Military Review

Space homelessness

The program for the development of near-Earth space must be prepared anew

Undoubtedly, the most promising way to develop near space is aerospace systems, which have significant advantages over the traditional rocket method of delivering payloads to near-earth orbit.

The aerospace system differs from the rocket-space system in that it uses the reusable subsonic, supersonic, or hypersonic aircraft as the first stage, and sometimes the second. Probably, it is not necessary to be a rocket scientist in order to understand: using an airplane instead of the first stage allows you to make launches more economical (the rocket carries, in addition to fuel, also an oxidizer, which aircraft engines take from the atmosphere). But there are other benefits. I will name some of them. Let's start with reusability. The aerospace system allows you to repeatedly use all its components. As a result, the efficiency of start-ups significantly increases. Another important advantage is the ability to start from any point, since the first stage of the carrier can reach the equator to start there. The proximity to the zero parallel creates a sling effect when an object being launched into space receives additional energy from the rotation of the Earth.

Memory of the future

“Modern rocket and space vehicles are comparatively expensive, not heavy enough, they take a long time to prepare for the launch. All spacecraft (manned and unmanned) are now being launched into space using disposable launch vehicles. Complex spacecraft are also intended for only one flight.

Is it possible to reconcile, for example, so that a large ocean liner, under construction for several years, was intended for a single voyage? And in cosmonautics this is exactly the case.

Take, for example, the American launch vehicle "Saturn-5", which provided flights of the Apollo to the moon. This giant height of more than 100 meters and weighing almost three thousand tons actually ceased to exist a few minutes after the start. The cosmonautics victory road is littered with burnt debris of rockets, blocks of space ships and satellites thrown into orbits.

Such disposable technology turns into a serious obstacle to the further development of astronautics and space research. At first, when there were not so many launches, and the studies were not of such a large scale, this could be tolerated. In the future, such waste will become impossible, ”wrote the USSR pilot-cosmonaut V. A. Shatalov at the dawn of the development of near-Earth space.

So why not develop aerospace systems? No, they are actively developing, but not here.

For the purposes of space tourism, in recent years, the Space Ship One and Space Ship Two suborbital aerospace systems have been developed. Space Ship One made several suborbital flights. Space Ship Two is in flight testing.

And what are our achievements? The aerospace system "Spiral" began to develop more in 1964-m. It consisted of an orbital plane, which was to be launched into space by a hypersonic spreader, and then a rocket stage into orbit. It was developed in the Mikoyan Design Bureau. The chief designer of the system was G. E. Lozino-Lozinsky, later the chief designer of the NPO Molniya, which created the aerospace apparatus Buran. There is also a project of the MAKS multipurpose aerospace system, which in its present form was formed as a result of successive design studies carried out under the leadership of Lozino-Lozinsky at NPO Molniya together with allied companies, industry research institutes and institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences since the end of the 70s and to the present. But the path from design to application in current conditions seems overwhelming.

Who violates the convention

In the light of the intensive development of aerospace systems for the entire world community, there is one very serious legal problem that could well put humanity on the brink of a new world war, no worse than the Caribbean crisis. It is simply formulated: “At what height does it end aviation and cosmonautics begins? ”

Space homelessnessThe Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation recognizes that every state has complete and exclusive sovereignty over its airspace and no state aircraft flies over the territory of another state and does not land on it except with the permission of that state. The space right provides equal access for all for purposes of research or use and does not divide the space into any zones. It also excludes the launch into orbit around the earth of any objects with nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction, but does not impose a ban on suborbital flights with such weapons and on any flights with conventional means of destruction. That is, weapons can be brought into orbit that are not prohibited by international law, which will periodically be located over the territory of another state. The trouble is that the height relative to the Earth, at which the Chicago Convention ends and the space law begins, is not coordinated.

Russia, like the International Aeronautical Federation (FAI), believes that the boundary between aviation and space passes 100 kilometers from the surface of the planet. In the United States, the height of the kilometer 80,45 (50 miles) is considered such a boundary. In 2006, the Presidential National Space Policy Directive was issued, in which the United States rejects any international agreements restricting activities in outer space related to military programs, and contains the thesis on the right to deny America’s opponents the ability to use their space potential.

The development of civilian transport and passenger aerospace systems required the solution of the safety issues of their flights at the level of the UN and ICAO. In March 2015, the first joint aerospace symposium of the UN Committee on Space and ICAO was held at the headquarters of ICAO in Montreal. Russia did not report on it with its position. After this, is it necessary to be surprised if the interests of Russia are ignored by the world community, which, to please the United States, can make any unfavorable decision to us? What will we do if the suborbital apparatus of another state flies over our territory at an altitude of 90 kilometers towards Moscow: will we bring down or let it quietly fly over the capital? We should be the initiators of the correct solution of all these issues at the international level from the point of view of Russian interests, and not take an ostrich position and think that everything will resolve itself or that foreign countries will help us.

Parallel Worlds

Let us return to the question: why do not the projects of aerospace systems go to Russia and what needs to be done to implement them? The main and main, in my opinion, the reason is the departmental disunity of aviation and space in the USSR and the Russian Federation. The beginning of this disunity was laid by N. S. Khrushchev when, in 1955, he ordered a number of design bureaus and factories to be removed from the USSR Minaviaprom’s subordination and to form a new Ministry of General Engineering based on them. So the ways of aviation and rocket production diverged from us. The real disunity of the two departments was manifested even during the joint work on the project “Energy” - “Buran”. I remember well how, after one of the meetings, the workers of the USSR Minoboshchemash Design Bureau, who was in charge of the Buran control system when the orbital plane descended from orbit to 20 kilometers altitude, joked that after the ship passed this height, they went to drink champagne, and then let the aviation industry tremble. For the creation of a control system from the height of 20 kilometers to the “Buran” stop on the ground was already met by the aviation instrument-making design bureau ... The only thing that to some extent saved it from the departmental disunity was the presence of the Military Industrial Commission at the Council of Ministers of the USSR ), which was directly subordinate to all defense industries, as well as the Ministry of Civil Aviation. It was precisely the coordinating and guiding (this word is the defining) role of the military industrial complex that became decisive for the successful implementation of the Energy program - Buran.

Speaking about the aviation and rocket and space industry, we can safely say that they should be managed by a single state body. Moreover, one that could not only control them as two parallel worlds, but also create a research and development and production fusion of the aviation and rocket and space industries. It can be said that there were already such attempts to cross already with a hedgehog (Department of Aviation and Space Industry at the Ministry of Economics of the Russian Federation, and then Rosaviakosmos) and nothing happened. But they existed too little time to have time to really change something, and they did not set themselves the task of creating a single one from the two sub-sectors. Now this should be the main task. After the liquidation of Roskosmos as a government body and the creation of a unified state corporation on the basis of it and the ORKK, the normal process of state government will disappear completely. The Civil Code will build its own space exploration policy, draw up plans, define government orders, carry out research and create scientific and technical reserves, engage in development and production, launch and investigate incidents of their failures. In common parlance, such an approach is called a “common grave”. After all, there is already more than the illustrative experience of the KLA, which functions from 2006, but has not yet manifested itself. I will cite only two fragments from the UAC annual report for 2007 year, in which it was planned to "reverse the current trend in the technical equipment of Russian airlines to modernize the fleet using foreign aircraft and ensure the domination of domestic aircraft manufacturing after 2015," and "to 2015 to complete the development work and the production for mass production of a promising aviation complex of front-line aviation (PAK FA) ”. Today, in 2015, everyone can easily assess how close the KLA is to the implementation of the tasks set in 2007. But at least there is the Ministry of Industry and Trade, which is still trying to implement government regulation. But over the new corporation "Roscosmos" in general there will be no control.

NASA does not sound our way

Or maybe it is still worth seeing how the management of the aerospace and space complexes in the USA is going on? The main government body of the country in the field of aviation and space industry is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). It is a state federal agency that reports directly to the vice-president of the United States and is responsible for scientific, technical and technological research and achievements in the field of aviation and space, the country's civilian space program, as well as air and space research. From the point of view of state regulation, NASA simultaneously performs the functions of the Minaviaprom and the USSR Ministry of General Labor. In Russia, Rosaviakosmos, created in 1999 and liquidated in 2004, did not act as its analogue. That NASA is preparing and after approval by the leadership of the country implements the program and plans for aerospace activities. NASA's aeronautical direction has contributed to aviation for decades. Almost every aircraft today carries on board NASA-developed technologies that help aircraft fly more safely and efficiently. Aviation research continues to play a vital role in air travel and cargo transportation, stimulating technology and innovation. This gives the US aviation industry the opportunity to continue to grow and maintain global competitiveness. NASA includes 17 research and flight test complexes that allow space launches and aircraft for various purposes. NASA's Security Center (NSC), established in October 2006, is a special place in NASA. It was created to ensure the implementation of security requirements and guaranteed fulfillment of goals in NASA-implemented projects and programs.

Focusing on improving the development of personnel, processes and tools necessary for the safe and successful achievement of NASA's strategic goals, the NSC consists of four functional departments: improving technology, knowledge management system, auditing and expert assessments, as well as assistance in investigating accidents and disasters.

It is no accident that it was in 2006 that ICAO first switched from the concept of flight safety to the concept of managing it. In 2013, ICAO adopted the 19 Attachment to the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, which is called Flight Safety Management. It is now the mandatory standard for world civil aviation. Unfortunately, this provision is poorly fulfilled in the Russian practice of air transportation and is not used at all in the rocket and space industry.

Numerous aerospace private corporations of the United States are the only executors of NASA programs and plans in the aerospace sphere, which are implemented through government order.

Entrust Zhukovsky

In Russia, there is no government agency for aerospace activities like NASA. Roscosmos GC, in its structure, is in principle incapable of playing the same role as NASA in the USA. But we have the opportunity to create a similar state government right now.

For this, it is necessary to make changes to the federal law “On the National Research Center“ Institute named after N. Ye. Zhukovsky ”(No. 326-ФЗ from 4 in November 2014) - to entrust SIC with the functions performed by NASA in the USA, and give it the status of a state body management in the field of aviation and rocket and space industry. It is also necessary to additionally include in it all the research institutes of a rocket-space orientation (TsNIImash, etc.), the Vostochny space center, and also the LII them. MM Gromova, removing the last of the KLA.

But back to the States. Another government agency in the US aerospace industry is the Federal Aviation Administration (Federal Aviation Administration - FAA). Its main functions are the regulation of civil aviation and commercial aerospace activities to ensure safety and environmental impact.

The FAA has a Commercial Space Transport Bureau (Office of Commercial Space Transportation - AST) whose mission is to protect the population, property, national security, and foreign interests of the United States during commercial activities to launch or return to the atmosphere of aerospace aircraft, as well as to facilitate and promotion of aerospace traffic. The FAA issues licenses for commercial aerospace transport operations or a permit for experimental flights only after it has determined that an application for launching or returning to the dense atmosphere, for operating a launch position, for testing equipment, a design or aerospace equipment will not endanger public health. , property, US national security, foreign policy interests or international obligations of the United States. AST licenses spaceports for commercial use. This is similar to the certification of civil aviation aerodromes or joint air forces for commercial use.

In Russia, there is no authority similar to the American FAA. But if the individual functions of the FAA related to the implementation of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation are scattered between the Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation, Rosaviation, Rostransnadzor and the Interstate Aviation Committee, then in the field of aerospace activities there are no such structures at all. Thus, there is no and never has any independent state control over the safety of aerospace, for example, in the United States.

Another US government agency that has a significant impact on the safety of aviation, rocket and space flight is the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The organizational structure of the board consists of subcommittees responsible for investigating accidents related to safety in aviation, road, sea, rail, pipelines and during the transport of hazardous materials, scientific, technical and design work, communications and legislative activities. In addition to emergency situations in civil aviation, the NTSB investigates aerospace incidents of major public importance. These include all accidents and disasters of US aerospace vehicles. For example, it was the NTSB that led the investigations into the death of the Space Shuttle in both cases, and now it is involved in the disaster of the Virgin Galactic suborbital spacecraft Two.

The main output of the NTSB is to identify the causes of the incident and issue safety recommendations to prevent them in the future. For your history The council issued more than 13 thousands of recommendations, most of which were accepted by the FAA in whole or in part. The council has no legal authority to implement or execute its recommendations. This is what the FAA is doing in the aeronautics field in the USA. Such an approach is necessary so that only one agency is responsible for flight safety. But the NTSB has unconditional priority in the investigation of all incidents. The FAA is always involved in investigations, but no more - the NTSB is responsible for them.

In Russia there is no government body similar to the NTSB. Investigation of accidents with civil aircraft is carried out by the IAC, and of incidents by the Rosaviatsia. At the same time, both bodies simultaneously carry out safety functions. Such a combination is contrary to 13 (“Accident Investigation”) and 19 (“Safety Management”) applications to the Chicago Convention, mandatory for all ICAO members. In the investigation of incidents, accidents and disasters with rocket and space technology, the situation is even worse. This is done by those who are responsible for the development, production, launch and operation. Naturally, the causes of accidents identified by such investigators in many cases raise great doubts, which does not contribute to the prevention of emergency situations. For example, in investigating the crash of the Falcon aircraft at Vnukovo, the IAC is unlikely to note errors in the certification of the Vnukovo airfield and its equipment conducted by him, and the state commission, chaired by the first deputy head of Roskosmos, responsible for developing the launch vehicle with the cargo ship, is unlikely Does objectively determine the causes of the accident. Most likely, as it happened more than once in Russian practice, they will find "scapegoats" who will be roughly punished and reported back to the measures taken. Although this will not make the flight of civil aviation or the launching of spacecraft safer.

In the column "total"

Now it is worthwhile to generalize the proposals, the implementation of which will allow raising the development and implementation of aerospace systems to a level worthy of Russia.

1. Immediately join the negotiation process at the UN and ICAO levels and achieve recognition by all countries of the world that 100 altitude kilometers and below from the surface of the Earth is the zone of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation.

2. Create on the basis of the Military Industrial College and the SIC them. N.Ye. Zhukovsky is the state regulatory body in the aviation and rocket and space industry, similar to NASA.

3. To create on the basis of the Federal Air Transport Agency a state safety regulatory authority. To entrust to it all the safety functions stipulated by the obligations of Russia in accordance with the Chicago Convention, as well as the responsibility for ensuring the safety of flights of suborbital, orbital and other commercial aviation, aerospace and rocket-spacecraft (by analogy with the FAA).

4. To form an independent state body to investigate incidents, accidents and disasters in aerospace transport in accordance with the requirements of the Chicago Convention, aimed not at punishing the perpetrators, but at preventing incidents. Ideally, this could be a state agency for investigating incidents, accidents and disasters not only in aerospace transport, but also in railway, sea and river and pipeline commercial transport, for example, with the RF Security Council (by analogy with the NTSB).

5. Assign created on the basis of the Military-Industrial Commission and SIC them. N. Ye. Zhukovsky to the state regulatory authority in the aviation and aerospace industry to develop a unified program of activities in the industry for the near future and for a long period with annual adjustments and mandatory inclusion in it of the subprogramme for the development of aerospace launch systems.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. staryivoin
    staryivoin 6 June 2015 06: 22 New
    Everything in the case is timely and necessary. Our "sworn partners" will certainly try to interfere with us in this area. But that's just we have permission from them, what we are unlikely to do in this area.
    It’s high time for Star Stripe to understand that it’s better to learn to listen and negotiate. But comrade, you can be left behind. America is certainly one, but RUSSIA can have many reliable partners
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 6 June 2015 06: 32 New
      Quote: staryivoin
      Everything in the case is timely and necessary.

      let me disagree on the part of "timely." unfortunately with a huge delay! now the X-37B is flying in orbit, but our SPIRAL could.. !!!
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 6 June 2015 08: 20 New
        Quote: Andrew Y.
        now the X-37B is flying in orbit, but our SPIRAL could.. !!!

        As far as I heard two years ago, the Spiral project was thawed and continued to work. It is not known at what stage of work we are now. But I won’t be surprised if we soon surprise Amers unpleasantly. But so far there is too little information about this to everyone.
        1. Thronekeeper
          Thronekeeper 6 June 2015 09: 13 New
          Etc. "Spaceplane" seems to be called.
          Infa terribly small, but if something comes across, then the class "from three to seven for the publicity" bully
          But that is. The hypersonic accelerator was made more acceptable by replacing hydrogen with kerosene, like it was heated (evaporated) before injection, it was just jelly like air on M7 and the problem of hypersonic ramjet engines on kerosinum (high-calorie mixture) was not solved during the USSR. Aerodynamics improved and the load due to the abandonment of hydrogen tanks, a new aircraft in fact. A slightly different layout of the orbital apparatus with an accelerating stage, which was made to be returned. The spacecraft itself is heavier and more serious in terms of load - more than 3,5 tons, higher than that of the French Hermes project, they are designing a passenger version of a low orbit for several turns - to ride tourists, or to deliver a crew change + payload to the ISS. The main one is the truck. + full information security. Those. three options for devices.
          At the same time, a carrier (before or supersonic) is being developed for the suborbital variant according to the principle of “exatmospheric frog” Senger - as a superfast passenger and tourist. The principle of "rebound" from the upper layers of the atmosphere, with each - the speed drops, the range of the "jump" decreases, but ...
          1. prosto_rgb
            prosto_rgb 7 June 2015 03: 02 New
            Quote: Thronekeeper
            Etc. "Spaceplane" seems to be called.

            If what you wrote is true - then I am only FOR !!!
        2. WUA 518
          WUA 518 6 June 2015 12: 52 New
          Quote: NEXUS
          "Spiral" thawed

          Well, this is no longer a Spiral, but a MAX. Multipurpose aerospace system.
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. silver_roman
          silver_roman 9 June 2015 10: 41 New
          Considering that the Cosmos budget is being cut first, I think such ambitious projects, if they were unfrozen, are now in stasis. First of all, the main thing is to ensure the security of the state both inside and outside. This will give time to develop new and strengthen existing institutions. Without a "base" there will be no "Spiral", no flights to Mars, nothing !!! It takes time and perseverance!
          By the way, I always cite the achievements of the Chinese:
          - In 2 years, China has produced more cement than the United States for the entire XX century. (4.9 gigatons = 4 billion tons)
          - The length of the roads is 4 million kilometers.
          - 300 thousand bridges across the country, of which 1000 are more than a kilometer long. And until 2016, they will build a bridge from Hong Kong to Macau.
          - Every year 100 airports are built.
          - Giant viaducts, 150 km long. Or, for example, a 28 km long tunnel.
          - A train from Guangzhou to Guiyang per hour drives 510 bridges and 236 tunnels at a speed of 250 km per hour.
          - For 30 years, the Chinese have increased the country's living space by 8 times!
          - In 10 years, 220 cities in China will be with a population of more than 1 million people.
          - And all these statistics are due to one simple figure. Since 2000, 10 thousand officials have been executed in China !!!!
      2. smershxnumx
        smershxnumx 6 June 2015 19: 03 New
        let me disagree on the part of "timely." unfortunately with a huge delay! now the X-37B is flying in orbit, but our "SPIRAL could

        And, moreover, for a long time! And the "Spiral", and "Buran", and something else that we were not informed about!
  2. saag
    saag 6 June 2015 07: 33 New
    "... Such a one-time use of technology turns into a serious brake on the further development of astronautics and space research."

    The author, disposable systems are cheaper, that's why they are used
    1. shasherin_pavel
      shasherin_pavel 6 June 2015 10: 09 New
      disposable systems? It’s the same as in the dispute over thermal and nuclear power plants: the waste of nuclear power plants must be disposed of, they do it without question, and the ash from the thermal power plants is thrown out through pipes. Only now the accumulated radioactive waste from the combustion of coal decomposes ten thousand times slower than from nuclear plants to be disposed of. The article says that soon to launch the rockets it will be necessary to introduce another parameter: the window between the wreckage of old braids, ships.
      1. saag
        saag 6 June 2015 10: 33 New
        Each launch of the American shuttle cost roughly 1 billion, which is very expensive, I’ll tell you
  3. makarovyi
    makarovyi 6 June 2015 09: 24 New
    Well, near space is certainly important, although there is nowhere to park. But the distant one with Leonov's quantum engines, which are 5000 times more efficient than RD - ***.
    In the near We first won, then lagged behind, I would like so that in the far too !!!
  4. srha
    srha 6 June 2015 10: 15 New
    Hmm ...

    “Probably, you don’t have to be seven spans in your forehead to understand: using an aircraft instead of the first stage allows you to make launches more economical” - another blah blah blah, because there are no calculations, and insults were presented to opponents.

    I’ll try to remind the author that the first step brings the load to heights of more than 60 km and gives a speed of 2-3 or more km / s. Not a single plane can do this yet. So the rocket for an air launch to achieve the same parameters or more can not do without the first stage anyway.

    I remind the author that the hypersonic engine with more than 12 mach, but actually much earlier, due to its physical principles becomes ineffective - since motion in a stationary oxidizer or with an already dispersed oxidizer are two very different things. On the fingers and difficult to explain.
    But maybe the principles will help to understand - a rocket with the discarded substance is a closed system, but the plane does not, or to be precise - closed only together with the whole atmosphere. Therefore, a rocket can accelerate as long as it takes, as long as there is fuel and an oxidizing agent, but the plane does not. Those. reproached that the rocket carries an oxidizing agent - technical stupidity, it is thanks to this property that speeds of about 3 km / h and higher are possible.

    And about the "more economical" ones - private space can count and save, so the question arises - where is the result? Maybe here:

    The idea of ​​an “air launch” was very popular in the late 90s. Then, many large space companies developed such projects
    almost all the advantages of an air launch are balanced by disadvantages, and the niche of possible payloads (low-orbit spacecraft) is already occupied by more developed existing LVs. Orbits with a slight inclination, inaccessible to competitors tied to spaceports, are not in demand for low-orbit spacecraft. And some reusability due to the use of the aircraft is, firstly, small (about 1/5 of the traditional 1st stage), and secondly, it can significantly affect only with a large number of launches per year, which is hardly to be expected under the current fierce competition " .

    By the way, this does not mean that I am against an air launch, it is often good for disposing of expired military missiles when launching small satellites into unusual orbits.
  5. bootlegger
    bootlegger 6 June 2015 11: 04 New
    A plane cannot replace the first stage of a rocket, since it gives only a small part of the necessary kinetic energy and altitude. The maximum that a plane can squeeze out is a height of 10-15 km at a speed of about 1000 km per hour. And this is for a load a maximum of 100-150 tons.
    What cargo, in the end, can a rocket bring into orbit, starting at a weight of 150 tons, at a speed of 1000 km per hour and from an airplane at an altitude of 15 km? It’s clear that it’s insignificant. The maximum that this scheme of putting into orbit is suitable for is light anti-satellite weapons rockets and airborne ICBM systems. Moreover, the main advantage will not be fuel economy, but the ability to increase the stealth and range of such systems.
    1. Metlik
      Metlik 6 June 2015 15: 07 New
      And how much will it cost to lift the same 100 - 150 tons to a height of 15 km and accelerate to a speed of 1000 km per hour without an airplane? Plus, an airplane needs a runway that does not need to be rebuilt, lengthened to a maximum, and a new spaceport is needed for a new rocket.
      1. CT-55_11-9009
        CT-55_11-9009 6 June 2015 17: 51 New
        Fear God! Even taking into account the manufacture of the first stage of the ILV, fueling, etc. etc. it is more profitable in energy terms. Because in the case of using the aircraft as the first stage, we will have to weight down the subsequent stages. Do you have any idea how high a level 1 is shooting back? This is about 100 km. Try to climb the plane to the same height. It’s necessary to build such a plane that no runway is enough.
        As for the new spaceport for the new rocket - you're wrong. This is a maximum new launch complex. And this is just part of the spaceport. In addition, some parts will already be available at the spaceport (for example, an oxygen-nitrogen plant and a fuel storage). For reference, there are 9 launch complexes at Baikonur. Excluding launchers for ICBM testing.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 7 June 2015 18: 10 New
          A smart solution is what Space-X is experiencing right now.
          The first step remains, but turns into reusable
      2. CT-55_11-9009
        CT-55_11-9009 6 June 2015 17: 52 New

        Sorry, refueling.
        1. Metlik
          Metlik 6 June 2015 18: 35 New
          Quote: CT-55_11-9009
          Fear God! Even taking into account the manufacture of the first stage of the ILV, fueling, etc. etc. it is more profitable in energy terms.

          Then why bother airplanes? Let's all fly on rockets, it’s more profitable.
          1. CT-55_11-9009
            CT-55_11-9009 6 June 2015 20: 08 New
            I meant that the use of aviation as the first stage of a launch vehicle is unprofitable. And in the troposphere and stratosphere, rocketry is only good as a military technique.
            1. Metlik
              Metlik 6 June 2015 20: 44 New
              The first step will be much less if the start is not from the ground, but from 15 km. heights.
          2. taram taramych
            taram taramych 6 June 2015 20: 45 New
            This has already been voiced by the corn general secretary. He made a hole in our side, built it, so it’s not possible to close up the time. Actually from this article begins.
  6. Ajent cho
    Ajent cho 6 June 2015 11: 27 New
    The program for the development of near-Earth space must be prepared anew

    The aerospace system allows the repeated use of all its components. As a result, the cost-effectiveness of launches is greatly enhanced.

    Take, for example, the American Saturn-5 launch vehicle, which provided Apollo spacecraft flights to the moon.

    Although they warned me, but, fuck, AFFTP! KILL AP WALL! Your reasoning is the reasoning of a schoolboy who has read popular glamorous magazines. The article is continuous NASA and calls for an example across the ocean. We do not need examples. We know which way to go.
    And, yes: the Americans were not on the moon. You cheated.
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 7 June 2015 09: 00 New
      [quote = Ajent Cho] Although they warned me, but, fuck, AFFTP! KILL AP APPLY. We do not need examples. We know which way to go .quote]
      A big bunch in a puddle turned out!
      1. Ajent cho
        Ajent cho 7 June 2015 15: 18 New
        You quoted very casually.
  7. Dikson
    Dikson 6 June 2015 17: 00 New
    the easiest way is to hang a balloon with the desired filling in the stratosphere .. and wait until the globe itself flies further in orbit .. wink Sorry for the joke .. Clark remembered with his space elevator ..
  8. CT-55_11-9009
    CT-55_11-9009 6 June 2015 17: 57 New
    Yes, I’ll add another five cents. The notorious NASA is the governing structure. And Zhukovsky is one of the central research institutes! So why pile up on scientists a HUGE cart of organizational and managerial problems? They have enough of them.
    For this - MINUS!
  9. uge.garik
    uge.garik 6 June 2015 21: 39 New
    everything is correct - you give a demarcation of the aerospace borders, we count - after 100 space, and closer is our territorial volume ...
  10. Free wind
    Free wind 7 June 2015 05: 40 New
    And if, for example, lower the third step by parachute, and then use them again?
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 7 June 2015 09: 14 New
      Quote: Free Wind
      And if, for example, lower the third step by parachute, and then use them again?

      The third stage is usually the smallest and not expensive, compared to the previous ones. Separates at very high altitudes and usually become orbital debris.
  11. GDV
    GDV 7 June 2015 16: 05 New
    Unfortunately, we have to admit that only a miracle can help us, in order to set the pace of the shock of the sixties, a miracle should happen, clone thirty copies of the shoigu.
  12. Svetlana
    Svetlana 7 June 2015 23: 34 New
    An aerospace aircraft (VKS) can be put into near-Earth orbit using a microwave energy beam directed from the ground to the bottom of the VKS. The microwave headlamp, designed to bring the HSS into space, consists of 32 trapezoidal antenna fields, in a plan view inscribed in an ellipse with axes 425m * 600m. The headlamp uses microwave radiation with a wavelength of 3cm, for which the clouds and atmosphere are transparent.
    The planes of the antenna fields with emitters are inclined at an angle of 45 degrees to the horizontal.
    To organize a convenient approach to the antenna sheets and to clean the snow between the antenna sheets and between the separate antenna sheets, straight passages of variable width (from 5 to 19.3 m) are left.
    The width of the projection of the antenna canvases on a horizontal plane is from 5 to 19.3 meters.
    The projection length of the antenna canvases on a horizontal plane is from 78 to 425 meters.
    Unlike the headlamps designed for solar space power plants (SCES) projects with the transfer of energy to the earth by microwave, the headlamp for space-borne output into space is on the ground, not in space. Therefore, it is much easier to manufacture than the FAS SKES.
    In figure 32, the headlamp canvases are flooded with different colors (shades of yellow, green, blue, purple).
    Shades of colors correspond to different heights of the upper points of the headlights of the headlights above the ground (from 5 to 20 m). The height above ground level of the upper emitters of the two central headlights of the PAR, corresponding to the zero zone of the Fresnel lens, is reduced by 2 times, for the convenience of manufacture, maintenance and is equal to 20 m. The direction of the microwave beam - at an angle of 45 degrees to the horizon, mainly to the east - in the direction of the Earth's rotation. To bring the VKS into the solar-synchronous orbit, the direction of the microwave beam can be different, for example, to the northwest.
  13. tolancop
    tolancop 8 June 2015 01: 27 New
    The material is very mixed and I did not evaluate it.
    The author considers the advantages of reusable systems and the disadvantages of disposable ones.
    And where about the disadvantages of reusable and the advantages of disposable? But no ... Apparently they did not fit into the concept of the material.
    I am not an expert in the field of aviation and astronautics and all the cognitions are gleaned from popular literature. So, in this popular literature, the pros and cons of reusable and disposable systems are described quite well.
    A very big plus of disposable systems is reliability. If the product is designed and made in full accordance with the technology, then the probability of an accident is minimal. The head will continue to fulfill its task and its fate may not hurt.
    And reusable devices not only need to lay in them the possibility of return (additional costs), but also carry out a lot of checks before the next launch and with each subsequent launch the likelihood of trouble only grows. So, the cost-effectiveness of reusable systems is a huge question.

    Further. Maybe I read it inattentively, but there was a feeling that the author identifies aerospace and reusable systems, as well as space-rocket and disposable systems. From my point of view, this is completely wrong
  14. silver_roman
    silver_roman 9 June 2015 10: 35 New
    very important issues were raised in the article and the essence of it boils down to the fact that we still have not developed very much the whole chain of control over various vital areas of life and development of the state.
    BUT this does not mean that you need to stupidly copy the US system or another, without carefully considering its implementation and functioning with us, because they did everything for themselves. They had plenty of time to draw conclusions many times, to work on errors and introduce certain mechanisms.
    We have either a revolution, a war, or a change of course in foreign policy, and everyone who comes to power oppresses his line. revealing example of "Khrushchev", which almost destroyed the aircraft.
    In general, the problems described in the article are much deeper than they seem. They relate not only to space and the Air Force, they relate to all branches of Russia without exception.
    The bottom line:
    Of course, you need to look at the experience of "advanced" powers. Trying to take better and, taking into account the features of our state, try to implement / adjust and use at home, and not blindly copy.

    To do this, you just need stable decades of work. The SYSTEM was just beginning to emerge in the USSR, as everything was destroyed again.
  15. P. Yaroslav
    P. Yaroslav 13 June 2015 10: 37 New
    I came across an interesting project on the "star"
    The new aerospace system is able to make intercontinental flights in minutes. So, for example, a flight from the Russian capital to Australia, with the speed of separation takes only about an hour. A super-plane can be called a “double-headed eagle” due to the fact that TsAGI scientists have chosen a two-body model as a carrier aircraft.
    I would like to believe that it will come true)
  16. Old26
    Old26 19 June 2015 09: 09 New
    Quote: NEXUS
    As far as I heard two years ago, the Spiral project was thawed and continued to work. It is not known at what stage of work we are now. But I won’t be surprised if we soon surprise Amers unpleasantly. But so far there is too little information about this to everyone.

    In order to defrost, you need to have some best practices. And nothing is heard about a hypersonic plane. Especially such a load capacity. Even then it was a “paper” project. It would be easier to launch space planes with conventional launchers.
  17. ILIA
    ILIA 27 June 2015 06: 05 New
    Projects of the airship .... Archimedean force is not anti-gravity, but a reusable inhabitant can be raised high
    We have a lot of helium)