Military Review

"Proton-M" waiting for serious competition with the American rocket "Falcon 9"

32
8 December 2013 from the Baikonur cosmodrome successfully launched the Proton-M launch vehicle, which launched an English communications satellite, one of the three vehicles with which the Anglo-American corporation expects to create a global mobile communications system. A satellite launched into orbit should provide telecommunications services in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Now the Russian Proton carrier rocket remains one of the most popular for space launches. However, in the near future, Russia, apparently, will have to seriously move: the market of space launches is waiting for a very tough competition. The US space agency NASA is actively developing a program of private-public partnership in this area.

The first space commercial ship in this program was the SpaceX-launched Dragon, developed by SpaceX. In May 2012, he successfully delivered kg of payloads to the 500. Especially for this spacecraft, the Falcon launch vehicle was created. 4 December 2013 of the year from the cosmodrome located on Cape Canaveral, this rocket successfully launched a communications satellite into orbit. And although the start was made only with the third attempt, the satellite was successfully launched into Earth orbit. The main thing in this event is that the launch of the American Falcon missile cost 30 million dollars cheaper than using the Russian Protons for this purpose.

Initially, the launch of the Falcon 9 rocket with the SES 8 telecommunications satellite on board was scheduled to take place on November 25 of the year 2013, but during the preparation of the rocket for launch, various technical problems were noted several times, because of which the launch was postponed. The launch of the launch vehicle was postponed to Thanksgiving Day - a holiday celebrated in the US on November 28. But this time, in preparation for the launch, there was a failure: the automation stopped the rocket launch after ignition, as the engine power of the rocket did not increase fast enough. The Falcon 9 rocket was removed from the launch pad and sent to the hangar for the engine inspection procedure. The next launch attempt was scheduled for December 2, but the launch was postponed by the 4 number for additional verification. As a result, December 4 launch still took place and ended successfully.

"Proton-M" waiting for serious competition with the American rocket "Falcon 9"
Launch of Falcon 9 rocket

Rocket Falcon 9 is a two-stage ship, which was developed by a private company from California, SpaceX. The company's founder is the American billionaire Elon Musk. Specialists of the company say that the rocket created by them is the cheapest means of launching various spacecraft into space at the moment. The cost of launching an American rocket ranges from 56 to 77 million dollars. At the same time, the cost of launching the Russian Proton into space is 100 million dollars, and the European launch vehicle Ariane 5 is 200 million dollars.

The Falcon 9 (“9 Falcon”) is an American disposable launch vehicle of the Falcon family, developed by SpaceX. The first launch of this rocket took place on 4 June 2010 of the year. Currently, various configuration options are offered for this launch vehicle, which differ in mass of the payload delivered to orbit. Falcon rockets are able to deliver cargoes in the 10,4-32 tonnes range and into a geo-transfer orbit (GPO) in the 4,7-19,5 tonnes range to a low reference orbit (LEO). The launch cost depends on the mass and volume of the payload (for the Falcon 9 rocket, these values ​​are 10 and 4,7 t, respectively). The payload container has dimensions in the range of the 3,6-5,2 meter. The Falcon 9 rocket can also be used to launch a commercial manned spacecraft (PKA) Dragon and its cargo counterpart, designed to deliver cargo to the ISS. These ships are also developed by SpaceX.

The basic version of the launch vehicle consists of 2-x steps. The first stage of the rocket uses 9 LRE Merlin 1C, and the second stage - 1 LRE Merlin Vacuum, which is a modification of the same engine, adapted to work in a vacuum. Just like the Falcon 1 launch vehicle, the Falcon 9 rocket launch sequence assumes that it is possible to stop the launch process in case of detection of problems with the rocket systems and engines before launch. If any malfunctions are detected, the launching process is interrupted and the oxidizer and fuel are pumped out of the rocket. Due to this, for both stages of the launch vehicle, it is possible to reuse them and conduct full-fledged bench tests before flying into space.

Manned spacecraft (PKA) Dragon

Another blow to the Russian space program could be the refusal of Americans to deliver astronauts with the help of the Russian Soyuz spacecraft. According to specialists, every place for an astronaut aboard a Russian ship costs the US budget 65 million dollars. Therefore, the US space agency expects to completely abandon the Roscosmos services by 2017. It is assumed that by this date private spacecraft will deliver into space not only payloads, but also astronauts. In will already have ships Dragon and Cygnus. In addition, 2 spacecraft is being prepared by Boeing and Sierra Nevada.

Booster "Proton-M"

The Russian Proton-M launch vehicle is a modernized version of the Proton-K launch vehicle; it has the best performance, energy-mass and environmental characteristics. The first launch of this rocket with the Briz-M upper stage took place on April 7 of the year 2001. Proton-M is a three-stage launch vehicle with a mass of about 702 tons. The use of enlarged head fairings, including 5 meters in diameter, in the Proton-M rocket allows for more than 2 fold increase in volume for placing payload on board. The increase in the volume of the head fairing of the rocket allows, among other things, to use on the Proton-M some promising booster blocks.

The main objective of the missile modernization was to replace its SU - control system, which was developed as early as 1960-ies and morally obsolete, including on the element base. As a result of the modernization, the Proton-M rocket received a new SU, which is built on the basis of the on-board digital computing complex. The main elements of this system were pre-flight tests on other launch vehicles that have already been successfully operated. The use of a new control system has significantly improved the technical and operational performance of the rocket. For example, it was possible to achieve an improvement in the consumption rate of the onboard fuel reserve due to its more complete production.


An important task, which was implemented with the rocket designed, was to reduce the area of ​​fields that are allocated for the fall of the spent first stages of the launch vehicle. It should be noted that for Russia, which carries out launches from the cosmodrome leased from Kazakhstan, this is a very urgent problem. The reduction of the area of ​​the fall fields of the spent first stages of the rocket was realized with the help of a controlled descent of the accelerator of the 1 th stage to a limited area.

It is worth noting that reducing the size of the fields falling rocket stages, in addition to reducing the rent, also allows you to simplify the task of collecting and subsequent disposal of the remnants of the 1-th stage of the launch vehicle. In addition, elements of the first stage of the rocket fall to the ground already almost “clean” - the cyclogram of the first stage of the rocket rocket engine is built in such a way that it provides full production of components from the tanks of the rocket, which leads to an increase in the environmental performance of the Proton-M.

In addition, the use of a new Briz-M upper stage in the launch vehicle, which operates on such fuel components as unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine and nitrogen tetraxide, has made it possible to improve the payload indicator, which can be put into geostationary orbit - up to 3,7 t, and Georetransfer orbit - more than 6 tons.

Information sources
http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=1164795
http://www.federalspace.ru/465
http://ria.ru/space/20131204/981732999.html
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9
Author:
32 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. saag
    saag 20 December 2013 08: 50
    +4
    not surprising, the falcon has oxygen-kerosene vapor, which gives it an advantage
    1. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 20 December 2013 13: 50
      0
      Quote: saag
      not surprising, the falcon has oxygen-kerosene vapor, which gives it an advantage


      On ecology, apparently ... this is the very science from which greenpeace works ...

      So what's the advantage then ???

      Apparently a smaller payload, the main advantage of Falcon, instead of one expensive Proton, you can run two cheap Falcons ...

      As in a joke - steal a carriage of vodka, pour vodka, hand over bottles, drink money.
      1. saag
        saag 20 December 2013 14: 31
        +2
        Higher specific impulse
      2. Shur
        Shur 20 December 2013 23: 47
        +2
        Yes, it’s really not clear in numbers: Proton M
        "The use of the Briz-M upper stage as part of the Proton-M launch vehicle makes it possible to increase the mass of the payload launched into the geostationary orbit up to 3,5 tons, and into the transfer orbit up to more than 6 tons. The first launch of the complex" Proton-M "" and further "The total cost of" Proton-M "with block" DM "or" Breeze-M "in mid-2011 was about 2,4 billion rubles (about $ 80 million or € 58 million). from the Proton launch vehicle itself (1,348 billion), RB Briz-M (420 million) [64], delivery of components to Baikonur (20 million) and a range of launch services (570 million) "Divide $ 80 into 000 kg the answer is $ 000 3500 per 22 kg of payload. And what is the ficus?
        But "In the late 90s of the XX century, the cost of the commercial launch of the Proton-K LV with the DM block ranged from $ 65 to $ 80 million [58]. At the beginning of 2004, the launch cost was reduced to $ 25 million due to a significant increase in competition [ 59] (for a comparison of the cost of launches, see the Cost of delivering cargo to orbit.) Since then, the cost of launches on Protons has steadily increased and at the end of 2008 reached about $ 100 million for GPOs using Proton-M with the Briz-M block "However, since the onset of the global economic crisis in 2008, the ruble / dollar exchange rate has depreciated by 33%, which has led to a drop in the cost of launching to about $ 80 million. [60] Those. they reduced it to $ 25 million .. fuck, what kind of Falcon 9 is here ..
        But vpedia give the cost of both 4,5 thousand $ / kg of payload, oddly clear.
    2. AVV
      AVV 20 December 2013 14: 45
      +3
      While the Americans begin to launch their Falcon, we and the Angara will arrive in time !!!
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 20 December 2013 16: 20
        +2
        Quote: AVV
        While the Americans begin to launch their Falcon, we and the Angara will arrive in time !!!

        Falcon flies, but where is the Angara?
        1. bif
          bif 20 December 2013 21: 46
          +6
          Quote: Nayhas
          Falcon flies, but where is the Angara?

          Falcon 9 - made only 2 flights, it still does not fly ... That is. Yesterday, when it came to Buran and the Shuttle, you weren’t happy with the Buran’s successful flight, and then the 2 flight at Falcon 9 and that’s all ... only success lies ahead.
          Nayhas (2) RU Yesterday, 10: 15 ↑
          Duc because no one set such a task before the shuttle. And Buran was not intended for operation without a crew, they simply decided not to risk the crew. The fact that the flight ended safely is undoubtedly the merit of the designers, but there was only one flight. Based on one test flight, it is rather difficult to talk about the reliability of the system. Once an astronaut ...

          Double standards so to speak ...
        2. rolik
          rolik 21 December 2013 03: 30
          +1
          Quote: Nayhas
          Falcon flies, but where is the Angara?

          Wait East.
      2. Siberian German
        Siberian German 21 December 2013 02: 49
        +5
        as it is hard to believe - the Americans are methodically doing their job and we have throwing
      3. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
        Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 17 January 2018 06: 17
        +1
        I am writing from the future, hehe, how are the protons there, like a hangar?
        1. Madjestik85
          Madjestik85 April 13 2019 17: 36
          0
          but in any way ... this is the expected outcome .. it’s ridiculous to read now who did not understand this
  2. tanit
    tanit 20 December 2013 09: 01
    +4
    Oh how! The same carrier under both the PAC and the THC and the satellites. wassat To dream is not harmful.
    1. postman
      postman 20 December 2013 12: 24
      +3
      Quote: tanit
      To dream is not harmful.

      And what is stopping you?
      Unlike Proton, this is not a modified combat ICBM (with specific indicators of acceleration, active site, lack of CAC, toxic fuel and an INITIALLY absent ability to withdraw spacecraft with pilots from the emergency launch vehicle at any site)
      http://www.spacex.com/dragon?vid=dragon&width=900&height=520&inline=true#modal-d

      isplay

      and DRAGON is unified as a TC and as PA and Falcon are unified under a dragon, and not only under MKTS the same





      1. dirty trick
        dirty trick 20 December 2013 14: 22
        0
        Quote: Postman
        And what is stopping you?
        Unlike Proton, this is not a modified combat ICBM (with specific indicators of acceleration, active site, lack of CAC, toxic fuel and an INITIALLY absent ability to withdraw spacecraft with pilots from the emergency launch vehicle at any site)

        + You, for this clarification. for those who like to compare the cost of rockets - pay attention to the fact that the "protons" launched into space are the veterans ALREADY LEFT on duty. for them, launching into space for peaceful purposes is actually a disposal process.
        1. postman
          postman 20 December 2013 14: 43
          +6
          Quote: dirty trick
          ALREADY DEFENDED Veterans. d

          Uh, no.
          So it was WHEN THAT, at first, a long time, but NOT NOW
          ROCKOT, DNIPER, MARINE START, yes

          but about the cost, in the cost of launching a Proton, it’s NOT taken into account how much the country spent (USSR) on their development
        2. Shur
          Shur 21 December 2013 00: 10
          +1
          Good disposal all the same, but it's time to do the hangar, and not to cut the budget.
      2. Shur
        Shur 21 December 2013 00: 08
        +1
        It's not because of a good life that ICBMs fly into space :) There is no one to stir up some budget eaters, but it's high time "yesterday".
      3. Whatman
        Whatman 19 January 2022 05: 23
        0
        Didn't know that Proton (UR-500) is a ballistic missile! Straight eyes climb on the forehead!
      4. Whatman
        Whatman 19 January 2022 05: 25
        0
        The proton is not on any combat duty. This is a rocket only for launch into orbit.
  3. JackTheRipper
    JackTheRipper 20 December 2013 09: 51
    +2
    Falcon-9 start:

    [/ Quote]
  4. sebast
    sebast 20 December 2013 11: 22
    +1
    Article nonsense compared completely different pk! You also write that the whale is a competitor to the elephant laughing
    1. postman
      postman 20 December 2013 12: 17
      +8
      Quote: sebast
      I'm completely different pk!

      ? WHY??????????

      From left to right: “Falcon 1”, “Falcon 9” v1.0, “Falcon 9” v1.1, “Falcon Heavy”
      Falcon 9- Comparable launch vehicles: Zenit 3 - Delta IV - Atlas V - Arian 5 - GSLV Mk. III (India) - The Great March 5 - Hangar 5 - H-IIB - Proton m
      Number of steps 2
      Length version 1.0: 55 m
      version 1.1: 68.4 m
      Diameter 3,7 m
      Starting weight version 1.0: 333 t
      version 1.1: 506 t
      Payload mass
      - on DOE version 1.0: 10,4 t

      version 1.1: 13 t
      - on GPO version 1.0: 4,2 t
      version 1.0: 4,8 t

      Proton-M
      Number of steps 3 - 4 (hereinafter for Proton-M of the third phase of modification)
      Xnumx length m
      Diameter
      Starting weight 705 t
      Type of fuel UDMH + AT
      Payload mass
      - at DOE ~ 23 t
      - at GPO 6,15 t (with RB Briz-M)
      - on GSO up to 3,7 tons (with RB "Briz-M")

      ===========================
      SpaceX Continues Work on Falcon Heavy Booster

      This rocket will consist from a package of 3 first steps, as well as the 1st standard 2nd stage of the Falcon-9. It is understood that the mass brought to the geo-transitional orbit will be approximately 21 tons, and to a low - 53 tons. Among other things, the superheavy rocket will fly in a partially reusable version with returnable blocks of the first stage of the launch vehicle.
      1. sebast
        sebast 20 December 2013 13: 03
        +1
        Eeeemmmm .... fuel?
        1. saag
          saag 20 December 2013 14: 36
          +2
          kerosene oxygen
        2. postman
          postman 20 December 2013 14: 44
          +2
          Quote: sebast
          Eeeemmmm .... fuel?

          already
          Quote: sebast
          kerosene oxygen

          Americans do not "like" UDMH and AT ...
          YES AND NO SENSE, this is not a remake of a military ICBM (Proton)
          + energy
          1. sebast
            sebast 20 December 2013 15: 39
            +3
            I wouldn’t sit on a rocket except on kerosene-oxygen, for example, and any sane person too (Including on proton-m). I mean, these are different missiles by definition
            1. postman
              postman 20 December 2013 16: 56
              +3
              Quote: sebast
              I wouldn’t sit on a rocket except on kerosene-oxygen, for example, and any sane person too

              Who cares?
              -If there is a "leak" (which is very unlikely for such launch vehicles), then the spacecraft is unlikely to suffer (well, if the window is not left open)
              -If there is an explosion .... kerosene + oxygen will get worse worse
              (for this there is CAC)

              The main problem is for maintenance personnel and disposal (discharge)
              1. sebast
                sebast 20 December 2013 17: 32
                +1
                Someone flew out of people into space except flying oxygen kerosene?
                1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Ascetic
        Ascetic 20 December 2013 16: 11
        +2
        Basil! About engines Merlin 1D Do you have infa, about which the Americans say that these are the most effective rocket engines at the moment.
        1. Ascetic
          Ascetic 20 December 2013 16: 23
          +3
          I found a movie with the work of this engine. It is alleged that
          The Merlin 1D engine has completely passed all the necessary ground tests. He worked in for 185 seconds with a thrust of 66000 kg. That is how much is needed for the Falcon 9 rocket to take off the ground. The tests took place at the SpaceX training ground in Texas.

          Merlin 1D is based on proven technology on which earlier SpaceX rocket engines were made. Falcon 9 equipped with nine Merlin 1D engines will be able to issue 680 tons of vacuum traction. Thus, the new engines are the most efficient rocket engines ever created.

          The creators of the Merlin 1D engine announced a record in the ratio of thrust to engine weight (thrust ratio). It amounted to 160: 1. In RD-170, this figure is 83: 1.NK-33 engine. Its characteristics: draft at sea level - 154 tons, in vacuum - 171 tons, the ratio of thrust to weight - 136: 1. You can also remember S2.253 engines (thrust-weight ratio - 155: 1, years of operation - 1949-1955), RD-701 (the thrust-weight ratio at the maximum three-component mode was as much as 212: 1, thrust reached 408 tons in vacuum, it was developed in the 2000s for the reusable MAKS system), RD-270 (thrust-to-weight ratio was 201: 1, thrust in vacuum - 685 tons, construction and testing - 1962-1969, also for the lunar program), RD-253 (thrust-weight ratio of 172: 1, thrust in vacuum - up to 186 tons, it has been in operation since 1963). So what's the big deal?

          1. postman
            postman 20 December 2013 17: 00
            +3
            Quote: Ascetic
            He worked for 185 seconds with a draft of 66000 kg

            The Merlin 1D engine was judged flight-ready after firing for a total of nearly 33 minutes over the course of 28 different tests at SpaceX's rocket-development facility in McGregor, Texas.



            Quote: Ascetic
            What is the thing then?

            -Our (listed) afterburning, Merlin 1D open loop
            -The engine is supposed to be used repeatedly after splashdown and salvage of the spent stage in the sea.
            + it's still private traders !!!!
          2. Aleks.Antonov
            Aleks.Antonov 6 January 2015 23: 15
            0
            The trick is that Americans are good marketers. They do not see at close range, and do not want to see the achievements of competitors, but they stick out their achievements in every possible way. They pretended not to know about the discovery of water on the moon by Soviet scientists in the early 70s of the last century, but raised a fuss when they themselves established this fact a couple of years ago. They repeat the classic kerosene engine, but shout that it is the best. The gentlemen planned to return the first stage back safe and sound, and possibly the second stage, which means additional fuel on board, which means a decrease in payload. But at the same time, statements follow that the "falcon" will have the highest efficiency. However, I personally do not care about all this! It upsets me that the Russian space program has been marking time in the same place for 28 years. No clear goals, no development programs. Even "Angara" is not happy. Who are we creating it for? For what? Why are we flying to the ISS? To save the cosmonaut corps? Or to teach the whole world? For our cosmonautics, this is a long-passed stage. And the gap is not visible. Unfortunately.
        2. postman
          postman 20 December 2013 16: 40
          0
          hi, everything that dug up (quickly) threw in a personal
      3. 1c-inform-city
        1c-inform-city 21 December 2013 00: 36
        +2
        Because the article gives a rocket with a payload of 6.5 tons and the Yankees announced the cost of 70mult. The declared cost of launching the Proton 100 is the maximum cost of 23 tons and note that since I think the proton is a serial rocket, I think it can be easily moved at a cost. So, it will survive to the Angara. And that will be later even cheaper due to fuel. And even the Americans most likely declared the cost and according to Proton it is the cost to the customer, in general, cunning.
  5. Semurg
    Semurg 20 December 2013 11: 25
    +4
    what competition will intensify that I think will be a boon to everyone who uses the services of space cabs.
    1. Deniska
      Deniska 20 December 2013 22: 40
      +2
      I fully support !!! Then ours will stir and there will not be such that 3 satellites banged at once.
  6. Sirocco
    Sirocco 20 December 2013 11: 45
    0
    . The company's specialists say that the rocket they created is the cheapest at the moment time to launch various devices into space. The cost of launching an American rocket ranges from 56 to 77 million dollars.
    I somehow do not believe much in such breakthrough technologies from the USA in this area, until now they used our engines, probably they simply licked them, and it was not for nothing that engineers from UMZ worked there this summer. But in general, all this looks like the Shale Revolution, they say cheap and fast, and the fact that half of the cost of gas production from shale is compensated by the state is not. Time will judge. While they fly on ours, and Dragon, about which some made noise with foam at the mouth, until it brings great results.
    1. postman
      postman 20 December 2013 17: 22
      +1
      Quote: Sirocco
      probably they just licked them

      Merlin 1D open cycle
      we have almost everything closed

      Quote: Sirocco
      While flying on ours, d

      too few starts.
  7. Clegg
    Clegg 20 December 2013 12: 23
    +3
    What can replace heptyl with Proton-M?
    1. saag
      saag 20 December 2013 14: 33
      +3
      nothing, essentially everything needs to be changed, new fuel is a new rocket
    2. postman
      postman 20 December 2013 17: 27
      +2
      Quote: Clegg
      What can replace heptyl with Proton-M?

      It's impossible.
      "replacement" TK is a NEW LRE + new FUEL TANKS, NEW VALVES, NEW TN ... 99% of the cost of a new rocket
      ===========
      And why?
      It is a rocket engine, and it has already been created:

      Korea Space Launch Vehicle # 1, KSLV-1 (85% pH) "Angara" with RD-191

      so what so far under the "Korean" flag, but what a thorn to the Americans (they refused to provide technology to South Korea)
      1. Clegg
        Clegg 20 December 2013 17: 33
        +2
        Quote: Postman
        And why?


        they say that

        It has a strong toxic and mutagenic effect (for example, it is four times more toxic than hydrocyanic acid). Effect on the human body: irritation of the mucous membranes of the eyes, respiratory tract and lungs; strong excitement of the central nervous system; gastrointestinal upset (nausea, vomiting), in high concentrations, loss of consciousness may occur
        1. postman
          postman 20 December 2013 19: 08
          +6
          1.Only when "spills", accidents .. he himself dissolved the frogs (foolishly)

          the truth (what a sin to conceal) with the fall of the steps ... hmm. BALANCE IS ALWAYS
          2. Well, I meant "why try to change TC on Proton" !! it is senseless.

          3.ANGAR
          1. Clegg
            Clegg 20 December 2013 20: 55
            +3
            rakhmet for answers and + from me wink
            1. postman
              postman 20 December 2013 22: 53
              +1
              Quote: Clegg
              Rahmet

              "Thanks" -!!!
              I didn’t know.
              Bitte sehr
  8. i.xxx-1971
    i.xxx-1971 20 December 2013 13: 31
    +1
    Something the author with the masses of the payload confused. I agree with Sirocco.
  9. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 20 December 2013 13: 43
    +4
    In May 2012, he successfully delivered 500 kg of payloads to the ISS. Specially for this spacecraft, the Falcon launch vehicle was created. the launch of the American Falcon rocket cost $ 30 million less than the use of Russian "Protons" for these purposes.
    The author clearly distorts. The proton is a heavy-class carrier with a load in my opinion of up to 25000 kg., So compare 500 and 25000. Hence, the cost of launching cheaper by 30 million is not impressive 100 million minus thirty equals seventy 100 to 25 or 70 to 0.5 nonsense. If he compared with the cost of the zenith then wherever it went.
  10. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 20 December 2013 13: 45
    +1
    the Americans seem to again portray the great Goodwin
    1. Whatman
      Whatman 19 January 2022 05: 30
      0
      2022 reports: you were right
  11. sevtrash
    sevtrash 20 December 2013 14: 10
    +6
    Probably the main problem of Proton is fuel toxicity. But for Americans and Europeans, the main problem of Proton is that it is Russian.
    1. postman
      postman 20 December 2013 14: 46
      +2
      Quote: sevtrash
      Probably the main problem of Proton is fuel toxicity

      No, the fact that his "dad" has a combat ICBM, and technology is already more than half a century (as well as factories)
      EUROPEAN (ecology obsessed) USE UDMH and AT QUIETLY AT Arian !!!
      ... true UK in French Guiana has a place to be
      Quote: sevtrash
      But for Americans and Europeans, the main problem of Proton is that it is Russian.

      -Really expensive (the Chinese and Indians will be cheaper)
      -It is not very comfortable for a great power to be dependent (they all are on TOPVAR too)
      strategic independence
  12. iConst
    iConst 20 December 2013 14: 59
    +1
    Here's what I read:
    The advantages of a pair of UDMH + AT include:
    surpasses a pair of oxygen + kerosene and a pair of oxygen + hydrogen in density (1170 against 1070 and 285 (kg / m³))
    greater explosion safety compared to a hydrogen + oxygen pair
    auto-ignition upon contact of fuel components
    the possibility of long-term storage in seasoned form at normal temperatures
    The disadvantages of UDMH + AT include:
    toxicity
    carcinogenicity
    the probability of explosion UDMH in the presence of an oxidizing agent
    lower specific impulse than oxygen-kerosene pair
    the price of UDMH is much higher than the price of kerosene, which is essential for large missiles [3]
  13. iConst
    iConst 20 December 2013 15: 01
    +1
    In general, the Chinese will soon fill the cosmos. Hardworking guys ...
    1. Deniska
      Deniska 20 December 2013 22: 45
      +1
      Comrade to Comrade, Comrade to Comrade .... Hello, Tovarisya !!
  14. Petrhabra
    Petrhabra 20 December 2013 21: 27
    +1
    Launch? Well done. Cheaper? Good. Shuttles they also had a miracle of miracles, where are they now? It’s a good idea, they will crush part of the market for themselves, but they won’t make a serious competition to the proton, because we have a ROCKET verified by MANY launches. What about them? Yes, and we have designer tea is not dominoes with colleagues play :)
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 20 December 2013 22: 08
      +2
      Quote: PetrHabara
      Launch? Well done. Cheaper? Good. Shuttles they also had a miracle of miracles, where are they now?

      Shuttles, for a minute, were a program that worked very well.
      1. dv-v
        dv-v 21 December 2013 04: 30
        +1
        nothing like this! - Kanesh, technology, then, but, then they strongly devoured the Nasa budget and, in general, almost buried this structure.
  15. saag
    saag 20 December 2013 21: 34
    +1
    Quote: PetrHabara
    What about them?

    And after their first successful launch of the satellite to the GSO, and if it will be cheaper than Proton, the service provider will change
  16. kelevra
    kelevra 20 December 2013 23: 01
    +2
    Interested in one line, namely, that the launch of an American rocket cost 30 million cheap! As so, Russia was not only famous for its high and accurate technology, but also for comparatively very cheap materials and overall costs! How did the Americans do it cheaper ! I really want to hope that all their problems with launches are not single and that the cost is simply underestimated. To be equal to Russian prices.
    1. Locksmith
      Locksmith 21 December 2013 00: 00
      +1
      Quote: kelevra
      Interested in one line, namely, that the launch of an American rocket cost 30 million cheap!

      They have already said here, Americans love to compare the incomparable, confirm the unconfirmed, the proton makes 2500 kg, their miracle fart is -500, do you still need arguments? wink
  17. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 21 December 2013 01: 49
    +1
    Quote: Postman
    Quote: sebast
    I'm completely different pk!

    ? WHY??????????

    From left to right: “Falcon 1”, “Falcon 9” v1.0, “Falcon 9” v1.1, “Falcon Heavy”
    Falcon 9- Comparable launch vehicles: Zenit 3 - Delta IV - Atlas V - Arian 5 - GSLV Mk. III (India) - The Great March 5 - Hangar 5 - H-IIB - Proton m
    Number of steps 2
    Length version 1.0: 55 m
    version 1.1: 68.4 m
    Diameter 3,7 m
    Starting weight version 1.0: 333 t
    version 1.1: 506 t
    Payload mass
    - on DOE version 1.0: 10,4 t

    version 1.1: 13 t
    - on GPO version 1.0: 4,2 t
    version 1.0: 4,8 t

    Proton-M
    Number of steps 3 - 4 (hereinafter for Proton-M of the third phase of modification)
    Xnumx length m
    Diameter
    Starting weight 705 t
    Type of fuel UDMH + AT
    Payload mass
    - at DOE ~ 23 t
    - at GPO 6,15 t (with RB Briz-M)
    - on GSO up to 3,7 tons (with RB "Briz-M")

    ===========================
    SpaceX Continues Work on Falcon Heavy Booster

    This rocket will consist from a package of 3 first steps, as well as the 1st standard 2nd stage of the Falcon-9. It is understood that the mass brought to the geo-transitional orbit will be approximately 21 tons, and to a low - 53 tons. Among other things, the superheavy rocket will fly in a partially reusable version with returnable blocks of the first stage of the launch vehicle.

    As far as I understand, the article is about a rocket with a payload of 6-7 tons maximum and it is not correct to compare the launch scene of a product with a load of 23 tons.
  18. Enot-poloskun
    Enot-poloskun 21 December 2013 07: 50
    +1
    Question:

    Do I understand correctly that the Russian Proton can launch several large satellites into orbit, while Falcon can only have one?

    Then what is the competitive advantage of the Americans?
    1. tanit
      tanit 21 December 2013 11: 24
      +1
      Unfortunately, the Americans, too (from their words) can pull out a blaster (not just one satellite, but a bunch of them) But when they get out, then we’ll shout that WE are behind. And so, they have a lag of 20 years. The People's Republic of China has 40. And so that they don’t write iksperdy is a reality.
  19. tanit
    tanit 21 December 2013 11: 15
    0
    The voiced and promoted advantage is clear. In reality, everything is a bit wrong.
  20. Andriuha077
    Andriuha077 22 December 2013 00: 51
    +2
    "The flight of the Soviet super-powerful rocket Energia was also not in vain. For the Americans. Its RD-180 engine, manufactured at the Energomash near Moscow, now lifts their Atlases into space. The same ones that were delivered to Mars by rovers."

    "The rocket that came from the cold" / The Engine That Came In Fr ...
    This is an amazing technology for American designers of the "closed type" of the NK-33 rocket engines, designed by S. Kuznetsov for the H-1 carrier in Samara according to the Soviet "lunar program".

    This is what the American experts themselves say about this:
    - This engine ... has led to a review of all US space technology ...
    - ... We did not know such technologies ...
    - ... These are the best engines on the planet. Western scientists considered this technology impossible ...
    - ... Soviet experts, 20 years ago, created a technology that is still inaccessible to Americans ...
    - ... Let someone try to explain why in the USA they still spend a lot of money on the development of technologies that the Russians left behind in the early 60 of the last century ...
    - ... We, professionals, had no idea how the Russians do it ...
    - ... This level in the USA was considered impossible ...

    The Atlas II series performed 63 flights with the last launch of 31 on August 2004. It is considered one of the most reliable launch vehicles in the world. Although Atlas rockets were originally created as a weapon against the Soviet Union / Russia, Atlas III and Atlas V use RD-180 rocket engines designed and manufactured at the Russian NPO Energomash plant. The United States plans to produce these engines under license from Pratt & Whitney.

    Atlas IIIB
    Atlas IIIB uses ... loads weighing up to 10218 kg per DOE and up to 4500 kg per GPO.
    Atlas v
    Atlas V Heavy
    March engine RD-180
    Mon at NOU Mon at GPO 13 000 kg 29 400 kg
  21. Andriuha077
    Andriuha077 22 December 2013 02: 27
    +1
    Ur-xnumx
    First Stage Engines RD-253, were developed in the Design Bureau of Power Engineering (general designer V.P. Glushko). This engine was rejected S.P. Korolev for use in a rocket H-1 из-за toxicity components of its fuel and insufficient specific momentum.

    H-1
    Soviet super-heavy carrier rocket. Developed since the mid-1960's.
    Marching engine Н1: 30 x НК-15 / Н1Ф: 30 x НК-15, НК-33
    The N-1 carrier was made according to a sequential arrangement and operation of steps and included 5 steps, all of which used oxygen-kerosene engines.

    Proton-k
    In the initial version, it inherited the first stage of the UR-500 launch vehicle. Later, in the early 90 of the twentieth century, the thrust of engines of the first stage RD-253 was increased by 7,7%, and the new engine version was called RD-275.

    Proton-M
    Although basically the design of the Proton-M launch vehicle is based on the Proton-K launch vehicle, major changes in the control system have been replaced by the BCVK.
    Increase in the power of the engines of the first stage of the launch vehicle (replacement of the RD-275 with the RD-276).
    The modification of the RD-275M rocket engine is also called the RD-276, but for the 2009 year the most common is the RD-275M (14Д14М).

    RD-253
    Fuel: Heptyl
    Oxidant: N2O4
    Thrust: Vacuum: 166-186.8 tf
    (1.63-1.83 MN) [1]
    Sea level: 150-170.4 tf
    (1.47-1.67 MN) [1]
    Specific Impulse: Vacuum: 316 c
    Sea level: 285 c

    NK-33
    Fuel: kerosene
    Oxidizing agent: liquid oxygen
    Thrust: 171 Tc in Vacuum
    154 Tc at sea level
    Specific impulse: 331 with in a vacuum
    297 with at sea level
    Operating time: 365 with
    AJ-26 is 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 (from among 37 copies purchased from SNTK them . N. D. Kuznetsova), adding American electronics, checking the engine for compatibility with fuel produced in the USA, as well as equipping it with a universal joint for controlling the thrust vector (similar to NK-33-1).
    The first flight of the Antares rocket with two AJ-26 engines took place on 21.04.2013
    April 21 2013 of the year at 21: 00 GMT. The Antares booster rocket has successfully launched into orbit the overall layout of the Cygnus space truck. Together with him, three small NASA PhoneSat satellites and one commercial remote sensing nanosatellite were delivered into orbit.
  22. Sax
    Sax 22 December 2013 02: 36
    +2
    NASA has tested an unusual landing module in free flight
    The landing module of the Morpheus project went on its second flight. The test was conducted on the territory of the Kennedy Space Center. This time, the landing module stayed in the air for 81 seconds, almost half a minute longer than the last time. The device climbed to a height of 50 m, and then made a horizontal flight at 47 m for 30 seconds, after which it made a successful landing, deviating from the set touchdown point by 9 cm.