Possible descendant of "Energy"

63
Currently, the Russian space program does not have a super-heavy class launch vehicle. The last project of this technology - “Energy” - was closed in 1993 year. The rocket "Energy" could bring into low-Earth orbit cargo weighing up to 105 tons. In the future, it was planned to create an even more powerful modification that could carry a payload of 170-180 tons. However, the difficult economic and political situation in the country first led to a freeze, and then to the closure of the project. However, the need for a super heavy carrier has not disappeared. Such a rocket is needed, first of all, to ensure promising space projects, from the launching of station modules into orbit until the preparation of flights to other planets. For example, according to various estimates, for a manned flyby of the Moon, it is required to launch a complex of at least 60-70 tons into orbit. For flights to Mars, accordingly, even heavier spacecraft are needed.

Possible descendant of "Energy"




Recently it became known that Roskosmos announced a competition to create a new super-heavy class launch vehicle. The basis for it should be the project "Angara". Just a few days after the tender was announced, the first applications appeared. Rocket and Space Corporation "Energy" is ready to create the required equipment. According to the general designer of the corporation V. Lopota, it would be wise to create a project together, through the efforts of several countries. Russia, represented by Energia and several related enterprises, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, will participate in the program with the designation "Commonwealth". Design work on the project "Commonwealth" has already begun.

Obviously, the creation of the appearance of a promising rocket is already coming to an end. In any case, the results of the competition for the creation of a new super-heavy rocket will be summed up already on September 6. After that, the contracting organization will receive government funding in the amount of about ten million rubles. For this money, by the end of May of the next 2013, a ready design of the launch vehicle should be created. Perhaps it was such a fairly tight time frame that caused the proposal to use the developments under the Energy program. At the same time, such a basis for a new project may be due to possible positive financial consequences. The fact is that the launch complex for the “Energy” project missiles, located at the Baikonur cosmodrome, is in a relatively normal state. It will not take a lot of manpower and resources to restore it fully. It is obvious that the repair of existing sites will cost much less than the construction of new ones.

The financial side of the project is one of the most important. Sometimes you hear that the Energy program once ruined the Soviet Union. To justify the project, it should be said that in the eighties of the last century many other things happened in our economy that can hardly be called useful. However, each launch of a super-power rocket really cost a serious amount. According to V. Lopota, in the new rocket "Commonwealth", most likely, the same engines will be used as in the accelerators of "Energy" - RD-170. With good performance, they consume relatively cheap kerosene. In addition, at the project stage, some savings will be achieved through the unification of a number of new carrier nodes with the Zenith family of rockets, where these engines are also used.

Creating a new rocket on the basis of "Energy" is of particular interest. However, the question arises: how does this project correlate with the requirement regarding the development of a super-heavy carrier based on the "Angara"? At one time, the project, named in honor of the Siberian river, bypassed "Energy" in the competition, shortly after which the latter was closed. There is a version that the management of RSC Energia does not consider Angara to be a truly promising project and is going to create a new launch vehicle based on its own developments. The goal of such a move is simple - the start of testing of Angara family rockets has been postponed several times and no one can guarantee that the first launch scheduled for the 2013 year will not be postponed again. In addition, the Angara tests will begin with the simplest lightweight configurations, which will also affect the creation time of the heavy carrier. A technique of this class is needed as soon as possible. It turns out that the possible attempts by RSC Energia to create an alternative project are not without meaning. The fact that the Commonwealth will be developed exclusively as a heavy and super heavy launch vehicle can also be in favor of this.

The requirements for the base in the form of the Angara rocket, as well as the opinion of the Energia designers, can influence the decision of the Roskosmos tender commission, and not necessarily in a positive way. Obviously, in putting forward certain requirements for the "origin" of the new launch vehicle, the space agency employees were guided by some real considerations, for example, concerning the unification of the missiles. The modular system used in the Angara should have a tangible impact on the economic efficiency of the rocket - to launch various loads into orbit, you will not need to build different models of rockets, it is enough to assemble a carrier of appropriate configuration from universal units. However, in the Energia rocket and space corporation, it seems that it is more expedient to consider a separate launch vehicle of a heavy class. It remains to wait for the date of announcement of the results of the competition and draw the appropriate conclusions.


On the materials of the sites:
http://vpk.name/
http://energia.ru/
http://rosbalt.ru/
http://utro.ru/
http://km.ru/
63 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. snek
    +3
    22 August 2012 08: 41
    As far as I remember, Energy was one of the best launch vehicles in terms of the ratio of the total mass and the mass of the displayed cargo. The question is different - for what purposes is it now to build an ultra-heavy launch vehicle. To ensure the orbital grouping, enough light and medium, and the development of other planets and even the Moon, we have in the best case in the long run.
    1. +15
      22 August 2012 08: 54
      snek --- A distant prospect or not, but you need to prepare a sled in the summer
      1. snek
        +2
        22 August 2012 09: 04
        Well, it would be wiser to cook for a specific program. Heavy launch vehicles are a piece of and very expensive product and their construction now just to make it worse, firstly, wasteful spending, and secondly, the most convenient space for corruption schemes (they will give money now and will build someday).
        1. +2
          22 August 2012 09: 55
          Now, more and more ambitious tasks will be set for our cosmonautics, and it seems to me that things will go much faster (progress, modern technologies), therefore such an extremely heavy launch vehicle may be needed much earlier than it seems, that's why we already have to start working on it him.
          1. +2
            23 August 2012 00: 12
            Duck worked already.
            The Polyus spacecraft (Skif-DM, product 17F19DM) is a dynamic model of a combat laser orbital platform, the payload used during the first launch of the Energia launch vehicle in 1987.
            1. Karish
              +1
              23 August 2012 16: 09
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              The Polyus spacecraft (Skif-DM, product 17F19DM) is a dynamic model of a combat laser orbital platform, the payload used during the first launch of the Energia launch vehicle in 1987.

              As far as I know . it was not a mock-up, but a ready-made station, due to problems at launch, did not enter orbit and was flooded
        2. +13
          22 August 2012 10: 01
          IMHO: Here you need to pay attention to information about the prospects of permanent / long-term orbital stations. There is information that we are going to withdraw our own and the mass of modules will be from 40 to 80 tons, i.e. it is about large-block construction. In addition, if we talk about the exploration of the same moon, it is much easier to create an intermediate station and use it as a base point for receiving a shipment. But it must be understood that the cost of large-block construction, even taking into account the higher cost of super-heavy rockets, is lower than the cost of many light and medium launch vehicles, not to mention the difficulties of installing many small blocks in space and the functional limitations of a small-modular design. In general, it makes sense to have a specialized, super-heavy carrier optimized for these tasks. So the topic is relevant.
          1. snek
            -2
            22 August 2012 10: 08
            Quote: smrus
            Now, more and more ambitious tasks will be set for our astronautics

            With the current funding and the state of affairs in general in Roskosmos, this will be very problematic.
            1. +1
              22 August 2012 10: 19
              Quote: snek
              With the current funding and the state of affairs in general in Roskosmos, this will be very problematic.


              Nikolay, I agree completely, I didn’t mean today, but the near future for about 5 years, now the army is first and foremost, you need to be able to defend your borders and Russia's interests in the modern world, but with favorable developments in the economy, it seems to me right away we’ll see the movement in the financing of astronautics, at least I VERY want it to be so.
              1. 0
                23 August 2012 16: 43
                Space needs to be financed, this is not only the study and development of planets, but new technologies, new materials. That without which it is impossible to move forward and without which it is impossible to develop.
              2. 0
                23 August 2012 18: 25
                The war has long moved into space ...
    2. +7
      22 August 2012 10: 43
      With all due respect to the Russian cosmos, I cannot but recall that:

      "Rus - M" spent 202 mln. rub. - the project is closed.
      "Angara" spent 160 billion rubles. rub. - the project dies.
      "Energy" will be spent ???? - maybe it's time to start something?
      1. Passing
        +4
        22 August 2012 14: 13
        Quote: DEMENTIY
        "Rus - M" spent 202 mln. rub.

        Something does not fit in your numbers, Russia-M did not go beyond the scope of design work, as they could have spent more on it than on the Angara, which has already passed the stage of testing on ground stands, for which the launch pad is already being completed, and which will be launched in 2013 year?
        Quote: DEMENTIY
        Angara ... the project is dying.

        Decipher pliz this sensational statement, somehow it fundamentally contradicts the facts.
        1. +2
          22 August 2012 14: 33
          Passing

          Decipher pliz this sensational statement, somehow it fundamentally contradicts the facts.

          I will try.
          "Rus M" - http://topwar.ru/7509-roskosmos-pohoronil-rus-m.html
          "Angara" - sorry, if we started discussing "Energy", it is obvious - the project is being called into question.
          At the same time, the initial use of Energia as a base - a launch vehicle with a potential is obvious:
          - proven technologies;
          - 2 successful launch;
          - launch complex (albeit on a walk).
          1. Passing
            +1
            22 August 2012 15: 53
            By your link:
            Moreover, a fair amount has already been spent on developing the rocket (the total cost of the project was estimated at 202 billion rubles)

            202 billion is the estimated cost of the entire project, and not the amount of money that you managed to spend. Divide this figure by 100-1000, and get the cost of design work.
            Quote: DEMENTIY
            "Angara" - sorry, if we started discussing "Energy", it is obvious - the project is being called into question.

            And how does Angara compete with Rus-M or a new heavy missile? These missiles are of different classes. The first fuel tank ends at 24,5 tons, while the heavy one only begins with this figure.
            Quote: DEMENTIY
            At the same time, the initial use of Energia as a base - a launch vehicle with a potential is obvious:

            But they are modestly silent about the shortcomings:
            Hydrogen fuel is more expensive and more difficult to use than commonplace kerosene. But the main task of promising missiles is to sharply reduce the cost of putting cargo into orbit. And why do we need 100 tons of gold in orbit? It may be better to ship in small batches of 20 tons, but at the price of aluminum? Why revive inefficient monsters? It is necessary to move towards an air launch from Mriya or towards reusable URMs.
            1. 0
              22 August 2012 16: 17
              202 billion is the estimated cost of the entire project, and not the amount of money that you managed to spend. Divide this figure by 100-1000, and get the cost of design work.

              I agree with this argument - excuse the reference given from memory by not bothering to re-read it.

              And how does Angara compete with Rus-M or a new heavy missile?

              What new rocket am I missing out on another development?

              And how does it relate:
              - LV Angara modular type from 1.5 to 35t.
              - PH Rus-M tandem type from 6.5 to 50t.
              In both cases, heavy and light options are provided.
              As for hydrogen, I agree - it is more expensive, but the rocket should still fly (alas, we know our latest "successes" in space exploration), and Energia has already flown and flew well.
              How "Angara" will fly or "Rus" would fly - only God knows.
              1. Passing
                0
                22 August 2012 16: 39
                Quote: DEMENTIY
                What new rocket am I missing out on another development?

                I'm talking about the new Energy, which, as it were, instead of Russia-M
                Quote: DEMENTIY
                And how does it relate: - LV Angara modular type from 1.5 to 35t. - LV Rus-M tandem type from 6.5 to 50t.

                Then I bent slightly, I agree, there is a certain duplication, the difference in the displayed load between them is only one and a half times. This is probably why Russia-M was hacked.
                1. 0
                  22 August 2012 17: 03
                  Passing
                  Let's sum up: I wanted to say what I wanted to say. Throwing these (they took one thing - they refused, the second was almost done - once and a new project is on the nose) simply suggest (I can't see this word) an ordinary "cut" - not small money.
                  You yourself give the trump cards in your hands, and the characteristics of the pH - this is the second thing.
            2. REPA1963
              +2
              22 August 2012 21: 55
              The fact that they didn’t have time to spend was already in their pockets.
      2. ughhh
        +1
        23 August 2012 14: 11
        "Rus - M" spent $ 1.63 billion
        "Angara" - the project is dying, put a minus for this nonsense.
        Energia is a super-heavy carrier, there is no such thing.
        Do your good in the toilet.
      3. 0
        23 August 2012 17: 05
        You will receive an answer for free, i.e. without payment.
      4. Dovmont
        -1
        26 August 2012 16: 53
        The space industry, like in most other sectors of Russia, is in deep crisis. Roscosmos can only launch expensive soap bubbles. The industry needs to be reformed, as well as a purge of managerial personnel.
    3. SSR
      0
      23 August 2012 11: 16
      An extremely heavy carrier, in which case, can not only bring out a boat for a flyby of the moon ..
      It will be able (probably) to put a "complex" into an unattainable (for the existing EKR complexes) orbit, which, if something happens, will be able to knock down those who are especially striving to rock the boat like a hammer from above.
      (this is all technologists not dual, but in general triple use)))
  2. -5
    22 August 2012 08: 59
    Currently, there are not even plans to create heavy orbital complexes or, moreover, manned vehicles weighing 100 tons.
    1. GG2012
      +3
      22 August 2012 09: 53
      Quote: Su24

      Currently, there are not even plans to create heavy orbital complexes or, moreover, manned vehicles weighing 100 tons.


      RSC Energia specialists approved the characteristics of the new spacecraft

      Experts have approved the technical characteristics of the new Russian manned spacecraft, Vitaly Lopota, president-general designer of RSC Energia, told RIA Novosti reporters.
      In April 2009, Energia Corporation won a tender for the development of a draft design for a promising Russian manned spacecraft.
      "The stage of technical design is in progress. The final decisions on the appearance of the spacecraft have been made. It must be such as to fly to the Moon as part of the appropriate complex, including the upper stage, which will ensure the return return, and the upper stage, which will form the flight trajectory to the Moon." - said Lopota.
      "If we talk about the spacecraft itself, then it must be able to enter the Earth's atmosphere at a second space velocity, while the temperature of the spacecraft surface heating will significantly exceed three thousand degrees Celsius. But in order to launch such a spacecraft, for example, for a flight to the Moon , we need its mass to be about 20 tons, and the required carrying capacity of the launch vehicle was 120-130 tons, "explained the general designer of RSC Energia.
      According to him, in order for Russia to be competitive, it must be understood that the United States is going to create its own manned ship in 2018-2020.
      "But Russia with existing technologies can only ensure the launch of 60-70 tons. Therefore, we could carry out such a mission according to a two-launch scheme. That is, the first launch is a spacecraft plus an upper stage, which will ensure the return from the Moon's orbit, and the second launch is launched. the upper stage, which will ensure the formation of the flight trajectory to the Moon. They will dock in low-earth orbit, "Lopota added.

      http://ria.ru/science/20120820/727368212.html#ixzz24B9pwdpW
      1. +1
        22 August 2012 11: 05
        Quote: GG2012
        Specialists approved the technical specifications of the new Russian manned spacecraft ...

        Well, the fact that they have approved something there still does not say anything, but in general looking at the latest successes of the Russian cosmonautics, it occurs to the idea that it is time for our astronauts to fly back to space to give the title of Heroes.
    2. in reserve
      0
      23 August 2012 21: 18
      For
      Su24
      http://www.nkj.ru/archive/articles/11014/
  3. +4
    22 August 2012 09: 08
    Quote: snek
    The question is different - for what purposes is it now to build an ultra-heavy launch vehicle. To ensure the orbital grouping, enough light and medium, and the development of other planets and even the Moon, we have in the best case in the long run.

    At least to prevent scientific and technical thought in Russia and then not bite your elbows, they say there were projects
    1. +3
      22 August 2012 10: 18
      Quote: HUMANOID
      At least to prevent scientific and technical thought in Russia and then not bite your elbows, they say there were projects


      Unfortunately, scientific and technical thought seems to barely beat in the body of Roskosmos.
      Unfortunately, over the 12 previous years of the reign of our Sun-like, we have finished the entire mathematical and technical base and institutes. I'm not talking about the time of the reign of EBN and HMS.
      It is possible to discuss this topic for a long time, but examples are on the face: - where is the "Glonass" orbital group, examples of the fall of rockets with satellites last year? And theft in Roskosmos, here's a link - http://militariorg.ucoz.ru/publ/vorovstvo_milliardov_v_roskosmose_schetnaja_pala
      ta_skromno_nazvala_quot_masshtabnymi_finansovymi_narushenijami_quot / 1-1-0-3067

      It seems to me (especially IMHO) that the entire system of "Roscosmos" should be transferred, as in the days of Stalin, to closed secret towns and institutions. And, for failures, do not just shake your finger ....... like now. And, in full, without the right to correspond.

      And so, it will look like the export of a freight train with open platforms full of wads of money into the desert near Baikonur, maybe it will fly? lol
      1. -2
        22 August 2012 13: 41
        Quote: sancho
        And, for failure it’s not just to threaten with a finger ....... as it is now. And, in full, without the right to correspondence.

        I put you a minus for the above words. I think if you think about it, think about why. Tip: What are you doing?
        1. 0
          22 August 2012 16: 24
          Quote: El13
          What are you doing?


          If I tell you, then you have to then .... well, you understand.

          Quote: El13
          production facilities for Energia were destroyed: ((we will have to rebuild from scratch practically, but sooner or later it will be necessary to rebuild if we develop space ...


          You answer your own questions yourself .... Something about the phrase sooner or later is not entirely clear ... It is difficult to communicate with computer geniuses!

          But I will answer! Too late! Again, have to run to catch up. Because enterprises of the entire space industry squandered. Only the production facilities of old developments and assembly shops remained. I don’t even want to argue. because every day I see a factory that produced hundreds of taxiways, today it’s a piece including pendo.sam.
          1. 0
            22 August 2012 17: 18
            Well, if you work at this plant and some new taxiway will explode at the stand as a result of an incorrect calculation, then you, as you assembled the very same head with the same incorrectly calculated nozzles (go prove it) and will be sent to settlements without the right to correspond, because you didn’t process the seventh nozzle in the sixth ring as it should be, but you faked it and go, prove that you are not a camel and talk about the lack of quality control and military acceptance, and also that you have an old scan and it’s time to change the equipment for a long time ... who is it will be interested, it will already be your problems, most importantly, the culprit is found, the society is satisfied.
            Quote: sancho
            If I tell you, then you have to then .... well, you understand.

            No ... if everything is so serious, then if you say, then this is you ... well, you understand.

            PS And you should say thank you to your plant for the fact that it has kept unit production, but to increase capacities is not the same thing that is created anew.
            1. +1
              23 August 2012 12: 07
              Damn! El13! Well, what for -
              Quote: El13
              building up capacity is not the same thing as re-creating.

              Quote: sancho
              Too late! Again, you have to run to catch up. Because enterprises of the entire space industry squandered.


              You seem to live in another country .....
              From the huge plant producing taxiway, and this is a lot of hectares, 3 workshops remained. Everything went under the hammer. + there was a design bureau that hasn’t done anything new in the last 10-15 years. Gee! Developed new gate valves for oil industry workers. DO NOT REMAIN !!!! And, there were no new smart, ingenious designers. And in the near future will not come, because there was no school for designers and teachers. And, this is not comparable with the construction of new plants, because in order to build something on them, smart heads are needed. And, these heads will not appear in an instant, these are years, decades. So think about what kind of development perspective we are pushing water here.

              Oh, about
              Quote: El13
              and some new taxiway, as a result of an incorrect calculation, will explode on the stand, then you, as you gathered the very head with the very wrongly calculated nozzles (go prove it) and will be sent to settlements without the right to correspond,

              Let it be known to you that if the taxiway went out of the walls of the plant, it was driven out at the stand more than once. AND! There is not a single case in the last decades of equipment failure due to taxiway. But, because of headaches at the stages of assembling, refueling, servicing missiles, there’s more than enough. Here is one example for you -
              In December 2010, three Glonass-M satellites fell into the Pacific Ocean at once. The damage, according to Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, reached 2,5 billion rubles. As the special commission found out, the satellites were lost due to the fact that 03 tons of excess fuel were poured into the new upper stage DM-1,5 due to an error in the design documentation. Perminov then received a reprimand, and his deputy, Viktor Remishevsky, was fired.

              Read all the same here the whole article - http://militariorg.ucoz.ru/publ/vorovstvo_milliardov_v_roskosmose_schetnaja_pala
              ta_skromno_nazvala_quot_masshtabnymi_finansovymi_narushenijami_quot / 1-1-0-3067

              You can’t even imagine all the extent of damage in the defense and strategic importance of these unsuccessful launches. It is not only money !!!
              What the hell are responsible persons, if one can call them that, after all, they should be content with pensions and reprimands.
              Something I do not understand, by golly!
              1. 0
                23 August 2012 12: 17
                Why don't you understand? The whole dialogue arose on the proposal to "jail" for failures ... You do not understand that they will not jail Perminov or Popovkin or even their deputies, but that poor collector who, although it is to blame for not closing, is a systemic problem, about which You write correctly, but they will put a specific person to whom the crumbs are paid.
                1. +2
                  23 August 2012 15: 20
                  Quote: El13
                  Why don't you understand? The whole dialogue arose on the proposal to "plant" for failures ...


                  This is where all the salt is! Do not be afraid of responsibility! With proper management and competent control, everything will start to fly! And the one who shied away from his direct duties, let everything go by chance, the road to the sawmill ... and not to the country house to retire!
                  Yes! You are right and the poor fellow of the assembler, and the one who controls the quality of the assembler, and the one who is the engineer (in the case of his poor quality calculations). Why are boobs crumpled? AND? Come not a tele-building enterprise. And, everyone must, both receive and answer. This must be included in the employment contract. Don't like it, don't work! Then it will be like the saying: "Measure seven times, and then .....". And, when they start drooling, that's when everything goes downhill.
                  I, for serious responsibility! This is in fact a diversion, against national interests. And, point! I already wrote about the extent of the damage.
                  1. 0
                    23 August 2012 16: 38
                    Uh-huh, and I mean that ... And at the telebuilding enterprise the same should be, but first you need to create conditions under which the error does not become fatal, but - "I don't like it, don't work!" - can not be used, you yourself say, there are no new bright minds ... why not? yes, they don’t pay money trivially, but for the money that they pay, a smart person will not go, everything is as simple as sending two bytes ... Therefore, if they also start to plant, then everything will be stitched, there will be no one at all. Won at some defense enterprises (I will not say which feel ) they raised their salaries at times and increased their responsibility - and there are no problems with marriage, and the people did not scatter, and this people is happy with all this, and most importantly, there are results and the results are good, very good.
  4. +2
    22 August 2012 09: 52
    For the construction of a base on the moon, this seems to be the immediate prospect, then Mars ...
  5. Indigo
    +6
    22 August 2012 10: 03
    I think that it is necessary to do it urgently:
    1. to launch "doghouses" and collect in orbit - a third of the weight - on the docking modules.
    2. There is a base on which to rely (thanks to the fathers).
    3. sooner or later have to go from kerosene to hydrogen - again there is a backlog
    4. we will not do, others will do (they will pull their industry well)
    5. give wrappers and take machines for their production ..
    6. .. and most importantly - throw 100 tons of nuts into orbit at a time - and everyone on Earth will fight with a bow and arrow and with a club ... wink
    1. snek
      0
      22 August 2012 10: 14
      Quote: Indigo
      ..and most importantly - to put 100 tons of nuts into orbit at a time - and everyone on Earth will fight with a bow and arrow and with a club ..

      Nuts in orbit will affect the burning of gunpowder in cartridges and shells or is it sarcasm like that?
      1. Indigo
        0
        22 August 2012 10: 21
        Quote: snek
        or is it sarcasm like that?
        - You guessed about it ..........smile
    2. 0
      22 August 2012 13: 57
      Quote: Indigo
      3. sooner or later have to go from kerosene to hydrogen - again there is a backlog

      no, you can't get away from kerosene - at the first stages it is the optimal fuel (in terms of a set of parameters, including toxicity), hydrogen is good for the upper stages, unfortunately, the capacities (plants) for its production for Energia are destroyed: ((will have to be restored from scratch practically, but sooner or later it will be necessary to restore if we develop space ...
    3. Passing
      -1
      22 August 2012 14: 32
      Quote: Indigo
      3. sooner or later have to go from kerosene to hydrogen - again there is a backlog

      And where do you get hydrogen cheaper than kerosene? All this talk about environmentally friendly and economical hydrogen engines, this is nonsense by loggers. Without fusion, that is, very cheap electricity, hydrogen will always be more expensive than kerosene. When are there plans for fusion power plants?
      The fuel of the foreseeable future is natural gas!
      1. io_stalin
        +1
        22 August 2012 19: 21
        April 2011:
        The creation of a spacecraft with a nuclear installation will be discussed by the Russian Federation and the USA

        "The megawatt class nuclear power plant is designed for a ship that will carry out long-distance space flights

        . The preliminary design of the nuclear engine should be ready by 2012, after which 17 billion rubles will be required for further development of the project.

        The state corporation "Rosatom" provides the main funding for the project to create a new nuclear installation for spacecraft, Perminov said.

        "We are working closely (on the creation of a new nuclear engine for spacecraft - ed.) With research institutes of Rosatom. The main funding comes from Rosatom," he said"



        Reliable source - ROSKOSMOS:
        http://www.federalspace.ru/main.php?id=2&nid=16186

        A S.Sh.P. , it seems, it’s not until the money (which they printed) is wasted.
        So, again, we should be ahead of the rest ... good
        1. io_stalin
          -1
          22 August 2012 20: 16
          same way:

          Spaceship with a nuclear engine. Breakthrough of Russian engineers ("CSM")
          Dmitry Medvedev gave the green light to the construction of a spacecraft with a nuclear power plant and promised to find 600 million US dollars to finance these works. “This is a very serious project, and we need to find funds for this”,


          Moscow. A spacecraft with a nuclear power plant to deliver passengers to Mars and beyond - all this is more like science fiction.

          However, Russian engineers say that they have made a breakthrough in creating such a spaceship, which will allow them to get ahead of competitors in the space race and create a manned spaceship capable of making long interplanetary flights.
          Russian experts say that they are ready to complete the construction of the first such spaceship in 2012.

          At a meeting on Wednesday with leading Russian scientists in the field of cosmonautics, President Dmitry Medvedev gave the green light to the construction of a spacecraft with a nuclear power plant and promised to find $ 600 million to finance these works.
          "This is a very serious project, and we need to find funds for this," Medvedev said during a meeting with scientists. "
          http://vlasti.net/news/74778
          wiki:
          Nuclear pulse engine

          Atomic charges with a capacity of about a kiloton during the take-off phase were supposed to explode at a rate of one charge per second. The shock wave - an expanding plasma cloud - had to be received by a "pusher" - a powerful metal disk with a heat-shielding coating, and then, reflected from it, create a jet thrust. The impulse received by the pusher plate was transmitted to the ship through the structural elements. Then, as the altitude and speed increased, the frequency of the explosions could be reduced. During takeoff, the ship had to fly strictly vertically in order to minimize the area of ​​radioactive contamination of the atmosphere.
          In the United States, several tests were carried out on a model of an aircraft with a pulsed drive (conventional explosives were used for explosions). Positive results were obtained on the fundamental possibility of a controlled flight of an apparatus with a pulse engine.
          Real tests of pulsed NRE with the detonation of nuclear devices have not been conducted. Further practical developments in the field of pulsed NRE were discontinued in the late 1960s.
          1. REPA1963
            -1
            22 August 2012 21: 59
            "However, Russian engineers say," they say they milk chickens in Moscow ....
            1. io_stalin
              +1
              22 August 2012 23: 23
              Do you have any relation to engineers?
              To Russian?

              “Barimore, what is the noise on the street?”
              - These gays require that they be allowed to have gay sex
              - then what are they making noise?
              - n * darasy sir!
            2. 0
              23 August 2012 08: 00
              "However, Russian engineers say," they say they milk chickens in Moscow ....

              Exactly. Ahead of the planet. Are you envious?

              A total of 250 tests were conducted. The program ended with complete success. As a result, we got an efficient engine that met all the requirements.

              Construction at the landfill began, although it was carried out, according to Belogurov, "in an economical mode." Not one year was spent on the construction of two mines and office space underground. Sensitive devices were in the concrete bunker located between the shafts. In another bunker, at a distance of 800 meters, there is a control panel. During the tests of a nuclear reactor, the presence of people in the first of these premises was strictly prohibited. In the event of an accident, the stand would become a powerful source of radiation.

              Before the experimental start-up, the reactor was carefully lowered into the shaft using a gantry crane installed outside (on the surface of the earth). The mine was connected to a spherical tank, hollowed out at a depth of 150 meters in granite and lined with steel. Hydrogen gas was pumped into such an unusual “tank” under great pressure (for using it in liquid form, which, of course, was more efficient, there was no money). After starting the reactor, hydrogen entered the uranium boiler from below. Gas heated up to 3000 degrees and burst out of the shaft with a thunder of a fiery stream. There was no strong radioactivity in this stream, but during the day it was not allowed to be outside within a radius of one and a half kilometers from the test site. It was impossible to approach the mine itself for a month. A one and a half kilometer underground tunnel, protected from radiation penetration, led from a safe zone first to one bunker, and from it to another, located near the mines. On these peculiar long “corridors” experts also moved.

              Tests of the reactor were carried out in 1978 — 1981 years. The experimental results confirmed the correctness of the design decisions. In principle, a nuclear rocket engine was created.
              1. 0
                23 August 2012 08: 02
                But they did not give money for this. For in the eighties, the practical use in space of atomic power plants was not provided. They were not suitable for starting from Earth, because the surrounding area would be exposed to severe radiation pollution. Nuclear engines are generally designed only for use in space. And then in very high orbits (600 kilometers and above), so that the spacecraft rotates around the Earth for many centuries. Because the "period of highlighting" of the NRE is at least 300 years. Actually, the Americans developed a similar engine primarily for flying to Mars. But in the early eighties, the leaders of our country were very clear: a flight to the Red Planet was beyond our power (as, incidentally, the Americans, they also turned off these works).
                However, it was in 1981 that our designers had new promising ideas. Why not use a nuclear engine as a power plant? Simply put, to generate electricity in it in space. During a manned flight it is possible to “move” the uranium boiler to a distance of up to 100 meters from the living quarters in which the astronauts are using a sliding rod. He will fly away from the station. At the same time, they would receive a very powerful source of energy so needed on spacecraft and stations. Over the course of 15 years, Voronezh residents, along with atomic scientists, were engaged in these promising studies and conducted tests at the Semipalatinsk test site. There was no state funding at all, and all work was carried out at the expense of factory resources and ... enthusiasm. Today we have a very solid foundation here. The only question is whether these developments will be in demand.

                “Necessarily,” says General Designer Vladimir Rachuk confidently. - Today, space stations, ships and satellites receive energy from solar panels. But in a nuclear reactor, the generation of electricity is much cheaper - twice, or even three times. In addition, in the shadow of the Earth, solar panels do not work. This means that batteries are needed, and this significantly increases the weight of the spacecraft. Of course, when it comes to low power, say, 10 — 15 kilowatts, it’s easier to have solar panels. But when 50 kilowatts and more is required in space, then a nuclear installation (which, by the way, has served 10 — 15 years) cannot be dispensed with on an orbital station or interplanetary ship. Now, frankly, we do not really count on such orders. But in 2010 — 2020, nuclear engines, which are simultaneously mini-power plants, will be very needed.

                “Labor”, 13 April 2000

                Over the past 30 years, everything has become much more interesting and effective, and Russia's leadership in this area, thanks to Soviet science, will be impressive these days. To spite the enemies and to our joy.
                1. 0
                  23 August 2012 15: 29
                  Interesting...
                  Somehow such articles passed by my attention ...
                  And I read about nuclear reactors in spacecraft, even that nuclear power generators are used on our satellites.
  6. +1
    22 August 2012 10: 05
    "The modular system used in the Angara should have a tangible effect on the economic efficiency of the rocket - to launch various cargoes into orbit, it will not be necessary to build rockets of different models, it is enough to assemble a carrier of the appropriate configuration from universal blocks." I still think this scheme is the future ...
    1. +2
      22 August 2012 14: 03
      The funny thing is that Energia was just such a rocket ... I still don't understand why it was necessary to develop a new rocket with such a backlog, look at the Vulcan development in a search engine - this is Energia's development.
  7. Protey
    +1
    22 August 2012 10: 41
    Ditched, due to the personal ambitions of the chief designers, the N-1 could long ago become the very heavy carrier.
    "It was assumed that on the basis of the N1 construct, a family of launch vehicles would be operated, including the forced version of the N1F and the version upgraded to a payload of 155-175 tons on the N1M oxygen-hydrogen engines, smaller in size N11 / 11A53 (three middle stages of N1) with a mass of 700 tons for a payload of 25 tons and Н111 / 11А54 (third and fourth stages Н1) with a starting mass of 200 tons for a payload of 5 tons, and in the future, larger carriers Н2, Н3, Н4 with a starting mass of 7000, 12000, 18000, respectively tons (in which even more powerful first stages were successively substituted under the two lower stages Н1). "
  8. John from the USA
    +2
    22 August 2012 10: 51
    After that, the contracting organization will receive state funding in the amount of about ten million rubles. For this money, by the end of May next 2013, a ready-made project of the launch vehicle should be created.

    10 million rubles for a rocket project.
    Perplexing - cheap price.
    1. 0
      22 August 2012 14: 07
      A project is not even a layout :)) normal amounts, but further on - exponentially.
  9. +8
    22 August 2012 11: 28
    What a sense of pride overcame me after the "BURAN" flight. How I waited for his second flight. How naive I was. How I want to experience this feeling of pride for Russia again and without naivety. And the picture is beautiful.
  10. +2
    22 August 2012 11: 41
    Here you read the article - my God - how familiar everything is!
    Our space industry is, first of all, cunning under-carpet games. But the useful side of the matter is this - experts are leaving here.
    To use the previous achievements to the maximum is a brilliant idea.
    The current "kindergarten" in combination with a "nursing home" (this is what our design bureaus and research institutes have degenerated into) may not be able to pull off a normal full-scale development.
  11. +2
    22 August 2012 13: 42
    Yes ........ somehow everything is very muddy. A lot depends on the leaders, on their motivation and interest, if they are only interested in filling money into their pockets, then the flight to Mars will not be soon ((((
    1. +1
      22 August 2012 14: 03
      I now know the current leaders of our research institute, ... Perminov met once when he was the head of Roscosmos .. - impression - a muddy inadequate public
  12. Grin
    +3
    22 August 2012 14: 11
    After that, the contracting organization will receive state funding in the amount of about ten million rubles. For this money, by the end of May next 2013, a ready-made project of the launch vehicle should be created.

    It's just funny))) This money is enough for 2-3 salaries for 100 employees or for 3 jeeps for superiors. And from this they want to get a finished project?
    At my work, automation projects of not large enterprises based on 1C cost the same. And they want to design an extra-heavy launch vehicle! Sketch in a notebook with a pen to draw, maybe enough.
    1. +1
      22 August 2012 14: 45
      There is something wrong ..
      We have on the subject of Sandwich only in our research institute goes somewhere 1.5 billion rubles,
      Subject Diagonika - it's about 400 million a year
      Subject Vanguard - a figure - somewhere similar ..
  13. sxn278619
    +1
    22 August 2012 16: 01
    In the past 20 years, the United States has better planning ahead in the space industry than ours. Are they going to make a heavy rocket? Who knows?
  14. +4
    22 August 2012 16: 45
    Want a joke from the current life of the space industry?
    Here I am sitting now debugging a measuring system for monitoring rocket engines.
    Here - error on error, illiteracy on illiteracy ..
    My suggestion is that let me redesign everything from the beginning to the end .. (there are no problems - I have all the necessary development tools ..) No errors - I guarantee (experience is more than great)

    Answer - No, it is not so.
  15. 0
    22 August 2012 19: 22
    The comments are interesting. However, no one knows what they are planning, what are the plans for space exploration, what they are "doing" at the Roskosmos Design Bureau. The topics are secret, we can only guess on the coffee grounds. True, recent failures have shown that the change of generations is difficult. Money alone is not enough, strict discipline and strict control are needed.
  16. +3
    22 August 2012 20: 01

    Tell me a moron - do we even have a concept for the development of astronautics? And then a strange situation - but let's do it! And let's do it!
    1. ICT
      +2
      22 August 2012 20: 28
      I think not, so we stayed in space only as a "taxi shaitan" in Moscow only on mailing lists.

      We do not study either the sun or any planet, there are simply no automatic machines, such as American ones on Mars, somewhere we missed this matter, and the campaign was already forever behind even Europe.
  17. not good
    +1
    22 August 2012 22: 59
    Perhaps they don’t even know about the concept of the development of Russian cosmonautics even in Roskosmos. The whole recent history of Russian cosmonautics is the story of unsuccessful projects and successful development of money. smile
    1. 0
      24 August 2012 11: 01
      ..... the story of unsuccessful projects and the successful development of money.

      Bravo! Perfectly said!
  18. +1
    23 August 2012 11: 31
    Roscosmos is a state-owned commercial enterprise; it earns money by launching rockets and launching cargo into orbit. It is in profit. As an ordinary profitable enterprise, everything seems to work, not without errors and losses, but it works. So why should these merchants invent something new if they can use existing tools (rockets, engines)? I see that some managers reason just like that, otherwise they would have done everything long ago, developed and launched it. It seems to me that the question is that they just want to keep the current situation and are afraid to change something. And why do they need it, the process is going on, money is dripping, rockets will start, some will not fly, well, there are insurance companies, new for them - hunger and empty pockets. Well, when absolutely everything falls apart, then they may come to their senses, but it will be too late. But there is money, and you could do everything, and earn more, they’re just cowardly.
  19. iSpoiler
    0
    24 August 2012 07: 19
    Damn and what Americans flew to the moon ... ??
    As far as I know, they didn’t invent such a clever guy .. ??