Military Review

The children in the universe

39


A series of successful space launches carried out by commercial companies were interrupted by two catastrophes that occurred in late October. We tried to figure out what private astronautics is today and what are its prospects.

On October 29, a few seconds after launch from the launch site on Wallace Island, the Antares launch vehicle exploded, launching a Cygnus (Swan) truck loaded with the International Space Station. Both the rocket and the truck were developed by the private American company Orbital Sciences Corporation.

October 31 occurred another disaster, casting a very dark shadow on private companies specializing in space exploration. During a test flight over the Mojave Desert in southern California, a suborbital spacecraft SpaceShipTwo crashed with two pilots aboard. One was seriously injured, managed to eject, and the second, 39-year-old Michael Alsbury, died and was the first victim of commercial space exploration.

This ship, which has already become a legend, was invented by an eccentric billionaire Richard Branson, the founder of Virgin Megacorporation and its Virgin Galactic division, created to carry tourists into space. SpaceShipTwo, designed to conduct suborbital flights at an altitude of about 100 km, in the region of the notional boundary of outer space, have been experiencing for five years. Hundreds of tickets were sold for it, and the first flight with tourists was going to take place in 2015. Among the owners of tickets to the border of space cost 250 thousands of dollars such celebrities as Stephen Hawking, Angelina Jolie and Lady Gaga.

Dozens of customers demanded money back - their fear can be understood. Branson returned the money, promised to become the first passenger of the ship, but the sediment remained. Skeptics came to life, believing that space flights are a public matter, businessmen cannot be trusted with such a complex and large-scale task. In the Russian TV news they even showed a couple of plots with a hint of undercurrent gloating, they say, fly with our good old rockets of the Soviet design, and all this private initiative in space is the machinations of the crafty, like shale gas. Some tendentiousness here is quite understandable, the main successes of the Russian space industry are related to the provision of services for the launch of spacecraft into orbit, in this segment we now occupy more than 50% of the world market. But this is today, and what will happen next, who will become the leader in space exploration — powerful but sluggish state machines or brave entrepreneurs?

The first steps of private astronautics
The fact that private space programs intercepted the initiative from the state, started talking seriously last year, when SpaceX first launched a space satellite into orbit.

SpaceX is the brainchild of the most famous Progressor of our time, Ilona Mask, the creator of the Tesla electric car covering the USA with solar batteries and charging stations for electric vehicles. Musk, who loves to declare that life wants to end on Mars, began to make his dream a reality, having grown rich on the creation of the PayPal payment system.

In 2002, he announced the launch of his own commercial space flight program. Musk invested hundreds of millions in the company, but in 2008, he was on the verge of bankruptcy - his Falcon launch vehicle failed three launches in a row. The first wave of skepticism about the futility of private space launches happened just then. The fourth launch in case of failure was to be the last. But the rocket took off, the skeptics were confounded, and Musk obtained funding for NASA and signed a contract for 12 cargo flights to the ISS.

The contract is being successfully implemented, to date, Dragon trucks have visited the ISS three times already. And the Falcons are equally successfully launching satellites into orbit - orders from SpaceX today for 50 satellite launches, because the company's engineers have already managed to significantly reduce the cost of launching a rocket.

Meanwhile, Musk is engaged in the next stage of the space program, which, if successful, will make spaceflight cheaper by an order of magnitude. He is developing a reusable booster capable of landing on the tail of a flame. Today, his Grasshopper ("Grasshopper") already knows how to sit on this very tail from a kilometer altitude. If such reusable launch vehicles fly into space, launching a small satellite will become a matter available to almost anyone.

Space race
It is necessary to clarify what we mean by private astronautics. In the past, commercial companies were engaged in the production of rockets and spacecraft, in the USA NASA’s largest contractors were Lokheed Martin and Boeing, in Europe - Thales Alenia and EADS. So, Lockheed Martin has just completed an Orion reusable craft assembly; this device, designed for manned flights to deep space, will be replaced by shuttles and Russian Soyuz unused from 2011.

A rocket is a complex construct that many manufacturers take part in creating. For example, on the crashed "Antares" there were modified Samara NK-33 engines, and the fuel supply system was manufactured at Dnepropetrovsk Yuzhmash under control of the Yuzhnoye Design Bureau. Just before, private assembly companies handed over the finished product to customers-states, and those already launched spacecraft into orbit. And since the first commercial launch of SpaceX, private traders themselves began to sell services, to carry out space flights.

In the back of SpaceX competitors breathe, a successful example was contagious. Orbital Sciences Corporation, whose transporter crashed on October 27, is unlikely to suffer much from this - the company signed a contract with NASA to launch eight Cygnus cargo vehicles over the course of three years with a total value of 1,9 billion dollars.

In order to make launches themselves, companies need private spaceports. SpaceX is using the US Air Force ground in Florida for rocket launches. But Musk is not going to rent this space center endlessly: one of the priority points in his plan for space exploration is the construction of his own space center, which he intends to declare available only for commercial launches. It is already being built in Texas, not far from the town of Brownsville. And Richard Branson launches ships from America’s own spaceport. Orbital Sciences Corporation has its own launch site, next to NASA’s Wallace space launch site.

Entrepreneurs are trying to develop not only the orbital space. The company Planetary Resources, among which investors Google founder Larry Page and film director James Cameron, is developing ships that will extract minerals on asteroids. Company

Inspiration Mars is going to send a manned spacecraft to Mars in 2018 year, and the Mars One project is aimed at the colonization of Mars in the next decade. This year, they collected 200 thousands of applications from volunteers from around the world who want to move to Mars. As we know, Ilona Mask's long-term goal is the colonization of Mars. He is already developing a transport for first settlers, the Mars Colony Transporter. Work on the ship, which will be able to take on board up to hundreds of people, are expected to complete in 2020's. Its passengers will buy a one-way ticket: the ship will remain on Mars forever and will become the base for the settlement, which will grow to shelter in the future up to 80 thousands of people.

New Hope
Analysts say that commercialization is the main trend in space exploration in recent years. This is not only profitable, but also fashionable, even a magnate like Robert Bigelow, who made a fortune at hotels and casinos in Las Vegas, now plans to build a hotel in near-earth orbit.

Aviation also at first the state was mainly occupied, but gradually it naturally passed into private hands. It seems like the same thing happens with space историяand catastrophes will not affect the flow of private capital to where space profits are possible.

Government programs for space flight are too bureaucratic. "Soyuz" turned out to be ten times cheaper than shuttles, but also technological solutions used in their design have been for decades. During this time, other industries have stepped far forward. Of course, Americans are still flying on our cheap rockets, but in the future, the transition to reusable carriers seems inevitable.

Now there is hope that, thanks to the influx of private capital, the era of the Great Cosmic Discoveries is already very close.
Author:
Originator:
http://expert.ru/russian_reporter/2014/44/otroki-vo-vselennoj/
39 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. el.krokodil
    el.krokodil 16 November 2014 06: 59
    +19
    yeah .. to our oligarchs to amers like to mars .. our best is a bath with champagne in kursavel and money withdrawal to offshore people can’t and don’t want anything .. stupid bags of money ...
    1. Mainbeam
      Mainbeam 16 November 2014 07: 04
      +18
      Our oligarchs are poor, their dough is enough only for champagne.
      Ours even ё- they couldn’t make a mobile, so far from the airplanes?
      And space is 100 times cooler both in terms of money and ideological
      .
    2. Pervusha Isaev
      Pervusha Isaev 16 November 2014 09: 33
      -3
      if Russia sends amers and also imposes sanctions, for example, prohibits the supply of engines, then there will be NO PRIVATE COSMONAUTICS in America, nor will it be private ...
      1. SHILO
        SHILO 16 November 2014 11: 01
        +10
        Strange article ... what I already put about this ...

        Private Astronautics

        You say "private astronautics" - as if it was something new.
        For me personally, and even more so for specialists, this is a truism, but for someone, it may be a revelation: American cosmonautics is private by definition. She has always been, is and will be private.
        It is the Soviet factories and scientific research institutes that belonged to the state and still belong to them - both formally remaining FSUE (like the Khrunichev Center), and transforming into joint-stock companies (RSC Energia and many others).
        The American companies in the space industry were both private and remain. This also applies to aircraft manufacturers, who still play a key role in the American space program, and those who specialize in spacecraft and launch vehicles.
        At the same time, NASA plays a leading role, fulfilling the functions of a space program developer, controller, customer, public funding distributor, and launch operator, until recently, the only one.
        Actually, what is proudly referred to as “the beginning of the era of private astronautics” is simply the transfer of the functions of the launch operator to private hands. It is in this narrow sense that the term should be understood.
        A typical example. The Antares mentioned is a launch vehicle developed by the private company Orbital Sciences Corporation with the assistance of the Ukrainian Yuzhnoye design bureau and the Yuzhmash plant that were privately attracted. It has engines developed by the private company Aerojet - these are the most modified (read: file-processed) Soviet NK-33, bought in 90-x, and made already in 70-x.
        The rocket was launched from the Central Atlantic Regional Spaceport, a private space center that is located on the territory of the Wallops Flight Center, owned by NASA, and carried a private unmanned Cygnus truck built by the same Orbital Sciences. A few years ago, the launch would have been carried out from the Wallops Flight Center itself, that’s the whole difference.
        NASA has abandoned the monopoly on launches not from a good life. At the beginning of the zero, it became clear that the shuttles are living their days. This understanding was especially clearly manifested after the Columbia that burned down in 2003 year.
        And the ambitious program “Constellation”, which assumed not only orbital flights, but also lunar, and in the future - Martian expansion, which was going to replace them, did not have time to fill the 5 – 10 years between the upcoming shuttle ships and the new spaceship Orion . At the same time, at the turn of the millennium, the idea of ​​cosmotourism developed.
        Demand gave birth to an offer, and several space startups organized in the US. The most not so successful (success here is still very relative), but, let's say, far advanced today is SpaceX. VirginGalactic business, too, until recently, went well. Experts predicted the company of the famous charismatic Richard Branson jersey of the leader in sky-high tourism.
        And on October 31 of this year, his crashed SpaceShipTwo buried one of the pilots with him - it seems this is the first case of human death in the history of private astronautics.
        1. SHILO
          SHILO 16 November 2014 11: 02
          +11
          Read more.

          In 2010, Obama safely wrapped a "constellation" because of post-crisis lack of money and astronomical debts. NASA was asked to think about high - in the sense of, about scientific research, and in the intervals between thoughts, to commercialize orbital flights by pulling them out of short suborbital pants.
          An alternative inevitable evil was getting into the clutches of the treacherous Russians, which eventually happened: private traders did not justify trust. Work on the basis of "Constellation" had to be resumed.
          Now the brainchild of startups somehow get on the wing. Actually, only the SpaceX was able to create a workable rocket and spacecraft, but they also vividly identified the shortcomings of "private astronautics."
          Despite all the power of moral and material state support, the terms are delayed, they save on test launches, and the prices “below market” for the removal of cargo into orbit (of course, no one stutters about people) turn out to be ordinary dumping.
          I do not claim that the state space program is better than a non-state space, especially in an economically ultra-liberal country like the United States. But hopelessness is still far more than progress here.
          The owner of SpaceX, Ilon Musk, is certainly a great enthusiast, but now you can’t call it an unmercenary language. I must say right away that I did not go deep into his accounting, but in general terms, the number is approximately as follows. 100 million dollars he laid out of his pocket.
          Approximately the same amount received from venture capital funds. About 1,5 – 2 billions were obtained from NASA under several contracts. A significant part of this amount is an advance payment for future launches.
          And the total revenues from contracts for the delivery of goods to orbit (mostly also advance) reach five billion. This kind of crowdfunding level 80. Now SpaceX is building its own space center in Texas, and once again the authorities (this time local) do not remain financially indifferent.

          Once again: the American state not only subsidizes SpaceX in the amount that the entire Russian space program would have been comfortable for six months, but it also acts as a super-reliable guarantor of the company. And without it, Musk would still collect advanced airplanes on his knee and launch them along with the neighbors' children.

          * * *
          If you simplify the picture, the USA hoped to get a VIP taxi with executive cars and well-trained drivers in a short time.
          In the meantime, they have a handful of immigrant bombers sitting on a crack on a Chevrolet, broken in the trash, who were barely able to teach not to drive on the sidewalks and not to ignore traffic lights. And to the orbit they throw up the harsh Russian truckers.

          Author Andrei Velichko
          1. SHILO
            SHILO 16 November 2014 11: 09
            +14
            "Now there is hope that, thanks to the influx of private capital, the era of the great cosmic discoveries is already very close."
            Author Andrey Konstantinov


            I allow myself to disagree with the author, because the era of the great cosmic discoveries has long been open ... laughing Russian!

            Even on Mars, we were noted! wink And by the way there is evidence yes here in this photo of Mars lol
            This is of course a joke - a test of attentiveness!
            The guesser will have a gift ... winked
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. bunta
              bunta 16 November 2014 11: 23
              +17
              Ours worked. That's right.
              1. SHILO
                SHILO 16 November 2014 12: 22
                +4
                Well, for starters, plus any. Now I’ll organize a prize. And honestly ... did I see or follow the link in the corner of the picture?
                1. SHILO
                  SHILO 16 November 2014 12: 37
                  +5
                  Winner of the "Mindfulness" competition yes hi
                2. bunta
                  bunta 16 November 2014 13: 30
                  +5
                  I saw right away that I have it almost professionally.
                  1. T-73
                    T-73 16 November 2014 13: 44
                    +1
                    Frankly, I did not catch up at first. Well, the details are there, professional habits again. HZ. Until I looked simply and in general. Well damn it .. But the question of what it means is professionally left. Urologist?
                    1. SHILO
                      SHILO 16 November 2014 14: 12
                      0
                      Quote: T-73
                      Well damn it .. But the question of what it means is professionally left. Urologist?


                      Well, why offend a person ?! stop The answer to everything is simple - developed abstract thinking! yes

                      Abstract thinking - this is the ability to translate information about · real objects into symbols, to manipulate these symbols, · to find some kind of solution and this solution again to apply to objects in · practice.
                  2. SHILO
                    SHILO 16 November 2014 13: 54
                    0
                    Do you speak professional? Check it out. I did not find it in the second option - I looked at the tips request
                    1. SHILO
                      SHILO 16 November 2014 13: 57
                      0
                      And No.2 respectively.
                      1. SHILO
                        SHILO 16 November 2014 14: 20
                        0
                        But this is generally aerobatics ... good
                      2. bunta
                        bunta 16 November 2014 15: 52
                        +2
                        Since this option is the most masterpiece, the answer will be only to it. Leave the rest to novice snipers.
                      3. And Us Rat
                        And Us Rat 17 November 2014 00: 14
                        +1
                        Quote: bunta
                        Leave the rest to novice snipers.


                        Get along laughing


                    2. bunta
                      bunta 16 November 2014 15: 46
                      +2
                      Clarify, please, what to look for here. Sniper, cat or our footprints.
                      1. SHILO
                        SHILO 16 November 2014 16: 23
                        0
                        Quote: bunta
                        Clarify, please, what to look for here. Sniper, cat or our footprints.


                        The joker however! laughing I went to do a prize. I last dug - dug, spat and increased stupidly ... immediately my darling was found lol
                      2. SHILO
                        SHILO 16 November 2014 17: 08
                        0
                        Well, hold on ...!
                      3. T-73
                        T-73 16 November 2014 20: 04
                        0
                        Quote: SHILO
                        Well, hold on ...!

                        Ostap carried)))) Anyway - thanks.
                  3. And Us Rat
                    And Us Rat 16 November 2014 23: 44
                    0
                    Quote: bunta
                    I saw right away that I have it almost professionally.


                    X, Igrek ... well, just matamatic sight! laughing
              2. The comment was deleted.
            3. The comment was deleted.
          2. T-73
            T-73 16 November 2014 11: 46
            +1
            Quote: SHILO
            astronomical debts.

            A beautiful metaphor in the light of the article under discussion)))
          3. T-73
            T-73 16 November 2014 11: 52
            +2
            Quote: SHILO
            And before the orbit, they are thrown by the harsh Russian truckers.

            Killed
          4. Starover_Z
            Starover_Z 16 November 2014 17: 37
            +1
            Quote: SHILO
            And before the orbit, they are thrown by the harsh Russian truckers.
          5. APASUS
            APASUS 16 November 2014 20: 19
            0
            Quote: SHILO
            Once again: the American state not only subsidizes SpaceX in the amount that the entire Russian space program would have been comfortable for six months, but it also acts as a super-reliable guarantor of the company. And without it, Musk would still collect advanced airplanes on his knee and launch them along with the neighbors' children.

            In the modern world, the customer is the main figure, and if our Roscosmos had similar financial capabilities, then I think there would be five design bureaus in Russia that would undertake similar projects with us.
        2. Ezhaak
          Ezhaak 16 November 2014 12: 38
          0
          Quote: SHILO
          American astronautics is private by definition. She has always been, is and will be private.

          Quote: SHILO
          He buried one of the pilots with him - it seems that this is the first case of human death in the history of private astronautics.

          These are both your quotes. If you follow the first, then the second is wrong. From the first it follows that this is the fifteenth victim of private space exploration!
          1. SHILO
            SHILO 16 November 2014 12: 56
            0
            Quote: Hedgehog
            These are both your quotes.


            Not one of my phrases is present either in the first or in the second post - by Andrei Velichko (indicated below).
            And ... and this logical mistake does not change the essence of what is written.
      2. saag
        saag 16 November 2014 11: 06
        +5
        Quote: Pervusha Isaev
        then there will be NO PRIVATE COSMONAUTICS in America, nor will it be private ...

        Falcon flies on its engines
        1. Pervusha Isaev
          Pervusha Isaev 16 November 2014 11: 42
          -1
          Quote: saag
          Quote: Pervusha Isaev
          then there will be NO PRIVATE COSMONAUTICS in America, nor will it be private ...

          Falcon flies on its engines


          4.5-6 tons per stationary orbit? it's cheap american ...
          1. saag
            saag 16 November 2014 11: 43
            +2
            Quote: Pervusha Isaev
            4.5t stationary orbit?

            A union of two tons delivers the same
            1. Pervusha Isaev
              Pervusha Isaev 16 November 2014 11: 54
              0
              Quote: saag
              Quote: Pervusha Isaev
              4.5t stationary orbit?

              A union of two tons delivers the same


              that's why now new unions will switch to nk33
              nk33-154t traction near the ground
              Merlin pin_dosovsky -34t on such far will not fly away
              there is a difference?
              1. saag
                saag 16 November 2014 11: 56
                0
                Quote: Pervusha Isaev
                there is a difference?

                there is a difference, it would be interesting to look at the cost of removing the cargo
            2. T-73
              T-73 16 November 2014 11: 56
              0
              The hangar is designed for up to 50 tons of cargo. But this is in the maximum, 7th version, and then up to 200 km orbit. And so - 11 tons
              1. Pervusha Isaev
                Pervusha Isaev 16 November 2014 12: 58
                0
                Quote: T-73
                The hangar is designed for up to 50 tons of cargo. But this is in the maximum, 7th version, and then up to 200 km orbit. And so - 11 tons


                Well, everyone knows this, but why are you saying this?
                1. T-73
                  T-73 16 November 2014 13: 49
                  +1
                  believe me, not all. Space on the periphery (where we live) is of little interest. But there are many readers at VO, and infa is never superfluous. So I say. After all, site rules do not prohibit this. And snobbery here does not channel.
                  Regards, I
            3. Pervusha Isaev
              Pervusha Isaev 16 November 2014 11: 58
              +1
              Quote: saag
              A union of two tons delivers the same

              Soyuz-2 is a family of launch vehicles created on the basis of the Soyuz-U launch vehicle through deep modernization. The development was carried out by the Central Scientific and Production Center “TsSKB-Progress” (Samara). The mass of the payload brought to a low orbit is from 2 800 kg to 8 250 kg, depending on the modification. It is part of the R-7 launch vehicle family.

              http://ruscosmos.narod.ru/KA/glavnaia/Rak_nos/Souz2.htm
              1. saag
                saag 16 November 2014 12: 00
                0
                Quote: Pervusha Isaev
                8 250

                This is clearly for the figure for Progress, because it does not have an emergency rescue system, and it also weighs a couple of tons
                1. Pervusha Isaev
                  Pervusha Isaev 16 November 2014 12: 13
                  0
                  Quote: saag
                  Quote: Pervusha Isaev
                  8 250

                  This is clearly for the figure for Progress, because it does not have an emergency rescue system, and it also weighs a couple of tons


                  when I talked about the fact that it would be difficult for amers to master space without our engines, I meant the MASS OF USEFUL LOAD, because this is a laugh of Merlin-34t versus our 154t and naturally, the MUCH MORE STRESSED, the ratio of the payload to the total mass will be large , and therefore the COST will be less - this is a no brainer, but where are the famous F1? what pin_day they will not apply, what would drive into space? 600t ????? -that's cool...
                  1. saag
                    saag 16 November 2014 12: 21
                    0
                    Quote: Pervusha Isaev
                    But where are the famous F1? what pin_day they will not be used to drive into space

                    And what do they derive? Satellites? In the USSR there were also four-chamber RD-170s, however, something no one uses them either
                    1. Pervusha Isaev
                      Pervusha Isaev 16 November 2014 12: 52
                      0
                      Quote: saag
                      what do they output? Satellites? In the USSR there were also four-chamber RD-170s, however, something no one uses them either


                      pretended to be a hose? satellites, it is necessary to launch heavy vehicles into space for the exploration of the moon and mars, how would it be if you don’t know? As for rd170, is there a continuation of rd180-rd 190 on the hangar, and f1 is a continuation?
                      1. saag
                        saag 16 November 2014 12: 58
                        +1
                        Quote: Pervusha Isaev
                        satellites, heavy vehicles must be launched into space for the exploration of the moon and mars

                        And what are such programs? Not on paper, but really acting?
                        "... as for rd170, that is, the continuation of rd180-rd 190 on the hangar"
                        This is a truncation of the same RD-170, it is not a continuation, but its reduction, i.e. took perfection and ruined it to the needs
                      2. Pervusha Isaev
                        Pervusha Isaev 16 November 2014 13: 31
                        0
                        Quote: saag
                        Quote: Pervusha Isaev
                        satellites, heavy vehicles must be launched into space for the exploration of the moon and mars

                        And what are such programs? Not on paper, but really acting?
                        "... as for rd170, that is, the continuation of rd180-rd 190 on the hangar"
                        This is a truncation of the same RD-170, it is not a continuation, but its reduction, i.e. took perfection and ruined it to the needs



                        well yes there
                        http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/835620
                        do you speak? well, and rd 190 is also the same principles as rd170?
                      3. T-73
                        T-73 16 November 2014 14: 02
                        0
                        Quote: Pervusha Isaev
                        say speak? Oh well

                        Pervusha Isaev, respecting your point of view, I nevertheless note: VO is not a platform for debates such as Solovyov’s talk show on channel 2. Comments weighted and minimally emotionally colored are welcome. I do not follow the site administration’s lead, but I see the difference in comments over the past 3 years. I see you as a constructive interlocutor / opponent
                      4. Pervusha Isaev
                        Pervusha Isaev 16 November 2014 14: 09
                        0
                        Quote: T-73
                        Quote: Pervusha Isaev
                        say speak? Oh well

                        Pervusha Isaev, respecting your point of view, I nevertheless note: VO is not a platform for debates such as Solovyov’s talk show on channel 2. Comments weighted and minimally emotionally colored are welcome. I do not follow the site administration’s lead, but I see the difference in comments over the past 3 years. I see you as a constructive interlocutor / opponent


                        what exactly is wrong? I argue, but what do you dislike?
                      5. Alex
                        Alex 16 November 2014 22: 50
                        +1
                        Quote: Pervusha Isaev
                        well yes there
                        http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/835620

                        In this type of interview (it’s because it doesn’t say anything new, for example, it’s a picture for the media), Mr. O. Ostapenko says WHAT they are going to (!) Do, but not a word about WHAT it will be FOR (!) done. Maybe this is some kind of terrible state secret, but so far you can only get to the moon and Mars in the order of space tourism. Or as conquistadors (I'm going for luck). But then both risk and costs are at their own expense.
                      6. Alex
                        Alex 16 November 2014 22: 43
                        +1
                        Quote: Pervusha Isaev
                        FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MOON AND MARS
                        Before you master something, you need to know what we want to have from this development. And where to apply it. Name at random five substances / materials / products whose delivery in the next twenty years from the Moon (not talking about Mars) will be justified from an economic or technical point of view. I suggest not to consider the cost of R&D and experimental launches with the maintenance of the corresponding infrastructure.
                      7. Pervusha Isaev
                        Pervusha Isaev 16 November 2014 23: 19
                        0
                        Quote: Alex
                        Before you master something, you need to know what we want to have from this development. And where to apply it.


                        the fact is that when a person is engaged in research of anything Lomonosov of his law of conservation of matter or of the Mendeleev of his periodic law, or of the Faraday of his electricity, it is not at all obvious that all this will ever serve humanity, that’s why Korolev is so stubbornly to fly into orbit when flying into space, when were there more pressing matters on earth-do military missiles? but Korolev was able to break through space and now COMMUNICATION, NAVIGATION, serve humanity. There is a big systemic flaw in your reasoning; a person is not aware of the future ...
                      8. Alex
                        Alex 17 November 2014 14: 52
                        +1
                        Quote: Pervusha Isaev
                        when a person is engaged in research of anything Lomonosov of his law of conservation of matter or of the Mendeleev of his periodic law, or the Faraday of his electricity, it is not at all obvious that all this will someday serve humanity

                        I absolutely agree with you, colleague. When Faraday, who was demonstrating the phenomenon of electromagnetic induction at the exhibition, a lady asked: "What is it for?", He answered: "Madam, can you predict the fate of a newborn baby?" And now, thanks to this "childishness", we have practically everything.

                        And Korolev was torn into space, because it was unknown, and therefore interesting, and attractive, and promising. But now we know a lot, and we need to plan further steps with a greater degree of practicality. IMHO (only mine, and I may be wrong), all my life to be engaged in the same area of ​​research like "what will happen if ..." is somewhat frivolous. What is permissible and justified at the beginning of the search is not always rational during its continuation.

                        After all, a perpetual motion machine was once invented in almost every barn, but now we know that this occupation is absolutely futile. The analogy, of course, is crude, but rather illustrative: enough "pseudo-scientific poke", you need to plan the experiment in advance and achieve the result. That does not negate a healthy dose of search for the future. I'm about this ...
                      9. Kruglov
                        Kruglov 17 November 2014 05: 04
                        -1
                        Hehe Helium-3 from the moon we will dig! laughing
  2. Mainbeam
    Mainbeam 16 November 2014 07: 01
    0
    Expensive pleasure, but the future is with private owners. Cosmonautics - like any other industry (automotive, aviation ...) will eventually become private. States will either have expensive projects, such as the exploration of Mars, or strategic industries, such as mining. And then, just for now ...
    1. avt
      avt 16 November 2014 10: 41
      +6
      Quote: MainBeam
      Expensive pleasure, but the future is with private owners.

      laughing Actually, in USA all the contractors are private, and between them NACA distributes the contracts for budget money. Do you seriously believe that there will be a capitalist, and not the only one that will take the place of NACA, and even for its own money, will it make such a dare ???
      Quote: dejavu
      What can I say, even our E-mobiles could not bring to mind what kind of Mars flights and so on?

      Wo Wo! Well, it will be the same American e years. laughing But this is generally from the field of psychiatry - "Soyuz" turned out to be ten times cheaper than shuttles, but the technological solutions used in their design have been around for decades. During this time, other industries have made great strides forward. "----- and then ------- ,, Of course, the Americans still fly on our cheap rockets," wassat A kind of bifurcation of consciousness. But of course, as well as without a "life-affirming" deeply analyzed forecast - discovery --------, but in the future, the transition to reusable media seems to be inevitable. " Well, straight Tsiolkovsky part2ya - "Now there is hope that thanks to the inflow of private capital, the era of the Great Cosmic Discovery is already very close." So - thanks to private capital, humanity will leave its cradle - the planet Earth. laughing Yeah! He began to build direct capital for the space exploration platform in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Ukraine, and since the foolish has been introducing kerosene for flights around the world since 1991.
      1. Ascetic
        Ascetic 16 November 2014 12: 29
        +4
        Quote: avt
        Actually, in USA all the contractors are private, and between them NACA distributes the contracts for budget money. Do you seriously believe that there will be a capitalist, and not the only one who will take the place of NACA and even for his own money it’s so dashing


        NASA is a software developer, controller, customer, money distributor and most importantly launch operator, and until recently, the ONLY monopolist in this type of activity. So all the big words about the beginning of a new e
        private cosmonautics is nothing more NASA's abandonment of the monopoly on launches. Private cosmodromes appeared, that is, NASA transfers start-ups in its flight centers to private hands, because the SGA does not have enough money, so the decision was made - NASA should think about the global one and private owners should make orbital launches commercially attractive for their money. even an enthusiast like Elon Max is unable to transfer state support and financing to self-sufficiency. This is not a football team to maintain, although there, too, the private trader, with rare exceptions, suffers some losses even in the advanced West, not to mention Russian realities and traditions. Russia is doomed to socialism or state capitalism as an initial stage, this is especially evident in space where complex and ambitious programs require maximum cooperation and unified control, here liberals' tales of competition as an engine of progress do not work, because the pursuit of profit and cheapness will definitely destroy promising breakthrough and expensive space programs that should serve the interests of ALL MANKIND and not hucksters from space.
        1. avt
          avt 16 November 2014 18: 29
          +1
          Quote: Ascetic
          in space, where complex and ambitious programs require maximum cooperation and unified control, the tales of liberals about competition as an engine of progress do not work here, because the pursuit of profit and cheapness will definitely destroy promising breakthrough and expensive space programs that should serve the interests of ALL MANKIND and not the hucksters from of space.

          good Just to clarify - the competition as an engine was serious under the USSR, sometimes not fair - they ate administrative resources, an example of which is Chelomey and Korolev - well, at least Almaz b Salyut, Lunar program with 500 and N-1, , King of the rocket ", BUT they did not pursue 300% of the profits, going for the sake of these% s for any crimes.
  3. targitai
    targitai 16 November 2014 08: 05
    +2
    So they will squeeze us out of cosmos.
  4. Dejavu
    Dejavu 16 November 2014 08: 17
    +3
    What can I say, even our E-mobiles could not bring to mind what kind of Mars flights and so on?
  5. aszzz888
    aszzz888 16 November 2014 09: 23
    +2
    Of course, the Americans are still flying on our cheap rockets, but in the future, the transition to reusable media seems inevitable.


    Well this is a grandmother for two said!
  6. samoletil18
    samoletil18 16 November 2014 09: 50
    +2

    Now there is hope that, thanks to the influx of private capital, the era of the Great Cosmic Discoveries is already very close.
    You offer it to our oligarchs! They quickly determine the vector by which to send.
  7. Orang
    Orang 16 November 2014 10: 12
    +4
    Regarding the oligarchs, they said well in the comments. Indeed, inglorious bastards. But how many projects in Russia have been for the development of cheap astronautics since the time of the USSR.
  8. saag
    saag 16 November 2014 11: 11
    +2
    Quote: Orang
    But how many projects in Russia have been for the development of cheap astronautics since the time of the USSR.


    It is unprofitable to launch private cosmonautics in the Russian Federation, here geography plays a role as well as bureaucracy and gangbanging of officials, maybe such a startup in Cuba will stir up such a startup, on the one hand it will raise prestige for them, on the other hand it is not necessary to coordinate the fall fields of the first and second stages with anyone thirdly, it is closer to the equator, easier with energy
    1. T-73
      T-73 16 November 2014 11: 31
      +2
      With targeted space exploration, the Earth should not be considered as a launching pad at all, agree. And what about Cuba? A fresh look at old problems. Omitting red tape, we add to the US equation. They will be horned to prevent it from being done. Although who they are. It would be a desire
  9. T-73
    T-73 16 November 2014 11: 17
    +4
    I don’t think that private traders will rush into space. So far there is a proposal - yes, there are pioneers. One goal - to cut the dough in the appendage to the existing one. But space exploration is a long business. Not a possible fact. As for the solar system, even. What to say more? Decade programs do not imply going beyond it. Travel companions do not count. It’s even strategically difficult to imagine when a person will fly to Jupiter or Saturn. Not for the sake of something, but simply physically able on an apparatus capable of doing this and returning. But these are only small steps. What to say about the development of planets within 1-3 parsecs? Private trader will not do it. Until the state confirms this technologically. Not to be a private pioneer in outer space. On pokatushki even to the moon - so far the maximum, and then in the future. And this is good. Nehru to litter everything with all sorts of gags
  10. saag
    saag 16 November 2014 11: 22
    0
    Quote: T-73
    It’s even strategically difficult to imagine when a person will fly to Jupiter or Saturn

    Well, it’s just not difficult, as soon as a nuclear engine like Vasimir or RD-0410 appears, then we can talk about the implementation of plans
    1. T-73
      T-73 16 November 2014 11: 26
      0
      Quote: saag
      Well, it’s just not difficult, as soon as a nuclear engine appears

      Research has been going on since the 50s, while inaudible about successes. I do not think that everything is not thought out, but to see technologically is not yet feasible. Hence the skepticism. Fundamentally possible, but not yet feasible
      1. saag
        saag 16 November 2014 11: 29
        +1
        Quote: T-73
        Research has been going on since the 50s, while inaudible about successes.

        There were tests according to RD-0410, there is even a film about it on the Internet, there was a special stand at the Semipalatinsk test site, this engine could even work in energy mode, i.e. like a power station
        1. T-73
          T-73 16 November 2014 11: 41
          0
          Quote: saag
          There were tests according to RD-0410, there is even a movie about it on the Internet

          Thanks for the info. Must see
          1. saag
            saag 16 November 2014 11: 46
            0
            Quote: T-73
            Must see

            here - http://geektimes.ru/post/233561/
            1. T-73
              T-73 16 November 2014 12: 38
              0
              I watched both films. Thank. Informative. The dimensions of the reactor were surprised at a power of 1000 MW. I know what I'm talking about, because I work at nuclear power plants. But in both films there is no information about hydrogen storage. External supply .. and? Liquid - yes, consumption - yes, but it can be concluded from its consumption - it does not shine on it to fly as you want. the Americans, by the way, suggested only the 3rd step on it. What confirms the long-standing thesis - Earth is not a launching pad. I repeat, however
              1. saag
                saag 16 November 2014 12: 46
                0
                Quote: T-73
                Americans by the way suggested only the 3rd step on it to do

                Well, of course it’s only launched in space, and hydrogen storage, well, obviously in heat-insulated tanks, well, if it is pressed so, then screw the small turbo expander
                1. T-73
                  T-73 16 November 2014 13: 12
                  0
                  Volumes, that's the Achilles heel. If we get together where to fly - no one canceled gravity, especially on Saturn. Ideally, there should be a combined planetary scale engine and an external one for significant distances or one sustainer. This has not been resolved now. In my youth, I reread all the almost significant science fiction writers: Sheckley, Asimov, Bradbury, Strugatsky, Norton, Kutner, many others - and I believe everyone. They are like progressors. Ideas anticipate the present. I even believe that it was possible to collect in space from the wreckage of "Nomad" (who read "Tiger, Tiger" Bester in the course), but ... so far this is not achievable. Even in the future 20-30 years. Business will not do it. Neither ours nor theirs. The payback period is 2-5 years and so it seems too high. Both ours and theirs are based on the principle "but at least the grass won't grow there." The Fed's bench may seem like an exception until we look at the US government debt. How long does the string twist ...
      2. Kruglov
        Kruglov 17 November 2014 05: 10
        0
        Technologically feasible and for a long time ... The question is how to safely pull this truncated from the ground, and then how to protect yourself from radiation in flight ?! Well, not lead! By the way, companions with "vigorous" stuffing have already fallen! I remember Canada, we even started coughing for it. Like, for a cripple. repeat
    2. Orang
      Orang 16 November 2014 11: 35
      0
      I remembered. At the beginning of his presidency, Medved spoke on the radio that they were creating such an engine in Russia. We’ll fly to Mars.
      1. saag
        saag 16 November 2014 11: 40
        0
        Quote: Orang
        I remembered. At the beginning of his presidency, Medved spoke on the radio that they were creating such an engine in Russia. We’ll fly to Mars.


        No, not like that, what they are doing now is a nuclear drip reactor with a machine conversion (turbine) and a package of plasma engines (SPD), but the fact that in the 70s they tested it was a nuclear reactor pumping hydrogen as a working fluid, heating it up to 2000 degrees, a specific impulse of 900 sec and a thrust of the order of two tons was obtained
  11. sv68
    sv68 16 November 2014 11: 22
    0
    hourly astronautics in Russia cannot appear for a primitive reason - our oligafrens can only damp money where there is a minimum of risk and high profit. As you understand, this does not apply to space and the state will not tolerate competitors because its pocket is always closer and should not be empty -a will share with the private trader not only the loot but also the contracts and contracts, to cherish your beloved money.
    1. T-73
      T-73 16 November 2014 11: 37
      +1
      I agree, but that’s what I also wrote about above - this is with regards to private traders. But why is a state monopoly bad? The state also does not live on donations. Otherwise, there would be no pensions, subsidies and much more. I see nothing wrong with that. And yes, only the state can invest in projects with maximum risk and not the fact that there will be profit.
      Damn, I go through a proxy, but what I think for the EU flag))) I have to change
  12. Alex
    Alex 16 November 2014 11: 43
    +2
    Plain American chatter. Especially in parts of Mars and the colonies on it. Mineral extraction on asteroids even discuss laziness - pure fantasy. The question of the cost of one kilogram of space cargo has already been discussed many times, which is clear to anyone: it is more profitable to mine gold on Earth than to bring it from Ceres (and this provided that it is there).

    But the commercialization of satellite output into near space is quite affordable for private traders and today (if the business is organized correctly) is quite profitable. Another thing is that there really is a war of interests. For amers, private companies are a proven and familiar business, we have large projects (including space) more connected with hopes for the state. I don’t want to lose such a segment of space income (the article says about somewhere 50% - not a lot). Maybe we should go the same way: create joint-stock companies with a large share of state capital and give them the satellites? I am not an economist, I am poorly versed in these issues, but maybe someone will express a practical thought?
    1. T-73
      T-73 16 November 2014 12: 48
      0
      Quote: Alex
      it is more profitable to mine gold on Earth than to carry it from Ceres

      Alex, I think that if it is possible to mine gold at Ceres, its price will be like that of lead. Other rules and values ​​will come in. And about
      Quote: Alex
      somewhere around 50% - not a lot

      not a fact, not a fact. The billionth business, and not every iPhone is possible. Therefore, there is no war of interest so far. Loners do not lead a war, much less a technological one. Disputes in the court of Samsung and Apple - like an elephant shot. And not from that opera. Although China is silent for now, but knowing their craving for copying, I won’t be surprised when they surprise everyone
      1. Alex
        Alex 16 November 2014 23: 06
        +1
        Well, I don’t know, I said that I’m not an economist, but still I can’t believe that prices can differ so much.

        But here's the interesting part: what do we even think to develop there? Judging by geological and cosmophysical research (I’ll immediately make a reservation, all of this, of course, is theory, but reasonably well reasoned), the main elements of space are hydrogen, helium, oxygen, silicon and, of metals, iron and nickel (well, plus, cobalt). All this good and not Earth is enough.

        Once I wrote that according to the disposition of character - a skeptic (age, or something repeat ), so I’m thinking: what will we have from that space in the near future? Although, romance, however, touched the future ...

        In general, I think we must first prepare the caravels (this is never superfluous), but here we go where we will swim for them - Columbus will always be found. Something like this.
  13. saag
    saag 16 November 2014 11: 51
    +3
    Quote: Alex
    How many times has the issue of the cost of one kilogram of space cargo been discussed

    Here, many fall into the same mistake - to transport raw materials from outer space to the earth, no, you just don’t have to do this, you need to produce the final product as extra-terrestrial devices or products that cannot be obtained on the ground under gravity and generally production should be focused on the use of the final product there
    1. T-73
      T-73 16 November 2014 12: 52
      0
      Quote: saag
      you just don’t have to do this, you need to produce the final product out of the farm

      We will come to this in any way. The only question is time. But humanity in our understanding is young, we can, while the Sun shines is. But there is one factor that puts everything on unstable ground. I mean, after all, the oldest profession of mankind. Politicians. The second oldest profession on Earth - their weak likeness
    2. Alex
      Alex 16 November 2014 23: 15
      +2
      So this is a matter of such a distant future that not every science fiction writer will write about it. That is, in general terms it is something, of course, you can portray any city under a dome (or without it) or invent a "KETS Star", but more realistically, they somehow give up. Or even completely down to the level of semi-fairy tales. Apparently, from this only projects such as tourism to the Moon and Mars flash.

      And your view of the problem is absolutely correct: it is only England that provides itself through imports, and all normal countries develop the infrastructure on the spot and the product, basically, is sold right there and there. Then everything will fall into place, but only when it will be ...

      When I was a preschooler, we all just raved about astronautics (the first group of cosmonauts knew both their names and portraits for memory), every second cosmonaut was going to be. Then everything just seemed ... Over the years, knowledge comes, and with it, as you know, "many sorrows" ...
      Is something messed up? Or not much?
  14. saag
    saag 16 November 2014 13: 04
    0
    Quote: T-73
    We will come to this in any way. The only question is time.

    I believe in desire, Bigelow won’t want to build an inflatable hotel on the moon for a bet, he even flew an inflatable model into space, and the shell was tested for strength with aluminum balls at a speed of 6 km / s, then this thing died out, I think that everything was stubborn in delivery to the moon itself
    1. T-73
      T-73 16 November 2014 13: 20
      0
      Quote: saag
      he wanted to bet

      Whoa! Not a program, not a large-scale event, if I may say so! Bet. Vanity amuse. One-time - is not a system. I think he lost. I don’t know about the deadlines, but then anyway, it will lose, even if it wins ... Yes, our language allows a lot. I hope they monitor us over the hill and tear our brains))) If there is (what if psaki reads? If he can)
  15. bmv04636
    bmv04636 16 November 2014 13: 07
    +2
    also Boeing and Airbus corporations, conditionally private, without the support of their proteges would have long stretched their legs
    1. Orang
      Orang 16 November 2014 14: 31
      0
      Wild market for Russians. Everything is different with them, not like Gaidars and Chubais chatted to us. Therefore, private astronautics is developing, it is not only a matter of momentary profits. Looking to the future.
  16. LvKiller
    LvKiller 16 November 2014 14: 02
    0
    Private traders need to drive in the neck. Especially from such strategic areas as energy, medicine, food supply, housing and communal services. Private traders do not need anything except the brew, they ruin everything they touch. A discussion is only a special case of a general rule.
    1. corporal
      corporal 16 November 2014 14: 30
      -1
      Quote: LvKiller
      Private traders need to drive in the neck. Especially from such strategic areas as energy, medicine, food supply, housing and communal services.

      Well, yes, did you miss the state supply for coupons and long lines?
      Nostalgia however ... crying
  17. Throw
    Throw 16 November 2014 16: 43
    +1
    The loud term "private cosmonautics" is constantly being discussed. What's this? Private MCCs, private stations, tracking and communication frequencies, private orbits? Geostationary ??

    A MCC then in the know? laughing

    The article presents some examples on the topic of "participation of private capital in projects of the space industry." From this to astronautics, as from the design of the e-mobile to the organization of traffic and the transport network on a global scale. This is an interstate issue and will remain so until the 22nd century for sure.

    And there are technically illiterate examples (apparently, there are no others):

    space program, which, if successful, will reduce the cost of space flights by an order of magnitude. He is developing a reusable launch vehicle capable of landing on the tail of a flame. Today, his Grasshopper (Grasshopper) already knows how to sit on this very tail from a kilometer high. If such reusable launch vehicles fly into space, launching a small satellite will become a matter accessible to almost anyone.


    -Houston, we have a problem !!

    If each "youth" starts launching small satellites, big ones will start falling. In close orbits, there is already enough debris and this is already a problem. Especially after our Chinese "friends" have populated it with kinetic interceptors ..

    In general, "to start it will start, but who will give it to him" ..


    And a reusable carrier, with current technologies, is a sure way to raise the cost of launching a payload into orbit. And with landing also on the "tail of the flame" - to raise the cost cosmically!
    In general, can you tell these guys about the parachute?
    And show the landing of BMD and with a parachute and two flame tails!))
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 17 November 2014 18: 53
      +1
      "In general, can you tell these guys about the parachute?" ///

      Tell me.
      Send Ilona Mask your job summary,
      and if you are a good engineer, then you can
      get an interesting job.
  18. Throw
    Throw 17 November 2014 19: 34
    0
    Why do I need his interesting work when I have my own interesting ??
    We'd better send him to the roof of the "Nona" office on "Reaktavr" laughing