Chassis with interchangeable equipment: data on the return stage of the "Wing-SV" launch vehicle are presented

Russian specialists continue to work within the Wing-SV project. We are talking about a project of a reusable cruise stage of a launch vehicle. Such a launch vehicle will be included in the light LV class.

On the channel of the Faculty of Aerophysics and Space Research of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, a statement appeared by the head of the experimental design bureau (design bureau) of TsNIIMash Boris Satovsky.

According to Satovsky, the rocket stage will be able to land in various options, including the runway of an unpaved airfield. According to the head of the experimental design bureau, the landing gear of the Wing-SV stage will be equipped with replaceable equipment. In particular, we are talking about wheels and skis. The former will be used for the classic version of the concrete runway, the latter - for, let's say, more extreme landing options, including sticky ground.

During the speech, the flight scheme with further work of the 2nd stage of the launch vehicle was presented.

It should be recalled that last year it was decided to develop a flight demonstrator for the Krylo-SV missile. To date, some characteristics of the recoverable stage of a promising light launch vehicle are known. So, its dimensions will be about 6 m in length with a radius of about 80 cm. For "Wing-SV" it will be possible to move at hypersonic speeds - up to 6 speeds of sound. The stage is planned to be equipped with a promising engine, which at this stage received the working name "Whirlwind". It is a liquid propellant rocket engine with electrically driven pumping units using oxygen / LNG fuel vapor. Estimated engine thrust at sea level - 4000 kgf.

Speech on the topic "Reusable rocket and space systems":

Comments

[Ka-52]

For "Wing-SV" will be implemented the ability to move at hypersonic speeds - up to 6 speeds of sound.

add a nuclear warhead and the pants turn ... the pants turn .... the pants turn into elegant shorts in "Vanguard"

[cost 75]

And remove the wheels with skis

[hrych]

Musk, or rather NASA, with this dummy zits-chairman persistently climbs to make a soft landing of the first stage. Like, complete nonsense. It is more expedient to either shoot off the engine compartment and lower it by parachute, since the money is so necessary, or really put on wheels with skis according to a winged scheme. However, NASA is still trying to work out a landing ... on the moon. Musk, Mars - all this is a cover and, in fact, a continuation of the lunar scam. Until NASA makes a real manned mission to the moon, neither the world nor themselves will rest. And Americans, nosebleed, want to be the first to do it. China is getting close to the topic and the Russians are doing something suspicious and nuclear there. The problem with the Moon is that it is not enough to accelerate the ship, it needs to be decelerated from cosmic speeds ... to zero. And then from scratch to accelerate again to cosmic speeds. If it is necessary to dock with the arbitration module, in fact, it is more expedient for him to be only a tanker with fuel on the way back and without a living module. There is no atmosphere on the Moon, braking on it is impossible, therefore, only by the same operation of the rocket engine with a waste of oxidizer and fuel. The moon is a huge satellite with tremendous gravity. The radius of Mars is only twice as large as the lunar. So the radius of the Earth is only three times larger than the lunar one. Therefore, the descent module, which also has to rise and still accelerate to cosmic speed, albeit smaller than the terrestrial three-stage rocket, but huge, approximately what Musk is now trying to land. There is still trouble, trouble. When a rocket starts from the ground, its combustion products are removed by special structures, the rocket itself is adhered to by a device or mast on the launch pad. And on the Moon, Mars, etc. You stand on chicken legs and these legs should experience the full pressure of these gases, a kind of giant welding torch, and the soil should fly away like a fountain under this stream, leaving the cooking pot, and even evenly so that the rocket does not fall to one side until the engines developed thrust, when the rocket hovered under their influence, before the start of acceleration. In short, complete sadness ... to the Americans

[Saints]

In fact, they started from the moon more than once. If you do not believe the Americans, then at least there were still Soviet moons, Luna-16, Luna-20, Luna-24. They brought the lunar soil to earth. So it is possible.

[hrych]

Even Americans don't trust Americans Raising a ball with a few grams of soil is one thing, but raising hefty guys fed by hamburgers, and even with a supply of oxygen, and even with life support devices, communications and hundreds of kilograms of moon stones, is another matter This ball is with soil and it is easier to accelerate and brake with less fuel. And yet, oh, horror, the ball does not care about overload. If a person needs to be accelerated and slowed down smoothly, then the ball does not care. But if you overbeat a little with acceleration / deceleration and your head will fly by itself and become an artificial satellite of the Earth. I even agree that an overall apparatus is not needed to start from the Moon, it is needed to accelerate these boobies to cosmic speeds. Or at least up to a speed equal to the orbital module, which is a lot. And for the layman, they begin to glean that the weight on the Moon is 6 times less, like the Moon is 6 times less. But the astronaut has to take six-meter strides. But for technicians they rub in that the mass of the Moon is 81 times less than the Earth's and the rocket should be 80 times less. So here again there is a discrepancy, the steps must be eight meters And the weight, as an evil according to the formula, is connected not with the dimensions of the cosmic body, but with its mass (multiplied by USP). Tricky question. Why didn't the Americans walk 80 meters and jump 150, jumping 40? So these slickers did not walk 6 meters, but as it should be ... on Earth, with earthly steps But the doll put on the rover drove like bikers

[Saints]

The easier launch from the lunar surface is due not only to the lower gravity, but also to the absence of an atmosphere, which greatly affects the launch. Also, in the absence of an atmosphere, there is no need for a high orbit. To leave the sphere of attraction of the moon is again much easier than from the sphere of attraction of the earth. Again, it is not necessary to brake to zero with engines near the ground. The earth has an atmosphere that helps to slow down. Sharp acceleration and frantic overloads are generally useless. The distances are sufficient for maneuvers stretched over time. Δ V will not change from speed.

[hrych]

First, the Americans allegedly used hydrazine-based fuel and around the lander, the sandals would have melted Secondly, you can go up to the orbital module at least high, at least not high, but the trouble is, it flies with the first cosmic, lunar speed. Those. allegedly more than 6 thousand kilometers per hour. Those. this is hypersound. Come on, overclock from scratch, we'll see. How to dock? At different speeds? You can shoot down with a different speed, but dock only with the same speed. Moreover, in order to fly up (overtake), one must exceed the speed of the orbital, command module, and then start braking, so that when approaching and docking, the speed is equalized. But all this is not interesting, engineers have made fun of it all for a long time, but when there are no eighty-meter steps, here at least burst with explanations Big man Neil Armstrong, should have said, they say, a giant step of a man, but a huge step of mankind Or still a small step, but a huge step of astranomical lies

[Saints]

For some reason, you are transferring the conversation to the plane of the American launch, although we started with the possibility of launching from the moon as such. But even according to what you wrote, high-boiling fuel does not pour out of the nozzle in liquid form, but burns out (the boots melted in the fuel). It is not necessary to exceed the speed of the command module. Due to different angular velocities in different orbits, the approach to an elliptical orbit is the convergence and equalization of velocities. This is the usual mechanics of celestial bodies. This is not at all the same as if we had to dock two diesel locomotives at great speed. At the moment of docking of two vehicles, the speed relative to each other is scanty. How do you think they dock in near-earth orbit?

[hrych]

Firstly, there is no complete combustion of fuel and due to contamination of the area to the Republic of Kazakhstan An elliptical, non-elliptical orbit, but the first cosmic speed must be picked up, at least burst. Ferstein. I repeat, technical disputes are not interesting to me, there are websites, everything is sorted out in detail. Including the tanks of Saturn filled with liquid oxygen by half, because it can be seen at the freezing point (there is no oxygen in the second stage). There is a difference in weight and the actors could not imagine their filming. The topic is closed.

[Saints]

What's the problem with picking up speed? On the sites to which you link, people who are also not interested in technical disputes write. And their conclusions are based on the incompleteness of knowledge and the unwillingness to acquire this knowledge. About tanks in general fire. The rocket is cooled to fill it as much as possible, and the tanks also touched exactly in the second stage. The temperature difference between the tanks is 70 degrees. After takeoff, there will be no cooling from the launch pad and the oxidizer (oxygen) expands filling the tank.

[hrych]

Let them take eighty-meter steps, then we'll discuss the rest. Okay, let's start with twenty meters Well, at least three meters, please And not this earthly misunderstanding with slow playback speed

[Saints]

Quote: hrych

Let them take eighty-meter steps

Are you seriously? Sorry of course, but write your comment and we will end there.

[JD1979]

Quote: hrych

I repeat, technical disputes are not interesting to me,

Uh-huh, because you have nothing to argue with, but you want to seem smart, so you throw empty phrases jumping from "fifth to tenth".

[hrych]

I have already cited technical discrepancies above enough. If you want, try to refute them. But since the Americans did not demonstrate an elementary difference in gravity, or rather, on the contrary, they demonstrated with their filming that these are terrestrial conditions. Reducing the playback speed gives out dust, etc. This is an elementary thing and the steps should be huge. For scientists, there is a major problem - radiation. These figures do not show the protection of the ship and the spacesuits do not have it at all. The so-called two belts of Van Allen allegedly passed these actors twice, and after all, no one died. And they did not know that there is also a third belt, which has recently been opened. Those. these actors crossed it and did not even open it although the Geiger counter must squeal like crazy Here are all supposedly launches to the Moon. One can see the glaciation of the first stage, for there is liquid oxygen in tanks, etc. And starting from the second stage ... there is no glaciation. They are just empty. For a suborbital flight with a fall into the ocean, the work of the first stage is enough. Anything higher than the first stage of the launch vehicle is a props and an experienced gaze does not even need to look inside.

[Vadim237]

Stop raving.

[Saints]

You did not give any (zero, zero) technical discrepancies. You do not want to delve into technical issues, which you yourself wrote about. The Apollo 11 crew members received an average of 0.18 rem (rem - the biological equivalent of an X-ray). For comparison, computed tomography - 1 rem. To kill an adult, you need 300 rem in a short time, and if in weeks or even days, the effect will be less. About 50 rem will immediately cause radiation sickness. Even in a solar storm, astronauts on the lunar surface could be protected by the Apollo command module: it is built to weaken 400 rem to 35 rem inside. Absorption numbers are usually indicated in terms of surface density, g / cm². The Apollo spacesuit had a durability of 0.25 g / cm², and the Apollo command module body was 7-8 g / cm². ISS housing - up to 15 g / cm² in specially shielded places. They were really lucky that the August 1972 event happened between the last two Apollo flights: Apollo 16 returned in April and Apollo 17 went to the moon in December. There were no major solar particle events during Apollo 8 and 11. The shielding by the ship is sufficient to reduce it to acceptable values.
The lower stage of the fuel vapor is kerosene oxygen, the second stage is hydrogen oxygen. Also, the shuttles do not have a hydrogen-oxygen tank in a fur coat. Also, the rocket energy is the side accelerators in the coat, oxygen-kerosene, and the central block, hydrogen-oxygen, not in the coat.

[hrych]

Everything is on the sites, why should I repeat myself. There is a difference in the harmfulness of the protons of the inner belt and the electrons of the outer one. There is everything. All calculations and calculations. But only after superman's moon steps. Everything works out great for you, they say, liquid oxygen of the first stage froze everything, but liquid oxygen, and even liquid hydrogen, did not freeze. So Energy was in solid snow, where did you see a clean case in a complete blizzard? If the head fairing, then calm down, there is thermal protection from air heating. Although I can agree by analogy, because the Shuttle tank is covered with a thermal protective shell made of sprayed polyisocyanurate foam with a thickness of 2,5 cm.The purpose of this shell is to protect the fuel and oxidizer from overheating and prevent the formation of ice on the surface of the tank, a characteristic fecal color. Therefore, everyone is against your excuses. The second degree of Saturn had no such protection at all.

[Saints]

Look closely at the energy launch. Especially the first one, the shooting was carried out with 24 cameras and make sure that the oxygen-hydrogen tank is not covered with frost that flies around, and the oxygen-kerosene accelerators are vice versa. The energy was not in solid snow. Not at all. They flew, the whole world recognized it. They flew in the same way as what we started our dialogue with, starting from the moon from an unprepared site is possible and was performed more than once. And not only by Americans.

[hrych]

Quote: Svetoch

They flew, the whole world recognized it

Recognized Brezhnev as a peace deal. He believed that he saved the world, turning a blind eye to this lies. For they signed a nuclear disarmament treaty. All he knew perfectly well that it was a circus. In the USSR, this topic was closed, but the Americans themselves began to expose, because of the egregious, stupid punctures in the film-photo production. Later, engineers, geologists and biologists began to dig. And as a result, there is not a single indisputable argument proving flight. Regolith, after the appearance of modern methods of analysis, turned out to be of terrestrial origin in terms of isotopic composition. It is unique for each of the bodies of the Solar System. Even the theory of the origin of the Moon from the Earth was invented for this, and the super-protected "moon" stones disappeared Like another giant body flew into the Earth, kicked out the matter and the Moon was formed from it. Delirium Putin has already hinted at this lie and even Musk dropped strange phrases. Energy does not matter, I repeat, I do not exclude new methods of thermal protection, ala Shuttle polyisocyanurate. Russia is notable for its successes in materials science. At Saturn, the second stage oxygen tank was not covered with thermal insulation. So the oxygen tank of the third stage was supposed to give a blizzard. Therefore, well, no way. No blizzard, no oxygen.

[Saints]

It was covered with thermal insulation, why are you lying so blatantly? This is an outright lie. It is precisely the thermal insulation that provides a decrease in mass by reducing the evaporation of hydrogen. When creating the second stage, there were various options for thermal insulation and the first options were unsuccessful, as a result, they found the right option and applied it. A hydrogen tank cannot be without thermal insulation. And most of the (much larger) second stage is occupied by just the part with hydrogen and there is no inter-tank space there, unlike the first stage. Sorry, but you are either deliberately lying or do not own the material.

[hrych]

Quote: Svetoch

Why are you lying so blatantly?

Himself such Yes, think what you want. Believe what you want. What is it to me? You have nothing to convince me. There is absolutely no evidence. Wherever you throw - everywhere a wedge. Continuous discrepancies with RN, filming, chatter of actors, geology, chemistry, biology. I repeat, I don't care about anything else when the moon steps are not shown. I don’t care about the rest, when the lunar regolith was of terrestrial origin in terms of isotopic and chemical composition. It's not even like fingerprints, it's like identical DNA. Well, even if the booster is fueled, well, not fried in radioactive belts. Why did the regolith turn out to be earthly? Therefore, I have to talk to fanatical believers, just waste time. And do not waste your time, all the more you cannot explain the isotopic composition, little steps of a person ... you cannot explain. You cannot justify the confusion of shadows and illumination of fake shots. Well, let your Americans repeat the flight ... in 50 years, so and so

[Saints]

The lunar regolith was not terrestrial in composition. Several independent non-American studies have discovered previously unknown minerals. And in Soviet samples, the same minerals were found. And I'm not a fan of America and would be glad if it turned out that we won the space race. But these are facts and as much as I and you do not want the opposite, it will not change anything. Everything that is not clear to you has an explanation, and if you do not believe in something, then this is your right, no doubt. Yes, I tried to convey to you something, you think that I am wrong and I am a fan. Yes I'm a fan, but I'm a fan of space. When Musk does something, I rejoice when Roscosmos makes another breakthrough, for example, with a nucleon or a fast flight to the ISS, I am also glad. And if I conveyed the necessary information to someone, I'm glad. You cannot be persuaded, I understand.

[hrych]

Quote: Svetoch

Everything that is not clear to you has an explanation

Where are the moon steps?

[Saints]

What are the steps? Aren't you tired yourself? The weight of the spacesuit is under a hundred kilograms, plus this clothing is not for gymnastics, it does not allow you to take huge steps. Although this did not stop me from making pirouettes when stumbling and falling. And those small half-jumps-steps which were moved are basically the most convenient way of movement in those conditions. And so everyone knows that theoretically a gymnast in the atmosphere with lunar gravity with wings on his hands could even fly, theoretically. An athlete can even jump from a place on the moon under the dome by no more than 20 meters. What are the steps? Walking normally or fast, by definition, will not work on the moon, only very slowly and not far. If you know the definition of a step, of course. The rest is running, but even then you will not be able to make any huge steps, no matter how much you want it.

[hrych]

Aren't you tired yourself? Some not very excuses. These 100 kg on the moon are like a bottle of vodka.

[Saints]

Yes, what "excuses". Physics to help. I wrote that even an athlete without a spacesuit will not be able to do this. These are physics, gravity, gravitational acceleration, mass and inertia.

[hrych]

Quote: Svetoch

an athlete without a spacesuit will not be able to do this

[Saints]

Sorry, but this is incoherent nonsense.

[hrych]

Quote: Svetoch

Sorry, but this is incoherent nonsense.

In principle, I expected these shots from you, but did not wait. As a result, you ate my bald head, proving that the second with the third stage does not freeze and should not freeze, because of another fuel (hydrogen) and thermal insulation. However, the frames say the opposite, everything freezes normally. the top of the rocket at the start receives a stronger vibration, then all the snow stupidly flew to the first stage earlier and created a blizzard around the first, and to this blizzard the first stage also added its own blizzard. The photographs of the beginning of the ascent actually recorded when the snow of the steps from above reached the first step with its flying snow.
I was wrong, and you attacked me, but naturally wrong. Rather, I gave the wrong version of the unfilled (unfilled) tanks. Another lunar debater - JD1979, below gave a diagram of Saturn, etc. This will be useful to us. For the lie of the Americans is somewhat different. Just a hint ... the optimal shape is a ball. Naturally, the RN N-1 tanks were balls of both oxidizer and fuel. This makes it possible to make the tank wall to a minimum thickness. The wall of the ball is always thinner, similar in volume to a cylindrical cistern, ellipsoid, etc.

And just the dispute of the engineers concerned the shape of the 1st stage tanks, especially the oxygen one, Saturn and the shape of the next tanks. Where there are fewer claims to oxygen because of the more stable saucer-shaped (ellipse-shaped) shape. And the so-called common wall (the bottom of the hydrogen and the oxygen dome), just on the site of the engineers, caused panic. If a classic tank is under a uniform load due to the pressure difference with the medium, then damage has occurred here, with a phenolic compensator for temperature differences and uneven force. acting on the walls of the tank. The idea is good, the practice is dubious.

Quote: Svetoch

weight reduction due to reduced hydrogen evaporation

You are talking a little nonsense here. It was about something else. There is no mass loss of hydrogen (mass conservation law), the tanks are hermetically sealed, the hydrogen does not disappear anywhere. And the beginning of the boiling of hydrogen (which is being fought with thermal insulation), firstly, increases the pressure inside the tank, which requires strengthening - thickening of the tank wall, hence the increase in weight. A porous thermal insulator is lighter than metal. Hence the gain in mass, instead of thickening the metal wall, light thermal insulation is added. Reducing snow formation is a trifle and only a side benefit of thermal insulation. The lack of thermal insulation of hydrogen tanks is possible and desirable if the tank wall is not heavy and strong enough. Some kind of graphene to use and tons of thermal insulation is not required.

[Saints]

You a priori consider yourself smarter than engineers. Such a tank could not be, did not refuel, did not cool. And you attack, and I answer your comments all the time. And they admitted a mistake (thank God) once, although much of what you wrote is not true. I think your faith has been pretty shaken, no matter how you assert the opposite, but unfortunately for mine, you will not refuse it.

[hrych]

Quote: Svetoch

but unfortunately

Your faith in infallibility is up to the ears of lying Americans amazes. Their entire space program is fake and up to the moon movie with Gemini coffins. The subsequent fake with the failed Hubble and its deformed reflector. Continuous misinformation goes with the rover, which could not move out of the descent platform. Therefore, the landscape of Ireland will be recognized, then the bird will be in focus. I did not admit the mistake, the tanks were really empty, underfilled, etc. The F-1 engine did not give sufficient power, a black mark and a bad color of the torch remained behind the launch vehicle, which indicates incomplete fuel combustion. After the separation of the first stage in several videos, the second stage simply does not work and the shooting stops, or rather the viewer is not shown. Here, in particular, the second stage simply does not start, and then the ground men are shown. Because further look, what's wrong with the rocket ... The Mach cone was also used to calculate the speed, i.e. the first stage accelerated the rocket to a speed of no more than Mach 4, and it is stated that almost 8 .

A technical dispute was needed. Please refute the smart ones

[hrych]

On a dead partition, and even with phenol. At the bottom, oxygen compartment, as it is depleted, there is a void (gaseous oxygen) at the top, and liquid oxygen at the bottom. But in the upper compartment - on this bottom (for the lower - the dome), the liquid presses until it is completely depleted. Everything is aggravated by acceleration and overload. It would be understandable if this partition were not rigid, but ala a rubber membrane and, as oxygen was depleted, sagged, filling the void of the oxygen compartment. No, it is metal - aluminum, and as a bottom it has not a stable, but an anti-stable form for liquid hydrogen, which is pressurized with overload. And because of the cryo-effect, aluminum is also fragile, like peeing paper, and worse, the paper is at least plastic, but here the fragility goes off scale, spit and scatter. In short, this partition should collapse, mix hydrogen with oxygen and produce a grandiose fireworks Here is such a dubious gain in the mass of combining reservoirs. All this blizzard for what? There, according to children's calculations, there was no need in any way, the throwing weight did not come out. And they began to carry a blizzard, they say, we saved 1,4 tons here by applying thermal insulation, here we saved 3,6 tons by using a common wall. Opachki saved exactly 5 tons at the second stage. And the figure is how beautiful. The entire takeoff stage of the lunar module was saved. This is only 2 steps. And how much did they save on 1, and on 3. For some reason, they did not save one wide face. Three were sent guys under 2 meters in height. And oxygen for everyone, and life support, and a chair, and a spacesuit ... as much as 100 kg. We have one Leonov the size of a hobbit was planned and then ... suicide bomber. But for a TV show, of course, there are three heroes This is not the law of science, but the law of the media at its head.

[JD1979]

Quote: hrych

The glaciation of the first stage is visible, for there is liquid oxygen in tanks, etc. And starting from the second stage ... there is no glaciation. They are just empty. For a suborbital flight with a fall into the ocean, the work of the first stage is enough. Anything higher than the first stage of the launch vehicle is a props and an experienced gaze does not even need to look inside.

I don’t want to offend you, but you’re so much .... ChSVshny how illiterate and do not know how to analyze elementary information ... They pulled pictures, ran to the top and speak the truth))))
Well, the client insists ... we will dunk)))
1. Picture taken from Wiki.
2. On the same page, ABOVE, which you flew in a hurry))) there is another picture, this one:

3. This picture shows, SUDDENLY!))) The sizes and locations of tanks with oxygen))) And again SUDDENLY at stages 2 and 3, they make up 33% of the volume of hydrogen in the second stage and a little large at the third and are similar in shape to convex plate. So there will be no such icing as on the 1st stage, but it is exactly where they are located)))
4. The liquid hydrogen tank is made with thermal insulation, which is also sealed, so there is no icing there)))

Well, a guru of technical affairs?))) Or not technical but simply balobolsk (I wanted to write differently, but abnormally is impossible))) Will you continue to disgrace yourself? or maybe that's enough?

[hrych]

Quote: JD1979

how illiterate and unable to analyze

After these words, I did not read you. Learn to talk first.

[JD1979]

Quote: hrych

After these words, I did not read you. Learn to talk first.

Uh-huh ankedot, you know? The Chukchi is not a reader, the Chukchi is a writer!)) Judging by the sheets of your poorly connected text, this is right about you. As for the specifics - the sound of the tank being drained)

[hrych]

I don't read, I'm sorry, I put a minus right away.

[JD1979]

Well, you are just a collection of jokes: I have not read it, but I have an opinion))) The drain is counted))

[hrych]

It is called ignore. What did you prove to me with your picture? Okay, again. If the first stage is with liquid oxygen, then the second with both liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. For the smart ones, the temperature of liquid oxygen is no higher than −182,96 ° C, and liquid hydrogen is no higher than −252,87 ° C. When the pressure in the tank changes, the boiling point varies, but nevertheless. Liquid hydrogen is MUCH .... SIGNIFICANTLY more freezing than liquid oxygen. To school, immediately.

[JD1979]

Quote: hrych

Liquid hydrogen is MUCH .... SIGNIFICANTLY more freezing than liquid oxygen. To school, immediately.

AHAKHA that's exactly to school, although they won't take you anymore.))) Have you mastered the design of the hydrogen tank for Saturn-5? Not? Let's disgrace ourselves in full))

[hrych]

Dimulya, come on, goodbye. All the best and good luck in your personal life. the main thing is not to build the missiles

[JD1979]

Quote: hrych

Dimulya, come on, goodbye. All the best and good luck in your personal life. the main thing is not to build the missiles

Khrychulya, again lowered the tank))) well, happy sailing)) And Cho so?))) Are you afraid to get lost again in pictures and diagrams))) So go on to study rockets from plastic bottles))

[Saints]

Come on, this comrade does not understand the difference in the design of the first and subsequent stages. I'm sure he doesn't even know the difference in the design of the tanks of these stages. I think he does not understand the difference in the inter-tank space. Those things that are considered the norm and are self-evident, he and others like him sweep aside (even not so, you cannot dismiss what you do not know). Initially incorrect messages, coupled with no logic, lead to terrible results.

[Brs.K64]

Automatic stations launched from the moon have slightly different weight and dimensional parameters. And judging by the American photo-video from the moon, their lunar modules also did not differ in gigantism, which in turn also raises questions. One of them arises immediately. If the lunar missions of the 70s used devices of smaller dimensions, why should we drag such a huge barrel there now?

[Barberry25]

Well, they have a problem that you need to plant a step on a ship ...

[NIKN]

Quote: Ka-52

add a nuclear warhead and the pants turn ... the pants turn .... the pants turn into elegant shorts in Vanguard

Then they look further, the warhead is dropped at the desired point of the trajectory, and the pants are still on the base ...

[Strelets1]

Good idea! ... and the San Andreas Fault turns ...

[usr01]

It's strange to read about such things on the Internet ...
It's okay to recognize after (not?) The first application ...
Maybe "misinformation" for partners?

[Cananecat]

Quote: usr01

Maybe "misinformation" for partners?

By no means, Musk's vertical landing track is already packed, there is no point in going the same way. But landing on an airplane can even go.

[Cosm22]

We can easily imagine where she can go.
I’m just wondering: why, out of all the possible options, do Russian experts necessarily choose the dead-end one?
By the way, no one paid attention to the proposal "Such a launch vehicle will be included in the light LV class"? What is it all about?
Why maximally complicate the design of the launch vehicle, which is capable of displaying only the minimum PN? Why make it more expensive?

[Barberry25]

because at the moment the task is to develop the technology, and after that you can consider options for heavier missiles ..

[Cosm22]

The wing variant is not suitable for heavier launch vehicles. What are we talking about?
Who needs this wing technology? Why work it out?

[Barberry25]

The Angara family? for a 3 or light 5terka, a return stage is more than suitable, of course, for casting to the most distant places, ordinary blocks will be taken, but for a payload, the return ones will come off. The question is about the return price ..

[Awaz]

Well, the same Musk, oddly enough, only at light and small payload and at low altitudes uses (if it's true) reusable steps ... Coincidence? I don't think so)))
But for me personally, the topic with reusability is another stupidity and some kind of irrepressible desire to repeat what the Americans come up with ...
On current engines, all this is useless

[Herman 4223]

Why haven't they created an aircraft-type launch system for space carriers? The plane takes off, raises the ship about ten or twenty kilometers and then starts from the plane. This method of takeoff is clearly cheaper than a rocket.

[Reviews]

The Pegasus and SpaceShipOne systems are at your service. "Good morning". :)

[Login_Off]

Yeah, logically and matithmatically, at the 10th grade level.
But in fact, it's like spreading a newspaper to jump higher.
In fact, you will jump 1mm higher))
Well, or even put a chair instead of a newspaper, you can jump higher, but not a fact!

[Reviews]

Quote: Login_Off

Yeah, logically and matithmatically, at the 10th grade level.
But in fact, it's like spreading a newspaper to jump higher.
In fact, you will jump 1mm higher))

The analogy is lame on all four legs. What is the speed of the launch vehicle at an altitude of 10 km? About 2500 km / h, if acceleration is maintained at 30 m / s². And to such a height you have to climb the most uneconomical way - rocket, instead of the almost most economical - aerodynamic. And the airplane "first stage" allows you to leave the densest part of the atmosphere below and not spend a huge amount of rocket fuel on overcoming resistance. The point of an airplane launch is precisely to rise above the troposphere, and not "to get 10 km closer to space."

[Thrifty]

Herman4223 - such a system is considered harmful to the atmosphere, due to the permanent damage to the ozone layer of the planet. In addition, the aks themselves (aerospace aircraft) will cost a lot more than reusable launch vehicles, because the plane has a bunch of expensive equipment, it needs more powerful thermal protection than for a rocket due to the debt of flight in the upper atmosphere. ... the problems of the unresolved carriage!

[Genry]

Quote: Thrifty

such a system is considered harmful to the atmosphere,

If the fuel consumption is lower, so will the pollution ...

Quote: Thrifty

because an airplane has a bunch of expensive equipment, it needs more powerful thermal protection than a rocket because of the debt of flight in the upper atmosphere.

What kind of equipment? A computer? Radio equipment? Orientation systems?

Heat protection: a glider made of composites (as the landing Soyuz and airplanes are already doing) has increased heat resistance. Plus, on takeoff - due to fuel cooling, during landing - due to a decrease in speed (the hot section is very short) due to a decrease in the total weight on the same wing.

[Blackmokona]

Firstly, they created it, and secondly, it turned out to be radically more expensive than a rocket. There are many reasons for this.

[donavi49]

Used. However, there are strict weight restrictions = the limit of one-time discharge from an aircraft, not to be confused with the passport load capacity.

The second problem is the overweight of the structure itself. The rocket must withstand a free stabilized fall, then an overload from inclusion and a sharp maneuver. Classic such overloads are not experienced and carry less dead weight on the body.

These two minuses eat up all the advantages of using the 0,5 step.

For example, a Pegasus rocket - 450 kg into orbit for $ 40 million.

Peter Beck, on his carbon-fiber rocket with 3D-printed Rutherfords, carries the same mass into orbit for 8 million, and if you pay a little more, then Photon can fly even to Venus - which Pegasus cannot.

The Branson system is already more interesting - 12 million per launch (still more expensive than the classics) are the same up to 500 kg for low or 300 for high. However, this is the same promise. He has already had tourists to fly to the suborbit for a year, with tickets, no more difficult than going to DisneyLand, and every month at least 1 commercial launch, including OneWeb. As a result, tourists are all waiting for ticket sales, customers of load outputs are all waiting for the rocket's flight. So far 1-1 is the first broads, the second seems to be normal with jambs, but they put the squeeze on the load. There is still no third launch.

[Herman 4223]

Thank you, your answer is good. But I think there will still be a future for such systems, problems will be solved sometime.

[venik]

Quote: Herman 4223

Why haven't they created an aircraft-type launch system for space carriers?

========
As a matter of fact, this is one of the tasks for which the An-224 "Mriya" was created (well, and also to transport the "Buran" to Baikonur ....).
The British developed the HOTOL (Horizontal Take-Off and Landing) project. But I didn't go either .... Probably the level of technology at that time didn't allow Create effective and not too expensive system ...

[Sidor Amenpodestovich]

Quote: Herman 4223

Why haven't they created an aircraft-type launch system for space carriers?

Restriction on the weight of the displayed PN.

[Herman 4223]

And if we make more airplane for the start? And more lifting capacity?

[Sidor Amenpodestovich]

Quote: Herman 4223

And if we make more airplane for the start? And more lifting capacity?

Do you really think that such a thought has never occurred to anyone before?
Aircraft sizes have their limits. Too big will fall apart.

[Herman 4223]

Will fall apart if some goofs do. The reasons are clearly different. Maybe someone came to mind, but it just didn't work out to break through. There are also such nonsense in life.

[Login_Off]

The weight of the landing gear with mechanization, the weight of the wing with the mechanization, the weight of the additional jet engine, the weight of the protective wing cover and the mechanization of the landing gear doors. The increase in the size of the rocket and the layout of all this trouble in the area of ​​the fuel tanks.
It’s not easier to add fuel and provide a vertical fit.

It was still Soviet scientists in the framework of "pH Energia" worked out this option, but as a result they refused. This decision is not advisable.

[Login_Off]

Here is a photo of energy2

Pay attention to all these engines, fenders, landing gear. What extra weight and an increase in size!

[Knell wardenheart]

I am stressed in this scheme not so much by the wings and the centering, which is far from perfect, but by the inevitable strengthening of the structure in those places where, on the contrary, they are trying to facilitate the rocket because of the vertical orientation. Such reinforcements will be needed in the area of ​​the rear and front landing gear, and in the area of ​​the rear chassis it will be just royally due to the wing mechanisms, chassis attachment, structural hardening diverging into the second so that no deformations arise between the chassis during landing.
For this system to work efficiently - you need a very sophisticated engine for a light rocket - a dubious task in terms of economic return. Unless we consider such an engine as an extremely serial engine of the Maskovsky type, suitable for integration into more massive launch vehicles.
But if there is such a plan, it is not clear why to develop "Baikal", because this landing scheme is not scalable to the large mass of the launch vehicle. Unless Baikal itself is planned to be part of a modular launch vehicle, similar to the original plans for Angara ..
In general, so far all the answers to these questions give rise to only other questions.

[Rastafari]

Cartoon to you in the subject

[andr327]

A rocket with a total mass of 2-2,5 tons?

[mlad]

From small to large, After working out the Krylo-Sv technology, you can use several pieces as boosters for a heavy rocket, and this should already pay off.

[Knell wardenheart]

For a heavy one - definitely vryatli. For the average, perhaps. In a heavy one, there would be a decent parasitic mass from a bunch of these "Baikals" + would need an effective central stage not unified with the "Baikal". The central stage itself, not only would have to be designed separately, but also fairly strengthened and heavier to work with a bunch of "Baikals". In the price version, such a step would inevitably come out as a road with a large amount of parasitic weight + parasitic weight of "baikals".
Although the project itself looks quite interesting, its potential is rather severely limited.

[Knell wardenheart]

Perhaps, as a side booster for a medium rocket, this scheme would have a future. But as an element of a separate lightweight carrier, I think this is a dubious development, for economic reasons ..

[Vadim237]

From the fifth or sixth time it will pay off and then it will be profitable - here already other guys presented a light-class rocket
Specialists of the National Space Company want to launch the promising Siberia rocket in 2024. The carrying capacity of the carrier should be one ton.

The National Space Company, located in Krasnoyarsk, is developing a new orbital launch vehicle "Siberia". Recently, its leader, Maxim Kulikov, announced the testing of his brainchild.

According to him, flight tests should be carried out in 2024. While preparing the technical documentation. It is assumed that a light-class launch vehicle will be able to launch cargo weighing up to one ton into orbit. The height of the product will be 30 meters.

In addition to the orbital rocket, the company is creating an ultralight suborbital one. It can be tested in 2022, and if the creators are lucky, then this fall. The rocket will be six meters high. Payload weight - up to 15 kilograms.

[Knell wardenheart]

The question is what will be the demand for lightweight pH and how many priority orders will be for them. At the cost of withdrawal, Baikal will definitely not be a competitor for the falcon, and there they have already mastered quite a good withdrawal of an array of orders with one rocket. So it may be that these 6-7 launches for 1 instance of Baikal will be expected for a very long time .. Of course, this may be an interesting project for the Ministry of Defense, but I personally do not inspire commercial potential.