Military Review

Russian "Irkut": will the new launch vehicle make it possible to impose competition on the West?

75

Start small



As RIA reported in October News with reference to the magazine "Space Engineering and Technology", the Ministry of Defense presented the technical characteristics of the new Russian ultralight launch vehicle "Irkut".

"On the issue of the development of domestic SLK launch vehicles, it is possible to note the project developed by the specialists of JSC TsNIIMash for the creation of the Irkut SLK launch vehicle", - said in the material.

It, as far as can be judged, contains the first public demonstration (albeit very conditional: in fact, only a couple of pictures) of the appearance of the rocket. The very fact that Russia is creating the Irkut missile system has been known since at least September.

Russian "Irkut": will the new launch vehicle make it possible to impose competition on the West?

They want to launch a rocket from Plesetsk. The media will appear in two versions at once: disposable and reusable. In the latter case, he will return to the ground with the help of his wings. The launch weight of the rocket in the disposable version is 23,6 tons. The one-time option will be able to put 200 kilograms of cargo into low-earth orbit (584 kilometers), and 84 kilograms into geostationary orbit.

The reusable version will deliver 398 kilograms of cargo to low-earth orbit, and 60 kilograms to geostationary orbit. Moreover, it will be heavier: the launch mass of the rocket will be 25 tons. This happened because of the wing, the turbojet engine, as well as the landing gear, which are needed for the landing, which will be carried out at the airfield, just like a regular aircraft does. Another option involves the use of skis instead of a chassis.

They decided to use a pair of oxygen - methane in the case of the carrier and heptyl with amyl, if we talk about the upper stage, called the "apogee module", as a fuel. Both the disposable and reusable versions are due to make their maiden flight in 2024.

It is worth recalling that TsNIIMash has long been developing a reusable rocket as part of its development work. "Wing-SV", but earlier Kapustin Yar and the new Vostochny cosmodrome were named as the launch site.


The preliminary design of the Krylo-SV reversible stage was defended at the Advanced Research Fund in 2019. In 2020, it was reported that the first flights of the Krylo-SV reusable stage should be carried out as early as 2021. It was about subsonic demonstrators, which should work out automatic landing and various subsonic flight modes.

On the right path?


At first glance, the Irkut ultralight-class missile project does not cause controversy. The world has not yet entered what can be called a "micro-rocket revolution." However, some progress has already been made, and Russia will somehow have to look for answers.

The main novelty here is the Electron ultra-light launch vehicle, developed by the New Zealand division of the American private aerospace company Rocket Lab. With a launch price of about $ 7,5 million, it can put about 220 to 300 kilograms of cargo into low-earth orbit, depending on the version. These are good indicators: today the new rocket boasts a solid number of launches (already more than 20) and a large portfolio of orders.


The similarly capable older light-class Pegasus rocket costs 40 million. And in 2018, Glavkosmos Launch Services reported that the base price of the launch of the Russian Soyuz-2.1 launch vehicle would be about $ 48,5 million with the Fregat upper stage and $ 35 million without the Fregat. Delivery of one kilogram of cargo using a rocket costs about 20-30 thousand. It should be borne in mind that Soyuz-2 is a medium-class carrier and is much more powerful than Pegasus or Electron.

The reusable first stage, which in the future they want to catch in the air with the help of a helicopter, will allow the Electron to "knock down" the price even more. In the case of "Irkut", as already mentioned above, they chose the "airplane-like" landing. The idea itself is not new: they wanted to implement it on the Baikal-Angara accelerator project, which, as we know, never appeared.


The reasons for this can be found very different, but it is pertinent to recall that at one time a well-known expert in the rocket and space industry and popularizer of science Vitaly Egorov spoke rather critically about Wing-SV.

“The legs (like the Falcon 9 launch vehicle - Ed.) Require minimal weight and rework than the rest of the options. You can land in an airplane way. You cannot save on this ", - noted the expert in the commentary to Gazeta.Ru.

Ivan Moiseev, head of the Institute for Space Policy, is also critical of the chosen scheme:

“There were a lot of doubts about vertical landing, too, whether it was worth contacting, but Musk showed everyone that vertical landing works, and it works very well. Musk lands rockets on the same engines on which he puts them into orbit. And this system needs its own engines. And engines are expensive and hard ”, - he told Life.ru.

In the opinion of Aleksandr Zheleznyakov, academician of the Russian Academy of Cosmonautics, the fact that the “airplane” scheme is expensive and complicated was understood by specialists back in the 80s, when this direction was being worked out within the framework of the Buran program. Then they wanted to return the side boosters, including in airplane mode.


Does the Irkut project have any advantages? It must be assumed, yes. Let's start with the fact that in addition to the "winged" reusable option, as mentioned above, there is also a more conservative (and less risky) one-time option. In light of the fact that Russia, in fact, does not have much experience in creating reusable missiles, this approach looks completely rational.

We should also say about fuel. The rocket itself, as already noted, will run on methane and oxygen. Experts have long been talking about the advantage of methane over kerosene, especially when it comes to reusable launch vehicles. The fact is that methane is more environmentally friendly, it does not leave soot during combustion and is cheaper than other types of fuel. In addition, in recent years, they are increasingly talking about the possibility of its extraction in the future on other planets.

It is pertinent to recall that SpaceX's new Raptor liquid propellant rocket engine uses methane and liquid oxygen. Blue Origin also followed this path, creating its own BE-4, which will be installed on the promising Vulcan carrier.


On the other hand, not everything is unambiguous with the upper stage, for which heptyl with amyl was chosen. Such a scheme can hardly be called “safe” and “environmentally friendly”. Heptyl (unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine) has a strong toxic and mutagenic effect. The gradual decommissioning of the heavy Proton-M launch vehicle is largely due to the fact that it uses a heptyl / amyl fuel pair. On the other hand, the scheme is extremely efficient as propellant. And it's also tested.

In general, Irkut is a controversial project that can hardly be viewed as a competitor to the already existing Western developments: at least if we talk about the reusable version. But do not forget that now Russia is developing a potentially more successful missile. We are talking about the medium-class carrier Amur-LNG. For him, they chose the now familiar method of returning the stage with its vertical landing, like that of the Falcon 9. They want to launch the first rocket launch in 2026.
Author:
75 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Victor Tsenin
    Victor Tsenin 18 October 2021 18: 20
    +1
    Ever wondered what the problem is to launch a light load with an EM catapult without using a rocket?
    1. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 18 October 2021 18: 34
      +6
      First, make such a catapult.
      1. vitinka
        vitinka 18 October 2021 19: 02
        -2
        kak u zjula verna ... puska .. smile
        1. Victor Tsenin
          Victor Tsenin 18 October 2021 20: 50
          -3
          Fi goforite shield?)
          1. Civil
            Civil 19 October 2021 07: 24
            -1

            This has already been done! Like all the annual projects of Baron Journalist. laughing
      2. Victor Tsenin
        Victor Tsenin 18 October 2021 20: 43
        0
        This is understandable) But it is realizable, however, an undeservedly unconsidered moment.
    2. KCA
      KCA 18 October 2021 19: 42
      +4
      Will the ejection launch have too much acceleration? Send only cast iron cores to space, instead of satellites into orbit, at best, boxes of porridge will come out, and most likely they will fall apart in a catapult
      1. Victor Tsenin
        Victor Tsenin 18 October 2021 20: 45
        0
        Very large according to the mechanics of space flight. But we are not talking about organics, but about, say, cubsats, which are deeply indifferent.
        1. KCA
          KCA 18 October 2021 20: 50
          +2
          Yes, not just big, gigantic, because at launch you need to have time to reach not the 1st space, but much more, because when the atmospheric section is flown, the speed will drop, well, the temperature will increase even more, this must also somehow be dealt with
          1. Victor Tsenin
            Victor Tsenin 18 October 2021 20: 51
            -3
            I know, I was interested, but, I repeat, it was already possible yesterday.
            1. SovAr238A
              SovAr238A 19 October 2021 11: 31
              +2
              Quote: Victor Tsenin
              I know, I was interested, but, I repeat, it was already possible yesterday.


              In the EM cannon, the consumables are "guide poles" - aka the barrel ...
              To work with body weights over 100kg, you need exorbitant levels of energy that destroy these guides instantly.
              There is no material that can withstand such loads.

              So forget about EM output of earth satellites.

              And your knowledge of thermal insulation, Speeds, and the rest of the "highly erudite man" breaks down into simple mundane materials science.
          2. Victor Tsenin
            Victor Tsenin 18 October 2021 21: 20
            -3
            Shot in a heat-shielding capsule, with internal shock absorption. There are opinions that the launch will become 20-10 times cheaper. You, as an interested person, see this opportunity. Another thing is Borogozin, who is disgusted with every fiber of his soul.

            By the way, I found a book about the mechanics of space flight at the entrance, a titanic work, but someone was not interested.

            And, I will add, in the entrances I came across a lot of things, it happened)
            1. KCA
              KCA 18 October 2021 22: 31
              0
              The shell will have to somehow be dropped in orbit, or mechanics, or squibs, this element will either fall apart or explode
              1. Victor Tsenin
                Victor Tsenin 18 October 2021 22: 37
                -1
                I completely agree, yes, it must, yes, it will fall apart otherwise. But the point is realizability, by solving problems.
                1. Bad_gr
                  Bad_gr 18 October 2021 23: 16
                  -1
                  .... Specialists of the head scientific institute "Roskosmos" TsNIIMash propose to launch small satellites with projectiles from electromagnetic cannons. This follows from the materials published in the journal "Bulletin of NPO named after Lavochkin" .....
                  ..... One of the options for such a launch of satellites is called a linear railgun. It is a launching shaft and a ten megawatt power plant. The launch barrel is a vacuum tube with a rail accelerator and a carrier projectile with a satellite. It should be located on a mountain two to three kilometers high.
                  Another option, proposed for consideration by TsNIIMash specialists, is an annular mass accelerator - an annular accelerating vacuum tube with a diameter of several kilometers, located on a mountainside, with outlet trunks through which a carrier projectile with a satellite is launched into space. A ring accelerator, unlike a linear railgun, does not require extremely high power; an electric motor with a capacity of 20 megawatts is capable of accelerating a mass from two thousand kilograms to nine kilometers per second in just one hour.
                  Among the disadvantages of electromagnetic guns, scientists distinguish exorbitant overloads when launching satellites: from two to 20 thousand g. Among the advantages compared to traditional space launch vehicles are the low cost of launching and high launch efficiency ...
                  https://ria.ru/20201216/sputniki-1589414543.html
                  1. KCA
                    KCA 19 October 2021 00: 10
                    +5
                    Does TsNIIMash have satellites that can withstand an acceleration of 30m / s000? Yes, this is just some kind of holiday, in the cannon the projectile is accelerated in the region of 2m / s700, and then a lot of problems have to be solved, but here it is 2 times more
                    1. Bad_gr
                      Bad_gr 19 October 2021 00: 27
                      0
                      Quote: KCA
                      in the cannon, the projectile is accelerated in the region of 700m / s2, and then a lot of problems have to be solved
                      The same applies to the catapult. The shorter the section for acceleration, the higher the acceleration must be in order to obtain the same speed that the rocket is picking up on a multi-kilometer segment.
        2. donavi49
          donavi49 18 October 2021 21: 13
          +5
          I mean, it makes no difference? Kubsats just love to crumble from any sneeze. And here we throw them out with wild acceleration. No, you can make a functional satellite that will survive this, as well as a titanium shell that will withstand an accidental hit of something and breaking through clouds + wild heating in plasma, but it will be cheaper to launch a rocket than to make such a satellite.

          Well, and most importantly, a one-time acceleration, so as not to damp out energy, will require Delta Heavy for the price.
          1. Victor Tsenin
            Victor Tsenin 18 October 2021 22: 37
            -5
            Discussed and solved.
    3. ja-ja-vw
      ja-ja-vw 19 October 2021 11: 53
      +3
      Quote: Victor Tsenin
      What are the problems to launch a small load from an EM catapult without using a rocket?

      to enter orbit, you need to dial V = 7,98 km / s (parallel to the ground)
      The rocket starts at V = 0 km / s and overcomes DENSE layers of the atmosphere, at 40-60 almost VERTICAL. at 40 km / h, the speed is only 2-4 km / s, then the second stage raises the rocket to 100-150 km and expands to 6-7,5 km / s, there is already a pitch and the rocket has a horizontal speed, then the third stage brings the speed to 7,98 , XNUMX km / s and altitude up to LEO.

      Now imagine you spit them out EM cataplots
      Quote: Victor Tsenin
      light load

      at a speed of 10-11 km / s (it is necessary to take into account the friction on the atmosphere and the losses for overcoming g)
      belay
      You will not make a catapult bed up to an altitude of 50-60 km?
      the maximum is 1-2 km.
      in the dense layers of the atmosphere at 11 km / s, you will burn out PN EVEN if there is ablative cooling, and the PN will be made of tungsten.
      q = 0,13 * ro * V^3 (ro is the density of the medium, V is the velocity in the medium)
      At an altitude of 1 km, we obtain a heat flux of SEVERAL GW (!) Per sq. M of the surface of the capsule with PN.
      Deliver 20 kg to orbit (excluding aerodynamic losses, this is
      Ek + Ep = m * V ^ 2/2 + m * g * h = 200 * 8000 * 8000/2 + 200 * 200000 * 9,82 = 6 792 800 000,00 J = 6,8 GJ
      taking into account aerodynamic losses approximately = 12,5 GJ
      request
      Catapult efficiency - let it be 90%, + energy must be stored and transferred (efficiency of transformers and transmission lines)
      In total, 11 NPPs in Russia operate 38 power units with installed capacity. 30,3 GW
      2 reactors FATES of the KLT-40S type provide electric power 35 MW each

      this is the "problem"
      + it is unlikely that it (the catapult) will be TURNED. You will only launch into a single tilt orbit. That, if you do not make a divorce, it will be cramped
  2. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 18 October 2021 18: 22
    +1
    They want to launch the first rocket launch in 2026.
    I would like to look at the rocket landing, the vertical landings of Musk's rockets are still impressive! In addition to the impression, I also want to feel proud of our missiles!
    1. Siberian54
      Siberian54 9 December 2021 08: 30
      +1
      The mask is easy to impress - the seaside spaceport, the sea landing platform can be customized with great accuracy ... We have land platforms ...
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 9 December 2021 09: 03
        -1
        Quote: Siberian54
        the sea landing platform can be customized with great precision

        Do you seriously think that the PLATFORM fits the rocket, and not vice versa ?!
        1. Siberian54
          Siberian54 9 December 2021 11: 52
          +1
          under the landing site, as I understand it, carriers with different loads and different direction angles leave and the offshore platform is driven to the optimal landing site of the stage
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 9 December 2021 14: 53
            -1
            Quote: Siberian54
            , as I understand it, carriers with different loads and different angles of direction leave and the offshore platform is driven to the optimal landing site of the stage

            I admit that you are right, but not completely, after all, we have a lot of sparsely populated lands, several landing sites (which are not pumped lol) is quite possible to create. Well, the sea platform is also not fatally expensive to drive, here it is a thousand kilometers, or five thousand, it is completely unprincipled.
            But again, thanks for pointing this out. hi
            1. Siberian54
              Siberian54 10 December 2021 08: 04
              +1
              And how do you, for example, fires regularly occurring at the landing site, fuel consumption (extra weight, increasing the cost of launch), for leaving the hillside, a burning step from the bush in which it landed?
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 10 December 2021 08: 14
                -1
                Quote: Siberian54
                And how do you, for example, fires regularly occurring at the landing site, fuel consumption (extra weight, increasing the cost of launch), for leaving the hillside, a burning step from the bush in which it landed?

                Landing pad, concrete landing pad, what kind of fires and slopes ?!
                Yes, fuel consumption will be higher than that of the Americans, due to less flexibility, well, in our PRINCIPLE astronautics are more expensive, even if everything else is the same for the price. Our cosmodromes are not at the equator.
                1. Siberian54
                  Siberian54 10 December 2021 08: 43
                  0
                  "our astronautics are more expensive" - ​​in zero NASA in the face of (forced, persuaded that it was suggested, emphasize the necessary) the State Department to increase the price of an abandonment from 5,000 dollars to 10,000 so that their launches would become competitively capable (the cost price at that time was at the level of 3,000 dollars). The question is not only in more fuel, but in equipping the stage with means with relatively large opportunities for maneuvering in the atmosphere.
                  1. Vladimir_2U
                    Vladimir_2U 10 December 2021 08: 50
                    -1
                    Quote: Siberian54
                    "our astronautics are more expensive" - ​​in zero NASA in the face of (forced, persuaded that it was suggested, emphasize the right thing) the State Department to increase the price of a cast from 5,000 bucks to 10,000

                    I'm talking about physics, not politics, fuel consumption has nothing to do with politics. The proximity of the start to the equator is directly related.
                    1. Siberian54
                      Siberian54 10 December 2021 09: 05
                      0
                      About physics, our grief statesmen, in any system, are originally distinguished by their awn-why was it to give Port Arthur a ready-made place under the cosmodrome?
                      1. Siberian54
                        Siberian54 10 December 2021 09: 07
                        0
                        here the machine worked .. the muzzle of the wild boar is distinguished by an awn
                  2. Siberian54
                    Siberian54 10 December 2021 08: 57
                    0
                    Outwardly, landing by airplane method suits us more, but I am not competent how it will look in nature.
  3. Barberry25
    Barberry25 18 October 2021 18: 26
    -4
    to understand the economic feasibility of this rocket, you need to know its cost, competitors have a price of about 530-550 million rubles per launch ... Angara-1.2 displays 3,5 tons for 2 lard
    1. agond
      agond 18 October 2021 18: 56
      -2
      About the toxicity of amyl, heptyl and others, as I heard from an elderly rocket officer
      - the steps fall and lie unattended for some time, and the fallen steps contain state secrets, so toxicity helps to keep the secret
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 19 October 2021 09: 05
        +2
        For those who are interested in secrets, there is nowhere easier to get a chemical protection suit
    2. Whatman
      Whatman 19 January 2022 10: 57
      0
      The first stage costs 42 million, its maintenance between flights - 3 million, full refueling of the entire rocket - 0.2 million.
      It can bring 15.6 tons to LEO if the stage needs to be returned or 22.8 tons if the stage is donated.
      A simple calculation shows that the repeated flight of the stage saves 39 million rubles.
      This applies to the Flacon 9 Block 5 rocket (current modification).
      Recently, one step was able to sit down for the 11th time and two more - 10 times each. Today sat...
  4. Vasilenko Vladimir
    Vasilenko Vladimir 18 October 2021 18: 44
    0
    For the sake of truth, I'm tired of it, maybe instead of articles we'll start building and launching a thread ?!
    1. S. Viktorovich
      S. Viktorovich 18 October 2021 19: 04
      +1
      TsNIIMash produces nothing except paper.
    2. Cosm22
      Cosm22 18 October 2021 19: 26
      +4
      Well, you can't wait for the launch of this product.
      It’s all about nothing.
      JSC "TsNIIMash" is the head of Roskosmos. That says it all. Whatever the weight of the carrier and PN, the price of the product will still not be competitive, it will be prohibitive. Even with a propulsion stage landing.
      And in an airplane way ... This landing pattern is flawed in principle. Why lug a ton of extra weight into space? Wing, landing gear, airplane aspirated ... Why? This reduces the weight of the already scanty PN and complicates the entire structure.
      In short, all this is from the next tales of Roskosmos. They will speak and forget. So it was with "Baikal", so it was with "Wing-SV". There are only pictures left.
      It makes sense to create only in the interests of the Ministry of Defense. And not in the concept of the SLK launch vehicle, but in the format of a mobile mobile spacecraft.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 18 October 2021 19: 33
        -8
        Wait, don't worry. The SV wing was apparently renamed Irkut.
        1. Cosm22
          Cosm22 18 October 2021 19: 37
          +11
          Uh-huh.
          And "Baikal" was renamed "Wing-SV". Do you suggest walking around for a long time?
          It's good to listen to the fairy tale about the white bull at night, but not often.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 19 October 2021 17: 11
            -1
            Conceptually, both Baikal and Krylo SV and Irkut are the same, the fact that one renames to the other does not affect the developments themselves.
      2. Barberry25
        Barberry25 18 October 2021 20: 09
        -3
        and maybe it is worth waiting for the details? the main one is the price of putting 1 kg into orbit?
      3. donavi49
        donavi49 18 October 2021 21: 21
        +5
        The weight of the body itself will add more weight.

        Again, the same Falcon booster experiences generally similar overloads as on takeoff. Yes, certain decisions and enhancements are being made, but within the framework of the general concept.
        Immediately it is necessary to count one set under maxQ - on takeoff, and a completely different one already for landing and especially for touchdown. That is, the rocket will not be crushed, but broken, and for this it is necessary to strengthen completely different zones.
        1. Barberry25
          Barberry25 19 October 2021 13: 32
          +1
          wink in fact, they offer a rocket in two versions - disposable and reusable .. if reusable and does not fire, then disposable ultralight missiles will go well for themselves
          1. donavi49
            donavi49 19 October 2021 15: 34
            +5
            The problem with disposable ultralight rockets is that no one makes them. More than 10 launch vehicles are in active development, all sorts of Kuadjo and Asters are already flying (the latter are so far chak-syak).






            Better late than never, but it is naive to seriously hope for the market of serious launches.
            1. Barberry25
              Barberry25 19 October 2021 15: 51
              -1
              here the question is, at what price our will be able to offer a rocket .. if the product is cheap, then Irkut will get a piece of the pie. In fact, we have not dealt with this niche at all .. Well, according to my estimates, a disposable rocket may well cost 300-400 million rubles, which is a competitive price.
              1. donavi49
                donavi49 19 October 2021 17: 08
                +6
                1) Place of launch, this is already a failure, if only Plesetsk. The costs of shipping the load, storage and all that. Plus not all orbits are available. It will be difficult to compete with Electron, which has already completed the construction of the second cosmodrome in the United States, and now the bureaucracy is being decided before the first launch, or by the same Chinese who will fly from the south of the country + sea launch for an ultralight carrier.
                2) Life-giving sanctions. There is a lot of bureaucracy to get permission to bring a satellite to Russia. If someone was thinking about a serious commercial business, they would have found some kind of space-offshore / seal long ago. Moreover, it is quite simple and cheap to build a launcher for a methane ultra-light carrier. Yes, you can cooperate with the same Arians.
                3) Many competitors have active development. The same Chinese and RocketLab. As soon as the reuse goes, prices will drop significantly.
                1. Barberry25
                  Barberry25 19 October 2021 19: 37
                  -1
                  wait and see .. if they don't do it for show, then something will be
  5. Basarev
    Basarev 18 October 2021 19: 17
    +1
    I have always wondered: has no one tried to lower this worked stage by parachute? The obvious solution.
    1. Cosm22
      Cosm22 18 October 2021 19: 34
      +4
      A parachute landing is not much different from an airplane landing.
      Firstly, there is no talk at all about the great weight of the first stage.
      Secondly, this landing is very difficult to control. Yes, you can find a comfortable flat place, but it is enough to blow the wind, and the step, upon impact, even with a small ledge, will turn into a heap of scrap metal. TTU Shuttles were dropped by parachute into the water, and sometimes deformations of the nodes were noted.
      Musk chose the jet landing for a reason. It provides the required accuracy and allows you to use native engines.
      1. stalki
        stalki 18 October 2021 19: 53
        +1
        A parachute landing is not much different from an airplane landing.
        Firstly, there is no talk at all about the great weight of the first stage.
        Secondly, this landing is very difficult to control. Yes, you can find a comfortable flat place, but it is enough to blow the wind, and the step, upon impact, even with a small ledge, will turn into a heap of scrap metal. TTU Shuttles were dropped by parachute into the water, and sometimes deformations of the nodes were noted.
        I am a layman in this technique, but why not make a parachute-wing controlled for landing steps. Naturally on automation. Is it cheaper than on the engine and more accurate than just on the "dome"?
        1. da Vinci
          da Vinci 18 October 2021 20: 24
          +4
          Descent on the dome is the cheapest, but if on a hard surface (ground) - there is a high risk of damage to the product, if on water - there is a risk of damage from an aggressive medium (water). The simplest and most proven - vertical landing (already proven), but airborne - also has a chance, but it is more difficult.
    2. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 18 October 2021 20: 05
      +3
      Quote: Basarev
      really no one tried to lower this stage by parachute? The obvious solution.

      Sidewalls (first stage) of the Energia launch vehicle. Should have descended by parachute (not used in the first flights)
    3. donavi49
      donavi49 18 October 2021 21: 25
      +4
      I mean, have not tried it? They do that. For the Shuttle, the boosters were reused, for example. It's just that this scheme works only on small masses. Falcon 9 or which Proton not to land with a parachute.


      1. stalki
        stalki 18 October 2021 21: 36
        +1
        And if you fill up the parachute more? Or even hang a couple on the horizon?
        1. Pandiurin
          Pandiurin 25 December 2021 18: 24
          0
          Quote: stalki
          And if you fill up the parachute more? Or even hang a couple on the horizon?


          Anyway, there is vertical speed, which means a blow to the body.
          The case, in order to be as light and cheap as possible in terms of materials, is thin for other loads. Like a thin aluminum can for beer.
          At the start, it is bursting with internal pressure.

          What happens to an empty beer can if you press on it from the side, it’s a dent, if something hard and sharp, then a hole.

          If with a large parachute, then you need to take into account that it will not save in the wind. In addition to the vertical speed, a horizontal one may appear, after the impact upon landing, a couple of rolls may occur.

          In general, now the competition is not in terms of a more original and better technical solution, but the cheapest in terms of launching a kilogram of cargo.

          And you need to count everything from the production of a rocket, engines, fuel, maintenance, the expected statistics of successful and unsuccessful, the reuse rate, the cost of storing unused missiles, engines, fuel, the cost of preparing a stage for the first and repeated launch, the cost of replacing the engine, etc.

          If we count everything, then some average solution may turn out to be the most optimal.
      2. Basarev
        Basarev 18 October 2021 21: 56
        0
        Since it works only on small masses, it means that it may well work with an ultralight rocket. I find it odd to overweight it with fenders and wheels. I believe that we need a minimum mass of the rocket itself and we need to save as much fuel as possible in order to allocate more for launch - throw it higher or take a little more ... But do not drag a dead weight for landing. Perhaps, among the ultralights, even a single-stage will be relevant - separation systems also have mass.
    4. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 19 October 2021 11: 39
      +2
      Quote: Basarev
      I have always wondered: has no one tried to lower this worked stage by parachute? The obvious solution.


      Since the end of the 60s, it was first developed and then used by the Americans on "Shuttles", or rather Solid-fuel boosters (weight 600 tons at the start, 80 tons per hull ..
      They worked, rising to a height of 70 km, from there splashed down, through a parachute system.
    5. Whatman
      Whatman 19 January 2022 11: 00
      +1
      It is very problematic if the mass is more than 10 tons. The bottle has a dry weight of the step - 26.
  6. Momento
    Momento 19 October 2021 07: 54
    +2
    I would like to wish you good luck, but apparently all the places in Roskosmos were taken by fans of trampolines.
    can a miracle be born there in spite of everything? I think yes. but this plot makes it extremely unlikely.
  7. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 19 October 2021 14: 49
    +2
    They want to launch a rocket from Plesetsk

    All, in general, at this point on the commercial potential of the project, you can put an end to it. Because Plesetsk is, to put it mildly, a lousy place to run commercial loads. To be competitive, the project would have to compensate for the difference in the breadth and convenience of logistics options relative to the capabilities of competitors (primarily from the United States) - due to the best performance characteristics, which is possible IN PRINCIPLE on a medium-heavy launch vehicle, but on a light one, and even with an upper stage - I doubt it. By 2024, the market for launching light launch vehicles will most likely be, if not divided, then at least significantly mastered - and not mastered by us. In the aggregate of all this, if they are brought to the end (spoiler -vryatli), then most likely there will be another dumb Russian vanderwaffe for the interests of the military + a portfolio of a couple of orders.

    IMHO, for the success of such initiatives, we need a campaign with state participation focused on launches from the Far East or even sea launches from the Far East. And no "airplane landings" - for a light launch vehicle, this is a complete mess, or catch it with a helicopter, or put it on your feet - or reduce the cost of the engine as much as possible at the production stage. No one will sweat on this topic, of course ..
  8. Covid
    Covid 19 October 2021 19: 13
    -8
    There are always many projects. When something is real, then it is necessary to judge the row.
  9. eehnie
    eehnie 20 October 2021 13: 09
    +1
    Very likely Russia will give priority to the launch from retired ICBM, SLBM, and ABM, addapted to become launchers, than to the construction of new types of rockets. All the types of retired ICBM, SLBM and ABM missiles, not only the biggest, seem to be usefull for this purpose.

    In fact, Russia likely will try to cover with them the entire demand of launch rockets, using the most aged ICBM, SLBM and ABM, while producing new ICBM, SLBM and ABM rockets if required to keep the numbers. To increase the rotation of the ICBM, SLBM and ABM missiles, makes easier the introduction of modernizations.
    1. Whatman
      Whatman 19 January 2022 11: 06
      0
      ICBMs use very toxic/aggressive fuel and oxidizer. Defeats the purpose. Orbital launches today more like a taxi service. Profits are marginal and you need to get insurance coverage, environmental considerations for your toxic rocket. States are lucky with geography - fire your toxic shit from FL and everything end up in the ocean
  10. silviu
    silviu 24 November 2021 08: 56
    0
    decided to use a pair of oxygen - methane in the case of a carrier and the engine for this pair oxygen - methane will appear in 50 years, maybe - glory to Rogozin, the most effective manager of Russia
  11. AC130 Gunship
    AC130 Gunship 24 November 2021 22: 46
    -1
    In order for the rocket to land on the landing gear like an airplane, you need to cut off part of the tail compartment. Let's add a small wing here - therefore, going to the 2nd circle is impossible.
    Or maybe Musk is not so stupid as Rogozin drew him 2 years ago, if he plants rockets vertically, and even on the same engines?
    1. Whatman
      Whatman 19 January 2022 11: 08
      0
      The presence of a wing in the middle of the fuselage makes very serious demands on the longitudinal rigidity of the structure. Weighting will eat up all the (already dubious) benefits.
  12. AC130 Gunship
    AC130 Gunship 13 December 2021 23: 30
    0
    I beg of you....
  13. mister-red
    mister-red 25 December 2021 19: 03
    0
    There were also a lot of doubts about vertical landing, whether it was worth contacting, but Musk showed everyone that vertical landing works, and works very well. Musk lands rockets on the same engines on which he puts them into orbit.

    Advantages are a continuation of disadvantages and vice versa.
    Musk made such a scheme because he did not have a powerful engine and had to make a package of 9 low-power ones, of which only one is used for landing. The weakest of modern Russian engines has a thrust of almost 200 tons, which is 2,5 times more than the Falcon engines. And such an engine is simply not able to provide a landing, too much thrust.
    That is, to create reusable rockets a la Musk, you need to abandon the RD 191/180/171 line and do something like the Soyuzov RD-107A, but in a modern way. Or put a package of several RD191 + one low-noise.
    Not a single cross-sectional rocket that Roscosmos has announced is suitable for this. Perhaps some more powerful rocket, for example, with a 5-6th RD191 + one weak engine. Whether there is any sense in such a rocket is difficult for me to judge.
    1. Whatman
      Whatman 19 January 2022 11: 13
      0
      Musk did not set out to create a very powerful engine. The requirements were: wide throttling, restart (especially when the nozzle blows at supersonic speed), long life and low cost ($1 million).
      9 engines offer their own advantages: no guidance mechanism (or deflectable nozzles) is needed, the rocket is able to survive the shutdown of 2 engines. As we can now conclude, SpaceX engineers are not stupid.
      1. mister-red
        mister-red 19 January 2022 11: 43
        0
        Musk did not set out to create a very powerful engine.

        Let's not retroactively present forced decisions as real goals. Merlins are primitive engines, it was simply impossible to create other and more powerful ones quickly.
        9 engines give their advantages:

        And now tell us about the advantages of the 32 engines of the new Musk rocket and how close-minded the engineers of the USSR were, who put the same 32 engines on the N-1.

        You have to be consistent - if weak engines in large numbers are good, then it's good for everyone, including the same H-1.
        Personally, I don't think so. If Korolev and later Mishin had something at least close to the RD-171, it would be a completely different story.
        Although I think that NK was quite suitable, but it was necessary to make a package rocket. But in hindsight, we're all smart.
        1. Whatman
          Whatman 19 January 2022 11: 53
          0
          1. They are primitive for cost reasons. There is not even a closed loop.
          2. In the years of the lunar race, there were no high-performance computers yet and 32 engines (30 in fact) represented a very serious challenge in terms of control and balancing. At the time, it was a nightmare for engineers. In addition, such a number of motors creates a dynamic load and resonances that are very difficult to model. Their joint work creates uncontrolled shock waves in the fuel and oxidizer pipelines.
          Let's teach the fool Ilosha how to design: why do you need 9 of your fragile oil lamps, take 2 of our rd-180! Oops! 9 Melins cost 9 million, and 2 rd-180s cost 44 million.
          What I'm saying is that his scheme makes for a viable business model.
          1. mister-red
            mister-red 19 January 2022 18: 00
            0
            They are primitive for cost reasons. There is not even a closed loop.

            It was not necessary to give an example of a closed loop, the word primitive includes
            In the years of the lunar race, there were no high-performance computers yet

            Well, as an IT specialist, I kind of know what happened then. And about KORD and hemorrhoids with it too ...
            9 Melins cost 9 million, and 2 rd-180s cost 44 million.

            But lying (or giving unverified information - I don’t know what in your case) is no longer necessary, the cost of the RD-180 is 9-10 million dollars. At least the first contract was for 101 engines and the amount of the contract was 1 billion, take the trouble to calculate. I don’t know where the figure of 22 million for the engine came from, in one article I saw the figure even 27 million, for example. Tip - always refer to the source. And no one would buy them at that price.
            And Rogozin, by the way, said that they sell them 3 times more expensive. Believe him or not, I don't know.
            In any case, we note that for ourselves the price of the RD-180 may be somewhere in the region of 3-4 million rubles. This is an important point!
            The cost of Merlin, judging by the information on the Internet, is really 1 million, only he is not sold to a stranger and is used within the company. I send it a little higher, where it says about the engine for myself. How much Merlin is really worth, no one really knows.
            In general, no one knows the exact information about the cost of Falcon launches. I saw somewhere on an English-language site that the first rocket launch is sold at 10 million below its real price in order to return and earn money on subsequent ones. On the other hand, for the military, launches are much more expensive, almost 2 times. In any case, Musk is dumping, and no one really knows what he really has.

            By the way, there is one point that strongly characterizes my incompetence. Unfortunately, it was a long time ago and I don’t remember exactly where I left the necessary comment, otherwise I would have given a link.
            The point is this. On the first Falcons, the engines were arranged in a 3x3 package. When I saw this for the first time, I immediately said that such an option, let's say, is not entirely successful and sooner or later they will be placed in a circle, which happened later. As if any competent techie could come to such a conclusion, and I still wonder what the engineers were guided by when they proposed this.