Military Review

"Angara": triumph or oblivion. Part of 7

70
Rocket soldier


We said above that Angara aims to at least “squeeze out” three classes of launch vehicles. This is already impressive. Especially since the conquest of at least some niche in orbital space is already a “gold mine”, Klondike.



Judge for yourself - only the US has more than 400 military satellites in orbit, and how many “peaceful” and commercial satellites are incalculable. The orbiter is everything: intelligence, tracking, communications, telecommunications, navigation, space laboratories, observatories, all kinds of monitoring of the earth and water surface, tracking atmospheric processes ... I don’t even try to list half of all satellite capabilities, they are infinite. And there is practically no “earthly” alternative to satellites, and if so, it is prohibitively expensive.

Do not forget that the missiles, in addition to sending payloads into orbit, have the main “duty” - delivering a nuclear warhead to a potential enemy over many thousands of kilometers. This suggests a thought: isn’t Angar going to “squeeze out” any class of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM)? Here, the military, as if in the mouth, collected water, did not disclose the "open secret". Everything is clear with them, service people, and military secrets do not reveal. True, there is a possibility that this mystery can never materialize, but that is another question.

But the silence of our valiant "fifth column spies" is alarming. Maybe they are silent because they know: for a Russian person, defense is sacred? And they are aware that the Russian people can forgive the authorities for everything (despotism, corruption, material deprivation), but if this power is not able to protect the people, then they are quickly satisfied with the “Ipatiev House”. The image of the holy prince, intercessor, even if cruel, but fair, is in our code for centuries.

Then, maybe, it is worth opening the "veil of secrecy"? Moreover, we do not possess X-Files. All that is needed and not needed to be classified is classified. We will use materials for housewives and ordinary human logic.

As we know, Russia is the only power (except for the United States) that has a nuclear triad. That is, it is capable of delivering a nuclear strike on any part of the globe - from the ground, from the water and from the air. Accordingly, from the ground we strike with intercontinental ballistic missiles. But Russian ICBMs, in turn, make up their own triad, which even America does not have. These are ballistic missiles of the light, medium and heavy class, simply 50-ti, 100- and 200-tonics.

Now we need to determine what class of rocket and what kind of problems we have. I will say right away: the main issue for our state is the acquisition of industrial and technological sovereignty in the production of all types of missiles.

Let's start with lightweight ICBMs. They are represented by such missiles as the Topol and its advanced version - the Yars. There are no questions about these missiles, they are produced at the Votkinsk engineering plant. The Ukrainian Yuzhnoye design bureau was “fooled” back in 1992 year. So the sovereignty is complete here, and the West will not be able to harm us, unless, of course, it continues to kill our rocket engineers. I wrote above about the “terrorist attack” in Volgograd: these unfortunate guys were just employees of the Votkinsk enterprise.

The middle class ICBM is occupied by the 105-tonne PC-18 “Stilet”. This rocket recently cruelly "joked" over the Americans. Believing in the fact that the "hundredth" expiration date has expired, America unilaterally withdrew from the 1972 ABM Treaty of the Year, and we easily updated them. The only thing that we have forgiven $ 50 million "gas" debt to Ukraine, and they gave us 30 brand new steps left to them after the implementation of the START-1 Treaty. We even managed to make some money on this business.

Not quite believing in success, it was planned to use the power of the "commercial" versions of this rocket, Rokot and Strely, but this did not have to be done. It was nice to watch the reaction of the Americans when we made a successful launch of the "rejuvenated hundred". This way our friends have been circling the finger lately infrequently.

The Russian "land triad" is the "Damocles sword" for America. They have nothing to oppose us. The American 35-ton rocket "Minuteman" does not even reach the light class, moreover, it is not mobile, unlike our "Topol" and "Yars", and therefore vulnerable.

It is not surprising that America is a big fan of making “friends” near our borders and then “shoving” them with its medium-range missiles. Otherwise, they can’t get us. The American fleet can only come close to our Far Eastern coast, where the Pacific Fleet, the largest in Russia, will try to resist it. The Arctic coast is also closed to them, all the more so there is the second largest Northern Fleet on guard. The Baltic and Black Sea are elementarily “clogged”. The result is a paradox: the longest coast of Russia in the world is practically closed to the largest in the world fleet (American).

In the USA, things are not better with the strategic aviation. America’s air fleet cannot strike Russia's vital facilities without touching the air defense zone, and with what losses the “visible invisibles” will go through this zone, it’s not hard to guess.

Returning to the Stilettos, it must be said that the Americans were not only upset by the fact that the middle-class missiles were quickly reanimated, but that hundreds, in large quantities, of course, can be equivalent to heavy and middle-class missiles. taken. It was precisely they who counted on the elimination of heavy-duty ICBMs.

It's time to get acquainted with these giants. This is the legendary PC-20 "Satan" and its upgraded counterpart "Voyevoda." With these heavy rockets we have a really difficult situation. The fact is that they were produced in the Ukrainian "Yuzhmash". Modernization, service - also for the Ukrainian specialists. Here America in all its glory shows its Jesuit policy. The meaning of such a policy is not different by originality and is extremely clear - to make the most of the use of Ukraine in order to harm the military space potential of Russia. Only Kiev has to learn one simple truth: its space industry exists only because Russia needs it, due to the connections we once had from a single country. As soon as these connections cease (to this, everything is in full swing), the Ukrainian space will collapse like the Tower of Babel. Including in the Ukrkosmos will not need the Americans, because no one needs a dead kamikaze.

The situation with the Ukrainian Dnepr rocket looks very significant. This is precisely the civil modification of "Satan". In connection with the signing of the START-1 agreement, which involved the destruction of 50% RS-20, the question arose of how to reduce the arsenal of these missiles. The most effective from a commercial point of view was the method of reworking the rocket for orbital launches. This is what the Russian-Ukrainian enterprise Kosmotras took up. It was here that the “overseas comrades” began to rub their hands in anticipation of wiles and intrigues. Now, with the help of Ukrainian “friends”, who provide technical support for our “king-of-missiles”, who are at the fighting position, the Americans can control almost everything - from the control system to the delivery of spare parts from Ukraine. Moreover, with the help of Kiev, the US took control of missile utilization and commercial launches of the “peaceful” version of Satan. And in order to launch Cosmotras into commercial launches, it wouldn’t put satellites into the rocket, America taught us a lesson that we later learned.

First, it must be said that the “king-rocket”, in addition to its power (which was included in the Guinness book), possessed phenomenal reliability, this was confirmed more than 160 launches, so there was no doubt about the commercial launches of Cosmotras. Indeed, to date, 20 launches have been made. Launched into orbit more 100 satellites. All launches were successful, except for one, the seventh in a row.

26 July 2006 of the year the Russian satellite was to go into orbit, but this is half the trouble. The worst thing that crashed the Belarusian space firstborn - satellite "BelKA". I must say that the "satellite" - a loose concept. It could be a kilogram “diving” ball or a solar-powered amplifier with an amplifier, or it could be an unmanned spacecraft maneuvering in three-axis orbit with a powerful power plant, “stuffed” with all kinds of instruments with excellent resolution and a large swath. That was exactly the Belarusian satellite. He was to be included in the constellation of satellites used in the framework of the space programs of the union state. It will not be an exaggeration if I say that Belarus has invested its soul, its prestige in its creation. Alexander Lukashenko, who came to Baikonur to launch Belka, would not be ashamed of such a satellite. He was probably then ashamed of some of the Ukrainian "prostitutes." I do not in any way blame all Ukrainian specialists, there were no more than two or three people in the “topic”, and there are plenty of “prostitutes,” as you saw. A table was laid, dedicated to the adoption of Belarus in the bosom of the space powers, there were many Italians, Americans ... All were in anticipation of the celebration, but it turned out so vile история.

Let's ask ourselves the question: the PC-20, in various modifications, successfully started around 200 times, and in one case there was a catastrophe, so can there be an element of chance here? Any mathematician will tell you that he can, but the probability is extremely low. With the same probability, some hamadryad will knock on the keyboard and “accidentally compose” a love note to her female. The point is not even that 1: 200 is a low probability, but that this “probability” was realized with Russian-Belarusian satellites that were not included in this “mathematical problem” before or after.

As always, it is amazing how these “boys” work dirty. The question is, why did they not initiate a breakdown, say, in the upper stage? Then it would be possible to shift the blame on the civilian modification of Satan. But the rocket "broke" on the 74 second flight, that is, a "breakdown" occurred in the protoracket itself! Such abnormal situations are eliminated during the bench test period. Even rougher could be done by tying a grenade to a rocket. It is known that any special service tries not to expose its agent, unless of course it appreciates him, and when you start to understand the “love cosmic triangle” Moscow - Washington - Kiev, it is striking how cheap the Ukrainian side is for sale, and even stupidly compromising itself.

Moscow and Minsk made the right conclusions from this whole story. Belarus through 6 years after all launched its satellite, however, it was more modest than the first, and its Soyuz launch vehicle launched into orbit, while Dnepr continued to launch satellites from other countries without a crash.

We also need to draw some conclusions. Firstly, the story of “Belka” clearly shows that this is the maximum that Ukraine can do to harm us. It's no secret that the United States is putting pressure on Ukraine to stop servicing Satan’s missiles, but Kiev will not do this for the reason that they, too, are on hook. For example, we can safely close the Dnepr project, because all Kosmotras 150 missiles are in Russia. About Zenit was written above, I will not repeat. The situation is similar with Cyclones, for which a significant proportion of components are produced in Russia, including engines. For well-known reasons, the Russian and Ukrainian space industries are symbiotic, so that the “hook” is two-edged.

Secondly, in the class of heavy ICBMs, Russia has a rift. Considering that at the time of the collapse of the Squirrel, the situation with the Stilettos was not important, it turns out that even middle-class missiles were stuck with us. The situation turned out to be depressing: America knocks out two components from the Russian nuclear overland triad.

The reader may reasonably ask the question: is it not “fatty” to have an ICBM triad if the US does not have it? The fact is that America does not need to have this triad, because they can deliver medium-range missiles, anywhere. Norway, the Baltic countries, the former Warsaw Pact countries, Turkey, Ukraine is next in line ... Why create a rocket with an 11000 km range, when it can be done with an 1500 km range, since they will cost an order of magnitude less! Unfortunately, we cannot deploy rockets in Canada or in Mexico. True, you can use missile cruisers and submarines, but we have few of them, but building them is expensive.

I wrote above about disposing of 300 nuclear submarines. And on the contrary, the USA can afford such luxury as numerous navies.

Then, maybe Russia will compensate for the "shortage" of a large number of light-class missiles? It's impossible. First, expensive. “Satan” and “Topol” are completely different doctrines. Mobile, fast "on the rise" "Topol" strikes, when the enemy missiles have not yet reached the target. “Tsar-rocket”, on the contrary, can in the mine, as in an air-raid shelter, wait out a nuclear strike, then launch, overcome the enemy's missile defense zone, divide into 10 warheads, independently working on targets, and arrange the enemy hell equivalent to 500 Hiroshima. You can, of course, build a lot of mines for Topol, which we partially do, but what about the mines for Satan? The silo launcher (SSU) is a complex and expensive engineering structure, and it is unprofitable to install a light-class rocket there.

Secondly, due to the specifics of the engine, solid fuel Topol cannot maneuver in flight, as can be done by Satan, which has liquid jet engines (LRE). It is clear that the Topol flight path is more predictable, so the enemy’s missile defense will be more effective.

In general, the strengths and weaknesses of rocket technology are optimally used in our ICBM triad. The design of a solid propellant rocket engine (solid propellant rocket motor) is quite simple, the fuel tank is practically a nozzle, which is made thick-walled, which entails an increase in the "unprofitable" mass. The larger the rocket, the worse the ratio of the mass of the payload to the mass of the rocket. But on small missiles, this drawback disappears due to the lack of a turbopump unit. And vice versa - the more solid-fuel rocket, the less the absence of the unit “saves the situation”. It is not surprising that solid-fuel missiles rightfully “occupied” the light class: simplicity and low cost, mobility and the ability to quickly bring to combat readiness make them indispensable in their segment. “Tsar-rocket” with liquid engines justifies its name, because the larger the mass of the LRE-rocket, the better the payload / mass of the rocket.

It is not hard to guess that this indicator for the 211-ton rocket is the highest among ICBMs.

Thus, the light "Yars" and the heavy "Voevoda", like a destroyer and a battleship, are perfectly combined, covering themselves with each other's weaknesses. Conversely, each rocket multiplies the virtues of its “colleague”.

As for the average "Stiletto", without them could do in principle. 105-ton rocket is very difficult to make mobile, and hiding it in the mine is not entirely cost-effective, so these missiles were relatively few. "Stiletto" was calculated as a safety option, which, as you know, worked.

Let's summarize. It follows from the above that the unequivocal conclusion is that “Satan Voivode” should look for a replacement. All other measures are palliative. We stretch before the 2030 year, and then - no prospects.

It is not surprising that in 2009, the Sarmat project started, a worthy replacement for Voevod, as our Ministry of Defense says. Information about the Sarmat ICBM project is extremely small, but it is known that the rocket will use liquid jet engines and weigh about 100 tons. As you can see, “worthy replacement” is obtained only by “Stiletto”, which is already quite good. However, the place of the ICBM heavy class is still vacant.

It is interesting to ask the question: was there in the Soviet Union a “safety net” rocket for the “Satan”? Yes, it was. This is the P-36orb Scarp. She not only insured, but also perfectly complemented it. Outwardly similar to the "Satan" "Scarp" differed in the method of delivery of the combat charge. The booster rocket output charge power 2,3 MT, equipped with engines, directly into space. It turned out a kamikaze ship maneuvering in orbit filled with Hiroshima 150. The distance to the target for this “satellite” did not matter, and the direction of attack was not fundamental either. True, for America it was all very important, because the attack of an object from any direction made its defense almost impossible. At least, it certainly would not have caused delight among Americans because of the prohibitively expensive missile defense. If the "Satan" in American strategists caused an intractable headache, then his "space" version infuriated them. This is the real embodiment of “star wars”, and not the cartoons that his overseas friends showed to Gorbachev.

Unfortunately, Р-36orb will not help us - not because we removed it from combat duty, according to the SALT-2 Agreement (no one is looking at these “treaties” now). The fact is that the "peaceful" version of this rocket, prudently left in a series by the Soviet Union, was produced in Ukraine. This is the above mentioned "Cyclone".

You involuntarily ask yourself a global question: why did the USSR in the class of heavy ICBMs have two types of missiles, but Russia does not “want” to have one? Before that, we were stupid gamblers, but now we are smarter? Maybe then we had bad defenses, but now everything is fine? The answer is obvious: the opposite is true. It is necessary to understand without illusions that without the balanced triad of the quantity and quality of the ICBM of Russia, it will not be possible to exist within its colossal boundaries. Let me remind you that Russia is at least twice as large as any other state, and that is not counting the vast territories of the Arctic shelf for which we have unilaterally declared our right. Here we would have such indicators in terms of GDP, or at least in terms of population, but this is far from the case. According to GDP, we are in the 6-th place, and in terms of population, Russia is in the 10-th place, “gallantly” passing even such countries as Bangladesh, Pakistan and Nigeria ahead.

It is no secret to anyone what the world is fighting for control over natural, water and energy resources. How and how we will defend all this is a question of our existence in the coming decades. Stalin's words that "if we do not strengthen, we will be crushed," today are as urgent as ever. We, in the format of this article, will think about how to strengthen Russia at least in terms of nuclear forces.

"Angara" instead of "Satan"?

Now that we have a brief idea of ​​our rocket shield, we can ask ourselves the question: maybe Angara can help us with something? Let me remind you that we do not have a heavy class ICBM for the future. Here begins a series of interesting coincidences and oddities.

The first thing that catches your eye is the “fifth column” comments. No one speaks directly about whether Angara can be an intercontinental ballistic missile, but indirectly they are voicing a lot of replicas that we will refute.

Their most common saying is that “Angara” is difficult (even impossible) to adapt for launching from a silo launcher (silo silo), and, as always, they do not put forward any arguments, and if they say so, for informational background. This is one of the favorite "their" methods, to speak out indirectly, if you obviously know that you will lose the information battle.

To begin with, let's pay attention to an amazing “coincidence”: the dimensions of the “Satan” are very similar to the dimensions of the “Hangars 1.1 and 1.2”. Only the unification with the heavy-class ICBMs can explain the diameter of the "Angara". Agree that the diameter of 2,9 m is suspiciously small for a rocket, the variants of which are going to deliver to the orbit cargoes of mass 50 tons. Let me remind you that the diameter of the Falken module is 3,7 m, and that of Zenit is 3,9 m, and here this is such a “mysterious” minimalism. Obviously, the "Angara" planned to lower into the mine.

Now let's see how the Angara can start from the silo. There are three ways to launch a rocket from the mine - this is a gas-dynamic, mortar and mixed start. The technical problems of launching a rocket from a mine by the gas-dynamic method are solved by equipping it with gas-diverting ducts. This is the easiest type of start, it is practiced all over the world. Much more difficult, especially for the 200-ton rocket, is a mortar ("cold") start. In this method, the rocket is ejected from the silo due to the pressure generated in a closed volume by an external source, for example, a powder pressure accumulator (PAD) or a steam-gas generator. The rocket engine is launched at the same time after the rocket leaves the mine. Here it is only necessary to adapt the "Angar" to the already developed "cold" start for the "Satan". There are no fundamental technical difficulties. True, there may be a problem with the reliability of the Angara engine start. As you know, to start the engine "Angara" you need three components - kerosene, oxygen and ignition, and for "Satan" only two - heptyl and amyl. There is nothing terrible about this, firstly, the problem is technically solvable, and secondly, you can take advantage of a mixed start when the engine starts directly in the transport and launch container.

As you see, there are no principal difficulties in turning the “Angar” into a “mine” ICBM of a heavy class. True, “these people” often express another “argument”: a “heptyl” rocket can stay in a long state for a long time, and a “kerosene” one needs to be refueled just before launching, “vaguely” hinting, as they say, to mine a rocket in a mine? The fact is that “Satan-Voevoda” also refuels directly in the mine launcher, there is nothing terrible here. More terrible than that is to fill the rocket with highly toxic components, such as heptyl and amyl, not to mention the fact that they must be safely delivered to the silo. We do not even take into account that the cost of the heptyl pair is higher than that of kerosene, and significantly. It can be said that it is better to fill the Angara ten times than the Satan once.

As a result, all their “negative arguments” about refueling can be merged into one: at the time of the start of a nuclear war, “Satan” will be in a refueled state, and the “Angara” will not.

This argument from the whole "pleiad" of statements is more or less significant. We will analyze it in more detail.

Imagine that our potential adversary has launched its missiles, and in 20 minutes they will reach targets in our country. Here the “experts” are starting to make an elephant out of a fly: they say, Russia is covered with nuclear “mushrooms”, like a forest after the rains, and our soldiers in a hurry cannot fill the Angara with kerosene.

To begin with, as soon as the enemy’s missiles take off, almost immediately, with a “return visit”, our Topol and Yars will fly to meet them. Further, in pursuit of the "Poplars", rush "Stilettos". But whether it is necessary to “hurry” to “Angara” is a question.

We have already said that the "mine" based missiles are weapon guaranteed retribution, that is, they are launched after a nuclear strike. So, there is enough time to pour in kerosene and oxygen into the rocket, especially since the refueling technologies are not standing still.

Now let us ask one more question: why should we keep the Angar with empty tanks, and not fill it in advance? A nuclear war will fall on us like snow on our heads, or will some events precede it?

In aviation, there are different levels of alert. Willingness number XXUMX - when the plane is fully ready to fly, stands in the parking lot with the engine turned on, and in its cockpit sits a pilot, fully ready to fly. Willingness number XXUMX - when the plane is fully ready to fly, stands in the parking lot with the engine off, and the pilot is near the aircraft. And so on. Question: why can't our heavy class ICBM units also be divided according to readiness levels? There is only one principle: the lower the security class of the silo, the higher the degree of readiness of heavy ICBMs and, accordingly, the opposite. Depending on the degree of international tension, it is possible to raise or lower the degree of combat readiness of all battalions of heavy ICBMs, that is, they both loaded the rocket and leaked the fuel back. As you can see, there is nothing complicated here, all the more dangerous.

Finishing the topic of refueling, it is necessary to say that when you start to deal with the PC-20 control system and, accordingly, with the rocket launch algorithm, it becomes clear that Kiev and Kharkov instrument-makers were quite professional in their duties. "Protection against fools" on "Satan" is made at a high level, and anecdotes about the jar with the brine on the red button are inappropriate here.

In this question we are interested in the real time of preparing the rocket for launch. Only a few are aware of this topic, and nobody can write about it at all. It is not surprising that the thought that among these “units” there are Americans, leads our military to despair, and this “despair” reinforces the “catastrophe” of the civilian version of the Belka rocket. We can definitely say that the preparation time of the PC-20 for launch is considerable, not like in the films (the reverse ten-second countdown, and the rocket flew).

With reference to the "Angara" we say that the preparation of the rocket for launch will necessarily be combined with the refueling of it, if, of course, it is not already refueled. And now, in order for the “fifth column” to finally knock out the only flimsy visor, I would say that even the Korolev ICBM P-7 in the 50-s stood at the Clesetsk for a month, and how many can “hold” without repacking the Angar, only God knows.

I hope that the reader has dispelled the last doubts about the suitability of the "Angara" to the class of heavy intercontinental ballistic missiles. As for the civilian variants of this rocket, everything was said above. Do not forget that the manned space flight on the Angara from the Vostochny cosmodrome in 2017 has not been canceled yet.

“Angara” is a guarantee of our peaceful sleep and a confident future for our descendants. In the next decade, this rocket may become the absolute record for mass character and its effectiveness. But it can happen the other way around: in three years it will turn into an “obsolete dead-end branch of the space industry”.

As we have seen, even a constructively and technologically perfect project (which is even in real embodiment) can be canceled by an unwise political decision. We, who love our Fatherland, need to do everything possible and impossible in order for Angara to take place. Otherwise, we will fail.
Author:
70 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. saag
    saag 10 September 2014 09: 32 New
    0
    The hangar as an ICBM is a bubomeise, it was with the R-7 in the military version and it was not the best option, it is a constant refueling with oxygen, in the mine it will get a special flavor :-) especially when the rocket starts :-)

    maybe a little offtopic, but interesting news on titanium turned up - Kolomoisky took titanium Two of Russia's most important titanium mines located in Ukraine began to be controlled by people of one of the most odious and hostile Russian oligarchs - Igor Kolomoisky. VSMPO-Avisma, the world's largest Russian titanium producer, is XNUMX percent dependent on these supplies.
    1. abuyanovus
      abuyanovus 10 September 2014 13: 37 New
      +5
      Bullshit, in Russia its titanium is more than enough. To begin industrial development only in the European part in places with accessible infrastructure and the presence of year-round rail supply is a matter of a couple of months. But nobody except us has a titanium rolling mill. laughing and it is a fact am
    2. rubin6286
      rubin6286 16 September 2014 14: 06 New
      0
      All Soviet (Russian) space rockets are derived from the corresponding military missiles. Before the abbreviation R-7 or Korolevskaya "seven" appeared in print, it was preceded by "closed" designations 8K71,8K74,11A92, which had certain structural differences from each other. The same applies to space rockets derived from Yangel’s KB missiles.
      As for the mine samples of rockets that used kerosene and liquid oxygen as rocket fuel, their refueling was supposed only at start-up, which significantly increased the time of transfer from constant to full combat readiness. Where were the containers with fuel components and how these components got into the rocket, I suggest you think of it yourself. Interesting. what do you see “special flavor” at the launch of such a silo from a silo ?. The silos of such missiles are very primitive and disposable. A rocket stands in it on the launch pad and leaves it strictly vertically. How this is achieved, guess yourself. So comes the understanding of the essence of the process.
      Since 1990, Ukraine has not been regarded as a reliable partner in the production of aviation and rocket technology, and cooperation with it in these areas has gradually declined. Russia has both materials and technologies for the production of airplanes and missiles, relevant enterprises and specialists.
  2. oxotnuk86
    oxotnuk86 10 September 2014 09: 52 New
    +6
    To the author +. We believe that the Angara will be a triumph!
    1. Karlsonn
      Karlsonn 10 September 2014 13: 28 New
      +4
      MOSCOW, 10 Sep - RIA News. The atomic submarine missile cruiser Vladimir Monomakh launched a Bulava ballistic missile from the White Sea on the Kura training ground in Kamchatka on Wednesday, tests were completed normally.



      This is how the end of the world will look. hi
      1. tundra
        tundra 10 September 2014 14: 01 New
        +2
        Places where youth passed, I will tell you that the movie does not convey all the harsh beauty, finish, and if at night, and a few warheads. Oooo spectacle mesmerizing.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 10 September 2014 14: 11 New
          0
          Are the funnels from the discs deep?
          1. Karlsonn
            Karlsonn 10 September 2014 14: 40 New
            +3
            Quote: Wedmak
            Are the funnels from the discs deep?


            ICBM R-7.
            1. tundra
              tundra 10 September 2014 17: 10 New
              +1
              Nowadays, these people were called search companies. And it almost certainly passed by. There are a lot of funnels across the range. And the company worked from helicopters, apparently to transfer data faster.
              1. Karlsonn
                Karlsonn 10 September 2014 17: 42 New
                0
                Quote: tundra
                Nowadays, these people were called search companies.


                Yes sir! soldier And it was very difficult to find the funnel, the territory of something fellow .

                Quote: tundra
                And it almost certainly passed by.


                what

                It may well be those who were sent to dig a funnel to retrieve secret devices. winked

                Here on the “Topol M” they tested a new experimental type of fuel for rocket engines. 20 May 2014 year Astrakhan.
                1. Bolshevik
                  Bolshevik 16 September 2014 17: 40 New
                  0
                  Nothing that an object (comet) came to Astrakhan from the west in the stratosphere?
        2. tundra
          tundra 10 September 2014 17: 13 New
          +1
          I’ll add, during the night of the fighting, they all ran out to see. The orderlies were asked to wake, so as not to miss.
          1. Karlsonn
            Karlsonn 10 September 2014 17: 46 New
            0
            Quote: tundra
            The orderlies were asked to wake, so as not to miss.






    2. Lugansk
      Lugansk 16 September 2014 18: 41 New
      0
      It is interesting, but what will a drop of a uranium ball meter in diameter look like, from a geostationary orbit, can the uranium ball be treated with heat protection so that it does not immediately begin to burn the surface, will the drop of such a body look like a Chelyabinsk meteorite?
  3. Wedmak
    Wedmak 10 September 2014 10: 05 New
    +3
    This is the legendary PC-20 "Satan" and its modernized brother "Governor"

    PC-20 and its modifications, this is the Governor. The name "Satan" came from the NATO classification.

    Yes, and on Topoliy and Yars, there are some ambiguous assessments: either they are very vulnerable, then they are generally invulnerable ... You can decide. In my opinion, Yars went to the taiga and hello, look for fistulas ... As a target, although he is a big column of large cars and guards, it’s not so easy to find it in a forest on thousands of square kilometers, even from a satellite, even an infrared camera.
    The hangar is like a heavy ICBM ... if I am not mistaken, the acceleration characteristics of kerosene engines are less than that of heptyl engines. Will they arrange the military? Will payload mass accommodate in 2 tons?
    1. Tektor
      Tektor 10 September 2014 14: 22 New
      +1
      Nothing stands still ... Instead of kerosene, you can use acetam:
      http://diver-sant.ru/science/13987-acetam-novyy-vid-raketnogo-topliva.html
      And the loading capacity of Angara-1.2 is 3,8 tons in a low orbit:
      http://www.khrunichev.ru/main.php?id=44
      This means that when using acetam, this modification will put 5 tons into a low orbit. It is possible that there are still some reserves, and the payload to the orbit is not required ... Although this is not bad.
      1. saag
        saag 10 September 2014 19: 15 New
        0
        And oxygen-hydrogen vapor is even better, but they don’t want to deal with hydrogen
        1. Starley from the south
          Starley from the south 16 September 2014 00: 11 New
          0
          There is also a pair of liquefied gas (methane for example) - oxygen. It is even more effective, but has its drawbacks.
        2. rubin6286
          rubin6286 18 September 2014 11: 57 New
          0
          There were also projects of rockets on salt and water and on such components as ethyl alcohol and liquid oxygen (FAU-1 and FAU-2)
          1. Lugansk
            Lugansk 19 September 2014 00: 54 New
            0
            Maybe the author meant that certain nodes of the hangar URMs can be used for heptyl + amyl missiles. But nobody will be on duty on oxygen.
  4. saag
    saag 10 September 2014 10: 07 New
    0
    Quote: Wedmak
    accelerating characteristics of kerosene engines are less than heptyl engines.

    just the opposite, the specific impulse of an oxygen-kerosene pair is higher than that of heptyl
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 10 September 2014 10: 23 New
      +1
      just the opposite, the specific impulse of an oxygen-kerosene pair is higher than that of heptyl

      I meant all the characteristics that affect the start speed, and not just the specific impulse. If all the accelerating characteristics of kerosene were higher than heptyl, then what for then would heptyl be created?
      1. saag
        saag 10 September 2014 11: 36 New
        0
        Quote: Wedmak
        I meant all the characteristics that affect the start speed, and not just the specific impulse. If all the accelerating characteristics of kerosene were higher than heptyl, then what for then would heptyl be created?

        There basically the engine has two main parameters - specific impulse and thrust

        and as for why heptyls are used, so the military needs a rocket in constant readiness so that it can be launched within five minutes, oxygen is such a thing that it’s painfully expensive and troublesome to keep a rocket in constant readiness with it, and the heptyl in the factory was done and that’s it - ready to start all the time
        1. rubin6286
          rubin6286 16 September 2014 14: 30 New
          0
          I advise you to first understand the concept of "specific pressure pulse in the combustion chamber",
          “thrust-to-weight ratio”, associate them with accelerating characteristics and, in general, understand why a rocket is to be dispersed. Engines will develop the necessary traction and it will accelerate itself. Keeping a rocket with low boiling fuel components in constant combat readiness for a long time is "not expensive and troublesome", but impossible and not necessary. The author of the article wrote without thinking that the R-7 was in constant combat readiness for a month. He is an amateur full! Let him study where the SRTs come from, how they get to the starting position, how the refueling process is going on, what first and what then, what is the pressurization of tanks, what is it for, why do they pressurize the tanks of such missiles - the word technology of work. Then he will understand many aspects of the creation and use of the "Angara", and then he spread some kind of chatter about the American space program, combat readiness in the Air Force, and so on. In short, the article’s rating is “two”
      2. Starley from the south
        Starley from the south 16 September 2014 00: 13 New
        +1
        Heptyl engines do not require a fuel drain, do not require an ignition system. And this is a lot. In some cases, their disadvantages overlap.
        1. rubin6286
          rubin6286 18 September 2014 11: 55 New
          0
          If you served in the Strategic Missile Forces, remember what the 8G165P and 8G166U units are for.
          1. Lugansk
            Lugansk 19 September 2014 00: 57 New
            0
            If the rocket did not pass the test, then you need to drain the fuel / oxidizer, send it for repair, install a new one and pour fuel into it.
            I did not serve in the Strategic Rocket Forces.
  5. nvn_co
    nvn_co 10 September 2014 10: 07 New
    +1
    Probably, Angara followed in the footsteps of the legendary grandmother of the Seven. And confidently win the right to life. And when we see the Angara-10TM and 12, etc. Be that as it may, difficult or hungry, our engineers have repeatedly proved their right to be called the best! And I hope they will be full and happy from successful launches and their favorite work.
  6. rotor
    rotor 10 September 2014 10: 12 New
    -1
    how do they say, to refuel a rocket in a mine? The fact is that the "Satan-Voivode" also refuel directly in the silo launcher, there is nothing terrible here.


    Is this how the author imagines it? The president presses the red button, after which the tankers go to the mines and fill the rockets with liquid oxygen? laughing
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 10 September 2014 10: 15 New
      +3
      Is this how the author imagines it?

      The author perfectly explained this on the example of "Readiness No.1" and "Readiness No.2", etc.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 10 September 2014 10: 36 New
          +2
          Well, yes, after refueling a rocket with liquid oxygen, it will need to be cooled.

          Found a problem ... Lay pipes in insulation, compressors, pumps and all. With the storage of liquid oxygen (this is a problem with helium, it is superfluid) there have been no problems for a long time.
          And after the cancellation of the start, it will be possible to say goodbye to her.

          Why all of a sudden?
          1. rotor
            rotor 10 September 2014 11: 24 New
            -1
            Well, the rocket, as the author says, will be in the gas station, chilled for a month and God knows what condition it is. Suddenly she is not designed for this and then she will need repairs.
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 10 September 2014 11: 31 New
              +2
              Dumplings can lie in the refrigerator for several months, they, too, are not designed for this. Spacecraft generally fly for years in a vacuum with a temperature difference of hundreds of degrees. And then for a month in a specially designed tank for oxygen ...
    2. Sheremetev
      10 September 2014 10: 32 New
      +3
      There is nothing to imagine. An "empty" rocket always descends into the mine, and it is refueled in the mine. This fully applies to Satan.
      1. rotor
        rotor 10 September 2014 12: 28 New
        -1
        You already wrote it.

        But ICBMs are refueled well in advance and not in a month. The author suggests that ICBMs be refueled when enemy warheads are already raining down on missile silos. Or maybe it is also necessary to keep liquid oxygen near the mine, so that the rocket can be refueled in a closed mine? Or should there also be an orange button in the briefcase?
  7. onega67
    onega67 10 September 2014 10: 31 New
    +2
    Maybe not everything is clear as it is written here. But judging by the text, it is very similar to the truth, because the author very carefully examines the subject.
  8. muginov2015
    muginov2015 10 September 2014 10: 47 New
    +8
    The article is a few examples of competently presented material, like the previous ones. I learned a lot of new things for myself, although I am interested in this topic for a long time and more. There would be more such articles on the VO. More empty-headed crackling is published. Respect and respect to the author.
    1. Sheremetev
      10 September 2014 10: 58 New
      +2
      Thank you!
  9. turanchox
    turanchox 10 September 2014 11: 05 New
    -3
    the author is complete and de from, at least googling about the Voivode
    R-36M2 “Voevoda” is installed in the mine in the FILLED state, there is such a term “amplification”.
    and about the use of oxygen-kerosene missiles as ICBMs now, only a complete amateur can speak, even all sorts of Koreans with Pakistan make "high boilers".
    this is how it is necessary to rebuild silos under the Angara in order to draw in oxygen tanks, and filling and draining equipment-fittings, cryogenic equipment, and security systems.
    author, treat illiteracy and ignorance!
    1. Sheremetev
      10 September 2014 11: 36 New
      +4
      I repeat once again: a rocket placed in a transport and launch container (TPK) was transported and installed in a silo launcher (silo) in an unfilled condition. The rocket was refueled with fuel components and the head part was docked after installing the TPK with the rocket in the silos. Open any normal source, it is not clear that you googled there - probably your flawed brains.
      1. Wheel
        Wheel 11 September 2014 02: 33 New
        0
        Quote: Sheremetev
        I repeat once again: a rocket placed in a transport and launch container (TPK) was transported and installed in a silo launcher (silo) in an unfilled condition. The rocket was refueled with fuel components and the head part was docked after installing the TPK with the rocket in the silos. Open any normal source, it is not clear that you googled there - probably your flawed brains.

        Oh, what are you saying!
        The whole relish of the "Voivode" consists in the fact that once they refuel in the factory and forgot for 15 years, then they extended the term for another 10 years.
        1. Kasym
          Kasym 11 September 2014 03: 49 New
          +3
          Wheel, and how then to transport this rocket filled with heptyl? This is about 180 tons, as I understand it. Well, maybe plus / minus. And even with such poison? So the author is right.
          Thank you, Sergey, for the articles! hi
        2. rubin6286
          rubin6286 16 September 2014 14: 40 New
          0
          If the rocket is refueled at the factory, everyone will run away from there, because when a person smells heptyl, this is the average degree of poisoning preceding pulmonary edema. Pulmonary edema is followed by death. Sheremetyev is absolutely right. Son, in the Soviet Union, the warranty period for missiles with amil-heptyl CRT was 10 years. The components were necessarily merged during the TRB division of the annual regulations and then refueled. Combat documents prohibited the launch of missiles with an expired warranty period, but from my own experience, I can say that after seven years of being on combat duty, such missiles were not launched.
      2. rubin6286
        rubin6286 16 September 2014 14: 34 New
        0
        You are absolutely right. In your commentary, I understand that you probably served in the Strategic Missile Forces. Health, happiness. success in everything. Do not judge strictly these guys. They, like worthless schoolchildren, wrote off the control, but they are not able to solve problems.
    2. muginov2015
      muginov2015 10 September 2014 11: 54 New
      +4
      Rude and incompetent! Found one controversial point and to blame! The author perfectly illuminated the picture of the confrontation of different interests on this issue, cited facts of direct betrayal of our interests; For example, I was not aware that many traitors are already felling the forest — even one academician. Well, the information about the state of our triad in ICBMs is simply super! so minus you for rudeness.
      R.S. sprinkle something in a condition?
      1. rubin6286
        rubin6286 16 September 2014 14: 44 New
        0
        "Dear Editor!
        Maybe better about the reactor,
        About the favorite moon tractor ... "

        V. Vysotsky "Bermuda Triangle"

        In Soviet times, the following requirements were presented to specialists: competence, efficiency. specificity.
    3. rubin6286
      rubin6286 18 September 2014 11: 53 New
      +1
      "Ampulization" means that the rocket is not installed directly into the shaft of the launch pad, but in the "ampoule". which is a transport and launch container (TPK). It has devices through which both discharge and refueling are performed. as well as connectors for connecting PLN cable management system and remote control (SDUK). Amplification made it possible to use reusable silos repeatedly, shorten the time it takes to prepare a missile for launch, and reduce the risk of aggressive MCTs affecting personnel and the environment.
  10. rotor
    rotor 10 September 2014 12: 51 New
    0
    the diameter of the Falken module is 3,7 m, that of the Zenith is 3,9 m, and here is such a “mysterious” minimalism. Obviously, the Angara was planned to be lowered into the mine.


    If the Angara had the same diameter, then the Angara family would cover a completely different range of payload, but not in demand - 2-35 tons and the gradation of the displayed payload was different and the engine was different.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 10 September 2014 13: 17 New
      +1
      What is the relationship between carrier diameter and load output? Especially with the engine?
      1. rotor
        rotor 10 September 2014 13: 26 New
        0
        Put on the Zenith engine from the Angara and see.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 10 September 2014 13: 45 New
          +2
          This is what you answered .... called Rzhunimaga. If you are so lazy to look at the history of the creation of the RD-191, which equip the Angara ... I will enlighten you. RD-191 is nothing more than “trimmed” to one RD-170 camera. I am writing truncated in brackets, since in fact there is one combustion chamber and remained from RD-170.
          So about the diameters that prevent you from putting on the Zenith 4 engine from the Angara ????
          1. rubin6286
            rubin6286 21 September 2014 11: 16 New
            0
            Of course, there is no direct connection between the diameter of the carrier, the displayed load and the dimensions of the engine, but knowing in advance the engine intended for installation, its geometric characteristics, we can assume what approximately the diameter of the rocket should be.

            In fact, when designing a ballistic missile, individual parameters are set for it. Which, I suggest you think about it yourself, I’ll only say that, for example, a Kalashnikov assault rifle was upgraded much more often than rifle ammunition for it. For rockets, it’s also like this. Knowing the mass-geometric characteristics of the payload and other structural elements, the energy characteristics of the fuel, determine its number, volume of tanks, thus moving on to geometric characteristics — the length and diameter of the tanks and the rocket as a whole, the design of the rocket (tandem or package), the number and thrust of the engines. Here it turns out that the engine power is insufficient, or it is bulky and goes beyond the dimensions of the case.
  11. abuyanovus
    abuyanovus 10 September 2014 13: 38 New
    +3
    Thanks for the whole article! I really liked it.
  12. opus
    opus 10 September 2014 14: 29 New
    +1
    Quote: Author
    that the Angara aims at least to squeeze out three classes of launch vehicles.


    You can aim at anything, but with the planned efficiency of launching the mass of P (or not yet realized) for the Angara rocket - 2,8% (proton-3,1%, Union 2,7% and will be even higher), as well as the cost of the launch (and this WITHOUT accounting for the construction of NEW starting complexes) -You cannot extrude anyone.
    Quote: Author
    Judge for yourself - only the USA has more than 400 military satellites in orbit,


    At least a million, military satellites (or dual-use) neither the United States (nor the Russian Federation hope the same) will ever launch from the territory of the antagonist.-forgot
    And civilians ....
    when the launch cost is 2 times (approximately) more expensive than the Union, proton, and even on the LV without a "reputation", customers still need to SEARCH
    And on the way, Chinese, Indian, South Korean LV, with the cost ...
    About super heavy PN? Are there any customers? Who needs? How many superheavy goods were transported in the last 20 years? Nano "walks" around the planet, with might and main. Flight to the Moon, Mars? hardly
    - mastered the docking, re-docking, assembly in orbit, digital control systems and new HOUSES, DOP will allow you to park in orbit like in an underground parking lot, and bring 5 x20tn cheaper and easier than 1x100tn
    -the state of the world economy is unlikely to allow in the near future to send a person to the moon, Mars, except that China is for political purposes.
    Quote: Author
    They have nothing to oppose us. The American 35-ton Miniteman missile does not even reach the light class, moreover, it is not mobile, unlike our Topol and Yars, and is therefore vulnerable.


    ?
    -UGM-133A "Trident-II" D5,7600-11000km, with KVO = 90М (!!!!!) under GPS /
    (In 2008, Trident missiles accounted for 32% of deployed US nuclear warheads. 14 nuclear submarines deployed 288 ballistic missiles. The total number of warheads is 1728, of which 384 are 455 ct)
    - LGM-30 “Minuteman-3 (LGM-30G) after upgrading to REACT (2006) - Significantly reduced the time for missile transfer to new targets, SERV (2009) and PSRE (2014?) - The missile power plant upgrade program has a range 13000km (and the Chinese claim that as much as 15000km)
    1. Minuteman's thrust-weight ratio is 1,3 times higher than "Poplar-M" (poplar M is "sluggish", and this is understandable)
    2.Minutemen already 450 (2009), against 60 (mine) + 18 (mobile)
    QUO are similar, minuteman wins a little
    3. Trajectory: Poplar (350 km apogee), Minuteman (ap450km)
    you will win ONLY in flight time Poplar (21 minutes) against Minuteman (27 minutes), but This is ONLY with heavy warhead (3X W78), for China
    1. opus
      opus 10 September 2014 14: 30 New
      +1
      "contrast" them with something and if Minuteman has SM 35tn, and not 46-45 it means nothing. Sineva (And Mace) is also lighter than Trident 2 and what?
      Quote: Author
      It is not surprising that America is a big fan of making "friends" near our borders and then "shoving" them with its medium-range missiles ..


      Yes? and who is SPECIFIC? already accepted the "shoved"?
      Treaty on the Elimination of Medium and Short Range Missiles (INF) - Already Denounced, or What?
      Quote: Author
      "Angara" instead of "Satan"?


      Opt ...
      Is this worth commenting on?
      refueling, storage of the refueled launch vehicle, time on combat duty, control system, strength characteristics of the carrier (flight profile), pitch angle, and what about the maximum acceleration (Angara), nuclear warhead and civilian satellite (not to mention the "live") cargo ... different in their ability to withstand extreme acceleration.
      Or get a heavy class MBR with a flight time of 57 minutes 1 h 20 minutes? . VULNERABLE (on the body) shot from a slingshot?
      Can these things be "issued" to the "mountain" of the Angara?

      And thrust-to-weight ratio?(to lower how for the "Dnieper" it is possible in the grazhadnom version), and to increase (for the hangar)?
      A mortar launch "hangar" stand? Doesn't fall apart?
      The Angara launch vehicle is NOT INTENDED for silos at all, only for ground launch (placement on the launch pad, undocking, heels, nozzle expansion, jet removal, etc.).
      and the "small" diameter of the Angara DIRECTLY follows from the concept of URM + The choice of the engine of the 1-th stage (RD-171) made it possible to use to launch Zenit launch complexes, in particular, to equip the corresponding unfinished launch complexes at the Plesetsk.vot cosmodrome and the whole secret of 2,9m diameter
      1. Sheremetev
        10 September 2014 15: 18 New
        +1
        Opt ...
        Is this worth commenting on?
        Dear Anton! I apologize in advance, but I get the impression that you have some kind of mess in your head. You can clearly and clearly answer an extremely simple question: why did the “non-heptyl” Atlases, the Redstones, or the R-7 manage to work with ballistic missiles, but the Angara did not succeed?
        1. Greyjojo
          Greyjojo 10 September 2014 16: 46 New
          +1
          Because there are already heptyl and solid fuel rockets, and the capricious and meey-eaten "Angara" fuck the military does not need as a carrier of nuclear weapons.
        2. xren
          xren 10 September 2014 22: 09 New
          +1
          The key word is "turned out." And then more suitable missiles were developed and Atlases and R-7 went into the civilian sphere.

          Previously, both steamboats and steam locomotives “succeeded” ...
        3. opus
          opus 10 September 2014 22: 41 New
          +1
          [quote = Sheremetev] that you have some kind of hash in your head. [/ quote]
          Dear Sergey, I have to admit that you still have the “porridge”, and this will explain to you on the fingers, any student (not even a graduate) of a university related to rocket science (Voenmekh, Baumanka, MAI, also exists in the regions)
          [quote = Sheremetev] to an extremely simple question: why [/ quote]
          because:
          1. [Quote = Sheremetev] Atlases, Redstones, or P-7 [/ quote]
          -ATLAS (Convair SM-65 Atlas) - FIRST US ICBM, and on the basis of its Atlas launch vehicle
          -Redstone (operational-tactical assignment PGM-11 Redstone) -BR USA, and on its basis the Sparta launch vehicle, the Saturn launch vehicle variant, and a number of geophysical rockets
          -P-7 (GRAU - 8K71), well, everyone knows this story .. but what got the go-ahead and finances of the SEC? And how he "spread" tight from the Central Committee and the Politburo, the 2x step ICBM
          2. [quote = opus] but already on the basis of [quote], it is possible to reduce the thrust of the liquid propellant rocket engine, it is possible to bring the flight profile and acceleration with the requirements of civilian and manned cargo (compared) with the military. INCREASE these parameters (acceleration, pitch) at the CIVIL RN - to "remake" it into a military ICBM - no.
          Well of course you can, only how much will it cost
          3. Already wrote. "carrying" body (TB-case), for gr. rockets do not require such accelerations and bending (torsion) moments, it requires a MINIMUM shell (tare) weight to get maximum efficiency.
          Accordingly, the civilian launch vehicle is not adapted to military needs ( maximum possible acceleration, minimum active area, different pitch angle, cut-off / separation with minimum fuel remaining etc)
          4. You did not read carefully:
          [quote = opus] Will the mortar launch of the hangar survive? Doesn't fall apart?
          The Angara launch vehicle is NOT INTENDED for silos at all, only for ground launch (placement on the launch pad, undocking, heels, expansion of the nozzle, jet jet removal, etc ... [/ quote]
          5. What was then (at the dawn of the RE), it is stupid and pointless now, after almost 60 years:
          not effective, dangerous, there is a missile defense system and quite sophisticated missiles, an open (not SHTPU) ICBM in the poplar position on ivy.



          JUST visit Baikonur, at least once, and understand about the porridge.
          There (in B. in the environs), by the way, there are LOTS of abandoned silos (that under the agreement, that after the accident), you will understand right away.

          6. A pair of Kerosene (cryogen) + oxygen in the combat version of ICBMs, today?
          what for (DB time in the filled state 10 hours of MAXIM, then all this must be drained and stored), if they refuse / refused (all of us including) from heptyl BR, ICBMs, missiles?
          If the power of the LRE is BETTER THROD about approximately WHOLE 10%,!
          Have you thought about it?
          Well, ask the guys that they served on the SSBN, or on the S-200 air defense system, they will explain on the fingers
      2. Dry_T-50
        Dry_T-50 13 September 2014 21: 50 New
        0
        Treaty on the Elimination of Medium and Short Range Missiles (INF) - Already Denounced, or What?

        And at ALL they looked at him, remodeling ICBM "Minuteman-3" to the GBI interceptor?
    2. Dry_T-50
      Dry_T-50 13 September 2014 14: 27 New
      +1
      Minuteman-3 is like UR-100, but with only three warheads (UR-100 carries 6 warheads).
      It should be borne in mind that the shelf life of Minutmen-3 and UR-100 (RS-18) has long expired (Even according to American data from 402 (yes, from 402, after all, the number of missiles has been reduced since last winter) units are combat-ready). will remain without replacement, and the PC-18 is already being replaced with the PC-24 "YaRS."
      Many thanks to the author hi
  13. Greyjojo
    Greyjojo 10 September 2014 16: 41 New
    +1
    The article is just some kind of stream of consciousness of the dropout resunoid.
    A huge amount of actual crap, my ignorance of the subject even at the level of reading Wikipedia is compensated by beautiful passages and "everyday" logic.
    1) RS-20, or rather R-36M is the "Governor" "Satan" is a loud NATO name.
    2) I have not heard that ICBMs were divided by class by weight and it was precisely the 3 lines of ICBMs that were developed, light, medium and heavy. the mass and dimensions of ICBMs are dictated primarily by the basing method and carrier.
    3) The fact that solid fuel poplar does not mean at all that it does not maneuver in flight. His nozzles are rotary and therefore he perfectly maneuvers and corrects the trajectory.
    4) Well, the use of oxygen hangars as ICBMs is bullshit. In the USSR, only 2 oxygen-based ICBMs were adopted: R-7 (only a few pieces) and R-9A (30). However, everything was quickly removed from service and replaced by rockets with high-boiling components and solid fuel ...
    For one simple reason, liquid oxygen must be stored next to the rocket, when a command to launch it is received, it must be charged. And all the time on duty to store and regularly replenish, which requires considerable energy consumption.
    This is definitely not suitable for the military.
    and finally pearl:
    "There is nothing terrible in this, firstly, the problem is technically solvable, and secondly, you can use the mixed start mode when the engine starts directly in the transport and launch container."
    That's because designers are fools, they make gas outlets, dividers on pads. Why if directly in the container you can start the engines and nothing burns and does not melt!
    Although the reasoning itself is: “is it possible to shove and launch a hangar from a mine?”, Akin to “how to shoot potato from a howitzer at a tank?” You can discuss, just why the heck is it?

    Conclusion: KG / AM.
    1. Sheremetev
      10 September 2014 18: 23 New
      +1
      Dear, a lot of words, but a specific zero. Firstly, a solid fuel rocket cannot compete in maneuver with a rocket with a rocket engine in principle! A maneuver is not only rotary nozzles, but a decrease-increase in traction and multiple on-off of the engine. A solid rocket is not capable of this. Second, answer the question, what fundamental problems can the Angara have with a mine launch? I wrote about 3 types of start, about gas vents, which start is the most optimal - such designers will develop. I don’t even want to talk about the rest of the “criticism” - it is devoid of any primitive logic.
      1. xren
        xren 10 September 2014 22: 20 New
        +1
        Why do we need active maneuvers at the stage of acceleration? They are not going to shoot down trajectories at the initial stage.
        1. opus
          opus 10 September 2014 23: 05 New
          +1
          Quote: xren
          Why do we need active maneuvers at the stage of acceleration?

          there are no maneuvers, but traction control is, yes, necessary.
          In order to carry out firing at different distances (ranges)
          There are two options:
          -trajectory (apogee), but it is TIME and increases the active site
          traction control

          Quote: xren
          They are not going to shoot down trajectories at the initial stage.

          Yeah...
          Difficult to imagine SM - ??? , which from Poland will reach the position area of ​​Russian ICBMs. belay
          1. xren
            xren 10 September 2014 23: 35 New
            0
            and how does the cutoff not suit you, about which you wrote?

            Difficult to imagine SM - ??? , which from Poland will reach the position area of ​​Russian ICBMs.


            But will it have time to fly? And will traction maneuvering help then? And isn’t it easier in this situation to strike directly from the mines from Poland?
            1. opus
              opus 11 September 2014 00: 46 New
              +2
              Quote: xren
              and how does the cutoff not suit you, about which you wrote?

              satisfied, this is the same "regulation" of traction.
              But, as a rule, the cutoff is applied when reaching the PRESET speed, which, without a trajectory, does not characterize RANGE, and traction control is necessary, including to take into account the atmospheric data on the marching site (ask what weather data are entered before launch): pressure at the nozzle exit, density / temperature of the medium, wind, humidity, etc.
              Voevoda LPRE could (if not forgotten) do 25 on / on.
              But on / off (cutoff) operation is still more delicate (and what if it’s not ON?) Than just adjusting the thrust of the rocket engine on the marching section!

              Quote: xren
              But will it have time to fly?

              What am I talking about?
              signs ??? indicated an unknown modification (in the future) SM.
              And DO NOT QUESTION TO YOU !!!
              1. xren
                xren 15 September 2014 22: 20 New
                0
                How long is the active section of an ICBM flight? - A couple of minutes. During this time, it is necessary to have time to detect the start, then to launch a missile defense system which should be able to accelerate and cover a thousand or two kilometers in the remaining time.
                Not ... well, theoretically everything is possible, but it will take more than a dozen years to develop. And the service life of the missiles is on combat duty for a couple of decades. So that makes no sense.
          2. Do not care
            Do not care 11 September 2014 08: 01 New
            +1
            Quote: opus
            Quote: xren
            Why do we need active maneuvers at the stage of acceleration?

            there are no maneuvers, but traction control is, yes, necessary.
            In order to carry out firing at different distances (ranges)
            There are two options:
            -trajectory (apogee), but it is TIME and increases the active site
            traction control

            Quote: xren
            They are not going to shoot down trajectories at the initial stage.

            Yeah...
            Difficult to imagine SM - ??? , which from Poland will reach the position area of ​​Russian ICBMs. belay



            Even harder to imagine is an SM3 intercepting ICBMs over the North Pole. Who even launched this cartoon that the American missile defense system in Europe is aimed against Russian ICBMs. They don’t see the globe at school, and in their imagination - the earth is flat as a world map on the wall of their offices
            1. adept666
              adept666 3 October 2014 13: 13 New
              0
              Whoever launched this cartoon that the American missile defense system in Europe is aimed against Russian ICBMs


              The missiles of this same American missile defense will start from the Mk 41, in which, among other things, you can load the "axes". And they can already be quite considered as a system of a preventive strike on stationary points of the Strategic Missile Forces (and this is only one of the options).
          3. xren
            xren 15 September 2014 22: 23 New
            0
            trajectory (apogee), but it is TIME and increases the active site


            How does this increase the ACTIVE area? belay
        2. rubin6286
          rubin6286 16 September 2014 14: 57 New
          0
          That you all "sculpt" about some kind of acceleration. The flight path of a ballistic missile includes the following sections:
          - vertical launch;
          - ballistic reversal;
          - "blockage"
          - reduction and separation of warheads.

          It is in the area of ​​decline, after separation and shooting of false targets, the warheads of some missiles (both monoblock and homing) that maneuver to overcome the enemy’s missile defense system. The higher the rate of decline of the warhead, the more difficult it is to bring down. the lower and longer the warhead maneuvers, the easier.
      2. opus
        opus 10 September 2014 23: 02 New
        +1
        Quote: Sheremetev
        a, a decrease-increase in traction and multiple on-off of the engine. Solid rocket is not capable of this

        Come on...
        ???????????????

        1.What is the thrust turbojet engine, it is the SQUARE of a burning charge (change of the burning area in time) ( with other constants), "programming" (asking) the change in the area of ​​charge burning (geometry for the 7 class), I will get an adjustable traction,WHAT NEEDS.
        2. By making a multilayer charge of a TT, or introducing into it layers, zones of "inhibitors" or "catalysts" of combustion, I will get an adjustable draft WHAT NEEDS.
        3. Using a "sandwich", with fuels having a DIFFERENT burning rate - I will get an adjustable draft,WHAT NEEDS.
        4.TRTD, in which one component of the fuel is in the solid state, and the second (most often the oxidizing agent) is in the liquid state, I will get an adjustable draft,WHAT NEEDS. and REPEATED ON / OFF
        5. Using throttling (pressure relief) I can cut off / turn off the turbojet engine.
        And if (which is not technically / technologically difficult) to provide for an 2 (3,4,5) igniter and devices for supplying it to the combustion zone of the turbojet engine, I will get multiple on / off

        6. Changing the area of ​​the critical section of the nozzle; by injecting a liquid (such as water), I’ll get an adjustable draft in the solid propellant chamber,WHAT NEEDS.
        7. The thrust direction of the solid propellant rocket motor is changed with the help of gas rudders; deviating cylindrical nozzle (deflector); auxiliary control engines; oscillating nozzles of the main engines, etc. jets and other methods)
        8. To ensure a given rocket speed at the end of the active section of the trajectory, a “solid-state” solid propellant rocket cutoff is used (charge quenching by quickly reducing the pressure in the engine chamber, reactive jet deflection, other methods).

        Lit .: Sokolsky V.N., Solid-fuel rockets in Russia, M., 1963; Rozhkov V. V ,, Engines of rockets on solid fuel, M., 1971; Vinitsky A. M., Solid propellant rocket engines, M., 1973.
        1. rubin6286
          rubin6286 18 September 2014 11: 42 New
          +1
          More correctly, not a turbojet engine, but more common for specialists is a solid rocket engine. solid fuel is ballistic and mixed. In ballistic missiles, only mixed missiles are used and I will speak only about him. A solid propellant solid propellant rocket motor is an engine in which the fuel and oxidizing agent are in the solid state, if any of the components in the liquid state is already a mixed RD. Experiments with such RDs were carried out, but their minuses outweighed the advantages and were abandoned by them in the Strategic Rocket Forces. In order to understand what a solid propellant rocket engine is, you need to thoroughly study its structure and design, to see how solid propellant charge is actually produced at the enterprise. Only then, comparing what has been studied and seen, you will understand the difference between what is written in the popular and educational literature and what and how is implemented in practice. Sheremetyev wrote correctly, based on existing real constructions of solid propellant rocket motors. Practice shows the following: The solid propellant igniter is designed as a one-time use. How to make it reusable, I suggest you come up with, since they wrote about it. The task of the igniter is to light the fuel. If you extinguish the fuel, you will not light it again. Therefore, solid propellant rocket motors are not completely extinguished. and they try to regulate (reduce) its thrust within certain limits and reject the thrust vector, thereby changing the flight path of the rocket. Of course, there are many devices designed both for changing (regulating) thrust and for deflecting the thrust vector in a solid propellant rocket motor. including and the ones you wrote about. Unfortunately, they all have one drawback - they do not allow a smooth decrease in traction, which significantly affects the accuracy of shooting. How it affects, guess for yourself. Since solid fuel, roughly speaking, burns faster than liquid fuel, it requires more and, as a result, solid-fuel rockets designed for the same range as liquid ones have one step more. If liquid - 2 steps, solid fuel - 3.
          I will not refer to the educational literature, I will only say that the questions of design and design of solid propellant rocket engines and rocket engines are studied in detail in the Peter the Great VA
          (Moscow), the Military Space Academy named after A.F. Mozhaysky (St. Petersburg), MSTU named after Bauman, St. Petersburg Mechanical Institute, KuAI (Samara).
        2. Lugansk
          Lugansk 19 September 2014 01: 19 New
          0
          Quote: opus
          TTRD

          Quote: opus
          1. What is the thrust turbojet thrust, it is the SQUARE of the burning of the charge (change in the burning area in time) (with other constants), "programming" (setting) the change in the area of ​​the burning of the charge (geometry for class 7), I will get an adjustable draft, WHAT SHOULD BE.

          The thrust is the mass flow rate multiplied by the expiration rate of the working fluid, and the mass flow rate is proportional to the combustion area, hence the increase in thrust with an increase in the combustion area, however, the second parameter is the expiration rate of the liquid propellant rocket engine and hence the best range indicators, but a loss in rate of climb.
          You correctly noted that a 7-class child will be able to make a rocket on a solid propellant rocket engine of the required thrust, but a 7-class child will not be able to do the same with a rocket engine. Therefore, the United States and buys engines RD-180.
          Quote: opus
          6. Changing the area of ​​the critical section of the nozzle; By injecting a liquid (such as water) into the solid propellant rocket chamber, I will get adjustable traction, WHAT NEEDS.
          It is better not to have water on the rocket, since the working fluid is also a source of energy in chemical rockets.
        3. Lugansk
          Lugansk 19 September 2014 01: 19 New
          0
          Quote: opus
          TTRD

          Quote: opus
          1. What is the thrust turbojet thrust, it is the SQUARE of the burning of the charge (change in the burning area in time) (with other constants), "programming" (setting) the change in the area of ​​the burning of the charge (geometry for class 7), I will get an adjustable draft, WHAT SHOULD BE.

          The thrust is the mass flow rate multiplied by the expiration rate of the working fluid, and the mass flow rate is proportional to the combustion area, hence the increase in thrust with an increase in the combustion area, however, the second parameter is the expiration rate of the liquid propellant rocket engine and hence the best range indicators, but a loss in rate of climb.
          You correctly noted that a 7-class child will be able to make a rocket on a solid propellant rocket engine of the required thrust, but a 7-class child will not be able to do the same with a rocket engine. Therefore, the United States and buys engines RD-180.
          Quote: opus
          6. Changing the area of ​​the critical section of the nozzle; By injecting a liquid (such as water) into the solid propellant rocket chamber, I will get adjustable traction, WHAT NEEDS.
          It is better not to have water on the rocket, since the working fluid is also a source of energy in chemical rockets.
      3. Greyjojo
        Greyjojo 10 September 2014 23: 06 New
        0
        You will probably call black white all the way.
        Oxygen rockets:
        1) more expensive in the organization of PU for them, because it is required at each mine to build a reservoir for its storage of liquid oxygen. modern ICBMs do not require this.
        2) more expensive to maintain, because replenish the supply of liquid oxygen and this is its production, transportation through forests.
        3) have less reliability - more procedures before starting, more complicated equipment at the point.
        4) have a longer readiness time - the missiles cannot be constantly in a charged state (R-9A could stand refueling for up to 24 hours). Therefore, refuel immediately before the start.
        the best in terms of this indicator was R-9A; preparation time for the launch was 20 minutes. this is a lot for modern systems. For example, the R-36M is 60 seconds.

        therefore, military personnel all over the world abandoned ICBMs on low-boiling components as early as the 70s.
        Returning to them is a step back. nobody will do it.

        Therefore, all the reasoning about the mine launch of the "Angara" is an empty chatter.
      4. Lugansk
        Lugansk 15 September 2014 14: 40 New
        0
        First, the important thing about the launch of Angara-5:

        The launch of Angara-2014 (A-5) is scheduled for December 5, it is obvious that after the launch of A-1 of one automated workstation, proceed to launch five at once, the decision is incorrect and the hasty launch of A-5 is possible for the failure and further closure of the project after an accident, Obviously, the second launch should be the Angara-3 with three modules, but apparently the decision to launch the Angara-5 was based on an ultimatum for launching a rocket that could replace Proton-M, which is probably why the reorganization at the Khrunichev Center has already begun (September 2014) ( where the Angara is created), as an advance preparation for the quick elimination of the project after an unsuccessful launch. Let's eat up that I'm wrong.

        Now for the rocket itself:

        What is most important in the hangar is the use of the RD-191 engine, because this is the pinnacle of rocket propulsion today, and this engine is not used anywhere except the Angara. By and large, it doesn’t matter what the rocket will be called, the main thing is that the RD-191 finds application, which means it will develop further. Yes, there are engines of the same class, RD-180 and RD-170, but these are even more expensive and heavy engines, since the masses of these engines are 2 and 4 times respectively greater than RD-191, their transportation and work with them is complicated, of course it is necessary to maintain the backlog of these engines, and to preserve the production of the RD-180 for heavy missiles, future heavy missiles.
        What is Rocket Technology - this is a constant search for new solutions, which means constant experiments, for example, if you wanted to create returnable URMs, you will agree that experimenting with this Angara is easier and cheaper than with Zeniths. It is also obvious that mass production of the RD-191 is easier than the RD-180/170, and therefore reduce the price.

        As we see, the creators of the Angara guessed that the current economic situation is reminiscent of the beginning of the 90s and it seems that the times of austerity in the missile industry will soon come again, so throwing the Angara and switching to some other project is a stop in the development of the industry for years.
  14. kuz363
    kuz363 10 September 2014 16: 56 New
    -3
    The article is interesting. But in my opinion, there are such flaws.
    1. The author believes that approaches through the seas to the shores of Russia are impossible. But they do not have to come close to the coast of Russia. From the south they can shoot back from Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece. From the north - from Norway. From the east - from Japan, Korea. And how will the Pacific Fleet prevent this, for example? Japan's fleet is stronger, not to mention the US fleet.
    2. The US doctrine is such that it does not imply any preparatory measures before the outbreak of war, as was traditionally thought before. The war will be suddenly, without mobilization, without visible movements of groups to the shores of Russia. Thousands of high-precision missiles with nuclear and conventional filling from ships, submarines, and land will be suddenly launched. Therefore, there will definitely not be time for refueling missiles. Especially to Moscow, flight time from Europe will be calculated in minutes. And the degree of readiness No. 1, No. 2 is not applicable here. While the signal of the attack passes through the Strategic Missile Forces-General Staff-President-Head of the Duma-Head of the Federation chain, time will pass. Putin will wake up and find a nuclear case to send launch codes. And before that, he will call Obama, Merkel and other ranks, asking if this is a mistake - and 20 minutes will not be enough just for a retaliatory strike. And missiles of the Strategic Missile Forces of the European part to the Urals will be destroyed by the US European missile defense on takeoff.
    1. Greyjojo
      Greyjojo 10 September 2014 17: 09 New
      +1
      1) BRDS destroyed and prohibited. USA has not yet withdrawn from this treaty
      2) do not forget about the "perimeter" system ...
  15. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 10 September 2014 20: 17 New
    0
    Keeping a rocket fueled with liquid oxygen in the mine is an unnecessary risk, and the refueling time is too long. So the "Angara" is our cosmic hope, and not a secret weapon such as replacing the "Governor". It will be necessary, and they will find a replacement. The author is wrong that "Stiletto" is an intermediate option. The ever-decreasing mass of warheads reduces carrier load requirements.
  16. saag
    saag 10 September 2014 20: 42 New
    0
    To replace Voivode Sarmat do
  17. studentmati
    studentmati 10 September 2014 21: 29 New
    +1
    the dimensions of the Satan are very similar to those of the Hangars 1.1 and 1.2. Only by unification with heavy-class ICBMs can the diameter of the Angara be explained

    Maybe this is so? But I know that even when designing, the dimensions are, as far as possible, adjusted to the requirements of railway carriers. The country is very large, it is expensive to build plants near launchers, so they are looking for compromises for the designer.
  18. studentmati
    studentmati 10 September 2014 21: 46 New
    +2
    "Angara" is a guarantee of our calm sleep and a confident future for our descendants.


    Hopefully!

    But the opposite can happen: in three years it will turn into an "obsolete dead-end branch of the space industry."

    And why then the seven volumes of pathos?
  19. xren
    xren 10 September 2014 23: 08 New
    -1
    The RS-20 in different modifications successfully started about 200 times, and in one case there was a disaster,


    Have you forgotten about other unsuccessful launches? According to Wikipedia, there are at least 4 unsuccessful ones. Except for failures in testing new modifications.
  20. xren
    xren 10 September 2014 23: 15 New
    0
    We have already said that mine-based missiles are weapons of guaranteed retaliation, that is, they are launched after a nuclear strike.


    The weapon of guaranteed retaliation is precisely Poplars and submarine missiles, which, due to their stealth, have a chance to remain intact. And if the mine survived after a nuclear strike - then this is more likely a defect of the enemy.
    1. opus
      opus 11 September 2014 00: 58 New
      +2
      Quote: xren
      And if the mine survived after a nuclear strike - then this is more likely a defect of the enemy.

      not quite so (in any case, with reference to 15A18M / Voivode)
      One of the main advantages of the new complex is the ability providing missile launches in responseoncoming impact when exposed to ground and high-altitude nuclear explosions. This was achieved by increasing the survivability of the rocket in the silo launcher and significantly increasing the resistance of the rocket in flight to the damaging factors of a nuclear explosion. The missile body has a multifunctional coating, protection of the control system equipment from gamma radiation is introduced, the speed of the executive bodies of the automatic control system stabilization automaton is increased 2 times, head fairing is separated after passing through the zone of high-altitude blocking nuclear explosions, the engines of the first and second stages of the rocket are boosted by traction.
      MASTERPIECE!
      Why the hell is the author embroiling fuss with oxygen-kerosene hangar, it’s not clear!
      insane as a Ukrainian who proves to everyone that Adam was a stranger, and in no other way lol
  21. leon1204id
    leon1204id 13 September 2014 17: 23 New
    0
    Everything is fine, it is written in one breath. But the nuances.
    1. Specialized machines, tanks, planes and ROCKETS will always be easier, more reliable and more effective for their tasks than universal ones.
    2. The political components will always interfere in all the holes where they are not asked, and the purely personal interests of those in power.
    And about our "best" aircraft, they were made of wood because there was little metal and the engines are still not the best. And much could be different: buried projects of the "hundred", ekranoplanes and hypersonic missiles.
    However, respect to the author.
  22. Dry_T-50
    Dry_T-50 13 September 2014 21: 44 New
    0
    It is unlikely that the "Angara" is a replacement for the "Governor", for:
    1) Rockets with low boiling fuel elements refuel for a long time
    2) To replace the PC-20 make the PC-28 "Sarmat"
  23. Lugansk
    Lugansk 14 September 2014 22: 48 New
    0
    Quote: Wheel
    Quote: Sheremetev
    I repeat once again: a rocket placed in a transport and launch container (TPK) was transported and installed in a silo launcher (silo) in an unfilled condition. The rocket was refueled with fuel components and the head part was docked after installing the TPK with the rocket in the silos. Open any normal source, it is not clear that you googled there - probably your flawed brains.

    Oh, what are you saying!
    The whole relish of the "Voivode" consists in the fact that once they refuel in the factory and forgot for 15 years, then they extended the term for another 10 years.

    This is about missiles for submarines, "Sineva", a mass of 40 tons.

    Quote: Kasym
    Wheel, and how then to transport this rocket filled with heptyl? This is about 180 tons, as I understand it. Well, maybe plus / minus. And even with such poison? So the author is right.

    True, transporting a 200 ton rocket is stupid.
  24. Lugansk
    Lugansk 15 September 2014 14: 46 New
    0
    Quote: GreyJoJo
    You will probably call black white all the way.
    Oxygen rockets:
    1) more expensive in the organization of PU for them, because it is required at each mine to build a reservoir for its storage of liquid oxygen. modern ICBMs do not require this.
    2) more expensive to maintain, because replenish the supply of liquid oxygen and this is its production, transportation through forests.
    3) have less reliability - more procedures before starting, more complicated equipment at the point.
    4) have a longer readiness time - the missiles cannot be constantly in a charged state (R-9A could stand refueling for up to 24 hours). Therefore, refuel immediately before the start.
    the best in terms of this indicator was R-9A; preparation time for the launch was 20 minutes. this is a lot for modern systems. For example, the R-36M is 60 seconds.

    therefore, military personnel all over the world abandoned ICBMs on low-boiling components as early as the 70s.
    Returning to them is a step back. nobody will do it.

    Therefore, all the reasoning about the mine launch of the "Angara" is an empty chatter.

    What kind of nonsense, heptyl + amine has always been better than TTRD, an example of the Sineva rocket, minus only one, that heptyl + amyl is a toxic substance, operation is more complicated and more expensive, and TTRD is simpler and cheaper, but WORSE !!!
    For mine-based ICBMs, a heptyl + amine LRE is much better than a turbojet engine. For mobile complexes, turbojet engines are more convenient, that's all, the USA no longer has mine complexes.
    1. Greyjojo
      Greyjojo 15 September 2014 20: 38 New
      +1
      Comrade
      Missiles can be divided into 2 large types:
      1) liquid (in which fuel and oxidizing agent are contained in liquid form.
      2) solid fuel, in which the fuel and oxidizing agent in solid form are mixed and pressed in steps.
      Liquid can be divided into
      a) rockets with low boiling components (in which at least one component of the oxidizing agent or fuel is in liquid form, since it is cooled below ambient temperature), a typical pair is kerosene + oxygen. These missiles include: R-7 (and all its descendants before the union), R-9, Angara. Practice has shown that they are good as launch vehicles for loading loads into orbit, but not as ICBMs.
      b) on high-boiling components - for example, heptyl + amine - components that are in the liquid phase at ambient temperature. Examples - Proton (UR-500) Voevoda, Sineva, etc.

      The author of the article is trying to prove that Angara (a liquid rocket on low-boiling components - oxygen) is a replacement for Voivode (a rocket on high-boiling components).
      I'm trying to prove that this is nonsense, and a rocket with low boiling components (Angara) does not fit as a nuclear booster rocket for a number of reasons)
      That a missile standing for decades in the taiga on duty with nuclear weapons on board should be either heptyl, or solid fuel, but not oxygen at all)

      Holivar heptyl against solid rockets is beyond the scope of this discussion and I have not compared them anywhere.
      Moreover, I agree with you that the safety parameter is not so critical for mine-based missiles and the use of heptyl there is more than justified, but not liquid oxygen.

      I hope we understand each other.
  25. Lugansk
    Lugansk 15 September 2014 23: 10 New
    0
    Quote: GreyJoJo
    The author of the article is trying to prove that Angara (a liquid rocket on low-boiling components - oxygen) is a replacement for Voivode (a rocket on high-boiling components).
    I'm trying to prove that this is nonsense, and a rocket with low boiling components (Angara) does not fit as a nuclear booster rocket for a number of reasons)
    That a missile standing for decades in the taiga on duty with nuclear weapons on board should be either heptyl, or solid fuel, but not oxygen at all)

    I agree that the ICBM duty on oxygen is too much. You can of course take some components from the Angara, housing, tanks, electronics, but you have to leave the fuel pair, heptyl + amyl, it has no replacement, it's true.
  26. Lugansk
    Lugansk 16 September 2014 00: 41 New
    0
    Quote: Starley from the South
    There is also a pair of liquefied gas (methane for example) - oxygen. It is even more effective, but has its drawbacks.

    Yes, there is, but the disadvantage is the low density twice as compared to kerosene, you need to double the tanks, so the volume of the rocket will increase by 1/3, and the explosiveness with air will form an explosive mixture, in general in the future they wanted to put the central Angara tank on methane . But with such a pace of testing, this is unlikely to come to this.
  27. rubin6286
    rubin6286 16 September 2014 15: 21 New
    +1
    I have already said a hundred times in my comments that the Angara is called upon to replace a whole family of space rockets, but many stubbornly insist on using it as a carrier of nuclear weapons. There are other missiles for this. Why dump everything in one pile. Our Soyuz, Proton, and other space rocket complexes are aging morally and physically. The Angara is being tested in Plesetsk. This complex has already been built and will be used there and at the Svobodny Cosmodrome under construction.
    No one is going to forget him.
    The author did not serve in Baikonur, nor in Plesetsk, nor in the Strategic Rocket Forces, nor in parts of the GKOSOS; he does not know the problems that existed in the 80-90s and later in the midst of "perestroika". I gave Plesetsk most of my military service, I know everything there, and if not all. then very many, including Chiarova, Bashlakova, Ostapenko. From May 1978 to April 1980, I installed in the launch system and aimed every third Soyuz rocket launched in the USSR. Now I am a lawyer with 18 years of experience and do not cease to be amazed at our justice. Chmarov was fired without a pension for the death of a soldier, and the immediate superiors of this soldier remained to serve. Bashlakov was sentenced to 7 years, and Khodarkovsky was pardoned and Serdyukov is courting. as if nothing had happened.
    That's where the miracles are!
  28. Lugansk
    Lugansk 16 September 2014 18: 39 New
    0
    Quote: Bolshev
    Nothing that an object (comet) came to Astrakhan from the west in the stratosphere?

    It is interesting, but what will a drop of a uranium ball meter in diameter look like, from a geostationary orbit, can the uranium ball be treated with heat protection so that it does not immediately begin to burn the surface, will the drop of such a body look like a Chelyabinsk meteorite?
  29. The comment was deleted.
  30. gunya
    gunya 28 September 2014 20: 41 New
    0
    Quote: saag
    maybe a little offtopic, but interesting news on titanium turned up - Kolomoisky took titanium Two of Russia's most important titanium mines located in Ukraine began to be controlled by people of one of the most odious and hostile Russian oligarchs - Igor Kolomoisky. VSMPO-Avisma, the world's largest Russian titanium producer, is XNUMX percent dependent on these supplies.

    And where is the data on the "VSPMO-Avisma"? There is no need to panic, except for Ukrainian there are also Russian titanium mines.