Military Review

"Angara": triumph or oblivion. Part of 5

71
Nightmares of the Chinese cosmos


In the previous chapter, we very thoroughly and with illustrative examples dismantled the basic postulates of the great Russian design school, which are excellent in space design. However, you need to know one thing. The fact is that the accents are placed here in a slightly different hierarchy, and you wonder why.



The military space industry is significantly different, say, from tank or armory. The cosmic processes of celestial mechanics are those processes and speeds that are difficult for us to imagine just as it is difficult to see a bullet fired from a rifle, and it flies at a speed of "only" 800 m / s. But in order to "pull" into Gagarin’s orbit, you need to give him a speed 10 times the speed of a bullet! It is easy to say “give”, you still need to make sure that it does not turn into a mess. Upon returning to Earth, Yuri Alekseevich showed his famous smile and gave an interview.

It is therefore not surprising that in space technology, reliability has become a top priority, and with a large margin. Agree that if a breakdown occurs in the aforementioned T-34 or IL-2, this is a fixable matter, even for an airplane, but if a small "roughness" happens in a rocket, then this almost always leads to the death of astronauts. Safety, reliability, simplicity - everything in the Korolev rocket is subordinated to these concepts, ranging from engines, multiple backup systems and ending with the famous crew emergency rescue system (CAC).

Emerging hatches on the "Union" have become a kind of "product brand", as the grille on the BMW. Evil tongues, in order to pour at least some spoon of tar into the Soyuz, rant about the "imperfect" indicator of the rocket - about the ratio of the mass of the ship to the payload. In general, this can be challenged, but the matter is quite different. The American cosmonaut, flying in the “seven” on the ISS, completely spit out some kind of “mass” for some attitude, the most important thing is that the “invaluable mass” of his body be delivered to the orbital station in integrity and safety. The same can be said about the American infantryman, who is not at all pleased with the poor accuracy of the AK-47. But he is very worried that his Vietnamese "colleague" is "pouring" him with Kalashnikov bullets, being in the sand, in the mud, in the water. Well, and then the Vietnamese digs into the ground, using a bayonet instead of a shovel and not even bothering to remove it from the machine, it is more convenient. A Marine, if he survives, will shoot from his M-16 in a dash with air conditioners and tell about the good accuracy of his automatic rifle.

We need to recognize, not without pride, that Russia is now the de facto monopolist of manned space flights. Here is the result, as a result of reliability and simplicity. As American astronauts love to say enviously, they “confidently trust Russian Van with a wrench”.

Everything is clear with the Americans in this matter, but not so much with the Chinese. And so I propose to briefly deal with the course of cosmic affairs with our "comrades from the Middle Kingdom."

The space program of the “Middle Empire”, as always, is of a cosmic scale, up to the landing of a man on the moon and an extensive Martian program. We, of course, are interested in knowing the real state of affairs, and the Chinese have done a lot over the past decade, but on the one hand, these achievements are impressive, and on the other, they raise many questions. However - about everything in order.

After two unsuccessful space programs on manned flights, in the third program, the Chinese still managed to get their Gagarin. In 2003, the Celestial Empire became the third power in the world, independently sending man into space. In 2008, China already got its Leonov - a Chinese astronaut went into outer space. Four years later, they had a "Chinese Tereshkova." Moreover, unlike Valentina Vladimirovna, the Chinese girl, with two more astronauts, "managed" to dock with the Chinese orbital module. Well, finally, in 2013, the Chinese moon rover began to drive around Mother Luna. At first glance, everything is impressive, but then the question arises about the price of this success.

The point here is not the cost of start-ups, although I’ll say right away that our G-7 will take Americans for more than a year, it’s nothing to worry about, you will understand why. The problem is the cost of human life.

For obvious reasons, the Chinese space program is informationally woven from white spots and closed by what has created a mass of near-science gossip, to the extent that the Earth is entangled in orbit, like Saturn in rings, consisting of dead Chinese astronauts. The question is not white spots and rumors, but that the Celestial Empire launches its astronauts into orbit on original launch vehicles. We will dwell on them in more detail.

The Chinese “Gagarin” can be congratulated not only on the fact that he has become the third “national” cosmonaut in the world. He became the number one astronaut on the planet who flew into space on heptyl. Briefly explain what it is. Virtually all in the world of liquid-fuel rockets, military and “civilian”, use asymmetric dimethyl hydrazine (heptyl) as a fuel, and nitrogen tetroxide (amyl) as an oxidizer. These are extremely toxic, carcinogenic substances. The tanks with residues of fuel falling to the ground contaminate the surrounding territory, not to mention the moments when an accident occurs on the rocket. However, when the country's defense capability is at stake, such “trifles” as ecology and oncology are not paid attention to. Can you imagine what would happen to the "Greenpeople" if they were on their ship attacking the most "democratic" cosmodrome in the world at Cape Canaveral, as they were previously boarding our drilling platforms? That's right, at best, they would have rotted in some guantanes.

Moreover, this fuel, compared with a kerosene-oxygen pair, has two main advantages. The first is the possibility of long-term storage of the heptyl-amyl pair in a rocket. Agree that it is not very convenient to put a ballistic missile on alert, refueling it with kerosene and oxygen, and then merge it all if the launch is canceled. Another very important advantage is that the “heptyl” launch vehicles are simple in their design. The fact is that when heptyl combines with amyl, spontaneous combustion occurs, and the participation of the third component - the ignition system - is not required, which not only simplifies the rocket’s mechanism, but also gives the entire system a certain degree of reliability.

I will explain with a simple example. For example, a third rocket stage with a cargo consisting of five satellites went into space, and each needs to be placed into an individual orbit. Let me remind you that when we drive in a car, changing the speed, the direction does not change, in celestial mechanics - on the contrary, by changing the speed, we change the orbital trajectory of the satellite. In a word, the rocket engine must be switched on and off repeatedly, you agree, for a “heptyl” rocket it is easy.
In general, even a one-time inclusion of subsequent steps on “kerosene” rockets is a headache for any designer. Judge for yourself: somewhere at a high altitude, three components must simultaneously turn on - kerosene, oxygen, ignition, and before this “happy hour” the rocket was beaten in overloads, it was subjected to vibrations and God knows what else. The problem was so serious that Korolev developed a fundamentally new layout scheme for rocket stages, which became classic in the world "kerosene" rocket production - the engines of the first and second rocket stages should be turned on simultaneously, that is, on the ground. When Sergei Pavlovich made sure with his own eyes that the first and second stages were working, only then did he go to the barn, to swallow validol.

As we can see, the Chinese did not bother with headaches and heart pains, they solved the problem primitively, landing astronauts on the dangerous ballistic missile they produce. Cheap and angry, but for some reason everyone is silent about one serious moral issue - it is absolutely impossible to launch a person into a “heptyl” rocket into space! And the point is not in ecology and oncology, but in the fact that they are extremely explosive!

As you know, heptyl and amyl when ignited in the combustion chamber ignite without any “intermediaries”. However, these two "temperamental guys", also without "witnesses", can "hammer the arrow" in any other place of the rocket (the main condition is the presence of depressurized areas in the tanks), and then a terrible force will explode. There are even easier options. For example, these two substances will “run” along the beaten track back into the combustion chamber, but of a different engine, another stage. It is not difficult to guess that an unauthorized start of the engine will occur, and I already explained how it “without fail” is turned on. Then there will be a monstrous penalty, which will impress even the medieval inquisitors. At first there will be a strong blow “from below”, then, for a few seconds, the astronauts will be strongly squeezed, as if in a “Spanish boot”, and after they will be overtaken by a “cleansing fire” in the form of an explosion, and as a result nothing will remain of the astronauts.

So gossip about Chinese corpses flying in orbit is complete nonsense. I immediately recall the arguments of "liberal experts" about the cost of launches of "Proton" and "Angara". One would like to plant this “market leader” in the “heptyl” “Proton”, so that he would conduct a comparative analysis of the cost of his life.

And a very interesting question arises, to which we will give an equally interesting answer below. And the question is very simple: why is everyone silent !? Why do we "in the mouth of water intake", no need to explain. The fact is that the information segment in our military-space industry is fully controlled by the “fifth column”. And that's why the “human-loving rescuers of Private Ryan” are silent, it's more complicated. Maybe the very "stigma of a gun"?

Let's figure it out. In 1961, in the United States, the Apollo manned space flight program was adopted, the eponymous ship and the launch vehicle Saturn were developed. There was one serious problem. Before the 1969 of the year, that is, before the start of the Apollo program, Americans had to somehow “run in” their “lunar” astronauts and solve many problems, ranging from man’s coming into space and ending with the docking of space modules. The former ship “Mercury” was clearly not suitable for these tasks. It was decided to create an "intermediate" ship "Gemini", but here's the bad luck: 1965 is already a year away with the Saturn carrier, everything was difficult, and the Mercury (Redstone and Atlas) launch vehicles didn’t pull its own "native" ship, not to mention the "Gemini". The "moon" program, pompously advertised by Kennedy (already in "this decade" the Americans will land on the moon), was on the verge of collapse. The whole “free world” looked at America hopefully, and while “progressive humanity”, together with Khrushchev, reveled in space euphoria, the Americans decided to play uncleanly - “land Gemini” on the Titan ballistic missile.

As you have already guessed, the “explosive” aerosin-amyl pair serves as the fuel and oxidizer for this rocket. Aerosin is nothing but a mixture of heptyl and hydrazine already known to us in the proportion of 1: 1. Thus, in just a year and a half, from March 1965 of the year to November of 1966, America sent an aerosynic kamikaze into 20 orbit. True, the winners are not judged, especially when such bets ... Well, and from all this stories need to make three conclusions.

The first. “Moon triumph” Americans are entirely obliged, I emphasize, entirely, to the “dirty” program of “Gemini”. After all, you must admit that it is difficult to pose for housewives from a TV screen in a spacesuit, if you have never been in spacesuit in this spacesuit. Moreover, it is impossible to disconnect and attach a module in lunar orbit, if you have never done this at least on earth.

The second conclusion is less original. The United States is very dirty working both in politics and in space, and we will see this not only in the article below, but also, I am sure, in subsequent events.

The third conclusion: "bloodthirsty Russians" who do not value human life, for some reason, are the only ones who conducted the space race honestly and did not even think about any foul "things".

And what about the Chinese, do they understand that they have taken a bad example from the "bad guys"? Of course, they understand, therefore they are actively developing “human” launch vehicles. The most interesting thing is that they are called the same way as the “heptyl” ones, the “Great Walk”. How can you call a deer and a camel in the same way? The point is not in the fuel, in these carriers everything is different, starting from the engines and ending with the arrangement of steps. Even the Americans didn’t "think" of such impudence. Here the answer is obvious: under the same “brand”, the Celestial Kingdom cynically wants to disguise the “gray spot” on the body of its astronautics.

China has well learned one rule of politics - no matter what you do or how you do it, the main thing is how you present it, rightly believing that “delicate” moments will erase from the memory of descendants. But the Russian language is a sacred language, for us “memory” and “understanding” are synonymous words. If we understand the essence of the problem, we will always remember this.

Completing the Chinese theme, let's say that you cannot fly to space on one carrier, therefore the Celestial Empire developed, in particular, a spacecraft and an orbital module. True, she “developed” them with the “specificity” peculiar to the Chinese. The similarity of the ship with our "Soyuz", and the module with the "Salute" was so striking that our President, who was not too humane, nevertheless decided to thin out the slender rows of the space "fifth column". Five employees of Central Research Institute Mascheksport CJSC went to Dali (not space, but taiga), four received 11 years each, and their director, academician Igor Reshetin, “grabbed” 11,5 years of a strict regime colony. By the way, the government of the People's Republic of China asked Russia to release the employees and hand them over to their care. How they will “take care of them” can be guessed, they will probably be made heroes of the nation. So, we look forward to what kind of rocket our carriers will “look like” by the Chinese. In the meantime, American astronauts will never trust the Chinese "Van" with a wrench. You already know why.

The invaluable legacy of the Soviet Union

Exposing the flaws of the military-space industries of other countries in previous chapters, I set myself only one goal: so that we would not look at the West, especially at China, admiringly and with a half-open mouth, but would closely look at that legacy ideas that the Soviet Union left us.

I will say right away that the hurt is gone, but there are ideas. Now it is very important for us to determine the vector of development of the Soviet space, and if we go in the right direction, then no Americans, Europeans, Chinese with their expensive programs will reach us. After all, it is always true, if the tortoise is going in the right direction, then it will be the first to reach the goal, and not a quick hare, dumbfounded rushing in the other direction. We have clearly seen, and will see further, that in the genesis of astronautics, as in evolution, there are dead-end paths, where entire classes of animals are dying out. It begs the analogy of dinosaurs and "Shuttles". And here it is half the trouble that you return as a knight to a road stone, having wasted a lot of material and technical resources and time, a tragedy, if you go wrong again, and then again you will not be able to go back again.

We just all know perfectly well that space is first and foremost the security of the state. Therefore, in order to go in the right direction, you need to be clear about what vector was up to this day and what “bumps filled” world cosmonautics. The history of cosmonautics clearly showed that nobody teaches this story. After all, any chess player will tell you that the analysis of mistakes in a lost game is much more valuable than the game won.

Now let's understand the directions of the world space program, the more so now it will be very easy for us to do this. The reason for this is that our main competitor, the United States, having buried its program of reusable ships, and with it the manned cosmonautics, has just returned to that road stone. We are interested to know in which direction the “American Mustang” jumped, evaluate whether it is correct and decide for ourselves whether to follow this “horse” or go our own way, knowing that he, like a biathlete, has a penalty circle.

Next, we will determine what we will consider the "space powers." With China, everything is clear. They need to create a “human” rocket, even if they copy it (guess who?), But this is not so fast, especially the engines, this is not some kind of orbital module for you. By the way, we have tried and will continue to try not to touch satellites, ships, orbital modules and so on, because without launch vehicles it is all nothing. In short, the Celestial Empire definitely in the next 20 years will not dominate in space.

We will also ignore the European Union, if only because they do not have manned cosmonautics at all. We will talk about Ukraine later, but on another occasion, it, of course, also sweeps aside. We will not even touch upon other “powers” ​​for obvious reasons. Remain the United States.

Now we need to think about what this “breakthrough rocket” should be. Here we will begin to delve more into the legacy that the USSR left us. I must say at once that this is not some folio or “the testament of Peter the Great to descendants” - this is a triumphal project of the Energia family of super-heavy launch vehicles. This transforming rocket, assembled according to the modular principle, could put into orbit loads from 30 tons (Energy-M) to 175 tons (Vulcan-Hercules), and this was not the limit! It became clear to everyone that a single rocket, based on two modules (the supporting block of the 2-th stage and the lateral block of the 1-th stage), is capable of capturing a huge segment of cargo delivered to space. But there is one problem: this “giant segment” is in little demand. Therefore, when the 100-ton “Buran”, which was the main load for this carrier, “ordered to live long”, then it jumped into the “grave” and “Energy”. Everything is logical here: it is unprofitable for BelAZ to carry cargo that the Gazelle manages. True, the modular production principle turned out to be tenacious, the blocks of the 1-th stage (“Zenith”) still fly perfectly, therefore for five years, the “Energy” can be “reanimated”. Moreover, even at the “Energy” design stage, the idea of ​​transferring the modular principle to a more demanded segment of cargo delivered into orbit, namely, from 2-x to 35 tons, was in the air. A whole galaxy of heavy, medium, light and even ultralight class missiles can go on retirement. Moreover, the weight segment and the nature of the goods allow you to create a launch vehicle based on a single module! Judge for yourself, the need to mount the “Buran” to the supporting block of the 2-th stage disappeared, now the side block of the 1-th stage will play the role of the supporting block. So our scientists came to the idea of ​​creating a universal rocket module (URM). Now comes the most interesting. The Americans came to the universal module, but on this our roads diverge.

Thus, by the exception method, we came to the conclusion that the world space race is reduced to the confrontation of two global space projects based on the modular production of launch vehicles - this is the Russian project Angara and the American project Falken by SpaceX. Comparing these projects, we will be able to determine which of them went the wrong way. Moreover, knowing the postulates of design from the previous chapters, it will be easy for us to do this. First we need to decide which, from a design point of view, there should be an ideal module. We will not discover America here, if we say that the module should be easy to manufacture and operate, and this in turn means that the power part of the module should be simple.

Now you should be puzzled by the question: what gives the maximum simplicity of the power unit? The power part is simple if it is provided with one engine, and a simple engine is obtained if it is with one nozzle. Everything is as clear as day. The more extra elements we remove from the system, the system will become easier, therefore, more effective. I don't want to repeat anymore. For example, let's compare the Falken-Hevi rocket and our version of the Angara A7, which is similar in terms of carrying capacity.

Our rocket starts with 7 engines, American - with 27 engines! The question immediately arises, and how are the Americans going to make the engine four times cheaper than ours? Probably, their workers earn four times less, or they work four times more productively. We will talk about the vaunted American performance in the company SpaceX, but in fact the question is serious. After all, it is obvious that two engines, with other things being equal, are more expensive than one, similar in power, not to mention four. It is clear that the declared cheapness of the launches is a low-grade bluff, which our “fifth column” meekly “hawks”. The most amazing thing is that the commercial component is half the trouble. This nightmare is a constructive component of this problem. If history had taught their designers something, they would definitely think about why their “lunar” rocket was successful, and our analogous H-1 did not?

In the case of the Saturn-5, 5 engines will start simultaneously. But our designers had to “subtilize”, there was no time to create more powerful “engines”, so we had to install 5 engines instead of 30 in our “lunnik”! What do you think, on which rocket is it easier to synchronize their work, which rocket is more controlled - with 5 engines or when there are more of them in 6 times ?! The answer is obvious. No matter how “smart” heads “fought”, they didn’t manage to eliminate the unfolding moment, strong vibrations, hydrodynamic impacts and so on with the H-1. It is difficult to resist the fundamental principles of design! But ours, of course, had nowhere to go, the money was not really thought of then, but why do not overseas colleagues understand this? After all, the engine is the beginning of the beginning, the soul of a rocket, and no such things are joking. In order not to blame Americans for stupidity, let's say that they do not fully understand the severity of the problem, all the more so not everything is as simple as it seems at first glance.



In order to fully cover this key issue, let's take a closer look at what the RD-191 is - the engine for the "Angara". This engine is nothing more than a "quarter" of the legendary engine, the most powerful engine ever created - RD-170. As I wrote above, the RD-170 was used on the 1 module of the “Energy” and “Zenith” stages. As the president of RSC Energia, Vitaly Lopata, said, the “Seventy-Seven” beat American engines by at least 50 years!

The complexity of its creation emphasizes the fact that its development was carried out for as many 8 years. I will also say that the “transitional version” was created, which is the “half” of the RD-170 - RD-180. With this "engine" also turned out an interesting story. So that the "adapter" did not remain a laboratory exhibit, the USA began selling it to their "Atlas". Moreover, Yeltsin (with a hangover, probably) gave them all the rights to use the RD-180, including its production! The creator of these engines, academician Boris Katorgin, warned Americans that it would take them at least 10 years to reproduce them. As always, cowboy arrogance took its toll, and they declared 4's. Four years have passed, and they say: indeed, it takes six years. Then announced another eight years. As a result, 18 years passed, and "things are still there."

And now let's think. We produce three engines - RD-191, RD-180 and RD-170, respectively, with one, two and four nozzles. Most of the units for their production (including a unique combustion chamber), for obvious reasons, are the same. It is not difficult to guess how this will affect the cost of products. The conclusion is clear: "Angara" has an unsurpassed engine, both technically and economically.

Finishing, in my opinion, this very important topic, we cannot pass by the question, why did America manage to create a powerful “lunar” engine at one time, and now SpaceX is “shoving” what has fallen into its “Falken”? The fact is that when the “lunar” F-1 engine was created, the NASA budget was over 4% of the federal, now it is 0,5%, that is, in percentage terms it has decreased by 8 times! The same can be said about the number of working people in NASA: then it reached 400 thousands of employees, and already in 1988, this number was equal to 52 thousands, that is, again, less than 8 times. I will not fool you with dollar comparisons because of the impossibility of comparing the then and today's currency.

In any case, the difference between "space" budgets is the same space. I repeat, everything was at stake then, and now, in order for the RD-180 to at least “clone”, they need to spend more than a billion dollars on test benches only, according to the same Katorgin!

What were they hoping for? Maybe the fact that Boris Nikolayevich would also sell them stands on the cheap? However, in other aspects, Americans quickly "understand." Since May 2014, the conclusion of new contracts for the purchase of RD-180 was terminated by court order, due to a lawsuit of a competitor - the company SpaceX! It already looks like a national masochism in combination with corporate idiocy.

It must also be said that America’s chances of making the “moon” F-1 a “suitable” engine for the “Falken” were zero. It's not even the case that the F-1 has not been produced for a long time, it was just impossible to make a “half” or a “quarter” out of it — the Brown engine was single-chamber, with one nozzle. In this regard, you are amazed at the technical foresight of our designers. So what can Americans oppose the "Angara"? Only that they are always doing great is a powerful “fifth column”. About these "invisible fighters", which obscenely flooded the Russian military-space industry, will be discussed in the next chapter.
Author:
71 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Archikah
    Archikah 8 September 2014 10: 07 New
    +5
    As popular wisdom says, “If you yourself cannot be exalted, smear all around with shit.” The mattresses are now on the verge of death (financial), which is why there is an intensification of processes to discredit everyone and everything. We will see many more such projects. hi
    1. Login_Off
      Login_Off 8 September 2014 14: 57 New
      0
      Something is wrong here ...
      It is easy to guess that an unauthorized start of the engine will occur, and I have already explained how it “turns on” without fail. Then there will be a monstrous execution, which will impress even the medieval inquisitors. At first there will be a strong blow “from below”, then, for several seconds, the astronauts will squeeze strongly, as if in a “Spanish boot”, and after them a “cleansing fire” will overtake in the form of an explosion, and as a result, nothing will remain of the astronauts.

      Sorry, but the Chinese missiles also have an emergency rescue system, so that the astronauts can survive. In any case, ours in 86 survived the explosion of our rocket.
      Heptyl, Oxygen ... There is still a need to count. Yes, Heptyl is dangerous, but cheaper, the design is simpler, but control is superior to quality. Oxygen, the design is more complicated, control is also therefore not cheap. In general, I would say that each of these methods has its own niche.
      Yes. They will fly to Geplit, 2% of unsuccessful launches, of which astronauts will survive in 95% of cases due to the rescue system. Total unsuccessful bunches may be less than at the start of the Shuttles of the United States. And if you take into account insurance payments in case of unsuccessful launches, then the picture is quite normal.
      I would not criticize the Chinese approach so much.
      1. Sheremetev
        8 September 2014 15: 22 New
        +2
        The design of the heptyl missile is simpler and therefore cheaper. In this you are undoubtedly right. But the "heptyl pair" itself is more expensive than kerosene, and much more.
      2. Evilcat
        Evilcat 8 September 2014 21: 38 New
        +2
        And what the hell is that? Have you personally worked at gas stations with heptyl? Or oxygen? Just do not lie. These refueling systems were developed by completely different research institutes, and you could not work in both structures. And the purpose was completely different.
        For those who want to argue (who did not serve in the system) Specify what was going on with heptyl and what was with oxygen, and then criticize.
  2. Curt
    Curt 8 September 2014 10: 13 New
    +4
    Thank you for the article! read everything, waiting for more)
  3. AlexA
    AlexA 8 September 2014 10: 16 New
    +5
    About engines - everything is extremely sensible and competently. I join (at the very least - 35 years in rocket propulsion).
  4. Dragon-y
    Dragon-y 8 September 2014 10: 33 New
    0
    Not "Shovel", but "Lopota" - if I do not confuse.
  5. triton2009
    triton2009 8 September 2014 10: 35 New
    -12
    As always on this site, a mediocre article on space topics.
    The author claims that after the F-1 in the USA they did not create powerful rocket engines. But what about the RS-25, which by the way is a closed cycle with afterburning of fuel generator gas, and the RS-68, which is installed on the Delta 4, a launch vehicle that has modular design in five versions: Medium (Eng. Medium, Medium), Medium + (4,2), Medium + (5,2), Medium + (5,4) and Heavy (Eng. Heavy, Heavy).
    1. Sheremetev
      8 September 2014 11: 12 New
      +3
      Dear, is it okay that your RS-25 is less than 1 times weaker than the F-4? !! You write more importantly, so that your nonsense was visible.
      1. triton2009
        triton2009 8 September 2014 11: 22 New
        -6
        But nothing that your rudeness is not the best way characterizes you. And nothing that I did not say that the thrust of the RS-25 is more than F1? And nothing that a good impulse in the RS-25 is better than the F1? And nothing that RS- 25 is reusable?
        1. sasha-bort
          sasha-bort 8 September 2014 11: 42 New
          +4
          But nothing that you compare the hydrogen-oxygen (RS-25) and kerosene-oxygen engine (F-1) and this is due to the difference in specific impulse. So the author compares correctly, because RD-170/180/190 series are also kerosene-oxygen.
          1. triton2009
            triton2009 8 September 2014 11: 49 New
            -3
            I do not compare them, the author of the article began to compare them, alternating this with rudeness, I just wanted to say that after the F-1, powerful rocket engines were developed and used in the United States. In addition, creating hydrogen-oxygen is more difficult than kerosene-oxygen.
            1. sasha-bort
              sasha-bort 8 September 2014 14: 12 New
              +5
              The author compares F-1 and RD-170. Hydrogen-oxygen at the same time is more dangerous and more expensive to use, because liquid hydrogen is more difficult to manufacture.
              1. triton2009
                triton2009 8 September 2014 15: 09 New
                -3
                The author does not compare the F-1 and the RD-170. He says that after F1, the United States did not develop rocket engines. And he is trying to compare the Russian engine with Merlin, forgetting to indicate that each engine is created for a specific medium and for certain tasks.
                As for hydrogen, you are right - it is more complicated and more expensive.
  6. triton2009
    triton2009 8 September 2014 10: 48 New
    +1
    As for Spacex, it produces all the components of the Falcon 9 rocket completely by itself. Who wonders how the medium-class rocket practically equaled the Proton heavy rocket in the mass of the cargo delivered to the GSO? Unlike many carriers, the Falcon9 does not use when launching to the GSO an accelerating unit, which in itself already reduces the payload of the launch vehicle. The output to the GSO is carried out by switching on the engine of stage 2 again. The engine of stage 2 is the same as 1 (unification).
    Yesterday's launch of Falcon9:
  7. triton2009
    triton2009 8 September 2014 11: 01 New
    -2
    Also, SpaceX is working on technology to return the first stage.
    After the output of the ORBCOMM satellites:


    So far, in the ocean, after 1 launch they plan to land. What other rocket is capable of this?
  8. saag
    saag 8 September 2014 11: 04 New
    +2
    "... We produce three engines - RD-191, RD-180 and RD-170, respectively, with one, two and four nozzles."

    Maybe after all with combustion chambers?
    1. triton2009
      triton2009 8 September 2014 11: 08 New
      -2
      The term "combustion chamber" is clearly not familiar to the author of the article. He estimates rocket engines by the number of nozzles.
      1. Sheremetev
        8 September 2014 11: 21 New
        +2
        Read carefully: "unique combustion chamber"!
        1. triton2009
          triton2009 8 September 2014 11: 26 New
          -4
          So in these engines is a "unique combustion chamber"? belay
          Engines RD-170, RD-180 are certainly good. But what do they have - a "unique combustion chamber." What is unique?
          1. Starley from the south
            Starley from the south 8 September 2014 22: 06 New
            -1
            The fifth column in action!
  9. rubin6286
    rubin6286 8 September 2014 11: 23 New
    -4
    Let's talk about the "Angara" again. And here is the Chinese space program, American rifles, "dirty" policies, projects and resuscitation of "Energy". I must say that, unlike all other branches of technology, the "rocketers" managed to keep all the research institutes, design bureaus and production base, with the exception of a number of Ukrainian enterprises. The author’s statement that "there was no more left but ideas remained" testify about his incompetence in this matter. It is unlikely that anyone will argue that the implementation of good ideas requires good funding. Changing priorities in the space industry has only led to the suspension of the implementation of individual space programs, and not their final phasing out. I will repeat again that the Angara is no triumph of Russian cosmonautics. This missile system could have been built back in the late 70s and early 80s, but at that time it was recognized as expensive, and the launch complexes created earlier did not yet exhaust their resources. Now the situation is different and the "Angara" is becoming in demand. Instead of talking about the "fifth column" in rocket technology, one should talk about changes in the missile control system, the operation of automation of propulsion systems, etc. etc., but this information, to put it mildly, is specific. So they write about the unsurpassed engine, many nozzles, etc., etc. The article is inflated immensely, the topic of the article is not disclosed, the rating of the author is “unsatisfactory”.
    1. Colonel
      Colonel 8 September 2014 12: 05 New
      +10
      Quote: rubin6286
      the place of chatter about the “fifth column” in rocket technology, it would be worth talking about changes in the missile control system, the operation of the automation of propulsion systems, etc. etc.

      Dear, so take and tell, and do not hide behind the "specifics." I am convinced that in engine building there is no less specificity than in "in the missile control system and the operation of the automation of propulsion systems." Nevertheless, the author spoke quite clearly and interestingly about this. It is possible that he (the author) is wrong in something, but for me (not a specialist) the material is presented (I repeat) interesting and convincing, for which the author is a plus. Your comment does not convince you of anything, it just leaves a negative residue, for which you are minus. You should not be compared to the above-mentioned triton2009, which on a site where everything and "As always on this site is mediocre ..." proves its point by slurred pictures and video, that is, it simply trolls. hi
      1. triton2009
        triton2009 8 September 2014 12: 48 New
        -2
        You can specifically indicate where slurred pictures and videos are. What is slurred in them?
        For example, in the article “In the case of Saturn 5, von Braun didn’t get very sophisticated and designed it according to the classical layout of our“ Royal Seven, ”namely, the support block of the second stage and the four side blocks of the first,” you agree with these lines? Have you seen Saturn 5? Are there side blocks there?
        I would upload a picture, but I'm afraid you will call them slurred again.
        1. Colonel
          Colonel 8 September 2014 14: 14 New
          +2
          Quote: triton2009
          Have you seen Saturn 5?

          No, Saturn 5 I have not seen. It means "live." At the expense of slurred pictures and videos .... I don’t even know where to send you, except to your own comments. Well, and as a souvenir (also slurred because not a specialist), this is about Saturn 5
          1. triton2009
            triton2009 8 September 2014 15: 20 New
            -1
            Saturn 5, the real one, which flew 1 from the left - no sidewalls. 5 single-chamber engines at 1 stage, 2 stage above the first. The remaining pictures on the further development of Saturn 5 remained pictures.
            The Union has 4 4-chamber engines per 1 stage in the form of side plates and 1 4-chamber engine of 2 stages - the one in the center between the sides.
            At the expense of slurred pictures, YOU did not answer what exactly is wrong with them?
            1. triton2009
              triton2009 8 September 2014 15: 26 New
              0
              If you doubt the correctness of my comments, do not be too lazy to go to the cosmonautics forum site.
            2. triton2009
              triton2009 8 September 2014 15: 37 New
              0
              Saturn 5:

              1. triton2009
                triton2009 8 September 2014 15: 44 New
                0
                Union:
            3. Colonel
              Colonel 8 September 2014 18: 39 New
              +3
              Quote: triton2009
              for the further development of Saturn 5, they remained pictures.

              The slurredness of the pictures is that the Unions are flying now (I won’t say who they are carrying), but the Saturns ... well, you yourself said. As for the Falkon ... ov. We’ll talk about how to bring the first astronaut to the ISS. I don’t know to what extent you are a specialist, but you (not a specialist) were not convinced by me, and not only because you started to refer to the "cosmonautics forum". Interestingly, who drew all the other pictures that are to the right? Von Braun? Probably a hangover?
        2. sasha-bort
          sasha-bort 8 September 2014 14: 19 New
          0
          I think the author here had in mind the layout of the engines. "One of the five engines was fixed in the center, four others were diametrically located and could rotate to control the thrust vector. In flight, the central engine turned off earlier to reduce overload." wiki article
          1. triton2009
            triton2009 8 September 2014 15: 25 New
            0
            At the Union, the engine is the one in the center that is already 2 steps, the first side.
            1. Sheremetev
              8 September 2014 15: 42 New
              +1
              Everything is right, I made a mistake, very ashamed, do not judge strictly, at the moment, the moderators are correcting.
              1. triton2009
                triton2009 8 September 2014 15: 48 New
                +1
                You’d better apologize for your rudeness.
                1. Sheremetev
                  8 September 2014 21: 59 New
                  0
                  It was not about that.
        3. 00105042
          00105042 8 September 2014 22: 10 New
          -2
          a small addition: Saturn-5 is the same fiction as the entire Lunar project. This rocket existed only in the form of a full-size layout and in Hollywood production launches. With regards to the Chinese tycoonauts, there are serious doubts, for example, in their EVAs, ALL video materials are clearly clumsy fabricated in Photoshop or hastily captured in a pool. The power of Chinese science and technology should not be overestimated.
        4. rubin6286
          rubin6286 9 September 2014 08: 09 New
          0
          The Royal R-7U (the military call it 8K71) in order to improve the geometric characteristics and eliminate the phenomenon of “sailing” at launch was performed according to the “package” scheme, and Saturn-5 has the classic “tandem” scheme. Both schemes have proven their viability and are applied as needed. It is hardly worth explaining this to Colonel. I have. in youth, there was a master of vocational training who said: "If I explained to you 12 times and you didn’t understand on the 13th, then I!"
      2. rubin6286
        rubin6286 9 September 2014 08: 02 New
        0
        In my comments, I talked about the "Angara" more than the author of the article. Do you want me to continue to tell you instead?
    2. lonovila
      lonovila 9 September 2014 09: 20 New
      0
      -Yes, yes, yes ... -I agree with you ... - "Antediluvian complex" thirty years ago, this "Angara" ...
      -And pass it off as a "triumph" ... -this is trying to make a Kalashnikov assault rifle out of a rocket ... -This is the same -this is trying to "express" everything in "cost terms" ... -And why bother for the "poor Americans and Chinese" ...
      -Personally, I didn’t understand at all ... -what is the purpose of this "scientific-cognitive" article ...
      1.-To popularize the views of the "green" ..? -So all missiles are not a “present” ...- to one degree or another ... -There are also nuclear warheads ...
      2.-Glorify "Roskosmos" and its designers ..? -But after a whole series of Russian spacecraft “falling” one after another ... - it’s worthwhile to remain silent about “successes” (at least for a while) ... otherwise all this “glorification” looks like some kind of nonsense ...
      3.-To convince everyone that the Chinayozes will not become leaders in the "cosmos" ... -Also, not a single argument is given ... -Yes, and about the whale "Lunokhod" somehow "casually mentioned" ...
      -And where is the guarantee that the Chinasis will not create a whole series of some "primitively cheap" (relatively inexpensive) moon rovers, such their own "moon turtles" or "moon dragons" and will periodically launch them onto the planets over and over again with only one the goal is that their moonwalkers simply "crawl" over the surface of the planets and simply do not allow the spacecraft of other states to land on these planets ... -Sorry, for such a "fantasy", of course ... -But, this is quite real ...
      -And, in my opinion, everything is quite obvious and predictable ...
  10. mkonev
    mkonev 8 September 2014 12: 32 New
    -8
    "The basic tenets of the great Russian design school." What is such a "great Russian design school"? Soviet was, but Russian, Russian nothing great except the falling protons and obsolete hangars are not visible
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 8 September 2014 12: 59 New
      +5
      but Russian, Russian, nothing great except the falling protons and obsolete hangars are not visible

      That is, you like that, in passing, lowered into d..mo more 100 million people? I will not even demand substantiating your claims to the “falling” Protons and the “morally obsolete Angara”, as I am SURE that I will not receive an adequate and detailed answer. Minus.
      1. Oblozelo
        Oblozelo 9 September 2014 00: 28 New
        0
        I can answer
        Taburetkin abolished military acceptance
        the girl mixed up the COLOR of wires in the harness, and soldered the BACK,
        there was no acceptance of the airspace because there was no airspace itself.
        therefore, the "Ginger" tail behind the rocket, which poked its nose into the ground.
        And the DUS (angular velocity sensor) can be delivered only according to the design documentation (design documentation),
        otherwise, the length of the connecting cable is not enough, either bore the mounting flange (which no one will allow), or have to be replaced with another.
        And according to my information, that "Progress" has been in stock for 4 years (FOUR YEARS)
    2. Oblozelo
      Oblozelo 9 September 2014 00: 30 New
      0
      cynicism is a filth am
    3. rubin6286
      rubin6286 9 September 2014 08: 12 New
      0
      That's right, a fly landed on the horns of an ox and says, "We plowed!"
  11. rotor
    rotor 8 September 2014 13: 16 New
    -1
    if there is a slight “roughness” in the rocket, then this almost always leads to the death of astronauts.


    The Middle Kingdom launches its astronauts into orbits on peculiar launch vehicles.


    In the USSR and Russia, people who have been in space are called astronauts. The Americans call their astronauts, the Chinese - tyconauts.

    By and large, an astronaut is someone who flies to the stars, i.e. astronaut of the distant future, performing interstellar flights.

    The author should understand this and not be confused in terminology.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 8 September 2014 13: 22 New
      +2
      By and large,

      By and large, there is still no space in the orbit of the ISS, since there are remnants of the atmosphere, which the ISS is slowing down about. Sometimes you have to lift it. So the prefixes cosmo-, astro-, tayko- are nothing more than a designation of the profession of people in each country.
      The author should understand this and not be confused in terminology.

      Found something to dig in ....
      1. rotor
        rotor 8 September 2014 13: 31 New
        0
        The Karmana Line, unofficially recognized as the boundary between the atmosphere and space, runs along a 100-kilometer mark. It is there that the air density is already so low that the aircraft must move at the first cosmic speed (approximately 7,9 km / s) to prevent a fall to Earth.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 8 September 2014 13: 46 New
          +4
          unofficially recognized as the boundary between atmosphere and space

          They themselves answered - unofficially.
          It is there that the air density is already so low that the aircraft must move at the first cosmic speed (approximately 7,9 km / s) to prevent a fall to Earth.

          You famously linked air density and the first cosmic speed! If only we clarified that this line was conducted by the Aviation International Federation, on the basis of "because at this altitude to create a lifting aerodynamic force it is necessary for the aircraft to move at the first cosmic speed" and then most relish "because of which the meaning of an air flight is lost."
          That is, the apparatus should to have a wing. If you already read the wiki, read all:
          320 km is the recorded atmospheric boundary in 1927: discovery of an Appleton reflecting radio wave.
          OK. 400 km - orbit altitude of the International Space Station
          1000 — 1100 km — the maximum height of the auroras, the last manifestation of the atmosphere visible from the Earth’s surface (but usually well-marked auroras occur at altitudes 90 — 400 km).
          and only in
          2000 km - the atmosphere does not affect satellites and they can exist in orbit for many millennia.
          but there is a clarification
          OK. 100 000 km is the upper boundary of the Earth's exosphere (geocorona) seen by satellites. The atmosphere is over, interplanetary space has begun
  12. oxotnuk86
    oxotnuk86 8 September 2014 14: 33 New
    +2
    To the author +. Let's get closer to the topic of the article. Everyone who finds the cons cons, you think that the designers of Russia are going to a standstill like mattresses with shuttles. The conversation is about the design school of Russia and we will not look for wormholes.
  13. Gnufus
    Gnufus 8 September 2014 14: 55 New
    0
    Dear forum users, again all the polymers prosrali? I agree about the designers, since there are leading engineers in the air defense, nevertheless, they are based on developments, starting from the fau ... that is, you need to understand what and how, the S-500 is excellent, but it is so classified .. that ...
  14. Mairos
    Mairos 8 September 2014 15: 32 New
    +1
    Very interesting article! Many thanks to the author!
  15. rotor
    rotor 8 September 2014 15: 43 New
    0
    what can the Americans oppose the Angara?


    Well, at least the fact that the super-heavy Falcon Heavy rocket will fly in a partially reusable version with returnable blocks of the 1st stage of the launch vehicle.

    On the one hand, this is a “plus”, since it is much easier to save the first stage of a rocket than the second: it does not require additional thermal protection, as well as much lower energy costs for speed reduction and landing itself. Therefore, since Falcon-Heavy have three blocks of the 1st stage, their reusable use should lower the launch price in comparison with the usual Falcon-2. But on the other hand, the output mass of the reusable Falcon Heavy is unlikely to exceed 1 tons in low orbit. In addition, it is not clear exactly whether the returned 9st steps will be able to be reused.
    1. rotor
      rotor 8 September 2014 16: 16 New
      +1
      True to the GKNPC them. Khrunicheva, together with the Molniya NGO, developed Baikal, a project of the reusable first-stage accelerator of the Angara launch vehicle.



      Only, as now with the reusability of the Angara, it is not clear.
    2. Starley from the south
      Starley from the south 8 September 2014 22: 14 New
      +1
      I'm completely not sure that the Falcon Heavy will turn out to be quite cheap. The American economic system does not allow you to do cheap and reliable things. Only in isolated cases.
    3. rubin6286
      rubin6286 9 September 2014 08: 30 New
      0
      The point is not in opposition: the scientific and industrial base of the United States is such that it allows the production of rocket technology samples that are not inferior to Soviet ones. The change in the political climate has revived the principle of reasonable expediency. Why reinvent the wheel? If the Russians have reliable RD-180 engines and they can sell them, why not buy them if it is cheaper to organize their own production. In the USSR and Russia, American rocket technology was not supplied or sold before, at least there was nothing about it in the press.
  16. Tektor
    Tektor 8 September 2014 15: 50 New
    0
    I consider the most important news of this year to be the start of work on an extra-heavy carrier with a carrying capacity of 150 tons. This is an epoch-making solution that opens up access to the development of the near part of the Solar System and provides protection from an asteroid hazard. And the second is critical in light of the approach of Apophis to us in 2029 and especially in 2036!
    1. rotor
      rotor 8 September 2014 16: 29 New
      0
      While Apophis does not threaten the Earth. Otherwise, a space tug will be needed to attach to Apophis and change its lateral speed by at least 1 m / s.
    2. Wedmak
      Wedmak 8 September 2014 17: 28 New
      +2
      Mythic, hard to challenge. But with the development of the solar system, you hurried. For full-fledged research, manned ships flying more or less freely are needed. And with an acceptable speed. I consider it impossible to build and launch such a ship on the ground - stupidly we cannot lift it into orbit. Therefore, the near future: autonomous heavy unmanned spacecraft, some kind of farm or assembly site in orbit as a development of an orbital station, a manned flight to the Moon and Mars as a test of interplanetary flights. And actually the continuation of the idea of ​​modularity is the assembly of a full-fledged interplanetary ship in orbit from modules delivered by heavy carriers from the Earth. It will take the next 20-30 years.
      As for the asteroid, a heavy spacecraft tug is no longer fantastic, it would be a wish.
  17. Vlad1408
    Vlad1408 8 September 2014 17: 20 New
    +4
    Thank you, the article is informative, but the fact that Russia can’t do anything good is that you’re right, the fifth column vigilantly promotes propaganda, which in turn, especially among young people, enforces the principle of inferiority of the Russian people, which also needs to be propagated the war.
    1. rubin6286
      rubin6286 9 September 2014 08: 35 New
      0
      "To build - you need to know, to know - you need to learn!"
      V. Mayakovsky.

      "Cadres decide everything!"
      I.V. Stalin
  18. studentmati
    studentmati 8 September 2014 20: 29 New
    +3
    ... then it almost always leads to death astronauts. Safety, reliability, simplicity - everything in the Korolev rocket is subject to these concepts ...

    Russia has never had astronauts! (and never will be!). Sergey Pavlovich Korolev trained astronauts! And I think this is an essential point!
    Russia is a pioneer of Cosmonautics !! And the desire of the United States to rewrite history is understandable. It’s sad that the Russian-speaking “writers” are echoing ...
    1. Oblozelo
      Oblozelo 9 September 2014 00: 06 New
      +1
      +1
      author -> author -> author ruspiskopisy "pisarchuk"
      Respect to the General
  19. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 8 September 2014 22: 17 New
    -1
    Fine (albeit non-controversial) articles. But the conclusion that follows from them, the author apparently is not able to draw according to the very structure of the soul. But the conclusion is that rocket technology has completely exhausted itself and will never lead to space exploration. Yes, there are heavy missiles, but they are ... unclaimed. And why? But because the astronautics cannot be built on them.
    Yes, the "competition between the two systems" has revived and money has again been dropped into the rocket industry. Yes, you can have fun again at public expense ... but rocket exploration is just a robbery of a country that has the stupidity to do it. Blood sucking from the economy no matter what. Suicide from a fantastically expensive gun ...
    We saved missile design bureaus. What the hell are they for? Only the launches into the near-earth orbits of communication and surveillance satellites are really in demand. Everything. Everything! Alas, we are playing a game that will be won by someone who either does not bet at all or puts a minimum. Pouring money into rocket science, we simply burn them. This money should go into the development of new physics, one should not give a damn about Einstein’s aporias, or anything else, and desperately seek fundamentally new ways. Yes, it looks crazy. But on all other routes there are dead ends, and we have already explored them. So you have to go along the only path that remains. Whatever awaits us there, it will still be better than a guarantee of defeat.
    Yes, the Russian school of rocket science is wonderful. And she will delight us for a long time ... in museums. But it will work no further than near-earth orbits! I am sure the author himself understands this, somewhere out there, deep down in his soul. Rocket science and achieved Mars will not save ...
    1. rubin6286
      rubin6286 9 September 2014 08: 44 New
      +1
      Your conclusion is no good. Space must not be conquered, but mastered. No space missiles yet. Tsiolkovsky said: “Earth is the cradle of reason, but you cannot live forever in the cradle!” Space exploration is a long and not cheap process. Imagine that tomorrow they will establish that the whole moon is made of gold. The day after tomorrow everyone will seriously engage in space exploration, even Somalia and Nigeria.
  20. Oblozelo
    Oblozelo 9 September 2014 00: 10 New
    -2
    and let's fly to Mars?
    We swell a bunch of dough, build a one-time launch pad, and a one-time carrier.
    everything will be fine
    we start, we will go into orbit, then we will rush to Mars
    Arrived ...
    AND WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ??????
    and at this time in Russia people should eat acorns ????
    “WE DO NOT NEED SUCH HOCKEY” - the words of Nikolai Ozerov, a wonderful commentator
    He took off his hat in front of Ozerov, Tarasov and Chernyshov many, many others
    1. rubin6286
      rubin6286 9 September 2014 08: 49 New
      +1
      You have very little idea of ​​a space exploration program. Previously, at least astronomy was taught at school and young people knew at least something, but now they cannot even pass the exam in mathematics and the Russian language. “There are no oranges from aspen.” If it goes further, they will really eat acorns.
      1. Oblozelo
        Oblozelo 20 November 2014 00: 20 New
        0
        and for you it is under the heading "OV"
  21. Glaz8000
    Glaz8000 9 September 2014 04: 33 New
    0
    Thanks for the article, it was interesting. I look forward to continuing.
  22. nnz226
    nnz226 9 September 2014 10: 28 New
    +1
    does the author demonstrate "bowing to the west"? Speaking about Russian rockets, he writes: "... but if a small“ roughness ”occurs in a rocket, then this almost always leads to the death of astronauts.” We are the first in space! Therefore, not some "astronauts", but COSMONAUTS!
  23. tovarisch
    tovarisch 9 September 2014 10: 39 New
    0
    Quote: triton2009
    The US is very dirty in politics and in space

    The United States must be destroyed!
  24. opus
    opus 9 September 2014 13: 17 New
    +1
    "Angara": triumph or oblivion. Part of 5
    The author is working fruitfully .... It is not very clear what "means" to prove / tell?
    About technical, factual, historical (and in your mistakes)
    1.
    Quote: Author Nikadonov Sergey
    in space technology, reliability has become a top priority,

    -reliability is implied a priori, for both manned and cargo, and for the military, this is absolute.
    Otherwise, it’s just stupid: billions, to the wind, defenses in the red, refineries have not been fulfilled.
    Booster efficiency in general is a priority.
    Note:
    1.1. To launch three cosmonauts to Soyuz-U it was necessary either to select a crew from light astronauts, or to lighten them as much as possible in various ways (intensive training, a bathhouse, severe restrictions on personal belongings)

    “Soyuz FG” - The main differences from the Soyuz-U launch vehicle are the use of modernized engines of 1 and 2 stages with new nozzle heads (hence the “FG” in the name of the rocket) designed for the Soyuz-2 launch vehicle with minimal system modifications management. Its energy capabilities are approximately 250-300 kg higher than the capabilities of the basic Soyuz launch vehicle.
    1.2. CAC "occupies" about 10% of GON, Vostok "(Gagarin) .. I had to abandon the emergency rescue system at the start and the soft landing system of the SA. Not enough R-7!
    “Voskhod” and “Voskhod-2” (2x local capsules converted from a single) were even devoid of ejection seats (“Vostok”).
    2.
    Quote: Author Nikadonov Sergey
    and ending with the famous crew emergency rescue system (CAC)

    so for reference:
    -the first SAS was realized by Americans (Mercury, Dzhemeni, Apollo)




    The first "combat" operation of this system during the first launch of the experimental (unmanned) spacecraft "Mercury" - "Little Joe 1", (April 25, 1961). This case in practice proved the feasibility of using solid propellant rocket engines in spacecraft emergency rescue systems.
    Note: the thrust vector of the main engine did not pass through the center of gravity of the Mercury. Thanks to this, even without special control engines SAS led the capsule forward and sideways from the launch vehicle.
    -If I'm not mistaken somewhere in the 90s Titov and Strekalov, they said "thank you" and awarded the main developer of CAC from North American Rockwell.
    -Our brought CAC to perfection. That's for sure, and the Americans, relying on the Shuttle's over-reliability, simply scored on CAC (and in vain)
    1. Lugansk
      Lugansk 15 September 2014 13: 02 New
      0
      All launches of jamenyAll launches of jameny

      Where do you see CACs on at least one Gemini launch? He is not there!
      SAS would be, but American missiles were not able to launch ships together with SAS, this also applies to Saturn.
      What is the reliability of the shuttle? It’s just that it was almost impossible to realize salvation on the Shuttle, and if the Americans started to do CAC on the Shuttle, then the shuttle’s feeble load would have fallen below Zenith-2, and the Shuttle would have lost all meaning hi
  25. opus
    opus 9 September 2014 13: 22 New
    +1
    3.
    Quote: Author Nikadonov Sergey
    It’s absolutely impossible to launch a man into space on a “heptyl” rocket! And it’s not about ecology and oncology, but that they are extremely explosive!

    Come on?
    3.1 liquid oxygen (LOX) flammable and even explosive type of oxidizer, although not toxic, but stored and transported below Tk = −182,96 ° C, in the high-pressure fuel pump it is on a "short" shoulder "almost found with kerosene and combustion products (turbine) at T about 3000 ° C,

    steam: heptyl amine = "children", compared with it, as an example, the fire and death of "astronauts2 Apollo DIRECTLY on the launch pad, due to a spark (presumably)
    3.2. Engines of orbital maneuvering and engines of orbital mooring (DOP) - as a rule (except ours) high-boiling TC (UDMH / AT) or one-component (peroxide), and they are DIRECT under or above the capsule with the astronauts.
    OAMS-Gemeni (and at sunrise Compressed gas = but this is not a HOUSE)
    Orbital Maneuvering System, OMS-Shuttle, Appolon = OME LRE on self-igniting fuel components (monomethylhydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide)
    4.
    Quote: Author Nikadonov Sergey
    What rocket do you think is easier to synchronize their work with, which rocket is more controlled - with 5 engines or when there are 6 times more of them ?!

    controversial issue:
    4.1. There is no fundamental difference in “synchronization” of 5 or 30, and synchronization is not typical here.
    4.2. out of 5 1-2 fail, what will happen?
    and out of 30 will fail 1-2? Will it "notice" the pH?
    5.
    Quote: Author Nikadonov Sergey
    This engine is nothing but the “quarter” of the legendary engine, the most powerful engine ever created - the RD-170.

    5.1. returning to the "old": the marching, and even with the HOUSE and ADD JUST did not fit into the Buran, therefore they were placed in the block "Ts" (Energy.
    5.2. RD-170 and F-1: 9750 kg versus 8353 kg, closed cycle, against open (the gas after the GG in F-1 was used to cool the wall layer in the nozzle nozzle), Volume 170 and F-1 .... Does not take into account the nozzle nozzles F-1 (occupying approximately half the length of the engine.)
    5.3. RD-170: 4 re cameras, 2x GG and ONE fuel pump. In the event of a failure of the high-pressure fuel pump (very loaded unit), the entire block-stop.
    6.
    Quote: Author Nikadonov Sergey
    Brown's engine was single-chamber, with one nozzle.

    a little more about the cost of production:
    6.1.F-1 (American approach), and not only it is a shirt: a spiral pipe, VAR diameter + soldering, we have 6 milling of 2 surfaces + soldering.
    6.2. RD-170 and F-1, through the volume of the rocket engine.
    What is more time-consuming and costly, to create LRE1n with volume V? Or to create pseudo 4re LRE (combined in one LRE, with volumes V1, so that V1 + V1 + V1 + V1 = V

    A simple calculation (through the circumference, and the area of ​​the cylinder and cone) will show that the “benefit (cost)” in the production of the 1st F-1 (1 per chamber, 1 nozzle) versus the 1st RD-170 (4p chambers and 4p nozzles) is undeniable
    + weight, cost of fuel equipment FOR single-chamber and 4-chamber rocket engines
    1. Lugansk
      Lugansk 15 September 2014 02: 55 New
      0
      Quote: opus
      6.1.F-1 (American approach), and not only it is a shirt: a spiral pipe, VAR diameter + soldering, we have 6 milling of 2 surfaces + soldering.

      Well, yes, a spiral tube, on an engine that did not meet the declared parameters for pressure in the combustion chamber.
      It is possible that the F-1 has less thrust than the RD-191, not to mention the RD-171 hi
      So do not compare Tsar Cannon F-1 with a real RD-171 engine
  26. Lugansk
    Lugansk 15 September 2014 02: 50 New
    0
    Quote: triton2009
    The author does not compare the F-1 and the RD-170. He says that after F1, the United States did not develop rocket engines. And he is trying to compare the Russian engine with Merlin, forgetting to indicate that each engine is created for a specific medium and for certain tasks.
    As for hydrogen, you are right - it is more complicated and more expensive.

    Calm down you, F-1 (Fake-1) - such an engine with the declared parameters did not exist. That is, Tsar Cannon was, but did not shoot, like the Saturn-5 rocket itself.
    more details here:
    http://free-inform.com/pepelaz/pepelaz-13.htm
    http://www.manonmoon.ru/articles/st25.htm
    1. family tree
      family tree 15 September 2014 03: 14 New
      +1
      Quote: Lugansk
      That is, the Tsar Cannon was, but didn’t shoot,

      In 1980, a gun was repaired in Serpukhov, at the same time it was examined by specialists from the Artillery Academy named after Dzerzhinsky. It was found that the Tsar Cannon was fired at least once. Only not by the nuclei that are nearby, this is a later decoration. She, purely for buckshot, is a big shotgun.
  27. Lugansk
    Lugansk 15 September 2014 12: 54 New
    0
    Quote: perepilka
    Quote: Lugansk
    That is, the Tsar Cannon was, but didn’t shoot,

    In 1980, a gun was repaired in Serpukhov, at the same time it was examined by specialists from the Artillery Academy named after Dzerzhinsky. It was found that the Tsar Cannon was fired at least once. Only not by the nuclei that are nearby, this is a later decoration. She, purely for buckshot, is a big shotgun.

    The same thing with the F-1, it was like it was working out of a flame, but it did not give out the declared pressure in the combustion chamber, so the Saturn-5 rocket, although it flew up, did not put the declared 140 t or even 100 into orbit tons, its capabilities are 50-60 tons, for some natural moon they were not suitable, in general, her job is to put buckshot in the eyes of the audience.