Military Review

Russia is working on a reusable rocket

36
After a loud enough rash of accidents involving Russian Proton missiles, one could even say that it was indecent to write about the real situation in the space industry. However, the Russian space program is not only the accidents and disasters of satellites and space stations, it is also truly amazing projects that are quite promising and successfully pass the path of their design. The discussion will be about a reusable rocket-space system (MRKS-1), the testing of which began in TsAGI.


Not so long ago, the press center of TsAGI published an image of this model. Its appearance resembles many reusable spacecraft, such as the American Space Shuttle or our Buran. But the resemblance, as is often the case in life, is deceptive. MKRS-1 is a completely different system. It implements a fundamentally different ideology, which is qualitatively different from all past implemented space projects. At its core, it is a reusable booster.

The MRX-1 project is a partially reusable vertical take-off launch vehicle based on a winged reusable first stage, upper stages and disposable second stages. The first stage is performed by the aircraft scheme and is returned. It returns to the launch area in aircraft mode and makes a horizontal landing on airfields of the 1 class. The winged reusable block of the 1-th stage of the rocket system will be equipped with reusable cruise missile engines (LRE).

Russia is working on a reusable rocket

Currently in GKNPTs them. Khrunichev is in full swing designing and research work on the development and justification of the technical appearance, as well as the technical characteristics of the reusable space-rocket system. This system is created in the framework of the federal space program in conjunction with many related enterprises.

However, let's talk a little about stories. The first generation of reusable spacecraft includes 5 spacecraft such as Space Shuttle, as well as several domestic developments of the BOR and Buran series. In these projects, both Americans and Soviet experts tried to build a reusable spacecraft itself (the last step, which is directly displayed in space). The objectives of these programs were the following: the return from space of a significant amount of payloads, the reduction of the cost of launching a payload into space, the preservation of expensive and complex spacecraft for multiple use, and the possibility of frequent launches of a reusable stage.

However, the 1 generation of reusable space systems was not able to solve their problems with a sufficient level of efficiency. The specific price of access to space was approximately 3 times higher than ordinary disposable missiles. At the same time, the return from space of payloads has not increased significantly. At the same time, the resource of using reusable stages turned out to be significantly lower than the calculated one, which did not allow the use of these ships in a tight schedule of space launches. As a result of this, today both satellites and astronauts are delivered to Earth orbit using disposable rocket systems. And there is nothing at all to return expensive equipment and devices from the near-earth orbit. Only the Americans have made themselves a small automatic ship X-37В, which is designed for military needs and has a payload of less than 1 tons. It is obvious to all that modern reusable systems should be qualitatively different from those of the 1 generation.


In Russia, work is underway on several reusable space systems. However, it is clear that the so-called aerospace system will be the most promising. Ideally, the spacecraft will have to take off from the airfield, like an ordinary plane, go into near-earth orbit and return back, using only fuel. However, this is the most difficult option, which requires a large number of technical solutions and preliminary studies. Quickly this option can not be implemented by any modern state. Although Russia has a fairly large scientific and technical reserve for projects of this kind. For example, the "aerospace plane" Tu-2000, which had a sufficiently detailed study. The implementation of this project at one time was hindered by the lack of funding after the collapse of the USSR in the 1990s, as well as the absence of a number of critical and complex components.

There is also an intermediate option in which the space system consists of a reusable spacecraft and a reusable accelerating stage. Work on such systems were carried out back in the USSR, for example, the Spiral system. There are much more new developments. But this scheme of a reusable space system also implies the existence of a rather long cycle of design and research work in numerous areas.

Therefore, the focus in Russia is focused on the program MRX-1. This program stands for “Reusable 1 space rocket system”. Despite this “first stage”, the system being created will be very functional. It’s just that within the framework of a fairly large general program for creating newer space systems, this program has the closest possible deadlines for the final implementation.


The proposed MRKS-1 system will be two-step. Its main purpose is to launch absolutely any spacecraft (transport, manned, automatic) weighing up to 25 – 35 tons into the near-earth orbit, both actually existing and in the process of creation. The payload weight put into orbit is greater than that of the Protons. However, the fundamental difference from existing launch vehicles will be different. System MRX-1 will not be disposable. Its 1 stage will not burn in the atmosphere or fall to the ground as a set of debris. Having dispersed the 2 th stage (is one-time) and the payload, the 1 stage will land like the space shuttles of the 20th century. Today it is the most promising path for the development of space transportation systems.

In practice, this project is a phased modernization of the Angara, a one-time launch vehicle currently being created. Actually, the project MRKS-1 itself was born as a further development of the project of the GKNPTs them. Khrunichev, where together with NPO Molniya, a reusable accelerator 1 of the Angara launch vehicle was created, designated as “Baikal” (for the first time, the layout of Baikal was also shown at MAKS-2001). “Baikal” used the same automatic control system, which allowed the Soviet space shuttle “Buran” to fly without a crew on board. This system provides flight support at all its stages - from the moment of launch to the landing of the vehicle on the airfield, this system will be adapted for the MRX-1.

In contrast to the Baikal project, the MRX-1 will not have folding planes (wings), but fixed ones. Such a technical solution will reduce the likelihood of emergency situations when the apparatus enters the landing trajectory. But the recently tested design of a reusable accelerator will still undergo changes. As Sergey Drozdov, who is the head of the aerothermodynamics department of high-speed aircraft TsAGI, noted, the specialists were “surprised by the high heat fluxes on the wing center section, which undoubtedly would entail a change in the design of the apparatus”. In September-October of the current year, the model MRKS-1 will pass a series of tests in transonic and hypersonic wind tunnels.

At the 2 stage of the reusable program implementation, they plan to make the 2 stage as well, and the mass of the payload put into space should increase to 60 tons. But even the development of a reusable accelerator with only the 1 stage is already a real breakthrough in the development of modern space transportation systems. And the most important thing is that Russia is moving towards this breakthrough, retaining its status as one of the leading world space powers.

Today, MRKS-1 is considered as a universal multi-purpose tool designed for launching spacecraft and multi-purpose payloads into man-made orbit, manned and cargo ships under man-made outer space exploration programs, exploration of the Moon and Mars, as well as other planets of our Solar System .

The structure of MRKS-1 includes a returnable missile unit (VRB), which is a reusable accelerator of stage I, a disposable accelerator of stage II, and a space warhead (CGM). VRB and accelerator II stages dock with each other in a packet scheme. Modifications of MRCs with different payloads (mass of cargo delivered to a low reference orbit from 20 to 60 tons) are proposed to be built taking into account unified accelerators of stages I and II using a single ground-based complex. What in the future will allow to ensure in practice a reduction in the laboriousness of work in a technical position, maximum serial production and the possibility of developing an economically efficient family of space carriers based on basic modules.


Development and construction of a family of MRKS-1 of different payloads on the basis of unified disposable and reusable stages that will meet the requirements for promising space transportation systems, and capable of very high performance and reliability in solving the tasks of launching both unique and expensive space objects and serial ones spacecraft can be a very serious alternative in a series of launch vehicles of a new generation that will be operated over and a long time in the twenty-first century.

At present, TsAGI specialists have already managed to evaluate the rational frequency rate of the application of the first stage of the MRKS-1, as well as the options for demonstrators of the returned missile blocks and the need for their implementation. The return stage I of the MRX-1 will ensure a high level of safety and reliability and completely abandon the identification of areas of incidence of detachable parts, which will significantly increase the efficiency of execution of promising commercial programs. The above advantages for Russia are extremely important, as for the only state in the world that has the continental location of existing and future space centers.

TsAGI believes that the creation of the project MRKS-1 is a qualitatively new step in the design of promising reusable space launch vehicles. Such systems fully correspond to the level of development of rocket and space technology of the 21st century and have significantly higher rates of economic efficiency.

Information sources:
-http: //www.odnako.org/blogs/show_27384
-http: //readings.gmik.ru/lecture/2010-KONTSEPTSIYA-GKNPTS-IM-MV-HRUNICHEVA-PO-SOZDANIYU-MNOGORAZOVOY-RAKETNO-KOSMICHESKOY-SISTEMI-PERVOGO-ETAPA
-http: //novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/forum13/topic10696
Author:
36 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 28 August 2013 10: 37 New
    15
    We rush into space !!! This is our future.
    1. Metlik
      Metlik 28 August 2013 11: 50 New
      10
      Go Russia!
    2. Uhe
      Uhe 28 August 2013 15: 16 New
      19
      Yes, especially Popovkin is torn, which in a restaurant because of his mistress receives a bottle on his head;) And missiles debugged by many years of use fall into the ocean ...

      Look at the plans of the Soviet space program until 2050. We are so behind compared to it that not a breakthrough is taking place now, but a slide into a hole. Unfortunately, a breakthrough needs a foundation in the form of science (applied and fundamental), people, technologies, and this whole basis, starting from primary education, has been destroyed. Russia ranks last in Europe, if I remember right now, in financing education. What is the leap forward with such a foundation? I do not even stomp on the spot, I repeat again. And I do not affirm this, but from the inside;)
      1. Flooding
        Flooding 28 August 2013 19: 05 New
        0
        Quote: Uhe
        And I do not affirm this, but from the inside;)

        In the sense of ventriloquism?
        I’m joking, of course. I agree, the recent "successes" are not encouraging.
      2. Suhov
        Suhov 28 August 2013 20: 41 New
        +4
        Quote: Uhe
        Look at the plans of the Soviet space program until 2050.
        We are so behind compared to her that not a breakthrough is happening now, but pit rolling.

        What kind of alarmist mood?!?
        We insure rockets and will fly like clockwork!
        fool
        But the fact that
        - in the military-industrial complex salaries are scanty,
        - the profession of an engineer is not held in high esteem,
        - education does not teach, but trains abilities that will help come in handy, unless, when solving crosswords,
        this is all nonsense, a matter of everyday life, so to speak.
        The main thing that the suit sat.
        wassat
  2. Wedmak
    Wedmak 28 August 2013 10: 38 New
    0
    Wow .... the beginning of the design of real (!) Spacecraft has been laid. The shuttle and Buran did not stand nearby.
    1. Uhe
      Uhe 28 August 2013 15: 10 New
      +6
      Buran has surpassed his time so much that now he has nothing to oppose. There are no such developments so far, but there is lost time and lost technology, lost minds. It's too early to rejoice. So far, nothing has changed in the country - the former people are sitting from the Lake cooperative, that is, from the same 90s.
      1. studentmati
        studentmati 28 August 2013 22: 31 New
        +1
        Quote: Uhe
        Buran has surpassed his time so much that now he has nothing to oppose. There are no such developments so far, but there is lost time and lost technology, lost minds


        Golden words! good
  3. Veles25
    Veles25 28 August 2013 10: 48 New
    +6
    ............
    1. afire
      afire 28 August 2013 11: 32 New
      -11
      Well, why the heck are these tricks? the meaning is WHAT? went up and down ... and how much fuel do you plan to fill in? on the hose from the ground?))))) show someone that you have learned to control such a large body and not tip over? rave
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 28 August 2013 12: 02 New
        0
        So fuel is enclosed in this cylinder. And the fact that he took off and sat down, apparently working out the landing steps.
      2. Nayhas
        Nayhas 28 August 2013 12: 57 New
        +2
        Quote: afire
        Well, why the heck are these tricks? the meaning is WHAT?

        The cost of liquid rocket engines is very high, for example, the RD-171M (the basic version was used at the first stage of the Energia and Zenit launch vehicles, the RD-180 engines (used on the Atlas LV) and RD-191 were developed on its basis (Angara launch vehicle) was estimated at US $ 2010 million for 16,6. Therefore, to spend an additional several tons of fuel on the return of the liquid propellant rocket engine (for example, Soyuz has very little fuel, one hundred tons of kerosene - three hundred thousand dollars , two hundred tons of liquid oxygen - even less) is quite profitable. os how to return them. At Space Shuttle, the engine returned to the place with the shuttle, but for this a shuttle weighing 80! tons was needed. Only the launch vehicle is returned to Falcon 9. The spaceship Dragon returns separately in a classic way. As a result, Falcon 9 + Dragon it turns out cheaper and more efficient Space Shuttle + shuttle.
        1. postman
          postman 28 August 2013 17: 03 New
          +3
          "Fuel costs very little"
          Right.
          Only this fuel (for landing the reusable stage) is the MINUS WEIGHT OF THE REFERRED USEFUL LOAD.
          What hundreds of tons do you write about and the cost thereof?
          Bind this to the cost of withdrawing to the NOU 1 kg mon: something around $ 70000?

          Each 1 kg of fuel to return the stage is minus 1 kg bp (or lower orbit), i.e. Minus ($ 70000 + the cost of each kg of fuel)
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 28 August 2013 20: 11 New
            +2
            Quote: Postman
            Bind this to the cost of withdrawing to the NOU 1 kg mon: something around $ 70000?

            Counterquestion. How much additional fuel and engine thrust will be required in order to compensate for the mass: a chassis with an accompanying release mechanism, wings and stabilizers, wing mechanization, side members to strengthen the first stage in order to withstand lateral loads? How much will the aerodynamic surfaces increase the drag of the launch vehicle?
            1. postman
              postman 29 August 2013 02: 25 New
              +1
              Quote: Nayhas
              How much additional fuel and engine traction are required

              ceteris paribus, not how much = PN will decrease ...
              1.for the first stage, it is better to use a parachute or an analog of the rotor braking and landing system designed for the first stage of the Bio-Strik launch vehicle, was developed by the French company Zhiravion-Doran or the Kazan Aviation Institute (flexible blade) and? And landing on water (East)
              2. Of the four systems of this kind under consideration, the first is braking in the atmosphere, the use of parachutes, soft landing rocket engines; the second - braking in the atmosphere, parachutes and gas cushions soft landing; the third - atmospheric braking, jet engines; the fourth is the rotor system. The weight of the touchdown means is respectively 10; 13,4; 25,4; 10 % the weight of the first stage with complete burnout of the fuel, and the weight of the landing system is 2,9; 3,9; 7,3; 2,9% of payload weight. It can be seen that the rotor system in terms of weight return is not worse than any other.
              No. 3: 25,4% and 7,3% respectively, This is what you asked
              No. 5 - WHICH DOES NOT AT ALL BE CONSIDERED, this is a delusional option from the Americans (which we argue about)
              No. 3 makes it possible to land on almost any modern runway.
              The wing design and plumage were optimized using the REBWJN program
              Two main types of structural materials of the wing and plumage are considered:
              - panels, ribs, spars are made of composite material based on carbon fiber type KMU-8;
              - The main elements of the caisson are made mainly of aluminum-lithium alloy type 01450.
              Thus, the studies showed the feasibility of the aerodynamic design of block A with extension wingproviding a very high level of aerodynamic quality (17-19) in the mode of subsonic flight and the bearing properties of the wing at landing without the use of mechanization.
              Use for plumage of composite material KMU-8 reduces the weight of the wing structure by 16%
              .

              Quote: Nayhas
              How much will the aerodynamic surfaces increase the drag of the launch vehicle?

              For the first step, it is tolerant, much less folding.
              There are other problems:
              joints of the “hot” wing and the “cold” body
              aerodynamic requirements for dimensions (length) of a step on a descent site
              "Energy-2": when descending from orbit, the head fairing "rolls" onto the cylindrical part, and the block is shortened to about 5,7 (elongation).
              1. Nayhas
                Nayhas 29 August 2013 11: 42 New
                0
                Quote: Postman
                this is a crazy option from the Americans (which we argue about)

                You give interesting arguments and their source is extremely curious. However, citing excerpts from an article by B.I. Gubanov, you did not take into account that he cites research data related to the 1950s. Now let's look again at the examples of first stage braking listed by him:
                1. braking in the atmosphere, the use of parachutes, soft-propelled rocket engines — The weight of the landing means 10% of the weight of the first stage with complete burnout of the fuel;
                2. braking in the atmosphere, parachutes and gas cushions soft landing - The weight of the means of landing 13,4% of the weight of the first stage with a complete burnout of fuel;
                3. the third - atmospheric braking, jet engines - The weight of the landing means 25,4% of the weight of the first stage with complete burnout of the fuel
                4. rotor system - The weight of the landing means 10% of the weight of the first stage with complete burnout of the fuel.
                Now we’ll figure out what “Weight of touchdown means” means. Landing facilities, these are ADDITIONAL devices that are used for landing. In a variant:
                1. parachute + additional solid rocket engine;
                2. parachute + gas tanks + inflatable structure;
                3. jet engines;
                4. rotor with associated mechanisms.
                From what SpaceX offers, none of these four points are used. For landing, the same rocket engine on which the launch is carried out is used, the only addition is the supports on which the landing is carried out.
                Further about the aircraft landing system. The article does not indicate how many percent the weight of such a system will be "of the weight of the first stage with complete burnout of the fuel." However, the data on the "Return Block A" is shown, from which it is clear that the weight of the aviation system will be 25% (landing weight 68t., Including the aviation system 17t.)! This is without taking into account the gain of the first stage hull! Conclude that it’s better ...
                1. postman
                  postman 29 August 2013 14: 57 New
                  0
                  Quote: Nayhas
                  However, citing excerpts from an article by B.I. Gubanov, you did not take into account

                  Take into account. It’s easier from Gubanov (I’m currently limited on the Internet and the keyboard (iPhone)). Moreover, all of us thought this in kursoviki from 1987 to 1991, and the abstracts, I remember less
                  and the calculations there are NOT from 1950. ATTENTIVE research has been conducted since the 1950s !!!
                  That there is a big difference. The calculations were used by him in the 80s, early 90s
                  Quote: Nayhas
                  From what SpaceX offers, none of these four points are used.

                  right. THIS is number 5, which is generally not considered as delusional, I repeat (I already wrote):
                  http://topwar.ru/32531-v-rossii-rabotayut-nad-sozdaniem-mnogorazovoy-rakety.html

                  # comment-id-1447217

                  [i] 1. UNDERSTAND not use the “Free” opportunity of the atmosphere (resistance to movement, Archimedean force, lift force of a wing or parachute) -TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC STUPIDness. This project (for the Earth) will not be realized (well, in any case, until the taxiways receive an order of magnitude more energy than they do now or they don’t launch the gravityap)
                  Why "fence the garden": everything has been invented for a long time: a parachute system, or a wing.
                  The weight of this returnable tare will be EASIER than the landing system on the taxiway (FUEL!)
                  Well, if you want exotic, you can autorotate (but it will not be acceptable by tare)
                  If you really need a taxiway, the principle of heavy cargo weaving is used — brake impulse, BUT only at the end, when touched.
                  You just forget that RD must pay off

                  and kinetic energy

                  what a snap (POTENTIAL ONLY): 10 kg (and this WITHOUT FUEL is a variable) x000 m / s9,82 X2 30m = 000 = about 9,82 MEGAJOULES and not immediately, but in time.
                  Calculate how much fuel is needed (kerosene in oxygen 43 MJ / kg) and recalculate.
                  WHAT SENSE having ATMOSPHERE (gratuitous) [/ i
                  ]

                  here about the "strength" of the launch vehicle, and about energy again
                  http://topwar.ru/32531-v-rossii-rabotayut-nad-sozdaniem-mnogorazovoy-rakety.html

                  # comment-id-1447528


                  HERE a refutation of you about the runway (and its "complexity" and "high cost")
                  http://topwar.ru/32531-v-rossii-rabotayut-nad-sozdaniem-
                  1. postman
                    postman 29 August 2013 14: 57 New
                    0
                    mnogorazovoy-rakety.html # comment-id-1447231
                    Understand: do not use the Earth’s atmosphere is technological (technical) LITERACY !!! Rave!
                    Well, at least take a look at the last landing of the American device on Mars, if simple physical formulas do not convince you
                    Quote: Nayhas
                    However, the data on the "Return Block A" is shown, from which it is clear that the weight of the aviation system will be 25% (landing weight 68t., Including the aviation system 17t.)! This does not include the gain of the first step

                    25,4% THIS IS EVERYTHING: both the reinforcement and the chassis, and the mechanical compensation of thermal expansions and the SHORTING of the launch vehicle. ALL!!
                    Block C ONLY with "3. air-jet engines;" WITHOUT CHASSIS, STRENGTHENING, WINGS, other mechanisms, thermal protection is insanity.
                    Naturally C, everything is taken into account, therefore 25,4% is the biggest loss (well, if you do not take the American engine thrust LRE (oxidizer_fuel, without WING LIFT AND braking about the atmosphere)
        2. DEMENTIY
          DEMENTIY 28 August 2013 21: 25 New
          0
          afire (3)
          Wedmak
          Nayhas (1)


          Guys, why are you?

          The kid PRIKOL laid out only! : lol:

          And if you joke, it is painfully pretentious.
      3. Mairos
        Mairos 28 August 2013 16: 11 New
        +2
        In vain Afyr minus! Vertical landing on take-off engines - circus. How much fuel is burned! Now imagine the same thing when separating the second stage at an altitude of thirty kilometers.
        1. studentmati
          studentmati 28 August 2013 23: 59 New
          0
          Quote: Mairos
          In vain Afyr minus!


          And so harshly minded that I want to hear powerful opinions? Opinions of specialists, of course!
      4. studentmati
        studentmati 28 August 2013 23: 55 New
        +1
        Quote: afire
        Well, why the heck are these tricks? the meaning is WHAT? went up and down ... and how much fuel do you plan to fill in? on the hose from the ground?))))) show someone that you have learned to control such a large body and not tip over? rave


        Dmitry, you absolutely say everything correctly! "URA-PATRIOTISM" in this case, the defense of the state will not raise!
    2. Lone gunman
      Lone gunman 28 August 2013 12: 36 New
      +1
      offset + ... a sound cylinder, of course amers also work on this ...
  4. sergo0000
    sergo0000 28 August 2013 10: 50 New
    +9
    Keep it up! A great country should have not frail ambitions! Only with the first launch of Popovkin will we attach to a rocket! yes
    1. postman
      postman 28 August 2013 14: 20 New
      +6
      Quote: sergo0000
      Only with the first launch of Popovkin will we tie to the rocket!

      narrowly you think.

      if the payload is from 5000 kg ...
      Oh how much shit can be sent one way.
      I propose to open a vote (popular) for the squad for Srantsev-testers (SUPER-Testers) promising RCS of the Russian Federation!
      ENOUGH EVEN ON TRIAL FLIGHTS TO THE MOON:
      SO:
      1. Chubais (the first privatizer, part-time 1st power engineer of the Russian Federation, as well as nanotechnology No. 1 in the world in space)
      2.Serdyukov (the first Minister of Defense in space)
      3. Vasilyeva - the first commercial lady astronaut
      4. The first space family couple (BUILDERS!): Luzhkov
      5.Abramovich and Co. (the first Chukot governor and owner of the most expensive yacht in the world, in space)
      6. It is a pity BAB died prematurely .. (member of the Security Council of the Russian Federation (former), "founder" of ORT-space)
      7.
      8.
      .
      .
      Supplement wink
      The benefit is obvious:
      -in cleaner country
      -saving on expenses of the RF IC, the court and the prosecutor
      - Guinness Book of Records - ours
      -development of promising technologies for rocket science of the Russian Federation
      - “worthy” people will become even “worthier2”
      -saving on launches: part of the expenses is paid by the astronaut (s), all the more so it’s "affordable"
      Well, etc.
  5. Veles25
    Veles25 28 August 2013 10: 50 New
    +4
    SpaceX ....
    1. Lone gunman
      Lone gunman 28 August 2013 12: 39 New
      +2
      your cylinder can also maneuver;
  6. saag
    saag 28 August 2013 10: 51 New
    +5
    Quote: sergo0000
    Only with the first launch of Popovkin will we tie to the rocket!

    he will return with her :-)
    1. Lone gunman
      Lone gunman 28 August 2013 12: 42 New
      +2
      Well, we’re not animals, after all, we’ll cool off and think about our behavior, then we need to come back, to throw our shots all over the cosmos, it’s already polluted with us ...
  7. alebor
    alebor 28 August 2013 11: 03 New
    10
    This “Baikal” is painfully indecent, as if its developers would not be held accountable for disseminating pornography. Although, on the other hand, if we develop this project under the slogan: "Our answer to America," then the view of the given spacecraft is very suitable. smile
    But seriously, it’s great that the space industry is still developing in spite of everything.
    1. Hudo
      Hudo 28 August 2013 11: 14 New
      +3
      Quote: alebor
      This "Baikal" is painfully indecent


      All sorts of "aesthetes" rejected the "Spiral" of Gleb Lozino-Lozinsky for approximately the same reasons. It would be better if they considered the pictures in Crocodile - they would have done less harm.

      [img] [center] [img] http: // http: //24smi.org/public/media/filer_public_thumbnails/n
      ews/2013/07/24/1374666370.jpg__625x440_q95_crop.jpg[/img]
      [/ img] [/ center]
  8. deman73
    deman73 28 August 2013 11: 10 New
    +4
    I wish you success only
  9. crambol
    crambol 28 August 2013 11: 21 New
    +2
    Quote: deman73
    the view of the given spacecraft is very suitable.


    The model of this not-so-decent apparatus was exhibited either on the first or on the second MAKS, I saw it myself. He is at least twenty years old!
  10. unclevad
    unclevad 28 August 2013 11: 43 New
    0
    With an initiative. The road is long and difficult. We have heads and hands. Let's do it! Good luck!
  11. Prapor Afonya
    Prapor Afonya 28 August 2013 11: 49 New
    +3
    I hope this is not another boltology! Maybe I’ll survive when apple trees bloom on Mars (although they vryatli)!
    1. Lone gunman
      Lone gunman 28 August 2013 12: 53 New
      +1
      we can’t do without the Chinese, they will grow rice there, the main thing is the free clutch of land or Mars, and in a year not only the apple trees will bloom ...)))
  12. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 28 August 2013 13: 01 New
    +2
    Well, as always: there was a reason to gossip, but the main thing was not noticed that our Russian space was not buried and something was being done (well, even for the future)! And it pleases!
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 28 August 2013 13: 47 New
      +4
      Verily ...
      Moreover, note - news about the creation, scientific research, work on space exploration, earth, water, atom, etc. for peaceful purposes come mainly from Russia! Europe slides into an LGBT hole - they no longer have space, the United States has militarized and are trying to sow everywhere bombs democracy, China is trying to catch up and overtake, but while it is sitting quietly, the rest are stupidly extras.
      1. Odonushka
        Odonushka 28 August 2013 18: 32 New
        0
        Well, as for other countries, this is said loudly ... they simply don’t advertise their achievements (so as not to upset us and show that they are doing fine), but they scream about our more or less conceived and discuss how much cooler they are than foreign ones ... China has already made strange satellite maneuvers ... do not underestimate them ..
        1. Mikhail3
          Mikhail3 28 August 2013 20: 14 New
          +1
          Yes, yes, what did you hear on the radio channel, it’s true that the enemies will hide the rest from you! Here it is, the sinister influence of Big Brother! A little in the West they invented a nail of a different form - they immediately scream for the whole world! How they riveted this dragon with an open circuit engine - PR was about five years old without a break. But real works are kept secret, hold on ... Go online anyway. You will not regret...
  13. Nayhas
    Nayhas 28 August 2013 13: 22 New
    0
    “Having dispersed the 2nd stage (which is one-time) and the payload, the 1st stage will land like space shuttles of the twentieth century. Today it is the most promising way to develop space transport systems.” - and why would it? For the normal landing of the first stage, developed aerodynamic surfaces are necessary, a heavy chassis due to the large elongation of the first stage, this excess mass requires an increase in fuel volumes with an increase in the size of the very first stage. Developed aerodynamic surfaces increase air resistance at the initial stage of launch, which also affects fuel consumption. With a horizontal landing, the first stage will experience lateral loads, which will also require an increase in its mass ... In general, complete crap will turn out.
    1. postman
      postman 28 August 2013 13: 43 New
      +1
      Quote: Nayhas
      In general, you get complete crap.

      It all depends on the cost of "packaging" (carrier and remote control)
      - expensive and reusable = will be returned
      -cheap, burns out
      + "preservation" of the environment (ecology) - walk on the fall track of the run-off rungs of the RN - get stunned
      =============
      the number of launches will have a certain impact: now the situation is, industry is coping. If the need arises, 50-70 per year (from the country) - can not cope without reusability.
      The upper steps cannot be saved, it really is not profitable due to technical complexity (Shuttle main tank, as an example)
    2. Wedmak
      Wedmak 28 August 2013 13: 49 New
      +1
      For the normal landing of the first stage, developed aerodynamic surfaces are necessary, a heavy chassis due to the large elongation of the first stage, this excess mass requires an increase in fuel volumes with an increase in the size of the very first stage.

      So after all, the most expensive components are included in the first stage - the most powerful engines in the amount of N units, a huge fuel supply, the design itself, which can withstand acceleration at startup. If you return it, the savings will be decent.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 28 August 2013 14: 22 New
        0
        Quote: Wedmak
        If you return it, the savings will be decent.

        Reuse of the first stage is undoubtedly a profitable business. The question is how. In fact, our team offers instead of the first stage a space shuttle with all the consequences for cost and effective load. SpaceX, on the other hand, resolves the issue differently, using one of the main engines with vertical landing to return. In this case, the increase in mass will occur only by the amount of fuel + landing supports. When returning, the task of the main engine will not be to overcome gravity, but to decrease the landing speed, which requires less energy and therefore fuel. + after separation of the second stage and the development of the main fuel supply, the mass of the returned first stage will not be large, or rather, close to the dry mass.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 28 August 2013 14: 46 New
          0
          SpaceX, on the other hand, resolves the issue differently, using one of the main engines with vertical landing to return.

          It is necessary to try very hard to get into the concrete patch from a height of even 80 km. Vertical landing is generally a difficult thing. Especially from a great height, where you also need to slow down a significant speed.
          It’s easier for us, the first step is simply planning for the airfield (as at the time Buran), this is a much easier task. And do not carry fuel for landing.
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 28 August 2013 15: 03 New
            0
            Quote: Wedmak
            It’s easier for us, the first step simply plans for the airfield

            Simply doesn't mean better. In addition, Buran is not a giant cylinder with wings, even though it looks a little like a plane ... For Buran, they built a special runway (the history of this runway is a sample of people's money), he made a revolution around the planet, and the first step is not capable of it , she needs to plan from a height of 60-80 km., while if the flight is still somehow possible to control, then the landing will be insanely difficult ...
            Quote: Wedmak
            It is necessary to try very hard to get into the concrete patch from a height of even 80 km.

            What's so complicated? The trajectory is known, the object flies with the engine turned on, i.e. we manage, in extreme cases, you can do a lot of landing sites, it's not a runway to build ...
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 28 August 2013 15: 26 New
              0
              and the first step is not capable of it, it needs to plan from an altitude of 60-80 km., while if the flight is still somehow possible to control, the landing will be insanely difficult ...

              AND? From an altitude of 60-80 km, you can plan and even select the desired airdrome even before it comes to a stop. Also, just in case, the reserve will remain. Modern autopilots are able to land any plane or glider in any lane. This moment has already been worked out and does not cause difficulties.
              What's so complicated? The trajectory is known, the object flies with the engine turned on, i.e. manage

              Well, firstly, to fly with the engine on, you need tons of fuel. Which would be better spent on outputting the payload. Managing rocket engines in the dense atmosphere of the Earth is insanely expensive. Secondly, all the same, the device will have to be streamlined, because otherwise, at such speeds he will not live long. So why not save more by adding wings and letting you plan ahead to GDP? But doesn’t aim at a tiny point on the earth, constantly straightening the course, with the rest of the fuel?
              1. postman
                postman 28 August 2013 19: 13 New
                0
                Quote: Wedmak
                From an altitude of 60-80 km you can plan

                The first stage will finish working at an altitude of 1-30 km (this does not apply to Energy, since it is not the first)

                from an altitude of 80 km it’s simply impossible to “plan” - there is practically no atmosphere there (see all American X and the "first flight" of Americans into space)

                at an altitude of 80 km - the device already has a speed close to the 1st space (5-7 km / s), it is already close to the low reference orbit.
                And not vertical (which can be compensated by gravity, but let's say "horizontal)

                To extinguish this speed, either an impulse (LRE) or aerodynamic drag (heating) is required
            2. postman
              postman 28 August 2013 19: 05 New
              0
              I'm interfering, excuse me.
              Quote: Nayhas
              SpaceX, on the other hand, resolves the issue differently, using one of the main engines with vertical landing to return.

              This option is absurd and can be said stupid if applied on planets, with an atmosphere similar to EARTH (in density and "thickness"). Mb it is applicable on Mars and the Moon, asteroids, etc.
              1. UNDERSTAND not use the “Free” possibility of the atmosphere (resistance to movement, Archimedean force, lift force of a wing or parachute) -TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC STupidity. This project (for the Earth) will not be implemented (well, in any case, until the taxiways receive an order of magnitude more energy than they do now or they don’t launch the gravityap)
              Why "fence the garden": everything has been invented for a long time: a parachute system, or a wing.
              The weight of this returnable tare will be EASIER than the landing system on the taxiway (FUEL!)
              Well, if you want exotic, you can autorotate (but it will not be acceptable by tare)
              If you really need a taxiway, the principle of heavy cargo weaving is used — brake impulse, BUT only at the end, when touched.
              You just forget that RD must pay off

              which is a snap: 10 000 kg (and it is WITHOUT FUEL - variable) x9,82 m / s2 X30 000m = 9,82 = about 3 MEGAJOULES and not immediately, but in time.
              Calculate how much fuel is needed (kerosene in oxygen 43 MJ / kg) and recalculate.
              WHAT SENSE having ATMOSPHERE (gratuitous)
              2.
              Quote: Nayhas
              What's so complicated? The trajectory is known

              Landing on a thrust vector - more difficult than landing Harier (VTOL)
              and there are pilots of the HIGHEST QUALIFICATION.
              and it’s not so simple (with a real landing): the first step at an altitude of 1-30 km will have not only vertical, but also horizontal speed — all this will be compensated, leveled, braked + the effect of the incoming air flow .... empty LV shell with LRE-just breaks. She is very weak

              Quote: Nayhas
              and the first step is not capable of this, she needs to plan from a height of 60-80 km

              you are mistaken: 30-40 km. from 80 km - the first space ("horizontal") is already practically typed - not return (intact)
              1. postman
                postman 28 August 2013 19: 09 New
                0
                Quote: Nayhas
                A special runway was built for Buran (the history of this runway is a sample of people's money),


                we have a simple problem with the runway.
                The shuttle could board a military airfield.

                A runway in Baikonur is a little expensive because it 1) in Baikonur 2) is intended for landing Mriya and antey with USEFUL EXTERNAL LOAD (up to 150 tons + weight of Mriya)
                Nothing special about her (in the runway)
                Buran
                Length - 36,4 m,
                Wingspan - about 24 m,
                weight with payload = 105 tons (start), weight with payload (return) maximum = 95 tons, landing speed 300km / h

                Boeing 747-8I
                Mass of empty (!) Aircraft 213,2 t
                Xnumx length m
                Wingspan 68,45 m
                Mileage (m) 1 900-2200m
                Landing speed 290 km / h

                WHAT PROBLEMS?
        2. postman
          postman 28 August 2013 19: 15 New
          0
          Quote: Nayhas
          the first step will not be large, or rather close to the dry mass.

          and fuel for braking, for "eliminating" the stored potential and kinetic (less) energy?
  14. Sergey Medvedev
    Sergey Medvedev 28 August 2013 14: 08 New
    0
    Do not stand still!
  15. rugor
    rugor 28 August 2013 15: 22 New
    0
    The main thing is that this thing can be launched without lengthy preparations. He took off and dropped something on the enemy’s head. fellow
  16. Internal combustion engine
    Internal combustion engine 28 August 2013 15: 25 New
    -3
    The Buran-Energia complex was built by the entire Soviet Union with a powerful economy and science. Today's Russia with a small, chaotic economy and science slaughtered on the board is not enough. Unless stamping the old Soviet "Unions" and "Protons" and then defective. So nothing of the specified in the article will not be done. Regular PR, rubbing points on sawn budget funds.
    1. Victor-M
      Victor-M 28 August 2013 15: 33 New
      +2
      Quote: ICE
      The Buran-Energia complex was built by the entire Soviet Union with a powerful economy and science. Today's Russia with a small, chaotic economy and science slaughtered on the board is not enough. Unless stamping the old Soviet "Unions" and "Protons" and then defective. So nothing of the specified in the article will not be done. Regular PR, rubbing points on sawn budget funds.

      If we follow the lead of the bulk, then there will be nothing to stamp, except pots with pans, and then with the permission of the United States, and they, in turn, will again implement the projects stolen from us.
    2. Wedmak
      Wedmak 28 August 2013 15: 42 New
      +3
      Present-day Russia with a small, chaotic economy and science slaughtered on a blackboard is not enough.

      Gee ... the old Soviet Protons and Unions no longer fly. Instead, the new Proton-M and Soyuz-2 fly. On the way to the Angara. We switched to digital automation and the "short" way to the ISS. Where are the mighty USA in this area? In the pope!
      Russia launched the unique Spectrum telescope. Still deployed its positioning system, GLONASS, did not hear? Our instruments operate on Martian rovers, our engines lift American rockets, Boeing and Airbus use titanium niches ... Our software is known all over the world. More examples?
      So minus you deserved.
    3. postman
      postman 28 August 2013 16: 19 New
      -1
      Well, not quite like that.
      The ISS Energia-Buran is currently not in demand, and this is good: the system was redundant and erroneous.
      Therefore, it is not needed.

      And Proton and the Union. If everything works and satisfies the customer, why bother?
      1. mark1
        mark1 28 August 2013 17: 03 New
        +1
        MTKS "Energy-Buran" simply overtook its time, the plans were 100 tons of communication satellites and energy solar mirrors, flights to the Moon and Mars, and much more military. The LV Energia in the final version was supposed to be reusable (with both stages) and the Buran was just one of the many payloads that Energia was supposed to put into orbit, but who could know that such a disaster would happen to the USSR and the "successor" will see through everything (5 LV "Energy" in varying degrees of readiness + 3 "Burana" have been lost). Zenith, by the way, is a derivative of the blocks of the first stage of Energy. So a very harmonious space system was obtained.
        1. postman
          postman 28 August 2013 17: 57 New
          0
          No.
          I’m not familiar with the program by art.
          Not overtaken.
          Technologically, the USSR was not able to implement the shuttle principle.

          About the reusability of the central block-fairy tales for children.
          From such a height, such a weighty-sized thin-walled object, having gained almost 1 cosmic speed, DO NOT RETURN, neither then, nor in the distant future (until gravity is mastered)
          This was written by amateurs dreamers.
          IMHO: the most valuable thing and step disappeared.


          Lateral steps, just there is a derivative from Zenith.
          It was not possible to realize their reusability; all attempts failed. I saw it myself, I searched and collected it.

          And the thing is this:
          - we have no ocean on the fall path
          - a stage with a rail (body, container) is the deadest flimsy part.
          As light as possible and retains its rigidity only with mk and when boosted + it is executed only in its entirety
          The stage with the solid propellant rocket engine is the taxiway itself, it is durable and can withstand enormous loads (pressure), especially to the end of the burnout of the fuel block + it is modular (no one pours a fuel block of such length)

          Bottom line: nothing would have happened. It was a "not reliable" advertisement (about reusability)
          1. mark1
            mark1 28 August 2013 18: 49 New
            0
            As far as I know, the first launches of Energia were in a one-time version (the place for the return system was simply reserved in the design) the complex should have become fully reusable, according to plan, somewhere by 2010, so what you collected I don’t know some secret launches were ...
            “The first-stage blocks after fuel production are separated in pairs from the rocket, then separated and land in a given area. They can be equipped with return and landing facilities, which are located in special compartments. There are projects to equip the first-stage blocks with folding wings and automatic landing systems, which should allow they make a controlled planning descent and landing on the landing strip of the spaceport. After carrying out diagnostic, preventive and repair work, it is possible for reuse.
            The central block - the second stage - is separated after a set of suborbital velocity and splashed in a given area of ​​the Pacific. Such a deduction scheme eliminates the near-Earth space clogging by spent large-sized fragments of launch vehicles and reduces the required depletion energy consumption. After-speeding to orbital speed is performed by the propulsion systems of a payload, orbital ship or upper stage, thereby performing the functions of the third stage "- That's how it was planned - but then, in the long term.
            1. postman
              postman 28 August 2013 21: 18 New
              +1
              Quote: mark1
              As far as I know, the first launches of Energy

              I repeat Energy II (Hurricane) - this is a "hassle", "misinformation", "fairy tale
              "for the poorly educated (technically) members of the Politburo and the same marshals, weighed down by senility.

              I will explain again:
              The central block 11K25 (stage C) with 4 blocks of RD-170 LPRE (WITHOUT FUEL) weighs =
              has dimensions: L = 59 m, D = 7.7 m m, wall thickness (!) = variable (how many I will not write, I forgot), but thin, milled ("waffle" surface)
              empty weight (!) = 78-86 t (let 80 for simplicity)
              SEPARATION occurs at altitude = 65-78 km (variable), at speed = 9M -5 km / s (variable), angle of attack = 15-17 gr.
              BUT Imagine a cylinder measuring 60mx 8m, made of ... of metal tile (exaggerating), flying at a speed of 4-5 km / s, at an altitude of 80 km, having an RD-4 block at the end 170 (weigh also not sour). And?
              and try to lower it painlessly onto our sinful earth.
              Note: it still needs to be deployed to 180g. With and give a braking impulse (to extinguish almost the first space).
              It (and BMD is permissible) will tear and twist it (both by the dynamic action of the flow and by bending moments)
              NOTE: There are NO parachute systems for soft landing (such a weight of 86 TON), and are not expected.
              And thermal protection (tiles, like on Buran), did you see it on block C, and fastenings under it, and transverse stability for this weight? NO.
              IMHO fantasy
              at the same time it is necessary to pay off 6
              1. potential energy

              2. kinetic energy

              How much fuel is needed, you can calculate yourself, the data gave, the calorific value of kerosene is 43 mJ / kg
              (HOW MUCH FUEL SHOULD ON KINETICS AT LEAST?)
              3. Expand and “work back” (compensate pitch (angle of attack)
              4. and all this with a thin-walled barrel made of foil, and the required energy is thousands of megajoules, if not 10 thousand

              Note:
              For the first stage, they could not ensure non-damage when using the parachute landing system, although a decrease in (design) speed head to 1 kg per square m was achieved.
              ALREADY VERY FRAGILE carrying a fuel tank of a rocket with a rocket engine.
              Americans on the steps of the launch vehicle with the TTRD (ISS SHATL) - this is achieved. I explained why ...
              1. mark1
                mark1 28 August 2013 22: 45 New
                0
                Quote: Postman
                And Proton and the Union. If everything works and satisfies the customer, why bother?

                A very familiar point of view, especially among some developers of the Angara (I know from Plesetsk)
                But, as I understand it, you are quite advanced person in the field of rocket science, it most likely does not make sense to argue with you about the disadvantages of returning the first stage by parachute (most likely you are right), but the second method was also considered - with wings and this topic develops and today - Baikal, MRKS-1, just what could have appeared earlier in the MTKS Energia will appear much later in the almost similar MTKS Amur or Yenisei, the requirements for carriers have not changed much since the end of the 80s and reusability remains in demand. Those. the very ideology of MTKS "Energy" is true, but its embodiment will be 40-50 years late (or vice versa, its time will come)
                1. postman
                  postman 29 August 2013 02: 08 New
                  0
                  Quote: mark1
                  I know Plesetsk

                  Oh, I was in Plesetsk, too, mushrooms and fishing are gorgeous there (about their safety, xs, there were students.
                  Nevertheless, the hangar will replace the proton, it is environmentally friendly. Use heptyl and amine NOT FOR COUNTRY DEFENSE ... brrr. Barbarism. Proton is still a child of war.
                  Angara has good export prospects (which is proved by launches in South Korea)

                  Quote: mark1
                  You are quite advanced in rocket science

                  Yes, I already forgot everything, 20 years have passed. And what I'm based on is just physics
                  Quote: mark1
                  the second way - with wings, and this topic is developing today - "Baikal", MRKS-1,

                  this is the right way if they implement something similar (according to the principle) of the 14D12 LPRE with a retractable nozzle nozzle
                  Variant "Energy-2" or GK-175, RD-701 and 14D12 liquid-propellant rocket engines with a nozzle telescopic nozzle, as well as a rotor landing system developed by the Kazan Aviation Institute (using a flexible, rollable blade), like a rotor braking system and landing designed for the first stage of the Bio-Strik launch vehicle (developed by the French company Giravion-Doran)
                  Quote: mark1
                  since the end of the 80s and reusability remains in demand.

                  It (reusability will be really in demand in 2 cases:
                  1. the number of launches per year from 40 (Lukyanenko "Stars are cold toys"), otherwise production will simply not cope with the volume
                  2. The cost of production of remote control, LV will increase, well, about an order of magnitude.
                  Quote: mark1
                  the ideology of MTKS "Energy" itself

                  I repeat, in the version that the USSR performed (it is ideology), as it were, not so much: the most valuable disappears (LRE, and block C, and the same side blocks).
                  rescue of the Ts block is not feasible in principle (at the current level of development)
  17. Kir
    Kir 28 August 2013 17: 45 New
    0
    Article plus but have questions:
    1 What happened to the Burlak project launching cargo into orbit with the help of a booster reusable device attached to the bottom of the Tu-160 bomber
    2 At the Khrunchev Center, I'm sorry about what you can say if there is smooth afforestation on the side of the Floodplain and you can’t say otherwise, there is a customs terminal on the territory, then they are going to erect an elite residential complex right next to the access roads, boldly to the magician to assert since he has signed up for vacancies at the request of the tool maker, and so is still in the vacancies for July of this year !!! In addition to the category, there was also a requirement for specialists to be fluent in whatever language you think? Russian !!! Forgive the gastrobayters to engage in a defense enterprise. What are you talking about !!!
  18. Assistant
    Assistant 28 August 2013 19: 34 New
    +1
    And what is fundamentally worse than an air launch of a booster from an airplane? Research in this area has been going on since the 1960s. Of course, at that time, due to the high technical complexity, the projects were covered, but a large number of developments remained.
  19. studentmati
    studentmati 28 August 2013 23: 16 New
    +1
    And the most important thing is that Russia is moving towards this breakthrough, retaining its status as one of the world's leading space powers.

    Very glad! good Throw some money, and give green light to designers, technologists and production workers! And most importantly, that in all these endeavors there should be a Leader !!! Korolev, Glushko, Lozino-Lozinsky ... New names do not have to be declassified, the main thing is that they be and there is an understanding of the need for the problem of those in power!
  20. studentmati
    studentmati 28 August 2013 23: 24 New
    0
    Baikal used the same automatic control system that allowed the Soviet space shuttle Buran to fly without crew on board. This system provides flight support at all its stages - from the time of launch to the landing of the aircraft at the airport, this system will be adapted for MRKS-1.


    On the same punched tapes? Cool!

    Joke. Clear business that "will be adapted."
  21. studentmati
    studentmati 28 August 2013 23: 39 New
    0
    Such systems fully meet the level of development of rocket and space technology of the XNUMXst century and have significantly higher indicators of economic efficiency.

    Is it weird anyway? Why so complicate the first step, almost to a full-fledged shuttle ??? ... The campaign is planned to "cut" ...
    As far as I remember, the steps of "Energy" were also supposed to be reusable, but with the use of parachute systems?
    If you continue to argue, then the prospectively horizontal launch of a reusable system will still be more expensive than the vertical?
    Am I not catching up with something ???? Specialists explain please?
    1. Volkhov
      Volkhov 29 August 2013 00: 56 New
      0
      Quote: studentmati
      The campaign is planned to "cut" ...


      Quote: studentmati
      I do not catch up with something ????

      You understood everything at once and even formulated it - the idea is stupid for many factors.
      All cosmonautics grew out of FAU-2 and Zionism did not give rise to further ideas in 70 years, and the Germans, slipping a dead-end trophy flew to FAU-7 to the moon and mastered space ... so the sages decided to advance progress in a tried and tested way - to start a war (for example, in Syria ) and if the Germans harness themselves with the new technology, then bring down at least something and copy it. For this, in Turkey and Jordan, the "Patriots", and in Israel, the entire air defense system.
      A typical incident occurred recently at Seleger - environmentalists before the arrival of Pu launched the airship and called the Ministry of Emergency Situations, and not the air defense - the airship gained altitude and evaporated in a flash - they used ... you don’t have to look like a "plate" near such places.
      So no one hopes for kerosene, they are waiting for manna from heaven, but the fact that several countries need to be burned for a cunning disk is a custom, nothing new.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  22. studentmati
    studentmati 28 August 2013 23: 46 New
    0
    The return stage I MRKS-1 will ensure a high level of safety and reliability and completely abandon the allocation of areas of incidence of detachable parts, which will significantly increase the efficiency of the implementation of promising commercial programs.

    Bullshit, nonsense and scholasticism! Campaigning! There is no reference to a competent source in the article.
  23. DAGESTAN333
    DAGESTAN333 29 August 2013 12: 00 New
    +1
    Thirty years without war and revolution - Russians, by definition, will tear everyone in science and technology. The conclusion is to prevent the Russians from living peacefully.
    1. Kir
      Kir 29 August 2013 17: 32 New
      +1
      There would be an opportunity to put 100 pluses, would !!!
    2. The comment was deleted.
  24. Kadavercianin
    Kadavercianin 29 August 2013 14: 50 New
    0
    In general, if I remember correctly, then something like that I saw in the late 90s. In general, the project is needed: these launch vehicles are as complicated and expensive as the Space Shuttle or the Buran, and they have other operating and operating modes (and people don’t have to carry themselves and do not send them into outer space), not to mention the dimensions and mass, airplane flight (I think basically planning after undocking at an altitude of several kilometers) will allow them to be returned safe and sound without the need to search for banging with a parachute or building new ones (in the case of one-time).
    So far, from the point of view of the general organization, I see two bottlenecks: the resource of engines (how much is enough before replacing them) and aerodromes of post-launch landing (ideally, they should be not far from the launch site and not far from the place of repair service, etc.).

    ZY
    It would be quite interesting if it was possible to install detachable jet engines on them and if something was sent to the right place on their own. Well these are so jokes and thoughts out loud. smile
  25. Woldemar
    Woldemar 29 August 2013 22: 46 New
    0
    Postman and article +)
  26. andrekano
    andrekano 5 August 2014 08: 57 New
    0
    Today, the challenge is once again to create reusable rocket and space systems, where the experience of the Energy-Buran project will be in great demand.
    http://www.slaviza.ru/984-itogi-aviasalona-maks-2013-rynok-aviatehniki-rastet.ht
    ml
  27. _UMKA_68
    _UMKA_68 10 September 2017 22: 57 New
    0
    If everything works out, yes God, then all the engineers and specialists, unlike the officials, will have to be given the title of the hero of Russia - after all, they are doing it now at a time when our industry is sticking up ......
  28. KOLEGAN
    KOLEGAN April 24 2018 16: 07 New
    0
    We have so many beautiful dummies shown, so many promising promises given, and we are all starting and running. When will it end. Where space money disappears, probably for the next cut. And then they gasp, oh 1 billion went to the left, oh 2 billion - to the right. And what, when they left, no one saw? Then nah @ pa us FSB, GRU, SK, etc. Or is everything in a bunch?
  29. strelokmira
    strelokmira 4 August 2020 22: 00 New
    0
    And the most important thing is that Russia is heading for this breakthrough,

    2020, 7 years have passed, but no breakthrough happened hi