Military Review

Attempt # XXUMX. American rocket LEGO

89



I think many space enthusiasts who are actively interested in history and the current state of affairs in the field of space exploration and exploration have already recognized the rocket imprinted on the title picture.

This rocket, or rather, the rocket booster - the largest solid-fuel rocket ever created by mankind.
Well, now become and more.

This is the side accelerator of the Space Shuttle system, which has now become even more, having received, in addition to the standard four sections, with which it launched together with the space shuttle, an additional fifth section, which will allow it to become a rocket accelerator of the new super-heavy space launch system, called SLS (Space Launch System).

This system, according to NASA's idea, should return the United States of America palm in all aspects of space exploration, simultaneously giving all mankind the opportunity to return to the space frontier, breaking finally the vicious circle of low near-earth orbit and putting the issue of lunar exploration back on the agenda and ... even Mars.

How realistic and how realistic is this ambitious program? Let's try to figure it out.



Comparative sizes of historical, modern and developed American launch systems.
Backfill question: why is the Delta IV more than the Falcon 9?

The current state of the American cosmonautics after leaving the arena of the Space Shuttle system is quite pitiable: the heaviest launch vehicle at the disposal of the United States today is Delta IV Heavy, which can put 28,4 tons into low earth orbit (NOO) .
The Delta IV family, despite a lot of Boeing’s design, engineering and commercial efforts to build and promote its offspring to the market, turned out to be “not at the right time and in an unnecessary place”: amid the low cost of launches of the Russian Proton rocket and Ukrainian "Zenit-3SL" the cost of launching the payload with the help of "Delta IV" was completely unaffordable.
A single launch of Delta IV cost 140-170 million dollars, while the cost of the Proton payload similar to it was about 100 million dollars, and the cost of launching a smaller, but competitive one with Delta IV Ukrainian Zenit-3SL was even lower - only 60 million dollars.
Such a high cost of launching Delta IV made Boeing look for exclusively government orders for it and, as a result, all Delta launches, except for one thing, turned out to be paid for by the State Department by the US budget.


The launch of the Delta IV launch vehicle in the Heavy version. The starting weight is about 733 tons.


In the end, in the middle of the 2000-ies, Delta IV finally dropped out of the commercial segment of space launches - and could not go back there until the present time, when the guys from the private store SpaceX, whose Falcon rocket began to step on its heels 9 also came close to the Delta IV market niche, and the modification of the same rocket called the Falcon 2015 Heavy planned for launch in 9, even surpassed it.


At the start of the Falcon 9 Heavy, 27 Merlin engines will be switched on immediately using 66 tons of kerosene and oxygen.


This brainchild of Ilona Mask should put SpaceX's “private” space program to an unattainable height: for the one-off launch vehicle version, the mass of the output load at the NOU will be up to 53 tons, per GPO - 21,2 tons and on the trajectory to Mars - 13,2 tons. When returning the side accelerators and the central unit, the payload will not exceed 32 tons per LEO - the reusable launch vehicle has to be paid with additional fuel consumption and, as a result, with a decrease in the payload.
Among the technical innovations in the development of Falcon 9 Heavy, the developer has declared a unique opportunity for fuel and oxidizer to overflow during flight from side accelerators to the first stage of the launch vehicle, which will allow full fuel tanks of the central section at the time of separation of the side accelerators and improve payloads put into orbit .


Assembling the corps of the first stages of rockets Falcon 9. Now 8 engines are already installed in a circle, with one central. In crowded but not mad.


The “trajectory to Mars” mentioned in the last paragraph is not an abstraction. With a starting mass of 1 462, tons, twice as large as the mass of Delta IV, a record so far, the heavy Falcon is already the necessary step that allows you to seriously think about flights to the Moon and Mars. Albeit in the configuration, more similar to the Soviet experiments with the devices of the probe series, rather than to the colossal American program Saturn-Apollo.

However, in the future, the paths to the top of the “Delta IV” and Falcon 9 concepts with side accelerators, which are “clones” of their first stages, begin to slip as expected.
The thing is that the starting “sides” that increase the masses of the load output to the LEO is not multiplied to infinity - two or four side blocks can still be hooked to the central one, but then the complexity of assembling and managing such a multi-component construction growing just the same exponentially.
It was on this, in general, that the royal moon rocket H-1 “fell asleep”, in which 30 NK-33 rocket engines were at the first stage, which, together with the five-stage scheme of the rocket itself, did not allow all questions of its trouble-free launch.
The current configuration of Falcon 9, starting right away with 27 engines, is already close to the limit of complexity and further, most likely, Ilona Mask will have to increase the mass and dimensions of a single rocket unit, which immediately increases the requirements for the entire chain of production, transportation and rocket launch.

The Russian advanced Angara rocket family will most likely face similar problems. The small relative size of a single unit already leads to the fact that the Angara-A5 rocket with a launch mass of 733 tons immediately has to put four accelerating “boilers” (with a load capacity of NOU in 24,5 tons).


Angara-A5 before the launch of December 23 2014. At the start, there are five RD-191 engines, each with a load of 196 tons.


A further increase in the Angara load capacity rests on the fact that six rocket boosters need not be hooked to the base section of the second stage, which, perhaps, is already a kind of construction and engineering limit for scaling package systems, as the limit for the Falcon 9 concept is Merlin-27D 1 engines on three starting blocks.

The resulting Angara-A7 project will, according to calculations, with its own starting weight in 1370 tons, bring to the NOU a payload in 50 tons (in the case of using hydrogen fuel for the second stage), which will most likely be the maximum scaling of the rocket concept family "Angara".


Comparison of the A5 Hangars and the A7 Hangars concepts with kerosene and hydrogen fuel. At the same time here is the answer - why the “Delta IV” is big, and the Falcon 9 is small.



In general, no matter how cool concepts are based on the 200 class rocket unit or even 400 tons - it still turns out that the construction and engineering Karachun limit for such “package” rockets occurs on the launch weight in the 1300-1500 area, which corresponds to the mass output in 45-55 tons per NOU.
But further it is necessary to increase the thrust of a single engine, and the size of the rocket stage or accelerator.

And this is exactly the way the SLS project is going today.

First, taking into account the negative experience of “Delta IV”, the SLS developers have tried to make the most of past experiences. Everything and everything went into effect: the Space Shuttle rocket boosters, which were strengthened for the purpose of creating a heavy rocket, and the old hydrogen-oxygen engines RS-25 of the shuttle itself, which were installed at the second stage, and .... (supporters of the theory " conspiracy "- get ready!) long-forgotten hydrogen-oxygen engines J-2X, which are derived from the engines of the second and third stages of the moon rocket" Saturn V "and which are proposed to use in the projected upper stages of the SLS!

Moreover, long-term plans for improving SLS accelerating accelerators imply two competing projects using LREs instead of solid propellant rocket motors: the Aerojet project, which presented its own closed-cycle AJ1E6 kerosene-oxygen engine for the future “heavy” carrier. 33 of the royal H-1 rocket - and the project of Pratt & Whitney Rocketdine, which offer ... (and again, surprise, lunoskeptics!) To restore in the USA the production of F-1 engines, which At one time, the famous Saturn V rocket was lifted from Earth.


It is possible that life will return to these test benches again. Test of the first stage of the “Saturn V” LV - “Saturn 1С” in August 1968 of the year on the cyclopean stand В-2. Note that the stage is transported by barge.

Participating in the development of a future promising start-up accelerator and the current manufacturer of solid-fuel boosters, which stand on the initial assembly of the SLS launch vehicle, Block I - ATK (Alliant Techsystems), which proposed further integrating the existing Space Shuttle accelerator, increasing its length and diameter . The ATK’s advanced accelerator project is called the Dark Knight.
Well, as a cherry on a cake - one of the future configurations of the SLS system, Block Ib, suggests using a hydrogen-oxygen block as the third stage, borrowed from ... the Delta IV rocket!
Here you are, you know, the “hellish LEGO” in which NASA tried to evaluate, connect and use all the existing developments in the field of heavy missiles.

What is the SLS carrier family? After all, as we already remember, following the example of “Delta IV”, “Hangars” and Falcon 9 - overall dimensions are deceptive.
So, here is a simple scheme for understanding what was intended:



On the left side of the scheme - the heavy launch vehicles that existed until now in the USA. The lunar Saturn V, which could launch a payload of 118 tons and a Space Shuttle, which seemed to launch the reusable shuttle itself, weighing from 120 to 130 tons, but could deliver only a very modest one with it. payload - only 24 tons of payload.

The concept of SLS will be implemented in two principal versions: manned (crew) and unmanned (cargo).

In addition, the unavailability of three promising missile accelerator projects from Aerojet, Rocketdine and ATK forces NASA to use those “parts of the rocket LEGO” that are available - namely, those five Space Shuttle improved accelerators.

A transitional “ersatz carrier” (officially called SLS Block I), constructed in this way, nevertheless, according to all calculations, will already have a much more serious carrying capacity than the operated Delta IV or the Falcon 9 Heavy ready for launch. The SLS Block I booster will be able to raise the payload of 70 tons to the NOU.

Compared to the SLS concept, NASA’s stopped development programs for the Constellation program are presented - the Ares (Mars) rocket carrier that was not fully developed until the end, which made only one test flight in the 2009 year, in the “Ares 1X” design, consisting of the same modified four-section Accelerator Space Shuttle, to which was attached the fifth load segment and the design load of the second stage. The purpose of that test flight was to test the operation of the solid first stage in the “single stick” layout, but something probably happened during the tests, when 1 and 2 were separated, an unauthorized leap forward of the 1 stage caused by , apparently, by burning out fragments of fuel in it cut off by a jerk. The solid-fuel accelerator eventually caught up with the layout of the 2-th stage and rammed it.
After this, a rather unsuccessful attempt to assemble the “new LEGO” from old parts was turned down at NASA, the Ares project and the Constellation itself were stuck far away on the shelf of unsuccessful concepts, and from the developed backlog within the “Constellation” they left only a fairly successful orbital manned spacecraft “ Orion ”, which was built according to the usual for disposable ships scheme of the returned capsule, which finally put an end to the reusable glider“ Space Shuttle ”.


The Orion spacecraft before its first launch on the Delta IV rocket. December 2014 of the year.


The diameter of the ship "Orion" - 5,3 meters, the mass of the ship - about 25 tons. The internal volume of the Orion will be 2,5 times larger than the internal volume of the Apollo. The volume of the cabin of the ship is about 9 m³. Thanks to such an imposing mass for the orbital ship and the free internal volume, Orion during near-earth missions in low orbits (for example, on an expedition to the ISS) can provide life support for the cosmonauts 6.

However, as mentioned at the beginning, the main task for Orion and to put it into orbit further than the low basic SLS launch system is the US return to the tasks of developing near-Earth space and, first of all, the Moon and Mars.
It was on the flight to the Moon and, possibly, to Mars, that the main efforts of the USA and Russia in the matter of improving their spacecraft and launch vehicles were calculated.
Here, in principle, the distinctive American “Orion” from the Russian PTS system is dismantled in a convenient tabular form.
For the name PPS PTS, of course, you need to beat someone right away, but oh well. And in general, unfortunately, everything is very difficult with the PPTS project.
Therefore, in connection with the PPTS, we have so far only funny pictures from the exhibition. But in reality, while it is done to the insulting little ...

Attempt # XXUMX. American rocket LEGO

There is only a layout - between the past and the future. There is only a layout - for him and hold on ...


In addition to problems with financing, lack of understanding of the concept and the mass of issues of the design and engineering plan, the future of the PCA is uncertain and due to the lack of an adequate launch vehicle for some of its planned tasks. As I have already said, “in metal” so far Russia has only Angara-A5, which can bring no more 24,5 tons to NOU, which is quite enough for near-earth missions, but already categorically not enough for further assault on the Moon or Mars.

In addition, the concept of the PCV was based on the creation of an alternative Angara missile of the Rus-M family, the work on which, too, has so far been halted.


Projects of the “Rus” family of missiles in comparison with the family of only “Soyuz” and “Angara”.


The main purpose of the Rus family missiles was to provide manned flights, which is why the rocket, all other parameters being equal, has a smaller payload on LEO than Angara family missiles. This is due to the fact that during manned flights one of the requirements is the ability of the launch vehicle to leave the launch even if one of the engines fails and the requirement to ensure the continuation of the flight in case of a subsequent failure of one of the engines - with the continuation of the launch of the spacecraft into a lower orbit and safe landing.

These requirements, including the special launch trajectory, which should provide an overload on the crew of no more than 12 g for any emergencies and the availability of an emergency rescue system (CAC), lead to a significant decrease in the Rus-carrying capacity in the manned version.

In addition, the design diameter of the base unit "Rus" in the 3,8 meter was selected based on the traditional for the USSR and Russia transportation of parts of launch vehicles by rail.
In the USA, consciously, starting with the Saturn-Apollo program, the first stages of launch vehicles were made on the basis of a reasonable size, taking into account the possibility of transporting them by water (coastal-sea and river) transport, which greatly simplified the requirements for the dimensions of a separate rocket unit .


Transportation of the first stage of the Saturn V launch vehicle on the Pearl river barge (“Pearl”).


Today, work on the SLS and on Orion, even after the collapse of the Constellation, is in full swing.
After completing work on SLS Block I, which will be almost entirely based on the existing Space Shuttle, NASA plans to move to the next, much more ambitious stage - SLS Block II, with intermediate stops in the form of SLS Block Ia and SLS Block Ib.


LEGO assembly option, if rocket boosters are ready before. Block I, Block Ia, and then - Block II.


LEGO assembly option, if previously a modified third stage will be ready. Block I, Block Ib, and then - Block II.


The SLS Block Ia launch vehicle should already receive some of the promising launch rocket boosters: either from Aerojet on a kerosene-oxygen AJ1E6 closed cycle, or from Rocketdine on a modified F-1 open cycle from Saturn V, or the same on the new solid "Black Knight" from ATK.
Any of these options will be able to provide the Block Ia design with a lifting capacity at the NOU in the 105 tonnes area, which is already comparable to the carrying capacity of the Saturn V and the Space Shuttle (if you count it together with the shuttle).

The same tasks will be solved by the creation of the third cryogenic stage, which is large-scale and adapted to the size of the entire starting system, which can complement the two-stage Block I system (starting accelerators and the central stage on the Space Shuttle engines) by the third stage, which for the Block Ia variant will be like I already mentioned it, borrowed from the Delta IV rocket and will also provide SLS with the output of up to 105 tons of payload for DOE.

Finally, the final version of the Block II system should already receive a full-size, third-stage engine designed specifically for the SLS mass, which, like the second Saturn V stage, will use 5 advanced J-2X engines and will output tons of payload to XOUMX.

But even despite all these tricks, such a “space LEGO” will cost about 500 million dollars per launch, which, of course, is less than the cost of launching the Space Shuttle (1,3 billion dollars), but still it’s quite sensitive for the NASA budget.

What tasks should be solved by SLS and why NASA does not take into account the Falcon 9 Heavy variant, which seems to be able to provide the cost of 135 million US dollars for a one-time system with fuel overflow and for 53 tons of payload for LEO?

The thing is that NASA still aimed at the moon, Mars, and even asteroids and satellites of Jupiter! And the Falcon 9 Heavy turns out to be too small a rocket for such tasks ...


Nuclear rocket - to Mars!


But this is, of course, a topic for a good separate article ....

Ps. After reading my article again, I inform you.
If I criticize modern Russian approaches to space exploration and praise Americans, then there are good reasons for this.
Back in 2010, the state of the American space exploration program was deplorable: the Space Shuttle program had already been closed, the launches of Ares showed a complete failure of the Constellation ideas, all American newspapers and magazines wrote about "space Russian slavery" for the United States.

But, over the past 5 years, the US space industry has regrouped, received the necessary funding - and learned to live in new, more stringent conditions.

Will Russian cosmonautics be able to boast of this in 5 years, especially given the fact that this year brings us sad news about the closure of the RN Rus-M and PTS programs, postponing the launch of the Vostochny cosmodrome and the total reduction in funding of Roscosmos?
Wait and see. I hold our fingers for the cross.
Author:
Originator:
http://alex-anpilogov.livejournal.com/43212.html
89 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Prager
    Prager April 5 2015 07: 12 New
    +1
    the current liberal government of Putin will completely destroy our cosmonautics, as many promising projects were put under the knife in Soviet times. Especially difficult times await our astronautics.
    1. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z April 5 2015 07: 14 New
      26
      It’s time to design space rockets for the final assembly of the Lego version in low Earth orbit, then you can still use current rockets without burning the atmosphere and the ozone layer with powerful launch rockets!
      I hope that I am not the most intelligent and design work is carried out in the depths of the design bureau!
      1. Kostyar
        Kostyar April 5 2015 11: 25 New
        +9
        They always leveled at us and tried to at least keep up, and so it will be for a very long time !!!!
        A new generation of designers has grown up who love their homeland and do not aspire to topple, in the pursuit of rubbish in the form of a dollar ..... Russia has a great future, including in astronautics !!!!
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa April 5 2015 12: 18 New
          +6
          Quote: Bone
          Russia has a great future, including in astronautics !!!!

          Yeah ... I read the article as an encyclopedia of the future world cosmonautics. I was impressed, but for some reason there weren’t any khinchiks, but they are going to Mars!
          Well, and our space program - 100% fulfillment in terms of both volume and timing! Since the statement is absolutely true: whoever owns the cosmos is behind the future.
          Good luck!
          1. Baikal
            Baikal April 5 2015 15: 19 New
            +8
            You can cook astronauts-Mars explorers as much as you like, turn the nuts of accelerators with stern faces, roll your eyebrows and make smart speeches, but there are maaalenky questions on the "development" of Mars laughing

            1. NOBODY KNOWS how astronauts will fly to Mars, for radiation. The more protection from it, the higher the mass of the ship = the more fuel = the more mass ...

            2. NOBODY KNOWSwhat will be done on the surface because radiation is even higher than in space. The option of "digging into the ground" is not an option, but it is, as it were, the only reasonable yes

            3. SOMEONE ALREADY IN COURSE, (Wang? belay ) how, after all the adventure games, to make the survivors "awarded posthumously" thrown back into the orbit of Mars, at least? (mass of carrier + suicide bombers + mass of fuel)

            4. SOMEONE ALREADY IN COURSEhow to make the arriving remains of the astronauts less radioactive and suitable for demonstration to posterity? laughing
            1. saag
              saag April 5 2015 15: 53 New
              +3
              Quote: Baikal
              SOMEONE ALREADY IN THE COURSE, (Wang?) How, after all the adventure games, to make the survivors "awarded posthumously" thrown back into orbit of Mars at least? (mass of carrier + suicide bombers + mass of fuel)

              Well there is a science fiction novel "The Martian", quite interesting, there are some answers :-)
              1. Baikal
                Baikal April 5 2015 15: 57 New
                +1
                How could I forget! wink Let's give them to the design bureaus and factories))
                1. Elk
                  Elk April 8 2015 14: 05 New
                  -1
                  Are you really druk. Or skillfully pretending?
            2. VAVAN
              VAVAN April 6 2015 07: 04 New
              -2
              it is clear that the rocket method of developing space exploration is a dead end for mankind, you need to look for other ways to put spacecraft into orbit, at least into orbit. without the help of rockets, about radiation - as far as I know there are protection options, for example - plasma, if the ship is covered with plasma then the external radiation effect on the ship is zero ......... in general, to somewhere to shift the development of technology you need to destroy old
              1. Lugansk
                Lugansk April 6 2015 12: 10 New
                +2
                But who told you that missiles are a dead end, did you decide from the article you read above that talks about dead ends like SLS or Delta-4?
                Let the author of the article first figure out why the good kerosene RD-170 (Zenith) turned out to be better than the bad hydrogen RS-68 (Delta-4) and it becomes clear where to go next.
                The author lied wherever he could, starting from 28 tons of the payload for Delta-4, ending with the fact that the United States is going to build SLS, is not going to, SLS will be officially closed soon, just waiting for the right moment.
            3. Bayonet
              Bayonet April 6 2015 07: 07 New
              +2
              Quote: Baikal
              what will they do on the surface because radiation is even higher than in space.

              Why? According to data from the Curiosity rover, the level of radiation on Mars is almost the same as in low Earth orbit, where the International Space Station is located.
              1. Baikal
                Baikal April 6 2015 23: 48 New
                -4
                Why?

                Since the planet’s atmosphere does not hold it back + the absence of a magnetic field on the planet (Mars is a dead planet in terms of internal processes, unlike Earth).
                In total, we have both a surprise from above and a background of the surface due to the same radiation from above.
                So if there are apple trees, it’s only closer to the last active cycle of the sun’s life.
      2. Inok10
        Inok10 April 5 2015 17: 45 New
        +7
        Quote: Starover_Z
        It’s time to design space rockets for the final assembly of the Lego version in low Earth orbit, then you can still use current rockets without burning the atmosphere and the ozone layer with powerful launch rockets!
        I hope that I am not the most intelligent and design work is carried out in the depths of the design bureau!

        .. I support .. and the most interesting thing was already announced about a year ago by Roscosmos .. the creation of an orbital station for servicing and refueling CM in orbit .. including .. to ensure flights to the planets of the Solar System ..
    2. rpek32
      rpek32 April 6 2015 01: 01 New
      0
      All Kerbal Space Program, guys.
    3. Sirs
      Sirs April 6 2015 02: 57 New
      0
      In general, I agree that there will be difficult times. But not everything is gone yet. Sometimes you have to choose, cut off your hand or lose your life.
  2. aszzz888
    aszzz888 April 5 2015 07: 12 New
    +4
    Will Russian cosmonautics be able to boast of this in 5 years, especially given the fact that this year brings us sad news about the closure of the RN Rus-M and PTS programs, postponing the launch of the Vostochny cosmodrome and the total reduction in funding of Roscosmos?


    One of the most expensive areas of human production.
    1. Elk
      Elk April 5 2015 08: 27 New
      13
      But people have no choice. Either crawl out into space and begin to use the resources of the solar system, or become extinct in ongoing wars against the backdrop of a destroyed biosphere. And there is not so much time left. Otherwise, after ten million years, any rational cat-dogs will argue hoarsely on the topic, but where to add the skull to the skeleton of homo sapiens: to the upper end of the spinal column, or to the lower?
      1. Alexdark
        Alexdark April 5 2015 09: 10 New
        +9
        "Either crawl out into space and begin to use the resources of the solar system, or die out in ongoing wars against the backdrop of a destroyed biosphere."
        No, you're talking about people. What are the resources of the solar system? Everyone will again be interested in war, but from space. By the way, for the resources of this very system. And as for the destroyed biosphere, I do not agree. Tales about the ruined planet, this is a total myth .... If people are judged by cities, industrial zones and other elements? This is mistake. All this, takes a drop on the planet. It is mostly empty and clean.
        1. Elk
          Elk April 5 2015 09: 38 New
          +1
          It is mostly empty and clean.

          You are too optimistic. Human biomass is already 20 years, as it exceeded the equilibrium for the biosystem of planet Earth. Now humanity consumes more than the planet can renew. Alas, this is an annoying, sad, but absolutely scientifically proven fact.
          1. Andrey Skokovsky
            Andrey Skokovsky April 5 2015 10: 59 New
            10
            Quote: Elk
            It is mostly empty and clean.

            You are too optimistic. Human biomass is already 20 years, as it exceeded the equilibrium for the biosystem of planet Earth. Now humanity consumes more than the planet can renew. Alas, this is an annoying, sad, but absolutely scientifically proven fact.

            I wonder what China is not extinct, you do not know how many people are there?
            but how many people in Pakistan and the countries near him were not interested?
            "Human biomass" - this is from the vocabulary of those freaks that for a hundred years they consider themselves to be the navel of the earth and the pinnacle of the universe, if without husks then this is actually a fascist saying.

            Mankind has not yet approached the line after which its numbers threaten the planet, but it has come close to the fact that it is already not enough to feed the "golden" billion resources, too gluttonous are caught, and it is from them that all these fascist cries go about excessive "biomass".
            Our country has the honor of informing the elect that they say so, they talk about their beloved ones. You can observe the reaction on the news, stubbornly do not want to live within your means - war is better ....
            1. Elk
              Elk April 5 2015 12: 57 New
              -2
              it’s from the vocabulary of those freaks that for a hundred years they consider themselves to be the navel of the earth and the pinnacle of the universe, if without husks then this is actually a fascist saying.

              This is from the vocabulary of those freaks who have been counting their heads in the sand for countless years and consider themselves the pinnacle of evolution, if without husks, then this is actually the saying of a militant ignoramus.
              Humanity has not yet come close to the line after which its numbers threaten the planet,

              It has long come close and even stepped over it. The biosphere is able to provide 7-8 billion people with resources and absorb waste products. Moreover, regardless of where you live - in a paradise, or in a territory pitted with quarries, you still put pressure on the biosphere of the WHOLE planet.
          2. andj61
            andj61 April 5 2015 12: 37 New
            13
            Quote: Elk
            . Human biomass has been around for 20 years, as it exceeded the equilibrium for the biosystem of planet Earth.

            It already smacks of misanthropy, but in reality there are too few people. All of humanity can be located on an extremely small territory if it is not content with consumption standards, but in fact zhrachki, as in the USA, but with real needs.
            In Africa, where the mass of the population and the mass of the starving can take three crops a year, but they prefer not to develop new lands, not to work, but to take everything ready from a neighbor, and grind this neighbor if there is a lack of food.
            Even 30 years ago, jokes about the hunger among the Chinese went to our country - but look now: they were able to establish production of rice, and wheat with buckwheat, and meat, and pond fish, and vegetables and fruits, while not only providing themselves, but they feed a bunch of people abroad.
            But China with such a population has very few convenient arable lands - it is simply impossible to compare with Russia and its steppes, or with the USA and Canada with the prairies, or with Africa and Australia with their savannahs, or with Argentina and Brazil with pampas.
            Work and you will be full.
            1. Elk
              Elk April 5 2015 13: 07 New
              +1
              Have you heard about the effect of globalization? So, roughly speaking, this thing allows for a geographic shift in costs. That is, you can have candy, but the waste, the ruined nature, the people crippled during its production will be somewhere on the other side of the earth. That's all. Therefore, it seems to you that everything is fine and even good, but somewhere in a flowering and beautiful region turned into a lunar landscape.
              But China, with such a population, has very few convenient arable land

              The lack of land is offset by the use of hybrid high-yielding varieties and the use of a huge amount of chemistry. I had the opportunity to admire the results of Chinese agricultural culture, and China itself was the same.
              1. Elk
                Elk April 5 2015 15: 53 New
                -1
                As expected. They put down the minuses, but there are no specific objections. For brains are not enough ...
                1. andj61
                  andj61 April 5 2015 19: 17 New
                  +4
                  Quote: Elk
                  As expected. They put down the minuses, but there are no specific objections. For brains are not enough ...

                  I didn’t set minuses, but you don’t listen to arguments. Land in the temperate-subtropical-tropical and sub-equatorial zone can feed 10 times more population than now - you just need not to wait near the palm tree for food, but to work. In the United States, food is spent on one person almost three to four more than in Russia, and in Russia, too, are not starving. That is, in the United States alone, with the same resources and expenses, instead of 300 million, you can feed up to a billion. And if, at least partially, free cherries were used under cx production, especially in Africa, where food is not actually produced, but could be harvested three times a year, then all questions to provide people with food would be removed immediately. It is only FAVORABLE to transnational corporations to send gum to Africa. help, and not to develop production there: otherwise they will compete with competitors. These are concrete objections.
                  And you have - "a lot of people", "The effect of globalization", etc. - and that’s it. This is not reasoning, not argument, but simply a substitution of concepts. Well, yes - those who have the capital and technology, and the production is deployed in a completely different place, get profit and everything “beautiful”. But production is the real, not virtual, sector of the economy. And it is ALREADY in place.
                  And at any moment, something can change - or a disaster, or simply power in the country - and the owner and beneficiary becomes different. So in the USSR in the 20s mineral deposits were handed over to concession. Time passed - and these mines, concentration plants and factories began to work for the country - their concessionaires still can not take to the moon.
                  Yes, and without replacing the owner, much is possible. Now in the world the main real production is deployed in China and Southeast Asia. Naturally, China is dependent on technology and markets. But those beneficiary countries are also dependent on China. Suspend China your export for a year or two in the United States, what happens? The Chinese leadership will be able to pay compensation to its producers in RMB, but in a few months, after the stocks are consumed, the US will face a severe crisis - both in consumption and in production - in many industries Chinese raw materials and components are used. In the United States, the usual standard of living will actually fall, and with this, China -
                  in the event of a crisis period (for example, the conflict around Taiwan) will be able to take advantage - at least as a threat.
                  1. Elk
                    Elk April 6 2015 04: 15 New
                    +1
                    Well, yes - those who have the capital and technology, and the production is deployed in a completely different place, get profit and everything “beautiful”. But production is the real, not virtual, sector of the economy. And it is ALREADY in place.

                    Here I absolutely agree with you. An economy based on financial principles is a dead end and a grand mistake of mankind.
                    But as for production, not everything is so simple. Technologies are not only patents, drawings and descriptions, first of all, they are people who know and can use them and reproduce them. And this is a very expensive pleasure and not all countries can afford. By the way, your beloved China, began to portray something of your own only in recent years 5. And even that "your" is very relative.
                    Land in the temperate-subtropical-tropical and sub-equatorial zone can feed 10 times more population than now

                    Firstly, when I talk about consumption, first of all I talk about industry. Understand when you smear butter on a piece of bread, you consume not so much bread and butter as metal from which agricultural machines are made (without which at least 50% of current farmland would not be available), the oil on which all this moves, fertilizers, without which it would grow ten times less and so on. Just think a little over the whole chain and you will understand that the problem rests not only on the availability of arable land.
                    Secondly, human activity has an impact on the entire biosphere of the Earth. And this happens regardless of your desires and understandings. Do you use gas? So you, albeit indirectly, are involved in the destruction of the tundra ecosystem. Do you use metal products? So they are also guilty of turning Kuzbass into a lunar landscape with disgusting ecology. Etc.
                    By the way, about thirty years ago I read an article in Science and Life where all cryptobiologists who claimed the existence of giant squids were completely smashed. And now they argue that five species exist, or seven. Do you know why this happened? In fact, this is elementary, just in view of the depletion of fish stocks in near-surface waters, we switched to fishing at depths of over 600 meters. And then they began to come across.
            2. Bayonet
              Bayonet April 6 2015 12: 13 New
              0
              [quote = andj61] [quote = Elk].
              Even 30 years ago, jokes about the hunger among the Chinese went to our country - but look now: they were able to establish production of rice, and wheat with buckwheat, and meat, and pond fish, and vegetables and fruits, while not only providing themselves, but they feed a bunch of people abroad.

              It’s they who haven’t switched to spoons yet, how they will transfer - to everyone kirdyk!
          3. San_jok
            San_jok April 5 2015 21: 39 New
            0
            Human biomass has been around for 20 years, as it exceeded the equilibrium for the biosystem of planet Earth. (Ts, kakbe)
            you tell the Chinese, with their territories and population, who manage to feed the north. Korea and still sell cx products))
            the eggheads and the ozone hole in the Antarctic were screaming, why were they quiet?
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. Afotin
    Afotin April 5 2015 07: 23 New
    +2
    Oh, and mattresses are tuned with new missiles! Despite the optimistic tone of the article on American astronautics, you can sing the funeral right now.
  5. DPN
    DPN April 5 2015 07: 41 New
    +7
    Chubais is responsible for nano technology in RUSSIA, that's all the cards are in his hands and on his miracle he is riding the moon. You look at one weirdo on earth will be less
    It’s time to return to the planned economy. Otherwise, everything will be like in the shops now, but you’ll buy horseradish as if you were in a MUSEUM.
  6. siberalt
    siberalt April 5 2015 07: 49 New
    +2
    The Vostochny spaceport is counting on launching missiles with a payload of 150 tons. It turns out that some developments and plans already exist.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 April 5 2015 15: 39 New
      0
      Quote: siberalt
      The Vostochny spaceport is counting on launching missiles with a payload of 150 tons. It turns out that some developments and plans already exist.

      Even if they are not there, then with such a spaceport it will be possible to normally develop super-heavy carriers without fear that they will have no place to launch from ...
      Although perhaps ours really do something in this area.
    2. saag
      saag April 5 2015 15: 55 New
      +1
      Quote: siberalt
      The Vostochny spaceport is counting on launching missiles with a payload of 150 tons. It turns out that some developments and plans already exist.

      If my memory serves me, then the launch pad there is done under the load of about 700 tons, maybe I’m a little mistaken, and so the Energy was a total mass of 3200 tons and lifted a little more than 100 tons, so there is no such launch on Vostochny
  7. avt
    avt April 5 2015 07: 50 New
    +7
    ,, At the start of the Falcon 9 Heavy, 27 Merlin engines with a thrust of 66 tons each, running on kerosene and oxygen, will start immediately. "------- wassat Something it reminds me of and somewhere like that I have already seen. laughing I admit honestly - not that I don’t have any full-fledged information, as everything has to be guided by the tails. And the picture must be said to be fun. Here’s an iPhone which, on Chinese microcircuits, to boom another sucker plate, yes. But with real iron, it’s somehow sour after von Braun from the Yankees. One can only guess and wait - either they really started playing “mortgage papers” on the stock exchange, or flying saucers are approaching. The current program is not even running in place, but really degrading on scraping the ideas and technologies of the last century, from which the USSR of Russia was touched got clearly more. Even for the Chinese pumpkinavts was enough. But what about the future? God forbid that something under a strict stamp from R&D goes to metal.
    1. cast iron
      cast iron April 5 2015 19: 50 New
      0
      Well, what's new in 100 years? On Earth, they have not yet invented a new fuel with higher characteristics than there is now. Just like there are no new engines there are no new principles.

      A real breakthrough can only happen if anti-gravity engines are created, but so far these devices only appear on the pages of science fiction novels.

      But there are still such problems as a lack of speed to reach at least the nearest star in one human life.
      And also cosmic radiation and skeleton degradation in zero gravity.

      Mankind needs a new education system and a system for selecting the most capable, geniuses in those areas where they are needed. The existing system of so many capable people throws in the trash even without giving them a try.
      1. Lugansk
        Lugansk April 6 2015 13: 01 New
        +1
        Anti-gravity is prohibited by the general theory of relativity, this is taught at the institute.
        1. xtur
          xtur April 7 2015 14: 15 New
          +2
          > Antigravity is prohibited by the general theory of relativity, this is taught at the institute.

          the institute also teaches that quantum mechanics is a completely separate discipline of physics, independent of general relativity. The only attempt to fully combine their theoretical foundations is string theory. But she predicts too subtle effects and its confirmation by experiment is not yet possible.

          So what about antigravity while science is silent.
          1. Lugansk
            Lugansk April 7 2015 17: 55 New
            0
            I think that modern string theory gives erroneous results and is not able to explain not only subtle effects, but macroscopic ones, for example, fast rotation of stars in a galaxy, the so-called Dark Matter problem. String theory itself certainly deserves attention, but needs to be changed, as well as general relativity, which for 100 years cannot be fastened to quantum mechanics.
            1. Aljavad
              Aljavad April 15 2015 01: 15 New
              0
              General relativity, which for 100 years cannot be fastened to quantum mechanics.


              This is really GLOBAL CRISIS !!!!

              How's the classic? "The devastation is not in the outhouse ...."
  8. intsurfer
    intsurfer April 5 2015 07: 54 New
    +3
    >> The current state of the American space program after leaving the Space Shuttle arena is rather deplorable

    this is a joke? SpaceX, which has almost succeeded in returning the step back and the "dragons" that can return the cargo from orbit. Orion, Curiosity, etc. And for now, only Rogozin promises to “turn his heads away” to those who steal billions from the construction of the cosmodrome.
    1. cast iron
      cast iron April 5 2015 19: 50 New
      +1
      No joke, but the Americans are still flying on our rockets and on our engines.
  9. 501Legion
    501Legion April 5 2015 07: 59 New
    +7
    I really liked the article, informative and quite interesting.
    1. andj61
      andj61 April 5 2015 12: 44 New
      +6
      This rocket, or rather, the rocket booster - the largest solid-fuel rocket ever created by mankind.
      Well, now become and more.
      This is the side accelerator of the Space Shuttle system, which has now become even more, having received, in addition to the standard four sections, with which it launched together with the space shuttle, an additional fifth section, which will allow it to become a rocket accelerator of the new super-heavy space launch system, called SLS (Space Launch System).
      This system, according to NASA's idea, should return the United States of America palm in all aspects of space exploration, simultaneously giving all mankind the opportunity to return to the space frontier, breaking finally the vicious circle of low near-earth orbit and putting the issue of lunar exploration back on the agenda and ... even Mars.

      I can’t find the link on the network, but in the 80s I worked in Kaliningrad (now Korolev) near Moscow at the Research Institute-4 of Moscow Region. Old specialists, characterizing the Space Shuttle program, recalled Korolev’s words: “To fly on a solid rocket rocket is like flying on a barrel of gunpowder.”
      Neither add nor diminish ...
      1. Elk
        Elk April 5 2015 13: 10 New
        0
        recalled the words of Korolev: "To fly on a solid propellant rocket is like flying on a barrel of gunpowder."

        Not with gunpowder. There things are more serious than gunpowder mixed.
      2. Lugansk
        Lugansk April 6 2015 13: 04 New
        0
        Therefore, the SLS will not fly, the authors of such articles can praise solid fuel boosters as much as they like, but in fact the USA is switching more and more to liquid engines.
        The example of the Mace and Topol-M is indicative, they made rockets and wept, the liquid Sineva, Rokot and Voevoda were a cut above.
  10. Fantazer911
    Fantazer911 April 5 2015 08: 05 New
    +1
    If they don’t let everything go on the brakes, then maybe here in the morning America will nose, we will hope for a better outcome of the solution of this solution in the space industry and development. of space.
  11. D-Master
    D-Master April 5 2015 08: 30 New
    +8
    A great article is just a mega-review of modern rocket technology. The author - many thanks! Well, of course, we hope for the success of our line of Angara and Russia.
  12. tulaev
    tulaev April 5 2015 08: 31 New
    +1
    Space is a mirror of the economy, only a self-sufficient economy can develop space technology. An economic colony can only copy, create not. In space, our country now lives on the technological frontier of the USSR, which was partially "modernized" by an imported element base, which became available after the 90s.
    But even if our economy suddenly begins to grow with something and we take the path of technological independence (well, there are miracles!), Neither TsKBB Progress nor RKKEnergiya will be able to do anything new by definition, in terms of innovations, they are bankrupt, just like any enterprise of the last century in the modern post-industrial economy. The Americans understood this and Musk appeared, and it must be understood that it was not a guy who happened to be in the right place at the right time, but that a precedent was created - a fundamentally new approach was used in the space industry, since the state abandoned the monopoly on space activities. Such a path will lead them in the near future to great progress in space activities, since they get a different formulation of the problem — the result for the money available, and not the development of funds under the "development" program.
    1. bondman
      bondman April 5 2015 13: 51 New
      +5
      ".. The Americans understood this and Musk appeared .."

      No private person in the world will be able to pull the amount of funding that is needed to create a space program, and this is not only an engine and not only a rocket. Musk is more like a sign of the entire modern program of the United States, a kind of advertising billboard behind which is the whole of America, like a fairy tale about “flying” to the moon. Again, the battle of ideologies happens and they (the American) try to present this mask with a genius-nugget, and the remnants of Russian state planning and its space industry is not even taken into account, even with our backward technologies, at least the next 5 years will put their cargo into orbit ..
    2. midshipman
      midshipman April 5 2015 20: 43 New
      +2
      Currently, no private shop without an infusion of state (budget) Tugriks is not viable. All these stories about the single business geniuses of the masters of the Universe smell of overt advertising, without the money of state structures, all these desks instantly collapse.
      1. bondman
        bondman April 5 2015 21: 34 New
        0
        Yeah, but only many visitors to even this patriotic resource sacredly believe in the "invisible hand of the market" or omerican flights to the moon. Here I was arguing with a different nickname (SPb stewards) with old-timers, and I couldn’t get hell with them except arguments like "myself" or minuses - very many of these visitors really believe in the American "technical genius" and their tales about flying there . But the boys also filmed a movie that flew there, in my opinion no worse than the original .. -

      2. Lugansk
        Lugansk April 6 2015 13: 23 New
        0
        I will believe in spaceborne particles when there will be anti-gravity engines on which a flying taxi the size of a bus will bring anything into orbit, and with today's sizes of rockets and spaceports this is impossible.
  13. Sem Faraday
    Sem Faraday April 5 2015 08: 49 New
    +4
    In addition to the cost of the launch vehicle itself, R&D costs are necessary, and this is many times more than its cost. Will there be such money from NASA, because now there is no lunar race. If such a missile crashes with the crew, it will stop flights for several years or even lead to the closure of the program.
    The way to increase the size of the carrier rock is a dead end IMHO, you need to come up with engines on other principles.
    1. Lugansk
      Lugansk April 6 2015 13: 11 New
      0
      That is why in Russia there is an unspoken restriction of 700 tons (Proton, Angara) and no more.
  14. Wedmak
    Wedmak April 5 2015 08: 56 New
    +4
    Interesting article. It’s just not entirely clear why the author compares the sleek 27 engines with 66 tons of thrust, with the 7 th (six on accelerators, one central) RD-191 thrust of 196 tons. Assembled by traction, they are of course almost equal, but does it just stop us from delivering not 7, but 9? Or xnumx engines? Or, in general, 13 by screwing a pair of RD-18 into the accelerator?
    And that number will still be quite far from the "limit" in 30 engines.
    I think the problem is not so much in the thrust and number of engines, but in fuel and its supply.
    1. Elk
      Elk April 5 2015 09: 42 New
      +1
      I think the problem is not so much in the thrust and number of engines, but in fuel and its supply.

      The main problem is controlling all of these engines. N-1 did just that.
      1. Albert1988
        Albert1988 April 5 2015 15: 43 New
        +3
        Quote: Elk
        The main problem is controlling all of these engines. N-1 did just that.

        Then the logical question is - what awaits an American rocket with 27 engines? This is when you consider that SpaceX had well, a lot of unsuccessful launches.
        And then - the number of RD-191 is now a maximum of 5 (Hangar-5), and accordingly 7 on the Hangar-7 is hypothetical, but if we increase their number to, for example, 12, then we will not reach critical value, although there will be certain problems. The good news is that we still know how to develop and do our engines.
        1. saag
          saag April 5 2015 15: 57 New
          +2
          Quote: Albert1988
          Then the logical question is - what awaits an American rocket with 27 engines?

          It is unlikely that the same as N-1, computers will manage the synchronization of engines
        2. Elk
          Elk April 5 2015 15: 59 New
          +2
          Then the logical question is - what awaits an American rocket with 27 engines? This is when you consider that SpaceX had well, a lot of unsuccessful launches.

          But the hell knows ... All the same, over the past 50 years, computer technology has stepped forward a lot. But personally, I don’t really trust computers.
      2. Wedmak
        Wedmak April 5 2015 18: 25 New
        0
        The main problem is controlling all of these engines. N-1 did just that.

        In those days there was no such electronics as now. Currently there are no management problems, the main thing is to write the program correctly.
        1. cast iron
          cast iron April 5 2015 20: 18 New
          0
          Yah? No problems? And why can’t they still create BT technology with synchronized diesel engines? And all because not everything is so simple.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak April 5 2015 22: 20 New
            0
            And why can’t they still create BT technology with synchronized diesel engines?

            What diesels are you talking about? What kind of household appliances do we have diesel engines in? Diesel generators? Or engines? In the first case, the decisions are standard, in the internet of offers in bulk. In the second ... And who needs it?
      3. midshipman
        midshipman April 5 2015 20: 47 New
        0
        you forgot to mention the mutual damping effect in H-1
      4. Lugansk
        Lugansk April 6 2015 13: 14 New
        0
        On the contrary, the number of engines is not a problem.
        Musk confirms this. N-1 people killed, not the engines do not mislead the public.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. 16112014nk
      16112014nk April 5 2015 17: 42 New
      +1
      Problems in the heads of ministers of our anti-people government, coupled with a "galley rower." Give power to technocrats, not liberals - and the problems will melt away "like smoke, like morning fog!" hi
  15. Pablo.
    Pablo. 1970 April 5 2015 08: 57 New
    +3
    Thanks to the author for interesting and non-politicized material!
    1. Lugansk
      Lugansk April 6 2015 13: 25 New
      0
      the material is politicized, you just need to take a closer look :)
    2. Lugansk
      Lugansk April 6 2015 13: 25 New
      0
      the material is politicized, you just need to take a closer look :)
  16. barbiturate
    barbiturate April 5 2015 09: 13 New
    +1
    I liked the article, I was only a little amused by plans to recreate the f-1 engine and pictures from Saturn 5), well, I’m a skeptic, or rather I don’t think it necessary to believe in anything without evidence winked , and put the article plus
  17. Vadim237
    Vadim237 April 5 2015 09: 20 New
    -3
    The Americans bypass us. They promise to launch a heavy rocket. SLS is promised to be launched in 2017, and with us it’s completely slow, if they build a heavy rocket, it will not be earlier than 2030.
  18. Dragon-y
    Dragon-y April 5 2015 09: 25 New
    +6
    Quote: Starover_Z
    ... then it will still be possible to use current rockets without burning the atmosphere and the ozone layer with powerful launching rockets without burning out !!


    And what does the "burning of the amosphere"? The oxidizer rocket (liquid oxygen) "carries" with itself in tanks, atmospheric oxygen is not used. At spaceports, oxygen is obtained by electrolysis of water.
    In this regard, passenger planes are much more “harmful” - here they are, with might and main, “burn” atmospheric oxygen when they fly in the atmosphere for many hours.
  19. saag
    saag April 5 2015 09: 37 New
    +2
    "... The resulting Angara-A7 project will be able, according to calculations, with its own starting weight of 1370 tons, output a payload of 50 tons to the DOE (in the case of using hydrogen fuel for the second stage), which will most likely maximum scaling of the concept of the Angara rocket family. "

    It turns out that Energy was a much more perfect product than the whole Angara

    The Americans have something to launch, the same James Webb telescope
  20. DP5A
    DP5A April 5 2015 09: 41 New
    +1
    Quote "(and again, surprise, lunosceptics!) To restore in the USA the production of F-1 engines, which at one time lifted the famous Saturn V rocket from Earth."
    Restore or create, that's the question. If Saturn really was so cool, then what prevents it from "recreating"? More precisely, take the old drawings and make? Especially considering McCain's tantrums. Correctly Rogozin hinted that they had NO F-1 and never had, and let the slingshots try to use it.
    1. saag
      saag April 5 2015 09: 45 New
      +1
      Quote: DP5A
      Correctly Rogozin hinted that they had NO F-1 and never had, and let the slingshots try to use it.

      You listen more to the Rogozins, otherwise they’ll be deceived
    2. Albert1988
      Albert1988 April 5 2015 15: 46 New
      +2
      Quote: DP5A
      If Saturn really was so cool, then what prevents it from "recreating"?

      If we take into account that they then left almost the resources of the whole country to the creation of Saturn, and the production of its components was not initially designed for a large series and was then minimized, then a lot needs to be recreated - at least the production lines, otherwise this monster doesn’t to produce.
    3. cast iron
      cast iron April 5 2015 20: 20 New
      -4
      And the shuttle they did not have 30 years in a row, which is already there. And all the shuttle launches are Hollywood movies! Listen to more of the smug self-PR man Rogozin.
      1. Lugansk
        Lugansk April 6 2015 14: 27 New
        0
        The shuttle would be with solid fuel boosters, and not with liquid ones on the F-1. And this is a big difference.
  21. DP5A
    DP5A April 5 2015 09: 49 New
    +2
    We need to build ICBMs as quickly as possible, and not an expensive super-missile. You guys don’t understand that war is real on the nose? The Americans understand that either they can finish off the weakened labeled country with a quick blow, or they have lost. Time does not work for them.
    1. cast iron
      cast iron April 5 2015 20: 24 New
      +1
      They had to finish us off in 1992-1993. And then they then did not have firm guarantees of success. And now they are even more worried. Their tactics are more sophisticated - to undermine Russia with the help of Islamists in the south, Russophobes of Galicians in the west, bribery of individuals in Russia, recruitment of agents of influence and the creation of NGOs. Financing of Russian Nazis, monarchists, left-wing radicals, liberals. Monitoring the minds of Russian citizens by financing some media and broadcasting the necessary propaganda. All this is a very complex process, which should lead Russia to a coup d'etat, civil war, ethnic massacre and the collapse of the country into 20-30 small puppet states.
      1. midshipman
        midshipman April 5 2015 20: 55 New
        +1
        And why monarchists and nationalists dragged here? ,,, and ten barrels of prisoners ... "Better to read D.I.Mendeleev on this issue.
        1. cast iron
          cast iron April 5 2015 21: 06 New
          +1
          The current "monarchists" and "nationalists" (in fact, Russian Nazis and neo-fascists) see their main goal in turning the Motherland into a state the size of the Moscow Region. That is why they are all financed by various schemes by Western NPOs.

          It is enough to read the programs and theses of several such monarchist and nationalist groups in order to understand what it will ultimately lead to.

          Although of course, if you are a Nazi or a monarchist, then naturally for you all this will be unobvious))))
  22. srha
    srha April 5 2015 10: 06 New
    +5
    And yet, chemical fuel rockets will not be able to ensure the expansion of mankind from Earth to space because of its economic high cost.
    State efforts in this direction, caused by military-political demands, only delay this initial, but already practically developed stage in space exploration.

    It's time to develop other alternatives.

    The electromagnetic catapult seems to me the most promising for the next stage. A space elevator for the next. For outer space, naturally, tugs with propulsors on electromagnetic principles with a nuclear or solar, which, incidentally, is also a nuclear, energy source, are needed.
    1. saag
      saag April 5 2015 10: 15 New
      +1
      Quote: srha
      And yet, chemical fuel rockets will not be able to ensure the expansion of mankind from Earth to space because of its economic high cost.

      It’s not the economy here, but the energy of these very engines
    2. Samarin
      Samarin April 5 2015 18: 14 New
      0
      Quote: srha
      The electromagnetic catapult seems to me the most promising for the next stage. A space elevator for the next

      In less need to read supposedly science fiction.
      1. cast iron
        cast iron April 5 2015 20: 26 New
        +1
        EM catapult is a very real task for the next decades. It will not be able to withdraw people due to overloads, but the satellites are quite imaginable. And build it near the power plant.
        1. srha
          srha April 6 2015 08: 07 New
          +1
          The problem is not so much in the satellites.

          Indeed, in order for a person weighing 70 kg to be able to work in orbit, one has to launch tons of equipment and cargo there. Here they can be driven as cargo, what is the difference between hydrogen, oxygen or water with which g they are shot.

          And the satellites ... are just complicated and not loving additional stress equipment.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. srha
        srha April 6 2015 08: 01 New
        0
        Quote: Samarin
        In less need to read supposedly science fiction.


        Or maybe you need to read more scientific reports?

        For example, the

        IKI RAS seminar "On the possibility of performing cyclically repeated gravitational maneuvers based on the use of cable systems."
  23. The comment was deleted.
    1. saag
      saag April 5 2015 10: 19 New
      0
      Quote: Fidel
      There is no real carrier.

      And what do you need if heavyweight is done
      Quote: Fidel
      There is no orbital ship.

      Same
      Quote: Fidel
      There is NOTHING left of Saturn

      Well, for example, there is an engine in the US Museum of Astronautics, the same F-1
  24. Fidel
    Fidel April 5 2015 10: 18 New
    +1
    And that somewhere somewhere and someday it may work out, it's a bit of a different genre.
    This is a story for the magazine "Technique-Youth" (a good magazine, by the way), and not a state space program.
    Well, or cover cut dough for the fellow-citizens.
    1. saag
      saag April 5 2015 10: 22 New
      -2
      Quote: Fidel
      And that somewhere somewhere and someday it may work out, it's a bit of a different genre.

      Yes, don’t hesitate, it turns out that interplanetary missions that are still working, such as Voyager, will launch an example with both James Webb’s telescope and a mission to Europe to explore the subglacial ocean, suddenly there is life there, and to asteroids to find out something interesting and useful. but in the Russian Federation everything is deaf with this
  25. Fidel
    Fidel April 5 2015 10: 32 New
    +1
    Quote: saag
    Quote: Fidel
    There is no real carrier.

    And what do you need if heavyweight is done
    Quote: Fidel
    There is no orbital ship.

    Same
    Quote: Fidel
    There is NOTHING left of Saturn

    Well, for example, there is an engine in the US Museum of Astronautics, the same F-1

    In the museum?))
    It is not even funny.
    And this we are talking about the most powerful rocket in the history of mankind (according to legend)!
    I emphasize that from the so-called "lunar program" there was NOTHING in the real world.
    Only Hooolwood kicks.
    For example, our "remnants" in the form of "Unions" fly to this day.
    1. saag
      saag April 5 2015 11: 23 New
      0
      Quote: Fidel
      In the museum?))
      It is not even funny.

      And what is surprising in the fact that he is in the museum?


      Quote: Fidel
      For example, our "remnants" in the form of "Unions" fly to this day.

      Unions flew to the moon? There, in the museum, by the way, the Soyuz-Apollo coupling is
    2. andj61
      andj61 April 5 2015 22: 12 New
      +1
      Quote: Fidel
      I emphasize that from the so-called "lunar program" there was NOTHING in the real world.

      We also had a lunar program, to the end, however, not implemented. Nothing remained of it either - with the exception of a few engines for the N-1 rocket.
      Two already manufactured copies and two more backlogs of N1F carriers were destroyed, and 150 manufactured engines NK-33 and NK-43 (high-altitude analogue of NK-33) in Kuznetsov Design Bureau were saved until the end of the XNUMXth century, when some of them, as well as a license for production, were sold to the American company Aerojet and were planned for use in the developed launch vehicles [
  26. Fidel
    Fidel April 5 2015 10: 35 New
    0
    Quote: saag
    Yes, don’t hesitate, it turns out that interplanetary missions that are still working, such as Voyager, will launch an example with both James Webb’s telescope and a mission to Europe to explore the subglacial ocean, suddenly there is life there, and to asteroids to find out something interesting and useful. but in the Russian Federation everything is deaf with this

    With the current level of development of computer graphics and the level of corruption - already never))
  27. Fidel
    Fidel April 5 2015 10: 41 New
    +4
    And you can also move that the Atlases are now dragging into orbit - all of the same “remnants”.
    And what did the mattress show?
    On the fortieth anniversary of the lunar landing in 2009, they reported that the records of the lunar landing of 1969 HAS DESTROYED RANDOMLY!
    How do you like it?
    And the world de present them nothing. A tokma of "reconstruction".
    From the dream factory.
    Fine?
    1. saag
      saag April 5 2015 11: 24 New
      -3
      Quote: Fidel
      And the world de present them nothing. A tokma of "reconstruction".

      Well, in this regard, I trust Boris Chertok more, he has no doubts about the landing of the Americans on the Moon, unlike you
  28. Fidel
    Fidel April 5 2015 10: 43 New
    0
    Here is the current "program" from the same opera.
    IMHO.
  29. opus
    opus April 5 2015 11: 11 New
    +2
    Quote: Author
    It was on this, in general, that the H-1 royal lunar rocket “fell asleep”, with 30 NK-33 rocket engines at the first stage, which, in conjunction with the five-stage scheme of the rocket itself,



    touched

    Well, if you consider the CAC and the components of the LM (stays, flies away) ... then, probably 5 is stepwise, however, like Saturn 5 then too. And then the Union is 4x stepped?

    H-1 "fell asleep" for reasons:
    the designers miscalculated the payload mass, which, with the starting mass Н1 in 2200 t, was 75 t. As it turned out much later, such a load did not allow people to land on the moon.
    (the modified H-1 with the launch mass in 2820 t launched the entire 90 t of the payload into a low orbit, while the Saturn-5 with the launch mass in 2913 t brought the 140 t)
    - “a step back” was the rejection of the well-developed packet scheme on the famous P-7 and from the bearing tanks.
    The tanks became suspended again, as on the Fau-2 - they perceived only the hydrostatic pressure of the fuel, and the external casing resisted dynamic loads.
    - The giant tanks and rocket blocks were so large that only the transportable blocks were planned at the manufacturing plants. It was planned to carry out welding of tanks, assembly of blocks and installation of a rocket in a huge building on Baikonur, which greatly increased the cost of the carrier.
    -In the USSR, it was on the lunar carrier that the main designers finally quarreled with each other. And in America, the cooperative worked together: Boeing, Nord American Rockwell, McDonnell Douglas, IBM, Rocketdyne, etc.

    - Ground testing (stands), Deputy General Designer Leonid Voskresensky spoke specifically about the Soviet methodology: “If we ignore the American experience and continue to build missiles in the hope of“ maybe it will fly not the first, but the second time, ”then we all have a pipe”

    Why Sergey Pavlovich made during the design of the H-1, perhaps all the mistakes that could have been made are still not clear.

    That's right, THIRTERE LRE designed by Nikolay Kuznetsov, before that built aircraft engines(Glushko: "N-1 did not resemble a rocket, but a storage of engines. "_
    But only in part.

    Is there a big difference: 20 marching and auxiliary versus 30?
    1. My yo
      My yo April 13 2015 20: 35 New
      -1
      Is there a big difference: 20 marching and auxiliary versus 30?


      Where in the photo did you see 20 engines?
      Wear glasses.
      1. opus
        opus April 17 2015 12: 16 New
        +2
        Quote: yo mine
        Where in the photo did you see 20 engines?

        So for the "sighted", help / photo:

        ---
        but for the "blind" like me:
        4 side by 4 camera LRE RD107 = 16


        1 main on 4 LRE camera = 4

        16 + 4 = 20 marching
        Is something changing ONE TNA for a bunch ?: The engine consists of four combustion chambers, a turbopump unit (TNA), a gas generator, a nitrogen evaporator for boosting the rocket tanks, and a set of automation units.
        1. Legioner
          Legioner April 19 2015 14: 40 New
          -1
          I, too, drew attention to this moment, and I completely agree with everything that you wrote.
          And, complete nonsense that 30 engines is the limit. It was just necessary to Count at the time of the construction of H1, but now at the level of modern electronics it sounds just ridiculous, in the end there are computers and computer modeling.
          PS: In general, +1, to you!
  30. Fidel
    Fidel April 5 2015 11: 48 New
    0
    Quote: saag
    Unions flew to the moon? There, in the museum, by the way, the Soyuz-Apollo coupling is

    No, they didn’t fly.
    But they were developed precisely in the framework of the lunar program.
    That's with regards to the coupling.
    Our piece of "coupling" is quite a topic to this day.
    And where is the mattress?
    1. saag
      saag April 5 2015 11: 56 New
      -1
      Quote: Fidel
      And where is the mattress?

      New do, old irrelevant
  31. Fidel
    Fidel April 5 2015 11: 52 New
    0
    Quote: saag
    And what is surprising in the fact that he is in the museum?

    And the fact that companies and states should line up behind him.
    And in the museum you can leave the layout.
    Who will verify that this is not bullshit if it is not on a rocket?
    1. saag
      saag April 5 2015 11: 57 New
      0
      Quote: Fidel
      And the fact that companies and states should line up behind him.

      And what do many states and companies do start-up services, especially in the super-heavy class?
  32. Fidel
    Fidel April 5 2015 11: 54 New
    0
    Quote: saag
    Well, in this regard, I trust Boris Chertok more, he has no doubts about the landing of the Americans on the Moon, unlike you

    Trust is of course an important and even necessary thing.
    But the concepts "logical chain of events" and "structural system analysis" are of little use.
  33. saag
    saag April 5 2015 11: 58 New
    0
    http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2475296&cid=2161 https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Электромагнитный_ракетный_ускоритель
    1. Days
      Days April 5 2015 14: 20 New
      +1
      http://topwar.ru/38546-razrabotka-yadernogo-buksira-prodolzhaetsya.html
  34. Nirvanko
    Nirvanko April 5 2015 14: 15 New
    +1
    The joke is that the United States “abandoned” the “Constellation” program and moon exploration a few months after the first launch of Ares I. In word, they refused, but in fact, work on the Orion manned spacecraft continued, with the difference that the old LV was used to withdraw it Delta IV. Simply put, they got into a puddle with Ares I and, in order to somehow hush up the failure and possible questions, like 40 years ago, over the past 9 years, they managed to master the Moon from zero, supposedly abandoned the lunar program.

    Does anyone really believe that SLS is built for missions to Mars? This task is beyond the power of any country in the world individually.

    Just this time, the Americans decided to really make a landing on the moon, and that’s why the deadlines are already real (15 - 20 years) and not 9 years as in the case of the Hollywood landing.
    1. Asadullah
      Asadullah April 5 2015 16: 05 New
      +1
      Quote: Nirvanko
      The joke is that the United States “abandoned” the “Constellation” program and moon exploration a few months after the first launch of Ares I. In word, they refused, but in fact, work on the Orion manned spacecraft continued, with the difference that the old LV was used to withdraw it Delta IV. Simply put, they got into a puddle with Ares I and, in order to somehow hush up the failure and possible questions, like 40 years ago, over the past 9 years, they managed to master the Moon from zero, supposedly abandoned the lunar program.

      Does anyone really believe what SLS is built for missions to Mars? This task is beyond the power of any country in the world individually.

      Just this time, the Americans decided to really make a landing on the moon, and that’s why the deadlines are already real (15 - 20 years) and not 9 years as in the case of the Hollywood landing.


      ))) Be sure, this is exactly what is being built for! Only strictly in the pavilions of Hollywood.

      By the way, pay attention to the test flight of Orion at an altitude of 5 thousand kilometers. It turns out that the Americans do not know how it is with radiation. Apparently, when they raised the astronaut geese 380 thousand km, it was not before that ..... or maybe they forgot?
  35. Selevc
    Selevc April 5 2015 14: 37 New
    +1
    Quote: Nirvanko
    Just this time, the Americans decided to really make a landing on the moon, and that’s why the deadlines are already real (15 - 20 years) and not 9 years as in the case of the Hollywood landing.

    Yes, about the Apollo program there are too many questions that remain unanswered to this day !!! Somehow everything is very strange - America lagged behind the USSR in the space race and suddenly such a breakthrough in such a record short time? And why didn’t they actually continue the exploration and study of the Moon, but limited themselves to only 6 landings? They said that it is very expensive - but everything new is expensive at first becomes cheaper as a result of the unification and improvement of technology.
    And then Why not put a large telescope on the Moon at the astronaut’s moon landing site and show all earthlings signs of a moon landing?
    Why, after the Americans, no one even for a very long time raised the question of manned flights to the moon? Although the whole history of space exploration suggests that in all directions, second and third and so on always followed the pioneers ...
    In general, there are too many why, why, why ... The story of the Americans landing on the moon is very similar to the most grandiose farce of the 20th century !!!
    1. saag
      saag April 5 2015 15: 59 New
      -1
      Quote: Selevc
      Somehow everything is very strange - America lagged behind the USSR in the space race and suddenly such a breakthrough in such a record short time?

      And what is surprising, from the state 25 billion for the project, Werner von Braun, ideologically grounded impulse of the whole country
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh April 12 2015 17: 27 New
      0
      In all places of the moon, the Americans left
      corner reflectors used to calibrate instruments
      on the ground. They are serviceable and are still used.
      and Americans, and Russians, and other scientists.
      1. dzeredzavkomimu
        dzeredzavkomimu April 13 2015 00: 19 New
        -1
        and where are the landing modules? After all, they remained in the separation of the inhabited compartment, they should be visible, although our moon rovers cannot be seen in the telescopes the same, or are they all on the back side? Leonov said that the Americans were on the moon, I believe him
        1. Lugansk
          Lugansk April 13 2015 11: 46 New
          -1
          Is it a matter of faith, I was told "the Higgs boson exists, I believe"
  36. xtur
    xtur April 5 2015 15: 54 New
    +2
    Anpilogov writes both articles on nuclear energy and nitrogen fertilizers and astronautics - in some ways he should be a layman.

    And for some reason it seems to me that he is a specialist only in the field of nuclear energy
  37. Asadullah
    Asadullah April 5 2015 15: 57 New
    +2
    (and again, surprise, lunosceptics!) to restore in the USA the production of F-1 engines, which at one time lifted the famous Saturn V rocket from Earth.


    They said, let’s raise technical sophistry, for a biochemistry specialist will confuse the terms of physics and prove that the direct relationship between restrictase and seasonal goose hunting, the physicist, in turn, proves like two fingers on the ice that the Pauli principle does not work in some types of steam locomotives, and very clearly, according to the rule of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, we explain why did the most successful, most lifting, most trouble-free rocket in the world, Saturn 5, go into oblivion with all the designers, freeing up space for the Shuttle program, which ditched a bunch of people whose insurance payments exceeded the costs of both Saturn 5 and Gemini? (I do not advise harnessing the economic component, for the sight will follow a miserable one)
  38. scorpiosys
    scorpiosys April 5 2015 18: 39 New
    -1
    Regarding everything American, I want to say that America is an empty and useless country that does not know how to give birth to human geniuses, feeds on other people's blood all its life - like a worm that sticks to the rectum. The country is not able to understand, even its problems, but trying to teach us. All American GENIUS - this is ours with you - people !!! Sikorsky-helicopters, Zvarykin-television, Tesla-electrician and radio engineering (Serb and Orthodox from birth), Alexander Lodygin - an electric bulb ....
    I can’t remember everyone, thousands of them sucked and smeared according to PSA!
    And still America is pulling and sucking the souls of our people!
    But, not so simple! Minds leaving Russia in our “abrupt time” are able to work in America for 5-7 years, and then with difficulty. They are turning into an "American mass", unable to create and think, they are "obliterated" on American soil. Because there is no God there and there is no Truth! And there they are wasting their mental and brain powers - for nothing !!!
    1. cast iron
      cast iron April 5 2015 20: 40 New
      +1
      And Edison Thomas apparently grew and grew in Omsk))) Like many many designers of cars, ships, planes and other stuff, nobody needs it)))

      The problem with America today is that education has ceased to be accessible to all. And the propaganda system fools 90% of the population with harmful advice and programs for life.

      We have the same thing in Russia, do not flatter yourself.
      1. midshipman
        midshipman April 5 2015 21: 06 New
        +1
        The light bulb is one hell stolen, immediately Marconi comes to mind
    2. dzeredzavkomimu
      dzeredzavkomimu April 13 2015 00: 35 New
      0
      sometimes I watch descavi, I don’t like America, but I don’t need to make idiots of them, I still remember how I asked my father to bring pictures of their cars and toys from the flight, my jaws dropped, they had a vacuum cleaner already in 24, Lenin was still alive was) almost all the household appliances in Khrushchev were licked, and the principle of table distribution with a tray, they have a different mentality, their money is important, and the whole world sucks for them, that's all. Yes, a lot of emigrants work there, but they consider themselves Amers, with the same success they can talk about us what Migi the Armenian did, and remember the rest of the nationalities.
  39. Sergey-8848
    Sergey-8848 April 5 2015 19: 56 New
    0
    I can’t live to see people on Mars. Sorry...
    1. scorpiosys
      scorpiosys April 5 2015 20: 16 New
      0
      And what is there to do in the sand?
      1. cast iron
        cast iron April 5 2015 21: 12 New
        0
        Dreaming of stars)) It's a pity we will not live to see interplanetary flights.
      2. dzeredzavkomimu
        dzeredzavkomimu April 13 2015 00: 36 New
        0
        Columbus probably thought the same)))
  40. Asadullah
    Asadullah April 5 2015 22: 25 New
    +2
    Quote: Sergey-8848
    I can’t live to see people on Mars. Sorry...


    Don’t worry, we just won’t see fatal failures. And do not experience disappointment. By the way, I will be very surprised if I see a person on the moon. Then you can know for sure the flight to Mars is real. In the meantime, let's observe how it will be possible to overcome the external radiation belts. So far, not a single animal has survived. With the exception of the brave American cyborgs, they did not even get sick, some still thump ....
  41. The comment was deleted.
  42. Fidel
    Fidel April 6 2015 16: 51 New
    +1
    Quote: saag
    And what do many states and companies do start-up services, especially in the super-heavy class?

    And what, many have such an engine?
    Do not want to sell - do it yourself!
    Launch with your rockets!
    And why immediately in a heavy class?
    In any! With such a dviglom!
    But it was not there.
    This is a myth and a bluff.
    And the museum "milestones" is another proof of this.

    "And now in the empty museum go-see rotozey
    For food and fuseys, but for brooches of shit ... "

    Better not tell.
  43. Tishka
    Tishka April 7 2015 01: 00 New
    0
    Gentlemen, if you will, I will bring a small fly in the ointment in this debate. Here one of the leaders of Roscosmos spoke, and so modestly asked 700 million to develop a heavy-class rocket, and asked for a monthly financing plan in order to know who and how much to unfasten, otherwise their wives want boots more than once every three years , and preferably every quarter! Moreover, when they asked him why the development of a heavy rocket was necessary, he hesitated, and then replied that maybe she could launch heavy platforms into orbit, maybe we could launch military satellites into stationary orbits, and maybe maybe with someone, we can create an orbital station, maybe, with its help, we will send a satellite to Mars, or the Moon! And perhaps her 3 stage will run on hydrogen, or maybe it won’t! From the whole speech, only one thing can be understood, our space program does not even have a long-term plan, it’s for 10 years, and for a year, it seems, too! But money, come on, they can perfectly master it. On Vostochny, they showed perfectly that the money was spent, and the builders, for a month now, cannot pay their salaries! 16 lyamas disappeared somewhere, 32, it seems, were invested in something, that's just what no one can say, and report too! From all that has been shown, this outlet ring, filled with concrete, even the gas outlet channel, has not yet been concreted! but the money has already been spent perfectly, but where, and in whose pockets they have settled? It’s the same with the new rocket, maybe it can even fly, in about 25 years, but in any case, there will be no one to ask, those who took the money will leave, but the new one will have to be given again, and all over again! So, you can argue as much as you like, but for now there is one person stealing! Moreover, on a large scale, and with the same Angara, how many years it was created and built? So, you can argue as much as you like about what rocket we need, but while the steering wheel has such "effective" managers, we will still stagnate and argue whether mattresses can synchronize 30 engines or not! Others will be able to develop an air launch, and launch into space, a reusable ship with tourists on board, or he can only dive into space and return. And they will be able, their private firms, to create something, without state support, or not, and our millionaires, at least a penny invested, in promising space explorations, or they don’t have enough money even for new yachts, and for the acquisition of western football clubs , and even then, with a stretch? So, alas, you can only shrug and mourn about the times when we were the first, in space and on earth!
    1. Lugansk
      Lugansk April 16 2015 16: 08 New
      0
      Everything was exactly the opposite, this gentleman who announced the figure of 700 billion just convinced that Russia does not need a heavy rocket, because it allegedly costs 700 billion, from which no one knows this figure. The gentleman recommended saving money and frightening him with the terrible costs associated with a heavy missile.
      To the account "30 engine synchronization", this is not a problem, this stupidity was invented to close N-1.
  44. Legioner
    Legioner April 19 2015 14: 55 New
    -1
    My opinion about the cosmonautics of Russia is, you need to READ comrades and not engage in idle talk and high-tech theft. And consider ALL and EVERYTHING! To punish so it would be disgraceful to others! Then the money will appear.
    PS: Well, the Americans are great, because if you believe the article, they shoveled all of our and our experience, and are going to build a really good rocket, relying on old experience, modern technology and future necessity! Not that our miracle is design engineers who can’t even provide a well-developed project.
  45. Russian_Bear
    Russian_Bear April 21 2015 15: 49 New
    0
    As one of the former US presidents said, "Russians flew into space because of school desks."
    So let's guys, let's not break the glorious traditions !!!
    1. Lugansk
      Lugansk April 22 2015 16: 13 New
      0
      And what does so much depend on the guys?
      This is how African children are taught the exact sciences, and where will they apply their knowledge on banana plantations?