Military Review

Passed as usual: Starship SN15 prototype successfully landed

248

Another test of a prototype spacecraft from SpaceX Starship SN15 was completed successfully. The ship managed to rise, perform all planned maneuvers in the air and land.


The tests of the next prototype took place, as always, in Texas at the SpaseX test facility in Boca Chica. On May 5 at 18:24 US East Coast time, when it was already 01:24 in Moscow and on May 6, Starship SN15 took off, having risen to an altitude of 10 km, carried out several maneuvers, and then safely sat down on the launch pad.

SpaceX recognized the tests as successful, and Elon Musk wrote on Twitter that Starship "made a regular landing." According to him, everything went as planned. All previous attempts ended in failure, prototypes exploded: SN8 and SN9 - on impact on the ground during landing, SN10 - a few minutes after landing, and SN11 - in the air.


According to the company, the specialists made some changes to the SN15 prototype, as a result of which the fuel line was changed, the Raptor engines of a new configuration were installed and, of course, the software was replaced.

Recall that SpaseX is developing a transport system consisting of fully reusable Super Heavy launch vehicles and the Starship spacecraft. Starship will perform two roles: the second stage and an independent spacecraft. In the final version, the Starship will have a height of almost 50 meters, and its mass with a full load of fuel will be 1400 tons. Equipped with 37 Raptor engines, it will be able to launch up to 150 tons of load into orbit or transport up to 100 people.
248 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. military_cat
    military_cat 6 May 2021 14: 10
    +54
    Congratulations to SpaceX on your success! The road will be mastered by the walking one.

    The exploding barrel of fire finally didn't explode. They will probably make several more test landings from a low altitude, but the next big step is flying into orbit. We wait.
    1. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 6 May 2021 14: 25
      +18
      I join. Congratulations. There is nothing more to say.
      1. Shurik70
        Shurik70 6 May 2021 14: 34
        +14
        A very interesting design of three nozzles with adjustable angles and individual fuel supply.
      2. shahor
        shahor 6 May 2021 17: 19
        +6
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        I join. Congratulations. There is nothing more to say.

        And I still envy. In white. Are we so soon?
        1. lis-ik
          lis-ik 6 May 2021 18: 54
          +3
          Quote: shahor
          Are we so soon?

          We have more important things to do. Gas pipelines, oil pipelines. And then the future comes. Congratulations.
        2. Shefango
          Shefango 8 May 2021 13: 54
          0
          The question is inappropriate, since the answer is already there. Never. The department of the great rocket engineer Rogozin has its own way. The path of licking the archaic. It is hard to cut money for new programs, tk. they may ask for the result. Kerogaz is our everything.
    2. pytar
      pytar 6 May 2021 14: 25
      +8
      SpaceX is steadily and progressively taking one after the other frontiers! Really Well done, the road will be mastered by the one walking! good
      1. Genry
        Genry 6 May 2021 14: 43
        -32%
        And, specifically, a breakthrough in what?
        Falcon-9 they fly much better.
        And "it" only bounces 6 km.
        Out of 3 engines, one is working abnormally (excessive kerosene emission is visible).
        And failure during the descent will be fatal for everyone ...

        And the pathos in the video is almost like:
        1. military_cat
          military_cat 6 May 2021 14: 49
          +42
          Quote: Genry
          Excessive release of kerosene is visible
          The expert's eye is visible. (The engines are methane.)

          And Starship differs from Falcon in that it is completely reusable. On tests, the second stage, which in the case of Falcon is lost with each start. The fact that Starship, unlike Falcon, is super-heavy, and with its help it is possible to solve tasks inaccessible to Falcon, perhaps, one need not mention.
          1. Genry
            Genry 6 May 2021 15: 01
            -40%
            Quote: military_cat
            The expert's eye is visible. :) (Methane engines.)

            Do hamsters believe in Raptor?
            1. military_cat
              military_cat 6 May 2021 15: 05
              +13
              Quote: Genry
              Do hamsters believe in Raptor?
              And what about him and why should you believe in him or not?
              1. Genry
                Genry 6 May 2021 15: 07
                -22%
                There have been no successful trials with long run times.
                If you have specific information - go ahead!
                1. KeithRichards
                  KeithRichards 6 May 2021 15: 13
                  -2
                  And what has to do with the allegedly "kerosene" raptor and the alleged "absence" of long-term tests (they were, by the way, about 2-3 years ago, then Musk constantly boasted in interviews, like, they surpassed the RD 180 record for pressure in the chamber), not I will understand what is the connection between these two of your statements.
                  The fact that the raptor (let's assume that this is so) did not have long-term tests, it could not become kerosene
                2. military_cat
                  military_cat 6 May 2021 15: 18
                  +6
                  Quote: Genry
                  There have been no successful trials with long run times.
                  If you have specific information - go ahead!
                  In principle, any test can be called insufficiently successful or not long enough by an arbitrary choice of criteria, so I will not argue. And what conclusion do you draw from the absence of such tests?
                3. Cosm22
                  Cosm22 6 May 2021 15: 49
                  +7
                  If absolutely not in the subject, why go into it with your comments? To make people laugh with kerosene?
                  To chat it up?
                  It does not work out.
                  SpaceX's success this time is absolute.
                  Let's wait, of course, for the SN16 flight, but there are no big complaints about the 15th.
        2. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 6 May 2021 14: 49
          +17
          I wonder how you found the kiroshin in Starship? And then I'll tell you a secret, there is no kiroshin in the rocket at all, it has a different fuel wassat
          1. Genry
            Genry 6 May 2021 15: 03
            -21%
            Quote: BlackMokona
            Otherwise, I'll tell you a secret, there is no kiroshin in the rocket at all, it has different fuel

            Киdew - does not exist at all. Don't come up with it!
        3. val43
          val43 6 May 2021 15: 10
          +6
          And what, in order to work out the LANDING, you need to climb 600 km at once?
          1. Genry
            Genry 6 May 2021 15: 12
            -13%
            Quote: val43
            And what, in order to work out the LANDING, you need to climb 600 km at once?

            To PERFECT the landing, you need to have cold engines for a long time.
            1. ultra
              ultra 7 May 2021 11: 15
              0
              Quote: Genry
              To PERFECT the landing, you need to have cold engines for a long time.

              And in order for them to be like that, they must be constantly blown through with a fuel component, otherwise a big boom can happen.
        4. Turist1996
          Turist1996 6 May 2021 19: 58
          -7
          Do not worry now about the "minus" - the sect of the "Maskov witnesses" in action!
          You can only laugh, and that's all.
    3. Cosm22
      Cosm22 6 May 2021 14: 59
      +6
      I join in the congratulations.
      And I regret not using it.
      It's time to tip the glass for the Spaces' success. For a brilliant success.
      I had to worry a little about the flame in the skirt, but nothing happened. These small post-landing methane leaks will hopefully be eliminated.
      The main thing has been done - a successful landing of a spacecraft of an absolutely new design has been carried out. In record time. If I am not mistaken, the first steps of the Falcon Spaces were taught to plant only after the tenth attempt. The starship was planted twice as fast.
      Judging by what we saw, a bunch of TC-engines finally started working normally. The problems with splashing-splashing of fuel components in the lines and containers at the time of air somersaults-pirouettes, which caused the failure of re-ignition, have been eliminated. Fixed issues with supercharging and helium. Well, the landing supports did not fail this time. Musk generally talked about over a hundred changes in piping and parts in SN15 versus SN10 / 11. There are only two small remarks: the landing point was too close to the edge of the concrete area and there seemed to be a little bouncing. Well, as always, minor errors with thermal protection elements.
      Of course, this is just the beginning.
      There will be more successes, there will be failures, this is inevitable. But the second landing of the twice-flown prototype will already give hope for an orbital after the twentieth issue. Perhaps already this year.
      Now it's time to get down to boosters. Although BN1 / 2 and so on the sly were made. It is necessary to bring the SK to mind. In general, Musk's work is endless.
      Thanks to the Spaces for their work and a beautiful sight, it was impressive. And who knows, perhaps epoch-making. It may very well be that it is with this successful landing of the Starship that a new era in world cosmonautics begins.
      1. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 6 May 2021 17: 24
        -12%
        Quote: Cosm22
        And I regret not using

        Non-Russian, eh?
        So you can take an example from an idol and get stoned with marijuana for joy.
        1. Grandfather
          Grandfather 6 May 2021 17: 49
          0
          Musk is a scoundrel of course .... and where are we going to sell old rd180 motors, ... to Africa?
        2. Cosm22
          Cosm22 6 May 2021 19: 33
          +2
          And in your understanding, Russian is necessarily a drunk? Without vodka, life has no meaning for him?
          To whom ...
          1. Turist1996
            Turist1996 6 May 2021 20: 08
            +2
            And in your understanding, Russian is necessarily a drunk? Without vodka, life has no meaning for him?
            To whom ...

            No, they have an iPhone, assembled in China, and bought on credit - the height of intellectual activity.
            Neither the fact that, for example, Rosatom is the world leader in peaceful nuclear energy, nor the fact that already 30 years later, in military contracts, the United States fully uses the sanctions policy precisely because methods they lost outright!
            This does not bother anyone!
          2. Narak-zempo
            Narak-zempo 6 May 2021 20: 13
            -11%
            Quote: Cosm22
            And in your understanding, Russian is necessarily a drunk?

            I wrote somewhere that the sign of the Russian is Abuse of strong alcohol? Not.
            But the use - yes.
            Quote: Cosm22
            Doesn't life make sense for him without vodka?

            The meaning of life is given to a true Russian by faith and spiritual bonds, as well as service to the tsar and the fatherland. Do you remember that this motto was on the badge of every soldier's belt - "For Faith, Tsar and Fatherland"? Although you probably don't remember.
            But.
            Man - he is also a man, a descendant of Adam, which is sinful by nature. And this sinfulness in earthly life will find a way out anyway.
            And it is better if she finds this way out in a form acceptable from the point of view of society and the Church (vodka, but in moderation) than, for example, in the mortal sin of sodomy.
            1. Turist1996
              Turist1996 6 May 2021 20: 43
              +1
              The meaning of life is given to a true Russian by faith and spiritual bonds, as well as service to the tsar and the fatherland. Do you remember that this motto was on the badge of every soldier's belt - "For Faith, Tsar and Fatherland"? Although you probably don't remember.
              But.
              Man - he is also a man, a descendant of Adam, which is sinful by nature. And this sinfulness in earthly life will find a way out anyway.
              And it is better if she finds this way out in a form acceptable from the point of view of society and the Church (vodka, but in moderation) than, for example, in the mortal sin of sodomy.

              Interestingly, there is in the Orthodox religious tradition the concept of "foolish", which does not carry any negative meaning .. But "foolish" is completely different.
              So: you are just a fool!
            2. Corporal Valera
              Corporal Valera 7 May 2021 00: 15
              -3
              Quote: Narak-zempo
              The meaning of life is given to a true Russian by faith and spiritual bonds, as well as service to the tsar and the fatherland. Do you remember that this motto was on the badge of every soldier's belt - "For Faith, Tsar and Fatherland"? Although you probably don't remember.



              And for some reason I remembered another motto on the badge of a soldier's belt. Also something about God. Spiritual such.
              1. Narak-zempo
                Narak-zempo 7 May 2021 00: 18
                0
                Quote: Corporal Valera
                And for some reason I remembered another motto on the badge of a soldier's belt. Also something about God. Spiritual such.

                It was not real pharmacological Lutheran god.
                1. Corporal Valera
                  Corporal Valera 7 May 2021 00: 22
                  -2
                  Quote: Narak-zempo
                  It was a fake, Lutheran god of the Freemasonry.

                  1. Narak-zempo
                    Narak-zempo 7 May 2021 00: 24
                    -2
                    What movie?
                    1. Corporal Valera
                      Corporal Valera 7 May 2021 00: 27
                      -2
                      Quote: Narak-zempo
                      What movie?

                      Good. But that's not the point
                    2. Vladimir_2U
                      Vladimir_2U 7 May 2021 03: 12
                      0
                      Quote: Narak-zempo
                      What movie?


                      An excerpt from the film "Was Caroten"
            3. Vladimir_2U
              Vladimir_2U 7 May 2021 04: 42
              +1
              Quote: Narak-zempo
              I wrote somewhere that the sign of the Russian is Abuse of strong alcohol? Not.
              But the use - yes.
              You should not write about drinking, and then be clever about the meaning of life and the identification of a Russian by Orthodoxy and at the same time by the sign of alcohol consumption:

              Quote: Narak-zempo
              The meaning of life is given to a true Russian by faith and spiritual bonds, as well as service to the tsar and the fatherland. Do you remember that this motto was on the badge of every soldier's belt - "For Faith, Tsar and Fatherland"? Although you probably don't remember.
              But.
              Man - he is also a man, a descendant of Adam, which is sinful by nature. And this sinfulness in earthly life will find a way out anyway.


              If only for this reason:
              Seraphim Sarovsky: "Here is my testament to you: do not have in your house not only wine, but even wine utensils."

              Saint Theophan the Recluse: "Wine drinking must be completely banished from use among Christians."


              At the same time, I am an atheist, and although I am not a drinker, I calmly treat my drinking comrades, so long as they do not go by.
              1. Narak-zempo
                Narak-zempo 7 May 2021 08: 14
                -1
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                At the same time, I am an atheist, and although not a drinker

                Well, they themselves said everything about themselves.
                Who is more pleasing to Gd - a believing drunkard or a teetotal atheist?
                1. Vladimir_2U
                  Vladimir_2U 7 May 2021 08: 24
                  0
                  Quote: Narak-zempo
                  Who is more pleasing to Gd - a believing drunkard or a teetotal atheist?

                  What has it to do with "who is pleasing is not pleasing", it is not the TNB that decides, but its self-appointed representatives in the field.

                  Quote: Narak-zempo
                  I wrote somewhere that the sign of the Russian is Abuse of strong alcohol? Not.
                  But the use - yes.

                  Quote: Narak-zempo
                  The meaning of life is given to a true Russian by faith and spiritual bonds, as well as service to the tsar and the fatherland.
                  The complaint is that you have somehow deduced the addiction to drinking and belief in TNB as indispensable signs of a Russian person. Strain your memory.

                  I don’t drink and don’t believe in TNB, but I’m Russian.
                  1. Narak-zempo
                    Narak-zempo 7 May 2021 10: 38
                    -4
                    What about the king and the fatherland?
                    1. Corporal Valera
                      Corporal Valera 7 May 2021 12: 40
                      +1
                      Quote: Narak-zempo
                      What about the king and the fatherland?

                      It is quite appropriate for itself. Until. Actually, the political superstructure must correspond to the economic basis. As soon as we are moving from an industrialized country in the opposite direction, then the king will do, yes. But for another 10 years of such breakthroughs, it will be just right to talk about princes and estates, and not about the tsar and the fatherland.
                      1. Narak-zempo
                        Narak-zempo 7 May 2021 14: 57
                        -1
                        Quote: Corporal Valera
                        the political superstructure must correspond to the economic basis

                        You fall into the godless Marxian heresy.
                      2. Corporal Valera
                        Corporal Valera 7 May 2021 20: 29
                        0
                        Quote: Narak-zempo
                        You fall into the godless Marxian heresy.

  2. Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 7 May 2021 12: 05
    0
    Quote: military_cat
    They will probably make a few more test landings from a slight height.


    The meaning of the zero speed landing operation is not quite clear.
    The method is conditionally suitable for landing, if, before entering the PSA, the speed is suppressed by the engines, it is conditionally suitable, what kind of fuel should be used to cancel the speed? The linear dimensions of the ship are too large to slow down with an overload of 2,5-3G by aerodynamic surfaces

    For emergency rescue - the method is not suitable, since it does not allow the ship to quickly move away from the emergency stages - the survival of the crew is not yet ensured - SAS is absent in the project, unlike Cru Dragon.
  • SaLaR
    SaLaR 6 May 2021 14: 10
    -16%
    Yes ... yes ... yeah ...
    1. slipped
      slipped 6 May 2021 14: 49
      +7
      Oh, phototoads from the knocked ones went laughing How can you do without them .... it's happiness to rejoice in other people's successes and try not to notice your own. lol
      1. Vol4ara
        Vol4ara 6 May 2021 15: 30
        -2
        Quote: slipped
        Oh, phototoads from the knocked ones went laughing How can you do without them .... it's happiness to rejoice in other people's successes and try not to notice your own. lol

        And what are our successes in space?
        1. slipped
          slipped 6 May 2021 15: 42
          -1
          Quote: Vol4ara
          And what are our successes in space?


          Actually, the question is stupid, but the answer is - Different. laughing Large to small.

          For example, about the last ones that have just passed:

          Photo of Antarctica from the technological camera of the new small ERS satellite CubeSX-HSE - interesting new space technologies are being tested on the satellite - it is equipped with an experimental micro-camera on Fresnel lenses:



          Photo of the origin of eddies and weather over the Northern Hemisphere from the medium hydrometeorological satellite Arktika-M No. 1, launched this year into high polar orbit:



          We have plenty of successes. I would like everything at once, but so far as the current work progresses. laughing
          1. JD1979
            JD1979 6 May 2021 16: 36
            +13
            Quote: slipped
            Actually, the question is stupid, but the answer is - Different. Large to small.

            These are not successes - this is ... nothing. Damn success too - Fresnel lenses ... just opened them or something. Or a photo of clouds ... how many such satellites are flying and flying that take such pictures?
            So far, of all the successes in Roscosmos, only Rogozin's successful clown on Twitter. Not a single ongoing program of Starship scale. And this is the first country to go into space with a baggage of knowledge and a bunch of specialized enterprises and institutions. Against the background of Roscosmos, Musk started from scratch and bare booty, and compare the results. Some have gradually implemented plans in the flying iron, while others every year announces announcements of plans for announcements of plans to do something that has not already been done in the USSR, while unsuccessfully. Oh, yes, there was no Twitter in the USSR, which Rogozin successfully mastered - put a plus sign.
            1. slipped
              slipped 6 May 2021 16: 55
              -11%
              Quote: JD1979
              These are not successes - this is ... nothing.


              Yah. Nothing in your pants. laughing I just told you about the last week.

              Quote: JD1979
              Damn success too - Fresnel lenses ... just opened them or something.


              Samarans made a camera for a small cubesat with a high resolution. By the way, two such satellites have been removed. Assembled by Sputniks, a private Russian satellite-building company. In total, the fleet will number more than a dozen of them in the near future.

              Quote: JD1979
              Or a photo of clouds ...


              This is from your ignorance of the topic. It happens. It's not easy - a photo of clouds. This is a photo from one channel of a powerful hyperspectral complex. Thanks to the "photo", the weather on the whole planet becomes clear.

              Quote: JD1979
              How many such satellites are flying and flying that take such pictures?


              Not at all except ours. Next year one more of ours will be added.

              Quote: JD1979
              Not a single ongoing program of Starship scale.


              There are cooler ones. Interorbital space tug program. Only it does not require explosive flights.

              Quote: JD1979
              Against the background of Roscosmos, Musk started from scratch and bare booty, and compare the results.


              What kind? Does he have an astrophysical observatory in Langrazh or his own fleet of satellites in the GSO? Its own orbital station .... No? Happenes. laughing
      2. SaLaR
        SaLaR 6 May 2021 17: 10
        -1
        Quote: slipped
        Oh, phototoads from the knocked ones went laughing How can you do without them .... it's happiness to rejoice in other people's successes and try not to notice your own. lol

        It's just a shame for the state ...
        1. slipped
          slipped 6 May 2021 17: 16
          -3
          Quote: SaLaR
          It's just a shame for the state ...


          Vereshchagin? laughing What a shame? What have we done over 50 trouble-free launches in a couple of years and have launched many domestic spacecraft during this time? Kind of weird.
          1. SaLaR
            SaLaR 6 May 2021 17: 22
            -3
            Strange to you ... Have eaten away the Soviet legacy ... and there is zero ahead ... even from cabbies they will soon be chased ... And we will listen to Rogozin ...
            1. slipped
              slipped 6 May 2021 17: 28
              -8
              Quote: SaLaR
              and there is zero ahead ... even the cabbies will soon be chased ... and we will listen to Rogozin ...


              So then FSE your inconsolable mriyas. laughing With fotoeads, you have exactly zero. laughing Consider successful launches of fotojobs.
      3. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 6 May 2021 17: 25
        -6
        Quote: slipped
        it's happiness to rejoice in other people's successes and try not to notice your own

        This is generally the meaning of life for liberda.
        1. lis-ik
          lis-ik 6 May 2021 18: 59
          +1
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          Quote: slipped
          it's happiness to rejoice in other people's successes and try not to notice your own

          This is generally the meaning of life for liberda.

          What are you narrow-minded, or what. Give an example of success in space in the Russian Federation.
          1. slipped
            slipped 6 May 2021 19: 39
            -1
            Quote: lis-ik
            What are you narrow-minded, or what. Give an example of success in space in the Russian Federation.


            And one more troll with a training manual and withered hands. I will say classic - banned in Google?
            1. lis-ik
              lis-ik 6 May 2021 19: 52
              -1
              Quote: slipped
              Quote: lis-ik
              What are you narrow-minded, or what. Give an example of success in space in the Russian Federation.


              And one more troll with a training manual and withered hands. I will say classic - banned in Google?

              The answer is typical. worthless zaputinets. who judges the state of affairs in the country only by the propaganda media.
              1. slipped
                slipped 6 May 2021 20: 06
                +2
                Quote: lis-ik
                The answer is typical. worthless zaputinets. who judges the state of affairs in the country only by the propaganda media.


                In response to you, worthless troll, I will give you such a beautiful photo from the technological camera of our new cube, I just received it - we are flying over Australia:

                1. lis-ik
                  lis-ik 6 May 2021 21: 02
                  +2
                  Quote: slipped
                  I will answer you

                  So you or you are a propagandist and what has the satellite pictures to do with it? Or is it an achievement? Now even poor African countries have satellites. Shitty training manual studied, kicked out of the EP.
                  1. slipped
                    slipped 6 May 2021 22: 34
                    -2
                    Quote: lis-ik
                    So you or you are a propagandist and what has the satellite pictures to do with it?


                    We don't know the classics. Clear. And despite the fact that this is a working photo just technology. And the photo of the main camera is much cooler.

                    Quote: lis-ik
                    Or is it an achievement? Now even poor African countries have satellites.


                    Of course have. And they buy from us. laughing And we launch.

                    Quote: lis-ik
                    Shitty training manual studied, kicked out of the EP.


                    Troll-face do not measure others by yourself. laughing
                    1. military_cat
                      military_cat 6 May 2021 23: 22
                      +1
                      Quote: slipped
                      Of course have. And they buy from us. laughing And we launch.
                      Kubsats? Their students at universities around the world are doing. And kubsats are launched by everyone who has at least something flying, including Iran.
                      1. slipped
                        slipped 6 May 2021 23: 31
                        0
                        Quote: military_cat
                        Kubsats? Their students at universities do. And kubsats are launched by everyone who has something flying, including Iran.


                        Sputniks is manufactured to order. Mass production. Tunisia's got it. Other foreign customers. In the launch of Glavkosmos-1, two flew away recently. These are cute kits you can buy:



                        here in this store https://sputnix.ru/ru/platformyi/cubesat-platformy/orbikraft-pro-3u-letnaya
                      2. Commissar77
                        Commissar77 7 May 2021 03: 58
                        0
                        I love the glamorous pictures about Roskosmos that comrade Slipped posts here. The effectiveness of these pictures on members of the forum is about the same as Rogozin's tweets, that is, near-zero. Nick Slipped suits you well too - slipped in translation from English
                      3. slipped
                        slipped 7 May 2021 13: 13
                        +1
                        Quote: Military Commissar77
                        I love the glamorous pictures about Roskosmos that comrade Slipped posts here.


                        I see it is cracking from the glamor from Roscosmos? Happenes.

                        Quote: Military Commissar77
                        The effectiveness of these pictures on members of the forum is about the same as Rogozin's tweets, that is, near-zero.


                        It is bitter and painful for hamsters to see the truth. laughing

                        Quote: Military Commissar77
                        Nick Slipped suits you well too - slipped in translation from English


                        You don't know much American English.
  • Alexander 3
    Alexander 3 6 May 2021 14: 10
    +8
    What can I say. Quantity will necessarily translate into quality.
    1. bk316
      bk316 6 May 2021 14: 14
      -7
      Quantity will necessarily translate into quality.

      NOT necessary but upon reaching a certain amount laughing

      By the way, Musk promised to reach the jump height not 10 but 20 km by 2020.
      And by 21, an orbital flight was promised.
      24 manned flight to the moon.
      26 to Mars.
      The first two points have not been fulfilled in time, does anyone have doubts that the other two will not be fulfilled?
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 6 May 2021 14: 19
        -16%
        Orbital flight is still in 2020. SN20 and BN3 for this flight are already under construction.
      2. donavi49
        donavi49 6 May 2021 14: 20
        +9
        Well, for 3 years NewSheppard had to carry 6 tourists at a time, with a price of $ 150 per flight per person - and they will only try this summer.
        Hangara fly at stable load. As well as other launch vehicles of a new type. Well, the Federation too.
        Luna 25 on the moon will set longevity records, and Science on the ISS will set new standards for scientific work in zero gravity.
        Arian 6 can still be remembered, where, according to the plans, is already the second or third commercial flight, with OneWeb by the way, but in reality everything is bad and good if at 22 it flies with a blank.
        Well, etc. Failure in terms of 1-2 years for space is not a failure at all.
        1. bk316
          bk316 6 May 2021 15: 00
          -8
          Failure in terms of 1-2 years for space is not a failure at all.

          And for 10 years?
          Would you like to argue with you or any Musk fan that there will be no manned starship flight to Mars until 37?
          1. donavi49
            donavi49 6 May 2021 15: 15
            +8
            Well, in my opinion, Starship is too revolutionary a project to fly in full. He will either die in a long-term construction or become the main one for something less ambitious. Well, you can't go to a new generation in one step.

            For money, it was optimal to do some kind of Falcon9M thread - with methane, 100 one-time reuse of the booster, checks on the level of the aircraft, every 5 flights. In general, to use the best qualities of the new fuel pair and technologies, in the current application, dropping prices to the level of unprofitableness in general for everyone. Well, and then already sawing the revolution.

            With all the reliability and innovativeness of the 9, it is becoming obsolete. Volcano next year. NewGlenn will fly too sooner or later. The Chinese make their own methane. Even Rogozin discovered the main trend of this decade and is forcing the SoyuzSPG as best he can. As a result, it may well turn out that competitors will give up 9-ku and Musk will find himself at a broken trough, because the revolutionary Starship will survive all the profits.

            However, if it does fly steadily (and not necessarily to Mars), then again, the rest of the launch vehicles will become obsolete at once.
            1. OgnennyiKotik
              OgnennyiKotik 6 May 2021 15: 20
              -1
              Quote: donavi49
              For money, it was optimal to do some kind of Falcon9M thread - with methane, 100 one-time reuse of the booster, checks on the level of the aircraft, every 5 flights.


              They run out of 1 step. Now 2 already have 9 launches, while the estimated ten, one recently crashed during landing. They can really upgrade the falcons, but still do new ones.
              1. KeithRichards
                KeithRichards 6 May 2021 15: 26
                0
                Even if the picture is a little outdated, if you remove 4 sides and 1 central core for a heavy weight, then they still have quite a lot of boosters left, specifically free for starlinks - 2 9 times, and 2 7 times. The rest are still reserved for specific launches.
                1. OgnennyiKotik
                  OgnennyiKotik 6 May 2021 15: 37
                  -4
                  There is still a question of how much boosters will be enough in reality. 10 announced, and 12-13 or more times can be launched. But given their launch rates, what is available for 1-2 years will be enough for the maximum.
              2. military_cat
                military_cat 6 May 2021 16: 09
                -1
                Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                They can really upgrade the falcon, but still do new ones.
                They have contracts for the delivery of people and certificates for the current Falcon configuration, which are canceled when changes are made. Therefore, nothing will be changed there, even in the smallest detail. Patch only very critical bugs, if any.
                1. OgnennyiKotik
                  OgnennyiKotik 6 May 2021 16: 14
                  -1
                  Naturally, it is necessary to re-certify, they have a large volume of their satellites and it is necessary to further increase the volume of production and the number of launched vehicles.
            2. bk316
              bk316 6 May 2021 16: 18
              -1
              However, if it does fly steadily (and not necessarily to Mars), then again, the rest of the launch vehicles will become obsolete at once.


              Musk has a different business model. He collects loot for dreams (Mars or Eternal life without a difference). Then he will bring to mind something that he collected the money well, he will not bring anything either.
              It's funny that people who claim to be technically literate do not understand this on VO.

              As for the starship, I am absolutely sure nowhere it is in the form it is now OR as in the commercials the Mask will not fly. Yes, he ALREADY differs from the original version like a bull from a toad. While it's obvious test bench for the engine and control system. But the members of the sect of the great Musk do not see this point-blank and fiercely minus when they are simply reminded of the facts.
              Well, like this:
              Orbital flight is still in 2020.


              I don’t know whether it will bring the engine and control system to commercial use, but it certainly has nothing to do with Mars.
              1. Narak-zempo
                Narak-zempo 6 May 2021 17: 40
                -10%
                Quote: bk316
                But the members of the sect of the great Musk do not see this point-blank and fiercely minus when they are simply reminded of the facts.

              2. region58
                region58 6 May 2021 19: 38
                -5
                Quote: bk316
                Then he will bring to mind something that he collected the money well, he will not bring anything either.

                By the way, his Powerwall theme seems to have died quietly. I wonder how those who paid for the pre-order feel? Not to mention those who shouted "we will hang the battery on the wall and Gazprom kirdyk" ...
                Quote: bk316
                He collects money for dreams

                He is a genius marketer. You can't deny him that ...
                1. voyaka uh
                  voyaka uh 6 May 2021 23: 00
                  0
                  "By the way, his Powerwall theme seems to have died quietly" ///
                  ----
                  Why would you? 100 thousand pieces in work.
                  In April 2020, Tesla announced that it had installed its 100,000th Powerwall
                  1. region58
                    region58 6 May 2021 23: 53
                    +1
                    Quote: voyaka uh
                    100 thousand pieces in work.

                    This is what they pushed for a budgetary account in California? No, there is a smaller figure. And then: instead of the original "Buy a battery and instead of paying for electricity, you will sell it!", Their slogan was changed to "Powerwall protects your home during a power outage, keeping your lights, Wi-Fi and refrigerator running", that is, "lights, Wi-Fi and a refrigerator during a power outage." I agree that UPS, that is, uninterruptible power supplies, have a constant demand. laughing
                    PS About 100000 from the site electrek brought? Well, well, we believe, of course.
                2. bk316
                  bk316 7 May 2021 11: 53
                  -1
                  He is a genius marketer. You can't deny him that ...

                  So the country is like that. In what in what and in this, the Americans definitely cannot be denied.
                  Bill, Steve ...
            3. Pontiffsulyvahn
              Pontiffsulyvahn 6 May 2021 20: 48
              +3
              The nine cannot be outdated. Vulka? Ridiculously, it is disposable and more expensive than even a disposable falcon. This is not to mention the fact that a superheavy cannot be built on its basis.
              New Glenn? Initially, Bezos promised it in 2020, and now at least in 2022, at the end. This means that the rocket is nichrome. Individual modules only.
              Musk, on the other hand, has a steadily flying cheap rocket.
      3. Vadim237
        Vadim237 6 May 2021 16: 42
        +2
        The fact that now flies from Boca Chica - to a full-fledged manned interplanetary spacecraft, like to Mars, there are big doubts that it will be made at all by 2030. No one builds a full-fledged modern production of such missiles and ships - only a launch pad in Boca Chica and hangars for assembly in a pure field, in fact, on their knees - where all the ergonomics of the ship are modeled and full-scale mock-ups of the internal space of equipment are created, etc.
      4. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 6 May 2021 17: 36
        -4
        And in general, it is useful to remember that it all started in 2016 with beautiful pictures of heavyweight, bringing 550 tons of payload to LEO.
        I'm generally silent about the hyperloop.
        1. borberd
          borberd 6 May 2021 20: 46
          +7
          It is useful to remember that it all began in 2001, when an unknown Musk came to Russia to buy a ballistic rocket, but the generals sent him. And now, 20 years later, Musk has taken almost all foreign orders from the state office of a rather large state, and now he also has the title of space cabbies.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 6 May 2021 20: 57
            -5
            And for this reason, Russia is now forced to refuse foreign clients for launches. With yours, Musk took almost all foreign orders from a state office of a rather large state. The first as a fact does not fit at all.
            1. donavi49
              donavi49 6 May 2021 21: 20
              +3
              Easy to knit - OneWeb. A rival group that bought all the available launch vehicles in general. If Arian6 did not leave for + 2,5-3 years, then he would have already withdrawn OneWeb (4 launches were bought out and 8 more options), if Branson would have launched his Launcher, as promised, 2 times a month for the next year from the beginning of operation, then he would also withdraw OneWeb (40 launches were bought from him before bankruptcy, after bankruptcy 1 start-demo and 3 commercial ones, if he does, the rest are updated with dollars). For obvious reasons, OneWeb cannot use 9ku.

              If you remove OneWeb from the list, then there are 1-2 commercial launches per year, both in the past and in the foreseeable future.
    2. ccsr
      ccsr 6 May 2021 16: 51
      -2
      Quote: Alexander 3
      What can I say. Quantity will necessarily translate into quality.

      We already went through this with the shuttles - then the hysteria about the success of that program was even stronger than now around the starts of Musk. It will be possible to speak seriously about these successes of the Mask when they complete the assembly for at least one orbit around the Earth, and then successfully land. And the current "success" is just an intermediate test flight to a modest altitude - it's not even near space.
  • Blackmokona
    Blackmokona 6 May 2021 14: 13
    +4
    All previous attempts ended in failure prototypes exploded: SN8 and SN9 - on impact on the ground during landing, SN10 - a few minutes after landing, and SN11 - in the air.

    This false information
    https://youtu.be/MdAKrzOLQTg
    SN7 and SN6 flew successfully, they had one engine and flew 100 meters. But they flew and landed successfully.
    The transition to aerial acrobatics, with a fall on the belly and restoration of the vertical position, became problematic. But it seems to have been cured.
    1. KeithRichards
      KeithRichards 6 May 2021 14: 38
      +2
      SN5 and SN6 flew and landed.
      The SN7 was a series of shallow drums for testing the pressure inside a drum. We flew only a couple of meters up when the barrel burst)))
  • Ratmir_Ryazan
    Ratmir_Ryazan 6 May 2021 14: 14
    +7
    To delineate, of course, how Musk puts this colossus on its tail.

    And so where is he going to send 100 people? And yet it is so dangerous to land with people. We need something on the plane.

    There, his reusable steps fall every other time.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 6 May 2021 14: 17
      +8
      Out of 84 Falcon-9 landings, 75 are successful.
      And almost all the failures happened at the very beginning, when one after another was broken on tests.
      1. Ratmir_Ryazan
        Ratmir_Ryazan 6 May 2021 14: 29
        -5
        Steps from missiles often fall even with a successful launch, then they do not land as they should and explode, then the storm knocks them into the sea.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 6 May 2021 14: 30
          +8
          I gave you the statistics of landings, not launches.
          On launches 116 were done, 114 were completely successful.
          Well, the problem of capsizing in the sea was solved, a robot was added to the barges that grabs a step.
    2. Intruder
      Intruder 6 May 2021 15: 38
      0
      To delineate, of course, how Musk puts this colossus on its tail.
      A man can, so he plants drinks .., the flying bird came out and the methane-oxygen engines did not fail this time, so that all sorts of "well-wishers" would not croak there ...
      1. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 6 May 2021 17: 43
        -7
        We already wrote above that there is no methane, ordinary kerosene.
        The methane gas did not pass the test.
    3. Intruder
      Intruder 6 May 2021 15: 46
      0
      We need something on the plane.
      the last century is already - in an airplane way .., now propulsive landing systems, with OVT rule, in the second decade of the 21st century !!!
    4. Vadim237
      Vadim237 6 May 2021 16: 48
      -5
      Without SAS on this ship, no one will be still fresh in the memory of the accident with the Shuttles; moreover, the Starship without SAS will not be certified for manned flights - the structure will have to be redone.
      1. Intruder
        Intruder 6 May 2021 18: 23
        -3
        Without SAS on this ship, no one will be still fresh in the memory of the accident with the Shuttles; moreover, the Starship without SAS will not be certified for manned flights - the structure will have to be redone.
        And then, in SpaceX, some fools are sitting about this, well, not in any spirit !? You yourself believed it ...? laughing
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 6 May 2021 20: 58
          0
          But I don't need to believe it - in the Starship SAS project there is no such at all, since everything that they are launching now will have to be redone.
  • Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 6 May 2021 14: 14
    +8
    This is certainly good. However, they still have to start and finish work. Not one more rocket will be smashed until the desired result is achieved. There are no fairy tales, and mistakes will keep popping up for a long time.
    1. AUL
      AUL 6 May 2021 14: 26
      +7
      Be that as it may, this is a new stage in the development of astronautics. Of course, while all the jambs are identified and corrected, more than one launch will be "over the hill". But, unfortunately, one cannot do without it. "Experience is the son of difficult mistakes"!
      1. Ratmir_Ryazan
        Ratmir_Ryazan 6 May 2021 14: 30
        -7
        This is not a new stage, it is just a new way, and not the fact that it is justified.

        Not so long ago, NASA raised prices for cargo delivery to space several times, about 7 times.
        1. military_cat
          military_cat 6 May 2021 14: 38
          +4
          NASA stopped subsidizing them. Money is not taken out of thin air, now it is paid by the direct customer of the delivery, and earlier it was paid by taxpayers.
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 6 May 2021 14: 41
            +9
            This news has nothing to do with SpaceX.
            The news was that NASA bought a cargo ship from SpaceX, and sold part of the unused space to third-party commercial customers, they launched satellites through the ISS and so on. And so NASA decided to sell it at a higher price.
            But this has nothing to do with the price and money of SpaceX.
  • KeithRichards
    KeithRichards 6 May 2021 14: 17
    +7
    Apparently, they solved the problem with the landing tank a long time ago. the last launch apparently really collapsed due to the hard ignition of the engine, and not pumping fuel from the tank, and the year before last, there was almost enough thrust when landing, they miscalculated with the thrust, which made it hard.

    Although yesterday I was sure that the words about traction and the engine are excuses, but the problem is still the same. This means that now the chances of successfully planting the next 2 barrels are quite high, because the problem with the tank during the coup was still the key. Something from the category of military aviation, when the plane makes a sharp turn and pumps up fuel from the opposite plane.

    For those who asked, what was so innovative that Musk's company introduced - (besides other merits), they are most likely the first who were able to achieve fuel pumping from a tank from different planes on rocket technology, while using only one pump and without using syringe technology.
  • Thrifty
    Thrifty 6 May 2021 14: 18
    +3
    Humanly envy, we have not created anything new yet, our private traders are rotten, they do not give permission to create rockets, and the "rotten west" treats a private trader in space as a normal person! !!
    1. Ratmir_Ryazan
      Ratmir_Ryazan 6 May 2021 14: 32
      -12%
      And who will be responsible if a private owner's rocket flies not into space, but into the city?
      1. KeithRichards
        KeithRichards 6 May 2021 14: 44
        +9
        For this, there are regulatory bodies that take responsibility and check everything down to the smallest detail, and issue permits. We also have such a body.
      2. Israel
        Israel 7 May 2021 15: 28
        0
        Regulators will quickly be found, you have no questions about who is responsible if a private airline passenger plane with a hundred passengers flies somewhere in the wrong direction.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 6 May 2021 16: 50
      -10%
      Why is here one of the projects of light-class missiles with private investment
  • Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 6 May 2021 14: 19
    -6
    As I understand it, this is a scaled down layout. 37 engines !!! 1400 tons of fuel! And now what is flying? Advertising sample?
    1. KeithRichards
      KeithRichards 6 May 2021 14: 25
      +10
      This is the second step. According to the project, it should have three atmospheric engines. 3 more engines for vacuum, but since this is not an orbital launch, there is no sense in them yet

      But at the first stage there are already about 30 atmospheric engines. But everything should be much simpler there, because no additional tanks are used, no overturn in the air is made. Purely due to some air rudders, it lands, according to the Falcon 9 principle. The second stage cannot do that, simply because it returns at space speed and overcomes strong overloads and temperatures, the entrance according to the Falcon 9 principle will not work, serious protection from temperature and directional overloads is needed. The engines are not able to survive this, and the falcon falls just with the engines down.
    2. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 6 May 2021 14: 28
      +2
      This is the second stage, it is a ship.
      There will be another first stage, it is also an accelerator
      1. Mountain shooter
        Mountain shooter 6 May 2021 14: 57
        +1
        Quote: BlackMokona
        This is the second stage, it is a ship.
        There will be another first stage, it is also an accelerator

        And it will enter the atmosphere of Mars at what speed will it enter?
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 6 May 2021 14: 58
          -1
          The first step is not on any, it is only for the Earth.
          The ship will fly into the atmosphere of Mars at full speed, slow down on the atmosphere and land on jet engines.
          And so the greatest speed will be when returning to Earth there from the second space will beat against the Earth's atmosphere.
        2. Intruder
          Intruder 6 May 2021 15: 32
          -3
          And it will enter the atmosphere of Mars at what speed will it enter?
          less: 3.5355339059327 km / s laughing
        3. Vadim237
          Vadim237 6 May 2021 17: 00
          -7
          If the Starship ever flies to Mars, it will be a one-way flight - since the fuel on board will be used up, and to take off from Mars, you will need a launch pad with all the infrastructure and plants for the production of liquefied methane and kerosene and, most importantly, the production of the first stages - and in order to create all this there, you need several decades of time and dozens if not hundreds of unmanned cargo Starships and dozens of manned flights of "suicide bombers" one way to build all this there, the thrust of three Raptors is not enough to take off from the surface of Mars even if it arrives there another Starship refueller with fuel and transfers fuel to the first ship.
    3. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 6 May 2021 15: 22
      -1
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      37 engines !!!

      There will not be such an amount in the region of 30 in the final product. How 3 stages with 27 engines sit down, you can see here:
  • Yves762
    Yves762 6 May 2021 14: 20
    -9
    Quote: article
    Passed as usual: Starship SN15 prototype successfully landed

    No no no.!.
    Exactly what:
    "Starship Mask didn't explode this time ..."
    ,- but not .... laughing

    repeat By the way,
    Roscosmos has postponed work on the Soyuz-6 rocket ...
    Work on the new Soyuz-6 rocket has moved forward by a year. Instead of 2021, the preparation of the preliminary design will go in 2022.

    1. slipped
      slipped 6 May 2021 15: 23
      -2
      Quote: Yves762
      By the way,
      Roscosmos has postponed work on the Soyuz-6 rocket ...
      Work on the new Soyuz-6 rocket has moved forward by a year. Instead of 2021, the preparation of the preliminary design will go in 2022.



      By the way, the EP was postponed for two months already. All the forces of the new production are thrown at the Soyuz-5, which is to undergo a large number of ground tests, starting this year:



      And "Soyuz-6" can appear if:
      a) Based on the results of the revision of the technical design, RD-180MV will be left at the central block of STK "Yenisei".
      b) Kazakhstan wants its own manned program.
      1. Cosm22
        Cosm22 6 May 2021 16: 14
        +1
        So what if all the forces are thrown on the fifth Union?
        Soyuz-5 is the same yesterday as Angara.
        Both products are initially uncompetitive in the international market.
        Zenit's golden days have sunk into oblivion, its reincarnated version may be required only in the domestic market.
        As long as the Republic of Kazakhstan uses the Glushko engines, there will be no breakthrough in Russian cosmonautics.
        Here's a paradox: the USSR made an excellent line of liquid-propellant engines. The engines are powerful, with tremendous thrust and decent torque. Excellent products for their time, for their tasks and conditions. But ... huge in size, heavy and very expensive, it is not for nothing that they are called "diamond", meaning cost. In addition, they are essentially disposable.
        Alas, they cannot compete with new modern trends. And they will not be able to.
        1. slipped
          slipped 6 May 2021 16: 42
          -6
          Quote: Cosm22
          So what if all the forces are thrown on the fifth Union?
          Soyuz-5 is the same yesterday as Angara.


          Are you bursting the blizzard again? laughing

          Quote: Cosm22
          Both products are initially uncompetitive in the international market.


          They are not yet offered for sale on the foreign market, as they must be tested.

          Quote: Cosm22
          Zenit's golden days have sunk into oblivion, its reincarnated version may be required only in the domestic market.


          Soyuz-5 is not Zenit. It's a different rocket altogether.

          Quote: Cosm22
          As long as the Republic of Kazakhstan uses the Glushko engines, there will be no breakthrough in Russian cosmonautics.


          Is Glushko to blame now? laughing

          Quote: Cosm22
          huge in size, heavy and very expensive,


          Not more expensive than small packages. laughing

          Quote: Cosm22
          no wonder they are called "brilliant", meaning the cost.


          Who calls them that? laughing The cost of production is below $ 9 million.

          Quote: Cosm22
          Alas, they cannot compete with new modern trends. And they will not be able to.


          Engines are not competing. Launch services are competing.
          1. Cosm22
            Cosm22 6 May 2021 19: 06
            +4
            1. Someone has to answer your jingoistic babble? Figures and facts?
            2. Who argues with this? They are uncompetitive already at the EP stage. What does the test have to do with it? Which is even farther than the Mask to the moon?
            3. "Soyuz-5" is the same "Zenith". More precisely, an attempt to recreate it (which still needs to be implemented somehow). There is no fundamental difference between the products. I emphasize: there is NO fundamental difference. The Union just has a slightly longer body, a little more in diameter. The RD-171 engine was replaced by RD-171MV, RD-120 by RD-0124M. A little more PN. That's all the difference. Are they cardinal? Or are both products practically twin brothers? No need for noodles about SU.
            4. Roskosmos is to blame. The fact that he still uses only Glushko engines. And he doesn't want to do anything else. However, I will be fair - and it cannot. With all the desire. Glushko's fault in what is happening is not the slightest, his beautiful creations were created in an era when no one thought about the market. But Musk was already forced to create an engine for the market. What does the market need? Output the declared weight of the PN with a sufficient degree of reliability and the minimum price. Which is what Musk does. And where is the place for Soyuz-5 or Angara?
            5. Does RK sell the prime cost of the engine or does the entire launch vehicle, unlike Mask, which works only with the start-up price? Because his entire product does not burn out at once? And what other 9 million are we talking about? Even if the RD-171 pulls $ 15 million ($ 22 / tf)? Not to mention the RD-000MV? Will we compare it with the Merlin 171D at a price of ~ $ 1 million ($ 1 / tf)? And the abundance of cooperation in the Republic of Kazakhstan does not affect the price of the entire product? When the engine makes one, the LV body is different, the accelerator is the third, the SC and the infrastructure is the fourth, and each at the same time winds up its price?
            6. This is what we are talking about. About competition. Which has already been completely lost at the very initial stage.
            I'm tired of throwing the same numbers from branch to branch. But what to do? If some especially stubborn comrades don't get it? We have to repeat ourselves.
            So, once again: Soyuz-5 is yesterday. Although this is a more meaningful project compared to Angara, despite the fact that the latter is listed as a purely Russian project, and not a Soviet one.
            Why?
            Because everything is known in comparison.
            With what to compare "Zenith" (sorry, "Soyuz-5")? Of course, with F9. I dismiss the remarks about the difference in class right away. as soon as it comes to comparing "Angara" and F9, this difference for some reason instantly disappears. The heavy and middle class are generally quite conventional concepts.
            So, besides the crazy difference in engine price, there is a huge difference in size. Our size and weight kill on the spot (with a diameter of 3600 mm - goodbye to reusability right away). The RD-171 weighs twice as much as the NINE Merlin 1D +! 9750 kg / 4230 kg! And the RD-120 of the Zenith second stage weighs more than twice the Merlin 1D Vac +! 1285 kg / 490 kg! Hence, there is a huge difference in the constructive perfection of the entire carrier. Therefore, the "nine" in many cases does without RB, in contrast to Zenith. After that, it is better not to mention the PH price at all.
            I will bring together all the main shortcomings of the fifth Union, because of which it cannot be considered a promising carrier today.
            - Very expensive engines.
            - No access to the international market is in sight.
            - There is no question of reusability.
            - Too heavy for the MC.
            - Neither batch nor tandem can provide redundancy. Any refusal on the SC - and the whole complex in the trash. There is no possibility of withdrawal.
            - An important minus is that there is no interest on the part of the RF Ministry of Defense. That says a lot. Especially in light of the increasing talk about methane.
            - If the RD-171 VBR is 0.978, then the RD-171 MV has zero at all. It hasn't been worked out yet. For comparison, Merlin has an FBR 0.9988. The difference is two orders of magnitude.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. Cosm22
                Cosm22 6 May 2021 20: 13
                +3
                1. When, lopotun, you give at least one specific number or one parameter, we will continue the conversation. Links to editorials and headings of the RK articles are somehow not convincing. As well as cheers for patriotic verbiage.
                2. Because Angara is not even competitive with Proton. And Soyuz-5 has nowhere to squeeze into the market occupied by Arianespace with Ariane 5 / (6?). Vulcan and New Glenn are on the way. We are generally silent about the Falcon 9. Plus India and China rushed forward. Who needs a Soyuz-5 there? Learn materiel.
                3. There is no talk about "Angara". They talked about the uselessness of Soyuz-5. But by the way, if the modular concept of "Angara" is so successful, then why was the A-3 chipped in favor of the C-5? Huh? Or is there no advantage in the modular concept?
                4. Can Soyuz-5 replace Proton? You, sir, on the occasion of the successful landing of Starship, did not go over an hour to celebrate?
                5. KBKHA started to create RD-0124M only in April 2017. As for the RD-0124MS, its layout for the dynamics was made only last year.
                6. How many times can I tell you that only Musk sells launches? Russia, on the other hand, sells the entire launch vehicle in its entirety. Calling it "launch". For from the launch vehicle after this "launch" not even a bolt remains.
                7. The contract with OneWeb will expire soon. What paw will Roscosmos have to feast on after that? Left? Right?
                8. A priori nothing can get cheaper in small-scale production. And Soyuz-5 has no other perspective. As with the "Angara", however.
                1. Vladimir Rostovsky
                  Vladimir Rostovsky 6 May 2021 20: 19
                  +7
                  I like Slipper's hack with Cosmus - both have information and understand the topic, only when Cosmus tries to give facts and reasonably proves his position, in response I read Slipper's footcloth, it's very funny to read your writings, you pound in the eyes, thank you blah blah, Mascolysis. "
                  As I see their dispute, there is an old emergency hospital, which 50 years ago was modern and advanced, Cosm says that we need to build a new one, fight the nepotism of the administration, both the hospital and the region in which it is located, and so on, Sleeper does the emphasis on details - but we put a new plastic window, rebuilt the linoleum in the therapist's office, replaced the old light bulbs in the corridor with energy-saving ones, i.e. we are working, developing, but in general we have grandiose plans - to replace 10 more windows in a ten-year period, rebuild linoleum in 10 rooms and replace light bulbs throughout the hospital)
                  1. slipped
                    slipped 6 May 2021 20: 26
                    -4
                    Quote: Vladimir Rostovsky
                    I like Slipper's hack with Cosm - both have information and understand the topic,


                    He does not own or understand. Picked up vershoks in the libersme.

                    Quote: Vladimir Rostovsky
                    only when Cosmus tries to give facts and reasonably proves his position, in response to Sleeper I read "a footcloth, it is very funny to read your writings, you poke in the eyes, blah blah blah, Maskoliz."


                    So he does not give any facts. And it's funny to me. You do not understand? Okay.

                    Quote: Vladimir Rostovsky
                    As I see them arguing, there is an old emergency hospital ...


                    Absolutely wrong comparison. Firstly, not a hospital, and secondly, not an emergency .... thirdly ... but in general, it's complete crap. lol

                    We have a FKP until 2025, which is being implemented. Everything.
                  2. region58
                    region58 7 May 2021 01: 27
                    0
                    Quote: Vladimir Rostovsky
                    I love Slipper's hack with Cosme

                    Quote: Cosm22
                    When, sabotage, will you bring

                    Quote: slipped
                    Figase you put on a footcloth

                    I would like to advise in order to be more correct: yes
                    1. slipped
                      slipped 7 May 2021 13: 40
                      0
                      Quote: region58
                      I would like to advise in order to be more correct: yes


                      Was there a pot of borscht on the book? laughing

                      It is certainly good, and even I would say - useful, but often you have to sink to their level in conversation - they do not understand high matters, sir. laughing

                      But seriously, as they say - "sorry for the rudeness, we ran into it ourselves."
                      1. region58
                        region58 8 May 2021 04: 35
                        0
                        Quote: slipped
                        Was there a pot of borscht on the book?

                        Probably read without stopping from production ...
                        Can't you see the red-hot metal falling behind my collar? Please don't do that. "
                        (C) laughing
            2. ccsr
              ccsr 7 May 2021 11: 41
              -2
              Quote: Cosm22
              Why?
              Because everything is known in comparison.

              First, compare the size of the USSR and Russia, so that you at least have an idea that our economy is not the second in the world. And all your reproaches against Roscosmos are simply out of personal hatred for our country, otherwise you would simply compare what we can allocate for space programs, and what the United States and China can allocate. Maybe then the epiphany would come. By the way, China has ten times more population than Russia, and the United States has 2,5 times more - can you master this in order to compare our economy with world leaders?
              Roscosmos is moving in the right direction without any propaganda chatter, but this is not even the point, but that we must improve our military programs, this is more relevant for us in the confrontation with these countries. As for the sanctification of the moon, it is useful for us to master Siberia and the Far East - this is much more promising than any long-distance space expeditions. So wipe away the fake tears about Roscosmos - the crocodile's tears look more natural ...
            3. Dmitry V.
              Dmitry V. 7 May 2021 12: 47
              0
              Quote: Cosm22
              The RD-171 weighs twice as much as the NINE Merlin 1D +! 9750 kg / 4230 kg! And the RD-120 of the Zenith second stage weighs more than twice the Merlin 1D Vac +! 1285 kg / 490 kg! Hence, there is a huge difference in the constructive perfection of the entire carrier.


              It is not true to count the engine masses and disregard the specific impulse.

              An engine with a larger mass, but with a large specific impulse by 10%, with a smaller amount of fuel, will accelerate the same PN mass.
              Merlin 1D engines have a lower specific impulse (lower pressure in the combustion chamber) than RD-191.
              Accordingly, they should burn more fuel and, as a result, have significantly more fuel at the start than the difference in the mass of the RD-191 engine and the assembly of 1D merlin, comparable in total thrust.
              As a result, in the launch configuration, the difference in the mass of the fuel / oxidizer is several tons higher for the launch vehicle with engines with a lower specific impulse.
              So you are wrong in evaluating the engines by weight - you have to look at it as a whole with the filled launch vehicle.

              What does the difference in specific impulse at sea level mean for RD-191 311s and 282s for Merlin 1D is 10%. This means that the RD191 will require 10% less fuel than three Merlin 1Ds with comparable thrust to give speed.
              The difference in the mass of the RD191 structure is 2200 kg minus the mass of three melin 1D 3 * 489 = 1467 kg (conditionally), a total of 733 kg of the RD is heavier. At the same time, the mass of the merlin filling is + 10% to the mass of fuel for the taxiway - approximately several tons to compensate for the incomplete combustion of fuel in the Merlin ...
        2. Vadim237
          Vadim237 6 May 2021 17: 06
          -7
          At Union 5, the launch cost is promised in the range of 50 - 55 million dollars, quite a competitive cost even compared with Falcon 9 - and yes, production technologies since the times when RD 170 and RD 180 were created and produced have stepped far ahead now, their modernized versions will be much easier to produce faster and cheaper.
          1. Perseverance
            Perseverance 6 May 2021 17: 14
            -2
            Quote: Vadim237
            At Union 5, the launch cost is promised in the range of 50 - 55 million dollars, quite a competitive cost even compared with Falcon 9 - and yes, production technologies since the times when RD 170 and RD 180 were created and produced have stepped far ahead now, their modernized versions will be much easier to produce faster and cheaper.

            Not really. Falcona launch cost $ 15 million
            Already both the Chinese and the Japanese are making analogs.

            https://www.elonx.net/how-much-does-it-cost-to-launch-a-reused-falcon-9-elon-musk-explains-why-reusability-is-worth-it/

            According to Elon Musk, the marginal cost of re-launching Falcon 9 is only about $ 15 million. He explained that most of this amount was represented by the $ 10 million spent on making the new top stage. It is not reusable (and never will be), so you need to make new ones every time you start. The remaining $ 5 million includes the cost of re-using the payload fairings, helium, fuel and oxygen, as well as the cost of rebuilding the booster and fairings. Most importantly, Musk says the cost of rebuilding a used booster is only $ 250.
            1. slipped
              slipped 6 May 2021 17: 40
              -5
              Quote: Perseverance
              According to Elon Musk, the marginal cost of re-launching Falcon 9 is only about $ 15 million.


              No one has ever seen the real cost of their relaunches. For example, the cost of launching a new Ukrainian satellite to F9, in the transition from words to deeds, has already doubled! And so of course, if you wish, you can take your word for it. laughing

              "And then I was so lucky ....." © not mine.
              1. Perseverance
                Perseverance 6 May 2021 17: 48
                +3
                Quote: slipped
                No one has ever seen the real cost of their relaunches. For example, the cost of launching a new Ukrainian satellite to F9, in the transition from words to deeds, has already doubled! And so of course, if you wish, you can take your word for it.

                laughing And "it says the famous" huge plans "
                But the calculation of SpaecX can be trusted. On May 9, there are already 10 flights of one stage.
                And this year there are already 13 flights.
                Here's what nasa did on Mars


                The Perseverance rover was able to convert carbon dioxide from the Red Planet's atmosphere into oxygen using the MOXIE instrument.
                1. slipped
                  slipped 6 May 2021 18: 05
                  -7
                  Quote: Perseverance
                  And "it says the famous" huge plans "


                  I didn't understand your exercis. All our plans for this year are well known.

                  Quote: Perseverance
                  But the calculation of SpaecX can be trusted. On May 9, there are already 10 flights of one stage.
                  And this year there are already 13 flights.


                  So they also deduce the grouping of the communication system, which must quickly begin to pay off. Therefore, they are in a hurry to deploy it as best they can.

                  Quote: Perseverance
                  The Perseverance rover was able to convert carbon dioxide from the Red Planet's atmosphere into oxygen using the MOXIE instrument.


                  What for? No, it will do as an experiment for the future. The applied meaning is not clear right now. If he would use this obtained oxygen for something .... as well as a scientific experiment, yes.
                  1. Perseverance
                    Perseverance 6 May 2021 18: 13
                    +4
                    Quote: slipped
                    But why?

                    You absolutely don't need anyone and don't argue
                    .
                    Quote: slipped
                    I didn't understand your exercis. All our plans for this year are well known.

                    Of course known ...
                    Quote: slipped
                    So they also deduce the grouping of the communication system, which must quickly begin to pay off. Therefore, they are in a hurry to deploy it as best they can.

                    This is where they are the best, no one can launch so many now.
                    And this is for 1 quarter
                    1. slipped
                      slipped 6 May 2021 18: 30
                      -4
                      Quote: Perseverance
                      You absolutely don't need anyone and don't argue


                      And you? laughing

                      Quote: Perseverance
                      Of course known ...


                      Completed successfully.

                      Quote: Perseverance
                      This is where they are the best, no one can launch so many now.


                      And who else has such a group with so many MCA? Everyone has much less. And you don't need so much for that. Its closest competitor is VanWeb, and there are enough 600-odd satellites in the constellation. With the same quality of service.
                      1. Perseverance
                        Perseverance 6 May 2021 18: 39
                        +4
                        necessary
                        Quote: slipped
                        Completed successfully.

                        laughing
                        Quote: slipped
                        With the same quality of service.

                        laughing and ping / delay?
                      2. slipped
                        slipped 6 May 2021 18: 41
                        -3
                        Quote: Perseverance
                        necessary


                        Martian? lol One way?

                        Quote: Perseverance
                        Quote: slipped
                        Completed successfully.

                        laughing


                        Clear. There is nothing to answer. laughing

                        Quote: Perseverance
                        Quote: slipped
                        With the same quality of service.

                        laughing and ping / delay?


                        Until the systems are deployed, they are comparable. OneWeb downloads faster.
                      3. Perseverance
                        Perseverance 6 May 2021 18: 51
                        +2
                        Quote: slipped
                        Until the systems are deployed, they are comparable. OneWeb downloads faster.


                        Strlinka has better ping
                        And loading too
                        SpaceX COO Gwynne Shotwell said Starlink has successfully demonstrated a 610 megabits per second data link
                      4. slipped
                        slipped 6 May 2021 18: 56
                        0
                        Quote: Perseverance

                        Strlinka has better ping
                        And loading too
                        SpaceX COO Gwynne Shotwell said Starlink has successfully demonstrated a 610 megabits per second data link


                        Do we continue to take our word for it? laughing So far, I've seen other real numbers from consumers. You don't understand the campaign. that the systems are not deployed yet. And the data transfer rate does not depend on the number of spacecraft. The same OneWeb are preparing the second generation of their spacecraft with improved characteristics.
                      5. Perseverance
                        Perseverance 6 May 2021 19: 08
                        +3
                        Quote: slipped


                        Do we continue to take our word for it? So far, I've seen other real numbers from consumers. You don't understand the campaign. that systems are not deployed yet

                        laughing laughing Well, yes, you need to believe it is not clear who is on the Internet, and not the manufacturer and customer of the service for which these tests were carried out.
                        or bankrupt oneweby who pay 50 million for the launch? laughing
                        When spaceX has output 15
                      6. slipped
                        slipped 6 May 2021 19: 33
                        +2
                        Quote: Perseverance
                        Well, yes, you need to believe it is not clear who is on the Internet, and not the manufacturer and customer of the service for which these tests were carried out.


                        Have your internet been cut off? Here on the topvar there were already screenshots of the speed tests of these systems.

                        Quote: Perseverance
                        or bankrupt oneweby who pay 50 million for the launch? laughing


                        Yah! laughing Although we are better off, then laughing Billion dollar contract. A good commercial boost to Roskosmos.

                        Eutelsat has just invested $ 550 million in bankruptcy in addition to $ 500 million in India. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56906121

                        Quote: Perseverance
                        When spaceX has output 15


                        Yah! laughing There are many female sex characteristics.
                      7. Perseverance
                        Perseverance 6 May 2021 19: 51
                        +2
                        Quote: slipped
                        Have your internet been cut off? Here on the topvar there were already screenshots of the speed tests of these systems.

                        AND? Something I have not seen these tests on Onweba, and the maximum performance of Stalink is the best.
                        Quote: slipped


                        Yah! Although we are better off, the Billion Contract. A good commercial boost to Roskosmos.

                        And so the contract with them was not renewed, it was too expensive. After such a price, bankruptcy.
                        Quote: slipped
                        Eutelsat has just invested $ 550 million in bankruptcy in addition to $ 500 million in India. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56906121

                        So I had to save from the closure.
                        Quote: slipped
                        Yah!

                        Exactly. Onweb can only dream of such a cost when working with Roscosmos.
                      8. slipped
                        slipped 6 May 2021 20: 03
                        +1
                        Quote: Perseverance
                        AND? Something I have not seen these tests on Onweba, and the maximum performance of Stalink is the best.


                        "I haven't seen it, but still the way I want it." Clear.

                        Quote: Perseverance
                        And so the contract with them was not renewed, it was too expensive. After such a price, bankruptcy.


                        Or maybe it’s something else? Scared by a competitor? The banks were pressed? In any case, this is in the past.

                        Quote: Perseverance
                        So I had to save from the closure.


                        Private firms and financed.

                        Quote: Perseverance
                        Exactly. Onweb can only dream of such a cost when working with Roscosmos.


                        The cheapest and most reliable option for them. What they successfully use. Perhaps the contract will be extended further.
                      9. Perseverance
                        Perseverance 6 May 2021 20: 09
                        +1
                        Quote: slipped
                        "I haven't seen it, but still the way I want it." Clear.

                        Stralinka simply has better parameters.
                        Quote: slipped
                        Private firms and financed.

                        Through the government "The UK is spending $ 500m (£ 400m) on a stake in failed satellite firm OneWeb"
                        Quote: slipped

                        The cheapest and most reliable option for them. What they successfully use. Perhaps the contract will be extended further.

                        laughing
                        They have already given up 2 launches.
                        Revised contract canceled two launches of Soyuz
                        The revised contract canceled two Soyuz launches,
                      10. slipped
                        slipped 6 May 2021 20: 19
                        +1
                        Quote: Perseverance
                        Stralinka simply has better parameters.


                        Vanweb has only the first generation of satellites, the second is on the way, delayed. Starlink already has the second.

                        Quote: Perseverance
                        Through the government "The UK is spending $ 500m (£ 400m) on a stake in failed satellite firm OneWeb"


                        The investor is Indian. So the vanweb is already Indian-British.

                        Quote: Perseverance
                        Very successful laughing
                        They have already given up 2 launches.
                        Revised contract canceled two launches of Soyuz


                        Successfully. And the contract was signed and fully prepaid with us with Arienspace, the same ones will simply redistribute the Soyuz-2 missiles for their other launches. The fact is that Arianspace planned to use its Ariane-6 missile after our contract. But everything is changing, and we offer even more favorable prices.
                      11. Perseverance
                        Perseverance 6 May 2021 20: 33
                        +2
                        Quote: slipped
                        Vanweb has only the first generation of satellites, the second is on the way, delayed. Starlink already has the second.

                        Favorite plans are huge. laughing Starlink does too.
                        Quote: slipped
                        The investor is Indian. So the vanweb is already Indian-British.

                        So I say I had to save this bankrupt two countries.
                        Quote: slipped
                        Successfully. And the contract was signed and fully prepaid with us with Arienspace, the same ones will simply redistribute the Soyuz-2 missiles for their other launches. The fact is that Arianspace planned to use its Ariane-6 missile after our contract. But everything is changing, and we offer even more favorable prices.

                        If the goal was to bring oneweb to bankruptcy, then yes successfully. So they run away from the Unions. laughing
                      12. slipped
                        slipped 6 May 2021 20: 42
                        0
                        Quote: Perseverance
                        Favorite plans are huge. laughing Starlink does too.


                        The Florida plant at Vanweb plows like damn. Themselves fucking.

                        Quote: Perseverance
                        So I say I had to save this bankrupt two countries.


                        So they are ALREADY not bankrupt. The launches continue.

                        Quote: Perseverance
                        If the goal was to bring oneweb to bankruptcy, then yes successfully. So they run away from the Unions. laughing


                        Not. Arianspace is a European operator and it is profitable for them to load their domestic rocket with this contract. But she is late, and "Soyuz-2" is simply stupidly cheaper already. laughing
                      13. Perseverance
                        Perseverance 6 May 2021 21: 06
                        +1
                        Quote: slipped
                        The Florida plant at Vanweb plows like damn. Themselves fucking.

                        They dont have his plant, contract manufacturing, so everyone knows that in the United States in the first place in the production of satellites
                        Quote: slipped
                        So they are ALREADY not bankrupt. The launches continue.

                        bye yes ....
                        Quote: slipped
                        Not. Arianspace is a European operator and it is profitable for them to load their domestic rocket with this contract. But she is late, and "Soyuz-2" is simply stupidly cheaper already.

                        Well, one firm has already been brought to bankruptcy by unions, it is logical that you need to switch to others, otherwise there will be another bankruptcy.
                      14. slipped
                        slipped 6 May 2021 22: 52
                        0
                        Quote: Perseverance
                        They dont have his plant, contract manufacturing, so everyone knows that in the United States in the first place in the production of satellites


                        Wrong. The plant is owned by OneWeb satellite



                        and this is a joint venture from Europe.

                        Quote: Perseverance
                        Quote: slipped
                        So they are ALREADY not bankrupt. The launches continue.

                        bye yes ....


                        We will have it by the end of 2022 for sure. In addition, each satellite is equipped with Russian engines.

                        Quote: Perseverance
                        Well, one firm has already been brought to bankruptcy by unions, it is logical that you need to switch to others, otherwise there will be another bankruptcy.


                        First, not us. We always fulfill our contractual obligations 100%. And secondly, we have long-term fruitful cooperation with Arianespace on various space technologies. They buy missiles from us and components for their platforms, including the most modern ones. So don't be here .... laughing
  • standan
    standan 6 May 2021 20: 45
    -3
    Is it customary for gentlemen to take their word for it?
  • anzar
    anzar 6 May 2021 23: 14
    0
    According to Musk, marginal the cost of re-launching the Falcon 9 is only about $ 15 million. ... $ 10 million to build a new top stage ...
    Most importantly, the cost of rebuilding a used booster is only $ 250.

    This is just a preparation for a re-flight. And where is its cost in your estimate? If 1 st. it costs, say, $ 30 million and is designed for 10 flights, the estimate should also include $ 3 million for it.
  • Vadim237
    Vadim237 7 May 2021 13: 22
    -2
    Not really. The cost of launching Falcona is 15 million. For customers, it was from 65 to more than 100 for Falcon Heyvey, so it remained.
  • Yves762
    Yves762 6 May 2021 16: 42
    +2
    Quote: slipped
    And Soyuz-6 may appear if ....

    It would have appeared if once again the plans for the STK Yenisei launch vehicle had not been broken to please Rogozin's "awl" ().
    Should we switch to "methane"? But the "Yenisei" may very well be that it was worth leaving the "liquid", so that it does not lose power.
    And then all the twitching and throwing.
    (--)
    1. slipped
      slipped 6 May 2021 17: 05
      -4
      Quote: Yves762
      It would have appeared if once again the plans for the STK Yenisei launch vehicle had not been broken to please Rogozin's "awl"


      What are your "plans broke"? laughing Roscosmos ordered the RAS to consider a larger range of payloads for the STK. And not only on a manned program to the moon.

      Quote: Yves762
      Need to switch to "methane"?


      Methane is only beneficial in reusable systems. Since there is less soot from it. But even then, not a fact, since its storage is more expensive than that of kerosene.

      Another LNG rocket is being designed according to the Amur-LNG design and development project.

      Quote: Yves762
      "Soyuz-6" and sawing under it.


      This is the first shortened stage from Soyuz-5 with the RD-180MV engine and the third from Soyuz-2.1b only for Baiterek. It remains only to find out - what for is he needed there. laughing If the arguments of those who wish are convincing - they will - the equipment for this is already there.
      1. Yves762
        Yves762 6 May 2021 18: 40
        +4
        Quote: slipped
        What are your "plans broke"?

        request What have I to do with it? Where was it about me? Read something more carefully, please.


        Quote: slipped
        Roscosmos ordered the RAS to consider a larger range of payloads for the STK. And not only on a manned program to the moon.

        what R-36M (15P014, RS-20A, SS-18 "Satan") was not initially sawed for launching "other cargo", but look ... , and not only "domestic". request
        1. slipped
          slipped 6 May 2021 18: 54
          -1
          Quote: Yves762
          But if interested, then personally I would like to see the implementation of the adopted plans on time, and not a revision of the on-line (on dubious reasons) with / and / or transfers to "xs-when" (especially since for "budget" money too)


          I will answer with a platitude: "Life is what happens to you while you make other plans." © D. Lennon. By the way, he experienced his own expression on the result.

          As for the new launch vehicles, everything is on schedule.

          Quote: Yves762
          R-36M (15P014, RS-20A, SS-18 "Satan") was not initially sawed for launching "other cargo", but look ... , and not only "domestic". request


          Not an example. This rocket is decommissioned due to the manufacturer's failure to attend its service and is replaced by the Sarmat, which is unlikely to be a carrier of a space launch vehicle in the near future. laughing As for the conversion carriers, we are making "Rokot-2", the launches of which are scheduled after the completion of tests of the RB "Briz-KM", which is already domestically produced.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Yves762
            Yves762 6 May 2021 20: 24
            0
            Quote: slipped
            R-36M (15P014, RS-20A, SS-18 "Satan") initially for the launch of "other cargo" ...

            Here I made a little, little reservation: I meant R-36M UTTH (15P018, SS-18 Mod 4 "Satan") with a 15A18 missile repeat
            But not the point ...

            Quote: slipped
            Not an example.

            Just an example.
            But multi-bukf ...
            If it is interesting, light it yourself.

            Quote: slipped
            This missile is decommissioned due to the manufacturer's failure to attend its service and is replaced by the "Sarmat"

            Nope. Due to the end of the service life and START-1 and an attempt to extract at least some benefit.

            Quote: slipped
            As for the new launch vehicles, everything is on schedule.

            what Yes? And what about the Soyuz-6 bullshit then?
            1. slipped
              slipped 6 May 2021 20: 37
              -2
              Quote: Yves762
              Just an example.
              But multi-bukf ...
              If it is interesting, light it yourself.


              I'm talking about Dnipro. Conversion media. You had to enter it? Or are you confused?

              Quote: Yves762
              Nope. Due to the end of the service life and START-1 and an attempt to extract at least some benefit.


              Once again, a given rocket must be accompanied by a manufacturer during conversion. Don't you understand this?

              Quote: Yves762
              Yes? And what about the Soyuz-6 bullshit then?


              To make it clear to you, now signed a contract and started production new launch vehicle "Soyuz-5" and have already entered the dynamics. Contract for ES LV "Soyuz-6" more was not concluded, since some organizational issues on this medium are unclear. Is it clear now?
              1. Yves762
                Yves762 6 May 2021 22: 35
                -3
                Quote: slipped
                To make it clear to you, a contract has now been signed and the production of a new Soyuz-5 launch vehicle has begun and we have already started to develop. The contract for the Soyuz-6 rocket launcher has not yet been concluded, since some organizational issues regarding this launch vehicle are unclear. Is it clear now?

                Part of the work on "Soyuz-6" already went (and this is man-hours and money!) within the framework of the STK Yenisei launch vehicle.
                But because of the "reins that got to Rogozin," the topic was stopped (and probably turned off).
                This is the "Soyuz-6" bullshit that does not fit into your
                Quote: slipped
                then everything is on schedule
                .
                Again, there is the question of the need for Soyuz-5 given the prospects for Amur-LNG.

                Quote: slipped
                I'm talking about "Dnepr"

                And I'm talking about R-36M UTTH, exactly which
                initially, I did not saw to launch "other cargo", but look ...
                ; and which one decommissioned
                due to the end of the service life and START-1 and an attempt to extract at least some benefit
                (yes, including by means of conversion to PH).

                Quote: slipped
                Once again, a given rocket must be accompanied by a manufacturer during conversion. Don't you understand this?

                Because of what the "Dnipro" itself has dried up - then the topic is different.

                Don't you understand this?

                Ps.Sy.
                Haha.
                So I "combed".
                Try to re-read and think with a fresh mind.
                1. slipped
                  slipped 6 May 2021 23: 06
                  -1
                  Quote: Yves762
                  Part of the work on "Soyuz-6" already went (and this is man-hours and money!) within the framework of the STK Yenisei launch vehicle.


                  Not. Nothing "went" there, except for conversations. It was when the contract was signed.

                  Quote: Yves762
                  But because of the "reins that got to Rogozin," the topic was stopped (and probably turned off).


                  Also no. Rogozin has nothing to do with this at all. I have already written here about the reasons for transferring the contract to ES.

                  Quote: Yves762
                  This is that "Soyuz-6" garbage "that does not fit into yours ....


                  So there is no schedule for Soyuz-6 either. laughing It's not even on paper, don't you understand? They are just going to do the draft design. If you need it at all.

                  Quote: Yves762
                  Again, there is the question of the need for Soyuz-5 given the prospects for Amur-LNG.


                  Soyuz-5 is a rocket for the Baiterek JV from Baikonur since 2023. The Amur-LNG ROC rocket is a rocket to replace the Soyuz-2 from the Vostochny one from the year 2026. And these are different rockets for different loads.

                  Quote: Yves762
                  Quote: slipped
                  I'm talking about "Dnepr"

                  And I'm talking about R-36M UTTH


                  Ale garage is one and the same rocket, the difference is in a slightly altered bus.

                  Quote: Yves762
                  Because of what the "Dnipro" itself has dried up - then the topic is different.


                  The most direct one. Who will sign the conversion? Uncle Fedor? laughing
  • Kushka
    Kushka 6 May 2021 14: 23
    -1
    Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
    To delineate, of course, how Musk puts this colossus on its tail.

    "Infrastructure" is amazing. Takes off from the goats, land at all
    anywhere.
    1. Cosm22
      Cosm22 6 May 2021 15: 08
      -1
      They began to collect in general in an open field under the open sky.
      TsiKh and RCC "Progress" would faint in such conditions.
      1. KeithRichards
        KeithRichards 6 May 2021 15: 56
        -1
        There is a vidos on the Internet, where a grandmother in a cleaning suit gets into the Union tank and checks the welding by eye. So I would not be so categorical about the sweaty mexes in Texas. There is simply a huge plant that needs to be built for this business, and this is a huge ton of dough. So far, they have automated more or less welding of small sections by robots in tents, but larger ones are transported by cranes from hangar to hangar, and there they are manually or by robots welded.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 6 May 2021 21: 04
          -6
          This is nothing more than uncertainty in the project - no one does full-fledged production and does not even bother to do it.
    2. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 6 May 2021 15: 14
      -1
      Quote: Kushka
      "Infrastructure" is amazing.

      Do you need something else? Or do you need to spend billions on building a cosmodrome for testing? Musk spends his own and investors' money, not government money. So you need to save money, and not build unnecessary complexes in order to build them.
      1. Kushka
        Kushka 6 May 2021 18: 00
        0
        Well, not to the same extent! Even high support
        there is no lightning rod. Where the chief firefighter of the state is looking.
  • A.TOR
    A.TOR 6 May 2021 14: 25
    +5
    From this day on, a new chapter begins - from research to the use of space.
    The first attempt at transition from evolution to revolution in space flight technology was the Shuttle.
    It was insanely cool, but too difficult - and now it is too difficult.
    Now the second attempt - if everything works out, then humanity will take the widest step since the flight of the First Satellite.
    1. Ratmir_Ryazan
      Ratmir_Ryazan 6 May 2021 14: 35
      -14%
      What's the next step?

      Space flights for Musk have risen in price by 7 times, and the safety of such rockets will be even worse than that of Space Shuttles.

      This is not a new step, this is a different way, and in fact nothing has changed.
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 6 May 2021 14: 42
        +4
        Have not risen in price, re-read that news. There, NASA resold space in the trucks it bought. And this resale price has gone up. SpaceX has nothing to do with
      2. KeithRichards
        KeithRichards 6 May 2021 14: 51
        +5
        The price for the mask did not rise. This nasa turned down the price
        The nasa mask contract remains the same. Moreover, the amounts have long been paid, tk. NASA bought in bulk under two contracts about a dozen manned and cargo missions. Nasa doesn't pay for anything else there, the price is included from astronaut training to landing.

        It's just that for all the others, NASA acts as the operator of these missions. Private traders who want to buy cargo delivery to the ISS as part of a regular cargo launch to ensure the operation of the ISS (and for scientific organizations the price has not changed, it has changed only for private traders, such usually only satellites bullet, including from the ISS), will now pay NASA more expensive. The mask has nothing to do with it.

        There is an opinion that this is a kind of support method for small-scale missiles such as Rocket Lab and the like, who bullet small loads in single copies. Previously, it was profitable to go to NASA, and now it is more profitable to also Rocket Lab and launch not from the ISS, but to take it directly from the ground by launching a carrier rocket. The second option is to support private cargo or manned launches to the ISS planned in the future, where the operator will no longer be NASA, but private traders. Those. these are companies like Orbital / SpaceX / SierraNevada. The scheme is the same as in the first case - NASA raises the price to the sky-high so that they can buy from these companies.

        It is now very profitable for Nasa (first of all for himself and his budget) to make such concessions, simply because their past traditional contractors, monopolists like Boeing, have completely become obsolete in their time and drove the price of regular maintenance (not completely launch, including development and operation, as makes SpaceX, and simple repair and production of equipment according to the schemes developed by NASA) to sky-high prices. That is why they have a multi-billion dollar legacy in the form of the SLS (which is in fact just a reworking of the shashtl launch system). Now they do not want to step on the same rake and will create competition in the industry. More precisely, they have already created it, they will increase
      3. donavi49
        donavi49 6 May 2021 15: 06
        +4
        No, this is a bit different. The bottom line is that NASA is buying out ships under the Commercial Resupply Services-2 program. This includes 6 Swans-Antares, 9 Dragons-Falcons, 6 Dream Chasers-Atlases. Within each mission, there was a stock in weight and volume. Therefore, NASA implements a passing load. Actually, the essence of this news is that from now on, some thread Orlando school will not be able to send garbage collected by schoolchildren for 7-8, but will have to spread it for 000k. However, they have Elana's program (for school sensors and garbage bags, the price is stable there).

        For example, right now there is Cygnus NG-15 on the ISS - there are over 100 kg resold by NASA. For example, a Cubsat from Paraguay, an autonomous experiment on the ISS from an American startup, and so on.


        At the same time, the cost of the contract remained unchanged, Musk receives the least, slightly more expensive Swan-Zingus, the most expensive DreamChaser-Atlas.
      4. Engineer Schukin
        Engineer Schukin 6 May 2021 15: 46
        +1
        Are you not ashamed to be so belligerently discourteous in the subject? What do not declare, all illiterate nonsense.
        You would read something on the topic. Well, except for the headlines.
        1. Engineer Schukin
          Engineer Schukin 6 May 2021 15: 50
          +2
          Quote: slipped
          Quote: trybgh
          Starlink - 1503 satellites in orbit


          Small serial low-orbit spacecraft of one system and one constellation. The first ones are already dead.

          Should they be different?))

          In general, what a pitiful sight. Manufacturing less than 1% of the world's satellites, but puffing and babbling is great. By the way, who do you work in the Republic of Kazakhstan?
          1. slipped
            slipped 7 May 2021 14: 08
            +1
            Quote: Engineer Schukin
            Should they be different?))


            Russia produces and launches different ones. And low and medium and high orbit.

            Quote: Engineer Schukin
            In general, what a pitiful sight. Manufacturing less than 1% of the world's satellites, but puffing and babbling is great.


            In general, Russia only 15 years ago began to produce and launch modern spacecraft with a long period of active existence and gradually switch to the domestic element base in their design, and our satellite constellation itself is increasing from year to year. At the end of last year, there were more than 160 spacecraft for various purposes. Now there is a rapid construction of new workshops in Zheleznogorsk and an entire plant in Shchelkovo for the serial production of satellite platforms of large constellations of the "Sphere" system, and the domestic satellite builders are designing new spacecraft. So as they say, your exit is not at the cashier. laughing This year there have already been and will be more launches of new devices.
  • spirit
    spirit 6 May 2021 14: 33
    +2
    Practitioners push science forward! 20 prototypes will burn, 30 more prototypes will be built and will be worked out. So step by step they will come to a working prototype drinks
  • Nastia makarova
    Nastia makarova 6 May 2021 14: 55
    -7
    100 people???? horror!!! where will they fly ????
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 6 May 2021 15: 10
      -1
      To Mars or another city. It depends on which ticket they buy
      1. Nastia makarova
        Nastia makarova 6 May 2021 15: 33
        -5
        to Mars one way?)))) if only as excursions around the earth
        1. KeithRichards
          KeithRichards 6 May 2021 15: 59
          -1
          Most likely, 100 people on one blank will not get there. Stupidly there is not enough space for the load of support. Although there are renders on the Internet of how all this can be packaged, everything turns out clumsy there. This is already a version with a width of 18 meters, probably a dream. If the first starship turns out to be efficient, then the super-giant version 2 will probably already be made for under 100 people. But these are only dreams so far.
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 6 May 2021 16: 05
            -1
            On Mars, it is planned to deploy fuel extraction, and send ships back. If anyone wants to take it back.
            And inside there are about 1000 cubic meters of space for housing, this is quite enough. The thing is just huge.
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 6 May 2021 17: 09
              0
              This will not be enough for 100 people.
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 6 May 2021 17: 11
                0
                Why so few? 10 cubes per person for a spaceship, just a five star hotel
                For example, NASA's layout for three on a 500-day mission to Mars, Orion with an additional living compartment.
                Cubes 5 per person approximately
  • Lontus
    Lontus 6 May 2021 14: 59
    +6
    taken from the forum "Cosmonautics News"
    "
    "you are here" (c)
    ---
    On August 12, 1977, the Enterprise (shuttle) performed Free Flight No. 1
    499 km / h 7346 m 5 minutes 21 seconds
    --
    A total of 5 free flights were made.
    Last October 26, 1977.
    Everyone was successful.
    No delicious bangs
    (accompanied by vulgar mantras "the road will be mastered by the walking, etc.) was not.

    And no one with a "bated breath" wondered whether there would be a reuse.
    The same ship flew by itself.
    --
    But even such a smooth development of events did not help the Shuttle become what it saw when ordering - instead of an inexpensive, reliable and universal TKS, it turned out to be a clumsy, expensive ditch.
    "
    1. Alex Nevs
      Alex Nevs 6 May 2021 15: 21
      +4
      I also remembered the Shuttles. Expensive and ... beautiful ... almost universally, etc. REFUSED. Yourself!
      1. donavi49
        donavi49 6 May 2021 15: 33
        +8
        Expensive - yes, just incredibly expensive.
        Nice - well, in general, yes.
        Versatile - yes. In the same place, they cut a bunch of programs for Shuttles, when they realized that such a cow was eating up the entire budget in its current form. However, they are universal - if you want to build a station, if you want to repair the Hubble, if you want to steal a satellite from the Russians directly from orbit, if you want to take your satellite for MOT, if you want to carry people. That is, even in the form in which it was implemented, it is quite universal for itself.
        REFUSED. Sami - a small amendment, refused after some ridiculous 135 flights. And it is wrong to think that the accident of the second shuttle is to blame. No, she only increased the flight estimate. Buried the ISS shuttles, which they completed. More tasks were not found for budget approval, and since the budget was not allocated, then they were written off for retirement.
        1. slipped
          slipped 6 May 2021 15: 57
          +1
          Quote: donavi49
          Buried the ISS shuttles


          Buried the shuttles by the Pentagon's abandonment of them in 1984. Resuscitation measures have only dragged on ... laughing
          1. donavi49
            donavi49 6 May 2021 16: 06
            +2
            Well, somehow it was possible to knock out money, then on megasatellites, then on a mission, then on Hubble, then the Japs were bred for the second season with a transported nanoMKS (SpaceLab). However, after the completion of the ISS, everything is final. Disconnected from the apparatus and drove off to the morgue.
            1. slipped
              slipped 6 May 2021 16: 11
              +2
              Quote: donavi49
              Well, somehow it was possible to knock out money, then on megasatellites, then on a mission, then on Hubble, then the Japs were bred for the second season with a transported nanoMKS (SpaceLab).


              NASA had a big hole in the budget due to accidents of their carriers in the late 80s and the shuttle could have been closed already in 1990, but then Deputy Prime Minister Albert Gore, a big fan of astronautics, rushed to Russia (then the USSR) with a proposal about the joint space program of the shuttle and the Mir station. Under this business, the congress was promoted on both Mir and ISS.

              Quote: donavi49
              However, after the completion of the ISS, everything is final. Disconnected from the apparatus and drove off to the morgue.


              The program didn't have any money and that's it.
          2. ccsr
            ccsr 6 May 2021 17: 12
            -3
            Quote: slipped
            Buried the shuttles by the Pentagon's abandonment of them in 1984. Resuscitation measures have only dragged on ...

            And the Pentagon, by and large, did not need them - the efficiency is too low to be used in a rapid exchange of nuclear strikes. This was also the reason for our General Staff to abandon the Burans - the military did not need them at all, and demanded a lot of money. An absolutely disastrous shuttle program, when the number of flights during the year was not initially accurately calculated.
            1. slipped
              slipped 6 May 2021 17: 23
              +2
              Quote: ccsr
              And the Pentagon, by and large, did not need them - the efficiency is too low to be used in a rapid exchange of nuclear strikes.


              What nonsense. It was the Pentagon that began this program in 1975, and it was thanks to this program that such projects as the US Lunar Program and the Orbital WorkShop program of large orbital stations were closed.

              Quote: ccsr
              This was the reason for our General Staff to abandon the Burans - the military did not need them at all, and demanded a lot of money.


              Complete nonsense. They did not refuse from "Buran", and the program itself was officially closed only recently. MTKS Energia-Buran buried the collapse of the USSR and the sequestration of all its programs, only Zenit-2 was saved, and even then, due to the fact that this carrier then entered the international market.

              Quote: ccsr
              An absolutely disastrous shuttle program, when the number of flights during the year was not initially accurately calculated.


              Initially, the Pentagon planned to launch cargo by shuttle once a week.
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 6 May 2021 17: 40
                -1
                Quote: slipped

                What nonsense. It was the Pentagon that began this program in 1975, and it was thanks to this program that such projects as the US Lunar Program and the Orbital WorkShop program of large orbital stations were closed.

                You can think of the American military as fools, but even they understood perfectly well that it took time to prepare the launch of the shuttle, which means that in the event of a surprise attack on the States from our side, they would be simply useless.
                Quote: slipped
                Complete nonsense. They did not refuse from "Buran", and the program itself was officially closed only recently.

                It is immediately clear that you are not aware of the history of the two reports to Ustinov, when the specialized institute of the Ministry of Defense at first completely rejected this program for military purposes. And then I had to change my mind, because the industry lied from three boxes to Ustinov as it is important for the military, and he succumbed to their tales. But this is not the point, but the fact that life itself has proved the absolute uselessness for the military of such a system that can be used only for limited purposes in manned space exploration.
                Quote: slipped
                Initially, the Pentagon planned to launch cargo by shuttle once a week.

                This is the minimum number of annual launches to justify the cost of building such a system. Only naive people will believe that the Pentagon had such tasks for shuttles - this was denied by the very history of this project.
                1. slipped
                  slipped 6 May 2021 17: 53
                  +4
                  Quote: ccsr
                  You can think of the American military as fools, but even they understood perfectly well that it took time to prepare the launch of the shuttle, which means that in the event of a surprise attack on the States from our side, they would be simply useless.


                  It is simply a system for safely withdrawing large, expensive military payloads. Look at the moons Landsat and Keyhole from that period, at their sizes. It was planned that with the help of shuttles it would be possible to repair them in orbit, as well as, if possible, save satellites in LEO.

                  Quote: ccsr
                  Immediately clear ...


                  That you do not know anything about the plans for the MTKS. laughing

                  Quote: ccsr
                  But this is not the point, but the fact that life itself has proved the absolute uselessness for the military of such a system that can be used only for limited purposes in manned space exploration.


                  Life has not proven anything, since this system was never accepted into operation. And the burnout of the TZP in the area of ​​junction of the console with the fuselage, upon the return of the ship, required serious modifications to the airframe, which were introduced from the second series.

                  Quote: ccsr
                  Only naive people will believe that the Pentagon had such tasks for shuttles - this was denied by the very history of this project.


                  In the 70s, they stated this openly. I even have a poster from a famous magazine of that time, where it is so directly written about it.
                  1. ccsr
                    ccsr 6 May 2021 18: 06
                    +3
                    Quote: slipped
                    It is simply a system for safely withdrawing large, expensive military payloads. Look at the moons Landsat and Keyhole from that period, at their sizes. It was planned that with the help of shuttles it would be possible to repair them in orbit, as well as, if possible, save satellites in LEO.

                    I participated in LKI "Almaz" back in the seventies, and the very idea of ​​space stations was buried, therefore it is costly and non-operational, and moreover, small automated satellites turned out to be more effective. The Buran systems and the shuttle are completely useless from a military point of view, if only due to the fact that there is a rapid change of generations of satellites, and repairing old military satellites is simply a whim of the industry.

                    Quote: slipped
                    That you do not know anything about the plans for the MTKS.

                    I knew the plans of the military about Buran well - this is enough for me.
                    Quote: slipped

                    Life has not proven anything, since this system was never accepted into operation.

                    Do you know how many Diamonds were stored in Reutov for conservation? At whose expense do not tell me the "banquet"? Not industry - for sure ...
                    Quote: slipped
                    In the 70s, they stated this openly. I even have a poster from a famous magazine of that time, where it is so directly written about it.

                    And at that time I took part in real tests, which just showed that manned systems are practically useless for military purposes, and then I switched to automated small-sized satellite systems for reconnaissance, communications and navigation.
                    1. slipped
                      slipped 6 May 2021 18: 23
                      -3
                      Quote: ccsr
                      I participated in LKI "Almaz" back in the seventies, and the very idea of ​​space stations was buried, therefore it is costly and non-operational, and moreover, small automated satellites turned out to be more effective.


                      Probably all the same "military use of space stations", since the stations themselves are still there. As for the remote sensing satellites, at that time they needed a lot and often, due to the same efficiency.

                      Quote: ccsr
                      The Buran systems and the shuttle are completely useless from a military point of view, if only due to the fact that there is a rapid change of generations of satellites, and repairing old military satellites is simply a whim of the industry.


                      However, the Americans were successfully engaged in the repair of both applied satellites and scientific ones - for example, repairing the Hubble telescope (which is the same Keyhole, only the opposite laughing )

                      Quote: ccsr
                      I knew the plans of the military about Buran well - this is enough for me.


                      Have you been a member of the management of NPO Energia? laughing The plans were different. Not all were voiced, and the regime did not allow.

                      Quote: ccsr
                      Do you know how many Diamonds were stored in Reutov for conservation? At whose expense do not tell me the "banquet"? Not industry - for sure ...


                      I am aware that later they became automatic. Not very good, really.

                      Quote: ccsr
                      And at that time I took part in real tests, which just showed that manned systems are practically useless for military purposes, and then I switched to automated small-sized satellite systems for reconnaissance, communications and navigation.


                      It was all a long time ago. Both programs are closed, albeit for different reasons. Everything.
                      1. ccsr
                        ccsr 7 May 2021 11: 15
                        +1
                        Quote: slipped
                        Probably all the same "military use of space stations", since the stations themselves are still there.

                        No one would then have given money for the development of orbital stations, if they were not attracted to the tasks of the defense of the USSR - this was skillfully used by the industry to push its ventures through the military budget.
                        Quote: slipped
                        However, the Americans were successfully engaged in the repair of both applied satellites and scientific ones -

                        Can you tell us something about the repair of military satellites?

                        Quote: slipped
                        Have you been a member of the management of NPO Energia?

                        No, I was just a general customer in one of the structures of the Ministry of Defense, and I know all the ins and outs of such work, especially when the military resisted imposing unnecessary projects on them. By the way, although Ustinov's personal enmity towards Ogarkov is attributed, the conflict itself was much deeper - two worldviews clashed about our military-industrial complex and the armament of the army, and the NGSH was fired, although he was a person of great intelligence.
                        Quote: slipped
                        I am aware that later they became automatic. Not very good, really.

                        On the contrary, a sharp reduction in cost and a constant change of generations of satellites is a great advantage.
                        Quote: slipped
                        It was all a long time ago. Both programs are closed, albeit for different reasons. Everything.

                        Unfortunately for our country with huge losses, both financial and intellectual, because the wrong path was chosen.
                      2. Dmitry V.
                        Dmitry V. 7 May 2021 13: 23
                        +1
                        Quote: ccsr
                        Unfortunately for our country with huge losses, both financial and intellectual, because the wrong path was chosen.


                        Since on the basis of the Zenith, the first DOSs were created - not to say that it would be completely in vain.
                        If the backlog in metal at the Zenith was wasted, then the very direction pushed to the implementation of DOS.
                        Ustinov again gathered the meeting at his Central Committee building on February 15. The cabinet was filled to capacity. Ustinov announced that we were meeting to review the progress of work on DOS and the lunar expedition. He predetermined in advance that it was necessary to give the floor for the report not to the chief designer of the DOS (this was not formally yet), but, in order to avoid jealousy between Mishin and Chelomey, so as not to predetermine which of them would be the chief designer, the minister.

                        Afanasyev reported calmly and seriously:

                        - According to the first DOS, the work at the plant has been completed, we are sending it to the landfill, but there are still a number of questions. The first is that not all is well with the quality. Second, the experimental work has not been completed. Until now, the development of the life support system has not been completed, vibration tests of the system of executive organs and thermal tests have not been completed. At the end of March, upon completion of the experiments, we have the opportunity to launch station No. 121. Station No. 122 in April will be transferred to KIS in Podlipki. For DOS No. 3 and No. 4, the documentation will arrive in February - this is according to plan, but in fact we are waiting in April-May. I must say that DOS No. 3 and No. 4 are not modernized stations, as the designers explained to us earlier, but new ones. No. 5 and No. 6 are already being designed. These are, of course, completely new stations.

                        Mentioning completely new stations, Afanasyev transferred the course of the meeting to the chief designers.

                        Here Ustinov said:

                        - The statement prepared for our meeting recalls the terms from the decree of February 9, 1970. For No. 1 and No. 2, the term is the fourth quarter of 1970. For # 3 and # 4 - the third quarter of 1971. For the period 1971-1975, it was proposed to produce two stations annually. The state of affairs, in my opinion, is extremely unfavorable, extremely abnormal. I thought that we would stop at one type of station and repeat it. And you want to revise and change the documentation in order to be in a state of development all the time. When to fly and complete tasks? Do not forget that apart from DOSs we really have nothing [243] beyond our souls. Until Н1-Л3 and MKBS we can hold out only in the DOS direction.

                        Mishin could not stand it. He made no secret of the fact that he did not support this whole "DOS venture".

                        - Work on DOSs No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4 is really going badly. At ZIKh it is impossible to simultaneously conduct such a number of new complex objects, and even "Almaz" in the bargain. We should not pretend that we do not understand this. Until now, there are no documents from the military-industrial complex regulating deliveries to DOS No. 3 and No. 4. ZIH is also occupied by Almaz. But the Almaz project is adventurous in its ideology. It is necessary to combine the tasks of DOS and "Almaz" into a single station and do DOS-A.

                        After Mishin's speech, a fuss arose. Ustinov, trying to calm the people down, suggested:

                        - Let's define ourselves, and you, who are present here, will express what we should do after DOS # 1 and # 2. Perhaps, DOS-A or MSCB at once, or continue the series of continuously changing DOSs? Define positions clearly. Mishin, what do you suggest?

                        - DOS-A plus ICBS.

                        - Damn?

                        - DOS-A, and then think.

                        - Bushuev?

                        - Also DOS-A and then decide.

                        - Feoktistov?

                        - DOS-A is not needed. Immediately MKBS.

                        - Bugaysky?

                        - DOS-A. What is ICBS, I do not know.

                        Keldysh and Smirnov both said that they did not understand why DOS-A was needed. It is better to do ICBS right away.

                        Mozzhorin, when it came to his turn, answered as befitting the director of the head institute:

                        - We will not solve such an issue by voting. Serious research is needed. We are working on this now.

                        The director of ZIKh Ryzhikh evaded a direct answer, but said that DOS # 3 and # 4 are 95% new machines, very serious in terms of technology. Body parts in them will be preserved by no more than 40%, and the filling - by 10%.

                        - Nevertheless, if they give me the drawings of DOS number 3, - he said, - we will make the car this year. It is necessary to consult and decide on the "Almaz" and the transport supply ship. Dos and Almaz documents are difficult to digest together at workplaces. The plant is in a very difficult situation, but we [244] strive to do both jobs. However, such a difficult combination does not bode well. Barmin intervened:

                        - Completion of the launch will be required for DOS No. 4. This is 3,5 million rubles for cryogenic technology. It is necessary to resolve issues not in isolation from the real situation. Almaz will appear earlier than DOS-A. Preferred option: DOSs No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, DOS-A - MKBS. Konstantin Petrovich Feoktistov, like a sandpiper from his swamp, pronounced a verdict on "Almaz" in advance. And for Almaz, at the 92nd site, we are already completing the construction of a luxurious three-story bunker. Hitler did not have this either. If DOS-A is more promising than Almaz, there is a question here. And it must be considered seriously. Almaz consists of two ships. It is necessary to compare two ideological chains: one - only from DOSs, the second - from DOSs and "Almazov".

                        - I am not a sandpiper, - Feoktistov was indignant, - and you do not forget that all tasks of "Almaz" can be entrusted to MKBS.

                        - What does the Ministry of Defense think? Ustinov asked. Karas answered:

                        - I report that the KIK and the DOS test site are ready. However, it should be taken into account that, according to the requirements of the designers, we are continuously re-equipping the starts. We do not have any materials on DOS-A and we cannot give an assessment. It is clear that Almaz and DOS-A cannot be pulled in parallel. Almaz will certainly be earlier in terms of timing. It is necessary to concentrate all efforts on the ICBS, immediately take the bull by the horns. As long as there is no ICBS, "Almaz" must fly: everything is conceived there according to our military requirements. MKBS is good during the war, we need Almaz earlier. Everything must be explored and explored. At Almaz we will test the role of man. It cannot be belittled. A direct report from space, screening out redundant information, assessing the situation is a job for a person.

                        Tsarev from the military-industrial complex apparatus also spoke out against DOS-A:

                        - In one Almaz building we are offered five modifications, five control systems! This is debauchery! Our general line should be ICBS.

                        Tyulin:

                        - DOS no. 3 and no. 4 must be completed, there is a groundwork, otherwise there will be a failure. DOS No. 5 and No. 6 or DOS-A - this issue has not been sufficiently worked out. Materials will be available only in May, and the ICBS has not been deeply worked out at all. There is a lot of fiction. I think that when comparable materials appear, we will decide the issue in favor of the ICBS. In American materials, the issue of ICBS is controversial. It is necessary, first of all, to outline the range of problems and see what their solution will result in [245]. We must resolve the issue of transport ships. Until now, no one is doing anything on reusable transport ships. It is necessary to quickly organize research work led by TsNIIMash, to make TsAGI and NIIAP work. We cannot solve this problem without MAP.

                        Keldysh listened to everyone without interrupting and seemed to be dozing. Finally, he decided that it was time to end the arguments, and spoke for so long that it became clear that he had listened to, memorized and worked through all the speeches in a "half-asleep".

                        - We have a critical situation with orbital stations. "Almaz" was "charged" about five years ago. Then it was required to divide it into the first and second stages. Today we have six different orbital stations: "Almaz" of the first stage, "Almaz" of the second stage, DOSs No. 1 and No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4, - DOS-A and MKBS. It is unrealistic to pass so many different stations through development, plant and flight tests. DOS-A emerged unexpectedly. We agreed with Leonid Vasilyevich not to do DOSs No. 5 and No. 6 at all. Now this issue is being revised again. Enough for us DOSs No. 3 and No. 4 in 1973.

                        Why do you need DOS-A? If you want to replace Almaz, then let's do DOS-A.

                        Our life is full of contradictions. It was said that the ICBS will be in 1973. But the control system cannot be made within these terms. Now they are arguing with something else, which supposedly can be done. DOS-A is said to have the same system. The terms of DOS-A and ICBS are very close.

                        We think of the ICBS as an experimental station. Devil told me that he wanted to work out her systems on DOS-A. Our positions must be clearly delineated.

                        The Americans create automatic machines for all service systems. The orbital station is an experimental laboratory. In this sense, it should be very flexible and large.

                        B Chertok. Rockets and people book 4 chap. 14 DOS number 1
                        http://militera.lib.ru/explo/chertok_be/33.html
                      3. slipped
                        slipped 7 May 2021 13: 28
                        -1
                        Quote: ccsr
                        No one would then have given money for the development of orbital stations, if they were not attracted to the tasks of the defense of the USSR - this was skillfully used by the industry to push its ventures through the military budget.


                        This is already clear.

                        Quote: ccsr
                        Can you tell us something about the repair of military satellites?


                        The first repair of the satellite took place in 1984. By that time, the Pentagon had already lost interest in shuttles. Therefore, they repaired the scientific and applied one.

                        Quote: ccsr
                        On the contrary, a sharp reduction in cost and a constant change of generations of satellites is a great advantage.


                        They have just begun to withdraw their fleet of inexpensive remote sensing cubesats with good cameras. The first two swallows 3U format



                        and one serious companion of the 6U format named "Sharp":



                      4. ccsr
                        ccsr 8 May 2021 15: 54
                        +1
                        Quote: slipped
                        The first repair of the satellite took place in 1984. By that time, the Pentagon had already lost interest in shuttles.

                        I think that they simply understood the futility of such a repair, because of the cost of such repairs, and abandoned this venture.


                        Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
                        Our life is full of contradictions. It was said that the ICBS will be in 1973. But the control system cannot be made within these terms. Now they are arguing with something else, which supposedly can be done. DOS-A is said to have the same system. The terms of DOS-A and ICBS are very close.

                        From the memoirs of Academician Chertok, it is clearly visible how the industry tried to tear up budget money, while not taking much into account the opinion of the military, but in the end it turned out that
                        Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
                        The orbital station is an experimental laboratory.

                        and the military didn't even need it, that's why they quickly abandoned this project. Given the history of Skylab, I suppose that the Americans realized before us that such stations were of little use for military purposes.
  • Intruder
    Intruder 6 May 2021 15: 26
    -2
    But even such a smooth development of events did not help the Shuttle become what it saw when ordering - instead of an inexpensive, reliable and universal TKS, it turned out to be a clumsy, expensive ditch.
    Well, yes ... an expensive complex, but, in practice, over 30 years of operation (30 years, Karl fellow ) 135 launches were made (including two disasters). Most of the flights: 39 - made by the space shuttle "Discovery", damn the reusable aerospace shuttle .... And the rest can boast of similar results !? wink
  • raddy13
    raddy13 6 May 2021 15: 09
    -4
    The trail behind the ship is red. Are they flying on a hyptile?)))
  • Bradley
    Bradley 6 May 2021 15: 15
    +4
    Congratulations to Mask! Not bursting with tongue, but busy with work!
    Who is not in the subject, but the brainchild of Mask - StarShip will fly to the moon (Artemis).
    1. Sarboz
      Sarboz 6 May 2021 20: 05
      0
      Quote: Bradley
      Who is not in the subject, but the brainchild of Mask - StarShip will fly to the moon (Artemis).

      Who is not in the subject, NASA's lunar contract with Mask has suspended until the end of the proceedings on the complaints of Blue Origin and Dynetics. As a result of the proceedings, at least the terms will be shifted, as much as possible, the contract can go to others.
      1. Bradley
        Bradley 6 May 2021 20: 21
        +4
        Who is not in the subject, NASA's lunar contract with Mask has suspended until the end of the proceedings on the complaints of Blue Origin and Dynetics. As a result of the proceedings, at least the terms will be shifted, as much as possible, the contract can go to others.

        Bezos filed a lawsuit, offended that he was not chosen. Although why choose him, when Musk conducts real tests in hardware, and Bezos has nothing, only promises.
        Musk will win, Bezos has nothing to offer with Musk in the background. It is obvious.
        1. Sarboz
          Sarboz 6 May 2021 20: 45
          -3
          Quote: Bradley
          Musk will win, Bezos has nothing to offer with Musk in the background. It is obvious.

          Well, I would not underestimate the chances of competitors in the proceedings. Tests play no role. Formal claims to the tender are important. Much can emerge in this muddy water during litigation. And it's not so much the fate of the contract that is at stake as the credibility of NASA. Everyone is dumping, but Musk is just dumping all-in. He needs these contracts one after another without interruption, otherwise the financial pyramid may crack.
          1. Bradley
            Bradley 6 May 2021 22: 31
            +3
            Competitors have nothing. And the tests just play a role, because it is already in some kind of hardware, unlike only the plans of Musk's competitors. And Starship gives more than competitors' machines.
            The choice is quite logical. Would you choose "Federation" or "CrewDragon"?
            And a lot can emerge, yes.
            1. Sarboz
              Sarboz 7 May 2021 00: 17
              -3
              Quote: Bradley
              The choice is quite logical. Would you choose "Federation" or "CrewDragon"?

              I would probably listen to the opinion of experts.
              "For many of us the obvious choice would be Blue Originbecause she works with all the traditional big aerospace companies. One of the reasons they chose SpaceX was that Congress cut funding for the program."- explains astrophysicist and astronomer from Harvard Jonathan McDowell.

              As I wrote earlier, Musk is dumping with the last bit of strength.
              1. Bradley
                Bradley 7 May 2021 01: 39
                +1
                I would probably listen to the opinion of experts

                Yes, Musk takes over almost all the development, and NASA will then give him the money. But Bezos is also not a homeless person from the gateway, he could also take the costs on himself. But they chose the Mask. Why? Because StarShip is already undergoing trials. And what and when Bezos will have is unknown. And will there be at all.

                As I wrote earlier, Musk is dumping with the last bit of strength.

                Musk can launch his rockets for free, it's his property. Conquering the market, well done.
                On the other hand, monopoly is very bad. Hopefully Musk won't be a monopoly.
                1. Sarboz
                  Sarboz 7 May 2021 12: 19
                  +1
                  Quote: Bradley
                  Yes, Musk takes over almost all the development, and NASA will then give him the money. But Bezos is also not a homeless person from the gateway, he could also take the costs on himself. But they chose the Mask. Why? Because StarShip is already undergoing trials. And what and when Bezos will have is unknown. And will there be at all.

                  The fact of the matter is that Musk was chosen because of the lowest price and refusal to advance payment. At the same time, they did not give time to competitors to finalize their proposals in the same spirit. And according to the rules of the competition, NASA should have provided such an opportunity.
                  The main danger in SpaceX's business is that they are newbies. I understand that Musk supporters will shower me with tomatoes. For them, this is just the main merit of their hero Tony Stark. But space technology is a very complex system, where the failure of any small insignificant element can cause a catastrophe. Moreover, in dozens of tests, this element may not manifest itself in any way, and for the hundred and first time a tragedy suddenly happens. That is why scientists at NASA gave their choice to projects involving "traditional large aerospace companies." You will not get experience in working out reliability in a few years.
                  Musk already has a good example with Starlink regarding his lack of experience in developing trouble-free equipment.... Musk flooded orbit with a test network of 1500 cheap StarLink satellites. During the deployment of the network, 45 satellites had to be deorbited and burned due to a malfunction, and the same number of satellites had already lost communication and were hanging out in orbit in an uncontrollable state. This is 3% and another 3%, just 6%. A total of 42 thousand such satellites will be spinning. Musk, knowing the unreliability of these devices, has already declared himself that 1% of faulty satellites will be normal. At the same time, a satellite that simply does not fulfill its tasks in the network can, on command from the Earth, be de-orbited and burned in the atmosphere. But StarLink, having lost contact with the control center or with failed engines, becomes an uncontrollable kinetic bomb. And if the reliability of satellites does not improve, then there will be at least 1260 of them in orbit.

                  Quote: Bradley
                  Musk can launch his rockets for free, it's his property. Conquering the market, well done.

                  Rockets built for NASA are not the property of SpaceX.
                  I'm not a big expert on American antitrust law, but dumping is punishable in the United States. Therefore, it will definitely not be able to free it. Bezos will not let the dumping be released on the brakes. In fact, Musk's finances are not as good as he is trying to show. Otherwise, for example, he would not have had to transfer budget money from SpaceX to the unprofitable Tesla project at one time, at the risk of earning problems with the law. But someone at the very top lobbies him well. Therefore, as long as water off a duck's back.
                  Wait and see.
                  1. Bradley
                    Bradley 7 May 2021 16: 55
                    +1
                    The fact of the matter is that Musk was chosen because of the lowest price and refusal to advance payment. At the same time, they did not give time to competitors to finalize their proposals in the same spirit.

                    So competitors have nothing to modify. Musk flew very far in this regard.

                    And according to the rules of the competition, NASA should have provided such an opportunity

                    And there is. This was the first stage, in the second stage there should already be a choice from the CC.
                    In the first stage, money was distributed for the development and construction of the apparatus under the Artemis program, and the second stage was the competition of these apparatus.
                    And I'm not even talking about the fact that Bezos received $ 580 million under this contract, and Musk received as much as $ 135 million. Those. Bezos was initially given a head start.

                    The main danger in SpaceX's business is that they are newbies. I understand that Musk supporters will shower me with tomatoes. For them, this is just the main merit of their hero Tony Stark. But space technology is a very complex system, where the failure of any small insignificant element can cause a catastrophe. Moreover, in dozens of tests, this element may not manifest itself in any way, and for the hundred and first time a tragedy suddenly happens. That is why scientists at NASA gave their choice to projects involving "traditional large aerospace companies." You will not get experience in working out reliability in a few years.

                    I totally agree.

                    Rockets built for NASA are not the property of SpaceX

                    Which are built by contract - yes. And then the owner of the rocket himself chooses the price tags, i.e. - NASA.
                    It's like a taxi driver who bought a car, he is free to carry anyone on it and for as much as necessary. And NASA is just pulling prices up.

                    Therefore, it will definitely not be able to free it. Bezos will not let the dumping go down on the brakes.

                    Yes, so the Mask will be devoured.
                  2. ccsr
                    ccsr 8 May 2021 16: 05
                    +1
                    Quote: Sarboz
                    You will not get experience in working out reliability in a few years.

                    This cornerstone statement is fully consistent with the Soviet experience in the development of complex aerospace technology. Those who go the other way are doomed to failures and human sacrifices - I think such an ending for Musk will be logical, if only he does not go bankrupt sooner.
  • Intruder
    Intruder 6 May 2021 15: 22
    +2
    Test flight, a new era of reusable systems, down with parachutes and planes, waiting for landing on Mars, good luck - Star ship ... yes
  • From Tomsk
    From Tomsk 6 May 2021 15: 31
    -1
    March 15 2018
    Putin spoke about the imminent flight to Mars
    Russia will launch a mission to Mars in 2019, and in the future, Russian specialists will try to land on the moon's poles, Interfax quotes Russian President Vladimir Putin as saying.
    “We will now carry out unmanned, and then manned launches there - for deep space exploration, and the lunar program, then the exploration of Mars. The first is very soon - in 2019 we are going to launch a mission towards Mars, ”said the head of state in the second part of the documentary by Andrei Kondrashov.
    1. slipped
      slipped 6 May 2021 16: 02
      0
      Quote: From Tomsk
      March 15, 2018 Putin spoke about the imminent flight to Mars


      It was about the launch in 2020 of the Russian landing module "Kazachok", which was supposed to deliver our long-lived planetary station and the European rover for the second part of the ExoMars program. The launch was postponed to 2022 in the next astronomical window due to unavailability on the European side, our rocket, module and station are ready. We are waiting for Europe.
  • Akaki_1
    Akaki_1 6 May 2021 16: 03
    +4
    This is all good, but there are a few questions:
    1) The ship does not start from the surface, but from some kind of turret. Where is it found on the Moon / Mars, etc.?
    2) When landing, fire is visible, i.e. the jet stream is reflected from the surface. During lunar landing / landing, there will be no flat concrete surface, - stones knocked out from the surface by a jet stream will fly into the ship. How will this issue be resolved?
    3) The ship does not have retractable landing side supports, i.e. when landing, he needs a perfectly flat surface - the same as in the roller. Where can one find one on the Moon or Mars? Does Elon Musk already have spaceports there? And Starship will need to land on this surface, extinguishing the 2nd cosmic speed. How will this issue be resolved?
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 6 May 2021 16: 07
      0
      1) This is an early prototype, the Martian legs will be bigger and more abruptly.
      2) Protection of the engine compartment, for the Moon there is an option with additional engines on top.
      3) The current supports are temporary crutches to speed up development.
      1. Akaki_1
        Akaki_1 6 May 2021 16: 17
        -1
        Perhaps so ... Life will show. In my opinion, the parachute landing method at the final stage of landing on the same Mars would be safer - after all, it is not supposed to carry firewood, but people.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 6 May 2021 16: 20
          0
          A parachute on Mars would require just gigantic parachutes that would eat up all PN
          1. Akaki_1
            Akaki_1 6 May 2021 16: 30
            -4
            Well, then it remains to hope for an American maybe smile
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 6 May 2021 16: 36
              -2
              Just launch a bunch of ships to work out the landing
        2. KeithRichards
          KeithRichards 6 May 2021 18: 27
          -1
          Parachute? On Mars?
          The atmosphere is rarefied there. There the parachute would be the size of a death star (and it would not be small on earth). But the traditional way of landing the AMC on engines should work for itself.
      2. Turist1996
        Turist1996 6 May 2021 16: 45
        -2
        1) This is an early prototype, the Martian legs will be bigger and more abruptly.
        2) Protection of the engine compartment, for the Moon there is an option with additional engines on top.
        3) The current supports are a temporary crutch to speed up development.

        Only from this "suddenly" the mass of the apparatus grows, the centering changes, it is also interesting - did the sample fly with or without a payload simulator? And why is the "stepwise" scheme not used, which has proven its right to life: a lunar module with a landing stage lands, and only the lunar module itself flies away, leaving the spent "iron" at the launch site. It is energetically more beneficial - it has been proven theoretically and practically.
        In short, as a person with an engineering education, I just have a bunch of questions ..
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 6 May 2021 16: 48
          0
          1) Their problems are not with the center of mass, they easily and naturally alter rockets on the fly, which they have already demonstrated a hundred times. They had problems with the fuel system when flipping in flight.
          2) By the fact that Musk wants complete reusability. It allows you to save much more money than you need to spend additional fuel to transport the mass.
          1. Turist1996
            Turist1996 6 May 2021 19: 27
            -2
            Something like my engineering practice (exactly - practice!), Based on physical laws, as that, at least, does not confirm your statements.
            Once again - your statements. The flight of a barrel with fuel to an altitude of 10 km and landing of it, already facilitated due to the development of fuel, is not an indicator for me at all.
            I did not see any spaceship here. All the more so - interplanetary.
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 6 May 2021 19: 34
              0
              So this is a prototype, the purpose of which is to work out the landing of the ship on the last leg of the flight. It will go to metal anyway. SN20 will fly into orbit, and only SN25 should return
  • xorek
    xorek 6 May 2021 16: 29
    -7
    Congratulations to all liberals, the main thing is not to choke on enthusiasm ..
    Pipelats did not explode ..)))
  • Vadim237
    Vadim237 6 May 2021 16: 32
    -9
    The winged beer tank successfully took off and sat down - well, "Achievement", what can I say.
  • Turist1996
    Turist1996 6 May 2021 16: 34
    -9
    I still don’t understand the general concept of this pepelats .. Is it an orbital ship? Interplanetary? Returnable?
    A barrel of fuel flew up to an altitude of 10 km and sat back down. Under the control of automation (modern) and not the first time.
    Half a century ago, if not more, Alexei Garnaev piloted such a device called "Turbolet". Without automation, completely manually.
    And the landing of Yak-38, Harriers, F-35 is a well-oiled routine procedure.
    Where Musk has a "breakthrough" now - I really don't see it. Pure hype and advertising.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 6 May 2021 16: 37
      +1
      1) Sub-orbital, orbital, interplanetary and reversible at the same time.
      2) You do not seem to represent the size of this barrel.
      There is 50 meters height.
    2. Engineer Schukin
      Engineer Schukin 6 May 2021 20: 00
      0
      So maybe you better get acquainted with the question than to thresh an illiterate rubbish?
  • Hog
    Hog 6 May 2021 17: 12
    +4
    How did it fly and how did it sit down? They said that it will explode again, it turns out that local haters cannot be trusted, ay-ay-ay crying
    PS: Well, congratulations, we look forward to the SN16 flight.
    1. 75 Sergey
      75 Sergey 6 May 2021 21: 21
      0
      extinguished on time. wink
      1. slipped
        slipped 6 May 2021 23: 43
        +2
        Quote: 75Sergey
        extinguished on time. wink


        Burned, extinguished.

        1. The comment was deleted.
  • Esoteric
    Esoteric 6 May 2021 17: 42
    +4
    Well then. Always literally "raved about" space. I studied Tsesevich's book "What and How to Observe in the Sky" in the seventh grade of the school. I even made a homemade "telescope". Humanity should settle in the Galaxy, if we discard some delusional theories, some individual that was shown by the language.
    And every step towards this should be welcomed.
  • Esoteric
    Esoteric 6 May 2021 18: 00
    +2
    Science must be developed. In essence, everything is the same. Flight on the "fire-breathing dragon". Although nature seems to be hinting, for example, gravity, and much more. But the blinders that some "genius" with a violin put on humanity will never give stars to humanity. So we will die out here, on the third planet, never going anywhere.
  • Gray-haired Zinnik
    Gray-haired Zinnik 6 May 2021 19: 10
    +1
    Seems to me, gentlemen, trampolines start to work
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 6 May 2021 21: 11
      -6
      This trampoline will begin to work only when it will launch cargo into orbit, deliver people and safely land on other planets and return all this to Earth. Now it is just a test stand no more.
  • Turist1996
    Turist1996 6 May 2021 19: 32
    -9
    Awesomely stated: "Spaceship" StarShip!
    Rzhu in a voice - a model of the GIRD-09 level, but for all the money!
  • The comment was deleted.
  • 75 Sergey
    75 Sergey 6 May 2021 21: 19
    -6
    The feeling that it was extinguished on time - the success is so-so and the engine alone for some reason did not function.
    And if he was carrying shells ?!
    1. Engineer Schukin
      Engineer Schukin 7 May 2021 10: 09
      -1
      Not for some reason, but as it was intended.
      In the jump test program, when landing, three engines were first turned on, and as soon as the system determined that it was working properly, one engine was turned on immediately. This is done due to the fact that even at the lowest throttle thrust, the three engines are still too strong for landing.
  • shadow
    shadow 6 May 2021 23: 51
    -8
    They landed another bucket of nails on a string, and instead of fuel they shone with a flashlight. What an achievement.
  • Geek
    Geek 8 May 2021 15: 13
    0
    ..that's their trampoline)))))) .. well done !!
  • Engineer Schukin
    Engineer Schukin 9 May 2021 08: 30
    0
    Quote: slipped
    Quote: Engineer Schukin
    Should they be different?))


    Russia produces and launches different ones. And low and medium and high orbit.

    Quote: Engineer Schukin
    In general, what a pitiful sight. Manufacturing less than 1% of the world's satellites, but puffing and babbling is great.


    In general, Russia only 15 years ago began to produce and launch modern spacecraft with a long period of active existence and gradually switch to the domestic element base in their design, and our satellite constellation itself is increasing from year to year. At the end of last year, there were more than 160 spacecraft for various purposes. Now there is a rapid construction of new workshops in Zheleznogorsk and an entire plant in Shchelkovo for the serial production of satellite platforms of large constellations of the "Sphere" system, and the domestic satellite builders are designing new spacecraft. So as they say, your exit is not at the cashier. laughing This year there have already been and will be more launches of new devices.

    Yeah, you are a wizard to smear words on the future.

    The actual situation is as follows:
    The share of Russia in the production of spacecraft in the world:
    2021: 0,7%
    2020: 1,7%
    2019: 5,9%
    2018: 4,8%
    2017: 5,2%
    2016: 7,8%
    2015: 10,9%

    It's not even worth talking about the dependence of domestic satellites on imported element base. As well as about a series of marriage for foreign customers.

    You should definitely be paid for all this bravura lies, with which you are trying to cover up the obvious degradation of Roscosmos.
    I hope you are at least ashamed of all your "activity" here.