Military Review

Tests of Angara missiles: real successes and plans for the future

106

Removal of the first Angara-1.2PP for a test run, June 2014


Since 2014, flight and design tests of the promising Angara space rocket system have been carried out. Launch vehicles of two types belonging to different classes have already completed several test flights and confirmed the calculated characteristics. This allows you to prepare the complex for full-fledged work on the output of a real payload, as well as make plans for the future.

In preparation


The Angara spacecraft project provides for the creation of several unified launch vehicles with different characteristics. To date, two of them have been brought to the stage of flight design tests and are gradually approaching the start of full-fledged operation. These are the Angara-1.2 light rocket and the Angara-A5 heavy rocket. In addition, two heavy carriers are being developed. The medium Angara-A3 was previously abandoned in favor of a new project of the Soyuz family.

The first tests of individual units and components took place in the middle of the 2009s. At the turn of the decade, preparations for production and construction of the launch complex began. In 2013-1, prototypes of the Angara universal rocket module were used several times as part of the South Korean KSLV-2014 rocket. As a result of all these works in XNUMX, Roscosmos was able to conduct the first test launches.


First start, July 9, 2014

In 2015, shortly after the first tests, it was decided to transfer the production of missiles from the Moscow Center. Khrunichev to the Omsk plant "Polyot". For all its complexity, such a transfer made it possible to obtain production, logistical and other benefits. According to the previously announced plans, all measures to prepare the production facilities of Polet will be completed in the near future, and already in 2023 the plant will master a full-fledged series.

Especially for the Angara rockets, a new launch complex was built at the Plesetsk cosmodrome. It was handed over in 2014 - a few months before the first flight of Angara-1.2. Later, they announced the need to build another launch complex with infrastructure for hydrogen rockets. This project has not yet been implemented.

Right now, at the Vostochny cosmodrome, the Roscosmos contractor is building the second complex for Angara products. It will be completed in the near future, and in August 2023 it will host the first rocket launch. Full operation of the facility will begin only in 2025-27.


Heavy Angara-A5 at launch, December 2020

In the past, there was a project to build another launch pad for the Angara spacecraft, at the Baikonur cosmodrome. Due to various difficulties and disagreements, the implementation of this idea was postponed several times, and the fate of the project was decided only in 2017. According to the new plans, the launch complex will be built in the distant future, but not for the Angara, but for the promising Soyuz-5 rocket ".

First flights


All preparations for the first flight of the new rocket were completed by the summer of 2014. An experimental product "Angara-1.2PP" ("first launch") was delivered to the Plesetsk cosmodrome. At the end of June, the rocket was placed on the launch pad and a "dry run" of the launch was carried out. The first launch was supposed to take place the next day, June 27, but was stopped due to malfunctions and postponed to the future.

The launch took place on 9 July. The Angara-1.2PP light rocket successfully lifted off the launch pad and passed along the calculated ballistic trajectory. The second stage, together with an inseparable mock payload weighing 1,43 tons, fell in a given area of ​​the Kura test site in Kamchatka. During such a flight, the prototype fully confirmed the calculated characteristics.


Launch of the heavy Angara-A5 on December 27, 2021

On December 23, 2014, the first test launch of the Angara-A5 heavy rocket took place. On board the carrier was the Breeze-M upper stage with a two-ton payload mock-up. The rocket successfully delivered both products to low orbit, after which the Republic of Belarus launched its cargo into geostationary orbit. The launch was considered successful.

The next launch took place only a few years later - on December 14, 2020. For the first time, the heavy Angara-A5 of Omsk production was used in this event. As before, the tests were carried out with the Breeze-M product and a spacecraft model. The process of delivering such a load to a given orbit went without difficulty.

On December 27, 2021, the next launch of Angara-A5 took place, this time partially successful. All rocket systems worked out normally and brought the load into the reference orbit. However, the promising RB "Perseus" did not complete the task due to malfunctions.


"Angara-1.2" with a real payload - the satellite "Cosmos-2555", April 2022

On April 29, 2022, the second launch of the light Angara-1.2 took place. At the same time, the rocket carried a payload for the first time. She successfully coped with the flight task and launched the Kosmos-2555 satellite of the Ministry of Defense into orbit. During this launch, a promising rocket confirmed the calculated characteristics, and also showed a fundamental readiness to solve real problems and full operation.

Plans for the future


The future of the Angara project is already known. At the beginning of last year, Roscosmos announced that both versions of the Angara rocket showed the required reliability during the first launches, and this makes it possible to shorten the test program. Instead of the originally planned 10 launches, only 6 will be carried out. At the end of the year, it became known that the sixth test launch had been cancelled.

Thus, the test program for two variants of the Angara is almost completed, and the missiles are entering the stage of full operation. The light Angara-1.2 has already launched its first real payload into orbit, and a new launch of this kind, and a commercial one, is expected. In the second quarter of this year, the rocket will take off with the South Korean satellite Kompsat-6. This launch could have taken place earlier, but it was postponed several times due to the unavailability of the spacecraft.


At the very end of 2021, it became known that in 2022 the Ministry of Defense plans to conduct two launches of the Angara-A5. There will be real military satellites on board the missiles - it is no longer planned to display mass-size mock-ups. In February, the leadership of the Center. Khrunicheva said that the heavy carrier has already attracted the attention of new customers, and contracts may appear as a result of this.

With an eye to a more distant future, the development of several modifications of the heavy launch vehicle continues. First of all, these are the Angara-A5P and Angara-A5M with improved performance and / or the ability to carry a manned spacecraft. The first launches of these products are scheduled for the next 2023, although some delay is possible. Tests are planned to be carried out at the Vostochny cosmodrome.

The next stage in the development of the existing design is the Angara-A5V project. This heavy rocket will receive a stage with hydrogen-fueled engines, giving a new performance boost. Due to the greater complexity, the development of such a project will take longer, and the first flight will take place no earlier than 2027. In the future, the A5B modification can become the basis for new projects, but it is too early to talk about them.


Real success


Due to various reasons, objective factors and sudden problems, the development of the promising Angara complex was seriously delayed. Almost two decades passed from the start of the project to the first launch of a real rocket. However, since 2014 the situation has been gradually changing. Promising rockets are regularly launched into space and give cause for optimism.

Until recently, it was only about test launches with mock payloads. Now launches with real spacecraft are starting. The first launches have been carried out in the interests of the Russian Ministry of Defense and new ones are being prepared, ordered by foreign organizations. All this shows that the Angara project is successfully coping with the tasks set and moving forward.

However, in the near future, before the start of full operation, Roscosmos and its enterprises will have to resolve a number of important issues. In addition, new problems and difficulties have recently been added. Whether it will be possible to cope with them - time will tell. At the same time, it is clear that the results of further work on the Angara will largely depend on the successes of recent years.
Author:
Photos used:
"Roskosmos", Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
106 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. Chikua
    Chikua 12 May 2022 17: 04
    -27
    We watch and repeat for SpaceX, since our officials have no mind.
    1. Svarog
      Svarog 12 May 2022 17: 30
      +4
      I'm interested in the characteristics .. how does the Angara differ from the Union?
      1. MBRSS
        MBRSS 12 May 2022 17: 55
        +6
        1. Payload: Angara-A5 22 tons (slightly more than the outgoing Proton), Soyuz - 7 tons.
        2. Price. Angara is much more expensive.
        1. Svarog
          Svarog 12 May 2022 17: 59
          +2
          Quote: MBRBS
          1. Payload: Angara-A5 22 tons (slightly more than the outgoing Proton), Soyuz - 7 tons.
          2. Price. Angara is much more expensive.

          Actually, this is the question .. if we compare
          Angara is much more expensive.
          with a payload price .. won't it turn out that the game is not worth the candle?
          1. MBRSS
            MBRSS 12 May 2022 20: 22
            +5
            will it not turn out that the game is not worth the candle?

            Duc, the process is running, there is nowhere to retreat (just like with a special operation). The production of "Protons" has been discontinued, and heavy satellites and modules of the planned Russian station will have to be launched on something. A kilo of output payload on the Angara will be about 2,5 times more expensive than on the Proton (there are plans to reduce the gap in the future). And Soyuz-2 will fly for a long time, 10-15 years.
            1. Monar
              Monar 13 May 2022 04: 43
              0
              Well, stop this nonsense. "Proton" is a series. More than 450 missiles and more than 350 successful launches. In fact, a well-established conveyor. "We bake them like pies." Alya Khrushchev.
              "Angara" how many launches are there? So divide them into decades of development.
        2. slipped
          slipped 13 May 2022 10: 22
          +4
          Quote: MBRBS
          1. Payload: Angara-A5 22 tons (slightly more than the outgoing Proton), Soyuz - 7 tons.


          Angara-A5 puts about 24 tons into low earth orbit.

          Quote: MBRBS
          2. Price. Angara is much more expensive.


          These are missile systems of various classes.
      2. LSI_72
        LSI_72 14 May 2022 06: 19
        +4
        The differences are huge. The proton is filled with what kind of fuel, and it does not take off over the territory of Russia. Angara launches in Russia. And about the price of the Angara, it can become cheaper only with mass production. Piece goods are always expensive.
    2. Vovan
      Vovan 12 May 2022 21: 13
      -2
      Don't blame yourself for not having what you don't have.
  2. JD1979
    JD1979 12 May 2022 17: 47
    0
    Shame for 30 years. That's all you need to know about this project, which, due to the development of new technologies, should be taken to the museum. The ratio of developed resources to exhaust is approaching infinity.
    1. moscowp
      moscowp 12 May 2022 17: 53
      -2
      Judging by the article, not all budgets have been mastered yet, they will still work!
    2. Flooding
      Flooding 12 May 2022 17: 56
      +6
      Quote: JD1979
      Shame for 30 years. That's all you need to know about this project, which, due to the development of new technologies, it's time to take it to the museum

      Could you expand your thought in full breadth?
      I, as an amateur in this matter, are interested in expert opinion.
      1. Lepsik
        Lepsik 12 May 2022 18: 51
        +1
        ---Due to the development of new technologies
        What are the new technologies right now? kerosene and heptyl on Musk rockets? Delta still uses hydrogen like Angara
        1. e_4
          e_4 12 May 2022 19: 14
          +3
          The hangar is not hydrogen. And Musk went in the direction of methane
          1. stankow
            stankow 14 May 2022 01: 03
            +1
            Went then went. Where is the Raptor? None so far in orbit. Merlin is a kerosene stove, so-so.
            1. Deep Diver
              Deep Diver 29 July 2022 15: 26
              -2
              Musk waited for permission from the FAA, waited a long time and received it only in mid-June. Now preparing the first (suborbital) launch
              1. stankow
                stankow 30 July 2022 13: 04
                0
                Not a single successful launch with a prototype of 3 engines. Who will allow him immediately with a full configuration of 31 engines!? And who will insure? And without insurance, low launch, the FAA is not stupid.
                1. Deep Diver
                  Deep Diver 1 August 2022 10: 39
                  -1
                  Not a single successful launch with a prototype of 3 engines.

                  https://www.rbc.ru/technology_and_media/06/05/2021/609325689a7947f9cb09a2c4
                  And who will insure? And without insurance, low launch, the FAA is not stupid.

                  The question was not about insurance, but about some rare frogs or something like that. And in general, where did you get the idea that you can’t do without insurance?
                  1. stankow
                    stankow 2 August 2022 18: 03
                    0
                    Of course, frogs. And both sides are heroes, they did not lose face wink Frogs are running the show these days. And as for insurance - without it, a car will drive at least a meter, and then there are two tons of fuel over people's heads ...
                    1. Deep Diver
                      Deep Diver 3 August 2022 10: 28
                      -1
                      1. Your conjectures are absolutely not interesting to me, especially since you are absolutely unaware.
                      2. Without insurance? Yes, no problem - 800 rubles a fine in total. But comparing cars and space is certainly strong! And it speaks very well of your awareness on the topic. By the way, based on your logic, did someone insure previous launches (these are jumps of 20 km followed by landing), and then, after a successful launch, they refused? laughing
                      1. stankow
                        stankow 5 August 2022 00: 44
                        0
                        "Jumps" were up to a maximum of 10 km. Up to one completely failed. All 10 SNxx prototypes burned out at launch, in flight, or shortly after landing. The team did not get ANY engine for troubleshooting, to find out how it worked. And then they swung at a suborbital flight, immediately with 31 engines. If you crashed 10 cars in a row, will they let you drive the bus? wink
                      2. Deep Diver
                        Deep Diver 5 August 2022 10: 46
                        0
                        You are either deliberately lying, or simply completely unaware of events. Above, I already gave a link to a completely successful test, to repeat the material covered, I will give it again
                        https://www.rbc.ru/technology_and_media/06/05/2021/609325689a7947f9cb09a2c4
                        So wangyu that the first flight will be this year
                      3. stankow
                        stankow 7 August 2022 13: 42
                        0
                        Every single test of the SNxx prototypes was watched by Spaceix on video, scrolling, slowing down, freezing the frame. There is not a single successful test Engine, and what else did not happen. All of them burned down. The team did not get a single whole specimen for analysis. And they are aiming at the assembly of 31 pieces and at the suborbital!? Wildness. God help them!
                      4. Deep Diver
                        Deep Diver 8 August 2022 10: 04
                        -1
                        I'll bet you a hundred bucks that this year SpaceX will do a Starship test flight. wink
                      5. stankow
                        stankow 8 August 2022 23: 15
                        0
                        They have a slot reserved at the spaceport, the second half of the year. Suborbital. Shoot yes. But it's unlikely to work. They have 31 engines, tightly packed. There are vibrations, cross-influence along the fuel and oxidizer lines, gas-dynamic connections, and the influence of the earth. They won’t prevail, they didn’t have time with three times. In vain the engines will disappear. The pump was tested two weeks ago. On the second second it banged. So far no consequences...
                      6. Deep Diver
                        Deep Diver 9 August 2022 10: 35
                        -1
                        1. On Falcon Heavy, if anything, 27 engines fly without accidents.
                        2. Even if the first flight is unsuccessful, then within a year or two they will work out the technology and everything will fly. Remember how everyone laughed at them when they tried to land the first stage, how the "experts" shouted that it was impossible. And now it's a routine, and the first steps fly 13 times.
                      7. stankow
                        stankow 9 August 2022 11: 41
                        0
                        There are little cold Merlins on Falcon. And on Starship, I can’t force Raptoria for the most. Musk's excessive ambition. Chases simultaneously for all parameters. To surpass the Russian school of engine building. And no experience. And he's tearing up.
                      8. Deep Diver
                        Deep Diver 10 August 2022 10: 12
                        -2
                        And surpass, and not overstrain. Because that's it, the Russian school of engine building is dead. Or in the process
                      9. stankow
                        stankow 10 August 2022 11: 04
                        0
                        Well, let's look. Raptor will fly or not. Well, at least the raptor. And then everything is clear with Starship - not only can he not see Mars, but also the Moon. And they promised, oh, as they promised .... laughing
                      10. Deep Diver
                        Deep Diver 10 August 2022 15: 10
                        -1
                        Let me remind you that the same thing was written a few years ago about the landing of the first stage. So laugh while you laugh, in a few years Musk will be laughing when Starship reaches the moon wink
                      11. stankow
                        stankow 10 August 2022 23: 12
                        0
                        Starship cannot fly to Lunya. You need 4 stages to fly to the moon, 6 to return. And it only has two steps. And after eleven years of development, it doesn't even have an engine. Stocks are down, there are cutbacks. Development is slowing down, funding is not improving at all.
                      12. Deep Diver
                        Deep Diver 11 August 2022 10: 35
                        -1
                        Why are you talking about what you don't know?
                        1. Starship will refuel in orbit
                        2. There is an engine, and already in the second version
                        3. Space X is not a public organization, its shares are not traded on the stock exchange
                        4. About reducing funding and slowing down development - these are your fantasies, nothing more.
                      13. stankow
                        stankow 12 August 2022 01: 13
                        0
                        Starship needs 1700 tons of fuel to refuel. It has a marketability of 100 tons. So you need 17 more launches just to get the LEO configuration. And 17 stikovok. In orbit! Completely insane scheme. Rejected back in the 20s by theorists. In favor of a multi-stage scheme.
                      14. Deep Diver
                        Deep Diver 12 August 2022 09: 47
                        -1
                        People like you said that a vertical landing of the first stage is impossible and economically unprofitable wink
                        As far as refueling is concerned, Starship's tanks have a capacity of 1200 tons, and LEO has a capacity of 150 tons.
                        And if you approach this issue from the side of the economy, then 1 launch of the SLS will cost the United States about a billion, i.e. the launch of Starship should cost no more than 125 million. Given its complete reusability, this is more than realistic.
                        In any case, we must wait a few more years and see which of us is right.
                      15. stankow
                        stankow 12 August 2022 22: 11
                        0
                        Let your numbers be. It turns out 8 refills. How long will it take, 8 starts? And what crew can hold 8 flights and gas stations? And everything will be successful and they will still have the strength of the smallest - to fly to Lun and return ...
                      16. Deep Diver
                        Deep Diver 15 August 2022 09: 50
                        -2
                        "The passenger version of Starship accommodates at least 100 passengers in a pressurized compartment with a volume of 1000 m³, which is 9% more than the ISS."
                        I do not think that hanging out in orbit for two weeks with such a volume of the ship will be something difficult.
                        Understand that mass production is always more efficient than manual assembly. I was in the Lamborghini Museum, so the build quality of the 80s cars is such that you want to cry, all the body panels are crooked, oblique, the gaps are walking all over the car. But handmade! laughing Modern Lambs (and the brand is now owned by VAG) are made much more qualitatively, although they are produced an order of magnitude more than before (5000+ in 2021 versus 500 in 2006, I did not look for data for an earlier period).
                      17. stankow
                        stankow 18 August 2022 15: 23
                        0
                        Deep Diver 8 starts in two weeks? And 8 refills? It is possible to chat in volume, but the psyche cannot withstand the tension. And the MCC cannot be sustained. And the cosmodrome can not stand it, and the launch team too.
                      18. Deep Diver
                        Deep Diver 18 August 2022 15: 46
                        -1
                        You speak with such confidence, as if you have already experienced all this in your own skin! laughing
                        Believe me, people sitting there are much smarter than you, who have calculated everything from the engineering, and from the economic, and from the psychological side.
                        PS. You remind me very much of one of my acquaintances, an ardent hater Mask. He buried Tesla several times, Space X is his laundering office, and further down the list. We haven’t spoken to him for several years, but the last thing I saw was a lengthy opus that the Cru Dragons are terribly dangerous, and that their first flight will end in disaster.
                      19. stankow
                        stankow 18 August 2022 22: 39
                        -1
                        There are even more masks like you. But don't compare me to a friend you don't know. I'm talking about Tesla, Falcon, Dragon Nini. But Starship in orbit, even, not like Mars, can’t fly. Never. Time will tell.
                      20. Deep Diver
                        Deep Diver 19 August 2022 11: 42
                        -1
                        I offer a bet: until the end of 2024, Starship will start regularly, i.e. at least 3 times a year, fly into Earth's orbit.
                        Bet: 1000 USD
                      21. stankow
                        stankow 19 August 2022 23: 41
                        0
                        And what kind of cargo will he have?? 3 times 100 tons, well, at least 50 tons, a year, what will this carry in orbit? For a year a new ISS? Where are her modules?
                      22. Deep Diver
                        Deep Diver 22 August 2022 09: 49
                        -1
                        At least Starlinks will be displayed, and not 50 pieces at a time, but 500
                      23. stankow
                        stankow 22 August 2022 12: 04
                        0
                        Yes, there was such a plan. But Starship was late, he would not arrive in time. The Raptor engine is not ready yet, the booster has not a single flight. Many more years of work. And the money ran out, the staff is reduced. The chief designer retired a long time ago. Tesla, like the entire auto industry, is barely surviving. Musk himself has already turned 50, there is no longer that passionarity. He is silent about Mars. I don't gloat. But propaganda and lies piss me off.
                      24. Deep Diver
                        Deep Diver 22 August 2022 13: 34
                        -1
                        I have already offered you a bet! wink
                      25. stankow
                        stankow 22 August 2022 14: 58
                        0
                        Yes, I don't need money :) The truth is needed, now. What's going on? Why do they say white to black? Why are there topics that are not talked about? Why was an advanced technical project turned into a cult?
                      26. Deep Diver
                        Deep Diver 22 August 2022 15: 38
                        -1
                        Well, in a couple of years you will see that Starship flies and everything is fine with Space X. And the fact that you don’t believe in it ... sorry, but these are your personal problems
                      27. stankow
                        stankow 22 August 2022 23: 38
                        0
                        "Hope and wait", right? No, I want to know now. There will be specialists, they will explain what is happening.
                      28. Deep Diver
                        Deep Diver 24 August 2022 09: 57
                        -1
                        Quote: stankow
                        There will be specialists, they will explain what is happening.

                        Specialists have already understood everything and are waiting for tests. But the "specialists", mostly Russian bottling, constantly write about the "swindler Mask", about "it's impossible", "it's economically unprofitable" and the like.
                        So who exactly do you want to hear from?
      2. baik11
        baik11 12 May 2022 19: 32
        +4
        There is nothing special to expand here.
        The carrier is intended only for internal use and mainly for the needs of the Ministry of Defense (in fact, the Ministry of Defense oversees the project).
        It has absolutely no prospects for entering the international commercial market. And because of the sanctions, and because of the high cost.
        Hopes for a price reduction are ephemeral; on the contrary, with each new modification, the cost of the carrier (meaning "five", of course) will only increase.
        In general, the carrier is made only because, in principle, we cannot do anything else, but a light heavyweight or conditional heavyweight is still needed. The same military.
        From a commercial point of view, the project and the carrier will only absorb money. No financial return.
        1. slipped
          slipped 13 May 2022 10: 27
          +4
          Quote from: Baik11
          From a commercial point of view, the project and the carrier will only absorb money. No financial return.


          Wrong. There are various solutions to this issue. When commercial operation begins, then we'll talk.
    3. slipped
      slipped 13 May 2022 10: 25
      +5
      Quote: JD1979
      which, due to the development of new technologies, it is time to take it to the museum. The ratio of developed resources to exhaust is approaching infinity.


      Wrong. All modern rocket technologies are used in this space rocket complex. Newer has not been invented yet.
      1. JD1979
        JD1979 14 May 2022 13: 22
        -1
        Quote: slipped
        Wrong. All modern rocket technologies are used in this space rocket complex. Newer has not been invented yet.

        Come on. 30 years. For technology, this is a sentence. And the ideology, so to speak, of building the entire family of these missiles is not only outdated, it is already an Egyptian mummy.
        google at your leisure what is currently being developed in the USA: 3D printing of hulls, tanks and main engines. The return stages are, of course, already the standard and the hangar is here at the bottom, and the last interesting technology for launching little things in literally bursts is SpinLaunch. And the final nail in the coffin is the returning heavyweights. Everything. For a business that now makes up the bulk of launches, not a single Russian carrier in any class is interesting. And the Unions are enough for the military.
        1. slipped
          slipped 14 May 2022 16: 41
          +1
          Quote: JD1979
          Come on. 30 years. For technology, this is a sentence. And the ideology, so to speak, of building the entire family of these missiles is not only outdated, it is already an Egyptian mummy.


          Wrong. Tanks and engines of the same Falcon-9 or Vulcan are assembled using the same technology.

          Quote: JD1979
          google at your leisure what is currently being developed in the USA: 3D printing of hulls, tanks and main engines.


          In Russia, titanium balloons, some elements of rocket engines - heads, nozzles, have long been printed on laser 3-D printers of domestic production.



          Progressive aluminum alloys are used in the shells of the Angara rocket bodies, and the shells themselves are milled on a plane, then twisted and welded by the friction method,



          and the same fuel tanks and landing gear of satellite platforms are wound from carbon fiber.

          Quote: JD1979
          The return steps are, of course, already the standard and the hangar is here at the bottom,


          The return stage is used in only one launch vehicle in the world - in the American F9 and in its heavy modification. This technology is justified only for mass launches - at least 10 launches are required in a short time - for example, when launching large constellations of the same type of spacecraft.

          As for the URM-1 Angara launch vehicle, it can also be reusable if it is required during operation.

          Quote: JD1979
          Well, the last interesting technology for launching little things literally in bursts is SpinLaunch.


          This launch technology has the strongest payload limitations, as it is subject to wild multidirectional accelerations during spin-up and launch. Roughly speaking, for example, the thin electronic filling of scientific instruments will turn into minced meat, or it will be necessary to create a pressurized volume with shock-absorbing liquids, which will lead to a rise in price. This technology can be used on the Moon, where the force of gravity is much less, but again - there is no need to spin the launched projectile to launch it - it is enough to make a flyover with a phased acceleration for this.

          Quote: JD1979
          And the final nail in the coffin is the returning heavyweights.


          The heavyweight is justified only in the presence of a developed space infrastructure. Without it, it's a suitcase without a handle.

          Quote: JD1979
          Everything. For the business, which now makes up the bulk of launches, not a single Russian carrier in any class is interesting.


          Wrong. Russian launch vehicles deliver a commercial payload into orbit. For example, in the near future we will launch a commercial spacecraft on the domestic platform "Express-1000N" - the communication satellite Angosat-2. As for the Western commercial launcher, it is being created on Western platforms, mainly American-made, and the launch of which is expressly prohibited today on our launch vehicles by the US government. Therefore, today we are building a new plant for the production of commercial PN of various classes and purposes of domestic production for our and foreign customers.

          At the same time, serial production of cubesat class spacecraft of various form factors, which are ordered by foreign customers, has already been launched.

          Quote: JD1979
          And the Unions are enough for the military.


          The military for their launches, in addition to the Soyuz-2 launch vehicle, in the near future will use the Angara space rocket system and the Rokot-M conversion carrier.
          1. JD1979
            JD1979 14 May 2022 23: 50
            0
            Quote: slipped
            In Russia, titanium balloons, some elements of rocket engines - heads, nozzles, have long been printed on laser 3-D printers of domestic production.

            That's just the point that some. In the US, the company is developing technology for manufacturing an engine using only printing, like everything else, which can significantly reduce the cost.
            Quote: slipped

            The return stage is used in only one launch vehicle in the world - in the American F9 and in its heavy modification. This technology is justified only with a mass launch.

            So this technology is needed for commercial launches, because of the greater cheapness, which confirms the number of launches, the same technology provides a greater frequency of launches and allows you to launch everything that fits into the weight and size restrictions and not just the same type of devices.
            Quote: slipped
            As for the URM-1 Angara launch vehicle, it can also be reusable if it is required during operation.

            "Maybe" as well as "if" is a very good word))) there are already so many of these, but it could not have been ... just right to release an encyclopedia of unfulfilled promises.
            Quote: slipped
            This launch technology has the strongest payload limitations, as it is subject to wild multidirectional accelerations during the spin-up and launch process.

            Well, this is how it is done to launch small things, and quite a working technology, while something about 10 km in height was fired, the camera survived. If the electronics can withstand overloads of 60G, then they will survive the launch.
            Quote: slipped
            This technology can be used on the Moon, where the force of gravity is much less, but again - there is no need to spin the launched projectile to launch it - it is enough to make a flyover with a phased acceleration for this.

            Here they apply. When they get to the moon, there will already be a ready-made technology for sending cargo to the Earth without using fuel.
            Quote: slipped
            The heavyweight is justified only in the presence of a developed space infrastructure. Without it, it's a suitcase without a handle.

            It is justified if there are plans, first of all, to create this very infrastructure, and if you only master twitter ... If there is no program, then ... here you have Angara and 30 years old))), otherwise what you have to launch, you can also send with what is already there.
            Quote: slipped
            Wrong. Russian launch vehicles deliver a commercial payload into orbit.

            Right. Commerce looks at the price. This is confirmed by a significant drop in launches of commercial spacecraft by Rosbatut. it's statistics.
            Quote: slipped
            Therefore, today we are building a new plant for the production of commercial PN of various classes and purposes of domestic production for our and foreign customers.

            Again, whoever gets up first gets the slippers. And given the near-ass state in the electronic component industry ... the plant needs to try very hard not to send the "Beep-Beep" class payload
            Quote: slipped
            The military for their launches, in addition to the Soyuz-2 launch vehicle, in the near future will use the Angara space rocket system and the Rokot-M conversion carrier.

            Well, I say, what is enough is enough, and Angara is still a very big "when" and "if".
            1. slipped
              slipped 16 May 2022 04: 28
              -1
              Quote: JD1979
              That's just the point that some. In the US, the company is developing technology for manufacturing an engine using only printing, like everything else, which can significantly reduce the cost.


              Keywords in the answer - "develop"And"can". You're trying to present it here as a fait accompli. lol We are also developing .... or maybe they won’t reduce it. Technology is not yet advanced enough to fully print media. No, of course you can print today laughing , but everyone will show the results of ground and flight tests, which have not yet been.

              Quote: JD1979
              So this technology is needed for commercial launches, because of the greater cheapness,


              Why repeat again what has long been exposed as a marketing ploy? There is no cheaper price there.

              Quote: JD1979
              which confirms the number of launches, the same technology provides a greater frequency of launches and allows you to launch everything that fits into the weight and size restrictions and not just the same type of devices.


              Wrong. The number of launches directly depends on the number of spacecraft ready for these launches. The frequency of launches depends on the number of media available at the moment, and whether they are reusable or not, it does not matter.

              Quote: JD1979
              "Maybe" as well as "if" is a very good word))) there are already so many of these, but it could not have been ... just right to release an encyclopedia of unfulfilled promises.


              Maybe - this means that the RD-191 engine is reusable. And the stage itself has the ability, with its slight modernization, to make a controlled descent and land on parachutes with a helicopter pickup in the final section. The question is worth it and the "candy game" remains open.

              Quote: JD1979
              Well, this is how it is done to launch small things, and quite a working technology, while something about 10 km in height was fired, the camera survived. If the electronics can withstand overloads of 60G, then they will survive the launch.


              It's funny how far off topic you are. The camera still survived for 10 km))). The first cosmic velocity to enter the Earth's orbit is 7.9 km/s and the height must be about 200 km. Electronics that can withstand such overloads are fabulously expensive and not always suitable for scientific instruments. But they can succeed in destroying spacecraft.

              Quote: JD1979
              Here they apply. When they get to the moon, there will already be a ready-made technology for sending cargo to the Earth without using fuel.


              Here you are a naive Chukchi kid. laughing This technology has long been ready - the railgun is called. And the fuel there is plutonium, it is used in a nuclear reactor, which feeds all this garbage.

              Quote: JD1979
              It is justified if there are plans primarily to create this very infrastructure, but if you only master twitter ...


              To create "this same infrastructure" heavyweight is not needed. We assembled the MiR station without heavyweights, just like the ISS RS.

              Quote: JD1979
              If there is no program, then ... here you have Angara and 30 years old))), and what you have to launch, you can also send those that already exist.


              For many years now, people like you have been saying here that the Angara missile defense system is a replacement for the Proton / Cyclone. The Proton-M launch vehicle will fly until 2025, with 13 more missiles left. The Cyclone-2/3 rocket, after the completion of its operation, until recently was successfully replaced by Rokot-M and Soyuz-2.1v rockets. That is why no one is in a big hurry with the Angara, they are making the complex as far as the enterprise can, so they have come to mass production.

              Quote: JD1979
              Right. Commerce looks at the price. This is confirmed by a significant drop in commercial spacecraft launches. it's statistics.


              Where do you get such blinkered propaganda from? What incubator? The drop in launches of commercial spacecraft on Proton-M heavy carriers is primarily due to an increase in insurance costs due to the accident rate of these missiles in the middle of the last decade. And it took two years to check and fix everything. And as soon as everything was corrected and the missiles began to fly successfully, the sanctions from the manufacturer of these commercial spacecraft just arrived.

              The average Soyuz-2, as it launched commercial spacecraft, is still launching, and today the sanctions there are already less tangible, since we have established our own production of small spacecraft. As for this year, all "civilian" launches have now been postponed to the second half of the year.

              Quote: JD1979
              Again, whoever gets up first gets the slippers. And given the near-ass state in the electronic component industry ... the plant needs to try very hard not to send the "Beep-Beep" class payload


              Apparently you really are a victim of liberal (read Western) propaganda. laughing We have just launched another most complex ultra-modern spacecraft, and you are talking about "Beep-Beep-class PN" lol

              Quote: JD1979
              Well, I say, what is enough is enough, and Angara is still a very big "when" and "if".


              As soon as our military has ready-made heavy spacecraft that have passed all the tests, for example, on the Express-2000 platform or a new platform weighing more than 3 tons, then immediately. laughing
              1. JD1979
                JD1979 16 May 2022 12: 05
                0
                Quote: slipped
                The key words in the answer are "develop" and "may". You're trying to present it here as a fait accompli. We are also developing...

                This is where I wrote about a fait accompli? ))) Are you trying to merge?))) Fact - the technology is being developed) Fact - working hot parts are printed - a nozzle and a combustion chamber. The fact is that printing technology is very versatile and allows a lot when using the right materials.
                We are developing ...)) Yes, fingers on the keyboard) dozens of announcements - yes, we will immediately make a base on the Moon, Yes, we will go to Mars right away, while the Americans repeat the flight to the Moon))) Yes, you wrote off the shuttles, and we are here a new "Federation " / "Eagle" zababahim))) yeah "Where is Zin's money?")))
                Quote: slipped
                Technology is not yet advanced enough to fully print media. No, of course, you can print today, but everyone will show the results of ground and flight tests, which have not yet been.

                What are you doing?))) maybe not in Russia, but this does not mean that others stand still)))
                Everything is being led towards this, as a result, they will print and show it. And a journalist with a twitter will talk about trampolines)))
                1. slipped
                  slipped 16 May 2022 17: 32
                  0
                  Quote: JD1979
                  This is where I wrote about a fait accompli? )))


                  Yes, here - "google at your leisure what is being developed in the USA now: 3D printing of hulls, tanks and, most importantly, engines." As I understand it, you are focusing on this, and it is not clear to me how sideways this is all to modern launch vehicles, which you call "obsolete". To this I answered you that already now we are printing balloons on a 3-d printer for flying rockets. Printing today. Already. And not just "developed". Is it clear now?

                  Quote: JD1979
                  are you trying to merge?))) Fact - the technology is being developed)


                  Strange conclusion. Everyone is working out, but we also fly already.

                  Quote: JD1979
                  Fact - working hot parts - nozzle and combustion chamber are printed.


                  Here in the hands of this aunt is a freshly printed nozzle, and what?



                  Quote: JD1979
                  The fact is that printing technology is very versatile and allows a lot when using the right materials.


                  Yah. laughing Not always and not everywhere.

                  Quote: JD1979
                  We are developing ...))


                  Are you blind and can't see the photo above? lol

                  Quote: JD1979
                  Yes, you wrote off the shuttles, and here we are the new "Federation" / "Eagle" zababahai))) yeah "Where is Zin's money?")))


                  And why babahat her, if she is in parts in the shop. laughing First launch next year. Here USK "Amur" will pass the qualification and will immediately be allowed.

                  Quote: JD1979
                  What are you doing?))) maybe not in Russia, but this does not mean that others stand still)))


                  Indeed, blind. laughing
                  1. JD1979
                    JD1979 16 May 2022 20: 49
                    -1
                    Quote: slipped
                    Here in the hands of this aunt is a freshly printed nozzle, and what?

                    And what will fly on it and where laughing Whole engines? You will never catch up with the fact that we are talking about the almost complete replacement of the entire machine park and hundreds, if not thousands of operations for the manufacture of the material part of the rocket on a 3D printer. Not printing individual components. So which one of us is blind? request
                    Most of the previous post was too lazy to even comment, nonsense and fantasies)) especially about prices and frequency of launches.
                    1. slipped
                      slipped 17 May 2022 12: 23
                      -1
                      Quote: JD1979
                      And what will fly on it and where laughing


                      Spacecraft. Into the space. What's the difference to you? In the same KBKhA, a production technique using 3D printing of a mixing head and a 14D23 engine nozzle has long been mastered.

                      Quote: JD1979
                      Whole engines?


                      Not. The rest is still cheaper to do with a cutter.

                      Quote: JD1979
                      You will never catch up with the fact that we are talking about the almost complete replacement of the entire machine park and hundreds, if not thousands of operations for the manufacture of the material part of the rocket on a 3D printer. Not printing individual components.


                      You started talking about our "obsolete technologies". And now you're talking about something that no one else has. lol

                      I showed you that we already have 3D printers for printing flight products. Moreover, in the above photo, the model is small, there are more.

                      Quote: JD1979
                      So which one of us is blind? request


                      Most likely you, since suddenly began to wishful thinking. I can even show you 3D printing of ultralight rocket tanks, but do you need it? laughing

                      Quote: JD1979
                      Most of the previous post was too lazy to even comment, nonsense and fantasies)) especially about prices and frequency of launches.


                      You're just like a monkey that closed its eyes with its paws laughing If something does not fit into your vision of the world, it is, as it were, not there, right? laughing Apparently - another victim of propaganda.
        2. Siberian54
          Siberian54 28 June 2022 16: 40
          0
          We do not have a coastal spaceport, so the return stages are not relevant until there are breakthrough technologies.
        3. stankow
          stankow 8 August 2022 23: 19
          0
          For space technology, 30 years is maturity. In a month, the Boeing SLS will start, well, they promise. RS-25 engines, from the Shuttle. 45 year olds. So what ? They will fly to the moon.
  3. MBRSS
    MBRSS 12 May 2022 17: 52
    0
    It's sad, but you can forget about domestic research cosmonautics for 10 years (except for Luna-25). As a lover of space, I will follow foreign programs.
    Well, at least it’s good that the next launch of the Angara-A5 is with a payload, and not with another blank.
    1. slipped
      slipped 13 May 2022 10: 28
      +4
      Quote: MBRBS
      It's sad, but you can forget about domestic research cosmonautics for 10 years (except for Luna-25).


      Wrong. In the current FKP, the launch of AMS Luna-26 and AMS Luna-27 is planned. In addition, a launch is planned for this year under the Ionosphere program.
  4. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 12 May 2022 18: 06
    -2
    The light "Angara" is already an anachronism, in fact, because light-medium launch vehicles should definitely be returnable to one degree or another. In a non-refundable option, it turns out to be too expensive ..
    The heavy Angara will still have its own niche, but even here there is some skepticism about its application as a new product. In the United States, heavyweights have been developed and are being developed, including returning heavyweights, in China they are developing heavyweights - all these are rockets for specific tasks of the near future astronautics, such as Mars, the Moon, the launch of large modules for space. stations. It’s just that a heavy launch vehicle may not be powerful enough for some of the advanced plans of our space (If any are foreseen at all), in which case these plans will have to be compressed or postponed (again ?!), or wait for the development of a heavyweight (i.e. wait again and spend again resources, build new launch pads, reorganize production, etc.).

    The fragmentation launch by the Angara with subsequent assembly in orbit will also not always be reasonable and justified, because it is already obvious that we are leaving the ISS, but we still do not smell of ROSS, which would be the MORE advanced, the more space and mass it would have in the design version (since if we are interested in our own station, then for the most part for production and large-scale research purposes, and this is a completely different level of space, redundancy, energy supply, etc.). In this case, we again need a heavyweight for the Adekbander muzzle of the withdrawal of elements, precisely that of the FORWARD station, comparable in operating time to the ISS. Otherwise, we run the risk of bungling a "quick gun" or even postponing this task for years --> all this is fraught with losses for our astronautics, which is already not in the best shape.

    "Angara" is certainly an interesting and niche product, but I would be careful not to put all my eggs in a basket for it - we need to speed up the development of heavyweight and return stages of light and medium launch vehicles.
    For a heavy launch vehicle, we will find work only in the short term, moreover, for these tasks, already developed and operated samples for many years would be quite suitable for us. Outside of the short term, utilitarian tasks require more economy or more payload, not this endless pounding of shit in a mortar in orbit, as we used to do.
    1. Lepsik
      Lepsik 12 May 2022 18: 53
      0
      --- The non-refundable option is too expensive ..
      Musk's return rockets, judging by NASA's spending, are much more expensive than disposable alliances
      1. baik11
        baik11 12 May 2022 19: 40
        +5
        This is not about spending NASA. How Musk and NASA agree among themselves is their own business. And Musk has the right to set his own financial terms. Even if they are overpriced in one particular case, then they still suit both parties.
        We are talking about the cost of the launch as such with the declared payload. And in this Mask, alas, has no equal today. And not the least role in reducing the price is played by the reusability of the first stages and GO. Plus extremely cheap engines, modern materials and assembly technologies.
        1. zxc15682
          zxc15682 12 May 2022 19: 55
          0
          The first launch of the NASA launch vehicle is subsidized by Musk. And subsequent launches of the carrier go "in the market mode." The more jumps the carrier made, the cheaper the price.
        2. stankow
          stankow 14 May 2022 01: 08
          +1
          No one has ever seen Spaceics' final report. One word Mask.
      2. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 12 May 2022 19: 53
        +2
        You are talking about the old launch vehicle, the deployment of production and development of which has long been "recaptured". For routine loads, I also think that old rockets would be enough for us with a mountain - yes, they are on toxic steam (Proton), yes they are ancient (Soyuz) - but we do not need to beat off their launches, they have long paid for themselves. "Angara" in this sense does not lead us much forward - what is advanced in it? Switching to a relatively environmentally friendly engine? Modular design ?
        With our loading cosm. For the industry, the return options would be very good for us in THIS niche, because the Vostochny is much closer to the water area than the same Baikonur. It is possible to land the steps on a floating platform and transport them relatively inexpensively. With our homeopathic number of launches of light-medium launch vehicles, this would unload the industry from these areas and focus on the direction of heavyweight, without which we will really not be able to live in the 21st century, if only we and we do not plan to look further at the large space missions of foreign "partners".
        The point here is not that I "like Musk", the point is that we have modest funding and increasingly modest requests for launches - here we inevitably need to think through EVERY STEP in advance, and in this approach, Angara is an obvious extra step. And not alone.
        1. zxc15682
          zxc15682 12 May 2022 20: 02
          +3
          Angara campaign is a missile for the military.
          1. stankow
            stankow 14 May 2022 01: 10
            +1
            There are no purely civilians in nature.
        2. baik11
          baik11 12 May 2022 20: 05
          -3
          "Angara" is not just an extra step. This is a dead end option. And it is accepted only because there is nothing else. Yes, it's an expensive option. Yes, definitely not commercial and never will be. But a carrier of this class is needed by the MO. And what if there are no others? How is it possible to make them? In addition, this work has saved thousands of jobs.
          And here your hopes for the returned variant are unrealizable. It has already been said that it is impossible to make a reusable stage on the Glushko engine line. There are no other engines. I mean light, reliable, extremely simple and cheap.
    2. Lepsik
      Lepsik 12 May 2022 18: 54
      +5
      -- we need to speed up heavyweight development
      What are you going to carry on them?
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 12 May 2022 20: 05
        0
        Quote: Lepsik
        -- we need to speed up heavyweight development
        What are you going to carry on them?

        In order to speed up development, you first need to start it. In the meantime, everything is canceled before the creation of new technologies. In general, they will see what the Mask will do with Starship.
      2. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 12 May 2022 20: 29
        +4
        Let's point by point. After February 24, of course, "what to carry" decreased, apparently for a long time. Also, of course, our economic opportunities for the implementation of our plans will decrease.
        However, the tasks themselves will remain - you can only close your eyes to them, as we are already used to. Or exercise.
        So - the tasks for heavyweight are as follows:
        1) Previously announced "Return to the Moon". The first projects really do without a heavyweight, including my favorite, which has not suffered so far, "Luna-25". However, here it must be understood that after a couple of stations and, possibly, a Lunokhod, an unmanned or manned flight, the inevitable next steps are a manned landing, the construction of a lunar base and other missions that require LARGE DRIVES. The Angara will not be able to handle all this to the Moon in one launch, while the multi-launch plan is an obvious anachronism, the inefficiency of which was understood back in the USSR during the Moon Race. Thus, without a heavyweight, our new "Lunar program" is doomed to stand at the stage after the manned flyby of the Moon, and in fact will not give anything in view of this.
        2) ROSS - I don’t know if they will do it or not, but given the state of affairs on the ISS and our decline in relations with the United States, given our rhetoric on the same ISS - pretty soon the need for our own station or participation in a new project may already appear more than realistic. The absence of our own station will limit ours in many things, including the implementation of multi-launch missions, because we simply will not have anywhere to collect them in orbit. All the needs of the production and experimental plan will also be limited, and given the fact that at small stations we have already worked out everything that is possible in 50 years, we will need a new station with exactly the BACKGROUND, that is, with sufficient areas and resources, w.t. h resource upgrade. All this again rests on the thrown mass and dimensions, limited by the parameters of launching the launch vehicle. A large station will provide our needs for many decades, even in orbit, a small one will not give anything new, but will also cost a pretty penny.
        3) Missions in the solar system - how long will we be content with the fact that all the scientific information on the SS goes to the Americans? The question of sending our Mars rover to the red planet has long been standing, will we again pull the strap for decades? Our vehicles did not fly beyond the orbit of Mars, this is not at all fun for the first space power. We simply do not have competencies, we will have to develop them. For all this we need a heavyweight, because large missions collect more data, their vehicles are more reliable and get to the target faster.
        4) Missions to asteroids - at the moment, YKA and NASA are actively probing asteroids, if you do not take Vega into account, our competence in sending spacecraft to comets and asteroids is simply none. Here again we are decades behind, we will need to catch up.
        5) Launching telescopes. "Spektr-RG" is certainly a powerful thing, but its mass is already actually starting to approach the mass limit of the Angara's launch to the GEO (including RG). That is, for more powerful or reliable telescopes, we need a more powerful launch vehicle - more powerful than the Angara. The same "James Webb", which is an apparatus for a slightly different purpose, is nevertheless an excellent example in terms of mass - of the direction in which complex technology for scientific research is moving. Its weight is 50% greater than the carrying capacity of the Angara in the GSO. Thus, here we will have to develop heavyweight in the medium term - the same Spectrum-UV will become heavier by 150 kilos relative to Spectra-RG at least.

        It would be possible to add "Nuklon" here, although the developers swear that 2 launches of heavy launch vehicles will be enough to launch there. But the fate of this project is now in the fog of expediency, alas.
        So there are enough tasks even offhand for a heavyweight.
        1. baik11
          baik11 12 May 2022 21: 05
          +1
          Let's say the tasks are marked.
          So what?
          How will it help to make a heavyweight?
          There are two main problems on the way of its creation today.
          one). Complete lack of concept. Nobody even knows what engines to put on the carrier. To the first step. For the second. Should I use TTU? Kerosene? Methane? Hydrogen on the last one? Today it is only known that the scientists of the uncle put an end to the heavyweight.
          2). A lack of money. There is nothing to say about FKP 2016-2025. It doesn't smell like heavyweight. But there is a strong suspicion that the next FKP will not allocate funds for this matter. due to their scarcity. Which will be because of the sanctions. There will be no time for all sorts of spouses. The very minimum for MO. Science - on the residual principle.
        2. MBRSS
          MBRSS 12 May 2022 21: 33
          0
          "James Webb" .... Its mass is 50% greater than the carrying capacity of the "Angara" in the GSO. "-
          - Well, the GSO seems to have nothing to do with it at all. An apparatus even heavier than Webb will pull A-A5B into solar orbit, effortlessly. All possible research probes (including rovers-mars rovers) too. But that's all.
          The superheavy, as you know, has been moved from 2028 to "after 2035"), the Soyuz-LNG reusable is about the same. In the best case, we will follow Musk for five years, so that then we can only start designing something similar. In order not to fall below the plinth at all, you can try to repeat Phobos-Grunt while the Protons remain, but even this is now out of the realm of fantasy (((
    3. slipped
      slipped 13 May 2022 10: 37
      0
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      The light "Angara" is already an anachronism, in fact, because light-medium launch vehicles should definitely be returnable to one degree or another. In a non-refundable option, it turns out to be too expensive ..


      No. For "cheap tasks" we plan to launch the conversion carrier "Rokot-M" in a year, and "Angara-1.2" is a project for the future, including in a reusable version.

  5. zxc15682
    zxc15682 12 May 2022 18: 46
    +1
    The whole feature of the Angara .. This is the simplicity and manufacturability of assembly (welding) of blocks. And they can be riveted by hundreds anyway, all will do. And the economics of this process depends on how you count. Only I do not understand how the Unions will affect this process. Ideally, of course, they will abandon the Unions, but this is a big risk of losing a unique rocket and team.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 12 May 2022 20: 10
      +2
      Quote: zxc15682
      The whole feature of the Angara .. This is the simplicity and manufacturability of assembly (welding) of blocks. And they can be riveted by hundreds anyway, all will do. And the economics of this process depends on how you count. Only I do not understand how the Unions will affect this process. Ideally, of course, they will abandon the Unions, but this is a big risk of losing a unique rocket and team.

      Ideally, the entire line should consist of one Angara, and there will be a bunch of orders. Otherwise, there will be no international orders, the domestic launch market is declining, and a whole armada of missiles wants to compete in the domestic market. From conversion and Union, to all sorts of new developments.
  6. zxc15682
    zxc15682 12 May 2022 18: 51
    +3
    For the next 100 years, the physics of putting cargo into orbit will not change in any way. Rockets will also fly, burning thousands of tons of fuel. You just need to decide where and how much load to send.
    1. Knell wardenheart
      Knell wardenheart 12 May 2022 20: 35
      0
      Well, I outlined the list of tasks "offhand" for an average perspective for us a little higher. There we will need heavyweight almost everywhere, otherwise there will be no breakthrough. And we need a breakthrough, because the "fat years" for Roskosmos are behind us, we are losing our competencies and very soon our economic isolation can grow to scientific.
      Such monstrous projects, after all, are also support for import substitution industries, something that can support breakthrough R&D and teams.
      We will need to move to this step, since the potential for exploiting the "Soviet legacy" has already been practically exhausted.
      1. Repellent
        Repellent 12 May 2022 20: 49
        0
        Quote: Knell Wardenheart
        Well, I outlined the list of tasks "offhand" for the average perspective for us a little higher

        A guy with the nickname slipped sometimes appears here. Chat with him, he is really into the topic of space, including Russian. So far, you are a little carried away, IMHO.
        1. Knell wardenheart
          Knell wardenheart 12 May 2022 21: 25
          +4
          Comrade Slipped promised me "Luna-25" a year and a half ago :-) He promised so confidently, that's also, he was in the subject. After that, I became much more skeptical about his visionary abilities) What I advise you too)
          1. Repellent
            Repellent 12 May 2022 21: 40
            +3
            Comrade Slipped a few years ago posted here a diagram of the re-docking of ships to the World, which three days later coincided with the real one to one.

            I worked at TsNIIMASH for 10 years, I still have a lot of acquaintances there, and not the last people in the organization. But even for them, this scheme was a kind of revelation.

            Conclusion: comrade Slipped is very well informed. And the fact that he "promised" you there - I would love to look at the quote. Often people make mistakes because they hear not what they are told, but what they want to hear. Something tells me that in your case it was just that.
            1. zxc15682
              zxc15682 12 May 2022 22: 01
              0
              Is it possible to use iron wire in ion engines as fuel?
              1. Repellent
                Repellent 12 May 2022 22: 15
                -2
                Quote: zxc15682
                Is it possible to use iron wire in ion engines as fuel?

                belay belay belay

                Ai dont know, seyz Ivan Susanin (s)
                1. zxc15682
                  zxc15682 12 May 2022 22: 24
                  -1
                  How so ... The most common element on earth?
                  1. Repellent
                    Repellent 12 May 2022 22: 50
                    +2
                    Quote: zxc15682
                    The most common element on earth?

                    Iron wire? And I thought - silicon .. well, after oxygen, essno laughing
            2. Knell wardenheart
              Knell wardenheart 12 May 2022 22: 58
              +1
              Well, once with pleasure, then here's a portion of pleasure for you.
              https://topwar.ru/173406-nasa-zajavila-o-gotovnosti-marsohoda-perseverance-k-zapusku-k-marsu.html#comment-id-10623895
              Here, my friend Slipped and I had a small discussion, in June 2020 (well, yes, not a year and a half, but already 2 years have passed), and he promises this crown, I will even quote:
              In October next year, we have a landing station "Luna-25" flying to the zone that we explored with our LEND device - the Boguslavsky crater, to the South Pole. And behind it is the Luna-26 orbiter in a joint program with the Chinese.

              Well, October of last year was already 8 months ago, and Luna-25, dear, is still standing, perhaps in the same place where it was those 2 years ago. To which he was then answered, I will also quote
              Oh yes, you wrote: "... We have a landing station Luna-25 flying next October ..."
              Now, if it really flies for YOU in October 2021, then yes, I will take off my hat and say "I was wrong." I hope that your optimism will also diminish - if this does not happen.

              Later, I poked a friend into what was written and naively hoped that his iridescent cheer-enthusiasm would subside somewhat, but no.
              I have a very good memory, Comrade Repellent. I remember well the many pink snot and cheers of many eminent locals, and although I myself am certainly not a saint, sometimes I have a fierce desire to click on the nose separately self-confident noses who consider themselves authorities.
              Because it is one thing to build an apparatus "at least some" and it is quite another thing to build a planning scheme taking into account possible future tasks - this is something we have not been able to properly for a long time, and all these smart comrades "in the subject" stubbornly do not catch up with this. It seems to them that if there is a nuclear weapon - it will definitely be used "if anything", if there is "Luna-25" - then it will definitely be launched, if there is "Admiral Kuznetsov" - that means there is some kind of super task hidden from the frail philistine minds, and at the right moment...aahh, uhh..
              You have to be somewhat less sure of things, relying more on logic than on a solid white beard and information from insiders.
              1. Repellent
                Repellent 12 May 2022 23: 10
                +1
                Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                Luna-25, dear, is still standing, perhaps in the same place where it was those 2 years ago


                Article from 20.11.2021.

                Whoever slipped, but he is definitely not Vanga and operates only with the information that is available at the moment.

                On the July 24 2020 in fact, he was right. You are not. Somehow it turns out request
          2. slipped
            slipped 13 May 2022 10: 44
            +1
            Quote: Knell Wardenheart
            Comrade Slipped promised me "Luna-25" a year and a half ago :-) He promised so confidently, that's also, he was in the subject. After that, I became much more skeptical about his visionary abilities) What I advise you too)


            "Life is what passes you by while you make your plans." lol "Comrade slipped" is not responsible for the results of iron tests on the ground, and even more so for the work of engineers and designers based on the results of these tests. The postponement of the launch of "Luna-25" is connected precisely with this. "Two years" is the launch window. Today, the launch is scheduled for August 22 this year, and even now this date is in doubt. Why - I will not say, because it is still early. We don't need a second Genesis or Vikram. laughing
  7. zxc15682
    zxc15682 12 May 2022 21: 05
    +1
    I personally imagine the future of astronautics by launching containers the size of a railway car. With resources for a robotic printer that will assemble structures in orbit.
  8. Mustached Kok
    Mustached Kok 13 May 2022 07: 34
    +1
    The fact that the rocket flies is certainly good, but not an achievement. All the same, rockets learned to successfully launch back in the 50s
    Complexity with a whole series of internal and external problems of the rocket. And if many internal problems have already been solved, only the price remains (it seems that after large-scale production the price will fall) and the fact that the rocket is not reusable (as SpaceX showed, the reusability of the launch vehicle still has a strong influence on the launch price).
    But external problems have not really begun to be solved. And the main external problem is the logic and concept of such a launch vehicle in the modern world. The idea of ​​modular missiles has been dreamed of since the late 60s. And they were able to fully implement it from the second half of the 80s. But the modern race of space companies has shown that reusability and the use of low-cost manufacturing technologies (3D printing of parts, assembly line production of parts and mechanisms, a bet on common components and materials) have a greater impact on reducing launch costs than modularity. After all, the modular approach does not solve the basic problem - each module (ie step) is still disposable. And the engine and all stage systems will be created only for one-time use. But to make the Angara profitable, it is possible without reusability. At least to make production cheaper. Try to master the same 3D printing for many parts and optimize the design and assembly of rockets for assembly by robots (robots still work on average cheaper than people without lowering the quality of the price).
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 13 May 2022 08: 46
      +1
      Quote: Mustachioed Kok
      to make the Angara profitable without reusability ...

      I do not rule out such a possibility! Actually, there are 2 ways to reduce the cost of "space launches" ... 1. the return of the launch vehicle and, possibly, the "payload"; 2. the maximum reduction in the cost of production and the design itself ... The German company OTRAG tried to follow the second path, but they did not give it ...!
    2. stankow
      stankow 14 May 2022 01: 25
      -1
      Roboti on pike, unique production? :)
  9. slipped
    slipped 13 May 2022 10: 19
    +1
    The article contains errors and inaccuracies:

    1. "The first tests of individual units and components took place in the middle of the 2004s." - in 1, the first URM-XNUMX was already assembled, so "testing of individual units and components" took place much earlier.

    2. "At the turn of the decade, preparation for production and construction of the launch complex began." - restructuring of the complex under construction for the launch vehicle "Zenith" at the Plesetsk cosmodrome. This delayed the first launch in the end, because. it turned out to be more difficult to do in those realities.

    3. "Later, the need to build another launch complex with infrastructure for hydrogen rockets was announced. This project has not yet been implemented." - according to plans, the current SC will be modernized for hydrogen.

    4. "Full operation of the facility will begin only in 2025-27." - according to current plans - the completion of comprehensive tests is the middle of 2023, operation from 2024.

    5. "According to the new plans, the launch complex will be built in the distant future, but not for the Angara, but for the promising Soyuz-5 rocket." - work on altering the launch of the Zenit launch vehicle at the 45th site of Baikonur by the forces of Kazakhstan and TsENKI should begin this summer, there will not be much to redo, since the Soyuz-5 launch vehicle has the same landing diameter in the UK.The first launch of the carrier should take place at the turn of 2023 - 2024, and 2024 is more likely today.

    6. "On board the launch vehicle was a Breeze-M upper stage with a two-ton payload mock-up." - with an inseparable mock payload weighing 2 tons.

    7. "In this event, the heavy Omsk-made Angara-A5 was used for the first time." - in the second launch of the Angara-A5, one of the Omsk-made URM-1. The rest of the URM were Moscow. In the third launch - all URM-1 Omsk.

    8. "April 29, 2022, the second launch of the light Angara-1.2 took place. At the same time, the rocket carried a payload for the first time." - it could be added that with the new upgraded URM-2 for a light carrier (it is "slenderer" compared to URM-2 for A5 or A3) and the Aggregate Module, which is a payload booster, and in fact an upper stage.

    9. "In the second quarter of this year, the rocket will take off with the South Korean satellite Kompsat-6. This launch could have taken place earlier, but it was postponed several times due to the unavailability of the spacecraft." - could not, because the rocket was not ready, in addition, there will be no launch in the second quarter of this year - South Korea has suspended the launches of its spacecraft from our spaceports, this also applies to the second CAS500.

    10. "At the very end of 2021, it became known that in 2022 the Ministry of Defense plans to conduct two launches of the Angara-A5." - only one launch is possible this year and it is likely that it will be postponed to next year when ready.

    11. "First of all, these are the Angara-A5P and Angara-A5M with enhanced performance and / or the ability to carry a manned spacecraft." - a separate carrier A5P is not planned, the first unmanned launch into orbit of the PTK NP Oryol will take place using the base A5, but with RD-191M engines. All subsequent launches will be made with the A5M version carrier.

    12. "The first launches of these products are scheduled for the next 2023, although there may be some delay .." - the first launches of the VA PTK NP to test the ship's emergency rescue system from the Angara-A5NZh launch vehicle are scheduled for the end of 2023 , the first orbital launch for 2024.
  10. Alexander plus
    Alexander plus 13 May 2022 12: 46
    0
    "According to the new plans, the launch complex will be built in the distant future, but not for the Angara, but for the promising Soyuz-5 rocket."
    What does distant future mean? The Baiterek project is being implemented at the 45th site.
  11. slipped
    slipped 14 May 2022 00: 35
    0
    Rogozin: Another heavy Angara left the rocket plant at night and went to the cosmodrome to continue flight design tests https://t.me/rogozin_do/2727
  12. ont65
    ont65 14 May 2022 02: 36
    +1
    There has been a little less criticism of the project, but Mask Angara still does not let fans sleep peacefully. He solves the problem of increasing the efficiency of carrier production in the specific conditions of the country, and all right. - The line replaces and unifies several generations of carriers of different classes in the interests of the main customer of the MO. The new approaches to the concept of the Angara itself that appeared during the start of work do not add anything, but as a prospect for the future they will be considered as far as possible, and it is not at all limitless.
  13. Aviator_
    Aviator_ 15 May 2022 16: 19
    0
    For all its complexity, such a transfer made it possible to obtain the benefits of production, logistics and other nature.

    Well, yes, it is of a different nature - the price of land in Moscow. Even 25 years ago, when the cost of a dvushki-Khrushchev became equal to the cost of six-component weights, it became clear to me that difficult times awaited our aerospace industry.
    1. ivan2022
      ivan2022 12 July 2022 20: 34
      0
      But "during it" - in the USSR, the cost of a cooperative three-ruble note was about 10 thousand rubles.
  14. netzer
    netzer 7 July 2022 09: 06
    0
    In absolute vacuum, must the temperature be absolute zero = minus 273 centigrade?
  15. ivan2022
    ivan2022 12 July 2022 20: 28
    +1
    Quote from netzer
    In absolute vacuum, must the temperature be absolute zero = minus 273 centigrade?

    Vacuum has no temperature. Only matter can have a temperature. The temperature value is determined by the balance of energy flows coming to the substance and leaving the substance.
  16. km-21
    km-21 18 July 2022 14: 16
    0
    The main task of Roscosmos today is to ensure the launch of a satellite constellation into orbit in the interests of the Russian Defense Ministry. And whether Angara, Soyuz or Proton will be used in this case is not so important.
  17. iz odessy
    iz odessy 28 July 2022 10: 23
    -1
    SUBJECTIVELY - the most promising way, the creation of an "orbital shipyard" with the so-called "screwdriver assembly". I mean big. What is the point of driving and keeping in the ISS orbit for 20 years, "exploring in flasks" something there?