Not such times are now to close the "Angara"

Our main, most advanced project in the field of space carriers - Angara - turns out to be a failure ?! In vain, wrong to be closed?

So you could think, after reading an article that appeared in 19 December in Izvestia with the title “Oleg Ostapenko considers the main space project of Russia of the last decades to be a dead-end solution”. Note, even without a question mark - definitely.

That's funny…

Oleg Ostapenko is the current head of Roskosmos, so it’s not a mess. And if you look at what the cursor gives when you hover over the address of the page (I do not remember how correctly it is called - what is written on the header of the browser tab). So, it says there “The Head of Roskosmos is ready to abandon the“ Angara ”- that is, well, not at all.

Here is what he said (I quote from Izvestia):

“I have been engaged in Angaroy for a long time, since the beginning of my activity as the head of the cosmodrome, then commander,” said Ostapenko at the meeting. - Personally, my belief that this rocket for the East is a dead-end rocket, it will not give us the opportunity to develop. We will then have to invest a lot of money again and build something else next ... I think that Angara is a dead-end solution for the subsequent development of our country in this area. ”

Let's see why it so suddenly turned out. What are these flaws found Ostapenko in the "Angara", which at once made it a dead end?

I have no other information about this, except for the article in Izvestia; here it and we study.
I read two claims in the article.

Too long

The first is the development time. From “Izvestia”:

“The first launch of the“ Hangars ”of the light class was planned for 2007 year, was postponed several times and now stands in the plans for the middle of 2014 of the year”.

20 yo ... sounds awful.

But the reason is clear! I already wrote about this in the old blog (http://bwana.ru/?p=494):

“... one of the contestants, the Angara Khrunichev rocket, has been developed since the middle of the 1990s. I confirm that he himself participated a little. Nobody wants to ask: why wasn't it developed? This is my first question, and in general terms I imagine the answer - as you understand, because I participated. The work went in fragments: the general contractor charges us money, and the “aggravation” comes, it does not charge, and then the chief designer rolls up the work, puts people on other tasks — a perpetual shortage of people, when such “impulse” financing. Since the end of 1990, I, as I recall, have experienced three such cycles. And, notice, each time most of the people at the next exacerbation turn out to be new, because the old ones have already been drawn into the other, and they put those who, in principle, by qualification, can still be busy no higher than the roof. ”

From the very beginning, “Angara” had a strong, violent opposition, and this affected the financing: it stopped and then resumed. It is also appropriate to recall both the paucity of the state budget and the organizational confusion of those years. Recall that if huge firms, general contractors, suffered from a shortage of funds, then the downstream cooperation enterprises, smaller, generally simply writhed, and others were fatal ...

But, in general, the timing is not really nagged. Probably also understand. The main complaint is cost indicators. From “Izvestia”:

“More than 1994 billion rubles have already been spent on its (Angara project) implementation since 100.”

First, the figure itself does not say anything definite. 100 billion rubles, or less 3 billion dollars - for space programs this can be a lot, and not much - depending on what has been done for this money. When amersky specialists decided that the implementation of the lunar program "Constellation" (launch vehicles "Ares-1" and "Ares-5", the manned ship "Orion", the landing lunar module "Altair") needed more than $ 100 billion This is 10 years ago, when the dollar was "heavier" today.

So the amount is less than $ 3 billion - maybe not so disastrous.

Secondly, I have already said: if it were not for the delays, the devastation in the industry and all that, then the costs would be less. In addition, I pay attention: what others have done during this time?

Where are they, all these Omegas, Yamals, Unions-2 and -3? I mean not the “Soyuz-2”, the former “Rus”, which is now putting 7-8 tons into near-earth orbits, but those “deep upgrades” that were supposed to output the 14-ton “Clipper”? Where are they? Where is the clipper itself? How much money is spent on these undertakings without endings?

Where, by the way, is another “Rus”, a new one, called “Rus-M”, which won the competition, announced in 2009, to create a rocket for the domestic lunar program?

Here it is, look:

Handsomely? The largest option is 50 tons of payload. This project was closed by Popovkin in 2011 ...

And on the "Angara" - in November at the start took out a full-featured mock-up of the light version of the rocket, and the bench fire tests have been carried out for quite some time. And the Korean KSLV-1 RN has already flown three times into space, repeating the hangars on the 80% ...

So the first "Angara", you see, really take off next year - which, by the way, is about to come.

Probably spent over almost 20 years, can be left alone. In addition, they do not constitute the only, in fact, detailed reason for the “resignation” of the “Angara”. And it is the cost of the rocket itself.

Too expensive

I will not literally quote a certain high-ranking conference participant at the head of Roskosmos. He says that only one set of engines for the 1-stage heavy "Angara" is the same as the "Protons" flying this year - 1,25 billion rubles; however, there is a note right there that next year “Protons” are already being purchased for 1,5 billion.

That is, he says, the cost of the whole rocket will exceed 2,5 billion, plus at least 1 billion for the booster, fairing and launch services. And it turns out that in today's prices, the cost of launching a heavy "Angara" probably goes beyond $ 100 million.

Well, yes, more expensive "Proton". But do they want to replace him for nothing? Something in it does not suit, something "Angara" will be better? And for the "better" - is it not necessary to pay?

And then, what are we talking about? About how much you have to pay for the "Angar" now and in the near years? But now there is only a pilot production, the series is usually much cheaper. Some, again, a high-ranking representative, but already GKNPTs them. Khrunichev says the same in Izvestia: yes, today the Angara is almost twice as large as the Proton. But we plan to reduce the cost of the rocket by 2020 by 1,8 year. And in the series - so generally 2,5 times.

And he also recalls that the first "Protons" were three times more expensive than the serial ones, and the first "Unions" - three and a half ...

True, those $ 100 million for the launch, which are listed above, are estimates of third parties, and not the manufacturer's data; "Khrunichev" avoids the statements on the part of the cost. $ 100 million should be understood as the lower limit and therefore in no way hope that the cost of starting a serial “Hangars” will be 100 / 2,5 = $ 40 million.

Yes, damn it, and it's not so scary! Vaughn, the cost of launching a relatively new American Delta IV Heavy has been estimated at $ 254 million - in prices, note 2004 of the year. So, if the Angara, which has fallen in price in the series, will give not 40, but the same 100 million, then everything will be abgemaht.

There is in the article "Izvestia" another topic in terms of cost. I will highlight it in a separate chapter.

And generally it should not

They recall Elon Musk, the billionaire enthusiast who founded SpaceX, which, as far as I can tell, is now leading among the “privateers” working in the field of building space technology. They made the spacecraft “Dragon”, a light class FOLKEN-1 PH, and now the carrier of a heavy class (about 20 tons into a geo-transfer orbit) “FOLKEN-9” is being brought to mind.

They write that this very “Falken-9” launch will cost $ 78 million. Very much, they write, it will be a cheap rocket, cheaper than everyone. And this is explained, they say, by some special organization of production, which the monsters of the aerospace never had. Like, the monsters were focused on the narrow specialization of numerous participants in the cooperation; and Musk, they say, decided to do everything on his own.

I do not know how he does it. I was taught that specialized companies produce products cheaper than those who "do everything themselves." But Andrei Ionin says these words; and he is not only Ph.D. and corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Cosmonautics. Tsiolkovsky. He still has an MBA degree in Strategic Management. He probably knows better ...

Although I would suggest that Mask’s products are cheaper because they rely on the scientific and technical achievements of the very “monsters” that he is going to make in the market for commercial launches. Maybe that’s why he does everything himself, that he doesn’t have to invent technologies, and materials and units can be bought from the same “monsters” ...

And generally, let's see how much Falken-9 will cost when real commercial launches begin.

In general, I am for the "Angara". Although she, of course, has innate flaws.

From right to left - from light to heavy. With a spire emergency rescue system - manned. No heavyweight

At a meeting in Roscosmos, his head unexpectedly stated that the Angara launch vehicle project, nearing a great milestone - the first flight tests of the first model of a family of launch vehicles - that this project leads the Russian space program to an impasse. In the first part, I reviewed the claims to the project - of course, only those that are listed in the Izvestia newspaper, which published information about this meeting. And he came to the conclusion that they are insufficient for such harsh statements.

In this part, I will fantasize about the reasons for such a revision of the assessment - from the main perspective of the space industry to its impasse. But first, a few words about the real shortcomings of the Angara launch vehicle line-up concept.

Universal - good or bad?

The main one is the same universalism. Not even universalism itself, by which I mean building a line of rockets from light to super-heavy on the basis of unified rocket modules - on Khrunichev they are called - URM-1 and URM-2.

In the first 1995 studies of the year, the Angara looked quite differently from now. It was a two-stage rocket with a tandem arrangement of steps. The steps were tricky: in the main case of the steps, with a diameter of Zenit, there was an oxidizer tank and a propulsion system; and on it two fuel tanks of the same diameter were hung on the sides.

But in 1997, the concept began to be changed, and as a result, an assembly of two full-fledged missiles of two types, called URMs, appeared. Light, medium and heavy are collected from them - around 25 t of payload - and also super heavy - 35 and 50 t. There are no options for large loads that have official designations (at least, I don’t know), but there are conversations that you can actually bring it to 100 t.

So, in those years when the shape of a rocket assembled from URMs was being formed, the task of mass launching of relatively light spacecraft seemed particularly relevant, and URMs were focused on this type of load - 2 T to a low orbit.

This is what experts consider the main and, unfortunately, the fatal disadvantage of the Angara project.

And the fact that the assembly of different missiles from unified modules gives the worst results in weight efficiency than the individual development of each stage for each rocket, this, of course, is known. But here the mass factor should already work. With a sufficiently large series (to know what ...) the "universalistic" approach should save on the full aggregate of the costs of removing a kilogram of load.

Stumbling Block - Rocket for the Moon

Then, when Ostapenko commented on this meeting to the Izvestia journalists, he was not so categorical. He said that the program "Angara" will continue, that the start on the East will be built. But, they say, we need a rocket on 70 – 75 for the Moon, and there, you see, even more. And is it necessary to do this in the framework of the "Angara", this is a question. Now, they say, proposals for such a super-heavy rocket are being prepared by both RSC Energia and the Samara TsSKB Progress (let's add: and even Miass SRC im. Makeyev and someone else).

Great, all that great. But a little strange.

That's what's strange to me.

A few years ago, for the Moon, a rocket was considered necessary on 40 – 50 T. Vaughn, look again at the picture with “Rus-M” in the first part, there is the largest configuration - on 50 t. By the way, note, the previous one - on 35 T; exactly like Angara A7.2B and A7.2, respectively.

Here it is - heavy super-heavy "Hangars" I wonder how the 100 tons of missiles are now called? And 200?

Now it turned out that what was needed was not 50, but 70 – 75 t. Good; But why in this reasoning, say, Rus-M is better than Angara? Nothing; and even worse, because the project "Angara", one way or another, will soon begin to fly. On the technical side, I once tried to compare Rus-M and Angara - of course, in an old blog. I got that Angara is better.

By the way, in the old blog I have written several articles in this vein for various informational reasons - about various projects and competitions announced over the last ten years. How can I put a lot of links to a third-party resource, maybe it's better for me, without too much delay, to transfer these articles here? The next turn in the technical policy of the space department is a good reason to gather in one place a retrospective of such turns. What do you think?

Okay, let's say, among the “post-Soviet” launch vehicle projects, there is not one that would explicitly include the PH on the 75 and payload — in any case, among the projects that received widespread press. It is necessary, like, to start from scratch.

But is this the reason for such categorical statements about the closure of the "Angara"? For the twentieth time I say: a project that has gone further than any other. A project that finally promises, in the real future, a heavy-duty new generation RF that Russia needs? "Proton" - this is the first generation! They will bury us!

No, not the reason. And all this talk about high prices, about non-optimality - all this is also a very weak argument. Where does the hope that competing organizations get cheaper and more optimal? Even if it happens on paper - who can vouch for what we come to at the end of the road? “Angara” can already somehow be calculated on the real material available.

But then why?

No one has yet canceled emotions ...

Somewhere in the early 1990-x in the GKNPTs them. Khrunicheva came to work a woman named Tatyana. Her last name was Dyachenko; if someone else does not understand, I will say straight - Yeltsin's daughter.

Under this case, Khrunichevsky General had a special relationship with the SAMM. Of course, I repeat the rumors, but what of this? We were told that for Tatiana they created a special unit that became involved in spacecraft. I don’t know how it is; but it seems to be true. According to my ideas, we (my design bureau) did their first satellite with them.

What is a special relationship, no need to explain; Yes, I do not know anything concrete. But it is clear that these are some preferences, some kind of support in controversial issues. Some, probably, opportunities to act through the head of the governing supervising state agency, whatever it was called (as if Rosaviakosmos were called then).

Well, the Khrunychev people made enemies for themselves - both among industry organizations and in these very state bodies. They say there was a banquet dedicated to some of the anniversary of one of the highest Khrunichevites. He was a friend of hiss almost from school, serving in the department. He talked for a long time about the merits of the hero of the day, about the importance and coolness of his work. And I finished the speech with the words: we will not miss your “Angar”.

They say there was a scandal. I asked the person who told me: was it such a joke that was awkward? No, he says, rather the puncture is not quite sober person ...

Interestingly, the next jubilee of that Khrunychivtsi, this irreconcilable friend, was already celebrating as a member of the GKNPT collective.

This is not a sentence

The previous head of Roscosmos, General Popovkin, was a clear supporter of the Angara. Regarding Ostapenko, there is no definite judgment on this issue. That is, there is no reason to state that he is an opponent. It is clear that competitors and simply disinterested enemies will try - and have already tried - to turn him against the "Angara". It's simple. And now it is especially simple with us, which is confirmed by the mess with contests and “epoch-making decisions”, which I recalled a little in the first part.

It may well be that General Ostapenko simply does not want to thoughtlessly pursue a line that they have not begun. It may well be that he has his own ideas about both the priorities of the space program and the proper organization of work on it. He could in the past short time, or even earlier, he is a lifetime in cosmic affairs; he could honestly come to the conclusion that if the task of settling the Moon before the Chinese was set, then a big rocket is needed - more than the largest of those that were presented before. In the end, because in those lines, there really wasn’t a 75 car or more tons. And why not hear about this Samara, which built the 120-ton "Energy"?

In general, it is early to order a dirge for the "Angara". So far, even the construction of the second start on the East has not been canceled; although the construction of the first has not yet begun ... Oh, our life is not easy, changeable ...

Comments

[Ascetic]

Ostapenko is right in the sense that you can never focus on one rocket, it’s really a dead end if we consider ourselves still a great cosmic power. The author himself gives an example of Americans with the Drpakony and the Falcons, and in the USSR they never focused on a line from one manufacturer. Let Khrunichev bring to mind a light Angara and meanwhile, nothing prevents Energy from making a heavy rocket. Even Makeevtsy on the basis of a heavy ICBM can in the future pile up a carrier for space. The same Dnieper-Voivode is a good example.

[Andrey KZ]

Quote: Ascetic

Ostapenko is right in the sense that you can never focus on one rocket, this is really a dead end if we consider ourselves, as before, a great space power.

I agree. In addition, what prevents the Angara from being left for mass launches, and for the tasks of mastering the Moon (if such tasks are set) to build a launch vehicle with a payload of 100 tons.

[Rus2012]

Quote: Andrey KZ

for lunar exploration tasks (if such tasks are set) to build a launch vehicle with a payload of 100 tons.

... this is how our damned rivals work (below).
Seeing all this, there is a desire to resume work on "Energia" / 100 tons of payload - "Volcano" / 200 tons. M. b. in alliance with China even ...

... the central unit of the SLS (American superheavy SLS -Space Launch System / NASA Space Launch System) will be more than 60 meters high; it will also contain liquefied hydrogen and liquid oxygen, - fuel for RS-25 rocket engines.


The first SLS test flight is scheduled for 2017 year. The configuration will be tested with 77 tons payload: it will have to move the Orion unmanned spacecraft (Orion) out of near-Earth orbit in order to test the operation of embedded systems. As it develops, it is assumed that SLS lifting capacity can be increased to 143 tonem; and this makes it possible to launch missions to more distant areas of our Solar System, for example, to Mars.

Source - http://www.astronews.ru/cgi-bin/mng.cgi?page=news&news=5267

[avt]

Quote: Ascetic

Ostapenko is right in the sense that you can never focus on one rocket, this is really a dead end if we consider ourselves, as before, a great space power.

Let's clarify a little. If we want to be a space power, then we need to look for fundamentally new means than chemical missiles, which are almost on the verge of the possible. If you like, like in aviation, piston planes before switching to jet and there is no sense in making a backup Angara. Against this background, , Angara "should be the end of the Soviet era of rocket technology, quite slowly but surely shoot old ones and switch to a single carrier. By the way, even earlier Feoktistov said something similar. Now that actually, to the extent of my depravity, I see. Complete analogy with the KLA. When it comes to finishing a car that is already in metal and which needs to be brought to mind at the start, it is not profitable for top managers. There is a lot of trouble, but the walrus is small, and the responsibility to the top management is quite real, as with the Bulava. ”Here you cannot refer to the fact that there is nothing else in the metal, here you need to present a flight version, here it either flies or not. Raising the dough on a new project is a nice thing, hell knows when it will fly, and the money goes in. Almost a budget oligarch, such a gesheft can be divorced with "securities", well, like Poghosyan with the stuff that the SCAC will open on the stock exchange to play. In short, there are no figures of the scale of the King, Glushko, Chelomey, who set ambitious goals and were looking for solutions that were not trivial. Small-scale fuss, however, instead of cool business.

[Rus2012]

Quote: avt

Let's clarify a few.

... but meanwhile ...
http://politikus.ru/articles/10793-vladimir-putin-neobhodimo-naraschivat-vysokot
ehnologichnuyu-chast-kosmicheskoy-otrasli.html
Yesterday (10.01.14), 14: 54

“We have completed a large amount of work on the Vostochny spaceport. The first and most important thing that was done was to direct the development dynamics in a positive direction, ”said Ostapenko.

In turn, Vladimir Putin noted that the leadership of Roscosmos should “most attentively” treat all the components of the space program.

Ostapenko also reported to the president about successes in the construction of the Angara rocket and space complex at the Plesetsk cosmodrome. “Here we are already completing the installation of technological equipment. Work was done to install a light rocket at the launch complex. All issues related to the fitting of this missile and complex have been resolved. And now we are entering the final stage of work, ”said the head of Roscosmos.

[AVV]

The struggle of manufacturers for a tidbit of the order! And nothing else !!! Even by tradition, when creating strategic missile carriers, they listened to the general designers, different companies! And they chose one! The choice was the best!

[1c-inform-city]

Honestly, I got to the handle of this law of a new broom. How would it be worthless then, if only everything is in my opinion. I'm the new boss and all that came before me is rubbish.

[Rus2012]

Quote: 1c-inform-city

I'm the new boss and all that came before me is rubbish.

Dear colleague, everything will fall into place if you slightly bring personal responsibility for the failure of "your broomstick", that way ... for 5-10 years in the Diocese of GUIN.
Thousands of times will think before breaking old workable technologies in opposition to "effective-managerial" ...

[Nayhas]

Although I would suggest that Mask products are cheaper because it relies on the scientific and technological achievements of those same “monsters” that it is going to devote to it in the market of commercial launches.

Well, finally, for the use of other people's technologies, the Mask has to be unfastened by blood, to whom it is unfastened by the GKNPC them. Khrunicheva? No one, for everything is different, so it should be cheaper then ...
PS: with regards to "private traders":
07.01.2014/9/1.1 SpaceX’s Falcon 6 vXNUMX rocket successfully launched the Thaicom-XNUMX satellite into geostationary transitional orbit.
09.01.2014/1260/XNUMX Orbital Sciences sent an unmanned cargo ship Cygnus to the ISS. On board the Cygnus are XNUMX kilograms of cargo: food, clothing, scientific equipment and other supplies for the ISS astronauts.

[Rus2012]

Quote: Nayhas

Well, for the use of other people's technologies, the mask has to be unfastened

Are you sure, dear colleague?
How does he pay: for patents? Or orders the development of technologies and special parts in specialized firms and amerskih universities? Or "non-name" products are taken from long-developed technologies and systems ...

I remember that our cunning managers also struggled to equip the launch vehicle and aircraft with counterfeit parts and assemblies "from the garages" of the workers of the "progress" and "aggregate factories". How it ended - many remember ...

[svp67]

Here HE IS THE REAL "ROSPIL" !!!!! Who will be responsible for it?

[1c-inform-city]

Quote: Ascetic

Ostapenko is right in the sense that you can never focus on one rocket, it’s really a dead end if we consider ourselves still a great cosmic power. The author himself gives an example of Americans with the Drpakony and the Falcons, and in the USSR they never focused on a line from one manufacturer. Let Khrunichev bring to mind a light Angara and meanwhile, nothing prevents Energy from making a heavy rocket. Even Makeevtsy on the basis of a heavy ICBM can in the future pile up a carrier for space. The same Dnieper-Voivode is a good example.

This is certainly good. But all these seemingly innocent phrases can threaten the cessation of funding and the closure of the topic. As a result, we will not get anything. Everyone will push their project. It is unlikely that our bonuses are ready to finance all of them.

[lazy]

normal advertising article, therefore minus. and by the way I wonder why the "clipper" did not go, maybe also a special relationship ...

[chunga-changa]

How much money is spent on these undertakings without endings?

Here, as it were, is the solution. Since they began to allocate decent money for space and the army, the construction of "paper ships" began. That is, development is underway, money is mastered as soon as it comes to hardware, that's it. The project is curtailed and vigorous activity begins in a new direction, work is in full swing, money is being used. And that, on paper, everything is fine, but in the hardware does not fly, responsibility, they start asking who is to blame and what to do, including the customer they ask where they looked. Why such problems if you can again and again master money at the stage of papers, zero responsibility, the only question is, how much more money you need to bring to iron. An almost finished project is closed, the same people start a new one, obviously more promising and cool, on paper, naturally. And alliances and progress made during the Soviet era fly into space, and even they have obviously forgotten how to do it normally.

[mark1]

Quote: chunga-changa

Here is a solution.

And introduce into the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation such a classification - "... treason to the Motherland in a particularly cynical form ..." and equate the act with terrorism or pedophilia in terms of danger.

[rubin6286]

Here, as it were, is the solution. Since they began to allocate decent money for space and the army, the construction of "paper ships" began. That is, development is underway, money is mastered as soon as it comes to hardware, that's it.

You have to pay for everything and for R&D (have you heard about this?) Too. So in all countries of the world where at least some kind of science is developing. Fundamental scientific research is being conducted at the Russian Academy of Sciences. Will it reach "hardware." Who knows?

[AlexA]

And what, in fact, was blown up by the "modernization"? And why are you outdated "Proton"? It was already mentioned here that chemical-fueled rockets have already reached the limit of perfection. As for the specific impulse of thrust, this limit was already reached by the mid-70s. And today there are no fundamental breakthroughs. By the way - and what is so fundamentally new in Angars? Nuclear motors or what? And if so, then there is nothing to fence in the garden with "new" missiles. Reliability and sophistication of technology come to the fore. That is why the cargoes are withdrawn by the Soyuz and Protons. And new projects, it seems, are for cutting. Here Chunga-Changa the situation is quite clear cut. Moreover, the same "Proton" - it is already Khrunichevsky. So they knock down money for both real work (series) and paper "projects". And everything is in business.

[Rus2012]

Quote: AlexA

And why do you have "Proton" obsolete?

Unfortunately, Proton has a very large flaw - toxic components.
As fuel components, all three stages of the launch vehicle use asymmetric dimethylhydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide (UDMH and AT) ...

[Lyokhin63]

"The Space We Lost"
15 October 2013 "
Author Elena Zubtsova
"Half of all core activities of the SCNPTs are incomes from the provision of unprofitable, low-cost services for launching foreign spacecraft under contracts with the American corporation International Launch Services (hereinafter -" ILS "), which since its inception in 1993 has been operating in economic and political Lockheed Martin Corporation's controlled (in all aspects) influence of the American side in ILS provided American spacecraft with access to cheap Russian launch services. In addition, the Americans got a completely legitimate opportunity to access the results of intellectual activity created and already created by specialists of the Khrunichev Center within the framework of projects for the development of the "Angara" spacecraft and oxygen-hydrogen upper stage.
Confirmation of the above can serve as the following signed GKNPTS them. M.V. Khrunicheva documents:
- Memorandum of July 28, 1999 on the transfer for exclusive consideration of $ 68 million of exclusive rights to carry out international launches and sales of ILS Angara launch vehicles with Lockheed Martin Corporation;
- Agreement dated August 15, 2005 "On the procedure for using the results of intellectual activity created within the framework of the ROC" Creation of a space rocket complex of a heavy class ", cipher" Angara "."

Question to the author of article No. 1: Is Elena Zubtsova lying?
Question to the author of article No. 2, if the answer to question No. 1 is no: who do you work for?

[I think so]

A mess in the country, he is a mess ... Soon all missiles will be completely forgotten how to build. And one must forget about the competition with the Chinese ... where the meager and stupid team can compete with the dynamic, focused, REAL selection of managerial life Chinese elite ...

[Lyokhin63]

You said everything correctly about the Chinese. Such a sharp upward movement according to the law of inertia will surprise the Western world. We had the same thing in the 30-60s. As a result, we were ahead of the rest! And now about the missiles. In terms of price / quality, despite the intrigues, we are ahead of the rest. Yes, the legacy of the USSR, but a fact. And by the way, there was a successful launch of SOYUZ 2-1v for the all-proprietors. The main engine is NK-33. Arian. The main engine is NK-33. Voronezh promises a replacement. And he will, and why not? And on KA - Resurs-P. Not a word on this site. That "I think so" you bury us ahead of time?

[HollyGremlin]

1. Soon, only the lazy will not launch rockets: the technologies have already been developed, are gradually becoming the property of the masses, there is no actual ban on the creation of such missiles. Even an efficiency of + 50% does not give one side a monopoly or a strong advantage.
2. So far, everyone has a problem with the manned vehicle: it’s still possible to go to the Moon, but I don’t really want to send a tin can to Mars to anyone.
The fact is that we have not yet come up with either a space elevator or super-fuel, which means that very soon there will be very little left from the backlog of the USSR in the space sphere.

[Zomanus]

Well yes. And this is a dead end and there is no need to do it. And in the end, it will remain. what to remember about past successes.

[utyyflbq]

The main disadvantage of the Angara is that it duplicates existing missiles. The answer is that it works on "environmentally friendly" components, while Proton - "on a very, very poisonous UDMH" (aka heptyl). In fact, the combustion products of AT-UDMH are completely non-toxic and differ from oxygen-kerosene ones only in the presence of nitrogen oxides, which color the torch in a characteristic red color. When heptyl gets into water, it decomposes, unlike kerosene. And when refueling a rocket, you just need to follow the safety precautions for working with toxic substances. Following the logic of "heptyl hysteria", all chemical production should be closed. In addition, all Chinese rockets are heptyl-fueled. The Proton rocket is better in characteristics than the "heavy" Angara (5th modification). It has been tested for almost 50 years of exploitation, production is established. The question is, who needs this Angara? Making it for 50 tons is very problematic (it turns out Frankenstein). Maybe this will satisfy the hysterical "green ladies" from different environmental and human rights greenpeaces?
First, Khrunichev needs it. Since the 94th year "sawed the grant". They "sawed off" a lot of billions of rubles. It was not a bad thing - the bosses were building summer cottages, and in the next room a couple of draftsmen were drawing something, and in the workshop a couple of workers were riveting something with a sledgehammer. When asked, "where is the rocket," the Khrunichevites answered: "Our equipment is outdated." In addition, the former director sprinkled his doctoral dissertation (as the director of Chernobyl, he also "wrote his doctoral dissertation") on a bunch of certain standard modules, directly stealing the idea from Frankenstein. Immediately, without asking anyone, the project was redone and they began to make this "universal module". It was not difficult to rebuild, since no work on the original Angara was carried out. Now they are trying to bring it all the same, since a lot of money has been smashed, and this "product" may someday come in handy, for example, as starting blocks of the 1st stage. KBEM is also interested in the Hangar, which is pushing its RD-193 for it, trying in every possible way to prevent the resumption of production of the NK-33.
By the way, the situation in Russian rocket science is interesting - there are many (more than the Americans) rocket engines with very good characteristics that have come from the USSR, but there are no new missiles, and they don’t (or cannot) restore old ones (for example, Energy).

[Alwizard]

Quote: utyyflbq

In addition, all Chinese rockets operate on heptyl.

But all designed - on kerosene. Engines on the self-igniting components of the fuel are technically much simpler than kerosene or hydrogen, their lot is the early stages of the development of rocket science.

[rubin6286]

But all designed - on kerosene. Engines on the self-igniting components of the fuel are technically much simpler than kerosene or hydrogen, their lot is the early stages of the development of rocket science.

This is not true. Engines for self-igniting SRT are much more complicated than kerosene and much more dangerous.
Another thing is that their design has been perfected, but it took almost 70 years.

[rubin6286]

In fact, the combustion products of AT-UDMH are completely non-toxic and differ from oxygen-kerosene only in the presence of nitrogen oxides, which makes the torch a characteristic red color. When heptyl enters water, it, unlike kerosene, decomposes. And when refueling a rocket, you just need to follow the safety precautions for working with toxic substances.

Combustion products of UDMH and AT tend to accumulate on the ground (tree leaves, mushrooms, berries, moss, in water bodies and mail). Before starting, for example. rocket 11K67 personnel. those who do not take part in the launch are not evacuated anywhere, but so that they do not find themselves on the trail of "safe" combustion products. In these areas, residents are forever prohibited from picking mushrooms and berries. Safety measures for persons working with CRT must be observed, but you cannot be insured against everything. The tamers enter the tiger cage with weapons. but sometimes it doesn't help either.

[emeldos2]

It’s time for Russia to abandon missiles .... It’s time to create a spacecraft like a snowstorm Only Better. than the huge Resources to invest in the development and construction of carriers ... these huge resources will allow engineers, technicians, physicists, and other scientists to make the possible delivery of any technology into space. and no need to build 10 rockets. spend so much money. here is the dead-end development of the Missiles. There is nowhere to build missiles in one direction.

[Alwizard]

Buran is the payload of the Energy rocket.

[rubin6286]

It seems to you. not familiar with the term "cost-effectiveness". You can carry a load weighing 500 kg on a Gazelle, or on a Kamaz. If a country has a space exploration program (and there is one), then, believe me, it has been taken into account how many and what launches will be made, how many and what launch vehicles to release. Factories must work. People should be paid, engineers and scientific personnel should gain experience. If the carriers are not built, the industry will become. Imagine that instead of a Land Rover SUV you bought a BelAZ and you want to build a garage for it in GSK. I'm sure it won't be easy. It is also not easy to create a "Burana" spacecraft, especially when Baikonur is no longer Russian.

[utyyflbq]

In addition. Space-X definitely uses someone’s technology, because in order to create even a kerogase like the Merlin engine (60 tons of traction, made according to Soviet technology of the late 50s), you need very serious technological support, you can’t do it in the garage Yes and the manufacturing technology of the step itself is not simple. Obviously, there are serious firms behind this Space-X. Another private company, the Altair rocket and the Cygnus ship, did it easier, did not work out, but uses two NK-33s, and the stage was developed by the Ukrainian KBYu.
The Russian rocket construction company is very afraid to touch something on the existing missiles - no matter how something happens. About 10 years ago, the nozzle head was changed at the ancient RD-107 kerosene gas (TNA from FAU-2!) And the specific impulse increased by as much as 2 units. They almost burst out of pride and immediately called the Soyuz-FG rocket. Novot recently, Energia, has finally decided to replace the RD-107 with NK-33 at the central stage of the Union. The rocket (without boosters) was named Soyuz-2.1v. Maybe in 5 years, having plucked up the courage, Energia will install on the upper stage a bundle of 4 hydrogen Khimmash KVD1 (the bundle has been ready for a long time, and the KVD1 has been tested in flight, though in India). It will turn out to be quite a decent rocket with a load of 17 tons. But this is what courage you need to have for such a decision. After all, until now, the manned Soyuz flies on antique RD-107, 108 and 0110, developed in the 56th year (!), And they are afraid to put on the upper block, not only the KVD, but even the RD-0124 - they, it turns out, "do not tested for decades ", and then suddenly what will turn out wrong (this is, however, a responsibility). In addition, they claim that adding hydrogen to the Soyuz launch complex is "a very difficult and serious matter. And there is no hydrogen in Plesetsk either." And what can we say about Proton, the installation of hydrogen plants at the upper stage will increase the load to about 30 tons. But, again, there is no hydrogen supply at the launch site (there is hydrogen in Baikonur, or was), and suddenly the Kazakhs will not like it. As a result of the incredible cowardice of the "space" bureaucratic officials, there is a complete progressive lag behind not only the United States, but even China and India, which with this approach will only deepen, which, in particular, will affect (and is already affecting) commercial launches. not to mention the national program.

[scientist]

You shouldn't think that Ostapenko is stupid and not in the know. The Angara project is almost completed, which means that in the near future, R&D expenses will be curtailed. It just so happened that the main financial burden falls on R&D. The author of the article himself cites figures - billions of dollars, while launch and production are an order of magnitude less. Knowing the main motivation of the Roscosmos officials, it is not difficult to imagine how much their income will decrease from the kickbacks of the Khrunichev State Research and Production Center management. After all, it is very difficult to withdraw "surplus" from serial production, only at the expense of quality, and there are problems with military representatives. But to receive bonuses due to expensive R&D is much less headache and responsibility, you never know what scientists will want to spend there, and the result may not be very good, the leadership will definitely not be extreme. Ostapenko and the company are trying to prevent losses in their pockets. Under the guise of the inability of the almost finished Angara to stir up a new ROC for a new super-expensive and ambitious project. And there "either the donkey dies or the sultan dies."
Thus, by his criticism of the project, Angara Ostapenko "kills two birds with one stone": he creates a reserve for the future, our officials are used to living beautifully and at the same time makes himself an "albi" in case of failure, like "I told you so." Apparently he is afraid that too much Khrunichy's leadership has taken money to the side, checks will begin, you never know what will emerge.

[hitech]

Quote: avt

Quote: Ascetic

Ostapenko is right in the sense that you can never focus on one rocket, this is really a dead end if we consider ourselves, as before, a great space power.

Let's clarify a little. If we want to be a space power, then we need to look for fundamentally new means than chemical missiles, which are almost on the verge of the possible. If you like, like in aviation, piston planes before switching to jet and there is no sense in making a backup Angara. Against this background, , Angara "should be the end of the Soviet era of rocket technology, quite slowly but surely shoot old ones and switch to a single carrier. By the way, even earlier Feoktistov said something similar. Now that actually, to the extent of my depravity, I see. Complete analogy with the KLA. When it comes to finishing a car that is already in metal and which needs to be brought to mind at the start, it is not profitable for top managers. There is a lot of trouble, but the walrus is small, and the responsibility to the top management is quite real, as with the Bulava. ”Here you cannot refer to the fact that there is nothing else in the metal, here you need to present a flight version, here it either flies or not. Raising the dough on a new project is a nice thing, hell knows when it will fly, and the money goes in. Almost a budget oligarch, such a gesheft can be divorced with "securities", well, like Poghosyan with the stuff that the SCAC will open on the stock exchange to play. In short, there are no figures of the scale of the King, Glushko, Chelomey, who set ambitious goals and were looking for solutions that were not trivial. Small-scale fuss, however, instead of cool business.

"Raise the dough" - aptly said. It's easier to make promises in "projects" than to follow through. Alas, everyone is looking for an easy life.

[rotor]

Not such times now

Before the Chinese, Russia must be on the moon and the first on Mars.
But different missiles are needed, both superheavy and reusable. And preferably on a single basis.

[rubin6286]

Quote: avt

Against this background, "Angara" should be the end of the Soviet era of rocketry, quite slowly but surely shoot the old ones and switch to a single carrier. By the way, even earlier, something similar was said by Feoktistov.

Think about what you write. It's not for you to shoot small or large pebbles from a slingshot. For old Soviet missiles, there are corresponding launch sites, and for a new carrier they need to be rebuilt or built anew. Do you know how much it costs? How much does the new infrastructure cost for the new carrier (from the MIC, hangars, warehouses, storage facilities, access roads to military units, training centers, etc.). How much does the storage in the arsenals cost for the new carrier? You saw them, these storages, they are rubber, today there are 11A511U, and tomorrow the steps of the "Angara".
There cannot be a single carrier. We even have trucks, and they are different, from Gazelle to KAMAZ. In short, you don't need to fool us.

[engineer Bob]

Interesting article, thanks to the author.
I will add to it the point of view of an employee competing with Khrunichev cooperation.

Our main, most advanced project in the field of space carriers is Angara

I don’t know how far the project has progressed in comparison with others, but I doubt that the author’s assessment is correct, I also have doubts about declaring the project “main”, however, if the word “Our” meant a specific rocket company, then yes, that's it fair ...

The work went on in fits and starts: either the general contractor charges us money, and “aggravation” occurs, then it does not charge, and then the chief designer curbs the job, puts people on other tasks — there’s an eternal shortage of people when there is such “impulse” financing.

A familiar situation - work on Soyuz-2 was also going on with us, but it flew and in more than one modification, as everyone heard from the Christmas tree flew and the light version of the Soyuz-2-1v, everything goes to the fact that soon trucks on Soyuz-2 and then people will start flying. Of course, the Soyuz-2 project is simpler, it is an upgrade, not a new rocket, but the results show that the modernization path is more effective today - from launch to launch, improvements and improvements are taking place, specialists are gaining experience - there is not only a process, but also a result - which is not yet from Khrunichev.

Where, by the way, is another “Rus”, a new one, called “Rus-M”, which won the competition, announced in 2009, to create a rocket for the domestic lunar program?

They didn’t give money to it, it didn’t go further than the sketchbook ...

And all this talk about high cost, about non-optimality - all this is also a very weak argument

Hmmm ... people here saw her start-up complex - they say a terrible monster, local staff in Plesetsk said that the cost is like it was made of gold.

In general, IMHO, all this fuss is nothing more than a competitive struggle under Popovkin, the scales tended to hangar, now they have gone the other way.

[silberwolf88]

Again and again, the human factor instead of expert evaluation ... again the words of high-ranking people ... again, the situation I believe this and not. Years have passed and nothing has changed in this regard ... I would like less emotions and more professionalism in making such decisions.
Media is created over the years ... the correct choice of a solution ... is not obvious.

When we launched the Angara project ... everyone was delighted with universalism and a single platform ... they said that it would reduce the cost of putting payload into orbit ... and would provide any ... including promising spacecraft launch programs. In my opinion, basically nothing has changed ... except for the interests of individual statesmen.