Military Review

Vanity around RD-180: final or not yet?

122

RD-180 / © Roskosmos


The beginning of autumn was marked by a big noise in the press about the termination of the contract for the supply of Russian rocket engines RD-180 to the United States. Many media outlets spoke about what and how the Americans will continue to do after the RD-180 supplies stop.

Discontinued? Where did the information come from?

Information about this was posted by the site The Verge with reference to the executive director of United Launch Alliance (a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin, engaged in launching spacecraft) Tori Bruno.

ULA is also the official contractor for the Pentagon. True, this does not really mean anything, SpaceX is also a contractor for this structure.

Interestingly, neither Boeing nor Lockheed Martin published any official statements on this topic. Anyway, in the American segment there is complete silence on this topic. All specialized publications were filled with the topic of Afghanistan and Biden. Various degrees of heat. Even those who should have written about it have no time for rocket engines.

As for The Verge, this site is in the third XNUMX most popular in the United States. But apparently, someone saw this publication, and, as usual, a wave started.

In principle, nothing surprising. Someone spoke about the fact that the United States would not be able to do anything without the RD-180, someone decided that it was very unprofitable for NPO Energomash, which was left without such a source of income.

The truth, as always, is somewhere in between.

In fact, what can be said in essence?

In essence, the RD-180 is really what they write about it, namely an extremely reliable and inexpensive engine. For 20 years of use of which not a single accident and catastrophe occurred due to the fault of the engine itself.

As of April 08, 2021, that is, more than 20 years since the first launch of the Atlas LV with the RD-180, 116 engines have been delivered from Russia to the United States. For 20 years, 92 launches took place, all of them were recognized as successful.

Since 2014, relations between Russia and the United States began to deteriorate, the engine has repeatedly become hostage to political games, but expediency overpowered ambitions and supplies continued. Accordingly, the Atlases continued with military satellites as well.

But in the USA, active work began to replace the RD-180. In any case, it became clear that something had to be done with the Russian engine. No matter how good the RD-180 was, its very presence in the US military structures, and even more so in those related to space, did not look very sane in the eyes of the Americans.

Indeed, it was time to decide whether Russia was a potential adversary or a partner in space programs.

So far, it has not turned out very well, but the work, as they say, is going in this direction.

In the summer of 2020, ULA received the first BE-4 test engine from Blue Origin. BE-4 is intended to replace the RD-180. It differs from the Russian engine, but the essence is in its very presence.

The Americans still had a backup version with the production of the RD-180 itself under license, they have the right to do this until 2030. However, there really is no point in trying to establish the production of a Russian engine under a license that will end soon, it is better to invest in your engine. So here the Americans are acting absolutely logically and pragmatically.

Vanity around RD-180: final or not yet?

On April 16, 2021, Roskosmos announced the dispatch of the last batch of 6 RD-180 engines to the United States.

This does not mean that cooperation is over. But it is very likely that the Americans are implementing their import substitution program. But - with a certain safety net in the form of a commodity stock from the RD-180.

According to The Verge, Boeing and Lockheed Martin have about 30 engines in warehouses. How often are Atlas V launches carried out in the USA - maximum 5 times a year. That is, on such a stock, you can start for several years. Very reasonable. During this time, you can bring to mind the BE-4.

Naturally, now many people say that the introduction of a new engine is associated with certain risks, that the BE-4 will be worse than the RD-180, that it makes no sense at all to change the RD-180, we need to be friends with Russia and continue to buy the RD-180. But this opinion comes mainly from our side.

Americans have a slightly different opinion. Politically, economically, they want their products to be put into orbit by "their" rockets. In principle, this is normal for a country with such a patriotic pumping. Hence the rampages of old McCain and the claims from SpaseX.

This is fine. The desire to have your own engine so as not to depend (the option is not to feed) from the Russians, and besides, modern, with all these ecological gadgets - this is really normal.

Another question, of course, is how effective the BE-4 will be. It is clear that sooner or later, it will start working. Something, but the Americans have not forgotten how to build engines. They will finish it too. And at the end there will be a solution to political issues, since it is so unbearable, and the money will not go "to the side", to a potential enemy. And the engine will be American and modern. Not + 5% to cravings, of course, but to conceit for sure.

RD-180 is an excellent engine. For 20 years the Americans have become convinced of its reliability and accurate work. But the arguments from our experts that the United States is better off not getting involved in the development of a new engine just look frivolous. Unfortunately, many of our media are simply calling on Americans to degrade. It doesn't look very nice, especially since the Americans still don't take our opinion into account at all.

Indeed, why develop new engines by making mistakes by falling and getting up? You can buy ready-made and use it. All the way. The whole question is when this emphasis will come. When will relations between countries deteriorate completely or when we will not be able to produce the engine in the required quality?

Both situations can easily happen. But go ahead as it shows история, necessary. This is called progress. Technical and technological.

An example can be given not from the space industry, but from a more mundane one. For almost 50 years, our beloved AvtoVAZ has been producing almost the Niva SUV. Almost unchanged. With an ancient engine, an archaic gearbox, non-disconnectable all-wheel drive, again an "ultra-modern" bridge, and so on. The options of this car fit on a child's palm.

It was believed that the main thing is price and reliability. The rest is so ... secondary. That is why “Niva” is often not seen on the roads and off them, in contrast to more modern and comfortable competitors. Although which competitor from Niva ...

In the space industry, we have the same policy. We successfully did not start working on projects of interplanetary stations, or on new ships, or on new launch vehicles. With the launch vehicle, the throws were definite, but so far they have not led to anything. We still have the ancient "Union" on our table, the works of S.P. Queen and no less ancient "Proton". This was enough to organize a space transport system. The key word was "was", because we are very confidently kicked out of this segment by the cheaper American reusable ships.

Judging by how the ancient Nauka module was dragged into orbit for the actually decommissioned ISS station, with orbital construction we have roughly the same as with interplanetary flights.

So everything is clear here. And the desire of the United States to secure itself as much as possible in terms of space launches from import dependence, and the reaction of many of our media, who rushed in a race to condemn the entire American space program if they refused to use the RD-180.

Yes, the RD-180 is good. But it is used only in one stage of two missiles, Atlas 3 and 5. They fly 2-5 times a year. Yes, this is an excellent "workhorse" that has regularly dragged American military satellites into orbit for 20 years. Heavy, note.

But apparently, the era of cooperation between Russia and the United States in space is approaching its natural end, and in the very near future, the countries, apparently, will simply separate and disperse each in their own direction.

Of course, it is unpleasant to understand that Energomash will lose such a good source of funding as American contracts. And that now in Russia a certain part of the electorate will not be able, puffing out their cheeks, to proudly declare that "they put everything into orbit on our engines!" Conversely, Americans will be proud to finally get rid of their dependence on Russian engines. If the United States is generally aware of this, by the way.

Most likely, there are only those in the know who are completely "in the subject", like Elon Musk.

In any case, no matter how rocket-propulsion relations between the countries develop in the future, it would be better for our Roscosmos engineers to think and figure out where we can use the RD-180 in our country. They say it is a very reliable and powerful engine ... It's amazing that we don't use it anywhere.

And let the United States go its own way. Yes, there is clearly nothing we can do to prevent them from doing this, it is probably worth thinking more about our future tasks and methods of their implementation.

And dollars ... Well, we must try to do without them. Moreover, there will be less and less of them anyway.
Author:
122 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. aybolyt678
    aybolyt678 10 September 2021 05: 28
    +13
    The article is well balanced, but I strongly disagree with the ending of the article:
    And dollars ... Well, we must try to do without them. Moreover, there will be less and less of them anyway.
    , - there will be more and more dollars laughing
    1. Proxima
      Proxima 10 September 2021 06: 02
      +20
      “We have the ancient Soyuz“ on the table ”, the works of SP Korolev and the no less ancient Proton. - from the text. Why is the "Union" suddenly ancient? request Well, yes, Sergei Pavlovich created the R-7 rocket, the progenitor of the Soyuz. But Soyuz is constantly being modernized. This rocket in its segment meets all modern requirements. But the cheap and reliable "Proton" truck is removed from the run "not because it is outdated, but because of the toxic fuel (heptyl-amyl pair). We need to understand that rockets are not iPhones, No. which age in half a year.
      1. Proxima
        Proxima 10 September 2021 06: 24
        +9
        BE-4 in no way can fully replace the RD-180. Take, for example, the main characteristic of a rocket engine - thrust. For BE-4, it is planned for 249,52 tf, and our engine - 423,4 tf fellow The difference is more than! Yes, and under the BE-4 it is necessary to change the body of the rocket; you cannot pump liquefied methane into a kerosene fuel tank. The tank should be larger, stronger, and so on. It turns out that if the body is changed in a rocket, a fundamentally different engine is installed, then this is already a different rocket. That is, a grandmother with eggs is already a grandfather. lol In short, typical American statements that have been going on for at least a dozen years.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 10 September 2021 07: 21
          +14
          The Marilyn engine, which has even less thrust, is a wonderful substitute for less UI.
          Falcon-9 equipped with such engines easily smashes Atlas-5 in the US domestic market. And he doesn't even fire a cannon shot at the international one.
          Just because it is better for the price / quality
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 10 September 2021 07: 52
            +8
            Well, I decided to calculate the motor prices for Atlas-5 and Falcon-9 based on data from open sources.
            And so, in a full bag, Atlas-5 carries like Falcon-9 with a return.
            The driving price of the Falcon-9.
            10 engines at $ 1 million each, for a total of 10 million. Excluding reusability.
            9 out of 10 engines come back, let's say we spend 11% of new ones on maintenance. (SpaceX themselves say that no work with the engine is required, but we will increase and take into account different transportation, etc.)
            The rocket is designed for 10 flights before repair, let's take this by the edge.
            A total of 20 million for 10 flights or 2 million for one flight. This is taking into account reusability.
            Atlas-5 needs the following engines.
            RD-180 one piece for 22 million.
            RL-10 (second stage aka overclocking centaurus) one piece for 17 million
            GEM (side boosters) five pieces of 7 million.
            Итого 22+17+7*5=39+35=74 миллионов долларов
            Total 10 versus 74 million without reusability. 7,4 to 1. Given that in this case, Falcon-9 takes out more cargo than Atlas-5
            Or 2 versus 74 million reusable. 37 to 1 with equal orbital load.
            Such pies.
            1. military_cat
              military_cat 10 September 2021 13: 02
              +8
              But the arguments from our experts that it is better for the United States not to get involved in the development of a new engine look simply frivolous.
              This is called "magical thinking". People deeply in the subconscious are sure that by uttering words about some desired development of events, they thereby help it to happen.

              It doesn't look very nice, especially since the Americans still don't take our opinion into account at all.
              The problem arises when this magical reality begins to be perceived as expert assessments by those who make decisions with us. And then they stop assessing the situation adequately.
              1. umah
                umah 13 September 2021 09: 17
                -2
                We successfully did not start working on projects of interplanetary stations, or on new ships, or on new launch vehicles. With the launch vehicle, the throws were definite, but so far they have not led to anything.

                On interplanetary stations, we have completed the Nuclon R&D project. For new ships, the Federation / Eagle is being finalized. New launch vehicle - "Angara".
            2. Motorist
              Motorist 11 September 2021 01: 04
              +7
              Quote: BlackMokona
              10 engines for $ 1 million

              A million [euros] costs a crankshaft of a medium-speed engine with a capacity of up to 8000 kW. And this is "just" a piece of iron! In Europe.

              In the US, breakfast at a simple eatery costs 50 bucks. Somewhere a miscalculation ... what
              1. kig
                kig 11 September 2021 03: 31
                +5
                The ULA website says that the Atlas launch price = $ 109 million.
              2. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 11 September 2021 06: 58
                -1
                Such is the price of the Marilyn engine, the Marilyn engine is being made relatively massively, it is an engine of an extremely simple open circuit, all production is fully integrated inside the company so as not to feed the army of contractors, and a huge amount of work has been done to make it cheaper. The creator of the engine, Thomas Mueller, talked about conversations with Musk about price and work. And for example, he especially noted the conversation about the numerous and expensive valves. And that Musk demanded from him a solution that no one uses, since the path to him in development is extremely thorny and filled with explosions of engines on the stands. And he was like that, but Musk just wrote out checks over and over again instead of howling and shouting for bureaucrats. With the requirements to do so immediately and correctly. But he did the development and even relatively quickly, since they used the Agile technique, they first created a completely poor engine in terms of characteristics, but so that it could fly, and then for many years they brought it to the modern state, gradually improving the characteristics. But the basis with a huge number of simplifications of the production process remained, removing most of the tricky and complex automation.
                And most importantly, do you know how much the new Mask Raptor engine costs, which is already so cool in terms of performance characteristics with a bunch of bells and whistles?
                The target price is 250 thousand dollars per piece, the current price of prototypes is one million dollars per piece.
                Achieve many years of hard development with explosions and other fun, as well as a huge mass production. For example, a small-scale production already deployed gives an engine every 48 hours. For comparison, in 22 years, the RD-180 was produced as many as 116 engines. Thus, in the course of small-scale production, the same number of engines is produced in 232 days as in 22 years. You yourself understand what are the advantages of this approach. And the plan is to do them radically more often and more. Think of a conveyor belt instead of one-off piece-to-order production.
                And it turns out that a huge bundle of Starship engines will be cheaper than Atlas engines.
                39 Raptors (the first plus the second step of the Starship) for 250 thousand dollars is just nothing 9.75 million dollars. Cheaper than one RD-180.
                1. Dmitry V.
                  Dmitry V. 14 September 2021 14: 59
                  0
                  Quote: BlackMokona
                  For comparison, in 22 years, the RD-180 was produced as many as 116 engines. Thus, in the course of small-scale production, the same number of engines is produced in 232 days as in 22 years.

                  Let's add performance to your common sense?
                  The thrust of the RD-180 at sea level (and this is the first stage engine) is 390 tf.
                  Merlin 1D thrust at sea level is 66,6 tf.
                  390 / 66,6 = 5,85, that is, to get a comparable thrust on the launch pad, one RD-180 corresponds to 6 six Merlin.
                  That is, 116 produced RD-180 engines replaced 696 Merlin 1D engines.
                  almost 700 engines replace 116 RD-180 engines.
                  By the way, the safety margins allow the RD-180 and RD-191 to be brought to the stage of reusable use. This must be done
                  1. Blackmokona
                    Blackmokona 14 September 2021 19: 47
                    0
                    Well, let's start with the fact that I indicated the production of the Raptor engine, not Marilyn.
                    1. Dmitry V.
                      Dmitry V. 15 September 2021 08: 48
                      0
                      Quote: BlackMokona
                      Well, let's start with the fact that I indicated the production of the Raptor engine, and not Marilyn

                      Is the price of the Raptor known? - apart from dubious declarations, nothing is clear yet.
                      It is doubtful that a more powerful Raptor will cost less than a merlin.

                      Taking into account the fact that only according to open sources, more than 100 million from the US Air Force and more than 67 million dollars of Space X were spent on the development and the first prototypes.
                      And the real numbers are not known to us.
                      It is unlikely that we will be shown the net cost, taking into account the development.
                      And talking about $ 250 tonnes of cost is like taking numbers off the top.
                      1. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 15 September 2021 14: 06
                        0
                        At the moment, these are declarations and statements of the head of the company, the owner and the general designer in one person. From his official mouthpiece registered as it should be.
                        This is the development price that will be cut by the number of engines. And there plans to make 100 Starships a year, count the number of engines and how much R&D will be in each if, for example, it ends up in a billion bucks
                      2. Dmitry V.
                        Dmitry V. 16 September 2021 13: 32
                        0
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        100 Starships per year, count the number of engines and how much R&D will be in each one if, for example, it ends up in a billion bucks

                        100 ships a year is a project. What will we carry?
                        Turye, $ 10000 per ticket?
                        So they are sent to the South Pole annually no more than 10000 people, at a much lower price of tours. Flying into space is an expensive pleasure and the flow of millionaire tourists will quickly dry up
                        .
                        There is not so much payload to justify the construction of such a large-scale fleet. and so many launches.
                        Calculate the cost of preparing for the launch of one ship and take into account that they are returnable and can fly repeatedly, or even 3, maybe 4 times a year.
                        So, in general, utopia.
                        Since I was directly related to rocketry, I can predict an increase in launch services and a decrease in the cost of launches and the cost of a kg of field load.
                        Yes - there will be an increase in launch services, but there will be no work for 20 ships of a similar carrying capacity for the next 10 years.
                        And in 15 years, the ships will become obsolete.
                        6 shuttles coped with a huge list of launch services for the military, silent NASA and others. Shuttles as carriers are outdated before the resource took off. 286 processors in the most modern by 2012 have long become archaism.
                        It is very difficult to get the payload on heavy and even medium media.
                        In addition to communication, military and research vehicles, mainly small "garbage bags" are being displayed.
                        The launch services market is overcrowded.
                        Yes - there is a chance to load a dozen of ships with "turrets" into orbit or around the Moon.
                        This is the limit of the current market demand. And it will not grow as Musk expects.

                        A trifle is allowed.

                        Starship - at this stage of development - utopia.
                        Loud, hyped, but nothing revolutionary, which would radically reduce the cost of launch.
            3. ultra
              ultra 13 September 2021 10: 20
              +2
              Nobody knows the real price of Musk products, the company's financial statements are a secret.
          2. ecolog
            ecolog 12 September 2021 22: 29
            0
            and to saw the right guys from Congress, NASA, and other good offices on what? You argue apolitically, you see. What a mask shmask.
      2. Engineer Schukin
        Engineer Schukin 10 September 2021 08: 08
        +9
        Do not forget that the RD-180 is essentially 2 RD. There will be 2 BE-4s on the Volcano, so multiply yours by 2.
      3. arkadiyssk
        arkadiyssk 10 September 2021 08: 35
        +9
        So they change the rocket. Atlas with RD-180 ceases to be produced and instead a Vulcan is made using methane BE-4.
      4. Mustached Kok
        Mustached Kok 10 September 2021 11: 57
        +13
        Only BE-4 is not going to be put on the atlas. They will be used on the new Vulcan launch vehicle, which will replace both the Atlas series and the Delta series. And there initially everything was counted under the new engines. So do not worry about them, they took everything into account and calculated without you.
      5. awdrgy
        awdrgy 10 September 2021 23: 07
        0
        They sell engines that are put into orbit by enemy military satellites. What is it like??? And then spend money on protection from them from our own pocket? How to understand this ?! Or are they not enemies, but allies? Only on TV they say something else. And where is the truth, and where is nonsense?
    2. Cloud4CRY
      Cloud4CRY 10 September 2021 10: 45
      0
      Not ancient, but honored. Although not an iPhone, something has changed in the world in 70 years.
    3. ja-ja-vw
      ja-ja-vw 11 September 2021 00: 11
      -1
      Quote: Proxima
      But Soyuz is constantly being modernized. This rocket in its segment meets all modern requirements.

      The Soyuz LV is an ancient rocket.
      Only the control system (on-board computer) and a little bit (completely dry mass), mainly the fairings, are being "modernized".
      The rest is NO.
      example
      8D74 / 14D22 - open (!) Cycle with UI 252/313 s (at the level of solid propellant engines)
      255!
      Solid propellant rocket launcher SLBM UGM-27A 245-250 sec (theoretical impulse 266 sec)

      if you knew the features of prelaunch preparation, it would be awesome, it's like a Curve starter

      Russian Geländewagen request
      but at helik, at least the motors and gearboxes were changed, leaving only the outer hinges, continuous bridges and torsion bars ... oh yes, a flat windshield.
      But do they buy a lot of them?
      1. Motorist
        Motorist 11 September 2021 01: 26
        +5
        Quote: ja-ja-vw
        if you knew the features of prelaunch preparation, ofigeli

        I don’t know what’s at the cosmodrome, but your video is an example of simplicity, reliability and durability. And maintainability, by the way. As a minder I tell you. hi
        1. ja-ja-vw
          ja-ja-vw 11 September 2021 01: 36
          +5
          Quote: Motorist
          As a minder I tell you.

          as a "car enthusiast" (a nasty word mlyn, with an experience of 29 years and all categories except for "bus workers"): well, it’s in the train station.
          I'm on this
          Quote: Motorist
          an example of simplicity, reliability and durability.

          I WILL NOT SIT (go) now (and have not sat since 1995), and I will not put my grandchildren's children, and I do not advise you.
          Outwardly, I understand: the atomic war will turn off the Internet and therefore you need to use a notebook and wipe your backside with a burdock ...
          however, this is ku-ku (not madeumazelle)
          shl. in the elbow she hits well
          In 1876 year Nicholas Augustin Otto patented an internal combustion engine that, in order to start, had to be cranked up to the starting frequency using an external power source. In those days, the electric starter was not yet invented., and therefore the source of energy was the person himself

          15 June 1911 year Kettering presents - an electric motor. For a short period of time, it developed a sufficiently high power, sufficient to spin the engine crankshaft to the required speed, and after starting the same electric motor was used as a generator to charge the battery.
          Cadillac founder Henry Leland believed in the idea yes
          Are you seriously suggesting to me to use this threshing floor in the 21st year of the 21st century?
          1. Motorist
            Motorist 11 September 2021 01: 58
            +5
            Quote: ja-ja-vw
            Are you seriously suggesting to me to use this threshing floor in the 21st year of the 21st century?

            I seriously propose to stop toil (obscene word). Not for you, of course.

            Did you know that two-stroke marine engines with a camshaft are no longer built (such as NOx emissions and other obscene words)? And the new ones are entangled with tens of kilometers of wires, and not in order to improve reliability ... There is even a local control post with buttons. With buttons! Emergency control post!

            In general, I personally dislike these newfangled populist things, sorry for the obscenities. hi
            1. ja-ja-vw
              ja-ja-vw 11 September 2021 02: 15
              +3
              Quote: Motorist
              You know that two-stroke marine engines with a camshaft are no longer built

              and fine.
              Cars were screwed up at Euro 7, but they don't know about Euro 0 on ships / ships.
              I'd send them snow to rake in Kamchatka
              Quote: Motorist
              In general, I personally dislike these newfangled populist things, sorry for the obscene language

              yes, everything is fine.
              if your version was correct, then our women would still walk in kokoshniks, they would clean their teeth with ashes (well, at least not with crushed bricks), and to soak the blockhouse with an antiseptic: the family would write for a year (the opposite word) went into the vat, and then would smear.
              I am for healthy conservatism, but not for idiocy, although healthy
              1. Motorist
                Motorist 11 September 2021 02: 24
                +3
                Quote: ja-ja-vw
                I am for healthy conservatism, but not for idiocy, although healthy

                You probably didn't understand. I stand for reliability and maintainability. In the sea and in space, this is important. On the shore it is not so scary - a passing Gazelle will reach the workshop on a tie.

                By the way, you are in vain for "Euro-0" - my engine at the stand gave out about 165 g / kW * h, and the car engine?
                1. ja-ja-vw
                  ja-ja-vw 11 September 2021 12: 33
                  +1
                  for that you slapped a minus-xs.
                  "passed by"
                  maintainability is now out of fashion.
                  Quote: Motorist
                  my engine on the stand gave out about 165 g / kW * h, and the car engine?

                  too much you have
                  Emissions of harmful substances from power plants of ships are determined on the basis of
                  International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MAPPOL 73/78) and now Annex VI IC MARPOL

                  and we have like this:

                  will you count?
                  my
                  1. Motorist
                    Motorist 11 September 2021 14: 11
                    +1
                    Quote: ja-ja-vw
                    too much you have

                    I was not quite clear about it, thinking that the "effective specific fuel consumption" is clear by default (ie, efficiency). It's not NOx, of course. For NOx - the table below (https://dieselnet.com/standards/inter/imo.php), although I [personally] are not interested in this parameter.

  2. Commissar77
    Commissar77 10 September 2021 06: 02
    +1
    The local spiteful Russophobic critics should watch a film about the RD-180 by the Americans themselves - the History channel. On YouTube it is called "Hot Engines from a Cold Country. The USA Couldn't Do What the USSR Could Do."
    1. Cloud4CRY
      Cloud4CRY 10 September 2021 10: 48
      +6
      We know how to make good rd180 engines, it's a pity that we don't know how to use them ourselves.
      1. whitebeard
        whitebeard 12 September 2021 18: 54
        0
        In our homelands, prophets, as you know, are not required, including among the engines;)
  3. Blackmokona
    Blackmokona 10 September 2021 07: 18
    +9
    Well good, the name SpaceX is misspelled.
    RD-180 is used only on Atlas-5 missiles, Atlas-3 missiles have not been flying anywhere since 2005 and have long been discontinued.
  4. citizen
    citizen 10 September 2021 21: 10
    0
    Quote: aybolyt678
    there will be more and more dollars

    Some have more, some have less.
  • Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 10 September 2021 05: 29
    -2
    Unfortunately, many of our media are simply calling on Americans to degrade. It doesn't look very nice.
    Yes, it is more beautiful than appeals to impose "democracy" on Russia by force of arms to the American taste.
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather 10 September 2021 05: 46
      +15
      Although which competitor from Niva ...
      for "Niva" it was a shame ... yes, there are almost no options, BUT! the price is not like "Pajero" or "Kruzak"! and on cross-country ability "Niva" will give them a head start, again over the body the owner does not shake because of scratches and dents! the car is very good in its own way.
      1. Pessimist22
        Pessimist22 10 September 2021 05: 57
        +11
        The engine is weak on the Niva and the razdatka.
        1. Grandfather
          Grandfather 10 September 2021 06: 42
          +5
          Quote: Pessimist22
          The engine is weak on the Niva and the razdatka.

          but it is being repaired on the knee in the garage!
          1. aybolyt678
            aybolyt678 10 September 2021 07: 29
            +5
            Quote: Dead Day
            but it is being repaired on the knee in the garage!

            it would be more powerful, it would break less
        2. aybolyt678
          aybolyt678 10 September 2021 07: 28
          +9
          Quote: Pessimist22
          The engine is weak on the Niva and the razdatka.

          in his life he killed 3 Niva, the handouts never broke. Noisy - yes. The engine is weak - yes!
      2. Konstantin Shevchenko
        Konstantin Shevchenko 10 September 2021 07: 01
        +8
        "Niva" is not roomy like "Kruzak" and "Pajero", it does not pull on an expedition vehicle.
        1. Beringovsky
          Beringovsky 10 September 2021 23: 28
          +4
          Quote: Konstantin Shevchenko
          "Niva" is not roomy like "Kruzak" and "Pajero", it does not pull on an expedition vehicle.

          Strange argument.
          And Kruzak and Pajero just do it in terms of roominess far from the Ural-shift.
          1. Konstantin Shevchenko
            Konstantin Shevchenko 11 September 2021 10: 28
            0
            Dedkastary compares Niva with Kruzak in terms of price, cross-country ability. The answer was sent to him. Each car has disadvantages and advantages. There is nothing strange. The machines are compared among the civilian segment. And so, I can, too, as you write, - Unimog is better in cross-country ability than "Niva".
            1. Momento
              Momento 11 September 2021 16: 19
              +3
              cornfield should be compared with Suzuki. Suzuki is a cool Japanese cornfield. reliable and simple.
              1. Nikon OConor
                Nikon OConor 11 September 2021 17: 49
                0
                Which Grand Vitara is this? Good Japovskaya Niva.
                On the knee, the Lancruiser 75 is being repaired (such white ones traveled through the deserts with the UN badge), if I'm not mistaken, this is a licensed copy of the Land Rover 75. But in terms of reliability and unpretentiousness, it can be compared with the military version of the UAZ since the USSR.
                1. Nikon OConor
                  Nikon OConor 11 September 2021 17: 57
                  0
                  Land Rover 75.

                  no all the same I am mistaken probably range rover .... though .... oil oil.
                2. MrFox
                  MrFox 15 September 2021 20: 59
                  0
                  This is which Suzuki Jimny, frames, axles four-wheel drive and low gear
              2. ultra
                ultra 13 September 2021 10: 25
                0
                You should at least write a model.
      3. vadimtt
        vadimtt 10 September 2021 07: 24
        +3
        Yes, there is no need to offend Niva. An excellent car in its segment, both the old version and the new one. True, the price tag has almost reached the Llama on a modern one. And the engine and razdatka are old. But at least they were galvanized and installed a power steering with kondeem. Although for 1.8 this is already too much. And if they also put the machine gun (which does not exist and is unlikely to appear in Renault-VAZ), then it will become completely sad.
        1. whitebeard
          whitebeard 12 September 2021 18: 56
          +2
          This is the plus of the market regulation of prices - that if it is too expensive for its quality, no one will take it;) And if they do, then the price for buyers is corresponding. desired quality.
      4. ja-ja-vw
        ja-ja-vw 11 September 2021 02: 19
        -1
        Quote: Dead Day
        and on cross-country ability "Niva" will give them a head start,

        I remember her without a power steering .... rucolom on the "handicap"
        Quote: Dead Day
        the car is very good in its own way.

        because it's cheap. in due time yes ...
        But time has passed. she stayed "there"
        Detroit was also the city of the global automotive industry
      5. NOMADE
        NOMADE 12 September 2021 14: 43
        0
        I have nothing against the fields, but it gives a head start in cross-country ability, just the same that the owner "does not shake because of scratches and dents." That's the whole secret (plus, of course, less weight, volume and everything else)
  • Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. 10 September 2021 06: 02
    -3
    On this engine, US military satellites were launched into space for 20 years, which spied on us ... there is no good cooperation. belay
    1. kig
      kig 11 September 2021 03: 29
      -1
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      On this engine, US military satellites were launched into space for 20 years.

      Mr Tory Bruno tweeted that he was persuaded by the Department of State at RD180. The goal was to keep our engineers from migrating to North Korea and Iran after the collapse of the Union.
      1. ultra
        ultra 13 September 2021 10: 26
        0
        They tell nothing like that. laughing
  • U-58
    U-58 10 September 2021 06: 12
    +3
    This is the end. The end of the first episode, as the unforgettable Ostap Suleiman Berta Maria Bender Bey Zadunaisky used to say.
    Skoko rope does not twist, everything is one, the end will be.
    Everything that happens had to happen.
    With obvious inevitability and, by the way, not today, but much earlier. At this point, the Americans disappointed a little.
    And then: it would be strange if such a technological power could not make its own motor.
    So what will the second episode be?
    The plan was voiced to use the 180th machine as a supplement to the RD171 at the first stage of the Soyuz-5 (or 7, I don't remember exactly).
    Probably, this is a forced plan, with the goal of not losing elementary production technology.
    How it is resumed, production after the "break in production" is well known to me personally. It is very difficult and expensive. With the conduct of all sorts of qualification tests, the development of the technology again (the old performers are gone, the new ones do not know how, part of the equipment is lost, rusted, unbroken, etc.).
    Therefore, the engine must be done. At least piece by piece.
    On the other hand, China is showing great interest in the engine. Even though there is no "carrot" specifically for him.
    And, despite the agreements on the protection of intellectual property, they need the engine for subsequent copying or borrowing. Such is China today.
    But in general, the engine has a perspective. Although, most likely, it will no longer bring great material benefits.
    Of course, if our country changes its attitude to the topic of space, if both the people and the government are again interested in the dusty paths of distant planets, the fate of the RD-180 may turn out to be more successful.
    1. aybolyt678
      aybolyt678 10 September 2021 07: 31
      +3
      Quote: U-58
      Of course, if in our country the attitude towards the topic of space changes,

      why will it change? Rogozin's main task is military launch vehicles, spy satellites ...
      1. U-58
        U-58 10 September 2021 09: 27
        +3
        That's how it is. And [personally] can you name at least one domestic carrier that is not military, not a spy, etc.?))))
        Missiles like Alazan will be excluded from the question)))
        1. aybolyt678
          aybolyt678 10 September 2021 09: 52
          0
          Quote: U-58
          Can you name at least one native speaker

          I can't, I'm not a specialist, I just listened to Rogozin's speech, who defined the state of the Russian space industry as satisfactory.
    2. Cosm22
      Cosm22 10 September 2021 09: 31
      +6
      What will the second episode be like?
      None.
      The Russian cosmonautics does not have a new LV family under the RD-180. Moreover, the appearance of such a carrier is not visible even in the future. The Rus-M project was covered with a copper basin at the development stage. Here is such an irony of fate ... Russia has an excellent engine, but there is no rocket for it. They cannot find a "half liter" application in Russia. We were able to adapt only the "check" to the "Angara". With fellow inmates, you see, it turns out to work better.
      As for the hopes for the resumption of RD-180 deliveries to the United States, they are in vain. 300 votes in favor and 119 against in the US Congress legalized a ban on the use of Russian engines after 2022.
      1. Ezekiel
        Ezekiel 10 September 2021 12: 19
        .
        Quote: Cosm22
        What will the second episode be like?
        No
        .

        If it's not a secret, are you Ukrainian?
        1. Cosm22
          Cosm22 10 September 2021 14: 47
          +10
          Not a secret. Russian.
          Tell the whole biography? It is unlikely that it will be of interest to all readers of the resource.
          Another thing is interesting. Why do all the jingoistic patriots instantly reduce any news about gaps and blunders in Russian cosmonautics to the Ukrainian issue? Is this already a disease?
          Why should the problems of Russian space concern only Ukrainians? The Russians don't care about them? They don't give a damn about what course the RC is on, what it does, what it doesn't, and what should it do first?
          Where does this indifference come from? The second Soyuz is flying from the last century - so everything is fine in the Danish kingdom?
          If you start poking your nose at the absurdity and mistakes of the Republic of Kazakhstan, you will immediately be labeled a Bandera member.
          What interests you personally - my nationality or the fact that a really good RD-180 engine cannot find application in great and mighty Russia? Yes Dear. Yes, bulky, heavy and massive. Yes, disposable. But what if it doesn't go beyond successful paper reports on the development of methane and hydrogen engines? If it is not possible to make an analogue of Merlin (the simplest design, it is nowhere simpler)? If you can put an end to the reusability of steps on the engines of the Glushko line, why not try to at least expand the range of carriers? You look - and would break away from the LEO, would go out on a departure trajectory to another target.
          Oh yes, I forgot ... We have an ace up our sleeve, the fifth "Union" with "Angara"! What can you say ... I have already said so much about them that I will not repeat myself.
          1. Beringovsky
            Beringovsky 10 September 2021 23: 33
            +1
            Quote: Cosm22
            Why do all the jingoistic patriots instantly reduce any news about gaps and blunders in Russian cosmonautics to the Ukrainian question? Is it already a disease?

            No, this is a troll's manual. Well, what are you honestly, new to the internet? Pay no attention to those.
      2. aybolyt678
        aybolyt678 10 September 2021 19: 50
        -3
        Quote: Cosm22
        What will the second episode be like?
        None.

        nuclear propulsion. It seems like work is going on.
    3. whitebeard
      whitebeard 12 September 2021 19: 00
      -1
      It is much more logical then to stick it into the URM of the Angara instead of the 1-chamber RD-19X, it passes in size
    4. Terran ghost
      Terran ghost 21 September 2021 16: 07
      -1
      And, despite the agreements on the protection of intellectual property, they need the engine for subsequent copying or borrowing. Such is China today.

      What other agreements? The RD-180 patent expired in December 2020. Actually, how it should have happened and how it happens (and that this is happening is good and correct) with any inventions from any country after the expiration of these very limiting periods of patent protection. So it can copy even now, even though China, even India, even Germany. True, Germany does not make carrier rockets, but this is already particular.
      The garbage is that a rocket engine is a very complex product, with a lot of nuances in its manufacture, and therefore its unlicensed copying is expensive and complicated. Sometimes even more expensive than buying a production license.
  • Nexcom
    Nexcom 10 September 2021 06: 18
    -2
    I, of course, apologize - again with my IMHO, but in my opinion our leaders HAVE LONG TO DETERMINE the question: is the United States a potential adversary or partner in transforming Russia into a liberal colony? Is the profit in the form of green eyes obscured and double standards begin?
    Something I can’t imagine in any way that during the first cold war the USSR would drive strategically important products to the USA and help them crush themselves in this way (the USA is clearly not launching doves of peace with the help of such products - this is obvious). Although, of course, the schaz will start: you don't understand, this is different, without such contracts the space industry will completely bend ... Or maybe it will bend and bend for a completely different reason? Maybe the time has come to radically rethink the approach to commerce and management of the space industry?
    IMHO this question is long overdue.
    1. U-58
      U-58 10 September 2021 06: 44
      +3
      The political and economic situation today is such that we are ready to sell anything, anything, to anyone, anyone, as long as there is a profit. For there is no money, there is no longer the strength to hold on. And we even wear Chinese panties, but not our own.
      Except for nuclear weapons, Sarmat missiles and the like. And even then, if it were not for the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, and it would have been sold ...
      So, it makes no sense to be determined. Everything is determined (stolen) before us ....
      1. Nexcom
        Nexcom 10 September 2021 06: 47
        -8
        then this is the "finish", unfortunately (to call a spade a spade) ...
        at least with the current leadership style.

        PS laughing I had no doubt that the liberal minusers would catch up - the question is just inconvenient for them.
    2. Glory1974
      Glory1974 10 September 2021 08: 38
      +5
      Is the United States a potential adversary or partner in transforming Russia into a liberal colony? Is the profit in the form of green eyes obscured and double standards begin?

      As long as the traders are in power, nothing will change; they and their mother are ready to sell for a profit.
      1. Nexcom
        Nexcom 10 September 2021 08: 39
        +4
        You're right. I completely agree with you. This is what I meant.
        Only probably not traders, but traders. Traders, in my understanding, is somewhat different ...
    3. aybolyt678
      aybolyt678 10 September 2021 19: 54
      +1
      Quote: Nexcom
      I, of course, apologize - again with my IMHO, but in my opinion, our leaders HAVE LONG TO DECIDE the question: the USA is a potential adversary or partner

      The USA is a capitalist country, Russia too ... There are no ideological contradictions, but !!! as if according to Lenin, the internal contradictions of imperialism are growing ... It's a pity Ilyich did not know about nuclear weapons and the possibility of the death of all life on the planet already in the 20th century.
  • Tsoy
    Tsoy 10 September 2021 07: 14
    +2
    So far, Bezos has little to prove. BE4 was delivered a long time ago, but so far there is no information on the PH. The deadline is just around the corner, and the new glenn is out there somewhere. So is the volcano. Bezos is still busy with space X ships rather than real work.
    1. U-58
      U-58 10 September 2021 11: 10
      -1
      To bring the engine to mind is not to fry the duck in the oven. Here it is necessary ... technical ...
      Will bring. We can, not right now, but in a year or two or three they will.
      And here I wish them good luck. They need her.
    2. whitebeard
      whitebeard 12 September 2021 19: 01
      0
      Yes, the Americans will not be lost in any case: Bezos will not cope on time - orders will go to Masjaskin;)
  • donavi49
    donavi49 10 September 2021 07: 58
    +5
    By the way, the investigation into Firefly has already passed.

    The reason is valve marriage. At the 15th second of the flight, it closed and actually strangled one of the engines, which turned off. From that moment on, the flight went exclusively to obtain maximum telemetry. Due to corrections and loss of traction, the load was greatly underpressed by 1 step to the boundary. MCC activated the LV destruction mechanism.
  • Glory1974
    Glory1974 10 September 2021 08: 41
    +1
    We successfully did not start working on projects of interplanetary stations, or on new ships, or on new launch vehicles. With the launch vehicle, the throws were definite, but so far they have not led to anything.

    Now both the Americans and the Chinese are working on super heavy launch vehicles, and just as we closed the Energia project in the late 80s, we are not doing anything on this topic.
    1. vitvit123
      vitvit123 10 September 2021 10: 41
      -2
      Is Angara 5 not a hard class?
      1. U-58
        U-58 10 September 2021 11: 03
        +3
        Heavy. But the lightest of the heavy ones.
        He (she) is far from Energy.
      2. Mustached Kok
        Mustached Kok 10 September 2021 12: 37
        +2
        Heavy. And for promising projects, you need an EXTREME heavy class. And this is an opportunity to display 50 or more tone on LEO. Hangara, in a heavy version, can output only 30-35 tons.
        1. ont65
          ont65 10 September 2021 13: 50
          -3
          And what is the prospect brother? The Chinese are overpopulated, their virgin Mars is calling the party to master. Americans are uncomfortable for their crimes on Earth, they urgently needed to hide there. We are strained with finances, will we carry both those and others for grandmothers with huge troughs like Musk's?
    2. whitebeard
      whitebeard 12 September 2021 19: 04
      0
      The energy for the USSR was platinum in value, and for the current Russian Federation it was generally diamond. If it were reusable-winged, as in one of the variants of Energy-2 / Volcano, then the norms for rare super-heavy loads, and in 1-time var. - a completely unaffordable thing economically, purely for a "symmetrical" response to amers
  • Old ensign
    Old ensign 10 September 2021 09: 00
    -4
    rd 180 was good for its time, it is outdated. The Yankees did better.
    1. Nexcom
      Nexcom 10 September 2021 09: 24
      +1
      then maybe for this reason it was sold to the Americans?
    2. U-58
      U-58 10 September 2021 10: 59
      +1
      It does not seem that you are an "old ensign". Most likely, just a warrant officer. (Nothing personal). For what does it mean obsolete? What such parameters, or let's say lofty, calls of the current time does not correspond to the mentioned engine?
      Its potential will be relevant for another 15-20 years, until we switch to methane, hydrogen, or, much less hopes, we create a hyperdrive, zero-transition and a wormhole generator)))
      1. Mustached Kok
        Mustached Kok 10 September 2021 16: 45
        +5
        You just yourself, unknowingly, indicated the reason for its obsolescence. It will still serve for 10-15 years, but only because innovations are not introduced in the rocket industry every year, this is a very slow industry.
        The reason for obsolescence is fuel vapor. Kerosene + Oxygen showed themselves well throughout the second half of the twentieth century. And most importantly, they provided a low fuel price. But the further the development went, the less it was discovered by advantages. First and foremost is power. Even then, in the twentieth century, it was found out that cryogenic fuels have a high power. Therefore, all projects of heavy launch vehicles mainly used it. As a result, a couple of companies were barred from entering heavy rocketry. But there remained a niche of light and medium RN. And all was well, our Semerrk family was incredibly competitive due to the low launch cost. Including due to the choice of a fuel pair. But SpaceX has discovered a QUALITATIVELY new way to reduce the cost of launching launch vehicles into orbit, by converting them into reusable ones. And in this qualitatively new way, methane shows itself better than kerosene. At the same low price, it will spoil the rocket engine itself less and in terms of storage parameters does not differ much from liquid oxygen. Both of these reasons greatly simplify the design and increase the reliability of the propulsion system while maintaining the reusability which makes starts cheaper. And besides, the power factor is covered by cryogenic fuels, and the cheapness is covered by methane in reusable launch vehicles. And what is the niche left for kerosene?
    3. whitebeard
      whitebeard 12 September 2021 19: 07
      -1
      Not that it is outdated, but with the current economy of space starts, using, in principle, more expensive engines of a closed circuit (compared to open ones), besides, potentially capable of operating up to 10 launches - in a one-time version - is too wasteful. And we do not have any large-scale cheap engines - even if they are open, like those of Musk, except for the Union ones, but those are too outdated and just low-powered.
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash 10 September 2021 10: 31
    +6
    Everything determines the level of economic development. Russia could not, cannot, will not be able to make top quality developments in all / many areas. There is no such level of R&D, fundamental research, development of material and technical base, quantity and quality of the population. The Americans have more of this, and besides, they use the developments of scientists from all over the world. Western, so to speak, Japan, for example, can also be attributed here, in fact. Like the Western world, it uses the developments of the Americans, with their permission, of course. Israel, Turkey, Japan, Korea, etc.
    Hence the conclusion - without advanced economics, education, science, it is difficult to count on anything. And this is not enough - we need integration with the world community to use what they have. This is where the perspectives emerge. As far as they are, as far as not. Power must work. And she's all in cuts.
  • sash-sash
    sash-sash 10 September 2021 11: 34
    +1
    If (yes, if only) "someone at the top" thought about the country's prospects not momentarily, then today up to a quarter of gas stations in the United States would belong to Russian companies.
    If (yes, if only) ..............., then in Russia there would be Opel as, in fact, its own company.
    If (yes, if only) ..............., Russia would be the main partner of the United States in the lunar - and not only - program in space.
    The latter is especially important, because in the USA there is a SCIENCE (with a capital letter) in space research, many ten-year programs and money for this business.
    One could (would) pump American (and not only) technologies to Russia in a powerful stream, as other countries do and have done.
    A lot of things could have been if (only) the main goal of the state was to raise the standard of living of the people, and not cheap foreign policy show-offs.
    _________________________________________________
    And Crimea had to simply be bought, fortunately "there" everything is bought and sold.
  • Altdoch
    Altdoch 10 September 2021 11: 45
    .
    This is what the author writes about reusable and cheap ships? Shuttles or Elon Musk's brainchildren? Well, some are no longer there, others are not yet. There are many words, but no normal analysis. So blah blah.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 10 September 2021 12: 17
      +6
      Cargo Dragon and Piloted Dragon, two reusable Musk ships that fly to the ISS now.
    2. military_cat
      military_cat 10 September 2021 12: 25
      +7
      Quote: Altdoch
      Shuttles or Elon Musk's brainchildren? Well, some are no longer there, others are not yet.

      Reusable cargo:



      Reusable manned:

  • Terran ghost
    Terran ghost 10 September 2021 11: 57
    +1
    The Americans also had a backup version with the production of the RD-180 itself under license, they have the right to do this until 2030.

    The patent deadlines for the RD-180 expired in December 2020. From 01.01.2021 any manufacturing company can legally make copies of this engine without paying any license fees. If they can master the production, of course.
    And alas, most likely the question of the appearance of copies of this engine made in China is only a matter of time.
    Another question, of course, is how effective the BE-4 will be. It is clear that sooner or later, it will start working. Something, but the Americans have not forgotten how to build engines.

    About "have forgotten how or not" is an interesting question by the way. All SpaceX Falcons are powered by Merlin 1 engines. By the way, the engine itself is very good, first of all, in terms of the ratio of the engine mass to the thrust it produces. True, with a minus in the form of the fact that the amount of thrust produced by one engine is not too great. The problem is solved by the fact that the "Falcons" are powered by packages of a large number of engines. The fact that once buried the domestic (Soviet that is) rocket N-1 - the synchronization of the operation of a large "package" of engines is now being solved by means of modern electronics and computer technologies.
    1. whitebeard
      whitebeard 12 September 2021 19: 14
      +1
      It's not just that Masyaskin's dviglas are cheap, but at the same time not very powerful - because according to an open scheme, and it is simpler and safer. And with its streaming, high-volume production methods, it's still getting cheaper. N-1, on the other hand, worked on the "closed" NK-93, and in them emergencies develop much faster (if there are any) and the vibration load is higher, respectively, with that electronics it was very difficult to make it all work together (and then it almost turned out , if Brezhnev had not canceled the program, according to which there were still 4 manufactured missiles, then it would have flown, because the problems had almost been resolved at the time of cancellation). In general, cheap "open" modern engines would be very useful for our cosmonautics, especially since our rockets are still disposable - it's a pity to lose expensive "closed" ones every time.
  • Glagol1
    Glagol1 10 September 2021 12: 12
    .
    USSR developments in aviation and space will be relevant and in demand for a long time. Unions are still flying, Tu-160 and Co. will still take part in the nuclear triad, the technology of orbital stations will be advanced for a long time. And everything is already Russian - this is 50-90% of the legacy of the USSR. But the Americans have surprisingly lost some of theirs. Saturn alone is worth something ...
    1. Flanker692
      Flanker692 10 September 2021 21: 28
      +1
      According to the technologies of orbital stations, exactly the opposite. there are no breakthrough technologies in life support systems in our country. In the states, the new station will use a new system for providing the crew with all the necessary, the only waste of which will be methane, which is going to be used as fuel for shunting engines. Total excluding solid waste, fully recyclable habitat. The station compartments themselves will be "inflated" several times in orbit from a flexible casing. They have already begun to be tested on the ground. I repeat, Russia has nothing to offer here, our new hypothetical station will not differ in anything from the MIR station. NASA is not going to cooperate with Russia, except for the reservation of delivery vehicles, and Rogozin himself says: but we don't need it, we will organize our own "casino" here. But why allocate money, not small, for history going on the second round? We need investments in research and development, which means we are left without a station for an indefinite period. At the same time, the Chinese, under verbal interventions with a proposal for cooperation from Roscosmos, have already independently begun to withdraw blocks of their own station, it certainly will not be as big as the ISS, but its own first.
      And about Saturn: a completely new super-heavy rocket SLS will send to the Moon a test unmanned mission Artemis-1 (a new manned spacecraft Orion weighing 25 tons) in November this year. Then a manned flyby, then a landing on the Moon, then a base on the Moon, then everything is the same on Mars. Russia, on the other hand, set the launch of the Luna-25 mission (an apparatus weighing less than 2 tons) in May 2022. -2.1 Queen). This is despite the fact that the Indians sent the station to the orbit of the moon. The Chinese are on Mars, not counting the already 7 successful missions of the American rovers. And the Arabs, already damn emirates, sent their station to Mars.
      It has long been impossible to build new ambitious projects on the legacy of the USSR. Just repeat the successes of the grandfathers. I don't see any progress in the global space exploration mission here. There is only support for pants by Roscosmos to justify its existence. There are not even any plans to land on the Moon or Mars, there is no money for these programs, for the "Sphere" they collect a string from the world. Although Putin in 2018 before the presidential elections said that in 2024 we will fly to the moon. There are chances, but definitely not for the Russians. In terms of the number of launches, we have sagged a long time ago, and where there are no launches, there is no turnover of big money, there can be no new technologies.
      1. Filxnumx
        Filxnumx 11 September 2021 00: 04
        +1
        will send to the Moon a test unmanned mission Artemis-1 (a new manned spacecraft Orion weighing 25 tons) in November this year

        you will first wait for November 2021. The first manned to the moon has already been postponed to 2025. And for the same reasons as the postponement of the Luna-25 launch to 2022 - an additional volume of checks and tests. Only you have about this - no gugu, but they described the transfer of Luna-25 with relish, "with satisfaction."
  • Soldatov V.
    Soldatov V. 10 September 2021 13: 12
    +3
    All around there are problems. In Russia, as a rule, the movement begins with the replacement of the head, the tsar, the general secretary, etc.
    Maybe return to this traditional way to improve your life?
  • avg avg
    avg avg 10 September 2021 13: 32
    -4
    You don't have to read the novel ...
  • Intruder
    Intruder 10 September 2021 13: 42
    +2
    Hmm, the article is topical and thanks to the Author !!!
    But ... if we add that:
    - These "American partners" have - the Falcon 9 launch vehicle, using engines of the Merlin family (and the second version of this "engine" is available), for the first time in terms of the number of launches bypassed the Atlas V launch vehicle, which receives the Russian power unit RD-180.
    And this engine powered by RP-1 / LOX pair. About this engine, we can say that although it is the most efficient gas generator engine on this fuel pair in the history of the United States and has a record thrust-to-weight ratio in general, it is primarily made with an emphasis on reliability, reusability and low cost;
    - They also have the Raptor, the world's first full-scale production of liquid-propellant rocket engines with the most efficient closed cycle - the so-called "full-flow closed cycle" (that is, with the afterburning of pre-gasified and oxidizing and fuel components);
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 10 September 2021 13: 59
    +4
    Well, the gap is already visible to the naked eye - they will go beyond the orbit, we will procrastinate the orbit on ROSS or simply by sliding down to purely military space. We will still be ready to sell some devices with a saliva of joy - as soon as Monsieur clicks his fingers, because this supports our ChSV - pride, necessity, "but they can't live without us," and so on. And they don't give a damn about it - exchanging the land for beads or working devices for pieces of paper are the same thing. What is important for long-distance or lunar missions, we will not sell them - they will do it themselves, but they can do it themselves - the United States has good budgets and a lot of smart people.
    1. Valery Mukhin
      Valery Mukhin 11 September 2021 12: 13
      -2
      You are probably not aware of the presence of the Roscosmos Lunar Program?
      There is every chance that we will land on the moon no later than NASA and the Chinese.
      1. Liam
        Liam 11 September 2021 12: 15
        +1
        Quote: Valery Mukhin
        You are probably not aware of the presence of the Roscosmos Lunar Program?
        There is every chance that we will land on the moon no later than NASA and the Chinese.

        The odds are one percent. The main thing is to find a good place and get around the moon puddles.
      2. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 11 September 2021 12: 25
        0
        Let's sit with what? A stationary vehicle with a 20 kilo payload? Is it like a technical breakthrough, a triumph of will? The projects behind "Luna-25" are still abstractions of varying degrees - the same as "Nuclon" or "Yenisei" or "ROSS".
        Let me remind you that we landed on the moon much more complex structures 50 years ago. If we are going to brag about this to the Americans and throw dust in the eyes of the world community, then no, it will not work. Because the United States had 12 people on the moon, and China landed the rover on the other side of it. At the very least, we need to send a highly autonomous mobile device comparable to the rovers or a couple of people to the Moon - so that this can be considered seriously as a kind of scale.
        Our cosmonautics has long and for the most part been engaged in tasks of the scale of "mouse fuss" - no flights to distant bodies of the system, no research or photographing of their satellites, no AMS, no autonomous vehicles on small celestial bodies or planets - not a damn thing of that. In the West, they see it perfectly and correctly interpret it, in contrast to our own citizens, who, well, in no way want to see this as pure decay.
  • p0pulivox
    p0pulivox 10 September 2021 20: 33
    0
    Quote: Ezekiel
    Quote: Cosm22
    What will the second episode be like?
    No
    .

    If it's not a secret, are you Ukrainian?

    If it's not a secret, are you a troll? winked
  • p0pulivox
    p0pulivox 10 September 2021 20: 38
    -1
    Quote: Cosm22
    Not a secret. Russian.
    Tell the whole biography? It is unlikely that it will be of interest to all readers of the resource.
    Another thing is interesting. Why do all the jingoistic patriots instantly reduce any news about gaps and blunders in Russian cosmonautics to the Ukrainian issue? Is this already a disease?
    Why should the problems of Russian space concern only Ukrainians? The Russians don't care about them? ...
    If you start poking your nose at the absurdity and mistakes of the Republic of Kazakhstan, you will immediately be labeled a Bandera member.
    What interests you personally - my nationality or the fact that a really good RD-180 engine cannot find application in great and mighty Russia? ...

    Are you a naive person? It is usually not jingoistic patriots (although they too), but the proliferating trolls and bots, usually reduce everything to the Ukrainian issue on a variety of resources ...
  • Filxnumx
    Filxnumx 10 September 2021 23: 52
    0
    It's amazing that we don't use it anywhere.

    Because the United States also has the rights to use it. For 20 years it has been NOT our engine, but an American one, it was just made here. To start using the RD-180 in Russia, it needs to be changed, modernized.
  • Fitter65
    Fitter65 11 September 2021 01: 21
    +4
    "Niva" is now often not seen on the roads and off them,
    Interestingly, and on what roads you often will not see the Niva?
    Although which competitor from Niva ...
    Especially considering that she has no competitors in the taiga, well, those who do not know do not understand, Roma cannot be explained ...
  • avaks111
    avaks111 11 September 2021 07: 26
    +1
    I read to the middle and understood, Skomorokhov !!!
  • sifgame
    sifgame 11 September 2021 11: 50
    +4
    An article of norms, but I strongly disagree about Niva, I just went to the store and noted two for myself! Niva and one Chevy, and the store is only 50 meters away. And this is not a village, a city of a million, here you still have to get to a bad road))
  • Valery Mukhin
    Valery Mukhin 11 September 2021 12: 11
    -2
    > We safely did not start working on projects of interplanetary stations, or on new ships, or on new launch vehicles. With the launch vehicle, the throws were definite, but so far they have not led to anything. We still have the ancient "Union" on our table, the works of S.P. Queen and no less ancient "Proton". This was enough to organize a space transport system.


    Does the author live in a parallel reality?
    The number of works needed for new media has exceeded reasonable limits and they have to be reduced. The proton has not been produced for a long time - the Angara is being assembled instead. The interplanetary station will start soon, and the new ship is only waiting for the completion of the construction of a new cosmodrome.
  • KrolikZanuda
    KrolikZanuda 11 September 2021 14: 14
    +2
    The author, if Niva was taken for comparison, then at least delve into the question. The car is in the top ten best-selling cars of the Russian market, but you don't see it on the roads?
    Top 25 most popular cars in Russia in the first half of 2021 (compared to the same period in 2020)

    Model 6 months 2021, pcs. 6 months 2020, pcs. Dynamics
    Lada Granta 71208 49922 + 43%
    Lada Vesta 57031 42615 + 34%
    Kia Rio 44750 36164 + 24%
    Hyundai Creta 38800 29554 + 31%
    Hyundai Solaris 33541 18444 + 82%
    Lada Niva Legend / Lada Niva Travel 30108 19439 + 55%
  • VasYok
    VasYok 11 September 2021 14: 48
    +1
    Americans have been buying RD20 for a penny for 180 years with the sole purpose of if only he DOES NOT GET to China. Now China has its own powerful taxiways.
  • Vyacheslav-r
    Vyacheslav-r 11 September 2021 19: 32
    +2
    Article and author on soap. The author must learn to consult with people competent in the issues covered, and not write a gag after reading low-standard Western articles and not show his low competence. The Unions line is a brand that is constantly being improved and updated. The very first Soyuz rocket differs from the modern Soyuz rocket, like Popov's radio from a television. Let us then, in continuation of the author's stupidity, say that the Japanese still release old Sony and Panasonic TVs, and apple cannot come up with anything new except apple.
  • ivpe211
    ivpe211 12 September 2021 00: 57
    -2
    and what is there with the RD-181?
    it is not clear when their missiles will be born.
    There is simply no one to design and no one to produce. No people. Those that were Soviet have already left. New ones did not come. Those that exist are focused on military products.
  • Arc grem
    Arc grem 13 September 2021 09: 24
    -1
    Bezos has engine problems .. it makes sense to move Energomash with the whole team to Texas
  • Nemestnyi
    Nemestnyi 13 September 2021 12: 37
    -1
    Quote: Arc Grem
    Bezos has engine problems .. it makes sense to move Energomash with the whole team to Texas

    Does Energomash have a serial methane engine?
  • shinobi
    shinobi 14 September 2021 06: 58
    0
    A pair of kerosene + oxygen allows you to make simple and powerful engines due to the absence of forced ignition, there are no unnecessary holes in the working chambers. But on the planets of our system there is no kerosene and complex chemical production, but methane is present almost everywhere. It is a trifle to extract hydrogen from it in the presence of a catalyst and a source of energy from an isotope element. Compact gas liquefiers (refrigerators) are not new for a long time. And here methane engines leave everything else behind when traveling through the system. In principle, methane can even be used directly in classical NRE as a working fluid instead of hydrogen, although the efficiency will be somewhat lower.
  • svoit
    svoit 15 September 2021 09: 23
    0
    Quote: aybolyt678
    there will be more and more dollars

    Only not with us crying
  • Slippery
    Slippery 16 September 2021 17: 55
    0
    Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
    100 ships a year is a project. What will we carry?
    Turye, $ 10000 per ticket?
    So they are sent to the South Pole annually no more than 10000 people, at a much lower price of tours. Flying into space is an expensive pleasure and the flow of millionaire tourists will quickly dry up

    Mobile phones, laptops in the 90s were also for the elite, but what now? in every student's hands.
  • pryamoinalevo
    pryamoinalevo 19 September 2021 17: 28
    +1
    We don't need any more. Themselves with a mustache.
    And since 22 we no longer buy places on unions