Military Review

Elon Musk's SpaceX will develop a lander to deliver US astronauts to the lunar surface

227

American astronauts will be delivered to the lunar surface by a lander created by Elon Musk. SpaceX won a NASA competition to develop the corresponding vehicle.


The Musk company was awarded a contract to develop a lander as part of the Artemis lunar program. SpaceX received $ 2,9 billion for the project. The contract was announced by the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

It is emphasized that the company Elon Musk SpaceX in the competition ahead of Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin, as well as Dynetics.

If the terms of the program are not shifted, then the Musk lander should be developed by 2024. It is for this year that American astronauts are scheduled to land on the moon. It is assumed that the Orion spacecraft with the US astronauts will arrive in orbit with an Earth satellite, after which two astronauts will go to the surface, spend a certain time there and return back. It is emphasized that one of the astronauts will be a woman.

The lunar exploration program, called "Artemis" in the United States, should be implemented in three stages: at the first stage, the Orion spacecraft will make an unmanned flight around the Moon and return to Earth, at the second stage, a manned flyby of the Earth satellite, and there, before the astronauts are launched to the Moon, not far away. ... So far, the timeline looks like this: the first stage in 2021, the second in 2022, and the third in 2024.

Russia, meanwhile, is implementing its own lunar program. According to it, the automatic station "Luna-25" will be launched to the Moon. In the future, within the framework of the lunar program, after sending the Luna-25 spacecraft, it is planned to send the Luna-2024 orbital station to the Earth's satellite in 26, and the Luna-2025 landing station in 27.
Photos used:
SpaceX
227 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. rocket757
    rocket757 April 17 2021 16: 18
    +5
    SpaseX Elon Musk will develop a lander to deliver US astronauts to the lunar surface
    ... Both on. There are a lot of plans!
    Okay, let's wait, we'll see.
    1. Ilya-spb
      Ilya-spb April 17 2021 16: 26
      +8
      It is not important who is the first to land on the lunar surface.

      The important thing is who will be the first to create a base there and start mastering.
      1. Infinity
        Infinity April 17 2021 16: 28
        +3
        Quote: Ilya-spb
        The important thing is who will be the first to create a base there and start mastering.
        Yes. But with the current development of technology, it is expensive, even reusable. Therefore, everything rests on the economic power of the state, and in this case, the United States and its allies. The latter, however, work more on LOP-G (also part of Artemis), the same Japanese have already allocated money and started R&D.

        Speaking of money. If Congress supported the required level of funding, then all three participants would receive money for development. This decision was insisted on by D. Bridenstine, who was the administrator of NASA under Trump:
        "It worries me, even scares me, the prospect of staying with one participant. Because when you eliminate competition, you end up with programs that inevitably drag on and always end up with cost overruns and delays."
        But there is no money, I had to choose only one. True, Starship still needs to be combined with Orion (probably, comparing constructions, the question arises: why?).

        On the other hand, SpaceX has launched Crew Dragon to the ISS, and a third manned mission is already being prepared. Unlike Boeing with the CST-100 Starliner, on which everyone was betting even at the start of the CCDev program, but which will only fly unmanned to the ISS for the second time. This despite the fact that Boeing, as I remember, gave more money and made concessions.
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik April 17 2021 16: 44
          0
          Quote: Infinity
          This despite the fact that Boeing, as I remember, gave more money and made concessions.

          Boeing is clearly in crisis. They need restructuring. They took too much on themselves, do not pull.
          1. hrych
            hrych April 17 2021 17: 19
            +1
            Quote: OgnennyiKotik
            They need restructuring.

            Perestroika, glasnost, acceleration and ... kirdyk wassat
            SpaseX won the NASA competition ... of the Artemis lunar program.

            Didn't the Apollo program take part? Why not a Saturn-5 rocket, 13 launches, 9 of them to the Moon, all are successful ... supposedly laughing
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal April 17 2021 19: 50
              0
              Saturn 5 cannot be produced now. As well as not brought to readiness N-1.
              Most of the contractors are gone, and a lot of the drawings too.
              Tea, not a Zhiguli ..
              1. TerraSandera
                TerraSandera April 17 2021 20: 06
                +5
                How can it be possible, without shocks and wars, being one of the most technologically advanced countries, without a "brain drain" to "pass" the blueprints of such an important program? Not a private de company which sculpted.
                1. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 April 17 2021 20: 16
                  0
                  The next stage in the USA was the Shuttles.
                2. 3danimal
                  3danimal April 17 2021 20: 35
                  -1
                  Take an interest: there were thousands of private contractors there. NASA was involved in general design and control.
                  NOT a planned economy.
                  1. KAV
                    KAV April 17 2021 23: 29
                    0
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    there were thousands of private contractors

                    Straight no more, no less. THOUSANDS of private contractors! Fuck!
                    1. 3danimal
                      3danimal April 17 2021 23: 49
                      -4
                      Yeah. A person who has lived all his life in a distant village hardly believes in the existence of a metropolis. request
                      In total, more than 20 thousand contractors and subcontractors were involved in the production of the rocket.


                      https://m.habr.com/ru/amp/post/388699/
                      1. KAV
                        KAV April 18 2021 00: 01
                        +4
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        A person who has lived all his life in a distant village hardly believes in the existence of a metropolis.

                        laughing bully good Rzhu! Didn't know that I live in the village!
                      2. 3danimal
                        3danimal April 18 2021 00: 04
                        0
                        No, but the USSR had a planned economy. Where everything was centralized. And even here dozens and hundreds of enterprises were involved.
                        Isn't it hard to imagine 20 contractors working for NASA anymore?
                      3. Snusmumrik
                        Snusmumrik April 18 2021 10: 54
                        +2
                        Strictly speaking, there was no talk of you personally. Here you yourself opened up)))
                        The point is not whether there were thousands of contractors or hundreds. The point is how the most advanced technologies can be lost in a short time. I think that in another ten or two years, like the "fat 2014s," Russia, too, would have completely forgotten how to do a lot. The Americans rushed in XNUMX.
                      4. Vadim237
                        Vadim237 April 18 2021 14: 05
                        0
                        "The point is how the most advanced technologies can be lost in a short time." What technologies did the Americans lose?
                      5. ccsr
                        ccsr April 18 2021 16: 53
                        0
                        Quote: Vadim237
                        What technologies did the Americans lose?

                        The creation of the F1 engine and the Apollo spacecraft with lunar modules - they admitted that they could not reproduce it all. Or is it not lost technology?
        2. hrych
          hrych April 17 2021 21: 40
          +3
          Collect N-1 in no time (if necessary, of course), because its heart is an engine and its more perfect development works even now, in particular at the Union and even the American Antares (NK-33). But where did the super-duper engine go - F-1 Saturn-5, however, inferior to our RD-170 in thrust and surpasses in size laughing Not suspicious? Well, from the same rocket and the next stages of the J-2 engines, they tried to attach Ares to the launch vehicle, so it worked on the predecessor Saturn-1. And why did the F-1 disappear into history? Why are there no modernized successors? So it is only the "lost" technology of the F-5 that prevents the assembly of Saturn-1. Why do they make the goner Merlin, why does Musk go by increasing the number of engines, on which the H-1 actually got burned? 9 dead Falcon's first stage engines will always be more expensive and unreliable, for example, three (Shuttle) - four (developed by SLS) tested over the years on the Shuttle RS-25? It is clear that Musk wants to save the first stage, there are almost a dozen expensive engines, and the heavy Falcon with accelerators ... about three dozen. It is understood that the SLS is essentially assembled from Shuttle parts, wassat uses uncontrolled and unreliable TTRD boosters, which has already ruined the Challenger crew ... but in general, hydrogen engines have been proven by practice, time and have never failed. RN, by and large, are engines and fuel tanks with an oxidizer. So what's wrong with the F-1?
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal April 17 2021 22: 29
            0
            engine - F-1 Saturn-5, however, inferior to our RD-170 in thrust

            RD-170 was created 22 years later. This is a very flawed comparison.
            Collect N-1 in two counts (if necessary, of course)

            “If” is a very good addition. It is possible to declare that it is possible to jump from the spot up to 5 meters, "if it is really necessary" smile
            Namely, a new super-heavy rocket is being created in our country, going through a bunch of difficulties.
            Why do they make a goner Merlin, why Musk goes by increasing the number of engines

            Because SpaceX is not NASA, they have their own experience.
            1. hrych
              hrych April 18 2021 01: 54
              +5
              Quote: 3danimal
              RD-170 was created 22 years later. This is a very flawed comparison.

              Like this? Why is that? Is it incorrect for Russophobes? Or can we compare the NK-15 dvigun of the N-1 rocket with Falcon's Merlin? He surpasses him in all respects, although he is 40 years older. wassat Will this be correct?
              Quote: 3danimal
              “If” is a very good addition. It is possible to declare that it is possible to jump from the spot up to 5 meters, "if it is really necessary"

              A strange stream of consciousness. There is no relevance in H-1, because Energy was throwing the same amount at half the size. And the key to success is more advanced kerasin engines RD-170 and hydrogen RD-0120 wassat Your remark suggests itself, they say, where is the Energy ... also there are no problems to collect it because the RD-170 works, in the form of its modifications of the two-chamber RD-180, the single-chamber RD-191/193, they continue to live on the Union, the American Antares, Angara and all this propulsion system is produced serially.
              Quote: 3danimal
              Namely, a new super-heavy rocket is being created in our country, going through a bunch of difficulties.

              Is it all easy for them? This is a complicated process for everyone. But we have a whole line of used, serial engines and it is not a matter of great difficulty to make any medium with them. There are the most powerful on the planet and compact four-chamber, two and one-chamber, kerasin, there is also a wonderful hydrogen RD-0120.
              Quote: 3danimal
              Because SpaceX is not NASA, they have their own experience.

              It is NASA that has a dummy "Horns and Hooves". This Bezos may have independence, but also past the cash register. laughing And Musk is the Nazov’s zits-chairman, so as to blame the explosions and catastrophes on him, without disgracing NASA. For the disasters and casualties, as a result of the failed Space Shuttle program, severely damaged the reputation of not just NASA, but even the United States. And so, unsuccessful tests, loss of cargo and in front of them, and the victims of astronauts, everything will be blamed on this private trader. Very wise. Here, we seem to have everything exactly with space, no, one goblin, you curse Rogozin here. The most important thing in the Russian Federation, interplanetary exploration will proceed according to the concept of space tugs, so they will be assembled in orbit, and from there they will start as intended. And simply, there is no need for heavy weights ... but only for the Russian Federation. The hangar from the east is not allowed, but why? While it is necessary to reuse Protons and finish with Baikonur. Do not throw away ready-made Protons. Everything within the framework of logic and hysteria is inappropriate here. They do not have very kerasin engines, they have excellent hydrogen ones, but they need uncontrolled turbojet engines and horror from the days of Challenger ...
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal April 18 2021 03: 47
                +1
                Is it all easy for them?

                And this is not only about them, but also about us. Nobody "recreates" H-1 or Energy. They are making a new, modern heavy rocket.
                On the Saturn scam wink
                And Musk is nasov's zits-chairman

                The grounds for such statements?
                There is a saying: "the one who makes extraordinary statements must prove them himself."
                There are the most powerful on the planet and compact four-chamber, two-and single-chamber

                As practice shows, to achieve reliable operation of them, and also of the entire rocket as a whole, is not an easy thing.
                And there remains the question of price for commercial launches (which are quite useful).
                Or can we compare the NK-15 dvigun of the N-1 rocket with Falcon's Merlin?

                Why, you can compare the NK-15 with the F-1. Engines created in one time period for a super-heavy rocket.
                In those years, it was very difficult to achieve reliable operation of 30 engines (at 1 stage). The result is known.
                Now it's different, and SpaceX thus also optimizes costs, using different amounts of one reliable and successful engine, depending on the type of rocket.
                The most important thing in the Russian Federation, interplanetary exploration will go according to the concept of space tugs, so they will be assembled in orbit, and from there they will start as intended.

                Distant prospect, not earlier than 2050, IMHO.
                Now it looks like an excuse for the inability of a nationalist journalist to organize the process of creating a heavy rocket. Well, the impact of the impossibility of purchasing a number of components.
                The hangar from the east is not allowed, but why?

                What a stream of thoughts smile
                Of course, not because Vostochny is a long-term construction with a bunch of money let go nowhere (according to the Accounting Chamber), and Angara is not ready enough (Rogozin even got stuck, EMNIP).
                They do not have very much with kerasin engines

                What do the Merlins work on?
                1. hrych
                  hrych April 18 2021 09: 06
                  0
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  In those years, it was very difficult to achieve reliable operation of 30 engines (at 1 stage).

                  Believe me, that's not the point. It's just that with 30 engines, the probability of an accident at least one engine sharply increases. The NK-15 engines themselves were brought up and modernized to NK-33 on the N-1 themselves, due to the space race with Stanley Kubrick. Also the work of 30 engines, as some indicate that they created incomprehensible effects. Well, the launch vehicle itself could not withstand the loads and collapsed. All the missiles were completely killed and it is almost impossible to figure out what really happened only on footage from afar. But her NK-33 lives and thrives on the launch vehicle, and who ... the Americans themselves buy it. And it works for them and for them. The Signus spacecraft and it was NASA that launched them, including the ISS. And it is gradually replacing the engines again by the RD-181. By the way, Atlas, only with the RD-180, besides satellites, including military ones, also dropped interplanetary stations, including with rovers, the same Signus, there will be a manned Starliner (this year) and the X-37 shuttle. Those. the basis of US cosmonautics is not Falcon, but Atlases and Antares, with our engines. Reliable, powerful and heirs of N-1 with Energy. Now they will be deprived of the RD-180, so we'll see.
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  Distant prospect, no earlier than 2050

                  Firstly, the near 2030 for interplanetary missions, and a smaller prototype is ready and will soon be in orbit. Apparently this year already.
                  The hangara is ready and had successful launches. Now the question of the cosmodrome and finish the Protons, which were collected like sausage. But, which are hydrazine and above the forests, it cannot be launched. Vostochny corruption record, I'm not interested, it's a trifle. And the corruption of the Olympics turned out to be secret financing of military programs, hypersound and terror torpedoes. Nemtsov and Navalny were there, gurgling about Olympiad corruption (who went to the dark, and who drove the covered one) and helped to hide secret programs wassat
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  What do the Merlins work on?

                  I also say that it is not very good.wassat The engine is damp and dead. Simplified as much as possible, of course, to increase reliability. But low power leads to an increase in the number of steps, which increases the likelihood of accidents. All problems and disasters are yet to come. What Musk is invented for wassat
                2. 3danimal
                  3danimal April 18 2021 12: 36
                  -1
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  In those years, it was very difficult to achieve reliable operation of 30 engines (at 1 stage).

                  Believe me, that's not the point. It's just that with 30 engines, the probability of an accident at least one engine sharply increases.

                  So you re-read what you yourself write? Just repeated my words, but disagreeing smile
                  because of the space race with Stanley Kubrick

                  Yeah, the Freemasons bought the leadership of the Union so that no one would reveal the forgery of the opponent in the space race during the Cold War smile good
                  Well, the launch vehicle itself could not withstand the loads and collapsed. All missiles were completely killed and it is almost impossible to figure out what really happened only on footage from afar.

                  We couldn't create our own version of Saturn-5 in a comparable timeframe, that's all. It happens.
                  The economy is less (planned), the corresponding industry is less organized (there are memories of how the designers had to call "up" because of the lack of small parts), the logistics, the transportation system and the location of the cosmodrome itself (in contrast to the C-5, which was assembled after tests were delivered to Cape Canaverel on a barge, our N-1 was brought in parts to Baikonur and collected there).
                  Now they will be deprived of the RD-180, so we'll see.

                  They will not be "deprived", the contract simply ends (although we know how to submit this in their own way smile ), which will no longer be renewed. Because we already have our own engines (the same SpaceX). Which are inexpensive and work successfully.
                  By the way, RD-180 can only be used by NASA, the engine was developed and patented for them.
                  And the corruption of the Olympics turned out to be secret financing of military programs, hypersound and terror torpedoes

                  Ingenious good laughing I have never seen a better justification for corruption for “mere mortals”.
                  By analogy: and expensive roads in a number of cities that fall apart in less than a year, falling bridges - are they also secret financing of military programs? As well as the real estate abroad of a number of officials that does not match the incomes? fellow
                  Illuminati cry with envy laughing
                  The engine is damp and dead. Simplified as much as possible, of course, to increase reliability.

                  So raw or reliable? It has been in use for many years.
                  Contradict yourself smile
                  If the statistics show a low accident rate, then what are these statements worth?
                  But low power leads to an increase in the number of steps, which increases the likelihood of accidents.

                  I spoke about the same, but in relation to the 60s. Now technology has stepped forward "a little", especially in terms of control of work and sensors.
                  And on Falcon Heavy there are still fewer engines running simultaneously (27).
                  All problems and disasters are yet to come.

                  Envy and wish for problems to a competitor, unsupported by anything.
                  What Musk is invented for

                  Yeah. And you did not undertake to seriously substantiate this conspiracy theory good
                3. hrych
                  hrych April 18 2021 17: 48
                  -1
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  So you re-read what you yourself write? Just repeated my words, but disagreeing

                  Well, then I overestimated you wassat It seemed to me that your reliable work was combined in the consistency of the work of all units together, and not just a separate accident rate. Now it is really easier to achieve this with the use of computers, etc. For Musk, with a modern base, the probability of a failure of at least one system in at least one of the heap of engines multiplies. It saves in many ways that his engines are as simplified as possible, but also dead, and their reusability further increases the likelihood of accidents. Okay, he hits them during landing, but sooner or later the engine, having worked normally once, the second time will destroy both the launch vehicle, and the cargo and the crew.
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  Freemasons bought the leadership of the Union
                  Now it is stupid to deny the Freemasons, and they did not buy, they were just in the Union and the leadership. Khrushchev was a Trotskyist, but Brezhnev was also a Trotskyist, only a moderate and kind, a good man. In 1969, Nixon came (who would then be kicked out of the presidency for lying), came thanks to the assassination of the candidate Robert Kennedy, John's brother. Killed immediately after delivering a speech on winning the presidential primary election. Nixon began a new round of the race and announced the creation of a missile defense system. The Vietnam War was raging, etc. In 1972, Nixon visited the Soviet Union. During this visit, he signed the SALT-1 agreement with Brezhnev. In the same year, the super successful Lunar program is curtailed abruptly, and ready-made rockets are not sent to the Moon. The price of this deception is the SALT-1 agreement. Corruption is not interesting to me, you can jump on it. There is no influence of corruption on advanced military developments. 27 Merlins is under three dozen. Nobody wants the crew to die, but with people like Musk, everything goes to this. His last manned flight was on the verge of death of the crew. On the other hand, they are enemies, we are preparing to destroy them, and if they self-destruct, we have less work to do. And it’s stupid to grieve for your enemies. NASA is chasing Musk, he is in a hurry and crosses the line of safety, NASA itself remains in the shadows. The problem is the inevitable withdrawal of the Russians from cooperation with the ISS. If by the year 25 they have not adjusted their manned ship, then this is rubbish. They will simply remain at the trough. The contract for the RD-180 is also ending. If NASA's Starliner does it carefully on our engines, then Musk, they drive like a madman on their raw engines. If you are smart, then it will come to you. Well, the media presence of the Mask and the media shadow of NASA will become clear. In general, they have a twitching, but we have calmness and progress. People like you even feel it, but engagement does not allow you to admit it. wassat
          2. Sarboz
            Sarboz April 18 2021 10: 25
            -2
            Quote: hrych
            Here, we seem to have everything exactly with space, no, one goblin, you curse Rogozin here.

            So the more Rogozin will restore order in Roskosmos with an iron fist, the more leeches are removed from the trough, the louder the liberal chorus will scream about the incompetence of the "journalist." And Rogozin is a very competent person and owns the subject area of ​​what he controls. If a person is being poured by our pseudo-liberals, Bandera elements and other riffraffs on a person, then he is doing everything right.
            1. hrych
              hrych April 18 2021 12: 25
              +1
              Quote: Sarboz
              If a person is being poured by our pseudo-liberals, Bandera elements and other riffraffs on a person, then he is doing everything right.

              So we are going the right way, comrades good
            2. 3danimal
              3danimal April 18 2021 13: 21
              -3
              Soviet education: critical thinking is evil, they know better at the top good
          3. 3danimal
            3danimal April 18 2021 12: 41
            -3
            And Rogozin is a very competent person and owns the subject area of ​​what he controls.

            What are the grounds for such statements? Specifically, as an official, he must control that the test and launch programs (successfully, at the same time) are carried out in time and efficiently (without huge inappropriate spending).
            The statistics are not in his favor.
            By the way, he is not only a journalist

            Never liked zigging people, did you?
          4. hrych
            hrych April 18 2021 18: 02
            +2
            Quote: 3danimal
            Never liked zigging people, did you?

            Well, the British queen zignala in her youth, Walt Disney ziganul, and your favorite Von Braun is generally a potentiated SS man and your fellow tribesmen in secret factories brought thousands to a cruel death. It just so happened that all the rocket scientists are some kind of chauvinists and anti-seismists ...
          5. 3danimal
            3danimal April 18 2021 22: 38
            0
            I don’t know why you decided that von Braun was my favorite. I only acknowledge his merits, on a par with our Korolev.
            Had Sergey found himself in the conditions of Werner (in the USA), who knows, he could have achieved great results.
          6. hrych
            hrych April 18 2021 23: 10
            +2
            Korolev was not denied anything in the USSR. Moreover, his bad relations with Chelomey and Glushko caused damage. Also, the death of Kubrick-Brown made him follow the flawed N-1 scheme and he pushed it through with his authority. Let's say roughly, but his death partly led our astronautics off the wrong path. Building a powerful ship in orbit is the right way. Therefore, the USSR followed the path of assembling orbital stations, used compact launch vehicles, and Proton, a conversion from the carrier of Kuz'kina's mother, became a worthy medium weight. At the end of the USSR, when our geniuses left, we were again dragged into amero-monkeyism with Buran, and then unnecessary Energy was born. Nothing like H-1. inherited from NK-33, so from Energia RD-170, and even hydrogen RD-0120. And now we just have Paradise with the dviguns. How the United States failed with Skylab, Space Shuttle, you probably yourself know how they were left without kerasin engines, etc. Here, they go reluctantly our old way wassat I repeat, the wrong path H-1 and Energy left a super legacy - super engines. Therefore, not in vain. Oh, not in vain. All this will be at the Angara, the renewed Union, etc. And the assembly of "tugs" in orbit, just for our light and medium carriers.
          7. 3danimal
            3danimal April 19 2021 01: 48
            -3
            Korolev was not denied anything in the USSR.

            Fed-watered, drove by car smile
            But they had a smaller industry, fewer scientists and engineers dealing with the problems of aircraft and rocketry.
            Let me remind you that from an earlier period Korolev got a broken jaw, EMNIP, which cost him his life (failed to intubate).
            How the USA failed with Skyleb, the Space Shuttle, you probably know yourself

            By what criteria did you decide that the Space Shuttle failed? Do not be too lazy to google what he put into space over the years of operation. Relatively high accident rate, high cost - yes. It was abandoned for practical reasons - there were cheap alternatives on the market.
            how they were left without kerasin engines, etc.

            Merlins are "kerosene engines". The thrust (at sea level) is 3,6 times less, the mass is 12 times less than that of the RD-180.
            Modern technologies make it possible, unlike 60 years ago, to carry out better quality control and synchronize the operation of engines.
            And now we just have Paradise with the dviguns.

            All this will be at the Angara, the renewed Union, etc. And the assembly of "tugs" in orbit, just for our light and medium carriers.

            In 2005-2007, Roskosmos continued to draw on drawing boards by hand. Only later did CAD begin to appear.
            The mission to land the device on the surface of Mars failed, they were completely abandoned, it seems.
            Rovers rolled on the surface, only European (what?) And American.
            The development of the Angara was delayed many times, there were 3 launches, 1 unsuccessful.
            Old developments of the USSR continue to fly, with new ones everything is ... difficult.
            Based on this summary of recent years, there is no way to see the path from the rosy (in a good sense) success in the style of "our space".
            The first place in commercial launches generally belongs to China in 2020 (on its missiles). Most likely, this is one of the leaders in the field of space in the coming years.
            As for the exploration of the Moon, the first stations on the surface will be either the United States or China, IMHO.
            Also dez Kubrick-Brown

            I hope I will make myself clear: belief in conspiracy theory is absolutely not inherent in me, they all have a lot of inconsistencies in logic / facts that they are trying to explain ... with a conspiracy (silence, etc.).
            There is a sect of supporters of the Flat Earth (and they give a bunch of seemingly convincing arguments), a sect of the Apollo Witnesses ( hi ) to the moon, a sect of Jehovah's Witnesses .. You never know smile
          8. hrych
            hrych April 19 2021 10: 34
            +2
            Quote: 3danimal
            By what criteria did you decide that the Space Shuttle failed?

            On the closure of the program, the death of half of the ships, for various systemic, unsolvable problems. Impossibility of development and modernization. Due to the death of 14 pilots. Impossibility to work continuously in orbit. Continuous ascent into orbit of 70 tons of useless load. Lack of rescue systems at launch, lack of rescue systems in orbit and during landing. Application at the start of dangerous and uncontrolled turbofan engines. The lack of positive results of work as a result of the entire program, including the ditched Hubble along the way. And the program that financially shaken NASA and even the United States at the peak of its power did not pull this program.
            Merlin's thrust is almost 5 times less. Less specific impulse. This is from the stated. I don’t believe the Americans, because of sheer lies. By tradition, our performance characteristics are underestimated and there is a reserve for increasing the characteristics, and the Americans traditionally overestimate the characteristics, because the traders - advertising is the engine of trade. On a simplified design, the engineers questioned this miracle. There is one RD-1 on 5 step of Atlas-180, and 1 Merlins on 9 step of Falcon-9. Returned to the question of price - quality. Coordination of 9 engines, the probability of failure, etc. The pipelines and the system of supplying the oxidizer and kerasin in one engine or in 9, has a difference. As a result, these systems add a lot of weight. Also, an increase in the total duration of pipelines, again adds fuel supply problems, etc. Also, attachment to the body of a rocket or one engine. or nine. It is clear that during production, costs and time are multiplied. Fuel consumption and losses in 9 will always be more than one, albeit a two-chamber one. The atlas, depending on the load, has the ability to use solid fuel boosters of different quantities, or not to use them at all. In Falcon-9, this is not provided, to increase the dropped load, only the addition of two more packages with 18 Merlins. Well, we have already discussed the problems of increasing the number. And also many years of experience of use and not a single accident against little experience and a decent accident rate. I repeat, an attempt to save a package of 9 engines gives rise to bad thoughts about the return stage, what needs to be spent on fuel, to reduce the payload. The hangar is not dragging on, it was tested, now they are waiting for the development of classmates - Protons. Deep space in our country, of course, will be according to the Nuclon operation scheme, which will be completed in orbit. The whole meaning of heavyweight is in question for us. Also, with this scheme, combat, maneuvering, orbital stations with nuclear power systems and impulse weapons suggest themselves. The smaller orbital walls of Nuclon are such a station. The Americans without a compact nuclear power plant will have to launch an analogue into orbit, but with a classic, heavy reactor of a megawatt class, hence the urgent order for a heavyweight, ala Saturn-5. Moon, Mars, etc., here is a cover, the final stage of the arms race is at stake and it is space. The Russians captured the stratosphere and the atmosphere in general, the Russians broke through the surface and underwater front. Now, the only way the states can neutralize this is to place nuclear weapons in space. Therefore, without maneuvering, shock stations in any way. They must eliminate satellites for observation, communications and positioning of the enemy, they must destroy warheads and they must destroy their own kind. There is nowhere to take energy in orbit, except for a megawatt class nuclear power plant. We need an Egg Kiriyenko with a combat emitter, it is enough to throw a Proton, perhaps even a Union, but they need to throw a Virginia reactor (albeit, how will they cool it). Or complete and unconditional surrender. SDI has become a reality. The mastery of cosmic bodies is pampering and a cover.
          9. ccsr
            ccsr April 19 2021 13: 10
            +2
            I fully share your point of view on the prospects for the further development of astronautics and the construction of orbital stations, but this statement, in my opinion, is not entirely correct:
            Quote: hrych
            Now, the only way the states can neutralize this is to place nuclear weapons in space. Therefore, without maneuvering, shock stations in any way. They must eliminate satellites for observation, communications and positioning of the enemy, they must destroy warheads and they must destroy their own kind.

            I think that it is too difficult a problem to have nuclear weapons in space, not only from the point of view of funding, but also from the point of view of management, maintenance and the removal of such charges from orbit. Therefore, it hardly makes sense from a military point of view to develop systems with the deployment of nuclear weapons in space, especially from the point of view of reliability, because it is easier to do all this on Earth, and most importantly, it is cheaper and easier.
          10. hrych
            hrych April 19 2021 15: 31
            +1
            Quote: ccsr
            it is easier to do all this on Earth, and most importantly, it is cheaper and easier.

            I agree, but the X-37, of course, is an orbital, planning, maneuvering nuclear warhead. Our answer is Vanguard, which does the same, but is not in orbit, but in a mine. Therefore, we will increase the number faster, cheaper to maintain (fantastically cheaper) and ours is more resistant to opposition. If we are the first to decide to fight, then first of all we will shoot him down, before he goes from duty to the combat mode of maneuvering when entering the atmosphere, where it will become more difficult (relatively) to shoot him down. Therefore, using the example of the X-37 and Vanguard, you are absolutely right in the issue of price and quality. But there is a plus with an orbital strike. Those. the very beginning of the first strike is easy for missile defense systems to miss. But a high-altitude nuclear explosion is also blinding, it brings out EMP electronic defense systems. There Poseidon and others will figure it out, but nevertheless. Combat orbital stations, including manned ones, will simply gain dominance and the first one to do this will take over the Planet.
        3. 3danimal
          3danimal April 19 2021 14: 56
          -3
          Goals achieved:
          Delivery of various types of cargo (satellites, upper stages, ISS segments).
          Possibility of repairing satellites in low earth orbit.
          Possibility of returning satellites to Earth.
          The ability to send up to eight people in flight.
          Reusability has been implemented.
          A fundamentally new layout of the spacecraft has been implemented.
          Possibility of horizontal maneuver.
          Large cargo hold.
          Cost and development time met the timeframe promised to President Nixon in 1971.

          And I will remind you that the ISS was assembled with the help of Shuttles.
          It is described in some detail here, with illustrations.
          https://kiri2ll.livejournal.com/78669.html

          Merlin's thrust is almost 5 times less.

          Than what?
          There is a new Raptor engine with thrust like the RD-191 and a higher specific impulse.
          Deep space in our country, of course, will be according to the Nuklon operation scheme, which will be completed in orbit.

          Less science fiction.
          You can't send the Federation to the moon with a small rocket.
          The complexity of such a docking does not need to be explained ?? Hit a bullet with a (hypersonic) bullet without breaking them.
          The Russians captured the stratosphere and the atmosphere in general, the Russians broke through the surface and underwater front

          Deliver me from such reports. We are not at the "evening Soloviev" negative
          We compare the number of surface ships, nuclear submarines, aircraft.
          Therefore, without maneuvering, shock stations in any way. They must eliminate surveillance satellites,

          Interceptor missiles no longer fit?
          Extremely compact (CM-3 block II), the oceans can be launched in many places.
          Reread M. Kalashnikov or someone else?
          Or complete and unconditional surrender.

          Forgot to take your medication? request
          What a stream of inflamed consciousness fool
        4. hrych
          hrych April 19 2021 16: 29
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          Forgot to take your medication?

          Have you forgotten the enema? In the end, what do you want to prove? Is Russia dead? Musk brought us to our knees? What do you want in the end? Dead Merlin is the best in the world? Has Musk already mastered the Moon? What happened, did Gemini repeat the feat or Vostok station? When Musk ditches the next crew, come, let's remember, and now go in peace, go with a mask, go with a merlin, your dear wassat
        5. 3danimal
          3danimal April 26 2021 15: 57
          0
          Is Russia dead?

          Significantly weaker than the Union, objectively.
          The size of the economy matters.
          Musk brought us to our knees?

          In terms of efficiency - bypassed everyone, including NASA.
          Dead Merlin is the best in the world?

          Reliable and efficient, half of
          RD-191 thrust.
          It is part of a rocket that forced Roskosmos to cut prices per kg of weight into orbit.
          Has Musk already mastered the Moon?

          His goal is neither more nor less - Mars. We'll see..
          When Musk kills the next crew, come and remember

          The second crew was delivered without any problems.
          A toast to success?
          Or will you wang for the death of the third, fourth, fifth crews? smile
        6. hrych
          hrych April 26 2021 16: 39
          +1
          Quote: 3danimal
          A toast to success?
          Or will you wang for the death of the third, fourth, fifth crews?

          Why drink for all sorts of rubbish? And I sincerely wish them to screw up. laughing These are our enemies and to kill them is our Military Doctrine. What will happen, taking into account the used engines, is inevitable. Given the weak and untested means of escape, this is inevitable. Given the rush and competition with Boeing, this is inevitable. Taking into account that the nodes exceed the ISS's warranty period, this is inevitable. Firstly, your joy is premature, the Americans approached the orbital delivery of pilots late, when Russia finishes rotational orbital flights altogether. As unnecessary. It leaves the ISS, weighs this scrap on the shoulders of NASA and creates its own solar-synchronous station, with all the consequences, multiplying the productivity, flying over the Arctic and Antarctica and viewing the entire planet, and not a limited area. Now the Russian Federation is preparing an atomic machine, refusing to use super-heavy launch vehicles altogether. Flights to the automatic station ROSS will be like repairmen and tuners, people will not hang out there constantly, interfering with calibrated instruments. NASA is now terrified. The ISS warranty is over, it needs to be heated and your own station created. Or use it all the way to the point of getting accidents on a planned basis. Looking at the assembly of our atomic aircraft, I am also in a panic. They return to their failed and closed programs with a reactor and a working fluid - hydrogen. Under this failure, they again rushed to create a heavyweight. Therefore, the layman sees only the media side, and if you go deeper into the essence, then NASA is a piece of rubbish. Merlin, of course, is weak and dead with the RD-191 and did not lie nearby, he is not equal, but dead, and more than twice. Falcon-9 has 9 of these Geldings at the first stage, while the similar Angara-3 has only 3 RD-191s. Feel the difference, as they say. Musk can scratch there, of course, whatever, but in fact, for one RD-191 they give 3 Merlins wassat
        7. 3danimal
          3danimal April 26 2021 17: 34
          -1
          And I sincerely wish them to screw up. laughing These are our enemies

          The crew of Crew Dragon-2 includes representatives of three space agencies at once - NASA astronauts Megan MacArthur (commander of the spacecraft) and Shane Kimbrough (pilot), astronaut of the European Space Agency (ESA) Thomas Peske and astronaut of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) Akihiko Hoshide.

          Who exactly? Americans, French, Japanese?
          We have never fought with the United States (but they humiliated us 2 or 3 times in the 20th century, delivering humanitarian aid in large volumes).
          With France - only in the 19th century, in WWI and WWII - on the same side. Normandy-Niemen and all that.
          Seriously with the Japanese - only in 1905 and a little in the 30-40s. We want them to invest in the Far East.
          These are our enemies and to kill them is our Military Doctrine

          Astronauts of other countries on the ISS - enemies ?? I propose to write about this to one of our cosmonauts (Romanov, for example). I will assume that if there is an answer, it will be in very strong terms. negative
          The doctrine that astronauts should be killed because of their nationality exists only in your fevered imagination. (Spring Fever?)
          Coming out of the ISS, weighs this scrap metal on the shoulders of NASA

          Poor NASA, how can it pull all this, having a budget (2021) 10 times more than Roscosmos ...
          Now the Russian Federation is preparing an atomic machine, refusing from super-heavy launch vehicles altogether. Flights to the automatic station ROSS will be like repairmen and tuners, people will not hang out there constantly, interfering with calibrated instruments.

          And most importantly, so .. cheaper fellow
          The aircraft can be prepared until 2050, or even longer.
          Heavyweight is expensive and complex, promises are not.
          Let me remind you that for Apollo it was believed that the withdrawal of the lunar steps separately (with subsequent docking) increases the risk of an accident at times.
          They return to their failed and closed programs with a reactor and a working fluid - hydrogen.

          Recall that they have NOT lost the ability to manufacture hydrogen-oxygen engines.
          And what do you propose to use as a working body?
          NASA is now terrified.

          In your imaginary world. "And I also love to dream" lol
          Merlin, of course, is weak and dead with the RD-191 and did not lie nearby, he is not equal, but dead, and more than twice.

          How many emotions .. The grandson did not take your place at the monitor? smile
          Merlin: simple, reliable, high specific thrust. Owned and developed by a private company, why should they scatter the effort?
          6 RD-275 on Proton or 9 Merlin-1D on Falcon-9 - these days it is not a problem to achieve reliable operation of a large number of engines (unlike 60x).
          For Starship, a Raptor, equivalent in thrust (but with 10% greater momentum), has been created.
          Falcon-9 has 9 of these Geldings at the first stage, while the similar Angara-3 has only 3 RD-191

          Falcon-9 outputs 22,8 tons to LEO (without return of 1 stage), Angara 3 - 14,5 tons.
          How does the carrying capacity differ ??
          Angara-5 - 24,5 tons, already closer. It has ... 5 (4 + 1) engines in a block of 1-2 stages.
          So you can't get away from physics, the difference in thrust is exactly 2,3 times. And instead of 9 Merlins, you have to take 4 and a little later connect another RD-191.
          https://youtu.be/TuzZ5mVljq8
          Of course, with this arrangement, there is no question of any return. (In Falcon-9, 9 engines out of 10 are returned, in one stage, which is much easier)
        8. hrych
          hrych April 26 2021 18: 05
          +1
          Long, I have not read it. I'm too lazy. Immediately put a minus, for prevention wassat
  2. 3danimal
    3danimal April 19 2021 02: 34
    -3
    About Angara. It uses a single chamber RD-191 engine, a combination of these. Each has twice the thrust of Merlin at 4,5 times the mass. (Which degrades mass perfection)
    To achieve a payload comparable to Falcon Heavy (63t at LEO), you will also have to use a bunch of more than 5 engines (12-14 on the first stage).
    Developers of a promising rocket follow the same path as Musk's engineers request
  3. hrych
    hrych April 19 2021 10: 52
    +2
    Quote: 3danimal
    Developers of a promising rocket follow the same path as Musk's engineers

    This is Musk walking along our, one of the, and erroneous, path wassat And it’s not at all like that. It is the RD-171MV, and it is in its four-chamber (original RD-170) version. Of course, with the use of new technologies, and will be at the first stage of the Union-5 and the Heavyweight. Greetings from RN Energia. And he is the most powerful engine ever created on the Planet.
  4. 3danimal
    3danimal April 19 2021 14: 14
    -3
    It is the RD-171MV, and it is in its four-chamber

    Where is he on the Hangar ??
    And he is the most powerful engine on the Planet ever created

    So be proud of yourself, but on a promising rocket we use the RD-191. smile
  5. hrych
    hrych April 19 2021 15: 17
    +2
    Quote: 3danimal
    Where is he on the Hangar ??

    Soyuz-5 - light-heavy (up to 17t on LEO) flight tests in 2022, operation in 2024. Coincides with the end of work with the ISS. The first stage of Soyuz-5 will be the Yenisei RN heavyweight unit. Although, I repeat, with nuclear-powered tugs, the need for heavyweights will most likely disappear altogether. Therefore, they are literally now deciding on the Yenisei with a new reality. As Soyuz-2.1v lost its accelerators and received NK-33 from great-grandmother N-1, so Soyuz-5 received RD-171 from Mother Energia. With regards to the Angara, here the batch scheme was conceived from the very beginning, so there is no point in sticking powerful dviguns on universal modules. Because The hangara, depending on the number of packages, should throw from 2 tons to 38. Therefore, for throwing 2 tons, it is extremely redundant to put a two-chamber RD-180 or a four-chamber RD-171, here a single-chamber RD-191 is just right. We need more, add packages (URM), add steps, including the same URM. So all the same, the package contains not 9 rocket engines, but one. Everything is beautiful and correct here. Light to heavy versatility. More on heavyweights, information for thought. In the winter of 2015, Roskosmos was supposed to start considering projects to create a super-heavy launch vehicle, but they considered it unnecessary. Those. then, apparently, whoever needs it, he knew about YSU and tugs. Otherwise, how to consider the lunar and Martian programs, but ignore the heavyweight, not even put it up for discussion. Here Nuclon put everything in place. The actions of NASA are also understandable, i.e. convulsive preparation for a divorce from the ISS, as well as the abandonment of my tug ... the size of a dry cargo ship :) :) That's it, I'm tired of this topic. It's time to end. Consider communication useful, good. Didn't convince you of anything ... good too.
  6. hrych
    hrych April 19 2021 16: 01
    +2
    Quote: 3danimal
    So be proud of yourself

    Musk would be happy to use one Merlin in the URM, but no, the guts are thin. 9 pieces and more. But one RD-191 copes. And I repeat, pipes, fasteners, thermal insulation, etc. from 9 pieces or one - there is a difference. So the actual weight ratio is not the same as comparing bare engines. There was Falcon -1 with one Merlin, out of 5 launches, three accidents. Therefore, Musk went all-in, put 9 merlins, calculating that if even a few fail (without an explosion, of course), the rest will be pulled out. The system seems to work. It is not known how many engines the automation switches off for each start. Merlin of the second stage works in a generous mode, he does not need to reach the declared power, the accident rate is sharply reduced. In principle, everything is correct and reasonable, one might say talented. But all this, somehow, for the time being. Like the Shuttle of recent years - the expectation of imminent disaster.
  7. 3danimal
    3danimal April 26 2021 16: 16
    -1
    Musk would be happy to use one Merlin in the URM, but no, the guts are thin. 9 pieces and forward

    The closest analogue of Falcon-9 in terms of the mass thrown at LEO (about 23 tons without returning the 1st stage) is Proton-M.
    The first stage of Proton-M - 6 (!) RD-276 engines. In the calculation, what if half of it breaks? No.
    "Is your gut thin?"
    It's nonsense to talk in such rural categories.
    Therefore, Musk went all-in, put 9 merlins, calculating that if even a few fail (without an explosion, of course), the rest will be pulled out.

    Perfect delirium fool
    Is it okay that the Falcon 9 has a much higher payload?
    Problems and accidents are inevitable at the beginning of new projects, now everything works fine, including the return.
    It is not known how many engines the automation switches off for each start.

    I completely forgot to see that the rocket still needs to put the load into orbit, and the first stage needs to go back.
    Moreover, this return is already taken for granted by everyone, although no one else is able to do this.
  8. hrych
    hrych April 26 2021 17: 54
    +1
    Quote: 3danimal
    rural categories.

    You know better in the kibbutz. I didn't read you further. You tired me with your chatter.
  9. 3danimal
    3danimal April 26 2021 18: 05
    0
    You know better in the kibbutz. I didn't read you further. You tired me with your chatter.

    A light-haired, blue-eyed, two-meter tall (according to Mayakovsky) middle-aged man from an industrial city of the Russian Federation, wants to have a good rest for an old man embittered by the whole world who lives in a ring of imaginary enemies.
  10. Sarboz
    Sarboz April 18 2021 19: 30
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    Never liked zigging people, did you?

    Any liberal riffraff, nationalist rabble, someone should control. Otherwise they will go to Washington, then to Warsaw, and then in Minsk the post office, the telegraph office, and the telephone. Have you ever heard about what an operational cover is. You need to know the biography of a person, his origin in order to understand what he is worth.
  11. 3danimal
    3danimal April 19 2021 02: 04
    -2
    Have you ever heard about what an operational cover is.

    Your belief in such stories (was also about corruption, masking secret spending wink ), recalled one anecdote (General meaning):
    My wife came from a business trip and found a used condom under the bed at home. The husband said that he loved her, missed her, handled her in "protection" in the photo of his wife. The wife believed, was touched, the husband wiped the sweat from his forehead (smeared himself off).
    In the photo Rogozin is a rather young man. He is not attracted to an embedded officer, but he could well be an informant / informer. That does not negate the voluntariness of staying in the ranks of the homegrown Nazis.
  • stepka_razin
    stepka_razin April 18 2021 07: 41
    -4
    Collect N-1 in two counts (if necessary, of course)

    Collect energy, although, of course, it should be done in no time, but according to real projects, the movement is only in the head of the uryakolok
    1. hrych
      hrych April 18 2021 09: 12
      +3
      Quote: stepka_razin
      Collect energy, although, of course, it should be done in no time, but according to real projects, the movement is only in the head of the uryakolok

      If they don't ask, they usually don't dance. wassat There is no need for H-1, there is no need for Energy, but there is a need for their engines and they work both for us and for NASA. But the F-1 is not, although they need a cut. According to a similar scheme of Saturn-5 and H-1, which we do not need, in the USA a multi-billion dollar tender is being held wassat
      1. stepka_razin
        stepka_razin April 18 2021 09: 19
        -3
        no need for H-1, no need for energy

        I am looking at you and the only need for haloperidol is hi
  • Synoid
    Synoid April 18 2021 05: 12
    0
    The degradation of engineering in the United States is sad. used to build lunar rockets, modules, rovers, recoverable modules. Keene was filmed, the soil was brought in - and the next generation wasted all the polymers. Now they are happy that the rocket was brought to the near-earth (
    But we are waiting for a flying ship from Sant-Max, which of course will surpass Saturn in everything))))
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal April 18 2021 05: 32
      -4
      We look at the tentative plan of events and wait for what happens request
      Once Starship is finished, many interesting projects will be possible to complete.
    2. hrych
      hrych April 18 2021 09: 21
      0
      Quote: Synoid
      The degradation of engineering in the United States is sad

      There is no degradation. This is also illogical wassat There was simply no rover, no returnable modules wassat This is logical. They were crippled by the Space Shuttle program and its sad, catastrophic outcome. So they have to go through the Queen's path again. Before the Shuttle, all of their manned space exploration was flawed with sheer fakes, including Mercury and Gemini. And the result is a complete failure of the big trough - Skylab. So why return to your failures? After the Shuttle, our successful, proven and proven path of orbital piloting is repeated. By the time of the divorce from the Russian Federation via the ISS and the departure of our carriers and descent vehicles, they are forced to simply copy us. This is the homespun truth of life, and here Kubrick is powerless.
  • Borisych1973
    Borisych1973 April 18 2021 10: 54
    +2
    Why not a Saturn 5 rocket
    That is why Russia is not resuming the production of Soviet superheavy Energy, but is developing (if the announcements are to be believed) new heavy missiles. Technologies, materials are outdated, the game is not worth the candle. It is more efficient to build something new.
    1. hrych
      hrych April 18 2021 11: 11
      0
      Quote: Borisych1973
      Russia does not resume production of Soviet super-heavy energy

      I repeat, the Russian Federation does not need a heavyweight, due to the assembly of space tugs, to which in orbit orbital and descent vehicles for deep space will cling, in orbit they will be refueled with fuel, such as plastic for laser-detonation engines with nuclear power systems. The prototype will be in orbit in the near future, and the mission to the planets near Nuclon will be in 2030. But the engines of Energy, or rather their derivatives, are simply used, both in our country and are exported. In this sense, Energy continues to work and bring currency laughing But the F-1 is not, there are no prototypes of the F-1. How so? Saturn-5 is perhaps behind in the polyurethane thermal insulation of hydrogen tanks (on Shuttles). Duc, on the contrary, the gain in the thrown weight from modern technologies could still be scooped up. And the homespun truth is that the declared thrust of the F-1 did not survive, it was calculated according to the Mach cone that the first stage dispersed the entire structure not to 8, but to 4 strides. Therefore, the F-1 boldly went to the scrap and for a reason. Well, and the film Kubrick began to shoot earlier, even with Gemini. We hung the actor there with the letter P and let's turn the camera wassat
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal April 18 2021 13: 26
        -1
        REN-TV, the main source of secret information about world conspiracies good
        Tell me, did you charge the water in front of Chumak? Are you using it now? laughing
        1. hrych
          hrych April 18 2021 18: 06
          +1
          Just stupid Kubrick punctures and nothing more. So they themselves began to admit that they had filmed something in the poviglion, tk. such super-achievements, but they could not save the film with the "original". So they would say that the film was lit by cosmic radiation, which roasted the astronauts wassat
  • vadim dok
    vadim dok April 18 2021 15: 05
    -2
    Forgot to indicate that there were 6 (SIX) manned expeditions with landing on the Moon! And this is NOT "ASKED"!
    1. hrych
      hrych April 18 2021 18: 09
      0
      Quote: vadim dok
      there were 6 (SIX)

      Okay. APPEARS six wassat
  • Cosm22
    Cosm22 April 17 2021 17: 46
    -3
    At least it is clear that hard work and perseverance will always be appreciated. It is from this that NASA's decision follows.
    But the situation is not clear.
    After all, if Musk's business with Starship goes according to plan, then SLS will be like the fifth wheel in a cart.
    On the other hand, SLS already has so much money and time that you need to get at least some return from it.
    Therefore, outwardly, the decision looks logical - astronauts to the lunar orbit will be lucky with the SLS in Orion. After all, for something they did it? Starship will be used for now only in the HLS variant.
    But who knows what will happen in 3-4 years? But what if the Starship project does go according to Musk's plans? Fully?
    1. Pontiffsulyvahn
      Pontiffsulyvahn April 17 2021 17: 57
      +1
      Most likely, SLS and Orion will then be abandoned. They don't talk about it yet, but everyone understands.
    2. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik April 17 2021 18: 00
      +6
      Quote: Cosm22
      On the other hand, SLS already has so much money and time that you need to get at least some return from it.

      This is a classic sunk cost design mistake. Leaders look at money spent, not potential outcomes and upcoming costs. You need to concentrate on what you have now, what needs to be done, what we will get in the end, how much it will cost. Not how much money was spent. If the horse is dead, get off.
    3. ccsr
      ccsr April 17 2021 18: 17
      -3
      Quote: Cosm22
      At least it is clear that hard work and perseverance will always be appreciated.

      These apparently classic words belong to Panikovsky, when he motivated Shura Balaganov to saw a weight.
      I am glad that our Maskophile knows our classics - there was also Ostap Bender, who knew four hundred honest methods, one of which was adopted by Musk.
      Quote: Cosm22
      But who knows what will happen in 3-4 years?

      Is it not clear from the message that there will be a landing on the moon in three years? Or are you already disowning this statement? Why's that?
      1. Cosm22
        Cosm22 April 17 2021 18: 41
        -1
        When, who and where categorically asserted that "there will be a landing on the moon in three years"?
        I clearly could not say such nonsense, but you, apparently, do not even manage to understand the essence of the comment.
        Re-read the article again. Try to understand the meaning of the words and phrases "disembarkation is planned", "supposed", should be implemented "," while the time frame looks like this "with the key" bye ".
        From which toe of your left foot you sucked the categorical assertion that the States will land on the moon exactly in three years - apparently only you know. By the way, would you like to tell us the day and month of this landing? If you understand everything from the message?
        For my part, I am asking a completely logical question - who knows what will happen in 3-4 years?
        1. ccsr
          ccsr April 17 2021 19: 07
          0
          Quote: Cosm22
          When, who and where categorically asserted that "there will be a landing on the moon in three years"?
          I clearly could not say such nonsense, but you, apparently, do not even manage to understand the essence of the comment.

          And who said:
          Musk's lander should be developed by 2024. It is for this year that American astronauts are scheduled to land on the moon.

          Quote: Cosm22
          Re-read the article again. Try to understand the meaning of the words and phrases "disembarkation is planned", "supposed", should be implemented "," while the time frame looks like this "with the key" bye ".

          I realized that as soon as you were caught talking about 3-4 years, you immediately began to back away and disown the statements of the Americans. Well, I realized a long time ago that you cannot present anything in time except for propaganda.
          Quote: Cosm22
          For my part, I am asking a completely logical question - who knows what will happen in 3-4 years?

          Those. you are an ordinary propagandist telling us about the successes of the Americans, and as soon as it touched when it all came true, you immediately faded from the answer. The drain is accepted.
          1. Cosm22
            Cosm22 April 17 2021 20: 37
            -3
            To school.
            At least in the 6th grade.
            They should already explain the meaning of the participle "planned" at the lessons of the Russian language and literature. And the noun "plan".
            As for the sinks, you are free to count their number in your toilet at least to a million. Or until blue in the face. As you wish.
            1. Sarboz
              Sarboz April 18 2021 10: 40
              0
              Quote: Cosm22
              To school.
              At least in the 6th grade.
              They should already explain the meaning of the participle "planned" at the lessons of the Russian language and literature. And the noun "plan".

              In the USSR, the plan was law. In countries where Space X spends budget funds allocated for space programs on pulling out a private unprofitable Tesla project, the meaning of the word "plan" is completely different.
          2. Venya Selnikov
            Venya Selnikov April 19 2021 12: 20
            0
            Are you arguing over the timing of the article?
            Generally, the best place to look at is the NASA press release.
            https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/as-artemis-moves-forward-nasa-picks-spacex-to-land-next-americans-on-moon
            And there are no specific deadlines.
            24th year after landing - these were especially inadequate wishes for Trump. Which, with his departure, no one else sets as a goal.
            IMHO, we can talk more likely at least 5-6 years before disembarkation. From the present moment. The same gateway has not been canceled, but it will also demand strength.
            1. ccsr
              ccsr April 19 2021 13: 00
              +2
              Quote: Venya Selnikov
              Are you arguing over the timing of the article?

              Of course not, I just pointed out to some local "authorities" that they were lying too much about the timing.
              Quote: Venya Selnikov
              24th year after landing - these were especially inadequate wishes for Trump.

              So local experts say that they will definitely land and slip us some pictures, where they indicate the 24th year. So I asked them to make a translation, so that later they would not wag.
              Quote: Venya Selnikov
              IMHO, we can talk more likely at least 5-6 years before disembarkation.

              Maybe that's when the landing will take place, as you suppose, but for some reason I am more guided by 2030, purely from skeptical life experience.
      2. 3danimal
        3danimal April 17 2021 20: 05
        -4
        You can focus on this conditional schedule:
        1. ccsr
          ccsr April 17 2021 21: 31
          +2
          Quote: 3danimal
          You can focus on this conditional schedule:

          And can you also be guided by this picture on Bush's promise to land on the moon in 2015 (deadline 2019)?
          But the picture is valuable - I think at the end of the year you will comment on it to us in terms of implementation. I hope you don’t forget to do this.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal April 17 2021 22: 15
            -6
            There is a place for the plans of Roscosmos, do you propose to consider them separately? smile
            1. ccsr
              ccsr April 17 2021 22: 23
              +4
              Quote: 3danimal
              There is a place for the plans of Roscosmos, do you propose to consider them separately?

              You don't believe Roskosmos - why would you discuss it? Let's go back to advanced Americans and see what they accomplish in 2021. I hope you won't forget about it by the end of the year. By the way, so that there is no different interpretation, I would like you to personally post the translation of the text of the picture, well, at least in part of the American promises.
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal April 18 2021 01: 05
                -8
                What did you dislike about the phrase
                be guided by this conditional schedule

                ?
                There are plans, large resources have been invested and large teams are working to implement them. On time or a little later, but most of this list will be completed.
                In the late 60s, it became possible to send 3 people to the moon, now it is also possible. The only thing missing was the goal.
              2. ccsr
                ccsr April 18 2021 17: 05
                0
                Quote: 3danimal
                There are plans, large resources have been invested and large teams are working to implement them. On time or a little later, but most of this list will be completed.
                In the late 60s, it became possible to send 3 people to the moon, now it is also possible. The only thing missing was the goal.

                Stop wagging and tell me honestly - are you personally ready to take stock at the end of 2021 and show everyone that the plans of the Americans were fulfilled according to your picture?
                If not, then there is no need to give us noodles about the end of the 60s, because we live in the 21st century.
              3. 3danimal
                3danimal April 18 2021 17: 53
                -2
                Do not engage in demagogy.
                The picture is not mine.
                However, I believe that at least 50% of the above will be completed by 2030.
                By the way, the second rover is riding on Mars.
                Rogozin needs to repeat wink
  • Nikalab
    Nikalab April 17 2021 20: 06
    +5
    But the situation is not clear.
    After all, if Musk's business with Starship goes according to plan, then SLS will be like the fifth wheel in a cart.

    No, NASA doesn’t want to see astronauts take off from the ground in a spacecraft without SAS, and even more so they don’t want to see them return home with a propulsive landing. As the recent incidents of the F9 landing have shown, even a system that has already been worked out, as it already seems, is often killed on the water / ground.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 17 2021 20: 23
      +2
      The fact of the matter is that without SAS on the Starship no one will fly and no one will be able to certify this ship for manned flights without it - two Shuttle disasters during takeoff and landing clearly showed what the neglect of safety systems leads to.
  • rocket757
    rocket757 April 17 2021 16: 48
    +1
    Engines, new engines are needed ... at least a base, extraterrestrial, somewhere to organize, provide, this is a huge flow of goods !!!
    To carry in small portions, it is better not to take it at all.
  • Blackmokona
    Blackmokona April 17 2021 16: 54
    -2
    Much more money was given to Boeing, and they did not interfere with it at all, unlike SpaceX, where the customer was constantly changing wishes and assessment methods.
    1. Proxima
      Proxima April 17 2021 17: 39
      +3
      Musk is remembered on Mars back in 2016, he was going to land the first module. It's been 5 years already !!! So he is still the storyteller .. tongue
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona April 17 2021 17: 55
        +2
        Red Dragon is canceled, its goal was to find water supplies for the Starship's operations. But NASA got ahead, the project was canceled.
        1. Proxima
          Proxima April 17 2021 18: 00
          +1
          Quote: BlackMokona
          Red Dragon is canceled, its goal was to find water supplies for the Starship's operations. But NASA got ahead, the project was canceled.

          This is a good mine for a bad game. But what about the settlements on Mars? A one-way ticket and so on? Children's excuse. It's just that when implementing the project, Max encountered difficulties that he did not even know about.
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona April 17 2021 19: 21
            -1
            You confuse Mask with the MarsVan organization. These guys are not connected in any way. Musk always had a round trip ticket for any colonists, because the ships, according to his plan, must return to Earth in order to be reused.
      2. ccsr
        ccsr April 17 2021 18: 19
        -4
        Quote: Proxima
        Musk is remembered on Mars back in 2016, he was going to land the first module. It's been 5 years already !!! So he is still the storyteller ..

        It is so intolerant to remind you of unfulfilled promises - well, just hit the Mask in the gut and make the Maskophiles grieve ...
      3. Alarmist79
        Alarmist79 April 17 2021 23: 57
        -1
        Quote: Proxima
        Musk is remembered on Mars back in 2016, he was going to land the first module.


        "SpaceX originally planned to offer Red Dragon for funding in 2013 and 2015 as NASA Discovery Mission # 13 in the US for a launch in 2022."
        Then she planned to launch in 2018, then refocused on the Starship, better from the point of view of Musk.
      4. Sarboz
        Sarboz April 18 2021 11: 03
        -1
        Quote: Proxima
        Musk is remembered on Mars back in 2016, he was going to land the first module. It's been 5 years already !!! So he is still the storyteller ..

        Musk is a great combinator. His best talent is financial bubble blowing. It's just that it has not yet been possible to convince the American man in the street to get a Martian ranch in reality. There are a couple more films to be made in Hollywood. Joint-stock company "Martian horns and moon hooves" to establish. Then a completely different life will begin.
  • Tusv
    Tusv April 17 2021 17: 06
    +2
    Quote: Infinity
    Speaking of money. If Congress supported the required level of funding, then all three participants would receive money for development. D. Bridenstein insisted on this decision

    Speaking of money. Americans complain that Biden has already picked up loans worth as much as 3 trillion
  • KeithRichards
    KeithRichards April 17 2021 19: 17
    -1
    Orion in this scheme is not needed at all, as well as SLS. But you can't get them anywhere, the money has been spent, you need to somehow beat them off.
    In general, about the base. One starship in a cargo configuration without a life support system in terms of the volume of the compartment exceeds the living area of ​​the entire ISS, and by 10%. So the base itself is not that necessary. It is enough just to equip Starship for a residential module and to lay the external infrastructure with solar panels, though you will always have to take the elevator down from this 15-storey building)))
    Moreover, one day the starship runs out of fuel to carry the crew from the moon's orbit to the surface, in which case it is easier to land it on the moon forever and make a living module out of it.
  • Blackbeard
    Blackbeard April 17 2021 21: 58
    -1
    with that kind of money they will definitely succeed
  • Blackmokona
    Blackmokona April 17 2021 16: 34
    +1
    Look at the size of the device carefully, most of the base projects are much smaller.
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 April 17 2021 16: 55
      +3
      There are projects, NO BASES!
      As soon as, so immediately, it will be possible to assess whether it is possible to exist there or not.
  • rocket757
    rocket757 April 17 2021 16: 44
    +2
    The project is terribly expensive! In addition, new technical solutions are required ...
    We will see.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona April 17 2021 17: 04
      +5
      What a creepy road? On the contrary, they sell for a penny. Look around the market for a cheaper price, I posted the Wishlist of other competitors below
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 April 17 2021 17: 08
        +2
        Yes, yes, they promised for half, but in the end a ruble, two, and then another ...
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona April 17 2021 17: 10
          -1
          Piloted Dragon Max made for a fixed price. But Boeing has already been prescribed a supplement for the Starliner and until the readiness is another year according to plans
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik April 17 2021 17: 14
            +7
            At this rate, Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser will overtake them. And the project is much more interesting and functional.
            1. KeithRichards
              KeithRichards April 17 2021 19: 34
              0
              Quote: OgnennyiKotik
              At this rate, Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser will overtake them. And the project is much more interesting and functional.

              he is not manned.
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 April 17 2021 20: 27
                +6
                He is piloted by 2 crew members.
  • Sidor Amenpodestovich
    Sidor Amenpodestovich April 17 2021 18: 01
    -1
    Quote: Ilya-spb
    The important thing is who will be the first to create a base there and start mastering.

    And what is the practical sense in the lunar base, in addition to the scientific prestigious?
    How to protect astronauts and equipment from solar radiation? The Americans landed on a moonlit morning when radiation levels were very low.
    No need for helium-3. How to collect it and send it to Earth? The same Starships? But in this case, the meaning of its use in thermonuclear power plants is lost, since such energy was initially assumed to be extremely cheap.
  • Vadim Golubkov
    Vadim Golubkov April 17 2021 18: 16
    -5
    I doubt, maybe in 20-30 years and the mastering of the Moon with bases will turn out at best. And it seems like radiation there is fatal to people.
    1. Andrey Korotkov
      Andrey Korotkov April 17 2021 18: 33
      0
      Quote: Vadim Golubkov
      I doubt, maybe in 20-30 years and the mastering of the Moon with bases will turn out at best. And it seems like radiation there is fatal to people.

      hi An article about amerov's Wishlist? Yes! Day on the moon ~ 24 earth days, 74 hours, 43 minutes. They will run across from radiation, the gravity of the Moon allows laughing
  • Sling cutter
    Sling cutter April 17 2021 18: 21
    +1
    Quote: Ilya-spb
    The important thing is who will be the first to create a base there and start mastering.

    China, by the way, cannot be discounted either with their lunar program.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 17 2021 20: 31
      +3
      The Chinese promise to make a super-heavy rocket only by 2030, so they will not have any exploration of the Moon until the appointed time, as we do - they will launch stations and satellites.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal April 17 2021 19: 46
    -3
    Rogozin, he promised ..
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 18 2021 14: 10
      0
      Rogozin promised a super-heavy rocket only in 2028, but in fact, according to the optimistic version, it will be made by 2031.
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal April 18 2021 14: 19
        -2
        The practice of his management shows that the regular shift of terms "to the right", "compensated" by activity in social networks, always successfully gets away with it (Rogozin specifically) request
        Do not have time - will change clothes.
        Here already one of the commentators announced that super-heavy rockets are not needed at all, everything should be docked in orbit and then transported by an atomic tug smile
        Very much in the spirit of the aforementioned journalist, by the way ..
  • Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo April 17 2021 22: 00
    -5
    Quote: Ilya-spb
    It is not important who is the first to land on the lunar surface.

    The important thing is who will be the first to create a base there and start mastering.

    https://lenta.ru/news/2006/01/25/moon/
    1. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo April 17 2021 23: 27
      0
      A minus for what?
  • NIKN
    NIKN April 17 2021 16: 26
    +6
    Quote: rocket757
    SpaseX Elon Musk will develop a lander to deliver US astronauts to the lunar surface
    ... Both on. There are a lot of plans!
    Okay, let's wait, we'll see.

    I understand that Elon Musk has already completed the landing on the ground? Have the extreme stage landing experiments already been successful in sufficient numbers?
    1. Mountain shooter
      Mountain shooter April 17 2021 16: 30
      -3
      Quote: NIKNN

      I understand that Elon Musk has already completed the landing on the ground? Extreme experiments have already been successful in sufficient numbers

      And it doesn't seem to matter. ANY setbacks get away with him amazingly. I'm afraid this is not an engineering project, but a business project. And in such cases, the integrity of the ship and crew are not top priorities.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh April 17 2021 16: 37
      +7
      Falcon 9 had 72 successful landings.
      1. Andrey Korotkov
        Andrey Korotkov April 17 2021 17: 35
        +6
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Falcon 9 had 72 successful landings.

        I do not minus you, my opinion is 1: Falcon (exactly 9) development of 2018, is intended for the launch of satellites (just about the earth orbit), 2: landing steps (just iron! ) Yes there is, I don’t argue with you 72 yes as there is no luck (spit this iron!) But how will Musk, like Falcon PEOPLE (okay astronauts) to return to earth ??? Well cherry on ... there recourse 03.04.2021/XNUMX/XNUMX SpaceX took the fallen in the state ( drinks ) Washington rocket part .... fellow Falcon 9. The wrong rocket, maybe you meant hi We are talking about ordering the Mask 3mlr. (I think the proven method is the parachute system, splashdown).
      2. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx April 17 2021 17: 59
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Falcon 9 had 72 successful landings.

        what Interesting numbers. If NASA is not lying, I am surprised by their ability to explore Mars and the duration of the spacecraft on this planet.
        ===========
        Six paragraphs in total. Half interested:
        If the dates of the program are not shifted, then the Musk lander should be developed by 2024.

        I won't be in time, but it's closer than 2035 ...
        The lunar exploration program, called "Artemis" in the United States, should be implemented in three stages: at the first stage, the Orion spacecraft will make an unmanned flight around the Moon and return to Earth, at the second stage, a manned flyby of the Earth satellite, and there, before the astronauts are launched to the Moon, not far away. ... So far, the timeline looks like this: the first stage in 2021, the second in 2022, and the third in 2024.

        Some wild pace. Is it really possible?
        Russia, meanwhile, is implementing its own lunar program. According to it, the automatic station "Luna-25" will be launched to the Moon. In the future, within the framework of the lunar program, after sending the Luna-25 spacecraft, it is planned to send the Luna-2024 orbital station to the Earth's satellite in 26, and the Luna-2025 landing station in 27.

        And it reads like: "In response to the planting of high-yield potatoes, a batch of acclimatized Colorado beetles will be released into the fields in 2024, 2025 and 2027 ..."
    3. rocket757
      rocket757 April 17 2021 16: 37
      0
      Show must go on!
      They are rich Buratina, of course, but besides that, they also need a breakthrough idea, but not one. Because in the old fashioned way, no one can master such a project.
    4. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z April 17 2021 17: 07
      +5
      American astronauts will be delivered to the lunar surface by a lander created by Elon Musk. SpaseX won the NASA competition to develop the corresponding device.

      Quote: NIKNN
      I understand that Elon Musk has already completed the landing on the ground?

      Here it is written everywhere about the LANDING MODULE. Obviously, there are no problems with such devices. But what about the departure back to Earth? Nothing has been written about taking off from the surface of the Moon! Or is it a one-way road ?!
      1. Cosm22
        Cosm22 April 17 2021 18: 17
        -2
        The Lunar Starship will be used exactly as an HLS - for now, exclusively as a landing and take-off system.
        The astronauts, according to the idea, get to the lunar orbit in Orion, then 2 people go to Starship, the module lands, the astronauts carry out the planned program, then the module takes off and returns to the lunar orbit.
        After that, the astronauts move from it back to Orion and return to Earth on it.
        In theory, everything is simple.
        In practice, over only one docking will have to smash your head.
        1. Synoid
          Synoid April 18 2021 05: 21
          -2
          Do not smack nonsense, it hurts.
          Everything has been worked out for a long time.
          And yes, they will take a rover to the moon in order to stake out their territory with flags.
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 April 17 2021 20: 35
        -1
        This is if the ISS will hold out until 2025, but there will be nothing to undock one fig apart from the Science module.
        1. slipped
          slipped April 18 2021 18: 27
          +1
          Quote: Vadim237
          This is if the ISS will hold out until 2025, but there will be nothing to undock one fig apart from the Science module.


          MLM-U "Science" + UM "Berth". The rest will all drown. In 2024, before that, the NEM will be launched, on it there are just sustainer engines.

          But the inclination of the orbit of the new station will probably be changed with the help of an ion engine. It should be installed on the outer surface of MLM-U. But this is of course my assumption, since it will be put there in the framework of another experiment.
    2. rocket757
      rocket757 April 17 2021 17: 10
      +1
      The mask has its own sect, inspired ... now they are "stuffing" all those who disagree ...
      1. xorek
        xorek April 17 2021 17: 19
        -2
        Quote: rocket757
        The mask has its own sect, inspired ... now they are "stuffing" all those who disagree ...

        laughing I can already smell their indignation Victor wink
        Let's separate from the ISS, we'll see how all of them sing ... And then they got used to it at the expense of Russia ... I don't believe this mask, at least kill it .. He is a fraud!
        1. rocket757
          rocket757 April 17 2021 17: 24
          -7
          Yes, I’m on their Mask, exactly ... let it fly.
          For that, the members of his sect, so ... inspired, that they throw themselves at everyone in a row, those who do not thump in front of him on their knees and are not ready to punch concrete with their foreheads .... FUNNY !!!
    3. Pontiffsulyvahn
      Pontiffsulyvahn April 17 2021 18: 08
      +1
      Lord, let go of it already, finally, and do not whine that Russia supports everyone. They have already undocked from the near-lunar station - that's good, let's see who does better - the United States or Russia.
      The main thing is, again, do not start complaining that someone is bothering you.
      1. slipped
        slipped April 17 2021 20: 01
        +3
        Quote: PontiffSulyvahn
        better - the United States or Russia.


        As always - in Russia. And the United States will have another Freedom. It was already so.
        1. Pontiffsulyvahn
          Pontiffsulyvahn April 17 2021 20: 06
          -4
          When Russia builds its own station, then we'll talk.
          1. slipped
            slipped April 18 2021 18: 20
            -1
            Quote: PontiffSulyvahn
            When Russia builds its own station, then we'll talk.


            You read the history of the station "Freedom" first. And also why the ISS appeared.
            1. Pontiffsulyvahn
              Pontiffsulyvahn April 18 2021 19: 28
              -2
              And you are the history of the Science module.
              1. slipped
                slipped April 18 2021 20: 06
                0
                Quote: PontiffSulyvahn
                And you are the history of the Science module.


                You did not understand my answer. "Freedom", or rather its part "Freed", we helped the Americans to put into orbit. Without us, it would not have flown anything, since the shuttles then decided to close. Therefore, Horus grabbed onto Chernomyrdin's idea like a straw.

                And this year we ourselves will withdraw "Science" without the help of the states. Clear? laughing

                In addition, you forget that the reason for the delay in the launch of the "Science" module was that the manufacturer made a mistake - not on time to stop all work on this design, since this is the last module of this series, created on the basis of the FGB TKS. All new modules are from a different manufacturer and a different design.
                1. Pontiffsulyvahn
                  Pontiffsulyvahn April 18 2021 22: 06
                  -2
                  I do not forget anything, including numerous promises. I'm only interested in the result. The result is obvious: "science" was supposed to fly away in 2007, but is still on earth.
        2. Synoid
          Synoid April 18 2021 05: 23
          +3
          Well, special effects in films are always better for them.
          Hollywood rules.
  • ccsr
    ccsr April 17 2021 18: 10
    -4
    Quote: rocket757
    Okay, let's wait, we'll see.

    We will not only "wait", but we will also track, since Musk and NASA have named specific dates for the landing on the moon. Only one thing is surprising - with such a rich experience of landing on the moon, the Americans fluttered and began to say that first a flight without a crew was needed. It's a strange picture - fifty years ago everything went easy without any working off, but now it turns out to be impossible. Interestingly, the girls are dancing - I don't see any optimistic assurances from the Americans that everything will be as they said.
    And the words sound completely incomprehensible:
    then the Musk lander should develop by 2024. It is for this year that American astronauts are scheduled to land on the moon.

    Those. based on their assurances, the module will only be developed in 2024 and the astronauts will be immediately sent to the moon, or tests will be carried out without a crew. Can our maskophiles explain?
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 April 17 2021 18: 20
      -1
      Quote: ccsr
      Can our maskophiles explain?

      Don't joke like that, they have FAITH !!!
      What calculations are there, proofs and so on ...
      Go nasty, do not bother them to believe.
      1. ccsr
        ccsr April 17 2021 18: 38
        -3
        Quote: rocket757
        Don't joke like that, they have FAITH !!!

        I still understand when they "prove" to us that F1 is impossible to reproduce, but for some reason they do not explain what prevents them from repeating the lunar module Eagle, which would be the perfection of American engineering thought six times without an accident from the moon. And most importantly, why spend money on development, since there is such a reliable and proven Eagle lander? We have royal rockets flying, and no one is soared by this, so the story with Musk, in the presence of the Eagle, smacks of a cut of budget money. Or not?
        1. rocket757
          rocket757 April 17 2021 19: 42
          +3
          So it’s not to stand still, not to develop technology, it’s not good ... but so far it’s true, there are no major breakthroughs in the industry!
          Maybe they are preparing, hoping to do something really new that will move them forward .... not clear.
          Boom wait and see.
    2. KeithRichards
      KeithRichards April 17 2021 19: 24
      +6
      Before sending Apollo 11 to the surface, there were 4 manned launches of Apollo, including 3 with a flight around the moon.
      1. ccsr
        ccsr April 17 2021 21: 20
        -3
        Quote: KeithRichards
        Before sending Apollo 11 to the surface, there were 4 manned launches of Apollo, including 3 with a flight around the moon.

        Yes, the Americans declare this, but for some reason not everyone believes that they landed there, and flying around the Earth on a lunar expedition does not pull. Yes, and no one has evidence that Apollo with a crew flew around the moon, except for the statement of the Americans themselves.
        But if there was a landing, then why the lunar module Eagle cannot be used now - can you explain?
        1. KeithRichards
          KeithRichards April 17 2021 21: 29
          +2
          Only those deprived of the mind do not BELIEVE. Everyone else KNOWS.
          The Soviet Union KNEW. Soviet cosmonautics knew. Soviet leaders knew and congratulated (Brezhnev).
          Although Soviet propaganda could simply declare that there was nothing, it would only play into its hands.

          But for some reason, diseases are still trying to refute this.
          1. ccsr
            ccsr April 17 2021 22: 16
            -2
            Quote: KeithRichards
            Although Soviet propaganda could simply declare that there was nothing, it would only play into its hands.

            Then there were smarter people, and they used the lies of the Americans to their advantage - study Nixon's visit to Brezhnev in 1972 and what happened after that.
            Quote: KeithRichards
            Only those deprived of the mind do not BELIEVE.

            "Modern science is characterized by an exploratory style of thinking that makes extensive use of doubt." (c) - this does not threaten you, so I brought it just in case for others.
            Quote: KeithRichards
            Everyone else KNOWS.

            Are you the Lord God that you know everything? Oh well...
            Quote: KeithRichards
            But for some reason, diseases are still trying to refute this.

            Know-it-alls still cannot prove that the moon landing took place, especially since no one in real time, except the Americans, could receive a television signal from the Moon, and the Americans knew this.
  • DymOk_v_dYmke
    DymOk_v_dYmke April 17 2021 19: 57
    -2
    Quote: rocket757
    SpaseX Elon Musk will develop a lander to deliver US astronauts to the lunar surface
    ... Both on. ...

    So, what did they fly to trample the moon, if a lander for two astronauts has yet to be developed? laughing
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 April 17 2021 21: 37
      +3
      The question, were / were not Yankees on the moon, we are not discussing now ... until it is officially refuted.
  • vadim dok
    vadim dok April 18 2021 15: 02
    +1
    Let's wait! This is not Rogozin! Musk does it, maybe with a shift to the right, but it will!
  • Thrifty
    Thrifty April 17 2021 16: 27
    +3
    I wonder how far to the right our program for visiting the Moon will be shifted, and will it be implemented at all?
    1. slipped
      slipped April 17 2021 16: 58
      +2
      Quote: Thrifty
      I wonder how far to the right our program for visiting the Moon will be shifted, and will it be implemented at all?


      Our lunar program began quietly and casually:

      Yesterday at the Vostochny cosmodrome from the NPO named after Lavochkin, without unnecessary fanfare, the overall model of the Luna-25 spacecraft was delivered to conduct complex tests of technical means and systems at the cosmodrome before the autumn launch.



      Meanwhile, the 14-day isolation experiment "Sketch" was also launched yesterday at the IBMP. A crew of six volunteer testers, including Voloshin O.V. (crew commander), Belotskiy M.M. (flight engineer), Salnikova A.V. (crew doctor), Lebedeva S.A., Pashkova D.V. and G.K. Primachenko. (researchers) have to carry out a program simulating an expeditionary flight of a small spacecraft to the Moon, including the implementation of operator activities on its surface.



      Extravehicular activities are planned using virtual reality tools. A helmet and a unique hanging system will be tested, which will simulate lunar gravity.
  • zwlad
    zwlad April 17 2021 16: 29
    +2
    Musk won't be able to send anything at 21. The whole program of the year will shift by 3-5 to the right, if not more.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona April 17 2021 16: 34
      +6
      The author simply does not understand the topic, in 2021 the SLS rocket is supposed to fly according to NASA's plans, which will take out the Orion spacecraft
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik April 17 2021 16: 47
        +4
        Quote: BlackMokona
        the SLS rocket should fly in 2021

        They will not be in time at the current pace. Another failure from Boeing.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona April 17 2021 16: 48
          +2
          But this is not a problem for Musk, until the SLS with Orion flies to him there will be no questions. Since there is no need to withdraw the device until the first phases are completed.
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik April 17 2021 16: 54
            +1
            Quote: BlackMokona
            But it's not a problem Mask, as long as SLS

            I agree. An old sawn-off useless project from NASA and Boeing. SLS is akin to the Hangara, nobody needs it, it is decades behind, super-expensive with eternal transfers to the right, the launch vehicle. Only they have wild competition and there are 3-4 applicants for each project. There won't be much harm. Boeing will eventually either restructure or leave the market.
    2. xorek
      xorek April 17 2021 17: 21
      -7
      Quote: zwlad
      Musk won't be able to send anything at 21. The whole program of the year will shift by 3-5 to the right, if not more.

      He collects money from suckers all over the world .. And then, as usual, I'm sorry it didn't work .. Some kind of pipilation starts and explodes beautifully, it's all PR
      1. Asad
        Asad April 17 2021 20: 05
        0
        You criticize Max so much, does he personally owe you money? Or our government? The answer begs one, the Tesle has gone crazy, well, you yourself are evil Pinocchio.
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 April 17 2021 16: 29
    +1
    SpaseX received $ 2,9 billion for the project.

    Nicely so, Musk fulfills contracts. If everything also works out ...
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona April 17 2021 16: 36
      +8
      The same Blue Origin requested 10 billion, Dinetic 5 billion.

      Left 2,9 Middle 5, right 10.
      Choose winked
  • Guards turn
    Guards turn April 17 2021 16: 32
    +2
    How will the Americans take off from the moon?
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona April 17 2021 16: 37
      +4
      Using the same apparatus
  • donavi49
    donavi49 April 17 2021 16: 33
    +5
    It is emphasized that Elon Musk's company SpaseX in the competition outstripped Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin, as well as Dynetics.


    Well, it was not difficult to get ahead of Bezos. In general, he thwarted all conceivable and inconceivable terms. And he also managed to ruin the New Shepard PR company. It got to the point that he already has 14 successful jumps and 0 people. Although already in 18, in general, he could have rolled tourists. And the same Musk would roll wink .

    Dynetics - in general, it is clear that they hoped that they would be able to solve the issues with suitcases from old memory. As a result, the old studies on the lunar module from the 90s were put to the competition. Fail is obvious.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona April 17 2021 16: 40
      +2
      Bezos had Lockheed and Northrop as contractors, which means a lot of lobbying power. Therefore, he demanded more than anyone else, and even in advance
  • prior
    prior April 17 2021 16: 40
    -1
    And yet, what is the practical use of landing a man on the moon?
    Well, they will bring two or three kilograms of moon dust, so what? Is there little dust on Earth?
    Will these few pounds help solve real earthly problems?
    Not. Why then?
    Even if several people fly to Mars tomorrow, what difference does that make?
    Human. Maybe you'd better deal with earthly problems?
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona April 17 2021 16: 44
      +2
      Well, with Starship they can start building telescopes and other bases there. If the declared performance characteristics at the price can be fulfilled by at least 10%, and there is already a lot of scientific interest and prestige
      1. prior
        prior April 17 2021 16: 53
        -2
        How much of this prestige the USSR had! So what? request
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona April 17 2021 17: 08
          +4
          Well, thanks to this, I will honor how many people loved him and now love him. Sentenced here in the Soviet Union wow, they turned up the business.
          Just in addition to the prestige and gluing of the tanks, we needed another 100 varieties of sausage in the store. But the Nomenclature didn't finish before
  • Russ
    Russ April 17 2021 16: 42
    0
    Oops ... they want to work out the evacuation? belay and Mars is no longer rolling?
    1. KeithRichards
      KeithRichards April 17 2021 19: 28
      +2
      Lunar starship has been planned for xs how many years. One Jap even signed a contract to fly around the moon, though there will not be a lunar starship.
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona April 17 2021 22: 03
        +1
        Not lunar recently appeared when NASA announced the competition. Musk took one of the Starships under construction, painted it white and presented it.
        And before that, the whole evolution went without the Moon, except for tourism with a flyby.
  • tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 April 17 2021 16: 55
    -10%
    All the same, Americans know how to allocate fantastic money for fantastic projects and master them fantastically. And what about the extreme Mars rover and the Martian helicopter, like five days ago it was supposed to fly over Mars, where is the flight footage, where you can watch them.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik April 17 2021 17: 02
      +8
      Quote: tralflot1832
      And what about the extreme rover and the Martian helicopter

      The rover is operating normally. The UAV launch was postponed to the 20th. Are you in a hurry somewhere?
    2. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona April 17 2021 17: 08
      +6
      Problems with the software, during the test of the propeller at high speeds, I decided to grow up myself without a command by switching to flight mode, the start was postponed until the software was studied
    3. slipped
      slipped April 17 2021 17: 09
      +5
      Quote: tralflot1832
      And what about the extreme rover and the Martian helicopter, like five days ago it was supposed to fly over Mars, where is the flight footage, where you can see them.


      Reflash. Found errors in work.
    4. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik April 19 2021 13: 59
      0
      The UAV flew today, here is a photo with a shadow from it. Are you satisfied now?
      1. tralflot1832
        tralflot1832 April 19 2021 14: 08
        +1
        And I was so hoping that in addition to the shadow from the copter, a Martian would fall into the frame, or a Martian at the extreme.
  • Ros 56
    Ros 56 April 17 2021 17: 06
    -10%
    For such babos, our engineers would have already flown around the entire Universe, and gardens would have been planted on the Moon.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik April 17 2021 17: 07
      +2
      Absolutely agree. But this money is not available. Who is responsible for this?
      1. Ros 56
        Ros 56 April 17 2021 17: 09
        -1
        And whoever puts a minus is to blame.
  • Mouse
    Mouse April 17 2021 17: 12
    -1
    It is emphasized that one of the astronauts will be a woman.
    African-American ... I don't mind being tolerant ... wink
    1. Sarboz
      Sarboz April 18 2021 11: 58
      +1
      Quote: Mouse
      It is emphasized that one of the astronauts will be a woman.
      African-American ... I don't mind being tolerant ... wink

      More likely an African American transsexual. For the first time in the history of world cosmonautics.
  • Vsevolod136
    Vsevolod136 April 17 2021 17: 13
    -9
    In my opinion, Musk is a more cheeky copy of Bernard Madoff and will end up no better.
  • Cowbra
    Cowbra April 17 2021 17: 16
    -12%
    SpaseX wins NASA competition

    I'm pissing))) Horns and Hooves under the direction of NASA - "won" the NASA competition.
    Or can you tell me how private it is (yeah wink ) office from the budget of 6 seems lard this year broke off "to ensure launches"? It is private, what kind of state support? There is a product, there is a price for it, where is the "security" from?
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona April 17 2021 17: 20
      +5
      Let's link and consider what the money is for wink
      1. Cowbra
        Cowbra April 17 2021 17: 26
        -11%
        Start with this, and then check each number.
        https://zen.yandex.ru/media/void_main/625-milliarda-dlia-spacex-za-dostavku-dvuh-astronavtov-na-mks-5f983628d203541abd3b7382
        There are already options, what exactly NASA paid for, and how much the launches cost - the sea, but no one can explain why at the launch stage, when the launch was in any case more expensive ... We flew under NASA contracts 7 times cheaper (advertising) than after the rise in prices 7 times this year? Why has the price increased? Are oats expensive these days?
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona April 17 2021 17: 28
          +9
          In in in, this is the degree of delirium, but let's write down the entire price of the development of the Armata in the very first tank and tell how much it is drop dead just from diamonds and emeralds forged.
          Moreover, we will write the development of the PAK FA into it so as not to go twice wassat
    2. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik April 17 2021 17: 23
      +5
      For example, I agree. Musk is state-supported. He is a NASA project, secretly grown in laboratories in South Africa. What's next? Does this cancel 10 Falcon 9 launches this year? Does this cancel a working satellite internet? Does it change anything?
      You have some kind of hysterical reaction to the Musk and the F-35. As if you are the head of Boeing and they personally ruined your projects. Have you guessed?
      1. Cowbra
        Cowbra April 17 2021 17: 31
        -10%
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        Does this cancel a working satellite internet?

        It is NOT working, beta testing.
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        Does this cancel 10 Falcon 9 launches this year?

        And this is the result of dumping. Dumping is provided with state funding, in reality, as it turned out, launches are 7 times more expensive than the declared one
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        You have some kind of hysterical reaction to the Musk and the F-35.

        Well no. I have a contemptuous reaction to hamsters, which even the facts are not a decree. EXAMPLE - The network is NOT working - fact. Falcons are NOT cheaper - again a fact. You - did NOT give a single fact, and this is exactly a hysterical reaction - without facts - to accuse your opponent that his face is crooked. With the F-35, and at all - the Pentagon still does not accept them into service, and they are not mass-produced - you all sculpt that I will hyster ... Look for a mirror ... Well, like minuses everywhere you press, of course it won't be hysterical laughing
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik April 17 2021 18: 25
          +6
          There are facts, there is your interpretation of them. The Internet is already in test operation, but in your opinion it does not work. NASA raised prices 7 times, but for some reason Musk is to blame, although he is just a contractor, and not the only one. The Falcon 2020 has the largest number of launches in 2021-9, but only thanks to the patronage of the state, although Boeing and Lockheed are allocated dozens of times more money. The F-35 was built 625+ pieces, but it is suddenly not in mass production, proving this by the elongated purely bureaucratic statuses.

          You just have a mania for these projects. What are you trying to prove? That 625+ F-35s and 113 Falcon 9 launches are pure PR? I'm upset, this is just your interpretation of the facts. They will continue to be produced and continue to fly. Not because this is PR, but because they are high-quality products. And nothing can be done about it.

          On the contrary, rejoice at the dullness, in your opinion, of the Americans and their hamsters. Why react so emotionally to every news? Or is there something wrong with your theories?
          1. Cowbra
            Cowbra April 18 2021 00: 58
            -1
            Quote: OgnennyiKotik
            There are facts, there is your interpretation of them. Internet already in test operation,

            Take the trouble to explain - why in the test?
            By the way, I was not mistaken with the minus, once again - about the hysteria?
            Yes. and again - with the facts you have - not really)
          2. Cowbra
            Cowbra April 18 2021 06: 42
            -1
            Quote: OgnennyiKotik
            There are facts

            Once again, vyunosh. Facts - where, except - by the way - expired minuses. Without facts?
  • Vsevolod136
    Vsevolod136 April 17 2021 17: 17
    -8
    Quote: Guards turn
    How will the Americans take off from the moon?

    There is a real monument to the first man to ride a cannonball, storytellers from nasa and masks use his experience.
  • Free wind
    Free wind April 17 2021 18: 57
    -6
    So far for today on the moon. Mars, Venus do no fucking thing, well, there is nothing there. Even shipping diamonds from the moon is fabulously expensive. We even have studies of Antarctica, they have no practical value. Well, except for the study of the climate, and yes, well, the taste of penguins. I have nothing against flying to Jupiters and Saturn's rings.
  • Prisoner
    Prisoner April 17 2021 19: 46
    -2
    laughing laughing laughing I'm embarrassed to ask, where is the old one ?! laughing laughing laughing Hollywood has written off the scenery or what?
    1. KeithRichards
      KeithRichards April 17 2021 20: 18
      +4
      the old one flew for the last time almost 50 years ago. Try to find all 50 years of documentation for all nodes in a country with a market economy. Even now you won't find much of Buran's documentation just like that. The production chains are destroyed, you can find the documentation for all the nodes, considering that that program was collected by the whole country.
      The rocket (which will launch a manned mission from the ground), for example, they converted from the shuttle launch system, which flew relatively recently, already in the digital age. So your wishes are partially satisfied.
      1. Prisoner
        Prisoner April 17 2021 21: 15
        -2
        Do you believe in your bullshit yourself? Golimic excuse. Pins did not fly to the moon. And in short, do not care about your minuses, mattress lackeys. laughing Where are the old practices, disenfranchised? !!! laughing
      2. ccsr
        ccsr April 17 2021 21: 49
        -3
        Quote: KeithRichards
        the old one flew for the last time almost 50 years ago. Try to find all 50 years of documentation for all nodes in a country with a market economy.

        No need to lie - all the documentation for such large-scale projects was microfilmed back in the forties of the last century, even in Nazi Germany.
        Quote: KeithRichards
        Even now you won't find much of Buran's documentation just like that.

        Lies - all the documentation on Buran is kept in the archive, which is supposed to be kept for at least fifty years, because the development was carried out under defense articles with different secrets.

        Quote: KeithRichards
        The production chains are destroyed, you can find the documentation for all the nodes, considering that that program was collected by the whole country.

        You are clearly not in the subject, because for a special period in the USSR, the production of components and assemblies at other enterprises was always envisaged according to the plans of the accounting year. Moreover, as a rule, they were on the territory of the RSFSR closer to the Urals and beyond.
        Quote: KeithRichards
        So your wishes are partially satisfied.

        Your lies do not deserve serious discussion - you are like that grandmother from the OBS series, you only use rumors.
        1. KeithRichards
          KeithRichards April 17 2021 22: 22
          0
          Oh yeah, so I can imagine how, somewhere in Zzhopinsk, drawings of a machine element are stored that produced a machine that produced micro-parts for a blizzard. Do you even believe in it yourself? how much of the entire documentation needs to be raised, not only specifically for the elements of the Apollo program, but also for the documentation that concerned it indirectly. And this is 50 years after the program was abandoned. And how much of this will be found, how much is partially found, how much is lost?
          Private corporations, participants in the Apollo program, can be counted on the fingers of one hand. But they had a bunch of contractors, at the smallest micro level, who manufactured certain elements. In a market economy, some of them could easily have gone bankrupt over the years, just as startups are going bankrupt now, mergers, acquisitions, etc. have taken place. Now go find it all and put the puzzle together. Horseradish swam there, it's easier to assemble a new one .. Moreover, technologies have now jumped to a new level. Now one computer, which in those years could fit into a local palace on the square, can fit into a pants pocket. New materials and technologies are constantly appearing. What's the point in digging up the past?
          Why then did they make Angara, if you can fly on the Soyuz / Proton. Why, then, NPO Molniya is developing (well, or says that it is developing) now another shuttle, if it is possible to lift Buran's drawings and do as the dids did.
          1. ccsr
            ccsr April 17 2021 22: 32
            -2
            Quote: KeithRichards
            Oh yeah, so I can imagine how, somewhere in Zhapinsk, drawings of a machine element are stored that produced a machine that produced micro-parts for a blizzard.

            You are just a dense person - with modern equipment, you can make any detail much faster and with greater accuracy than was done on machine tools of the Soviet period. Technologists just use programming for CNC machines and everything will be done better than in Soviet times.
            Quote: KeithRichards
            And how much of this will be found, how much is partially found, how much is lost?

            So new ones were found, much more advanced technologies, which will significantly reduce the production time.
            Quote: KeithRichards
            Private corporations, participants in the Apollo program, can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

            There, NASA was in charge of everything - he had questions about where they would find a new Mask, but so far the excuse has not worked.
            Quote: KeithRichards
            But they had a bunch of contractors, at the smallest micro level, who manufactured certain elements.

            With the modern Internet, they will find new ones within a few days.
            Quote: KeithRichards
            Moreover, technology has now jumped to a new level. Now one computer, which in those years could fit into a local palace on the square, can fit into a pants pocket.

            Well, finally, it dawned on you that Apollo is now much easier to assemble than fifty years ago.
            Quote: KeithRichards
            What's the point in digging up the past?

            Well, if you have not been able to create anything better so far, then you need to return to what was created earlier.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 17 2021 20: 41
      -2
      And where did you take your first cars?
      1. Prisoner
        Prisoner April 17 2021 21: 24
        -2
        The cars are on the spot and they pay good money for them at auctions. And where is the module from the 20th century of your suzerain, that they are going to design it in the 21st century. And there is no need here about the lost technologies. laughing laughing laughing It's not gonna go.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 April 18 2021 14: 15
          0
          All this technology, including the engines, is outdated morally and physically the same - now everything new uses oxygen, hydrogen engines, new durable and light materials, and so on and so on. It's the same with cars and their engines.
      2. ccsr
        ccsr April 17 2021 21: 52
        -2
        Quote: Vadim237
        And where did you take your first cars?

        My old car hardly exists, but I am now driving another one that surpasses my first car in all respects and is a testament to technical progress. Where are the American engines that surpass the F1 in all respects, and where is the ship that is better than the Apollo? In this case, where is the technological progress of the Americans?
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona April 17 2021 22: 05
          +2
          Many engines that outperform the F-1
          The same engines of the Shuttle, which are powered by hydrogen, have a much larger UI, the Marilyns from the Falcon are torn apart by price and thrust rating, Solid fuel boosters of the Shuttle are still the most powerful jet engines in the world.
          1. ccsr
            ccsr April 17 2021 22: 19
            -5
            Quote: BlackMokona
            The same engines of the Shuttle, which are powered by hydrogen, have a much larger UI, the Marilyns from the Falcon are torn apart by price and thrust rating, Solid fuel boosters of the Shuttle are still the most powerful jet engines in the world.

            And why, then, are the Americans still not on the moon, but are only going to land by 2030?
            Well, since there are such wonderful engines, why doesn't New Apollo work with them, but they also buy engines from us? What is the trick here - clarify ...
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona April 17 2021 23: 11
              +3
              1) Because the congress did not allocate how much money is needed to quickly get everything done.
              2) So from them New Apollo and it turns out, SLS flies on Shuttle engines, and Starship on Raptors.
              3) They buy our engines for Antares, which exclusively transports the Signus truck to the ISS and is not busy with anything else. And the Atlas, which carries exclusively military loads. More than half of the US launches make Falcon-9 on their own engines, and completely overlap the Atlas in terms of power.
              1. hrych
                hrych April 18 2021 12: 18
                +2
                Quote: BlackMokona
                SLS flies on Shuttle engines

                Not flying yet, but going at the end of the year.
                Quote: BlackMokona
                And the Atlas, which carries exclusively military loads.

                In addition to civilian and military satellites, Atlas also dropped interplanetary stations, including those with rovers, the same cargo Signus to the ISS, there will also be a manned Starliner, the Atlas has already launched a model, as well as an unmanned shuttle X-37. Therefore, Falcon with Atlas and Antares was not lying around.
                Quote: BlackMokona
                More than half of the US launches make Falcon-9

                For some reason, the number of starts prevails over the quality of your audience. One Atlas interplanetary mission, with a landing on a space body, and with a rover, is worth all Falcon's launches combined. Falcon took out satellites ala malicious starlinks, worked as a truck for the ISS and drove the pilots a couple of times, and almost ditched them. Of course, the first American ships piloted after the Shuttle are achievements ... of the Gemini mission level ... Therefore, Falcon to Atlas ... as to the Moon laughing
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona April 18 2021 12: 20
                  +1
                  Falcon-9 also launched X-37 and launches people and cargo to the ISS, displays scientific workload in the interests of NASA. And yet he brought people out without problems and dangers.
                  1. hrych
                    hrych April 19 2021 00: 24
                    +1
                    Quote: BlackMokona
                    And yet he brought people out without problems and dangers.

                    With problems and danger. A couple of hours before the launch, a depressurization was detected due to the hatch. In orbit, the pressure in the cooling system jumped, and 3 of 4 heaters of the fuel pipeline of one of the Draco shunting engine blocks also turned off. Communication was junk. These are all serious and systemic problems.
                2. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 April 18 2021 14: 19
                  -2
                  He worked as a truck for the ISS and drove the pilots a couple of times, almost ditching them. - Thank you fairy tale. For Falcon Heyvey, who will soon launch lunar modules and research missions, the Atlases will be far away.
                  1. hrych
                    hrych April 19 2021 09: 13
                    +2
                    Quote: Vadim237
                    Thank you fairy tale

                    Is the depressurization a fairy tale? Okay, the sensor worked on the ground, and not in discharging. Is the cooling system a fairy tale? The heating of the pipelines of the engines of the maneuvering lazhanul, and this would lead to uncontrollability and death. There was no connection with the ISS - a fairy tale? Okay, there is a connection, though ... but the rest is just mortal danger.
              2. ccsr
                ccsr April 18 2021 16: 49
                -1
                Quote: BlackMokona
                1) Because the congress did not allocate how much money is needed to quickly get everything done.

                This is a lie, because Congress allocated money for several projects at once.
                Quote: BlackMokona
                2) So from them New Apollo and it turns out, SLS flies on Shuttle engines, and Starship on Raptors.

                So they have crappy designers and engineers, since they still can't create a ship for the Moon, and everyone promises us something in 2030. You can forget about Musk's chatter about Mars - until they repeat the lunar program, sending someone to Mars is simply madness. It turns out that the majority of forum readers will not see the expedition to Mars.
                Quote: BlackMokona
                3) They buy our engines for Antares, which exclusively transports the Signus truck to the ISS and is not busy with anything else.

                The richest country with such a developed aerospace industry has not yet been able to create something better to replace our engine - original, it must be so able to dodge so that the long-term failure of the Americans is presented as a triumph.
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona April 18 2021 17: 02
                  0
                  Of course, this is not what you claim.
                  Congress allocated $ 850 million to the program this fiscal year, far less than the $ 3,3 billion NASA requested to meet the 2024 deadline. Earlier this month, the Biden administration proposed a budget of $ 24,7 billion, up 6,3%, including an additional $ 325 million for the Artemis program.

                  Falcon-9 is a replacement for Atlas for the United States, cheaper, more powerful, flies frequently and with excellent reliability.
  • TerraSandera
    TerraSandera April 17 2021 23: 27
    +3
    It's a bland topic, space engines and launch vehicles, dating back to the Soviet and US race. Who went which way, what successes were. It would be nice if some author revealed this direction. And the fact is that the fleet and aircraft carriers are all filled with
  • VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
    VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK April 18 2021 03: 20
    -2
    Enough with the USA old Lunar Vermicelli! Even if everything is resolved, then what to do with solar radiation? But many believe! Before his death, the director himself told how this fake was filmed in the studio!
  • tolmachiev51
    tolmachiev51 April 18 2021 03: 52
    -1
    It seems to be flying, but here again development !? The timing is really dumbfounded - or again Hollywood will have time to shoot another fake during this time.
  • Alexy
    Alexy April 18 2021 10: 50
    0
    What are they creating there? They were already on the moon. Or, all the same, no?
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona April 18 2021 12: 24
      -2
      Why is UralWagon developing a tank? Has he already produced tanks before?
      1. hrych
        hrych April 18 2021 18: 13
        0
        Not with a break of half a century wassat And then it turns out that the mind does not have enough Sherman engine to collect wassat
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona April 18 2021 19: 42
          0
          So, during the break, they collected the Shuttle, Delta-4, Atlas-5, Titan, Pegasus, Minotaur and other rocket zoo for different needs.
          1. hrych
            hrych April 18 2021 20: 00
            0
            Quote: BlackMokona
            So they gathered during the break

            Those. not a tank, but a bicycle, a moped and a minimokik wassat According to the correlation.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 18 2021 14: 22
      -2
      There were also something - nothing to stop them from returning to the Moon and continuing the development of the Apollo program - the creation of a lunar orbital station and an inhabited base on the Moon for exploration and subsequent extraction of rare earth metals there.
      1. hrych
        hrych April 18 2021 18: 19
        +1
        Quote: Vadim237
        nothing prevents you from returning to the moon

        Nothing of course ... except for gravity, radiation and technological backwardness. wassat The regolith "brought" by the Americans turned out to be of a unique isotopic composition for cosmic bodies ... of terrestrial origin, and the Dutch were presented with a piece of petrified wood, their homeland from Arizona wassat Therefore, it is easier for REM not to fly to the moon, but to dig in Arizona wassat wassat wassat
      2. Egor53
        Egor53 April 18 2021 21: 35
        0
        How can you "continue" what was not there?
  • Metallurg_2
    Metallurg_2 April 18 2021 20: 20
    -1
    Let them first be able to finally land the ship on the surface of the Earth - so far they only explode upon landing.
  • Nirvanko
    Nirvanko April 18 2021 20: 26
    -2
    To a heap about past and future NASA lunar programs: https://nirvank0.livejournal.com/4500.html
  • Egor53
    Egor53 April 18 2021 21: 33
    0
    And on the surface of the moon, Musk will ride Tesla's electric vehicles, the production of which is suffering record losses.
  • Cossack 471
    Cossack 471 April 18 2021 22: 44
    +1
    If there is no economic program for the development of minerals on the moon. then it makes no sense to just fly after stones and dust.
  • Graduate student
    Graduate student April 21 2021 21: 12
    +11
    American astronauts will be delivered to the lunar surface by a lander created by Elon Musk

    Well, okay. Congratulations to the Americans. Will they pull all their space exploration fantasies?
  • Graduate student
    Graduate student April 21 2021 21: 14
    +14
    within the framework of the lunar program, after sending the Luna-25 spacecraft, it is planned to send the Luna-2024 orbital station to the Earth's satellite in 26, and the Luna-2025 landing station in 27.

    We also have a lot of plans ... I hope that our space program will come true ...