Military Review

"Engine completed": Firing tests of the RD-171MV rocket engine completed

143

NPO Energomash completed a full cycle of firing tests of the first advanced liquid-propellant rocket engine RD-171MV, the tests were recognized as successful. This was reported by the press service of Roscosmos.


In total, within the framework of the tests, eight fire tests were carried out over the course of three months, which confirmed the engine's operability. The next stage will be a series of tests as part of the first stage of the Soyuz-5 launch vehicle. The engine will soon be sent to Samara to the Progress RCC.

Now, according to the results, we can say - yes, the engine took place!

- said the general director of Energomash Igor Arbuzov.

According to the chief designer of NPO Energomash, Petr Lyovochkin, the fire tests of the RD-171MV have once again shown the ability of the enterprise's staff to create the most advanced rocket engines in the world.

The new RD-171MV engine is a modification of the RD-171M engine, which is used in the first stage of the Zenit launch vehicle. It is being developed for the new Soyuz-5 medium-class launch vehicles and super-heavy missiles.

NPO Energomash said earlier that the capacity of the RD-171MV is 246 thousand horsepower, and the thrust with a mass of 10 tons exceeds 800 tons. The first engine will be installed on the first stage of the Soyuz-5 launch vehicle, which is scheduled to launch in 2022 from the Baikonur cosmodrome.

The Soyuz-5 medium-class launch vehicle (Irtysh) is being developed by the Energia Rocket and Space Corporation according to a preliminary design previously approved by Roscosmos.
143 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Bykov.
    Bykov. 31 March 2021 14: 37
    +41
    Eh. well done our techies. Something the country-gas station began to allow itself a lot.
    1. aleks neym_2
      aleks neym_2 31 March 2021 14: 46
      +14
      So what do you want from the "quilted jackets" who are developing truncated on their knees? The whole world is sitting on a computer, but there is not enough brains (until ours are outbid).
    2. Mikle2000
      Mikle2000 31 March 2021 14: 50
      -4
      And spiteful critics said that without Ukrainian components anywhere. Just 7 years old and were able to replace them!
      1. neri73-r
        neri73-r 31 March 2021 14: 56
        +31
        Quote: Mikle2000
        And spiteful critics said that without Ukrainian components anywhere. Just 7 years old and were able to replace them!

        There were no Ukrainian components there.
        1. Mikle2000
          Mikle2000 31 March 2021 15: 27
          -18%
          What were they?
          1. Flooding
            Flooding 31 March 2021 15: 55
            +16
            “In the modernized version,” says Pyotr Lyovochkin, “we have implemented all the experience that we gained during the creation of the RD-180 and RD-191, and also moved on. This includes increased protection against fire, new filters, coatings, the most modern materials and technologies for their processing, a new control system, a faster-acting emergency protection system that sees the problem at an earlier stage and instantly turns off the engines.

            There is one more important advantage of our engine, which must be used in the future. The point is that the side blocks of Energia were planned to be reusable. The technology for their parachuting was created, the place for storing the parachute was envisaged. After the flight or firing tests at the stand, the engine does not require disassembly: we have created a technology for thermal vacuum cleaning of the engine cavities and the oxygen path from the remains of components. So we constantly explain to rocket designers that if we had a working technology for returning the first stages, they would not have to buy a rather expensive engine from us for just one flight.


            more details at https://www.roscosmos.ru/26410/
            1. Mikle2000
              Mikle2000 31 March 2021 16: 20
              -35%
              Nevertheless, the main reason for the revision of the engines was the replacement of imported (read Ukrainian) components. There is no need to deceive yourself. And whether it will be possible to make the whole rocket instead of the Ukrainians is a very controversial question.
              1. neri73-r
                neri73-r 31 March 2021 16: 36
                +9
                Quote: Mikle2000
                Nevertheless, the main reason for the revision of the engines was the replacement of imported (read Ukrainian) components. There is no need to deceive yourself. And whether it will be possible to make the whole rocket instead of the Ukrainians is a very controversial question.

                Sarmat was made instead of the Voevoda (Satan), in the same overall size, but more effective.
              2. Flooding
                Flooding 31 March 2021 16: 49
                +8
                Quote: Mikle2000
                No need to deceive yourself

                I will not captivate you

                what do they write about this in Ukraine?
                Among the joint projects with the Russian Federation, it is worth noting:

                - Sea Launch - Ukraine supplied Zenit-2SL and Zenit-2SLB launch vehicles for launch from the sea launch platform and from the Baikonur cosmodrome. For the assembly of the launch vehicle, Russian enterprises supplied 1st stage propulsion engines, the components of the 2nd stage engine, the complete control system (a large nomenclature of instruments for the control system was supplied by the Kommunar PA), construction materials for the manufacture of the launch vehicle (primarily aluminum), sensors;


                more details at https://inosmi.ru/social/20190606/245224886.html
                1. Mikle2000
                  Mikle2000 31 March 2021 18: 07
                  -11%
                  yes, such a nested nesting doll. Ukrainian rocket with Russian engines, which contained Ukrainian components.
                  from wiki
                  The RD-171MV engine is a modernized version of the Russian RD-171M engine (a modification of the Soviet RD-170 engine), which differs from the prototype by a new control system, excluding the use of imported components, as well as a number of technological and design solutions worked out during the operation of the RD-180, RD-191 engines
                  1. Flooding
                    Flooding 31 March 2021 18: 34
                    +5
                    Quote: Mikle2000
                    yes, such a nested nesting doll. Ukrainian rocket with Russian engines, which contained Ukrainian components.

                    really. you're right
                    All drives in the RD-171M, which were used on the Zenit rocket, will be replaced with drives used on the RD-191 engines (used on the Angara) developed by the Moscow Central Research Institute of AG.
                    1. Bad_gr
                      Bad_gr 31 March 2021 21: 19
                      +2
                      Quote: Flood
                      really. you're right
                      "... All drives in the RD-171M, which were used on the Zenit rocket, will be replaced by drives used on the RD-191 engines (used on the Angara) developed by the Moscow Central Research Institute of AG. .."
                      The RD-171M engine was used only for Zenit missiles. Since the Zenit rocket is a Ukrainian development, they decided to put their own drives on the engine. Now we have decided to put the RD-171M on our rocket, we put our drives accordingly. If you call this "import substitution", then the Soyuz-5 is the same Zenit whose Ukrainian parts were replaced by Russian ones.
                  2. Bad_gr
                    Bad_gr 31 March 2021 19: 39
                    +5
                    Quote: Mikle2000
                    Ukrainian rocket with Russian engines, which contained Ukrainian components.

                    The line of RD-170 / RD-171 engines is developed by NPO Energomash.
                    NPO Energomash has been developing and manufacturing rocket engines since 1929. What specific engine parts did it fail to manufacture itself and had to be ordered from Ukraine? A link to the source of this information would be desirable.
                    Quote: Mikle2000
                    The RD-171MV engine is a modernized version of the Russian RD-171M engine (a modification of the Soviet RD-170 engine)
                    The RD-171M engine (aka RD-173) is not a modification, but an upgrade of the RD-171 engine.
              3. venik
                venik 31 March 2021 18: 48
                0
                Quote: Mikle2000
                There is no need to deceive yourself. And whether it will be possible to make the whole rocket instead of the Ukrainians is a very controversial question.

                ========
                Do not exaggerate the importance of your "ridna nenki" - they have long been unable to create at least something that they cannot create in Russia!
                PS By the way: throwing ICBM tests "Sarmat" have already been completed and will begin in the near future flight !
                PPS Read attentively IN - the article was quite recently.
              4. Barberry25
                Barberry25 31 March 2021 21: 56
                +2
                and in what difficulty should arise? in general, in Russia there is a huge competence in terms of the development of launch vehicles
                1. Mikle2000
                  Mikle2000 April 1 2021 18: 42
                  -2
                  These competencies are clearly demonstrated on the example of hangars. Another rumble will be revived literally 10 years after 2014.
                  Or are you talking about a union? But what does Russia have to do with it? Union of 60+ years made a prisoner queen in the USSR
            2. Cosm22
              Cosm22 31 March 2021 16: 36
              -18%
              The fact of the matter is that Russia does not have technologies for returning the first stages!
              After all, this is exactly the fact that I constantly repeat!
              It is not enough to create a motor with the possibility of multiple switching on and restarting! Let it even be super-powerful, like this liquid-propellant engine that we are discussing.
              To create a multi-use first stage, a number of requirements are required.
              1. The engine must be made compact. Look at the monstrous dimensions and weight of the Russian taxiway line! How to reconcile them with the prerequisite for hot standby in a reusable stage?
              2. It must be made single-chamber.
              3. It needs to be made cheap.
              4. And for this it must be made as simple as possible. Like Merlin.
              5. It needs to be given acceptable values ​​of throttling parameters.
              6. That is. in the end, it is necessary to move from the multi-chamber of the first stage to multi-motor. How Musk did it. To be able to control the thrust while landing.
              That's the whole recipe for solving the problem of reusability. Nothing complicated. Can we do that?
              No.
              Because we will never start doing something new.
              Because we will never get away from Glushko's blanks.
              Only endless upgrades ... modifications ...
              But by adding an extra index to the abbreviation, the functionality of the product will not radically change ...
              1. A1845
                A1845 31 March 2021 16: 54
                +8
                Quote: Cosm22
                in the end, it is necessary to move from the multi-chamber of the first stage to multi-motor. How Musk did it. To have sufficient ability to control traction

                half a century before Musk, this was done by Sergei Pavlovich in N-1
                1. Cosm22
                  Cosm22 31 March 2021 18: 26
                  -7
                  There was an attempt, I do not argue.
                  But where all 4 N-1 launches flew, we know very well.
                  For some reason, the F-9 has a completely different fate.
                  And if Sergei Pavlovich already at that time came to such a decision, then why does this wise thought not occur to Dmitry Olegovich?
              2. ALEX_SHTURMAN
                ALEX_SHTURMAN 31 March 2021 17: 41
                -9
                Now they will minus you, about Roscosmos either good or not.
              3. Reserve buildbat
                Reserve buildbat 31 March 2021 18: 37
                +12
                So far, Musk has shown with great success that he did not succeed in multi-motor activity. Constant explosions are not a bit of a success. laughing
                While the multi-engine capability on Russian missiles has been worked out since the 1960s. Together with multi-chamber.
                1. zlinn
                  zlinn 31 March 2021 18: 56
                  -4
                  where did it go wrong? when did it fail? 86 trouble-free launches in a row, do you know some kind of standard failure, but if you are talking about the starship, then it has only 3 engines and this is generally a flying stand and not a finished product, this is not a product at all, this is still some kind of garbage, but the truth is when moving she flies there for herself and even twists beautiful somersaults, it is quite trouble-free, but it's still bad back, it's just that the mask shows us the whole process from the very beginning, which did not happen before, and how and what was there and how someone exploded during tests showed
              4. Barberry25
                Barberry25 31 March 2021 21: 58
                +8
                as I understand you already have a couple of projects in stock? and then NASA for some reason increased the cost of launching the cargo into space and said that Ilona's low prices were to attract customers to the industry, and not because the rockets were cheap ..
              5. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 31 March 2021 22: 23
                +6
                Quote: Cosm22
                1. The engine must be made compact. Look at the monstrous dimensions and weight of the Russian taxiway line! How to reconcile them with the prerequisite for hot standby in a reusable stage?
                2. It must be made single-chamber.
                3. It needs to be made cheap.
                4. And for this it must be made as simple as possible. Like Merlin.
                5. It needs to be given acceptable values ​​of throttling parameters.
                6. That is. in the end, it is necessary to move from the multi-chamber of the first stage to multi-motor.

                I took two engines, identical in purpose and thrust. One single chamber, the other 4.

                And what do we see?
                By weight, the F-1 is 171 tons lighter than the RD-1,185M, but it also has less thrust (above sea level by 50 tons)
                Dimensions that it is in height, that it is wider in width

                And what is the superiority of single-chamber engines over 4-chamber ones?
                About throttling.
                The first RD-170s could operate stably with 50% throttling. For RD-171M, values ​​of 100-40% came across.
                1. Cosm22
                  Cosm22 April 1 2021 01: 58
                  -3
                  Everything is quite simple here.
                  1. It is impossible to mount more than one engine in the casing of the first stage of the LV because of its large size. And to create the necessary traction, you have to weigh yourself with a bunch of "sausages", and, moreover, each must be in its own body. Hence - the impossibility of providing hot backup and, as a consequence, the end of the reusability.
                  2. In a multi-engine architecture, it is possible to individually control the thrust of each specific engine, if necessary, turning off some of the rest. Which is exactly what Musk is doing. In a multi-camera scheme, this is impossible, because you can neither change the thrust of an individual camera, nor turn off some of the cameras.
                  That is why I have argued and will continue to affirm: a dynamo-jet landing is impossible on the existing line of liquid-propellant rocket engines in Russia. It is impossible to throttle a powerful rocket engine to the desired value. 40% of the nominal thrust is not enough for landing. The stage will either be thrown back up, or it will hang in the air until the engine has consumed all the fuel. Ask about the dry weight of the first stage.
                  1. Bad_gr
                    Bad_gr April 1 2021 11: 20
                    +4
                    Quote: Cosm22
                    1. It is impossible to mount more than one engine in the casing of the first stage of the LV because of its large size.
                    RD-170 is slightly smaller in size than the F-1 "Saturn", so with such an arrangement it would fit.
                    Quote: Cosm22
                    And to create the necessary traction, you have to weigh yourself with a bunch of "sausages", and, moreover, each must be in its own body.
                    The fact that the engines are located each in their own housing is just a plus. Read something about the problems of the wide bottom of the N-1 rocket.

                    Quote: Cosm22
                    Hence - the impossibility of providing hot backup
                    Hot standby is essential for frequent engine failures. I personally doubt that it is necessary at all now.
                    Quote: Cosm22
                    ... and, as a result, a cross on reusability.
                    Why so ?
              6. Knell wardenheart
                Knell wardenheart 31 March 2021 22: 32
                +6
                In general, Musk simply updated his view on Korolev engines, taking into account new technologies, quality control and automation. It is strange that we ourselves did not even think to actualize these ideas. However, you should not pray for Merlins - this is still a slightly different level of production culture, production volumes and modern serial technologies aimed at reducing prices and available to US residents. Taking into account production technologies, our large engine probably has its cost advantages over the sum of small engines, which we cannot produce in such numbers and on those technological cycles that we have while maintaining a marginal benefit.
                I am leading to the fact that it is still impossible to unambiguously assert that the multi-engine circuit is better - we can only assert that it is workable and that the very idea of ​​returning 1 stages is workable (in this way the cat uses Musk). There are probably other ways, by the way, there are already a lot of them in theory. Perhaps some of them will turn out to be more commercially viable.
              7. Dkuznecov
                Dkuznecov 31 March 2021 23: 10
                0
                At least one adequate comment.
                Like automakers. The new Logan became two
                centimeters longer, and as standard
                equipped with a seat heater.
              8. DmSol
                DmSol April 1 2021 08: 47
                +7
                We do not need the return of the first stages "like in the Mask". This engineering perversion is not inherently viable. Carrying extra weight of fuel for landing, having a complex landing control system, then tormenting yourself with stage diagnostics. This is all too complicated and therefore not reliable. Effective but not effective. There will always be a risk of an accident like a shuttle in due time. And if for commercial cargo this is not particularly scary, then for manned cargo it is applicable only within the framework of American civilization, where they have never really bothered with rescue systems. Our engineering school has always tried to follow the simplest and most technologically advanced path - do not forget that.
                1. Mikle2000
                  Mikle2000 April 1 2021 18: 45
                  -2
                  Nevertheless, the approach you criticize has won out in aviation, railway workers and the automotive industry. And they drag excess fuel and suffer with control systems and make inspections / repairs of engines and devices as a whole
                  1. DmSol
                    DmSol April 2 2021 11: 47
                    0
                    Excuse me, but you do not understand at all what you are writing about. Just the "airplane" landing scheme is the most preferable.
                    1. Mikle2000
                      Mikle2000 April 2 2021 13: 57
                      -1
                      the preferred scheme is that which works and works successfully in real life.
                      Of course, you can argue which would be preferable if you take it SUDDENLY and implement it - airplane, parachute, cruise engines, on water, on land, on sea / air platforms, what to plant is the entire carrier, its first stage, engines from the first stage. Fantasies have a place to roam.
              9. ultra
                ultra April 1 2021 11: 27
                +3
                Returnable stages are such a fetish now, but an absolutely dead-end path. Either single-stage reusable rockets or, in my opinion, more promising, aerospace planes.
            3. Knell wardenheart
              Knell wardenheart 31 March 2021 18: 50
              0
              Parachuting the engine is a very good idea, but in this case, you probably need some other systems for shooting the engine itself and some kind of detonation separation from its mounts? Also, it will probably not be a simple parachute, but some kind of system similar to those used for parachute dropping of equipment. Also, in this case, the engine itself needs to be somehow modified in terms of protection against deformations when landing on a hard surface, no matter how good the parachute is, the fall of a colossus permeated with an array of channels and weighing hundreds of kilograms without more or less adequate shock absorption is, in general, a tape measure. ..
              For all these reasons, is there some kind of infa?
              1. Barberry25
                Barberry25 31 March 2021 21: 58
                +1
                and an important point is that the carrying capacity of the rocket is reduced by these hundreds of kg
                1. Bad_gr
                  Bad_gr 31 March 2021 22: 54
                  +1
                  Quote: Barberry25
                  and an important point is that the carrying capacity of the rocket is reduced by these hundreds of kg

                  Not everything is so simple. The thrust of the RD-171M engine above sea level is 740 tons, with a rocket weighing 460 tons (Zenit-2), and this engine is dropped together with the first stage of the rocket, no one drags it into orbit. So, a ton there, a ton here among the total weight of the rocket at the launch stage is not significant. But on the second, or even more so, on the third stage, this is already money.
              2. Awaz
                Awaz April 1 2021 21: 34
                +1
                Back in the 70s, I read in the Soviet magazine YUT the arguments about the return of the first stages of Soviet missiles, or at least engines. Maybe I don't remember everything, but it was not schoolchildren who were talking there, but respected scientists and engineers. So, the topic that now uses the MASK there was sorted out and found to be ineffective. Perhaps this is due to the technical state of the electronics in those years, but obviously everyone recognized that such a rescue scheme leads to the loss of the payload and creates a bunch of problems and complicates the design.
                The topic of parachuting is even more destructive, since in the Soviet years the launches were from Baikonur and Plesetsk and the first steps fell in the deep taiga, so then it is not so easy to find an engine, and it is not easy to ensure a landing while maintaining the engine in difficult terrain.
                In the modern world, all this may be simpler, but it is unlikely that this will lead to some kind of intelligible savings ...
                Soviet space technology differs from the American one in continuity. Good or bad, it's hard to say, but it's definitely cheaper and more effective than every time in a new era to invent everything in a new way and then give up everything and redo everything again again.
                Whatever one may say, but there is not so much sense from any rovers on Mars, but from a huge station in orbit of the Earth there are many times more and this topic is interesting to everyone and everyone is trying to develop it ..
                And if you look closely, then in the actions of the same Mask there are more show-off and PR. And how everything he has in reality, we may never know ...
                1. Knell wardenheart
                  Knell wardenheart April 1 2021 22: 20
                  0
                  Well, with regard to the technologies of the 70s, a sharp leap was made in automation, in the 70s a device capable of landing a stage at the desired point and simultaneously controlling the thrust of several engines would take up decent space, taking into account redundancy or additional strength / reliability of systems. If at all it would be possible in full automatic mode. Materials science has also made significant progress, the designs of tanks and the rockets themselves have become lighter, and it has become possible to calculate what previously seemed unobvious or difficult with the help of supercomputers. This comes to a head, perhaps there are deeper and more important points. Oh yes, reliability control - the reliability and quality control systems have definitely stepped forward, I mean the miniaturization of sensors, flaw detection, etc., this is also very good. an important point that made multi-engine systems then much less reliable than now, and even more so some moments associated with repeated switching on of engines.

                  As for the system with engine paraschuting - you rightly noted about the launch path, this, of course, is a certain problem for such a solution. On the other hand, from the 70s, not just parachutes were developed, but systems used for landing equipment, much more complex and quite effective. Perhaps my information is out of date, but we were also the leaders in the development of such systems. In the 70s, there were no compact sensors, automation and the development of laser rangefinders, the same, probably necessary for the correct operation of such systems, were also at a different level than they are now. On the other hand, there are quite working options for a controlled parachute, and perhaps in conjunction with high-resolution cameras, it would be possible to achieve landing at more favorable points. At first glance, such a system would have a number of advantages over Maskovskaya, because there would be no need to leave 25% of the fuel for engine maneuvers and save the not particularly expensive shell of the first stage (relative to the price of the engine itself), and there would also be no need to maneuver the engine itself and possibly would leave the usual high-power propulsion systems.

                  Of course, everything depends on the calculations of specialists and the details - what dimensions the parachute will need to save the engine of what mass, taking into account not only the parachute itself but also the control systems for it. How difficult would it be to solve the simultaneous separation of the engine using a chain of squibs and is it technically possible in general? How much mass would the depreciation systems take and is it realistic, in principle, to make them relatively compact. And finally, what kind of gain would we have at the final price of the product with the risk factors and the cost of modernization, R&D, etc.
                  1. Awaz
                    Awaz April 2 2021 05: 54
                    +1
                    That's just, as far as I remember, it was considered optimal for those years, if you shoot the engine and land, providing a soft landing, by all possible means. There was even a talk about experiments, but in the end the topic was eventually abandoned.I do not argue that modern technologies can allow this to be done at a different level and after Musk's antics, someone might think and take care of it, but for me it’s like troubleshooting an engine operating in such an aggressive environment after landing, it is not at all cheaper than creating a new one ....
                  2. Awaz
                    Awaz April 2 2021 18: 26
                    +1
                    yes, I remembered. It was there that the topic of returning the first stage as an airplane was also discussed.
                    1. Knell wardenheart
                      Knell wardenheart April 2 2021 20: 26
                      +1
                      Here "Baikal" does not seem to me a good idea (return of the aircraft type), because there will inevitably be very significant compromises in favor of aerodynamics and centering. It would also inevitably have to increase the lateral strength of the step body in at least 2 places - the rear-front chassis and the attachment point of the folding wing (probably above the front chassis). For a heavy rocket, this scheme would suit, in my opinion, even less, for a small and insufficiently perfect medium, it probably would not have been possible to execute on non-toxic fuels, because the inevitably high parasitic mass. For medium rockets it might be suitable, but the future of this direction is doubtful (I mean commercial).
                      There were also different variations on helicopter interception, I don’t know if we have developed something similar, in the west it seems to be developing. This idea also seems dubious to me in relation to carriers higher than light, because weight and dimensions + speed, strength characteristics of the structure "by eye" cause skepticism, it will be a risky business and it seems to me that there will inevitably be a high% of loss or deformation.

                      In general, a rather interesting topic in itself, it is a pity that the scope of the publication apparently does not allow us to hope for a separate article on return technologies.
                      1. Awaz
                        Awaz April 4 2021 13: 13
                        +1
                        it is clear that in the 70-80s there was no point in saving the first stage. And even now I personally very much doubt the effectiveness of this topic. Too everything in this thread is ostentatious and tense. The Maskovites do not even wash the step, or they specially tint it so that it would look like a BU on the launch pad. Engines on the control stage look like new. That is, they defect and sort them out for any reason, and it's good if they don't put stupidly new ones ...
                        Even in aviation, so-called low-cost airlines, in order to reduce costs, use only new aircraft and only a short period of time with maximum operation, until some kind of guaranteed accident-free resource is reached. Engines of modern missiles operate at the limit of their capabilities, both constructive and power, and hardly have any transcendental work resources.
                        Here is my mind on this topic.
                2. Mikle2000
                  Mikle2000 April 2 2021 13: 22
                  -1
                  ++++ And how he has everything in reality, we may never know ...

                  Why don't you find out? You make a spacecraft, go to it, order a launch. He lets it to you for the sane money in the agreed time frame to the agreed orbit. What else do you need from Musk as a consumer? Do you suspect that he has a bubble and sold you the launch at a loss? Well, rejoice.
                  1. Awaz
                    Awaz April 2 2021 18: 24
                    0
                    I'm not talking about that at all. Just imagine the situation: Prokhorov and his mobile and, for example, the Krasnodar Territory. This means that the authorities of this Territory suddenly came up with the idea of ​​creating a law that in this region every car seller must sell 20 percent of cars with a hybrid, electro-mechanical scheme of strictly Russian production. And this same Prokhorov (or whatever it is) right there, even before the adoption of the law, begins to build a plant. how would you react to this? And also the abolition of taxes and all that in a heap ... Then NASA declares that it will throw cargo into space 10 times cheaper than the market price, both for the owners of the cargo and for the operators of the rocket on which these cargoes need to be transported .. Definitely, part rockets go nuts and just stop working with NASA and only Musk is left alone. (which is very suspicious) and as soon as everyone is eliminated, prices are reversed to market parameters and Musk cuts the loot alone. There are many such moments in the history of Musk and NASA and other American structures. Why is this happening? Well, in a normal country, the prosecutor's office would take up the issue ...
                    I am quite equal to Musk, as to any businessman. I am pissed off by his stupid fans and fans ..
                    1. Mikle2000
                      Mikle2000 April 2 2021 21: 31
                      -1
                      Take a break from domestic American problems. The fact on the face - earlier Russia launched 90 percent of commercial launches, now - falcon. You can, of course, talk about the system of cunning subsidies of Mask Nasoi, but what does it matter to some Arabs and Indians? It's about the world market. The fact that Russia will launch its spacecraft with its own missiles, and the Americans theirs with their own (although there were times when they used Russian ones) is understandable. The question is what will be allowed by all the others. Hangara and Soyuz-5? Do you believe it? Me not.
                      Musk, by the way, invested a significant share of HIS money in the Falcon in addition to the Nasov ones and risked quite himself - if the rocket did not fly, the investments would be lost. That's definitely not true about Rogozin - there is cash flow exclusively from taxpayers for thick cheeks
                      1. Awaz
                        Awaz April 2 2021 23: 07
                        0
                        there can be anything in life. Only time puts everything in its place. The funny thing about this topic is that in the entire history of astronautics, all past American, in any case, manned projects died without some kind of exhaust and development ...
                        You wouldn’t be licking the ass but honestly commented on what was happening. In any case, if we compare the same Mask and Rogozin, then when managing this very Rogozin, if I am not mistaken (I did not collect statistics), major serious accidents did not happen, but Musk's excessive openness does not look very much in the eyes of people with an engineering education. ..
                        that's such bullshit ...
                      2. Mikle2000
                        Mikle2000 April 3 2021 00: 36
                        -1
                        I'm even at a loss what to say. If we compare space as a whole, then outside the framework of launches (including manned ones), the comparison of NASA and Roscosmos is generally ridiculous. And the ISS is essentially American (both in terms of the size of the segments and the composition of the expeditions), and even in other positions - geolocation, meteorological satellites, deep space, telescopes, telecommunications, remote sensing systems (especially radar) - the advantage of amers is undeniable. 10 years ago it was possible to claim leadership in the field of carriage. But by the time it is now lost and there is not a single reason for the situation to change.
                      3. Awaz
                        Awaz April 4 2021 12: 54
                        0
                        oh damn. The fact that Russia at one time seized the taxi market was primarily due to the catastrophe in the United States in this matter and not very well-working missiles from China and India, and the high cost of European missiles. Now China India Europe and finally the Americans can send cargo into space ... It's clear that in any case, these countries will withdraw their cargo themselves. and in fact recently even American satellites were withdrawn from Russia. (a disgrace even worse than Rogozinsky) Therefore, they simply took what they owned. This is not a catastrophe - this is a natural development of the situation. Moreover, before, in order to launch a satellite, it was necessary to have one rocket, sometimes a Proton. Now, even the union can put a cloud of satellites into orbit, so there is no need for such a huge number of launches. and yet, the companions began to live longer and this, too, in the same watering can ...
                        The fact that Russia is throwing few satellites into space and almost does not work in deep space has been going on since the days of the USSR. They flew to the moon 40 years ago. All that was needed was received back then. There was no point in spending the money, and therefore the USSR stopped sending aggregates there. It is the Chinese and Hindus who have never flown there, and therefore letting themselves play if there is a lot of money. They will learn nothing new, except what Soviet scientists learned during the Soviet era. Luna is too conservative.
      2. neri73-r
        neri73-r 31 March 2021 16: 34
        +5
        Quote: Mikle2000
        What were they?

        Ours, domestic, Russian.
        1. Mikle2000
          Mikle2000 31 March 2021 20: 50
          -9
          https://ria.ru/20180903/1527755203.html
          1. Mikle2000
            Mikle2000 April 2 2021 13: 25
            -1
            cool, the wrong statement that all the components were Russian is plus, and the correct answer supported by a link is minus. The thoughts in the heads of those who press the plus and minus signs are wonderful
    3. Mikle2000
      Mikle2000 31 March 2021 20: 51
      -9
      https://ria.ru/20180903/1527755203.html
  2. Cosm22
    Cosm22 31 March 2021 15: 31
    +11
    What does Ukraine have to do with it?
    The first stage of Zenith was completed with RD-171 developed by KB Energomash.
  3. orionvitt
    orionvitt 31 March 2021 16: 37
    +9
    Quote: Mikle2000
    without Ukrainian components anywhere.

    This is in Ukraine, without Russian components anywhere. You got it wrong. And Russia somehow copes. I would like it better and faster, but the anchor of the 90s still makes itself felt.
    1. Mikle2000
      Mikle2000 31 March 2021 18: 10
      -14%
      it's not even funny. 90's anchor.
      Something in 1965 no one said the missiles were not made because of the Great Patriotic War.
  • antivirus
    antivirus 31 March 2021 16: 36
    -10%
    if you do not put it on an AV of 100 t VI, it is empty. not there Rogozin goes with ... or is it correct - into space and VKS and air defense with missile defense? instead of aircraft carriers.

    minuses are given to me, but they cannot determine the usefulness of AB ..
    FIRST CONTROL OF EURASIA - WANTED THEN.
  • slipped
    slipped 31 March 2021 17: 39
    +13
    Quote: Bulls.
    Eh. well done our techies. Something the country-gas station began to allow itself a lot.


    On tests:

  • Xnumx vis
    Xnumx vis 31 March 2021 19: 41
    +7
    Quote: Bulls.
    Eh. well done our techies. Something the country-gas station began to allow itself a lot.

    Of course this news pleases me! A gas station has developed a vaccine against covid, it builds airplanes, ships, nuclear power plants, feeds itself, mudflows. households, building food, roads, building new schools, God forbid there will be many well-paid jobs for our children and grandchildren!
  • poquello
    poquello 31 March 2021 14: 38
    +10
    the most powerful liquid in the world
    1. Sined
      Sined 31 March 2021 14: 54
      -1
      Most powerful of course. But the thrust-to-weight ratio is not impressive. If Vika doesn't lie
      Thrust-to-weight ratio:
      RS 25 - 73.1
      Merlin 1D - 150 (180)
      RD 171MV - 80
      RD 191 - 90
      RD 180 - 77.3
      1. Mikle2000
        Mikle2000 31 March 2021 14: 59
        -26%
        Well, right there you need to understand how long the development is. Now only Ukrainian components have changed
        1. U-58
          U-58 31 March 2021 15: 39
          +9
          There are no Ukrainian components there. And there was not.
          Except for the metal (s) and alloys from Zaporizhstal - the best Soviet metallurgical plant.
        2. Piramidon
          Piramidon 31 March 2021 15: 47
          +6
          Quote: Mikle2000
          Now only Ukrainian components have changed

          They were never on the engine. Not to be confused with the joint “Zenith”.
          1. Mikle2000
            Mikle2000 31 March 2021 16: 21
            -20%
            Alas, there were. Will they be able to make a rocket entirely and when is the big question
            1. slipped
              slipped 31 March 2021 17: 23
              +5
              Quote: Mikle2000
              Alas, there were. Will they be able to make a rocket entirely and when is the big question


              The Angara missile complex has been made and this rocket will be made, the test tanks have already been welded, the engine for this is being transferred to the Progress missile center. And the first launch at Soyuz-5 in 2023 from Baiterek, and not as it is written above in 2022 - the Kazakhs slowed down with the decision to modernize the spacecraft, it will begin there only in the summer.
              1. Mikle2000
                Mikle2000 31 March 2021 18: 12
                -16%
                Well, if you think you have made Angara, then I will not live to see the new zenith.
                By what year do you plan the first launch of the hangars with a payload, not blanks - can you tell me?
                1. slipped
                  slipped 31 March 2021 20: 02
                  +7
                  Quote: Mikle2000
                  Well, if you think you have made Angara, then I will not live to see the new zenith.


                  Two years left to live? condolences.

                  Quote: Mikle2000
                  By what year do you plan the first launch of the hangars with a payload, not blanks - can you tell me?


                  In that.
                  1. Mikle2000
                    Mikle2000 31 March 2021 21: 20
                    -11%
                    certainly not in that. This year, two launches are planned and again with blanks. I do not presume to judge - there is nothing to let in, or whether they are afraid
                    1. slipped
                      slipped 31 March 2021 22: 09
                      +7
                      Quote: Mikle2000
                      certainly not in that. This year, two launches are planned and again with blanks. I do not presume to judge - there is nothing to let in, or whether they are afraid


                      All our heavy spacecraft are now being launched on the Proton-M launch vehicle - a new satellite that flies on this rocket has just been successfully tested in the ISS. Two missiles for launches were delivered to Baikonur.

                      All light and medium spacecraft are on the Soyuz-2 launch vehicle.

                      The Angara spacecraft is successfully passing flight design tests - in this year's launches it is planned to test a new Perseus upper stage and a new aggregate module, if everything goes well with the spacecraft.
                      1. Mikle2000
                        Mikle2000 April 2 2021 13: 06
                        -2
                        Which year successfully passes, hesitate to ask?
                        How many times during this time (from the first test launch of the Angara) did the Falcon fly? The development of which, by the way, began much later than the development of the Angara.
                        10, 20, 50? No, the correct answer is 100 (one hundred)
                        With such successes, there is no need for failure
                      2. Awaz
                        Awaz April 4 2021 13: 24
                        0
                        hee hee, Roscosmos does not need to rush anywhere with the Angara, Roscosmos has at least two rockets that fulfill all the needs of Roscosmos. NASA, however, had a full bottom with the withdrawal of cargo and the whole world had to collect for the Musk something that could fly. Well done. But even what they did is not a breakthrough. They simply repeated the Soviet cosmonautics, with slightly new modern technological capabilities.
                        Angara was invented to make one universal rocket for all occasions, changing its configuration based on needs. But unfortunately, the story did not start to develop according to plan. And so the idea was gorgeous, by the way, the same Musk took this idea into service.
                      3. Mikle2000
                        Mikle2000 April 4 2021 21: 22
                        -1
                        I agree. Roscosmos needs very modest
                      4. Awaz
                        Awaz April 7 2021 18: 06
                        0
                        In part, yes, the needs are not high, but at least there is no shame that the amerikosy happened some time ago, when Roskosmos not only took their people into orbit, but even cargo and satellites ...
                      5. Mikle2000
                        Mikle2000 April 8 2021 00: 17
                        -1
                        it may have been a shame, but look at the composition of the ISS - which modules are Russian, which are American, how many Russians are in the crew, and how many are Americans. Here, like in football - the shame is forgotten, but the score remains on the scoreboard and in the standings.
                        And if you look at the same telecommunications group or remote sensing means, you don't even want to start comparisons.
                      6. Awaz
                        Awaz April 11 2021 16: 39
                        0
                        unfortunately we have to admit that the participation of the Russian Federation in the ISS project is a shame and betrayal. not even mentioning that this is a loss of technology and a drain on the Americans. Sadly, it was such a difficult time.
                        However, these technologies, oddly enough, develop and continue to live, and now everyone is trying to build their own stations on the basis of the Soviet experience. Surprisingly, no one is trying to build stations using their technologies as an example, and no one lets people into space using American technologies either. Even Musk is forced to follow the Queen's path. Is this not a demonstration of the power of Soviet space technologies and a demonstration that everything that the Americans do not come up with turns out to be either fake or insanely expensive and not at all effective.
                        Fanatics Mask p, it is clear that they do not understand this, but educated people see everything
                      7. Mikle2000
                        Mikle2000 April 11 2021 22: 37
                        0
                        Yes, no one underestimates Soviet achievements in space. Only from the Soviet chain of the union-zenith-proton-energy (as the load increases), in fact, only the most ancient (albeit many times modernized) Union survived. And everything else for today blah-blah-blah - great plans - we will improve, set up, launch, master, start operation A little later, not now. The cherry on the cake is RN Rokot, which, left without Ukrainian (again Ukrainian!) Components, will not fly until the second half of 2022. But there are these Ukrainian components there - right off the bat, in fact it is the UR-100 (the creation of which was done faster in due time than now this completely minor revision.)
                        This, again, if we reduce space to carriers. And if you do not reduce, then do not cry - you want to howl.
                      8. Awaz
                        Awaz April 12 2021 05: 50
                        0
                        you still do not understand nichrome. The Soviet and American space programs are very different in concept, even. It is clear that with unlimited funding, it was easier for the Americans to create different, often insane and completely useless projects. The USSR had just a plan, and as it turned out, the most adequate. And it still works, with some adjustments, though. But, the creation of a near-earth habitable station is really cooler than many American projects. In any case, no matter how cool the flights of the Mars rovers looked, the moment they were of no use. The same Soviet Lunokhod turned out to be more useful. I do not disparage the Americans at all. With their own opinion, they can do whatever they want and have the right to both luck and failure. But it is clearly obvious that NASA does not have a clear-cut concept and they all the time rush in different directions and saw the loot. Its blessing is full.
                        Moreover, the Soviet and Russian space programs are too classified, even now, and we simply do not see much of what is being done. Maybe this is stupid, but for example, at the time of the start of the space race, the fact that the Americans did not know how weightlessness affects people, they very much compromised themselves, showing vigorous lunar astronauts, and at this time the Soviet ones after a week's flight, not only could not walk, they had the authorities refused ...
  • venik
    venik 31 March 2021 19: 04
    +6
    Quote: Mikle2000
    Well, right there you need to understand how long the development is. Now only Ukrainian components have changed

    ========
    Now please explain: WHAT specifically Ukrainian "components" had to be replaced ???
    Just please, without these "almost all"!!! This" mulka "has been heard more than once!
    1. Mikle2000
      Mikle2000 31 March 2021 21: 20
      -7
      https://ria.ru/20180903/1527755203.html
      1. Mikle2000
        Mikle2000 April 1 2021 18: 01
        -4
        You don't even know how to laugh or cry. The question - which Ukrainian components have changed (they say they were not there) is added up, and the answer which exactly - is minus. I understand that I don’t like the answer, but this is reality, how can you hide your head in the sand?
  • Cosm22
    Cosm22 31 March 2021 15: 21
    -7
    Vicki hardly lies.
    Merlin's weight perfection is problematic to achieve.
    1. poquello
      poquello 31 March 2021 15: 27
      +11
      Quote: Cosm22
      Vicki hardly lies.
      Merlin's weight perfection is problematic to achieve.

      )))))))))))))) of course problematic, there is nothing in it, this is an open-cycle engine
      1. zlinn
        zlinn 31 March 2021 15: 38
        0
        this is all the charm of merlin, it is simple, light, cheap, but the fact that it is low-power, well, take them 5-9, it is still lighter and cheaper than one RD-171, and the raptor, meanwhile, has a thrust-to-weight ratio of 133, and it is also closed cycle
        1. Mikle2000
          Mikle2000 31 March 2021 16: 23
          -13%
          Low-power is a plus when landing. Leave one engine to work instead of 9, do throttling and has a huge dynamic range of thrust, obviously unattainable for one powerful engine
          1. zlinn
            zlinn 31 March 2021 18: 00
            -6
            of course
    2. vic02
      vic02 31 March 2021 16: 28
      +2
      Take an interest in the NK-33 engine
  • vic02
    vic02 31 March 2021 16: 27
    +1
    NK-33 was forgotten. It has a thrust-to-weight ratio of 136, despite the fact that it is still based on the N-1 rocket engine. So, in addition, the thrust-to-weight ratio of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle is comparable to the Zenit 2 launch vehicle with RD 171, approximately 1,2 versus 1,5.
    1. slipped
      slipped 31 March 2021 17: 26
      +5
      Quote: vic02
      NK-33 was forgotten.


      There are just over a dozen of them left, and all will go to Soyuz-2.1v. It is not planned to resume production of this engine again. It will be replaced by RD-193 (RD-181).
  • venik
    venik 31 March 2021 19: 14
    +8
    Quote: Sined
    If Vika doesn't lie
    Thrust-to-weight ratio:
    RS 25 - 73.1
    Merlin 1D - 150 (180)
    RD 171MV - 80
    RD 191 - 90
    RD 180 - 77.3

    =======
    "Vika" does not lie, "Vika" does not say anything: the NK-33 has a thrust-to-weight ratio 136, While "ancient" NK-15F - and in general 152 !!!
    lol
    Learn materiel !!!
  • Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 31 March 2021 14: 58
    +2
    Quote: poquello
    the most powerful liquid in the world

    And five pieces and at all 2000 tons!
  • Cosm22
    Cosm22 31 March 2021 15: 09
    -8
    The most powerful...
    Well, yes, who can argue. And the best one.
    Except for some little things.
    1. This is an ordinary kerosene stove. Those. continuation of the legendary line of Glushko.
    2. Superiority in vacuum thrust by 2,5% in comparison with the same 1 F-1959, alas, is leveled by a much greater weight. 10,3 tons versus 8,4 tons. you can immediately forget about decent weight perfection. Both the engine itself and the entire RN.
    3. As well as immediately forget about reusability, because it is not compatible with multi-chamber in principle. And it is impossible even theoretically to keep within the 13% throttling parameter on the RD171MV.
    4. The question of the price of the engine remains open. Okay, Mask. The already cheap price of Merlin is spread over a huge number of launches, and even reusable ones. Where to get so many of these for the fifth Union? If he is not even included in the STK project on the recommendations of fellow scientists and associate professors with candidates? If I'm not mistaken, is methane on trend today?
    1. U-58
      U-58 31 March 2021 15: 30
      +9
      Somehow you lead aside with your awareness.

      The engine is not an ordinary kerosene stove, but an oxygen kerosene stove. He and his "brothers" 180, 181/191 are structurally rather complex products with no less complicated manufacturing technology.
      In principle, one should be pleasantly glad that the hypostasis of "MV" was quickly designed and manufactured partly from the existing backlog of DSE, partly from newly manufactured ones.
      It is absolutely incorrect to compare the engine with all sorts of merlin-geldings and, moreover, with the F-1, because this is not a mule, a mule and a donkey, but products that are deeply specialized for specific tasks.
      And thanks to Glushko and Radovsky, who created an engine that can be successfully used 40 after its birth ..
      As for the price, now it is prohibitively high and will still increase in the process of development at serial plants. But a large series (and the question is put that way) will bring down the price. And if the commercial use of the Irtysh succeeds, then the price will be recouped.
      In addition, China has a huge interest in the engine, which in the long term puts its production in favorable economic conditions.
      1. Cosm22
        Cosm22 31 March 2021 16: 13
        -5
        Thank you for enlightening about the oxygen kerosene stove, I did not know this fact, because sire and wretched.
        But a large series, which supposedly will bring down the price, is simply touches. Angara adepts are constantly mumbling exactly the same spell.
        Can't you voice the main directions of this "major series"? At least in general terms? How many PNs can the Russian Federation gain by pushing hard? At least a couple of dozen launches per year for Soyuz-5? Or for at least a dozen launches for the Angara?
        And then I'm just lost in conjecture.
        Or maybe we can take back a piece of the international market from Musk? Shall we wipe his F-9 nose? Will we take all foreign orders?
        As for China's interest - proof for the studio. Even in the lunar program, China has bypassed not only Russia, but also the mighty USSR.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 31 March 2021 15: 30
      +7
      In general, RD 170 was created with the possibility of reusing up to 10 times and will be used in the reusable first stages of the Yenisei.
      1. Cosm22
        Cosm22 31 March 2021 16: 00
        -8
        In fact, the RD-171, like the fifth Union as a whole, has already dropped out of the concept of STK Yenisei.
        We need, as the head of the RK said, modern directions.
        And in general, the reuse of the engine does not mean that a reusable stage can be created on its basis. These are completely different concepts.
        Just familiarize yourself with the diameter of the engine, then with the diameter of the shell of the first stage of the launch vehicle and estimate how many such RD-171s can be crammed there.
        Keeping in mind the prerequisite for hot standby.
        1. slipped
          slipped 31 March 2021 17: 32
          +7
          Quote: Cosm22
          In fact, the RD-171, like the fifth Union as a whole, has already dropped out of the concept of STK Yenisei.


          While you only have hemorrhoids laughing Nobody changed the concept.

          Quote: Cosm22
          We need, as the head of the RK said, modern directions.


          Of course you do. Here is the RD-171MV for example.

          Quote: Cosm22
          Just familiarize yourself with the diameter of the engine, then with the diameter of the shell of the first stage of the launch vehicle and estimate how many such RD-171s can be crammed there.


          RD-171MV can be lowered by parachute. Your beloved GO sash Mask saves you so much.
          1. Cosm22
            Cosm22 31 March 2021 18: 55
            -9
            1. You either follow the news more closely, or take notes in writing the sayings of your beloved Rogozin. In order not to get into a mess. For DOR stated in Russian and in plain text that "the Russian super-heavy rocket should be created on the basis of fundamentally new technical solutions. For this launch vehicle, a fundamentally new propulsion engine is needed, allowing to achieve" hot redundancy "and repeated use." What is the difference between the "fundamentally new main engine" and the modified old man RD-171 need to be explained?
            If, according to slipped, a reusable stage can be built on the basis of the RD - 171MB engine, then he can only be given one piece of advice - to school. Learn materiel.
            2. Just RD-171MV, for example, completely drops out of this concept.
            3. Are we going to compare the masses of the fairing flaps and the heavy engine? Are we going to compare the areas of parachutes? Are we going deeper into the jungle of history? And let us ask ourselves, why have they not returned the steps so far in the USSR and the Russian Federation? Or will we understand right away that it became clear even to the Energy developers how absurd this idea is, although its technical aspects were already being worked out then? For it is highly likely that after such a "landing" from the product in a gust of wind, only a pile of scrap metal will remain, even if it falls on a perfectly flat area, and not on a stump or stone.
            And what are you going to plant? Stage or engine? May I congratulate you on the invention of a perpetual motion machine?
            1. slipped
              slipped 31 March 2021 20: 23
              +11
              Quote: Cosm22
              1. You either follow the news more closely, or take notes in writing the sayings of your beloved Rogozin.


              You do not shift your worldview to mine. And then you took the topic - then you think that I should herd the pigs with you, now you call the peasant beloved ... I suppose you also breathe unevenly ... you go through it, don't linger ... laughing

              Quote: Cosm22
              What is the difference between the "fundamentally new main engine" and the modified old man RD-171 need to be explained?


              The new sustainer is RD-182. At the second stage of the first stage, the STK can be used.

              Quote: Cosm22
              If, according to slipped, a reusable stage can be built on the basis of the RD - 171MB engine, then he can only be given one piece of advice - to school. Learn materiel.


              By the way, with regard to your notorious "materiel". At the Energia launch vehicle, a little was not completed then, everything came up against a banal lack of time to implement a soft landing of the stage. Now Russia has such a concern as Technodinamika, which is successfully testing promising modern multi-dome parachute systems. The weight of the BTR-MD "Rakushka" successfully planted with such a system is 13,2 tons.

              1. Cosm22
                Cosm22 31 March 2021 21: 12
                -8
                1. Ie. your beloved Rogozin does not annoy you as much as my beloved Musk? Let's take into account.
                2. Reread your previous post. You may remember that in it you were talking about the RD-171MV, but not about the RD-182. Memory losses? By the way, with regard to RD-182, it was on the topic of methane that Mr. Rogozin moved in his last speeches. So how the fifth Union will serve as the basis for the first stage of the Yenisei Don or some other river, I personally do not understand.
                3. How everything is running ... Recommend me another movie "In the special attention zone" to watch. The fundamental question is - can Russia today carry out a propulsive landing of a reusable LV stage? My answer is categorical - NO! No options on the existing rocket engine line. And the other is not yet. All other exotic options such as parachute landing, wings and similar nonsense will be left to advertise to Dmitry Olegovich. For he has nothing more to say. Except that the geographical features are in place and out of place to mention.
                1. slipped
                  slipped 31 March 2021 21: 56
                  +7
                  Quote: Cosm22
                  1. Ie. your beloved Rogozin does not annoy you as much as my beloved Musk? Let's take into account.


                  Fu

                  Quote: Cosm22
                  2. Reread your previous post. You may remember that in it you were talking about the RD-171MV,


                  There are actually comments under the message just about the successful tests of the RD-171MV. laughing

                  Quote: Cosm22
                  So how the fifth Union will serve as the basis for the first stage of the Yenisei Don or some other river, I personally do not understand.


                  Yes, not in a way, but like a candle. laughing The first stage of Soyuz-5 is the first and second stage of the Yenisei.

                  Quote: Cosm22
                  3. How everything is running ... Recommend me another movie "In the special attention zone" to watch.


                  What for? Technologies have gone ahead a long time ago, for planting more than 10 tons, "Cactus" is no longer needed.

                  Quote: Cosm22
                  The fundamental question is - can Russia today carry out a propulsive landing of a reusable LV stage? My answer is categorical - NO!


                  Mister obvious? laughing There is no need to save carrots on Soyuz-2, it is cheaper to make new ones. “Proton-M” can cope without it, but “KRK“ Angara ”has everything in its plans.

                  Quote: Cosm22
                  All other exotic options such as parachute landing, wings and similar nonsense will be left to advertise to Dmitry Olegovich.


                  ROC "Wing-SV" in the process. The first launch of the LK is also in 2023.
                  1. Cosm22
                    Cosm22 April 1 2021 02: 14
                    -7
                    1. If so, why then so awkwardly drive down the RD-182? There is nothing more to smash?
                    2. The fact that the fifth Union will operate on a kerosene stove is apparently unknown to you? Like the one that DOR made an emphasis on in announcing a change in the concept of STC to methane? Learn materiel. Immediately.
                    3. Of course cheaper, we are rich. Burning expensive engines right after the start is a traditional Russian national amusement.
                    4. Why write nonsense? Wing-SV (as always in the project, in dreams and future tense) - for light steps. You at least get acquainted with the estimated dry weight of the first stage of the Soyuz-5.
                    1. Bad_gr
                      Bad_gr April 1 2021 10: 19
                      +4
                      Quote: Cosm22
                      2. The fact that the fifth Union will operate on a kerosene stove is apparently unknown to you? Like the one that DOR made an emphasis on in announcing a change in the concept of STC to methane? Learn materiel. Immediately.

                      Have you ever wondered why the first stages of the Saturn-5 launch vehicle and our Energia were fueled by kerosene, and already their second stages were fueled by hydrogen?
                      Why are rocket engines with three-component power supply, such as our RD-701 (RD-704), being created?
                    2. slipped
                      slipped April 1 2021 10: 32
                      +4
                      Quote: Cosm22
                      1. If so, why then so awkwardly drive down the RD-182? There is nothing more to smash?


                      Sazit? laughing RD-182 is a proposal from NPO Energomash for the second stage, I wrote above, what's not clear there?

                      Quote: Cosm22
                      2. The fact that the fifth Union will operate on a kerosene stove is apparently unknown to you? Like the one that DOR made an emphasis on in announcing a change in the concept of STC to methane? Learn materiel. Immediately.


                      So RD-182 is just methane.

                      Quote: Cosm22
                      3. Of course cheaper, we are rich. Burning expensive engines right after the start is a traditional Russian national amusement.


                      And for Soyuz-2, making a new engine is cheaper than reusing it.

                      Quote: Cosm22
                      4. Why write nonsense? Wing-SV (as always in the project, in dreams and future tense) - for light steps.


                      What do you mean "as always"? The FPI has just started it. They have four years to develop. Already the engine for the return of the stage is being worked out on targets.

                      Quote: Cosm22
                      You at least get acquainted with the estimated dry weight of the first stage of the Soyuz-5.


                      Nobody is going to make the first stage of Soyuz-5 reusable. But to save the engine by parachute - there are options - the Kazakh steppe is large.
    3. Achilles
      Achilles 31 March 2021 15: 31
      +18
      Quote: Cosm22
      4. The question of the price of the engine remains open. Okay, Mask. The already cheap price of Merlin is spread over a huge number of launches, and even reusable

      Say Musk has a cheap engine, but if you believe this information: The day before it became known that NASA had significantly increased its prices: shipping a kilogram of cargo to the ISS will now cost 20 thousand dollars instead of the previous three thousand, and returning to Earth - 40 thousand instead of six ... An hour of the astronaut's time spent on performing commercial experiments will now cost 17,5 thousand dollars instead of 130. Here are supposedly cheap reusable motors for what they really are.
      1. poquello
        poquello 31 March 2021 15: 47
        +2
        Quote: Achilles
        Speak Musk has a cheap engine

        Maskovye ones are really cheaper, because it's easier, about two times, but if someone gave out 6 pieces like this, it's easy to count
      2. Cosm22
        Cosm22 31 March 2021 15: 54
        -7
        Are we talking about the price of the engine of the LV stage of an individual private trader, or about the price of cargo delivery to the ISS, announced by the state space agency?
        You will sort out this question somehow.
        1. anykin
          anykin April 1 2021 11: 42
          +2
          Quote: Cosm22
          We are talking about the price of the engine of the stage of the launch vehicle of an individual private trader or the price of delivery of cargo

          Not about that and not about the other. About the price for the client.
    4. lazy
      lazy April 1 2021 13: 25
      +3
      the shuttle's reusability was perfectly different, and out of 4 elements were reusable 3. the phapkon had only 1. and by the way, do not explain if the Mask's rockets are cheap why did nasa raise the price per kg of the removed cargo?
  • rocket757
    rocket757 31 March 2021 14: 41
    +8
    NPO Energomash said earlier that the capacity of the RD-171MV is 246 thousand horsepower, and the thrust with a mass of 10 tons exceeds 800 tons. The first engine will be installed on the first stage of the Soyuz-5 launch vehicle, which is scheduled to launch in 2022 from the Baikonur cosmodrome.
    It's really interesting, we are waiting with.
    1. slipped
      slipped 31 March 2021 17: 34
      +4
      Quote: rocket757
      The launch of which is scheduled for 2022 from the Baikonur cosmodrome.
      It's really interesting, we are waiting with.


      Here the writer made a mistake - in 2023.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 31 March 2021 18: 27
        +2
        We will wait anyway.
  • Mikle2000
    Mikle2000 31 March 2021 14: 44
    -11%
    Great news every day. Yesterday the plane flew no worse than the AN-26. Today we are going to make a rocket at the zenith level. Ancestors are proud of us!
    1. loki565
      loki565 31 March 2021 15: 01
      +9
      Great news every day. Yesterday the plane flew no worse than the AN-26. Today we are going to make a rocket at the zenith level. Ancestors are proud of us!

      Well, you are disingenuous, in both cases, the performance characteristics are significantly superior to their predecessors
      1. Cosm22
        Cosm22 31 March 2021 15: 19
        -6
        Has the Fifth Union already flown? When did I miss such an exciting event?
      2. Mikle2000
        Mikle2000 31 March 2021 15: 31
        -18%
        TTX of what? TTZ? And here they are quite comparable. Only not yet achieved.
  • AVA77
    AVA77 31 March 2021 14: 48
    +2
    Now Musk fans will run in and rush wassat
    1. Crimean partisan 1974
      Crimean partisan 1974 31 March 2021 18: 26
      +3
      [quoteNow Musk fans will run in and rush] [/ quote] ... hardly in connection with the latest events .... the mask's shot just plopped on the deck again ... so the question with the dragon engines will be in question for a long time
  • mark1
    mark1 31 March 2021 14: 52
    +7
    the power of the RD-171MV is 246 thousand horsepower,

    The power of the turbo pump unit is 246 thousand hp. and I don't even know how to calculate the power of the RD-171 itself in hp.
    Calculated for thermal power -36709721.278042145 hp
  • Kamchatsky
    Kamchatsky 31 March 2021 14: 54
    0
    A good engine, if only they did not start selling to the Americans.
    1. Cosm22
      Cosm22 31 March 2021 15: 18
      -6
      Try to ask yourself the question: why does the same Mask need it? Even for nothing?
      And answer it.
      Before that, it is advisable to rummage through the Web thoroughly and understand that even if the Soyuz-5 flies to the RD171MV, it will never compete with the F-9. And it's not that one will be average and the other heavy. It's about the launch price.
      1. Mikle2000
        Mikle2000 31 March 2021 15: 32
        -18%
        Not to mention the fact that the states should spit at once to discourage foreign customers from Roscosmos.
      2. AVA77
        AVA77 31 March 2021 15: 33
        +5
        Indeed, the Mask does not need it for nothing, but the Mask blows up engines on Starship for money, but here it is for nothing laughing found a fool, for nothing belay
      3. Vadim237
        Vadim237 31 March 2021 15: 36
        +5
        He and the Raptors constantly have problems on the last burns, two engines had to be changed, and yesterday, during the flight, more than 50 engines burst in one branch pipe, but they normally do not work especially for landing.
        1. zlinn
          zlinn 31 March 2021 18: 08
          -3
          but at the stand everything was fine, so the stand is not the end of the game, so he drives them, and of course it explodes
      4. Sarboz
        Sarboz 31 March 2021 15: 43
        +2
        Quote: Cosm22
        And it's not that one will be average and the other heavy. It's about the launch price.

        Do not count your chickens before they are hatched. Musk is definitely a creator. But Starship crashed for the fourth time in a row. And it's not so scary that with the reusability of the problem, it is much worse that this vessel is scheduled for a manned flight to the moon in three years.
        1. Cosm22
          Cosm22 31 March 2021 16: 44
          -9
          Wait a minute.
          The Raptor is methane. If you like, I can discuss this topic too.
          But in this thread there is a discussion of kerosene stove.
          And RD171MV is more appropriate to compare all the same with Merlin, and the fifth Union with F-9.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 31 March 2021 18: 07
            +5
            And RD171MV is more appropriate to compare all the same with Merlin. No, it is not appropriate - the thrust is different, one RD 170 is comparable in power to 4 Raptors.
            1. Cosm22
              Cosm22 31 March 2021 19: 04
              -10%
              Really?
              Or maybe it's still appropriate?
              If you remember that Merlin is single-chamber, and the RD171MV has 4 cameras? What gives you extra traction?
              And if you remember that the entire product as a whole (Soyuz-5 with its super-engine) is far from competing with the "nine" Mask with its low-power engines? For the output of PN both in LEO and GPO is incomparable in mass?
              1. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 31 March 2021 23: 20
                +4

                ""Roscosmos "responded to Elon Musk's tweet about the Raptor and RD-180 rocket engines
                ... "Mr. Musk, not being a technical specialist, does not take into account that the RD-180 engine for the Atlas launch vehicle uses a completely different fuel scheme -" oxygen-kerosene ", and these are different engine parameters. gasoline internal combustion engine. And if you take into account that Energomash certified the engine with a 10% margin, then the pressure in the RD-180 combustion chamber is above 280 atmospheres, "Roscosmos reports with reference to the chief designer of the enterprise, Pyotr Lyovochkin.

                For his part, Lyovochkin explained that SpaceX is creating a Raptor engine using oxygen and methane components, or, as is customary in the Russian classification, a gas-gas scheme.
                "In such schemes, such a pressure level in the combustion chamber is not something outstanding - in our designs for these schemes, we set the pressure level in the chamber to be more than 300 atmospheres. And the parameter pressure in the chamber itself is not an output characteristic of the engine, such as thrust and specific impulse, "he said.
                At the same time, Energomash welcomes the achievements of their American colleagues in engine building.
                "Despite the fact that our companies are competitors, we, as engineers, welcome the first successes of colleagues from SpaсeX in the field of rocket propulsion. Indeed, when developing the Raptor engine, American engineers reached a record level for themselves in chamber pressure. the level of development and production processes at SpaceX, "he said ...."
                https://www.interfax.ru/russia/650111 (from 11 February 2019)
                In August 2020, Musk issued a pressure in the combustion chamber of 330 bar on the Raptor. But the engines do not work for a long time in this mode, they explode. He has no information about this now.
                1. Mikle2000
                  Mikle2000 April 1 2021 17: 46
                  -3
                  Rogozhin is no match for a mask. Interestingly, this doctor of technical sciences can solve quadratic equations?
  • Ros 56
    Ros 56 31 March 2021 15: 06
    -6
    All striped thighs have described themselves. lol
    1. zlinn
      zlinn 31 March 2021 15: 42
      0
      but don't they care?
  • Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 31 March 2021 15: 29
    -5
    On June 20, 2017, RSC Energia CEO Vladimir Solntsev said that modernizing the RD-171 would require reducing the weight of the original engine, replacing the drives with more modern ones (in order to reduce the price and increase reactivity), and, probably, change the pneumatic-hydraulic system and equipment sensors. Thus, it will take about three years to finalize the original engine with insignificant financial and human costs.


    News feed.
    Now we are proud of every modernization?

    On September 1, 2019, NPO Energomash began purchasing long products from casting steels and alloys for use in the production of RD-171MV as part of the Phoenix development work

    The press service of Energomash will soon use the purchase of each bolt as an informational occasion to celebrate their "achievements".
    The usual modernization is presented with pomp, like not the ancient oxygen-kerosene engine led to modern technologies, but a masterpiece was created ...!
  • Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 31 March 2021 15: 46
    -8
    Work on the RD-170/171 began in 1976


    Another upgrade is certainly better than nothing.
  • Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 31 March 2021 15: 47
    -9
    Quote: loki565
    Well, you are disingenuous, in both cases, the performance characteristics are significantly superior to their predecessors


    And the prices are so many times
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 31 March 2021 18: 08
      +4
      Can you quote the price tag in confirmation "And the prices are so many times"
  • Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 31 March 2021 16: 00
    -3
    Petr Lyovochkin, - we have implemented all the experience that we gained during the creation of the RD-180 and RD-191, and also moved on. This includes increased protection against fire, new filters, coatings, the most modern materials and technologies for their processing, a new control system, a faster-acting emergency protection system ... After a flight or firing tests at the stand, the engine does not need to be disassembled ... we constantly explain to rocket designers that if we had a working technology for the return of the first stages, they would not have to buy a rather expensive engine from us for just one flight.

    The engine builders have made a reusable propulsion system - but they will continue to break it in disposable stages - maybe it's time to do something with the rocket designers?
  • slipped
    slipped April 2 2021 15: 56
    0
    Quote: Mikle2000
    Which year successfully passes, hesitate to ask?


    It will take as long as necessary for a high-quality withdrawal. Serial production will begin in 2023.

    Quote: Mikle2000
    How many times during this time (from the first test launch of the Angara) did the Falcon fly? The development of which, by the way, began much later than the development of the Angara.


    It absolutely unimportant, since we we are operating now "Proton-M", then the production of the "Angara" missile system was moved and launched in Omsk. This is what led to a pause between launches. Only since last year, the RF Ministry of Defense has switched from orders of the Proton-M launch vehicle to the orders of the Angara spacecraft. Now the production of URM-1 in Omsk has been established and the launch frequency of these carriers will increase.



    Quote: Mikle2000
    10, 20, 50? No, the correct answer is 100 (one hundred)


    Apparently you have incontinence. lol Can't you get there?

    Quote: Mikle2000
    With such successes, there is no need for failure


    I see how you just tears on the subject. laughing Well, well.
    1. Mikle2000
      Mikle2000 April 2 2021 21: 38
      -2
      Once as much as necessary, then what is the question. According to this logic, ANY result can be declared a victory. Take the height at ANY price, and report on the execution by ANY deadline. I gave the command and went to sleep in the dugout, wait for the report .. Same approach. Only each time more and more minor events have to be presented as a victory. We have already reached the point "we were able to make an engine no worse than the USSR in 1981, but exclusively on Russian components." In total, 7 years passed before they realized that there would be no Zenith or components for the engine. And how many more years will pass before New Zenith, that is, Soyuz-5 will raise the first payload, no one knows
      1. slipped
        slipped April 2 2021 22: 43
        0
        Quote: Mikle2000
        Once as much as necessary, then what is the question.


        Really. laughing

        Quote: Mikle2000
        According to this logic, ANY result can be declared a victory.


        Highly Likely? laughing The result is what he is and the result that leads to what was planned. To poke you in the intermediate stages every time? The next launch of the Angara rocket last December belongs to just such a stage. Next in line is the launch in the third quarter.

        Quote: Mikle2000
        Only each time more and more minor events have to be presented as a victory.


        What "minor" events are you talking about here? All the tasks set in the next launch of our new rocket have been successfully solved. Now we are starting to solve new immediate tasks in the framework of flight design tests. Completion date all test is known. It hasn't changed over the past five years.

        Quote: Mikle2000
        We have already reached the point "we were able to make an engine no worse than the USSR in 1981, but exclusively on Russian components."


        For the past 14 years, another engine has been flying perfectly, completely made of Russian components and having nothing to do with the USSR. It is called 14D23. You are slightly behind the times.

        Quote: Mikle2000
        In total, 7 years passed before they realized that there would be no Zenith or components for the engine.


        The last launch of Zenit took place at the end of 2017. At that time, the next rocket was available and engines. Another thing is that Ukraine sawed off its own leg in the end - without placing its own carrier for its own satellite. lol And so it lies in storage. Also, the Canadians were framed by this decently.

        Quote: Mikle2000
        And how many more years will pass before New Zenith, that is, Soyuz-5 will raise the first payload, no one knows


        Firstly, the Soyuz-5 is not a "New Zenith" - these missiles have different weight categories, and secondly, by the end of this year, dynamic and then fire tests of the engine as part of the already done. Next year, the second stage OSI. The launch of the launch vehicle from Baiterek is scheduled for 2023.
        1. Mikle2000
          Mikle2000 April 3 2021 00: 48
          -2
          it is still a replacement for Zenith. Almost an exact copy, up to the use of the launch complex thereof. 10 years are allotted for the replacement, the operation is scheduled from 2024, but I bet that they will not meet
          And by the number of launches, you can't look at plans without tears

          On March 28, 2020, the media, with reference to the Progress RCC, reported that after completion of flight design tests (4 launches), the enterprise is going to produce no more than one Soyuz-5 per year [
          On December 28, 2020, the media reported that after the end of flight tests in 2025 until 2036, it is planned to carry out at least two Soyuz-5 launches per year.
          1. slipped
            slipped April 3 2021 12: 21
            +1
            Quote: Mikle2000
            it's still a replacement for Zenith. Almost an exact copy, up to the use of the launch complex thereof.


            Wrong. From Zenith there is only the diameter of the tail section. Just to sit down in the UK at the 45th site. The diameter of the tanks, their manufacturing technology, the second stage engine, the control system - everything is completely different. The displayed weight is one third higher.

            Quote: Mikle2000
            10 years are allotted for the replacement, the operation is scheduled from 2024, but I bet that they will not meet


            Wrong. Four years are allotted for creation. This year, half of the term - the first stage is being tested. The engine of the second stage has been developed and its layout will also be delivered this year for dynamics.

            Quote: Mikle2000
            And by the number of launches, you can't look at plans without tears


            This medium is created for the Baiterek joint venture and the number of launches depends on the operation of this joint venture.
            1. Mikle2000
              Mikle2000 April 4 2021 09: 57
              -1
              Well, ok, I agree with a completely new carrier, albeit functionally to replace the zenith, where only the first stage engines and the launch pad are in common with the zenith. Let's do it, and then we'll see what to start up. Russia and Kazakhstan are great creators of spacecraft, so they can do something.
              As for 17 tons per LEO instead of 13, chickens are counted in the fall, not to mention the fact that it was much easier to modernize the zenith.