Military Review

Release of Buran-type spacecraft may resume in Russia

151
As part of the Russian Arms Expo-2013 exhibition in Nizhny Tagil, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin made a sensational statement that the release of Buran-type spacecraft could be resumed in the country. “The future aircraft will be able to rise into the stratosphere, space technology can already work today in both environments, for example, Buran, which is well ahead of its time. In fact, all these spaceships are the 21st century and whether we like it or not, we will have to return to them ”, RIA quotes Dmitry Rogozin News. At the same time, domestic experts disagree on the rationality of such a step. Yes, and believe everything that Russian officials say, perhaps not worth it. A striking example is a much smaller project to resume the production of transport aircraft "Ruslan", which, in fact, advanced no further than talk on this topic.


At one time, the program "Energy-Buran" very costly to the Soviet budget. For 15 years of this program (from 17.02.1976 to 01.01.1991), the USSR spent 16,4 billion rubles on it (at the official exchange rate more than 24 billion US dollars). During the period of maximum intensity of work on the project (1989 year), this space program was allocated up to 1,3 billion rubles (1,9 billion dollars) annually, which accounted for 0,3% of the total budget of the Soviet Union. In order to understand the scale of these figures, you can compare the program with the construction of AvtoVAZ from scratch. This large-scale Soviet construction cost the state 4-5 billion rubles, while the plant still functions today. And even if we add here the cost of building the entire city of Togliatti, the amount will be several times less.

“Buran” is an orbital spacecraft-cosmoplan of the Soviet reusable transport space system (MTCS), which was created as part of a larger program “Energy - Buran”. It is one of the 2-x implemented MTCT orbital programs in the world. The Soviet Buran was a response to a similar US project called the Space Shuttle, which is why it is often called the Soviet shuttle. Its first and, as it turned out, the only flight of the reusable spacecraft "Buran" performed in fully unmanned mode 15 November 1988 of the year. The lead developer of the Buran project was Gleb Evgenievich Lozino-Lozinsky.

Release of Buran-type spacecraft may resume in Russia

In total, the 2 ship was fully built under the Energy-Buran program in the USSR, another was under construction (readiness level 30-50%), another 2 spacecraft were laid. The reserve for these ships after the closure of the program was destroyed. Also within the framework of the program, 9 technological layouts were created, which differed in their configuration and were intended for a variety of tests.

“Buran”, like its overseas counterpart, was intended for solving defense tasks, launching various spacecrafts and facilities and their maintenance into near-earth orbit; the delivery of personnel and modules for assembling in-orbit interplanetary complexes and large-sized structures; development of equipment and technologies of space production and delivery of products to Earth; the return to Earth of exhausted or defective satellites; other passenger and cargo transportation along the Earth-to-space-to-Earth route.

Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Cosmonautics. Tsiolkovsky Yuri Karash expressed his doubts about the need to revive the system. According to him, the Buran was an analogue of the American shuttle, the decision to build which was made by Richard Nixon. Therefore, the problems faced by the Americans, it is quite possible to project on the Buran.

To begin with, we will answer the question, why the Space Shuttle system was created. Here were a number of factors, one of which can be called the pioneering cosmic enthusiasm that reigned even then in the world. People assumed that they would soon explore outer space as intensively and as extensively as they did with unknown territories on Earth. It was planned that a man would fly into space long and often, and the number of customers delivering their cargo into space would be impressive. Therefore, at the time of the emergence of the idea of ​​building the Space Shuttle system, the people who offered it believed that they would fly into space almost every week.


And this in turn triggered the law of large numbers. That is, if you do something often enough, then the price of such a single action decreases, the project developers believed that the price of one flight of the Shuttle would be almost equal to the price of a regular transport plane. Naturally, it turned out that this was far from the case, but only when the Space Shuttle really began to fly into space. On average, he did not make more than 4-5 flights per year, and therefore the launch cost was huge - the amount reached 500 million dollars, which significantly exceeded the cost of launching one-time carriers. Thus, the project was not justified from a financial point of view.

Secondly, the Space Shuttle project was designed as weapons. It was supposed to equip it with bomb weapons. In this case, the spaceship could descend over the territory of the enemy, drop the bomb, and then go back into space, where it would be out of reach for the enemy’s air defense weapons. However, the Cold War came to an end, and secondly, in the same period of time, a very strong qualitative leap made rocket weapons, respectively, and the device did not justify itself as a weapon.

Thirdly, it turned out that shuttles are a very complex and insufficiently reliable system. It turned out under rather tragic circumstances, when 26 January 1986, the shuttle exploded Challenger. At this point in the United States realized that putting all the eggs in one basket is not profitable. Before that, they believed that the presence of their space shuttles would make it possible to abandon Delta, Atlas and other disposable launch vehicles, and everything could be put into orbit using space shuttles, but the Challenger crash clearly demonstrated that it was not worth it. As a result, the Americans still completely abandoned this system.

When Dmitry Rogozin announces the resumption of programs like the Buran, a quite reasonable question arises: where will these ships fly? It is very likely that the ISS will go out of orbit by 2020, and then what? Why would Russia have such a ship to just fly into space on the 2-3 of the day, but what is there to do in these 2-3 of the day? That is, we have a beautiful, but at the same time completely whimsical and ill-conceived idea, believes Yuri Karash. With this system, Russia will simply have nothing to do in space, and commercial launches today are very well carried out with the help of ordinary disposable launch vehicles. Both the American Space Shuttle and the Soviet Buran were good when it was necessary to put a large load of 20 tons in the cargo hold and deliver it to the ISS, but this is a fairly narrow circle of tasks.

Moreover, not everyone agrees that the very idea of ​​returning to Buran-type systems does not have the right to life today. A number of experts believe that if there are competent tasks and goals, such a program will be necessary. This position is held by the president of the St. Petersburg Federation of Cosmonautics Oleg Mukhin. According to him, this is no step back; on the contrary, these devices are the future of astronautics. Why did the United States in its time refused to shuttle? They simply did not have enough tasks for them to ensure that the ship was justified from an economic point of view. They had to make at least 8 flights annually, but at best, they were in 1-2 orbit once a year.

The Soviet Buran, like its overseas counterpart, was well ahead of its time. It was assumed that they could throw 20 tons of payloads into orbit and take as many of them back, plus a large crew in 6 people, plus landing on an ordinary airfield - all this can certainly be attributed to the future of world space exploration. At the same time, they can exist in various modifications. Not so long ago in Russia there was a proposal to build a small Clipper 6 local spacecraft, also winged and with the possibility of landing on an airfield. Everything here, ultimately, depends on the tasks and funding. If there are tasks for such devices - assembling space stations, assembling at stations, etc., then such ships can and should be produced.

Information sources:
-http: //www.odnako.org/blogs/show_29156
-http: //www.vz.ru/news/2013/9/25/652027.html
-http: //www.buran.ru
-http: //ru.wikipedia.org
Author:
151 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67
    svp67 2 October 2013 08: 07 New
    17
    Release of Buran-type spacecraft may resume in Russia
    And the "launch vehicle", and the launch pad, training ... Many questions, the main one, but is it needed right now ...?
    1. King
      King 2 October 2013 08: 13 New
      20
      If the project is not a blizzard, then its complete modernization. to develop space you need multi-purpose spacecraft
      1. KaPToC
        KaPToC 18 November 2016 21: 36 New
        +2
        Quote: King
        multi-purpose spacecraft needed

        For flights into space, it is better to use devices with an airplane launch.
    2. mark1
      mark1 2 October 2013 08: 14 New
      13
      Quote: svp67
      Release of Buran-type spacecraft may resume in Russia
      And the "launch vehicle", and the launch pad, training ... Many questions, the main one, but is it needed right now ...?

      In addition to technical issues that today are practically unsolvable for the country, there is also an economy. Shuttle-type MTKS - Buran will make sense when organizing the production of something valuable in orbit - send raw materials - take off products (the cost of which includes the cost of delivery-return).
      1. ben gun
        ben gun 2 October 2013 08: 19 New
        12
        For example, easy repair and refueling of satellites and spacecraft. It would have been much more useful to save the Phobos-ground SC with Atqar Makar. As an example of this kind of use of the Shuttles, see how the Americans flew on a shuttle to Hubble and repaired it.
        1. kori
          kori 2 October 2013 11: 37 New
          +5
          Put him glasses) Yes, for such operations it is convenient to use
          1. Bear52
            Bear52 2 October 2013 12: 35 New
            +4
            Conveniently. But not for free. belay
            1. In100gram
              In100gram 25 October 2016 20: 01 New
              0
              Quote: Bear52
              Conveniently. But not for free

              Maybe a cheaper new launch
        2. Vlad.by
          Vlad.by 2 December 2016 17: 32 New
          0
          And in the Union with ext. fuel fly up to Hubble and unscrew the nut in any way? Due to the lower mass, such an operation will be decently cheaper.
      2. xetai9977
        xetai9977 2 October 2013 08: 28 New
        21
        I remember the flight of the “Buran” on November 15, 1988. There was pride in my country. But even then they said that they are very costly and are unlikely to pay for themselves. And so it happened (at least among the Americans, but they know how to count). All the same, it was the technology of the late 70s, early 80s. Need more advanced programs.
        1. Sibiryak
          Sibiryak 2 October 2013 08: 46 New
          +4
          But even then they said that they are very costly and are unlikely to pay for themselves.

          Quote: xetai9977
          Need more advanced programs.

          You already decide, either inexpensive or advanced, this is firstly, and secondly, these things do not pay off, discoveries in this area serve completely different purposes! If you really want to, then the money will not be an obstacle, it all depends on how to manage this achievement in the future.
          1. xetai9977
            xetai9977 2 October 2013 10: 02 New
            +9
            I do not agree with you. Purely scientific devices, for example, designed to study outer space, do not generate income. And others, as part of the earlier said, the national economy should bring income. In Soviet times, they said that every ruble invested in space brings 9 rubles of income. Naturally, spacecraft are an expensive pleasure, and you need to calculate everything so that you are not in the red. If astronautics will bring only losses, then who will need it?
            1. Sibiryak
              Sibiryak 2 October 2013 10: 39 New
              +6
              Quote: xetai9977
              Purely scientific devices, for example, designed to study outer space, do not generate income.

              Not only scientific, but also military vehicles. In order to make any device, first interested parties appear and the goal of its creation or the purpose, so to speak, is worked out. And you are talking only about the financial side of the issue!
              Quote: xetai9977
              In Soviet times, it was said that every ruble invested in space brings 9 rubles of income.

              And now they say a lot of things, but this does not mean that it is true!
              Quote: xetai9977
              Naturally, spacecraft are an expensive pleasure, and you need to calculate everything so that you are not in the red.

              It’s simply not possible to calculate everything. And you definitely won’t get profit unless you sell this device or donate it to a second or third party. So that money comes from you.
              Quote: xetai9977
              If astronautics will bring only losses, then who will need it?

              Military, and, accordingly, the state for defense! It’s true only if the heads of this state are given not only to wear a hat!
              There is a good saying - the GOAL justifies the means! And notice there is not a word about money in it!
              1. corn
                corn 2 October 2013 17: 22 New
                0
                Shoot the sparrow from the gun, but for your personal money
          2. cdrt
            cdrt 2 October 2013 23: 58 New
            0
            You already decide, either inexpensive or advanced, this is firstly, and secondly, these things do not pay off, discoveries in this area serve completely different purposes! If you really want to, then the money will not be an obstacle, it all depends on how to manage this achievement in the future.

            And how interesting it is for Americans - they learn to launch inexpensively, and even with private hands, and it seems that they are not the most ancient technologies.
            It seems like experience both ours and the American proved the Shuttle-Buran type ships a dead end option, because it is much more expensive per kg of removed weight than older missiles ...
            Well, the future is more likely for something like the X-35, as I understand it, with cheap commercial missiles.
            Again gospropagan ... PR.
      3. Mitek
        Mitek 2 October 2013 08: 30 New
        11
        Quote: mark1
        Quote: svp67
        Release of Buran-type spacecraft may resume in Russia
        And the "launch vehicle", and the launch pad, training ... Many questions, the main one, but is it needed right now ...?

        In addition to technical issues that today are practically unsolvable for the country, there is also an economy. Shuttle-type MTKS - Buran will make sense when organizing the production of something valuable in orbit - send raw materials - take off products (the cost of which includes the cost of delivery-return).

        You are absolutely right. BUT no one says that Buran is a project of today. By the time they bring him to mind (I really, really hope so) in orbit, many tasks can arise for him. Satellites (output, repair, etc.), can make their station (if the country pulls), military functions. And in general, if in the days of Stalin, the Queen thought about the economic feasibility of the flight of Belka and Strelka, then Yuri Gagarin, there would be no astronautics. Space is the FUTURE. The future of all mankind. This is science. These are new technologies (which in Russia they do not know how to implement, but they can invent). This is, after all, a possible response to US military programs. And you write about the technical side. Of course, the difficulties will be enormous, but if you just go aside and score on them, then we simply will not have a future.
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 2 October 2013 10: 43 New
          +2
          Quote: Mitek
          And in general, if in the days of Stalin, the Queen thought about the economic feasibility of the flight of Belka and Strelka, then Yuri Gagarin, there would be no astronautics.

          Then they thought how to convey a megaton charge to New York, and astronautics was a by-product of the implementation of those projects.
        2. cosmos111
          cosmos111 2 October 2013 11: 13 New
          +6
          Quote: Mitek
          Russia may resume production of Buran-type spacecraft

          In my opinion, Rogozin has read fantastic books.
          If we talk about the revival of the program ,, Buran ,,, it is necessary first of all to revive the NGO ,, Lightning ,,. Where produced and developed reusable ships.
        3. Evrepid
          Evrepid 2 October 2013 16: 21 New
          +1
          If you fantasize a little, then some interesting tasks for him loom.
          Do not forget that in orbit there is now a lot of garbage, which is super expensive.
          some of these fragments have spent decades in orbit, and from the point of view of science, the effects of cosmic radiation on a variety of materials are very important and interesting, and as a further development, this is the construction of a protection for higher-level spacecraft.
          Well, there’s a lot more to come up with for him. The same delivery of builders back to the spacecraft, which is best built in space, collecting in pieces, and not directly derived from the surface.
      4. kori
        kori 2 October 2013 11: 36 New
        +1
        Alternatively, such ships can be used if we get to Helium-3, which has huge reserves on the moon. Build a station on the moon to mine it, in orbit a sorting point, and then yes, then such a toy is necessary. And so ... they will allocate money to those who most of all need them to put in their own pocket, and ultimately they will say that the program has not paid off .. sadly, comrades ..
        1. POBEDA
          POBEDA 7 October 2013 03: 23 New
          0
          And to call the station in orbit "Sorting Moon", like on the railway)))
        2. aba
          aba 19 October 2016 20: 33 New
          0
          Alternatively, such ships can be used if we get to Helium-3, which has huge reserves on the moon.

          In my IMHO, the Buran program is appropriate if Russia revive its own space station. A refusal to participate in the ISS has already been announced.
          1. In100gram
            In100gram 25 October 2016 20: 10 New
            0
            Quote: aba
            Buran program is appropriate if Russia revive its own space station

            Any cargo into orbit can be thrown with a disposable carrier. Sense in Buran will appear only on condition of a cost-effective return cargo. It is problematic to reduce 20 tons of payload from orbit.
      5. Setrac
        Setrac 2 October 2013 14: 21 New
        +2
        Quote: mark1
        Shuttle-type MTKS - Buran will make sense when organizing the production of something valuable in orbit - send raw materials - take off products (the cost of which includes the cost of delivery-return).

        Apparently, mass space exploration will begin after the construction of the first thermonuclear power plant, just then the question will arise of the extraction and transportation of helium-3 from the moon to the Earth.
      6. postman
        postman 2 October 2013 14: 45 New
        0
        Quote: mark1
        when organizing the production of something of value in orbit, he sent the raw materials, took off the products (the cost of which includes the cost of delivery-return).

        No. Economic profitability arises when the number of starts from 50-70 per year.
        There will be a demand, the offer will justify itself
        Otherwise, the industry WILL NOT CAME with the production of LV and remote control for such a number of launches.
        TRUTH, this does not apply to Buran: EVERYTHING is there, except for the airframe and cheap maneuvering and down-loading rocket engines with 16 tons of thrust.
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 2 October 2013 18: 18 New
          +1
          Quote: Postman
          TRUTH, this does not apply to Buran: EVERYTHING is there, except for the airframe and cheap maneuvering and down-loading rocket engines with 16 tons of thrust.

          The aircraft itself is reusable, side boosters with engines (4 pieces) with RD-170 marching engines (thrust 740 → 806,2 tf) must be parachuted (in the first flights it was not carried out), which, at least, implies multiple use of engines. In general, only the first stage with 4 engines RD-0120 died (Link 591 → 760 tf).

          Where am I mistaken?
          1. postman
            postman 2 October 2013 23: 33 New
            +1
            Quote: Bad_gr
            The aircraft itself is reusable,

            I said the glider = packaging, but the meaning of its reusability?
            THE MOST EXPENSIVE MARCH ENGINES (SHUTTLE) - DO NOT HAVE THEM ON IT. They did not fit, could not get laid down in size
            Quote: Bad_gr
            side accelerators with engines (4 pieces) with RD-170 marching engines (740 thrust → 806,2 tf) should be parachuted (it was not carried out in the first flights),

            trust my experience (how much was rummaged with the radioisotope detector): STEPS WITH LRE Do Not Save -and never saved:
            -they are "gentle" mass (strength) are sucked to a minimum (wafer structure is thin-walled, keeps under pressure of the TC)
            -Even with a splashdown of almost 100%, damage to them, TNA, alignment of the rocket engine, valves
            - the task of co-reliance: in the USA, the PH is based on the table (costs), our pH is HANGED
            The pipe always WORKS BETTER ON TENSION THAN BETTER THAN ON COMPRESSION
            WHY DO WE HANG?
            === STEPS WITH TRD save, quite easily, because. the fuel checker itself provides the strength of the stage (the essence is the turbojet engine) + no fittings


            Quote: Bad_gr
            which, at least, implies the reuse of engines.

            It was a "project" for the Politburo - technically not feasible (except by planning, using autorotation or a wing and landing gear)
            Quote: Bad_gr
            In general, only the first stage with 4 engines RD-0120 died (Link 591 → 760 tf).

            THE MOST, MOST EXPENSIVE, MATERIAL-CONSUMPTION, MOST BASIC THAT PROVIDES EVERYTHING TO MONITOR MON TO NOU: Marching, SU, AC shutdowns, FITTINGS, THA, fuel tanks (to a lesser extent)
            1. studentmati
              studentmati 2 October 2013 23: 46 New
              +2
              Quote: Postman
              it was a "project" for the Politburo, technically not feasible (except by planning, using autorotation or a wing and landing gear)


              I agree, the project and the political game of designers aimed at continuing the financing of the project. Not every designer and technologist will immediately understand the technical aspects, but the pseudo-economic effect is obvious, so to speak.
              1. postman
                postman 2 October 2013 23: 50 New
                +2
                Quote: studentmati
                I agree, the project and the political game of designers,

                Until now, no one can give a clear explanation of why S.P. Korolev returned to the hanging tanks (V-1), although the very same refused them (with P-5 in my opinion).
                Maybe it’s not healthy anymore?
                OF course for the industry it was ARCHI DIFFICULT TO IMPLEMENT milled bearing tanks of variable thickness FOR SUCH OBJECT ...
                BUT..
                But they did manage with the screws for the nuclear submarines, well, the STTIBR would be another machine.
                Do not know
                And with engines there they nabbed with Glushko, you read the protocols and you go nuts ..
                and Glushko RETURNED TO OXYGEN HYDROGEN LRE, you know
                1. studentmati
                  studentmati 3 October 2013 00: 02 New
                  0
                  Quote: Postman
                  Maybe it’s not healthy anymore?


                  Collision of two ABSOLUTE DESIGNERS. Each was untouchable for himself. Battle of the GIANTS, "I said it was right, that's the point!"
                  The joint venture was absolutely sure that it would bring its product to mind. Glushko went in a rational, calculated way.
                2. Rus2012
                  Rus2012 3 October 2013 22: 18 New
                  0
                  Quote: Postman
                  Glushko RETURNED TO OXYGEN HYDROGEN LRE, you know

                  ... and why, you know?
            2. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 2 October 2013 23: 52 New
              +2
              Quote: Postman
              THE MOST EXPENSIVE MARCH ENGINES (SHUTTLE) - DO NOT HAVE THEM ON IT. They did not fit, could not get laid down in size

              Such a task was not posed (to drag marching engines through space). Created separately: reusable orbital aircraft + rocket launcher for the withdrawal of heavy loads.
              Quote: Postman
              - the task of co-reliance: in the USA, the PH is based on the table (costs), our pH is HANGED

              These are what missiles, besides 7 and its descendants, are hanging from us?
              For example, "Proton" is on the bottom.
              1. postman
                postman 3 October 2013 02: 13 New
                -2
                Quote: Bad_gr
                Such a task was not posed (to drag marching engines through space).

                You're wrong.
                1.No where to "drag" is not necessary. flights (Shuttle, Burana) to the Moon is Hollywood.
                THIS IS THE ORBITAL (low orbital) shuttle: back there
                2. although I would be here
                http://www.buran.ru/htm/history.htm
                "OS-120". 1975 Volume 1B "Technical Proposals" of the "Integrated Rocket and Space Program"
                in the tail of the ship were placed three marching oxygen-hydrogen engines (11D122 developed by KBEM with a thrust of 250 tf and specific impulse of 353 sec on the ground and 455 sec in vacuum
                did not fit: neither were transferred to the central block of the pH
                1976 Glushko "Technical Information" of the new version of the ship - "OK-92"
                and it turned out, what happened

                RD-170 with all the desire not to put in the aft part of the airframe
                Weight: 9750 kg
                Width: 3600 mm
                Height: 4000 mm
                Diameter: 3600 mm

                WELL NO SENSE TO BOOST- SHUTTLE More elegant (and multiple)

                Quote: Bad_gr
                These are what missiles, besides 7 and its descendants, are hanging from us?


                and what descendants are few?
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. Bad_gr
                  Bad_gr 3 October 2013 21: 02 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Postman

                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  Such a task was not posed (to drag marching engines through space).
                  Quote: Postman
                  You're wrong.
                  1.No where to "drag" is not necessary. flights (Shuttle, Burana) to the Moon is Hollywood.
                  THIS IS THE ORBITAL (low orbital) shuttle: back there
                  2. although I would be here
                  http://www.buran.ru/htm/history.htm
                  "OS-120". 1975 Volume 1B "Technical Proposals" of the "Integrated Rocket and Space Program"
                  three marching oxygen-hydrogen engines (11D122 developed by KBEM with a thrust of 250 tf and a specific impulse of 353 sec on the ground and 455 sec in vacuum were located in the tail of the ship
                  did not fit: neither were transferred to the central block of the pH
                  1976 Glushko "Technical Information" of the new version of the ship - "OK-92"
                  and it turned out, what happened

                  From the same site (http://www.buran.ru/htm/gubanov3.htm)
                  ".... The organization of the development of missiles was a certain difficulty. I.N. Sadovsky was instructed to lead this direction of development, with the integration of disparate units. Ultimately, under the direction of I.N. Sadovsky, the shape of the future rocket and space transport system was formed, which , by design, was to become universal.
                  The rocket was presented as an independent structure, and the payload was an orbital ship or any other spacecraft or platform. Unlike the American system, the rocket allowed the launch of spacecraft of various classes. The Space Shuttle was just a space plane with solid fuel boosters and an outboard fuel compartment. In this scheme, with an equal launch mass, the aircraft put into orbit three times less cargo than a classic rocket.
                  An important episode of development pushed to the universality of the complex. Initially, it was proposed that the propulsion system of the second stage be placed on an orbital ship, as in the Space Shuttle. However, due to the absence at that time in the country of an aircraft for transportation from the manufacturer to Baikonur, and most importantly, for working out a significant mass of the orbital ship in flight conditions, the orbital ship was facilitated by transferring the engines to the central tank. Flight tests of an orbital ship were understood to be horizontal flight tests (GLI), in which, according to the type of American flights of the Space Shuttle to the Boeing-747, it was planned to drop the ship from the aircraft carrier’s flight altitude to work out free descent and maneuver the ship when landing on Earth.
                  With the transfer of engines to the central tank of the rocket, their number increased from three to four. The fourth is a hot reserve ....

                  ..... Starting from 1976, over five years (until 1981) five variants of design schemes based on the original were worked out. Work was carried out from the category of "project sweat". The orbital ship acquired forms and contents close to the final ones. The rocket changed its structure from a two-tank central unit to a four-tank one, and then again a two-tank one, the dimension and number of marching engines changed, the ratio of the stages and thrust of the engines was optimized, aerodynamic forms were ennobled, a parachute rescue system of blocks A was introduced, were introduced in 1976, jet engines in an orbital ship, which made it possible to carry out deep maneuvering during landing. ..... "
                  1. Bad_gr
                    Bad_gr 3 October 2013 21: 17 New
                    +1
                    Layout Options
                  2. postman
                    postman 3 October 2013 22: 03 New
                    0
                    Useless.
                    As with the dry weight of N-1, for information and fact you creep to the side (to the Seven)

                    from Buran, jumped to Energy

                    question, purely so on engineering ingenuity:
                    which is economically more profitable? Buran or Shuttle?
                    In principle, the answer in history

                    there was no plane, the amateur writes
                    We had a helicopter and a V-12 (in my opinion) did not hear? for mobile ICBMs, which remained idle
                    CARRY and driven (Americans) separately for installation there is a MIC
                    Flight tests, working off ... poor fellow Americans, how did they handle that.
                    and here are flight tests (of significant mass) - BY WHICH MON were you planning to return? the same "transferring to the central tank"?

                    ENGINES DO NOT NEED (and will not fit)



                    Quote: Bad_gr
                    In 1976, jet engines were introduced on an orbital ship,

                    nonsense, this is just for flight tests
                    and they were expecting solid propellant solid propellant rocket engines - which were never made (by the 1st flight), and then the program was closed
                    1. Rus2012
                      Rus2012 3 October 2013 22: 08 New
                      0
                      Quote: Postman
                      Expected solid propellant solid propellant rocket engine - which were never manufactured (for 1 flight)

                      Where does this information come from, colleague?
                      And the gas turbine engine was really supposed to be installed - for a deep maneuver during landing. This is not only for LI of one of the samples. On which "taught" practiced-automatic drone landing. By the way, there were other gas turbine engines ...
                      1. postman
                        postman 5 October 2013 05: 14 New
                        0
                        Quote: Rus2012
                        Where does this information come from, colleague?

                        There was such an idea to use the solid propellant rocket engine (remote control of emergency separation of OK from the LV) in the ODE, to create thrust during the last phase of flight in the atmosphere

                        The Energia booster rocket for the Energia-Buran space-rocket system includes 58 Iskra solid-propellant engines developed by the NPO of 6 types of functional purpose (separation, withdrawal, braking, soft landing, and others). The high reliability of the solid propellant solid propellant rocket engine is confirmed in the conditions of real launches of the Energia launch vehicle on May 15, 1987 and the Energia-Buran rocket ship on November 15, 1988

                        Quote: Rus2012
                        And the gas turbine engine was really supposed to be installed - for a deep maneuver during landing.

                        Gas tubing?
                        and What "deep" maneuver is needed? For what?
                        In order to reach the eastern alternate aerodrome (Khorol)?
                        So he (Buran), and so without TRD "reached" if necessary.

                        And more than these (full-time and reserve) two places are NOT ANYWHERE AND DIDN'T SUGGEST to install means of the Vympel complex of radio engineering systems.
                        - a radio engineering system for radar control of the trajectory of the orbital ship and air traffic control, consisting of:
                        track radar complex and airfield surveillance radar,

                        command and control center for controlling the movement of an orbital ship (aerodrome),

                        air traffic control tower (aerodrome),
                        Orbital spacecraft control tower (MCC)

                        And without them .... plop
                        an automatic landing system does not mean that it (a snowstorm) can land on any (even a strip prepared for by VHC), because Pennant is a reference to certain coordinates (and working them out)
                    2. Bad_gr
                      Bad_gr 3 October 2013 23: 15 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Postman
                      Useless.
                      As with the dry weight of N-1, for information and fact you creep to the side (to the Seven)

                      from Buran, jumped to Energy

                      question, purely so on engineering ingenuity:
                      which is economically more profitable? Buran or Shuttle?
                      In principle, the answer in history

                      there was no plane, the amateur writes
                      We had a helicopter and a V-12 (in my opinion) did not hear? for mobile ICBMs, which remained idle
                      CARRY and driven (Americans) separately for installation there is a MIC
                      Flight tests, working off ... poor fellow Americans, how did they handle that.
                      and here are flight tests (of significant mass) - BY WHICH MON were you planning to return? the same "transferring to the central tank"?

                      ENGINES DO NOT NEED (and will not fit)

                      I don’t understand, for whom is everything written?

                      Quote: Bad_gr
                      In 1976, jet engines were introduced on an orbital ship,
                      Quote: Postman
                      nonsense, this is just for flight tests

                      It seems to be reading from the same sites ....

                      These are the little white (coated) engines that are standard ones, and they should have been there. And the blue ones were added to practice piloting the aircraft: with them, the plane took off and landed in the atmosphere. This aircraft was not intended for space.
                      1. postman
                        postman 5 October 2013 04: 48 New
                        0
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        I don’t understand, for whom is everything written?

                        You, of course, just get a grasp
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        It seems to be reading from the same sites ....

                        I didn’t read it (buran.ru), I brought it for you, as the closest link, and not on this issue, but ON MARCH engines (which did not fit, see above)
                        “couldn’t get to Baikonur” (there was no plane?
                        "drove without" ODE!

                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        These are the little white (coated) engines that are standard,

                        This is nonsense!!
                        1.Return from orbit. To descend from orbit, Buran is deployed by 180gr gas-dynamic control engines, after which the main rocket engines are turned on for a short time and give him the necessary braking impulse. The ship goes on the descent trajectory, turns back forward and Performs planning with a large angle of attack.

                        Up to an altitude of 20 km, joint gas-dynamic and aerodynamic control is carried out, and at the final stage of the flight only aerodynamic controls are used. At the same time, the configuration of the device and the adopted descent trajectory (steepness of planning) allow aerodynamic braking to extinguish the speed from close to orbital to landing, equal to 300 - 360 km / h. The length of the run is 1100 - 1900 m, a brake parachute is used on the run.

                        WHERE IS THE STAFF?
                        THIS IS OK-GLI (BTS 002) for testing in the atmosphere (stands at the Speyer Museum of Technology) - was made for flight tests in the Earth’s atmosphere. In its tail section stood four turbojet enginesallowing him to take off from a regular airfield.
                        In November 1985, the first flight of the Buran ship took place in the LII with turbojet engine for testing systems of its landing on the airfield
                        2.Fuel zero
                        3. And think a bit: HOW to slow down with the first nacelle with such nacelles?
                        - they will vomit, with the root and keel, and the back
                        -T there is about 1755K (as at the end of the keel) / This is a Shuttle, but does not change the essence (temperature) /

                        -you "forgot" the plugs on those little white ...
                        Knead a little brain and everything falls into place
                      2. Bad_gr
                        Bad_gr 5 October 2013 10: 47 New
                        0
                        Quote:
                        Bad_gr
                        I don’t understand, for whom is everything written?
                        postman
                        You, of course, just get a grasp

                        Eco brought you ....
                        Let's start on the points:
                        Quote: Postman
                        As with the dry weight of N-1, for information and fact you creep to the side (to the Seven)

                        I gave links on the weight of N-1 and Saturn-5 and I think that I answered on this topic.

                        About, "crawl towards the" seven ".
                        It was your statement that all our missiles are hanging, which was indicated that this is only the family of "sevens", all the rest are on the table.
                        More on the "sevens nothing was said.

                        Quote: Postman
                        question, purely so on engineering ingenuity:
                        which is economically more profitable? Buran or Shuttle?

                        Someone is now trying to divert the conversation away from technical issues in the direction of the economy.
                      3. Bad_gr
                        Bad_gr 5 October 2013 10: 48 New
                        0
                        Quote: Postman
                        ".... there was no plane - this is written by an amateur ...
                        ENGINES DO NOT LIKE (and will not fit) "


                        Well, yes, on the manufacturer’s website (http://www.buran.ru/), with dates, surnames and drawings the amateur wrote ....

                        ".... Aircraft-propulsion system of the Buran orbital ship (11F35)

                        An intermediate version of "Buran" provided for the installation of jet engines (WFD). This was due to the fact that all airfields for landing "Buran" are located on the territory of the former USSR, and during the day there were quite a lot of "dead" turns, landing from which is impossible. There could be two principal solutions to this situation: expand the number of airdromes (but Buran was created as a military facility, and strategic allies were located “compactly” to the borders of the USSR, Cuba was too close to the territory of a potential enemy), or increase the energy supply of the atmospheric section due to the installation of the WFD. The designers chose the second path.
                        As well as two WFDs for installation on the Buran orbital ship, a well-established Su-27 TRD AL-31F fighter developed by the Design Bureau named after A. Lyulka was chosen. .....
                        The afterburner chamber, which became unnecessary for the Buranian flight regimes, was removed from the engines, placing them on top of the fuselage at the sides of the keel in an aerodynamically shaded (in the hypersonic flight area) location. The presence of two WFDs significantly increased the available lateral range during descent from orbit and simplified the controlled landing.
                        However, for all the benefits, the presence of WFD has also generated a number of significant problems:
                        - the WFD itself had to be either seriously modified so that the engines could safely tolerate the rocket launch and prolonged exposure to space flight factors (space vacuum, temperature extremes, etc.), or organize protection against harmful effects;
                        - there were serious technical problems associated with starting engines in the rarefied upper layers of the atmosphere at high speed (the need for replenishment with oxygen, etc.) when the ship returned after a space flight. The solution of all problems, as well as the completion of engines, led to an increase in cost and a significant increase in the complexity and timing of finishing work;
                        - the presence of two WFDs on board required the equipment of a regular orbital ship with additional aviation systems (fuel with kerosene reserves on board, engine control systems, fire extinguishing systems, etc.), which, along with weight loss and centering changes, reduced the efficiency of the OK as a transport vehicle.
                        The installation of two “full-time” WFMs on the Buran orbiter (but not their launch when returning from space) was worked out in real atmospheric flights on an analogue aircraft BTS-02 GLI (Large Transport Ship the second for Horizontal Flight Tests). The engines were housed in special, slightly recessed nacelles in the fuselage, equipped with lockable covers and covered with standard tiled thermal protection .... "
                      4. Bad_gr
                        Bad_gr 5 October 2013 10: 59 New
                        0
                        "..... Since the test program of the BTS-02 GLI analogue aircraft provided for ordinary take-off from the runway of the aerodrome, and there were not enough power capacity for two unstressed AL-31 turbojet engines (2x7770 kg), the designers installed two more forced AL-31F turbojet engines (2x12500 kg) in conventional engine nacelles on the sides of the fuselage, creating a small cabling moment to facilitate take-off (along with a nose landing gear of an increased height).


                        The rear part of the fuselage of an analogue aircraft BTS-02 GLI:

                        (on the left is the preparation for the flight, in the center is the side-front view, on the right is the view from the rear hemisphere).

                        Symbols:
                        1 - cover of the air intake of the "regular" engine in the open position;
                        2 - engine nacelle AL-31 with imitation of external thermal protection;
                        3 - engine nacelle fairing of an additional forced engine AL-31F;
                        4,9 - simulators of orbital maneuvering engines;
                        5 - split air brake - rudder;
                        6 - lines of the brake parachute;
                        7 - output device - nozzle of the "regular" engine AL-31;
                        8 - adjustable nozzle of the forced engine AL-31F;
                        10 - balancing shield;
                        11 - ground personnel;
                        12 - "full-time" engine AL-31 in a nacelle, back view;
                        13 - compartment brake parachute;
                        14 - tail blocks ODE with simulation of control engines

                        The AL-31 engines were not yet ready for the first flight of the Buran - they did not have time to work out their encapsulation at the stage of supersonic descent in the atmosphere and start after staying in a vacuum ...... "
                      5. Bad_gr
                        Bad_gr 5 October 2013 11: 25 New
                        0
                        Quote: Postman
                        3. And think a bit: HOW to slow down with the first nacelle with such nacelles?
                        - they will vomit, with the root and keel, and the back
                        -T there is about 1755K (as at the end of the keel) / This is a Shuttle, but does not change the essence (temperature) /

                        -you "forgot" the plugs on those little white ...
                        Knead a little brain and everything falls into place

                        Or maybe instead of just wrinkling the brain, just read on informed sites?
                      6. postman
                        postman 5 October 2013 12: 51 New
                        0
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        the first flight of Buran AL-31 engines were not yet ready -

                        You kolipasti someone else's nonsense (even from the "site of the manufacturer", which is doubtful), but without hesitation.
                        Good noch mall:
                        1. The temperature that "AL-31 engines" must withstand when descending from orbit and aerodynamic deceleration from 8 km / s - WELL THINK A LITTLE THEN and ... and look at the TZ tiles of the edges and edges!
                        And also get acquainted with the temperature conditions and the operation of the turbojet engine
                        2. The force impact of the oncoming flow on the “AL-31 engines” during descent from orbit and aerodynamic braking from 8 km / s THINK A LITTLE of that and ... and look, well, at least at the power element and the casing (s) of the ODE!
                        3. They (TRD) are not needed when landing. WHAT DEPTH DO MANEUVER DO?
                        and the means of the Vympel complex of radio systems will (in the depths) be there?
                        4. "AL-31 engines" do not work on synthine (14Tn), and it didn’t remain.
                        Carry (there-back) kerosene J? + protective "caps" with TK tiles? And the meaning? (See paragraphs 3 and 5)
                        4. If you already have a hot air engine (it’s not clear why), any engineer (who did not buy a diploma) will tell you: use the forward-flow guide: cheap, reliable, economical, stable, heat-resistant, less weight, less dimensions YES ON AN 8-KM / S KINETIC DEVICE Do not use a "free2 speed" is stupid.
                        Cost-close to ZERO (at least take pulsating from FAU-1)
                        There are no problems with starting, with the cost, installation, the impact of the oncoming flow (compressor blades), etc.
                        =
                        from all the above written conclusion: turbojet engine is only for LEE.
                    3. postman
                      postman 5 October 2013 12: 24 New
                      0
                      Quote: Bad_gr
                      Well, yes, on the manufacturer’s website (http://www.buran.ru/),

                      buran.ru- products webpage?
                      Further, you can not read and discuss neither technical nor economic issues with you ...
                      Lucky publicist Vadim Pavlovich Lukashevich
                    4. Bad_gr
                      Bad_gr 5 October 2013 12: 46 New
                      0
                      Quote: Postman
                      buran.ru- the website of the MANUFACTURER?
                      Further, you can not read and discuss neither technical nor economic issues with you ...
                      Lucky publicist Vadim Pavlovich Lukashevich

                      :) And a huge amount of information on individual products with articles from first persons (including from chief designers) - did Lukashevich invent this?
                      Earlier there they advised "Knead a little brain" - so use your advice and draw conclusions on materials, and not from the bulldozer, as in your thoughts on atmospheric engines "Buran".
                    5. postman
                      postman 5 October 2013 12: 54 New
                      0
                      Quote: Bad_gr
                      and draw conclusions from materials, not from the bulldozer,

                      What for?
                      I learned this.
                      Yes, and in the garage are old (still Delsin’s, not fantasies are books, not books and sites)
                      ==========
                      What should I read bullshit about battle stations and SKIFE, which had a "hyperboloid" on board ...
                      the truth systems (oddly enough) cooling, heat and radiators did not have ... And had a heating source (something at 1,6 kW)
                      Why read bragging nonsense.
                      It was already: "If tomorrow is a war, a boom to fight in a foreign territory, well, yes they started, only in 1944

                      Or like his "Broken Shield (or Sword) of the Empire"?
                      smirk
                    6. postman
                      postman 5 October 2013 12: 57 New
                      0
                      Quote: Bad_gr
                      and draw conclusions on materials, and not from the bulldozer, as in your thoughts on atmospheric engines "Buran".

                      Give me them (materials)

                      where does the bastard and my thoughts?
                      By the way, reflections are better than the ceiling confirmation that the dry mass of Saturn is GREATER cm N-1 and that thin, thin-walled turbojet engines with an inlet compressor can withstand 1750K and a dynamic head of 8000km / s!
                    7. Bad_gr
                      Bad_gr 5 October 2013 14: 41 New
                      0
                      Quote: Postman
                      Give me them (materials)

                      So I gave you a link to the site, where including (http://www.buran.ru/htm/biblio.htm):
                      ................................
                      .....................
                      ..................
                    8. postman
                      postman 5 October 2013 14: 49 New
                      0
                      I do not read such sites of "manufacturers"
                      And the literature that is indicated, according to it (some) studied.
                      What should I send an extract from the diploma?
                    9. Bad_gr
                      Bad_gr 5 October 2013 15: 16 New
                      0
                      It turns out interestingly:
                      First from you
                      Quote: Postman
                      Give me them (materials)

                      Gave. I get in response:
                      Quote: Postman
                      I do not read such sites of "manufacturers"
                      And the literature that is indicated, according to it (some) studied.
                      What should I send an extract from the diploma?

                      That is, the literature to which I refer and from which you have been taught is not an argument for you.

                      What can I say ...
                      I probably have no more questions.
                    10. postman
                      postman 6 October 2013 16: 02 New
                      0
                      Quote: Bad_gr
                      That is, the literature to which I refer and from which you have been taught is not an argument for you.

                      Literature - argument, sites - no
                      (answered earlier shortly, because from a mobile phone, it’s not very convenient)
                      Quote: Bad_gr
                      I probably have no more questions.

                      Let’s, so - I’ll simplify the explanation so that the ABSURDITY of the turbojet engine on the ISS Buran (on fingers and with a razor) is clear
                      (unfortunately you did not perceive: 1,2,3,4- well, or DON'T READ.
                      So:
                      1. ODE Buran (photo you cited): 48 engines of three dimensions in draft
                      two engines of orbital maneuvering - 90 kN, their hollow specific thrust impulse - 362 s, the number of starts per flight - up to 15. Any of 38 control engines has a thrust of 4 kN, specific thrust impulse 275-295 s and the number of starts up to 2000 per flight. They not only control the position, but also provide the displacement of the center of mass of the orbital ship in space. And the installation of precision orientation (eight of them), each with a thrust of 200 N, only support it in a certain position.
                      application in engines electric ignition control, cooling with gaseous oxygen, the use of capillary intake devices. The presence of a powerful marching installation allows for accelerated fuel production in emergency situations, and in the future, to increase the overall efficiency of the Buran-Energy system by turning on these engines in the active section.
                      =======
                      NOW THINK AND ON FUY you still need ballast in the form of AL-31 engines
                      moreover, the "ballast" is not simple, but "gentle": thermal protection, plugs, starting system, amplifiers, aerodynamic resistance, other shopping malls and generally the product is not intended for "visiting space"
                      WHAT FOR?
                      This is the same technical nonsense as a boiler turbine on a nuclear missile cruiser
                      2. Yes, you say, additional fuel (for atmospheric active flight, this is extra weight .... but do not be cunning, see paragraph 1, AL-31- it is unlikely to be easier, definitely more expensive (incl. Full-scale tests), reliability - xs
                      If during the launch process one of the engines of the Energia rocket failed, and a maneuver for returning the Buran to the airfield near the launch complex should be implemented, then the main task of the ODE is the intensive production and discharge of fuel from the tanks for ensure the necessary alignment of the ship at the time of separation from the carrier. For this, the simultaneous inclusion of two main engines, as well as the discharge of gaseous oxygen through special nozzles. After separation of the Buran from the emergency vehicle, their work will continue until the fuel is completely depleted..
                      3. In principle, no remote controls are needed for active maneuvers in the atmosphere. And so Buran’s lateral maneuver is sufficient, and 2 airfields (with Pennant) for the landing fan.
                      4. Do you say the nozzle is not designed to work in the atmosphere?
                      Answer nozzle
                      5. If you already want to have a remote control at the last stage, PLEASE MODERNIZED (cut-off, less traction) solid propellant rescue systems from NPO Iskra. If you do not set a goal to make a transatlantic flight, they will be enough for eyes and ears in an emergency (second approach, not favorable tailwind) in a low thrust mode (second mode).

                      ============
                      IMHO: someone once farted about a turbojet engine for a snowstorm (full-time, and not for LI), probably confusing a flight instance with a serial one ..
                      And off we go.
                    11. Bad_gr
                      Bad_gr 6 October 2013 21: 57 New
                      0
                      Quote: Postman
                      NOW THINK AND ON FUY you still need ballast in the form of AL-31 engines

                      Quote: Postman
                      This is the same technical nonsense as a boiler turbine on a nuclear missile cruiser

                      ".... On January 9, 1976, the General Designer of NPO Energia Valentin Glushko approves the Technical Information containing a comparative analysis of the new version of the ship, OK-92, which was a further continuation of OS-120, but had two main fundamental differences - it lacked marching oxygen-hydrogen engines (they were transferred to the central block of the LV), but two air-jet engines (WF) appeared to provide the possibility of independent flights in the atmosphere. This was due to the fact that all airfields for landing "Buran" are located on the territory of the former USSR, therefore, during the day there were turns, landing from which is impossible. There could be two principal solutions to this situation: expand the number of airdromes (but Buran was created as a military facility, and strategic allies were located “compactly” to the borders of the USSR, Cuba was too close to the territory of a potential enemy), or increase the energy supply of the atmospheric section due to the installation of the WFD. The designers chose the second path. And although the new version had OS-120 “birthmarks” in the form of a separate propulsion system and toxic fuel components, it was a step forward.

                      After the issuance of Resolution N132-51, the development of the ship's glider, means of air transportation of the ISS elements and the automatic landing system were entrusted to the specially organized Molniya NGO, which was headed by Gleb Lozino-Lozinsky. The Molniya NPO (together with TsAGI) immediately proposed its options: the 305-1 ship (see the figure below) with the "hull" scheme based on the Spiral orbital plane quadrupled and the winged version "305 -2 ", close to the option OK-92.

                      Ultimately, the OK-92 was adopted for further study, during which he first changed one powerful solid propellant rocket propulsion emergency compartment from the LV to two small tail parts on the sides, and then "lost" them too. WFD (double-circuit turbofan D-30KP - modified engines widely used on the long-range passenger aircraft Il-62M) on the side pylons were moved upstairs, on opposite sides of the keel with their replacement on the AL-31 turbofan engine, and placed in semi-recessed engine nacelles, but subsequently were removed and did not participate in the Buran flight. ..... "
                    12. Bad_gr
                      Bad_gr 6 October 2013 22: 22 New
                      0
                      Quote: Postman
                      This is the same technical nonsense as a boiler turbine on a nuclear missile cruiser

                      Incidentally, in addition to 1144 KN-2 type nuclear reactors (3 MW), the power plant on our nuclear-powered cruisers of Project 300 Orlan has 2 auxiliary boilers for liquid fuel.
                      On atomic traction, the speed is up to 32 knots, on auxiliary - up to 17 knots.
                      And there was even a case when one of the cruisers returned to base at auxiliary boilers.
                      That is, their installation paid off.
                    13. postman
                      postman 7 October 2013 02: 54 New
                      0
                      Quote: Bad_gr
                      Incidentally, in addition to 1144 KN-2 type nuclear reactors (3 MW), the power plant on our nuclear-powered cruisers of Project 300 Orlan has 2 auxiliary boilers for liquid fuel.

                      And I'm on that hinted ... softly so.
                      Just on him.
                      And this is nonsense (auxiliary boilers):
                      Diesel locomotive and auxiliary boiler
                      Electric locomotive and ... auxiliary diesel.
                      ========
                      Weakly believe in a legend: Ustinov said: but you will get YaSU in the middle of the Indian .. and? what will you do?
                      Nevertheless, he has VTU, this is not Rogozin. This bullet, in my opinion, was launched by this one as his Karaulov from military journalism, I forgot the name ..
                      -------------> this option is technical nonsense, like a turbojet engine on a snowstorm (carry APU with armature and control system, fuel. brrr.)
                      Quote: Bad_gr
                      when one of the cruisers returned to base on auxiliary boilers.
                      That is, their installation paid off.

                      This indicates the unreliability of SU.
                      ------------------------------------------
                      It’s so cool, probably oars and a sail should be foreseen on destroyers, what if the GSU refuses?
                      and on cars, chain drive and pedals.
                  3. postman
                    postman 7 October 2013 03: 05 New
                    0
                    I think this legend arose .... then, to "justify" the uniqueness of the "Buran"
                    Quote: Bad_gr
                    This was due to the fact that all airfields for landing "Buran" are located on the territory of the former USSR, therefore, during the day there were turns, landing from which is impossible
                    .
                    Some garbage:
                    - "Unions" and "Vostoks", military satellites, orbital stations ... they "hang" over the territory of the USSR, or they "Can't this be required"?
                    Note Buran, in contrast to the above, he himself could make a maneuver (without any turbojet engine), which is about 1000 km.
                    -Tsp = 2pr / v = 2p (r (3) / gM) (1/2) = Period of the satellite’s revolution around the Earth = equal to the orbit length (2pr) divided by satellite velocity v
                    For 200km (DOE) - something like 42 minutes
                    And?
                    How long is the USSR along the meridian?
                    What can happen (URGENT) in 35 minutes that an emergency descent is required?
                    -If the gathering was not at the calculated point ... where could these shuttles (turbojet engines) deliver the shuttle? Where is the fuel?
                    Same to me transatlantic liner
                    ===========
                    legend shit shorter
            3. Cynic
              Cynic 7 October 2013 10: 47 New
              0
              Quote: Postman
              shit shorter

              Sorry dear forum users postman и Bad_gr , I followed your discussion with interest, but once again I'm sorry, but in it now
              Mixed in a bunch of horses, people,
              And the volleys of a thousand guns
              Merged into a long howl ...

              shorter shit happened
              request
            4. postman
              postman 7 October 2013 12: 32 New
              0
              On the contrary, it’s nice that at least someone is reading.
              But horses and people didn’t get mixed up in the matter under discussion, it’s all the allegory’s fault.
              Question about turbojet engines, and about Buran in general
              My opinion: “Why goat button accordion?”, Well, what I tried to explain. and "crap" is about absurdity: the declared need for turbojet engines and ... and the absence of such a need, as well as technical lapsus.
              1. there is no need to leave orbit for 35 minutes (there wasn’t, and what to do with unions, East)
              2. If there was, anyway, no turbojet engines could reach Canada (say) to the Baikonur
              3. to carry with you two extra gondolas with turbojet engines, with fittings, with a fuel tank, with thermal protection 99,9% of the time on a DOE ... it makes no sense = every gram counts
              4. If you really want to (1), you would use an ODE (pulsed, multi-mode, for 100 starts, only a brake impulse) or a solid propellant rejection system
              5. will not withstand the turbojet engine aerodynamic and temperature effects with 200 km and a speed of 8 km / s but no work on the technical specifications, the plug (again weight) was not carried out
              6. If you really want (p1) to have an AIR-reactive (no oxidizing agent needed) - you would use straight-through pipes (cheap, cheerful, simple, reliable) that can work under the conditions of p.5. with)???
              output a turbo (equipped with a compressor) jet engine is needed ... to start the shuttle movement when it has zero speed, i.e. takeoff and flight tests. TRD is an option for LI.

              Well, what about the Buran and its supposedly technical superiority over the Shuttle .... it’s just funny to read on buran.ru
              at the same time, I (for example) am an ardent supporter of Russian cosmonautics, but why manipulate the facts and make myself laugh the whole world?

              ====
              Either the GK divorced the Politburo, or the Politburo and GK, together with the KGB, wanted to divorce the USA
            5. Cynic
              Cynic 7 October 2013 13: 23 New
              0
              Quote: Postman
              1. there is no need to leave orbit for 35 minutes (there wasn’t, and what to do with unions, East)

              Well and the rest.
              I will not spread my thoughts on the tree, I will say only one thing _ Buran, in my opinion, this MILITARY the spaceship and everything that seems absurd from the side in some kind of applications can be absolutely adequate and in demand, well, at least offhand
              Quote: Postman
              the need to exit the orbit within 35min
              wink
              hi
            6. postman
              postman 7 October 2013 18: 51 New
              0
              Quote: Cynic
              at least offhand

              "Diamond"?
            7. Cynic
              Cynic 7 October 2013 19: 17 New
              0
              Quote: Postman
              "Diamond"?

              It’s clear that the matter is dark.
              It seems that Almaz did not officially launch military manned stations, but DOS Salutes in some places passed like Diamonds. Yes, and peace, too.
              No wonder he was drowned, and the Yusovtsy plowed the entire ocean floor in the area of ​​flooding.
            8. postman
              postman 7 October 2013 19: 42 New
              0
              Quote: Cynic
              It’s clear that the matter is dark.

              This is understandable, as with Buran.
              Quote: Cynic
              and Yusovtsy plowed all the ocean floor in the area of ​​flooding.

              well, Space-954 fell in Canada ...
              and this is not Buran, this is YaSU "US-A" and a satellite of the marine space reconnaissance and target designation system.
              what?
              I don’t even know if the USSR paid 3 million Canadian dollars of compensation
              ==========
              "It is not worth it"
              , that is, turbojet engine
            9. Cynic
              Cynic 7 October 2013 20: 10 New
              0
              Quote: Postman
              well, Space-954 fell in Canada ...

              Actually, I talked about the Mir orbital station and the space iron cemetery in the Pacific
              http://my.mail.ru/video/mail/chas7979/38/1133.html#video=/mail/chas7979/38/1133
  2. postman
    postman 5 October 2013 14: 50 New
    0
    Quote: Postman
    head with 8000km / s!

    8000m / s - of course,
    and now the bootlegg will begin
  3. postman
    postman 5 October 2013 12: 38 New
    0
    Quote: Bad_gr
    I gave links on the weight of N-1 and Saturn-5 and I think that I answered on this topic.

    Yes?
    I gave you the technical data (MANUFACTURER DATA AND NASA DATA)
    The dry mass of Saturn is LESS cm N-1, and coincides with the data that I brought.
    You brought bullshit
    CM pH and dry weight of the module.
    You know that it is permissible for the GDP (he is an economist) to compare the weight of the shuttle PN on the GOE and the weight of the snowstorm on the NOU, and say that the snowstorm was several times more output than the shuttle, then to the publisher "PRODUCER SITE" (buran.ru) / long haha ​​caught / - this is unacceptable
    Quote: Bad_gr
    It was your statement that all of our rockets

    1. it was a question why?
    2. Seven and her followers, it’s still rockets, not rockets, and they are west.
    and what you bring on the launch pad is military missiles, mine (as a rule)
    And the seven and its line were nevertheless thought by the Korolev a little differently, again, study the dry weight of the launch vehicle, you’ll understand, only pliz not on the “manufacturer’s website”
    Quote: Bad_gr
    Someone with technical issues right now

    not at all. technical excellence is directly related to the economy.
    This phrase was about:
    1. At the Shuttle EVERYTHING except for the Central Heating Bureau is SAVED (and the Central Heating Bureau cannot be saved even by water, even from 20 km, and it almost falls from 100 km)
    2. IN Buran burned EVERYTHING (!), Except for the glider and the ODE (it is cheap, relatively)
    NO WORKS on RESCUE block C (the most expensive with the most expensive liquid propellant rocket engines) - WASN'T carried out, was not developed, there were no throwing guns either. These are all "legends of our rock", a pill for the military and the Central Committee.
    DO NOT RESCUE (2 starts), did not try and could not, this is technical nonsense.
    What is the meaning of the (economic) ISS BURAN?
    It’s easier to reusable capsules: it landed, sandblasted, ablative applied and on the way into orbit for a new one (I exaggerate), why the hell do I make a garden?
  • Max otto
    Max otto 3 October 2013 15: 02 New
    0
    Quote: Bad_gr

    These are what missiles, besides 7 and its descendants, are hanging from us?
    For example, "Proton" is on the bottom.

    I also doubted how good it is to hang, the thrust comes from the nozzle anyway, so it turns out that the rocket always stands on the bottom during the flight, and the load there is already more than its weight. Chet pereklinilo comrade.
    1. postman
      postman 3 October 2013 22: 05 New
      -1
      Quote: Max Otto
      Chet pereklinilo comrade.

      Genossa - wedges you, I feel regularly.
      Have you heard about boosting tanks?
      Then you can build an epurek
      And about the decrease in the mass of the TC (second flow rate), what thread do you understand?
  • thinking
    thinking 17 February 2018 05: 34 New
    0
    Quote: Postman
    believe my experience (how much was rummaged around with a radioisotope detector): DO NOT SAVE STEPS WITH LRE-and never saved:
    -they are "gentle" mass (strength) are sucked to a minimum (wafer structure is thin-walled, keeps under pressure of the TC)
    -Even with a splashdown of almost 100%, damage to them, TNA, alignment of the rocket engine, valves

    Only a few years passed and Musk successfully completed the "impossible."
    It turns out that these first steps are not so “tender”. Indeed, let’s take a look at the first stage of Falcon 9. When leaving the launch pad, it has an axial thrust of 760 tons, plus a second stage with a mass of about 110 tons at the top. Agree, if it can withstand such compression loads, then a light push during a jet landing, it can also withstand, because until the very last moment fuel remains in it.
  • No_more
    No_more 2 October 2013 16: 26 New
    0
    Now the tasks are actually much more for such an apparatus.
    1. postman
      postman 2 October 2013 16: 42 New
      0
      Quote: No_more
      Now the tasks are actually much more for such an apparatus.

      There are no such tasks.
      in any case, I don’t know.
      Olegitch probably knows, he’ll write on Twitter soon

      ===
      can you bring?
      1. No_more
        No_more 3 October 2013 12: 28 New
        0
        At a minimum, telecommunications are growing very fast. I say, because I am currently working in this area as a technical analyst.
        Navigation satellites and communication satellites are launching much more often now, because information exchange volumes are growing. Now, for example, data centers (data centers) are being built more actively, and there are even ships on ships. These centers need good satellite channels. Internet connection speeds are growing, in general the industry is developing.
        Again, these satellites become garbage having developed fuel, and yet they would have to be refueled and there would be no need to launch a new one. They could also be serviced to upgrade in orbit (of course, this should be provided for when designing the satellite). And this is another task for a cheap reusable ship, which is economically more profitable than a disposable rocket.
  • Mitek
    Mitek 2 October 2013 08: 20 New
    +7
    Quote: svp67
    Release of Buran-type spacecraft may resume in Russia
    And the "launch vehicle", and the launch pad, training ... Many questions, the main one, but is it needed right now ...?

    You know, I believe that space is always needed. this is the future. this is science-intensive production, this is the theory and practice of science. this is the future battlefield. This is the country's security in the end.
  • discard
    discard 2 October 2013 09: 23 New
    0
    If Rogozin said this, it is very necessary.
    He knows exactly what Russia cannot live without.
    1. abdrah
      abdrah 3 October 2013 01: 06 New
      0
      Here you are joking, but to someone it seems that you’re "up ..."
  • AVV
    AVV 2 October 2013 09: 24 New
    +2
    In general, there are more questions than answers! The budget is already bursting at the seams !!! And there are a lot of programs that need grandmas, and here you will have to choose in accordance with the country's priorities, and not just shake the air !!!
  • APASUS
    APASUS 2 October 2013 09: 51 New
    +3
    Quote: svp67
    And the "launch vehicle", and the launch pad, training ... Many questions, the main one, but is it needed right now ...?

    By itself, Buran and all related equipment is a donut hole!
    A program should be worked out, for what purposes are such enormous investments? At the moment, we have something to withdraw, and most importantly, to return from orbit in droves.
    I understand if an automatic plant for the production of ultrapure silicon for electronics, rare-earth smelting, or the cultivation of biological cultures were built in our orbit.
    Again, the time goes in front and other apparatuses are required on new principles, and the time of Buran has probably already passed .......... we need a new car.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 2 October 2013 10: 48 New
      +6
      The future, of course, lies with reusable systems, but it’s not even funny to talk about reconstructing Buran at a time when there is a clear degradation of the space industry.
      “Cadres decide everything” - the motto sounded back under Stalin and is now no less relevant. Does anyone in the government think about this?
      We are talking about Buran, and in the future we are building a new spaceship not with the Clipper shapes, but in the form of a cone, as was the case with Apollo. Just a couple of steps in this direction and come to the powder rockets.

  • AK-47
    AK-47 2 October 2013 11: 40 New
    +1
    Quote: svp67
    ... but is it needed right now ...?

    Need is not necessary, but the soul warms.
  • skeptic
    skeptic 2 October 2013 13: 44 New
    0
    Release of Buran-type spacecraft may resume in Russia

    Quote: svp67
    But is it necessary right now ...?


    It all depends on how you use it. This is not only the setting, reorientation, transfer of military satellites to the required orbit, but also maintenance, monitoring the satellites of the probable enemy, and in case of emergency - operational destruction, clearing the operational field over the territory of Russia.
    However, we do not consider the possibility of targeted destruction of the control bodies of potential aggressors. How to evaluate the financial costs of the above program, at the outbreak of hostilities against our homeland?
    1. Nikone
      Nikone 3 October 2013 22: 16 New
      0
      Fiction have read?
  • The comment was deleted.
  • honest jew
    honest jew 2 October 2013 15: 01 New
    +4
    for what shisha?
  • Letun
    Letun 2 October 2013 16: 22 New
    +6
    If earlier I simply suspected that Rogozin was another balabol, then after this article I was sure of this completely.
  • atalef
    atalef 2 October 2013 18: 34 New
    +2
    Quote: svp67
    And the "launch vehicle", and the launch pad, training ... Many questions, the main one, but is it needed right now ...?

    5 days ago . all this was discussed. sorry to waste time, I thought Rogozin gave another pearl, but it's all the same. It is old and foolish to return to the same topic.
  • Russ69
    Russ69 2 October 2013 19: 10 New
    +1
    Quote: svp67
    And the "launch vehicle", and the launch pad, training ... Many questions, the main one, but is it needed right now ...?

    Quote: svp67
    And the "launch vehicle", and the launch pad, training ... Many questions, the main one, but is it needed right now ...?


    Rogozin about the "Buran" (59:30) and much more (42:40) ...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRQJrKYF83w
  • Blondy
    Blondy 16 October 2016 06: 39 New
    0
    As far as I know, Buran is, in fact, the idea of ​​the Politburo. The more competent men in space affairs gave preference to the Spiral project, although not as spectacular, but more effective (including in military aspects).
  • aszzz888
    aszzz888 2 October 2013 08: 10 New
    +2
    Of course the dough will be dumped quite a bit in this event. And everything is like ours: heroically we overcome the same ruined earlier. Let's see what happens from this venture.
    1. Docklishin
      Docklishin 2 October 2013 08: 29 New
      +4
      And this is our national character trait - to make yourself a bunch of problems, and then heroically get out of them. Wrote without sarcasm. When I don’t want to do something, I recall this expression.
  • JIaIIoTb
    JIaIIoTb 2 October 2013 08: 17 New
    +3
    Of course, there is a desire for the country to regain its advanced position in outer space, but again, depending on the price.
    1. Aryan
      Aryan 2 October 2013 15: 14 New
      +1
      had the honor of being on the first rally of VAKO in 1989
      (All-Union Aerospace Society)
      we then called it "space Komsomol"
      there I held that famous ceramic tile in my hands
      which was used on Buran
      damn it is very light, I could not even believe that it can withstand such temperatures

      And that flight of the BURANA is of course the triumph of our Soviet cosmonautics
      only to not be used again for political purposes
      I still think that then its designers were simply betrayed by politics
      1. Volkhov
        Volkhov 2 October 2013 20: 10 New
        +2
        The buran was basically wrong, like the shuttles, and very close to the fate of Colombia - it had an annular crack in the nose fairing, several broken tiles - a little more and there would have been an avalanche discharge and destruction. It is not of that form and oversized, it is only suitable for Rogozin for delirium, although this is also a signal - like people, wake up, look at us and do not listen anymore ...
  • Docklishin
    Docklishin 2 October 2013 08: 27 New
    +3
    I liked the article - plus. It seems to me that at this stage of development of our country, it would be nice to implement less costly projects. Which in the future may bring more tangible economic returns. For example, the same Clipper, the development of space tourism. And in parallel to use Protons, Hangar. In some source (I don’t know the truth or not) I read that the Buran project was the basis for running in technologies for developing orbital fighters (Spiral). Z.Y. Return "World" plz into orbit. But somehow it turns out inconveniently, China has it ... And we are in a "hostel" with other countries ...
  • Revolver
    Revolver 2 October 2013 08: 33 New
    +4
    So far this is an empty bazaar, but I would really like it to be materialized. Oil and gas tend to run out, and technology has the ability to progress, with the right attitude. In particular, this technology is one of the few that the Chinese will even tear at least * opu trying to copy, but they can not soon. Such technological leadership must be used and developed as long as there is something, while oil and gas are in price.
  • Tatar
    Tatar 2 October 2013 08: 36 New
    -2
    one question why the heck ??? this is the technology of the end of the 20 century, something new is needed, for example, aerospace aircraft of the Tu-2000 or M-19 type, or most likely there will not be enough brains to finalize and build it
    1. LaGlobal
      LaGlobal 2 October 2013 09: 34 New
      +2
      Quote: Tatar
      one question why the heck ??? this is the technology of the end of the 20 century, something new is needed, for example, aerospace aircraft of the Tu-2000 or M-19 type, or most likely there will not be enough brains to finalize and build it


      I hasten to remind you that everything new is long forgotten old!
      1. Tatar
        Tatar 2 October 2013 10: 18 New
        +1
        let's remember a horse with a horse and run the sunrise from the east. what tasks will he carry out ???? 20 ton satellites to display, is it not expensive to launch a whole energy ??
  • common man
    common man 2 October 2013 08: 40 New
    +2
    Quote: DocKlishin
    And we are in a "hostel" with other countries ...

    Maybe better in a 5 star hotel with others. than in the hut. but one?
    It is said without sarcasm. Space is just such a costly thing. which is better to cooperate.
    1. Docklishin
      Docklishin 2 October 2013 16: 12 New
      +4
      En no. Thank. It is better to be a master in your own hut and be independent. And then, what the hell WE transfer (or transferred ?!) technologies to our most probable opponents. So NOBODY does. I understand the need was. BUT now what is stopping. I bet if some smart person picks up a group of guardsmen aimed at returning state property and money. And he will give them unlimited rights (anticipating the issue of corruption - I think you can find a couple of thousand crystal-clear people in the country), then in 1 year we will be able not only to build a blizzard, but we will also make an Enterprise. Z.Y. I’d personally pick up the eggs, who drove such an industry as heavy machinery deeply and for a long time into w ... pu. angry
      1. GOGY
        GOGY 2 October 2013 18: 46 New
        0
        I’ll subscribe to every word, this mess is already tired, there’s only one smart to find (there are already two guardsmen) good
  • gameover65
    gameover65 2 October 2013 08: 44 New
    +3
    The return of the snowstorm is good and necessary, but, in my opinion, not today.
    although if we take into account the desire of our government to bury money so that they do not bring profit (summit in Vladivostok, the winter olympiad where there is no snow), there is a big chance to resume the snowstorm program smile
  • specialist636
    specialist636 2 October 2013 09: 14 New
    +7
    In order for the country to come out of the crisis, it is necessary to set a super task for Russia. That’s what Kennedy did and the Americans ended up on the moon.
    We need to lead the market in near space: not only make commercial launches, but also create our own orbital station. This will not only give direct income, but also revitalize science and production, give jobs
    1. Docklishin
      Docklishin 2 October 2013 16: 15 New
      +1
      Fat plus you. I completely agree. From myself-it is necessary on the walls of the State Duma to stick banners with advertising for military observation. Maybe someone will look, read, think .... for life.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • LaGlobal
    LaGlobal 2 October 2013 09: 34 New
    +1
    I wish you only good luck !!!
  • Nickanor
    Nickanor 2 October 2013 09: 38 New
    +1
    Like it or not, but the good news!
    Given the development of technology, the device will be very suitable. And how many new technologies will arise in the process of its creation.
    It's a shame another thing: missile trains, Buran ... why everything had to be grayed out and girted first, so that later it could be recreated!
    1. Bear52
      Bear52 2 October 2013 12: 41 New
      +4
      Comrade Nickanor, the news is only one: ROGOZIN SAID.
      There is nothing else here, IMHO. Neither pleasant nor anything else. what
    2. Serg 122
      Serg 122 2 October 2013 18: 00 New
      +1
      What do you mean why?! To "master" budget funds! After all, destruction also costs money. And now you need to recreate even more ...
  • ed65b
    ed65b 2 October 2013 09: 40 New
    +1
    Sooner or later, work on the Burano shuttles will have to be resumed. It may cost to unite and make it international. Then the share of costs will decrease. Mankind needs access to space, shuttles need trucks to assemble large interplanetary ships and orbital plants. Yes, the system is ahead of its time, but it, time, is rapidly advancing and the hour will come when humanity will need such ships. Together, Russia and the United States can whip up the whole world in space exploration. Not a single country in the world can do this except us. And even China, despite its growing power.
  • largus886
    largus886 2 October 2013 09: 52 New
    +2
    No need to stupidly copy the Americans! Think of it, they refused the Shuttle, they refused the one-time ones, as a result they fly to the Unions. The ship is needed! Of course very modernized. A lot of tasks for him from purely military to the assembly of the station for the flight to Mars. Plus, new factories and technologies, enough to keep the money in the staff capsule.
  • KBPC50
    KBPC50 2 October 2013 09: 53 New
    +2
    Maybe not the Buran itself, but its continuation is simply necessary to protect the satellite constellation. For unknown reasons, one of the Russian satellites disappeared (exploded). At that time, an American spaceship was in space. Here is a simple answer - to “do or not Buran.” Apparently there is no alternative.
  • Altona
    Altona 2 October 2013 09: 53 New
    +1
    In principle, what I wanted to say, everyone said before me ... The question is of course, what problem will this complex solve in order not to become an expensive souvenir again? If only a space transporter serving the lifting of various cargoes into near space, that is, in any case, some kind of business plan for this project is needed. What is the promising market, what are the needs of customers, what is the optimal carrying capacity of the complex ... Otherwise, we will tear the belly again, but we won’t get any return ...
  • saag
    saag 2 October 2013 09: 55 New
    0
    The dreamer, Mr. Rogozin, said just to declare himself, not a word about what goods to transport into orbit by such a transport. It is much more interesting to launch orbital laboratories and grow crystals there for microelectronics, which cannot be obtained in terrestrial conditions, well, medicine is there too, that’s where the benefit would be
  • air wolf
    air wolf 2 October 2013 10: 11 New
    -5
    Why all this??? What kind of space, who needs it, well, they played astronauts in the last century and that's enough, look old people live in poverty, they worked all their lives. And so more Americans launch rocket launches. What crystals, we will soon switch to lamps again with this attitude to production.
  • Nymp
    Nymp 2 October 2013 10: 13 New
    +2
    "And you probably shouldn’t believe everything that Russian officials say. A striking example is the much less ambitious project to resume the production of Ruslan transport aircraft, which, in fact, has gone no further than talking on this subject." Well compared !!! What does our Russian officials and Ukrainians have to do with it, who essentially ruined this project with their "stubborn" stubbornness !? Further: "The Soviet Buran, like its overseas counterpart, was far ahead of its time." But nothing that BURAN, unlike the so-called "overseas counterpart" could make an unmanned landing ?! There is no analogue to Buranushka !!! The author is not competent.
    1. Altona
      Altona 2 October 2013 11: 17 New
      +1
      With regard to analogues, the Buran glider and space shuttles, in principle, were invented as a scheme by the Germans at the end of World War II ... Such a typical triangular iron ... You can google yourself on the Internet and find this plane in all its glory ... So there’s a lot "unparalleled" rushing with terrible force since the Second World War, like the laptops on which we write, they began to produce pure silicon in an industrial way for military purposes precisely in war and by inertia it turned into microcircuits ...
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 2 October 2013 14: 33 New
        0
        Quote: Altona
        As for the analogues, the Buran airplanes and space shuttles, in principle, were invented as a scheme by the Germans at the end of World War II ... Such a typical triangular iron ... You can google yourself on the Internet and find this plane in all its glory ...

        Did Goebbels tell you this? The German apparatus is very different from Buran and Shuttle. In Google we will find a FIGURE of the German apparatus, not a photograph.
  • Syrdon
    Syrdon 2 October 2013 10: 14 New
    +1
    It seems to me that Rogozin was thinking more about the Energy system, which could throw loads of 100 tons into orbit.
    1. Serg 122
      Serg 122 2 October 2013 18: 12 New
      +2
      They would still remember N-1! Also such a funny thing ...
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 2 October 2013 18: 46 New
        +4
        Quote: Serg 122
        They would still remember N-1! Also such a funny thing ...

        What is wrong with her? Engines are still quoted and it is even planned to install their varieties on our promising missiles:
        ".........
        NK-33-1 - developed by SNTK them. N.D. Kuznetsov modification of the engine NK-33. It is planned to use this modification at the second stage of the Soyuz-2-3 launch vehicle (previously the Aurora launch vehicle).
        This modification, unlike the basic NK-33, has a thrust vector control unit (cardan joint for deflecting the chamber) and a retractable nozzle to optimize the degree of expansion of the nozzle at an altitude of more than 10 km.

        NK-33A
        The NK-33A engine is a modification of the NK-33 product. It is being deployed at the enterprise producing new NK-33A engines for Russian space programs, as well as for potential foreign customers. In April 2012, the interagency tests of the NK-33A engine were completed [4].

        Aj-26
        AJ-26 - a modification of the NK-33 engine developed by Aerojet and licensed in the USA for use on American launch vehicles (including Antares)created by removing some equipment from the original NK-33 (out of 37 copies purchased from N.D. Kuznetsov SNTK), adding American electronics, checking the engine for compatibility with fuel produced in the USA, and equipping it with a universal joint for control traction vector (similar to NK-33-1) [5].
        The first flight of the Antares rocket with two AJ-26 engines took place on 21.04.2013
        .............. "
        1. Serg 122
          Serg 122 2 October 2013 19: 09 New
          0
          What is wrong with her? Engines are still quoted and even planned to install their varieties on our promising missiles
          Who is arguing? Good machine. It meant that they like to remember the old days and give out their know-how at the same time ... As someone here already wrote - "we will soon return to powder rockets"
        2. postman
          postman 2 October 2013 23: 04 New
          0
          Quote: Bad_gr
          What is wrong with her?

          - used suspended spherical fuel tanks, but not bearing = this is a return to the old V-1 concept (starting mass Р Н Н-1 with complex LZ, more Saturn-Apollo, significantly)
          N-1 Dry weight 208 t
          Saturn 5 Dry weight 194-195 t

          -fuel pipelines from the upper (kerosene) tank at each stage pass along the outer surface of the casing. (safety, again overweight, accident rate, aerodynamic qualities (Art. 2,3))

          - rocket fuel: kerosene-oxygen, specific thrust 335 kgf / kg, 30% LESS oxygen-hydrogen (LV block A, B, C and D with TURD reported the 2nd space satellite)

          -total thrust of engines of RB A MUST BE 1,3-1,5 times MORE (there are no such rocket engines TO THIS TIME)

          -30 LPRE RB A, and although the control system was less tuned (by the 5th launch), their interaction with the power structure of the LV had a NEGATIVE effect on the reliability and dynamic characteristics of missiles (as the launches showed)

          the total thrust of the engines of RB A MUST BE 1,3-1,5 times MORE (there are no such rocket engines until now)

          -30 LPRE RB A, and although the control system was less tuned (by the 5th launch), their interaction with the power structure of the LV had a NEGATIVE effect on the reliability and dynamic characteristics of the rocket

          - emergency shutdown system for faulty liquid propellant rocket engines (reliability is extremely low)

          -limiting principle of operation: acceleration to the 2nd space (Block G) was due to the production of fuel components BEFORE DRY ... If the speed is not reached, after-dispersal due to block D (and how to return later?)

          -Hot stage separation (which is not acceptable for non-military launch vehicles)

          -small PN (ONLY TWO astronauts, severe restrictions on the mass of the LM system)

          - ground test complexes were not created, there were no hot tests (reliability. Americans spent 2/3 of the funds allocated for the program on ground tests)
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 2 October 2013 23: 33 New
            0
            Quote: Postman
            - used suspended spherical fuel tanks, but not bearing = this is a return to the old V-1 concept (starting mass Р Н Н-1 with complex LZ, more Saturn-Apollo, significantly)
            N-1 Dry weight 208 t
            Saturn 5 Dry weight 194-195 t

            And here ( http://space-horizon.ru/articles/3 ) it is written:
            Dry weight of the rocket, t --- 235
            Starting weight, t ----- 2328,5
            By the way, recall that the N-1
            Dry weight of the rocket, t --- 208т
            Starting weight H1: - 2735 t
            ---------------- N1F: - 2950 т

            That is, the situation is completely opposite, compared to your version.
            The first step of Saturn is 5.
            [Left][/ Center]
            Second stage (S-II). As you can see, it has both a hull and a tank, and a non-carrying tank instead of a hull.

            Quote: Postman
            - rocket fuel: kerosene-oxygen, specific thrust 335 kgf / kg, 30% LESS oxygen-hydrogen (LV block A, B, C and D with TURD reported the 2nd space satellite)

            The first stage of Saturn-5 had kerosene fuel, and the oxidizing agent was liquid oxygen, like ours.
            Quote: Postman
            - ground test complexes were not created, there were no hot tests (reliability. Americans spent 2/3 of the funds allocated for the program on ground tests)

            This is not a missile flaw, but organizational issues that were largely decided by politicians rather than designers (I mean the possibility of conducting ground tests: if they didn’t give funds for this, then there will be no stands for this, which means the possibility of testing)
            1. postman
              postman 2 October 2013 23: 45 New
              0
              Quote: Bad_gr
              And here (http://space-horizon.ru/articles/3) it says:

              “Manned Moon Flights, Design and Characteristics of SATURN V Apollo,” I. I. Shuneiko, Moscow, VINITI, 1973
              First Stage S-IC

              Manufacturer: Boeing
              Height: 42,5 meters
              Diameter of tanks: 10,1 meters
              Maximum diameter: 13 meters (for stabilizers)
              Dry weight: about 135 tons
              Gross weight: 2240 tons
              Propulsion: 5 liquid propellant engines F-1
              Starting thrust: about 3450 tons (in a vacuum - more than 3800 tons)
              Fuel: kerosene RP-1 / liquid oxygen O2
              Management: driveshafts peripheral engines
              Operating time: about 165 seconds (including about 6 seconds before the ascent)

              Second Stage S-II

              Producer: North American (today part of the Boeing)
              Height: 24,9 meters
              Diameter of tanks: 10,1 meters
              Dry weight: about 44 tons
              Gross weight: about 460 tons (slightly different in different flights)
              Propulsion: 5 J-2 liquid-propellant engines
              Vacuum traction: about 520 tons
              Fuel: liquid hydrogen H2
              Oxidizing agent: liquid oxygen O2
              Oxidizer / Fuel Ratio: 4,5 - 5,5
              Vacuum specific impulse: about 425 seconds (slightly different in different flights)
              Management: driveshafts peripheral engines
              Operating time: 400 seconds (it was a little different in different flights)


              Third Stage S-IVB

              Producer: "McDonnell Douglas"
              Height: 17,8 meters
              Diameter: 6,6 meters (with lower adapter - 10,1 meters)
              Dry weight: about 15,5 tons (including the lower adapter 3,8 tons)
              Gross weight: 122,5 tons
              Propulsion: 1 J-2 Liquid Jet Engine
              Thrust: 91 - 104 tons 10
              Management: engine on a cardan suspension; autonomous control system with engines based on monomethylhydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide N2O4
              Fuel: liquid hydrogen H2 / liquid oxygen O2


              So: + + + =

              if you wish you can "add"

              Tool block


              Height: 0,9 meters
              Diameter: 6,6 meters
              Weight: about 2 tons


              only this DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING:
              -we are talking about the dry weight of the pH
              - and:
              SA-503 November 21, 1968 "Apollo-8" The vibration dampers of the Pogo are installed in the fuel lines of the peripheral engines of the first stage; the number of fuel draft engines in the second stage is reduced from 8 to 4

              minus

              SA-510 July 26, 1971 Apollo 15 The number of brake engines of the first stage is reduced from 8 to 4; the remaining 4 fuel sediment engines in the second stage are removed

              minus
              continue?
              SA-513 reducing the load on the mounting of the astronomical block (its weight is reduced), the scheme for including marching rocket engines is revised
              Quote: Bad_gr
              This is not a rocket flaw, but

              disadvantage. Compare with the seven.
              give the number of successful (ZERO) and unsuccessful launches.
              Conclusion: product deficiency, IT "RAW", and dangerous
              1. abdrah
                abdrah 3 October 2013 02: 20 New
                +1
                Well, then from the sevens they still fly on engines, but something is not heard about F1, as well as about its creator Von Braun, after folding the American lunar circus.
                In the photo, the transmission of the "lunar module" to the Americans in Murmansk.
                everyone heard about their lunar kina, but how did it happen that the USSR gave the USA 30 grams of rigolite out of a total of 300, and they, having several centners, sent 29 in reply, something bad thoughts started to get into my head.

                http://www.free-inform.com/

  • poccinin
    poccinin 2 October 2013 10: 19 New
    0
    and that after 2020, the ISS will not be? There will be a new station. This is the first. The second is how much debris is in orbit? our third BURAN system WAS A RELIABLE AMERICAN FROM START TO LANDING. UNMANNED FLIGHT PROVED THIS. Fourth. space tourism. you can make money on it. there would be a desire to colonize the moon. 6 billion people on the earth. then Mars. or so we will sit and wait for our "ASTEROID"
    1. postman
      postman 3 October 2013 02: 15 New
      0
      Quote: poccinin
      our third BURAN system WAS A RELIABLE AMERICAN

      YES?
      How can I say this TOTAL IN THE PRESENCE OF ONE UNMANNED START?
      Quote: poccinin
      UNMANNED FLIGHT PROVES THIS. Fourth.

      was it manned?
  • crambol
    crambol 2 October 2013 10: 27 New
    +2
    ... domestic experts disagree about the rationality of such a step.
    ... a reasonable question arises: where will these ships fly?
    ... in front of us is a beautiful, but at the same time completely whimsical and ill-conceived idea
    ... in the presence of LITERATIVE tasks and goals, such a program will be necessary.



    Here are the main points that need to (in my mind) be guided. Manilism and grandiose designs cause only swelling of the ears.
  • RPG_
    RPG_ 2 October 2013 10: 30 New
    -2
    If we are not going to build bases on the moon, then we do not need it.
  • major071
    major071 2 October 2013 10: 43 New
    +6
    It is necessary and just necessary to develop the space industry. Not only disposable missiles, but also reusable ones. Take Buran as a starting point. After all, he was ahead of his time. In the near future, the division of the satellite of the earth will begin, everything goes to this, and I would not want Russia to lag behind. IMHO.
    1. Nikone
      Nikone 2 October 2013 11: 12 New
      -6
      He did not get ahead of time.
    2. Serg 122
      Serg 122 2 October 2013 18: 14 New
      0
      Will they give us this moon? After Amers flooded from there. As the saying goes: "because they don’t fly" ...
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 2 October 2013 10: 45 New
    +3
    Rogozin is still a balabol, is it worth paying attention to his statements at all? He's like Thor Heyerdahl, who Heyerdahl is Heyerwal ...
  • saag
    saag 2 October 2013 10: 51 New
    +1
    Quote: poccinin
    on it there would be a desire to colonize the moon


    Quote: RPG_
    If we are not going to build bases on the moon, then we do not need it.

    He doesn’t need him to colonize the moon, it’s not at all fit for him, he needs even concrete for landing, it’s about 5 kilometers, and a lot of excess mass in the form of wings, there is nothing on the satellite, for colonization you need something with a vertical landing
    1. Serg 122
      Serg 122 2 October 2013 19: 11 New
      0
      Obviously the man movie "Armagedon" remembered. So also a fairy tale, like the words of Rogozin
  • Peaceful military
    Peaceful military 2 October 2013 10: 53 New
    +2
    For 15 years of the implementation of this program (from 17.02.1976 to 01.01.1991), the USSR spent 16,4 billion rubles on it. In order to understand the scale of these figures, you can compare the program with the construction of AvtoVAZ from scratch. This large-scale Soviet construction cost the state 4-5 billion rubles, while the plant still operates. And even if we add here the cost of building the entire city of Togliatti, the amount will turn out many times less.
    Debility and absolutely illiterate arithmetic.
    As for the Buran program itself, it’s a no brainer that it is in demand from a military point of view, like the Almaz and Salyut orbital stations at one time. In parallel, they were also used as scientific platforms. Another thing, will Russia pull it? This is the same story with domestic aircraft carriers in particular, and with the ocean fleet in general. He is very necessary, but ...
  • Algor73
    Algor73 2 October 2013 10: 57 New
    0
    First, to resume the program, specific goals and objectives are needed. What tasks does Rosskosmos pose now? Will Buran be claimed? Or is it someone’s ambition? Secondly, the USSR barely pulled this program when there were 15 republics, when the country was rich
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 3 October 2013 00: 44 New
      +1
      Quote: Algor73
      What tasks does Rosskosmos pose now?

      Drank the dough, and a lot at once ...
  • Zerstorer
    Zerstorer 2 October 2013 11: 01 New
    +4
    The more Rogozin says, the more we become convinced of his incompetence. Cadres decide everything! Compare Rogozin's level of competence, for example, with such a person as Dementiev (USSR Minister of Aviation Industry). Similarly, we can compare Shoigu and Ustinov.
    1. uzer 13
      uzer 13 2 October 2013 18: 36 New
      +2
      The weather vane does not need competence. The ability to keep your nose in the wind is required.
    2. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 2 October 2013 21: 19 New
      +1
      Quote: Zerstorer
      . Similarly, we can compare Shoigu and Ustinov.

      I did not see and did not hear frank stupidity performed by Shoigu at the post of Moscow Defense Ministry so far.
  • Nikone
    Nikone 2 October 2013 11: 05 New
    0
    The fact that the “Buran”, as it turned out, was unnecessary became clear even before the first flight. From a technical point of view, everything was done perfectly, but from a conceptual point of view - it was a mistake, big and expensive.
    1. alexpro66
      alexpro66 2 October 2013 19: 00 New
      +1
      And so Gorbachev said ...))) But simply the financing of yet another program of the USSR could no longer be mastered. Yes, and with the hunchbacked at that time everything was already clear-licked an ass to Amers as I could and would not be surprised if the closure of the program was lobbied from across the ocean. The impartiality of this program is highly controversial. Amer refused it only because of accidents and then after how many years. Plus, the Shuttles were distinguished by a technical solution in terms of launching into orbit, they were “pushed” by the tandem and the upper stage and the Shuttle itself, with us only Energy, brought Buran into space
  • arb0905
    arb0905 2 October 2013 11: 19 New
    +3
    The Buran documentation has been developed, the Americans may soon hang a “chandelier” with missiles over us, and we could use old ideas to counter these plans
  • Vasia kruger
    Vasia kruger 2 October 2013 11: 39 New
    +3
    There is an unpleasant feeling that it will look like this ...
    We will spend an exorbitant amount of money, for many years we will crucify from the zombie that we are ahead of the rest, that we are again building something that has no analogues ... and the result will be ... it flies somehow, if it flies at all, there are no problems for it, but mansions on ruble will become even bigger and more expensive.

    Although of course I want to be proud of our space program, but IMHO now Buran is not a need, but a new scheme for the development of dough.

    And this is sad.

    P.S. And in my heart I really want the apple trees to bloom on Mars ....
  • New Russia
    New Russia 2 October 2013 11: 46 New
    +2
    How much you can peck at it! :) They already promised to restore the production of ekranoplanes, build an aircraft carrier ... By the way, as I remember now, the news of 2007 on the first, in 2012 Russia will build a floating nuclear power plant. Such pride has taken me still :) Life does not teach the cheers of patriots anything, the main thing for them is to double their promises by 2020 :)
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 2 October 2013 14: 38 New
      +1
      Quote: New Russia
      2007 news on the first, in 2012 Russia will build a floating nuclear power plant.

      But they built a floating speaker!
      1. New Russia
        New Russia 2 October 2013 18: 34 New
        0
        Where? :) Can I have a link?
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 2 October 2013 19: 01 New
          +2
          Its construction was frozen some time ago, but now, it seems, they undertook to finish building:
          "... As the director of the Baltzavod A. Voznesensky said, the first domestic floating nuclear power plant will be built by 2016. At present, the ship’s structures are being installed and three years later Rosatom will receive the first FNPP in the world. ......... .......
          "Soon after the completion of the construction of the first floating power station, it is planned to begin the construction of the next vessels of this series ....."
          http://topwar.ru/30634-pervaya-plavuchaya-atomnaya-elektrostanciya-k-2016-godu.h
          tml
          1. New Russia
            New Russia 2 October 2013 19: 27 New
            0
            "... As the director of the Baltzavod A. Voznesensky said, the first domestic floating nuclear power plant will be built by 2016." Already by 16 :) And then by 20 :) By the way, the plant that was building in December 2011 almost closed forever.
  • marat1000
    marat1000 2 October 2013 12: 06 New
    -4
    yes nafik is needed at all
  • Asan Ata
    Asan Ata 2 October 2013 12: 31 New
    +2
    It seems to me that everyone misses one component - the effect of technological leadership. It costs a lot of money. The money spent on Buran will really disappear if this is not continued. What to do in space? Collect a new station, set up production, for example, ultra-clean technologies, assemble a space launch station on other planets, clean satellites, repair them, destroy other people's debris, that is, satellites, and it’s commercially viable to master outer space. Attract Kazakhstan to co-financing, we will only be happy. I love Buran.
    1. Serg 122
      Serg 122 2 October 2013 18: 20 New
      0
      And here is the question: If you do everything that is written above - why would he even land on Earth ?! Burn fuel? Let there be a separate mobile module of the ISS, for example.
      1. r4space
        r4space 21 September 2017 03: 57 New
        0
        Well then, you immediately need to cost an orbital elevator ... Although without a geostationary anchor weighing more than tens of thousands of tons, this is impossible.
  • vitek1233
    vitek1233 2 October 2013 12: 38 New
    +1
    The bulk of what our government officials are doing is talking
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 2 October 2013 22: 02 New
      0
      Quote: vitek1233
      The bulk of what our government officials are doing is talking

      Something recently I began to attend the idea that Rogozin for Popovkin is trying to develop a project (base on the moon, flight to Mars, project Buran) for development.
  • ole_ga
    ole_ga 2 October 2013 13: 03 New
    +1
    Buran may not be needed (yet), but the carrier (Energy) is chic.
    1. Nikone
      Nikone 2 October 2013 14: 26 New
      0
      And for what purposes does Energy now need?
      1. ole_ga
        ole_ga 2 October 2013 19: 08 New
        0
        I do not shine with strong competence, just a technical sensation that can come in handy soon. And the “racket" is, as far as I understand, a universal package, for different load capacities.
        1. Nikone
          Nikone 3 October 2013 21: 07 New
          0
          This rocket wasn’t working even then, especially not now. There is simply no need to put such huge loads into orbit.
          And from the point of view of universality, here you are, so to speak, not quite right. The whole versatility of Energy was the possibility of lifting an even greater load than Buran. For this, a larger number of blocks of the first stage was provided.
  • Watchman
    Watchman 2 October 2013 13: 31 New
    +2
    Where to get all this money? Russia already took on a huge number of extra cost projects: Sochi 2014, World Cup 2018, rearmament of the army, Skolkovo. Not only does all this eat up a huge amount of money, we must not forget about the main cost item - officials.
  • rotor
    rotor 2 October 2013 13: 36 New
    +1
    The journalist Rogozin certainly knows better, but why is this winged colossus needed, especially in a manned version?

    When it is possible to deliver cargo to the nearest orbit and tow it without human intervention. And for repairs, you can use robots, astronauts from the space station, which can either fly to the spacecraft, or the spacecraft can be towed to them for repair. But this requires the constant presence of man on the space station.

    As for saving, there are other, more economical methods of launching cargo into space, without human intervention. Including a space elevator to the moon.
    1. rotor
      rotor 2 October 2013 14: 50 New
      0
      For the return of goods to the earth, a spaceplane is also not needed.

      Specialists of the Rocket and Space Corporation (RSC) Energia have developed a project to return capsules from space to Earth with the results of scientific research on a 100-km cable, Interfax writes.

      "The project plans to use the Progress cargo ship. After undocking from the International Space Station, it drops to a height of 300 kilometers and begins to deploy a hundred-meter cable with a return capsule attached to it," said an employee at a scientific conference at Bauman Moscow State Technical University RSC Energia Nikolay Shoshunov.

      Further, "Progress" continues to decline with the return capsule. After it reaches a height of 200 km, and the capsule is 100 km above the Earth’s surface, the cable breaks and burns in the atmosphere, and the capsule descends to the Earth by parachute. The cargo ship itself is being flooded in the Pacific Ocean according to the standard scheme, N. Shoshunov added.
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 2 October 2013 19: 07 New
        +1
        Quote: rotor
        Specialists of the Rocket and Space Corporation (RSC) Energia have developed a project to return capsules from space to Earth with the results of scientific research on a 100-km cable, Interfax writes.

        ??
        Until recently, the captured film from our spy satellites was dropped on the ground in capsules. No problem. Why did you need a cable?
    2. alexpro66
      alexpro66 2 October 2013 19: 09 New
      0
      Because the "space tug" will certainly not be created until 2025, however, promising rocket carriers Rus are also buried by Mr. Popovkin, how to remove bulk cargo ??? Nothing! You should have heard the skirmish between Rogozin and Popovkin when they were at the DM and Zhopovkin got a jailbroker. DM sat like a schoolboy - I couldn’t bear anything but a jailbroker — although Rogozin insisted on the immediate dismissal of this “mediocre” roof of this saboteur somewhere clearly above ..
  • ars_pro
    ars_pro 2 October 2013 13: 52 New
    0
    Space exploration is one of the most cherished desires of all mankind. The very creation of the “buran” is an enormous amount of work, especially since it was created ahead of science for many years to come, but the creation of a new ashman with even greater advances will require even greater efforts. Nevertheless, to fully conquer the cosmos, our science and knowledge are unfortunately not enough.
    With the feasibility of such projects, it’s even more interesting to fly then we’ll fly, but what's next ...
  • alexpro66
    alexpro66 2 October 2013 14: 01 New
    +2
    Do not forget that Buran was developed as a reusable space system of reusable use with the full name Energy-Buran. Heavy rocket carrier Energy is the most powerful rocket carrier in the history of space exploration. Without it, Buran is scrap metal. And according to Rogozin’s statement, it’s possible to conclude that Popovkin has ruined the industry so much that there is no talk of creating a new rocket carrier and it seems that they decided to return to the tested product plus the production backlog, as far as I heard, 80 percent was saved, if not correct
    1. Nikone
      Nikone 2 October 2013 14: 20 New
      0
      Nothing saved. There is no possibility or sense to revive the Energy-Buran system. All this is empty talk.
      1. alexpro66
        alexpro66 2 October 2013 14: 56 New
        +1
        Believe me, Rogozin does not talk empty-handed .. Where is the link to his statement discard
        1. postman
          postman 2 October 2013 16: 16 New
          0
          Quote: alexpro66
          Believe me, Rogozin does not talk idle.

          1. The results of his one and a half year activities as co-chair of the Moldovan-Russian Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation from Russia. The result is a complete failure.
          Sorry: Rogozin Fan Club and NOTHING more.

          2. “And as for his views (that is, M. Shevchenko), well, they are Wahhabi - I’m talking about this already said on Twitter as well, and on other social networks. I believe that he is a Wahhabi, and it would be more convenient for him to work as Hezbollah's ambassador, which, incidentally, Radzikhovsky just said on your air as well. I agree with Radzikhovsky - Leonid was absolutely right here. ”

          3. "some of his Ideas" - how to resolve the situation on B.V.
          Ambassador to Libya - resigned. Foreign Ministry - shut up. The Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Asian and African Countries at Moscow State University are silent. But the "specialist in international affairs" and the "patriot" Rogozin are supporters of the President, almost the ministers of foreign affairs.

          4. Question - what did the Ambassador of Russia to NATO Rogozin do in the last two years? The result of his life? (Well, apart from waste essno essno)



          5. He puffed up at the expense of "putting the Balts in place" on the issue of transport transit for residents of the Kaliningrad region - he could not.
          He puffed out his cheeks during the confrontation with Ukraine over the Tuzla braid - failed. He undertook to break the government through the knee on the issue of monetization of benefits - a comedy came out.
          In fact, what can a person do, in terms of correcting social imbalances, whose accomplishments boil down to a theatrical hunger strike followed by gluttony in expensive restaurants?
          note: 82% of respondents joined the assumption thatthen Rogozin is more likely to recover from night overeating.
          and?
          and were RIGHT !!!
          1. alexpro66
            alexpro66 2 October 2013 16: 40 New
            -2
            I asked to throw a link to his statement and not an absurd compilation of "dirt". If so summarized, there is not a single Russian politician or official with a “clean” track record ..
            If not difficult to give a reference ..
            1. postman
              postman 2 October 2013 20: 22 New
              +4
              Quote: alexpro66
              I asked to drop a link to his statement

              Listen, well, you are ROGOZINOID (or whatever OLEGYCHINOID), you probably have that.
              GIVE THE PUBLIC A FEW ANNOUNCEMENTS OF POLITICAL TALKMAN - WHICH ARE FULL!
              (oh only USC - no need)
              there are mogets in the tweeter or in the livejournal, it works on the expanses of the tweeter, lively unceasingly (how does it find time for work?)
              AND? AS?
              If you look for links to the applications of this pc, it will take a month and there will not be enough resources, every day it generates a thread
              http://top.rbc.ru/tags/?tag=%D0%EE%E3%EE%E7%E8%ED
              ======================
              Quote: alexpro66
              If not difficult to give a reference ..


              Here you link:
              http://government.ru/news/5447
              speaks and broadcasts technically illiterate people.
              but the refutation (at the level of 10th grade) of his idle talk:
              http://topwar.ru/32243-avariya-protona-neobhodimoe-posleslovie.html#comment-id-1
              429281
              http://topwar.ru/32243-avariya-protona-neobhodimoe-posleslovie.html#comment-id-1
              429766
              but his "highly scientific" doctoral work:
              http://topwar.ru/32243-avariya-protona-neobhodimoe-posleslovie.html#comment-id-1
              429894
              Do you need more? GIVE HIM "REVIEWS"
              Quote: alexpro66
              not an absurd compilation of "dirt."

              Yes?
              show me where is the "absurd", where is the "compilation" and "dirt"
              (think before you write nonsense, think with what is between your ears)
              In, the last "masterpiece"
              http://www.kommersant.md/node/20299
              in Moldova:
              “Ahead is the onset of cold weather, winter, cold autumn. I hope that you will not freeze! ”
              “The most important thing is that in their European steep, serious turns and approaches, the Moldavian side should not disconnect the wagons from the locomotive so that they are not lost”
              And?
              It says the OFFICIAL PERSON OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION (face or what?) To the INDEPENDENT STATE, they are visiting.
              PR
              1. alexpro66
                alexpro66 2 October 2013 20: 45 New
                -1
                Woah, how you suffered! Tweet this to Rogozin ....
                1. postman
                  postman 2 October 2013 23: 07 New
                  +3
                  Quote: alexpro66
                  Woah, how you suffered!


                  - where did it go from me?
                  - you asked = I answered.
                  - by the way, my dear, and bring "smart" sayings and promises that your favorite has fulfilled. AND? weakly

                  Quote: alexpro66
                  Tweet this to Rogozin ....

                  and what will change? (well, if he only spoils me out of spite ..., and even that: I’m not the right figure)
                  What for?
                  I DO NOT USE TWEARS?
                  1. alexpro66
                    alexpro66 3 October 2013 18: 41 New
                    0
                    Favoritism has nothing to do with it! "Smart" statements, judging by the above, is your prerogative. You didn’t work with him, but you didn’t need to roll bricks, so it’s calmer. All that he promised me, he fulfilled everything)))
                    Well, maybe something will change! Well, he won’t sink to your level of education, I guarantee .. Try to use it ..
                    1. postman
                      postman 6 October 2013 16: 10 New
                      0
                      Quote: alexpro66
                      "Smart" statements, judging by the above, is your prerogative.

                      Bring him (DOR) statements, you can not very smart, well, at least reasonable?
                      Give his promises that he fulfilled
                      PLEASE
                      Quote: alexpro66
                      . All that he promised me, he fulfilled everything)))

                      ?
                      Let's say he promised to give you candy, or to appoint his staff as the top manager.
                      POSTABLE AN EXAMPLE THAT HE HAS FOLLOWED (promises): pre-election, for NATO, for social programs, for military topics.
                      WHAT?
                      Quote: alexpro66
                      Well, he will not go down to your level of education, I guarantee.

                      ?
                      Compare mine and yours. BIG DIFFERENCES? and side?
                      YES BETTER COMPARE THE EDUCATION LEVEL of your adored DOR? Well Moldova (a very recent example) I brought
                      Quote: alexpro66
                      Try to use ..

                      Than? starting to say "A" the husband should continue.
                      What are they afraid of?
                      Shortcomings, half-hints - the fate of the female half
          2. studentmati
            studentmati 2 October 2013 21: 06 New
            +3
            Quote: Postman
            In fact, what can a person do, in terms of correcting social imbalances, whose accomplishments boil down to a theatrical hunger strike followed by gluttony in expensive restaurants?


            I think that the DOR theatrically and skillfully plays the role of vice chairman, thereby pulling the wrath of thinking people away from itself ... It does this not by vocation and not of free will, but because it is necessary.
            1. postman
              postman 2 October 2013 23: 08 New
              +4
              Quote: studentmati
              but because it is necessary.

              It seems correctly noticed, that is enough to read his career and statements.
              Well, of course: ACHIEVEMENTS (the benefit is a scanty list, probably even with a negative balance)
              1. studentmati
                studentmati 2 October 2013 23: 19 New
                +2
                Quote: Postman
                (the benefit is a scanty list, probably even with a negative balance)


                Solid populism, designed for the electorate of the late 80s, early 90s. I want to spit on one of its kind.
                1. postman
                  postman 6 October 2013 16: 14 New
                  0
                  Quote: studentmati
                  Sheer populism

                  And if you pay attention - he is like a weather vane: where he blows, there he is.
                  I did not thoroughly study his biography, but only in the media:
                  - he commies, then a market woman, then Natsik, then Yedrosych (or Nashdomrosych), first against the authorities (presidents), then like cheese and butter on the horizon - a strong supporter.
                  HERE OFFER A TEST TO HIM (and to all EDROSAM):
                  -Putin goes into the Teapot party (well, or creates X, U, etc.)
                  WARRANTY 100% DOR and ALL EDROS (99,9999%) will immediately go to this party.
                  Note Putin doesn’t need to create anything, it’s enough to say: EDRO is one g ** but (which, in principle, corresponds to reality), and teapots are the very thing I am with teapots.
                  All-process went, who is faster.
              2. bask
                bask 2 October 2013 23: 39 New
                +1
                Quote: Postman
                Well, of course: ACHIEVEMENTS (the benefit is a scanty list, probably even with a negative balance)

                Journalist PR, what to take from him request tongue
          3. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 2 October 2013 22: 14 New
            0
            Quote: Postman
            I believe that he is a Wahhabi, and it would be more convenient for him to work as Hezbollah’s ambassador

            Hezbollah in contrast to the Wahhabis. And so in everything else I agree with you 100%.
            1. postman
              postman 2 October 2013 23: 10 New
              +2
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              Hezbollah in contrast to the Wahhabis.

              This is not what I came up with, it’s a kolipast of the statement of Maxim Shevchenko, they are on knives with Olegich ....
              you can read it yourself
              To be honest (for me) there is no difference between a hezboloid or a wahobitoid ...
  • postman
    postman 2 October 2013 14: 53 New
    11
    Dmitry Rogozin made a sensational statement that the release of Buran-type spacecraft could resume in the country.
    what else to expect from Olegich, with his education:
    school number 59 with in-depth learning French (now SBEI secondary school No. 1286)
    -International Department of the Faculty of Journalism of Moscow State University
    -In 1988 he graduated with honors Faculty of Economics, University of Marxism-Leninism at the Moscow City Committee of the CPSU.
    probably immediately unsubscribed in a live magazine?

    in order to judge such things, one must at least be able to distinguish a sledgehammer from an ax, say "hole" and not "hole", it is desirable to at least finish vocational schools









    And so it was:

    ================================================== ==============================

    =======
    Drawings? Technical equipment? Machine tools? production workshops? Specialists?, R&D results? Tests? Stands, Workshops? MIC?
    Realities::
    new materials, technologies, goals and objectives, economic constraints ....
    =================================================================== =========================
    conclusion: PR Olegitch, again a PR of his own person, shakes you from a Kalashnikov assault rifle to space.
    Laurels (tugriki-laurels) of Chubais haunt ????
    1. alexpro66
      alexpro66 2 October 2013 15: 01 New
      +1
      Stop! Is it Baikonur if I am not mistaken? So this is not production .. Equipment on the production should have remained ..
      1. postman
        postman 2 October 2013 15: 43 New
        +6
        Quote: alexpro66
        Is it Baikonur if I am not mistaken?

        This is the MIK there, ask Oleg Kaptsov to send my explanation of the differences in the transportation of LV to the UK with us and the Americans, everything is explained there (I just lost, laziness again).
        WITHOUT THIS CONSTRUCTION, WE ARE NEVER
        Quote: alexpro66
        Equipment on the production should have remained ..

        Nothing left.
        This is not a production of ball bearings, all INDIVIDUALLY
        there was no place to maintain and conserve the entire economy in those days (and even now) -it is not possible economically
        The allies are even worse
        Other times, other technologies and materials
    2. Serg 122
      Serg 122 2 October 2013 18: 25 New
      0
      Aha, do not give obviously! I want to apparently steer something like this, so that there are more uncontrolled babosy !!!
    3. No_more
      No_more 2 October 2013 18: 37 New
      0
      This is sad, but "Drawings? Technical equipment? Machine tools? Production workshops? Stands, Workshops? MICK ??" inevitably need new ones. And not drawings, but three-dimensional models in CAD. With drawings, preparation for production and development drags on painfully long. It’s better not to start building the “old” Buran, using technologies and processes 30 years ago.
      Results "R&D Results" have not gone away. Here are good specialists, lack of engineers, and even more so with no experience.

      But this does not mean that this program is not needed. Otherwise, American private traders will take the entire market for putting goods into orbit. I admit personal hostility to Rogozin, but do not shift it to the necessary projects of which he stated. And I apologize in advance if something is wrong.
      1. postman
        postman 2 October 2013 23: 24 New
        +3
        Quote: No_more
        Results "R&D Results" have not gone away.

        -share. NO THEM, believe me
        -Even if there were, DON'T UNDERSTAND THEM, there are no people. (Try it yourself, send you the technical documentation nuuuuu, well, let's say for the S-200 complex?)
        Quote: No_more
        Otherwise, American private traders will take the entire market for putting goods into orbit.

        This will be done by the Chinese and Indians, a probability of 99% (see the dynamics of launches and prices)
        Quote: No_more
        I admit personal hostility to Rogozin,

        Yes, no matter how it is.
        DISLIKE HERE FOR WHAT: FOR SUCH POSITION (s), APPOINT PEOPLE WITHOUT EDUCATION AND UNDERSTANDING THE BASIS OF THE PROBLEM.
        Appointment principle: main league (you know what and whose) GOOD, and everything will be ok.
        This is absurd, the technical, military department should be led by a techie, a warrior, a second education economist , the journalist of philosophers cannot lead him-This is an axiom
        Approximate result of the leadership of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation as a tax specialist and a team in a skirt-WE SEE


        I’m generally for this (I’m not trying to flatter anyone, I didn’t go through the actual one, only the fees, although with a twinkle and a bayonet with a knife)
        a public position may be held by a person who:
        - served a valid sun (ordinary or officer is not important) = if he is not disabled
        -has an appropriate education (Ministry of Health, Medical Officer, Ministry of Defense, "curator of everything, like Olegich" - technical + MANDATORY SECOND (economic)
        -traditional sexual orientation well then you can continue yourself ...

        Quote: No_more
        but it’s not necessary to shift it to the necessary projects of which he announced. And I apologize in advance if something is wrong.

        is "projections", not projects, PR IT (this is its essence)
        -Yes, well, what’s wrong, everything’s right
    4. studentmati
      studentmati 2 October 2013 20: 51 New
      +2
      Quote: Postman
      in order to judge such things, one must at least be able to distinguish a sledgehammer from an ax, say "hole" and not "hole", it is desirable to at least finish vocational schools


      good
  • Mercenary
    Mercenary 2 October 2013 15: 06 New
    -2
    and what will we carry amer tourists on? we carry their astronauts with grief across the sexes and at unions. so the snowstorm needs money stolen in the treasury to return (material assistance to Serdyukov)
  • rotor
    rotor 2 October 2013 15: 26 New
    +2
    It would be better to implement the space program for transporting small satellites to low orbit using carrier aircraft, due to the high economic efficiency and mobility (the construction of cosmodromes is not required).
    1. rotor
      rotor 2 October 2013 15: 40 New
      +1
      Russia is working on the creation of "Air start"
      http://topwar.ru/32976-rossiya-rabotaet-nad-sozdaniem-vozdushnogo-starta.html
    2. rotor
      rotor 2 October 2013 15: 44 New
      0
      Launch aircraft can also launch ICBMs.
      1. rubin6286
        rubin6286 1 December 2013 01: 29 New
        0
        Today, no ICBM aircraft can launch. It is not able to lift a missile from a rocket engine, or, especially, with a solid propellant rocket launcher. It is necessary to study the textbooks "Fundamentals of the theory and design of rockets with rocket engines" and the textbook VA Peter the Great
        "Solid-fuel ballistic missile."
    3. No_more
      No_more 2 October 2013 16: 40 New
      0
      I suppose even this step as an intermediate is quite good. After all, you can gradually come to a full reusable spaceship - evolutionarily. For example, in such stages:
      1st stage launch on a launch vehicle from a spaceport, launching into orbit by a launch vehicle, independent landing on the runway.
      2nd stage launch on a carrier aircraft with a runway, independent exit into orbit (after separation from the carrier aircraft), independent landing on a runway.
      3rd stage independent start from the runway, independent exit into orbit, independent landing on the runway.
      1. rotor
        rotor 2 October 2013 17: 25 New
        0
        I am a supporter of the space elevator.
        Take-off by plane - space elevator.
        And vice versa, a space elevator - a parachute, an airplane.
        1. No_more
          No_more 2 October 2013 18: 25 New
          0
          No one was counting on the space elevator, there is a concept. And the spacecraft even had a sale, and this system is cheaper than a space elevator.
          I think that his time will come (if at all), when the need for the delivery of goods into orbit will grow even more. At the moment, it will not pay off, too much price and high productivity.
      2. rubin6286
        rubin6286 1 December 2013 01: 36 New
        0
        The booster plane will not pick up this reusable ship.
        To tear off a rocket from the launch pad, it is necessary that the thrust of its engines exceed the starting mass by 15 percent. Compare the thrust of the engines of the American rocket. which lifted the Shuttle and the thrust of the engines of the most powerful cargo aircraft today. Everything will become clear. The aircraft can transfer the spacecraft to the spaceport, but the device is not fueled. A plane filled with spacecraft will not pick up.
    4. Serg 122
      Serg 122 2 October 2013 18: 27 New
      0
      The scope is not the same! This comrade, such a trifle is not interested
    5. rubin6286
      rubin6286 1 December 2013 01: 24 New
      0
      Such carrier aircraft still need to be created, and this is money and not only, but the missiles are already there and are successfully used. In addition, satellites today can change their orbits from low to high and vice versa. The spaceport and airdrome, if not in size, then in terms of design, are very similar. It is important not only to put the satellite into orbit, but to bring it from a certain place and at a certain time. So, build new airfields? Do you also need to build residential towns? In a word, delve into.
  • aleks77
    aleks77 2 October 2013 15: 49 New
    0
    http://topwar.ru/uploads/images/2013/873/rszm772.jpg
    http://topwar.ru/uploads/images/2013/851/mvxi108.jpg
  • aleks77
    aleks77 2 October 2013 15: 54 New
    +6
    Our attitude to the dream
  • aleks77
    aleks77 2 October 2013 16: 03 New
    0
    I want to believe with my heart that we can if we want, but with my mind I understand that those who depend on what the country is striving for do not need this, because their own feeder is closer and more understandable.
  • No_more
    No_more 2 October 2013 16: 32 New
    +2
    “Buran” had practically no tasks at the time, now there are a huge number of them:
    • Launch of satellites into near-Earth orbit (from ultra-small commercial to large research. The demand for such launches is now growing extremely rapidly due to the development of satellite navigation and telecommunications.)
    • Maintenance and repair of satellites (Now a very large part of space debris is full-featured vehicles that, for example, ran out of fuel or some kind of system did not go to normal mode. They can be refueled and reanimated, rather than launching new satellites, as now .)
    • Construction of large space stations (with the reduction in the cost of putting weight into orbit, some production projects in space will become economically viable)
    • Delivery of astronauts and their evacuation (people still will not be able to refuse people in space, so the task remains relevant).

    Yuri Karash, unfortunately, only lobbies the interests of rocket scientists and only, but the very concept of putting cargo into orbit with the help of a one-time very expensive rocket is not relevant now. Only cheap light rockets can compete with reusable ships. But ossified rocket scientists do not know how and don’t want to save and change anything.
    1. rotor
      rotor 2 October 2013 16: 43 New
      +1
      But what about the SpaceX Grasshopper rocket with vertical take-off and landing?)))
      1. No_more
        No_more 2 October 2013 16: 48 New
        0
        Well, they are still testing it (in general, the Space X company fellows, gave an impetus to the industry, which was numb).
        And I mentioned that light missiles can compete, here the market itself will put everything in its place. A cheap almost reusable rocket has its own framework for economic efficiency, and its own spaceship.
    2. No_more
      No_more 2 October 2013 16: 44 New
      +2
      I wonder who here distinguished himself with such knowledge of the economic fundamentals of the programs "Space Shuttle" and "Buran" and put a minus. I am willing to explain my position.
      Personally, at the Samara Aerospace University, he wrote a term paper on this topic. I would like to listen to the opponent and his arguments)
    3. Cynic
      Cynic 2 October 2013 18: 23 New
      +2
      Quote: No_more
      “Buran” had practically no tasks at the time, now there are a huge number of them:

      Yes, that everyone has withered _ Buran, Buran.
      There are many tasks, yes, but why is Buran himself ?! The same clipper.
      Said the same
      Quote: Yuferev Sergey
      the release of Buran-type spacecraft may resume in the country.

      Type! And this is a very broad framework and in fact all modern projects are something like Buran and Shuttle.
    4. rubin6286
      rubin6286 1 December 2013 01: 42 New
      0
      This is not true. Buran was made to solve very specific problems and its creation did not abolish the use of cosmic rockets. The ship was an integral element of the military space system of the USSR Ministry of Defense, which later became the forces of the East Kazakhstan region.
  • crambol
    crambol 2 October 2013 16: 50 New
    -1
    Quote: No_more
    • Satellites in low Earth orbit
    • Maintenance and repair of satellites

    It’s cheaper to make rockets.
    Quote: No_more
    • Construction of large space stations

    Before doing them, you need to answer the question - on ..ya. We have no concept of their necessity.
    Quote: No_more
    • Delivery of astronauts and their evacuation

    See the previous one.
  • saag
    saag 2 October 2013 18: 04 New
    -1
    Quote: No_more
    Stage 3: independent start from the runway, independent entry into orbit, independent landing on the runway.

    Yes, there are no problems, it remains only to solve the problem of obtaining and storing atomic hydrogen. as well as right up to the moon and back it will be possible to drive
  • vomag
    vomag 2 October 2013 18: 06 New
    0
    gentlemen, I think that you went a little different plane of the question and you do not see beyond the trees of the forest. I am almost sure (as one character said) that this is ju-ju-ju july. whether they want to assure someone or to assure themselves, I think the work aimed at Mars has gone. wink ) even no ice (and radiation minus the temperature of the solar winds and lope, who knows where the hell ???). And here they remembered the old buran and satellites in orbit the trucks both laden and will drag!