Military Review

Is space will only be the American dream?

75
A few days ago in news A brief message flashed through the tape of the domestic media about the planned launch of a spacecraft of a private construction in the USA into near-earth orbit.


It is not surprising that against the background of events in Ukraine exciting every Russian person, such news could hardly attract attention. Meanwhile, if you think about it with brains, its importance can hardly be overestimated.

Spaceship "following the dream"

As already written above, our Russian media have let this news as it were, inter alia, in passing. For details turned to English-language sources. And here’s what I found on Space.com (I tried to translate as precisely as the difference in the turnovers of the English and Russian languages ​​allows):

- A commercial space company will conduct the first orbital launch of its space aircraft (hereinafter referred to as a spacecraft) Dream Chaser in 2016, its debut will be unmanned, in order to confirm that the ship is able to fly to space with astronauts aboard.



On Thursday (January 23), the company announced that the launch of the Dream Chaser spacecraft (translated as “following the dream” or “running after the dream”), built by Sierra Nevada, is scheduled for November 1 2016. From the Cape Canaveral, Florida space center using an Atlas 5 booster.

Although the spacecraft - which looks like a mini-version of NASA's space shuttle shuttles - is, of course, designed to bring people and cargo into orbit, its first flight will take place without a crew, say Sierra Nevada representatives. They added that the test flight should pave the way for manned launches to the lower near-earth orbit in 2017.

“We expect that we will have a whole fleet of such transports, which are in many ways similar to shuttles with different purposes,” said Mark Sirangelo, vice president and project manager of space systems, at a conference held on 23 in January. - Some will be only passenger, some - cargo. Some will be freight, some will serve, and we also think that these transports will partly carry out scientific tasks. This is a multifunctional vehicle, we like to think of it as our “space SUV”, and we are very proud of it. ”

To prepare the reusable Dream Chaser for flights and its after-flight service, Sierra Nevada representatives also plan to use the technical capabilities of the NASA Space Center. Kennedy in Florida. It is noteworthy that the center also includes the construction and testing of the Orion ("Orion") spacecraft, intended for long-distance flights into space with astronauts aboard.


Spacex dragon


With the departure of NASA's space shuttles (shuttles) into the past in 2011, the space agency depends on companies such as Sierra Nevada, which, ultimately, have to solve the problem of delivery and return of US astronauts from the International Space Station (ISS). In the meantime, for the transportation of American astronauts and astronauts of the partner countries to the station, NASA is forced to buy space on the Russian space capsules Soyuz.
Sierra Nevada is one of several companies involved in building spacecraft for manned flights with the support of NASA as part of a commercial flight program. Other ships under construction are the SpaceX capsule Dragon (“Dragon”) from SpaceX, the space capsule CST-100 from Boeing and Space Vehicle (Space Transport) from the secret company Blue Origin (just so that readers laugh a little, I will translate its name - "Blue origin").


CST-100 Capsule Test on Dry Lake, Nevada, 2012


In the meantime, there is still two years to work on the Dream Chaser before its first orbital flight. Representatives of Sierra Nevada plan to carry out at least one unmanned launch of a spacecraft from the Edwards Air Force base, after which, for conducting manned test flights in the atmosphere, an ejection seat will be installed on it, says Steve Lindsey, program manager for Dream Chaser at Sierra Nevada.

Lindsey said that the orbital flight in November of the 2016 will be autonomous and unmanned and will probably last about a day before landing on the west coast of the United States.

“The transport (whose flight is scheduled for 2016) is almost the same as the one we will launch in about a year with the crew on board,” explained Lindsay. “We intend to test the operation of all the systems and subsystems on board before proceeding with the certification of manned orbital transport.”

On 2013, Sierra Nevada conducted the first three flights of the Dream Chaser in order to test the automated approach and landing systems. Although the test flight went smoothly, upon landing, the spacecraft left the runway (WFP), since due to a malfunction, its chassis was not at the right angle.

And what follows from this?

Alas, I must confess that I myself was once among those who, having learned of our opponent's refusal to use space shuttles, "rubbed his hands." He himself was glad that the Americans would have to buy (for big money) places on our launch vehicles. However, from such a stupid gloating, he was cured pretty quickly, but only now I understand, TO WHAT DEGREE it was stupid ...

In fact, as one knowledgeable person explained to me, our seeming gain was already initially a loss. After giving up (albeit for millions of cu) a place to an American, our country lost exactly one of its cosmonauts, which is quite significant for the crew of the space station.

But it turns out that there were only “flowers” ​​... Refusing from expensive and not quite safe shuttles, the United States got a kind of respite, which they used, as they say, to the fullest.

And the decision to give the development and subsequent construction of spacecraft to private offices (by the way, shuttles were also developed by North American Rockwell) turned out to be more than wise from their side. It is known that NASA will choose the BEST development as a result. It turns out that at the stage of the invention and construction of prototypes, their state treasury will save a lot.

But the most important thing is that every inventor, every developer will approach the matter differently, i.e. will not chase after someone, but will create its one and only. Well, well, about the “one and only” a little bit bent, but we see: two companies improve classical capsules (like our “Union”), the third went the other way and builds (more precisely, is already experiencing) a spaceship, and the fourth and all mystery covered in darkness.

After what I read, I turned to my source in Roscosmos with a faint hope of hearing about our developments in space planes. However, I was disappointed. The source said that he had not heard of anything like that.

And his answer can mean one of two things: we really do not have anything like this, or there is something, but simply arch-secreted.

Remembering the recent history with the submarine "Severodvinsk", I came to the conclusion that the latter is extremely unlikely. Then it was worth a couple of English newspapers to praise our submarine a little, as domestic media responded with a tenfold fanfare. In other words, from the finally completed construction of Severodvinsk, no secret was made. On the contrary, they used it for propaganda “to the fullest” (and they could at least remember that it was already built from 1993). Oh, about the spacecraft, it would be trumpeted even louder.

But we could be the first ...

Let's, a little (only in general terms, we have written about this many times) recall the story. Initially, the idea to reach space on an airplane was also called “flight in a spiral”. Looking ahead, the first Russian project in this industry was called “Spiral”. Its essence is that the orbital plane is launched into space, first by a hypersonic rammer, then by a rocket stage.

Apparently, such is the whim of fate, that our rivalry with the United States here, too, went along a kind of spiral. They refused any program - we seemed to pick it up.

As you know, it began with their project X-20 Dyna Soar space bomber (from Dynamic Soaring - Dynamic Take-Off), curtailed by order of Defense Minister Robert McNamara in 1963 (we note that its first manned flight was planned in 1966 m)

Is space will only be the American dream?
X-20 Dyna Soar


As soon as they refused, our project “Spiral” was launched. This is symbolic, but in the case of Russia-USSR, an almost ready experimental manned orbital plane was also buried by the Minister of Defense (Soviet, of course) Grechko, who wrote the resolution: “We will not engage in fantasies”.


"Spiral"


Then again the American move - the Space Shuttle (we have repeatedly mentioned the space shuttle), whose development began in 1971.

Well, and this time we didn’t keep waiting for a long time with a decent answer, which was the Energy-Buran project.

At first glance, it may seem that Russia-USSR were always catching up. However, please note that in the case of the “X-20 Dyna Soar” several mass-dimensional models of the device were made and extensive scientific and technical research was conducted. But a smaller copy of the Spirals orbital plane on the scale of 1: 2 BOR-4 (unmanned orbital rocket plane) was launched into orbit (albeit, as part of the Buran project).

The shuttles were put on stream by the Americans, but ... The flight created under the leadership of the outstanding designer Gleb Evgenyevich Lozino-Lozinsky (by the way, he is the Spiral project manager) of the Buran passed without crew in an automatic mode using the on-board computer and the on-board software, in contrast to the shuttle, which traditionally makes the last stage of landing on manual control (entry into the atmosphere and braking to the speed of sound in both cases are fully computerized). This fact - the flight of a spacecraft into space and its descent to Earth in automatic mode under the control of an onboard computer - entered the Guinness Book of Records!
We can say that for them (USA) there was some gain in time, but for us - in quality. And the qualitative gap could well become a deep chasm, if not ... In general, let Gorbachev (and Borka-bloody - posthumously) and his comrades also hang an order for it.

To this we add that the only Buran flying into space (1988) was destroyed in 2002 during the collapse of the roof of the assembly and test building at Baikonur, in which it was stored along with the ready-made copies of the Energia launch vehicle. In such cases, it is always difficult to believe in "coincidences" and "coincidences" ...


12 May 2002 of the year at the cosmodrome "Baikonur" disaster struck. The roof of the test complex collapsed, resulting in the death of eight people. The complex "Energy" - "Buran" destroyed collapsed structures


In fairness, it must be said that the ideas embodied in Spiral and Buran were further developed in the Multi-Purpose Aerospace System (MAKS) project, launched under the guidance of the same Lozino-Lozinsky. This project received a gold medal (with honors) and a special prize from the Belgian Prime Minister at 1994 in Brussels at the World Salon of Inventions. In 2012, they even started talking about the resumption of work on MAKS. But we need those who are willing to invest in it, one state allegedly does not pull.

And how does this threaten us, and what can we do?

Joyless story turns out. They are in full swing test spacecraft, is about to withdraw into orbit. We have the only unique Buran device flying into space destroyed. A manned orbital plane designed by MAKS has not been built yet.

Here it will not be out of place to recall that the Buran was originally created as a military system, which, in response to the planned military use of American shuttles.

But, if for military purposes it was supposed to use shuttles, which were later discontinued, can we deny that modern Dream Chaser spacecrafts will be used for the same purposes? - Of course, the United States says that the appointment of this device is “exceptionally peaceful” (including a very fashionable space tourism), but the very possibility of installing weapons on them should not be rejected. And returning to the beginning of the article, we ask ourselves why, for “extremely peaceful” purposes, why should a whole fleet of such spaceships?

In general, it's time to seriously think that it was not too late when the strategic enemy will gain superiority also in space.

Moreover, our development is not completely lost. You say that development is not lost, but there is no money? Well, the United States is also not in the best position, but they find it for strategic needs.

Find, attracting interested individuals. I must say, for us this method is unacceptable. Our moneybags simply do not see the point of investing in defense (I hope no one will argue that the cosmos is the most that neither eat the defense) of the country in which they are not going to live. Their rich is another matter; they invest in the only country that will ensure their safety.

It turns out, we come to the same thing: while the incomes of the world's richest country will go to the construction of the palaces of the “rubland” (as well as palaces in other parts of the world), we will not see either rocket-plans or modern ones put on stream tanks and airplanes ...
Author:
75 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. invisibility
    invisibility 29 January 2014 09: 14 New
    10
    Just that wrote a comment that Russia should have its own manned space program.
    Write with a red felt-tip pen on the forehead of responsible people: WE FIRST EXITED TO SPACE, WE ARE Pioneers!
    Once again, cooperation in space is a great idea, for some sort of Brunei! A great space power must have its own manned space program! And do not rely on the ISS and NASA.
    I share, of course, the author’s anxiety, but doesn’t it seem to him that such airplanes are more suitable for millionaire tourists? We have something to answer! Need the will and desire to see Russia as a space power number 1. Work is not an edge, unless you drive storks on a glider and amphora not get it.
    1. klimpopov
      klimpopov 29 January 2014 09: 30 New
      10
      , but doesn’t it seem to him that such airplanes are more suitable for millionaire tourists?

      And you read about the spiral and why it was created. Ultimately, the size in space is determined by the amount of fuel needed for flight. Such airplanes are a real breakthrough in cosmonautics, which Lozinsky was supposed to carry out in the early 80s of the XX century. But it did not work out, they ditched it for the sake of imitating the West, which (the USA) only now realized what was being created in the USSR. Understand that even going into near-earth orbit and into near space in this way is already a breakthrough, it significantly reduces the cost of flights, it allows you to "drag" a large number of payloads into space on a regular basis without using HUGE launch sites. In general, I advise you to read about the spiral project. There is also a movie ...
      1. invisibility
        invisibility 29 January 2014 09: 49 New
        +1
        I read! And I agree with you! Therefore, I wrote, we have something to answer. I wanted to accentuate our and the Western approach to astronautics. I only want projects like "Spiral" to develop! They will still have their say. And what about today? Why the hell was Mir drowned without having prepared a replacement for it? Didn't have funds? It's sad. Now, where is the replacement?
        1. klimpopov
          klimpopov 29 January 2014 10: 09 New
          +5
          And now there is no intelligible program for the development of manned space exploration. I remember the world drowned, I remember the year in 1998 mine ... What can I say about those years? And now time is lost and lost forever. Now it’s all over again ... And the fact that the Spiral project was implemented in the USA says a lot, reminds me a bit of when equipment and specialists were taken out of Germany after the war, the same thing happened after the collapse of the USSR ...
      2. Wedmak
        Wedmak 29 January 2014 09: 55 New
        +1
        How much payload can this "airplane" carry into orbit? And if it is required (and it is required), to create a station in lunar orbit, how many years will we carry these "bricks" with these taxis? In my opinion, Roskosmos took the right direction - first the launch vehicles, up to the heavy ones, then the payload in the form of manned vehicles.
        1. Letun
          Letun 29 January 2014 11: 38 New
          +1
          Quote: Wedmak
          How much payload can this "airplane" carry into orbit? And if it is required (and it is required), to create a station in lunar orbit, how many years will we carry these "bricks" with these taxis?

          This is just the beginning. Compare the size of the Wright brothers and the modern A-380. In 1904, the average man could not even imagine such a thing.
          I completely share the feelings of the author of the article.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 29 January 2014 11: 51 New
            +3
            I agree, the beginning. Only now, a little more than 380 years have passed from the Wright brothers' aircraft to the A-100. And we are mastering space less than a little more than 50. And we have already rested on engines there and there. There are no revolutionary solutions. And if in aviation there was a revolutionary transition from propeller aircraft to jet, then in space ... in practice it is the same as it was in 1961. Only materials have changed and technological solutions. Maybe after 50 years they will create something sane, but for now - the one-time Unions and Protons are the most. Space planes, so far, only developing technologies, they will not be able to carry out serial launches at present.
            1. does it
              does it 29 January 2014 15: 53 New
              +1
              Quote: Wedmak
              I agree, the beginning. Only now, a little more than 380 years have passed from the Wright brothers' aircraft to the A-100. And we master space less than a little more than 50.
              Vimanika-sastra. The ancient Indian treatise on the design and operation of aircraft
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 29 January 2014 17: 01 New
                +1
                Khe-khe .... choked on you. Who said that these are the devices of our civilization ??? Maybe these good aliens extended a helping hand to us, in the form of technology, and the Indians, from their own carelessness, out of the way ... did it? There were only obscure instructions distorted by numerous copies.
              2. Wellych
                Wellych 30 January 2014 00: 14 New
                0
                How old is it? Then Jules Verne is the biblical patriarch.
            2. Aptimist
              Aptimist 8 March 2014 15: 51 New
              0
              I agree, aviation is worth it !!! Especially civilian! And it has been 50 years already (there was one small step ... Concord and our Tu-144, but they were abandoned).
              As they flew 40 years ago, Almaty-Moscow 4h, and now we fly the same 4h. Only the brand of the aircraft was changed from that and silt to a Boeing and Airbus!
      3. ddmm09
        ddmm09 29 January 2014 12: 10 New
        +1
        You are talking about a completely different technology. The Americans, judging by the article, did not offer anything new: launch vehicle + minicell. The payload is small, just small. They simply cannot refuse Soviet launch vehicles, since they do not report anything about their new launch vehicle. A shuttle is a shuttle, small or large. It still needs to be delivered to orbit, it will not fly itself. In the end, they just simplify their old tactics and nothing more. In the USSR, there was a different idea, this is what you are trying to describe when you talk about "Spiral".
    2. klimpopov
      klimpopov 29 January 2014 09: 33 New
      +1

      Here is a movie, I advise. Well, the network has a lot of material on the topic, and here in VO too
      1. Andriuha077
        Andriuha077 29 January 2014 12: 35 New
        +3

        Ajax - Hypersonic Aircraft
        A hypersonic aircraft uses hydrocarbons (kerosene or a more promising fuel - liquefied methane) and water as fuel. For heat recovery, the Ajax double cladding houses a thermochemical reactor into which hydrocarbon fuel is fed after acceleration and aerodynamic heating of the cladding. It is used as an “endothermic” fuel - it absorbs heat. Under the influence of temperature, pressure and using a catalyst, a mixture of fuel and water decomposes into olefin and free hydrogen. This hydrogen-containing mixture enters the magnetoplasmochemical engine, which is an MHD generator, a hypersonic ramjet, and an accelerator located behind the MHD combustion chamber. MHD generator, inhibiting flow to the optimum speed, acts as a compressor. Inhibited and pre-ionized air flow enters the combustion chamber, where hydrogen-enriched fuel (kerosene or methane) is supplied. The expiring combustion products enter the nozzle, are additionally accelerated by the MHD accelerator and, expanding, go outside. To accelerate the flow and to ionize the air - creating a "cold plasma" - uses the electricity generated by the MHD generator. This allows you to increase the speed of the aircraft at 10-30% and get a number of advantages. The plasma funnel around the scramjet air intake increases its effective diameter to almost a hundred meters, plasma spots-clouds in front of the aircraft significantly reduce air resistance, and near the wings they increase their effective area and regulates lift.
    3. Voronbit
      Voronbit 31 January 2014 00: 13 New
      +1
      removing my own, and for one and your pathos, I say, the system of competing developments in the USSR gave its results .......... grandmothers -superrrr is important, but if I had money, I would give Kamovsky developments .. ..TODAY more innovations (in the sense of a promising helicopter)
  2. Nikitin
    Nikitin 29 January 2014 09: 44 New
    +3
    Quote: invisible
    I share, of course, the author’s anxiety, but doesn’t it seem to him that such airplanes are more suitable for millionaire tourists?


    Who controls the cosmos and wins the next war. Space is command and control, communications, reconnaissance and navigation. Probably the bombs, the enemies too, will soon begin to hang their orbits. When a pair of megatons hangs over a shrew, it’s easier to negotiate with him. Then whoever first destroyed the partner’s orbital grouping is that and dad. And airplanes for tourists are first weapons, and only then entertainment.
    1. invisibility
      invisibility 29 January 2014 09: 58 New
      +1
      Quote: Nikitin
      Who controls the cosmos and wins the next war. Space is troop control, communications, reconnaissance and navigation

      I agree with you, but there are many but. At a large orbital station, the ability to place weapons is much greater, do you agree?
      Quote: Nikitin
      And airplanes for tourists are first weapons, and only then entertainment.

      I would clarify. Komos is still so far, more intelligence, you wrote about it. Is there a need for manned reconnaissance? Can an ordinary satellite be more economical?
      Your opinion?
      1. Nikitin
        Nikitin 29 January 2014 12: 01 New
        +2
        -On an orbital station there are much fewer opportunities to apply it. To change the orbit of a hundred-ton colossus and to maneuver it in order to recollect a dozen enemy satellites is to shoot sparrows from a cannon.
        I didn’t see TTZ for American shuttles, but I think there was far from limited to intelligence. Anti-satellite weapons + the ability to remove from orbit and deliver expensive toys to the ground, or it may be possible to carry out their maintenance directly in orbit. At least Shuttle and Buran knew how to do it.
        1. invisibility
          invisibility 29 January 2014 12: 48 New
          -1
          And if you launch small satellites from an orbital station? And why change the orbit of the station? Yes, and not one it can be, then the reaction time to a potential threat will be minimal. And on the orbital station there may not be large satellites hunters ...
        2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 29 January 2014 22: 31 New
        +2
        Quote: invisible
        Komos is still, more intelligence,

        Do not forget about the world's first combat space station "Almaz - 3". The fight against the enemy's space grouping is one of the most important today. By removing the positioning satellites - the task of targeting the enemy's air defense systems is solved; By removing the AES-r, the problem of the effectiveness of the global system of R-ki and CU is solved, as well as, for example, the Aegis IFRS.
  3. Wedmak
    Wedmak 29 January 2014 09: 46 New
    +5
    I’m wondering, but the author was interested in other projects in Roscosmos, or was he stuck with shuttles?
    Yesterday only a message slipped - the lunar program was resumed, three flights are planned, automatic truth. Planned launch into space of telescopes and research vehicles. The hangar is already being tested. These are carriers and machines. As for transport, at the present stage all these shuttles are nothing more than expensive hearse. Capsules are more practical and reliable. Well, our science has not yet reached the creation of a reliable shuttle a la star wars - there are flights to space on the planet and there are even weapons. Again, think about how sideways they will put their planes into orbit. Again Atlas 5 with Russian engines ???? As they say - Gee ..
    This really does not cancel the search for options and the development of prototypes. But we don’t have money for them ... everything is devoured by a new carrier, a new spaceport, new space exploration programs.
    1. nazgul-ishe
      nazgul-ishe 29 January 2014 12: 11 New
      0
      How much does their carrier carry, even with our engines? And we are still 4-5 tons. We have been fed the hangar for about 30 years, but where is it? There is enough money for everything; you just need to choose a pocket or a MOTHERLAND.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 29 January 2014 12: 17 New
        +1
        Atlas standard load is 4-8 tons. So we are not talking about any significant advantages. The birth of the Angara had the collapse of the country, it is simply a forgotten time. But now everything is accelerating and the matter is about testing a light version of the rocket.
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 29 January 2014 22: 36 New
        +2
        Quote: nazgul-ishe
        you only need to choose a pocket or a HOMELAND.

        Unfortunately, many now choose "the pocket of the Motherland" as a source of personal wealth.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. tegezen
      tegezen 29 January 2014 12: 33 New
      +4
      The author blames the Soviet developer for imitating and catching up with the Americans, but he does the same, he heard about the spaceship and let's do the same. What will they do there while fantasies. Something frivolous, the task is still daunting ... We have a good program for developing proven delivery methods, we are developing a nuclear installation. Throw everything away and start the spaceship to do ....? Resources are sprayed.
      1. nazgul-ishe
        nazgul-ishe 29 January 2014 14: 17 New
        +2
        Not to scatter resources, but relying on OUR developments to create OUR orbital constellation with orbital stations and support satellites. We drive ourselves. If necessary, we can shake our finger without asking the UN.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  4. JonnyT
    JonnyT 29 January 2014 10: 21 New
    0
    Too bad comrades!
  5. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 29 January 2014 10: 23 New
    +1
    I disagree. Yes, at the moment, returned single-use capsules look more profitable in terms of reliability and low cost, and this is what they are all about. But this is an outdated, dead-end branch of astronautics, because 99% of the equipment put into space is lost, and besides, the maneuverability of such modules is negligible. Therefore, all countries are developing precisely the aircraft type of manned vehicles. And we need to spend money not on a dead-end branch, but on a promising one. We must look to the future, otherwise we risk being left on the sidelines of manned space exploration. I fully agree with the author of the article.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 29 January 2014 10: 26 New
      0
      In addition, the maneuverability of such modules is negligible.

      Only now it bothered, and so, in principle, I agree. Yes, it is necessary to develop, but are the technologies ready for such development? It all costs money and not small.
      1. nazgul-ishe
        nazgul-ishe 29 January 2014 16: 45 New
        0
        So let's take off!
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 29 January 2014 17: 04 New
          0
          Good idea, come on.
          Who will be able to establish a fund, distribute funds, look for specialists, order equipment, conduct research, experiments, testing? Do we compete with Roscosmos? And what do we get in the end? Analog Helix in 10 years?
      2. The comment was deleted.
  6. invisibility
    invisibility 29 January 2014 10: 23 New
    -1
    Quote: klimpopov
    And now time is lost and lost forever. Now it's all over again ...

    Klim, I don't believe it! There would be a desire. Why is it all over again? Do you think that the Salyut developments will not be useful to us?
    1. klimpopov
      klimpopov 29 January 2014 10: 52 New
      +2
      I understand that everything will come in handy, maybe not anew, but a lot of catch up. Let's start with the frames. And EVERYTHING will be useful.
      1. invisibility
        invisibility 29 January 2014 12: 50 New
        -1
        Here! Everything pulls for itself! There are no options! I said so, work a fool ...
      2. The comment was deleted.
  7. 2sila
    2sila 29 January 2014 11: 27 New
    +2
    Nothing like this!
    "Private" companies are able to pull only the most simple projects such as CST-100, Dragon, moreover, probably already on the basis of a finished rocket.
    Any loshara can even draw some kind of financing, especially in the USA, where lobbying influence, connections and kickbacks are important, not just ideas.
    But run it ............. HZ!
    How much R&D is needed ?!
    In aerodynamics, aerodynamics at maximum speeds, high-temperature physics, materials, the effects of high temperatures, in engines.
    What kind of extra charge will such INFO be shared with them ?!
    Who will give the competitor such info?
    Damn, I forgot about the Internet.
    Exactly.
    They pull it all from an Internet.
    Only the STATE is able to push such a project, well, in the sense of three states.
  8. 2sila
    2sila 29 January 2014 11: 30 New
    +1
    "Is space really just the American dream?"
    The answer is in the title of the article.
    ......... will become only ...... a dream!
    1. invisibility
      invisibility 29 January 2014 12: 52 New
      +2
      Plus to you for patriotism! But a clear and working program of action is simply necessary, agree!
      1. 2sila
        2sila 29 January 2014 17: 04 New
        +1
        I agree.
        And I'm sure she is.
        Here are just priorities and directions, I think, do not provide for the creation of an "orbital plane".
        Grandfathers - academicians probably see the perspectives of astronautics differently and you know ...... Here I am ready to trust them and be a dogma!
      2. The comment was deleted.
  9. 2sila
    2sila 29 January 2014 11: 30 New
    +1
    "Is space really just the American dream?"
    The answer is in the title of the article.
    ......... will become only ...... a dream!
  10. nazgul-ishe
    nazgul-ishe 29 January 2014 12: 20 New
    +1
    State corporations are assimilating funds without much return. The Yankees work for the end result and this gives the result.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 29 January 2014 12: 37 New
      +1
      The Yankees are assimilating funds no less than ours, or even large ones.
      1. nazgul-ishe
        nazgul-ishe 29 January 2014 14: 39 New
        -1
        With more "mastering", the return is much greater. We expect the return from NANO technologies so far, apart from NANO salaries, there are no successes.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 29 January 2014 14: 45 New
          +2
          We are waiting for the return from NANO technologies so far, except NANO, there are no salaries.

          And did you expect a return on basic research next year?
          1. nazgul-ishe
            nazgul-ishe 29 January 2014 15: 23 New
            +2
            What are you not! At least in the next millennium.
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 29 January 2014 17: 05 New
              0
              Well, this is too much, but after 100 years it will be visible already. Unless, of course, they are seriously involved.
          2. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  11. rotor
    rotor 29 January 2014 12: 34 New
    0


    Such a ship is unsuitable for interplanetary flights.

    Either we fly in the atmosphere, or fly to other planets - the Moon, Mars and beyond and build a universal ship.

    There is no money for both projects. Billionaires to invest in space are not very eager. We cannot build a reusable rocket. Another air start must be implemented (start from the carrier aircraft).
    1. uhu189
      uhu189 29 January 2014 15: 52 New
      +1
      With existing engines and flight speeds, living cosmonates cannot be delivered to Mars. During the year of flight, they will receive radiation at several lethal doses as soon as they reach the Earth’s magnetosphere. Everyone knows this, but for some reason they do not talk about it and do not make it public. Therefore, while astronauts cannot get further than the Moon ... Accordingly, the priority is the development of near-Earth orbit, the development of the Moon, and the study and refinement of electronuclear engines ...
  12. valokordin
    valokordin 29 January 2014 13: 10 New
    +4
    It is said correctly about Roux; nothing can be expected during the lifetime of our generation. The method of production and distribution, which is exercised by the authorities in the service of the oligarchs and foreign rich people, will not do anything breakthrough. We will only lag behind. If you say that a change in the socio-economic formation is needed, they will be accused of anti-state activities, extremism and imprisoned. Only foreign puppeteers and oligarchs will rejoice, and the inhabitants of Russia will only "get fat", and a talking head will talk about an increase in production, a decrease in inflation and achievements in the Olympics. Uuuuuuuuuuuuuu uki
  13. Petergut
    Petergut 29 January 2014 13: 30 New
    +3
    And the author forgot to talk about the American unmanned shuttle Boeing X-37, which is the third time successfully launched into space. The first two times he landed safely, and the shuttle of the third launch has been hanging in space for more than a year. And no details. Think about why they need it ...
    Although I am extremely negative about what S.Sh.P. is doing. on our ball, but in matters of space exploration, I have no other word other than "well done".
    But Russia stands still and spills the existing potential, which can end extremely sadly, IMHO.

    Peace for everyone.
  14. intsurfer
    intsurfer 29 January 2014 13: 41 New
    +1
    Quote: Monster_Fat
    I disagree. Yes, at the moment, returned single-use capsules look more profitable in terms of reliability and low cost, and this is what they are all about. But this is an outdated, dead-end branch of astronautics, because 99% of the equipment put into space is lost, and besides, the maneuverability of such modules is negligible. Therefore, all countries are developing precisely the aircraft type of manned vehicles.
    Want to say that Elon Musk is in vain trying Grasshopper to return all the steps back to Earth? ;)
  15. Andriuha077
    Andriuha077 29 January 2014 13: 53 New
    0
    Who is selling now, at the moment, to the Americans the production of our engines, in all respects the best in the world?
    NK-33
    Fuel: Kerosene
    Oxidizing agent: liquid oxygen
    Thrust: 171 Tc in Vacuum
    154 Tc at sea level
    Specific Impulse: 331 s in 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.
    More details: http://topwar.ru/37566-proton-m-zhdet-sereznaya-konkurenciya-s-amerikanskoy-rake
    toy-falcon-9.html # comment-id-1792702
  16. Black
    Black 29 January 2014 14: 02 New
    +2
    The weakening, and then the collapse of the USSR pushed us to second roles in space exploration. China, India will eventually push even further.
    I do not think that real Russia has enough strength for something like this. We will hardly be able to repeat what we have worked out - like "Spiral". It was rightly said that "ruble-boom" is preferable to our political elites over space.
  17. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 29 January 2014 14: 28 New
    -2
    while the incomes of the richest country in the world will go to the construction of the palaces of “rubland” (as well as palaces in other parts of the world), we will not see either rocket-planes or modern tanks and planes put on stream ...
    Here the author is not entirely right. You can go the way of America, enslavement and robbery of all who are possible. There will be enough money for anything and serious customers will appear to support the state's way of life. I would think in this direction, you can start small. Only not like in the USSR and now, it is not necessary to restore the empire with all the shortcomings and stupidity such as fraternal republics and universal equality, all the same, "equal brothers" we are now invoiced for "enslavement and robbery." There must be a clear occupation and exploitation, understandable under the verbal cover of development, aid and democracy.
  18. nickname 1 and 2
    nickname 1 and 2 29 January 2014 15: 19 New
    0
    Article and Comment page, a memorial service! Why moan? Already then, tears pour in the usual direction: the delay is ...... whether the USSR, etc.

    Yes, two dozen years of devastation will not be in vain! Even cry, even cry! Well, at least not a goal: they handed out, gave away, squandered!

    One thing the USSR i.e. 15 republics, and the Communist Party and the SS, try croaking against!

    And then what did they "croak"? - they have all the best, but we have !!!!!
    In our genes: "...... we destroy, to the ground, and then!" Why groan?

    BRAINS DO NOT GROW BY ACCELERATION! Do not leave the race! Arms Race, Arms Race!
    And the fact that this is an educational process, GYMNASTICS OF THE MIND - the pumpkin did not realize? And the continuity of KNOWLEDGE! ONE LOGS WILL NOT BE BURNING! One HEAD without a research institute is still not worth much, just like a research institute without a good head!

    And NOW many good deeds are being done in the country! But moaning is apparently in the genes.
    1. Kadavercianin
      Kadavercianin 29 January 2014 15: 43 New
      +4
      We have such a genetic feature that says that everything is bad and very bad with us, and in general is worse than everywhere else. And it doesn't matter at all whether it really is or not. Now most often the reaction among people is: "Production is Russia, but it is g ... but. Why? Just because of what was made in Russia" that's the whole story. After all, many have such a reaction to almost any thing and phenomenon, if a new development - sawing, rearmament - sawing, allocating money for the social sphere - theft, etc.
      Most of the first reaction to such news is just such and unlimited confidence that they (Americans, Japanese, Germans, Chinese, etc.) are always better. Well, and then, as usual, the search for the guilty, disputes out of the blue, the desire to dump where we are not, etc.

      It seems to me that we simply do not want to see the good, we see only the bad, and those who notice that there is at least something we call "hurray-patriots" and ignore. I do not argue that there are people who unconditionally believe in what they hear (I am of those who do not analyze or think anything at all, and only throw slogans), but not all of them are like that.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. nickname 1 and 2
        nickname 1 and 2 29 January 2014 17: 21 New
        +1
        Quote: Kadavercianin
        We have such a genetic feature that says everything is bad and very bad, and generally worse than everywhere.


        So I see this! recourse
      3. Wedmak
        Wedmak 29 January 2014 17: 32 New
        +4
        We have such a genetic feature that says everything is bad and very bad, and generally worse than everywhere else. And it doesn’t matter whether it really is or not.

        This "genetic trait" has been hammered into us for centuries by newcomers from the West. They say, Russian barbarians, nifiga do not know how, only run through the forests and spoil women. True, such slogans did not stop them from buying hundreds of cannons and cast-iron cannonballs for another 16 .. shaggy year. While the cannons themselves learned how to cast two centuries later !!!
        What can we say about the armor of Russian (then still Rus) warriors compared to the half-naked infantry of the Romans.
        Who remembers the Battle of Molodi now? When 20 thousand troops of Mikhaila Vorotynsky practically CUT 100 thousandth (according to other sources 40 thousand, which is more likely) the army of the Crimean Khan Davlet Girey? Losses vary three times in favor of the Russians.

        So are we all bad ?? Yes, not pease .. those !!!
      4. Starina_hank
        Starina_hank 29 January 2014 18: 56 New
        0
        Raise my eyelids! recourse
    2. Starina_hank
      Starina_hank 29 January 2014 18: 54 New
      -1
      The dreamer however!
  19. Sarmat1972
    Sarmat1972 29 January 2014 15: 26 New
    -1
    "Our moneybags simply do not see the point of investing in defense (I hope no one will argue that space is the most, that is, defense) of the country in which they are not going to live" - ​​you can't say more precisely !!!
    1. Starina_hank
      Starina_hank 29 January 2014 18: 59 New
      +1
      Be realistic, our moneybags invest only in loved ones!
  20. Firebox
    Firebox 29 January 2014 16: 16 New
    0
    mankind has been given such a planet as our earth, a huge amount of resources .. Everything is there for space exploration. BUT It’s more important for people to arrange another coup or make dirt even worse
  21. Docklishin
    Docklishin 29 January 2014 18: 09 New
    +1
    Recently I delved into YouTube - I watched good videos about the new Union with a number - an analogue of the American dragon. I looked about the relatively new developments of the Baikal air launch system, Clipper. It seems that everything is there, but in practice there is nothing. In my opinion, we do not have the right distribution of material resources with the country (Sochi 2014, etc.). Based on external threats, there is an option of a complete blockade of our carriers with subsequent interception and destruction, and the concept of mutual destruction may sink into oblivion. What to do is to launch weapons into space. Like it or not, but someday you have to. I really liked the interview of the Minister of Heavy Industry of the USSR. Take a look. It seems like an elderly person - but the foresight and scope of thinking is amazing.
  22. Docklishin
    Docklishin 29 January 2014 18: 11 New
    +1

    Here is the interview itself.
    1. Voronbit
      Voronbit 31 January 2014 00: 50 New
      0
      chemical WATER AND OXYGEN - not the most effective chemical fuel
  23. Ascetic
    Ascetic 29 January 2014 18: 59 New
    +4
    In TsAGI, work is underway to create space shuttle unmanned aerial vehicle. . Flight altitude of 90 kilometers, speed of 20 thousand kilometers per hour, flight range of 16-17 thousand km - these are the operating parameters of the aviation monster being developed at TsAGI.
    Foreign analysts highly appreciate the capabilities of the Russian military-industrial complex in this regard: there are no technical reasons that would not allow Russia to create an unmanned orbital aircraft after America.
    “The main Russian technologies necessary for this are already half a century old,” said American space expert Jim Oberg. “The Russians have been experimenting with winged spaceships since the 1960s and even launched a prototype into orbit, but today they are weakened by reforms. therefore it all depends on the political will of the country's leadership and the armed forces ”.

    Russia's new weapon - a combat spaceship
    In addition, progress in hypersound has been made.

    TsAGI specialists experimentally proved the possibility of organizing and stable combustion in the combustion chambers of a hypersonic ramjet engine in regimes with free flow numbers M from 3,5 to 6. As you know, ensuring sustainable combustion is a key problem in creating hypersonic devices for various purposes. The whole world, a group of scientists of our institute, is working on this problem. We managed to find a solution through the use of plasma and some other technologies that I would not want to disclose ahead of time. The obtained results inspire hope that a key has been found to solve one of the most difficult problems in organizing long-term hypersonic flight at moderate speeds.

    Sergey Chernyshev Executive Director of FSUE TsAGI, Corresponding Member of RAS
    link
    TsAGI held advanced studies of the "hot" design hypersonic aircraft experiencing intense aerodynamic heating in flight.

    link
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 30 January 2014 10: 56 New
      0
      that the key was found to solve one of the most difficult problems in organizing a long hypersonic flight at moderate speeds.

      Moderate speeds ?? So for TsAGI up to 6M, these are already moderate speeds. Ahem. I’m even afraid to assume that then applies at high speeds.
  24. Ascetic
    Ascetic 29 January 2014 19: 37 New
    +2
    One point is important here. There is an international treaty that prohibits the deployment of military space platforms and other weapons in space .: Agreement on the Principles of the Activities of States for the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies) October 10, 1967 When the Americans launched their spaceship hiding its true purpose. Because apart from military tasks, this toy is generally not needed, our informational response appeared in the media (see the link above) that Russia could create something similar if desired. this would be a desire. In reality, we focused on solving the problems of creating weapons and aircraft capable of operating in environments bordering outer space that are not defined by the treaty, that is, up to 100km capable of controlling near space as well. Work on this in particular in TsAGI and the TRV Corporation.
    1. Voronbit
      Voronbit 31 January 2014 00: 44 New
      +1
      in 2012, nasa built the complex as a TsAGI worse
  25. saag
    saag 29 January 2014 19: 51 New
    +1
    And what kind of fuss? It’s not interesting to fly into orbit, all these orbital planes need extraterrestrial expansion, and the first step is the Moon, a training ground for developing technologies for using local raw materials for local needs, and the city of Kuzmaber will be born there :-)
  26. Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 29 January 2014 20: 17 New
    +1
    As soon as the capsule apparatus with a parachute lands on people, frying and flattening them, or on a residential building, killing both residents and cosmonauts, or the Americans - on a ship or island accidentally beneath it, it will become clear to everyone that winged ships with an airplane descent better than capsules.
    But in Russia they were skillfully designed by the NGO Lightning. Judging by the Internet, it is now renting out its buildings. They were built by the Tushino Engineering Plant. Judging by the Internet, then he built buses. Then he went broke. What is there now is hard to understand.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 30 January 2014 10: 58 New
      0
      As soon as the capsule apparatus with a parachute lands on people, frying and flattening them, or on a residential building, killing both residents and cosmonauts, or the Americans - on a ship or island accidentally beneath it, it will become clear to everyone that winged ships with an airplane descent better than capsules.

      Why would the capsule land on people, and even fry them ??? Do you even know how to descend from orbit?
  27. lestad
    lestad 29 January 2014 23: 42 New
    0
    Well, like, and we are not standing still smile I see there are developments
  28. Voronbit
    Voronbit 31 January 2014 00: 19 New
    +1
    and at the expense of space: - everything is so secret, and circuit diagrams are available, but multiply by 10000000, as these are engineering solutions to specific small problems
  29. Voronbit
    Voronbit 31 January 2014 00: 35 New
    +1
    Guys, good politics, let's read the comments of the Copenhagen people in this matter ..... than I like this site ....
  30. operator_75
    operator_75 31 January 2014 11: 26 New
    0
    Quote: Wedmak
    Why would the capsule land on people, and even fry them ???

    Have you seen the operation of brake squibs? negative
  31. operator_75
    operator_75 31 January 2014 11: 41 New
    0
    The capsule descent trajectory is calculated, and to the most sparsely populated areas. The descent itself is not controlled. And there is always the possibility of error or unforeseen circumstances that can lead a descent capsule with astronauts to the bluntness of the village center, or for example a fuel and lubricant base ... So it is not known which is preferable: a simple descent on a capsule with parachutes, or controlled, wherever you need .. .
  32. Zomanus
    Zomanus 2 February 2014 01: 45 New
    0
    Damn, well, not all at once. We and on Earth have affairs above the roof.
  33. Kowalsky
    Kowalsky 10 February 2014 01: 40 New
    +1
    Oh, to live to see the day when America, Russia, China and all the rest begin to explore space together, really together, and not like now, competing where it is not necessary and keeping secrets from each other, instead of share knowledge.