Angara: Triumph or Oblivion. 2 part

31
From Ukraine - back to the USSR

I must say that the Zenith launch vehicle was more fortunate in this regard. Yes, the space program "Energy-Buran" was closed, but we have "Zenith", which was the side unit of the first stage of the launch vehicle "Energy". Therefore, the "Energy-Buran" program can be reanimated relatively quickly and inexpensively And it is absolutely necessary to restore all this because in the 30 years the space design thought in the world has not advanced a single step. Judge for yourself: Von Braun’s “moon” rocket, the Saturn-5, turned out to be a “dead end dinosaur” of cosmic evolution, the absence of a modular production principle made it “inflexible” under the range of tasks set, add to this the unsuitability of increasing load capacity and, naturally, its astronomical expensive. True, at that time America did not pay attention to such “trifles”. After all, the prestige of the “free world civilization” was put on the line, and the dollars will still be printed.



Nevertheless, it is obvious that the Saturn-type rocket will never be produced anywhere, the “lunar euphoria” has disappeared, and the rocket has also disappeared. An even more terrible joke, “besmodulnost” made with the “Shuttle”: besides the fact that it turned out to be super-expensive, it also turned out to be extremely complicated and therefore unsafe.

On the example of "Energy-Buran" this can be explained as follows. Soviet designers initially "separated flies from cutlets." The rocket and the shuttle are two separate, self-sufficient structures. If there is a problem with the “Buran”, then “Energy” takes another ship or cargo (not necessarily a shuttle) and flies anywhere: if you want - to the Moon, and you want to go to Mars! After all, it all depends on the design of the ship and the layout of the modules on the carrier. Let me remind you that the cargo potential of these carriers is virtually limitless. For example, the layout of the "Volcano-Hercules" is able to take up to near-earth orbit up to 200 tons of cargo! Von Braun with his 140 t nervously smokes on the sidelines. As for the Energia launch vehicle, the principle is the same. If for any reason we do not need such a powerful rocket yet, then its component parts-modules fly into orbit, in this case the Zenith rocket. Amazing You are just amazed at the ingenious vision of the designers of the Soviet school!

As for the Shuttle, the American designers did not put the principle of self-sufficient modularity into it. They, in the literal sense of the word, did not know what to do with this “priceless treasure”. If one part of the indivisible System fails (I mean the death of 14 astronauts on the Challenger and Columbia), then the entire system is dumped into a landfill. And indeed, the fuel tank with solid-fuel boosters did not learn to fly independently into space, and it is almost impossible to hook the shuttle onto another rocket. Even if (theoretically, of course) this would have been done, the Shuttle would carry three heavy cruise engines into orbit and back with dead weight, which it could not use even during landing.

As you know, the shuttle was planning to land, not being able to go to the second round, which, of course, did not add security to the ship. If we touch on the topic of safety, it is enough to recall one fact: the pilots of the Shuttle, in contrast to the Buran, did not even have an ejection seat.
31 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    3 September 2014 09: 47
    And all because in each of our designers (from the outstanding), at the genetic level, Lefty is laid, who achieved excellent results with minimal means.
    1. +6
      3 September 2014 10: 12
      Since childhood, Americans have been taught to think in a stereotyped way, as we now have among schoolchildren - the USE, sit, check the boxes, choose the most suitable answer. Therefore, having matured, their designers are guided only by standard solutions, without a flight of thought. In our Union, in order to answer correctly at school, we had to mobilize memory, turn on logic and move our brains. Here are the breakthroughs in technical solutions. Can we now comply with the bar after the education reform? Question...
    2. +10
      3 September 2014 10: 39
      Verdict: "Muskrat is not only valuable fur, but also 1-1.5 kg of valuable meat."
      yesterday showed the GDP at the Vostochny cosmodrome
      -Building the Baikonur Cosmodrome
      rockets of different classes, including for the moon and Mars
      -Tsiolkovsky city for 12 thousand inhabitants -40 houses with all infrastructure
      railway road 125 km
      highway Chita Khabarovsk
      - and along its gas and oil pipeline
      Scientific Center at the Cosmodrome
      -from a military point, it’s not worth talking about (it’s not enough of where and where it can fly, and the grouping of its cover is aviation, ZRV, RTV ,,, MTO system ....)
      -in connection with this, further plans to modernize and expand the capabilities of BAM are understandable ..
      1. Oblozelo
        0
        4 September 2014 22: 23
        "Soviet Peaceful tractors of light, medium and heavy type" can fly from there.
        "with all the ensuing consequences."
        and the "health of tractor drivers" will be excellent good
    3. +1
      3 September 2014 13: 40
      and it’s unfortunate that we practically lost this great design school. The results are obvious.
      1. +2
        3 September 2014 14: 08
        Well, an extra-heavy rocket, and now they plan to start developing an extra-heavy rocket that will appear a maximum of 15-20 years. It is necessary to develop new engines for Energy that would fly on a different type of fuel and here's super heavy. Although this is my purely personal opinion!
        1. 0
          5 September 2014 07: 51
          The United States plans to land on the moon in 2030, and ours plan to create an extra-heavy class booster carrier by 2030!
  2. +2
    3 September 2014 10: 11
    When will we fly to the moon on vacation? Where are you, brilliant designers?
  3. Tamerlan225
    +15
    3 September 2014 10: 16
    We are learning. At the mai
    1. +4
      3 September 2014 10: 56
      Quote: Tamerlan225
      We are learning. At the mai

      Come on, learn better!
  4. avt
    +3
    3 September 2014 10: 27
    ,,. Therefore, the Energia-Buran program can be reanimated relatively quickly and inexpensively. " fool The author of the campaign has no idea what it is! That’s how they cheerfully lifted a log and carried it! ?? Seen enough of pictures and heard a lot of buzz words about modularity. One such, DAM, now already with Manturov was going to quickly rivet hundreds of Tu-204x, but it wasn’t there - the cooperation on the production of the machine was simply killed by Poghosyan and the company flew, and then fly in to raise Energy! No. Does the author have any idea what it means to reanimate the site for her ??? Like there is a table - bring it and run it ??? Brad! "Energia" and "Buran" died from the USSR and it is impossible to raise this complex now, and it is not necessary! You need to invest in projects based on fundamentally different physical principles of work! To develop what was felt only at the stage of EP and R&D in the 80s and to maintain the current level with chemical missiles, and for this there is enough Angara for the eyes. it is possible, demanding dough for the next "Tsar rocket", otherwise we will lag behind ..
    1. 0
      3 September 2014 10: 34
      The author is a great optimist :-)
    2. Sheremetev
      +3
      3 September 2014 11: 22
      You, I'm looking specialist. Are the developers of this program specialists who unanimously say that Energia-Buran can be restored in approximately 8 years? If we do not need a shuttle, then the rocket itself can be reanimated even faster, the term is called - about 5 years. There would be desire and political will.
      1. -2
        3 September 2014 13: 47
        Quote: Sheremetev
        If we do not need a shuttle, then the missile itself can be reanimated even faster, the term is called - about 5 years. It would be a desire and political will.

        And these experts do not say for what task such a missile is needed? Is there such a task in the federal space program, is there funding for it, with one voice, any official drank anything while waiting. By the way, can you tell me why there is no hydrogen step in any configuration in the Hangar? And then the Energy does have it, and it's not just a tank to weld, then the whole infrastructure stretches, and nobody wants to get in touch with it.
        1. avt
          -3
          3 September 2014 14: 03
          Quote: Sheremetev
          You, I look specialist.

          Quote: saag
          By the way, can you tell me why there is no hydrogen step in any configuration in the Hangar?

          And the questioner about a "specialist" for a campaign does not even know what it is to deal with liquid hydrogen! For them it is so, garbage, which can be muddied up quickly and cheaply in about eight years! No. negative Well, a clean LADY, when hearing, looking at Borea, "that there are problems with the sonar, he said without appeal -" Tell me that if they don’t do it, we will buy it elsewhere " fool
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Sheremetev
          +1
          3 September 2014 14: 55
          Quote: saag
          Quote: Sheremetev
          If we do not need a shuttle, then the missile itself can be reanimated even faster, the term is called - about 5 years. It would be a desire and political will.

          And these experts do not say for what task such a missile is needed? Is there such a task in the federal space program, is there funding for it, with one voice, any official drank anything while waiting. By the way, can you tell me why there is no hydrogen step in any configuration in the Hangar? And then the Energy does have it, and it's not just a tank to weld, then the whole infrastructure stretches, and nobody wants to get in touch with it.

          Of course, ideally, a hydrogen engine would not hurt. It gives a particularly greater effect on the upper stages of the rocket, its specific impulse is 30% higher than that of kerosene, its combustion temperature is low, which accordingly simplifies its material design. But the hydrogen engine has a major minus, hydrogen fuel is 3 times lighter than kerosene, so the volume of the tanks will accordingly be 3 times more. Still need to take into account the volatility of hydrogen and, accordingly, complex insulation, with channels for inert gases. Therefore, the diameter of the block of the second and subsequent stages will be clearly greater than 2.9 m, as in a universal module, that is, it is necessary to separately design a module for a hydrogen engine. I am sure that no one will do this. After some time - it is quite possible. In the meantime, let it fly on kerosene - that's okay.
      2. 0
        15 September 2014 02: 06
        Buran, like the Shuttle, is stupid, and the Energy rocket is a diamond that is often overlooked by the payload - Buran.
    3. +6
      3 September 2014 11: 45
      > We need to invest in projects based on fundamentally different physical principles of work!

      It is a very ambiguous statement, antigravity, the use of antimatter, and various ion engines for which are now actively designing / testing a power plant in Russia are suitable for it. But from real options, everything based on fundamentally different physical principles of operation is suitable only for moving a rocket in space.

      And in the next 40 years, it does not look like it can be brought out of the earth into space otherwise than by using the chemical energy of a jet stream. And the engines of the Energy, as far as one can judge, in the technical sense were / are close to perfection. It’s hard for me personally to say anything about how the technical requirements for a rocket that launches a load into space have changed.

      Actually, this should be discussed first of all - what were the requirements, how various subsystems were designed, how these requirements changed, and what changes in various subsystems this leads to
    4. 52
      +2
      3 September 2014 17: 07
      The first sane comment, definitely "+"! fellow
    5. Oblozelo
      0
      4 September 2014 22: 28
      but nada!
      I’m resuscitating, and you, what?
      raised the flag of the UNION! Must! angry
  5. 0
    3 September 2014 10: 50
    Space, space, in the recent past Russia was ahead of the rest in space exploration, problems began with the collapse of the Union, when the whole country underwent a terrible destruction and plunder, comparable only after the war period. Russia's problems in space exploration began with the creation of the Roskosmos organization, in which officials (the number of which was several times greater than during the Union) were engaged not in further space exploration but in cutting up funds allocated by the state. The result of recent years is known, the number of lost space vehicles (during launches and in space) crossed the limit of permissible losses, billions of people's money wasted, and Roscosmos came out not long ago with an application to increase the staff of officials and additional funds for the salaries of parasites, the question is corrected lstvu and boy with iPhones, how long people's money will pay parasites are unable to cope with their obyazannostyami.Pochemu not responsible Roscosmos leaders for the lag of two months in the construction of the cosmodrome East, even the President was forced to point this out.
  6. +1
    3 September 2014 11: 26
    Sorry for "Energy"
    I noticed that after the collapse of the USSR, nothing new was invented. There is only the development of developments (mainly Soviet).
  7. 0
    3 September 2014 11: 55
    With the desire and funding, you can do anything at all. However, this requires both desire and funding. And they are not available for these purposes. Zenit is generally questionable - it is being built in Ukraine. Because of this, the "sea start" is bent. So, in fact, everything is more complicated than it seems at first glance.
  8. +1
    3 September 2014 12: 10
    Is there any sense in reviving Energy and Buran? The tests of Angara-5 are already underway - here is the replacement of Energy. Not 200 tons into orbit, of course, but in the same weight category. A decree was issued on the start of work on a super-heavy launch vehicle - we will get a new, modern rocket, and how much it costs to remake Energy for a modern component base - God knows. The development of new manned spacecraft is underway. And against the spacecraft of the Buran type, as far as I remember, they were initially against. Maybe "Spiral" will be revived?
    1. Sheremetev
      +4
      3 September 2014 13: 07
      "Angara5" cannot replace "Energiya", it is capable of putting a load weighing up to 25,8 tons into the reference orbit - this is an analogue of "Proton". But the question is correct. "Angara7.2" is capable of carrying loads up to 35 tons, and in version 7.2B - up to 50 tons. We don't need more yet. We do not have a hundred-ton "Burans", we do not plan a manned flight to the Moon, just not a serious project. Now, if there is a real demand for cargo over 50 tons, then one can think about Energia. Designing another super-heavy rocket is expensive and time-consuming, especially since Energia is a very good rocket
      1. 0
        15 September 2014 02: 20
        No, there will be no Angara-7, I am for the Angara, but you need to be realistic Angara-5 is the limit, the optimum is Angara-3. Also, URMs of the Angara can find application as accelerators for the Zenith. Say Zenith with the sides of the Angara.
    2. +1
      4 September 2014 07: 21
      "Buran" is valuable first of all for the possibility of placing on it weapons, not only conventional weapons that can be deployed in space anyway, but nuclear weapons. This is not a satellite or an orbital station on which the deployment of weapons of mass destruction is prohibited, it does not fall under the limitation of the "Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies." With a couple of these ships on alert, the Americans can forget about their Prompt Global Strike strategy, as our strike will be even faster ...
  9. +2
    3 September 2014 21: 44
    Quote: Author Nikadonov Sergey
    A rocket and a shuttle are two separate, self-sufficient structures.

    Forgive this baby talk, albeit partial.
    And if RN Energia could bring SOMETHING to the DOE, then Buran-ANYTHING, even like an airplane, could not fly (the testing laboratory with turbojet engine could, but it was LIGHTENED and MODERNIZED for atmospheric flight)

    Quote: Author Nikadonov Sergey
    and flies anywhere: you want - to the moon, and you want - to Mars!

    Sorry, but this is babbling already in the absolute.
    That liquid-propellant rocket engines (in terms of the degree of expansion of the nozzle) are not designed to operate in a vacuum, that fuel components and TB are not designed for long-term storage in zero gravity, in a vacuum (it's not for nothing that everyone "there" fly on high-boiling components), there (behind the atmosphere), you know whether it is STRONG problemma-perheating, heat release (Skylab, for example, or WORLD).
    LRE, TNVZh and fuel intake system RN Energies are not designed to operate in zero gravity and multiple switching on (and this is required for flight to the Moon, Mars), liquid (there), you know, strive to take a spherical shape and hang in the middle of the tank (or wherever it is " want to ")

    Quote: Author Nikadonov Sergey
    “Volcano-Hercules” is capable of taking into orbit up to 200 tons of cargo! Von Braun with his 140 t nervously smokes on the sidelines.


    Quote: Author Nikadonov Sergey
    Indeed, the fuel tank with solid-fuel boosters did not learn to fly into space on its own, and it is almost impossible to screw a shuttle onto another rocket.


    "screw up" to another fuel tank! what problems? There are several of them (in my opinion there are 7 of them in stock)

    Quote: Author Nikadonov Sergey
    Even if (theoretically, of course) this would have been done, the Shuttle would have loaded three heavy marching engines into orbit and back with dead weight, which he could not use even when landing.

    REMIND:
    - The shuttle was practically realistically reusable, it only burned the fuel (relatively cheap) tank, and it could not be saved, technically from 70-80 km.
    -Yes, yes, right. THE MOST EXPENSIVE (except for the SA) are the MARCH, THE MOST "POWERFUL" expensive LPRE.
    WHICH AND NOW IN STOCK Already 15 pieces.
    We (unfortunately) -BURNED EVERYTHING (except Buran, with relatively cheap rocket engines)

    Quote: Author Nikadonov Sergey
    As you know, the shuttle was planning on Earth, not being able to go on the second circle that the ship’s safety

    -Buran also could not, only the aerodynamic maneuver over the runway, which could the Shuttle
    - why is the Shuttle?
    Quote: Author Nikadonov Sergey
    back dead weight
    fuel or (fiction) turbojet engine?
    Runway - in abundance (in the USA, and among the allies)
    - note: that one (Shuttle), that another (Buran) landed so 6 short forward, short-term braking impulse by Engines of Orbital Maneuvering ... and forth.
    Both W and W have a VERY NARROW error in the angle of entry into the atmosphere, compared with traditional descent vehicles.
    1. +1
      3 September 2014 21: 45
      Quote: Author Nikadonov Sergey
      the Shuttle pilots, unlike the Buran, didn’t even have ejection seats.

      Sorry, but the Shuttle HAD PILOTS AND PASSENGERS:
      and Buran has NO (and flight ONEWITHOUT pilots).
      W: for 30 years of operation five shuttles made 135 flights. In total, all the shuttles made 21 orbits around the Earth and flew 152 million km (872,7 miles). On the shuttles into space was lifted 16000 tons of payloads. 355 astronauts and astronauts flew in space shuttles

      Quote: Author Nikadonov Sergey
      von Braun’s lunar rocket, Saturn 5, turned out to be a “dead end dinosaur” of cosmic evolution, the lack of a modular production principle made its "inflexibility" under the range of objectives,

      so for reference (fewer words, more pictures):

      + NERVA NRX or Pewee project, KIWI-B4 NREs all this on Saturn SN ”: the RIFT system consisted of Saturn s-ic in the first stage, SII in the second and SN (Saturn-Nuclear) in the third stage.
      Quote: Author Nikadonov Sergey
      but we have Zenit, which was the side block of the first stage of the Energia launch vehicle. Therefore, the Energia-Buran program can be reanimated relatively quickly and inexpensively.

      Come on?
      1. The cost of "Zenith" (block A) nothing compared to the cost of the second stage of the Energia launch vehicle (block C)
      2. CD and technical equipment, as well as special and prom. capacities for the production of the block C- LOST irrevocably.
      And this is R&D, in full
      3.About "Zenith" I will remind you - General Designer - Academician V.F.Utkin, Chief developer - Design Bureau "Yuzhnoye" named after Academician M.K. Yangel (Dnepropetrovsk), Various modifications of the Zenit LV are made in the Production Association Southern Machine-Building Plant named after A. Makarova » In Dnepropetrovsk!!! Dnepropetrovsk = this is Ukraine (as yet).
      Should I remind about Comrade Kolomoisky?
      ===================
      Summary: fiction and uryapatriotizm, amid sanctions.
      1. Sheremetev
        0
        4 September 2014 12: 14
        Sorry, but the Shuttle HAD PILOTS AND PASSENGERS:
        and Buran has NO (and the flight is ONE, WITHOUT pilots).
        W: over 30 years of operation, five shuttles made 135 flights. In total, all the shuttles made 21 orbits around the Earth and flew 152 million km (872,7 miles). On space shuttles, 542 tons of payloads were lifted. 398 astronauts and astronauts flew in space shuttles

        Why is all this said? Is the shuttle better than Buran? The fact that Gorbachev was bred as a sucker - Buran is not to blame for this.
        so for reference (fewer words, more pictures): + NERVA NRX or Pewee project, KIWI-B4 NRE all on the Saturn SN »: The RIFT system consisted of Saturn S-IC in the first stage, SII in the second and SN (Saturn- Nuclear) in the third stage.

        Well, what is this picture for? These are different missiles, different masses, lengths, diameters. The engines are also different. What do you think there is a difference between the F-1 and H-1 engines? "Small" is. The first engine is hundreds of times more powerful than the second one. One brand, one designer, so what?
        1. +1
          4 September 2014 13: 38
          Quote: Sheremetev
          Why is all this said? Is the shuttle better than Buran?

          This is stated in the refutation of the statements and "proofs" of the Author:
          1. that Buran is better than the Shuttle.
          2. Buran didn’t talk with the pilots (and flew 1n time) to talk about CAC-it makes no sense
          3. Passenger liners do not have CAC, they fly, and they will fly.
          In my (purely) opinion) yes the Shuttle is better than Buran.
          Quote: Sheremetev
          Buran is not to blame.

          Buran a priori to blame can not be anything. This is STI
          And then Gorbachev? TTZ issued in 1976

          Quote: Sheremetev
          Well, why this picture?

          This is to the author's statement:
          "Saturn 5" turned out to be a "dead end dinosaur" of cosmic evolution, ohthe lack of a modular production principle made it "inflexible"
          Quote: Sheremetev
          The engines are also different

          Seriously?
          J-2 rocket engine in the second stage of the Saturn-1B launch vehicle, five engines were used in the second stage of the Saturn-5 launch vehicle (S-II) and one engine was used in the third stage (S-IVB)
          LRE, it is both high pressure fuel pump and fuel equipment = all this is the most expensive and complicated
          About tanks and "other things":. Saturn is a series of American launch vehicles. Includes rockets Saturn-1, Saturn-1B and Saturn-5. The development of these missiles was carried out as part of the Apollo program.

          ===========
          F-1 yes, only on Saturn 5
          ----------------------------------------
          Talking about non-modularity and deadlock is just silly
          Quote: Sheremetev
          . Do you think there is a difference between the F-1 and H-1 engines

          before "thinking" you need to understand what you mean.
          what is meant by N-1 (LRE?) in comparison with F-1 LRE?
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. The comment was deleted.
    6. Sheremetev
      +1
      4 September 2014 12: 11
      Forgive this baby talk, albeit partial.
      And if RN Energia could bring SOMETHING to the DOE, then Buran-ANYTHING, even like an airplane, could not fly (the testing laboratory with turbojet engine could, but it was LIGHTENED and MODERNIZED for atmospheric flight)

      This already smacks of cheap sophistry. Did I claim that Buran could fly into space without a carrier? Don't you understand or are you just pretending? And what does the phrase mean: "Energy can take SOMETHING to LEO" ?? Energy will take out anything and not only to LEO !!!
      Sorry, but this is babbling already in the absolute.
      That liquid-propellant rocket engines (in terms of the degree of expansion of the nozzle) are not designed to operate in a vacuum, that fuel components and TB are not designed for long-term storage in zero gravity, in a vacuum (it's not for nothing that everyone "there" fly on high-boiling components), there (behind the atmosphere), you know whether it is STRONG problemma-perheating, heat release (Skylab, for example, or WORLD).
      LRE, TNVZh and fuel intake system RN Energies are not designed to operate in zero gravity and multiple switching on (and this is required for flight to the Moon, Mars), liquid (there), you know, strive to take a spherical shape and hang in the middle of the tank (or wherever it is " want to ")

      Sheer incompetence! Somewhere, they heard something, read something, but are not able to comprehend. Please study the algorithm for a manned flight to the moon and back. No "Energia" will fly to the Moon, but a spaceship will fly, and from "Energia" the 3rd stage with the remaining fuel will fly to the third stage to the Moon, and this is not a fact - it all depends on the design of the spacecraft and its upper stages. If you are not able to analyze information, then at least just memorize the information in the sources. I will try to quote the first one I come across - Wikipedia, what is said about the range of tasks for "Energy"
      - carrier for MTKK "Buran"
      - a carrier for providing manned and automatic expeditions to the LUNA and MARS
      - to launch heavy geostationary satellite platforms, etc.
      "screw up" to another fuel tank! what problems? There are several of them (in my opinion there are 7 of them in stock)

      What is the difference of 7 tanks or 27? Do you understand what was discussed? Our carrier and shuttle are autonomous, the amers have a single whole. Just some verbiage!
      1. +1
        4 September 2014 14: 01
        [quote = Sheremetev] This already smells like cheap sophistry. [/ quote]
        I can't smell anything, I follow hygiene, especially "sophistry"
        [quote = Sheremetev] I said that "Buran" without a carrier can fly into space? [/ quote]
        Yes, I don’t know in space, go somewhere else (where I don’t know, you know better), how else to understand:
        [quote = Posted by Sergey Nikadonov] Rocket and shuttle - Is two separate, self-sufficient constructs. [/ quote]
        Where to?
        Oh yes ... like a pavilion at VDNH or to a museum in Germany ... then yes.
        [quote = Sheremetev] Complete incompetence! [/ quote]
        This is my specialty so far.
        [quote = Sheremetev] No "Energy" will fly to the moon, [/ quote]
        who would argue, then, only the "competent" author claims:
        [quote = Posted by Nikadonov Sergey]"Energy" takes another ship or cargo (optional shuttle) and flies anywhere: you want - to the moon, but you want - to Mars! [/quote]

        [quote = Sheremetev] I will try to quote the first one [/ quote]
        not worth it:
        -viki is not always "right"
        -Projects I myself know more

        [quote = Sheremetev] Do you understand what was discussed? [/ quote]
        Конечно.
        The author claims:
        [quote = Author Sergey Nikadonov] If there was a problem with Buran, then Energia takes another ship or cargo (optional shuttle) [/ quote]
        I will try to "chew" you
        1. There was a problem with the shuttle, it is hung on the tank OTHER Shuttle(there are 5, 2a in constant readiness, 3rd on diagnostics, repair, preparation, etc.)
        2. There was a problem with the tank, the shuttle is hung on ANOTHER tank, since they are even there now
        3. The same with solid propellant
        = "take" what you want, and where you "want" within the TX system
        4. There was a problem with Buran .... you can’t hang anything on Energy (maybe there is nothing), there is no PN and it would hardly be. SYSTEM redundant in its characteristics
        5. there was a problem with the C block, nothing can be done, because there is no replacement (there was) the C block. And it IS EXPENSIVE to have "replacements", our Energy WAS NOT many one-time, everything disappeared (most expensive)
        [quote = Sheremetev] the shuttle is autonomous, [/ quote] WHAT is it autonomous ?????
        What can one stand on the runway or VDNH?
        The very idea of ​​BURANA, a dead end:
        - there is no reusability (everything except a glider with cheap ODE)
        -a simpler descent vehicle, with REPLACEMENT thermal protection, and there is no need to carry containers (glider, wings), if the marching remote control disappears

        [quote = Sheremetev] Just some verbiage! [/ quote]
        Listen, well, we won’t ..
        otherwise I’ll begin to evaluate your opus on the psaki scale.
        =================
        For you reference (you can record and check years after 5,10,50,100):
        1. The pH and the Energy system will not be recreated (this is super expensive and not necessary)
        2. The same with Zenith, in general the statement:
        [quote = Author Nikadonov Sergey] but we have Zenit, which was the side unit of the first stage of the Energia launch vehicle. therefore the Energia-Buran program can relatively quick and inexpensive to reanimate [/ Quote]
        there is utter childish babble (this can hardly be expected even from DAR)
        3. Yes, and such super-powerful launch vehicles are not needed in our time:
        - the world has changed, miniaturization, the development of electronics, etc.
        - mastered assembly, docking in orbit (MIR, ISS, etc.)
        -resource countries limited.
  10. 0
    3 September 2014 23: 10
    Therefore, the Energia-Buran program can be reanimated relatively quickly and inexpensively.

    Definitely not fast and even more "inexpensive". Soviet specialists are retired, there will be no young people for thanks.
  11. -2
    3 September 2014 23: 20
    And it is necessary to restore all this because for 30 years the cosmic design idea in the world has not advanced a single step.

    To restore? ... This is a concrete dead end! ... Why? ... For example, today it’s very interesting for me where and what is doing in the third flight (for the second year !!!) X-37B? Maybe you are in the know? Thank.
  12. 0
    3 September 2014 23: 28
    Soviet designers initially "separated flies from cutlets." A rocket and a shuttle are two separate, self-sufficient structures.

    With funding on the basis of "ask - give" it is possible to implement all the "designer's ideas". This is exactly what happened in the USSR. It's good for defense! And for citizens it is "potatoes with cucumbers". Is there a dilemma today? Do not offend anyone!
  13. 0
    4 September 2014 06: 42
    ate honestly I expected from the second chapter at least a semblance of the first!
    (volume and quality) IMHO
  14. 0
    6 September 2014 12: 00
    This is all nonsense, yesterday, again "catching up and overtaking" in a sphere that is no longer interesting to anyone. How our space "lives" - by development. They have developed one thing, they are immediately developing another, the exhaust is close to zero, one PR and promises. Meanwhile, America is preparing a revolution in space. What a private trader lives - profit. They will launch their own mini-shop and begin to reduce costs and lick the structure. In ten years, when ours develop the next best monster in the world (despite the fact that it has already been developed and fully tested at least once), America will privately master all "space cabotage", flights to near space will become a cheap routine. Thanks to cheap transportation, private orbital bases and factories will emerge after a while. In general, in twenty years, near space will become a private-American space, and we will serve its interests with the best cargo rocket in the world and try to somehow fit into the already existing not our cosmic reality. And when the business needs the Moon, they will fly there in the next "best in the world" we have developed and start doing their business there. In general, the situation is very similar to the story with Alaska. It seems that it was ours, then they sold it, because it interfered with plans for the development of Kamchatka and the Far East. As a result, Kamchatka was not properly settled and the richest and strategically important region was profiled. Now we need to focus on building a "railroad" to near space and participate in the development and launch of a business. Or to specialize in the construction of "transatlantic liners" for sale, only then not to be offended that others use and earn money on them.
  15. 0
    15 September 2014 02: 12
    Quote: saag
    Quote: Sheremetev
    If we do not need a shuttle, then the missile itself can be reanimated even faster, the term is called - about 5 years. It would be a desire and political will.

    And these experts do not say for what task such a missile is needed? Is there such a task in the federal space program, is there funding for it, with one voice, any official drank anything while waiting. By the way, can you tell me why there is no hydrogen step in any configuration in the Hangar? And then the Energy does have it, and it's not just a tank to weld, then the whole infrastructure stretches, and nobody wants to get in touch with it.

    The task of Energy is obvious, man’s flight to the Moon, Glushko spoke about this.
    The hydrogen stage is present in the future, called CTWC.
  16. 0
    15 September 2014 02: 24
    Quote: Yorgven
    "Buran" is valuable first of all for the possibility of placing on it weapons, not only conventional weapons that can be placed in space anyway, but nuclear.

    This is a misconception about weapons distributed through television. Buran, like the Shuttle, was called to lower cargo from orbit, but there was nothing to lower. RN Energy is a diamond, the Buran-dead-end to which the USSR was sent and sent consciously, Energy was created to fly to the Moon, see Glushko.