event of an accident in space. A start-up accident is not terrible in terms of radiation contamination. Uranium is little radioactive (including 235U). In addition, fuel rods are very strong tubes that are unlikely to collapse even if a rocket explodes.
      The reactor is activated at least 900 km, and then its filling becomes very radioactive. But it seems that they will not lower the system below 900 km. At this height, it can exist for centuries without falling to Earth.
    2. nobody75
      nobody75 24 December 2020 18: 36
      +4
      The author of an "interesting" article, physics, did not teach her, from the word at all ...
      It follows from Newton's first law that such a thrust allows an apparatus with a mass of 50 tons to provide an acceleration of 0,0003 m / s / s

      Actually, from Newton's Second Law ... And the formula in the article, where d (mv) / dt, should be written as v (t) (dm / dt) + m (t) (dm / dt) and we get the Meshchersky equation , and in the future - the Tsiolkovsky formula ... It was necessary to count by it ...
      As for the fall to the ground, I remember one satellite of the "Legend" fell in Canada ...
      Sincerely
      1. nobody75
        nobody75 24 December 2020 18: 38
        0
        Sorry v * dm / dt + m * dv / dt
        Sincerely
      2. astepanov
        24 December 2020 19: 01
        -1
        Quote: nobody75
        Actually, from Newton's Second Law ... And the formula in the article, where d (mv) / dt, should be written as v (t) (dm / dt) + m (t) (dm / dt)

        Yes, from the second - but that's what I used. Next, we look: a = F / m (Newton's second law), F = dp / dt, where p is the momentum, mv. The expiration rate is constant in the ship's own frame of reference. The mass of the ship changes insignificantly because the fuel supply is small compared to the mass of the rest of the system. Therefore, for rough estimates of the maximum speed, there is no need to resort to the Tsiolkovsky equation or the Meshchersky formula: it is enough to assume that m1V1 = M2V2.
        1. nobody75
          nobody75 24 December 2020 19: 05
          +3
          But I did it differently ...

          10 tons of working fluid and 10 id-500 ka in 2 tons can be accelerated to 100 km / s
          Sincerely
          1. astepanov
            24 December 2020 20: 12
            +5
            Quote: nobody75
            But I did it differently ...

            And no wonder. Your reactor and radiators together weigh about two tons. In fact, the mass of the device without fuel is assumed to be in the region of 45 tons. And then you will get a tsifirka in the region of 15 km / s - as I wrote.
            1. nobody75
              nobody75 24 December 2020 20: 16
              +1

              No, it just doesn't work ... 35 km / s anyway
              Sincerely
              1. nobody75
                nobody75 24 December 2020 20: 18
                0
                There is a drip radiator - according to my calculations, which, a year ago, did 15 - this is the maximum ...
                Sincerely
                1. The eye of the crying
                  The eye of the crying 24 December 2020 20: 57
                  +3
                  The drip radiator was abandoned.
                  1. nobody75
                    nobody75 24 December 2020 20: 58
                    -1
                    You can't do anything else. The only way to remove heat in space is through radiation.
                    Sincerely
                    1. The eye of the crying
                      The eye of the crying 24 December 2020 21: 01
                      +2
                      They clearly think it will work.

                      Quote: nobody75
                      The only way to remove heat in space is through radiation.


                      Of course. But it is not the drops that need to radiate.
                      1. nobody75
                        nobody75 24 December 2020 21: 10
                        -1
                        How are you going to get the same ratio of the mass of the coolant to the surface area of ​​the radiation, as in a droplet radiator?
                        Sincerely
                      2. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 24 December 2020 21: 11
                        +1
                        I don't. For the rest, ask the Nuclon developers. They probably don't know something important that you know.
                      3. nobody75
                        nobody75 24 December 2020 21: 12
                        0
                        He asked ... And by the way, you promised to lag behind ...
                        Sincerely
                      4. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 24 December 2020 21: 14
                        0
                        "Lagging behind" means not asking questions. But I answer out of politeness.
                      5. nobody75
                        nobody75 24 December 2020 21: 19
                        0
                        Great, then personally, what principle of the refrigerator can you suggest?
                        Sincerely
                      6. A009
                        A009 24 December 2020 21: 55
                        +3
                        If you are interested, now ordinary emitting panels have been left there. (By the way, the picture in the article is with them and it accurately conveys what is at the factory)
                        The drip lines could not be brought to mind, and the term of fine-tuning strongly shifted the whole thing to the right.
                      7. nobody75
                        nobody75 24 December 2020 22: 08
                        0
                        Plain metal sheet !!! ??? I don’t know - I don’t know ... Aren't you afraid of the reactor core melt? Or the transition of the reactor to a subcritical state due to the melt of the reflector? It is necessary to solve the equation of heat conduction and transfer with these boundary conditions - to calculate the neutron flux ... And play with the reflector materials ...
                        Sincerely
                      8. A009
                        A009 24 December 2020 22: 10
                        0
                        It seems that the people who were clearly in the know decided and counted. I even had the honor to see the corrections (albeit rough ones)
                      9. nobody75
                        nobody75 24 December 2020 22: 14
                        0
                        I have my own technique ... In addition to the standard set of constants and PPPs, I also recalculate by random walks ...
                        Sincerely
                    2. A009
                      A009 24 December 2020 22: 13
                      +2
                      In fact, the drippers and turbines in the first circuit would actually be a breakthrough. And they are not impossible. But there are very debts to fine-tune to working samples. We chose something that has been tested and is easier (if I may say so), realizable, and the deadlines, but within anyway, it is a giant leap forward. A technological leap, even in this form
  • astepanov
    24 December 2020 22: 07
    +2
    Quote: nobody75

    No, it just doesn't work ... 35 km / s anyway
    Sincerely

    Well, let's get together: M1 - 55 tons, M2 - 45 tons, M1 / ​​M2 = 1.222
    ln (1.222) = 0.201. The ID-500 has a specific impulse of 70000 m / s. 70000 * 0,201 = 14000 m / s.
    1. nobody75
      nobody75 24 December 2020 23: 10
      -1
      Where did you get the 45 tons of payload?
      Hangara A5 raises a maximum of 50! Or are you planning to refuel the Nuclon in orbit?
      Picture 15!
      Sincerely
      1. astepanov
        24 December 2020 23: 30
        +2
        In the Tsiolkovsky equation, M2 is the mass of the rocket after fuel burnout. The only mass that Nuclon loses is xenon. So 55 tons is the initial mass, 45 after xenon is burned out. And the output of the 20-ton payload module and the reactor with all the rest of the filling is supposed to be actually separate.
      2. MBRSS
        MBRSS 25 December 2020 03: 33
        +1
        Hangara A5 raises a maximum of 50!

        24 t per LEO (200 km). The final full-size megawatt tug will have to be withdrawn by Yenisei.
  • Revival
    Revival 25 December 2020 14: 31
    0
    That's what kind of people you are!
    There is nothing even to write!)))
    I read, I read comments, but I have nothing to say)))
    Formulas, formulas, megawatts ..., there is nothing for a lawyer to blurt out)))
    Here I came up with))), and Newton's second law?
    It was in the comments about this))
  • astepanov
    24 December 2020 21: 36
    +2
    Quote: nobody75
    But I did it differently ...

    And no wonder: you have incorrect initial data. The mass of xenon is 10 tons, the mass of the apparatus with xenon is 55 tons. Here are the numbers and start off Get something in the region of 15 km / s.
  • astepanov
    24 December 2020 18: 47
    +3
    Quote: nnm
    or are additional boosters / media expected?
    Launching into space with heavy rockets.
  • Operator
    Operator 24 December 2020 18: 23
    -11%
    Spacecrafts for interplanetary nuclear-powered flights are real only on the direct conversion of reactor energy into rocket engine thrust - by pumping helium through the core. All the rest is a pile of budget funds.
    1. Vasiliev S.
      Vasiliev S. 24 December 2020 18: 45
      0
      And what will be the specific impulse?
      1. astepanov
        24 December 2020 20: 24
        -2
        no more than 1000 seconds for a solid-phase nuclear reactor with hydrogen as a working medium. With ammonia, of course, less. Dignity - can start from the Earth. Disadvantages - low specific impulse, radiation problems
    2. nobody75
      nobody75 24 December 2020 21: 06
      +3
      How do you plan to cool the reactor? How to regulate engine thrust?
      Sincerely
      1. Operator
        Operator 25 December 2020 10: 59
        -1
        The working fluid is helium (see gas-phase nuclear rocket engine and gas-phase nuclear jet engine).
        1. nobody75
          nobody75 25 December 2020 12: 26
          -1
          Okay, you launched a reactor in orbit ... Will the nucleon immediately give thrust? And it will fly ... Where? You can't cool the reactor without a working fluid ?!
          Sincerely
          1. Operator
            Operator 25 December 2020 14: 05
            -1
            First, equipping with helium, then starting the reactor.
  • Aviator_
    Aviator_ 24 December 2020 18: 31
    +5
    From Newton's first law it followsthat such a thrust allows an apparatus weighing 50 tons to provide an acceleration of 0,0003 m / s / s.

    Actually, this is Newton's second law, and the first is the law of inertia.
    1. astepanov
      24 December 2020 19: 09
      0
      Quote: Aviator_
      Actually, this is Newton's second law, and the first is the law of inertia.

      Strictly speaking, they speak of the first law simply by virtue of tradition. There is no such law. From the Second Law dV / dt = f / m it follows that when f = 0 dV / dt = 0 - and this is the first law. Thus, the first law is just a consequence of the second and has no independent meaning.
      Nevertheless, of course, I confused the number of the law.
      1. nobody75
        nobody75 24 December 2020 19: 31
        +1
        Forgive me, you still confused the flow rate (approximately equal to the specific impulse) with the flow rate of the working fluid ... And without it, it is difficult to calculate the acceleration ...
        Sincerely
        1. astepanov
          24 December 2020 22: 47
          +1
          Quote: nobody75
          Forgive me, you still confused the flow rate (approximately equal to the specific impulse) with the flow rate of the working fluid ... And without it, it is difficult to calculate the acceleration ...
          To calculate the acceleration, it is enough to know the engine thrust. For ID-500 it is known, the number of engines can be estimated by dividing the generator power by the power of one engine. And I have not confused the specific impulse with the xenon consumption anywhere, just look at the numbers: the specific impulse is 7000 s, my calculated fuel consumption is 0,21 g / s.
          1. nobody75
            nobody75 24 December 2020 23: 07
            0
            Let m be the mass of the rocket v - its velocity u - the velocity of gas outflow in the rocket coordinate system
            From the law of conservation of momentum
            (m- dm) * (v + dv) + dm * (vu) = mv
            mv + mdv-vdm-dmdv + vdm-udm - mv = 0
            mdv-dmdv -udm = 0
            We neglect dmdv as o
            mdv = udm
            mdv / dt = udm / dt
            You see that the equation of jet propulsion includes both the gas outflow velocity and the working fluid flow rate!
            Sincerely
            1. astepanov
              24 December 2020 23: 42
              +1
              Quote: nobody75
              You see that the equation of jet propulsion includes both the gas outflow velocity and the working fluid flow rate!
              The Tsiolkovsky equation includes the specific impulse of the fuel and the mass ratio before / after fuel burnout. No matter how quickly the fuel burns out, the result will be the same. And I did not calculate the dynamics of movement, but the final speed. I was not interested in the dynamics - especially since I would have to rely on the calculation taking into account the influence of the Earth, the Moon, and maybe the Sun - but without a visual and informative result within the framework of this note. Finally, if the force applied to the body is known (i.e., the thrust of the engine), then the dynamics can also be calculated - at least if the change in mass is small, then the estimate under the assumption of constant acceleration gives a result that does not differ much from the calculation by the Tsiolkovsky equation ...
              1. nobody75
                nobody75 24 December 2020 23: 51
                0
                The Tsiolkovsky equation includes the specific impulse of the fuel and the mass ratio before / after fuel burnout.

                Tsiolkovsky's formula is obtained as a SOLUTION OF THE ORDINARY differential equation of jet propulsion !!! There are two speeds - rocket and working fluid outflow. And one expense! I didn't enter anything!
                I was not interested in dynamics

                Did you try to open a textbook on general physics or on Termekh?
                all the more so that it would be necessary to rely on the calculation taking into account the influence of the Earth, the Moon, and maybe the Sun - but without a visual and informative result within the framework of this note.

                If you offered some universal solution to the problem of all the bodies listed by you, you would receive a Nobel Prize in physics!
                Finally, if the force applied to the body is known (i.e., the thrust of the engine), then the dynamics can also be calculated - at least if the change in mass is small

                WHEN REACTIVE MOVEMENT, WEIGHT CHANGE IS SMALL ??? !!!
                Sincerely
                1. astepanov
                  25 December 2020 09: 06
                  0
                  Quote: nobody75
                  If you offered some universal solution to the problem of all the bodies listed by you, you would receive a Nobel Prize in physics!

                  My dear, why a universal solution? Le Verrier discovered the planet without a universal solution. And now the trajectories of spacecraft in space are perfectly calculated without universal solutions (presumably you mean analytical methods) - there are enough numerical methods for this, and everything is determined by the accuracy of the initial data and the availability of computing power.
                  Quote: nobody75
                  WHEN REACTIVE MOVEMENT, WEIGHT CHANGE IS SMALL ??? !!!

                  Have you tried to see the characteristics of the device? Of the 55 tons, only 10 is the working fluid. Failure to take into account the mass variability leads to a relative error of about 5%. And I already showed you that. You are just like Gridasov ...
      2. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 24 December 2020 19: 37
        +2
        Strictly speaking, they speak of the first law simply by virtue of tradition. There is no such law.

        You are really an amateur. Formally, the first law can be deduced from the second - to put the acceleration at zero, and get a uniform and rectilinear motion with a constant speed, which you wrote. But how to choose a frame of reference in which it will be possible to write down the equations of the second law? This is where the first law is needed (in general, this is Galileo's law of inertia) to find a frame of reference (inertial), where the second law is then written, linking force and acceleration. That is, first the choice of the system, then the writing of the equation, and not vice versa.
        1. nobody75
          nobody75 24 December 2020 20: 08
          +3
          The author can refer to the principle of least action and obtain Newton's second law from the Lagrange equations, investigating the action functional itself for a minimum ... However, Newton's first law is still contained in all variational principles, since the position of any material point is described without using higher-order derivatives - L (t, q, q '), where L is the Lagrange function.
          Sincerely
          1. Aviator_
            Aviator_ 24 December 2020 20: 14
            +2
            However, Newton's first law is still contained in all variational principles

            So I am about the same, that without the first law nowhere. Implicitly, it is present everywhere, except, naturally, non-inertial reference systems, and there the equations of mechanics have to be saved by inertial forces.
            1. nobody75
              nobody75 24 December 2020 20: 47
              +4
              There is also the General Theory of Relativity ... There, a flat, pseudo-Euclidean, inertial reference system cannot be globally introduced - only locally at each point. When I was at university, black holes were my weakness ...
              Sincerely
              1. Aviator_
                Aviator_ 24 December 2020 21: 12
                +1
                Well, here we are in the framework of the Newtonian classics. What university did you graduate from?
                1. nobody75
                  nobody75 24 December 2020 21: 17
                  +2
                  Here in the solar system, unfortunately (or fortunately?), Space is flat. Although personally I'm not completely sure. It is possible that there is something relict on the border of the system ...
                  Another thing is surprising - the majority of members of the forum believe that "chemical" RDs can work until the fuel with an oxidizer runs out! And I don't know about the temperature limitation ...
                  Sincerely
                  1. Aviator_
                    Aviator_ 24 December 2020 22: 19
                    +4
                    space is flat.

                    Well, it's probably still three-dimensional Euclidean. And the members of the forum are all different, one Gridasov is worth something! Only for a long time he was gone, boring without him.
                    1. nobody75
                      nobody75 24 December 2020 22: 32
                      0
                      Even a small, relict black hole behind Neptune !!!
                      Below, by the way, conclusions are drawn from the author's "calculations" ...
                      Sincerely
          2. Svetlana
            Svetlana 24 December 2020 22: 32
            +2
            Quote: nobody75
            refer to the principle of least action and obtain Newton's second law from the Lagrange equations

            It is necessary to dig deeper, deriving the Lagrange equations through Feynman path integrals from the model of the Universe based on Poincaré mappings, in which - space, matter, geodesic lines, etc. - must be represented by the properties of the developing hypergraph over the octave field :).
            see https://habr.com/ru/post/518206/
            1. Aviator_
              Aviator_ 24 December 2020 22: 39
              +2
              It is necessary to dig deeper, deriving the Lagrange equations through the Feynman integrals over trajectories from the model of the Universe based on the Poincaré mappings,

              You know, Svetlana, although I am the head of the Department of General Physics, I don't understand anything. This is terribly far from me, I am stuck in applied problems, and this is my bread, I have never done fundamental things.
              1. nobody75
                nobody75 24 December 2020 22: 44
                +1
                This is the Holy Grail of modern theoretical physics - a generalization of the classical action on quantum systems ...
                Sincerely
              2. Reptiloid
                Reptiloid 25 December 2020 11: 59
                0
                Too shy to ask hi And what is the use of an octave field (as well as quaternion and network fields)? Do they really exist in nature, or is it "super pure science" "without a real application? After all, logarithms of negative numbers, as well as complex exponents, are not introduced precisely because they are simply not needed in real calculations.
                1. Aviator_
                  Aviator_ 25 December 2020 16: 28
                  +1
                  Dmitry, I don't know what an "octave field" is. I have never used quaternions, but they are sometimes used in optical calculations. Somehow you famously wrote down complex exponents in unnecessary quantities - and the exponential notation of a complex number, you don't know it? Do you only use algebraic and trigonometric? In nature, there are not many things abstract at all that we have invented for the convenience of using this nature. For example, where are the parallels and meridians on the Earth's surface? No. And we use them.
                  1. Reptiloid
                    Reptiloid 25 December 2020 19: 08
                    0
                    Quote: Aviator_
                    ......... "octave field" ............. Quaternions ............. exponential notation of a complex number, you don't know it ? You only use algebraic and trigonometric ........

                    Thank you very much, good Sergey, for the exponential notation of a complex number! I learned about it from you now. I will look for books on this topic on the net. New useful information! And then I thought that only Napier's number can be raised to a complex power.
                    And octaves ... Well, if quaternions are 4-dimensional numbers, then octaves, or octions, are 8-dimensional. Well, the networkons are 16-dimensional! And they all do not have the Commutative (permutation) law of multiplication!
                    Sincerely.
                    1. Aviator_
                      Aviator_ 25 December 2020 19: 17
                      +1
                      The commutative law of multiplication does not apply even with a vector product of vectors. You don't need to look for many books, Fuchs, Shabbat (it seems, the engineer's library) TFKP or Lavrentiev, Shabbat TFKP is also suitable, there the entry forms are immediately at the beginning. These are classic books of the 60-70s.
                      1. Reptiloid
                        Reptiloid 25 December 2020 19: 51
                        0
                        good after the New Year, I'll start reading what I’ll find from the one you mentioned, Sergei.! Respect hi
                2. Svetlana
                  Svetlana 26 December 2020 23: 53
                  0
                  Quote: Reptiloid
                  what is an octave field for?

                  Octaves are needed to construct the octonionic projective plane and the corresponding exceptional Jordan algebra of 3 * 3 Hermitian matrices over the octave field, which is necessary for calculating the interaction of bosons and fermions. The points and lines of the octave projective plane are Hermitian idempotent 3 * 3 matrices with a trail one over the octave field. According to the theory of supersymmetry, bosons and fermions are represented by triples of octaves.
                  The interaction of bosons and fermions is described by a three-line Feynman diagram, which contains the states of the fermion before and after the interaction and the matrix corresponding to the boson. This interaction is a matrix multiplication of the Hermitian (self-adjoint) 3 * 3 matrix over the octave field corresponding to the boson by three octaves corresponding to the fermion. With this interaction, each two states of the fermion corresponds to one boson. The property of alternativeness (independence of products of two arbitrary octaves from the order of the arrangement of parentheses) leads to the independence of cause-and-effect relationships from the order of application of the hypergraph evolution operator (Poincaré iterative map).
                  1. Reptiloid
                    Reptiloid 27 December 2020 10: 53
                    0
                    Good afternoon, Svetlana! hi Respect good
                    ....... according to the theory of supersymmetry ........

                    Since you are talking about supersymmetry, my question is: are Bozinos the quanta of interactions? And if so, what are the known five (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak, color and "Higgs") or are there 5 more additional, supersymmetric interactions?
                    And by the way, why do we even need a pseudo-Goldstone boson? I would like to know about this briefly and succinctly.
                    1. Svetlana
                      Svetlana 27 December 2020 16: 49
                      0
                      Quote: Reptiloid
                      question: are bozinos interaction quanta?

                      This question is from the series "how many devils can fit on the tip of a needle". Nobody watched them. But this does not mean that these objects do not exist, in contrast to the existing exceptional Jordan algebra. The division of the types of interactions into 5 pieces is an artificial separation that arose due to a phase transition when the temperature dropped below several hundred GEV. For example, it is shown that the weak and electromagnetic interactions are in fact a single electroweak interaction. Why do you need a pseudo-Goldstone boson - I don't know. In general, there are different symmetries (blue, white, red ..), each is described by its own symmetry group, but there are a lot of these groups in nature. Some symmetries lead to the conclusion about the existence of the particles you mentioned. Other theories do not require their existence.
                      1. Reptiloid
                        Reptiloid 27 December 2020 18: 27
                        0
                        Thank you very much, Svetlana! I'll think
            2. nobody75
              nobody75 24 December 2020 22: 41
              +1
              Using Feyman's postulates and path integrals, we move further and further away from the Copenhagen interpretation ... And we come ... To what?
              Sincerely
              1. Aviator_
                Aviator_ 25 December 2020 07: 51
                +1
                Using Feyman's postulates and path integrals, we move further and further away from the Copenhagen interpretation ... And we come ... To what?

                I am far from all this, from Feynman I use only his diagrams, and the famous Feynman lectures on physics. What is Copenhagen Internationalеtation - I don't know. I will formulate the previously asked question differently - what university did you study at?
              2. Aviator_
                Aviator_ 25 December 2020 16: 30
                0
                Well, will there be an answer to this question, or not? What university do you represent?
        2. astepanov
          24 December 2020 23: 08
          +1
          Quote: Aviator_
          But how to choose a frame of reference in which it will be possible to write down the equations of the second law?
          Now Newton's First Law is formulated, as a rule, as follows: "There are such frames of reference, called inertial, relative to which material points, when no forces act on them (or mutually balanced forces act on them), are in a state of rest or uniform rectilinear motion" ... Those. first, the existence of inertial systems is postulated. Stick the second one instead of the First Law in this formulation - and at F = 0 you will get the first law, and Galileo's transformations, and everything else. In other words, the formulation "inertial systems are systems in which Newton's second law is fulfilled" is no worse than the one based on the first law.
          1. nobody75
            nobody75 24 December 2020 23: 13
            0
            You have now written for the Nobel Prize ... Is the Nobel Committee already aware of it, or, excuse me, is quarantine at school and you are on distance learning?
            Sincerely
            1. astepanov
              24 December 2020 23: 52
              +2
              Quote: nobody75
              Is the Nobel Committee already in the know, or, excuse me, is the school quarantined and you are on distance learning?
              Honorable, do you have more specific complaints? No? I really am far from Termech and do not claim that I am a physicist. I am a chemist, and I am engaged, among other things, in the calculations of equipment for chemical plants and the energy of electric transport. Here, you know, there is no time for high matters, and errors of a couple of percent or neglect of factors like Pi / 3 are quite acceptable. But you, apparently, are a physicist - and at the same time you float in elementary calculations, assessments and behave arrogantly.
              1. nobody75
                nobody75 24 December 2020 23: 53
                0
                And where do I swim?
                Sincerely
                1. astepanov
                  25 December 2020 22: 58
                  0
                  Quote: nobody75
                  And where do I swim?

                  You made THREE attempts to calculate the change in the speed of the apparatus of a known initial and final mass at a known specific impulse of the working fluid, and you never got an intelligible result in the simplest problem. But ambition ...
  • parusnik
    parusnik 24 December 2020 19: 12
    -4
    Space debris cleaning.
    .... Oh, in Russia it would be better to clean the rivers, restore reservoirs, remove garbage, etc.
    1. A009
      A009 24 December 2020 21: 59
      +1
      The north is cleaned quite successfully.
  • Phoenix
    Phoenix 24 December 2020 19: 15
    +3
    The author has very limited information, sometimes flagrantly untrue. I even roughly understand from what "undersources", but we will not advertise to unscrupulous portals))) Who is looking will find. Just remember that there is a lot of noise in this "air", so it is always when our people do something good.
    1. astepanov
      24 December 2020 20: 14
      +1
      What information, corresponding to reality, are you talking about? It would be very interesting to recalculate given the data that you deem more realistic.
      1. Phoenix
        Phoenix 27 December 2020 15: 51
        -1
        If you wanted, you would find it in one click. So you didn't have a task to get to the bottom of the truth and you read the primary sources through one ...
  • Arkon
    Arkon 24 December 2020 19: 25
    +4
    "It seems that something has not grown together with the machine technology of energy conversion. But the efficiency of thermal converters is lower, hence the decrease in electrical power by half."

    There, it seems, is not connected with this reduction in power for the engines. Nuclon has reserved a decent amount of power for lunar scientific equipment. With this power it is planned to carry out sounding of the surface up to 1 km. depths. It is impossible to obtain such power in the lunar orbit without using a reactor. Such prospects are opening up there. So, this is not only a tug, but also an electric station. in orbit.
    1. astepanov
      24 December 2020 23: 17
      0
      Quote: Arkon
      Nuclon has reserved a decent amount of power for lunar scientific equipment.

      When the spacecraft is in lunar orbit, there is no need to use the engine all the time. If the orbit, for example, is polar, then its plane will continuously rotate relative to the Moon at a rate of 1 revolution per month, or about 13 degrees per day. For one orbit, there will be a displacement of about 1 degree. This will allow you to scan the entire surface, if necessary and in increments of much less than 1 degree. But the trick is that the same 0,5 MW will be used during the flight to the moon - although no other powerful equipment works.
      1. Arkon
        Arkon 25 December 2020 08: 16
        0
        Quote: astepanov
        But the trick is that when flying to the moon, the same 0,5 MW will be used


        I tried to find a technical assignment for the module on the Goszakupak website - I could not find it - the links are empty. If it did, it was deleted. Therefore, it is necessary to operate with left information from left sources. They say that the Nuclon payload module (MPN) will be powered by 450 kW of power. - this is the same half-megawatt that appears in the case of the engine. I do not think that the power will be entirely transferred to the engine, then to the research equipment. Therefore, most likely, the Nuclon is created specifically for the Moon, and here 0.5 MW is behind the eyes. And the total available power remains megawatts.
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 24 December 2020 19: 44
    -3
    Thanks for the good article!
    Personally, I have only one conclusion from all this - if there is only one common motive between Program 1 and Program 2 - this is a "step back" in terms of reducing characteristics, then, probably, this whole program will end up with some kind of large-scale modeling with a number of technologies and blah blah. Most likely, they will postpone the matter in a relatively long box precisely because of the turbine - the difference between a turbine and thermoelectric converters is what is called an awful one. The product turns out to be too slow and expensive for Earth-Moon flights, not powerful enough and loaded with work for some of our Earth-Mars projects. Achieve scientists some qualitative improvement regarding Project 1 and I would say that the project will be implemented with a creak, perhaps as some element of our hypothetical lunar program. But with more modest characteristics - it is even less useful for the Moon, missions beyond the Moon that we are talking about now - this is pure utopia, both technologically and in terms of planning / funding. The situation in the world seems to hint that both our overseas and European partners will vryatli actively participate in Nuklon. China seems to be satisfied with its own technologies for its Lunar projects.

    So, I suppose, this whole project awaits the same fate as the USSR analogue of "NERVA" - a theoretician, some tests and patents and ... a long box.
  • The eye of the crying
    The eye of the crying 24 December 2020 19: 47
    -4
    So the space (both far and near) will be ours.


    Whose is "our"? Space will definitely not belong to any one country.
    1. nobody75
      nobody75 24 December 2020 20: 49
      +5

      - And how far in space do the borders of earthly states stretch?
      - Into infinity!
      - R. Sheckley
      Sincerely
      1. The eye of the crying
        The eye of the crying 24 December 2020 20: 53
        -2
        Sheckley, if anything, was a satirist. But if his opinion is so important to you, notice that he spoke of "states" in the plural.
        1. nobody75
          nobody75 24 December 2020 21: 01
          +3
          And what do you mean by that? That the universe is infinite, but limited in volume?
          Are you, excuse me, a satirist?
          Sincerely
          1. The eye of the crying
            The eye of the crying 24 December 2020 21: 06
            +1
            Quote: nobody75
            And what do you mean by that?


            Read the first post in this thread.
  • Sergey Sfiedu
    Sergey Sfiedu 24 December 2020 20: 06
    0
    "Oddly enough, but Program 2 can also facilitate manned missions to the Moon. No, Nuclon will not be lucky for astronauts, but it will be able to deliver a take-off and landing module and fuel to lunar orbit in parts. And this will make it possible to do without insanely expensive super-heavy rockets." - and here is more detailed, please. How do you imagine this?
    1. nobody75
      nobody75 24 December 2020 20: 20
      +1
      Like an interorbital tug ...
      Sincerely
      1. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 24 December 2020 20: 39
        0
        I strongly doubt the effectiveness of this venture. The main costs are the launching of massive cargo into low-earth orbit, and the delivery of cargo from the earth's orbit to the orbit of the moon requires much lower costs. To build a Nuclon for this is to throw money into outer space. And while the cargo reaches the Moon, it will exhaust half of the resource. Well, dreams about the delivery of super-heavy cargo to Mars (and to the Moon) are from the realm of unscientific fiction. What have they forgotten there, super-heavy loads?
        With no less respect!
        1. nobody75
          nobody75 24 December 2020 20: 43
          0
          The main costs are the launching of massive cargo into low-earth orbit, and the delivery of cargo from the earth's orbit to the orbit of the moon requires much lower costs.

          And what "very smart" person told you this? Calculate the radius of some low orbit and the distance from the Earth to the Moon ... Be very surprised ...
          Sincerely
          1. The eye of the crying
            The eye of the crying 24 December 2020 20: 55
            +1
            Better to calculate the mass of Saturn-5 and Apollo.
            1. nobody75
              nobody75 24 December 2020 21: 03
              -6
              And what will it give you? can you pinpoint the exact dimensions of the Kubrick pavilion where it was filmed?
              Sincerely
              1. The eye of the crying
                The eye of the crying 24 December 2020 21: 06
                +3
                Oh, you are one of these ... I understand, I fell behind.
          2. SovAr238A
            SovAr238A 24 December 2020 22: 45
            0
            Quote: nobody75
            The main costs are the launching of massive cargo into low-earth orbit, and the delivery of cargo from the earth's orbit to the orbit of the moon requires much lower costs.

            And what "very smart" person told you this? Calculate the radius of some low orbit and the distance from the Earth to the Moon ... Be very surprised ...
            Sincerely

            I am also an amateur.
            But it seems to me that the Saturns spent almost 2500 tons of fuel, only to send the third (interplanetary) stage with a fuel supply of 10 tons and spacecraft on a flight to the Moon.
            Somehow Sergey Sfiedu looks more right. talking about that. that the costs of gravity are the most enormous ... a hundredfold, a thousandfold ... And they told us about this in schools ...

            And in your conservatory - why is it different ...

            Can you explain yourself?
            1. nobody75
              nobody75 24 December 2020 23: 32
              -3
              Because the flight in the central gravitational field passes along conical sections - ellipse, parabola and hyperbola. The elongated ellipse is the so-called energy efficient trajectory. This trajectory requires the least fuel consumption, but the flight lasts longer. Moreover - such a flight, it is not entirely controllable, since it occurs under the influence of the forces of attraction. The engines are switched on only to change the parameters of the orbit and its correction.
              The attraction of the earth is not overcome - it just reaches the first cosmic speed.
              For a flight with Nuclon, the scheme is as follows
              1 Lunar module is launched into orbit
              2 Docks with a nucleon
              3 Flies into lunar orbit
              4 undocks with a nucleon
              5 landing - working on the moon - taking off
              6 docking with a nucleon in lunar orbit
              7 flight to earth orbit
              8 module landing
              Consider for yourself what is more efficient - at least you do not need to raise fuel, oxidizer and correction engines from the ground for flight to the moon. You can take with you less oxygen, water, food, etc. And each kilogram to put into orbit costs money ...
              Sincerely
          3. Vasiliev S.
            Vasiliev S. 26 December 2020 09: 02
            0
            What nonsense?
            Are you a physicist?
            The first space is 8 km, the second is 11!
            Where is the increment greater ?!
  • fa2998
    fa2998 24 December 2020 20: 50
    0
    Quote: astepanov
    that the author has doubts about the suitability of the Nuclon system for deep space exploration. And in terms of economic profitability

    I am also an amateur, but I will express my opinion. Such an engine, with negligible thrust, takes a long time to reach decent speeds, and if we are talking about interplanetary flights, then with such a thrust it is necessary to brake in advance. And the fuel is insanely expensive. If you compare with a couple hydrogen-oxygen, of which the oceans are full. While I am for "chemistry". hi
    1. nobody75
      nobody75 24 December 2020 20: 55
      +1
      The fuel there is helium and xenon, not pure xenon. There are no "chemical" interplanetary engines yet! There are only gravitational ones.
      So without "Nuclon" - nowhere ...
      Sincerely
      1. astepanov
        25 December 2020 00: 01
        +2
        Quote: nobody75
        There the fuel is helium and xenon, not pure xenon.

        If I am not mistaken, a mixture of He and He is only as a heat carrier. The engines are pure xenon.
        1. nobody75
          nobody75 25 December 2020 00: 09
          0
          What for? Helium is also cheaper in terms of corrosion - the same thing ... Plasma formation? What's the difference what to ionize ...
          Sincerely
          1. astepanov
            25 December 2020 10: 47
            0
            Quote: nobody75
            Helium is also cheaper in terms of corrosion - the same thing ... Plasma formation? What's the difference what to ionize ...

            So it is clear that you are never an engineer.
            1. The ionization energy of helium is twice that of xenon - hence the design of the engine is more complicated. The energy consumption for ionization of helium is a noticeable fraction of the total energy consumption and is at least ten times more than for xenon.
            2. The use of helium on board requires cryogenic equipment quite different from that for xenon: the critical temperature of helium is about 6 K, xenon - 289 K (boils at atmospheric pressure at 165 K).
            3. The density of liquid helium is negligible: 145 kg / m3000, and xenon - almost XNUMX kg / mXNUMX. Helium would require tanks of monstrous volume and mass.
            4. With helium, the specific impulse would be higher, but the thrust would be less at the same power of the ID. And the thrust is already low.
            Is it enough?
    2. nobody75
      nobody75 24 December 2020 21: 24
      +4
      Half the way is acceleration. Half is braking. The movement is uniformly accelerated. It was this scheme, which every pioneer in the USSR knew, thanks to the Kvant magazine, to the author and tried to explain on the Zvezda channel, which caused righteous anger ...
      Sincerely
    3. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 24 December 2020 22: 48
      +1
      Quote: fa2998
      Quote: astepanov
      that the author has doubts about the suitability of the Nuclon system for deep space exploration. And in terms of economic profitability

      I am also an amateur, but I will express my opinion. Such an engine, with negligible thrust, takes a long time to reach decent speeds, and if we are talking about interplanetary flights, then with such a thrust it is necessary to brake in advance. And the fuel is insanely expensive. If you compare with a couple hydrogen-oxygen, of which the oceans are full. While I am for "chemistry". hi


      The most important thing is what no one talks about ...
      Acceleration takes exactly half the way.
      Then there is a turn of the apparatus by 180 degrees and with absolutely the same costs as for acceleration - the apparatus is decelerated.
      Well, if a direct flight without using any large objects for additional acceleration or deceleration control ...
      But this is also absolutely not fast.
      The positions of the stars are changing ...
      And it may change so that for 20-30 years using some Jupiter for acceleration will be completely inappropriate ...
      1. nobody75
        nobody75 24 December 2020 23: 18
        -3
        You will not be able to fly directly - at best, hyperbole. Excuse me, what grade are you in school? What kind of remote control platform is used?
        Sincerely
  • Nigilist666
    Nigilist666 24 December 2020 21: 33
    -2
    Before you write this ... writing, with a bunch of letters, at least you google:

    Space complex "Nuclon" will include:
    Orbital complex, consisting of two modules:
    Transport and energy module (TEM);
    Payload module (MPN);

    After the first paragraph I did not read further, why amateurs try to talk about what they do not understand?
  • fa2998
    fa2998 24 December 2020 21: 35
    -2
    Quote: nobody75
    There are no "chemical" interplanetary engines yet! There are only gravitational ones.

    Sorry, but before that, how did you get to the planets of the solar system? And there are ways of perfection. For example, hydrogen fuel.
    1. nobody75
      nobody75 24 December 2020 21: 43
      +2
      Surprise - due to gravity ... Using elongated epileptic (tn Homan's energy efficient) and parabolic trajectories and perturbation maneuver.
      Sincerely
      1. fa2998
        fa2998 24 December 2020 21: 46
        +1
        To Mars, Venus, Moon? belay
        1. nobody75
          nobody75 24 December 2020 21: 48
          +5
          And even Voyagers used this very maneuver ... So what next ... and only on gravity. Chemical engines operate only in a pulse mode for a short time. Ionic ones are used on interplanetary vehicles ... But their thrust cannot be compared with a nucleon.
          Sincerely
      2. MBRSS
        MBRSS 25 December 2020 05: 51
        +1
        Be surprised - due to gravity

        Dear, do not mislead people. Do you think Atlas-5 will deliver the rover to the target due to the gravity of Mars? Yes, he, in order to just go to the departure, needs to overcome the gravity of the Earth and dial the 2nd cosmic one. Both are on CHEMICAL engines. (I don’t know how he will slow down there - maybe by gravitational maneuver, or maybe about the atmosphere, or both)
        Chem motors operate only in pulse mode

        actually continuous
        Ionic ones are used on interplanetary vehicles ... But their thrust cannot be compared with a nucleon.

        on Nuclon too ionic
        The whole hangara should lift it

        figs you. Even if the Angara-A5V is washed down, it can only lift it uncharged and without the PN module. We'll have to do 3 starts. And all you need is superheavy.
        Poseidon and Petrel ..

        Do you know the types of reactors on these devices?
        1. nobody75
          nobody75 25 December 2020 09: 12
          -1
          Do you think Atlas-5 will deliver the rover to the target due to the gravity of Mars? Yes, he, in order to just go to the departure, needs to overcome the gravity of the Earth and dial the 2nd cosmic one. Both are on CHEMICAL engines.

          Yes, due to gravity, the Earth - the Moon, the Sun and Mars ... You yourself write about the second cosmic velocity - and where did it come from?
          Sincerely
    2. A009
      A009 24 December 2020 22: 04
      +3
      Oddly enough, you have correctly noticed that they were accelerated by gravity. Chemistry only adjusted the parameters.
      1. The eye of the crying
        The eye of the crying 24 December 2020 23: 08
        0
        Quote: A009
        Accelerated by gravity.


        By gravity. Not gravity drives.
  • Intruder
    Intruder 24 December 2020 21: 58
    +1
    Everything is good and interesting, but a few more points to my humble opinion, I can tell you :) were not disclosed:
    1. What does it bring out, this entire transport platform, with plasma engines and nuclear power plants, serial launch vehicles, where and when will they be available ..., such as: Angara-5 ... ???
    2. The total cost of removing the Nuclon blocks?
    3. Assembly in orbit, in the same place, installation in open space, until you saw the orbital station purely for the shipyard in orbit? And the crews for the installation, with their preparation time, have not announced a single program publicly by Roscosmos yet !?
    4. The program to create a nuclear power plant of this class, with the necessary energy, somehow quietly and silently ... ???
    And so, it really looks like: "cut and drank" ... :)
    1. nobody75
      nobody75 24 December 2020 22: 21
      0
      1. Angara A5
      2. ?
      3. The hangar should raise it entirely ... In orbit - the launch of the reactor
      4. Poseidon and Petrel ... And with the scoop "Topaz" was ...
      Sincerely
      1. Intruder
        Intruder 24 December 2020 23: 26
        -1
        And with the scoop "Topaz" was
        I remember about this reactor in the past ... only its power was low and it is really difficult to use it with ionizers and PRD, if only the platform is light and this is an artificial satellite, and not a transport platform ...
        The whole hangara should lift it
        do not remember which one is useful? and what kind of LEO she drags this mass ..., it's not enough to believe that the whole mass and size, there is a little different ... as far as I saw on the network ...
        Sincerely,
        and the Coming NG !!!
        1. nobody75
          nobody75 24 December 2020 23: 37
          +1
          At "Topaz" they just worked out the technologies, in my opinion there was also a beryllium reflector ...
          Angara A5 is supposed to launch 50 tons ... But the most difficult thing is to launch the reactor in orbit ... I don't believe in ordinary thermal panels ...
          Best regards and Happy New Year!
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 25 December 2020 15: 38
            +1
            We are waiting for the creation of the super-heavy Yenisei, Angara A5B cannot put 45 tons into orbit, so we will have to wait until the 2028th first flight and only in 2030 the first flight with a payload.
        2. MBRSS
          MBRSS 25 December 2020 06: 02
          +2
          it's not enough to believe that the whole weight and size, there is a little different ... as far as I saw on the network ..

          and right. Angara-5 (25-35 tons into an orbit of 200 km, depending on the modification) will not pull this fool 800 km. Only in parts.
          1. nobody75
            nobody75 25 December 2020 09: 08
            -1
            FAMILY OF ROCKET-CARRIERS “ANGARA”
            • The Angara launch vehicle family is the latest Russian modular-type launch vehicles of various payload capacity, based on universal rocket modules (URMs) with oxygen-kerosene engines.
            • The LV family includes launch vehicles from light to heavy classes in the payload range from 3,5 t (Angara-1.2.) To 38 t (Angara-A5V) in low-earth orbit (H = 200 km) ...
            - http://www.khrunichev.ru/main.php?id=44
            It will be brought from 38 to 45 tons ... That is why the warriors did not accept it for a long time ...
            Sincerely
  • Aleks2000
    Aleks2000 24 December 2020 22: 21
    +3
    In fact, the main thing is clear from the article and the calculations:

    Everyone lied, the money was "mastered", there are no significant results, there are not even well-rendered cartoons,
    This is familiar, no one doubted that they would continue to feed them with bikes ...

    How is it: ...... will be ours ????
    Remember Khazanov's adage: "Jews scoff ...."
    They are still untouchable, nothing can be done with them ...
    1. nobody75
      nobody75 24 December 2020 22: 27
      0
      Excuse me, what of the "calculations" did you see? The calculations presented are not correct, from the word completely ...
      The author is confused in the application of conservation laws when moving a body with variable mass! Sorry, this is a kindergarten nursery group ... So I personally can't see anything ...
      Sincerely
      1. Aleks2000
        Aleks2000 24 December 2020 22: 34
        +4
        Everything can be.
        However, this overlaps with the flow of news in the media.
        First, they wrote about the low economic thrust of the engine nuclei, then about the testing of under-parts that have no analogues in the world, then "Mars in 2 months", then the shutdown of the project.

        Either the money ran out, or they don't know what to lie next, you need to "update the topic"
        Something similar happened with the many promised cosmo projects. Achievements of the Moon in 2015, for example
      2. astepanov
        25 December 2020 00: 17
        +1
        Ilya, you have already provided your "calculations". They are completely wrong. Substitute in them real data from open sources, and not invented by you - and you will get numbers close to those in the article.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 25 December 2020 09: 23
          -3
          Nuclon's main problem is the cost of the whole case
          Given the current declared resource of 3 years. Flight speed to various objects in the solar system.
          It turns out that, for example, to fly to Mars is already a disposable device. You can only fly to the moon a couple of times.
          To take out the device, you need two heavy rockets, plus a heavy cargo rocket.
          Three heavy rockets make it possible to bring the same cargo to Mars in parts without any tug.
          The same FalconFT analogue of Proton-M and Angara-5 in terms of carrying capacity brings 4 tons to Mars, thus three rockets are 12 tons to Mars.
  • avaks111
    avaks111 25 December 2020 08: 40
    +1
    It resembles an episode from the movie "Three Days of One Year", where one of the characters (Evstigneev) in a restaurant on a napkin proves the impossibility of a photon engine!
  • Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 25 December 2020 11: 03
    +1
    I started reading, got to the "colossal advantages", got bored and left. No interplanetary engines will give anyone any advantages. All these calculations, formulas and other scientific ideas are in vain. That's why they are so attractive. There is a neighboring topic about military R&D. This topic with that) is united by one fundamental property - in both cases, the results of R&D should not reach practical results. The reasons are different, the result is one - zero in the output.
    In this case, the question is that no one needs interplanetary engines at all. They chased funny boxes across the sky, even scrubbed some substance from the comet, and that's enough. For the simple reason that the problem of our tightly hung astronautics at the moment is not in the interplanetary engine, absolutely.
    The lack of real astronautics at the moment is due to a dead end in the "surface-orbit" section. We cannot start any real (non-PR) flights even to the Moon, For the simple reason that the delivery of tiny cargoes into orbit costs us monstrously expensive, and there are absolutely no prerequisites for making this delivery cheaper. No matter how much Musk juggles with his return steps, the real cost reduction of the process is negligible, and there are no growth prospects.
    Chemical rockets are completely depleted. There are no ways to reduce the real cost of moving cargo into orbit. A nuclear drive will pollute the environment too much, suffocate in our own poisons. Our physics, which is also tightly suspended, does not offer any other ways. At the moment, all astronautics, except for communications satellites and rather controversial weapons in low orbits, is pure showmanship. Without a chance to do something real.
    And this article is just part of the battle to finance empty projects that have an extremely pleasant property - they do not have to be made in metal and seriously rely on them. It will be enough to hand over puffy reports, maybe some kind of dummy models. Or even run one or two! But all this cannot develop into astronautics, so there will be funding, but you don't have to try too hard.

    Astronautics on our planet will begin when physics will again become a science, and not the fun games of grandiose shamans-entertainers. Only a breakthrough in physical research can give us either new (really new, powder metallurgy, composites and other tricks at the forge level not to offer) materials, or a new mover. Better both. But so far, nothing of the kind even looks like a spark ...
  • dgonni
    dgonni 25 December 2020 18: 17
    +1
    Plusanul! For blessed is he who believes. And for only romantics moved progress.
  • Kushka
    Kushka 25 December 2020 20: 58
    +1
    And f and g e t, how many not our bukaffs! No, I pass.
    -Wife - what has become, like a stob, cut the bread!
    -I can't, after yesterday, my hands are shaking.
    - He can't! And what do you can?!!!!
    - ....... I can add salt.
  • faterdom
    faterdom 25 December 2020 23: 19
    0
    Well, what happens conceptually?
    The moon must be mastered (as, by the way, the serious authors of science fiction always have it).
    But then, whoever succeeds will have some chances for deep space, in particular Mars and the asteroid belt, maybe the satellites of Jupiter or Saturn. And then, automata, a man in his fragile shell is unlikely to be able to do anything there, and therefore is not needed.
    What's on the moon? The Americans have had their fathers and grandfathers (?), We have Lunokhod, and now there are the Chinese.
    Let's try to guess who can actually build something there first?
  • Usher
    Usher 26 December 2020 02: 56
    -1
    Quote: Simargl
    Quote: Usher
    Can I have proofs? About salaries?
    Moscow engineering vacancies - less than $ 1000. Is it worthy?

    Why lie? Where I work, ordinary low-skilled installers have a salary of 73k, that is, $ 1000. I think I am a qualified Engineer! And not a stupid person with a piece of paper will receive not less, but more for a start, one and a half times.
    1. agond
      agond 29 December 2020 15: 37
      0
      If Nucleon needs 10 tons of xenon, which is 20 euros per 1 liter with atmospheric addition, they probably are not going to extract it from the air, where its content is negligible, then maybe from natural gas at a gas processing plant, who would have clarified.
    2. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 30 December 2020 21: 43
      0
      Quote: Usher
      Where I work, ordinary low-skilled installers have a salary of 73k, that is, $ 1000.


      Do you work outside the Arctic Circle?
      1. Usher
        Usher 30 December 2020 21: 46
        -2
        [/ Quote]
        Quote: Eye of the Crying
        [quote = Usher] Where I work, ordinary low-skilled assemblers have a salary of 73k, that is, $ 1000.


        Do you work outside the Arctic Circle?

        Not in the suburbs.