Military Review

"Landed safe and sound": Starship prototype exploded after landing

285
"Landed safe and sound": Starship prototype exploded after landing

Another prototype of SpaceX's Starship SN10 spacecraft made a successful landing after a test flight, but exploded a few minutes after landing. The head of the company, Elon Musk, expressed hope for the continued success of the prototypes, despite the third explosion in a row.


SpaceX has conducted regular flight tests of a prototype manned spacecraft Starship SN10 at the company's test site in the Boca Chica region of Texas. As in previous launches, Starship SN10 climbed to an altitude of 10 km, where it worked out engine shutdown, aerodynamic braking and engine restart to return to vertical position. Six and a half minutes later, the prototype made a soft landing on the launch pad. However, some time after landing, the ship caught fire and exploded.

Despite the explosion of the SN10 prototype, this is the first successful landing of the ship after the maneuvers in the air, the two previous SN8 and SN9 exploded in the air, in both cases the problem was with the engine.


The reason for the explosion in the company was called "excess fuel", Elon Musk called the tests successful, drawing attention to the prototype landing.

Starship SN10 has landed safe and sound!

- he wrote on Twitter.

SpaceX is developing a transportation system consisting of the fully reusable Super Heavy launch vehicles and the Starship spacecraft. Starship will perform two roles: the second stage and an independent spacecraft.

In the final version, Starship will have a height of almost 50 meters, and its mass with a full load of fuel is 1400 tons. Equipped with 37 Raptor engines, it will be able to launch up to 150 tons of load into orbit or transport up to 100 people.
285 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. military_cat
    military_cat 4 March 2021 07: 17
    +12
    It looks like it was extinguished too early, and the accumulated methane vapors ignited from an accidental spark. It is solved by a standby flame, which does not allow vapors to accumulate in large quantities, this is definitely not the most difficult problem. At the same time, this was the first successful landing after a controlled fall on the side with a turn before landing.
    1. WHAT IS
      WHAT IS 4 March 2021 07: 19
      +13
      They will deal with the fire later, but the landing was, and it was successful.
      1. NDR-791
        NDR-791 4 March 2021 07: 30
        +15
        but the landing was, and was, successful.
        Not a complaint, but it seems to me or is it really crooked after landing? Tilted to the left.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 4 March 2021 07: 43
          +5
          Most likely, the legs did not work well.
          1. vargo
            vargo 5 March 2021 03: 13
            +3
            It seems that I have already read somewhere that they recognized the fact that the landing was harsh, which hurt my leg. And as I understand it, the leg most likely broke through the fuel hoses, which caused further fire. That is, in fact, although she sat down, she is not yet completely perfect.
        2. antivirus
          antivirus 4 March 2021 08: 17
          +3
          there was a joke - the Russians sent their condolences 6 minutes before the start. Now the Chinese regret the failure
        3. donavi49
          donavi49 4 March 2021 08: 52
          +3
          He will not sit down like that, in the project he is picked up by the tower supports for power reinforcements. Therefore, the legs are temporary.

          Actually it goes quite well:
          1-2 fail on landing, due to problems with engine ignition and pulling.
          3 - fixed the problem, lit all the engines and then turned off the extra one.
          4 - will already live up to the suborbital jump and will work out a little more. laughing
          1. The eye of the crying
            The eye of the crying 4 March 2021 12: 39
            +3
            Quote: donavi49
            He will not sit down like this, in the project he is picked up by the tower supports


            For a while, he will sit like this. When those towers will be - even Musk does not know.
          2. Engineer Schukin
            Engineer Schukin 4 March 2021 14: 38
            +5
            "under the arm" will catch Superhevy, and the Starship will sit down just like that.
        4. PROXOR
          PROXOR 4 March 2021 10: 25
          +7
          The video shows that he flopped harshly. Perhaps one of the legs broke the body, damaging the tanks.
        5. figwam
          figwam 4 March 2021 10: 26
          +9
          He hit during landing, it can be seen, so the fuel flowed.
        6. zenion
          zenion 5 March 2021 21: 47
          +1
          Like the guy who fell from the 50th floor. How are you? On the 25th floor, he answered - so far everything is fine.
      2. Cosm22
        Cosm22 4 March 2021 10: 16
        +1
        Right.
        But I had to worry.
        Even though Musk gave this time a 60% chance of a successful landing, I still had great doubts. But nothing happened.
        What to say...
        Well done!
        On the third attempt to land the prototype, it’s something. Spaces really do wonders.
        Few only insured themselves this time, as you can see. According to the plan, the Starship, after climbing, flies down "in the horizon". Before landing, it goes back "into the vertical", for this the lower wings are folded, the lower part of the structure loses its lifting force and goes down sharply. At this moment, 2 motors are switched on, which damp the moment of inertia and give the apparatus a vertical position. After that, one engine is turned off, and the second provides a soft landing.
        The video shows the inclusion of three engines. Automation immediately worked, turned off unnecessary engines, compensated for excess thrust, leaving only one engine. The landing itself is regular, at the intended point. Plus, the U-turn itself started earlier, it looks like lessons were learned from the previous accident.
        And the explosion after landing ... These are trifles. They will figure it out, eliminate it. For this, Musk rivets the prototypes in batches so that they burst and explode. To squeeze all possible information out of them.
        The presentation is, of course, a little harsh. Perhaps the thrust of the Raptor alone isn't enough. Or was the explosion the result of bleeding fuel components? Or is the reason in the landing legs (did not come out completely)? So far, there is little data.
        But the main thing has been done - the landing was generally successful. The concept is working, there are no comments at all for takeoff and planning, with restarting the engines and re-ignition, it seems, at this stage they figured out.
        Of course, there may still be all sorts of emergencies, malfunctions, explosions in the process of testing and debugging ... All this is no longer important. For yesterday there was confidence in the correctness of the chosen path.
        Now jump a few more times with SN, run BN1 / 2 ... And there the orbit may soon loom.
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 4 March 2021 10: 31
          0
          Quote: Cosm22
          The video shows the inclusion of three engines.

          After SN-9, Musk agreed in an interview that it was foolish to start only 2 engines when there were three. It seems that he was the one who insisted on braking with 2 motors.
          Quote: Cosm22
          Or was the explosion the result of bleeding fuel components?

          They say there is too much fuel left. A hard landing, too, because of this, maybe the prototype was heavier than necessary. Were reinsured and poured too much fuel, you can understand.

          Congratulations to all those who are not indifferent, this is an unequivocal success.
          1. MMX
            MMX 4 March 2021 12: 09
            +14
            Well, if Rogozin had also thwarted all the prototypes being launched, then I doubt that he would have been congratulated on his success. Local "witnesses to the coming of the Mask" would have devoured him with all the substance ...
            1. shahor
              shahor 4 March 2021 18: 00
              -1
              Quote: MMX
              Well, if Rogozin also killed all the prototypes that were launched,

              Eh, if he had killed at least one prototype ... there is even nothing to threaten!
              1. kytx
                kytx 5 March 2021 14: 51
                0
                I completely agree about Rogozin
                and Musk brings the device to mind, the benefit of finances allows
                and after all will bring the funeral

                Shl. automatic grammar correction stubbornly emphasizes the word "Rogozin" as misspelled :)
              2. kytx
                kytx 5 March 2021 19: 23
                0
                Rogozin minus? well, let's go ...
          2. Intruder
            Intruder 4 March 2021 21: 30
            -3
            They say there is too much fuel left. A hard landing, too, because of this, maybe the prototype was heavier than necessary. Were reinsured and poured too much fuel, you can understand.
            Next time they will put an emergency discharge and solve the problem quickly, with the remaining fuel in the landing mode, and now the telemetry analysis of all units and systems onboard is in full swing ... and by the way, all flight tests are quite successful in the end! wink
            Mutually ... and you too !!! hi
            1. Dmitry V.
              Dmitry V. 5 March 2021 10: 39
              0
              Quote: Intruder
              Next time they will put an emergency reset and quickly solve the problem


              It's not safe to dump several tons of components at once.
              It is safer to either burn them before landing at a safe height, or leave them in the tanks and ensure a soft landing ..
              Here the problem is different - there is no bottom protection of the engine compartment (during landing, it overheated, since the gases reflected from the landing site are not diverted anywhere, for this reason burnout of the pipelines is a likely event), there is no depreciation of the landing supports (since this is a landing according to a temporary scheme) - accordingly it was possible that there was a leakage
              1. Intruder
                Intruder 5 March 2021 15: 50
                0
                It's not safe to dump several tons of components at once.
                sometimes the engines are dropped ... and not only at the launch vehicle, even in aviation it is used:
                In Boeing 737-777 aircraft, the engines are attached to the wing at four locations using hollow steel bolts, the so-called. fuse pins - brittle fuses. In the event of a strong vibration of the engines (surging, landing on the belly), these bolts break under extreme loads, and the engines come off, thereby preventing the destruction of aerodynamic surfaces.
                and the launch vehicle also has such features as: "... the canonical rocket principle of rejection in flight on the way to the target of the structural components that have fulfilled their function ...."!
                PS anecdote about real events: "When I was studying ... in one" interesting "university, Vitya K. studied with me. So, there was such a story. We are sitting in a tactics class and an IL-76 with one engine is torn off on the table. Vitya comes up and asks who they say broke the plane, to which he gets an answer from knowledgeable people who are ready to "help" a friend in mastering the materiel: like this type of aircraft provides for the shooting of engines in case an enemy missile is launched at the aircraft and it is needed So, on the electronic warfare exam, he gives the teacher all of the above, from which he falls under the table .... ". I think that these legends are born from such Vit ...!? laughing wink
          3. Dmitry V.
            Dmitry V. 5 March 2021 10: 25
            0
            Quote: OgnennyiKotik
            Congratulations to all those who are not indifferent, this is an unequivocal success.


            On the one hand, the flight program has been completed.
            On the other hand, 3 engines, an on-board computer and a flight model were lost.
            These are certainly not 4 disasters of the full H1 with 48 engines at a time + one launch pad.
        2. Pathos
          Pathos 4 March 2021 11: 21
          -2
          Well done!
          On the third attempt to land the prototype, it’s something. Spaces really do wonders.

          I don't see anything wonderful here. Buran sat down on the automatics the first time and laid a loop like this request and then PEREMOGA sat down on the 3rd time laughing but after 6 minutes the yak ZRADA exploded laughing The intrigues of the saboteurs Putin, Petrov and Bashirov were probably trawled by a newcomer laughing They hang out in space for 3 days before the ISS without a toilet. As for me, this reusable crap from the United States has not taught anything, the shuttles have already flown with a huge number of heroic corpses. In one case, the spacer for 5 cents in the other is a piece of ceramic tile for 1 dollar. Not!!!! comrades such space we do not need !!!!! With this approach, they will soon have reusable condoms in the United States, and then one American will shove an octopus in his ass and ALL FORGIVING HUMANITY laughing
          1. Cosm22
            Cosm22 4 March 2021 12: 22
            +2
            And what kind of space do we need, may I ask?
            With royal carriers and spaceships?
            Don't speak for everyone.
            I definitely don't need such space.
            Without progressive movement forward, without new ideas, developments, technologies.
            Do you want to stay forever in the last century? Your right.
            And for me, for example, it is a shame that China has already made a handle to Roscosmos. There is no talk about the States, they will never be caught up. Moreover, not even NASA, but one of Musk's private traders.
            As for Buran, this is not the most successful example of the flight of technological and scientific thought. There was no practical benefit from this single flight. Unlike the Shuttles, which carried the brunt of the ISS construction on their humps.
            Further. The already textbook mention of the automatic landing of Buran begins to work against this event. You shouldn't stick it in the topic for any reason. First, the automatic landing of aircraft was mastered in the same USA a decade before the Buran flight. Moreover, not so wide and long strips, specially built for this.
            Secondly, Buran simply could not sit down otherwise. For there was no KK in the literal sense of the word. You can't even put it next to the Shuttle. Buran - it was just PN for Energy. Buran did not have the means of navigation, command and control, which are present in a full-fledged manned spacecraft.
            Therefore, our propaganda pressed for automatic landing, because there were no more advantages from a single demonstration flight, unlike the workhorses of the Shuttles, who did their best, especially during the construction of the ISS. So even if the Russian cosmonaut was by some miracle in the Buran's cabin, he could not influence the landing parameters in any way. He simply did not have any technical capabilities for this. Buran had to either be planted automatically or burned in the atmosphere.
            And we will have the moral right to sneer at Spaces only after we manage to return from orbit at least one nut from the launch vehicle, which we burn without a trace in the very first launch. Drop this same nut onto a platform measuring 50 by 90 meters.
            1. Pathos
              Pathos 4 March 2021 14: 06
              -3
              How no use of Burana belay fool For some reason, automatic landing on shuttles was not provided, although it was run in 10 years ago, is it strange, isn't it ???? It is strange that the shuttles did not provide any means of rescuing the astronauts either at the initial stage or in the end, and as a result, the Americans received 9 heroic corpses at a time. You shout, everything is gone, but I don’t think so, when the Americans will once again receive 6 heroic corpses on the Dragon the shop will close and they will again crawl to beg for places in the Unions. Whoever says anything, the Union is the workhorse of Roscosmos. Are you going to use the return capsule a second time ???? Sorry, but you do not have all jacks in the deck, if it will burn out not for the tenth time, but for the 30th for sure.
              For the blizzard, of course, you put a piece of stone on yours, I have to disappoint you with the glider experienced by the flyers with aircraft engines, a squadron was recruited for the blizzard, separately tested the Energia rocket, if there were no means of navigation, command and control on the blizzard, then explain how he went to the second circle before boarding ???? Don't talk nonsense. In our country, unlike the Americans, no one will release a finished PRODUCT with astronauts on board into space !!!!! Your shuttles brought only losses, no profit, and a bunch of heroic corpses, even more than we have in the entire manned space industry. Can you idolize Musk further, who licked his missiles from the union not for nothing in the nineties came to Moscow, all Musk flies on are our developments, ask yourself why Musk does not use the space shuttle developments ???? Because it's dumb.

              Once again, we need reliable carriers, we need Heroes-cosmonauts !!!! And not heroic corpses !!! We know that space is getting closer, we believe in the luck of ORDINARY GUYS !!!!!
              1. Cosm22
                Cosm22 4 March 2021 15: 29
                +7
                Yeah ...
                Words don't get through ...
                Shuttle automation was provided, learn materiel. She was, for example, tested in the STS-3 mission (1982). Moreover, the entire descent of the Shuttle from orbit took place in automatic mode, the commander took control only at an altitude of 50000 feet. As for the complexity, it is stupid to talk about it, considering that the accident was carried out back in 1937, on the C-14B. Then she was honed during the F3D Skyknight accident on the USS Antietam aircraft carrier (a total of 50 landings in various weather conditions). And in 1965, routine automatic landings of Hawker Siddeley HS 121 Trident aircraft began. Even then, this did not surprise anyone.
                The main idea: Buran is only PN to PH Energia. And nothing more. Buran was never even considered in a manned version, because the project underwent dramatic changes at the very beginning.
                Buran was originally copied from the Shuttle. It was OS-120. But!
                1. Baikonur is not Florida.
                2. RD-0120 is not an RS-25. Even on cravings. But with much greater weight and dimensions.
                3. The external fuel tank was heavier than the American one.
                Three RD-0120s were not enough for Buran for full functionality, and there was nowhere to put the fourth. AND???
                As a result, a "brilliant" solution appeared - to attach RD-0120 to an external tank. And OS-120 instantly became OK-92 (do you understand that the numbers mean tons?).
                And that was a cardinal mistake and the end of the whole project. You could immediately forget about its reusability.
                The United States returned back the TTU and three RS-25 hydrogen tanks along with the shuttle. The USSR lost everything in the first flight, except for the PN, called Buran. But the main thing is that Buran lost its main engines. It became just a glider with a small amount of trajectory correction using small engines. Unclear?
                Then on your fingers.
                Low-power Buran engines were suitable only for orbit correction, these are engines analogous to KK.
                The full-fledged Shuttle engines are LV engines that are designed to be launched into space.
                Once again: Buran is PN (KK) for RN. The shuttle is KK + RN. The shuttle is 1/2 of the first stage of the entire CS + its entire 2nd stage (together with the tank), and at the final stage of withdrawal - also the third stage. Is that even clear? Hopefully. Comparing Buran to the Shuttle is like comparing a cart to a car. This spacecraft is completely different class and purpose.
                Buran was not intended for operation in a manned version, learn materiel. Why? Affected by the technical and technological backwardness of the USSR in this regard.
                I have already spoken about the losses and profits from the Shuttles. At the time of the ISS construction, the Shuttles delivered 312 tons of cargo there. Russian missiles for the same period totaled only 45,6 tons. Without the Shuttles, the construction of the ISS was impossible in principle. Learn materiel a second time.
                Musk licked his missiles off the Soyuz? Do you understand the difference between batch and tandem layout? Atleast approximately? If not - back to school, learn materiel.
                What Russian developments does Musk use? Ideal weight perfection of your machines? And then why can't Russia even come close to him? Or a propulsion landing of the first feet of the launch vehicle? Or did Musk lick his Raptor off a Russian methane engine? Or stole the technology of reusable QCs from Russia?
                I will disappoint you. It is now Russia who needs to copy Musk's actions one to one. To somehow get out of the routine and hopelessness. But it's too late. We are at least 10 years behind. And simple copying will not give anything, alas. Late. The train left. And you can't catch up with him.
                As for the developments on the Shuttle ... Before asking nonsense, ask first about the Shuttle concept and the Starship concept.
                1. Pathos
                  Pathos 4 March 2021 16: 07
                  0
                  And how did Buran with low-power engines go to the second lap? Everything is lost the client leaves the plaster cast laughing If we are so poor, why does the US buy engines from us? Take the lunar program of the USA technology lost the drawings of Apollo disappeared the dough piled up mother non-combustible and for some reason they abruptly closed it. Some questions to which there are no answers
                  1. zlinn
                    zlinn 4 March 2021 16: 54
                    +4
                    Well, read, finally, something worthwhile on both the snowstorm and Apollo, well, something other than the Murzilka magazine, well, pohaaluysssta
                    1. Pathos
                      Pathos 4 March 2021 21: 37
                      -1
                      Sapromat will suit ????
                      1. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 4 March 2021 21: 50
                        +1
                        Sapromat is h smile something related to CAD?
                      2. Pathos
                        Pathos 5 March 2021 00: 25
                        0
                        NOT!!! CAD is an AUTOMATED DESIGN SYSTEM !!!! CAD is a complex system in which you need to enter data on impacts and loads that are produced by preliminary calculations.
                        Sapromat is: the resistance of materials in the calculation of which the density, compression, rupture, fluidity, etc., is taken into account. and others (bending, torsion, punching, separation, deflection,) This is called the calculation of limit states.
                      3. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 5 March 2021 00: 27
                        +1
                        Quote: Paphos
                        Sapromat is: resistance of materials


                        Your lies. The resistance of materials is a resistance material.
                      4. Pathos
                        Pathos 5 March 2021 10: 33
                        0
                        And before the sapromat, the theormech which is divided into 2 sections of which?
                      5. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 5 March 2021 10: 58
                        +1
                        Before sapromat - a failed exam in Russian.
                      6. Pathos
                        Pathos 6 March 2021 20: 50
                        0
                        Yes, you yourself know the Russian language ??? You, as a Ukrainian who does not know his own language, speak stupidly in Surzhik, everything from Russian to Magyar laughing The situation is the same in Russia as well. Don't be an old refrigerator that freezes all the shit laughing
                      7. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 6 March 2021 21: 06
                        -1
                        Quote: Paphos
                        Yes, you yourself know the Russian language ???


                        Yes. And I try to write correctly.

                        Quote: Paphos
                        You are as ukrainian


                        You are also concerned about Ukraine. It would be better to take care of their grammar, right word.
                      8. Pathos
                        Pathos 11 March 2021 22: 11
                        0
                        Yes, I am concerned about Ukraine because I live in it, namely, in the city of the hero ILOVAYSK, but I am concerned about Russia. I do not want to repeat what happened in Ukraine in the 14th year in Russia and Belarus. He is concerned about literacy; Russians are being killed at his side, but the poor fellow will not get off the couch when the terrorists come to kill him and his family. When the civil war begins, all the literate go over the hill and from there yelp about publicity about democracy that will be brought to the people through the masses and only real men of WORKERS take up their guns and take out on their shoulders all the burdens as our grandfathers and fathers took to the DOMESTIC !!!
                2. The comment was deleted.
              2. Pathos
                Pathos 5 March 2021 11: 08
                0
                the amount does not change from the change of places laughing
      3. Pathos
        Pathos 4 March 2021 22: 08
        0
        What is the moment in termination ??? it's a simple question
  2. Intruder
    Intruder 5 March 2021 07: 27
    -2
    What Russian developments does Musk use? Ideal weight perfection of your machines? And then why can't Russia even come close to him? Or a propulsion landing of the first feet of the launch vehicle? Or did Musk lick his Raptor off a Russian methane engine? Or stole the technology of reusable QCs from Russia?
    and, also: composite coatings, microprocessors, software and ballistics with thermodynamics and radio in general - it was the Russians who invented .... !!! This is so, to the heap ... laughing wink
  3. Yves762
    Yves762 9 March 2021 05: 08
    +1
    Quote: Cosm22
    Buran was never even considered in a manned version, because the project underwent dramatic changes at the very beginning. ... Buran was not designed for manned operation. ...

    what
    Therefore, the ISS with OS-120, the ISS with OK-92, MTK-VP, and the "flying" pressurized cabin sawed "for beauty", yeah ... lol

    Quote: Cosm22
    Low-power Buran engines were suitable only for orbit correction, these are engines analogous to KK.
    The full-fledged Shuttle engines are LV engines that are designed to be launched into space.

    Yeah. But after that they, these "full-fledged" ones, hang like a dead weight, for everything is further provided by the Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) engines. And the "marching" ones do not use, because immediately after the formation of the LEO they are "jammed" tightly. repeat
    In fact, the SSME does no more than the Energia launch vehicle.
    By the way, the stocks of maneuverability in space (characteristic speed, ΔV) from OMS for shuttles and Buranov are the same (+/-). laughing

    Quote: Cosm22
    The United States returned back the TTU and three RS-25 hydrogen tanks along with the shuttle. The USSR lost everything in the first flight, except for the PN, called Buran.

    Nope. In the future, it was also planned to make 4 side blocks of Energia "recoverable".

    Quote: Cosm22
    Comparing Buran to the Shuttle is like comparing a cart to a car. These are spacecraft of absolutely different class and purpose. ...

    And this is generally heresy ... negative AK-74 vs M-16 - the same bullshit.

    stop To the bathhouse! And so the footcloth is long ...
    For the rest (such as "forgotten reusability", "cardinal mistakes", "Baikonur" that is not "Florida", "brilliant solutions" ... etc.) here are a couple of links as "food for".


    P-s. S-s.
    And about -
    Quote: Cosm22
    technical and technological backwardness of the USSR
    - I recommend the following:
    1. Yves762
      Yves762 9 March 2021 05: 23
      +1
      And also - better teach materiel! In a natural way !!!
      Kalashnikov assault rifles, to begin with.!.
  4. Pathos
    Pathos 11 March 2021 21: 48
    0
    You are the real TRAP and PROVOCATOR am The SHUTTLE never once landed in automatic landing mode am The only space-borne unmanned glider that landed on a submachine gun in the United States is the XB 37, which is more than 20 years after the BURAN. I want to upset YOU !!! THE GREAT US space power PROEPELA not only the drawings of APPOLON, but also the technology of creating rocket technology, on the ISS they live according to our technologies, they go to our toilet in open space in our spacesuits FLY on our engines without US ISS WILL DIE tongue As soon as the RUSSIANS leave the ISS, they will drown her in the same year. Damage control is not in the interests of an exclusive nation and after that SPACE for the Americans will end FOREVER. They are resuming the lunar program starting with Bush Sr. and WHO and now there will be no nichrome there only UAVs UAVs UAVs
  • Skyscream
    Skyscream 4 March 2021 15: 14
    -1
    "Do you want to stay forever in the last century? Your right."

    As long as PH and KK will be moved by chemistry - so we will forever in the last century! And it doesn't matter if NASA, Mask, China or Roscosmos. Voyager 44 years old climbed to the edge of the System, yes - of course "a huge step for ..." 77 years! What's next?
    1. Cosm22
      Cosm22 4 March 2021 16: 02
      +4
      The question is more philosophical ...
      You can slowly bite off at least from a chemical pie. To the best of your strength and capabilities. Thus, gradually moving progress.
      Or you can do nothing at all. Fold down the handles and wait for the cosmic panacea. She won't come by herself. It is necessary to bring her arrival closer. Including work in the chemical kitchen.
  • Yves762
    Yves762 4 March 2021 16: 31
    +2
    Let's say this is debatable:
    Quote: Cosm22
    Unlike the Shuttles, which carried the brunt of the ISS construction on their humps. ...

    The US segment - yes, but nothing more. Don't exaggerate.

    Quote: Cosm22
    As for Buran, this is not the most successful example of the flight of technological and scientific thought. ...

    Let us assume that this is controversial, since this "example" showed "the level of flight of technological and scientific thought" Union (YES, this is important, even without politota), sufficient to "on the knee" (easier and more efficient) and "for cheap" to solve the same problems (YES, this is VERY IMPORTANT).

    Quote: Cosm22
    There was no practical benefit from this single flight. ...

    Without the above, Yes, but this is not a consequence of the problems of "technological and scientific thought" Union (YES, this is important, even without politota am ) and another.
    -Perhaps it is worthwhile to clearly understand, remember, and proceed from this.

    Quote: Cosm22
    And what kind of space do we need, may I ask?
    With royal carriers and spaceships?


    Quote: Cosm22
    And the moral right to be ironic about the Spaces will only appear after we succeed <(hereinafter, each has its own list, depending on addictions)>.

    But with this I generally agree.
    1. Mikle2000
      Mikle2000 5 March 2021 10: 23
      -2
      ++ US segment and only
      The sign of which segment of the ISS was delivered by which method is available. Google it, look, be impressed.
      1. Yves762
        Yves762 5 March 2021 15: 30
        +1
        request
        And what is there to be impressed with?
        "Foundation"the stations, the Zarya and Zvezda modules, were fitted and attached by hand. And this despite the fact that they are also the heaviest ones. And there is also a 24 (+/-) Nauka module without shuttles. going to slobber ...

        Huh?
        Did the shuttle take part with the "dystrophic" module "Dawn"? So it was Schaub not so offended that Lockheed blew Khrunichev (by the way, pay attention ...).
        And who flew to her when the shuttles landed?
        "The Adventures of Shurik", an episode at a construction site, when the mortar was collected, is a vivid example of the situation. "Who's Who" is obvious, isn't it?
        So it is not worth arguing for the scientific, technical and technological superiority of the "bourgeois". Or at least not with a current example or something ...
  • Mikle2000
    Mikle2000 5 March 2021 10: 20
    -3
    If the astronaut were in a blizzard, he would have died - there were no life support. Stupidly did not have time to do it for launch.
  • The eye of the crying
    The eye of the crying 4 March 2021 12: 40
    -4
    Quote: Paphos
    Buran automatically sat down the first time


    And from what time has Energy sat down?
    1. Pathos
      Pathos 4 March 2021 14: 16
      -2
      And on the shuttle, from what time did the gasket in the returning stage of the solid-fuel accelerator burn out ???? And as a result, 9 heroic corpses with a teacher on board.
      1. zlinn
        zlinn 4 March 2021 15: 29
        0
        7, but why should their busurman feel sorry for them laughing
        1. Pathos
          Pathos 4 March 2021 15: 54
          -1
          Sorian but still more than ours at a time 7 is too much
  • Intruder
    Intruder 4 March 2021 21: 37
    -1
    As for me, this reusable crap from the United States did not teach anything, the shuttles have already flown with a huge number of heroic corpses
    what, you take a lot ...!? wink
    1.
    In just 30 years of the program's existence, 135 missions have been carried out
    how do you like this ???
    2.
    Of these, 131 were successful, two were partially successful (due to problems with fuel cells, the missions were completed ahead of schedule) and 2 missions ended in disaster;

    3.
    By the time the program closed in July 2011, most of the flights were made by the shuttle Discovery - 39.
    more than anyone else on this planet ... so far!
    4. Killed - 14 astronauts .... that's a huge amount of corpses !? For 30 years ...
    1. Pathos
      Pathos 5 March 2021 01: 04
      0
      Everything is super !!! Interesting math turns out! The shuttle paid for itself ???? NOT!!!! 30 years of program 135 missions and not a single change in the design of the shuttle to rescue the crew in 30 years WOW just WUNDERBACH !!!! The first disaster with the gasket is officially, and there anything could have happened and we will never know about it, it can be attributed to bungling, but the second one is generally NONSENS, everyone saw the cameras and filmed how pieces flew from him on takeoff. He blabbed in orbit for more than 1 days and the crew was not informed that something had fallen off, this is stupid RUNNING, or maybe it was reported and decided to plant the ABOS this way, but alas, it did not. Before landing, they could examine him in space, put on spacesuits and climb all the way up and down, no one did it in the TOTAL: we have BURNED. FACT? FACT!!!!
      SORRY 7 people at a time it's not that much IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to express even with swear words !!!
      And this is a huge number in 30 years. am
      1. Intruder
        Intruder 5 March 2021 07: 20
        -1
        SORRY 7 people at a time it's not that much IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to express even with swear words !!!
        not 7, but 14 - two crews, you either do not see a simple fact, or deliberately hide the obvious things and are quite successful !? bully Somehow this is a little bit suspicious though? winked 7 people, this is the crew of the shuttle - it could have been less, as in the Unions, for example wink , there are only a maximum of 3 crew members, but here 7! fellow The crew rescue system was not included in the design of the shuttles in that program, initially ... therefore it was not there for 30 years, I will reveal a small and scary fact - also in civil aviation, in the most widely used class of aircraft, there is also no rescue system the crew and passengers, and what ... belay , everyone is horrified and still flying! ??? fellow
        1. Pathos
          Pathos 5 March 2021 10: 22
          +2
          You read carefully, it is written for those who are in the tank FOR ONE TIME 7 PEOPLE !!!! ONCE!!! Multiply by 2 will be 14 2 disasters happened right ???? I'll tell you a little secret civil aviation flies on kerosene, which is difficult to ignite and reliable 2-circuit turbo-jet engines (turbofan), and astronautics do not fly on anything heptyl hydrazine hydrogen kerosene methane and as an oxidizer it is necessary to have some kind of rubbish in the form of an acid (nitric acid) the slightest spark and explosion, therefore, the Soyuz has a rescue capsule that has not once rescued astronauts in the initial phase of the flight. The Americans felt that they were exceptional, the result is deplorable.
          1. Intruder
            Intruder 5 March 2021 10: 30
            -1
            I will tell you a little secret civil aviation flies on kerosene which is difficult to ignite and reliable 2-circuit turbo-jet engines (turbofan)
            and how kerosene saves from gravity and acceleration, and the subsequent "full mouth of the earth", in case of an unsuccessful landing, even within the runway !?
            And how many in the world every year, on these kerosene stoves people die around the planet ???
            1. Pathos
              Pathos 5 March 2021 11: 43
              +1
              Alas, the force of gravity has not been canceled kerosene is not such an aggressive fuel that leaves a chance for salvation, you can extinguish a scanty chance, but it also has the aerodynamics of aircraft wings, there is a chance to plan and land, you cannot plant a rocket on an aircraft, therefore a fire on board and an explosion
              1. Intruder
                Intruder 5 March 2021 15: 37
                0
                aerodynamics of aircraft wings, there is a chance to plan and land
                And the wings are controlled by something, probably ... well, it's simple - aerodynamically !? Plus, the avionics should work in flight, and a couple more of the crew's organisms to a heap ... It flies itself, only stones / raindrops and celestial bodies ... wink
                You can't land a missile on an aircraft, so there is a fire on board and an explosion
                Have you recently come out of cryosleep? I understand, it happens ... Now for a long time - the propulsive landing mode has been used, but in another way: the engines of the soft landing system, with OBT and thrust throttling ... Falcon 9 (only in 2020, in 21 out of 26 launches the first stage was used again, one of the stages was used 5 times during the year and two stages were launched for the seventh time.), Starship ... fellow
                PS B and by the way, on the 9th stage, the first and second stages are connected by a transition compartment, the shell of which is made of an aluminum-carbon fiber composite. It covers the second stage engine and contains stage separation mechanisms. The separation mechanisms are pneumatic, unlike most rocket systems that use squibs for such purposes. This type of mechanism allows its remote testing and control, increasing the reliability of stage separation., which is rarely used by competitors (brains have not been delivered ... :)) ... Your favorite reliability, in the comments above ("... how are your trampolines - mister Rogozin!?" ...).
              2. Pathos
                Pathos 6 March 2021 14: 54
                0
                All this is good only civil aviation does not fly on rockets and will not fly on any of the rocket fuels. Do not worry. Trampolines near Rogozin are reliable to the ISS in 3 hours, the rest hang out in orbit for 3 days. The suits are also ours
  • Bear
    Bear 4 March 2021 22: 01
    0
    Good evening. May they not eliminate it. The prototype is an empty "barrel" conventionally, without the most important thing, the payload and fuel, the mass of which is incommensurate with the mass of the prototype. It will take a long time to "fuck" with such a "scientific" empirical approach. There are no Korolevs and Von Brauns. And their students are no longer there either.
  • Civil
    Civil 4 March 2021 07: 28
    -12%
    And to the delight of Rogozin, the prototype exploded on the launch pad.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 4 March 2021 07: 35
      +3
      At the landing site
    2. Soho
      Soho 4 March 2021 07: 42
      +10
      Well, not all the same you rejoice when the Protons explode)
      1. Civil
        Civil 4 March 2021 07: 43
        -13%
        Quote: Soho
        Well, not all the same you rejoice when the Protons explode)

        Rejoice and jump on, just don't drop the pan from your head. Go deal with the destroyed Yuzhmash.
        1. Soho
          Soho 4 March 2021 07: 51
          +7
          Hahaha) if I were from the skakuas, then I fully supported you in your howl about how everything is bad in Russia, all the fools (except you) and everything collapsed wassat But in this field you are unique
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. Soho
              Soho 4 March 2021 08: 29
              +4
              Civilian, what a cheap attempt to throw arrows)))
          2. Malyuta
            Malyuta 4 March 2021 08: 17
            -3
            Quote: Soho
            then I fully supported you in your howl about how bad everything in Russia is

            “All this would not have been so scary, but, as a sin, things were going badly on the collective farm. That is, not so bad, one could even say goodbut every year it gets worse and worse. " wassat
      2. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 4 March 2021 09: 59
        +5
        Quote: Soho
        Well, not all the same you rejoice when the Protons explode)

        Mourning declared in Ukraine after Starship SN10 explosion
    3. Malyuta
      Malyuta 4 March 2021 07: 55
      -7
      Quote: Civil
      And to the delight of Rogozin, the prototype exploded on the launch pad.

      To celebrate, they will drink three budget money.
    4. Sidor Amenpodestovich
      Sidor Amenpodestovich 4 March 2021 07: 57
      +2
      Quote: Civil
      And to the delight of Rogozin, the prototype exploded on the launch pad.

      This is the whole point of turbopatriots.
      Something explodes at Space-X - normal workflow.
      Something is not going well with Roscosmos - Rogozin has tweeted everything.

      I remember, I remember how you, without hiding your gloating delight, make jokes when you report on the problems of the Russian space industry.
      1. 2 Level Advisor
        2 Level Advisor 4 March 2021 08: 45
        +3
        By the way, what exactly do you think Rogozin is not doing well?
        1. Sidor Amenpodestovich
          Sidor Amenpodestovich 4 March 2021 09: 20
          +2
          Quote: Level 2 Advisor
          By the way, what exactly do you think Rogozin is not doing well?

          What an obviously provocative question, hehe!
          In fact, you yourself are well aware of the problems of Roscosmos, but in this case you do not need this, but cling to my words and thoroughly discredit them, right? Admit it!
          1. Cosm22
            Cosm22 4 March 2021 10: 31
            +2
            Those. Are Roscosmos problems well known to everyone?
            But it is impossible to discuss them and point to them, for such an act will be immediately qualified by Sidor Amenpodestovich as mockery and malevolent delight?
            What is allowed?
            Throwing hats up to the ceiling and shouting "all is well, beautiful marquise!"
            1. Sidor Amenpodestovich
              Sidor Amenpodestovich 4 March 2021 11: 18
              +4
              Quote: Cosm22
              Those. Are Roscosmos problems well known to everyone?
              But you can't discuss them and point to them,

              So they discuss not the problems of Roscosmos, but the activities of Rogozin on Twitter.
              This year there have already been several successful launches, but some commentators preferred to attribute the credit for this to the Soviet backlog.
              They prefer not to pay attention to the fact that when Rogozin was the head of Roscosmos there was only one unsuccessful launch.
              1. Cosm22
                Cosm22 4 March 2021 12: 30
                -2
                Let me remind you that the second surge in Russian accidents occurred in the period 2010-2015.
                What were these years?
                Those were glorious years when Russia firmly held the first place in the world in terms of the number of space launches.
                Today she is in third place. Until. Is this fact related to the decrease in the number of accidents?
                I will reveal a terrible secret: if the number of launches is reduced to zero, then the trouble-free operation will generally become a constant value.
                1. Sidor Amenpodestovich
                  Sidor Amenpodestovich 4 March 2021 14: 26
                  +2
                  Quote: Cosm22
                  Let me remind you that the second surge in Russian accidents occurred in the period 2010-2015.
                  What were these years?
                  Those were glorious years

                  Not understood. Do you consider the glorious years when there were a large number of accidents?
                  Reminds Naina Yeltsin with her glorious nineties.
                  You propose to take in quantity, and accidents - to hell with them?
                  For me, so let there be fewer launches, but without accidents.
      2. orionvitt
        orionvitt 4 March 2021 12: 28
        +5
        Quote: Sidor Amenpodestovich
        Something explodes at Space-X - normal workflow

        Have you heard the puppy delight of the commentators in the video? The impression was that from the contemplation of the "technological miracle" of the Mask, they emanated in warm jets and were ready to lick everything below the belt, from the "miracle of the technological" superpower. I especially liked it when the pepelats all the same pulled, and then the fans of the imitation hi-tech, so as not to burn off their chagrin, spoke like "I jumped beautifully during the explosion." laughing Curtain. Progress is nothing, PR is everything.
  • Malyuta
    Malyuta 4 March 2021 07: 40
    -2
    Quote: military_cat
    At the same time, this was the first successful landing after a controlled fall on the side with a turn before landing.

    This video shows the whole test cycle.
  • Thrifty
    Thrifty 4 March 2021 07: 17
    +1
    Will it also "land" on Mars? This is not a spaceship, but the largest pitarda on the planet! !!
    1. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 4 March 2021 07: 29
      +4
      Quote: Thrifty
      Will it also "land" on Mars? This is not a spaceship, but the largest pitarda on the planet! !!

      In 5-6 years they will bring to mind. There are still a lot of problems there, but at least money is spent on the interests of human development, and not on the development of methods for its destruction.
      1. aleksejkabanets
        aleksejkabanets 4 March 2021 07: 40
        +6
        Quote: Aron Zaavi
        money is spent on the interests of human development, and not on the development of methods for its destruction.

        Much money is spent on the development of methods for destroying humanity.
      2. Crimean partisan 1974
        Crimean partisan 1974 4 March 2021 08: 05
        -3
        In 5-6 years they will bring to mind ..... in 5-6 years already stratoplanes appear. or even spaceplanes ... Iask would have poured money in this direction ... and this is what he is doing. complete nonsense
      3. Nasrat
        Nasrat 4 March 2021 09: 32
        +3
        Quote: Aron Zaavi
        but even though money is spent on the interests of human development,


        But in the American press, they began to doubt Max's ideas:

        https://inosmi.ru/video/20170929/240399487.html
        or as
        https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/02/mars-is-no-earth/618133/

        At one time there was a SOI program ... now Elon Max programs ...
        1. military_cat
          military_cat 4 March 2021 11: 01
          0
          No doubts are found on the first link, on the second the author writes "instead of spending money on rockets, it would be better to give to those in need"... Should this powerful argument be impressive just because an American author wrote it?
          1. Nasrat
            Nasrat 4 March 2021 12: 34
            +2
            Quote: military_cat
            No doubts are found on the first link, on the second ...

            This is the same article, links: 1. to Inosmi and 2. to the source ... (the comment was given for the Israeli comrade because the source indicated) wassat laughing

            From the source:

            Mars is a hellish hole. The main thing about Mars is that it is not Earth and is not even close to it. In fact, the only thing that really unites our planet and Mars is that they are both rocky planets with a little water ice and both have robots (and Mars doesn't even have that many).

            Mars has a very thin atmosphere; it does not have a magnetic field to help protect its surface from radiation from the sun or galactic cosmic rays; it has no breathable air and an average surface temperature of 80 degrees below zero. Musk thinks Mars is like Earth? For people to be able to live there in any capacity, they would need to build tunnels and live underground, and what is not tempting about living in a tunnel lined with sad lamps and trying to grow lettuce with ultraviolet lights? So long to breathe deeply outside and walk around without the safety of a bulky spacesuit, knowing that if you're on extracorporeal activity and something happens, an excruciatingly painful 60-second death awaits you. Surely a walk on Mars would be a life-changing, amazing, profound experience.


            Is this not Musk’s idea of ​​a doubt?

            In general, life is bad if there is no sucker! Musk knows it very well !!!
            1. military_cat
              military_cat 4 March 2021 13: 35
              -2
              Quote: Nasr
              This is the same article, links: 1. to Inosmi and 2. to the original source ...

              This is not true. Two different articles. You may have inserted the wrong link somewhere.
            2. Intruder
              Intruder 4 March 2021 21: 49
              -1
              Mars has a very thin atmosphere
              11 km., This is not too thin, on our planet, a person himself lives below - 5 km., Above there are already problems ... so and so wink
              it has no magnetic field
              it is, it is just localized and relict ... wink
              After the global magnetic field disappeared on Mars, the planet remained covered with a "patchwork quilt" of local regions exhibiting magnetic properties. These small magnetic fields are generated by minerals and rocks scattered on the planet's surface. Some regions of the planet have stronger magnetic fields than others, but this is most likely due to an increased or decreased content of magnetic minerals in a particular region, that is, , rocks that may have been affected by an ancient magnetic field. In general, the magnetic fields in the northern hemisphere of Mars are weaker, and in the southern - stronger.
      4. ccsr
        ccsr 4 March 2021 10: 11
        +9
        Quote: Aron Zaavi
        In 5-6 years they will bring to mind.

        We heard this "song" 17 years ago - you apparently forgot about it in a fit of delight from Musk's third accident in four months. Let me remind you that the Americans should have already walked on the moon, but something NASA disowned this venture and passed everything on to Mask - so it will be easier to hang all the dogs on him later.
        «14th of January 2004
        At NASA's official ceremony for Bush's "Vision for Space Exploration," he outlined three specific goals:
        1. Complete construction of the International Space Station (ISS) by 2010 and then eliminate the use of shuttles.
        2. To create by 2008 a new type of manned research vehicle (CEV) for the delivery of astronauts to the space station, and then to the Moon and Mars, to begin manned flights no later than 2014.
        3. Return to the moon on a manned mission, if possible in 2015, but no later than 2020. "

        So you are claiming that Americans will land on Mars in 2026? Giving a tooth? I would like to come back to this question at that time, and hear your comments ...
      5. MMX
        MMX 4 March 2021 12: 06
        0
        Other people from another American company are responsible for this.
      6. Polymer
        Polymer 4 March 2021 18: 02
        +2
        Quote: Aron Zaavi
        In 5-6 years they will bring to mind. There are still a lot of problems there, but at least money is spent on the interests of human development, and not on the development of methods for its destruction.

        I mean, everything is kosher here? And the explosion too?
        "This is the leg - the one who needs the leg!" (from).
        1. Aaron Zawi
          Aaron Zawi 4 March 2021 23: 16
          0
          Quote: Polymer
          Quote: Aron Zaavi
          In 5-6 years they will bring to mind. There are still a lot of problems there, but at least money is spent on the interests of human development, and not on the development of methods for its destruction.

          I mean, everything is kosher here? And the explosion too?
          "This is the leg - the one who needs the leg!" (from).

          An explosion is always unpleasant. But there is hope that in 6 years Musk will be able to launch the spacecraft into space, and in 10-15 years to drag people to Mars.
          1. Pathos
            Pathos 4 March 2021 23: 53
            0
            Kicking along the shore laughing
          2. Drugov
            Drugov 5 March 2021 21: 09
            +1
            The most important question - why do you need to drag people to Mars ?????
  • Mitroha
    Mitroha 4 March 2021 07: 18
    -6
    That is, it took off, hovered, sat down and exploded ... from excess fuel. An ingenious reason.
    Well, they would at least say that because of the fuel leftovers ..
    1. Minotavrik
      Minotavrik 4 March 2021 16: 36
      +1
      Yes, complete nonsense. What do you mean there is a lot of fuel left? Have you got five more buckets? Those. do they want to tell us that the calculation of fuel for the flight program is not performed? Not accurate? Made a mistake? Even in aviation, the snag is counted with an accuracy of 100 kilos per 7 hour flight .. but here?
  • Victor_B
    Victor_B 4 March 2021 07: 20
    +3
    Beauty!
    But he fulfilled the flight program.
    And there ... one more, one less.
    But the piece of iron itself - well, very much not free!
    1. Thrifty
      Thrifty 4 March 2021 07: 27
      -13%
      Victor V-he completed the FLYING program, not flights, because he was too lazy to fly above 30 meters, or he was scared. From fright, he banged. ...
      1. Victor_B
        Victor_B 4 March 2021 07: 29
        +1
        As with past launches, Starship SN10 has risen toand an altitude of 10 kmwhere engine shutdown, aerodynamic braking and engine restart to return to vertical position worked. Six and a half minutes later, the prototype made a soft landing on the launch pad. However, some time after landing, the ship caught fire and exploded.
        Rђ RІRѕS, a second time - yes 50 meters.
      2. military_cat
        military_cat 4 March 2021 07: 34
        +2
        Quote: Thrifty
        because above 30 meters it turned out to be lazy to fly, or it was scary

        Watch the video given in the text of the news, you will discover a lot of new things.
    2. NDR-791
      NDR-791 4 March 2021 07: 31
      0
      And there ... one more, one less.
      wassat Yeah, if there are a hundred passengers on board, don't care - one more, one less wassat
    3. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 4 March 2021 07: 36
      -6
      Very cheap compared to other similar ones. They have the next prototype ready to be sent to the launch site.
    4. Vadim237
      Vadim237 4 March 2021 12: 55
      +2
      It is still very far from a real spacecraft, moreover, a manned one.
  • anjey
    anjey 4 March 2021 07: 23
    -8
    The head of the company Elon Musk expressed hope for the further success of the prototypes
    It looks like it's time for the Mask to buy "prototypes of trampolines" again and again from Russia laughing
    1. anjey
      anjey 4 March 2021 07: 36
      -8
      "Nadezhda Mask" dies last. The ambitions are big, as are the money invested in his adventurous projects, and the result is scanty.
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 4 March 2021 07: 44
        0
        That is, to have more launches than the Russian Federation, more satellites than China and the Russian Federation combined, more electric vehicles than any company in the world, and so on, is this a miserable result? wassat
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 4 March 2021 12: 47
          0
          Quote: BlackMokona
          More launches, more electric vehicles than any company in the world, etc. Is this a miserable result?


          Of course, with a population of 5% of the world, consume 24% of world consumption oxygen and to throw into the atmosphere of any volume of namngo more than its% of the population is not at all minuscule.
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 4 March 2021 13: 12
            -1
            These data are outdated long ago, the rapid development of the PRC and India has already sharply reduced this number.
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich 4 March 2021 13: 47
              +2
              Quote: BlackMokona
              This data is outdated for a long time.

              this is modern data.

              In China, the percentage of emissions corresponds to% of the population.

              If amers are forced to consume and throw away in accordance with their% of the population, they will go to the Stone Age.

              If, on the contrary, everyone consumes and throws away as much as they do, the planet will simply suffocate instantly.

              In the meantime, they live off other people's resources.
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 4 March 2021 14: 05
                -3
                It is considered simply to look at the ratio of GDP to population. That's all the math. The PRC has a rapid economic growth, while the USA has a slow thus the share of consumed resources is shifting towards the PRC. That's all.
        2. Pathos
          Pathos 4 March 2021 14: 39
          +6
          And you try to warm up in siberia in an electric car laughing Tried in Texas laughing only not a damn thing came of it, your batteries will die in the cold, you will freeze to death.
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 4 March 2021 16: 08
            -2
            People were just successfully warming themselves, in Tesla the battery is heated and therefore it is remarkably operated even in severe frost
            1. Pathos
              Pathos 4 March 2021 21: 46
              +2
              Nude nude successfully warmed up those who did not throw out the fireplace on the wood from the house laughing An exceptional nation did not even bother to remove steam turbines indoors (closed workshop) even at a nuclear power plant, as a result, they stood up laughing Steam turbines stand outdoors, no wonder Japan's Fukushima lupanula laughing Nothing personal, just a dough-cut business bully They're children laughing
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 4 March 2021 22: 20
                -2
                It's just that Texas has never experienced such frosts, any equipment is calculated for a certain range.
                1. Pathos
                  Pathos 4 March 2021 23: 58
                  +2
                  Therefore, we constructors always lay + 20% strength. Even in Africa it snowed laughing
                  1. Shopping Mall
                    Shopping Mall 5 March 2021 10: 37
                    +1
                    Quote: Paphos
                    Therefore, we constructors always lay + 20% strength. Even in Africa it snowed laughing


                    They have an average January temperature of 1 to 15 ° C in Texas. Well, we made a margin of up to -5, but jumped, for example, -15.

                    If the Yakut frosts blow in central Russia, we will freeze everything, no supply will be enough. Only private traders with houses / stoves with autonomous heating will survive, and then, only those who have taken care of the fuel in advance.
                    1. ccsr
                      ccsr 5 March 2021 12: 05
                      0
                      Quote: AVM
                      If Yakut frosts blow in central Russia,

                      How about -42C in the Moscow suburbs in 1978?
                      On December 31, on the eve of the long-awaited New Year's holiday, Moscow thermometers dropped to -38 ° C.

                      This is certainly not Yakutia, but no one canceled the duty and the equipment worked. Several batteries in the entrances were thawed because of the carelessness of the residents, but everything was instantly restored within a day or two.
                      1. Venya Selnikov
                        Venya Selnikov 9 March 2021 15: 15
                        0
                        How about -42C in the Moscow suburbs in 1978?
                        I do not know for others ... but if now in our South frosts hit 40, and this will drag on for at least a week, it will be EXTREMELY bad.
                        I live here, and I can reflect on it. Here this winter was cold (down to -15). Briefly, but still. And in many parts of the city where I live, people were primitive freezing, I tell you! They were saved as best they could. Friends of mine moved out of their apartment for a week to stay with their relatives. Because of the cold.
                        A -40 will be tougher.
                2. Uncle Vanya Susanin
                  Uncle Vanya Susanin 6 March 2021 10: 52
                  0
                  They already had frosts there and not so long ago
            2. Pathos
              Pathos 4 March 2021 22: 16
              +3
              Well, take your smartphone out of your pocket at - 10 and chat for 10 minutes and see how it starts to not only fail, it starts agonizing and your heating is taken from the battery itself to the light bulb, if you live in an apartment, calculate what is your real load on the network you ohrenhee if you turn on all electrical appliances in your apartment at the same time FIRE YOU GUNTED laughing Syoma, how are you? Everything is fine, the fire is going according to plan laughing
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 4 March 2021 22: 20
                0
                The smartphone does not have a battery heating system
                1. Pathos
                  Pathos 4 March 2021 23: 54
                  +1
                  Means FIRE GOES ON PLAN laughing
                2. Pathos
                  Pathos 5 March 2021 00: 01
                  +3
                  Why didn't they provide a battery heating system in the smartphone ??? laughing Ah what a sadness laughing Trouble trouble wassat
              2. Intruder
                Intruder 5 March 2021 10: 40
                0
                the real load on the network you will fucking turn on if you turn on all electrical appliances in your apartment at the same time THE FIRE IS GUNTED TO YOU
                circuit breakers have already been invented, Karl !!! laughing fellow And the cable is designed for a current load, you won't take it for an apartment anymore, no way ... but in the power panel in the basement on assemblies, another one is at the entrance ... But if with a fool and on a straight line, from the switchgear of the substation, then God it is better not to pray, he also does not like such fools very much ... although there is also protection there ..., then you have to take trance directly from the tires, on the low side ...
          2. Intruder
            Intruder 5 March 2021 10: 34
            0
            keep warm in an electric car
            the air conditioner has been there for a long time, with climate control, people also freeze in cars, when the skiff and the battery runs out, even with a full tank, you still can't start it, even from a pusher on modern models ...
          3. The comment was deleted.
      2. ccsr
        ccsr 4 March 2021 10: 51
        +4
        Quote: anjey
        "Nadezhda Mask" dies last. The ambitions are big, as are the money invested in his adventurous projects, and the result is scanty.

        Maskafiles will not agree with you - they still believe in the feast of St. Jorgen, older people remember this comedy. I think that now the question among investors is one - who will have time to snatch their money earlier with less losses. But I have little doubt that this bubble will burst. By the way, one American documentary was recently shown, how one capable girl raised almost a billion dollars to create a compact testing medical device by drop of blood, and fooled investors for several years. Musk's space programs are the same, but in much larger volumes. But Pinocchio did not disappear in the West either, so the circus will continue.
        1. anjey
          anjey 4 March 2021 11: 05
          0
          I believe that Cosmos is not a private shop, serious state support is needed in its research, and all projects of private "jumpers" are partially, laundering and division of finances and, to a certain extent, great populism for the common people, to cover this section laughing
        2. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 4 March 2021 12: 03
          +1
          Quote: ccsr
          I think that now the question among investors is one - who will have time to snatch their money earlier with less losses.


          Why do you think so - do you have access to SpaceX reporting? However, even if Musk goes bankrupt (which is unlikely), this will not change anything. It's just that other people will make reusable rockets. Just as electric cars are already being made by not only Tesla.
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 4 March 2021 13: 41
            +6
            Quote: Eye of the Crying
            Why do you think so - do you have access to SpaceX reporting?

            It is the complete lack of reporting, even on the Tesla electric car, that causes concern about the success of other projects of Musk.
            Quote: Eye of the Crying
            It's just that other people will make reusable rockets.

            One would like to recall the words of Academician B.E. Chertok on this occasion:
            "Epilogue
            ... The US refusal from a well-developed, reliable Saturn 5 carrier seemed incomprehensible. I think this was a mistake. The American astronautics historians I met with could not clearly explain why, contrary to previous plans, they had “buried” the excellent carrier Saturn-5.
            In 1965, the United States organized work on forecasting the development of astronautics for the period up to 2001. The results of this forecast were summed up at a very representative symposium in March 1966 in Washington. In 1967, we got the opportunity to familiarize ourselves with the American plans for forecasting documents classified as “secret” or “for official use”, despite the fact that in the USA the reports at the symposium were published in an open publication. Most of our experts rated American forecasts as over-optimistic, but no one dared to call them absurd. The debate was mainly about the reality of timelines. We believed that even if we combine our forces with the US, a significant part of the forecasts can be made, but about five years later. And if without us, then we need to add another five years.
            ... In 1999 - 30 years after the first moon expedition landed - the Americans not only could not make any manned expedition to another planet out of the dozens predicted in 1966, but they were not even able to continue manned flights to the moon. At the end of the Cold War, during the decade of 1989-1999, the United States achieved its main strategic goal - the collapse of the Soviet Union and the neutralization or use of Russia's scientific and technological potential. Remaining for the time being the only superpower, the USA is in a hurry to first turn our planet and near-Earth space into a zone of American interests.
            Instead of reanimating interplanetary flight programs, NASA jumped at the idea of ​​creating a large near-earth orbital station. The reason for this was the indisputable achievements of the Russians in this field. How and why we have overtaken the Americans in the creation of long-term orbital stations, I wrote above. "

            Now think about why after 1999, after 22 years, the situation has not changed, and so far the next forecasts are being postponed to 2030.
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 4 March 2021 14: 06
              0
              Tesla has detailed quarterly reports.
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 4 March 2021 17: 11
                +2
                Quote: BlackMokona
                Tesla has detailed quarterly reports.

                There is also a very depressing one, not to mention what investments have paid off during this time.
                American electric vehicle manufacturer - Tesla made profit for the first time in its 17-year history for four consecutive quarters, writes The Wall Street Journal.
                According to the company's report, in the second quarter of 2020, Tesla's profit was $ 104 million.For the same period of 2019, the company recorded a $ 408 million loss..


                Read more at RBC:
                https://www.rbc.ru/business/23/07/2020/5f191f6f9a79472ded901ebd
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 4 March 2021 17: 51
                  -1
                  This is not how investment pays off.
                  Here the shareholder bought the shares when Tesla went public.
                  3,84 $
                  And now he decided to sell them and recoup investments, so to speak, fix the profit and calculate the gesheft.
                  Current price $ 647,4
                  Total growth is 168,6 times.
                  This means that over 10,5 years the money has increased 168,6 times. The investor said to himself quite well and went to look for a new golden yacht.
                  1. ccsr
                    ccsr 4 March 2021 18: 13
                    +2
                    Quote: BlackMokona
                    Current price $ 647,4

                    The current price does not reflect the real value of a share - this price is determined by demand, which drops sharply if speculators start to play bullish or something happens to the company. Moreover, did Musk put up all his shares for sale, leaving himself, for example, 51%?
                    Quote: BlackMokona
                    The investor said to himself quite well and went to look for a new golden yacht.

                    Remind you of how one of Musk's projects for shareholders ended?
                    Another ambitious project of the Boring Company. This is a tunnel from Washington to New York. People now spend four hours on this journey. Musk reckons the Boring Company Tunnel will take just 29 minutes for the Hyperloop to travel. This turns the entire mid-Atlantic region into a huge metropolis.

                    Musk says about his "boring company" that it's a hobby, taking only "2-3 percent" of his time. Honestly, here we are thinking about the meaning of life - and what useful are we doing?

                    So, as a failure, it is Musk's hobby, but at whose expense?
                    1. Blackmokona
                      Blackmokona 4 March 2021 18: 43
                      -2
                      1) Musk has about 20% of Tesla shares.
                      And this is the current price of Tesla shares after the recent big drop, it looks like someone sold a lot of shares and fixed the profits.
                      2) What's wrong with the Boring Company? It seems to be developing rapidly and grabbed a bunch of contracts for the construction of tunnels.
                      3) Musk is not engaged in Hyperloop and did not take money under it, from anyone.
              2. ccsr
                ccsr 5 March 2021 11: 35
                +2
                Quote: BlackMokona
                Tesla has detailed quarterly reports.

                You should have analyzed it at least once, and then you would have understood that this unprofitable enterprise exists only at the expense of the state.
                60-70% of Tesla's margin is formed by government subsidies
                ... Thus, there is a simple and visible relationship between the amount of indirect subsidies received by the buyer and the amount of margin received by the company.
                And so let's see how much Tesla received direct and indirect subsidies in the third quarter of 2018.
                First of all, the simplest part is direct donations - 52 million ZEV credits (which the company reported), and 139 million GHG credits (which Tesla kept silent about (that is, lied) when publishing its earnings report).
                Next, we look at indirect government subsidies ...

                https://aftershock.news/?q=node/699436&full
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 5 March 2021 11: 48
                  -1
                  Tesla is profitable and growing very rapidly, spending billions on development. If there were no eco loans that are paid by other car manufacturers, not the state. And they could not pay if they followed the order of the state.
                  Tesla just developed more slowly. Now she is building two large factories at a Stakhanovian pace and expanding four more.
                  There would be less money, there would be less expansion at once
            2. The eye of the crying
              The eye of the crying 4 March 2021 21: 53
              -1
              Quote: ccsr
              Just a complete lack of reporting even on the Tesla electric car


              All required reporting by Tesla (company) is published. You just don't know.

              Quote: ccsr
              Now think about why after 1999 after 22 years the situation has not changed.


              Because expeditions to the moon (and even more so life on it) still do not bring profit.
      3. orionvitt
        orionvitt 4 March 2021 12: 35
        +4
        Quote: anjey
        "Nadezhda Musk" dies last. The ambitions are big, as are the money invested in his adventurous projects.

        It is necessary to somehow justify that fantastic financial bubble, in the form of an unprecedented capitalization of Musk's company. I agree with one thing, no matter how much you inflate the balloon, it will still burst. In the meantime, he's still handsome, sometimes he even flies.
        1. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 4 March 2021 12: 43
          0
          Quote: orionvitt
          a fantastic financial bubble, in the form of an unprecedented capitalization of the Musk company


          If anything, the fantastically capitalized Tesla is a different company.
          1. orionvitt
            orionvitt 4 March 2021 13: 02
            +2
            Quote: Eye of the Crying
            If anything, fantastically capitalized Tesla is a different company.

            If anything, the manager and the main shareholder, they have one.
            1. The eye of the crying
              The eye of the crying 4 March 2021 13: 24
              +1
              Quote: orionvitt
              If anything, the manager and the main shareholder, they have one.


              If anything, SpaceX has no stock.
              1. orionvitt
                orionvitt 4 March 2021 22: 46
                +1
                Quote: Eye of the Crying

                If anything, SpaceX has no stock

                Maybe there is no owner? laughing
                1. The eye of the crying
                  The eye of the crying 4 March 2021 23: 08
                  0
                  The owner is there, there are no shares.
    2. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 4 March 2021 07: 37
      0
      Trampolines are Dragon ships, Starship is a completely different ship.
  • Vladimir Vladimirovich Vorontsov
    Vladimir Vladimirovich Vorontsov 4 March 2021 07: 33
    +3
    ***
    They study at Starship ...
    ***
  • stalki
    stalki 4 March 2021 07: 53
    +6
    Oops! How many defenders are THEM. Came up. And ours would now be branded with shame for such fireworks. And if you would be ashamed for the mediocre waste of taxes. Thank God Rogozin is not to blame for the exploding of missiles at FSH, but it is to blame for the fact that we have him laughing true? There is always an excuse for striped ones. Poor people, we need to support them. Your sixes are always with you soldier
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 4 March 2021 08: 03
      -1
      Well, if ours began to rivet prototypes of the Martian rocket in large quantities and actively test all this for a pittance. I think they would have held it the same way. winked
      1. stalki
        stalki 4 March 2021 08: 15
        +7
        Well, if ours began to rivet prototypes of the Martian rocket in large quantities and actively test all this for a pittance. I think they would have held it the same way.
        Yes?! would rather be silent in a rag and would not show their nose. I already want to thank ours for staying afloat after the collapse of the USSR. In any other country, everything would have long been overgrown with weeds. Given the constant intrigues of the world around us, we are well on our feet. And to steal from everyone on the planet and build to show starship for thieves' money is of course a great achievement of the striped ones.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 4 March 2021 08: 19
          +1
          Ours stayed afloat because they entered international markets. They began to make a lot of money by launching Western satellites, building engines for Western rockets, helping other countries to develop space industry for money, and so on. Only despite the subsequent Western denyushek our just sat and exploited the legacy of the USSR, "effective managers" believed that it would be like this forever. Just like factories, technologies become obsolete over time and become useless to anyone. And nothing of the next generation has ever been created. The hangara turned out to be much more expensive than the Proton, but for the rest they were only fed with projects without reaching the tests, constantly changing the pictures.
          1. stalki
            stalki 4 March 2021 08: 25
            0
            Ours stayed afloat because they entered international markets. They began to make a lot of money by launching Western satellites, building engines for Western rockets, helping other countries to develop space industry for money, and so on. Only despite the subsequent Western denyushek our just sat and exploited the legacy of the USSR, "effective managers" believed that it would be like this forever. Just like factories, technologies become obsolete over time and become useless to anyone. And nothing of the next generation has ever been created. The hangara turned out to be much more expensive than the Proton, but for the rest they were only fed with projects without reaching the tests, constantly changing the pictures.
            I had no doubt that you would pour another bucket of slops laughing Considering how many striped were squandered into space, it was squandered, then for that kind of money, ours would have colonized Mars long ago.
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 4 March 2021 08: 27
              -1
              And how much did they squander into space? Can I have a number?
              And then the spacecraft that left the solar system behind them, a bunch of Mars rovers on Mars, a large bunch of scientific spacecraft throughout the solar system, and so on. We should waste money like that wassat
              1. stalki
                stalki 4 March 2021 08: 33
                -1
                And how much did they squander into space? Can I have a number?
                And then the spacecraft that left the solar system behind them, a bunch of Mars rovers on Mars, a large bunch of scientific spacecraft throughout the solar system, and so on. We should waste money like that
                Do you need a number? Google is enough to help laughing
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 4 March 2021 08: 46
                  -8
                  Ie there are no numbers, only statements.
                  1. stalki
                    stalki 4 March 2021 08: 57
                    +4
                    You will collect the numbers yourself, I don't have so much time for you hi I can cite the shuttle program as an example.
                    Ps nice to get cons from striped sixes winked I’m not for you, I’m so ...
                    1. Roman070280
                      Roman070280 4 March 2021 13: 05
                      +1
                      I can cite the shuttle program as an example.


                      "powerful" example of squandering ..))
                      Shuttles for only one Hubble, you can say thank you very much !! Not to mention the ISS and so on ..
              2. Pathos
                Pathos 4 March 2021 14: 52
                -2
                Connoisseurs pay attention to the question: Were the Americans on the MOON ???? Filmed that epic in BOLYWOOD laughing It may be that a bunch of Mars rovers and other rubbish is also BOLYWOOD laughing They know how to saw more abruptly than our one Wall Street which only costs laughing And now the connoisseurs ask the question, was there a boy ???
                1. Steen
                  Steen 4 March 2021 15: 59
                  +2
                  “Seliger” on August 1, 2011:
                  A. Anisimov: Good afternoon, Vladimir Vladimirovich, my name is Alexey Anisimov, the city of Novosibirsk. I have this question. Do you think the Americans landed on the moon, well, landed on the moon?

                  V.V. Vladimir Putin: I think so.

                  A. Anisimov: There is a version that ...

                  V.V. Vladimir Putin: I know this version, but it seems to me that it is impossible to falsify such an event. This is the same thing that some argue that on September 11, the Americans themselves blew up these twin towers, they themselves directed the actions of the terrorists. Complete nonsense! Brad, this is impossible! ... Complete nonsense! The same applies to the landing on the moon: it is impossible to falsify an event of this magnitude.
                  1. ccsr
                    ccsr 4 March 2021 17: 35
                    -2
                    Quote: Steen
                    V.V. Vladimir Putin: I know this version, but it seems to me that it is impossible to falsify such an event.

                    Putin is not a techie, he has never been involved in technical intelligence, and therefore he does not know how disinformation is being conducted even with the help of a radio game. Let me remind you that in the fifties and sixties, the Americans created a large number of false airfields around our country. And only the appearance of infrared satellite reconnaissance systems immediately revealed that they were fake, although according to space photographs it appeared that there were even planes arriving and descending, and radio intelligence constantly recorded the radio exchange characteristic of military airfields. So the Americans are great masters of cheating, but not all of those who advise Putin know this.

                    Quote: Steen
                    This is the same thing that some argue that on September 11, the Americans themselves blew up these twin towers, they themselves directed the actions of the terrorists. Complete nonsense! Brad, this is impossible! ...

                    It is ridiculous to listen to such statements if some hacker on board a passenger plane entered the onboard computer network and could make changes - he himself told about this and showed how he did it. The same could be done with a flying Boeing, and if a radio beacon was also installed on the towers, then without a crew this aircraft could clearly hit the twin towers. Well, since we automatically landed the Buran from space in the automatic mode exactly on the runway, it is not difficult to send the Boeing to the high-rise.
                    Quote: Steen
                    The same applies to the landing on the moon: it is impossible to falsify an event of this magnitude.

                    Here is the opinion of a typical humanist who has no idea about the state of the art. Immediately I remembered Medvedev as a child rejoicing at a new smartphone model - this is the level of technical literacy of those who run our country.
                    1. Steen
                      Steen 5 March 2021 06: 46
                      0
                      Head of the Laboratory of Geochemistry of the Moon and Planets at the Institute of Geochemistry and Analytical Chemistry of the Russian Academy of Sciences Yevgeny Slyuta in an interview with RIA Novosti said: “To question American manned missions to the Moon is ignorance, a sign of insufficient education. For some, the lunar conspiracy theory is simply commercially profitable, he makes money on it. Among scientists, the question was whether or not there was - just not worth it "
                      1. ccsr
                        ccsr 5 March 2021 11: 30
                        +1
                        Quote: Steen
                        Head of the Laboratory of Geochemistry of the Moon and Planets of the Institute of Geochemistry and Analytical Chemistry of the Russian Academy of Sciences Evgeny Slyuta

                        He is not a rocket scientist and can hardly imagine what the complexity of launching from the Moon for docking in its orbit is, and therefore his statements on behalf of "scientists" are not worth a pittance - with the same success he could talk about the work of bathyscaphes.
                      2. Steen
                        Steen 5 March 2021 15: 44
                        0
                        COSMONAUT and DESIGNER of spaceships Konstantin Feoktistov expressed his opinion in his book “The Trajectory of Life. Between yesterday and tomorrow "about the impossibility of imitating flights:" When Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins flew to the moon, our receiving radio equipment received signals from the Apollo 11 board, conversations, a television picture about the exit to the lunar surface. Arranging such a hoax is probably no less difficult than a real expedition. To do this, it would be necessary to land a television transponder on the lunar surface in advance and check its operation (with transmission to Earth), again in advance. And in the days of the imitation of the expedition, it was necessary to send a radio relay to the moon to simulate the Apollo radio communication with the Earth on the flight path to the Moon. And they did not hide the scale of work on "Apollo". And what they showed me in Houston in 1969 (Control Center, stands, laboratories), factories in Los Angeles for the manufacture of Apollo ships and the descent vehicles that returned to Earth, according to this logic, should have been an imitation ?! Too complicated and too funny. "
                      3. ccsr
                        ccsr 5 March 2021 19: 13
                        0
                        Quote: Steen
                        And in the days of the imitation of the expedition, it was necessary to send a radio relay to the moon to simulate the Apollo radio communication with the Earth on the flight path to the Moon.

                        Here's an example of how to do this:
                        Each "Surveyor" was necessarily equipped with radio equipment. Without her, he would be just a piece of metal. She received radio commands from the Control Center, and in response, a varied stream of radio information went to the Center. It included a "report" on the receipt of the command and the results of its execution. The machine regularly sent to the Center information about the state of its devices and devices, the results of their work, and much more. Compared to this complex work, signal retransmission, that is, simply re-emitting it in the opposite direction, is a simpler operation in which the complex of other electronic devices does not participate.
                        Of course, such an operation also requires preliminary approbation. But the presence of people on or near the moon is completely optional. For example, the Soviet cosmonauts, without flying anywhere from the Earth, talked to the Earth through the automatic spacecraft Zond-4 (September 1968) and Zond-6 (November 1968), which were at that time in the vicinity of the Moon. For the first time, the voices of P. Popovich and V. Sevastyanov sounded from the moon. While in the Evpatoria flight control center, Pavel Popovich and Vitaly Sevastyanov and for six days negotiated with the MCC via the Zonda-4 repeater, simulating a flight to the Moon and back. The simulation turned out to be so plausible that after overhearing them, NASA specialists initially decided that Soviet cosmonauts were flying to the moon.
                      4. Steen
                        Steen 6 March 2021 07: 05
                        -1
                        For objective control over the Apollo program, Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee Dmitry Ustinov at the end of 1967 instructed the chief designer of NII-885 MS Ryazansky to develop a radio-technical complex for receiving signals from US spacecraft flying around the moon and landing on its surface. Such a complex was created by November 1968 on the basis of the TNA-400 radio telescope in the Crimea. The guidance data were calculated by Soviet ballistics, and the task was facilitated by the fact that the angular width of the antenna pattern covered almost half of the moon's disk. Tracking was conducted over the Apollo 8, Apollo 10, Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 expeditions from December 1968 to November 1969. Telephone calls and telemetry were received with good quality, and the TV signal was of poor quality. The control complex could only receive signals in its visibility zone, which roughly coincided with the area of ​​the Madrid tracking station.
                      5. ccsr
                        ccsr 6 March 2021 18: 22
                        0
                        Quote: Steen
                        Telephone calls and telemetry were received with good quality, and the TV signal was of poor quality.

                        Well, explain why the equipment calculated by our specialists could not reproduce the television signal from the Moon, if they used a 32-meter mirror, and the Americans declared that the television signal should be received by a 26-meter antenna?
                        Ground tracking and communication stations
                        The Apollo spacecraft equipment provides communication and trajectory measurements using the points of the command-measuring complex, which includes 11 fixed ground stations [about. Guam, Carnarvon (Australia), Guaymas (Mexico), about. Ascension, oh. B. Bahama, Bermuda, Corpus Christi, about. Antigua, Hawaii, about. Gran Canaria and the landfill on about. Merritt)], equipped with 9-meter antennas, three stations (Goldston, Madrid, Canberra) equipped with 26-meter antennas, and several ship and aircraft tracking stations.

                        Why were we unable to receive the television signal from the Moon when the Madrid station received it?
                      6. Venya Selnikov
                        Venya Selnikov 9 March 2021 15: 40
                        0
                        Why were we unable to receive the television signal from the Moon when the Madrid station received it?
                        Because in addition to the size of the antenna, knowledge and complete consistency of the schemes of the receiving-transmitting paths also matter.
                        Nobody provided the USSR with protocols and sets of equipment for communication of the Apollo program (which all stations of the Apollo program had). The signal from the Moon had coding features (far from international TV broadcast standards).
                        NASA developed a system called "Single S-Band", which could send: telemetry, commands, voice and television data, using different frequencies, but combined into one antenna.
                        Our craftsmen managed to separate parts from this, but roughly and with significant interference ...
                        In fact, it was an illegal interception (the restoration of the protocols was carried out according to intelligence data or otherwise somehow, it's hard to say here).
                        We managed to isolate something quite well, but the TV subsystem there was generally confused (different line, different scan frequency). The picture was therefore bad.
                      7. ccsr
                        ccsr 9 March 2021 17: 34
                        0
                        Quote: Venya Selnikov
                        Nobody provided the USSR with protocols and sets of equipment for communication of the Apollo program (which all stations of the Apollo program had).

                        Of course, we were not presented with anything, but even before the flights, the Americans began to work on the formation of signals and the operating frequencies of Apollo.
                        TELEMETRY IN ROCKET AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY
                        MULTIFUNCTIONAL SYSTEM OF COMMUNICATION WITH SPACE SHIP "APOLLON"
                        R.V. Moorehead, J. D. Arndt
                        Quote: Venya Selnikov
                        In fact, it was an illegal interception

                        This is said too loudly - the Americans themselves declared their operating frequencies, so that not only we, but also any other country in the world could, if desired, receive and process signals from the Moon, having the equipment for this.
                        Quote: Venya Selnikov
                        The picture was therefore bad.

                        But even then we could record everything on tape recorders, and then, by studying and processing the intercepted signals, create our own television equipment and fully reproduce what the Americans transmitted from the moon in order to check what they could receive.
                      8. Venya Selnikov
                        Venya Selnikov 9 March 2021 22: 21
                        0
                        Quote: ccsr
                        It is said too loud
                        This is said allegorically. Legal interception is when the owners are still asked for permission. NASA, of course, did not interfere with anything, but no one shared the protocols and so on (and no one made such a request from us).
                        But that's not the point.
                        The interception complex in Simferopol was created in a hurry, and the analog technology is so ... capricious. To create it and then debug it is a whole song that is called a groan. Especially taking into account the different element base in our country and in the USA. Without exact parameters and decoding schemes, the quality of the TV signal (the most information-dense component) did not work out well.
                        even then we could record everything on tape recorders, and then only by studying and processing
                        In theory ... although it depends on the spectral characteristics of the signal. And he was multi-band. Do not think that an analog signal is so easy to save "for posterity" on tape as it is digital. There are so many sooo nuances (I worked with analog circuitry).
                        And then there was no conspiracy theories. It was a regular surveillance job. Tasks to store and then dig for years - no one set.
                      9. ccsr
                        ccsr 9 March 2021 22: 59
                        0
                        Quote: Venya Selnikov
                        NASA, of course, did not interfere with anything,

                        And they could not interfere - it is technically impossible.
                        Quote: Venya Selnikov
                        To create it and then debug it is a whole song that is called a groan.

                        I am aware of how things were with us.
                        Quote: Venya Selnikov
                        And he was multi-band.

                        Read the article, it describes what the signal was for different types of information. So it cannot be said that we did not know anything at all. Moreover, in such projects, information on the frequency and type of signals was necessarily registered with the International Radio Advisory Committee in order to avoid interference from other stations.
                        Quote: Venya Selnikov
                        Tasks to store and then dig for years - no one set.

                        Why then did they set the task of urgently creating a technique for receiving a television signal from the Moon - not for the sake of sports interest.
                      10. Venya Selnikov
                        Venya Selnikov 10 March 2021 21: 42
                        0
                        Quote: ccsr
                        And they could not interfere - it is technically impossible.
                        They could, and it was not difficult at all. Could, for example, add signal encryption, in those days, encryption systems were already quite developed. But they did not do this.
                        information on the frequency and type of signals must be registered with the International Radio Advisory Committee in order to avoid interference from other stations
                        This is unconditional. But in the ITU-R only signal parameters are agreed (coordinates, frequency ranges, power distribution over the spectrum, reserved time, etc.). Nobody demands provide communication protocols enabling signal decoding... You just need to warn others not to interfere with you. And so that you do not interfere with others. Simple rules of international courtesy in a common space.
                        Then why
                        It should be. Requested from above, agreed, and executed. And long-term storage has not been requested and has not been performed (as far as I know). Why so - well, I don’t know, I didn’t hold a candle. But I know how this is requested and agreed upon (in my area). If you find the materials of those who made those decisions, tell me, I will read it with pleasure (if the proofs are strong).

                        Again.
                        I just wanted to explain why a larger antenna can mean little if you do not have ready-made sets of equipment (which had "legal" communication stations), decoding schemes and protocols. And you are given the task of urgently creating, using scarce indirect data, "anuka what they transmit, let's listen." There is nothing surprising for me. I was involved in such work, and the larger size of your antenna here ... is not a decisive factor.
                      11. ccsr
                        ccsr 11 March 2021 11: 11
                        0
                        Quote: Venya Selnikov
                        They could, and it was not difficult at all. Could, for example, add signal encryption, in those days, encryption systems were already quite developed.

                        There the signal was so weak, and the intelligibility of speech in certain situations was about 70% - what other encryption could we talk about?
                        Speech and biomedicine 8,6 42,1 intelligibility 90%
                        Speech (emergency mode) 4,0 2,8 intelligibility 70%
                        Speech and biomedicine
                        (emergency mode) 4,0 4,0 Legibility 70%




                        Quote: Venya Selnikov
                        This is unconditional. But in the ITU-R only signal parameters are agreed (coordinates, frequency ranges, power distribution over the spectrum, reserved time, etc.).

                        Even this was enough to create our own reception complex. But they even earlier described in detail what types of signals will be used in telemetry, speech and television and indicated how these signals will be formed. Study the work that I have given.
                        Quote: Venya Selnikov
                        It should be. Requested from above, agreed, and executed. And long-term storage has not been requested and has not been performed (as far as I know).

                        This is not at all the case - no one allocated money for nothing in Soviet times. This means that they applied at least a report, where they justified everything, and therefore it would not have occurred to anyone for twenty or thirty years to destroy such materials.

                        Quote: Venya Selnikov
                        There is nothing surprising for me. I was involved in such work, and the larger size of your antenna here ... is not a decisive factor.

                        The antenna gain was decisive, and for parabolic antennas with a solid mirror, it directly depends on the antenna diameter. And if you work with very weak signals, then it is this coefficient that can be decisive in the entire signal receiving and processing path.
  • andrew42
    andrew42 5 March 2021 11: 37
    +1
    Blessed is he who believes ... the Guarantor!
  • Intruder
    Intruder 5 March 2021 10: 43
    0
    Connoisseurs pay attention to the question: Were the Americans on the MOON ???? They filmed an epic in BOLYWOOD laughing Maybe it’s like a bunch of Mars rovers and other rubbish is also BOLYWOOD
    Bro, don't get hot ... bully , foil hats have not been delivered yet ... laughing
  • Malyuta
    Malyuta 4 March 2021 08: 31
    +5
    Quote: stalki
    Considering how many striped were squandered into space, it was squandered, then for that kind of money, ours would have colonized Mars long ago.

    I am very sorry, but the so-called ours, over the years of Putinism, squandered so many trillions of people's money that it was possible to rebuild Russia 3 times and still would have left for a comfortable life of the people for 100 years ahead.
    1. stalki
      stalki 4 March 2021 08: 45
      +4
      I am very sorry, but the so-called ours, over the years of Putinism, squandered so many trillions of people's money that it was possible to rebuild Russia 3 times and still would have left for a comfortable life of the people for 100 years ahead.
      Come on? Anti-Putinist? Somewhere I have already heard this verbal pattern about trillions of people's money laughing Well, I will not disappoint you, I am just one of these, from Putinists, communists and "uryapatriots" hi who always spoil the mood of the "righteous critics" of Mother Russia.
      1. The eye of the crying
        The eye of the crying 4 March 2021 12: 01
        -1
        Quote: stalki
        I am just one of those Putinists, communists and "uryapatriots" hi who always spoil the mood of the "righteous critics" of Mother Russia.


        A Putinist and a communist, wow.
        1. Roman070280
          Roman070280 4 March 2021 13: 09
          -1
          In a word - balabol ..))
          1. The eye of the crying
            The eye of the crying 4 March 2021 13: 25
            -3
            Or is it Zyuganov.
      2. Malyuta
        Malyuta 4 March 2021 13: 27
        +9
        Quote: stalki
        I am just one of these, from Putinists, communists and "uryapatriots"

        Three in one? belay How can you combine this in one head? Sorry crying
  • Pathos
    Pathos 4 March 2021 14: 47
    +1
    One lunar program, which cost them for that money, if now recalculated taking into account inflation at today's exchange rate, the planet EARTH needs to be given to the MARSIANS for debts laughing
  • Mimoxod
    Mimoxod 4 March 2021 09: 29
    +8
    Russian-speaking poly Israel here, Western values ​​are practiced on the site as many as pants are cracking at the seams laughing
  • Al_lexx
    Al_lexx 4 March 2021 07: 54
    -11%
    Two nerds, of a fuzzy gender orientation, with undisguised admiration and to the delight of their own kind, voiced another attempt by the reptilians to shove something unproductive.)))
    You can shower me with cocoa, but in my humble opinion, such landings in an oxygen-containing atmosphere are nothing more than a publicity stunt to maintain the prestige of the Stars and Stripes, which has recently been below the baseboard. Well, that is I look at all THIS and I cannot answer myself the question - WHAT WOULD BE WHAT? Space shuttles burned out and did not pay off (a priori) they apparently did not have enough, took on the returned fuel tanks?))
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 4 March 2021 08: 03
      -1
      To reduce the cost of launching into orbit by orders of magnitude
      1. Ugochaves
        Ugochaves 4 March 2021 08: 39
        +6
        In orders of magnitude, what time is it? 10, 100, let me try to guess ... 1000 times, no less ... laughing Then cut the sturgeon to the size of a crucian.
        And yes, do you have access to Musk's accounting department to estimate costs? wink
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 4 March 2021 08: 47
          -4
          There the production is broadcast 24/7 from all sides by different amateurs. Easy to evaluate. Judging by the assembly by Dzhamshutami, in the open air, from G and P, and so on. Every 100 from the current level.
          1. Ugochaves
            Ugochaves 4 March 2021 08: 54
            +4
            Well, yes, well, yes, an estimate by eye, one more expert was found ... You should be sent to Roscosmos, that would be healed ...
            People are fighting for a reduction in prices by several %%, and you have 100 times, "son, this is fantastic"
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 4 March 2021 08: 59
              -2
              Well, you can on the statements of Musk. The launch price of Starship is lower than that of Falcon-1. Total cap is $ 7.9 million per flight.
              It is possible to estimate missiles based on data on the price of the engine and the share of engines in the usual cost of the rocket. So the price of the engines is multiplied by 2,5. Then the price is 1,875-7,5 million dollars for the construction of the prototype.
            2. Roman070280
              Roman070280 4 March 2021 13: 13
              -1
              People are fighting to reduce the price by a few %%

              As one of the "hucksters" I can safely say that no one there fights for anything .. from the word at all !!
              Whether Kamaz, even Severstal, even Gazprom, even Khrunicheva ...
              Sometimes the links themselves are sent to the goods in the store .. what they need .. and are charged with a 40 percent markup .. No talk !!
              If only in installments for 30-60 days (Sberbank with loans nervously smokes on the sidelines), and the contract with the supplier so that it is (otherwise it takes a long time to collect signatures)
              1. Ugochaves
                Ugochaves 5 March 2021 00: 52
                -1
                What does trade have to do with it? recourse I wrote about production.
                1. Roman070280
                  Roman070280 5 March 2021 09: 37
                  +1
                  What does trade have to do with it? recourse I wrote about production.

                  Sit down, two ..
                  If you bought a microcircuit from me for a ruble, you can make a payment for 10 rubles .. If you buy a microcircuit for 100 rubles, your production of 10-ruble boards will be covered with a copper basin ..
                  Or, in your opinion, "production" is to turn the nut with a wrench, and "savings" consists only of a locksmith's salary ??)


                  When people really struggle to save money, they start doing it in all directions .. and purchases in production are one of the most important factors for saving !! Or for cutting ..))
                  1. Ugochaves
                    Ugochaves 5 March 2021 10: 00
                    -1
                    What are you describing here for me a system of work in trade, I know it even without you. In production, deliveries to counterparties do not work that way. Go learn more "excellent student" and then march to production.
                    PS Can you call someone else to commemorate me, I'm all in crying laughing
                    With adieu ...
                    1. Roman070280
                      Roman070280 5 March 2021 11: 35
                      0
                      Here you describe for me a system of work in trade

                      I do not describe any system .. I am writing to you, as it is in practice in terms of saving and "fighting for every penny" .. but if you don’t understand, and you ask YOURSELF “what is the trade here?”, Then you have to chew on elementary things .. so that it is clear that it is impossible to save on the production of something, with wasteful purchases.
                      So, I repeat once again for the slow-witted - there is no such thing there .. for this and a minus deserved ..

                      PS .. you're stupid .. do you think I'm calling someone to put cons to you ??) Or judge by yourself ??)
    2. Pathos
      Pathos 4 March 2021 14: 15
      0
      No, we started to cut the dough laughing
    3. Al_lexx
      Al_lexx 4 March 2021 17: 01
      -1
      Judging by the number of minuses, the percentage of stupid nerds with a fuzzy gender orientation, in contrast to normal men, is already off scale on this resource.
      However, I suspect that half of the minusers come from cotton-free edges or something like that. There, the motivation is different, and with brains it is even harder.
      I will not say that this greatly surprises me, based on the huge number of those empty monosyllabic comments that I read here every day. It is understandable. A person with an IQ of an oyster is so pleased to check in on a warlike resource. Like, suddenly they will not notice and I will pass for a man. smile

      ...
      Yeah ... VO is no longer what it was five or six years ago. However, the law of entropy propagation is not violated here. The law of preservation and distribution of bullshit states that any, even the best Internet resource, sooner or later turns into classmates, or an advertising billboard. sad
  • opuonmed
    opuonmed 4 March 2021 08: 02
    -9
    current who does not what does not do not what does not happen! Well done Americans will soon give up the whole Russian Federation when they do!
    1. Ugochaves
      Ugochaves 4 March 2021 08: 43
      +9
      Quote: opuonmed
      current who does not what does not do not what does not happen! Well done Americans will soon give up the whole Russian Federation when they do!

      This speech reminds me of someone what Aaa, I remembered "Omeriga with us", scramble back to "Square" tongue
  • Cowbra
    Cowbra 4 March 2021 08: 12
    +3
    As I already said, when is the next explosion of this Dunno rocket on the Moon planned?
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 4 March 2021 08: 20
      +1
      The next prototype is ready to be sent to the launch site. I think they will launch it within a month.
      1. Cowbra
        Cowbra 4 March 2021 08: 40
        +7
        It will be necessary to look with pivasik))) I love the circus ... Interestingly, no one told the sectarians why spacecraft are assembled in clean rooms - and not with the help of a sledgehammer?
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 4 March 2021 08: 49
          0
          That's why prototypes are so cheap. A bunch of people refused to believe at all that it could tear itself off the Earth without exploding. And as for aerodynamic maneuvers, and other acrobatics did not even stutter. But apparently it works. laughing
      2. 2 Level Advisor
        2 Level Advisor 4 March 2021 08: 55
        -4
        yes, Dunno .. but about the delivery of astronauts to the ISS, they also wrote / yelled that these are fantasies of the mad Mask-nivzhist not to happen, they will fly on a trampoline, without the Russian Federation, and silence how it happened .. now the text is the same - the next rocket .. waiting and on the next rocket - the same texts from the same laughing In the end, the urapatriots have only one thing to do - to declare that all this is Hollywood, and we are in a house where everything is fine ..
        1. Cowbra
          Cowbra 4 March 2021 09: 15
          +2
          Now, take a thoughtful look at the fact that Rogozin's progress is flying towards the ISS, and the third canister, riveted according to Dunno's drawings on the Moon, exploded. Still no thoughts?
          1. zlinn
            zlinn 4 March 2021 09: 48
            +4
            There are exactly the same number of progressions to the ISS as there are dragons (2 per year), but besides them, Signuses and Konotori fly there (and both of them are more carrying capacity than progress), so the progress is 20 percent of the ISS supply volume. true progress carries fuel, but dragons know how to return cargo, in general, everyone is busy with their own business, and the senior ship is a very adventurous and very ambitious project, if it flies in the right way, then the competitors of the khan
            1. Cowbra
              Cowbra 4 March 2021 10: 02
              -3
              Progress - fly, starships - no. And they do not fly for the simple reason. that this is a profanation for idiots. MMM with half-and-half hyperloop. I will ask again - do you have any idea why all spaceships are assembled in sterile rooms? And this canister with crooked welds sticking out in all directions is being assembled with a sledgehammer in the open air ?!
              In principle, it will not take off. Only in the role of fireworks, for which, in fact, it is intended
              1. zlinn
                zlinn 4 March 2021 10: 26
                -5
                because it is a cheap prototype and it is already flying
                1. Cowbra
                  Cowbra 4 March 2021 10: 51
                  +4

                  Heard, heard ... And more than once ...



                  1. Simon schempp
                    Simon schempp 4 March 2021 11: 16
                    -3
                    Your gang of jingoistic patriotic experts has been fucked up once.
                    May be enough?



          2. donavi49
            donavi49 4 March 2021 09: 51
            +4
            Swan, Kounotori and Dragon - yeah, let's go fuck it wassat .

            The ISS supply program is being assembled on the basis of needs and progress is being carried there mainly fuel and water.

            Let's take, for example, two actual missions:
            MS-16 has brought to the ISS from 2460 kg of cargo - 600 kg of fuel and 440 kg of water.
            Lebed-15 to the ISS now from 3810 kg of cargo brought 1127 kg of experiments and laboratory stands, 1413 kg of systems for the ISS, 24 kg of Russian cargo, 910 kg of food and supplies for the crew.

            Last year:
            Kounotori from Mitsubishi - brought 6200 kg of cargo including new life support systems - water tanks, an additional oxygen generation system (to be enough for increased air crews), a bunch of Japanese experiments and equipment.


            Progress - MS-14 2528 kg, MS-15 2540 kg.
            Swans - NG13 3377 kg, NG14 3551 kg.
            Dragons - 20 1977 kg and returned 1740 kg, 21 2972 ​​kg there and a record 2 tons - (2002 kg) back.



            By the way, the return of everything allows the Americans to reuse laboratories, stands, EVA suits (which they burn quickly, because 90% of EVA are made by the bourgeoisie) and systems. The Japanese were so impressed by this that the barrel was sent for alteration. The new one in 2022 will not only carry 7.5 tons of sweets to the ISS, but also optionally return a container of up to 1 ton. They already experimented with a mini-reversible module on HTV-8, now they will scale it.
  • donavi49
    donavi49 4 March 2021 08: 57
    +4
    Well, progress is quite visible, the problem has been overcome. If he banged against the earth's firmament, because of the non-ignition of the engines, then it would have been stagnation and problems. And so it seems all the rules.

    Another thing I repeat, while Musk is dreaming of a revolution in space business, more and more competitors appear at the main nurse of SpaceX. Here is another private owner, sharing 4th place with ESA in launches in 2020, announced an 8 ton rocket, 1,5 tons to Mars and Venus, manned flights by 2024. The clock is ticking. Falcon still dominates contracting in the world, but new PHs will cut profits substantially. Actually, as it was with the Republic of Kazakhstan - when suddenly all clients began to scatter and from 40% of world currency launches there were crumbs less than ~ 5%. And the main question is whether the revolutionary system will have time to take wings before the money ceases to be enough wink .

  • evgen1221
    evgen1221 4 March 2021 09: 08
    -4
    Meanwhile, the cars are made with a clear sight to the moon and Mars, there it landed, unloaded, loaded with something and back home.
  • tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 4 March 2021 09: 36
    +3
    It seems to me alone that the Starship project from Musk began to resemble the Titanic project from White Star Line.
    1. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 4 March 2021 11: 56
      0
      What's wrong with the Olympic project?
      1. tralflot1832
        tralflot1832 4 March 2021 12: 02
        0
        Believe it or not, they all drowned, but they were the most in their time.
        1. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 4 March 2021 12: 06
          +4
          Quote: tralflot1832
          they all drowned.


          You are wrong or you are lying. Of the three ships (Titnick, Britannicus, Olympic), the Titanic sank after colliding with an iceberg, Britannicus was blown up by a mine, and Olympic went on the seas and was decommissioned in 1935. from project Olympic everything is fine.
          1. tralflot1832
            tralflot1832 4 March 2021 12: 14
            +3
            Well, yes, with the Olympic bobble out. But the Starship's advertising epic is very reminiscent of the Titanic. All huge 36 engines of 100 pps passengers. And the technology is old. All the same powder keg. But it's cool to look at the boom boom. Still, without people, let it be enchanting.
            1. The eye of the crying
              The eye of the crying 4 March 2021 12: 16
              +1
              Which technologies are old? Remind the rockets that were able to somersault in the air and then landed without falling apart.
              1. tralflot1832
                tralflot1832 4 March 2021 12: 21
                -4
                The proton tumbled with the same result, and the bang was impressive. The assembler decided to test Musk's theory, the Proton can fly horizontally, it turns out, maybe not for long. Like the Mask, Starship flies.
                1. The eye of the crying
                  The eye of the crying 4 March 2021 12: 23
                  +3
                  Tellingly, you did not give a list of old technologies.

                  Quote: tralflot1832
                  Proton tumbled with the same result


                  Not with that.
              2. Vadim237
                Vadim237 4 March 2021 13: 02
                +2
                For a manned spacecraft, it is a very extreme method of landing - for an unmanned cargo version, it will do for a manned one, you have to make an SAS, but it is not even in the project in Starship.
                1. The eye of the crying
                  The eye of the crying 4 March 2021 13: 25
                  +1
                  Why doesn't it fit the passenger version?
  • Esaul
    Esaul 4 March 2021 09: 46
    +2
    She sat down harshly, something was probably damaged there. Another American Rogozin had to attach a flame arrester to it.
  • Trapp1st
    Trapp1st 4 March 2021 09: 52
    -5
    Congratulations, successes on the face, not an expensive transport delivery system, will reopen space! And I remembered)
  • Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 4 March 2021 10: 06
    -2
    Quote: Nasr
    Quote: Aron Zaavi
    but even though money is spent on the interests of human development,


    But in the American press, they began to doubt Max's ideas:

    https://inosmi.ru/video/20170929/240399487.html
    or as
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/02/mars-is-no-earth/618133/

    At one time there was a SOI program ... now Elon Max programs ...

    Let's wait and see.
  • unhappy
    unhappy 4 March 2021 10: 31
    0
    In the final version, Starship will have a height of almost 50 meters, and its mass with a full load of fuel is 1400 tons. Equipped with 37 Raptor engines, it will be able to launch up to 150 tons of load into orbit or transport up to 100 people.

    Mu ratio 10.7 percent wassat
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 4 March 2021 11: 39
    +1
    It's good that this technical misunderstanding breaks out without people. The shuttle sat down well at first and already with the people on board began to explode. Maybe a bit of reason will come to them before they kill 100 people.
    1. tralflot1832
      tralflot1832 4 March 2021 12: 07
      -1
      I can't imagine how to make 37 engines work as a single mechanism. And let Musk fly the first manned flight. And let him fly with passengers until the tenth. The life of a hundred people is not a joke!
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 4 March 2021 12: 38
        +5
        Hmm ... Here's a look at the operation of 27 synchronized motors and the landing of the first 3 stages.

        And yes, Starship will have 28 engines in the first stage... Your information is outdated.
        1. tralflot1832
          tralflot1832 4 March 2021 12: 54
          0
          It seems that he does not have a 100% result on successful landings.
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik 4 March 2021 13: 06
            +3
            Of course there are.
            Of course, some of the Starship or its equivalent with 100 passengers will die. It will definitely be a tragedy. Will this stop the project and further development, of course not. Airplanes fall annually, killing an average of 300 people a year. Did you fly less? Not.
            About 1 people die in road accidents worldwide every year. A huge city the size of Nizhny Novgorod. Now cancel cars? Progress does not stand still, the more a particular technique is used, the more often people will die from the causes associated with it. Alas.
      2. Polymer
        Polymer 4 March 2021 18: 18
        +2
        Quote: tralflot1832
        I can't imagine how to make 37 engines work as a single mechanism.

        So far, in real time, even a super-duper computer is beyond the power of a computer. There are too many variables. So far, and with three sat down crookedly and harshly, and if you add 34 more ... And blowing up a supercomputer with each "prototype" is not the cheapest pleasure. In general, while this is a very expensive reality show, nothing more. " "are resting.
      3. rjpthju
        rjpthju 4 March 2021 18: 38
        +1
        Enough bile to emanate. The man is doing the job, the new business. And accidents are quite possible here. These are two different things: an accident of a used ship and a new one in principle. Read the statistics of our accidents over the past 10 years. And the ships are spent. Mostly defective products and technologies. Sloppiness. Sorry for Russia ... There were such specialists ... But now? If Roskosmos is run by a journalist who is happily surprised - she flew ...
    2. donavi49
      donavi49 4 March 2021 12: 29
      +3
      Just for reference:
      The shuttle flew 135 times into space and delivered 852 people into space. This is 7 times more than all astronauts USSR and Russia - there are only 124 of them at this moment.
      1. tralflot1832
        tralflot1832 4 March 2021 12: 56
        0
        It seems like 13 people (astronauts) went to another world, then everything is not so deplorable here.
        1. donavi49
          donavi49 4 March 2021 13: 00
          +3
          4 / 124 = 3,2%
          13 / 852 = 1,5%

          And I ignored all the other American programs (where 0 people were killed in flight), I took only the Shuttle - while taking all Soviet and Russian ones. wink
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 4 March 2021 13: 05
        0
        14 astronauts and two Space Shuttles are lost from these 135 take-offs and landings.
      3. slipped
        slipped 4 March 2021 13: 12
        -3
        Quote: donavi49
        Just for reference:
        The shuttle flew 135 times into space and delivered 852 people into space. This is 7 times more than all astronauts USSR and Russia - there are only 124 of them at this moment.


        Liquid thrown in. Just for reference, such a number of people delivered into space by the shuttle is due to its small presence in orbit - maximum two weeks and seven people in the carriage. Cosmonauts of the USSR and Russia spent a long time at orbital stations, therefore, so many of them were not required for space flights, while the crews of the stations were from three to 6-9 people constantly.
        1. rjpthju
          rjpthju 4 March 2021 18: 31
          -3
          What can I say, argue. At this stage, our astronautics are in deep ... ass.
          1. slipped
            slipped 4 March 2021 19: 52
            +2
            Quote: rjpthju
            What can I say, argue. At this stage, our astronautics are in deep ... ass.


            Do not lie. The federal space program is being implemented.
            1. rjpthju
              rjpthju 4 March 2021 22: 49
              -2
              "Don't lie. The federal space program is underway."

              - Dear. Compare the US and Russian space programs. Just take the ISS. The toilet does not work for us, Our segments are siphoning (sometimes cracks, sometimes holes are drilled). Food and that ended, from the word completely. Fortunately, the Americans had a supply. Do you think our program is being executed? Did I say that it is not being fulfilled? I said that astronautics is in our ass, compared to American projects. The rockets are all Soviet, from the time of the R-7, S.P. Korolev, with minor improvements (the lamps were replaced with Chinese microcircuits). Their satellites serve several times longer. They fly to asteroids and to Mars. Where have we flown (deep space) in recent decades? Complete zero. We cannot finish building the eastern one. Only one start is made. Where the vaunted Angara is -5, -7. You have postponed the deadlines for the implementation of the program for them and you say that the space program is being carried out. But it is not simple. Except for military space. How many satellites did you lose at launch?
              1. slipped
                slipped 5 March 2021 02: 42
                +1
                Quote: rjpthju
                - Dear. Compare the US and Russian space programs. Just take the ISS. The toilet does not work for us,


                Do not lie. Working. There is even a spare. laughing

                Quote: rjpthju
                Our siphon segments (sometimes cracks or holes are drilled).


                The Americans periodically flow ammonia, which is much more dangerous. So what?

                Quote: rjpthju
                Food and that ended, from the word completely. Fortunately, the Americans had a supply.


                Recent Progress brought food too. Previously, the Americans themselves had suggested using their rations instead of delivering ours. And even before we fed them too. Tell me how? laughing

                Quote: rjpthju
                Do you think our program is being executed?


                I see it. Yes, you yourself can familiarize yourself with it on the Roscosmos website.

                Quote: rjpthju
                Did I say that it is not being fulfilled? I said that astronautics is in our ass, compared to American projects.


                Nothing of the kind. For example, the Americans do not have such astrophysical laboratories as we do, and they will not have them for the next 30 years. Or devices such as neutron detectors that are on foreign interplanetary stations and observe water on planets. Each country has some pluses or minuses in the possibilities of space exploration.

                Quote: rjpthju
                The rockets are all Soviet, from the time of the R-7, S.P. Korolev, with minor improvements (the lamps were replaced with Chinese microcircuits).


                Do not lie. The first Soyuz-2 flew in 2004, Angara in 2014. These missiles do not contain "Chinese microcircuits", everything is Russian.

                Quote: rjpthju
                Their satellites serve several times longer.


                Do not lie. Our satellites now have a lifespan of 7,5 to 15 years (Sesat flew 17 years). In principle, this is comparable to the satellites of other countries. Including in the energy sector - modern Russian BOTs on new platforms generate up to 13 kW. Every year we manufacture new satellites and launch them into orbits, and starting from this year, whole series of domestic small spacecraft of the cubesat class are launched.

                Quote: rjpthju
                They fly to asteroids and to Mars. Where have we flown (deep space) in recent decades?


                For the last decade, we have taken everyone to the ISS and launched foreign AMS with our instruments. For four years now, our spectrometers have been in Mars orbit and send scientific data to our plates.

                And now, beyond the orbit of the Moon, Spektr-RG has been successfully working for the second year - it scans the celestial spheres with unsurpassed quality, many discoveries have been made with the help of this device. And this year the Luna-25 station will start. In the next "ExoMars-2022".

                Quote: rjpthju
                We cannot finish building the eastern one. Only one start is made.


                Vostochny will be built at least until 2030, as new launches are being built in turn. Now they are building a start for the "Angara".

                Quote: rjpthju
                Where the vaunted Angara is -5, -7.


                "Angara-A5" flew in November, the next one is now leaving for Moscow for assembly from Omsk - it flies this year, followed by two A1.2s. A7 - there is no such missile. The new "Soyuz-5" is in production - the tanks have already been made and the engines are being tested. I see you are a layman in this at all. lol

                Quote: rjpthju
                The deadlines for completing the program have been postponed, and you say that the space program is being carried out.


                Where did you transfer it? Do not lie. Flight design tests are going well.

                Quote: rjpthju
                Yes it is not simply. Except for military space. How many satellites did you lose at launch?


                Well, the same Americans lost a new satellite worth $ 250mn a month ago. China also lost a satellite this year.

                And for the last time, in 2019, a passing glass "Blitz", it did not separate from the Rokot from the military. The rest of all satellites are successfully displayed. We are launching two new modules to the ISS this year.
                1. rjpthju
                  rjpthju 5 March 2021 07: 27
                  -1
                  Just the facts:
                  MOSCOW, October 10 - RIA Novosti. A toilet breaks down on the International Space Station in the Russian Zvezda module, in which an air leak is detected, astronauts use the toilet on the American segment

                  June 13. INTERFAX. .... Medvedev also noted delays in the timing of spacecraft launches and non-fulfillment of government contracts for manned flights.
                  “Unfortunately, we still see that government contracts for manned flights are not being fulfilled, the launch dates for deployment are constantly being postponed. I mean the Russian segment,” the prime minister said.

                  Initially, the first launch of the Soyuz was expected in 2015, the first manned launch in 2018, construction work was planned to be completed by November 30, 2015. However, in October 2015, Vladimir Putin got acquainted with the progress of the work, noted the delay in meeting the deadline and allowed to postpone the first launch from the cosmodrome from December 2015 to April 2016.

                  Etc. Just facts. I’m not saying that they don’t do anything. But all around is a mess, theft. Programs, yes, they are being implemented, according to the postponed dates.
                  And what about the food ... that was brought up. Yes, they did. And before that we ran across the street to the grocery store.
                  1. slipped
                    slipped 5 March 2021 13: 55
                    +2
                    Quote: rjpthju
                    Just the facts:
                    MOSCOW, October 10 - RIA Novosti. A toilet breaks down on the International Space Station in the Russian Zvezda module, in which an air leak is detected, astronauts use the toilet on the American segment


                    Answers only: laughing

                    This is October 10, 2020, the toilet started working a couple of days after replacing consumables.

                    Quote: rjpthju
                    June 13. INTERFAX. .... Medvedev also noted delays in the timing of spacecraft launches and non-fulfillment of government contracts for manned flights.


                    This is July 13, 2019, delays in the launch dates occur for various reasons, mainly based on test results, the failure to fulfill the state contract for a manned flight was one thing - in 2018, the Soyuz-2 rocket crashed. The astronauts flew on a different ship.

                    Quote: rjpthju
                    Initially, the first launch of the Soyuz was expected in 2015, the first manned launch - in 2018, construction work was planned to be completed by November 30, 2015 ......


                    This is the Vostochny cosmodrome. The first launch of the Soyuz-2 rocket took place there in April 2016. Since then, there have been six launches from there, the seventh next month. Manned launches on Soyuz from Vostochny were abandoned in favor of launches on a new ship. Now the construction of the Angara rocket launch is underway, the first launch in 2023.

                    Quote: rjpthju
                    Etc. Just facts. I’m not saying that they don’t do anything. But all around is a mess, theft. Programs, yes, they are being implemented, according to the postponed dates.


                    I told you that the federal space program 2016-2025 is being implemented.

                    Quote: rjpthju
                    And what about the food ... that was brought up. Yes, they did. And before that we ran across the street to the grocery store.


                    And before that, they ran to us because of the road.
                    1. rjpthju
                      rjpthju 5 March 2021 23: 48
                      -2
                      About the products: “The Americans themselves had previously offered to use their rations instead of delivering ours.” Yes I agree. They themselves offered, after we asked on their ship to deliver food to our astronauts.
                      The United States in 2020 took samples of dust and soil from the asteroid Bennu, in 2023 they will return their device to Earth. In 2020, the Japanese delivered soil samples from the asteroid Ryugu. China delivered lunar soil. Rogozin promised to send a probe to the moon in 2021, after a 45-year hiatus
                      American and European satellites serve for 15-20 years, ours are less than two times. The most expensive are telecommunications satellites, launched at 36 km. There are 200-300 of them, of which there are less than 10 Russian ones. Tiny Luxembourg has more than 20 of them.
                      USA - more than 1300 working satellites in orbit, China - more than 360, European Union - about 180, Russia - about 160, UK - 130, Japan - 76, India - about 60, Canada - 40
                      Russian starts. 15-20 years ago - 30-40 a year. In 2020 - 17.In 2018 it was 20, in 2019 - 25.
                      1. slipped
                        slipped 6 March 2021 01: 32
                        +2
                        Quote: rjpthju
                        Yes I agree. They themselves offered, after we asked on their ship to deliver food to our astronauts.


                        Normal working hours for the consumables delivery crew. Sketches in the media on this topic, in an attempt to find an "override" for the usual hype, then inflated by "zradniki".

                        Quote: rjpthju
                        The United States in 2020 took samples of dust and soil from the asteroid Bennu, in 2023 they will return their device to Earth. In 2020, the Japanese delivered soil samples from the asteroid Ryugu.


                        Their preparation for these missions was carried out at a time when Russia was releasing seven spaceships a year into space - it was necessary to support the ISS program. At the same time, at the same time, Russia launched into space: the radioastron astrophysical observatory (Spektr-R) - a radio interferometer with a super-long base equal to half the distance to the Moon; the interplanetary station of the Exomars-2016 program (TGO), the Roentgen-Gamma astrophysical observatory (Spectr-RG) with two telescopes of different energies and the highest angular resolution.

                        Quote: rjpthju
                        China delivered lunar soil.


                        Lunar soil was delivered to us back in the 70s from three different places on the lunar surface. Stored at the Institute of Geochemistry RAS. Studied for a long time. The plans for this decade are the delivery of a new one, but already in cryofreeze from great depths.

                        Quote: rjpthju
                        Rogozin promised to send a probe to the moon in 2021, after a 45-year hiatus


                        Yes, the first landing station, in a series of new devices under the Russian lunar program, is preparing for flight:



                        Quote: rjpthju
                        American and European satellites serve for 15-20 years, ours are less than two times.


                        Not certainly in that way. It all depends on the type of spacecraft. For example - with a guaranteed SAS of 7 years, such devices as "Glonass-M" have satellites in the constellation that have been operating for 13 years. The "Messenger" group has its long-livers. Only last year, the Express-A4 satellite, which was launched in 2002, was removed from our communications group.

                        Quote: rjpthju
                        The most expensive are telecommunications satellites, launched at 36 km. There are 200-300 of them, of which there are less than 10 Russian ones. Tiny Luxembourg has more than 20 of them.


                        You are wrong. Russia has more than 15 geostationary communication satellites. These are only civilian devices from the SSAC and the GKS, the military do not count here - not taking into account their devices launched earlier, only in the last couple of years the Defense Ministry has deployed a constellation of the latest four satellites on the Blagovest GSO.

                        Quote: rjpthju
                        The United States has more than 1300 operating satellites in orbit, China has more than 360, the European Union has about 180, and Russia has about 160.


                        Russia already has more than 160, and these are mainly medium and heavy spacecraft. Most of the American ones are Cubsat class small spacecraft and a little more are from private companies. With the deployment of spacecraft of the "Sphere" project groupings, the number of Russian spacecraft in orbits will increase.

                        Quote: rjpthju
                        Russian starts. 15-20 years ago - 30-40 a year. In 2020 - 17.In 2018 it was 20, in 2019 - 25.


                        Our vehicles began to live longer in orbit than 20 years ago, plus the creation of new modern spacecraft, based on import-substituted element base, takes time.
                      2. rjpthju
                        rjpthju 6 March 2021 12: 20
                        -2
                        - "Astrophysical Observatory" Roentgen-Gamma "(Spectrum-RG) with two telescopes of different energies and the highest angular resolution." Forgot to add that one telescope is German.
                        - "The lunar soil was delivered to us back in the 70s from three different places on the surface of the moon" I do not mind. Then we really had a space program and it was carried out. But I'm talking about today's astronautics.
                        - "Only last year, the Express-A4 satellite, which was launched already in 2002, was removed from our communications group." For us, these are exceptions, for Americans, this is the norm.
                        - "plus the creation of new modern spacecraft, based on an import-substituted element base, takes time." Not understood? Earlier you said: "Don't lie. The first Soyuz-2 flew in 2004, Angara in 2014. There are no" Chinese microcircuits "in these missiles, everything is Russian." So do we have our own electronics or not?
                        There are patriots who, along with achievements, see problems, and there are jingoistic patriots who, in principle, do not see shortcomings. Say, we are like in a song: "everything is fine, beautiful marquise." The coming years will judge us and put everything on the shelves. Not long left to wait
                      3. slipped
                        slipped 6 March 2021 14: 47
                        +1
                        Quote: rjpthju
                        "Astrophysical Observatory" Roentgen-Gamma "(Spectrum-RG) with two telescopes of different energies and the highest angular resolution." Forgot to add that one telescope is German.


                        I have not forgotten, I just did not take this into account in this context, just as it does not take into account, for example, the withdrawal of the Perseverance rover with the help of Russian RD-180 engines in RTGs of which Russian plutonium-238, which is unlocked by part of the American Russian plutonium-XNUMX, is not taken into account, for which the Americans paid well.

                        The Spektr-RG mission is joint, the use of a German telescope by Russian scientists is the contribution of the German space agency to the delivery of this telescope to the L2 Lagrange point.

                        Quote: rjpthju
                        "Lunar soil was delivered to us back in the 70s from three different places on the surface of the Moon" I do not mind. Then we really had a space program and it was carried out. But I'm talking about today's astronautics.


                        The lunar soil from its storage at the Institute of Geochemistry has not become less "lunar", there is access to it for research and there is no need to fly to the Moon for it. laughing

                        That is why, at one time, work on the Moon was temporarily suspended. And then, with the collapse of the Union, they were postponed for a couple of decades.

                        As for today's cosmonautics on the Moon, I announced the nearest plans above.

                        Quote: rjpthju
                        "Only last year, the Express-A4 satellite, which was launched as early as 2002, was removed from our communications group." For us, these are exceptions, for Americans, this is the norm.


                        Again an erroneous judgment. As of today, ALL satellites on the GSO have a guaranteed service life of 15 years, both on the Russian Express platform and on the foreign commercial Airbus. And ALL satellites in low and medium orbits - the period from 7 to 10 years, except for the cubesats, of course - those, by definition, do not live long in all countries - 2-3 years, although they are trying to extend it with various tricks. In this regard, it was the domestic developers who proposed and, by the way, will soon launch, a 6Y class cubesat with an economical electric rocket propulsion system, which will allow to raise the orbit of such a satellite, thereby increasing its lifespan.

                        Quote: rjpthju
                        "plus the creation of new modern spacecraft, based on an import-substituted element base, takes time." Not understood? Earlier you said: "Don't lie. The first Soyuz-2 flew in 2004, Angara in 2014. There are no" Chinese microcircuits "in these missiles, everything is Russian." So do we have our own electronics or not?


                        The electronic component base is different. There is CMOS electronics, there is a microwave. Rockets do not need radiation-resistant components for their control systems - they do not live long in flight, satellites with their SAS timing and constant hovering in radiation belts, but they are needed like ... xenon laughing

                        Russia had previously had problems with the release of a domestic radiation-resistant EEE. To be honest, it simply did not exist - there was a continuous import. Now this problem is being solved in the RCS in various ways - from the creation of special helium coatings on the schemes, to the creation of full-fledged radiation-resistant materials. In "ISS named after Reshetnev", our main satellite builder, the transition to 90% of the domestic EEE is expected by 2025, i.e. in three years.

                        Quote: rjpthju
                        Not long left to wait


                        Some have been waiting for seven years. Waiting. lol
                  2. ccsr
                    ccsr 6 March 2021 18: 44
                    +1
                    Quote: rjpthju
                    American and European satellites serve for 15-20 years, ours are less than two times.

                    This is just a wild conclusion - and no one forbids you to use the second pentimum, but to your health. Advanced people change personal laptops in 2-4 years.
                    All developed space countries are trying to update their orbital constellation as quickly as possible so that satellites are the most advanced for this stage of development.
                    Quote: rjpthju
                    Rogozin promised to send a probe to the moon in 2021, after a 45-year hiatus

                    I could not send at all - we did it fifty years ago. Better to spend money on other programs.
                    Quote: rjpthju
                    Russia - about 160,

                    This does not mean anything, if only because it is necessary to assess the quality of satellites and the tasks that they are able to perform. Musk promises to launch thousands of them for the Internet, but in total they will not replace even one satellite from our early warning system.
                    Quote: rjpthju
                    The most expensive are telecommunications satellites, launched at 36 km. There are 200-300 of them, of which less than 10 are Russian.

                    Another amateurish nonsense is that Russia is a northern country, and it does not need so many satellites in its geostationary orbit, because elliptical and low-orbit orbits are preferable for us. And GLONASS does not fly at 36 thousand km, you are simply not in the subject of how lower orbits are used.
            2. The eye of the crying
              The eye of the crying 5 March 2021 11: 13
              -1
              Quote: slipped
              "Angara-A5" flew in November


              With a weight and size layout?

              Quote: slipped
              the next one is now leaving for Moscow for assembly from Omsk - flies this year


              Also with the layout?
              1. slipped
                slipped 5 March 2021 13: 58
                +2
                Quote: Eye of the Crying
                With a weight and size layout?


                Yes, everything is successful. The main customer is satisfied.

                Quote: Eye of the Crying
                Also with the layout?


                The main customer wants to launch a satellite. The decision will be made based on the test results.
  • Pathos
    Pathos 4 March 2021 14: 13
    -1
    Quote: Eye of the Crying
    Quote: Paphos
    Buran automatically sat down the first time


    And from what time has Energy sat down?


    And on the shuttle, from what time did the gasket burn out? Why such a space?
  • Ronald Reagan
    Ronald Reagan 4 March 2021 14: 17
    -4
    Oh, hold on Elon Musk. The college of guards delivers its verdict. laughing
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 4 March 2021 14: 38
    +1
    Quote: OgnennyiKotik
    Hmm ... Here's a look at the operation of 27 synchronized motors and the landing of the first 3 stages.

    Of course they will work well many times, but they will always have a chance of not working properly 27 times more than one engine. At the same level of reliability of the engines.
  • yfast
    yfast 4 March 2021 14: 39
    +1
    And what prevents him from taking off and landing the first or second time? Similar to the Chinese with their 199% quality.
    1. rjpthju
      rjpthju 4 March 2021 18: 27
      -2
      Read our tests, how many ships were killed there while debugging. Well done Musk. And the journalist Rogozin, that his faces are not contrived?
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 4 March 2021 15: 00
    0
    Quote: donavi49
    4 / 124 = 3,2%
    13 / 852 = 1,5%

    And I ignored all the other American programs (where 0 people were killed in flight), I took only the Shuttle - while taking all Soviet and Russian ones. wink

    The shuttle has been in operation since the late 70s. At that time (from the beginning to the end of the Shuttle operation) not a single Soviet cosmonaut was killed, but 13 US astronauts, all on the Shuttle, died. (Here you can argue how the three Apollo burned in the cockpit on the ground will count.)
    This is the whole question. At first, the United States had more reliable equipment than the USSR, but the desire of their business to maximize was nailed, created a technical misunderstanding like the Shuttle, and the USSR worked out its Union and Mir station.
    Today, once again, the quest for maximum profit is driving the US towards an even more unreliable product.
    1. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 5 March 2021 11: 07
      0
      Quote: Kostadinov
      This is the whole question. The USA had at first more reliable technology than the USSR


      What does "reliable" mean? Above Numbers - Shuttles were safer than Soviet ships.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 4 March 2021 15: 17
    -3
    Quote: OgnennyiKotik
    Progress does not stand still, the more a particular technique is used, the more often people will die from the causes associated with it. Alas.

    Progress does not stand still and no one here thinks to prohibit cars, airplanes or spaceships. Here we are talking about a specific product that is technically untenable like Shuttle, Concorde, Boeing 737 max and so on.
    If this Starship reaches Shuttle reliability, which is unlikely, then for 70 takeoffs it will have one disaster in every 100 astronauts killed. For the United States, it can beat normally, I don't know?
  • rjpthju
    rjpthju 4 March 2021 18: 24
    0
    Respect to Mask. And that Rogozin is silent, does not show his muzzle?
  • yfast
    yfast 4 March 2021 20: 01
    0
    Quote: rjpthju
    Read our tests, how many ships were killed there while debugging. Well done Musk. And the journalist Rogozin, that his faces are not contrived?

    At that time, they simulated on the abacus. Now you can make any 3D models. And how is Rogozin to the explosions at Musk?
  • ironic
    ironic 4 March 2021 20: 41
    +1
    The landing was successful. So they will find a separate flaw and knock it down. Progress on the face.
  • Skyscream
    Skyscream 4 March 2021 23: 12
    0
    Okay, let's do it this way. The time of cosmic romance has passed by humanity. Remember the demonstrations and rallies in honor of satellites and astronauts, megatons of fantastic literature on the conquest of space by humane mankind, the number of bars, cafes and restaurants named "Sputnik" in the same States in 1957)) We launched, looked what was nearby. Iiii? What should the colonialists do there? The moon was trampled (or not?). We ride on Mars (or not?). Here, soberly - why do we need Mars? Well, throw in an approximate business plan, pzhalsta ... Are we going to carry something from there? What, for that kind of money? The moon was thrown, Venus is unattainable in principle (in a utilitarian sense). What do we want from Mars? Looks like another massive psychosis, artificially cultivated.
    1. Shopping Mall
      Shopping Mall 5 March 2021 11: 08
      -1
      Quote: SkyScream
      Okay, let's do it this way. The time of cosmic romance has passed by humanity. Remember the demonstrations and rallies in honor of satellites and astronauts, megatons of fantastic literature on the conquest of space by humane mankind, the number of bars, cafes and restaurants named "Sputnik" in the same States in 1957)) We launched, looked what was nearby. Iiii? What should the colonialists do there? The moon was trampled (or not?). We ride on Mars (or not?). Here, soberly - why do we need Mars? Well, throw in an approximate business plan, pzhalsta ... Are we going to carry something from there? What, for that kind of money? The moon was thrown, Venus is unattainable in principle (in a utilitarian sense). What do we want from Mars? Looks like another massive psychosis, artificially cultivated.


      If everyone thought like you, people would never crawl out of the caves. With the same success it is possible to close all fundamental sciences in general, physics (why do we need these leptons?), Astronomy (why look at the stars?). And then it turns out that fundamental research in physics made it possible to create a new reactor, observations of stars made it possible to know in advance about a solar flare, and to reduce global damage from the failure of electronics and power grids, etc.
      1. Skyscream
        Skyscream 5 March 2021 14: 50
        0
        Say what you like, I am immediately attracted to global philosophy (by the way, I was also reproached for this here)) We are discussing a specific topic, not the influence of science on the progress of mankind, no slogans are needed. Where is Musk going to send 100 unfortunate souls? Is it instead of the highest measure of social protection? Yeah, there were films about this in the 80s. This is not about fundamental science, it amazes me that the rhetoric has not changed since the 50s of the ready: Give Mars! - and money for a barrel! That's what I mean! It goes from there: "... and apple trees will bloom on Mars." Minerals to extract? And the geologist ... excuse me - the exploration of the subsoil? And what about opening seams, carrying out blasting operations, establishing production and transportation? It is unprofitable, even if you carry the diamonds in barrels! Are there few of them on Earth? And beyond Mars, everything else is still unsuitable for development. We are offered another performance, there is such a feeling.

        PS Yes, yes, I know: "He lacked imagination, so he gave up mathematics and became a poet")))
        But in this case we are talking about bourgeois projects into which Niagara funds are poured. How are they going to pay off and when? The bourgeois don't just do anything for nothing, right?
        1. Shopping Mall
          Shopping Mall 9 March 2021 07: 55
          -1
          Quote: SkyScream
          Say what you like, I am immediately attracted to global philosophy (by the way, I was also reproached for this here)) We are discussing a specific topic, not the influence of science on the progress of mankind, no slogans are needed. Where is Musk going to send 100 unfortunate souls? Is it instead of the highest measure of social protection? Yeah, there were films about this in the 80s. This is not about fundamental science, it amazes me that the rhetoric has not changed since the 50s of the ready: Give Mars! - and money for a barrel! That's what I mean! It goes from there: "... and apple trees will bloom on Mars." Minerals to extract? And the geologist ... excuse me - the exploration of the subsoil? And what about opening seams, carrying out blasting operations, establishing production and transportation? It is unprofitable, even if you carry the diamonds in barrels! Are there few of them on Earth? And beyond Mars, everything else is still unsuitable for development. We are offered another performance, there is such a feeling.

          PS Yes, yes, I know: "He lacked imagination, so he gave up mathematics and became a poet")))
          But in this case we are talking about bourgeois projects into which Niagara funds are poured. How are they going to pay off and when? The bourgeois don't just do anything for nothing, right?


          Do we have little where money is spent uselessly? Show business, at least. Compared to the world's budgets, they spend pennies on space. But space is the basis for future security. Those who are the first to master flights in the solar system will create a military force that cannot be resisted from the surface. And they will work out technologies just on civil projects.

          And also the industrialization of space, the deployment of industry in space to make the Earth less littered, orbital mirrors that can illuminate entire cities or even regions during periods of low solar activity, and much more.

          Is it beyond Mars unsuitable for exploration? Does the name "Europe" tell you something, or the asteroid belt?
    2. ccsr
      ccsr 5 March 2021 12: 26
      0
      Quote: SkyScream
      Here, soberly - why do we need Mars? Well, throw in an approximate business plan, pzhalsta ... Are we going to carry something from there? What, for that kind of money? The moon was thrown, Venus is unattainable in principle (in a utilitarian sense). What do we want from Mars? Looks like another massive psychosis, artificially cultivated.

      The questions that our Soviet leaders, unfortunately, did not think about, were absolutely correct, and therefore some unscrupulous scientists sold them fairy tales about the colonization of planets, took away budget money for useless programs.
      And now we do not need chatter either - there is no money for these programs, so be engaged in near space, and you can't compete with those who can allocate tens of times more for this. We were left without trousers once, and the country was destroyed, so we would not want to go the same road a second time.
      1. The eye of the crying
        The eye of the crying 5 March 2021 13: 33
        0
        Quote: ccsr
        and nefig compete with those who can allocate tens of times more for this.


        The entire Falcon program was cheaper than the Hangara.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 5 March 2021 13: 43
          -2
          Quote: Eye of the Crying
          The entire Falcon program was cheaper than the Hangara.

          When some "experts" tell me this, I am tempted to ask, but you know about all the costs, and what is the cost of the technical documentation that NASA donated and is still transferring to the Mask on space development? I think that taking into account various benefits, including the cost of land for construction, as well as monetary compensation from various structures, the real cost of Musk's programs is much higher than the same Angara.
          1. The eye of the crying
            The eye of the crying 5 March 2021 14: 02
            0
            Quote: ccsr
            I'm tempted to ask, and you know about all the costs


            I know, of course, only what is in the public domain. Just like you.

            Quote: ccsr
            I’m tempted to ask, do you know about all the costs, and what is the cost of the technical documentation that NASA donated and is still transferring to Mask on space development?


            And I was tempted to ask - did you hold the candle when transferring the documentation? And when transferring the documentation of Roscosmos to the Khrunichev center, did you accidentally hold a candle?

            Quote: ccsr
            I think that taking into account various benefits, including the cost of land for construction


            Do you think weird stuff, but just for the record, could you list the benefits that SpaceX received before Falcon put the first payload into orbit (not a mockup)?
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 5 March 2021 19: 05
              -1
              Quote: Eye of the Crying
              I know, of course, only what is in the public domain.

              It sucks, you even know what is in the public domain:
              Elon Musk, a Los Angeles-based entrepreneur, has built a multi-million dollar empire with companies that make electric cars, sell solar panels and launch space rockets.
              And he built them not without the help of billions of dollars in government subsidies.
              Tesla Motors Inc., SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, have received in the amount of about $ 4,9 billion in support from the state, according to data collected by The Times.

              Quote: Eye of the Crying
              could you list the benefits that SpaceX has received

              Here are just a few:
              SpaceX received about $ 20 million in economic development grants from the State of Texas, on which it builds its own spaceport there, and won tenders for contracts from NASA and US Air Force for a total of $ 5,5 billion.
              1. The eye of the crying
                The eye of the crying 5 March 2021 21: 00
                -1
                Quote: ccsr
                in total received about $ 4,9 billion in support from the state, according to data collected by The Times.


                First, your text says "Tesla Motors Inc., SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp.", but you did not indicate how much of this money went to SpaceX (because you do not know); secondly, although you did not indicate the date of receipt of this "subsidy", according to the text of the Times, it was made not earlier than 2014, by that time the Falcon 9 was already in commercial operation (no version of the Angara is still in commercial operation).

                Quote: ccsr
                SpaceX has received about $ 20 million in subsidies for economic development from the state of Texas, for which it is building its spaceport there.


                You didn’t give a date, but I’m sure this "subsidy" was after Falcon put the satellite into orbit. Note that you are distorting the facts by mixing the costs of the spaceport with the costs of developing the rocket. SpaceX is not the center of Khrunichev, but rather a small Roskosmos, and its expense items are more diverse.
    3. Drugov
      Drugov 5 March 2021 21: 57
      +1
      In my opinion, the only adequate comment on the most important question about the expediency of "conquering" the Moon and Mars. It is about this that our very respected cosmonauts have repeatedly said that such an undertaking is extremely expensive and absolutely meaningless. Today, all the so-called "advanced" developments can be tested on test benches. The current technological development does not allow one to jump over one's head, a breakthrough is needed, a breakthrough in rocketry.
      1. Shopping Mall
        Shopping Mall 9 March 2021 07: 58
        0
        Quote: Drugov
        The current technological development does not allow one to jump over one's head, a breakthrough is needed, a breakthrough in rocketry.


        There will be no development if you do not attract scientists and engineers to this, do not invest money. So you can always wait for a "breakthrough", but we will only get another "iPhone 128" and "Terminator-19".
        1. Drugov
          Drugov 15 March 2021 19: 39
          +1
          Speak all right, that's what we are talking about. These ideas are voiced by the USSR cosmonautics veterans. The current competencies of effective managers can only parasitize on the Soviet legacy.
  • wow
    wow 5 March 2021 17: 33
    +1
    Does it make sense to "carry" with you a significant amount of fuel and oxidizer just for a "spectacular" landing !? In aviation, and even more so in astronautics, designers count every gram and centimeter of a cubic volume for the possibility of increasing the payload lifted into the air or into orbit.
    1. eklmn
      eklmn 5 March 2021 17: 50
      0
      Does it make sense to "carry" with you a significant amount of fuel and oxidizer only for a "spectacular" landing?

      The impression is that you still live in the USSR or have recently been from there! The cost of "rescued" engines during landing is incomparable with the cost of fuel.
      1. Skyscream
        Skyscream 5 March 2021 18: 15
        0
        Aha! We see how we saved!)))
        1. Shopping Mall
          Shopping Mall 16 March 2021 17: 50
          0
          Quote: SkyScream
          Aha! We see how we saved!)))


          And you count how many times the first steps of the Falcon have flown? The fact that the concept of reusable launch vehicles has taken place is already a fait accompli (so far for cargo systems). All the others follow this path, and we, incl. This means that technologies in this area will actively develop - engines will become more reliable, built-in control systems will appear, etc. And ultimately the launch vehicles will approach supersonic aviation in terms of operating costs, and in terms of reliability they will become acceptable for delivering people into orbit.
      2. Skyscream
        Skyscream 5 March 2021 18: 19
        0
        And "there is an impression" that in the USSR the force of gravity was higher, are you hinting at this?
      3. ccsr
        ccsr 5 March 2021 19: 28
        0
        Quote: eklmn
        The cost of "rescued" engines during landing is incomparable with the cost of fuel.

        And the decrease in their reliability, the development of the resource, and the cost of defectoscopy, the elimination of some malfunctions with the disassembly of the engine, this of course will cost you cheaply even after 5-7 flights - so do you need to understand? It's okay that the shuttle practically had the same cost of putting kg into orbit as our disposable ships, only they lost two more of them.
        The whole idea of ​​the Mask will immediately burst like a soap bubble, if only an accident occurs with fatalities, especially since the likelihood of an accident will be much higher than when starting in the traditional way. As soon as Boeing lost two new aircraft, and the whole blissful picture about the success of this company was immediately dispelled. I think the same will happen to Musk, because so far his system is less reliable.
        1. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 5 March 2021 21: 03
          0
          Quote: ccsr
          The whole idea of ​​the Mask will immediately burst like a soap bubble, if only an accident with human victims occurs


          Will not burst - Boeing did not burst. Plus, Starship isn't going to carry people in the near future. And don't give a damn about Musk - his main merit is that he kicked the lazy industry and showed that you can do new things.
        2. Drugov
          Drugov 5 March 2021 22: 04
          -1
          That's right, all this hype is only until such time as fresh slugs appear, or rather the dust from these victims.
        3. eklmn
          eklmn 5 March 2021 22: 52
          0
          SpaceX successfully landed the first stage 58 times and reused the first stage 40 times. Record - 6 times for one step. Ceiling - up to 10 times.
          And each first stage has 9 (!) Engines!
          Now calculate your savings !!! And what exploded - so on that and tests to find the right solution ...
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik 5 March 2021 23: 01
            +2
            Quote: eklmn
            Record - 6 times for one step.

            Lagged behind life. Twice 8 times. Yesterday there was another start.
            1. eklmn
              eklmn 6 March 2021 17: 11
              +1
              Lagged behind life. Twice 8 times.

              I miscalculated, overlooked, missed - a bobble came out, the citizen is the boss ...!
              Thanks for the correction...!
          2. ccsr
            ccsr 6 March 2021 18: 13
            +1
            Quote: eklmn
            Now calculate your savings !!!

            You first calculate the cost of the satellite, which will be covered with a copper basin, especially since the record of using the stage is only 6 times according to your statement.
            Quote: eklmn
            SpaceX successfully landed the first stage 58 times and reused the first stage 40 times.

            Why weren't 18 stages used and how did their cost fall on the cost of launches of the remaining 40? Did you take this into account, or did you simply "did not notice" when calculating the "savings"?